Jon Snow ReRead Project! Part 5! (DwD)

[Fire Eater]

"Two [horn] blasts," he announced. Val

Tormund Giabtsbane had come at last.

Great horns of the North wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last.

-The Return of the King, Battle of Pelennor Fields.

Tormund's arrival is a reference to the arrival of the Rohirrim, which included Eowyn. Like Val, Eowyn is a grey-eyed blonde princess who is a skilled rider and rides a grey horse. Eowyn was also known for her unrequited love for Aragorn, just as Val has towards Jon (at the moment at least), and married Faramir.

to add to this from ASoS

"And Val's no man," white-bearded Tormund snorted.

No living man am I!

-Eowyn, The Return of the King

I think that adds to the Eowyn parallel, who killed the Witch-king of Angmar. I think Val will kill someone of similar standing, Melisandre.

[Lummel]

...Jon giving Alys's hand a squeeze is one of several instances of small kindnesses Jon extends to others...

I would love to read about the conversation in which Jon and Alys go over possible suitors and Alys settles for Sigorn. What did she say about the Southron fools? (I'm reminded of a type of folksongs in which a girl lists and mocks her suitors one by one until she gets to the last name on the list, the name of her true love.)

Yes, I think that kindness is an important character trait of Jon's and with regard to tightness of writing it is a trait he shares with Sansa (Bran also perhaps, not so much Arya she wouldn't even give Sandor the gift :laugh: )

I wonder if there were so many potential candidates for marriage - Sigorn was the only one with a following of 200 men (I guess Jon would have them given weapons and armour from Night Watch stores before they go to Karhold) and also with an eye to political Jon he was aware in Jon V of Sigorn as a potential problem. For Jon Sigorn :love: Alys is an incredibly neat solution.

Butterbumps' idea that the LC's role is to become supreme leader in times of crisis is an interesting one, as is the implication that the NW is not the only force capable of fighting against the Others. It contradicts the idea (mentioned in the Heresy threads?) that only the NW brother who swore his oath in front of a weirwood can fight them. I also wonder what the implications for the Long Night would have been. Did the Last Hero become that rallying figure? Were there any other times when it happened? The Long Night is the only time the Others are explicitly mentioned as attacking, but in AGOT Mormont mentions to Tyrion, "White Walkers are being seen for the first time in a thousand years", implying that there have been more recent sightings, if not attacks, than the Long Night 1000 years ago...

Welcome Elkrider,

Hmm, Mormont in the books says something very different: "The fisherfolk near Eastwatch have glimpsed white walkers on the shore" which suggests a serious sign, but nothing like so rare as a once in a thousand years event (Tyrion III AGOT)- you're remembering something I guess from the TV programme.

Its a moot point but I don't think that Butterbumps! suggestion contradicts the heresy idea, Butterbumps! isn't saying that the Lord Commander needs to grapple personally with a White Walker but rather that they would provide overall leadership. However it might be worth while looking at the faiths of those who we know object to Jon's policies, maybe there is a link there in where they swore their oaths?

...Back in LtL I also said that this is probably the first wedding at the Wall since the Night King. Bumps speculation has me wondering though. When the Watch had holdfasts in the Gift and the LC had smallfolk to care for like any other lord would people get married at the Wall? Would the LC arrange marriages for people much like a local lord would like we see Randa say her father tried to do for Mya? Is there an undercurrent of the Watch returning to some of its past glory as it returns to its true purpose? Or more specifically to Butterbumps's speculation, is there a return to a more normal participation in the routine traditions of civilized society as the people who make up the realms of men reoccupy the territory under their protection?...

I should think there would be pride and unease among the watch in varying quantities from man to man - castles being reopened, a king and then a queen turning up, Wildling horde defeated, a lot of changes and comings and goings, fancy events taking place - burning The Mance, arrival of a giant, a marriage...its all change from what we saw in AGOT.

[Mithras]

to add to this from ASoS

"And Val's no man," white-bearded Tormund snorted.

No living man am I!

-Eowyn, The Return of the King

I think that adds to the Eowyn parallel, who killed the Witch-king of Angmar. I think Val will kill someone of similar standing, Melisandre.

I definitely agree that Val might slay Mel with the guidance of Bloodraven. However, GRRM might diverge from Tolkien and think that “nobody slays the evil witch king and lives happily ever after”. In fact, Eowyn didnot pay any price other than the wounds she suffered, which were healed by Aragorn and the other healer. All the people who killed UnBeric suffered terrible fates.

[butterbumps!]

I wasn't intending to be serious about the royal genes :laugh: Its a fair speculation that originally the Watch may have had more of a leadership or co-ordinating role. Certainly the warning role seems more than reasonable. Irrespective of speculation it is a fact that there is a power vacuum over parts of the north now and contested authorities over the rest and there is a need for co-ordination and leadership beyond security matters.

We see Jon growing into that power vacuum - explicitly waking the sleeping hill clans for example, and if one wants to be lawyerly about it the wording of the oath could be construed as allowing, enabling or even requiring that the Watch takes such a leadership role. If Jon sees it that way is another question, there's room enough for more GRRM irony - 'actually the oath says he can do all those things...'

Hmm, doesn't former Lord Commander Mormont agree with you what with his appeal to Tyrion to make the King and court listen and the ravenmails sent south?

lol, ok, I was kind of hoping that was a joke about the genes.

But I agree that whether or not the prospect I described is embedded in the original vows, the reality of the situation is such that overriding leadership boundaries seems pretty requisite in the near future in order to rally and unify, at least for the existential crisis. And original intent or not, the vows do enable anyone in story to make this argument if pressed.

The irony aspect you bring up is one of the reasons I wanted to call attention to this. But beyond that, I think Martin does want us to be a little "lawyerly" about vow and oath interpretation. Not necessarily to justify various characters who take a "loose construction" of vows, but to think about what gives vows power and meaning, and how flexible things like "law" are. It's not necessarily the word of oaths but the commonly accepted interpretation of them that has a deterministic quality. When someone in-story reinterprets the vows and then convinces others of this revised meaning, then the meaning of the vow changes. In the next chapter, Jon will play lawyer about the "realms of men" part of the oath (as Mormont did earlier at Craster's), which I think sets up the idea of how flexible these things are, and that this is something Jon's aware of and might exploit.

And one other issue is that Jon's position is becoming a bit nebulous lately. Given how many different factions see him as some type of authority, it's hard to pin down exactly what his role is (king of the wildlings, LC, last Stark, King of Winter, etc). It's clear he's taking on "something more" than the commonly defined role of an LC, but I don't think there's any other formal title that really captures exactly what he's becoming. It might simply be that "Lord Commander" was designed to be, or will become, the title to describe this transcending authority figure.

Oh, and about "making" the realm listen-- I was curious if this meant force was authorized. Can the Watch "make new lords/ fight the lords" if they refuse to listen?

Butterbumps' idea that the LC's role is to become supreme leader in times of crisis is an interesting one, as is the implication that the NW is not the only force capable of fighting against the Others. It contradicts the idea (mentioned in the Heresy threads?) that only the NW brother who swore his oath in front of a weirwood can fight them. I also wonder what the implications for the Long Night would have been. Did the Last Hero become that rallying figure? Were there any other times when it happened? The Long Night is the only time the Others are explicitly mentioned as attacking, but in AGOT Mormont mentions to Tyrion, "White Walkers are being seen for the first time in a thousand years", implying that there have been more recent sightings, if not attacks, than the Long Night 1000 years ago.

Well, there might be a number of different roles required in fighting the Others, and not all of them might be public ones (Bran, for example, and perhaps Benjen if he's still out there). And there's also the defense side of this-- securing the living behind walls with enough food, distributing flammables and dragonglass arrows to slow the taking of castles, stopping the wars to quell the production of dead bodies so that the Others can't raise them as armies, instruct everyone to burn the bodies, and so forth.

Welcome Elkrider,

Hmm, Mormont in the books says something very different: "The fisherfolk near Eastwatch have glimpsed white walkers on the shore" which suggests a serious sign, but nothing like so rare as a once in a thousand years event (Tyrion III AGOT)- you're remembering something I guess from the TV programme.

Its a moot point but I don't think that Butterbumps! suggestion contradicts the heresy idea, Butterbumps! isn't saying that the Lord Commander needs to grapple personally with a White Walker but rather that they would provide overall leadership. However it might be worth while looking at the faiths of those who we know object to Jon's policies, maybe there is a link there in where they swore their oaths?

Yea, I'm not sure this contradicts anything in the Heresies. I think one of the major public roles in this will be of a defensive nature as I listed above, which wouldn't necessarily constitute hand-to-hand Other combat. I'm not certain I'm on board with the suggestion that only a brother can kill an Other under the assumption that dragonglass is merely a conductor for the Watchman's "magical power," like a wand. I get that this makes sense with something like a dagger, but we know that spears and arrows were used, and these weapons inherently distance the Watchman from both the dragonglass and the Other target. If saying the vows in front of wierwoods have any special power at all, I'd posit that it renders the Watchman impervious to be fully raised as the Others' thralls-- more like Coldhands, less like Othor, perhaps.

[The Sleeper]

One question: Where do little Thenns come from? I mean where are the Thenn women?

My first impression when I read this chapter is of neatness. Everything is neat. Alys loses her tailing uncle, while gaining a small army to help her reclaim her castle and birth right. At the same time Jon gets rid of Sigorn and his two hundred Thenns, as well as his animosity and the need to feed them, while at the same time gains the promise of future reinforcements on the Wall. He also shows everyone a jolly good time and throws Mel and Selyse a bone with a red (not that kind) wedding. He also could be seen doing a solid for Stannis by sending him word about Arnolf's [lanned betrayal. Combined with the previous (securing the loan and seemingly solving the food problem), this chapter's long awaited departure of the fleet for Hardhome and Tormund's imminent arrival (and dodging a bullet with Val's return) it could be seen that Jon is putting all his ducks in a row.

I'd say that Jon has done a fair bit of lawyering himself. He gave Alys guest right, while sending an armed party to intercept her uncle making sure he either had to turn back or attack and get apprehended. As Alys is practically of age and if not the actual lady of Karhold, its rightful heir, so she could be seen chosing her husband herself (and shouldering any potential fallback for marrying a wildling). Meanwhile the R'hlor wedding can make it seem like the affair was conducted by Selyse or Mel, making Jon seem like he is just renting out the venue.

It doesn't seem people are buying it. For on thing Jon doesn't seem to be buying it himself. People won't usually go looking at details to arrive at this conclusion. Jon is the head honcho there, so inevitably everything that goes on. He has just adjudicated in effect an inheritance matter, hosted a marriage and formed a new house that people would expect to heed Jon. The fact that Stannis is following a plan Jon proposed, with forces Jon led him too and is going to Jon's home to save to Jon's sister at the insistence of the troops Jon led him too, it starts to look like Jon has sent Stannis on an errand. Combined with setting up independent finances and rallying all the wildlings he can. There is a major shift in the power balance between Stannis and Jon. This will become more apparent with Tormund, but I think that their would be a lot of characters in-story who would draw the same conclusion that many of the fine posters here have reached. Many of them will not be happy about it (yes, I am looking at you Marsh)

Upon closer inspection the neatness cracks on all fronts. For Alys this is hardly an ideal solution and he may have married two of his enemies together. (Alys may still be after all, her father's daughter). Selyse and her retinue all find something to complain about, mainly that they were the decoration and not the stars of the show, but Satin draws some fire as well. The butter is starting to run out, the mountain men seem appropriately grumpy, their is no word from Mance, neither from Stannis and the guy left in charge of Eastwatch is a crony of Thorne's. You get the picture. Naturally, the feast is interrupted by horn blasts which bring relief even though they are is two of them. One thing this shows is how much things have changed, but I have to wonder if the relief felt by Jon is shared by everyone.

Alys

For a character who has had such a brief appearance (and is likely never be seen again) she has made quite the splash. I would like to add to the observations previously about the fires and the cold, that Alys seems to have an almost chemical reaction to it. Her eyes sparkle, her cheeks are red and the snow has made the lace she is wearing "a frosty crown", a curiously(?) regal aspect prompting Jon to call her "Winter's lady". The familiarity that was established in the previous chapter is continued and reinforced. She continues to remind him of Arya, she has snowflakes melting (on her cheeks) and there is an easy manner between them along with shared experiences. She is arguably the only peer he's had since Sam left, which is why the feast despite being business feels quite like a reprieve to him.

Mel

I had a notion at some point that the snow storm that has halted Stannis' march was sent by Bran and Bloodraven to stop him from undertaking a suicidal assault on occupied Winterfell. The ghost of High Heart told Thoros that he wouldn't get any visions while at High Heart. Could it be that Bran and Bloodraven are deliberately screwing with her reception. Other than that we see Mel being defensive which is quite unlike her and she repeats the vision about the daggers. Jon is quite overcome with his frustration, too. Despite Mel getting it wrong, this was obviously a true vision. Maybe Jon should tell her to tell him, what she sees precisely and leave the interpretation to him?

[Lummel]

One question: Where do little Thenns come from? I mean where are the Thenn women?...

The storks bring them.

I just assumed there are Thenn women down in Moles Town with the men, Alys only mentions the two hundred strong army, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any women, just that she didn't mention them. Fighting men rather than the need for a healthy gender balance to maintain the long term sustainability of the population are I suspect closer to the top of her agenda at present :laugh:

[Julia H.]

It is hard to say with certainty exactly who knows what and when (and what the reaction will be), but that word has spread beyond Mormont and Glover is a virtual certainty. The GNC threads have some more specific speculation but it seems safe to say that at this point any lord in the North could reasonably know about Robb's will.

Thanks for the detailed response.

So anybody may know but Jon... (You know nothing, Jon Snow.)

It is embarrassing to confess that this connection only occurred to me last night! :blushing: (And I finished my first reading of ADwD several weeks ago. You know nothing, Julia.)

OK, now I would like to know whether the northmen know that Jon doesn't know or if they at least wonder how much he might know of the Will.

Yes, I think that kindness is an important character trait of Jon's and with regard to tightness of writing it is a trait he shares with Sansa (Bran also perhaps, not so much Arya she wouldn't even give Sandor the gift :laugh: )

I wonder if there were so many potential candidates for marriage - Sigorn was the only one with a following of 200 men (I guess Jon would have them given weapons and armour from Night Watch stores before they go to Karhold) and also with an eye to political Jon he was aware in Jon V of Sigorn as a potential problem. For Jon Sigorn :love: Alys is an incredibly neat solution.

I should think there would be pride and unease among the watch in varying quantities from man to man - castles being reopened, a king and then a queen turning up, Wildling horde defeated, a lot of changes and comings and goings, fancy events taking place - burning The Mance, arrival of a giant, a marriage...its all change from what we saw in AGOT.

I agree that Sigorn is the only really eligible young man here but Jon could still go over the list to help Alys realize it (she's a newcomer on the Wall), especially if others have tried to approach Alys, too. Or just for fun.

Yes, a lot of things are going on on the Wall. On top of what you have listed, most of the guests seem to be crazy to get married. Even the queen is talking about a second wedding for her and her loving :lol: husband. All that being watched by watchers sworn to life-long celibacy.

“I know that I could give His Grace more children if we were bound in fire.”

There must have been a blizzard the day she and Stannis wed. :lol:

Speaking of planned marriages, Ser Axell's blatant rudeness when discussing Val is so outrageous that it seems almost studied. His “you've broken her to the saddle” is direct reference to their earlier conversation, where Jon protested “She is not a horse to be paraded for inspection, ser” (the use of the title sounds quite ironic here), and Axell replied “I promise not to count her teeth”. Is he now expecting Jon to wink at him and offer to “sell him the horse” for a good price, like one man of the world to the other? Or does he only want to trick Jon into admitting that he is planning to use Val to get Winterfell from Stannis?

Or, having already seen that the Lord Commander is protective of Val, is Axell purposefully trying to provoke him? In that case, what is Axell's agenda? Is it to spoil Sigorn's wedding with a scandal or to discredit Jon as a host and/or as a proper lord of Westeros (as opposed to a “wildling king”)?

If the bastard had wanted Val, all he had to do was ask for her.

We never find out whether Jon is still only thinking of Stannis's offer (as the previous thought of Winterfell suggests) or also of how Val would have reacted to being “asked for”.

Jon is on his guard as regards self-control despite Ser Axell's inflammatory language. The scene is in contrast with the one in GoT where, during another meal, Ser Alliser called Jon a traitor's bastard, and Jon reacted with what Mormont later called “that nonsense in the commmon hall”. Now Jon is all self-control, and instead of kicking food and drink from the gallant knight's hand, he opts for a breath of fresh air.

And then two hornblasts and twenty heartbeats before he can breathe again.

lol, ok, I was kind of hoping that was a joke about the genes.

But I agree that whether or not the prospect I described is embedded in the original vows, the reality of the situation is such that overriding leadership boundaries seems pretty requisite in the near future in order to rally and unify, at least for the existential crisis. And original intent or not, the vows do enable anyone in story to make this argument if pressed.

The irony aspect you bring up is one of the reasons I wanted to call attention to this. But beyond that, I think Martin does want us to be a little "lawyerly" about vow and oath interpretation. Not necessarily to justify various characters who take a "loose construction" of vows, but to think about what gives vows power and meaning, and how flexible things like "law" are. It's not necessarily the word of oaths but the commonly accepted interpretation of them that has a deterministic quality. When someone in-story reinterprets the vows and then convinces others of this revised meaning, then the meaning of the vow changes. In the next chapter, Jon will play lawyer about the "realms of men" part of the oath (as Mormont did earlier at Craster's), which I think sets up the idea of how flexible these things are, and that this is something Jon's aware of and might exploit.

And one other issue is that Jon's position is becoming a bit nebulous lately. Given how many different factions see him as some type of authority, it's hard to pin down exactly what his role is (king of the wildlings, LC, last Stark, King of Winter, etc). It's clear he's taking on "something more" than the commonly defined role of an LC, but I don't think there's any other formal title that really captures exactly what he's becoming. It might simply be that "Lord Commander" was designed to be, or will become, the title to describe this transcending authority figure.

Oh, and about "making" the realm listen-- I was curious if this meant force was authorized. Can the Watch "make new lords/ fight the lords" if they refuse to listen?

Well, if the blood of the First Men is anything to go by, Jon doesn't look for authorization from anyone, and yet he has started to reshape the realm a bit. He hasn't only just made a new lord in the North (giving him the castle and the arms), but he has also formed an alliance with the IB, an institution planning to overthrow the current king / regime in KL, in other words precisely the lords who refuse to listen to the horn that wakes the sleepers.

Fascinating discussion about the reading of the vow.

One question: Where do little Thenns come from? I mean where are the Thenn women?

My first impression when I read this chapter is of neatness. Everything is neat. Alys loses her tailing uncle, while gaining a small army to help her reclaim her castle and birth right. At the same time Jon gets rid of Sigorn and his two hundred Thenns, as well as his animosity and the need to feed them, while at the same time gains the promise of future reinforcements on the Wall. He also shows everyone a jolly good time and throws Mel and Selyse a bone with a red (not that kind) wedding. He also could be seen doing a solid for Stannis by sending him word about Arnolf's [lanned betrayal. Combined with the previous (securing the loan and seemingly solving the food problem), this chapter's long awaited departure of the fleet for Hardhome and Tormund's imminent arrival (and dodging a bullet with Val's return) it could be seen that Jon is putting all his ducks in a row.

I'd say that Jon has done a fair bit of lawyering himself. He gave Alys guest right, while sending an armed party to intercept her uncle making sure he either had to turn back or attack and get apprehended. As Alys is practically of age and if not the actual lady of Karhold, its rightful heir, so she could be seen chosing her husband herself (and shouldering any potential fallback for marrying a wildling). Meanwhile the R'hlor wedding can make it seem like the affair was conducted by Selyse or Mel, making Jon seem like he is just renting out the venue.

It doesn't seem people are buying it. For on thing Jon doesn't seem to be buying it himself. People won't usually go looking at details to arrive at this conclusion. Jon is the head honcho there, so inevitably everything that goes on. He has just adjudicated in effect an inheritance matter, hosted a marriage and formed a new house that people would expect to heed Jon. The fact that Stannis is following a plan Jon proposed, with forces Jon led him too and is going to Jon's home to save to Jon's sister at the insistence of the troops Jon led him too, it starts to look like Jon has sent Stannis on an errand. Combined with setting up independent finances and rallying all the wildlings he can. There is a major shift in the power balance between Stannis and Jon. This will become more apparent with Tormund, but I think that their would be a lot of characters in-story who would draw the same conclusion that many of the fine posters here have reached. Many of them will not be happy about it (yes, I am looking at you Marsh)

Upon closer inspection the neatness cracks on all fronts. For Alys this is hardly an ideal solution and he may have married two of his enemies together. (Alys may still be after all, her father's daughter). Selyse and her retinue all find something to complain about, mainly that they were the decoration and not the stars of the show, but Satin draws some fire as well. The butter is starting to run out, the mountain men seem appropriately grumpy, their is no word from Mance, neither from Stannis and the guy left in charge of Eastwatch is a crony of Thorne's. You get the picture. Naturally, the feast is interrupted by horn blasts which bring relief even though they are is two of them. One thing this shows is how much things have changed, but I have to wonder if the relief felt by Jon is shared by everyone.

Alys

For a character who has had such a brief appearance (and is likely never be seen again) she has made quite the splash. I would like to add to the observations previously about the fires and the cold, that Alys seems to have an almost chemical reaction to it. Her eyes sparkle, her cheeks are red and the snow has made the lace she is wearing "a frosty crown", a curiously(?) regal aspect prompting Jon to call her "Winter's lady". The familiarity that was established in the previous chapter is continued and reinforced. She continues to remind him of Arya, she has snowflakes melting (on her cheeks) and there is an easy manner between them along with shared experiences. She is arguably the only peer he's had since Sam left, which is why the feast despite being business feels quite like a reprieve to him.

Mel

I had a notion at some point that the snow storm that has halted Stannis' march was sent by Bran and Bloodraven to stop him from undertaking a suicidal assault on occupied Winterfell. The ghost of High Heart told Thoros that he wouldn't get any visions while at High Heart. Could it be that Bran and Bloodraven are deliberately screwing with her reception. Other than that we see Mel being defensive which is quite unlike her and she repeats the vision about the daggers. Jon is quite overcome with his frustration, too. Despite Mel getting it wrong, this was obviously a true vision. Maybe Jon should tell her to tell him, what she sees precisely and leave the interpretation to him?

LOL.

Probably no one doubts who is in charge, and the chapter does ring with a “too much of a good thing for the Lord Commander” type of foreboding. But I hope when Alys says Karhold remembers, it means she and her Magnar are and will remain friends to Jon. After all, Jon is not Robb, and he didn't exactly kill Sigorn's father either. He has just put both Alys and Sigorn “back to their feet” symbolically, as he has done literally in the case of other people before.

Alys might have preferred to marry Robb Stark (pre-execution), and she may have wanted “a land where summer lasts a thousand years” or “a castle in the clouds”, but she is from the North and she knows when winter is coming, mere survival is at stake. “What men want does not matter.” She has reason to be genuinely thankful to Jon.

[Lummel]

...

And one other issue is that Jon's position is becoming a bit nebulous lately. Given how many different factions see him as some type of authority, it's hard to pin down exactly what his role is (king of the wildlings, LC, last Stark, King of Winter, etc). It's clear he's taking on "something more" than the commonly defined role of an LC, but I don't think there's any other formal title that really captures exactly what he's becoming. It might simply be that "Lord Commander" was designed to be, or will become, the title to describe this transcending authority figure.

Oh, and about "making" the realm listen-- I was curious if this meant force was authorized. Can the Watch "make new lords/ fight the lords" if they refuse to listen?...

Are you thinking ahead there to Jon XIII? With the oath, well yes, and may the Crone send us wisdom for the lawyerisation of the discussion, it is a form of words and one that is open to interpretation. You don't need an awful lot of imagination to make that oath allow you to run an entire kingdom, still less to run off with a gaggle of wildlings to Winterfell to fight Ramsey Snow.

But in Westeros there are no lawyers. Instead we can ask three questions (at least)

1. Would Jon think in those terms
2. What would the Watch think about such a re-interpretation or rediscovery of the meaning of the oath
3. What would every other political actor in Westeros think

In short could he get away with it? A very simplistic answer is that he doesn't even get the opportunity to go that far! But if you are in to creative interpretations of the oath / discovering its 'original' (or not) meanings then why not use force to depose and replace lords who won't listen and who through action or inaction threaten the realms of men? (I think Pratchett in some of the Night's Watch stories explores a similar idea with the policemen realising that the law allows them to do almost anything provided you look at things the right way).

Anyhow there are other options available to the north and any Stark friendly nobility: señor stark, regent of winterfell, protector of the north, true warden of the north etc which wouldn't require a rethinking of the scope of the Lord Commander's duty.

...My first impression when I read this chapter is of neatness...

Upon closer inspection the neatness cracks on all fronts...

Alys

For a character who has had such a brief appearance (and is likely never be seen again) she has made quite the splash. I would like to add to the observations previously about the fires and the cold, that Alys seems to have an almost chemical reaction to it. Her eyes sparkle, her cheeks are red and the snow has made the lace she is wearing "a frosty crown", a curiously(?) regal aspect prompting Jon to call her "Winter's lady"...

I think in Arc terms we start with Jon struggling to assert his authority and to make headway, at first any gains he makes are small and hard won, then he increasingly gains momentum in this section of the book from here down to the final few paragraphs of Jon XIII really things are falling into place and its only with the last couple of hundred words that GRRM suddenly undercuts all Jon's achievements and brings him back down to earth. But yes you're right to point out that beneath the surface there are other currents.

Like you say with it looking as if Stannis is running errands for Jon we could see potential for future conflict between them in addition to the other examples you brought up.

Alys' winteryness is interesting, it reminds me of Sansa building her snow-winterfell in the Eyrie, but there's also a link to Jon Snow and his curious feeling for snow which comes up again in a couple of chapter's time.

[bemused]

The Sleeper ...

I've wondered about the Thenn women and children , myself.. The one thought that occurs in explanation is that there probably were more that 200 Thenns to begin with and we have to remember that Sigorn and company were captured on the battlefield by Stannis, who only captured a small portion of Mance's army. So it's possible most ( though maybe not all) Thenn women could still be on the north side of the Wall...??? :dunno:

I don't expect Alys to be shown to be "her father's daughter" .. she seems anything but hot headed to me . And from a pragmatic standpoint , her alternatives are to go along with the Bolton/Arnolf plan, or rely on Stannis. It's true that no plan is fail safe , but I think Sigorn is as close to ideal as she can hope for , under the circumstances. On the plus side of the ledger , we have :

1) More able bodied men for Karhold, who also will support her in any in-house disputes.

2) They have experience of the Others and how to fight them as well as anyone ,at the moment. This will help win them acceptance by any returning Karstark men after the battle at WF - and probably Harrion , if he should somehow escape. ( They have helped Alys in in preserving his hold )

3) They "know how to kneel" and will follow orders.

4) That two ( that's 1/2) of Cregan's men are willing to support Alys' claim , knowing of her marriage to Sigorn , bodes well for the integration of Sigorn and his men.

5) Sigorn is in awe of Alys, and unlikely to mistreat her or usurp her authority.

6) Sigorn's attitude to Jon is probably now greatly improved , and instead of would be enemies at the wall , he'll now have probable allies at Karhold.

On the minus side :

1) Even though they won't be raiding , they are wildlings, so people will be wary of them.

2) Stannis may be torn as to whether to approve or disapprove.

3) ..???.. Some people may see more negatives than me..of course there's the enmity of the Boltons, but as long as Alys and Sigorn get to Karhold first, that might not be the kiss of death....and of course , even a plan that seems pretty good at the time can have unforeseen consequences.

I expect Alys will be heard of again. Part of the story going forward will have to do with restoring WF. She could be an ally in that effort, and she really could be a notable ground breaker and example in winning general acceptance for the free folk.

I say Stannis may be torn because Stannis has been receiving an education in Northern attitudes -and judging from the TWoW Theon chapter, this will be continuing. I think he'll see the practicality of Jon's actions. It would have been impossible for Jon to wait for Stannis' return to deal with the situation, given the difficulty of communication between them. It robs Stannis of a chance to reward one of his men , but could be an important step toward integrating the wildlings , so that's a trade-off . That Mel performs the rite has to be taken as a courtesy to him. ( I think installing one of his men at Karhold would have had a much poorer chance of success , given the cultural/religious differences.) He'll probably be much more annoyed by Selyse's shennanigans.

Then too, I see a really big lesson in his continuing education coming at the hands of the GNC. My particular wrinkle on that scenario is that Stannis' Northern campaign came along in the midst of the GNC's own plans that were already underway; they are only partly aiding Stannis, and partly keeping an eye on him, so that he doesn't queer their plans, which I believe feature taking WF from inside before Stannis can find a way to do it. This would force him to deal with them as equal allies rather than his subjects, or bannermen.

I happen to think that there is a passage under WF that only a Stark can find and open, and that Benjen is currently there (as "interim Stark in WF" ) to perform that task for the GNC ... but I won't go off on all that here. ... At any rate, there are other scenarios that , for me , are somewhat less convincing , but could lead to the same result , overall.

However that works out , I agree completely that to some outside eyes Stannis might be seen as "running Jon's errands"..which, I think, is exactly where Mance will stand in the eyes of the free folk at the end of ADWD. I don't know if Marsh would think so far as to question whether Jon was taking on a kingly role . He's not that bright to begin with and while he's very focused on being on the "right" side of Stannis vs. Lannisters , I don't know that he'd see Jon as having his own side , partly because Jon is a bastard. I think Bowen's imagination would stop at "Jon is allying the NW with Stannis".

I think Thorne would be smart enough , but he's very immersed in personal hatred, so I don't know how political he actually is. I can't imagine him as a Lannister booster , given his history with Tywin and Tyrion , so it may be that he's just focused on accomplishing Jon's death , and hang the politics. ( Remains to be seen.) As a matter of course he's always interested in casting anything Jon does in the most negative way possible...regardless of whether or not he actually believes the perverse twists he puts on Jon's actions.

[The Sleeper]

I think in Arc terms we start with Jon struggling to assert his authority and to make headway, at first any gains he makes are small and hard won, then he increasingly gains momentum in this section of the book from here down to the final few paragraphs of Jon XIII really things are falling into place and its only with the last couple of hundred words that GRRM suddenly undercuts all Jon's achievements and brings him back down to earth. But yes you're right to point out that beneath the surface there are other currents.

Like you say with it looking as if Stannis is running errands for Jon we could see potential for future conflict between them in addition to the other examples you brought up.

I agree. It is Martin's favorite tool: the story within a story. Using his chosen POV he gets the reader to focus on certain events that come through plot points, while the non-POV's mativations and plans are revealed through details that most often pass as background, until an event comes along that places them into context and often have greater plot significance themselves. The most insidious case was Jon Arryn's murder. The investigation was the plot device for what was very like a political thriller/mystery novel and later the cause for the entire war and everything that came after it. In the end it was revealed to have been something else entirely and the clues were planted there all along the way, yet Martin was correct: the relevant part of that story arc was what people believed about it and that was what informed their actions. The ingenious way he used that tool was how he set up the Red Wedding. While the downfall of the Starks was presented practically step by step all the way backed by foreshadowing with the subtlety of sledge hammers, still the majority of readers never saw it coming because he shaped the narrative as the familiar trope of Robb the hero fighting alone against a hostile world, while suffering betrayal at every turn, only to arise victorious at the end and restore love and justice in the world. Well, the last part did not happen.

This is a similar case I think. It is a familiar arc, the one you described, the young and somewhat maverick LC facing challenges including the old order who questions his new radical ways at every turn, but making headway by thinking outside the box and being persistent. The way the background story is laid out is not particularly subtle; Jon worries about every little thing (he might have been chewing his nails throughout this entire chapter), the situation of the North has been laid out in great detail and there are other POV's monitoring events. Still it works, because Jon is a bit of a glass-half empty kind of guy, he doesn't know what particularly to look for, he is not looking for his most immediate danger which is discontent in the Watch despite being warned by his own instincts and Mel for reason that have been established and basically because the things most readers will retain after a first are the apparent plot points.

In this instance, I think the background story that is developing is the essential power vacuum in the north. Martin has set up the kingdoms being ruled by these families since times immemorial and in particular the Starks, the Lannisters and Arryns. In the cases of the Vale, the West and the North a change in leadership is literally unprecedented and must feel as an event of apocalyptic proportions. The instincts of most people in these areas would be to find a way to return to the previous status. Which is why Bolton wants a fake Arya to legitimize his claim and why Tywin marries Sansa to Tyrion. This is where Jon comes in. He both holds the position of LC of the Watch, an institution which also has been around forever and though not supposed to be directly involved in political affairs still holds a certain prestige. He also happens to be the last remaining son of the previous lord Stark, one who was not only openly acknowledged, but practically raised as trueborn despite what Jon thinks. If Jon did nothing else his mere presence is bound to cause ripples. In this chapter he married Alys and Sigorn and set up a new house. Jon has only thought of the fallback and how to cover his position, but this is a statement: I am here and I am a player and whether or not Jon intends it, he gets into the dance. (maybe that is the relevance of the phrase you danced with me anon) While we have yet to see the repercussions to the rest of the North, there are bound to be some in his vicinity who would discern this statement and react to it. If I had to think of a reason why the Norrey and the Flint have gone to the Watch this would be it.

I hadn't Stannis particularly in mind when writing this, but you are correct. Jon and Stannis can't remain "friends" for long and this will become more apparent in the following chapter. Jon is building a power-base and as it happens it is the power-base Stannis had hoped to build. While at the beginning Jon was at Stannis' mercy, the power balance has shifted in Jon's favor and will continue to do so. For instance, he just usurped Stannis' presumed rights with that wedding. This would also provide a context for Selyse's future marriage arrangements. Before we get to see this how this plays out however, we have an assassination to go through.

@ Bemused

I don't think that Alys will turn on Jon, she has reason to fell gratitude and her demeanor did not strike me as fake. But this is ASoIaF. If you think they are out to get you, you are probably right. So naturally, I think of complications. The first and most obvious one would be Alys and Sigorn themselves. Alys is of the north. They don't joke about blood feuds over there, nor do they necessarily confine them to the actual perpetrator. Same goes for Sigorn. Though Jon did not actually killed his father, he was part of his band and turned on him. Arguably, Jon is the person responsible for his father's death as he was the one who warned Castle Black and gave them the opportunity to set up the trap. The second complication is Stannis, which has been discussed and the third potential complication is Harrion Karstark who might still be alive and return home to find his sister married to a wildling.

Another somewhat unrelated observation. The Thenns apparently have preserved First Men culture as it was in the beginning of time. As such the marriage has a "back to the roots vibe".

[Julia H.]

Amazing posts. (I'm still reading the previous threads of the Jon Snow re-read project and those posts are so insightful and compelling, too, that I'm totally hooked. I feel both happy to have found this site and really sad to have missed so much of these discussions.)

He is not my father. The thought leapt unbidden to Jon's mind. Lord Eddard Stark is my father. I will not forget him, no matter how many swords they give me. (GoT)

Sigorn may struggle with divided loyalties similar to Jon's in GoT, and he may well feel that not even the gift of a castle and a wife should make him forget who he really is. But he has accepted the gift all the same, just as Jon accepted Mormont's sword, and as a Thenn, who knows what kneeling means, perhaps he understands that only Jon's authority (such as it is) makes him a lord in Westeros, so turning against Jon is actually against his interest.

It is a good question how Sigorn will deal with an internal conflict like this.

Jon thinks we must pray you will know how to charm your new husband. At the moment, Alys comes across as the dominant figure in that marriage (she makes Sigorn dance), but Jon's thought may suggest that as long as things go well for Sigorn, Jon will be able to count him among his allies, but should things go wrong, he may just blame Jon for his misfortune as well as for his father's death.

I still think Alys is on Jon's side, but “poor Harry” may be a real complication. Thanks, Sleeper, for pointing it out!

A strategic mind on the other side may even find it a good idea to send Harrion home at this point (provided he is still alive). After all, Cregan and Arnolf are dead allies to the Boltons / Lannisters now, but Harrion could be used against Alys and Sigorn. While Harrion is alive, he is the heir, and he will want his castle and his title back, and he would probably do a lot to be pardoned by the IT. His return could put Sigorn in a rather awkward position, especially if he arrived leading an army of Lannister soldiers. For Harrion, Sigorn would be a wildling usurper sent to Karhold by the last Stark. (In such a situation the distinction between Jon Snow and Robb Stark may totally escape Harrion Karstark.) Harrion would also see the marriage between Alys and Sigorn as an insult to the family, and he may not even believe that Alys has actually consented to it.

With regard to Jon, if Harry is his father's son, then he will be intent on revenge, and Sigorn, well, he may just be awfully disappointed. There would also be two armies (Harry's and Sigorn's) ready to fight and deeply distrustful of each other. Sigorn may decide or be forced to take up the fight against Harry, but he and Alys have no rightful claim to Karhold as long as Harry is alive. In this case, if Sigorn should come across as a fierce and loyal supporter of the Lord Commander, it would make Jon seem as though he has sent wildlings against a northman to rob him of his inheritance, a notion that the Boltons / Lannisters will no doubt popularize. Then again if the northman in question has sided with the Lannisters, it may make him seem as bad or almost as bad as the wildlings to a lot of people in the North...

Alys could still try the diplomatic way to reconcile Harry and Sigorn or the wildlings and the northmen, and I can see her as a clever diplomat or ground breaker as bemused suggested, but plotwise, with all this potential for conflict, Harrion is likely to be alive and well.

On another topic...

A parallel can be drawn between 1) Jon when Stannis offers him Winterfell (and a wildling wife) and 2) Sigorn when Jon offers him Karhold (and a non-wildling wife).

We have seen that in ADwD Jon plays the same role as Stannis played in ASoS, but the other side of the coin is that Sigorn plays the role that Jon has played before. Both offers apparently come as a godsend to a young man whose life seems to have reached a dead end, and both entail giving up part of their previous identity (break your vow / burn the weirwood and forget your father, make peace with the enemy, integrate into the society of kneelers, respectively). The difference is that Jon doesn't accept the offer, while Sigorn does. Sigorn is not Jon, but Jon is not Stannis either. So is the different outcome due in the first place to the difference between Jon and Sigorn, the ones who are given the choice, or rather to the difference between Jon and Stannis, the “kings” who make the offer, and what does that imply with regard to the long-term success of Jon's strategy?

Speaking of parallels and referring back to Ser Axell and his conversation with Jon, it strikes me how Axell describes himself as a man of the world, while, by contrast, Jon is known to be a man of the Night's Watch. The parallel phrases indicate two antithetical sets of values.

[Fire Eater]

I don't think Harrion could complicate things, as Sigorn wedded and bedded his sister, and he helped her take back Karhold from their treacherous uncle. Alys would let Karhold go to Harrion, and when House Bolton goes extinct, the Dreadfort is up for grabs. Sigorn and Alys could be given the Dreadfort.

The king might say the same if he were here.

He is there, fool.

I definitely agree that Val might slay Mel with the guidance of Bloodraven. However, GRRM might diverge from Tolkien and think that “nobody slays the evil witch king and lives happily ever after”. In fact, Eowyn didnot pay any price other than the wounds she suffered, which were healed by Aragorn and the other healer. All the people who killed UnBeric suffered terrible fates.

I think Val would undoubtedly be wounded in the confrontation. I wonder if Meera or Jojen would help her by driving her frog spear or obsidian dagger into Mel, like Merry did? Crannogmen, like, hobbits, are known for their short stature, and Merry and the Reeds leave home to aid a friend on a journey/quest.

[Maia]

One question: Where do little Thenns come from? I mean where are the Thenn women?

A good question. IIRC, Styr's advance group was male-only, but Sigmar et al. were taken during the battle, so where are their civilians? Is Sigmar abandoning them beyond the Wall, without even an attempt to contact them and bring them over? And could a leader that would do this to his own people be trusted? I mean, the Thenns were supposed to live reclusively in their own community, surely they'd need at least a couple of thousands people or risk becoming seriously inbred? Does this mean that Karhold can look forward to hundreds more wildlings joining Sigmar and Co. in the future? So, yes, it looks much less neatly than Sigmar and his men just replacing the men Karhold lost to the war.

Particularly given this:

"My father took so many of our men south with him that only the women and young boys were left to bring the harvest in. Them, and the men too old or crippled to go off to war. Crops withered in the fields or were pounded into the mud by autumn rains. And now the snows are come. This winter will be hard. Few of the old people will survive it, and many children will perish as well."

With men who went with Lord Rickard being partly dead and partly with Roose Bolton and Arnolf taking more men away with him, it seems that the Thenns would be able to take food from Karstark subjects by force once the reserves start to run short. Not to mention that from the few men remaining:

"You have close kin at Karhold, I am told. A word from you could save their lives. Yield the castle. Lady Alys will pardon the women who betrayed her and allow the men to take the black."

Oh, and BTW, this just illustrates what a prize idiot Lord Rickard was. To take all 3 of his sons with him to war, while leaving a massive collateral branch home and in control of his lands, castle and young daughter! I mean, it is as if he was tempting them on purpose. Also, kinda puts in perspective Jon's prior indignant insistence to Stannis and his people that in the North usurpation by relatives never happens. Jon was more than a tad idealistic about it, IMHO.

Anyway, I am ambivalent about Alys's gambit. On one hand, I approve of her defending her rights, on the other Karstark commoners are likely to pay dearly for it. And I have noticed that Alys isn't even of age, which makes her authority to make a marriage for herself a bit murky:

"Aye, but now you' re almost six-and-ten"

Oh, and I feel that with his arresting of Cregan Karstark and informing Stannis of Arnolf's treachery, Jon has publicly taken Stannis's side. I mean, his actions re: Karstarks and his involvement of Melisandre and Selyse required explanations re: betrayal, otherwise they wouldn't have been on board with Jon interfering with Stannis's allies. I am sure that NW recieved some explanations as well and in any case Selyse and Co. aren't the type of people to keep something like this secret. Everything before that was in private and/or could have been explained away to a sympathetic listener, but this was blatant. So, Jon should stop worrying about things like this:

I" should make his head a wedding gift for Lady Alys and her Magnar, Jon thought, but dare not take the risk. The Night's Watch took no part in the quarrels of the realm; some would say he had already given Stannis too much help. Behead this fool, and they will claim I am killing northmen to give their lands to wildlings."

And now that I think about it a bit more, it seems to me that Jon should have just handed Cregan over to Alys. She is now the ruler of Karhold and it should be her decision what to do with him.

Speaking of Harrion, I'd be very surprised if he isn't dead already. Lannisters aren't slouches in blood feud department either.

"Ser Patrek feels he would have made a better match for Lady Alys. His lands were lost to him when he came north."

Huh? Ser Patrek of no surname was a landed knight? That's the first in the series, IIRC, but would explain his rich clothing. Also, re: Selyse's knights feeling like they should have been the ones to wed Alys... don't they realize that it is a matter of manpower? That they could have never taken Karhold away from Arnolf's supporters on their lonesome? Frankly, I feel that this, rather than any cultural gap between northeners and southeners - which is no bigger than that between northeners and wildlings, even Thenns, IMHO, informed Alys's choice.

Let's not forget that Manderlys from the deepest south of the Reach managed to adapt and flourish in the North. Nothing precludes another southern noble from doing the same. I feel that Jon, and as a consequence we readers, are kinda prejudiced about it. Of course, Queen's knights are also dregs of Stannis's forces.

Re: the northern chiefs, I don't know what to think about them. They didn't march with Robb, even though they don't have much farther to march than Umbers or Kartstarks, they ignored the pleas to defend the Wall, despite being quite close, but _now_ they sent thousands to fight for Stannis and are hanging around the Wall. Oh, and Bemused pointed out some time back that they do actually have raven post and have been sent double amount of ravens by the NW, because as closest lords they were more likely to come in time. So, they don't even have an excuse of being unreachable on short notice... Yea, I know about GNC, but I reject it. The willingness to let the Wall fall (and Jon to get killed) beyond being suicidally stupid, just doesn't square with the desire to make him king now, IMHO. Besides, the Liddles know that Bran and Rickon are alive, so other clans may know, too.

Maybe they watch Jon for the signs of intent to usurp his brothers? Maybe _they_ are behind his assassination, wouldn't it be interesting? Particularly since Mel warned Jon that he was in danger from people hiding their threat behind smiles, and Bowen stopped being friendly once Val was sent out to contact Tormund?

Also, with some food reserves already starting to run low and Jon not only welcoming more wildlings, but also asking Alys to send old men to the Wall, it looks like a really good time to make news of the IB loan public. Yes, there is going to be criticism of sinking NW into debt, but most NW members would have also been relieved to know that they weren't staring in the face of certain starvation in a few months. Also, the sooner they start to organize acquisition and transport of food, the better, given the vagaries of winter weather.

"Two of the Lyseni barely seaworthy. We may drown more wildlings than we save. Your command."

Does it mean that Jon forced Cotter Pyke to take damaged ships on this expedition? This doesn't sound like a good idea to me, as one of the vessels having difficulties could lead to the whole fleet being delayed trying to help it, etc. And winter weather is bad enough to exacerbate any problems a ship may have. Would have been better to leave them behind and try to repair them a bit more.

[bemused]

Julia H...

Harrion poses some interesting questions, but I can't believe that at least some discussion of the possibilities wouldn't have come into Alys' marriage negotiations. If Alys recognises Harrion's right to Karhold , I don't see how Sigorn can do otherwise. Also, there seems to be something brewing in the way of possible escape / prison break for at least some of the hostages taken from Robb's forces. ( E.g. , Maidenpool may not be as secure as it was under Randyl Tarly. )

Harrion has had a good while to think about what led to his situation , and news of what's been happening in the meantime can easily have reached him. I don't think he can look favourably on his father's revenge on the Lannisters , since it can't have helped his (Harry's) situation. He's probably just fortunate that his father couldn't get to Jaime.

Like Alys, he may not hold his father entirely blameless. Like Alys, he may well see the futility in engaging in bloodfeud with any remaining Starks , since they played no part in that scenario.

At the same time.. I'm sure he knows who ordered the assault on Duskendale. The Lannister appointment of Roose Bolton and the fact that he survived the massacre at the Red Wedding will add up to the same inevitable conclusion for Harry , as it does for Manderly. ( Unless he's thick, or the same kind of revenge seeking hothead his father was, of course.)

And the pluses the Thenns represent to Alys will be pluses to Harry , too. At some point, Alys and Sigorn could be installed in their own hold, or she might well wind up being Harrion's heir anyway.

Sigorn may not have had a sudden conversion to being best buds with Jon , but he does seem to be aware of his luck . I can't help remembering the scene in Mole's Town. Though Jon had no success with Sigorn then , I think the reaction of Harma's brother Halleck is telling ...

And then Halleck. “I don’t like you, crow,” he growled, “but I never liked the Mance neither, no

more’n my sister did. Still, we fought for him. Why not fight for you?”

Halleck draws an early direct equivalency between Jon and Mance , that we'll see more of later, when Tormund's people arrive.

Whether or not Sigorn later makes that exact comparison, it's at least the kind of first step toward loyalty to Jon that Sigorn may be experiencing . There's a chance for growth there , depending on what Jon does going forward and how much Sigorn may be influenced by Alys' sentiments.

( It's a bonus that Alys is agreeable , so Sigorn doesn't have to worry that he might not survive his wedding night. ;) )

In comparing Sigorn's case to Jon's ... one big difference is that Jon does not require kneeling to him, or repudiating the old gods as a condition. Stannis imposed those conditions... and Jon effectively reversed them in Mole's Town. Jon wants the wildlings to fight for the common good and their own survival. ... Stannis wanted them to fight to win his crown ( and shamelessly planned to throw them into his van in a form of warfare they're unfamiliar with.. using them as arrow fodder).

So I think the difference between Jon and Stannis is the more important. ( Don't you ? ) Jon is putting himself in a position to earn his leadership and doesn't ask to be recognised as their king , whereas Stannis demands it ... Jon asks them to strike a bargain with him, in which both sides have conditions to live up to. Stannis' behaviour more or less says , I defeated you in battle , now I can do whatever I want with you.

[XSarellaX]

"Two of the Lyseni barely seaworthy. We may drown more wildlings than we save. Your command."

Does it mean that Jon forced Cotter Pyke to take damaged ships on this expedition? This doesn't sound like a good idea to me, as one of the vessels having difficulties could lead to the whole fleet being delayed trying to help it, etc. And winter weather is bad enough to exacerbate any problems a ship may have. Would have been better to leave them behind and try to repair them a bit more.

I don't remember if we see Jon giving Cotter Pyke direct instructions... maybe he just ordered him to take the Lyseni ships with him, and what Pyke means is that they are damaged, but if Jon says "sail" they will sail anyway, or that he is following Jon's command, but is warning it may not turn out very well. It doesn't mean Jon was aware of the ships' conditions and told them to go anyway.

I find it curious that Jon explains to Alys what made the Thenns different, more disciplined, during the cerimony, and not before, since their ability to obey orders was an important point to consider . She seems to understand they they're "more like us", so perhaps they had this conversation before, and now Jon is just giving her the details?

This match may bring Jon some problems (with Harry, Stannis, Northern Lords) but it has more potencial benefits than potencial problems. In fiction and in life, sometimes it's better to take risks than do nothing and lose opportunities...Of course Jon has to be aware of what can happen, but he can't let it paralyze him either.

[Julia H.]

I wish Harrion and Alys good luck with a happy family reunion. I think if Harrion manages to escape from Maidenpool somehow and to get back home, worried about what he is going to find in Karhold, and actually finding there his loving sister, now a woman wed, and her husband with an army to defend Karhold, and they all greet him as the lord of the castle come home, then all parties can be satisfied, including Sigorn (who will still be much better off than in Mole Town).

However, it is possible that one day his captors drag Harrion out of the dungeon in Maidenpool and tell him, "Look this is what happened: Your castle has been taken by a group of wildlings, and their leader has taken your sister, too. Your male relatives are captives or dead at the hands of Stannis and Robb Stark's brother, but bend the knee and we'll let you go home and give you some men to retake your birthright."

What I'm saying is that a lot may depend on how Harrion finds out what has happened. His POV could influence his actions more than the objective facts. He has no reason to like the Lannisters, but if he feels threatened by the other side(s) as well, then what can he do? Even in this case, Alys may still have a chance to bring him round, but it could be a complication for a while at least.

I agree with XSarellaX that despite the inevitable risks, Jon had to do something – both because of Alys and because of Sigorn - and he recognized an excellent opportunity and seized it. There are precious few things he can do nowadays without taking some sort of risk.

If Harrion is dead, then Alys (who has no grudge against her brother) will have one more reason to hate the Boltons and the Lannisters, but, once having settled in Karhold, she and Sigorn may have as good a chance to live happily ever after as any other noble married couple in Westeros. :wideeyed:

Anyway, I am ambivalent about Alys's gambit. On one hand, I approve of her defending her rights, on the other Karstark commoners are likely to pay dearly for it. And I have noticed that Alys isn't even of age, which makes her authority to make a marriage for herself a bit murky:

"Aye, but now you' re almost six-and-ten"

Oh, and I feel that with his arresting of Cregan Karstark and informing Stannis of Arnolf's treachery, Jon has publicly taken Stannis's side. I mean, his actions re: Karstarks and his involvement of Melisandre and Selyse required explanations re: betrayal, otherwise they wouldn't have been on board with Jon interfering with Stannis's allies. I am sure that NW recieved some explanations as well and in any case Selyse and Co. aren't the type of people to keep something like this secret. Everything before that was in private and/or could have been explained away to a sympathetic listener, but this was blatant. So, Jon should stop worrying about things like this:

Also, with some food reserves already starting to run low and Jon not only welcoming more wildlings, but also asking Alys to send old men to the Wall, it looks like a really good time to make news of the IB loan public. Yes, there is going to be criticism of sinking NW into debt, but most NW members would have also been relieved to know that they weren't staring in the face of certain starvation in a few months. Also, the sooner they start to organize acquisition and transport of food, the better, given the vagaries of winter weather.

I'm really not sure about women coming of age in Westeros...

To me it seems they are just daughters first and then wives. When they inherit, they must be married soon, otherwise the whole inheritance is in peril, like in the case of Lady Hornwood. Although she was well past sixteen when she became a widow, it was perceived to be Robb's duty to see to it that she would get married soon. Her preference regarding her new husband could be asked, but that was only courtesy.

Sansa was married to Tyrion even though she was much younger than sixteen and nobody ever thought that the marriage was not legal because of that. Alys, however, was within her rights to refuse a marriage arranged by a castellan. The question is not so much whether the bride consents (women just don't have much authority, no matter how old they are) but who is entitled to arrange the marriage. In the absence of a father or a brother, the liege lord or the king has the right to do it. As Jon points out, "marriages and inheritance are matters for the king". When Alys insists that Jon is her only hope and begs him, in his father's name, to protect her, Jon, as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch or as Eddard Stark's heir or as both, undertakes the duties of a king.

Jon publicly taking Stannis's side.. Well, that cannot be helped now. Practically, he did that when he did not send Stannis home on the day he became Lord Commander - and that's something he could not do. Taking no part is a noble illusion rather than a realistic expectation, and it can hardly be upheld when the quarrelling parties turn up at your doorstep with demands (Stannis) or requests (Alys).

Making the news of the IB loan public... Do we know that it hasn't already happened somewhere off-page? Or is this announcement so important that it must be made on-page?

In comparing Sigorn's case to Jon's ... one big difference is that Jon does not require kneeling to him, or repudiating the old gods as a condition. Stannis imposed those conditions... and Jon effectively reversed them in Mole's Town. Jon wants the wildlings to fight for the common good and their own survival. ... Stannis wanted them to fight to win his crown ( and shamelessly planned to throw them into his van in a form of warfare they're unfamiliar with.. using them as arrow fodder).

So I think the difference between Jon and Stannis is the more important. ( Don't you ? ) Jon is putting himself in a position to earn his leadership and doesn't ask to be recognised as their king , whereas Stannis demands it ... Jon asks them to strike a bargain with him, in which both sides have conditions to live up to. Stannis' behaviour more or less says , I defeated you in battle , now I can do whatever I want with you.

Bemused...

I wholeheartedly agree... It is the difference between Stannis and Jon. That Jon does not require people to kneel makes all the difference in the world. (This is, I think, symbolized by the various scenes where we see Jon lift kneeling or fallen people to their feet.) A related difference is that even though Alys and Sigorn are married by Melisandre, it is never mentioned that they have to give up their old faith. As several posters have pointed out, they may repeat their vows in front of the first heart tree they will find. They don't have to cut down the weirwood in Karhold.

The reason why I have asked this is that it is really important that Jon is already shown to be a better king than Stannis, and because of this difference Sigorn doesn't seem any less honourable than he should, since, despite the parallels, what he accepts is, in fact, not the same deal as the one that Jon refused out of honour. Jon wouldn't want allies without honour or allies who feel dishonoured by the alliance, but this is not the case here.

While it is rather apparent that Jon manages to antagonize a number of people in his immediate environment (and perhaps elsewhere, too), he is also able to win over (other) people to his cause, even people like Sigorn, who (unlike Alys) may not care much whether Jon is Ned Stark's heir or not. It is Jon's own words and actions that convince him – and the other wildlings, too.

Jon and Mance... hm. The equivalency is interesting. Mance had to defeat a number of other wildling leaders to be acknowledged as king. Now he is defeated and his cause has failed, but Jon seems to continue it somehow as he is giving the wildlings another chance to live in relative safety from the Others, south of the Wall. What is more, Jon also means to fight the Others (something Mance tried and gave up), which may give the wildlings the hope that their lands will become habitable one day again.

Mance was technically defeated by Stannis, but I'm not sure the wildlings see it exactly that way. Especially, if they know that Stannis had Mance burned but now Mance is alive and is running an errand for Jon. Where would such a piece of information place Jon in the eyes of the wildlings?

I don't remember if we see Jon giving Cotter Pyke direct instructions... maybe he just ordered him to take the Lyseni ships with him, and what Pyke means is that they are damaged, but if Jon says "sail" they will sail anyway, or that he is following Jon's command, but is warning it may not turn out very well. It doesn't mean Jon was aware of the ships' conditions and told them to go anyway.

I find it curious that Jon explains to Alys what made the Thenns different, more disciplined, during the cerimony, and not before, since their ability to obey orders was an important point to consider . She seems to understand they they're "more like us", so perhaps they had this conversation before, and now Jon is just giving her the details?

This match may bring Jon some problems (with Harry, Stannis, Northern Lords) but it has more potencial benefits than potencial problems. In fiction and in life, sometimes it's better to take risks than do nothing and lose opportunities...Of course Jon has to be aware of what can happen, but he can't let it paralyze him either.

Pyke and the ships... Yes, that's how I see it, too. "You have told us to sail, so we will. Have seen better ships though."

But Jon is likely to blame himself anyway if they do get drowned.

[Ragnorak]

...

On another topic...

A parallel can be drawn between 1) Jon when Stannis offers him Winterfell (and a wildling wife) and 2) Sigorn when Jon offers him Karhold (and a non-wildling wife).

We have seen that in ADwD Jon plays the same role as Stannis played in ASoS, but the other side of the coin is that Sigorn plays the role that Jon has played before. Both offers apparently come as a godsend to a young man whose life seems to have reached a dead end, and both entail giving up part of their previous identity (break your vow / burn the weirwood and forget your father, make peace with the enemy, integrate into the society of kneelers, respectively). The difference is that Jon doesn't accept the offer, while Sigorn does. Sigorn is not Jon, but Jon is not Stannis either. So is the different outcome due in the first place to the difference between Jon and Sigorn, the ones who are given the choice, or rather to the difference between Jon and Stannis, the “kings” who make the offer, and what does that imply with regard to the long-term success of Jon's strategy?

Speaking of parallels and referring back to Ser Axell and his conversation with Jon, it strikes me how Axell describes himself as a man of the world, while, by contrast, Jon is known to be a man of the Night's Watch. The parallel phrases indicate two antithetical sets of values.

We discussed the Jon/Stannis parallels with Ned/Robert a bit when Stannis first arrived at the Wall. I happen to think Ned's fatal flaw centers on trying to redeem Robert and that on one level Jon's dealings with Stannis are a "correction" of Ned's flaws. I think your paralleling offers fits with that theme. There's even Jon's having Mel officiate the ceremony to contrast with Stannis' offer that demanded full conversion.

Your "man of the world" comments reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt's Citizenship in a Republic speech (the one with the commonly referenced man in the arena quote) where he refers to the unpatriotic "citizen of the world" as an exceedingly poor citizen of whatever corner of the world he currently occupies. The underlying idea is that one must be loyal to a set of principles first; one must have a center. He likened it to the ability of a man who doesn't love his own family to love his neighbors. It struck me as a fair criticism of Axell I watched them burn my brother Florent and in the spirit of your comparison.

Anyway, I am ambivalent about Alys's gambit. On one hand, I approve of her defending her rights, on the other Karstark commoners are likely to pay dearly for it. And I have noticed that Alys isn't even of age, which makes her authority to make a marriage for herself a bit murky:

"Aye, but now you' re almost six-and-ten"

Oh, and I feel that with his arresting of Cregan Karstark and informing Stannis of Arnolf's treachery, Jon has publicly taken Stannis's side. I mean, his actions re: Karstarks and his involvement of Melisandre and Selyse required explanations re: betrayal, otherwise they wouldn't have been on board with Jon interfering with Stannis's allies. I am sure that NW recieved some explanations as well and in any case Selyse and Co. aren't the type of people to keep something like this secret. Everything before that was in private and/or could have been explained away to a sympathetic listener, but this was blatant. So, Jon should stop worrying about things like this:

Re: the northern chiefs, I don't know what to think about them. They didn't march with Robb, even though they don't have much farther to march than Umbers or Kartstarks, they ignored the pleas to defend the Wall, despite being quite close, but _now_ they sent thousands to fight for Stannis and are hanging around the Wall. Oh, and Bemused pointed out some time back that they do actually have raven post and have been sent double amount of ravens by the NW, because as closest lords they were more likely to come in time. So, they don't even have an excuse of being unreachable on short notice... Yea, I know about GNC, but I reject it. The willingness to let the Wall fall (and Jon to get killed) beyond being suicidally stupid, just doesn't square with the desire to make him king now, IMHO. Besides, the Liddles know that Bran and Rickon are alive, so other clans may know, too.

Maybe they watch Jon for the signs of intent to usurp his brothers? Maybe _they_ are behind his assassination, wouldn't it be interesting? Particularly since Mel warned Jon that he was in danger from people hiding their threat behind smiles, and Bowen stopped being friendly once Val was sent out to contact Tormund?

"Two of the Lyseni barely seaworthy. We may drown more wildlings than we save. Your command."

Does it mean that Jon forced Cotter Pyke to take damaged ships on this expedition? This doesn't sound like a good idea to me, as one of the vessels having difficulties could lead to the whole fleet being delayed trying to help it, etc. And winter weather is bad enough to exacerbate any problems a ship may have. Would have been better to leave them behind and try to repair them a bit more.

I'm not sure about the "of age" issue. I thought boys became of age at 16 and women were considered of age post flowering, but I can't recall any specific passages that say so-- though I suspect if the fecal matter hits the fan it won't land even close to that patch of thin ice. Marriages don't seem to be undoable and trying that approach is murky. Widows can remarry, husbands can be executed, and Boltons aren't squeamish about killing without public legal justification.

I think arresting Cregan may make the likes of Bowen Marsh think of Jon as a Stannis lackey but I'm not sure about the wider picture. He marries Alys to a Wildling and not a Southron noble in the service of Stannis. Public perception-wise I think this helps put Jon in more danger of a King-beyond-the-Wall candidate than a Stannis lackey-- at least in the context of all his other actions, many of which defy Stannis.

I don't think Jon involved Selyse in any of the Karstark matters until it was done. Mel would agree to officiate the ceremony because she'd view it as an opportunity to seem powerful and she'd want to help Jon turn her mistaken vision of a grey girl on a dying horse into something useful that Mel mattered to in bringing about to make herself apart of an outcome for the vision Jon looks upon as helpful. If Mel is known to be officiating the wedding, Selyse the Flame Fanatic will go along with it without any need for Jon to sell it or convince her of anything. Hell, she's letting the woman bang her husband.

Maybe Cregan didn't get sent with Alys because he'd be a potential danger? Not sure how wide the plot was or how many supporters he had but he could be a rallying figure for opposition if he were present. Just speculation, but giving him to Alys to decide his fate does seem to be a quite reasonable resolution. A case could be made that Jon is acting like a Lord Paramount in this regard since Alys as Lady of Karhold is perfectly capable of dispensing justice to a Karstark.

I think the clans are more disorganized than the castle dwelling lords and would take longer to assemble or would require a visit to summon like we see Jon tell Stannis to do. Robb was in a hurry to head south so I think the time required and potential cultural peculiarities explain that part. These clans don't have a specific vassal structure. The same lack of structure can explain the lack of response to the cry for help. Had Jon showed up they might have come, but I don't think there was time for that. Jon described being delayed by multiple feasts indicating that each clan leader needed to be personally treated with. They seem much more civilized than Tyrion's clansmen but also a far cry from castle dwellers.

I don't see Jon ordering Cotter Pyke to sail with damaged ships. Jon's never seen the ships and Pyke's the one telling Jon which ships can and can't go. Pyke may be taking added risk given a sense of importance conveyed by Jon, but there's no way Cotter Pyke is letting any land locked castle dweller tell him which ships are and are not seaworthy. Overriding Cotter Pyke's opinions on anything naval related might be against the laws of physics.

I'll post the next chapter a little later...

[Ragnorak]

Jon XI (ADwD)

Summary

Jon is beyond the Wall at the Wildling camp negotiating with Tormund. He gives us a synopsis of his negotiations including a list of Tormund’s insults and having a drinking horn tossed at his head twice, but not a line of specific dialogue. After the negotiations we do get the dialogue between the two as they catch up and it has the feel of old friends and a mutual respect.

Jon then summons Ghost who is accompanied by Val and the two begin to ride through the camp back toward the Wall. Their exchanges are positive and playful until they turn serious after Jon tells her that she may not laugh when she kneels before Selyse. After the meeting with Selyse Val becomes angry in part because of Shireen’s greyscale that Val insists is never cured but only sleeps. She demands her little monster be removed from the unclean child’s quarters and they go their separate ways as Jon heads for his meeting atop the Wall.

Jon bring Leathers with him to meet the Norrey and Flint along with Marsh, Yarwick and the drunken Septon to sell the meal he has cooked up with Tormund. Eventually the Flint and Norrey accept the deal though Jon’s own men are less than happy with it. After an exchange with Marsh over the meaning of the oath Jon issues orders to his men and thinks “Ice and daggers in the dark.”

Observations

One of our intermediary chapters is Theon where we learn enough to infer that Mance does indeed intend to return “Arya” to Jon. Even for those who missed the Abel/Bael connection the frequent use of “kneelers” tips us off that Abel is Mance.

“They’re dead. I have no brothers now.”
“You have a half-brother,” Rowan said. “Lord Crow, he is.”
“Jon Snow?”
“We’ll take you to him, but you must come at once.”

Torghen Flint was half a head shorter but must weigh twice as much—a stout gruff man with gnarled, red-knuckled hands as big as hams, leaning heavily on a blackthorn cane as he limped across the ice.

Lummel and I discussed blackthorn a little bit back in Jon IX SoS where Aemon had a blackthorn cane when he showed up to defend Jon after Thorne and Slynt returned to the Wall and wanted to hang Jon.

“You are even lovelier than I was told, princess,” he declared. “The queen has told me much and more of your beauty.”
“How odd, when she has never seen me.” Val patted Ser Patrek on the head. “Up with you now, ser kneeler. Up, up.” She sounded as if she were talking to a dog.

This exchange may have made me laugh harder than any other in the series.

“Hobb is baking onion pies,” said Satin. “Shall I request that they all join you for supper?”
Jon considered. “No. Ask them to join me atop the Wall at sunset.”

The onion reference recalls Davos both in general and specifically his claims of being grey in his talk with the philosophically black and white Mel that is further editorialized by Sam cutting away the bad parts of the onion.

From above came the sudden sound of wings. Mormont’s raven flapped from a limb of an old oak to perch upon Jon’s saddle.

Bloodraven is watching.

“All the wealth o’ the wildlings,” said The Norrey. “That should buy you a bushel o’ barleycorn. Two bushels, might be.”

Another Corn King John Barleycorn reference.

A small crowd of black brothers was waiting by the gate when Jon and his companions emerged south of the Wall. Ulmer of the Kingswood was amongst them, and it was the old archer who came forward to speak for the rest. “If it please m’lord, the lads were wondering. Will it be peace, m’lord? Or blood and iron?”
“Peace,” Jon Snow replied. “Three days hence, Tormund Giantsbane will lead his people through the Wall. As friends, not foes. Some may even swell our ranks, as brothers. It will be for us to make them welcome. Now back to your duties.”

Despite Bowen’s claim to speak for “the men” we see the men gathered here and are specifically told who is actually speaking for them. I don’t get the sense that these men prefer the “blood and iron” option to “peace.”

There’s also a Bismarck reference in Blood and Iron, a phrase that has become associated with the man and his ruling style and policies. The ordering blood and iron as opposed to the iron and blood of the original speech suggests a more global Bismarck reference than its original specific usage. The original phrasing dates back to these words before the Prussian Landtag (parliament) in 1862 while advocating on behalf of Wilhelm I to double the size of the army. The backdrop of a German unification might have some relevance given the circumstances here.

Germany is not looking to Prussia’s liberalism, but to its power; Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden may indulge liberalism, and for that reason no one will assign them Prussia’s role; Prussia has to coalesce and concentrate its power for the opportune moment, which has already been missed several times; Prussia’s borders according to the Vienna Treaties [of 1814-15] are not favorable for a healthy, vital state; it is not by speeches and majority resolutions that the great questions of the time are decided – that was the big mistake of 1848 and 1849 – but by iron and blood.

This is already overly long and I missed a Patchface line, a ton of Val interaction, and probably lots more…

Analysis

Political Theater-- both intentional and coincidental

This chapter stands in contrast to Jon III ADwD when Stannis lets the Wildlings through the Wall with a very different style of theater. Val’s image as a pillar of salt is quite different from the role she plays here and that chapter also marked the first discussion Jon and Bowen had about letting the Wildlings through where the oath had a prominent role in that discussion as well.

Again we see that a tail is seen as a sign of weakness in both Northern and Wildling culture and not one of status. Jon’s choice of Leathers inherently advertises integration. His other choice is Horse whose history in the Watch dates back to the Wildling attack and not an old time Watch member. These two’s membership is defined by the current conflict Jon is addressing here. They are left outside the tent for most of the day while Jon negotiates and we can see that at least some socializing went on.

Tormund’s eldest son stood near the horses, talking with Leathers.

Val’s participation, Leathers in Nights Watch black, and a recruit who joined because of the conflict with the Wildlings, (and Ghost) are already pre-selling this deal while Jon negotiates it. They also make for quite a different show than Mel’s fireworks display and the killing of Mance against the backdrop of an army in formation.

Tormund and Jon have their friendly exchange about Val in public. That exchange involves “stealing” Val which in the Wildling sense means marriage. This advertises the good terms they are on after the bargain and publicly speaks to the hopes of integration. Tormund is also emerging from the tent without his armbands.

The armbands were old gold, solid and heavy, engraved with the ancient runes of the First Men. Tormund Giantsbane had worn them as long as Jon had known him; they had seemed as much a part of him as his beard.

That is a small piece of theater on Tormund’s part to help sell this deal. He’s already done what he intends to ask of his people. Val and Ghost emerging from the woods is another bit of theater that will help sell this deal to the Wildlings. Their alternative options aren’t very good and they probably could be forced to accept much worse terms, yet Jon isn’t forcing them to like was done by Stannis back in Jon III.

Val’s kneeling before Selyse is a bit of theater too though I doubt it is noticed. Did Val ever kneel before Stannis? I don’t think so but I also doubt Selyse would pick up on this subtlety or care. Jon’s coming to Selyse first is part of the theater but again Selyse likely doesn’t notice or care. Not doing so would offend but little can be done to impress or win over with this bunch. This failure is mirrored in the other direction when Ser Patreck kneels before Val.

Finally we get Jon’s seemingly favorite bit of theater set at the top of the Wall. He meets at sunset to sell the idea of the Wildlings coming through the gate at dawn. The metaphorical presentation of original purpose of the Watch is clear and further accentuated by the oath exchange with Bowen.

Debts

Debts is a huge theme in Tyrion with a Lannister always pays his debts, but it also shows up here in Jon. There’s the Iron Throne debt he accepts and the indebtedness to Mel that he does not want to accept. With Val here the debt concept is further bantered about. Jon considers her finding Tormund a debt even though it was a service Val was happy to and would have likely begged to perform. Val calls in this debt to demand the monster be taken from Shireen’s presence. Other than the Iron Bank none of these are monetary debt. They are all debts of honor and service that build bonds of a mutual indebtedness that begin to resemble friendship. An interesting contrast to the money and revenge centric Lannister version of indebtedness.

There are also strongly contrasting stakes to these negotiations. All our other negotiations involve power, money and land. Those items are quite frequently at the expense of some third party. There is no talk here of who gets how many beehives or mills or what political office. These negotiations are about mutual survival where the two bargainers are more concerned with their charges than with themselves. Tormund is more worried about the hundred mothers who will never forgive him than what office or position of power Jon is offering. Even the “treasures” at stake are going to buy food and not being divvied up by the power brokers sitting at the table. The ladder climbing Southron Fools help drive this contrast home. It is arguably tied to kneeling given the Selyse and Val exchange where Selyse claims that Val must be knelt if she won’t kneel since Selyse is advocating against Jon’s terms when she says it.

Whom do I serve?

Tycho bowed his head. “We who serve the Iron Bank face death full as often as you who serve the Iron Throne.”
Is that whom I serve? Jon Snow was no longer certain.

“You have my word, Lord Snow. I will be a proper wildling princess for your queen.”
She is not my queen, he might have said. If truth be told, the day of her departure cannot come too fast for me. And if the gods are good, she will take Melisandre with her.

“Are you certain that I have not forgotten some? The ones about the king and his laws, and how we must defend every foot of his land and cling to each ruined castle? How does that part go?” Jon waited for an answer. None came.

Jon seems to be rather specifically not serving the Iron Throne here. Selyse is not his queen and he certainly isn’t looking to Cersei or Margaery as an alternative. The Bowen retort especially drives home this point about not serving the king or his laws or protecting his land but rather guarding the realms—plural—of men instead.

The Meeting Atop the Wall

Jon invites the two Northern clan leaders, Clydas, Marsh, Yarwick and the useless Septon to meet him on top of the Wall. The two Northmen are the only ones Jon needs to win over. The others are in his command and he doesn’t need their approval any more than Ned would need the approval of Vayon Poole, his steward. He has tasks to assign the three Watchmen but the Septon has no apparent reason to be there. These two passages that frame the meeting seem to offer an explanation

Both wore woolen hoods pulled down over their heads, so nothing could be seen of their faces but their eyes, but he knew Ty by the tangled rope of greasy black hair falling down his back and Owen by the sausage stuffed into the scabbard at his hip. He might have known them anyway, just by the way they stood. A good lord must know his men, his father had once told him and Robb, back at Winterfell.

And Jon thought, “Ice,” she said, “and daggers in the dark. Blood frozen red and hard, and naked steel.” His sword hand flexed. The wind was rising.

The Septon’s presence seems to be a deliberate choice to include the trio that confronted him earlier. His thoughts about knowing the men seem to shade the reasons for including the detractors and his final thought in the chapter seems to indicate he is aware of how much he is alienating them and the risk.

Much is made about Jon’s choice to not mention the loan from the Iron Bank in response to Bowen. In this I think the context matters. Jon is selling this deal to other Northern lords and hopefully his own but he only needs permission from Norrey and Flint.

He starts off with the symbolic words “walk with me.” He continues to sell the idea on principle and moral grounds and then begins to address the pragmatics. His style is one of starting with minimums and escalating after objections-- I know Tormund and he is trustworthy, then Tormund swore an oath before a heart tree, and eventually he drops the hostage card. When the food issue is raised, Jon is selling the advantages and contributions of the Wildlings. Saying that the Watch will incur a mountain of debt makes them appear a burden and not an asset that is joining them in shared sacrifice for a common cause. His response about the Wildling treasures buying food also ends the food objections. It is likely that Jon, consistent with his room for escalation approach here, was entirely prepared to drop the Iron Bank card should the food issue have continued to be a sticking point. It wasn’t.

I think this exchange is noteworthy particularly because it marks where Jon’s moral arguments ended and practical issues began.

“I would sooner have them dead in the ground,” said Yarwyck. “If it please my lord.”
“It does not please me.” Jon’s voice was as cold as the wind snapping at their cloaks. “There are children in that camp, hundreds of them, thousands. Women as well.”
“Spearwives.”
“Some. Along with mothers and grandmothers, widows and maids … would you condemn them all to die, my lord?”

Jon sounds very much like Ned here and whether or not the two Northmen still disagree I suspect they know enough about The Ned to know advocating for dead children is not going anywhere. That Norrey changes the topic to the pragmatic problem of where they’ll live after this exchange fits with them seeing Ned reflected in Jon.

Still, for all Jon’s arguments he failed to sway the Northmen with trust or oaths before heart trees until he raised the issue of hostages.

The Norrey fingered his beard. “You may put your wildlings in these ruined forts, Lord Snow, but how will you make them stay? What is there to stop them moving south to fairer, warmer lands?”
“Our lands,” said Old Flint. “Tormund has given me his oath. He will serve with us until the spring. The Weeper and their other captains will swear the same or we will not let them pass.”
Old Flint shook his head. “They will betray us.”

These two Northern lords had a complete change of mind once Jon brings up hostages.

The northmen glanced at one another. “Hostages,” mused The Norrey. “Tormund has agreed to this?”

More telling is what they compare this hostage scenario to:

“Aye, and why not?” Old Flint stomped his cane against the ice. “Wards, we always called them, when Winterfell demanded boys of us, but they were hostages, and none the worse for it.”
“None but them whose sires displeased the Kings o’ Winter,” said The Norrey.

These clan leaders are recalling their own history of giving hostages to the King of Winter in Winterfell and comparing this to Tormund’s willingness to do the same. In this light Norrey’s question “Tormund has agreed to this?” could be rephrased to “Tormund has accepted you as his king?” The only remaining potential objection Flint and Norrey have is whether Jon has the belly to do what needs to be done—behead Wildling children. Jon’s response is:

Ask Janos Slynt. “Tormund Giantsbane knows better than to try me. I may seem a green boy in your eyes, Lord Norrey, but I am still a son of Eddard Stark.”

Jon thinks the Slynt part but we can be fairly sure both Flint and Norrey know the tale. He instead chooses to emphasize that he is a son of Eddard Stark, a point again driven home when he prefaces his orders to prepare with the words Winter is Coming. If these Northmen are really here with knowledge of Robb’s will to size up Jon as a potential King in the North I think we can say that after this event they are well satisfied. The "son of Eddard" response carries with it the meaning that he does have the belly but also so much more. Jon himself used this identity to help win over the Wildlings in the grove, but he rarely publicly does so. It is also worth considering how many other people do view Jon as no longer a bastard but a son of Eddard Stark who carries the weight and threat of a trueborn Stark. Alys does, Cersei does since Jon is worth trying to kill, the Boltons do, Stannis did, Robb did as did the lords who signed his will. I wonder if the childish insult of "bastard" has transformed into an objection to the potential for this new publicly perceived identity. Marsh calls him "Lord Snow" after he claims to be a son of Eddard and perhaps Cregan's "bastard" insult last chapter was designed to refute the "Stark" identity that Jon's actions conveyed.

.

Their understanding of the hostage scenario as “wards” also makes the complaint of these other Watchmen about them being armed seem incredibly foolish at best. Wards are raised alongside the children of the host to foster good will in the next generation. Norrey and Flint would fully expect their children to be given the same training and upbringing in Winterfell as the Stark children which is why the hostages are described as “none the worse for it.” This last round of complaints from Bowen and Co. must seem just absurd to them.

So Jon is placed in a kingly role negotiating with Tormund since he is reworking the prior act of King Stannis. He then twice denies subjugation to kingly authority with his thought of Selyse not being his queen and his oath argument to Bowen. Finally, he assumes the role of King of Winter in the eyes of Flint and Norrey who seem to be correctly perceiving what we'll witness from the Wildlings when Tormund passes through the gate.

[Fire Eater]

Gopd job, Ragnorak

As to Val's response to Ser Patrek, add that Jarl is described as Val's "latest pet," I think it can be surmised that Val is used to this kind of attention from members of the opposite sex. Jon is the one who is different in that he doesn't try to court her favor or impress her.

That one has more hair on her chin than I have between my legs

:laugh:

Jon's Peace Agreement

Jon let it wash all over him. He never raised his own voice or answered threat with threat, but neither did he give more ground than he'd been prepared to give.

Jon like with Tycho, shows good negotiation skills, and gets the deal he needs without compromising his principles. Jon manages to stay calm, cool and collected in the negotiations compared to Tormund. Jon was pragmatic enough to insist upon hostages from the wildlings just as Baelor Breakspear insisted upon hostages from Blackfyre supporters.

Val the Valkyrie

Val's name may be derived from Valkyries, mythological warrior women who were portrayed as blue-eyed, blondes and wore pure white robes, like Val's clothes when she comes with Tormund. They were associated with wolves and ravens (Bran and Ghost and Bloodraven). They worked in service to Odin the one-eyed god associated with ravens, one of Bloodraven's mythological references. They determined who lived and who died in battle, and with the kiss of death, determined who went to Valhalla to prepare for Ragnarok, marching with Odin against the frost giants, just as Westeros is in a Ragnarok situation with Jon siding with BR against the Others.

Val Clues

Jon reached to shoo the bird away but ended up stroking its feathers. The raven cocked its eye at him. "Snow," it muttered, bobbing its head knowingly. THen Ghost emerged from between two trees, with Val beside him . . . Val was clad all in white

Val was clad all in white and emerged with the white direwolf, Ghost, while Jon is all in black with the black raven. Ice and fire

They look as though they belong together.

A hint at Jon and Val. Val manages to make Jon smile.

A giant as a protector? Even Dalla could not boast of that.

I think that giant may be Mors Umber, Val's possible maternal grandfather.

You have my word Lord Snow. I will be a proper wildling princess for your queen.

If Jon is king he will need a queen. To add to that:

She is not my queen, he might have said. If truth be told, the day of her departure cannot come too fast for me, and if the gods are good she will take Melisandre with her.

I think Melisandre will journey North to find the supposed servants of the Great Other: Bran and BR. I think Val will go with her. Of course, I think Val will end up killing Melisandre.

Under the sea the crows are white as snow.

The light of the half-moon turned Val's honey-blond hair a pale silver and left her cheeks as white as snow.

The last kiss it is called, and many a time I [Thoros] saw the old priests bestow it on the Lord's servants as they died . . . But never before had I felt a dead man shudder as the fire filled him, nor seen his eyes come open.

Patchface's line comes from when Jon and Val walk into the room together. In "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" as the dwarfs thought Snow White was dead when she was in a coma, and she was kept in a glass coffin (Jon sees ice scraping off the Wall and thinks of glass gardens). Jon, a prince until he is crowned, may wake up from his coma after the Ides of Marsh the moment Val, called the "wildling princess," kisses him. Also, add in that Valkyries gave the kiss of death to fallen warriors to enter Valhalla.

[The Sleeper]

Re: Harrion Karstark: It wouldn't be Lannisters who hold him hostage, as he was captured in the battle for Duskedale. Since he is a lord, whoever has him would hope to make quite a killing of him. So, I don't think it s very likely he is dead. Besides, the only Lannister who would care is Devan.

Re: The clans: There are half a dozen of them mentioned, so divided among the 3-4k men they sent with Stannis, each one individually should amount to no more than several hundred men. They would also need to be raised individually, while at the same time it seems unlikely that many of them even have rookeries and maesters to receive messages by raven. Between that and the fact that they are poorly armed and unlikely to have much training for formal battle, it no wonder Robb did not bother with. As for the defense for the, it is quite likely that no-one even thought to send for them.

The Weeper.

The deal is made through and with Tormund and he is the most prominent among the wildlings that are set to pass at this batch. Yet the conversation repeatedly turns to the Weeper. I guess they didn't have much to say about Tormund to begin with. There is much debate on ideological ground on whether they should and could extend the same offer to the Weeper. I can't help but think this is beside the point. It is all but confirmed that he means to attack. He led what was essentially a faint before and he was barely repelled. How do they propose to stop him this time? Jon's notion of offering him at least has the merit of being a way to deal with the situation. However, given the fact that he is notorious raider and a bit of psychopath and that he would be more likely to have gathered the more recalcitrant and aggressive members of the wildlings, the objections the others raise seem valid. He seems unlikely to accept any terms and even if he did, he would be unlikely to abide by them. Yet no suggestion is made by either side on how to stop him if or more probably when he attacks. Denys Malister seems to be in for a desperate fight which he is destined to face alone.

The only sense in this is that they do not have anything specifically bad to say about Tormund apart of the fact that he is wildling, so they turn the issue to the most notorious raider in order to raise their objections. They touch, however on an immediate problem for which there is no apparent solution and it seems to go by every one.

Tormund and Val

Beneath his affable and colorful demeanor, Tormund is hinted at being quite an authority figure among the wildllings. He apparently isn't a raider as he says he has never seen the south of the Wall before, he has Ruddy hall and his arm bands which are old, engraven with runes and said to by inherited down his family suggests some sort of legacy. He also has enough clout to persuade the other clan chiefs to give up their sons (though their desperate situation can account for that). He might be as close to a lord as it gets among the wildlings. Val herself for not being a princess, the role seems to fit her like a glove so Jon, eventually relents and makes use of this. He sets her up as a sort of representative of the wildlings and even puts her in a decrepit tower with a giant guarding the entrance.

The son of Eddard Stark and the hostages.

In order to push through the clan heads objections Jon draws another leaf from the histories of Winterfell. He understands enough about the wildlings to know that Tormund's son will not be enough so he demands sons from every clan chief and a few random ones. The clan chiefs are content with the idea. It fits with what the know of ruling. Their remaining concern is whether or not Jon has what it takes to pull it off, which prompts Jon to invoke his favorite mantra. The practice of hostages for Winterfell aside form ensuring the father's loyalty it also served to ensure the future loyalty of the sons. This acts as a measure for integration for the wildlings as well. Institutionally, the various chieftains are acquinted wiht how things are done in the context of a feudal society. The sons will be essentially be raised as Northmen and as part of a hierarchy. This practice was meant to be of use to lords and kings. It also means however that it is Jon who holds the loyalty of the wildlings as well as the means to ensure it.

The Watch

We see several watchmen. Apart from the three Stooges, we also get Clydas and Ulmer. The question is what does the Watch thinks about all this. If I were to guess I'd say they have may conflicting thoughts about it. The entrenched views that Marsh espouses would be shared to a lesser or greater degree by every one at the Watch. Even Jon has them at the back of his head and with good reason. The Wildlings represent a very real danger. At the same time they must not be terribly thrilled at the prospect of having to fight them again after having suffered so many losses recently and being saved at at the nick of time. The word "peace" used by Ulmer certainly points to that. At the same time their interaction with worn down, hungry wildlings of Mole Town would have humanized the wildlings at the eyes of the Watch. Clydas at some point asks Jon why did he not disarm them. Understandably, while no necessarily opposed to the idea of letting them, through, they are concerned about treachery. So does Jon for that matter. His previous concerns about dissent in the ranks has not gone away. Marsh goes so far as to outright tell him that he is a traitor. And yet refuses to do anything about it.

The last sentences of the chapter I think signify the breach that leads to the assassination. Clydas, Yarwyck and Marsh address Jon in response to his orders in sequence. Clydas, first calls him Jon and then corrects himself and call him my lord. Worried as he is there is both familiarity and recognition of his role. Worried as he may be Clydas ultimately trusts in Jon. Then Yarwyck addresses him as Lord Commander, which is colder and formal, but recognizes his authority and perhaps even uses it as a rebuff. Lastly Marsh calls him Lord Snow. Technically that is his title and his name, but it also happens to be what Thorne mockingly called him. The lord in it doesn't necessarily refer to Jon being lord commander.

Selyse

The previous exchanges have been typical, but courteous enough if not cold. This time it breaks down in outright hostility and threats. Jon went there to report and perhaps blunt the Selyse's reaction. Jon went there observing all the courtesies and even got Val to kneel. The problem is much to fundamental to be overcome by courtesies. Jon was thinking in terms of manning the Wall. Selyse was thinking in terms of procuring followers for her husband. Nay way you cut it this is not what happened. What Selyse sees is Jon bringing Val in to defy her and when she tells him her objections he basically tells her to deal with it. The actual terms of the agreement will become known to her and she will know that Jon both has hostages and is giving a seat to Tormund, which I think there is little doubt she will see as grant of lands, rather than a place to winter. Val is also being removed from Selyse's custody and taken into her own tower guarded by no less than a giant. I wonder what Selyse will make of that. It is not unlikely that her uncle shared his beliefs about Jon's intentions and Val herself compares herself to her sister. There can be no doubt I think that in her eyes Jon is building up her powerbase, which is true, despite of how Jon intends to use it.

I have a hard time taking Selyse seriously and paying attention to what she does, but there is merit to the idea that she is staying at Castle Black to keep an eye and if necessary counter a potential threat to her husbands rule. Originally Jon and the Watch were at Stannis mercy. At this stage Jon may already be able to call on more manpower that Stannis has at his disposal.

I think the trade off is clear. Jon has traded an enemy from beyond the Wall, for enemies on this side.