The Jon Snow ReRead Project! Part 3!

[Ragnorak]

I don't know if Jon is an ersatz father for Jon, doesn't Jon call him brother and don't we have the scene to come that repeats the snow in the hair moment of Robb and Jon's parting. But then I'm still wedded to the idea of Fraternity. The functional difference between an elder brother (or Elder Brother?) and a father figure might not be so great.

Let's look out then for the moment when first Jon refers to the old gods as his own, we haven't got that far yet it seems.

Focusing on the fraternity we have a blend of Robb contrasted with Bran and Jon. All the Stark children (except Jon) easily fall into seeing Robb as the new lord and are quite comfortable with his occupying Ned's role. They think of being as brave and as strong as Robb and feel as confident in Robb's rescue and protection as Ned's-- maybe my brother will give me your head.

Even though Bran is comfortable with Robb as the fatherly lord, he and Robb share two very brotherly scenes-- one after Tyrion's visit and after Robb confronts Greatjon. Bran's own terminology for this is that Robb is wearing the face of Robb the Lord instead of Robb his brother. Sam is the one who will arrange to have Jon wear the face of Jon the Lord. Their earlier scene back in GoT where Jon tells Sam his dream and Sam confesses the story of how he came to the Watch is reminiscent of those two Bran/Robb scenes.

There are certainly fatherly aspects Jon serves to fill for Sam here, but I think their dynamic is much more akin to Robb and Bran than any father/son interaction we ever see in the series. Psychologically, Sam's dream begs the question of who is occupying the lord's bedroom. His sister's are indirectly mentioned but not his actual brother. Perhaps it is Jon the older brother he never had, the hypothetical brother who could have met his father's expectations and allowed Horn Hill to have been a real home for Sam the younger son who fills that place in Sam's dream. It is a hall filled with brothers and if that bedroom isn't Sam's it would have to be occupied by an older brother.

[Lummel]

Yet Sam is playing the part of the Lord in the Hall, slicing the roast, using Heartsbane. But as you say Ragnorak, doesn't play the Lord in the bedroom but continues as the child. I suppose this is an ideal of fraternity that is wider than actual blood kinship. Jon perhaps can sleep in the Lord's bedroom without inhibiting Sam's lordship over Horn Hill in the dream. :dunno:

[Ragnorak]

It is an odd dichotomy. Jon has positive associations with his biological brothers while Sam was never permitted a relationship with his younger brother. His younger brother's approval from his father, that Sam was unable to win, is what drove Sam from his home. Looking at the psychology it is a fraternal affection where Sam can forfeit the lordship but still have his home. I imagine that Sam would have been perfectly happy being passed over as an heir in exchange for the affections or approval of his father and brother. Does the desire for a fraternal affection that doesn't expel him from his home explain the "castle he's not the lord of" conflict?

Sam has a positive maternal figure but a hostile father while that is reversed in Jon. The replacement black brothers are the only ones Sam has had any relationship with. For Sam the Watch is his first fraternity and fulfills his unrealized wishes rather than acting as a competing desire while for Jon there is an internal conflict between his two sets of brothers. Both dream of home and their woman but Jon feels the guilt of stealing Robb's birthright in his desires while Horn Hill is Sam's stolen birthright. Jon feels that he's stealing from his old brother while Sam ignores the brother who stole from him completely and wishes to welcome these new brothers into his home. The child observation is an excellent one. Even the honeyed wine and sweet cakes seem to recall the desires of children. Sansa, Arya and Bran wish for such sweet foods while adults like Tyrion and Ned yearn for more savory meals (thinking of Tyrion in the sky cell and Ned first reaching Kings Landing.)

Does Sam's wishing for Jon recall Ned's comments to Cat about how it was all meant for Brandon? The younger brother unwilling thrust into the elder's role? Affection and loyalty over power and responsibility? What are we to make of Sam awakening from this brotherly dream and being attacked by his undead brothers?

Jon and Sam have parallel journeys at the moment but there are contrasts. Jon's woman Ygritte and children "the boys Quort and Bodger" are not helpless like Gilly and her babe. He's trying to protect his helpless brothers who are supposed to be warriors. Sam is in a much more straight forward protector of the helpless women and children role-- almost the father of a family role. Sam is attacked by undead brothers while Jon is beginning to feel a fraternity with the Wildlings he's travelling with that must soon become his enemies. Lots to explore there.

[Harlaw's Book]

Psychologically, Sam's dream begs the question of who is occupying the lord's bedroom.

"That was Raymun Darry's bedchamber. Where King Robert slept, or our return from Winterfell," (AFFC, Jaime). Perhaps the person occupying the lord's bedroom in Sam's dream is the King.

[Lummel]

...Does Sam's wishing for Jon recall Ned's comments to Cat about how it was all meant for Brandon? The younger brother unwilling thrust into the elder's role? Affection and loyalty over power and responsibility? What are we to make of Sam awakening from this brotherly dream and being attacked by his undead brothers?

Jon and Sam have parallel journeys at the moment but there are contrasts. Jon's woman Ygritte and children "the boys Quort and Bodger" are not helpless like Gilly and her babe. He's trying to protect his helpless brothers who are supposed to be warriors. Sam is in a much more straight forward protector of the helpless women and children role-- almost the father of a family role. Sam is attacked by undead brothers while Jon is beginning to feel a fraternity with the Wildlings he's travelling with that must soon become his enemies. Lots to explore there.

yes, dreams and realities. Sam clearly likes and enjoys the company of many his new brothers, but equally we see that they are a mixed bunch. Some are more into Fraternal strife than brotherly love. I suppose there is the dramatic contrast of it. Nice dream about a lovely future, wake up into a bladder loosening nightmare. But yes the dream ignores the real brother, who has to be dead, exiled, imprisoned or reduced to his proper place in the order of things for Sam to be using Heartsbane.

Oh, thanks for the family - that reminds me that I thought of the Holy family and the flight to Egypt when reading this chapter, Sam as Joseph.

Actually that business with Jon holding back from being friendly with the wildlings in Jon V stands in contrast to how he starts off at Castle Black aloof from all his fellows. Here despite being a bastard, ex-crow and a Stark people want to be friends with him, it seems it is the only the thenns who are suspicious of him - and they have a language barrier.

"That was Raymun Darry's bedchamber. Where King Robert slept, or our return from Winterfell," (AFFC, Jaime). Perhaps the person occupying the lord's bedroom in Sam's dream is the King.

Hi Harlaw's Book! Good to see you again! I suppose Jon is, at least symbolically, Sam's king, so that is a nice parallel there...

[Elba the Intoner]

I think we are given a clue in who is helping out Sam:

Ravens! They were in the weirwood hundreds of them, thousands, perched on the bone-white branches

That image is the sigil of House Blackwood, the family of BR's mother

Sam's relationship with Gilly does bring to mind Samwise Gamgee's relationship with Rosy, who like Gilly, is named for a flower

a bowl of venison stewed with onions

Venison is deer meat, and I think this foreshadows Stannis, whose sigil is a stag, and Davos, the onion knight, coming to the Wall

Sam manages to be a man in this chapter. He never leaves Gilly's side, and defends her from wighted Small Paul.

It was easier to follow a game trail than to struggle through the brush, easier to circle a ridge instead of climbing it

The short, direct path isn't always the surest or safest path as demonstrated with the path to the QI. We later see this thinking when Davos tells Stannis to save the realm to win the throne, and I think we will later see with Jon.

Nice observation there and I just want to point out that there was another scene we just saw where the characters followed a winding path to protection. In Bran's chapter just before the last Jon one when they go to the tower at Queenscrown, Bran and co. have to travel the path to the tower which also is not straight and direct but winds around.

[Fire Eater]

To add to the path metaphor, Tyrion wants to get CR, and he orginally tries by asking his father, but that fails. He will goes along the winding path through Essos, first on a road from Pentos and poleboat, and later after being captured by Jorah that leads him to Dany, and will lead him back to Westeros to retake CR while Melisandre goes straight to Stannis, thinking he is AA which proves not to be the case. From Stannis she runs into the actual AA, Jon, although she fails to see it. Tywin has Rhaegar's children killed, and Cersei married to Robert to become grandfather and progenitor to kings without challenge, but his eldest grandson, Joffrey, dies and his siblings will follow him to the grave according to Maggy. In short, the direct paths aren't the surest paths, and they usually lead to failure and/or tragedy.

on clear nights they could follow the Ice Dragon's tail

The clouds hid most of the Ice Dragon, all but the bright blue eye that marked due north.

"Do you know the way north? To the Wall and . . . and even past?"

The way's easy. Look for the Ice Dragon [Osha's advice on how to get beyond the Wall]

The second quote points to a hidden dragon, the eye pointing north could be a clue to where this hidden dragon is. The final quote is the answer Osha gives Bran on how to go past the Wall seems to fit; looking for the Ice Dragon is sound advice as Jon is beyond the Wall at the time Osha answers Bran's question.

The first quote, from Sam's POV, shows that the Ice Dragon's tail points south, and "tail" can have plenty of meanings like to come behind, perhaps in a way behind as in the past. This could be taken as the Ice Dragon came up from the south even when it's eye is in the north; while Jon was raised in and resides in the North, he was born in Dorne in the south.

[Maia]

Jon's test with killing the old man brings to mind Jaime's choice when Bran finds him and Cersei copulating. Bran is an innocent, yet there was chance he would reveal what he saw, which would mean death for Jaime and Cersei, and Jaime decides to kill Bran. Jon is faced with a similar choice where if he refuses there is chance it could mean death for himself for not cooperating, but he chooses not to.

Except, that is not just his own life that Jon is (bar unpredictable intrevention by Summer)sacrificing, but those of hundreds of his NW brothers and thousands of Northeners, who would have been wholly unprepared for the wildling attack if Mance managed to get through the Wall quickly and in force!

Basically, Jon sacrifices all these lives so that he himself wouldn't feel bad. And it isn't even about sacrificing an innocent to achieve some greater good - Jon knows without doubt that the man is going to die regardless.

Jon's actions here would have been more comparable with Jaime just doing nothing about Aerys's wildfire plan and being rewarded for it by a brick falling on Aerys's head and killing him before he could order the conflagration.

Sorry, but that's the nadir of Jon being protected from the larger consequences of his actions by the plot for me.

I could deal with Jon being forced to kill Quorin and become a "turncloak" through no fault of his own, I could deal with him being forced to schtupp Ygritte, I could even forgive the contrivance of him wholly unneccessarily and against all and any good sense being sent over the Wall with the advance party. But this is too much.

There had been so much excellent discussion about the symbolism of "bloody hands" as taking unpleasant responsibility in Jon's scene with maester Aemon back in AGOT - well, that's a definite refusal on Jon's part to make his hands bloody, even to save thousands!

That is not like situation with Stannis and Edric at all, because in this case not only are cause and effect absolutely clear - i.e. Jon not being able to warn Castle Black would render sacrifices of Qorin and Co. useless and result in thousands of deaths of black brothers and northeners, but he couldn't spare/save the man anyway!

Re: Jaime's problem being only partial oathbreaking - no, I can't agree. His white cloak was likely needed to approach Aerys without problems anyway, since complete Lannister outfit at the time when Tywin was sacking the city would have been a statement of intent that even Aerys wouldn't have overlooked.

And Jaime not telling anybody about the wildfire... it was for the reasons of pride more than anything.

But there is actually a plot-hole re: all this wildlfire being hidden in the city and no fire-related accident that could have made the capital go off like a torch happening for 15 years. Not to mention the fact that despite knowing about it, Jaime never thought that he and Cersei and the kids were constantly in mortal danger for all these years. Maybe Varys found and disposed of most of the caches?

Anyway, I couldn't disagree more that Jaime didn't go far enough with his oathbreaking - IMHO he didn't actually try hard enough to keep his vows/honor, at least partially.

He could/should have immediately gone to protect Elia and her kids after killing Aerys. Maybe even got them out of the Red Keep/city if he could.

He could/should have joined NW in expiation for his actions after the dust settled.

All these things would have been much more "right", honorable and oath-conform than what he actually did, so... Not to mention that he joined KG with the express intention to break the celibacy oath with Cersei anyway.

IMHO, we should be careful about denigrating and dismissing oaths and honor. After all, they are the glue that allows Westerosi society to function. _And_ wildling society, really. And particularly the hybrid society that Jon tries to build later.

Where would he be, after all, if wildlings decided that it was a right idea to renege on their oaths and go attack some northeners?

Re: Ygritte's apologia of wildling freedom and marital customs - I strongly doubt that that raiding parties care to find out which young women are married and which aren't ;). Not to mention that they can be made widows and thus eligible quite easily, yes?

And yea, a woman may kill an unwanted abductor, but what would stop his raiding party/friends/family from killing her in return? And taking revenge on her clan/family later?

Not to mention that anybody can be kept restrained and brutalised until they stop fighting back. That's extremely feeble as a measure of consent.

After all, Craster's oldest wives had to come from somewhere and if they were from south of the Wall, I think that they would have told Sam when they were convincing him to take Gilly.

I didn't see any women trying this form of objection against Varamyr's unwanted affections either.

And how many family groups would dare resist a Rattleshirt or a Weeper if they decided to steal a girl who didn't reciprocate?

So, yea. Not rosy and not all that free either, really. And even in the best case - you'd be taken far, far away from anybody you grew up with. After all, the wildling customs dictate that mates from as far as possible are superior, right?

Oh, and how on earth _do_ the wildling raiders get livestock and women over the Wall? T'is a mystery.

[Lummel]

schtupp? :) this is tupping plus...something else? Although tupping is a bit of a rough choice of word for Jon and Ygritte seeing as he's not, ahem, imitating the copulatory style of a ram...Well anyway. In so far as the text allows one to judge.

I agree about the Wall. This is another way that the 700 foot wall doesn't work. Forget Ygritte's knife or woman, you couldn't climb a 700 foot wall of ice carrying a woman, or even a girl. It's woman or wall. I suppose its possible that the raiders made the return journey by boat, but I think it's one of those points in the series when you have to shrug and just accept it, or imagine odd scenarios were the woman is marched up the stairs of an abandoned fort and then lowered 700 foot down through the air on a mega long rope (hopefully not braining her against the wall in the process).

About the old man I look at it quite differently. Sparing the old man is the equivalent in my mind of running off to Winterfell at the end of ADWD. It is about doing what jon feels is the right thing by his conscience, not making a calculation and deciding that the ends justify the means and so killing an innocent. That to my mind is very much rooted in his upbringing - the man who passes sentence swings the sword.

I agree he risks his own life by doing that and so risks the security of the wall, but for me it would have been a despicable act to have killed the old man. I do feel that greater good or utilitarian arguments don't lead to nice places. There's no guarantee that he can warn the Wall in anycase so I don't think there is a straight forward trade off here. :dunno:

[The Sleeper]

Except, that is not just his own life that Jon is (bar unpredictable intrevention by Summer)sacrificing, but those of hundreds of his NW brothers and thousands of Northeners, who would have been wholly unprepared for the wildling attack if Mance managed to get through the Wall quickly and in force!

Basically, Jon sacrifices all these lives so that he himself wouldn't feel bad. And it isn't even about sacrificing an innocent to achieve some greater good - Jon knows without doubt that the man is going to die regardless.

Jon's actions here would have been more comparable with Jaime just doing nothing about Aerys's wildfire plan and being rewarded for it by a brick falling on Aerys's head and killing him before he could order the conflagration.

Sorry, but that's the nadir of Jon being protected from the larger consequences of his actions by the plot for me.

I could deal with Jon being forced to kill Quorin and become a "turncloak" through no fault of his own, I could deal with him being forced to schtupp Ygritte, I could even forgive the contrivance of him wholly unneccessarily and against all and any good sense being sent over the Wall with the advance party. But this is too much.

There had been so much excellent discussion about the symbolism of "bloody hands" as taking unpleasant responsibility in Jon's scene with maester Aemon back in AGOT - well, that's a definite refusal on Jon's part to make his hands bloody, even to save thousands!

I agree that it was a failure in Jon's part to kill the old man for pretty much the reasons you stated. But protected? There are more sides to this. You previously stated that it didn't make sense for Mance to send Jon along Styr over the Wall. In the chapters since then, Jon did not get anything remotely resembling the chance to escape prior to Bran's unforeseeable intervention. Jon spends a considerable amount of time with one person he has come to deeply care about and others he has come to like, has very little room for action and will inevitably betray someone whatever he does. Martin has the very arguments you made go through Jon's head as he was about to take action. He simply had reached his limits. It all ties up with previous compromising situations Jon found himself in and consistently points to the fact that Jon was not remotely ready for it.

There were also consequences. There is a very poignant image of Summer being visible during a flash of lightning over Del, the wildling Jon most idenitfied with, having torn out his throat with blood dripping from his jaws. Later, Jon has a dream of him being in the pools with Ygritte, where she dissolves and Jon thinks to himself that he will not father a bastard. There is the possibility that Ygritte was pregnant.

Granted Bran's presence was a bit serendipitous. So what? It doesn't undercut the dramatic climax of the chapter, the character development or the maynem tha follows.

[Addam of Hull]

Except, that is not just his own life that Jon is (bar unpredictable intrevention by Summer)sacrificing, but those of hundreds of his NW brothers and thousands of Northeners, who would have been wholly unprepared for the wildling attack if Mance managed to get through the Wall quickly and in force!

Basically, Jon sacrifices all these lives so that he himself wouldn't feel bad. And it isn't even about sacrificing an innocent to achieve some greater good - Jon knows without doubt that the man is going to die regardless.

Jon's actions here would have been more comparable with Jaime just doing nothing about Aerys's wildfire plan and being rewarded for it by a brick falling on Aerys's head and killing him before he could order the conflagration.

Sorry, but that's the nadir of Jon being protected from the larger consequences of his actions by the plot for me.

I could deal with Jon being forced to kill Quorin and become a "turncloak" through no fault of his own, I could deal with him being forced to schtupp Ygritte, I could even forgive the contrivance of him wholly unneccessarily and against all and any good sense being sent over the Wall with the advance party. But this is too much.

There had been so much excellent discussion about the symbolism of "bloody hands" as taking unpleasant responsibility in Jon's scene with maester Aemon back in AGOT - well, that's a definite refusal on Jon's part to make his hands bloody, even to save thousands!

That is not like situation with Stannis and Edric at all, because in this case not only are cause and effect absolutely clear - i.e. Jon not being able to warn Castle Black would render sacrifices of Qorin and Co. useless and result in thousands of deaths of black brothers and northeners, but he couldn't spare/save the man anyway!

But Jon's decision to not take the old man's life isn't at all comparable to Jaime theoretically refusing to take Aerys because the old man is solely innocent of any wrongdoing. Not to mention that the old ways, which are tied to the First Men, explicitly state that the man who passes the sentence ought to swing the sword. The Magnar of Thenn is making the judgement and he's commanding Jon to swing the sword, which is not how things are done.

More importantly, Aemon's speech back in a Game of Thrones isn't just about a willingness to get their hands bloody, but it's also about living with your choices. Aemon presents the dichotomy between love and honor, but that applies to any number of choices as well. The point that it makes is that choices like these aren't ones that have a right or wrong answer. The only thing they can do is make the choices they feel the can live with and that's highly relevant to Jon's arc as he gains an increasing amount of agency. Utilitarian standards are often used when discussing this series, but this is one of those scenes that gives me a sense that Martin's overall point here is that there is no formula for determining what's right or wrong: it's not as simple as making the choice that's best for the most number of people. It isn't Jon's willingness to comply with commands issued to him by the Halfhand or Styr or Mance that give him the chance to make his way back to Castle Black, but it's his willingness to make a decision based firmly in his own sense of right and wrong that give him the chance. And it's that willingness to do what's needed, but also to follow his morals, that separates someone like Jon from the monsters of Westeros.

[ShinD]

It's pretty clear that in Jon's mind he had no good choice at this point. He was only a few days march away from Castle Black, there was no way he could escape the wildlings. All he could do is either die on the spot with his hands clean, or die a few days latter with his hands blooded with the innocent old man, or turn his cloak for good and open the gate for Mance.

The choice was never between killing the old man and saving the Watch or refusing to kill him and dooming Castle Black. Really I don't think that can be compared with Jaime's choice, since he had a real opportunity to save the city.

[Harlaw's Book]

Hi Harlaw's Book! Good to see you again! I suppose Jon is, at least symbolically, Sam's king, so that is a nice parallel there...

Thanks!

[Maia]

Forget Ygritte's knife or woman, you couldn't climb a 700 foot wall of ice carrying a woman, or even a girl. It's woman or wall.

Very true ;)! And going back by boat still wouldn't allow for taking along much livestock... Maybe a goat or 2. Oh, well... As you say we should just forget the implausibility, I guess.

It is about doing what jon feels is the right thing by his conscience, not making a calculation and deciding that the ends justify the means and so killing an innocent. That to my mind is very much rooted in his upbringing - the man who passes sentence swings the sword.

And yet, this same tradition includes execution of innocent hostages, children among them. Did Jon really think that that Ned wouldn't execute Theon if the Ironborn rebelled again, because Theon was personally innocent? He certainly seemed to think that Ned would have killed Ygritte...

And also, it is curious how often what Jon feels is "right" is something that he just wants to do for personal reasons and damn the bigger consequences...

I agree he risks his own life by doing that and so risks the security of the wall, but for me it would have been a despicable act to have killed the old man.

To me, it was despicable that Jon chose to sacrifice the thousands of people he was supposed to save by his warning, just so that he personally wouldn't feel bad. To me, it was rejection of Aemon's "ravens versus doves" lesson and rejection of Qorin's "our honor means no more than our lives so long as the realm is safe", as well as wasting of his sacrifice _and_ of the poor old man's death, that Jon knew would happen anyway.

It would have been better, even, if Jon had been a romantic fool and tried to save the old man against all odds. At least, I could have seen some possible upshot to this.

But no, he knew the man would die, he knew that he himself would likely die as a result of his refusal and certainly wouldn't get a chance to escape and warn Castle Black even in the unlikely event that he were spared and he just didn't care that it would mean thousands of innocent deaths.

There are a lot of subtle connections of Jon with royal symbology that have been diligently unearthed in this thread. But events such as these make me think that maybe it would be better for everybody (not to mention more original in literary sense) if Jon became "The King Who Never Was".

I do feel that greater good or utilitarian arguments don't lead to nice places. There's no guarantee that he can warn the Wall in anycase so I don't think there is a straight forward trade off here. :dunno:

Certain amount of utilitarian approach is required in successful political and military leadership, though.

And it _was_ a straightforward trade - Jon gave up even a chance of warning the Wall for the sake of not feeling bad about himself. But since he is Jon, he is saved from seeing larger reprecussions of his actions by deus ex machina. And not for the first time.

Sure, in other instances one could argue that Jon partly "earned" it or that there were mitigating external factors - like Qorin didn't _really_ expect him to kill Ygritte and her escape didn't doom their scout mission because Qorin had calculated all the odds in advance - though it sure seemed to me like it did/should have, the first few times through.

But not in this one.

That's why despite great, moody scouting chapter(s) with Qorin, ASoS is the lowest point of Jon's plot arc to me. IMHO, he becomes much better in AFFC/ADwD though, thankfully.

Starting from the wildlings letting Jon keep his Valyrian sword rather than one of their leaders claiming it for their own(ORLY?),

then continuing with 100% contrived and unbelievable sending of Jon on a an absolutely crucial mission across the Wall, to which he was a major risk, but could contribute very little

and now on to this, where Jon refuses to do his duty as the North's only hope of preventing the invasion yet instead of having to witness horrific results of his decision, as any other ASOIAF character would have had to, he gets a timely and completely unpredictable "save". And more still to come, of course...

In the chapters since then, Jon did not get anything remotely resembling the chance to escape prior to Bran's unforeseeable intervention.

Because the wildlings didn't trust him and watched him like hawks. The old man was a loyalty test aimed to test whether Jon was really on their side. Jon's only realistic chance to make an escape and convey his warning was by passing the test and lulling their suspicions. But he chose not to - which really should have thrown out any chance of NW getting warned in time.

But since he is Jon, he gets to keep his cake and eat it without any negative consequences to his mission.

But Jon's decision to not take the old man's life isn't at all comparable to Jaime theoretically refusing to take Aerys because the old man is solely innocent of any wrongdoing.

Kingslaying still made Jaime feel bad about himself, just like Jon would have felt bad if he had killed the old man.

Oh, and what if there had been some innocent guard/servant around, who could have warned Aerys or something? I guess that Jon would have let KL burn because he would have felt bad killing an innocent, just like he let the North burn, only it didn't stick. Because Jon.

there is no formula for determining what's right or wrong: it's not as simple as making the choice that's best for the most number of people.

It is not simple, but it has to be done when you have fates of thousands in your hands, as Jon has here. And he just went ahead and chose what was best for himself.

It isn't Jon's willingness to comply with commands issued to him by the Halfhand or Styr or Mance that give him the chance to make his way back to Castle Black, but it's his willingness to make a decision based firmly in his own sense of right and wrong that give him the chance.

I am sorry? How did Bran's and Summer's unforseeble intervention happen due to Jon's "sense of right and wrong"? It just happened.

Again, acting on "sense of right and wrong" does have positive results, both iRL and in ASOIAF. Sometimes. And sometimes it doesn't, particularly if you are not paying attention to/willfully ignoring certain issues and generally not thinking the things through.

Jon, until ADwD was the only character in ASOIAF for whom it _always_ did, plausibility be damned. It was like he was from some other series. IMHO, YMMV.

[The Sleeper]

Because the wildlings didn't trust him and watched him like hawks. The old man was a loyalty test aimed to test whether Jon was really on their side. Jon's only realistic chance to make an escape and convey his warning was by passing the test and lulling their suspicions. But he chose not to - which really should have thrown out any chance of NW getting warned in time.
But since he is Jon, he gets to keep his cake and eat it without any negative consequences to his mission.

You offered the fact that he was sent along with a raiding party as contrivance, yet you acknowledge that the risk was sufficiently managed on the part of the wildlings. So, no contrivance there. He could be useful as an asset and could be kept in check. This raises the question of whether he would get a chance to escape in the immediate future, as they were pretty close. Following the previous pattern it doesn't seem likely there would be. Killing the old man might have been in the end inconsequential in terms of his mission. It might have though, ended with Jon becoming a wildling for good as there wouldn't have been a Night's Watch to return to. In a sense he was giving up at this instant. In the end it was Bran's save and not anything Jon might have done.

There is also the fact to consider, that Jon would have been tortured to death had not Bran saved him and Styr was not in a hurry. I fail to see how dying had not Bran saved him would not feel bad.

Jamie's situation is hardly comparable. Aerys was hardly an innocent old man and Jaime did save his own ass and his father in the process. There was no guarantee or even decent probability that it would have worked that way in Jon's case.

[The Sleeper]

Some comments on the little ideological debate between Jon and Ygritte and wildling prospects south of the Wall.

The wildlings strucure if anything is tribal and tends to the kneelers in any case. Feudalism is as much the result of the right of might as their customs. Their lack of technological advancement could more accurately be attributed to the sparsity of the land they live in. 40000 wildlings sounds like a pretty big number for an army, but considering the vastness of the area they were gathered form it means that the lands north of the Wall is practically uninhabited and we've seen that most of them live in communities that hardly number more than a couple dozen. When Ygritte considered the ones living in the same village as kin, she probably wasn't being figurative. Technology cannot develop in such conditions. It requires trade, surplus and manpower.

There has been mentioned the relative effectivenss of plunder versus labor. One could argue that their labor yields very little in the land they live in and the capacity to relocate where their labor would be more efficient is hampered by the presence of a 700 foot wall of ice. So I guess her feelings are understandable.

Jon mentioned to Ygritte some unsavory propabilities for her prospective stealer/husband. The implication is that the presence of a father disposing her hand for her would protect her for ending up thus. Seeing how some arranged marriages have worked south of the Wall, it hardly seems the case. Placing oneself under someone else's protection means also placing oneself at their mercy. As the war of the 5 kings so clearly demonstrates this is not a particularly safe place to be. North or South of the Wall there are no guarantees and all comes down to individual choices and responsibility against the awfull truth of the might of right. Wildling may and probably most often do fail to retain choice and responsiblity. Kneelers give it up all together. The dilema between slave or savage does not have any really attractive answers and Jon will be called to find a different option.

The wildling south of the Wall would have found themselves among enemies who are better armed, more disciplined and more familiar with the land and rediculously outnumbered. Staying together as a coherent force is not much of an otpion. They can't stand up to the organized troups the northerners would send against them, which means they would have to scatter. Some would cause trouble for years, others would be assimlated, some violently, others would hunted and slaughtered. This is not an invasion, but an exodus born of desperation.

[Lummel]

...There were also consequences. There is a very poignant image of Summer being visible during a flash of lightning over Del, the wildling Jon most idenitfied with, having torn out his throat with blood dripping from his jaws. Later, Jon has a dream of him being in the pools with Ygritte, where she dissolves and Jon thinks to himself that he will not father a bastard. There is the possibility that Ygritte was pregnant...

Welcome The Sleeper! Yes I think consequences are very important in GRRM. Figures like Daenerys, Jon, Jaime, Jon Connington even are made to be very aware of the consequences of their actions and inactions. One thing that does is to open up the whole issue of the decisions that characters make (and have made) we can (and in some threads do) construct great tapestries out of the what ifs that GRRM builds into the characters. Which is quite something. For me it screws up and throws out the window any simple concept of heroism as in handsome guy with sword will bound into the castle and solve the problem with a single well timed decapitation.

...Utilitarian standards are often used when discussing this series...

May the Seven have mercy on us all! Welcome The Wolfswood!

It's pretty clear that in Jon's mind he had no good choice at this point. He was only a few days march away from Castle Black, there was no way he could escape the wildlings...

Welcome ShinD! Interesting point there in that until the introduction of the Old Man they are all on foot. Is a Jon on foot sufficiently faster than 120 Wildlings to be able to raise the alarm at all? He's not expert in the lie of the land thereabouts.

...To me, it was despicable that Jon chose to sacrifice the thousands of people he was supposed to save by his warning, just so that he personally wouldn't feel bad. To me, it was rejection of Aemon's "ravens versus doves" lesson and rejection of Qorin's "our honor means no more than our lives so long as the realm is safe", as well as wasting of his sacrifice _and_ of the poor old man's death, that Jon knew would happen anyway...

...And it _was_ a straightforward trade - Jon gave up even a chance of warning the Wall for the sake of not feeling bad about himself. But since he is Jon, he is saved from seeing larger reprecussions of his actions by deus ex machina. And not for the first time...

...Again, acting on "sense of right and wrong" does have positive results, both iRL and in ASOIAF. Sometimes. And sometimes it doesn't, particularly if you are not paying attention to/willfully ignoring certain issues and generally not thinking the things through.

Jon, until ADwD was the only character in ASOIAF for whom it _always_ did, plausibility be damned. It was like he was from some other series. IMHO, YMMV.

I don't see a straightforward trade between the Old Man's life and Jon being able to warn the Wall/countryside. I've gone back to the chapter and The Magnar does not say 'if you kill him we'll give you his horse and send you ahead to scout for us', nor does he say 'kill him or die!'. Styr says "He must die...Do it Crow" then "Why do you hesitate?...Kill him, and be done." Once Jon says no the Magnar says "I say yes. I command here."

After Ygritte kills the Old Man the Magnar says something in Old Tongue - which Jon assumes might have been an instruction to kill him - but he doesn't know Old Tongue and we only know this from Jon's POV.

So to my mind had Jon killed the old man, he might at some later point been able to steal the horse and escape to warn the Wall or he might not. Had Bran not intervened Jon might have been killed, or he might not, in which case at some later point he might have been able to escape and warn the Wall, or he might not.

This all spins off in my mind in a few different directions - Bran as the God out of the machine, 'I didn't say that it was your honour', How Jon thinks for example about killing the Old Man and being Jon'ed (perhaps also Jon as a hero figure). I'll spill out my ideas for each in turn.

Being Jon'ed

A few years ago, long before ADWD, we had a joke thread about exactly this type of thing - being jon'ed - the whole business of having plot gifts and implausible lucky breaks. The thing is that in the light of ADWD we see that characters have to live with the consequences of their 'lucky' gifts and that characters are consistent in how they think - and I see a parallel here to the Pink Letter in how Jon reacts to the given situations.

How Jon thinks, for example about killing the Old Man

The key here is that Jon does not make a utilitarian or go through a strictly rational process with the objective in mind of getting to the Wall. He does not think 'maybe if I kill the Old Man the Thenns will trust me enough to lower their guard and give me a chance to escape, therefore I should kill the Old Man'. He doesn't even think of that objective at all. Jon isn't your intellectual sort, nor does he have the ability in a crisis to detach himself from the situation, relax his thinking and take in broader considerations. Instead, just as with the Pink Letter, he goes through this nexus of powerful memories that have moral meaning for Jon. Qhorin Halfhand, this is the Gift (Ordnung muss sein!) not the Frostfangs, the execution of the deserter in Bran I AGOT, the death of Orell. He is looking at one situation at a time. The way he sees each situation is coloured by memory and emotion. The important thing for Jon in each situation is 'to do the right thing' which means what he considers to be right or as you put it what he wants to do. Personally I find this true to how we do think, but there you go! To my mind what is interesting is the memories that do come up and to see just how powerfully they act on him. But put on the spot, no, he is not, as Darwin did when considering whether to get married or not, going to think through and consider all the pros and cons and the in and outs. I this situation it works out ok only because his brother leaps in and rescues him - but that isn't going to happen whenever Jon is put on the spot.

'I didn't say it was your honour'

This puts me in mind of Jon's desertion in AGOT when he is rescued by his other brothers who surround him and repeat the oath until he give up and goes back to Castle Black. Jon has agency and relative freedom to make decisions but these aren't always wise decisions. They are emotionally consistent, they are true to his love of family, they can be true to the mentor figures that he admires but they don't always work out well. In some cases he needs to be saved from the consequences of his own decisions, perhaps by one kind of brother or another. We can look at that as plot gifts, but for me that misses the point that these incidents tell us about the kind of person that Jon is and I think they are indirectly are a commentary on the idea of the hero.

Bran as the god out of the machine

Well he is isn't he? That is the root (sic) he's on, to grow into the weirnet and ascend into being part of the godhead of the old gods :laugh: but this ties into the central issue of families. There was a thread that came up the other day along the lines of 'which is the best Baratheon'. But with the families in ASOIAF we don't get one individual, we get family groups and family dynamics. The likes of the Lannisters are mildly dysfunctional (if you will allow the slight understatement) - their internal rivalries and tensions bring them down by ASOS, while the Baratheons are extremely dysfunctional they have already sprung apart in AGOT. The Starks by contrast are our 'good' family. The bonds are loving, they are in a virtuous circle. Jon was a good brother to Bran, so Bran will be a good brother to Jon. In other words the 'gift' doesn't come out of nowhere, just like the actions of Jon's other brothers it is the consequence of Jon's behaviour and earlier decision making which in turn are not rational but in response to the mentors he seeks to emulate and looks up to for moral guidance. The incident with the Old Man is contrived to show us this. Jon saving the Wall is from a post ADWD perspective less and less plot important, what is important in ASOIAF mayhaps is not so much the plot as character development. All fiction is a contrivance. The only limit to how GRRM might have saved the Wall is the limit of his imagination. The point, I suppose, of our rereading is to pause and notice that this is the way he chose to do it rather than some other way. Why does he do this? He creates a situation in which Jon - apparently our hero figure - can only get out because of the help of his crippled kid brother - so what does that tell us about heroism, military training and special (if not magical) swords?!

Jon as a hero figure

We know what a hero should be like, but on the reread, if we probe, it turns out that Jon is a pretty weird kind of fantasy hero. On the face of it, particularly if L+R=J, Jon should be a classic fantasy hero. Hidden heir, not a farm boy, but brought up out in the styx and socially not comme il faut, has special sword, is marked out for prominence. But barely beneath the surface he really isn't all that much of a hero. He can't be relied upon to save the day because he's driven by his emotional bonds, it is more important to him to be true to himself than to consider the big picture. He has to be pushed on occasion to do the right thing whether by the other brothers, or by Sam. He learns from example and mentors. He is still very much in the process of becoming, a work in progress by the end of ADWD, not a fully formed hero - if such a thing can be assumed to exist in Westeros outside of singer's songs!

...The wildling south of the Wall would have found themselves among enemies who are better armed, more disciplined and more familiar with the land and rediculously outnumbered. Staying together as a coherent force is not much of an otpion. They can't stand up to the organized troups the northerners would send against them, which means they would have to scatter. Some would cause trouble for years, others would be assimlated, some violently, others would hunted and slaughtered. This is not an invasion, but an exodus born of desperation.

Yes, I think this is similar to the point that SeanF was making a few posts back - that moving south of the Wall will probably doom the Wildlings in that their culture will very probably cease to exist within a few decades.

I don't remember if we mentioned exodus as in Exodus in Learning to Lead, we certainly mentioned the march of the wildlings through the Wall as a rebirth, but it would tie into the religious/Biblical allusions that have come up so far. I suppose The Mance playing Moses or Jon's Joshua - but it's a bit loose seeing as The Mance does make it to the promised land!

[The Sleeper]

snip

Thanks for the welcome, but I'm not actually new. Used to be Just an Other. It's on the signature, albeit kind of faint.

I hadn't thought of an any biblical allusions about the word exodus, but I suppose it would fit. Mance starts the journey but dies on the way (to the world) and now Jon leads them through their tribulations, though it was Jon who parted the sea (Wall). Jericho would be Winterfell I suppose but the horn is down in Oldtown.

[Ibbison from Ibben]

Starting from the wildlings letting Jon keep his Valyrian sword rather than one of their leaders claiming it for their own(ORLY?),

then continuing with 100% contrived and unbelievable sending of Jon on a an absolutely crucial mission across the Wall, to which he was a major risk, but could contribute very little

Every time I spot what might seem to be a plot hole in aSoIaF, I end up getting burned. GRRM has shown that he's thought the whole thing out. Mance's actions in adding Jon to the raiding team may seem unsound, but Mance himself takes some very strange actions later in the story. I'm not sure what his actual motivations are, or if he has some long term plan that hasn't been revealed yet.

Mance knows that the real threat to his people are the Others. If the raiding team had been successful, the Night's Watch would have been crippled at best, if not broken. Would the Wildings have been able to hold the Wall against the Others? If the Night's Watch and the Wall are magically linked in some way, the answer would probably be no. The possibilities are tough to analyze until we know more about Mance and the true nature of the Wall. For now, I'm logging this one as a mystery we still need to unravel, rather than a literary contrivance.

As for Summer's fortuitous actions, let's not forget about Bloodraven, who we know has been watching over Bran.

[Lummel]

Thanks for the welcome, but I'm not actually new. Used to be Just an Other. It's on the signature, albeit kind of faint...

I beg your pardon! And let that be a stern warning to you not to change your user name for fear of not being recognised :laugh:

...Mance knows that the real threat to his people are the Others. If the raiding team had been successful, the Night's Watch would have been crippled at best, if not broken. Would the Wildings have been able to hold the Wall against the Others? If the Night's Watch and the Wall are magically linked in some way, the answer would probably be no. The possibilities are tough to analyze until we know more about Mance and the true nature of the Wall. For now, I'm logging this one as a mystery we still need to unravel, rather than a literary contrivance.

As for Summer's fortuitous actions, let's not forget about Bloodraven, who we know has been watching over Bran.

You mean that maybe The Mance was thinking of blending the Wildlings and the Night's Watch to guard the Wall? It would be a nice irony if Jon ended up forfilling The Mance's programme unwittingly, but the problem with The Mance is that we get virtually no insight into what he is thinking or planning so we are left to speculate.

Yes, Bloodraven. It is a bit of a problem complaining about the old Deus ex machina when actually we have a god (or gods) in a box (boxes?) built into the structure of the story. The issue isn't that GRRM will drop out the God to solve everything and tie up loose ends, marry the likely lad to the lucky lass etc etc at the end of the show, but rather that he is possibly intervening at various points.

Actually thinking about it this is the second time that Bran saves Jon - the wolf dream courtesy of Bran as tree touching Jon's head in the frostfangs saves Qhorin's party the journey to the source of the Milkwater and presumably gives them a bit of a head start in getting back - although in that case that wasn't enough time to save them. I suppose strictly speaking Bran the physically limited is the one who saves the Wall too by allowing, perhaps forcing Jon to flee and allowing him to seize teh horse.

Then we have to wonder about our god. Bran is a child with a child's understanding, Bloodraven is extremely old and wooden - human time is not the fourth dimension that he operates in. Can we expect them to make neat, obviously helpful interventions or are they going to be off beat, coloured by the perspectives of a boy and somebody who is more than human?