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

[Ser Pollo Loco]

Ned only eats with all his men when he gets to kingslanding at Winterfell it's just officers and old nan and it's one at a time

[Ragnorak]

The quote about eating with his men comes from Arya back in GoT just before the "lone wolf dies" talk from Ned.

Back at Winterfell, they had eaten in the Great Hall almost half the time. Her father used to say that a lord needed to eat with his men, if he hoped to keep them. “Know the men who follow you,” she heard him tell Robb once, “and let them know you. Don’t ask your men to die for a stranger.” At Winterfell, he always had an extra seat set at his own table, and every day a different man would be asked to join him. One night it would be Vayon Poole, and the talk would be coppers and bread stores and servants. The next time it would be Mikken, and her father would listen to him go on about armor and swords and how hot a forge should be and the best way to temper steel. Another day it might be Hullen with his endless horse talk, or Septon Chayle from the library, or Jory, or Ser Rodrik, or even Old Nan with her stories.

Jon's circumstances are different. Ned was always a Stark of noble blood even if he wasn't always destined to be Lord of Winterfell. He was never an "equal" to the men invited to sit at his table. Part of that is getting to know men and letting them know you, but another part serves to diminish the trappings of inequality. It is an inclusive gesture and we see the results of it when Theon takes Winterfell. Jon was an equal to these men the minute before he was elected LC-- even a subordinate to some. He needs to establish a sense of inequality between himself and the Watch to make his leadership position clear unlike with The Ned for whom that inequality was a fact of life since his birth.

As an equal Jon has known his man and they know him. This aspect is Jon's starting point just like a level of inequality that presumes the exercise of authority was Ned's starting point. I consider this an especially interesting point because here Jon deliberately ignores the mechanics of Ned's lesson but still seems to understand the spirit and purpose behind it. Five or ten years down the road as the faces of the Watch start to change, a Jon would need to adopt Ned's practice or some substitute because the new faces would not be known but they would also start their tenure in the Watch with Jon not being their equal.

If he dined with the men that could present problems. Where does he sit and who does he sit with? Is he ignoring or snubbing someone? Dinner becomes political fodder even when it isn't intended. The military separates officers and enlisted men for a reason. Enlisted men need the freedom to bitch about officers over chow. He wouldn't be doing himself or them any favors by trying to eat with them on a regular basis. If Jon dined with his officers that could project a certain sense of shared authority. He has no family like at Winterfell where the family inherently shares in authority. Dining with his officers conveys a sense of authority to those officers particularly with rotating guests who would share in the dinner conversation. Dining alone helps send a message that Jon alone is in charge. It helps establish that there are no favorites. Despite seeming to be the opposite of Ned's practice, it is consistent with the underlying purpose and an insightful choice given his need to establish his new role with his former equals.

[bemused]

Bran Vras ..I don't really want to be going on about this ( people will say we're obsessed..) but I'll give it one last go.. Jon doesn't dismiss what Stannis says ( I don't think that's a fair interpretation ). On the contrary , he directly contradicts Stannis, to which Stannis, tellingly , IMO, makes no reply.

I see the election of a LC as very much like a political party leadership convention. Many voters will be present, but delegates come from far flung districts with many proxies under their control. If there are still too many candidates as the end draws near, there will be lobbying and attempts to sway blocs of votes, because stalemate is not an acceptable outcome and whatever majority is laid out in their rules, must be reached .... they must have a leader.

This is not cheating. It's perfectly normal, and understandable. As Aemon explains, the thing that prevents him from engaging in the process is that he must serve the winner ( as a maester, he may not even have a vote himself...I don't know). When Sam feels he's told an outright lie ( that Stannis will force Pyke or Mallister's opposite on the watch ), it's still exactly what Stannis threatened to do , in the presence of all ... so even Sam's lie could have come true , if some action had not been taken... and Stannis dictating to the watch would have been wrong.

By the same token ,what Bowen and Thorne were doing in trying to persuade Othell was not wrong , in itself. It was not cheating.. What made it wrong was that it would be imposing Tywin's choice ( and therefore, his agenda) on the NW.

Any man of the NW who had been through a previous election would be aware of the process , and the ones who hadn't would surely have heard about it. ... Afterward, they would have seen ,or had read out to them ,the results of the count. ... Knowing how many ( few) they were in number , and knowing the Eastwatch men and Shadow Tower men were not present, but their commanders controlled their votes, I don't see how most of the NW could have given credence to Thorne's claim , if it was put to them.

If Pyke and Mallister's numbers fell from well over 100 each to only a few each from one vote to the next ( and neither of them cried "Foul!" ), I think the men would have understood what happened. Those votes could not have moved without Pyke and Mallister moving them. As previously pointed out , those votes could not have been affected by the raven , though the men present may have been.. Certainly anyone , even Owen the oaf , would know that if Cotter Pyke had seen his bloc of votes mysteriously disappear, he wouldn't have kept quiet about it.

It's Stannis Thorne was hoping to convince. If he had been successful , if Stannis had believed him , surely, from Stannis' standpoint, that could have been a good thing...He could have declared the choosing invalid, and it would have forced Jon to reconsider his offer. But Stannis does nothing. ( If he had done anything, his opinion would be very relevant indeed ,to us going forward ).

Thorne knows nothing of Stannis' offer to Jon. If Stannis had stepped in and said they had to try again , or imposed his choice, as far as Thorne knew , that would at least put Jon back in the position he was in before the election , if not worse.

Anyway, going forward , the big catch words used against Jon will be : folly , treason, oathbreaker , half-a-wildling , etc . - not "stolen election". I'm sure there are those who would buy the idea or use it as a talking point , but in my view , probably only those who already had some real or imagined grudge against Jon. We'll just have to watch for developments.

It's taken me a deal of typing to lay it out, but the concepts would have been grasped quickly by men of the NW. They're insiders. We are not , and as usual , we first have to piece together the relevant bits of information GRRM gives us.

Re: Sam and Jon's perceptions ... It's not that I don't think they're comparable , I just don't want to compare anything from Sam's AFfC chapter yet , since it's next up.

Ragnorak .. That's a great analysis of Jon's position in the matter of dining and hob nobbing more with his men. It's not an easy situation for Jon. Choices and consequences again. I think there may be some helpful hints ( and I stress hints )coming up in Sam's chapter involving what we see on the page and what we can reasonably assume to have happened off the page.

[Lummel]

...Jon's circumstances are different. Ned was always a Stark of noble blood even if he wasn't always destined to be Lord of Winterfell. He was never an "equal" to the men invited to sit at his table. Part of that is getting to know men and letting them know you, but another part serves to diminish the trappings of inequality. It is an inclusive gesture and we see the results of it when Theon takes Winterfell. Jon was an equal to these men the minute before he was elected LC-- even a subordinate to some. He needs to establish a sense of inequality between himself and the Watch to make his leadership position clear unlike with The Ned for whom that inequality was a fact of life since his birth...

It's interesting, I mean this is another form of rabbit's ears (to steal Daenerys' phrase), but one that Jon is comfortable with, while being followed by an honour guard, wearing a fancy uniform or a silly hat plainly does not appeal, but the idea is the same - to create a sense of difference, distinction and exclusivity.

Looking ahead to the next chapter I would say that whatever Jon's personal taste there probably is a need to go through a process of becoming the Lord Commander, but perhaps as much for himself as for the people he has to lead.

[Ibbison from Ibben]

As an equal Jon has known his man and they know him. This aspect is Jon's starting point just like a level of inequality that presumes the exercise of authority was Ned's starting point. I consider this an especially interesting point because here Jon deliberately ignores the mechanics of Ned's lesson but still seems to understand the spirit and purpose behind it. Five or ten years down the road as the faces of the Watch start to change, a Jon would need to adopt Ned's practice or some substitute because the new faces would not be known but they would also start their tenure in the Watch with Jon not being their equal.

If he dined with the men that could present problems. Where does he sit and who does he sit with? Is he ignoring or snubbing someone? Dinner becomes political fodder even when it isn't intended. The military separates officers and enlisted men for a reason. ....

I fully agree with this. I once worked for a company where a promotion into management from the ranks was automatically accompanied by a transfer, so the new leader was unencumbered by previous relationships. It was considered a wise policy by all concerned. Jon can't transfer himself, of course, so he eventually transfers his friends in a later chapter.

[DrunkSister]

I had a lot of nice quoted material from posts here, but I managed to turn a page. Grr...

I am not sure that a child using warged animals to kill is the sign of evil and that it automatically means there is something wrong with him. Bump did nothing to the dogs, yes, but what did Tyrion and Greatjon do to Grey Wind or what did Jojen do to Summer?

Wolves were channelling their owners in those moments. Robb, in addition, is a lot older. Is there something wrong with them as well?

I would also like to pose a possibility that Ghost is not warged by old gods but that they whisper in his ears. He hears 'Snow' while Jon dream-wargs him. We also know that Summer remembers what 'prince' means while Bran is in him. We don't really know how intelligent they are, Ghost could very well understand commands like 'pick up the hand', 'bring Jon', 'call to Jon's friends'... And who is to say old gods don't speak wolf.

It's interesting, I mean this is another form of rabbit's ears (to steal Daenerys' phrase), but one that Jon is comfortable with, while being followed by an honour guard, wearing a fancy uniform or a silly hat plainly does not appeal,

I had a brief flashback to Sam Vimes, giving his expensive boots to watchmen, carrying a sedan chair instead of riding in it... :lol:

[Bran Vras]

Just a few precisions on things I have said upthread

@Ragnorak Surely being primus inter pares at the Watch is a different leadership situation than being the heir of a thousand years old dynasty. When I mentioned Jon’s insulation from his men, I had in mind that Jon takes his decisions alone and cares little about consulting them, let alone listening to their views routinely. To illustrate my point consider Septon Cellador, that Jon obviously dislikes. The representant of the Seven is important for many, and shouldn’t be completely ignored. Ned Stark would have taken care to hear the septon, even if he considered the man worthless (is he really?).

I feel a bit uncomfortable bringing up points that might not pertain particularly to that chapter. But, sooner or later we have to be synthetic. Also I took the liberty of quoting a passage from Samwell I, AFfC. I thought it was ok, given how it sheds light on the attitude on Jon towards the builder. (As you remarked, Ragnorak.)

@bemused It was not my intention to discuss the validity of the election since we moved to Jon I. You might like to return to what has been said when we discussed Jon XII, ASoS. After reading your post, I feel the need to elaborate on what I said: "The point is that Stannis gives a warning to Jon, and Jon chooses to dismiss it."

Stannis signals to Jon that a narrative of a cheating in the election exists in the Watch – as we said already, it doesn’t matter if Stannis gives any credence to that. Rather than paying attention, Jon simply asserts that there is no ground to contest the election. My point is that it is a mistake (whose importance is unclear) that exemplifies what Jon will tend to do repeatedly: to think that because he is in the right 1) other opinions are not worthy of consideration and 2) it doesn’t matter to be wrongly perceived. We are already in the path of estrangement from his men. I might be oversimplifying, but this is to give you the idea.

In other words, Jon mistakes the issue as being a question of who is right and who is wrong, while in fact it is about which perspective of his command prevails in the Watch. Truth about the validity of the election does not matter at this point.

Edit: It's noteworthy that the warning came from Stannis, and that there was nobody in the Watch (apparently) to tell Jon of Thorne's accusations.

I added: "The reasoning with the numbers to refute Thorne goes over the head of almost all the Watch, and is debatable for the rest, especially since Mallister and Pyke never declared their support for Jon."

Almost all the black brothers are illiterate. For many of them, refuting Thorne and Slynt by reasoning with three digits numbers can be taken as an admission of guilt. Who is to say Mallister or Pyke didn’t cast his stones for Slynt? But when the accusation of fixing by Aemon and Sam is followed by Jon’s decision to send both of them to Oldtown, Alliser Thorne can say: "I told you so", and everyone understands.

[Ragnorak]

Just a few precisions on things I have said upthread

@Ragnorak Surely being primus inter pares at the Watch is a different leadership situation than being the heir of a thousand years old dynasty. When I mentioned Jon’s insulation from his men, I had in mind that Jon takes his decisions alone and cares little about consulting them, let alone listening to their views routinely. To illustrate my point consider Septon Cellador, that Jon obviously dislikes. The representant of the Seven is important for many, and shouldn’t be completely ignored. Ned Stark would have taken care to hear the septon, even if he considered the man worthless (is he really?).

My "next chapter" comment wasn't meant as an inappropriate discussion flag. These chapters are interrelated and we get information dumps out of their natural reading order. My overall take is that much of what Jon does is ambiguous or double edged in terms of mistakes though I'm inclined to think that a trip to the builders would have been a good choice. I didn't have a singular point to make in the next chapter. My would be response would have been to explore the issue and try and muse on where the lines might be drawn between choice and mistake, where natural boss disgruntlement ends and legitimate complaint begins, whether "wear thicker gloves" is being applied to the builders. My response would have crossed the chapter line. I didn't mean to imply that your discussion had.

I've seem the dining with his men passage brought up a number of times in the past as objective evidence of Jon failing to heed Ned's advice. I've always read it as I described it even with that Ned passage in mind. I also find the whole promoting from within and raising an equal above his peers concept to be fascinating as a social practice. This used to be commonplace a few generations ago and has been replaced by the practice Ibbison from Ibben describes. Even "play dates" for children removes the element of a peer group having to choose its leadership and resolve its internal conflicts without a clear authority figure. In Westeros birth largely determines this but we still have Grand Councils and events like Roberts Rebellion where four lords must choose a leader among equals. The Watch and sellsword companies are conceptually closer to the promoting equals from within model. But I'm drifting off topic... Jon as a castle raised son of Ned is half in the birth leadership status while his bastard status also puts him at the bottom rung.

I think Jon has a need for a certain amount of isolation from his men in this early transitioning time to his new role.

It’s like putting on new clothes, Sam had told him. The fit feels strange at first, but once you’ve worn them for a while you get to feeling comfortable.

The men need time to adjust to the new clothes as well. Not everyone is like an Iron Emmett who can assert that in the training yard he's still going to knock the crap out of Jon. Jon's a clean leadership slate here and he has to develop a style. Stannis can show up and silently watch an event and convey a very clear message. Jon lacks the history a Stannis has. If he shows up no one knows what it means yet. He's creating his own rituals, his own little signs and ways to communicate. Jon dining alone sets up the ability for him to show up in the mess hall and make a statement just by being there. This isn't just eating. It applies to a great many things Jon does. What is routine and what is significant is being established by Jon's early behavior. Had Mormont walked up to the training yard and started giving pointers it would have seemed meaningful because he never did it before. With Jon he's establishing his practice yard presence and commentary as normal but his mess hall visits as meaningful. This is all normal adjustment to the new boss to figure out or establish a code-- Stannis: Yelling fine, silent very bad. Roose Bolton: silence fine, yelling likely triggers apocalypse. Every leader has a code. They evolve naturally even if you don't go about setting them up. Deliberately trying not to have a code to keep your men on their toes is a code in and of itself.

Jon's dining choice is a deliberate and conscious decision to establish a leadership code. His lack of visiting the builders may be an unconscious and unintentional code establishment as well.

It is a curious aspect. It is a trapping of power in a sense as Lummel noted but it is also intrinsic to any leadership dynamic. The Watch is not a democracy and the sense of a chain of command is required if one is to command. Clearly the Tywin meta-communications of trappings make Jon uncomfortable. The whole northern tendency for unadorned armor is a good parallel. Jon tends towards functional trappings over show. Somewhere in there seems to be a desire to struggle against Varys and his riddle-- to keep the shadow the same size as the man.

[butterbumps!]

It strikes me that the reason why wargs might have been persecuted south of the Wall is precisely because of characters like Varamyr, a warg is in a position to set themselves up as a powerful person, a lord, but can operate outside of the traditional moral/social/political restraints. None of his children have 'the gift' so there is no need for a Varamyr to act with restraint for the sake of his successors or to nurture the people subject to him to provide the next generation with a happy and secure power base, instead he can just suck the life blood out of them to his heart's content. So the warg stories that young Janos Slynt was told at bedtime were very scary!

The question of glorying in the gift is something to ponder. That prologue chapter also tells us that the warg becomes like the creature they are warging. But we can see that is double edged. A direwolf is a powerful pack animal - loyal to its pack but savage and destructive towards others.

This is exactly what I'm leaning toward, and would even extend the concept to the more over-arching themes about the song ("magic stuff") and the game ("politics stuff"). That is, they an't separate. Look how magical power shapes politics, even in the small isolated example of Varamyr's abilities, which rendered him a lord of sorts. Both the song and the game are fundamentally about power, and are used to influence each other.

I think that's why magic is such a taboo-- being in possession of something powerful enough that enables you to operate outside of social boundaries can obviously create many problems, as there's few possible checks on that power. The way certain lords command powerful fleets and armies (or even, more fundamentally, have leave to do as they please simply by virtue of their lordship) are a more mundane riff on this, but I think the concept is the same. This can be read as a more expansive critique about social hierarchies, monopolies of power and the lack of checks and balances-- whether it involves the magical or mundane, I think it's essentially the same critique.

Is interesting that though Varamyr is the one with palpable magical abilities, abilities he uses to extend fear and terror, it is the common non magical Mance the one who the wildings choose as King. The power through which Varamyr forced himself upon others is pretty straight forward; Mance’s is one of a more subtle nature.

......................................

Interesting notion Butterbumps! I have never considered this possibility. However, all in all, I think the defeat of the wildings was a necessary evil sort to speak given the circumstances and the parties involved. Mance did not simply want to get through; he wanted to get through on his own term, that is, carrying the wildings’ ways and life style, which would have resulted in a negative impact for the North.

I see no evidence that Mance intended to concede such a big point. He seemed bitter at having to come South, not as a conqueror or warrior, but with his tail between his legs to hide behind the Wall. Relinquishing the Free Folk’s way of life would have been too much for him I fear.

This is not a point in which, as Kings, Mance nor would Stannis have been willing to concede or reached any kind of mutual understanding as the negotiations would have involved a sore and uncompromising position for both men. Stannis would have demanded that the free folk kneeled to him as rightful King in direct detriment to the wildings free of kneeling life style.

I feel this strengthens the notion that the Kings were in the way of reaching a true mutual cooperation.

Great work at the chapter summary! I will try to add something of more relevance to it after I have read it.

That's actually a great observation-- despite a lack of known magical ability, Mance is the one they chose to follow. I'm not sure how to engage with this facet yet-- that is, I know it appeals to me in the sense that it's another nod to the idea of a human's transcending conditions by virtue of his own (human) merit, but I wonder if there's another lesson there for the future of the series.

Also, yes, I'm not convinced that it could have worked without a battle, but I'm curious about the possibility. If the alternative was to fight and be scattered, Mance might have conceded that point.

I guess, what made me want to reflect on this in the first place is how Stannis' battle-field arrival is treated as a "lucky save" and praised as this epic salvation quite often on here, but that sort of classification doesn't sit right with me, given that it seems to have delivered a severe blow to tens of thousands of people, and created the very problem of Hardhome we'll later see (among others, such as the wildlings following the Weeper, the fact that there's a surge of wights, etc).

It may have been the "necessary" course to some degree (if we assume that Mance would have chosen to fought rather than kneel, and I lean toward the belief that he'd have led his people to kneel even if he personally wouldn't have), but I don't think it should be taken as the net good it so often is, upon reflection. It solved one problem, but multiplied more problems, if that makes sense.

Iron Emmet I was was interesting too, and not just Iron Emmet but Ulmer is also leading training sessions in archery. Is Iron Emmet a knight? He's never referred to as a 'ser' unlike the two previous training masters that we know of and that seemed to me to also link into what Stannis says later: "I have knights and lords in my service, scions of noble houses old in honour. They cannot be expected to serve under poachers, peasants, and murderers." (p.57) What we have is a parallel with Daenerys' social revolution but on a smaller scale. We are seeing people given jobs on the basis of skills and suitability rather than social rank which contrasts sharply with Bowen Marsh leaving the Wall in the charge of a senile man because he at least is a knight.

And why does Lyanna Mormont answer the letter? Is this meant to be a deliberate snub or insult?

Stannis' plan to give a castle to Sigorn is also interesting. Jon later will marry him into Karhold instead which looks now all the more cunning.

Yes, I think this is a very fair parallel. Of course this is a little early for such determinations, but I do think understanding some of Jon's decisions as an attempt at reform is accurate. One of my hypotheses about DwD Jon is that his impulse skews more toward the rebuilding/ reform side than a "knock it down and start from scratch" attitude-- which shows up here in that he's focused on literal repairs and small reforms, as well as a willingness to question institutions (like Stannis) and systems, but ultimately works within their frameworks.

... Somehow, this is not behavior I'd expect from Varamyr. If the animal lived , he'd no doubt continue to use it ... if not , he'd just take another ( and his continual refrerences to "taking" his hosts tells us a lot about him). In the underlined section , I think we might see evidence of Ghost drawing strength from Jon's presence , whether or not he's reacting to Qhorin's words. ( This is worth keeping in mind , IMO.

... (unless Ghost's actually being warged by someone else , an idea on which I'm a bit ambivalent. Does a ghost reside in Ghost , and if so , whose ? M-m-m-m , I can see how that might be , in a way that wouldn't offend my sensibilities, :D but it's speculation for another day.)

The passage you pulled, and certain other ones too, are what makes it really hard for me to keep in mind that these direwolves aren't cuddly dogs. There's a couple of passages about how Jon and Ghost play a form of tug of war, and it's so aligned with how I think most dog owners play with their pets and have that companionship bond, that it kind of stands out and skews what the "norms" of animal pals are in this series. I guess this is sort of a tangent from the initial point you're making, but it really strikes me that the Stark children's attitudes toward and interactions with the wolves (and to a certain degree, Sandor's feelings toward Stranger, and what Haggen preaches) are the only human-animal companionships that most of us would align with. But they're completely aberrant in the books. That's kind of interesting-- I mean, the least "normal" human-animal attitudes in the books are what resembles our own feelings most closely, even including the fact that these people are also wargs.

I've got a bunch of other points I want to respond to multiquoted, but I'll do them in another post so it doesn't become egregiously long.

[bemused]

mirijam... RE: Varamyr , Ghost , etc.

First off , I don't think the example of the Greatjon applies. He was , in that moment , a threat to Robb ... bellowing , throwing things about .. and he and his men drew steel. Robb and Greywind's reactions were controlled, Greywind waiting until Robb gave him the word and then doing only a minimal amount of damage compared to what he might have done. It was not an emotional response on either of their parts.

In Jojen's case , he was pressing Bran on the thing he'd supressed most deeply, and greatly feared to confront. I think Meera was only partly right. Bran may have been angry, but what he really couldn't control was his fear. Therefore , the wolves perceived Jojen as a threat. Even after his anger had dissipated , and he had to be worried for Meera and Jojen, Bran needed to call to Hodor for help. His fear of remembering his "fall" had not abated.

I'd always want to give a child the benefit of the doubt.. and I wouldn't want my opinion of the mature Varamyr to colour my opinion of the immature Lump. But on consideration, I'm forced to admit very strong suspicion , if not conviction. Children are still children , even if they're wargs, but not all children are equally innocent.

Even though she's not a warg, in the case of the young Cersei , it's worth noting that though deeply resentful of him , she restricted herself to twisting baby Tyrion's penis , horrible and painful as that must have been... Mind you, if the speculations about her young friend Melara are true , it may simply show an awareness that more suspicion would be raised in the case of a family member than a friend , or that there was never a real opportunity with Tyrion.. (never alone with him in proximity to a well , e.g.) ...The readiness with which she moves to wanting to kill him in her adult life ( Blackwater ) makes me think it's not the first time the thought has crossed her mind.

With the Stark children , the direwolves do definitely react to the child's emotions. Rickon was 3 when he bonded with Shaggy , and though we see Rickon and Shaggy lash out, it's true , we don't know how far that would have gone without some tempering influence being present. However , there should be a stronger sense of right and wrong in a 6 yr. old than in a 3 yr. old. ( Bran doesn't bond until 7 ? or 8 ? But he starts to learn relatively quickly to control his emotions in the presence of Summer.)

Then , questions are raised by why Varamyr's family had 3 dogs and when did he first bond with Loptail , the oldest dog ? (Also described as the old dog, without a vet's care ,what would that be , 6, 7, 8? ) ... Surely the dogs wouldn't have merely been pets , in a wildling environment . They would probably have been used to hunt , or to keep vermin down around the dwelling ,or to guard chickens or goats etc., if any were kept. Even if the dogs were safe for their human family members , they probably killed on a fairly regular basis. Varamyr might have bonded with Loptail at a very young age indeed, and I think it's impossible that at 6 , he wouldn't have already experienced some sort of kill , if only of rats or squirrels. He would have understood what killing was.

Most children are not naturally sneaky unless they know they're doing something they shouldn't , or they're wanting to keep some secret. How is it that Lump's parents hadn't noticed anything unusual going on between Lump and Loptail, until Lump screamed ? ( It's possible he had not warged the other two dogs, just Loptail.)

He slipped inside Loptail too late. (Too late to run away, or maybe to fight back )... He thinks of his mother's grief , but recalls no remorse of his own , and still thinks of Bump with a child's jealousy. ... Bump was bigger and healthier for his age ... he was going to be given Father's name ( while Varamyr was still stuck with "Lump" at 6 ).

I find it very difficult not to see intent in the fact that Bump was killed just before he could be named.( 3 days before his naming day ) I don't just mean there was a desire to hurt him , but to prevent Bump from getting a real name at all ... In Varamyr's thoughts , when the woods witch tells his mother that Bump would be the world and all that's in it , we have this... ( my underlines)

The old woman’s words had gone through Lump like a knife. Bump sees. He is watching me. He knows. Lump could not hide from him, could not slip behind his mother’s skirts or run off with the dogs to escape his father’s fury.

"He knows." sounds to me like there was intent in the killing , it wasn't just emotions momentarily out of control. I think guilt is implied. The rest sounds to me as if he had done other things to Bump ,while in his own skin , before, that had made his father furious .... And there's the following ..

The axe crashed into the middle of the old dog’s skull, and inside the hovel the boy let out a scream. That was how they knew.

It seems plain that he'd been keeping his ability secret for some time. Why, if he hadn't been using it to do things he knows he shouldn't ? In our world, e.g. ,Children love to talk about their imaginary friends, and often do it in a very matter of fact way ... It's kind of odd that in 6 years , he'd never given his mother a clue along the lines of , I can be Loptail , if I want... or , Yesterday , when I was Loptail.... or something like that.

When he thinks of his previous deaths ,Varamyr remembers their nature and the pain associated with each one , but there's never any mourning for the animals... Not even thoughts of Lump mourning for Loptail... When he thinks they were good dogs and his friends , it may just be because they ( or Loptail ) didn't resist him, and he could get them to do what he wanted .

Even though he's a warg and she is not , I think Varamyr is more comparable to Cersei than to any of the Stark children, their similarities stemming from the same impulses - jealousy , posessiveness , vanity, and a desire for power. ( have I missed any ?)

About Ghost

I don't really like the idea of him being warged by Bloodraven ( or Bran for that matter ). It's always made me a bit uncomfortable , because I don't know how it would really serve the story, in terms of Jon's bond with Ghost. I can see the possibility of someone whispering in Ghosts ear...but we know that the raven is simultaneously calling "Snow" to Jon, so I'm not sure about that.

I have another idea (that's still a bit fuzzy in my mind) that I haven't posted anywhere else yet, or searched for clues.. It might have come up in Heresy, I don't know.. I don't follow those threads too closely.. Roughly : The Mama direwolf must have been moved south by someone . Suppose it was not BR but perhaps one of the other CoTF greenseers who can no longer speak and may never have spoken the common tongue, anyway. When the mother died, that awareness passed to one of the pups, the one whose eyes were open before time and who had the coloration of a weirwood.

Part of the weirnet , the greenseer would be in tune with the long term CoTF goals in the struggle against the Others, but perhaps not always have the fine tuned grasp of human politics of BR ( this could explain the raven and ghost being at odds in Jon's dream , or Ghost's odd behavior with Mel , among other things).. Like BR, the greenseer is becoming one with his or her tree and may not have that much of a sense of self anymore (or not one that would translate easily to a human) and would willingly withdraw as Jon comes into his own ( back to becoming one with the gods). That might leave a bit of a ghost in Ghost, and maybe a link ,of sorts , to the old gods , but not an awareness of another human presence .( No sense of a name , or lingering personal likes or dislikes of other people, to intrude on Jon's own perceptions and decisions . )

Speculative , I know.. I'm not meaning to open a big discussion here , it's just something half felt that I'm keeping in mind for the future, where Ghost is concerned.

This got very long. I'll have to come back with other responses I wanted to make.

[Ibbison from Ibben]

Stannis signals to Jon that a narrative of a cheating in the election exists in the Watch

I frankly don't see this being supported in the text. Stannis says

"Alliser Thorne complains about the manner of your choosing, and I cannot say he does not have a grievance."

The fact that one individual who is not respected by most members of the Watch (remember that Mormont told Tyrion that he (Mormont) "would be a fool not to see what Thorne is"), and who is known to have personally disliked Jon from the moment Jon reached the Wall, is whining does not constitute a "narrative of cheating" in the Watch. It is a report about one man's opinion whose claims are easily refuted. Here's a description of the election results -

The rest was arrowheads, a torrent of arrowheads, a flood of arrowheads, arrowheads enough to drown the last few stones and shells, and all the copper pennies too.

In other words, the election was so lopsided that Thorne's claims of a miscount are ridiculous. The fact that Stannis initially seems to give credence to those claims either reflects badly on Stannis (who is attempting to bully Jon thoughout the whole chapter), or shows that Stannis is testing Jon to see what the new LC is made of. I find the second case more likely. Jon passes the test easily, dismissing the ludicrous claim of a miscount by throwing it back it Stannis' face.

... Your Grace knows that I was fairly chosen.

And that ends it. At least that's how I read it.

ETA - To clarify, I don't think a narrative of cheating in the election really exists. I think Stannis is merely testing Jon. Why would Stannis trust Thorne? Stannis is a good judge of character. Thorne is an ally of Slynt, and we all know what Stannis thinks of Slynt. This is just Stannis feeling out the new LC. Stannis was probably happy that Jon reacted the way he did.

Jon may make mistakes later, but there is no sign that anyone but Thorne claims the election was rigged.

[Elba the Intoner]

When Jon gets to discussing the grant of the Night's Watch castles to Stannis, a point is made of how Jon closed his burned fingers and opened them again. This got me to thinking about the significance of his burned hand. Then I got to thinking about the comment made above that when Stannis asks Jon if he is so eager to see the Imp perched on his father's seat, if we assume that Rheagar is Jon's father, this foreshadows Tyrion landing on Dragonstone. Some how this led me to consider Jon's berserker strength when he gets really upset as has been mentioned a few times. I think his berserker strength is a form of "waking the dragon" in Jon. The dragon part of him is mostly suppressed, but his hand has been burned, similar to how it took Dany burning the eggs on Drogo's funeral pyre to birth the dragons. When the Targs get upset they refer to it as waking the dragon. Jon burning his hand was the start of the process to wake the dragon in him. It's not complete yet but the beginning of it is there and we have seen snippets of it (the Ice Dragon is thawing) usually when Jon gets upset over some comments made about Ned, his surrogate father. And of course it's all tied together here as Ned is brought up in this conversation and Jon's position is very Ned like here. We are seeing the ice and fire struggle in Jon.

(This also got me to thinking about comments I've seen in other rereads about the elements that each of the Stark kids represent. Arya seems to be most associated with water and represents water, and I think Jon is the one who most represents fire. To round this out, Sansa represents air and Bran earth.)

[Mithras]

@bemused

Children cannot hide their feelings. It is rather easier to diagnose psychopathic tendencies at an infant. Yet at the same time, parents hardly anticipate the criminal acts of their children. They are generally blinded by their love. I think Lump showed his hatred against Bump for quite a time and his parents were aware of his animosity against Bump. Yet they were shocked to find Bump dead like that and even more shocked to learn that Lump killed him. They realized he was not their own kind.

“You belong with your own kind,” was all he said when he flung him down at Haggon’s feet.

From time to time, some village hero would come with spear in hand to slay the beastling and save a sister or a lover or a daughter.

“The free folk fear skinchangers, but they honor us as well. South of the Wall, the kneelers hunt us down and butcher us like pigs.”

Even the Free Folk seem to use insults like beastling for skinchangers.

If we consider a similar case in the book, Cersei was aware of Joffrey’s tendencies yet she was always shocked by him. She tried to convince herself and every other person that there was nothing wrong with him. This is mostly because Joffrey was all her doing and she never accepts the responsibility or fault for anything, even if it is almost entirely her fault.

I think there are very interesting parallels between Cersei and Varamyr and it can foreshadow a similar fate for Cersei. It would be awesome if she loses everything and flee the KL as a commoner named Maggy and Arya stabs her. The full Cersei vs. Varamyr comparison I made is here.

The text makes it clear that skinchanging runs in the blood. Once a skinchanger dies his true death and leaves his body forever, he can live a second life. But he cannot pass to other bodies because he becomes powerless once his original body is dead and decaying.

However, we are not sure what happens when he reproduces in his second life. Do the whelps get something from the spirit of a skinchanger inhabiting the animal?

[SeanF]

Ragnorak, that's an excellent point about Stannis. Provided people aren't actually being mutinous, or plotting treason behind his back, he welcomes people bluntly speaking their minds to him, and arguing against him. He respects both Jon and Davos for this. Sycophants have no place among his followers.

[bemused]

Bran ... You and I oviously read Stannis quite differently. We'll have to see how this works out in the long run. Leaving that aside , I think what you say about the men at large in regard to the election could lead us to make potentially unwise snap judgements about them in the future.

Most of the men might be illiterate , but this doesn't mean they are all unintelligent , or completely gullible. Many people who can't read , can count adequately and when they hear numbers announced - five , or fifty or one hundred and fifty - they have a good idea of what that means. They can also be pretty good judges of character.( At least they will have opinions based on their own interactions with people) For example , we see a range of people of different social standings associated with the watch ,from Mormont to Mance to Noye to Edd, all with a similar sort of opinion of Bowen Marsh . And we know the general opinion of Thorne ( many will have been victims of his slanders or bullying , themselves ) ... I think that men hearing Marsh , or Thorne or Slynt's characterization of Jon ( going forward ) will be able to consider the source. Though I think the complaints and insinuations raised will resonate with some , I don't think they will be universally espoused , by any means. I think we should be cautious about assuming how "alienated" the men at large become.

Paper Waver... funny, how we were making Cersei/ Varamyr comparisons at the same time , in different places ... :cheers:

And a bit creepy how many sociopaths/pyschopaths turn up as characters ! I'm not sure what it foreshadows for Cersei , but I think it's safe to say her story cannot end well.

Actually, I don't think the text makes a strong case for skinchanging running in the blood , at least , not remotely with any kind of regularity. Doesn't BR tell Bran that one person in a thousand is a skinchanger and only one in a thousand skinchangers is a greenseer ? Varamyr has a number of bastards "and not one with the gift ". If his parents had any knowledge of the ability in their own families , they might have suspected the link between him and Loptail sooner.

The Starks appear to be a special case.. No direwolves south of the wall in over 200 yrs...even Old Nan , the keeper of so many Stark stories , never mentions Stark wargs and even tells a scary story about skinchangers.. ( and the Last Hero has his "dog" with him )...

Ned gives his offspring no more than a Westerosi version of the standard parental speech about the responsibilities of pet ownerhip... and it appears that the Stark abilities must first be awoken by a direwolf ( though after that, the ability can extend to other beings , like Arya's cat friend and Hodor ). If this weren't so , surely at least one of the Stark kids would have bonded with one of the WF dogs , the easiest animal to bond with , according to Haggon( I mean, Jon and Robb were 14 and would have been around dogs continually. ) ...

So , the numerical likelihood of a bonding may be much increased among Starks, if they happen to be exposed to direwolves ; we don't know how many of the statues of the Kings of Winter are a literal depiction of the man and his wolf and how many merely a nod to the house sigil.

[Bran Vras]

What we have is a parallel with Daenerys' social revolution but on a smaller scale. We are seeing people given jobs on the basis of skills and suitability rather than social rank which contrasts sharply with Bowen Marsh leaving the Wall in the charge of a senile man because he at least is a knight.

And the sparrow revolution, perhaps?

While I can see that Jon has in him to be a revolutionary, at this point he is embracing the pre-existing meritocratic tradition at the Watch. It seems that a certain tension has always existed between the reproduction of the feudal system within the Night’s Watch and the egalitarism that seems to be a basic principle of the order. We see that clearly in the Mallister/Pyke dispute, and in the prologue of AGoT. The tension exists within all social classes: Benjen Stark says that a man gets what he earns, while Janos Slynt expects to be made Lord Commander purely in reason of his titles and recommendations. Even among the lowborn, many believe that the highborn are better fit to command. Thus the meritocratic ideal is undermined by the feudal values ingrained in everyone. (There is also the need of the Watch to maintain a network of friends in the 7K by favouring the highborn – see the treatment of Waymar Royce – but Jon seems unconcerned by that.)

A curious point of comparison came to my mind. I have seen something like this in Auroville, an utopian town founded in India in the late sixties by (mainly) westerners, that persists to this day. All residents are expected to have made tabula rasa of their past, and to begin a new life based on idealistic spiritual/economic/social principles. At a point, I was told, there was a movement to integrate local indian villagers. But even after becoming Aurovillians, many villagers found the transition difficult and kept the social elements of their previous life (caste system, family obligations, arranged marriages, religious duties).

The preeminence of merit over birth connects to Jon’s bastardy obviously. One possible outcome of being born on the wrong side of the blanket is to develop an acute sense of justice. The wildlings are born on the wrong side of the Wall (dixit Tyrion), hence perhaps the little social reform at the Wall finds a continuation in Jon’s (truly revolutionary) decision to make the Watch defend all men, on both sides of the Wall.

@Ibbison. If Stannis heard Thorne’s complaint, other men have heard of it also. Bowen Marsh acknowledged Jon’s victory, so I think apart from Slynt and his friends Thorne is preaching in the desert. In Jon II, Jon wonders how many followers Slynt has. As it turns out, not many. Where I disagree is on the notion that Thorne’s claim is ridiculous. Indeed the electoral count was not public. In other words Aemon, Sam and Clydas could have reported whatever result they wanted. At least this is how things happened in the next-to-last vote. While this might have been complicated for the last vote, since all men were forbidden to leave the dining hall, my understanding is that the same process was repeated. And it is specified that every vote was private. Of course Thorne knows that it wouldn’t be proper to accuse Aemon, so he found the "manipulated blind man" angle.

I don’t see Stannis say "I can’t say he doesn’t have a grievance" if he finds the claim ridiculous, though it can be understood in various ways (warning, threat). My reading is that Stannis doesn’t particularly care to inquire about the election. This is simply a warning to Jon.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Varamyr's prologue offers so many things to consider. A few observations related exclusively to warging:

Mormont's raven

Wargs have no fear of man, as wolves do.

The term warg here is applied to the warged animal, not the human who controls it. Normal (unwarged) wolves fear humans, but warged wolves don't - because they are partly human, and they share some of the human understanding of nature.

In Jon's chapter, the raven's description enforces the speculation that the bird is "warged".

It was a big bird, old and bold and scruffy, utterly without fear.

That bird is too clever by half.

The nature of death

“Your little one is with the gods now,” the woods witch told his mother, as she wept. “He’ll never hurt again, never hunger, never cry. The gods have taken him down into the earth, into the trees. The gods are all around us, in the rocks and streams, in the birds and beasts. Your Bump has gone to join them. He’ll be the world and all that’s in it.”

I am the wood, and everything that’s in it, he thought, exulting.

Varamyr gives a confirmation of the woods witch view of what death is, or, what happens to the human consciousness after death. As it seems, it is dissolved into the entirety of nature, giving the dying person a single moment of total insight before it is forever lost.

Death is universal, all men must die, an so must be it's nature. It can't be exclusive to the followers of the Old Gods, the same thing must be true for the followers of the Seven, R'hllor etc. though Beric didn't really enlighten us on the matter.

The warg's second life implies that his/her consciousness is somehow "automatically" reassembled, in full, into the animal and stays intact for sometime before it starts to fade. This should give us clues about how resurrection/reanimation works, be it by the Red priest, by Qybern or by the Others ("She sees me"). They all seem to be able to re-collect, to an extent, parts of the human's consciousness back into the body. The "pro" is that, as far as we've seen, consciousness does not fade as it happens to the warg. The "con" is that the subject does not come back in full. Various questions can be raised, as, can a warg be brought back to his/her body if he/she does not want to? Consequently, can a warg be "whited" or is he/she able to resist it? Would it mean that a warg can be brought back in full?

Also, it seems that the warg cannot choose in which animal his/her second life will be.

The warg would become a true wolf. Which, though? [...] Stalker might suit him better, the younger male … though One Eye was larger and fiercer [...] One Eye, he knew.

It will be the one that shares the strongest bond. Varamyr would most propably live his second life into One Eye's skin, even if he had taken Ghost.

Man and Wolf

Varamyr had lost control of his other beasts in the agony of the eagle’s death. [...] His wolves, though …

As Hagon said, the bond between the warg and the wolf is for life, like a marriage. Even if it was a forced marriage, Varamyr's wolves stayed with him until the end (and after that). I think that the reason lies in the pack instinct of the wolves, the warg becomes a part of their pack, their leader. So it is a double bond that is extended beyond the skinchanger's control. The warg may lose immediate control over the animal, but still remains a member of the pack.

On a side note, Lady's death feels much worse after this chapter, knowing what it feels like for the warg.

No, Father, please, he tried to say, but dogs cannot speak the tongues of men, so all that emerged was a piteous whine. The axe crashed into the middle of the old dog’s skull, and inside the hovel the boy let out a scream.

This quote gets me every time...

[Ibbison from Ibben]

Where I disagree is on the notion that Thorne’s claim is ridiculous. Indeed the electoral count was not public. In other words Aemon, Sam and Clydas could have reported whatever result they wanted. At least this is how things happened in the next-to-last vote. While this might have been complicated for the last vote, since all men were forbidden to leave the dining hall, my understanding is that the same process was repeated. And it is specified that every vote was private. Of course Thorne knows that it wouldn’t be proper to accuse Aemon, so he found the "manipulated blind man" angle.

The voting procedure seems to be that the voters choose their token behind a curtain to ensure privacy. The tokens are small enough that the men can conceal them in their hand before they drop them in the kettle. The kettle itself is in the open, isn't it? (So everyone can see that each man only drops one token in. It's exactly like filling out a ballot behind a curtain, but keeping the ballot box in the open, under public observation.)

As you pointed out, the ensuing count is usually private. The last count, however, was obviously in front of all the men. How can we tell? It's a Jon POV chapter. Jon saw and described the count. He's not on the counting team. Everyone immediately starts congratulating him before they head outside. There is no possible controversy about the result. Our understanding may differ on this, but I think the text is quite clear. There doesn't seem to be any room for Aemon to do any scheming.

Stannis, of course, did not witness the vote or the counting. Thorne came to him with the complaint, and it's unlikely that Stannis bothered to look into it further, since it was a NW internal matter. I would suggest reading the Stannis line as "I can’t say he doesn’t have a grievance" ... "because I haven't bothered to investigate Thorne's complaint yet, and have no intention to." That way we don't have to brand Stannis a liar; he's just playing word games as he sizes up his new opposite number.

[bemused]

Ibbison ... How right you are about Jon's POV ... In all the back and forth ,I was failing to remember that , myself.

What I was wanting to mention is that because we don't see this particular charge leveled repeatedly going forward , it's fair to assume even Thorne doesn't believe it. It's a sort of last ditch effort to negate the outcome....it's not that likely that Stannis would believe it , but it's worth a try. ( Stannis had said on the one hand , that he'd choke down whatever choice they made , but on the other, that he'd impose his choice if he had to ) ...So, nothing ventured , nothing gained.

Upthread, Elba mentioned Jon flexing and closing his burned hand, which triggered an interesting thought... Aemon set him to doing this to prevent his sword hand from becoming stiff and clumsy. Jon tells us it's become habitual. I haven't searched to find every example , but it seems to me that it's most often mentioned when he's expecting to have to do battle , whether physical or verbal. This mention comes right before his verbal parrying with Stannis begins in earnest... other examples off the top of my head - when he's sent out to kill Mance ... atop the wall with Bowen, Flint, Norrey, et al ... waiting for battle before the Thenns ( or Mance? ) attack...

Ragnorak ... I fully agree with your assessment of Jon's need to distance himself from the men. In forming his own style of leadership , he'll also have to amalgamate elements of what the NW are used to and what the wildlings are used to. It wouldn't work to just make one faction completely adopt the norms of other and the balance is changing quickly.

It seems to me there's a much more immediate ,or personal sense of the leader as protector among the wildlings than has been the case in the NW for a very long time.. it was probably more similar when the gift was populated , when families with children were more or less right under NW noses.

[Mithras]

“They say you forget,” Haggon had told him, a few weeks before his own death. “When the man’s flesh dies, his spirit lives on inside the beast, but every day his memory fades, and the beast becomes a little less a warg, a little more a wolf, until nothing of the man is left and only the beast remains.”

Haggon knew the secrets of the skinchanger. In the passage above, he used warg to represent a beast that has a skinchanger in him. When Bran sees One-Eye containing Varamyr, he said warg. When Slynt saw Jon and Ghost together for the first time, he too said warg but it seems that he was referring to Ghost. I never realized this before. I think majority of the people are using warg to represent the beast (wolf) sharing his skin by a skinchanger, not the skinchanger himself.

Gone into the trees and streams, gone into the rocks and earth. Gone to dirt and ashes. That was what the woods witch told his mother, the day Bump died.

“Your little one is with the gods now,” the woods witch told his mother, as she wept. “He’ll never hurt again, never hunger, never cry. The gods have taken him down into the earth, into the trees. The gods are all around us, in the rocks and streams, in the birds and beasts. Your Bump has gone to join them. He’ll be the world and all that’s in it.”

We should note how the woods witch described afterlife. She really knew what she was talking about. That is exactly what seemed to happen to Varamyr while he was very near his death and his soul started wandering and dissipating. I wonder how she was able to have this lore, which is accurate. According to Qyburn, woods witches are not so complicated.

“A woods witch? Most are harmless creatures. They know a little herb-craft and some midwifery, but elsewise...”

But he may not have seen a woods witch beyond the wall. They can be found south of the wall quite often. Asha was able to find one to teach her how to prepare moon tea.

This wildling woods witch used very similar phrases to Leaf and Jojen. If we are allowed to sneak peak into future Bran chapters, we can see this:

“Where are the rest of you?” Bran asked Leaf, once.

“Gone down into the earth,” she answered. “Into the stones, into the trees.”

“Most of him has gone into the tree,” explained the singer Meera called Leaf. “He has lived beyond his mortal span, and yet he lingers. For us, for you, for the realms of men. Only a little strength remains in his flesh. He has a thousand eyes and one, but there is much to watch. One day you will know.”

“What will I know?” Bran asked the Reeds afterward, when they came with torches burning brightly in their hand, to carry him back to a small chamber off the big cavern where the singers had made beds for them to sleep. “What do the trees remember?”

“The secrets of the old gods,” said Jojen Reed. Food and fire and rest had helped restore him after the ordeals of their journey, but he seemed sadder now, sullen, with a weary, haunted look about the eyes. “Truths the First Men knew, forgotten now in Winterfell … but not in the wet wild. We live closer to the green in our bogs and crannogs, and we remember. Earth and water, soil and stone, oaks and elms and willows, they were here before us all and will still remain when we are gone.”

“A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies,” said Jojen. “The man who never reads lives only one. The singers of the forest had no books. No ink, no parchment, no written language. Instead they had the trees, and the weirwoods above all. When they died, they went into the wood, into leaf and limb and root, and the trees remembered. All their songs and spells, their histories and prayers, everything they knew about this world. Maesters will tell you that the weirwoods are sacred to the old gods. The singers believe they are the old gods. When singers die they become part of that godhood.”

Actually, I don't think the text makes a strong case for skinchanging running in the blood , at least , not remotely with any kind of regularity. Doesn't BR tell Bran that one person in a thousand is a skinchanger and only one in a thousand skinchangers is a greenseer ? Varamyr has a number of bastards "and not one with the gift ". If his parents had any knowledge of the ability in their own families , they might have suspected the link between him and Loptail sooner.

I think it runs in the blood but it is not hereditary.

“Only one man in a thousand is born a skinchanger,” Lord Brynden said one day, after Bran had learned to fly, “and only one skinchanger in a thousand can be a greenseer.”

“I thought the greenseers were the wizards of the children,” Bran said. “The singers, I mean.”

“In a sense. Those you call the children of the forest have eyes as golden as the sun, but once in a great while one is born amongst them with eyes as red as blood, or green as the moss on a tree in the heart of the forest. By these signs do the gods mark those they have chosen to receive the gift. The chosen ones are not robust, and their quick years upon the earth are few, for every song must have its balance. But once inside the wood they linger long indeed. A thousand eyes, a hundred skins, wisdom deep as the roots of ancient trees. Greenseers.”

I think the bolded part shows that the gift of both skinchangers and greenseers randomly pops out. Wolf statues of ancient Stark kings need not show that they were all wargs.

There is also the fact that this gift must be embraced and awakened. I think many gifted people die without realizing their gift. So a skinchanger is seen far less common than one in a thousand. This must be true espeically in the places south of the Wall. The gift can have a better chance to surface up in less developed places which are closer to nature.

ETA: It is more interesting to observe Jon's flexing of his hand through the POVs of other peoples. We will have one in Mel's POV. I am not sure whether Sam had one too.