Jon Snow ReRead Project! Part 5! (DwD)

[Lummel]

...I wonder if Tywin Lannister (apropos Walder Frey, among others) and Littlefinger would agree? Perhaps sometimes, words *are* swords? Previously Jon has tried to use words as a shield, albeit a paper shield, so if words can be a shield, can they then not be a sword?

In medieval Europe you swore to give your lord Auxilium et consilium - support and advice, swords were counted under support - advice is important enough to be listed separately. To my mind Jon is acting as one of Stannis' councillors in this scene, he give advice that does not just get Stannis and his army off the Watch's lands but that enables him to prosecute his war in the north more effectively.

I like the puddling laws point. Stannis talks in absolute terms but when it comes to advancing his cause the fixed seems to become fluid

[Ser Pollo Loco]

Marsh has determined that We have a problem. Jon accepts the conclusion, although it surprises him. (Jon is not the bookish sort, as we find out when he meets Sam in the archives. I wonder if Maester Luwin had trouble getting him to pay attention during math studies.) Marsh doesn't seem capable, though, of coming up with a solution.

This actually changes over the course of Dance, he falls asleep at his books after his convo's with Sam and Aemon. And I think it's sums he bests Robb at, at least some times.

[Fire Eater]

Crowfood’s daughter

The mention of Crowfood’s kidnapped daughter is definitely interesting. Mance is still in the room and I think that girl will be one of the spearwives he will take with him. I think that one is Rowan, who is described as tall, long-legged, with rough hands etc. And this:

Rowan gave him a hard look. “You have no right to mouth Lord Eddard’s words. Not you. Not ever. After what you did—”

Umbers are known as fierce Stark loyalists. These words look very odd for a wildling spearwife.

Except Umber's daughter was kidnapped thirty years ago, and was a teenager at least by the time she was kidnapped while Rowan is likely in her 20s or at the very least, early 30s. She is too young be Crowfood's daughter. I think Crowfood's daughter was more likely Val and Dalla's mother. Something I will bring up in later chapters.

Other than that, so far so good. I agree Dywen is a BAMF; he is a skilled and highly competent ranger, a good example of merit vs. birth. The smiler and the slayer connecting to Ramsay and Theon is a good catch. As for Devan, I think he may be on Mel's side if it ever comes to conflict between Jon and the King's men vs Mel and the Queen's men. It would be bitter irony to see Devan sided against his father.

snip

I agree that Marsh's problem is being too much of a traditionalist, and not questioning whether this approach is actually working.

[Lummel]

I made a few notes on the chapter as I was rereading

• Down in the stores Bowen mentions there might be pilfering in winter - but the doors are all locked with a steward wearing the key round his neck - surely only a steward who had access to the key could pilfer food? Isn't this a bit like Bowen confess that he will be stealing from the stores once it gets really cold!
  
• "the room felt colder than it should" p219 I know a couple of us have already mentioned this. Hmm how cold should a storeroom underground, under a wall made of solid ice feel? Is this unease? Or a sign of the supernatural?
  
• Again the temptation of Winterfell and dominion over the earth offered to Jon
  
• Stannis the smooth "this had best not be some bastard's trick" p229 just after offering Jon winterfell - he's really going out of his way to win friends and influence people here :laugh: if Jon as a bastard is prone to bastard tendencies of tricking and betraying people of legitimate birth then quite why is Stannis offering him winterfell! The puddingness of his approach is particularly gooey here.
  
• The parallel between the limitations of Jon's and Stannis' advisers something we also see in Meereen, also in King's Landing. We seem to have either chorus of "yes" men or of "no" men. People who play Jon's role and provide alternative solutions are rare.
  

[Mithras]

• The parallel between the limitations of Jon's and Stannis' advisers something we also see in Meereen, also in King's Landing. We seem to have either chorus of "yes" men or of "no" men. People who play Jon's role and provide alternative solutions are rare.

Reznak is the Varys and Shavepate is the LF of Dany. They both manipulate her for their own ends. I think Reznak is the Perfumed Seneschal and he is in league with the Harpy (Green Grace). Hizdahr is their puppet.

Cersei’s small council is a queer menagerie. From Cersei’s POV, they look like incompetent losers. However, we should remember that this is Cersei’s POV and she is becoming more and more delusional, even mad every day. Untangling Cersei’s council is a tough subject but I am sure that she is surrounded by agents of different allegiances.

As a result, both Dany and Cersei are surrounded by scheming agents, who smile to their faces but plot to betray them off the screen.

Jon’s case is similar to Dany and Cersei but I think Stannis is different. He is surrounded by utter fools.

[Dusto]

Long time lurker. Just a couple of thoughts on the stores beneath the wall.

I made a few notes on the chapter as I was rereading

• Down in the stores Bowen mentions there might be pilfering in winter - but the doors are all locked with a steward wearing the key round his neck - surely only a steward who had access to the key could pilfer food? Isn't this a bit like Bowen confess that he will be stealing from the stores once it gets really cold!
• "the room felt colder than it should" p219 I know a couple of us have already mentioned this. Hmm how cold should a storeroom underground, under a wall made of solid ice feel? Is this unease? Or a sign of the supernatural?

The first point may also indicate that there is more than one way in, and therefore more than one way out of the stores.

As for the second point. Jon has had some experience with caves and should therefore have some level of unconscious understanding of the Cave Effect. The Cave Effect says as you dig deeper the temperature should average out to the overall average year round temperature. If you go deeper still the temperature will slowly rise as there is less ground to insulate you from the heat of the Earths mantle. The fact that under the wall it gets colder the deeper you go indicates that the cold is coming from below, which is not a natural phenomenon.

I also wonder of this section of text may play into the "fire consumes but cold preserves" line. Is something being preserved under the wall?

[Ragnorak]

I don't think that Stannis could set an agenda in this case - he has far fewer men than Roose. Roose could besiege Stannis in the Dreadfort, send men to Eastwatch to capture his Queen and have men to spare to capture Deepwood Motte. For me, and perhaps we agree here, Stannis isn't a strategist, he is a gambler, shaking his dice trusting that he can pull something off on the battlefield. And so long as his Lady Luck is beside him in the form of Melisandre perhaps he can. And that is precisely the same with his whole campaign to become king, he starts off knowing that the odds are against him. None of it makes rational sense, but he throws the dice anyway. There's an impatience perhaps an eagerness to test his luck, if he is lucky - that proves he was right, R'hllor has spoken. He's not going to sit, plot and plan. Nor wait while he trains up the Wildlings he had brought through the wall, or wait for news from Davos.

In the end the worthiness of the original plan is a minor point as Jon's is clearly better, it was a trap, and it isn't followed. I do think it is illuminating regarding Stannis though. I do think Stannis is a military strategist far more than a gambler. The key trend here is not so much that Stannis is willing to gamble like a LIttlefinger gambles, but that he is willing to gamble or engage in any other activity that exceeds zero chance of success rather than surrender or compromise on certain core issues.

The underlying idea is that Stannis is trying to make himself more attractive to the Northern lords than Bolton. Taking the Dreadfort is designed to change the status quo and make Stannis more appealing and Roose less so and it would most certainly accomplish that. Whether it would have been enough, whether the Red Wedding hostages would still trump that victory, whether Northern infighting over attacking the Ironborn would have been disastrous are all those "what ifs" Stannis claims are a fool's game. What I think is important here is that this extreme risk is preferable to Stannis than blackmailing Jon into taking Winterfell or choosing to get Mel to burn somebody to get another "Red Bird" result. Something about this is extremely admirable in the bold self reliance and unquenchable tenacity it demonstrates and the options he doesn't choose are also somewhat positive signs in the morality department.

I love the way he comes alive here at simply having any chance and that he is completely willing to risk it all on faith in his own personal ability.

Roose outplays Stannis at every turn and forces him into traps.

Interesting thoughts on the changing nature of "dutiful." Curious to see what you come up with in the full analysis.

I'm not sure that Roose outplays Stannis. His plan was to use treachery to kill him at the Dreadfort with Karstark which Jon semi-intentionally sabotages (he didn't know but knew it was a risk too far.) Roose couldn't predict Stannis would take Deepwood and almost certainly was caught offguard by the Mountain Clans joining him. Deepwood must have come as a surprise since he was expecting the Dreadfort attack that Karstark told him of. The predictable attack on Winterfell seems like an understanding on Roose's part of the political dynamic that sets the clans against him.

We do seem to be potentially building to an inversion of the Blackwater. There a Renly imposter inspired half of Stannis' men to switch sides while at Winterfell an Arya imposter is inspiring half of Roose's men to switch sides. It seems that Roose is going to suffer the side switching defeat fate as far as the parallel is played out. (There have been Stannis death faking theories and various Trojan Horse and treachery inside Winterfell theories so it may or may not play out as a walls of Kings Landing inversion :dunno: .)

Law flavored pudding... yum?

The traditional way legal alchemists have typically turned legalistic iron into pudding has been with the Mercy Stone. (And somewhere in the midst of that transformation is a substance call justice...) Stannis seems to be able to find mitigating factors in the pragmatism of his needs but not through the values in the human heart that traditionally spawn mercy. Fire consumes indeed. Iron and pudding is the spectrum our beloved author drags us through repeatedly as well. The laws of iron were certainly in effect back in GoT when a child was tossed from a tower window. Sometime over the course of the series they turned a bit pudding-like. Theon was also released from his iron shackles into a mire of pudding. I'm not sure what to make of this in terms of Stannis other than that if he were a reader of this series he would be seemingly unmoved in the iron and pudding department unless a particular POV had an army he needed.

Welcome Dusto!

[Lady of Long Lake]

Long time lurker. Just a couple of thoughts on the stores beneath the wall.

As for the second point. Jon has had some experience with caves and should therefore have some level of unconscious understanding of the Cave Effect. The Cave Effect says as you dig deeper the temperature should average out to the overall average year round temperature. If you go deeper still the temperature will slowly rise as there is less ground to insulate you from the heat of the Earths mantle. The fact that under the wall it gets colder the deeper you go indicates that the cold is coming from below, which is not a natural phenomenon.

I also wonder of this section of text may play into the "fire consumes but cold preserves" line. Is something being preserved under the wall?

Welcome Dusto :cheers: and great observation! I hadn't thought of that and you are right. Jon grew up playing in the Winterfell vaults- he knows what it "should" feel like at different depths below ground.

[Lummel]

Long time lurker...

I also wonder of this section of text may play into the "fire consumes but cold preserves" line. Is something being preserved under the wall?

Welcome Dusto, once we too were like you!

Something other than the meat that we know is preserved under the Wall? Maybe, although the Wall and the cold in Aemon's line suggest a general, bracing conserving effect connected to the wall

In the end the worthiness of the original plan is a minor point as Jon's is clearly better, it was a trap, and it isn't followed. I do think it is illuminating regarding Stannis though. I do think Stannis is a military strategist far more than a gambler. The key trend here is not so much that Stannis is willing to gamble like a LIttlefinger gambles, but that he is willing to gamble or engage in any other activity that exceeds zero chance of success rather than surrender or compromise on certain core issues.

The underlying idea is that Stannis is trying to make himself more attractive to the Northern lords than Bolton. Taking the Dreadfort is designed to change the status quo and make Stannis more appealing and Roose less so and it would most certainly accomplish that. Whether it would have been enough, whether the Red Wedding hostages would still trump that victory, whether Northern infighting over attacking the Ironborn would have been disastrous are all those "what ifs" Stannis claims are a fool's game. What I think is important here is that this extreme risk is preferable to Stannis than blackmailing Jon into taking Winterfell or choosing to get Mel to burn somebody to get another "Red Bird" result. Something about this is extremely admirable in the bold self reliance and unquenchable tenacity it demonstrates and the options he doesn't choose are also somewhat positive signs in the morality department. ...

We do seem to be potentially building to an inversion of the Blackwater. ...

The traditional way legal alchemists have typically turned legalistic iron into pudding has been with the Mercy Stone. (And somewhere in the midst of that transformation is a substance call justice...) ...

The distinction between Lord Baelish and Stannis seems a fine one to me. OK, Stannis didn't plan to run naked up to the walls of Kings Landing intending to punch his way to the crown but his plan is scarce better than that save for the fact that he has Melisandre "lucky dice" at his side. I would go along with your sense that he is energised by the fight, perhaps the worse the odds the more he's engaged. I don't see much sense of strategy beyond "capture the capital!" though. I don't share your appreciation of a bold self-reliance in Stannis' plans, he burns up people in pursuit of those plans and people are dying solely in the cause of his ambition, which is the same as every other contender for a crown in this story it is true. I can imagine him still claiming his throne while abandoned to die alone in a cave but the expression of his tenacity in the field of politics rests on the backs of other people. Isn't this part of the problem? Isn't he just a part of the culture of moral decline, the "me" generation of Westeros, who want it all ? ;)

I like the inversion of the Blackwater idea - repetition with variation!

The alchemy of the mercy stone is nice, although with Stannis, well we don't share his confidences. He tells Jon that laws are of iron, but acts as though they are pudding when it suits him, but without an explicit statement that he is making an exception on the grounds of mercy, or the merits of the case. But then my view is that Stannis made his Faustian bargain before we meet him, there seem to be few things that he won't sacrifice to win the throne :dunno:

[Ibbison from Ibben]

• Down in the stores Bowen mentions there might be pilfering in winter - but the doors are all locked with a steward wearing the key round his neck - surely only a steward who had access to the key could pilfer food? Isn't this a bit like Bowen confess that he will be stealing from the stores once it gets really cold!

Marsh suggests that Jon will need to put guards on the storerooms. Given the manpower problem the NW is already facing, Jon would probably see that as a waste of effort. I see this as further demonstrating Marsh's narrow view of the problems facing the Watch - he is entirely focused on the duties/needs of the Stewards, and wants more resources poured into doing their work. He's not looking at the bigger picture, the needs of the NW as a whole. Those storeroom guards would no doubt be better employed walking the Wall, helping Builders reopen other forts, ranging, etc.

[Ragnorak]

Welcome Dusto, once we too were like you!

Something other than the meat that we know is preserved under the Wall? Maybe, although the Wall and the cold in Aemon's line suggest a general, bracing conserving effect connected to the wall

The distinction between Lord Baelish and Stannis seems a fine one to me. OK, Stannis didn't plan to run naked up to the walls of Kings Landing intending to punch his way to the crown but his plan is scarce better than that save for the fact that he has Melisandre "lucky dice" at his side. I would go along with your sense that he is energised by the fight, perhaps the worse the odds the more he's engaged. I don't see much sense of strategy beyond "capture the capital!" though. I don't share your appreciation of a bold self-reliance in Stannis' plans, he burns up people in pursuit of those plans and people are dying solely in the cause of his ambition, which is the same as every other contender for a crown in this story it is true. I can imagine him still claiming his throne while abandoned to die alone in a cave but the expression of his tenacity in the field of politics rests on the backs of other people. Isn't this part of the problem? Isn't he just a part of the culture of moral decline, the "me" generation of Westeros, who want it all ? ;)

I like the inversion of the Blackwater idea - repetition with variation!

The alchemy of the mercy stone is nice, although with Stannis, well we don't share his confidences. He tells Jon that laws are of iron, but acts as though they are pudding when it suits him, but without an explicit statement that he is making an exception on the grounds of mercy, or the merits of the case. But then my view is that Stannis made his Faustian bargain before we meet him, there seem to be few things that he won't sacrifice to win the throne :dunno:

Seven save us, a man makes a teensy weensy little deal with the devil and you get so judgmental. The man has a little bit of extra-marital sex with a hot redhead that happens to create kinslaying fratricidal shadow babies by sucking out his soul, burns a couple people alive and you go all Septon Meribald on him. What do you do for fun when you go out drinking? Ok, if Mel is really a decaying corpse who only looks good through a Beer Glamor maybe you're moral point gains a little clarity.

In all seriousness, I think this is a big turn around chapter in terms of Stannis sympathy. Showing up at the Wall, his cart before the horse speech to Jon, and a few other things make him potentially likeable but we're given some pretty intentional reticence in scenes like the Mance burning and Wildling offer to taint any real embracing of Stannis. He's kept at sympathy arms length. This is the first chapter where I think we get Stannis presented without any of that taint and I think this is the real turning point where readers who are Stannis fans start to fully embrace him.

What is it about Stannis here or his dynamic with Jon or the choices he makes here that separates him from all these previous "almost" likeable moments or choices? Is there an underlying gratification because or Ned substitute is able to convince our Robert substitute to do the right thing and embrace a more proper kingly course? What makes Stannis appealing here in a way he generally isn't elsewhere? Or have I just spent too much time drinking with amoral succubus bedding pyromaniacs?

[Mithras]

all these previous "almost" likeable moments or choices?

I think even coming to the Wall and crushing the wildlings is not an "almost" likeable moment of Stannis. Surely he proposes that a true king should save the Realm but the letter Davos read to him was his pretext, not his reason as Godry put it. Stannis came to the Wall because in fact he had nowhere else to go. Either he was going to go on a suicide attack or he would wait and be crushed at Dragonstone.

[Ghost's Shadow]

And there we have it. Stannis is king over nothing. :leaving:

[Lummel]

...What is it about Stannis here or his dynamic with Jon or the choices he makes here that separates him from all these previous "almost" likeable moments or choices? Is there an underlying gratification because or Ned substitute is able to convince our Robert substitute to do the right thing and embrace a more proper kingly course? What makes Stannis appealing here in a way he generally isn't elsewhere? Or have I just spent too much time drinking with amoral succubus bedding pyromaniacs?

You tell me! I don't find any of Stannis' moments particularly likeable, he's not a character I have been warm towards at any stage. Some of the Davos chapters have a nice, fine brooding darkness to them and these ones with Jon an imperious awkwardness but I don't find anything likeable about Stannis. Tragic - yes, likeable - no. To steal somebody else's line from a US election, I knew The Ned and Stannis is not The Ned (tried to find humorous video of Neds, but they were all too depressing, even to make a bad joke :( )

Perhaps your amoral succubus bedding pyromaniac has something to do with it after all? :laugh:

[Ser Pollo Loco]

Jon reaction is perfect, Stannis! Stannis! Stannis! Meh Jon goes to check on Val

I wonder if Jon literally turning his back on Stannis is future foreshadowing

[Ibbison from Ibben]

What is it about Stannis here or his dynamic with Jon or the choices he makes here that separates him from all these previous "almost" likeable moments or choices? Is there an underlying gratification because or Ned substitute is able to convince our Robert substitute to do the right thing and embrace a more proper kingly course? What makes Stannis appealing here in a way he generally isn't elsewhere? Or have I just spent too much time drinking with amoral succubus bedding pyromaniacs?

I'm not a Stannis fan myself (he has some strong good points, but also strong bad points), but I love reading Stannis-Davos scenes. Davos is a simple, honest man who tells Stannis the unvarnished truth, and Stannis usually reacts well to it. I love the Stannis-Jon scenes even more. Jon is a better Davos than Davos is - he tells Stannis the truth just like Davos does, but Jon doesn't have the loyalty debt to Stannis that Davos does. Jon also has greater military and political knowledge than Davos does. And we see Stannis reacting well to it again.

Despite his reputed hardness and rigidity, Stannis is very susceptible to advice from strong personalities that he either respects or sees as powerful. When he has the right adviser around (Davos or Jon), Stannis usually makes good decisions. When he doesn't, he screws up. We warm to Stannis when we see him accepting the value of Jon's advice here.

[Ragnorak]

You tell me! I don't find any of Stannis' moments particularly likeable, he's not a character I have been warm towards at any stage. Some of the Davos chapters have a nice, fine brooding darkness to them and these ones with Jon an imperious awkwardness but I don't find anything likeable about Stannis. Tragic - yes, likeable - no. To steal somebody else's line from a US election, I knew The Ned and Stannis is not The Ned (tried to find humorous video of Neds, but they were all too depressing, even to make a bad joke :( )

Perhaps your amoral succubus bedding pyromaniac has something to do with it after all? :laugh:

Setting aside my vast disappointment that you may not in fact formulate drunken plans involving fire and seductive redheads to steal a throne for yourself over there across the pond we'll move back to Stannis. I'm going to have to get you a red bird for your birthday.

We're constantly told how unreasonable and unbending Stannis is and even get plenty of opportunity to see examples of it ourselves. One aspect of the comparison between the two councils is that we see Stannis the Unreasonable be quite reasonable especially compared to Jon's advisors who offer nothing close to what Jon gives Stannis. Jon and Stannis can reach accords while Jon and Bowen can't. Stannis is King and Jon is only a Lord Commander. Stannis the Unbendable bends here for Jon while Jon's own subordinates have begun to adopt the ironic break before bending aspect of Stannis. There's also the background comparison of The Ned and Robert to Jon and Stannis. Stannis here listens to Jon in ways Robert never listened to Ned. Even more generally, relative to what we see in the rest of the story I suspect there is something quite appealing about Stannis taking Jon's advice since so many tragic outcomes we're heralded by unfollowed advice.

The course Stannis sets out on is one that aligns itself with a the reader's wants and anticipations. Either course sets him against perceived betrayers but attacking the Dreadfort is the more vengeance-like path. According to Roose, Winterfell falling was what opened up the opportunity for Roose to betray Robb. Stannis is actually choosing the more merciful path by freeing captives and supporting the restoration of Winterfell over the more revenge filled path of inflicting Robb's fate on Roose. He's working toward liberation and restoration instead of destructive "justice."

I suspect that the tragic nature of Stannis plays into his likability here too. The flip side of tragedy is a could have been happier outcome. Here Stannis is demonstrating his capacity for that alternate outcome even if falling short of making it likely.

Beyond this is something in the dynamic between Jon and Stannis. Exactly what it is I can't quite place. The humorous aspect of Stannis certainly plays a part in it. He may demonstrate the negative attributes of the prejudices of the noble class but he channels Archie Bunker when he does it as opposed to the more typical Hollywood old money or Wall Street snob or elitist. There's hyperbole and a lack of bite to go with his bark. Gilly was an abomination that they best be rid of but Stannis wasn't sending her away because of it and he never revoked her freedom of the castle. He also equates the scenario to Kings Landing which is inherently acknowledging this fault as one found in Westeros. It is a backhanded compliment to the Wildlings as if he expects them to behave better than Westeros nobility.

There's an inherent comparison to his interactions with Davos as well, but Davos is too deferential for it to be a relationship among equals. Here we get a glimpse of Stannis having the beginnings of a true friendship with Jon. He uses nicknames for his own men which seems to indicate that he's let his guard down. He's not wearing the King's Face with Jon here. He asks Jon if this is some bastard's trick but his actions show a trust in Jon. He doesn't ask Jon to swear an oath before a heart tree to keep Val close. Perhaps there's an element of seeing the first glimpse of a human warmth of sorts in Stannis that plays into his improved likability here.

I'm not a Stannis fan myself (he has some strong good points, but also strong bad points), but I love reading Stannis-Davos scenes. Davos is a simple, honest man who tells Stannis the unvarnished truth, and Stannis usually reacts well to it. I love the Stannis-Jon scenes even more. Jon is a better Davos than Davos is - he tells Stannis the truth just like Davos does, but Jon doesn't have the loyalty debt to Stannis that Davos does. Jon also has greater military and political knowledge than Davos does. And we see Stannis reacting well to it again.

Despite his reputed hardness and rigidity, Stannis is very susceptible to advice from strong personalities that he either respects or sees as powerful. When he has the right adviser around (Davos or Jon), Stannis usually makes good decisions. When he doesn't, he screws up. We warm to Stannis when we see him accepting the value of Jon's advice here.

Yes, I think this is definitely a part of it.

Still, I suspect there's something a bit clearer to explain the transformative effect this chapter has on readers' takes on Stannis that I haven't been able to spot or articulate clearly.

[Lyanna Stark]

Beyond this is something in the dynamic between Jon and Stannis. Exactly what it is I can't quite place. The humorous aspect of Stannis certainly plays a part in it. He may demonstrate the negative attributes of the prejudices of the noble class but he channels Archie Bunker when he does it as opposed to the more typical Hollywood old money or Wall Street snob or elitist. There's hyperbole and a lack of bite to go with his bark. Gilly was an abomination that they best be rid of but Stannis wasn't sending her away because of it and he never revoked her freedom of the castle. He also equates the scenario to Kings Landing which is inherently acknowledging this fault as one found in Westeros. It is a backhanded compliment to the Wildlings as if he expects them to behave better than Westeros nobility.

Yes, this is exactly it!

Compare Stannis's "harsh but fair" to say Randyll Tarly. Tarly is just harsh, really, and he has this side that he just doesn't care about people. I mean, why does Tarly uphold justice (or the semblance of it)? It seems more to be "because it is the done thing", while Stannis actually has a belief that it is actually right.

Even if Stannis is uptight and too focused on justice, he believes it is right very deeply. I mean why else would he suggest banning brothels in Kings Landing? It's of course hilarious to the reader in it's wrongheadedness, but it's an idealistic position, you might say, based in Stannis's belief that prostitution is Wrong and Sinful etc etc. Hence I think also why Davos could appeal to his saving the country. I don't think that would have been a position that Tarly would ever have considered.

So Stannis grumbles and grouches and threatens to behead Jon Snow, and he can definitely be lead astray by manipulative Melisandre (I definitely think we should get Lummel his own Red Bird, but perhaps with a complimentary cage for ease of handling? :p ). When Stannis does stuff that is morally very wrong, it's normally because he gets bad advice, but in his defence, he also seems to at least be able to be convinced by the better stuff, even if it brings out the grumbling and the grouching.

You can't really laugh at someone like Randyll Tarly because there is no humanity to base that humour on, it seems to me. Stannis at least has it. Tarly is just monstrous and crule.

[Mithras]

Tommen was a good-hearted little man who always tried his best, but the last time Ser Arys saw him he had been weeping on the quay. Myrcella never shed a tear, though it was she who was leaving hearth and home to seal an alliance with her maidenhood. The truth was, the princess was braver than her brother, and brighter and more confident as well. Her wits were quicker, her courtesies more polished. Nothing ever daunted her, not even Joffrey. The women are the strong ones, truly.

Val stood on the platform as still as if she had been carved of salt. She will not weep nor look away. Jon wondered what Ygritte would have done in her place. The women are the strong ones.

Any ideas?

[Ghost's Shadow]

Men are the weaker gender, but that was always known... ;)

PS: Shoot, I totally thought this was the Foreshadowing thread. :blushing: