Jump to content

Armand Gargalen

Members
  • Content count

    347
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Armand Gargalen

  • Rank
    Hedge Knight

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Salty Shore

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Armand Gargalen

    Can we talk about Jon?

    It is indeed a matter of opinion whether he deserted or not when he decided to take Winterfell. As I have already said in this thread, both opinions have their merit. But the point is that a lot of people in the Watch thought him a deserter, and it is highly unlikely that, if he is resurrected (and this is still an if for me) he will be admitted back in the Watch. So, the way I see it, at the end of ADWD Jon is not in the Watch any more, so the character can not do what he did in the show.
  2. Armand Gargalen

    Can we talk about Jon?

    GRRM can no longer do that in the books. Jon already deserted the Watch in the books, before he died. So he can not leave it again. It won´t happen.
  3. Armand Gargalen

    Can we talk about Jon?

    Those grey areas are one of the reasons ASOIAF is such a great piece of literature. At that is why I don´t like the way the show has handled the whole issue. By sending the Pink Letter after Jon is already out of the NW, the showrunners basically dismissed the potential debate, considering that, at least for certain people, the mutineers rightfully killed a NW deserter, not their Lord Commander. They try to avoid grey areas whenever some characters, mainly Jon, are involved, while portraying a clear cut black and white contrast (mutineers=bigots, Jon=misunderstood visionary leader).
  4. Armand Gargalen

    Can we talk about Jon?

    I am happy we are on agreement about this. At the end of the day, my "he broke his vows" opinion is not as strong as my "somebody should question whether he broke his vows" one
  5. Armand Gargalen

    Can we talk about Jon?

    What could make me angry? In my opinion Jon deserted the Watch BEFORE he died in the books. So if he is not part of the NW when/if he is resurrected, it won´t be because of the wording, but because he chose to. Whether that is good or bad, is a matter of personal opinion, one I am personally on the fence about.
  6. Armand Gargalen

    Can we talk about Jon?

    I will agree to disagree about whether Jon broke his vows. It is acceptable for people to have different opinions on a legal issue. What is puzzling, and makes for bad writing is that nobody, ever, expressed an opinion similar to mine. It is like the showrunners agreed with yours and never let the debate open.
  7. Armand Gargalen

    Can we talk about Jon?

    The fact some other members of the Watch misbehaved does not excuse him. There are still good, committed guys in the Watch, including Ed Tollett. It is even worse, he did not leave the Watch when he died. He had the cheek to appoint a successor AFTER HE HAD DIED, when he was not technically LC anymore. Killing Quorin was not breaking the vows, he was following a direct command. Having sex was Ygritte was breaking the vows both in wording and spirit; it has been established, though, than having sex is rarely persecuted, because the command understand their men "have needs". And despite this, he still had to pay for it, when his brothers call him put for being a oath breaker and a wildling sympathizer. Jon was not aware the Warden of the North wanted his head when he left the Watch. What is actually another mistake form the showrunners. Jon receiving the Pink Letter after his death is one more attempt at whitewashing Jon´s desertion. In the books, he is not murdered for letting the wildlings through the Wall, but for deserting. His duty was not gather an army to attack Winterfell, that does not help to defeat the NK at all. If he was so sure Ramsei would never be convinced to help (and I can not still understand why he is worse than Cersei in this area), he could have done that "tour of the North" to recruit Northern Lords to fight with the Watch, not against Ramsei, who, according to his recently discovered mantra is on his side, "because he is breathing". A possibility, but it is hardly a excuse for him starting a war to divide the North when he should have been trying to unify it.
  8. Armand Gargalen

    Can we talk about Jon?

    I think you are misunderstanding this completely. Jon is a fictional character, so it is quite pointless to hate or defend him. What we can do, and some are trying to do here, are two things: 1. Analyzing the character actions. From this point of view, some people think what Jon did constitutes oath breaking.We are judging the action, not the character. And most importantly, we are trying to analyze what this action means for the character development, which leads us directly to point 2. 2. Analyzing how the character is portrayed by the authors. From this point of view, some people think the showrunners made really bad decisions that diluted a character that was fairly complex and conflicted in the books. I will go with another yet example of how the showrunners are completely destroying any complexity the original character had. Does nobody think it is a tad hypocritical of Jon to go all around Westeros asking people to put their wars in hold because of the Army of the Dead threat when last season he left the Watch and gathered an army to attack the Boltons to save his brother and take his family castle back? Why did not go on a wight hunt to prove the Boltons and the Northern Lords that the threat is real and asked for a truce until the Night King is defeated? He was as aware back then as he is now of the threat. Ramsey being a crazy sociopath is barely a excuse, because Cersei is not so much better than Ramsei was. Do not get me wrong, I do not have any problem with a character being hypocritical, if it makes for a good story. But it is quite puzzling how nobody in the whole show calls Jon out for this. Instead, everyone from humble Davos (who was "done with kings") to bitchy queen Cersei, keeps remarking how honest and brave and committed he is. Just because the showrunners do not want us to think of Jon as a grey character, but a proper hero we should always root for, And that is bad storytelling and actually setting the fantasy genre back several decades.
  9. Armand Gargalen

    Can we talk about Jon?

    So basically you are confirming that his whole society, up to the state, considered him a cheater for going against the spirit of a vow, twisting the wording to suit his own ends. Shame Westerosi society (in the show) does not place that much importance on vows any more.
  10. Armand Gargalen

    Can we talk about Jon?

    Just for the sake of comparison, let´s examine what the other character who had died and was resurrected did after his resurrection. Lord Berric had been tasked by Ned Stark to kill or capture the Mountain in the name of the King. When he is killed, he does not say: "Hey chaps, I died so I guess this mission is finished for me. I am going back to my fancy home at the Stormlands and this guy here, Anguy, will be your new leader. Good luck". Instead, his resolve grows stronger, because he believes that he is been brought back to continue his mission. And before it is mentioned, I am aware than his orders did not include the until your death wording. It was still implied that he would follow them until he completed his task or died trying.
  11. Armand Gargalen

    Can we talk about Jon?

    You can bold the wording as much as you like, it is still wording. In a society where dying and being resurrected is not commonplace, until my death is a poetic way of saying FOR EVER, because dying and coming back from the dead are simply not expected to happen. It is similar to the marriage vow: Till Death Do Us Part. If a person claimed that his marriage is not valid any more because he died and was resurrected, I am pretty sure most people will consider him a cheater and oath breaker. His spouse would, for sure. As for his brothers killing him, it was just part, not all of them. He could have easily executed them for treason (what he did) and continue leading the ones who stayed loyal. I agree the Watch had forgotten its true purpose and Jon had the right of it about letting the wildlings go through the Wall. But Jon was the Lord Commander, once the mutineers had been done with, he was in a position to steer the Watch in the right direction. Instead, he abandoned it. I strongly believe that the showrunners giving Jon a "free pass" out of the Watch was an awful decision, that really diluted his character. GRRM has created a universe where vows are more than important, they are an identity definer. As Jaime told Cat, these vows create conflict in the heart, which is one of, if not the, main themes in ASOIF. By letting Jon out of his vows via the wording and without the shadow of a doubt form him is beyond deviating from the source material, is going AGAINST what the source material tells us.
  12. Armand Gargalen

    Can we talk about Jon?

    Is he showing his stab wounds around? I do not think so, as he is even reluctant to tell the story. Even if he told the story and showed the wounds, I am pretty sure many would question him leaving the Watch. Even some people among the audience, me included, who are positively sure he died and was resurrected, consider him an oath breaker, who abandoned sacred vows because of their wording, completely disregarding their spirit. And you are telling me than absolutely everyone, from Bronze John Royce to freaking paranoid queen Cersei Lannister, think he is a honorable man who can be 100% trusted? BS Does does not stop the showrunners for not giving a damn, sadly
  13. Armand Gargalen

    Can we talk about Jon?

    Spot on. The showrunners apparently decided that Jon is the main hero, and deprived his character of any internal conflict, to the point that grey areas, which make for interesting characters, are blatantly lampshaded or ignored. Instead, they feed us with a cardboard hero and some knee bending faux drama.
  14. Armand Gargalen

    Can we talk about Jon?

    I pretty much agree. Also, Jon leaving his NW vows just because a technical loophole is terribly out of character. The writers still had the cheek to make him quote his vows last episode, though.
  15. 1. It was dull, boring and predictable. The WF ending was disgusting, no matter how bad we (the audience) know LF is, he deserved a proper trial, not just an execution. The mere fact they presented that as "cool" and satisfying is nauseating. It just confirmed all the plot holes people had noticed from episodes ago were just that, plot holes. Horrible
×