Jon Snow: A mary sue?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Anyway, I have yet to see an argument for Jon being 'generic' that doesn't rely on reductive claims. Just a lot of people isolating elements of his character to claim that Jon is somehow objectively pat and uninteresting without engaging with the deeper themes being worked out through his arc.

[David Selig]

Everything's a generic trope when you give reductive summations like that. I somehow think you'd not appreciate the wide adoption of calling Cat the "Evil Stepmother" trope (and I certainly wouldn't either, but by claiming one character is objectively generic based on a cherry-picked reductive summary legitimizes doing so for everyone else).

My opinion that he's easily the most "traditional" character (if you prefer that to generic) in the series of the main ones. His back story is really typical, his personality is very much the typical good guy in an epic fantasy, his plotline so far is traditional too. Maybe the fantasy novels I've read are too skewed towards such characters and don't represent the field well, I don't know but that's my experience and I am hardly the only one. Most people consider Jon the most typical fantasy character in ASOIF at least that's my impression from talking about the series here and in RL.

Which character in ASOIF is more generic in your opinion?

R+L doesn't work the way I think a lot of readers might think. Rather than telling us that Jon is the "true king," it's actually telling us that any notion of there being a "true king" is completely obsolete. Jon is never going to be given the throne because he's allegedly a Targ-- so he's neither Aragorn, nor the "unwilling king" trope. If Jon ever takes the throne, it will be for reasons that have nothing to do with R+L as a factor of legitimacy.

How can you say this for sure? Nobody knows that except Martin.

Anyway, fact is (if R=L=J is true) his background story is really traditional for a fantasy main character. Whatever happens in the future won't change that.

[butterbumps!]

The main reason I hate R+L is exactly what's being attributed to jon now being a generic rise to the throne type character mary sue. I'd much prefer it if he were a product of brandon and ashara dayne's brief fling vs the one true savior of all of westeros

Well, let's not go that far. I do think R+L is crucial, just for the opposite reason I think a lot of the "trope" sentiment assumes. Specifically because it will have nothing to do with anyone in story viewing him as the "true king."

Simply, Jon is not the "true king in hiding." Such a concept just doesn't exist in ASOIAF.

My opinion that he's easily the most "traditional" character (if you prefer that to generic) in the series of the main ones. His back story is really typical, his personality is very much the typical good guy in an epic fantasy, his plotline so far is traditional too. Maybe the fantasy novels I've read are too skewed towards such characters and don't represent the field well, I don't know but that's my experience and I am hardly the only one. Most people consider Jon the most typical fantasy character in ASOIF at least that's my impression from talking about the series here and in RL.

Which character in ASOIF is more generic in your opinion?

I don't think any significant character is "generic." In books with inferior writing, "generic" characters sometimes exist. I don't think ASOIAF is inferior writing in terms of character development, or what their arcs are telling us.

How can you say this for sure? Nobody knows that except Martin.

Anyway, fact is (if R=L=J is true) his background story is really traditional for a fantasy main character. Whatever happens in the future won't change that.

I can say that because, having paid attention to Jon, his assumption of a Targ lineage is the opposite of the logical conclusion to his development.

And the notion that the in-universe characters would A. believe he's Rhaegar's legitimate son, and B. consider this a reason to make him king, is the opposite of the logical conclusion of what's been developing in the rest of the story. This hit me especially after DwD, when we see Aegon, appear. Because Westeros is really going to believe in 2 of Rhaegar's long lost sons coming back? Or even want "a Targ" simply because they're a Targ after all this?

[E-Ro]

lol, no, just that I don't think you'd get the result you wanted from trolling me on that particular issue.

Oh, interesting. I feel intimidated anyway.

If you're calling him "generic" because you believe that R+L makes him a "return of he king"/ "secret king" trope, then I need to point out that there's no such thing as a "true king" in this series, and frankly, R+L means nothing in terms of the throne for Jon at all. Lineage isn't what gives you the throne or power.

Idk brah brah. I mean sure no one is just going to give him the throne because of his birth, but the fact is that his birth makes people WAY more likely to follow him and it could give him key allies, it makes him suitable for a match to a high noble and that would give him lots of troops. I don't think it's debatable that his parentage is a huge advantage, if he can prove it of course.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Oh, interesting. I feel intimidated anyway.

Idk brah brah. I mean sure no one is just going to give him the throne because of his birth, but the fact is that his birth makes people WAY more likely to follow him and it could give him key allies, it makes him suitable for a match to a high noble and that would give him lots of troops. I don't think it's debatable that his parentage is a huge advantage, if he can prove it of course.

But, brah, just look at what Stannis' story has to say about this assumption. He's the guy with the 'right' birth status, the reader knows he's the 'rightful' King of the Baratheon dynasty, and it buys him precious few followers.

Yes, Jon's lineage will make a difference plot-wise, but it's not going to buy him the throne. Meaning he's not the 'true king' in hiding, the series asks us to repeatedly to reject the farce embedded in this understanding.

[E-Ro]

But, brah, just look at what Stannis' story has to say about this assumption. He's the guy with the 'right' birth status, the reader knows he's the 'rightful' King of the Baratheon dynasty, and it buys him precious few followers.

Yes, Jon's lineage will make a difference plot-wise, but it's not going to buy him the throne. Meaning he's not the 'true king' in hiding, the series asks us to repeatedly to reject the farce embedded in this understanding.

The reader knows, but the people in the story don't. No one believes stannis because it looks self serving. But do you think if cersei admitted it anyone would be fighting for her and her kids? Do you think the tyrells would want their daughter married to jof waters instead of jof baratheon?

I don't see Jon as the true king because fuck the targs, but targ loyalists in westeros as well as Jon himself could use his birth to huge advantage.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I embrace the farce rather then rejecting it.

[butterbumps!]

Idk brah brah. I mean sure no one is just going to give him the throne because of his birth, but the fact is that his birth makes people WAY more likely to follow him and it could give him key allies, it makes him suitable for a match to a high noble and that would give him lots of troops. I don't think it's debatable that his parentage is a huge advantage, if he can prove it of course.

No, that's not true, though. Again, who is going to believe he's Rhaegar's legitimate son after Aegon-- who actually looks the part-- shows up, and why would they flock to his cause merely for this reason? Besides, Jon's self-identity struggle as a bastard isn't leading toward his adoption of claiming a trueborn Targ identity, so from that angle as well, it wouldn't help.

The reader knows, but the people in the story don't. No one believes stannis because it looks self serving. But do you think if cersei admitted it anyone would be fighting for her and her kids? Do you think the tyrells would want their daughter married to jof waters instead of jof baratheon?

You're answering your own objections within this explanation, brah.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The reader knows, but the people in the story don't. No one believes stannis because it looks self serving. But do you think if cersei admitted it anyone would be fighting for her and her kids? Do you think the tyrells would want their daughter married to jof waters instead of jof baratheon?

I don't see Jon as the true king because fuck the targs, but targ loyalists in westeros as well as Jon himself could use his birth to huge advantage.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I embrace the farce rather then rejecting it.

But the Tyrells know that Stannis is Renly's older brother. Meaning they know for certain that Renly's claim is ubsurd, and it doesn't matter to them.

Getting people to believe that your claim is right is problematic enough, Stannis' story shows us. On top of that we can see that people don't truly care that much about the rightful claim.

[Lummel]

...the notion that the in-universe characters would A. believe he's Rhaegar's legitimate son, and B. consider this a reason to make him king, is the opposite of the logical conclusion of what's been developing in the rest of the story. This hit me especially after DwD, when we see Aegon, appear. Because Westeros is really going to believe in 2 of Rhaegar's long lost sons coming back? Or even want "a Targ" simply because they're a Targ after all this?

I think there are some people in westeros who will want a Targaryen simply because they are (or are believed to be) a Targaryen now or in the near future of the series , but aside from the risk that Aegon may devalue the brand I rather like OnionAhaiReborn's wording here

...Yes, Jon's lineage will make a difference plot-wise, but it's not going to buy him the throne. Meaning he's not the 'true king' in hiding, the series asks us to repeatedly to reject the farce embedded in this understanding.

in that Jon gaining the throne because he has Targaryen ancestry would be a farce, this is were I swing into agreement with you Butterbumps! His arc shows his complete identification with Winterfell and with being The Ned's son, as we've seen in the reread he even makes an effort to out Eddard The Ned. If he was made King because he was believed to be Rhaegar's son the result would be a farce - and maybe that is where GRRM will take us, just to point out how absurd the idea is, but equally it would fit with a bittersweet ending that somebody who by birth has a claim to the throne and through upbringing and experience has the capability to be a decent king in fact doesn't ride down the Kingsroad. :dunno:

[E-Ro]

Ugh, I give up. You clowns are relentless.

[WeddinGuest]

I disagree. First of all they don't like having female recruits but the only other person Arya gets acquainted with at the FM besides the KM is female. They have their uses too.

Secondly, I think certain portions of the fandom have the tendency to overrate Arya's sense of justice and thinks her morality is similar to that of a comic book hero when it's not.

She's been coldblooded since the second book.

The Harrenhal guard imo isn't self defense. He didn't do anything to her. I don't agree with those that think it's murder but I think IRL it might be a lesser charge. It's not self defense though. She has a motive to kill him but all killers have motives that doesn't make them not guilty.

The guard could have been a nice man with a family who was just doing his job. She doesn't think or care about this ever. He's in the way of her goals. It's premeditated because she plans and after she does it she coldly thinks the rain will wash the blood off.

Other examples I would use are that she contemplated killing Gendry. She had motive there too. She decides against not because he's an innocent, he doesn't deserve to die, he's her friend, she cares about him, etc. No, she doesn't do it because she thinks she can't get away with it. That's cold.

She does this again with the woman who cheated her. She doesn't think maybe cheating me is not a justified reason to murder someone. She thinks she can't get away with it because there are too many witnesses.

The insurance man is more of the same mindset with the guard. He's in the way of her goals. She wants to advance so he needs to go. I think people value too much of her rationalizing it when let's remember she wanted to kill his guards for no legitimate reason and the KM had to tell her no. The KM also tells her that it doesn't matter if he's a bad person and isn't necessarily one so her initial hesitation ultimately doesn't count for much.. She accepts that answer and kills him. If she really wasn't cold then she would say I can't do it. But of course not. This is reminiscent of previous behavior from her.

Murdering Dareon was cold as hell. She hung out with this man. Let him think he was safe in her presence. She's indifferent to him wanting to enjoy life or the reasons why he had to go to the Wall in the first place. She takes the law in her own hands and this is the one murder where she has zero remorse.

Even if she wasn't cold blooded she's a child. IRL dangerous groups love children because they are easier to mold, manipulate, indoctrinate, or what have you.

Anyways, on topic while Jon has many traditional aspects to his arc the worst part of Jon's story for me is the McWhitey trope that he has in his arc. That wildling b.s. storyline fits it almost to a tee. Upgrading from Ygritte to Val only makes it stronger. & you know the actor in Avatar who fulfilled this trope was bland and dry as hell too.

A little OT, but re the killing of the Harrenhal guard, Arya appears cold-hearted about it at first, but she's tormented by it later, to the point that she has the totally irrational fear that Robb, who's likely killed hundreds more people than she has at that point (either directly or indirectly), will REFUSE to ransom her if he found out about it; she actually ranks this "murder" the same as her killing of the stable boy, which was a much more justifiable as self-defense. This delayed reaction seems very close to actual soldiers who DO engage in cold-blood killing in the context of war, might seem to be totally unaffected by it at the time, only to later suffer from PTSD, depression, horrible nightmares, etc.

As for her having no remorse about the death of Daeron, why isn't Ned Stark a monster for not having any remorse about all the NW deserters he's killed over the years? At least Arya didn't force a 7 year old to watch it....she also is indignant when she finds out the FM gave the "gift" to an abused girl and let the abuser live.

She also has not at all lost her sense of compassion, she is moved by the suffering of the "wolves" the BWB have caught and are letting starve to death in cages, even knowing these men raped and murdered smallfolk. I love how grey GRRM makes this whole scene. Aren't the soldiers monsters for what they did? But are the BWB any better? Even Thoros admits later that they THOUGHT they were being righteous under Beric, with the implication that they weren't really. I think this has some application to Arya's arc as well. Of course she's not a comic book superhero, but neither are the BWB. (Arya stealing Daeron's boots is also reminscent of the BWB stealing gold from Sandor, and I assume others they "tried".) However, I don't think you can write off either (or even LS) as just a bunch of coldhearted killers, either.

Anyway, to try to tie this back to the main topic, I think that if you apply reductive reasoning to Arya, you could easily make her a "comic book superhero" Mary Sue, who gets all sorts of plot gifts, but it doesn't really. (For example, everyone loves and helps MS because of how amazing she is, but most of the people who help Arya actually are doing it for their own interests, even Yoren I think -- even if he wouldn't be personally rewarded for returning her to Robb, I'm sure he hoped that would make Robb more friendly to the NW.) Same for Jon Snow.

[butterbumps!]

I think there are some people in westeros who will want a Targaryen simply because they are (or are believed to be) a Targaryen now or in the near future of the series , but aside from the risk that Aegon may devalue the brand I rather like OnionAhaiReborn's wording here

in that Jon gaining the throne because he has Targaryen ancestry would be a farce, this is were I swing into agreement with you Butterbumps! His arc shows his complete identification with Winterfell and with being The Ned's son, as we've seen in the reread he even makes an effort to out Eddard The Ned. If he was made King because he was believed to be Rhaegar's son the result would be a farce - and maybe that is where GRRM will take us, just to point out how absurd the idea is, but equally it would fit with a bittersweet ending that somebody who by birth has a claim to the throne and through upbringing and experience has the capability to be a decent king in fact doesn't ride down the Kingsroad. :dunno:

Oh, I do think there are people who still want a Targ, but it hardly looks like this Targness is enough to achieve very much. And of Jon in particular, he stands out as the least "real" of the 3 "Targs" contenders. Importantly, even with these more "genuine-seeming" Targs, both are aware that they must do more than merely have Targness for the taking of the throne (conquest with Dany, a savior-type impulse for Aegon, as formulated by Varys).

I don't think Martin's taking us to that farce, though. I think it might be closer to either never taking the Kingsroad, or becoming king (in one of the iterations we've seen) for reasons that have nothing to do with lineage, but rather, something else. Such as what's embedded in Varys' enlightened despot speech to Kevan about Aegon, Stannis' reformulated plan to the throne through deeds, and/ or the consensus-oriented methods that have been pretty thorough in Jon's arc in terms of Watch elections and wildlings' choice, even perhaps finding some foreshadowing of the opposite result in Aemon's taking the black in response to that previous Great Council.

[Lummel]

For sure, the series has been relentless in showing us that blood lineage alone is near to worthless...

[Minsc]

Simply, Jon is not the "true king in hiding." Such a concept just doesn't exist in ASOIAF.

Even without R+L=J, one has the issue of how there is this gigantic theory about how the entire North and Riverlands is plotting to crown Jon the King of the North because how he has been made the secret heir of that claim (an achievement like LC not received though merit, but because the plot whittled away all other candidates before him in a somewhat contrived manner).

[Alayne's Shadow.]

The people who hate Dany (outside of the Usurpers Dogs) are like a convention of Snidely Whiplashes. Jon endures more physical suffering than Dany, but I'd say that they both have terrible lives full of depressive episodes, and don't think either really has it much better in some objective sense.

To be quite fair, Dany's life pre-AGOT and throughout most of her relationship with Viserys was pretty much worst than Jon's first thirteen years, objectively speaking . It's one thing to think you don't belong because you are a bastard, yet have every comfort money could possibly buy, a loving father, a gentle household and five friendly siblings, the most of all of his suffering being Cat's cold looks. Dany, on the other hand, despite her very few years in the House with the Red Door, had to endure an abusive brother, selling the family jewels to survive, begging for shelter and not to mention being forced out by the servants from the only home she ever knew at such a young age. Not to mention even in AGOT Dany starts her journey being sold to a horse lord in exchange of a possible army, and only not being raped by her brother because Illyrio wanted to guard her virginity to Khal Drogo. I'd take Jon's suffering over Dany's in a heartbeat.

[butterbumps!]

Even without R+L=J, one has the issue of how there is this gigantic theory about how the entire North and Riverlands is plotting to crown Jon the King of the North because how he has been made the secret heir of that claim (an achievement like LC not received though merit, but because the plot whittled away all other candidates before him in a somewhat contrived manner).

But that's not Martin's problem. The GNC-- specifically, the permutation of it that posits that the whole North is scheming to put Jon on a throne-- is a theory by fans, and not something Martin's actually given us.

How is it that Jon's becoming LC due to lack of better candidates is this awful plot device, and not, you know, a nod toward the fact that Jon precisely isn't a mary sue because he didn't achieve it through some precocious ability at 16 that made him so uniquely qualified? And in a "contrived" manner, of course. Because there is absolutely no other significance to that epic fail of a ranging except to make Jon LC.

To be quite fair, Dany's life pre-AGOT and throughout most of her relationship with Viserys was pretty much worst than Jon's first thirteen years, objectively speaking . It's one thing to think you don't belong because you are a bastard, yet have every comfort money could possibly buy, a loving father, a gentle household and five friendly siblings, the most of all of his suffering being Cat's cold looks. Dany, on the other hand, despite her very few years in the House with the Red Door, had to endure an abusive brother, selling the family jewels to survive, begging for shelter and not to mention being forced out by the servants from the only home she ever knew at such a young age. Not to mention even in AGOT Dany starts her journey being sold to a horse lord in exchange of a possible army, and only not being raped by her brother because Illyrio wanted to guard her virginity to Khal Drogo. I'd take Jon's suffering over Dany's in a heartbeat.

I don't disagree about the pre-aGoT conditions. Jon had a pretty happy life for the most part, I'd say. Well taken care of, loving family, a lot of advantages over 99% of Westeros. I was speaking to their suffering we see unfold on page. I think both of their lives become something that closely resembles hell.

[BitsOfBrains]

If you think that Dany or Tyrion were not abused in childhood, you need to do a re-read. You may want to focus on why Dany is so scared of Viserys, or where Tyrion's self-esteem issues come from. Abuse takes many forms, and it is a huge difference if your close family is warm and loving, or cold, distant, scornful and tyrannic.

Not saying they weren't treated poorly by some people, just saying that they had really good easy lives.Neither worked a day in their lives and have been given lavish lifestyles.

Arya, Danaerys, Bran, etc. have reason to believe their lots in life will improve.

Jon on the other hand will never have a woman, never have a son, never have any respect or glory besides among the other black brothers.

I guess in my opinion its better to be living a shitty life with a hope of someday living a decent life, than to be surviving with no hope of ever having a decent life.

The complete and utter lack of hope for a better tomorrow is, to me, a fate worse than death.

[ARYa_Nym]

A little OT, but re the killing of the Harrenhal guard, Arya appears cold-hearted about it at first, but she's tormented by it later, to the point that she has the totally irrational fear that Robb, who's likely killed hundreds more people than she has at that point (either directly or indirectly), will REFUSE to ransom her if he found out about it; she actually ranks this "murder" the same as her killing of the stable boy, which was a much more justifiable as self-defense. This delayed reaction seems very close to actual soldiers who DO engage in cold-blood killing in the context of war, might seem to be totally unaffected by it at the time, only to later suffer from PTSD, depression, horrible nightmares, etc.

She thinks her family wouldn't want her back because she's a killer and because she isn't lady like but that still isn't the same as thinking about whether or not the guard deserved to die. It was still a cold kill that she rationalized. If she was already able to do that then there's no reason why she couldn't do it with the FM.

& this is not even getting into Nymeria's predatory nature influencing her, (her pleasure at Nymeria killing an innocent shepherd and his flock for example). We learn from Varamyr that the warg bond can make the warg more like the animal.

As for her having no remorse about the death of Daeron, why isn't Ned Stark a monster for not having any remorse about all the NW deserters he's killed over the years? At least Arya didn't force a 7 year old to watch it....she also is indignant when she finds out the FM gave the "gift" to an abused girl and let the abuser live.

Ned didn't murder Gared and he took no pleasure in it. Now sure he should think more about who he kills but him not doing so doesn't make Arya not cold. Dareon was cold and calculated. Those who write Arya off as some impulsive emotional character miss that Dareon actually exemplifies that character development into a predator who waits and attacks.

Ok but she also threatens to kill an abused girl,the waif, for simply touching her.

She also has not at all lost her sense of compassion, she is moved by the suffering of the "wolves" the BWB have caught and are letting starve to death in cages, even knowing these men raped and murdered smallfolk. I love how grey GRRM makes this whole scene. Aren't the soldiers monsters for what they did? But are the BWB any better? Even Thoros admits later that they THOUGHT they were being righteous under Beric, with the implication that they weren't really. I think this has some application to Arya's arc as well. Of course she's not a comic book superhero, but neither are the BWB. (Arya stealing Daeron's boots is also reminscent of the BWB stealing gold from Sandor, and I assume others they "tried".) However, I don't think you can write off either (or even LS) as just a bunch of coldhearted killers, either.

Is this the same scene where she has to determine they are wolves first before she gives them water?

This is not to say she's an evil person but her killing for the FM is not some out of left field development. GRRM even said that killing becomes a game for those in Arya's position and that they can be more dangerous than adults. The FM didn't teach her to kill. She already knew that. She killed more before she got to them. They didn't teach her to have a desire to kill someone who may or may not be innocent. She was already capable of it. There's also the fact that she was told that she can leave.

Arya is Cat of the Canals. In many threads it was talked about how she was like a cat who brings back a prize of their kill. She's proud of what she did and wants to show off. The BWB steal because they need the money. Arya didn't need his boots. I'm sure they didn't even fit her.

Anyway, to try to tie this back to the main topic, I think that if you apply reductive reasoning to Arya, you could easily make her a "comic book superhero" Mary Sue, who gets all sorts of plot gifts, but it doesn't really. (For example, everyone loves and helps MS because of how amazing she is, but most of the people who help Arya actually are doing it for their own interests, even Yoren I think -- even if he wouldn't be personally rewarded for returning her to Robb, I'm sure he hoped that would make Robb more friendly to the NW.) Same for Jon Snow.

Jon has more people who genuinely like him and respect him in his case. The different one would be Stannis who would turn on Jon easily if given the chance.

[Minsc]

But that's not Martin's problem. The GNC-- specifically, the permutation of it that posits that the whole North is scheming to put Jon on a throne-- is a theory by fans, and not something Martin's actually given us.

How is it that Jon's becoming LC due to lack of better candidates is this awful plot device, and not, you know, a nod toward the fact that Jon precisely isn't a mary sue because he didn't achieve it through some precocious ability at 16 that made him so uniquely qualified? And in a "contrived" manner, of course. Because there is absolutely no other significance to that epic fail of a ranging except to make Jon LC.

Unless one is arguing that fans are just making up support for the GNC, then it has to be taken that it holds some actual representation/reality in Martin's works.

It is a ridiculous standard to argue that it isn't a plot device because it gives a marginal excuse for why Jon is selected, rather then Martin making it because all love and adore Jon through some precocious ability at 16 that made him so uniquely qualified. That just shows that Martin is able to put in some thought into his devices to make them somewhat realistic rather then complete fan fiction.

That does seem to be one of the few major significances, along with granting greater justification for Jon's brilliant efforts (which his enemies are made too stupid to realize) to integrate the Wildlings into the Watch.

[butterbumps!]

Unless one is arguing that fans are just making up support for the GNC, then it has to be taken that it holds some actual representation/reality in Martin's works.

Um, I don't subscribe to the permutation of the GNC that theorizes that the whole North is rallying for Jon. I'm not sure if you're confusing me for someone else, but I'm not a GNC proponent. Ergo, the fact that the GNC theory exists doesn't affect my beliefs about Jon's supposed clichedness, and I have no idea why you are even bringing up a fan theory-- which has so many permutations and is not even a single theory at this point-- to support your case.

It is a ridiculous standard to argue that it isn't a plot device because it gives a marginal excuse for why Jon is selected, rather then Martin making it because all love and adore Jon through some precocious ability at 16 that made him so uniquely qualified. That just shows that Martin is able to put in some thought into his devices to make them somewhat realistic rather then complete fan fiction.

You know what's really ridiculous? Resorting to "plot device" arguments to explain plot in a novel. Since, you know, novels have plots such that one thing leads to another.

What are you even arguing? You're saying you'd find it absurd if Jon was elected through precocious ability, and you find it grating that he killed off the other candidates so that Jon would win by default so that it would be more realistic? Did your horns get twisted about "plot devices" too when Martin engineered the plot so that Dany didn't die in that pyre, or when Martin engineered it so that of all the bars in all the world Tyrion shows up at the one Cat's in?

That does seem to be one of the few major significances, along with granting greater justification for Jon's brilliant efforts (which his enemies are made too stupid to realize) to integrate the Wildlings into the Watch.

What are you trying to say here?