Jump to content

Ygrain

Members
  • Content count

    11,485
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

About Ygrain

  • Rank
    One who prefers walking around unlabelled

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Czech Republic
  • Interests
    Fantasy, history, Tolkien, Dragon Age, Mass Efect, fanfic
    gardening, embroidery,

Recent Profile Visitors

8,755 profile views
  1. Ygrain

    R+L=J v.165

    Might have been very probably, IMHO.
  2. Dunno about your copy of ASOIAF, but in mine, none of the people you mention told their superior in public to shove their order up their arse.
  3. Been unable to get this message across in twenty pages, but perhaps you'll be luckier. So you think it's all the same if a murder was committed by a raging psychopath or by a good man forced by circumstances? Personality matters, and so does the ability for redemption. BS. One man deserting is certainly bad for the morale but no way as bad as one man completely undermining the Commander and thus crippling the whole Watch. BS again. No officer of the watch knew about it until ex post and didn't participate for personal gain, so the talk of corruption has no place here. At the cost of driving a wedge between the Watch, Stannis and Melisandre? That would be totally crazy. First, desertion, insubordination and mutiny are different things. Second, the severity of their crime differs in the way it affects the Watch as a whole and its ability to function against the threat of the Others. Mance's desertion long time ago doesn't affect this, whereas Slynt's mutinous disrespect had the potential of making the Watch unable to act upon the threat. That's why Slynt was more dangerous than any individual deserter, he was putting at risk everyone and everything.
  4. What double standards? They are different men, different offences, different situations. Circumstances matter, which is why people get different sentences for the same crime even today. Besides, Mance was officially executed, and Jon found out only later it had been a sham. What was he supposed to do? Reveal the truth, with all the shitstorm that would follow? Chop off "Rattleshirt's" head seemingly without a reason? Not the least of all, Mance is a very different man than Slynt. A man willing to fight for a cause, not just himself, and as I suspect we are going to see, willing to die for it and thus atone.
  5. Apologies, guys, reading and responding has currently become rather time-consuming. I might chime in with some shorter comments, so if you wanted to discuss something specific, just ping me. One thing I want to adress, though: A lot has been made from Jon giving supposedly different treatment to Sam or Mance, or that anyone else in Slynt's situation wouldn't have been punished so harshly. The problem is, for a valid comparison, you would need another lordling full of himself, hating Jon's gut, refusing to follow orders and being both arrogant and stupid enough to do so publically even when clearly told that this was the last chance. All the reasoning that Jon has gone through applies to this hypothetical lordling, too. Do you believe the lordling would die just like Slynt? I do, because he would represent exactly the same threat to Jon's authority and to the ability of the Watch to fight the Others. It can be argued that Jon's decisions, both to off Slynt and to spare Mance, are political - Slynt was detrimental to the Watch, while Mance's abilities and clout could be a huge boon (I'm not talking about the fArya situation here but Mance's influence among the wildlings). That, however, doesn't make the punishment of Slynt unjust, and it doesn't make Jon's decision personal, either. Cold and pragmatic - by all means. But not personal, not revenge-driven. Slynt kept calling Jon "boy" because he failed to realize that the boy had been killed, and the man made a decision that the tough situation required.
  6. Fanfiction much? If the NW perceived themselves as you decribe, none would have followed Jon's command to hang Slynt. Yet, we have a decent guy like Dolorous Ed doing just that.
  7. BTW, I am rather shocked that people think Jon should have had Slynt's tongue removed...
  8. Harsh justice is justice still, i.e. the punishment is not completely out of range for the offence. Meaning, if Slynt's punishment was not only harsh but also unjust, Stannis would have had issues with it. And in our world, people were perfectly fine with burning heretics... Cannibalism is a huge offence against the societal taboos, a sin against the gods, and Stannis' god is R'hllor. I'd never worship such a god and I think Stannis made a huge mistake by his choice, but he had the men burnt for this reason, not out of innate cruelty or perversion like Aerys used to.
  9. Let's stick with the correct word: mutiny. Because labelling it as insubordination really evokes the wrong image.
  10. Ygrain

    R+L=J vs N+A=J (GRRM looses either way)

    The same here. I finished reading with a profound sense that something doesn't add up and that I was missing something. So I went on a re-read immediately, focusing less on the current events and paying more attention to Ned's reminiscences and inner monologue, and there it was. But out of my friends who read AGOT, not one picked on it - they just glossed over it all, too absorbed in the intricacy of the story, and took for granted what Ned said about Wylla. Only one, when cued that there was a mystery, went "aha, then it's the sister and the prince, what's-his-name". Most people just don't pay close attention.
  11. Wow. Just wow. You really pick this one on Stannis? What does this have to do with anything? Since when do you have to be a member of an organisation to be able to assess if they behave justly or not? Might I remind you that Stannis is generally considered a just man? And would have hated Jon even more for humiliating him in public and be hellbent on finding a way to take his revenge on Jon. Such characters always do. Wrong. He is not ignorant about the ways of the world, he only thinks himself untouchable. That's why he doesn't argue "that's unjust" but "you wouldn't dare". Wrong again. Jon is murdered because some members of the Watch are too rigid in their perception of what the Watch should be doing and are unable to grasp that the old times are over and old ways won't suffice. That's why Jon is stabbed "for the Watch", not "here you go, you bastard", and Bowen Marsh is crying.
  12. For those who maintain that Jon was in the wrong: can you please entertain me and answer one question? Why does Stannis nod at Jon after the execution?
  13. You're missing the point. Of course Marsh or Thorne would heartily disagree, but what about Jon's fans in-verse? Do you think they are all so much in love with Jon that they never ever question what he does? And why does Stannis, who is all about upholding justice, assess the situation with a nod? Don't you think that, given his character, he should be the first to tell Jon he's not in the right?
  14. Indeed. Yet we haven't seen a single quote supporting that Jon went too far by executing Slynt. How readers feel, or what they think should be done, is irrelevant. No-one in-world questions Jon's decision then or afterwards.
  15. Ygrain

    R+L=J vs N+A=J (GRRM looses either way)

    Very much true. There is no narrative payback for the alternative parentages, whereas being the son of R+L matters on many levels. It shatters everything about Jon's perception of himself, it makes him a political figure and a focal point of a prophecy, and we need to find out how he's going to deal with that all is . Plus, narratively, you have A Song of Ice and Fire, and as R+L, Jon is a union of the two very special houses symbolized by these elements.
×