The Jon Snow ReRead Project! Part 4! (FFC-DwD)

[Ser Pollo Loco]

First of all I like to thank you all for this wonderful thread, always the first one I look for when I log in :)

I am sorry I am a bad English writer, so I can´t say all what I think in my own langue. But I see a good reasons both for and against Jon leaderships in those chapters. I think Jon is trying his best but he does not see all as we see in Sam chapter.

Therefor I like to quote jarl the climber:

Why did Jon take Leather before Iron Emmett as Master of Arms and why does he trust Satin so much to make him his steward? It seems like he does not give us a reasons, we just have to nod to all he will do. I can understand Bowen and his other officers to be offended, that Jon never take their advise. Jon thinks he needs better advisers, like Aemon and Sam but is he not just asking for a men who say: Yes, Jon!?

I think we must read something from this why the men went again him. We know from Jon POV what he thinks but only Sam´s POV show us something other from his men.

Have to keep in mind that the reputation of these men are low since the previous regime

Bowen and co site tradition, but never mention a viable alternative, the only candidates they name are needed else where

This thread seems to be going the way of Jon should have bended over backwards to Bowen and I think making up reasons why he might be mad about Jon is futile and conjecture

Lack of good advisors is a running theme in Cersei/Dany/Jon with only Cersie actually having options. The idea that there is an all out mutiny is not supported by the text and I dislike the idea that death = failure in ASOIAF. Too many good rulers would be failures for it to be true.

[bemused]

Old Ida..don't apologize..( I can only write what I want in my own language ) so , I think you're doing fine.

I have some different answers for you.. Though we're jumping ahead, somewhat... First Jon promoted Emmett by bringing him to Castle Black and making him Arms Master. Later, Jon thought Emmett would make a good commander for one of the forts. And he needs to get those forts manned quickly, because Stannis will take them for his men if Jon doesn't. So , it's another promotion for Emmett... It's not that he preferred Leathers...He didn't replace Emmett because he thought Leathers was better. He just filled the vacancy ...and he tells us why he promoted Leathers ..if the men would be fighting wildlings ( or Others and wights ), Leather's style of fighting would prepare them , because he's experienced in facing those opponents ...These are both rational , considered decisions on Jon's part.

Yes ,we can say more about Satin later , but we already know Jon has noticed that he has a good work ethic, is quick to learn , and though it's mentioned later, he must already know Satin can read and write , to a degree.

Cellador is a drunk , and already has shown himself to be fairly useless ( if not counter-productive ) when Castle Black was under attack. In a life and death situation , Jon was trying to promote a fighting spirit among the men and boost their confidence , and Cellador was calling on them to sing the same hymn to the mother that Sansa sang at Kings Landing.. a prayer to end the fighting and "show us all a better way". Not exactly helpful..

Jon choosing rangers to escort Sam , Gilly and Aemon is again a practical decision. At this point ,it was expected that the wildlings would be trying to cross the wall wherever they could , at any time. If they met with any on the way , rangers are the most experienced fighters. Better protection for the travellers.

[-Winterfellian-]

Why did Jon take Leather before Iron Emmett as Master of Arms and why does he trust Satin so much to make him his steward? It seems like he does not give us a reasons, we just have to nod to all he will do. I can understand Bowen and his other officers to be offended, that Jon never take their advise. Jon thinks he needs better advisers, like Aemon and Sam but is he not just asking for a men who say: Yes, Jon!?

I think we must read something from this why the men went again him. We know from Jon POV what he thinks but only Sam´s POV show us something other from his men.

First of all, welcome!

In regards to the bold, the answer to your question is no. I believe the fact that Jon is not looking for 'yes men' is pretty much clear in the paper shield situation.

While Jon did hope for Sam to see things as he did, in the end he is swayed by both Sam and Aemon’s reasonable sanctions for sending the letter to KG. Both Sam and Aemon are far from being ‘yes men’, but they are also far from beings ‘no men’, in the sense that when they do not agree with a course of action traced by Jon, they are able to provide if not alternatives, at least an analytical unbiased observation of the situation that Jon could rely upon to take a decision. This is a far cry from other superior officers in the NW that know no other song but to say ‘no’ without vouchsafing at least an idea of their own.

The fact that later on Jon specifically mentions Sam and Aemon (two people who did not necessarily saw things as he did) as the kind of ´better men´ the watch needs makes it very clear that he is not looking for yes men. Jon does not want to surround himself with sycophants who praised his every decision like the ones Cercei surrounds hersef with in AFFC, but men who when in disagreement, are able to provide an alternative solution or course of action, instead of just saying ‘no’. Problem is beggars can’t be choosers and so he must at least settle for men who follow his orders. Given the military nature of the NW, I do not necessarily find this to be an unreasonable expectation. Mormont did not exactly hold a referendum about what the men felt of going to the ranging back in AGOT, but he did expected them to obey. I see this as pretty much the same Jon is doing at this stage of his command.

[Old Ida]

Thank you all for your answers, I see I must think a little wider ;) and sorry I went ahead, that was clumsy of me.

Will keep reading all your great posts!

[Lummel]

First of all I like to thank you all for this wonderful thread, always the first one I look for when I log in :)

...

Why did Jon take Leather before Iron Emmett as Master of Arms and why does he trust Satin so much to make him his steward? It seems like he does not give us a reasons, we just have to nod to all he will do. I can understand Bowen and his other officers to be offended, that Jon never take their advise. Jon thinks he needs better advisers, like Aemon and Sam but is he not just asking for a men who say: Yes, Jon!?

I think we must read something from this why the men went again him. We know from Jon POV what he thinks but only Sam´s POV show us something other from his men.

Thank you :) I hope that everyone reading finds the thread enjoyable and maybe sometimes interesting too.

Perhaps we can come up with some possible answers to those questions further on in the reread. When it comes to the men going against him only some men are against him at the end of Jon XIII ADWD, it is possible that different groups of men are against Jon for different reasons, but also there doesn't seem to be widespread dislike of Jon or disobedience of his orders either.

...This thread seems to be going the way of Jon should have bended over backwards to Bowen and I think making up reasons why he might be mad about Jon is futile and conjecture

Lack of good advisors is a running theme in Cersei/Dany/Jon with only Cersie actually having options. The idea that there is an all out mutiny is not supported by the text and I dislike the idea that death = failure in ASOIAF. Too many good rulers would be failures for it to be true.

Then this thread is going somewhere without me! I really, really, really (honestly, I don't) do not want to derail us into a discussion of Jon XIII. Having said that there are I suppose two starting points for looking at the assassination. One extreme is that it is entirely contingent on events, the other that it was completely inevitable. Personally I don't feel at the moment that a middle view, that the Ides of Marsh could have been avoided if Jon was nicer to Bowen and/or one or two others, is reasonable, but we'll get to that later (but not today).

We are rereading a novel. Things happen because that is the story that GRRM wants to tell. I don't think the story that he is telling is that Jon's life would have been fine if he had listened to Bowen Marsh and done what he said - unless of course in TWOW Bowen Marsh turns out to be the hero character who saves the day :laugh:

I definitely agree on the lack of good advisers and something that maybe we haven't picked up enough on were Mormont's disagreements with his advisers. Certainly death cannot be said to be equal to failure. We can see that there are successes and failures associated with many characters, and Jon will have his successes too.

[Ghost's Shadow]

I myself (as a lurker) am very glad to read that, Lummel. I must say I was a little bit shocked to read that things that are not supported in the text were going to be taken as a strike against Jon, and that basically in the same breath Bowen Marsh was going to be whitewashed while he's the kind of guy who gives temporary command to a senile, very old knight who doesn't even know he is one any more, just because he's a knight.

[butterbumps!]

On the subject of the Watch's decline, I think there's a much more elegant explanation than what's been suggested. As one reference point, I want to note the most thorough explanation of the Watch's power ilmits we're given in the Styr Attacks! chapter (Jon VII, aSoS).

Essentially, when Aegon conquered it changed the power structure of Westeros, but the traditions of the Watch were never revised to reflect this new status quo, and the previous custom of neutrality was no longer sustainable as it was "written." In a nutshell, this is an issue where the rest of the world changed, but the Watch is stuck in the past.

From the accounts we're given, we know that the Watch was to remain accessible from the South precisely so that the realm could intervene when necessary, and this intervention was typically led by the Starks. Winterfell acted in 3 basic capacities in relation to the Watch: as a disciplinary power in the event of the Watch's egregious abuses of power, as an extension of the Watch's forces by serving as the last line of defense against Northern enemies, and by extension, as a buffer between the realm and the Watch. That is, if anyone from the realm tried to violate the Watch, they'd also need to deal with Winterfell. Ergo, Winterfell lent power and authority to the Watch, enabling it to continue operations unmolested by the realm. We also have other factors, such as how each kingdom previously sent men and resources to the Watch traditionally, the Watch held more clout, it was seen as honorable, but I think those come back to this primary issue.

With Aegon's conquest, the power structure and attention changed. Now the Starks, like all the other families, were beholden to another power, devoting resources and focus away from the Watch to KL. Which is a structural problem-- the Conquest meant that the Starks were no longer free agents, as they were themselves subject to a higher power, which means that the Watch's power (a power lent by the Starks) took a nosedive. With all the focus and power shifted to KL, the Watch seems to have been increasingly marginalized as "the North's problem," and the North itself was obliged to answer to another power. With the exception of Alysanne, it appears that the throne never redirected resources and effort back up to the Watch.

More troubling power-wise, the lines of authority were never redrawn. The responsibilities of the Starks were never redrafted to become the responsibilities of the realm. Having a unified realm with a central authority should have meant that things like wildling invasions or Other attacks were not just a "Northern problem" but a "Realm problem." When a Greyjoy attacks, the realm answers, so why is it Stark and Northern forces standing against wildling kings? By not addressing the fact that the power dynamic had fundamentally shifted and thinking about how centralization would impact the Watch's traditions, the Watch's power was eroded and marginalized. If the Starks were the neutrality-keepers, but the throne begins violating that neutrality, what's the recourse? If the throne isn't accepting the role the Starks had previously taken, then there's no way that the pre-conquest tradition of neutrality will ever work, especially given the physical manifestations of this at the Wall itself (no barriers to the South).

I see this as a failure to "update" the rules. The realm's unification could have actually strengthened the Watch, but by failing to revise the Watch's traditions in light of this major change to the realm's power structure, the Watch became unsustainable--it's an anachronism.

I want to note that the reason I'm addressing this isn't to figure out the source of the Watch's problems for its own sake, but rather, in relation to what Jon's facing at its helm. Especially now that it lacks its historic ally (the Starks), the Watch is utterly powerless, and Jon himself lacks a good deal of agency to move it. It's a systematic problem such that the rules need to be changed from the outside, but from the outside, several other powers are exerting their own pressures onto it, forcing it to adjust to the external conditions. And from within, the inertia of sticking to the anachronistic traditions stymies it even further.

[Lummel]

I myself (as a lurker) am very glad to read that, Lummel. I must say I was a little bit shocked to read that things that are not supported in the text were going to be taken as a strike against Jon, and that basically in the same breath Bowen Marsh was going to be whitewashed while he's the kind of guy who gives temporary command to a senile, very old knight who doesn't even know he is one any more, just because he's a knight.

In our rereads we as hosts, Butterbumps!, Ragnorak and myself, are not looking to whitewash characters but rather to analyse and to be critical readers. Part of that is being open to characters, even those we may not like or approve of, having realistic motivations. Something I feel that many of us as readers enjoy in ASOIAF is how many characters are plausible rather than 'good' or 'bad'.

Clearly this is an open reread, and it is good to see a range of opinions, but I hope that no-one takes any those as official in the sense of 100% accurately reflecting GRRM's opinion and intention, or as the last word on the subject. I hope that lurking or taking part you can read and weigh up the arguments and views as they are presented and don't get the impression that there is unanimous approval for an idea simply because there isn't a barrage of opposition. We all post when we can, not every post gets replied to, or every idea teased out.

I certainly do not sign up to that newsletter that promises there is some golden path that The Ned, or Jon, or any other character could or should have followed so that everything in westeros worked out peacefully and fantastically with skippy, happy bunnies and lovely ponies for everyone. This is a story in which GRRM wants to show us that the 'best laid plans of mice and men go oft awry'.

No Saint Bowen here ;)

[Ragnorak]

Welcome, Old Ida!

In terms of people to keep track for The Ides of Marsh we have:

The only two we know for certain who stab Jon

Wick Whittlestick
Bowen Marsh

???? (third knife between the shoulder blades)

???? (fourth knife never felt)

In the Shieldhall these men are mentioned:

Othell Yarwyck (First Builder)

his builders

Bowen Marsh (Lord Steward)

Wick Whittlestick (sterward)

Left Hand Lew (steward)

Alf of Runnymudd (builder converted to R'hllor)

This is five so even if they are all involved at least one of them did not stab Jon.

To his left he saw Marsh and Yarwyck. Othell was surrounded by his builders, whilst Bowen had Wick Whittlestick, Left Hand Lew, and Alf of Runnymudd beside him.

Yarwyck and Marsh were slipping out, he saw, and all their men behind them

.

As Lummel said, now is not the time to discuss Jon XIII but those are the names mentioned if we want to keep an eye out for references as we go.

I think the point about GRRM telling a story is key. Jon and Dany both enter leadership roles in DwD and they are both shepherding peoples with old grudges and rivalries through a period of change with the goal of peaceful integration. Change vs. the status quo with a backdrop of moral issues and steering away from a longstanding preexisting decay are prevalent in both arcs despite a number of circumstantial differences. People tend to resist change. That is just normal to the human condition. Changing meatloaf night from Wednesday to Thursday is going to be met with resistance so resistance to institutional change that impacts the fabric of a society as people understand it and their respective roles within it is a given. In Dany we see former slaves are willing to return to slavery. I don't think the author's message is that people like slavery or slavery is better than living under Dany's rule. People return to what they know and see their options in the worldview that they are comfortable with and used to. Jon's story (and Dany's) is involved and addresses many things on multiple levels but leadership of formerly warring factions through a period of societal change is one of the primary issues.

If we look at the real dividing issue between Marsh and Jon it is letting the Wildlings through the Wall which is at the very core of this change. These are irreconcilable policy differences. Here's a quote from a different Marsh in a different Martin novel Fevre Dream.

"You know I never held much with slavery, even if I never done much against it neither. I would of, but those damned abolitionists were such Bible-thumpers. Only I been thinkin', and it seems to me maybe they was right after all. You can't just go… usin' another kind of people, like they wasn't people at all. Know what I mean? Got to end, sooner or later. Better if it ends peaceful, but it's got to end even if it has to be with fire and blood, you see? Maybe that's what them abolitionists been sayin' all along. You try to be reasonable, that's only right, but if it don't work, you got to be ready. Some things is just wrong. They got to be ended."

Slavery and "fire and blood" seem far more applicable to Dany but the same issues are at play here. Bowen thought he was being reasonable but reached a point where he felt he had to resort to fire and blood. Jon felt he was being reasonable but Ramsay's letter pushes him to the point where he feels he needs to resort to fire and blood. We have two differing perspectives in Marsh and Jon each trying to exercise leadership of a sort that come into conflict. Each tries to persuade people around them to reshape the world according to their views and those shapes are fundamentally irreconcilable. Who was reasonable? Who was justified crossing from attempted reason to fire and blood? Which things were just wrong and had to end if any? These are the types of questions the author is posing in the story he tells. Most would agree that the end states Jon and Dany are striving for are essentially morally good goals (ending slavery and saving tens of thousands from death and an ice zombie fate.) The story is also illustrating how even a clear morally just end state is met with resistance and how much of that resistance can be empathized with.

While I think it is important to look at Jon's mistakes and potential mistakes as well, we aren't going to get to the heart of the matters posed by Martin by focusing on lack of Bowen Marsh appeasement as Jon's critical flaw. Personality conflicts do matter. Germany and England ended up on opposite sides of two world wars because Wilhelm II got upset that grandma wouldn't let him play with ships (oversimplified but essentially true.) At the same time it isn't as if WWI could have been avoided if Queen Elizabeth had been more attentive about her grandson playing with ships (they did actually made him an honorary admiral iirc.) There were deeper issues. Jon vs. Bowen theme is similar. The personalities shape the specifics and are our gateway of interest into the events but it isn't as if anything they could ever do is going to change the direction of the ice zombie horde or prevent a Ramsay Bolton from trying to kill a son of Ned Stark who can identify Arya as a fake and threaten his claim on Winterfell.

[butterbumps!]

You definitely raise some thought provoking points here.

I’ve been thinking as to why we do not get a clearer perspective of how Jon sees all the linkages you mentioned. I mostly see it as a reflection of Jon’s restricted power in all of this, despite of being the leader of one of the central parties in this conflict. Jon’s political power and strength is so limited and the links and their limits are almost exclusively defined by others with more power and resources that it creates a situation where he’s precluded from having the right of an opinion to voice as to the nature and extend of the connection between the the NW, the IT and Stannis. This contrasts with Stannis and Tywins’ position who are the ones with the competence to determine who’s stock is link to whom:

What am trying to get at is that whether Jon sees or not his or the NW’s stock as falling or rising with Stannis is unimportant because, after all, Stannis is there, a fact Jon seems to accept, while trying to make the best of it. So Jon is forced into a position where all he can do is roll with the punches:

This sets Jon apart from men like Bowen who see the importance of aligning with the perceived winner, even if said winner if hundreds of miles away and has never shown way interest in the affairs concerning the welfare of the NW. Or even Sam, who can still hope that a paper shield in the midst of this isn’t so futile a gesture.

This is very aligned with my view as well. The Watch really lacks agency. I think we've been seeing this for a while now. Even back in aGoT, Mormont makes two contradictory statements about the Watch's dependency by remarking that "when the cold wind blows, the Others don't care who's on the throne" (paraphrased) as well as another statement ruing Robert's death, and pointing to the fact that the Watch/ realm needs a strong king in order to back the Watch through what they're facing (so, accordingly, it does apparently matter who's on the throne).

It is a volatile, fast moving situation, while an attack from King's landing is remote, highly unlikely possibility the Night's Watch is still / or was dependant on the south for recruits and to purchase supplies, I suppose a lot depends on who knows what then, but even at Sam I AFFC I think they can be legitimately be worried what will happen in the north in the wake of the Red Wedding and feel the need to have at least a toe in the Lannister camp. Then again, as you say there is a logic in backing Stannis wholeheartedly, but it looks at this point as though his chances in the north are extremely poor. Both Jon and Sam are conscious of White Haven as a crucial 'if' and there is a sense that Jon wants it to be a 'could be' but doesn't believe that himself. Really there is only one way that the Watch can separate it's stock from that of Jon and distinguish itself from involvement with Stannis' cause...

Well, one of the things I was wondering is whether Jon had hoped Sam would encourage swinging the odds in Stannis' favor by bringing up the letter for debate. I don't think we need to "search" for a motive in Jon's discussing the letter with Sam or anything (anything from voicing frustration to an opinion on whether to send the letter seems self-explanatory), but wonder if this was part of his incentive.

I've probably been a bit vague about this precise point, but in essence, I'm wondering if Jon had already decided to swing things in Stannis' favor, and wanted to talk to Sam about the hopelessness of the situation to see if Sam might reach the same conclusion on his own and advocate the same approach.

Sam thought outside-the-box on the issue of the election when the situation seemed hopeless, but when the problematic situation moves from internal to external, it's Jon who thinks outside-the-box (given that we know he goes to meet with Stannis right after this discussion and aids him, I think it's fairly safe to assume he had already chosen that course of action prior to his talking to Sam). I'm wondering if Jon was looking for a kind of absolution in "taking a part" by having Sam come up with the same solution, or in a more practical sense, was hoping Sam would bring it up as a possible solution to discuss the strategy behind it and whether that might work.

Sam sees that it's a no-win situation either way, but for some reason isn't nearly as tense about it as he was wrt the election, and doesn't brainstorm creative ways to ensure Stannis' win. He reads this as Jon's hoping to hope, and believes Stannis will be defeated. But Jon found a loophole, and I can't help but think he was hoping Sam would come to that same conclusion he did.

The paper shield.

A "paper shield" is a call to reason and it is as good as the arguments it contains. It doesn't matter if the arguments are valid per se, what really matters is their appeal to the receiving end. Davos' paper shield is what brought Stannis to the Wall, after all.

Now, what would be the appeal of this paper shield to Tywin Lannister?

IMO, it should be evident that a letter would never suffice to provide any protection. Not that Tywin is an unreasonable man, it's just that he does have objective (=/= rightful) reasons to be against the Wall. Tywin's operational dogma is "you're either with us, or against us". That is, there is positive neutrality and negative neutrality. Vale's neutrality in the Wot5K was positive -a "with us" neutrality- because otherwise, the Vale would naturally contribute to his enemy war effort. On the other hand, the Watch objectively helps his enemy by doing nothing more than their duty. This applies not only to the period of the Wot5K, not only to Stannis' presence there, it would still be valid if the only power in the North were the Boltons. Tywin's plan for the future is to take over the North through Tyrion and Sansa. To do so, the Boltons must be weakened. Whatever causes problems to anyone who holds any power in the North, works in Tywin's favor. Whatever counters such problems objectively works against his plans. The Watch would never get any help from the Lannisters, not unless they actively advanced his agenda.

That said, I don't believe that Tywin would be in a position to be an immediate danger. He has to consolidate the Lannister power on the throne and winter is coming... To me, everyone's fear of Tywin's reaction is a token of Tywin's reputation (and, to be fair to the man, it is a rare ability that he possesses, worth of a perverse sort of admiration). IMO, the true danger comes from the Boltons as they are close and they have many independent reasons to attack the Wall (Butterbumps mentioned them earlier).

Truth be told, the Watch are in no position to know the Lannister's camp internal conflicts, it's understandable that they would think that a letter to the Lannister king would address the Bolton problem as well. Anyhow, I think it is evident that this paper shield is totally ineffective. On the other hand, they don't lose anything by trying.

Jon's reluctance to sign it should be attributed to different cumulative reasons. Multiple motives adding up. The futility of the move, his feelings for house Lannister, his vague hope that they could be defeated, all contribute in various degrees. The same, I think, is true for his growing preference for a Stannis, as we will see and discuss in the following chapters.

I think this is a really excellent breakdown of the situation.

Have to keep in mind that the reputation of these men are low since the previous regime

Bowen and co site tradition, but never mention a viable alternative, the only candidates they name are needed else where

This thread seems to be going the way of Jon should have bended over backwards to Bowen and I think making up reasons why he might be mad about Jon is futile and conjecture

Lack of good advisors is a running theme in Cersei/Dany/Jon with only Cersie actually having options. The idea that there is an all out mutiny is not supported by the text and I dislike the idea that death = failure in ASOIAF. Too many good rulers would be failures for it to be true.

Yea, I agree, I think approaching this as a question of whether Jon should have catered to the Bowens distracts from the more salient points about the construction of power, and particularly, an assessment of the Watch's structural issues regarding that lack of power, and simultaneous internal pressure regarding tradition that Jon's circumscribed by.

Granted, this is my opinion, but I think the relevant questions are found in the simultaneous frictions between the Watch's power limits and interference from the outside, which makes its operations nearly impossible, and the internal frictions where Jon is not seen to have the authority to make the changes that are needed. It's not about cheating in elections or whether seeing "the Bowens'" side goes beyond adding perspective to something that can be taken as a valid critique of Jon's leadership.

I think this is much more a question of power and authority, that relates back to and mutually reinforces the overarching themes of the series about status quo versus change, and power struggle more broadly.

I myself (as a lurker) am very glad to read that, Lummel. I must say I was a little bit shocked to read that things that are not supported in the text were going to be taken as a strike against Jon, and that basically in the same breath Bowen Marsh was going to be whitewashed while he's the kind of guy who gives temporary command to a senile, very old knight who doesn't even know he is one any more, just because he's a knight.

As Lummel said, a lack of articulated disagreement with a view doesn't necessarily translate to endorsement of that view. Speaking for myself, I don't think pursuing a "Bowen was right" debate is relevant, which is why I haven't been addressing it.

[Lummel]

...If we look at the real dividing issue between Marsh and Jon it is letting the Wildlings through the Wall which is at the very core of this change. These are irreconcilable policy differences. Here's a quote from a different Marsh in a different Martin novel Fevre Dream...

Ha! This is interesting. My take on the Ides of Marsh is somewhat different to yours Ragnorak. Judging by the posts here, I can't speak for the lurkers ;) , there seem to be a few different ideas on what causes the final event of Jon XIII.

Generally we don't want to anticipate future events but I feel that here we need to develop a way of talking about the different theories that we have during the reread without derailing the discussion into a full on battle over stabbing Jon simply because there are points in the text that we are all going to want to look for and draw attention to, for example the list of persons you mentioned, or the upcoming policy divisions which will start from Jon III...

[Ragnorak]

Ha! This is interesting. My take on the Ides of Marsh is somewhat different to yours Ragnorak. Judging by the posts here, I can't speak for the lurkers ;) , there seem to be a few different ideas on what causes the final event of Jon XIII.

Generally we don't want to anticipate future events but I feel that here we need to develop a way of talking about the different theories that we have during the reread without derailing the discussion into a full on battle over stabbing Jon simply because there are points in the text that we are all going to want to look for and draw attention to, for example the list of persons you mentioned, or the upcoming policy divisions which will start from Jon III...

Mostly I wanted to latch onto your GRRM is intentionally telling a story idea and convey that he's teasing out a worldview and a picture of the human condition. With multiple years between books it may be fun to debate whether or not this or that battle would have been won if only soandso had put the archers on the left hill instead of the right, yet I don't think Martin is trying to relay a tale about proper medieval archer placement. Such a failed archery placement would be a clue into some larger picture. I agree with you that it isn't likely Martin is conveying a tale of how Jon should have listened to Bowen Marsh. There are clues to be gleaned from his conflicts with Marsh, but raising Marsh-gate to the level of a fatal flaw in his arc strikes me as out of balance. Marsh is one of many members of the Watch with a singular skill in which he excels. I think mining Marsh for things like comparing Jon's use of tools as a leader to a Tywin's "tool for every task" philosophy is more in line with the way Marsh is supposed to shed light on our story. The dagger in Marsh's hand is what tends to lend weight to his prior complaints. If our Clue murder solution was Septon Cellador with knife in front of the tower should we take his list of gripes more seriously in hindsight? Jon holds the philosophy learned from Ned that you lead with a certain permission from your men. With each order and each episode either Jon reasonably crosses a line where he could have broken that permission or he doesn't. No one fails to obey his orders until he announces that he's leading a Wildling army south which is a fairly dramatic alteration of the context of Lord Commander and hard to apply in hindsight as a "mistake" to that old context.

To bring these thoughts back to our current chapter we have the idea of loyalty to a man vs. loyalty to an institution. This will be mirrored in Jon's leadership of the Watch and of the Wildlings. (and arguably is at the root of the War of the Five Kings with loyalty to a man over the dynastic institution) The Wildlings have no institutions per se and know only loyalty to a man. The men in black take their oaths to the institution of the Nights Watch. We have the dawn of Jon's leadership in the Watch and also the beginnings of his earning loyalty of the Wildlings. We have his choice involving Gilly and Mance's son, his decision to put guards on the guards, and hints of interactions with Val that we don't see on page yet. Regarding the Watch one of the things Jon does not do is try and consolidate power. None of his thoughts or actions are about political arrangements to ensure that men with authority are loyal to him. He is relying on institutional loyalty to the Watch as opposed to personal loyalty to maintain his command. Those "loyal to him" will be selected to command other forts but that is more about trust (in the case of Edd and the women) and ability rather than power. Jon will be willing to assign Slynt to one of those forts so it definitely is not about power consolidation for him.

I suppose one concept we could look for is whether or not someone is Jon's man or the Watch's and when that happens. Jon's eventual plea in the Shieldhall will be for men to follow him personally over the institutional loyalty to the Watch and we'll be able to see whether Jon earns loyalty, how and which kind as events unfold building up to his plea.

[Bran Vras]

Having said that there are I suppose two starting points for looking at the assassination. One extreme is that it is entirely contingent on events, the other that it was completely inevitable. Personally I don't feel at the moment that a middle view, that the Ides of Marsh could have been avoided if Jon was nicer to Bowen and/or one or two others, is reasonable, but we'll get to that later (but not today).

True, including the Bowen part. But I feel the need to add a few things on the inevitability part. Without discussing the specifics which are left for the chapter by chapter reread, I can discern several attitudes towards Jon’s story.

(1) Jon was doomed because the Night's Watch is a sinking ship from the start. In other words, Jon was dealt an impossible hand.

(2) Jon’s great vision was not grasped by his men, out of misunderstanding, mishandling of his image by Jon himself, irremediable mediocrity of the black brothers, hostility of some of them towards the turncloak/bastard/warg and other prejudices.

(3) Jon is truly a tragic hero, in the sense that he had in himself what led to his downfall.

All three views might be true. By far, (3) is the most appealing perspective to me. As a corollary, there is the notion that Jon Snow doesn’t fully understand himself (who does?). We find similar problematics with Daenerys and others. Hence it is particularly important to pay attention to how Jon is perceived. Both views from Jon’s internal monologue and from (whatever we can understand from) the behaviour of his men, particularly his detractors, carry their loads of bias, self-indulgence, smear etc. But one is not clearly better than the other. There is a variety of reason for the discrepancies between the inside view and the outside view: prejudice, misunderstanding, of simply lack of self-awareness from Jon. This is to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

(All this is essentially what I tried to say when I entered the thread.)

@Ragnorak: I assumed that Left Hand Lew was among the four assassins upthread, but qualified with "apparently". It seemed to me that it is what the text suggests. But, I understand your prudence. I have duly noted that all discussion of Jon XIII is to be avoided. But since you listed the possible assassins of Jon, we shall take note that at least the first two assassins claimed to act "For the Watch".

@SerPolloLoco@Lummel@Butterbumps: I just reread the messages from the last couple of pages. Where has it been claimed that Jon should follow Marsh, or that Marsh was right? As far as I am concerned, I just mentioned the solitary exercise of power, a central thematic theme of AFfC/ADwD, and questioned the exclusion of Marsh.

@Ragnorak: To confirm what I just said, I don't think that Jon's "failure" is to be explained by anecdotical reasons (which is the point you are making in your last post as well). You seem to say that Jon's policy was acceptable to the Watch until the Shield Hall. This is true, but makes me quite uncomfortable. It's like that saying that the storm didn't happen until lightning stroke, as dark clouds had been gathering for some time. I feel that we already see the first clouds.

On the obedience Jon expects of his men. It's an interesting observation that Jon never perceives the need to consolidate his power. He seems to forego sleep (see Jon II) and food and the comfort of the Lord Commander quarters. I understand his attitude towards his men as an extension of his attitude towards himself. Consequently he expects of them a considerable dedication to their task (see the builders, and the men sent to restore the castles in ruin).

[Lummel]

Jon II ADWD pp95-111

Overview

Jon's execution of Slynt marks a distinct change of tone in his narrative, typical of AFFC and ADWD things promise to become grimmer and more intensely miserable on a human scale. The chapter covers quite a bit of ground over about two days. Jon has a series of meetings, with Gilly, Sam, Bedwyck, Slynt, there is a flashback to meting Aemon. Much of the action is set in Jon's quarters – all close, intense and personal, there is a confrontation over porridge which seems to threaten to break into armed combat, a long scene outside as Slynt is dragged like an animal to slaughter. The significant interlude of Jon making his rounds, talking with the men is almost slipped into the chapter and easy to miss. It is a chapter featuring people who are little more than children thrust into roles of earnest responsibility. We also see Jon as an isolated figure, there are joyless little details - the dregs of a half cup from a solitary supper that add to the emotional punch of the chapter.

Observations

• Dolorous Edd being sent to fetch Sam parallels Jon I ACOK when Jon was sent to fetch Sam from the book depository before departing on a journey.
• “Dead men should keep quiet, is what I say. No one wants to hear a dead man's yabber” p.95 So much for knowledge!
• “You don't need to take a knee for me. That's just for kings”
• At some stage Jon would have to reveal the baby swap to Stannis – how would he do this and how would he prove that he swapped the baby? Are we meant to read this as a parallel to the Aegon story?
• The baby swap and Jon's moral compass - he can't allow the risk of people being burnt alive - ah, this is where ADWD becomes a dense read, this aspect of the story started at the end of ASOS and won't finish until Jon III
• Gilly crying silently. A sad, sad, touch.
• Jon's meeting with Sam repeats some of the information from Sam I AFFC, but also omits parts of the conversation. Any ideas why some things are repeated but others not? Should we assume that the repeated things are more significant?
• Some nice examples of Jon's deadpan humour in his conversation with Sam.
• Jon's dream echoes the decapitation of Robb and Grey Wind.
• “Ghost is more alive than I am” - a line that seems to support the idea that Jon is depressed.
• “Maester Aemon wiped his nose” runny noses seem to undercut a person's authority and gravitas. Jon has read the passage from the Jade Compendium by Jon III despite the runny nose and Dolorous Edd's opinion about dead men's yabber.
• “The cold trickles on his face reminded Jon of the day he'd bid farewell to Robb at Winterfell”. Snow as a substitute for tears - the pathetic fallacy.
• “The strength of the Wall was its height, the length of the Wall was its weakness. Jon remembered something his father had said. A wall is only as strong as the men who stand behind it. The men of the Night's Watch were brave enough, but they were far too few for the task that confronted them.” p.106 Deosn't Tywin say something similar?
• The confrontation over breakfast looks like a parallel to the confrontation between Jon and Thorne in Jon VII AGOT, but this time no one losses their temper.
• It seems that Bowen Marsh believes in the Seven.

Analysis

authority and leadership

Ice and fire

The meeting with Sam closes with Sam seeing Jon's “grey eyes as hard as ice” while Gilly is confronted with fire. On the whole Jon's outward demeanour is cool and icy in this chapter, but interestingly we see that this is in part an act, he dreads the meeting with Gilly. He is faking it until he makes it.

Calculating risk

We see quite a bit of Jon thinking analytically and carefully in this chapter. Here we don't get the waves of charged emotional images that we saw when he was asked to kill the Old Man. With Gilly, Sam, Bedwyck and Slynt he is careful, running through options, able to see risks and to avoid them.

Being seen and listening

This was something I stole from Butterbumps! post for Jon II in Learning to Lead, it slipped my eye the first time I reread this chapter. We see that Jon makes his rounds every day. He talks to the men on duty, listens to what they say, follows up on things they say by questioning others. Notice too the conversation he has with Bedwyck. The Giant is free with his opinions with Jon, despite being 'a crofter's get', he has no problem telling Jon where he thinks Slynt should be. I think from this we can say that Jon is seen by his men and seen to be interested in what is going on. Jon is open to listening to them and hears their opinions.

He made the rounds of Castle Black each day, visiting the men on watch and hearing their reports first hand, watching Ulmer and his charges at the archery butts, talking with King's men and queen's men alike, walking the ice atop the Wall to have a look at the forest.

Kill the boy

Aemon's advice to his brother Aegon is present through out this chapter. Gilly is a mother but is still girlish and slight, disappearing in Sam's cloak. She has been forced into an adult role that physically seems to much for her. This is true also of Sam – the “fat boy” to Jon in a moment of exasperation - and of Jon too. Killing the child is something Jon is seeking to do to both of them as well as to himself, “Kill the boy...The boy in you, and the one in him” p.102 (gratuitous link)

Killing Slynt

But if the three of them are forced into adulthood, Slynt is reverting into childhood. The struggle by the cage – quite a long scene considering how little happens sees Slynt reacting like a child, struggling to get away, taking refuge in the cage – trying to hide in a cage which can only carry you into danger. The dribble of porridge down his front at breakfast is also a childlike touch as is the petulant gesture of knocking over the chair in Jon's quarters. His death is not noble. There is no dignity. It is squalid, a nasty spectacle. It is the opposite of The Ned's death in AGOT which is tragic. Here instead we have the death of someone who refused to act as an adult, believing instead that they could stay with their friends and eat porridge instead.

Jon, Stannis and the war for the Iron Throne

Looking at this chapter again, at Jon's wish to bring “death and destruction ...upon House Lannister” p.98 and his reluctance to sign the paper shield “I cannot sign this. I will not sign this” p.95, I'm inclined to see Jon as wanting to back Stannis. He has to persuade himself to maintain the middle ground “The Night's Watch takes no part”. This is duty and an adult's responsibility, not a child's response. Still he has Sam get the sealing wax “Before I change my mind” p.99

[butterbumps!]

@SerPolloLoco@Lummel@Butterbumps: I just reread the messages from the last couple of pages. Where has it been claimed that Jon should follow Marsh, or that Marsh was right? As far as I am concerned, I just mentioned the solitary exercise of power, a central thematic theme of AFfC/ADwD, and questioned the exclusion of Marsh.

The explanation of your methodology you give in this same post answers why it looks like this is what you are doing:

True, including the Bowen part. But I feel the need to add a few things on the inevitability part. Without discussing the specifics which are left for the chapter by chapter reread, I can discern several attitudes towards Jon’s story.

(1) Jon was doomed because the Night's Watch is a sinking ship from the start. In other words, Jon was dealt an impossible hand.

(2) Jon’s great vision was not grasped by his men, out of misunderstanding, mishandling of his image by Jon himself, irremediable mediocrity of the black brothers, hostility of some of them towards the turncloak/bastard/warg and other prejudices.

(3) Jon is truly a tragic hero, in the sense that he had in himself what led to his downfall.

All three views might be true. By far, (3) is the most appealing perspective to me. As a corollary, there is the notion that Jon Snow doesn’t fully understand himself (who does?). We find similar problematics with Daenerys and others. Hence it is particularly important to pay attention to how Jon is perceived. Both views from Jon’s internal monologue and from (whatever we can understand from) the behaviour of his men, particularly his detractors, carry their loads of bias, self-indulgence, smear etc. But one is not clearly better than the other. There is a variety of reason for the discrepancies between the inside view and the outside view: prejudice, misunderstanding, of simply lack of self-awareness from Jon. This is to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

(All this is essentially what I tried to say when I entered the thread.)

By your own admission, your interest in this is to point out issues in service to an explanation of Jon's final chapter, and in particular, how Jon's actions are what led to his downfall.

You've decided that it's the way Jon is perceived is of critical importance to the idea of how his own actions lead to his downfall, for some reason. Perhaps a case can be made for calling perception of Jon a factor in his eventual "downfall," but you've not been presenting textually supported reasons for why the Watch would have a negative view. It seems like you're so committed to seeing Jon's negative perception shared by some fomenting majority faction that you've been seeing conspiracies everywhere, none of which are particularly supported, and more importantly, the idea that even a growing majority of dissent is forming is not textually supported at this point (as a refresher, I'm specifically speaking about the following theories and their subsequent debates: Aemon and Bloodraven have been secretly running the kingdom this whole time; Aemon and Sam cheated on the count, and a bunch of Watchmen think Jon's won illegally; the idea that at this stage, a meaningful group of men truly find Jon extremely objectionable for perception reasons).

In short, it looks like you're searching to support a thesis about the final chapter, and have been trying to make the text fit that thesis, specifically, trying to prove that the way the Watchmen see Jon is what causes his "downfall" and this speaks to the idea that Jon led to his own downfall (which inherently justifies Bowen's perception of Jon, and looks like you're claiming that Jon ought to have appeased Bowen, because you're attributing Bowen perception of Jon as Jon's personal failing that led to his own demise). But since these are not textually supported reasons you are giving, this is part of why I find those debates irrelevant, in particular, because this is a reread rather than a speculation thread.

Points 1, 2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive, so I strongly disagree with approaching the finale with the idea that any given one of those should get prioritized in our analysis as we move toward the end. #2 in particular is a very complex issue of power construction; it's not enough to say "the Watch was doomed even though Jon was a visionary," but rather, probe a bit deeper on the systematic issues that have and are creating the situation.

As an adjacent point, I strongly disagree with the way you're attributing #3 fairly exclusively to the perception of Jon. I've been focusing on #2 at the moment, because this is really what's been the most relevant factor at this stage of the story. #3-- the idea of Jon's own actions leading to his own downfall-- will become extremely relevant, especially when we get to the Arya plan with Mel. We're going to get to a hugely critical event that can easily be pointed to as a major root of Jon's "downfall" in the future; trying to force the current text into seeing budding dissent in order to justify Jon's leading to his downfall is a bit distracting, not supported, and unnecessary at this stage.

[Bran Vras]

Please Bumps, can we wait a bit to make accusations of partiality? This is only Jon I and Sam I, and you demand textual support?

Perhaps my message wasn’t clear enough. I said specifically that perspectives (1), (2) and (3) might all be true. No exclusivity here. I would go a bit further than saying that "Jon's own actions leading to his own downfall ». In (3), I would link Jon’s nature to his downfall. My personal preference for (3) is partly a literary/philosophical taste. I like the classical notion that great men carry their fate in themselves.

I agree that (2) is complex. But it was not my intention to fully elaborate in one line, as you should have realized.

Even if you don't make this charge, I recognize that I might have exaggerated when I said that the Watch might perceive negatively (favouritism) Sam’s journey to Oldtown. It’s just based on my understanding of how the black brothers could have reacted, and few odd circumstances. The textual support is weak and it is not an essential point in any case.

Otherwise, please allow me to correct a few things you have said. Other posters might disregard what follows. It’s Lady Arya’s Song who said that Bloodraven and Aemon have been secretly ruling the Watch, not me. (If Aemon has ruled the Watch, it's in the limited, but real, sense of having been an influential advisor. I gave the example of Jon’s desertion which was adverted by Aemon, while Mormont took the credit.) Of course they probably ruled the Watch when Brynden Rivers was commander.

I never said that Aemon and Sam cheated on the count. It’s Alliser Thorne’s charge. The question I examined was whether that charge has traction. My claim about the election is that Aemon put the bird in the kettle.

Neither do I think that a bunch of Watchmen think that Jon won illegally (it’s Lummel – denunciation is bad, I know – who said that the election is fraudulent and I have said that the charge is believed by only a few men around Thorne and Slynt). Idem for the notion that most brothers have a negative view of Jon. It’s limited to Thorne and Slynt’s entourage and doesn’t include Marsh for instance (as I said a few posts upthread).

So?

I apologize to other posters if this message was really boring. Perhaps it will better to answer by PM next time.

Here is a little question. How is it that Illyrio came to know so quickly (Tyrion I) that Stannis is at the Wall? Some timeline put the meeting Illyrio-Tyrion three days after the battle at the Wall.

Edit: I didn't even see Lummel's analysis on Jon II. Let's move on.

[butterbumps!]

Please Bumps, can we wait a bit to make accusations of partiality? This is only Jon I and Sam I, and you demand textual support?

I'm not accusing you of "partiality," though, or demanding that you provide textual evidence for your final chapter thesis.

I'm plainly stating that you have pretty consistently been positing extremely speculative explanations for various things, done so, by your own admission, in service to a specific thesis you have about the end of DwD.

Positing extremely speculative explanations and theories in a reread is not necessarily problematic on its own; mentioning potential threads can be productive. What does become problematic is insisting that these speculations should be taken as canon/ should be accepted as valid/ should continue to be argued for, as this creates a fundamental distraction, and is against the spirit of a reread.

Since we are, as you point out, only on Jon II of DwD, so much narrowed discussion on the "why" of Jon XIII does not belong here yet.

Yes, perhaps further discussion about this belongs in a PM, but I responded publicly to clear up that I'm not accusing you of "partially" or asking for evidence with support that the election was rigged or other such theories.

Here is a little question. How is it that Illyrio came to know so quickly (Tyrion I) that Stannis is at the Wall? Some timeline put the meeting Illyrio-Tyrion three days after the battle at the Wall.

Saan captured one of Illyrio's ship during aSoS; it could be that Saan "captured" the ship, as in, they are actually cooperating in some capacity/ exchanging info/ Saan is one of Illyrio's informants and told him. There's also the possibility that simply another ship captain reported on it (being an Illyrio informant, or simply a random source of news), having seen Stannis' fleet travel North.

[Ragnorak]

Jon II ADWD pp95-111

Overview

Jon's execution of Slynt marks a distinct change of tone in his narrative, typical of AFFC and ADWD things promise to become grimmer and more intensely miserable on a human scale. The chapter covers quite a bit of ground over about two days. Jon has a series of meetings, with Gilly, Sam, Bedwyck, Slynt, there is a flashback to meting Aemon. Much of the action is set in Jon's quarters – all close, intense and personal, there is a confrontation over porridge which seems to threaten to break into armed combat, a long scene outside as Slynt is dragged like an animal to slaughter. The significant interlude of Jon making his rounds, talking with the men is almost slipped into the chapter and easy to miss. It is a chapter featuring people who are little more than children thrust into roles of earnest responsibility. We also see Jon as an isolated figure, there are joyless little details - the dregs of a half cup from a solitary supper that add to the emotional punch of the chapter.

<snip>

Very nice, Lummel.

I really like the whole adult/child theme you picked up on. It also works for Jon as LC in terms of killing the "boy" Slynt and letting his public persona as a man be born. Stannis called him a boy, our fearless giant slaying knight called him a boy, Slynt calls him a boy, but I think the whole "boy" talk dies here with Slynt. Jon himself will even reference this kill the boy moment when the Clan Chiefs meet with him on top of the Wall and his boyhood is once again raised as an issue.

The more I reflect on this chapter the more I'm inclined to agree with you on Jon's first inclination being to "side" with Stannis even if not overtly. His talk of Stannis being the one to aid them while Tywin sat idle, his desire to bring death and destruction down on House Lannister, his thoughts on what Slynt deserves, all fit with his emotional reaction being to side with Stannis. This makes the writing style here interesting because Jon is basically cutting himself off from his own inclinations. Sam sees his desire to side with Stannis but Jon won't even voice it to himself inside his own head. It fits with the more analytical responses he had here compared with the old man by Queenscrown as you also pointed out.

I suppose the election and Stannis' offer is the first time we really glimpse Jon being analytical like this. I think most of his prior analytical moments were centered around weighing military outcomes.

The paper shield is in fact a good idea. It costs nothing and if the Lannisters win and want to take their pound of flesh nothing is going to stop them anyway. This letter offers "an out" for the Watch should the circumstances arise where one might be possible. Basically it might help in the future but can't really do any harm if it doesn't. It is a bit of political posturing which may be another angle to view Jon's distaste for it.

Jon takes his meals alone but his conversations on his rounds serve the same purpose as Ned's open dinner seat. If he made the rounds of Castle Black each day he probably did stop by the builders working on the stairs. If he's visiting everybody then there isn't anything noteworthy about his visiting them too. I suppose the net effect is to establish that expectation as the new normal. Perhaps not those work hours but that workload when confronted with need. If they're reopening every fort along the Wall I imagine the workload is going to be tremendous compared to the Mormont days even if not around the clock. This is quite different from Stannis who is far more insulated and leaves delegated tasks far more in the hands of his subordinates. Jon's presence is routine while a visit from Stannis even if he merely pauses and looks as he's walking by is loaded with meaning. Very different styles.

Sam's talk of prior boy LCs is entirely dismissed by Jon yet he reflects upon Raymun Redbeard (who will come up again later when the Wildling arive.) One bit of history matters and comes to his mind yet the other seems meaningless. Why? One possible answer is politics. He cuts Sam off with "tell me something useful." Getting to be LC is politics which Jon has consciously put out of his mind whereas previous Wall breaches are "something useful."

The Slynt dynamic is well played. Slynt is testing Jon and toying with him. First he shows up very late. Jon is sharpening Longclaw which makes for a great threat though it seems the task he was involved in at the time Slynt showed rather than the theater he put on with Gilly. Jon was negotiating with Gilly but told instead of asked and made threats that were mummery. Slynt likely sees Jon's sharpening as mummery and mistakes orders for negotiation. Slynt sees "command" as a political attempt to buy him off. I imagine he had delusions of holding out for Eastwatch or Shadow Tower. His choice to sit in a public place is another attempt to intimidate Jon or have the confrontation in public where he believes he can win support by bullying the boy. He's likely thinking that his votes in the election carry some kind of weight the way this game was played in Kings Landing. Poor, poor Janos grossly misreads Jon and the tea leaves. He's been so corrupt for so long I don't think the notion that his assignment was related to "duty" is even comprehensible to him anymore.

What about justice? Jon beheads Slynt and that is a fair punishment for his current offense under the rules of the Watch and Westeros. It technically is justice but not really the crime most readers want to see Slynt die for. We see a lot of punishment dealt out but rarely for the actual crime committed that offends the reader's sentiment. Ned's beheading and Sansa's wish make this moment quite the poetic justice, but no one loves "Edd, fetch me a block" because Slynt refused to play Boy Scout leader at Greyguard. A great deal of living by the sword, dying by the sword (or maybe LF's dagger is a better clichéd weapon) but rarely if ever the right sword hand or dagger killing for the "right" offense.

Why is Bowen so fretful over Slynt's potential execution? Is it just his reverence for titles and a Lord of Harrenhal losing his head is too much for his notions of proper treatment of nobility? Does Marsh make an appearance in the Mance burning scene that may shed light? I could speculate but I don't have a clear inclination on this one.

@Ragnorak: I assumed that Left Hand Lew was among the four assassins upthread, but qualified with "apparently". It seemed to me that it is what the text suggests. But, I understand your prudence. I have duly noted that all discussion of Jon XIII is to be avoided. But since you listed the possible assassins of Jon, we shall take note that at least the first two assassins claimed to act "For the Watch".

It isn't an unreasonable assumption. I found it more curious that there were four knife wielders and five people mentioned-- or three and the two attacks from behind him were the same man. :dunno: If we're farming for hints as we go it is best to try and keep the specifics of what we know for sure in mind.

@Ragnorak: To confirm what I just said, I don't think that Jon's "failure" is to be explained by anecdotical reasons (which is the point you are making in your last post as well). You seem to say that Jon's policy was acceptable to the Watch until the Shield Hall. This is true, but makes me quite uncomfortable. It's like that saying that the storm didn't happen until lightning stroke, as dark clouds had been gathering for some time. I feel that we already see the first clouds.

On the obedience Jon expects of his men. It's an interesting observation that Jon never perceives the need to consolidate his power. He seems to forego sleep (see Jon II) and food and the comfort of the Lord Commander quarters. I understand his attitude towards his men as an extension of his attitude towards himself. Consequently he expects of them a considerable dedication to their task (see the builders, and the men sent to restore the castles in ruin).

I was trying to go for "more complex" than "just anecdotal." Everything Jon does matters for everything he will do to some degree and the same is true for most every character. There are some stand alone hinge moments or choices,but there aren't a lot of singularly defining causal actions in a vacuum-- even Cersei's incest couldn't start this chaos without some serious drunken negligence to help it along from Robert. Jon the one who changes the dynamic with his choice to go south so he changes the dynamic he's establishing here in Jon II with his choice to embrace the paper shield and give his father's murderer a second chance at manhood. From that view he's still the responsible one but the "mistake" timing changes. As we hit later chapters Jon will have some tense moments with Marsh and company. Let's flag what is and isn't a "line crossing" moment as they unfold. If it isn't a clear mistake in the moment it can't be transformed into a clear mistake just because bad things happen later. That doesn't mean it will be "right" just more complicated. There are a lot of ways to look it and it becomes difficult to address those angles and keep the future chapters as shading and not eclipsing the present ones.

I hadn't thought of the institutional vs. personal loyalty idea before that post. Jon is setting aside a great deal of personal loyalty here in this chapter to dedicate himself to the Watch. His appeals to the Watch as a place of institutional loyalty makes sense in that light. In one of the upcoming chapters Jon has some thought about "not wanting to start down that road." I seem to recall it being connected to the consolidating power or game playing idea (or perhaps I just made that connection at some point) and I think it reinforces this conscious choice we see in this chapter. We'll see when it pops up. Jon doesn't engage in the same set of actions we'd expect of any new player in Kings Landing by placing pawns in key positions of authority. Part of this I suspect is Martin demonstrating how a "non-player" like Ned maintained power in the North and seems to be part of the overall leadership style commentary. I think your thoughts on Jon expecting his men to have the same attitude as himself plays into leadership style as well. It is very much a leadership by example facet and Jon's past service and daily involvement fit with that as well.

[Fire Eater]

Good job, Lummel.

The pale morning sunlight ran up and down his blade as Jon clasped the hilt of the bastard sword with both hands and raised it high.

Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.

In both scenes you have a king in his tower surrounded by his guards and a princess

Kill the boy and let the man be born

I don't think Marsh knew Aemon was being figurative. Otherwise, Aemon gave this to Egg, whose name was pseudonym to hide his Targaryen identity.

Jon did not intend to be remembered as Sleepy Jon Snow.

Jon will be sleeping some time after the Ides of Marsh. As for the Battle of Long Lake:

In the Battle of Long Lake, Raymun Redbeard was headed south away from the Wall, and met with the Stark force marching north towards them. Lord William Stark was slain and decapitated, and William's brother, Artos, slew Raymun Redbeard in battle. The wildling army is crushed when they are taken in the rear by Lord Harmond Umber, the Drunken Giant, and Redbeard and all his sons are killed, and his line extinguished. Raymund's brother, the Red Raven, was the first to flee the battle.

This is foreshadowing when it is inverted with the wildling force coming south fighting on the Stark side, and the force coming from WF being the Boltons. I think Jon will pick the site of his battle along the kingsroad, and pick the spot where there is Long Lake on one side and forested hills on the other akin to Hannibal's strategy in the Battle of Lake Trasimene.

I think it will parallel Connington's strategy when the Tyrell force comes to take SE, and Connington ambushes them somewhere along the kingsroad in a similar location, between a body of water and forested hills. Connington will have elephants in the battle like Hannibal, pachyderms like the mammoths Jon Snow has.

"The Magnar's a lord on Skagos," Noye said. "There were Skagossans at Eastwatch when I first came to the Wall, I remember talk of him."

Across the long lake, one of the mounds moved. He watched it more closely and saw that it was not dirt at all, but alive, a shaggy lumbering beast with a snake for a nose and tusks larger than those of the greatest boar that had ever lived. And the thing riding it was huge as well, and his shape was wrong, too thick in the leg and hips to be a man.

The giants on their mammoths from Eastwatch-by-the-Sea could take the Boltons in the rear, led by Wun Wun who had taken a liking to wine according to Jon, along with Davos with the Skagosi supporting Rickon who landed at Eastwatch-by-the-Sea where the giants are staying.

Robb Stark, who had a red beard, was slain by Roose Bolton, and decapitated. Jon, Robb's brother (cousin actually), kills Roose in battle, and avenges Robb like Artos Stark. Ramsay is also killed in battle by Jon, and House Bolton is extinguished.

Stannis and the force from WF will arrive to find the battle already over

There will be eyes along the kingsroad, not all of them friendly . . . Let Stannis have his secrets. The gods know that I have mine.

We need more eyes along the Wall

There will be members of the NW having a role in Jon's road to becoming king that aren't friendly,Marsh and Co, with their actions likely resulting in Jon finding out about his secret royal heritage in his coma.

[bemused]

I'm having my morning coffee and shouting " Hallelujah ! " from the choir.. Really great posts , 'Bumps , Rags, Winterfellian and Lummel. We do need to step back and look at the big picture , now and then.

Yes! Jon can only roll with the punches , for now. I believe we'll see his agency grow bit by bit as we go ahead , but it's a complicated and difficult process. Some decisions may result in a step back or sideways ,or a delay along the way, but some will move him forward..

That's how I started off this A.M. before life dragged me away for many , many hours... And now.. Ta Da ! we've moved on..

Quick first response .. the example Lummel gives about Jon making the rounds and speaking to the men ( even difficult Kedge) is the "throwaway" detail I was mentioning a few posts back.. Jon does this every day.... Why then, would we assume that this doesn't continue ? This is very much in the vein of Ned inviting his men to dinner on a more or less rotating basis and listening to their concerns. It's often claimed that this is a lesson Jon hasn't learned .. but it's established here, and bears remembering .... Should we continue to assume he never offers a word of encouragement to the builders on the wall , or asks them how they're progressing ? We don't see it happen , but when put together with his everyday behaviour, it would seem odd to me, if he left them out.

And Bedwyck (Giant) is the other example I wanted to point out. Here, Jon's not just concerned with asserting his own right to command , but in asking his guards to summon "Bedwyck" , Jon's already supporting him in his future role. Commander, or Captain Bedwyck ( or whatever his rank will be ) inspires more respect than Captain Giant would.

The Bedwyck one-on-one is notable ( as pointed out) for the freedom he feels to express himself to Jon. Reservations are addressed and reassurances given , possible problems pointed out and logistical plans made. All in all , very productive..

In the interview with Gilly , Jon had to strike fear in her heart to force her compliance .

Kill the boy, thought Jon. “You will. Else I promise you, the day that they burn Dalla’s boy, yours

will die as well.”

With Sam, Jon has to demand obedience to overcome Sam's fears..

Kill the boy, Jon thought. The boy in you, and the one in him. Kill the both of them, you bloody bastard. “You have no father. Only brothers. Only us. Your life belongs to the Night’s Watch, ..."

Lummel has summed up Slynt's interview pretty nicely and I like the observation that Slynt's final behaviour is childish.

So many applications for "kill the boy" . In this case Jon does kill the "boy " , and in Stannis' nod to Jon , I sense that as far as Stannis is concerned the man in Jon is being born.

Since we see him give personal notification in these cases ,I think that it's fair to assume he'd follow the same procedure with the other promotions and re-postings he makes. We don't know how all of those went , but I doubt they can all have been as negative as Slynt's.

Time to reflect some more , overnight.

ETA; :D :D I see Ragnorak trumped me in the kill the boy Dept. (Damn those dinner guests) ;)