Jump to content

cyberdirectorfreedom

Members
  • Content count

    340
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by cyberdirectorfreedom


  1. 15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    I guess my concern would be what kind of trouble Slynt would cause in between being on the block ya know? 

    For instance, & obviously this is just hypothetical, Jon is going to execute Janos but doesn't because Janos agrees to comply. Janos then gathers his supporters & kills Jon. Then Jon is the idiot for not killing him when he had the chance. 

    Oh, for sure. But surely he'd be watched for signs of insubordination, right? Wouldn't just let him go do as he pleased straight away.

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Right. Any potential lesser punishment would have had to happen prior to this point.

    Yep. The public order to kill Slynt pretty much put an end to any other option. It would only make it seem that Jon is cowed by Slynt's bluster, turning the event into a rather impotent show of power.

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Sure, I understand what you mean but it isn't exactly that way. To use your Apple scenario it would be more like a their telling the guard they are going to steal an apple - the guard does nothing or only tells him not to, thief tells the guard a couple more times he is going to steal the apple & again the guard tells him not to. Then the thief steals the apple & the guard chops his hand off. 

    If the guard put a stop to the theft earlier, cutting the thief's hand off would have been unnecessary. It's just... why allow it to go that far? It almost seems like the guard wanted to cut the thief's hand off.

    Mind you, I don't think Jon was being that malicious. But it is kind of baffling why Jon didn't try to put a stop to the insubordination earlier. It seems like he's genuinely attempting to give Slynt a chance to reconsider, but considering how obvious it is that Slynt wouldn't reconsider... I don't know. Jon had to know it wasn't going to happen, unless he's a complete fool (and I really don't think he is).

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    I don't know if Jon could or should punish the insults & refusals alone but he certainly could have & maybe should have told Slynt that the punishment for refusing the order was going to be death.

    That would have been something. An actual attempt to cow Slynt. I still think death is an unnecessary punishment for the crime, but if Jon was clear about it, I think it would have been enough.

    Probably wouldn't have cowed him (he'd probably think Jon was bluffing), but that'd be on him, not Jon. But maybe it would have. Much better than what Jon actually did, which definitely wouldn't have.

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    I do think it would have done something, either for the story &/or for Janos for Jon to explicitly say "Refusing a direct order is punishable by death" Janos still may have refused (I think he would have because I don't think he believed for one second Jon would do it) but at least then all of the cards were on the table from the jump & who knows maybe Janos would have trotted his self down to Greyguard & played nice for a while. I don't think so, but it's possible. 

    Oh. We're in complete agreement. That's new! :D

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    But prior to the election Jon had no power & afterwards it was apparent that while there were hundreds that didn't want to oppose Tywin there were also hundreds who did.

    Sure, but the vast majority of those who voted for Jon were from the Shadow Tower and Eastwatch. Castle Black was primarily for Slynt, as far as I could tell. Not entirely unreasonable for Slynt to feel pretty secure. Not entirely reasonable either though.

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Right, I don't disagree I just don't know at that point what grounds Jon had to punish him. It's a murky area to me because while Janos did say no, he isn't going he still could have insisted, in front of all the men especially, that he was going to go & that Jon punished him for no reason, potentially gaining him sympathy & more supporters. 

    Mmm, I suppose that's fair enough. The idea that Jon only has power in a public setting isn't really one that he should propagate, though. He should be able to punish people, even if he's the only one who knows of wrongdoing. But you're right, it could seem like Jon's just punishing Slynt on a whim, simply because he hates him.

    Definitely a touchy situation. Probably better to have people think he put Slynt in an ice cell overnight on a whim, than to have them think he executed him on a whim (it's entirely possible that many of those in the common hall thought this was Slynt's first rebuke of Jon, and he's executed for it). If he had him dragged to an ice cell at that point, rather than executed, I doubt anyone would have batted an eye.

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    I think that Jon believed Janos would do more harm to the watch than good.

    Hard to see the logic behind that, though. There's plenty of scum on the Wall, but they're more helpful than not (even if it's just having an extra body), so long as they can be made to obey. Slynt's comparative potential use (he must know how to perform drills, keep discipline, etc.) to the other scum, you'd think would warrant comparatively more effort getting him to be used. The complete lack of effort on Jon's part is what gets me.

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    To be fair I don't disagree there was some bias there. I think Jon tried very hard to not let that bias show or influence his decision but Janos did his best to bring it out. Clearly, the bias is in Jon's mind but I wholeheartedly believe that if Janos had done as he was told Jon would not have searched out reasons to execute him or punished him for no reason.

    Oh, I agree! I'm not saying that Jon went out of his way to punish Janos, just that when a punishment was necessary (and it was, no doubt about that), he jumped at the opportunity to kill him, rather than make a more measured response.

    Had he simply up and gone to Greyguard, that would have been the end of it. The trouble I see is that Jon made no real effort to make him go. He just gave the order, and expected him to follow, which was never going to happen.

    I suppose, perhaps, that Jon simply thought a man of his background (much of his life spent in a disciplined, military-esque order) would be more like to follow orders than to question them. Then when the opportunity comes to establish authority over the man, he simply kills him.

    He just... he could have tried.

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    There are definitely different view points, many of them valid. That's what makes the forum fun.

    Yep! Discussions like this, seeing other view points I may not have considered, seeing other beliefs and interpretations, it really goes a long way to bringing more life to already wonderful books. It really is brilliant.

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    I didn't mean to imply no one else sees things the way you do, only that to some of us, it isn't dubious at all.

    Right, I see what you're saying. Yeah, fair enough.

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Whether or not someone agrees that the punishment should have been beheading I think we can all agree (or most of us) that the act deserved punishment & was not merely because Jon fantasized about it. 

    Definitely. That it necessitated execution is the point of contention, not that it necessitated punishment. At least for me.

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    I understand your point but to be fair a blind man cannot ever read that book. Janos was capable of using his brain & opening his eyes. He wasn't wired like that but he was able to think on his actions & potential consequences.

    The blind man can't read the book, but he can have it read to him. Or if we get the same book but in braille, he can read it himself. Whilst he's stuck alone with a normal book, he won't be able to. Slynt could be introspective and intelligent, but it's as obvious as the hypothetical with the blind man that he wouldn't. Not unless something changed. I think it fair to say that Jon knew this.

    15 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    Well... I see what you are trying to say, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why you think it was Jon's duty to try and make Slynt see reason.

    Call it duty, call it responsibility, call it prudence. If he wants to make use of Slynt, he needs to make him see reason. One of the first things Jon learns at the Wall is that every man is needed, no matter how distasteful.

    "The Watch has need of every man it can get," Donal Noye said when they were alone. "Even men like Toad. You won't win any honors killing him."

    It's something Jon uses, too:

    "He could help you," he said quickly. "He can do sums, and he knows how to read and write. I know Chett can't read, and Clydas has weak eyes. Sam read every book in his father's library. He'd be good with the ravens too. Animals seem to like him. Ghost took to him straight off. There's a lot he could do, besides fighting. The Night's Watch needs every man. Why kill one, to no end? Make use of him instead."

    The Watch needing every man comes up often enough:

    The beacon was burning on Weatherback Ridge, and the Night's Watch had need of every man.

    "I have need of every man who knows which end of the spear to stab into the wildlings."

    the Wall would need every man.

    "If you ask the Citadel for more maesters . . ."

    "I mean to. We'll have need of every one. Aemon Targaryen is not so easily replaced, however."

    Is it the duty of the Lord Commander to make his forces be as useful as they can be? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think the attempt would go amiss.

    15 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    But of course he was. Tyrion invited him to that dinner for a reason, he needed to see the merit of the man, as did we. He may have had an idea before that interaction was what sealed the deal.

    Hmm, I don't know. Ser Bywater had already taken his place as Commander of the City Watch at this point, and was standing ready to take him to the docks, with the ship to the Wall already chosen and ready to hold him. I think it was happening anyway. Without a word to Bywater, he says this:

    "We have a litter waiting for you, my lord," Ser Jacelyn told Slynt. "The docks are dark and distant, and the streets are not safe by night. Men."

    So he already knew what was to happen, it seems.

    15 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    I wouldn't be so sure. The Watch stood against its ancient enemy when its strength and morale were at its lowest, with its numbers consisting mostly of criminals who had chosen to join as a way to avoid a death sentence. Fighting off the wildlings while being cold was not particularly different from any other fight, but facing wights and the Others could easily turn out more than they felt they had signed up for. In such an environment, spreading dissent could be disastrous.

    I suppose that's fair enough. Hard to say whether anti-Jon sentiment would have any effect here, though. Any Lord Commander is going to have them fight the Others, so either they're going to flee or they're not, Slynt or no Slynt, Jon or no Jon.

    Impossible to say how anyone will react to the Others, though, when it comes to an actual fight. They obviously have an otherworldly frightfulness, yet the fight against them is a fight for all life. Even the scummiest person might well choose to fight against something that will end all life. Even the staunchest might run from the supernatural. Hard to say.

    15 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    How do you interpret Stannis' nod of approval then?

    Simple approval. But Stannis made it quite clear how he feels about Slynt, regardless of his crimes being washed away by the Watch:

    Lord Slynt's jowls were quivering, but before he could frame a further protest Maester Aemon said, "Your Grace, by law a man's past crimes and transgressions are wiped clean when he says his words and becomes a Sworn Brother of the Night's Watch."

    "I am aware of that. If it happens that Lord Janos here is the best the Night's Watch can offer, I shall grit my teeth and choke him down.

    "Who better to command the black cloaks than a man who once commanded the gold, sire?"

    "Any of you, I would think. Even the cook." The look the king gave Slynt was cold. 

    Mind you, I'm not certain at the point of execution whether or not Stannis knew what Janos had done. He wasn't in the common room to witness Slynt's insubordination. It's possible somebody reported what had happened, but it all happened pretty quickly. Either he was pleased that Janos was killed simply for his distaste of the man, or he was pleased that Jon didn't allow himself to be cowed by Slynt. A bit of both, I think.

    15 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    BTW, being without mercy =/= being unjust.

    Agreed. My point was just that Stannis is notoriously harsh, to get his reputation.

    15 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    Fixed that for you :P

    Heh, fair enough. There was an escalation, but still, the point stands. If one crime is ignored, it's not unreasonable to assume that another, slightly worse crime might be ignored. It's not as if Slynt was getting away with insubordinate in one moment, then thinking he could get away with murdering his brothers in the next.

    A single apple or a basket full, both thefts should be punished. If the first theft was punished, the second might well not have happened, and that's the point.


  2. 12 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    The first took place in private and Slynt lost his temper - and Jon could have punished him but decided not to, to give  him the chance to cool down and reconsider.

    That's the thing: he could (and probably should) have punished him, but didn't. Slynt already thinks he won't, and this just reinforces that. When he pushes Jon in public, to the point where he has to be punished (and he had to be punished, there's no doubt about that), there's no reason for Slynt to think he'll get anything but the lightest punishment. Which is to say, there's no reason for him to reconsider.

    12 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    The problem is, how was Jon supposed to show that he was in charge

    Moving into the Lord Commander's quarters and walking about with a tail of guards. Punishing Slynt at his first defiance is the primary thought in my mind, however.

    12 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    Slynt's execution was what showed everyone that Jon was in charge, but Slynt himself was not the one to benefit from the lesson.

    Getting Slynt to behave as Jon wished would have been a better show of power. If you can get someone so adamantly against you to come around, you must be right, and all that.

    I admit, it may not have been possible. But the attempt would have been worthwhile, nevertheless.

    12 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    Could you specify what you think Jon should have done, when Slynt's disobedience was the first challenge?

    Sure. Rather than giving him the night to reconsider his defiance, he can have the night in an ice cell to reconsider his defiance. The next morning, if met with refusal, he can be kept there the rest of the week.

    13 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    Plus, I'm not really sure how Jon is responsible for Slynt's stupidity and ego - which, by the way, had got Slynt in trouble with Tyrion,

    Nobody who is forced to the Wall is going to be the perfect Black Brother just because they're told to be. If Jon wanted to make use of Slynt, he needed to do something about his stupidity and ego.

    Slynt wasn't sent to the Wall for anything during his interaction with Tyrion. He was already in trouble with Tyrion, stupid and egotistical or not.

    13 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    He could, but he also had the potential to cause irrepairable trouble meanwhile. So, Jon prevented the trouble while asserting his authority, and Stannis approved. Why did Stannis the Overly Just approve if Jon was not well within his rights to execute Slynt?

    Slynt's biggest threat was during the election. He's not likely to cause any irreparable damage. Spreading sedition to those who aren't interested does nothing.

    Just but harsh had been Lord Eddard's exact words, but Jon did not think it would be wise to share that.

    Stannis pointed his shining sword at his brother. "I am not without mercy," thundered he who was notoriously without mercy. 

    Stannis isn't likely to take issue with harsh punishments. Besides, Stannis is a hypocritical, bitter, spiteful man who is wont to play favourites (notably with his Onion Knight), seemingly disregard his vows (Melisandre), and has ordered far too many people to be burned alive. Stannis is not a just man.

    But we're not here to talk about Stannis.

    13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Sure, imminent death cowed him eventually. My issue is that it would have only cowed him in that moment. Had Jon let him live he wouldn't have remained humble as soon as the threat of death was no longer there.

    The threat of death would have always been there. Letting him up wouldn't have been license for him to do as he pleased; he would have to obey without question or be back on the block.

    Would've been foolish to let him up at that point, regardless.

    13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    I think the ice cells had the potential to cow him temporarily, just like the threat of death. I just don't think anything would have cowed him permanently. 

    Ah. Well, I disagree. It takes a person of strong convictions to be stubborn in the face of all punishments. I don't see Slynt as such a man.

    I don't really think Slynt is so thoroughly against Jon in particular, anyway. It's just that he thinks he should be in charge, he thinks he could be in charge, and there are people whispering these things in his ear (Thorne, in particular, it seems). Removing him from Thorne and making it clear that Jon is in charge would go a long way toward cowing Slynt.

    Eh, I really think it's possible, is all. Not a foregone conclusion either way. That's all I'm saying.

    13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Right, I just don't think there was anything that was going to show Janos this. I think if Jon had put him in the ice cells he may have initially come out of them (depending on how long he was in there) humbled because he wouldn't want to go back in them right away. But he was so spiteful & bitter he would have retaliated against Jon at some point after. Maybe it would have been worth it to first put him in the ice cells & then when/if he continued to not cooperate kill him. 

    Yeah, it's definitely possible he'd have retaliated. It would be such a stupid thing to do... but, well, that hasn't stopped Slynt before, has it?

    As to the bold, yeah, I just think it would've been worth the attempt. Worst case scenario, he's back on the execution block anyway.

    13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    The relevance is that he believed himself untouchable in KL & then ended up sent to the wall, he continued to believe himself untouchable at the Wall & thought because of Tywin's preference he would be LC - he did not get elected LC. So in the face of evidence to the contrary Janos continues to believe himself untouchable.

    Not being elected isn't really the same as being punished. Not getting elected is certainly evidence that not everyone is going to do as Janos wants, the hundreds of brothers who voted for Slynt is evidence that much of the Watch doesn't wish to anger Tywin. Compound that with Jon seemingly letting Slynt walk over him when ordering him to Greyguard, and Thorne's whispers, it's no wonder Slynt acts the way he does.

    13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Jon's gave no reaction to Janos's insults but he gave reaction to his insubordination. He told him it was not a request, it was a command. He told him he was to be on his horse in the morning on his way to Greyguard. He made it perfectly clear that there would be no argument & that the command was not up for negotiation.

    Yes, but that's nothing. Jon orders Slynt to go to Greyguard. Slynt is defiant. Jon orders him to go again. Expecting anything other than Slynt is defiant to follow that is foolish.

    I maintain that Jon is no fool. He just didn't care to try.

    13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    I suppose he could have let Janos think it over in the ice cell overnight but I don't think a night in the ice cell would have done much for Janos except piss him off.

    It would show that there is a punishment for defiance. Besides, even if all it does is piss him off, there's still room for more punishment.

    Wouldn't it have been worth the attempt? I think so.

    13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    So it seems he did think himself too important & untouchable back in King's landing. The fact that he & not Tyrion ended up on the wall should have done something to alert him that he was deluding himself, yet it did not. 

    He was alone when dealing with Tyrion. He was not alone when dealing with Jon. Also, different "friends". Tyrion was opposing Joffrey and Cersei, the Watch would be opposing Tywin. Tywin's shadow loomed even over the Wall, as Marsh's behaviour showed. To think nobody is willing to cross Tywin is a fair enough assumption.

    14 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    But he didn't get away with it previously. This is the same insubordination act. He didn't refuse other orders & have no punishment & then all of a sudden get an order, refuse it, & get killed for it. He got an order, he refused, he was told he was to be on the horse in the morning, he refused, come morning Jon gave him the order a last time & he refused. He then got executed for insubordination.

    I agree that it's one continuous act of insubordination. But it was seemingly allowed the day before. Slynt all but spat in Jon's face during their meeting, and he walked away without any repercussions.

    Put the same thing in another scenario: a thief steals an apple and is seen by a guard. The guard lets the thief go. A few minutes later, they meet again. The thief loses a hand for stealing the apple.

    There's really no expectation that such a harsh punishment is coming, after the first interaction.

    14 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    I disagree that the belief that Jon's power was non-existent would have been backed by Marsh & Thorne. These are seasoned men on the wall, they know very well what sort of power the LC holds.

    Oh, I didn't mean to say that Marsh and Thorne were backing that belief, post-election. I meant that they, and the hundreds who voted for Slynt, had a clear preference for Tywin's man being Lord Commander, and that Slynt thought this meant that Jon couldn't openly oppose him.

    14 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    He can only punish actions or inactions in the face of a direct order.

    But he didn't, after the meeting with Janos, which only served to strengthen Slynt's belief that Jon isn't powerful enough to oppose him.

    14 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Slynt believed Jon had no power because Slynt is arrogant, self-important, & has illusions of grandeur.

    Yeah, no doubt. Jon's inaction in the face of his defiance didn't help any, though.

    14 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    He did do something. He removed Janos's head. I'm not sure what he should have done prior to this. Put Janos in an ice cell for insulting him? Put Thorne in an ice cell for whispering about him? 

    I'd say he should have punished Slynt, yes, but not for "insulting him", but for his open defiance in the face of a direct order.

    As to Thorne, no. Thorne voices displeasure in the way Jon was chosen to be Lord Commander (not a crime to voice such). People don't like him overmuch, though, so he's largely ignored. Punishing him would be more likely to gain him supporters than to remove them.

    Also, even if Jon didn't punish Slynt prior to the point he did, there's still no reason for him to execute the man. Lesser punishments would have served just as well to get Jon's point across, to the rest of the Watch.

    14 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Sure just because they can't be trusted doesn't mean they can't be used but Jon had no urge to use Janos.

    Right, that's exactly my point. The Watch has need of every man. Jon bends over backwards trying to get the wildlings through the Wall, and gives them more freedoms than his advisers think is prudent in order to get them to assist. He gives Stannis more than perhaps he should, in a way that's dangerously close to "taking part". Yet he has no urge to use Janos.

    Why? Because it's difficult? Because it could be dangerous? If these are his reasons, they didn't stop him with regards to the wildlings. I think it's bias.

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    I think for all of us though it isn't dubious at all.

    All of whom? There are plenty of people in this thread who seem to have a different view than yours.

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    It's very clear cut in my mind. Yes, Jon fantasized killing Slynt but he didn't.

    I mean... he did.

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    As much as he wanted to & may have reason to he did not until he was given a reason that pertained directly to his position as LC & Slynt's as a black brother.

    Yes, and he chose to kill him, rather that giving him a different punishment. Other punishments were available, despite his shaky logic dictating otherwise.

    I know you don't agree that his reasons for not choosing other punishments were illogical, though.

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    That's no one's fault but Janos's. Whether or not he is a big thinker has no bearing on the fact that Jon gave him a full night to reflect on what he was doing & the potential consequences for his actions.

    It's like locking a blind man alone in a room and expecting him to read the book he was given. Something needs to change there in order to reach the desired outcome. If nothing changes, it's not unreasonable to think that the blind man was never supposed to read the book.

    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    He didn't care to try because he had tried enough & it didn't work.

    I'd say he didn't try at all. He just gave the order. Then gave it again. No attempt to make him follow the order.

    7 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

    Stupid people will act... stupidly. Fact of life.

    My point exactly. It had to be expected that Slynt would act the way he did, and Jon did nothing to change it.

    7 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

    And anyone who supports Slynt’s actions and condemns Jon’s decision to execute him...

    Once again, I'm not supporting Slynt's actions. Not sure why you're so intent to paint it that way.

    7 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

    well, they haven’t been paying attention, they don’t “get” the the author, or the story, and they’re bound to hate the last two books.

    And you're the authority on both the story and the author, are you?

    Not sure why you'd think I'd hate the last two books, though. All of what we're discussing here happened in Dance, and I think it's quite a wonderful book.


  3. 16 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    His repentance didn't come when he was being punished, didn't come when he understood his punishment was death, didn't come until he had his head on a block with a sword above his head. His words before & right up until then were more refusals & insults. Why would we ignore every single word up until that point but believe his very last words, given only out of desperation?

    "You see, in their last moments, people show you who they really are." - The Joker

    Anyway, pardon my whimsy there. Nothing is being ignored. A question: is there anything that can cow Janos Slynt? The answer: yes, facing imminent death. That's all I was saying.

    Would a stay in the ice cells also cow him? Would anything else? As I said in my earlier post, I suppose we'll never know. But we do know that there is something at least that could.

    16 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Just because Janos believed himself untouchable doesn't mean it was the responsibility of his LC to make it clear to him he wasn't prior to Janos getting himself in enough trouble to be beheaded.

    I agree, it's not his responsibility. That doesn't change the fact that it's something that Jon had to do if he wanted to make use of Janos.

    16 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    The man was sent to the wall for something he was ordered to do by the crown. If that doesn't clear things up for him, or give him a clue that he is touchable, nothing ever would.  

    Not sure what relevance that has to his situation at the Wall. Janos clearly believed that, due to Tywin's obvious preference towards Janos leading the Watch, that Jon wouldn't dare spit in Tywin's eye by punishing him. A belief reinforced by Jon's reaction to Slynt's insubordination the day before the execution (which is to say, no reaction). I doubt Slynt believed he was untouchable back in King's Landing.

    10 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    And Jon offers him a position of command, tolerates insubordination and insult, and gives Slynt the time to reconsider - in other words, Jon acts as a true leader, putting aside his personal grudge and attempting to utilise the man to the benefit of the organisation.

    He shouldn't have tolerated his insubordination at all. Going from tolerating insubordination to executing someone for insubordination is absurd. It's no wonder he thought he could get away with it, as he already had previously.

    11 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    This is entirely ridiculous, and blatantly incorrect. Prior, there was a power vacuum, the Watch was without a Commander and Marsh as an acting Commander was weak, deferring Slynt for his supposed good connections at the court. Yet, Slynt never defied and insulted Marsh publically, never challenged his authority like he did to Jon. In other words, the level of idiocy he had displayed was on a completely different level than what he did later.

    Right. I wasn't referring to anything from before Jon was Lord Commander. Slynt seemed to think that Jon's authority was either non-existent or fleeting (a belief backed by Marsh, Thorne and the hundreds of brothers who voted for Slynt as "Tywin's chosen"). My point is that it would have been prudent for Jon to show that he is in charge, and that he's here to stay.

    Now, should he have had to? Of course not (Slynt ought to have respected the vote), but that's why it needed to be corrected with a punishment. With Ser Alliser still whispering in his ear (which we see by their closeness on the morning of Slynt's execution), and Jon not doing anything to showcase his authority, there's no reason for Janos to come around to Jon. Jon could have done something.

    11 hours ago, Ygrain said:

    He had zero integrity and couldn't be trusted.

    Maybe, but just because somebody cannot be trusted, that doesn't mean that they cannot be used. Regardless, even if it turns out that Slynt wouldn't come around after his punishment, he could always be executed later, no?

    10 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

    The degree of mental gymnastics required to try and justify Slynt’s behaviour is staggering.

    I'm not justifying his behaviour, so this is baffling. Slynt's insubordination was completely out of order, and should have been punished, harshly. I've never said otherwise.

    I firmly believe his execution was unnecessary, and that he could have been brought around. I also believe that Jon acted as he did because he was biased against Janos.

    Not sure how that's justifying Slynt's behaviour.

    10 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

    Another thing that is often disregarded or dismissed is that Martin could have left the whole thing a lot more dubious. For instance, he could have had Jon give the command, Slynt refuses, and Jon executes him. But nope, he made Slynt disobey and insult his commanding officer in a very nasty way, and not once, not twice, but three times.

    Martin also could have made it a lot less dubious, by not having Jon fantasize about killing Slynt the day before he does so.

    I also maintain that Jon should have punished Slynt the first time he was disobedient and insulting, potentially putting an end to it, rather that allowing it to happen twice, then thrice and executing him for it.

    10 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

    And w/ plenty of time for Slynt to think between Jon giving the order the 1st time, and Slynt’s head coming off.

    Because Slynt's such a big thinker, right? Really the kind of guy who'll be introspective about his actions without a reason to do so.

    If anyone expected Slynt to come around, without punishment, they're fooling themselves.

    9 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

    Ned didn't make a stink after having time to "think" in a black cell, and did as the crown required,

    This is actually kind of my point (well, one of them). Ned Stark, a man mostly known for putting honour and duty first, dishonoured himself and ignored his duty by giving his false confession, thereby propagating a Kingdom built on false pretenses and assisting those who murdered his King.

    This is proof-positive of the idea that just about anyone can be brought around to something if the right buttons are pushed. With the right incentive, or the right punishment, or the right threats. Of course, Ned was stubborn in the face of death or an extended stay in the Black Cells, and only came around when Sansa was threatened. Jon has no such power over Slynt, but Slynt also lacks the character and conviction of Ned.

    It's possible that Slynt could've been brought around if Jon cared to try, is all I'm saying.

    8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

    One actually has to read the thing. Slynt didn't think he was untouchable. Do you even read his reaction in the actual book:

    If you're referring to me here, I'm saying he thought he was untouchable when he rejected Jon's order to go to Greyguard. He thought Jon wouldn't punish him, not that he thought Jon's punishment was false, when it finally came.


  4. On 11/20/2019 at 4:35 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    But it isn't. Obvious to me would mean more than knowing that if someone did this to you or me that we would have a bias toward the man. Which we most certainly probably would. Jon probably does too to some extent but if his bias had any bearing on his decision we would have internal dialogue, spoken word, - something indicating to us that this is the case. It makes no sense for the author to write specifically that Jon is trying to give the man a chance in spite of what he has done previously if the truth is he was never going to give him a chance because his bias was just too strong. 

    There's no "probably" about it:

    Jon slid the oilcloth down his bastard sword, watching the play of morning light across the ripples, thinking how easily the blade would slide through skin and fat and sinew to part Slynt's ugly head from his body. All of a man's crimes were wiped away when he took the black, and all of his allegiances as well, yet he found it hard to think of Janos Slynt as a brother. There is blood between us. This man helped slay my father and did his best to have me killed as well.

    This is at the beginning of the conversation in which Jon orders Slynt to Greyguard. Which is to say, Jon is fantasizing about cutting off Janos Slynt's the day before he beheads him. Do you really think there's no connection?

     

    Not once has Slynt been punished or chastised for his behaviour at the Wall. He behaved the same way he always did (which is to say, poorly and without grace). He believed himself untouchable, and nothing anybody had done had stripped him of that belief. To go from 'nothing' to 'execution' is over the top. I suppose we'll never know for sure whether or not Slynt could've been brought around, but his last words seem to indicate he could have been.


  5. 11 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    If Jon sending him there in the first place was foolish what do you think he should have done with him?

    Oh, I wasn't very clear. I don't think it was foolish, I think it was a brilliant idea. It would put an end to Slynt's plotting while putting him somewhere he can be of most use.

    But then Jon contradicts this in his reasoning for not putting Slynt in an ice cell.

    12 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    If Jon had executed Janos merely because he wanted to wouldn't his thoughts betray that, at least a little? Wouldn't the author provide us some clues as to this being the case?

    But his thoughts do betray him. Jon is intelligent and level headed. Capable of sound judgement. Yet when the time comes to punish Slynt, his arguments for a measured response are poorly thought out, leading him to "the only conclusion" that Slynt needs to be killed. I can't stress enough how little sense Jon's reasoning makes, regarding the ice cells:

    Put Slynt in ice cells as punishment (1)

    Continued plotting (2)

    Need new solution (3)

    1+2=3. Makes sense, except Jon already has a solution to point two. Sending Slynt to Greyguard severely limits his plotting abilities. Yet Jon still comes to the same conclusion. 1+0=3. Nonsense.

     

    The why of it is obvious. Jon's obvious, overwhelming, perfectly understandable negative bias towards the man. Sound judgement is almost impossible to make in the face of a strong bias.

    11 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

    Yup. We have Jon’s thoughts here and in regards to Ramsay and the PL. And yet, his thoughts are always dismissed or ignored. It’s like, “I don’t like what the author did, so I’ll just pretend the character is lying to himself”. :lol:

    Because nobody has ever lied to themselves, or allowed their bias to cloud their judgement?


  6. Jon's reasoning for choosing execution over other punishments is a joke:

    —and confine him to an ice cell, he might have said. A day or ten cramped up inside the ice would leave him shivering and feverish and begging for release, Jon did not doubt. And the moment he is out, he and Thorne will begin to plot again.

    How would he and Thorne begin to plot again? Sending him to Greyguard was mostly to get him away from Ser Alliser. Slynt wouldn't be let out from the cell until he agreed to go to Greyguard, which puts an end to easy plotting, at least. Worth considering, also, is that if commanding Greyguard wasn't going to help put an end to their plotting, Jon trying to send him there in the first place was foolish.

    —and tie him to his horse, he might have said. If Slynt did not wish to go to Greyguard as its commander, he could go as its cook. It will only be a matter of time until he deserts, then. And how many others will he take with him?

    Is it truly only a matter of time until he deserts? I wouldn't say it's inevitable, but regardless, if he chooses to desert later, he can be punished for it later. Stopping people from deserting is all well and good, but killing someone now because you might have to kill them for desertion later is absurd.

    The idea that he'd make others desert is also ridiculous. The punishment for desertion is death, and you're feared and hated wherever you go. Nobody is going to choose that because Janos Slynt was forced to become a cook. Nonsensical.

     

    At the end of the day, Jon executed Janos because he wanted to. He executed him in spite of other options, not because there was a lack of them.


  7. 3 hours ago, Peach King said:

    There's also Marsha Heddle, the innkeeper who refers to her husband just as "husband" and who clearly runs the household.

    Masha Heddle ran the Inn at the Crossroads, and was killed by Tywin as punishment for letting Tyrion be taken. Husbands wife is named Sharna, no surname.

    3 hours ago, Peach King said:

    Sigorn would also be lower in the rung than Alys Karstark, as she is heir to House Karstark and owns a castle and lands while Sigorn is a freefolk. But Rhargar Frey's comment suggests he has the authority to control her.

    Rhaegar Frey's comment is referring to Wylla Manderly:

    "Wylla has always been a willful child," her sister said, by way of apology. "I fear that she will make a willful wife."

    Rhaegar shrugged. "Marriage will soften her, I have no doubt. A firm hand and a quiet word."

    Nothing to do with Alys and Sigorn. Unless we're just applying his comment in general, but I don't think applies, anyway. A Frey/Manderly marriage wouldn't be the same as a Karstark/Wildling marriage.


  8. 12 hours ago, R2D said:

    But with regards to your innkeeper example - that could be because of Sharna's sheer force of personality, not because of any equitable share of power between the husband and wife in peasant marriages. The person with less power can still control the one with more power, if they are of weak character, or if they have a low conflict personality.

    Oh, that's definitely just her personality. I doubt the vast majority of peasant marriages have the power dynamic weighted so. That's an extreme example. I meant that, due to the fact that common men have no actual power, just as common women, that power dynamics between common couples would be mostly equal (or, at least, with a power difference far smaller than those we see among the nobility).

    11 hours ago, Feather Crystal said:

    That's news to me! Why would you make this assertion? The fact is it was Jon Arryn's idea for he and Ned to propose a marriage alliance with Hoster so that the Tully's would join their cause and save Robert.

    "Father, I know what you did." She was no longer an innocent bride with a head full of dreams. She was a widow, a traitor, a grieving mother, and wise, wise in the ways of the world. "You made him take her," she whispered. "Lysa was the price Jon Arryn had to pay for the swords and spears of House Tully."

    Small wonder her sister's marriage had been so loveless. The Arryns were proud, and prickly of their honor. Lord Jon might wed Lysa to bind the Tullys to the cause of the rebellion, and in hopes of a son, but it would have been hard for him to love a woman who came to his bed soiled and unwilling. He would have been kind, no doubt; dutiful, yes; but Lysa needed warmth.

     

    "No more than I did," her aunt said. "Jon Arryn was no dwarf, but he was old. You may not think so to see me now, but on the day we wed I was so lovely I put your mother to shame. But all Jon desired was my father's swords, to aid his darling boys."

    I never got the idea that Jon wanted any part of it.

    9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

    Effectively, a realistic portrayal should have the numbers of Alysanne's children who died in infancy and childhood reversed with those who lived to adulthood.

    Why? Some women had more children that lived to adulthood than died in infancy. Alysanne is evidently one of them. That's not unrealistic at all. An average is an average, not a hard-and-fast rule that all mothers should have an exact percentage of their children dying in their infancy. That would be unrealistic.

    9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

    Isn't it unclear whether the guy there actually is her husband? If he isn't, then it is quite unclear why she is the one in charge. Even more so, considering the whole thing is a front in guerillia like underground movement.

    I don't think so. She refers to the man as 'Husband', but refers to the boy as 'Boy', not as 'Son' (because he's not her son). Stands to reason she calls him 'Husband' because they're married. I see no reason to believe otherwise.

    9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

    I'd be rather interested to see how commoner marriages work in Westeros, but chances are that only wealthy people actually do marry.

    Doubtful. We see plenty of commoners in the series who reference their wives or husbands. Sharna and Husband for one, Brienne meets a married couple on the road to Duskendale in AFFC, etc.

    10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

    Marriage is a social contract, not an expression of love, so one assumes peasants and merchants and craftsmen who own land and property do basically the same thing as the nobility - arrange profitable marriage contracts.

    No doubt, but that's not really what I'm referring to. These people have something to gain with an arranged marriage. I'm referring to people who own no lands or businesses or anything of the sort. Farmhands, miners, etc. When they marry, there's no political gain, for the most part.

    10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

    Both Bessa and Kella seem to be half-whores, not exactly virtuous women - who most definitely would also exist in the smallfolk (else there would be no need for proper whores).

    I have no idea what you mean, regarding the bold. Or what a "half-whore" is. They don't take money, so... not whores.

    I obviously never said they were virtuous women, however. I'm just saying that they seem to be just a natural part of life, among commoners. Not good, not overly bad, just how it is. This is not how it is among the nobility, which was my point.

     

    Regarding the rape of men in arranged marriages, I was referring to the marriage night, in particular (which I realise I never actually said. Oops). During the bedding, it's the duty of both to consummate the marriage, and there's really no choice for anyone.

    After that though, yes, the husband decides when to have sex. Even if they don't choose to force their wife, the fact that they can is, of course, terrible.


  9. 14 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

    Just one example "Her small breasts moved freely beneath a painted Dothraki vest," A Clash of Kings  

    This is just ridiculous - I'm sorry. Maybe there are some women, who are hyper aware of their own bodies like that, but personally I have never in my life thought something so stupid like that nor do I sexualize myself like that,

    This isn't a thought, though, right? It's narration. The narration is usually done differently between characters (Sansa's have a different feeling from, say, Jaime's) but it's not directly from their perspective. So I don't really think it's any reflection on what she's thinking, it's just describing what she looks like. Though, of course, the implication there might be that it's more about what GRRM is thinking...

    However, I have to ask: is that even a sexualised statement? Does the mere mention of breasts create an air of sexuality? Maybe it's just me, but that quote only brings to mind a picture of a small-ish girl wearing a vest. The mention of her small breasts serves to get a better idea of what she looks like in a vest. Not for a moment am I picturing her naked breasts, and even more I'm not picturing them in any sexual manner.

    Contrast that with, say, the description of Arianne's huge dark nipples, which is intentionally erotic considering it's from the viewpoint of a repressed horn-dog currently being aroused. It's different.

    Anyway, as to what others are saying:

    I think it wrong to say that just because the percentage of a certain group of people dying from x don't match statistics, that means it is unrealistic. It's statistically unlikely for heads to be the result of a coin-flip six times in a row, but it's certainly not impossible. A rash of deaths during childbirth (within a select group, in this case the nobility) is no more unrealistic than an extended period without them. It happens. We don't have information about the vast majority of expectant mothers; to take the number of a small group and extrapolating that to the entire population will never be entirely accurate. Could GRRM have written different deaths for some of these people? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's unrealistic, and I don't think it necessarily means it's sexist.

    I also think it's somewhat worth noting that all of the men in arranged marriages are also raped. For instance, Ned was equally unwilling to bed Catelyn as she was to bed him (which is to say, "willing" but in the way that it's their duty, and they want to do their duty). Jon Arryn probably wanted Lysa as little as she wanted him, it was Hoster Tully who forced the marriage. The vast, vast majority of arranged marriages would be like this, too; two people who are forced to make do. Unfair to call either one a rapist, I'd say.

    Also worth noting is that the rules are completely different for commoners and nobility. The vast majority of what we see is the nobility, of course, considering the POV structure. The little we see of commoners seems to give women more freedoms:

    Regarding power structure in marriages, we have the example of the innkeeper Sharna, met by Arya and co. and by Jaime and co. Sharna clearly has all the power in the relationship, to the extent that her husband and the boy they took in are only named 'Husband' and 'Boy'. Of course, this is also a clearly unhealthy relationship. However, one would assume that there are many such relationships, including such with a more equal power structure. The nobility is always scheming for more power, and their sons and daughters are expected to do the same, and are used for such measures. The common folk rarely have such political marriages: unless there's a particularly attractive daughter, or a particularly militarily capable son, most common people marry other common people. Without a political edge, it seems likely enough that most parents (though probably not all) would allow their children the opportunity to choose their own spouse. With nothing to gain and nothing to lose, the happiness of their child is foremost for most people.

    As regards female promiscuity being vilified two examples spring to mind:

    There is Bessa, the woman Chett murdered. She'd apparently bedded an entire village worth of men, and there's nothing to say that this was particularly looked down upon. The only negative we hear about her is that she wouldn't sleep with Chett, so he killed her. Chett was hunted and captured for her murder, so she clearly wasn't seen as less-than by the law. I can't imagine she was particularly looked up to for her behaviour, but she wasn't punished or vilified for it.

    The other example is one of Littlefinger's smallfolk, a woman named Kella. She's pregnant at the time Sansa meets her, and she doesn't know who the father is.

    These situations don't seem to be considered overly wrong, or even out of the ordinary. Contrast with Amerei Frey, for instance, who was married off quickly to a lower station due to her promiscuity. It's different among the nobility.


  10. On 10/15/2019 at 8:11 PM, frenin said:

    So, you are ignoring that he was about to kill Tullys had they not given him what he wanted?? That he indeed had an army outside the Tully's ancestral seat??

    ...no? Pretty sure I made a direct reference to that. Had they not capitulated, he would have done something to break his oath. As they did capitulate, he needn't have taken up arms against them. Oath not broken. Unless you think that Jaime swore to keep the Tully in their ancestral seat.

    On 10/15/2019 at 8:11 PM, frenin said:

    You can love your sister without banging her, you know that right??

    Fascinating. Who knew? Do you truly think that was what Jaime swore to Cersei? That he'd love her forever, in a platonic and brotherly manner? I don't. Or do you think that oaths should be about their exact words, regardless of context and intended meaning? I don't.

    On 10/15/2019 at 9:42 PM, Arthur Peres said:

    He then refused to go back to KL later on when summoned and burned Cersei's letter.

    Is it his duty to go and fight a trial by combat? I think not.

    Also, it amuses me to note, Jaime only accompanied Brienne because he wanted to assure the safety of Sansa, so as to uphold his oath to Catelyn.:

    "My lord, you gave me a quest."

    "The girl. Have you found her?"

    "I have," said Brienne, Maid of Tarth.

    "Where is she?"

    "A day's ride. I can take you to her, ser … but you will need to come alone. Elsewise, the Hound will kill her."

    He also left with her after his other duties (which is to say, to pacify the Riverlands) were taken care of. Perhaps the argument could be made that he ought to have returned to King's Landing to report back before undertaking other tasks, but it doesn't seem fair to judge him harshly for choosing to go with Brienne.

    On 10/15/2019 at 9:42 PM, Arthur Peres said:

    All his thoughts always go back to Cersei.

    That's hardly a surprise, is it? For decades, she's been the most important person to him, he built his entire life around her. He'd have to be a callous person indeed to completely disregard her.

    On 10/15/2019 at 9:42 PM, Arthur Peres said:

    The sword he gave her, was a heirdoom of the house his father sacked, so returning stolen goods that were violeted does little favor on my opinion, (but that's me).

    You're saying he should have kept it, then? Jaime didn't steal it, and returning lost property seems a good thing to me, so... I'm not really sure how this doesn't count in Jaime's favour.

    As to the rest, I am in complete agreement with @Lyanna<3Rhaegar. Which is a surprising turn of events, heh.

    On 10/16/2019 at 5:15 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Many people don't want to rule. This isn't a bad thing IMO.

    I agree. It's only a negative if you do it in the manner of, say, King Robert, who is already ruling and therefore lets his kingdom go to rot. Better to have a ruler who actually wants to rule, I'd say. (Well, hopefully they're halfway competent, too. Perhaps King Robert was doomed either way, heh.)


  11. 52 minutes ago, frenin said:

    Jaime is there a long time saying that one should mean the threats made etc, then goes  a long deal  threatening Edmure and  his unborn child  alongside the entire Riverrun

    Yes, and he meant it. His oath to serve his King dictated that he must take Riverrun. His oath to Catelyn dictated that he must not take up arms against Stark nor Tully. Taking Riverrun without bloodshed fulfilled both oaths as best he could

    1 hour ago, frenin said:

    and  before that he wanted to settle  things with the Blackfish with a sword,

    Wanted to, but didn't. Because of his oath, perhaps.

    1 hour ago, frenin said:

    he's ignoring the oath he swore  when it's convenient for him to do that and  embrace it when again it's convenient.

    Indeed?

    1 hour ago, frenin said:

    Like he has always done with every oath he swore, he wants to be a true Kingsguard but he still see no problem about keep banging his sister

    Jaime also swore some things to his sister:

    His sister flinched. "You swore that you would always love me. It is not loving to make me beg."

    He wants to be true to the Kingsguard, he wants to be true to his sister. Once again, he's doing the best he can. Which, admittedly, is rather poor, but a lose-lose situation tends to be.

    1 hour ago, frenin said:

    the only thing that droves him away is the fact she is becoming a hilarious mix of Robert and  Aerys and  later the fact he was horned.

    he wouldn't waste his life there if he knew Cersei was horning him.

    Charming. Regardless, I disagree. He's turning away from Cersei because he no longer thinks she's the person he believed her to be. Cersei's cheating is part of that, but no the whole issue.

    "You great golden fool. He's lied to you a thousand times, and so have I."

    The day his sister had come to White Sword Tower to beg him to renounce his vows, she had laughed after he refused her and boasted of having lied to him a thousand times. Jaime had taken that for a clumsy attempt to hurt him as he'd hurt her. It may have been the only true thing that she ever said to me.

    He no longer knows what to believe about her.

    58 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

    Tyrion knows Jaime better than Jaime himself.

    Once, maybe.

    58 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

    Before be sent to the Riverlands Jaime was offered the position of Hand, where he could protect Tommen much more efficient, he turned that down but took the first chance to go to the Riverlands, just like Tyrion said. 

    “It will be up to us to finish his work. You must take Father’s place as Hand. You see that now, surely. Tommen will need you …” He pushed away from her and raised his arm, forcing his stump into her face.

    “A Hand without a hand? A bad jape, sister. Don’t ask me to rule.”

    It's worth considering that this is the morning after he lost his father (which he completely blames himself for), lost his brother, and lost the image of his sister. His level of grief is pretty high, and he obviously wasn't thinking clearly, else he wouldn't have rebuffed her so crassly so publicly.

    1 hour ago, Arthur Peres said:

    but took the first chance to go to the Riverlands

    Did he?

    "I will make a bargain with you. Relieve me of this duty, and my razor is yours to command."

    Her mouth tightened. She had been drinking hot spiced wine and smelled of nutmeg. "You presume to dicker with me? Need I remind you, you are sworn to obey."

    "I am sworn to protect the king. My place is at his side."

    "Your place is wherever he sends you."

    "Tommen puts his seal on every paper that you put in front of him. This is your doing, and it's folly. Why name Daven your Warden of the West if you have no faith in him?"

    Yes, he clearly jumped at the opportunity to leave King's Landing. He didn't want to, but he did his duty.

    1 hour ago, Arthur Peres said:

    Sure he is changing, but the core of his character still the same, he still a selfcentered, narcisitic, prick, that has Cersei as his main concern, but now he is angry instead of in love with her.

    He built his life around Cersei. It's not exactly surprising that it revolves around her. She'll always be his main concern. He loves her. He's angry with her and he loves her, not instead of.

    1 hour ago, Arthur Peres said:

    He is not keeping his promise to Catelyn, he is pushing her family out of their castle, while he threatned to catapult her nephew to the walls, and he leaved taking her brother as hostage

    Edmure was already a hostage, it wasn't anything to blame on Jaime. As to the rest, he made the threats to avoid breaking the oath. Was the threat genuine? Yes. Would it have broken the oath? Yes. Does the threat itself break the oath? No. Jaime never swore to uphold Tully interests, or to protect the Tullys. He swore to not take up arms against them, and he kept that oath.

    1 hour ago, Arthur Peres said:

    he send a single knight, that already was sworn to Catelyn , to look for a girl she doesn't know and call it quits. 

    That's understating things, isn't it? To help her in her task, Jaime gave Brienne a Valyrian Steel sword, a letter demanding assistance from the King's loyal subjects, and money for all else. He did all he could to assist her. What more could be done? He could order Lannister soldiers to find her, but Cersei would tell them "no". He could order the Kingsguard to find her, but that's not their duty. He could travel the land in search of her himself, but doing so would shirk his other duties. How could he keep his oath to Catelyn without breaking his oath to his King?

    1 hour ago, Arthur Peres said:

    He never wanted to be the heir to CR, he never wanted to rule as Tyrion pointed out. He is changing but he is still him.

    You can't expect someone to not be themselves. He was always him. He is fundamentally the same person, and always will be, I agree. He was always someone who wanted to be decent, and now he's someone who is acting on that. He's trying to be the best version of himself, not a good version of somebody else. Once again, I find that admirable.


  12. 4 minutes ago, frenin said:

    As best as he can imply threatening Cat's own kin and take an army to his girlhood home??

    Yes? Without breaking other oaths, this is the best he could do. Conflicting oaths are at the core of Jaime. He's going from "oaths conflict, so why bother" to "oaths conflict, but I'll do the best I can".

    10 minutes ago, frenin said:

    had Tywin been there to offer Casterly Rock again and he would not hesitate.

    Would he indeed? I doubt that. If only because that would be Cersei's first option. But mostly because I fully believe that Jaime intends to serve as Lord Commander, as best he can, for life, as his oaths dictate.


  13. 6 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

    This is part of the "redemption arc" that some people (not my case) think Jaime is going under.

    The way I see Jaime still went away from the capital to fight in the riverlans, instead of staying by Tommen's side, and let Cersei that even he started to see as toxic and dangerous now to control his king. He is running from responsability again like he always did as Tyrion pointed out. 

    My brother, Jaime, thirsts for battle, not for power. He's run from every chance he's had to rule

    Tommen is his King, first and foremost, and Jaime has a duty to serve him. Whether by his side, or in the Riverlands. I hardly think that's running away from responsibility.

    As to Tyrion, he only knew Jaime when he had two hands. Whether or not you believe Jaime is undergoing redemption, I think it undeniable that he is changing, so Tyrion's thoughts about Jaime aren't necessarily going to be accurate.

    In my eye, Jaime is changing into someone who puts his duties first. He keeps his oath to Catelyn as best he can, he chooses to remain Lord Commander (as per his oaths) rather than leave to become heir to Casterly Rock, etc. Whether this amounts to a "redemption arc" or if indeed it makes him a better person is debatable. Personally, I think he's simply trying to be someone that he can be proud of, which I find to be admirable.


  14. So many good ones.

    My place is with my king. With my son. Would Tommen want to know that? The truth could cost the boy his throne. Would you sooner have a father or a chair, lad? Jaime wished he knew the answer.

    Also, and I know it's not a quote, but this has always stuck with me, for whatever reason:

    The Red Fork filled his boots and soaked through the ragged breeches. Laughing, he dropped to his knees, plunged his head under the water, and came up drenched and dripping. 

    I don't know why I like this so much, truly. His relief at being free is just so palpable.


  15. 31 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

    His kids... let's remember how he consindered them

    • Now Tommen:

    “He is your son . . . ”

    “He is my seed. He’s never called me Father. No more than Joffrey ever did. You warned me a thousand times never to show any undue interest in them.”

    A bit selective, here, I think. It's worth considering that he's scolding Cersei here, relatively shortly after his last meeting with Tyrion. When he thinks of Tommen later, it's rather different:

    My place is with my king. With my son. Would Tommen want to know that? The truth could cost the boy his throne. Would you sooner have a father or a chair, lad? Jaime wished he knew the answer.

    I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like a man who wants to be a father to his children, and regrets not being able to. Also, why would a man who doesn't care about his children need to be warned "a thousand times" not to show undue interest?


  16. I find this all to be... highly unlikely.

    3 hours ago, Aebram said:

    When Lame Lothar told Edmure that he must marry Roslin (ASOS 35, Catelyn IV), he didn't mention that she was comely.  Why in seven Hells not?

    Because it's funny. Lord Walder knows Edmure well enough to know it would be the only thing he'd think about his entire trip to the Twins, and it was. Classic petty revenge, that the Lord of the Crossing is known for. Not only that, but it's a dig at Lord Robb. He married the Westerling girl, when he could have had this. Just look at the seating arrangements, it's obvious what Lothar was playing at:

    Robb was seated between Alyx Frey and Fair Walda, two of the more nubile Frey maidens.

    Also, I'm sure it worked as a decent disarming device. Everyone was expecting Lord Walder to pull some trick, and now here it is. Edmure's suspicions were raised, sure, but about the wrong thing.

    3 hours ago, Aebram said:

    Isn't that a totally obvious thing to mention when you're trying to convince a man to marry a woman he's never met?

    Edmure doesn't really have a choice. He doesn't need to be convinced. If he doesn't accept the marriage, no matter the bride, there's no peace between Stark and Frey. Why not have some fun with it?

    3 hours ago, Aebram said:

    Roslin's demeanor is strange at some key moments.  Tears upon meeting Edmure

    I'd say it's rather in-keeping with Roslin's purported gentle nature. She's upset that she has to trick Edmure, knowing what's to come. That explains why Lord Walder is so short with them, to keep her from spilling the secret:

    "For joy," Roslin said. "I weep for joy, my lord."

    "Enough," Lord Walder broke in. "You may weep and whisper after you're wed, heh."

    3 hours ago, Aebram said:

    Roslin, ASOS 51 (Catelyn VII):  "Roslin's smile had a fixed quality to it, as if someone had sewn it onto her face.'

    Jeyne, ADWD 37 (The Prince of Winterfell):  "Her face was pale, bloodless.  A face carved of ice ..."

    This works as evidence against, honestly. Jeyne is upset because she's an unwilling participant. Roslin for similar reasons. If she were a fake, she'd have to be willing (else they'd get another, surely). So why is she upset? Either she knew beforehand what is to happen, and agreed, in which case there's no cause for sadness, or she doesn't know and to her it's just a fake wedding, and thus there's no cause for sadness.

    3 hours ago, Aebram said:

    The text mentions that Roslin has a gap between her front teeth.  There are no other Freys that have this.

    3 hours ago, Aebram said:

    Upon meeting her (ASOS 49, Catelyn VI) Catelyn notes that she and Benfrey, her (alleged) brother, do look like siblings.

    Could it not be the gap-tooth that makes them look so similar? Regardless, just because it isn't explicitly stated, that doesn't mean it isn't so. There are plenty of Freys about which we know very little. Many of them could be gap-toothed.

    3 hours ago, Aebram said:

    In fact, it's actually in House Frey's best interest to ensure that Edmure will not produce a trueborn heir.  Later in the story, after the Red Wedding,  Genna Lannister (who is married to Emmon Frey) tells her cousin Jaime, "That muttonhead Ser Ryman puts a noose around Edmure's neck, but will not hang him.  And Roslin Frey has a trout growing in her belly.  My grandsons will never be secure in Riverrun so long as any Tully heir remains alive."

    I can't help but think the Genna/Emmon rule of Riverrun was a later development. Catelyn was supposed to be taken alive; she'd be a good hostage to keep Edmure docile, while he and Roslin rule Riverrun, which would eventually go to their child. Catelyn's death put an end to that, however, and they kept Edmure as a hostage.

    Edmure being "free" to would pacify the Riverlands a lot faster, which is why I think it was the original plan. The current regime had obvious problems.

    3 hours ago, Aebram said:

    Except for Benfrey, Roslin's other living siblings (Perwyn, Willamen, and Olyvar) are absent from the wedding.  To keep them from giving away the scam?  Robb asks about Olyvar, and Ryman Frey says that he is away from the castle on "duty," but doesn't give any details.  That must have been a pretty urgent duty, to keep a lordling away from his own sister's wedding.

    Perwyn spent a great deal of time with Lady Catelyn, and Olyvar squired for Lord Robb (and wanted to stay with him after Robb's marriage). Willamen is a maester, and has his own duties to attend to (and also, technically, no longer a Frey). It's strongly implied that a favourable disposition to the Starks is why Olyvar and Ser Perwyn were kept away:

    Catelyn slapped him so hard she broke his lip. Olyvar, she thought, and Perwyn, Alesander, all absent. And Roslin wept . . .

    Stark supporters were kept away, so as to not give the game away.

     

    The most glaring evidence is Catelyn's thoughts on her at first sight:

    Ser Benfrey led her into the hall. They looked enough alike to be full siblings. Judging from their age, both were children of the sixth Lady Frey; a Rosby, Catelyn seemed to recall.

    She's right about all that, just at a glance. They are full siblings, from the sixth Lady Frey, who was a Rosby. She even has the Rosby look:

    Pretty enough, Catelyn thought, but so small, and she comes of Rosby stock. The Rosbys had never been robust. She much preferred the frames of some of the older girls in the hall; daughters or granddaughters, she could not be sure. They had a Crakehall look about them, and Lord Walder's third wife had been of that House.

    It's a pretty good match, is what I'm saying. A little too good, to not be the genuine article.

    I just really, really don't see it.


  17. On 9/8/2019 at 5:06 AM, Adam Yozza said:

    Why? While Catelyn does commit treason,

    Got it in one. Treason is treason.

    On 9/8/2019 at 5:06 AM, Adam Yozza said:

    None of those present bar Karstark himself actually blame her and none of them expect Robb to give a more harsh punishment than he does.

    Hard to say the truth of that, to be honest. Catelyn didn't think so:

     Half of them will want to hang me now. The other half may only turn their eyes away.

    Karstark is the first to be openly judgemental, and Robb shows his opinion on the matter:

    "A mother's folly?" Lord Karstark rounded on Lord Umber. "I name it treason."

    "Enough." For just an instant Robb sounded more like Brandon than his father. "No man calls my lady of Winterfell a traitor in my hearing, Lord Rickard."

    After this, who would tell Robb that Catelyn deserves to be punished? Such a thing would be the same as an accusation of treason. Robb had clearly already (somehow) decided that Catelyn didn't commit treason, even though she admits it herself:

    "The news must have driven you mad," Ser Desmond broke in, "a madness of grief, a mother's madness, men will understand. You did not know . . ."

    "I did," Catelyn said firmly. "I understood what I was doing and knew it was treasonous..."

    Before all that, though, Catelyn's entrance was greeted with hushed whispers. Just because Karstark was the only one who was openly displeased, that doesn't mean that everyone else there was okay with what she did or with her lack of punishment. People treat her differently afterwards, too:

    Catelyn had grown fond of Lady Maege and her eldest daughter, Dacey; they were more understanding than most in the matter of Jaime Lannister, she had found.

    The implication being that most others disapprove of her.

    On 9/8/2019 at 5:06 AM, Adam Yozza said:

    On the other hand, Karstark seems unable to even comprehend that what he did was wrong.

    Indeed? He openly admits that what he did was treason, he just doesn't care:

    Lord Karstark spit out a broken tooth. "Yes, Lord Umber, leave me to the king. He means to give me a scolding before he forgives me. That's how he deals with treason, our King in the North." He smiled a wet red smile.

    Karstark's treason is a direct response to Catelyn's treason, and to Robb's response to it:

    Lord Karstark looked instead at Catelyn. "Tell your mother to look at them," he said. "She slew them, as much as I."

    It was an act specifically designed to put Robb in a tenuous position. Robb's choice was a pardon or a punishment. If he pardoned Karstark, that would have been twice he ignored treason; no King could survive that with power intact. If he punished Karstark, it would prove that Robb is a hypocrite, who will only provide justice when it suits him. No good, obviously.

     

    Anyway, OP has it the wrong way around. People don't deserve preferential treatment because someone else is getting it. Nobody deserves preferential treatment. Justice is blind, and all that.

    12 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    Surely we can trust Stannis's sense of justice.

    Hah. Hardly.


  18. 22 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Maybe the differences are irrelevant to you but to most they are not. Obviously they were not irrelevant to Robb

    I think that's precisely the issue. Robb is supposed to be impartial when acting the judge. Otherwise, justice is impossible.

    22 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    People get sentenced to some form of punishment every day & the majority of them are not permanent. 

    The majority of them also haven't committed treason. Death or life imprisonment (a permanent punishment, obviously) are the most common punishments for treason, today.

    22 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Again, if your argument is that Cat's punishment wasn't harsh enough, I'll agree there are logical arguments for that.

    That is essentially my issue. Although I suppose it's that she wasn't punished at all, at least by Robb, the person to whom doling out justice fell.

    22 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    What I disagree with is that she deserved the same as Karstark. 

    Catelyn's crime was far, far more devastating to Robb's war effort (and by extension, his entire kingdom) than Karstark's crime. To my eye, the only thing that should've stayed Robb's hand is that she's kin, and as such, protected from such reprisal.

    22 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    The punishment for treason is death but obviously that's up to the Kings discretion as shown with your quote. Davos didn't lose his head either.

    More nepotism. By Stannis's own code, Davos should have been killed. Rewarded for your actions, punished for your crimes. It's not the only time Stannis has let justice fall by the wayside when it suited him. But, we're not here to talk about Stannis, so I'll leave that there.

    10 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    You tell me what he should have done? Lobbed his mother's head off? I suppose it would have been an easier fate than what she ultimately faces

    Obviously, he couldn't do that. I just now realised I haven't even given a response to the OP's question (oops), but I think he should have given her over to the silent sisters. Were she a man, she could take the black, but it seems equivalent enough. Lose your family name (or close enough to make no difference), swear vows to serve only a particular order, removed from the greater world, etc.

    She worships the seven, too, so it works. It'd be a better fate than the silent sister she ended up becoming:

    "Lady Stoneheart."

    "Some call her that. Some call her other things. The Silent Sister. Mother Merciless. The Hangwoman."

     

    Her eyes glimmered under her hood.

    Grey was the color of the silent sisters, the handmaidens of the Stranger. Brienne felt a shiver climb her spine. Stoneheart.

    Almost fate.

    8 hours ago, Sire de Maletroit said:

    The smart among them would respect him for his strength if he had treated both of them in the same manner.

    Hardly. Kinslayers get the worst treatment of all. He'd have a worse reputation than Walder Frey has now, only from his own people, too. They'd abandon him in droves. Accursed in the eyes of gods and men.


  19.  
     
     
     
    15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    They are both treason but they are very, very different. 

    Treason is treason. The differences are irrelevant.

     
     
     
     
    16 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Robb was completely justified & well within his rights to punish Karstark with a beheading & Cat with banishment. 

    He was well within his rights to execute Karstark, yes. But he didn't actually punish Catelyn. Or, he hadn't yet, at the time of his death. It seemed to me, either way, that the "banishment" to Seagard was only ever to be a temporary matter: until Winterfell had been retaken, and she would go home. Doesn't seem much a punishment.

    "Your part is to stay safe. Our journey through the Neck will be dangerous, and naught but battle awaits us in the north. But Lord Mallister has kindly offered to keep you safe at Seagard until the war is done. You will be comfortable there, I know."

    I interpreted that as the war with the Greyjoys, but he might mean his war of secession. He also might mean she'd stay at Seagard until the war ends, at which point she'd go elsewhere, not home to Winterfell. But that's how I took it.

    16 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    but it's an enigma to me that people can't understand the differences between killing children & setting a prisoner free.

    Because the differences are irrelevant. Their crimes aren't identical, no, but crimes were committed by both, for a certainty. Catelyn is guilty of treason. Karstark is guilty of treason and murder. One act, two crimes. Murder tends to earn one death, yes, but so does treason.

    I ask you again—what is the penalty for treason under the law?"

    Davos had no choice but to answer. "Death," he said. "The penalty is death, Your Grace."

    In their treason, their crimes are the same. The details of their treason are meaningless.

    16 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    (a prisoner that probably would have been killed as well had he not been set free)

    By Karstark? I doubt that. He wanted Jaime killed, sure, but he seemed to understand that he was Robb's prisoner. His King's prisoner. It was only when his vengeance was stolen from him, a crime which went unpunished (at least at the time), that he acted. After abandoning Robb as his King.

    "Kill me, and be cursed. You are no king of mine."


  20. 2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    As discussed thoroughly up thread, the crimes are not close to even so why would the punishments be?

    Because the crimes are exactly the same: treason.

    Catelyn's crime was obviously treason, and Karstark himself refers to his act as treason.

    Lord Karstark spit out a broken tooth. "Yes, Lord Umber, leave me to the king. He means to give me a scolding before he forgives me. That's how he deals with treason, our King in the North." He smiled a wet red smile.

    It's essentially the reason he kills the boys. Tion and Willem are nothing to him, hardly vengeance-sating kills. However, he'll either go unpunished or expose Robb's hypocrisy to all. Win-win.

    The biggest issue is Robb, however. He doesn't seem to think that what Catelyn did was treason, but he does call Rickard's actions treason. Willful ignorance or he truly doesn't understand it, either way, doesn't garner much trust in a King. I'm going to say willful ignorance, however.

    "It was a mother's folly. Women are made that way."

    "A mother's folly?" Lord Karstark rounded on Lord Umber. "I name it treason."

    "Enough." For just an instant Robb sounded more like Brandon than his father. "No man calls my lady of Winterfell a traitor in my hearing, Lord Rickard.(sounding more like Brandon is interesting. More emotional, in other words. She is a traitor, just don't call her one! Definitely willful ignorance.)

     

    "Rickard Karstark, Lord of Karhold." Robb lifted the heavy axe with both hands. "Here in sight of gods and men, I judge you guilty of murder and high treason. In mine own name I condemn you. With mine own hand I take your life. Would you speak a final word?"


  21. 21 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

    If you don't punish cities that resist then everyone will - why is that hard to understand? If they can say at any point "ok I give up" and get treated the same then everyone would fight.

    "Joffrey, when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire. When they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet. Elsewise no man will ever bend the knee to you." - Tywin Lannister

    When Tywin Lannister thinks you're being over the top, perhaps you're being over the top.


  22. The concept of a unicorn being a horse with a horn already exists in-universe. The Brax sigil is a unicorn:

    His shield bore a unicorn sigil, and a spiral horn two feet long jutted up from the brow of his horsehead helm. Tyrion reined up to greet him. "Ser Flement."

    Plus, as White Ravens quoted earlier, Jon recognises a helmet as made from a unicorn's head. Jon hasn't seen a unicorn any more than Ghost has. If Jon can tell a unicorn by sight, Ghost should be able to. I think the enormous goat was just an enormous goat, and I don't think the quote indicates that the goat had only one horn, just that only one of its horns raked Shaggydog.


  23. I give it a 1; I don't appreciate being called a psychopathic troll, but I'll just ignore that.

    There are reasons I gave it a one. I've always had a problem with this kind of time travel; in order for Hodor to have become the way he is, Bran needed to be in the Cave to Warg Hodor through time. But in order for Bran to get to the Cave, Hodor needed to be Hodor in order to take Bran there.

    But I have an issue with that whole situation in the courtyard; so many people were there, hearing Willas (what was wrong with 'Walder', by the way?) shouting "hold the door", eventually degrading it into 'Hodor'. Old Nan was there too. So, why doesn't anyone know the story of the whole 'Hodor' thing? All I could think during that was this moment from the books:

    No one knew where "Hodor" had come from, she said, but when he started saying it, they started calling him by it. It was the only word he had.

    I know, the show is not the books, but that's just such a little thing that didn't need to be changed. No one knew, except for Old Nan herself and a courtyard full of people. Sure.

    The creation of the White Walkers was interesting enough, but I have a few questions; was that Obsidian that they shoved in him to turn him into a White Walker? If so, why would they be weak to it? But the other question, why is Leaf so strong? The rib cage of a human is very, very strong; but Leaf can just push that dagger through him like he's made of butter.

    Everything about the attack at the Cave struck me as strange; I always disliked the Skeleton Wights, for one thing. The fireball rocks looked absurd, the Wights were the least physically powerful things I've ever seen, Meera cutting that one down like it was nothing, for instance. Yet, the can push their way through the rock and into the cave? I don't see why Summer had to stay back; that brought them like half a second extra time. I also don't see why Leaf had to sacrifice herself; if she'd just thrown the fireball stone thing she would've had the same effect. But the biggest issue is that Bran and not-Bloodraven were asleep during it. Why? In the books, Bran hears Jojen calling him back when he's in Summer; he heard Meera calling him eventually in this episode, but why-oh-why did he decide that Warging Hodor in the past and present would be a good idea? He could've just woken up, surely. Unless it was all the Three Eyed 'Raven's' idea; he certainly knew that he was about to die, so he obviously knew what was happening outside the tree dream.

    I thought the play was quite amusing; but then there's "no-one" standing there with a completely disapproving look on her face. She doesn't even try to hide her emotions. Why she thinks that the Faceless Men will ever buy her act is beyond me.

    I agree with the consensus about the Kingsmoot. Euron didn't strike me as particularly charismatic; but not only that, he also admitted to killing the man who was not only the King of all of the people standing there, but his own brother. I guess the whole Kinslaying thing being a horrible, horrible crime and sin in all cultures and religions has simply gone out the window. "No man is so accursed" and all that. Yara would've been completely within her rights to call for his execution before being Queen. The man murdered their King, his own brother, and nobody cares. Completely absurd.

    The Sansa and Jon parts were nice, I suppose; though Littlefinger's appearance was rather unnecessary, if you ask me. But they weren't nice enough to offset any of the rest of the episode, which I simply didn't like.

    So, there you are. 1 out of 10.

×