Sly Wren

Right--but if "they killed him"--doesn't that innately imply he left his body? Beric and Stoneheart are "brought back" without warning, but are less. So--I guess it's fair to argue that maybe the soul sticks around in the body until it's "fully" dead. Or--we don't know for sure where souls go. But we do know he was "dead." Like Cat. Like Beric. So--really seems like we are being shown that Jon can "come back" into his dead body somehow or other. Without becoming an Other--in body or in vicious spirit. Right--but Jon seems to be the one who had the epiphany about the watch. Takes his brothers to task on who they are protecting. Seems like his take on the Oath is rather different. That's what I'm wondering about that Oath--does understanding it "properly" make a difference? Agreed. And, I'd reiterate: Jon is a Stark. They seem different when it comes to the dead. And not just because of that crypt (though I think that's a key part of it."

Agreed--this is one of the key, if not THE key, mysteries. (I think the source of the dragons and the Doom are key, too, but the North seems like the "magic" focus from the Game Prologue on). That said--I'm not convinced Jon must become Other for us to understand the Others. Stuck and not--yes. Like Coldhands. Coldhands seems to occupy the space between Other and human. The Others, so very, very hostile to life. Who play with Waymar. Who enjoy killing him. Vs. Jon--with his realization via Ghost that the Wildlings are all men, just like him. Because they all smell the same (that moment he has seeing/smelling/hearing them as Ghost does). And then Jon asserts that his Oath covers all men. Then Coldhands: Othered but not cruel to humans. Still guarding the realms of men to protect Bran. If Jon is to take a new form (very very likely)--my money's on Coldhands. If humans cannot re-enter their dead/dying bodies ever ever ever--how account for Coldhands? ETA: "They killed him long ago." Leaf doesn't say "wounded." She says "killed." ETA: Even seems to imply that the Others killed Coldhands. I'm thinking the difference might be that Oath. The "I am" section--becoming/transforming into weapons/qualities that guard men. By taking that oath, by understanding it better than the rest of the Watch does, Jon "transforms"--at least psychologically and morally. Coldhands, unlike the Others, seems to maintain that Jon-like morality and focus. So--could that oath and morality be the difference here? That Oath that ties at Watchman to the world is a way that Varamyr was not? Or--it could be Jon's Starkiness: they are the liminal ones. Grey. Twilight. Living in Winterfell, a realm of the living literally built on and protecting a realm of the dead. The dead kings who will come from their tombs when Jon goes down to them. ETA: The Starks seem to be made of different stuff. Maybe from lying with Others before, who knows? But they are different. I think there's a really, really good chance that Jon's being a Stark may make a big difference in whether or not he becomes a Coldhands or an Other.

Well--if, like Stoneheart or Beric or (I think) Jon--he may not have been able to die without some kind of intervention. May have embraced his oath and kept living as a guardian. If so, if he was like Jon, could see him being willing to stay alive until all the nightmare returned. A living sacrifice. Would fit with Leaf calling his death "long ago"--that would be long, even to Leaf. Maybe.

Hey! Language is meant to be played with! Well--this is getting into my crazy idea about the Night's King and the Black Gate--but I do wonder if the Wall more "grew" than was "built." So, has been growing in response to whatever the Night's King did and whatever his brothers did to throw him down. Something is very, very wrong with the living Black Gate--and the Wall. I think Ygritte is more right than she knows that it's made of blood. But if I'm anywhere in the ballpark of right, that would mean the Wall has been growing/building for a long while. Would include during the Andals. ETA: Just realized I misread what your said so my answer is a bit nonsensical. I do take your point that the NK Wall and Watch could have been later--I just doubt it due to the old gods, the apparent fears about the skin changers--really seems like the NK is a First Men kinda guy. But I would;dn't be surprised if the Andals embellished it all--and if having Andal kings made it easier to hide the story of the NK. I'm pretty sure we'll never get a clear timeline. Agreed--though I have wondered is Brandon the Breaker and the Night's King were actually the same person. . . especially since it's the World Book maesters who name him as the one who overthrew the Night's King. . . Agreed--and would be more reliable. A fair theory. I just wonder what part of the story he'd be telling--that Jojen was necessary? Seems like we as readers could figure that out on our own. Could be CH is just a Zombie ex Machina--but I'm currently thinking he has more to tell us. Well--I'm still thinking the Horn was like the Oath: a man of the Watch calling on all the the powers of the earth: "I am the horn that wakes the sleepers"--and Jon does that in his dreams repeatedly when he goes into the crypts and wakes the Kings of Winter. I still think Jon is going to "be" the horn. I'm currently thinking that the Horn of Joramun and all that--they are stories built up around "being" the Horn. Counterfeits/explanations. Sort of like I think there's a chance that Valyrian steel was an attempt to create at sword like Dawn. That would fit with the "evil" horn that gets blown at the Kingsmoot. An evil version of the unifying power set out in the Oath. So, if the Horn is the person who wakes the sleepers, who is the shield, who is the sword (Dawn's coming!!!), etc.--then it would be a person who chose to engage all that who "freed" them. That said, I think it was @Black Crow who posited that the men of the Watch "claimed" to be enslaved so they could get off the hook for their actions. That said--I do think sacrifices were very likely on the menu. And I think the NK could have been sacrificed when he was thrown down (my current explanation for the gate). Sacrifices must have happened, given all we've seen so far. Good luck! Moving is always an epic journey!

Or--if Coldhands is the one who threw down the NIght's King. He would then be a monster to that first Brandon Stark. He's the one who took down the first Brandon Stark? And, per your point that the NIght's King is playing out again--what if, like Jon, the Brother who threw down the Night's King also underwent a transformation (assuming Jon is reanimated--which seems like a good bet)? If so, he could have been "monsterized" prior to "The Battle for the Dawn." A hint at where the story is going with Jon? This--I don't see why he couldn't be hiding monstrosity vs. just identity. UnCat and Beric are horrifying. Coldhands--could be hiding the worst of his monstrosity. Would clearly be echoes in the horror of the 79 Sentinels. And would fit with my idea that Coldhands is the one who threw the Night's King down. Maybe.

I asked a while ago, but the answer I got back--didn't say one way or another. No hint at all. That said, my question was wordy, so he may not have known exactly what I was asking. I decided not to pester him. But given all the rest of the stuff in the app, I'd be very surprised if the family tree he saw wasn't like all the other trees: in-world, not objective, reality. Yup. Martin's making it clear: we have to wait for the next books (grumble). Agreed--though I'd add the app only serves this way if we (the readers) let ourselves forget how Martin sets up his world. When we remember that, the omniscience goes away.

Maybe--are you thinking this goes along with the "Jon was intended to be a sacrifice/second Summerhall" theory? On this--yes. Though I'd add that if all Ned has is Dawn, the trip still makes sense: he'd going to Starfall for his sister.

Yeah--that seems kinda wacky to me, too. If Lyanna and Jon were at Starfall, pretty sure they stayed at Starfall. Instead, the KG rode out to meet Ned and Co. at a neutral location (the toj) away from the people they were actually defending. Like Jon, like Duncan, etc. Because they can't fight Ned's whole army, so they lure him to a parlay with a smaller force. Ned wins. Then goes to Starfall with Dawn, finding Lyanna and Jon there. I agree that the scenario you cited seems . . . excessive. But are there hints that Lyanna was at Starfall? That the Daynes are important and know something about Jon? Yes. We need to next book to sort it out.

Agreed. But until it's confirmed in the books, things like the locale of Lyanna's death are all being guessed at by readers filling in blanks in ways that may or may not correct. We don't have direct evidence on the locale of her death. Like all reading, we are all anticipating potential outcomes and filling in blanks--exactly what we're supposed to do. Exactly what makes reading fun (sorry for sounding like a literacy promo). But none of it is direct evidence or confirmation until we get it in the novels. Agreed on the tree--no idea why that would be tied to her locale of death. But, for now, we don't have direct evidence that Lyanna died at the toj--we have readers filling in blanks (as we're supposed to) in ways that may or may not be right. So evidence for where she dies--toj, Starfall, any other place that might be posited--is still educated guesses and anticipation. Unless someone has presented direct evidence on any of those locales that I've missed. We need the books to settle it. That's the only "real" evidence that won't be readers filling in blanks. Yup.

Yup. Absolutely--especially given how he reacts to finding out her name is gossiped about at Winterfell. Agreed--though other trees of other families do give the local and even basic manner of death for people. So, putting Lyanna's place of death on a tree wouldn't be out of character generally for how Martin constructs the trees. And I have a very, very hard time believing Martin needed any kind of reminder on where Lyanna died. Eye colors of minor and semi-minor characters? Sure. Where Lyanna died? No way. Until we get confirmation in the books, those trees/records aren't "truth" yet--but, as you said above, that doesn't stop their being "canon."

Yup! So far, the appendices and family trees GRRM writes and publishes reflect the "official" record, not always conducive to actual reality.

Precisely--an in-world family tree presenting in-world knowledge (what Ned told people), which may or may not be actually true once the full backstory of Lyanna comes out.

But the family tree Ran cites about Lyanna at the tower of joy is like all the other family trees in the novels and appendices, right? It still shows Jon as Ned's son, right? So, it shows what Ned told people about Lyanna's death, like what he told them about Jon. So, maybe it's telling actual reality. Or maybe it's just saying what Ned told people--and, like other things Ned has told on this subject, it's a lie. So--we really need the novels to confirm.

How? Not trying to be difficult--I'm really curious. GRRM establishes exactly who Dany's attracted to. It's not someone like Jon. I do think they are retrofitting Nissa Nissa into the story. Though what Jon's supposed to do with it . . . not sure. I have theories, but they'd all be really crappy if true. But. . . how so if it's based on who Dany's attracted to? Martin's been showing us this from the beginning. And being consistent throughout the novels. Why bother with all of that?

Right--but that doesn't mean Dany and Jon are romantic and like this. Dany and Jon in the books are attracted to VERY different people: Dany likes violent sociiopaths who kill and conquer. Jon's really not that guy. And the story can be about the two of them without a lot of the stuff the show had them do. Rather like Book Sansa can go save the North with the Vale without becoming Jeyne Poole.

There's still an hour and 20 minutes next time. Fingers crossed the true mysteries are solved!

Well--given that the show melded Val with Dany and Jon with fAegon, seems at least possible that Jon and Val will have sex. I do think he will reject her, though--he's breaking what we hear about the Night's King from Nan, making different choices. But she may reject him first when he reanimates.

Of course not--I completely agree with this. My point was just that we've been shown that Dany's capable of monstrous things. This was much worse--and not inevitable. But it had at least some set up.

In the books it's clear. In the show, I've been afraid they'd have Dany and Jon have pretty, pretty babies and lots of dragons and wolves. Very grateful they didn't do that.

That might be more layered that D&D generally do--but might be an interesting parallel. But Dany's needy--for her dragons and for her lovers.

Very good point--wondering if Bran sent the horse for that reason. Though if Bran really is all seeing, why in the name of all that's holy didn't he warn Jon before this??? Makes me think book-Bran is not comign back to Winterfell. Bringing him back has been ridiculous--he's an incredibly unreliable data file. And that's about it.

Yup--it's clearer in the books. But we've see this for a while--from her consent to Viserys' death and MMD onward. Exactly. The Dothraki loved her--so she fought for them. Then killed in Vaes Dothrak when they stopped loving her. Dany, like Viserys, is desperate to be loved. And like Viserys, will commit atrocities to get it.

Lena Headey is always a star--not quite to the level of Olenna. But yes--even I felt sorry for her at the end. Not enough to wish her well, but to mourn what could have been. Lena's really, really good.

Yup. It makes her feel powerful and thus "better"--it's clearer in the books, but still: they've shown how much Dany likes power. She's been choosing between them for a while. Here's the final choice--a long time coming.

Yup-- Yet another reason I fear D&D will pull a crappy switch of Jon's parentage. Oy.