Jon Snow ReRead Project! Part 5! (DwD)

[SeanF]

Picking up on Ragnorak's theme of theatricality can't we say that all three audiences are set pieces of theatre?

• Notice how Tormund only throws the horns after he has drunk the mead - this isn't a man who has lost his temper, but a man pretending to have lost his temper
• Ditto Jon prompting Val how to behave with Selyse
• Finally the scene on the wall - the question here is who is the audience and who the players. Have the three from the watch been brought there to see the two clan lords agree to Jon's scheme or have the clan lords been brought there to see the opposition to Jon?

On the subject of the men we see two things, both how Jon has turned away from his senior officers, but also how opinion is divided with others fearing blood and iron. Jon's officers we know already from the end of ASOS don't want to confront the magical/mystical element of the situation beyond the wall and seem

happier far to bury their heads in the sand (or snow maybe) over it. Yest the threat of the weeper forcing his way over the bridge of skulls leads them all round to the problem of the shortage of manpower.

I thought it was interesting given Marsh's awareness of the reach and power of Lord Tywin in ASOS that Marsh alone is unimpressed by Jon's invocation of The Ned to vouchsafe his preparedness to decapitate children - particularly interesting because Marsh did witness the beheading of Slynt.

Reading the chapter I had my usual thoughts about Val, how does she think that she can help Jon win round the Watch? Where did the clothes come from? Notable that she didn't join in the debate between Tormund and Jon (particularly since she does think that she can help with the Watch), Jon seems to have expected

that she could have swapped her horse for a better one but didn't as though he does think that she can pull weight among the wildlings and there is the obvious irony over the princess in the tower rescued by a knight - or cruel foreshadowing if you prefer.

On the question of Jon stealing Val, if there was any doubt isn't he stealing her for sure this time - having her removed from the King's tower and placed in Hardin's tower under the guard of his own men and his own giant? Won't Ser Patrek be trying to steal Val away from Jon? Considering how the Ser Patrek of Mount Royal story only got into ADWD because of a bet it is quite nice to see how far GRRM went to embed it organically in the story which gives me some hope with regard to the two (so far) deaths that he has recently auctioned off.

There was a lot of flicking backwards and forwards with nods to different chapters, the business of a good deal disappointing both parties, the crystalline beauty of the Wall, the mention of Needle...

For Tormund, it's like tag-wrestling "You grunt, I'll groan." When Jon came to negotiate with Mance, at the end of ASOS, Tormund was fairly friendly, or at least, not hostile, when he had every reason to hate him. Tormund likes Jon, and seems to have no hard feelings over his behaviour.

But, he can now go back to his people and say " I told the bastard what we think of him."

I'd be grateful for your views now on Val. A long way upthread, you indicated that you found her ability to travel unharmed through the forest very sinister. Are you suggesting she's an Other, undead, or in league with the Others? You said you'd comment in more detail, and this seems the right point.

[Lummel]

I think Jon's response to Bowen on top of the Wall shows a significant evolution in his understanding of "the oath." I was thinking back over the course of Jon's story and trying to pick out the key moments that deal with his evolution of understanding his oath...

Did I miss anything or add something that ought not be oath related? In reviewing the list I see the "lessons of the father" crop up more than I had realized. Anyone see any patterns, themes, etc. that stand out?

I'm not sure I see any evolution in Jon's understanding of the oath. I was thinking of Mormont mentioning that the wildlings are men - but doesn't he actually say that to Sam?

In that list of yours though I can see:

• the difficulty of keeping the oath

conflict between the oath and alternative value systems (social and familial)

difficulties due to being part of a paramilitary organisation (eg obedience to command) but which are not necessarily governed by the oath

I see the oath rather like a chain that runs through Jon's story (and probably the same is true of Jaime too). It's a constant presence, a burden, but because it is made up of links there is flexibility there once you know where and how to move it. The oath is a form of words and as such open to interpretation. We can take a view and find that almost if not actually everything that Jon does is allowable under a certain understanding of the oath, equally we could damn him as an oathbreaker many times over if we were so inclined.

What we don't see much of is Jon thinking about the oath. This chapter is interesting in that it is quoted twice to us in full, and again as in the chapter in which they go out to the weirwood grove we get an interesting time effect with the chapter finishing at night again. But all the same do we ever get any reflection by Jon about what the wording of the oath means or could be taken to mean - that really doesn't seem to me to be his style.

I suppose I'd say that the oath is not self contained. It is going to be understood in the light of the background of the person swearing to hold to it. The way that Jon understands the oath is going to be very Neddish with some splashes of Mormont no doubt -'I didn't say it was your honour'.

[Lummel]

...I'd be grateful for your views now on Val. A long way upthread, you indicated that you found her ability to travel unharmed through the forest very sinister. Are you suggesting she's an Other, undead, or in league with the Others? You said you'd comment in more detail, and this seems the right point.

Ah, I suppose it is :laugh:

I'll try to pull together my suspicions and make a little post of it, but I have no one conclusion or grand theory to offer.

[Ragnorak]

Picking up on Ragnorak's theme of theatricality can't we say that all three audiences are set pieces of theatre?

• Notice how Tormund only throws the horns after he has drunk the mead - this isn't a man who has lost his temper, but a man pretending to have lost his temper

Ditto Jon prompting Val how to behave with Selyse

Finally the scene on the wall - the question here is who is the audience and who the players. Have the three from the watch been brought there to see the two clan lords agree to Jon's scheme or have the clan lords been brought there to see the opposition to Jon?

On the subject of the men we see two things, both how Jon has turned away from his senior officers, but also how opinion is divided with others fearing blood and iron. Jon's officers we know already from the end of ASOS don't want to confront the magical/mystical element of the situation beyond the wall and seem happier far to bury their heads in the sand (or snow maybe) over it. Yest the threat of the weeper forcing his way over the bridge of skulls leads them all round to the problem of the shortage of manpower.

I thought it was interesting given Marsh's awareness of the reach and power of Lord Tywin in ASOS that Marsh alone is unimpressed by Jon's invocation of The Ned to vouchsafe his preparedness to decapitate children - particularly interesting because Marsh did witness the beheading of Slynt.

Reading the chapter I had my usual thoughts about Val, how does she think that she can help Jon win round the Watch? Where did the clothes come from? Notable that she didn't join in the debate between Tormund and Jon (particularly since she does think that she can help with the Watch), Jon seems to have expected that she could have swapped her horse for a better one but didn't as though he does think that she can pull weight among the wildlings and there is the obvious irony over the princess in the tower rescued by a knight - or cruel foreshadowing if you prefer.

On the question of Jon stealing Val, if there was any doubt isn't he stealing her for sure this time - having her removed from the King's tower and placed in Hardin's tower under the guard of his own men and his own giant? Won't Ser Patrek be trying to steal Val away from Jon? Considering how the Ser Patrek of Mount Royal story only got into ADWD because of a bet it is quite nice to see how far GRRM went to embed it organically in the story which gives me some hope with regard to the two (so far) deaths that he has recently auctioned off.

There was a lot of flicking backwards and forwards with nods to different chapters, the business of a good deal disappointing both parties, the crystalline beauty of the Wall, the mention of Needle...

It is an interesting way to look at the chapter.

I suppose this chapter isn't one where anyone is going to receive accolades for on stage performances. None of the audiences are very impressed. Tormund's performance washes over Jon and fails to get him to give more than he was prepared to before the curtain goes up. Tormund seems perfectly aware that Jon has the same difficult task of selling this deal on his own side of the Wall so this show is odd in that the performer and audience are already mostly on the same page. For Jon's part he isn't really performing for Tormund. Even the lack of any entourage speaks to not putting on a performance.

Jon and Val are performing for Selyse. Is she performing too or are her attempts to act like a queen merely a symptom of her delusion? She certainly isn't putting on a performance for Jon so I suppose we can't call her acting entitled theater. With Tormund we have a show where both parties agree on the ending before it starts. With Selyse we have a show to mitigate an ending the audience is known to hate regardless of how good the performance is.

There are two separate audiences on top of the Wall, the Northmen and the Watchmen. The individually argued points act like incidents of rising action with each new pro-Wildling notion offered by Jon building up to the climax of the hostage deal. Jon is using the theater to sell his ideas. If I had to guess despite a show for Norrey and Flint I think Jon included them on stage in the main performance for the dissenting Watchmen.

Jon seems to have a good track record on reading Northern lords so I think we can guess that he was fairly confident Flint and Norrey would accept his deal once he played the hostage card. They seem to be like the earlier two performances where the audience's thumbs up or down was a given beforehand. Jon's departing thoughts in the chapter lead me to believe he held out hope that the show he orchestrated where Flint and Norrey started on Bowen and Co.'s side but were won over by the final act would sway the Watchmen audience as well.

I suppose each bit of theater is successful in its own way except that last bit with the Watchmen. Tormund is helping to establish "ground rules" and making it clear that this isn't a surrender like the Wildling refugee program under Stannis. Jon is defying the Stannis regime here and the Selyse bit is designed to show submission while engaging in defiance and it allows him the ability to maintain the illusion of respecting kingly authority while actively not doing that very thing. The drawn out presentation with the Northmen allows Jon to lay out his underlying reasons and advocate for them before dropping the insurance policy that wins them over. The last objection they raised was about trust so Jon seems to have been successful in selling his general principles and the hostage dynamic resolved the trust issue. It is only the other Watchmen where the theatrics fail to serve the intended purpose.

As a final thought, I'm reminded of Tyrion III ASoS with the small council meeting. There Tyrion perceives the events as theatrics all settled beforehand where there's a layer of irony in that the Tyrells are also engaged in theatrics related to the Purple Wedding that have also been settled beforehand. I'm wondering how big a theme scripted theater is (certainly a big one with Varys) and how Jon does or doesn't fit into that theme.

i think that the most obvious pattern is growing up, actually. Jon starts with a set core of principles from his father, as well as influences and input form other mentor figures he has come across along the way, while being thrown in situations where he is called to apply these principles into practice. He evaluates, compares, adjust and prioritize and comes to his own understanding, purpose and worldview. He is becoming his own man. I also think one of the conclusions is that Jon always eventually chooses the mission, which I think is directly related with what he wants for himself and that is for his life to have a purpose.

This is a rather interesting take. I found myself disagreeing with "what he wants for himself" until the bolded qualifier. Still not sure I entirely agree (life as Lord of Winterfell under King Stannis would have a purpose) but your approach has merit worth pondering. Yes, I completely agree with the growing up take.

I'm not sure I see any evolution in Jon's understanding of the oath. I was thinking of Mormont mentioning that the wildlings are men - but doesn't he actually say that to Sam?

In that list of yours though I can see:

• the difficulty of keeping the oath

conflict between the oath and alternative value systems (social and familial)

difficulties due to being part of a paramilitary organisation (eg obedience to command) but which are not necessarily governed by the oath

I see the oath rather like a chain that runs through Jon's story (and probably the same is true of Jaime too). It's a constant presence, a burden, but because it is made up of links there is flexibility there once you know where and how to move it. The oath is a form of words and as such open to interpretation. We can take a view and find that almost if not actually everything that Jon does is allowable under a certain understanding of the oath, equally we could damn him as an oathbreaker many times over if we were so inclined.

What we don't see much of is Jon thinking about the oath. This chapter is interesting in that it is quoted twice to us in full, and again as in the chapter in which they go out to the weirwood grove we get an interesting time effect with the chapter finishing at night again. But all the same do we ever get any reflection by Jon about what the wording of the oath means or could be taken to mean - that really doesn't seem to me to be his style.

I suppose I'd say that the oath is not self contained. It is going to be understood in the light of the background of the person swearing to hold to it. The way that Jon understands the oath is going to be very Neddish with some splashes of Mormont no doubt -'I didn't say it was your honour'.

Part of me was looking ahead towards the Shield Hall and I wanted to take a look at the oath and Jon here without the shadows of a stabbing. I left out the Shield Hall trajectory in the question because I don't think that cliffhanger ought to define Jon's earlier actions as much as it does in a multi-year gap between books and looking all the way back from here gives a more holistic perspective than looking forward just a little bit to the knives.

I like the chain metaphor, nice! Completely agree with the whole Neddish idea as well.

I do think Jon's ride south back in GoT is about "one man's honor" outweighing the oath and this juxtaposes nicely with the Halfhand's lesson and the series of lessons that stem from Jon's following his orders. Dance opens with Jon fretting over pleasing kings and by this point he no longer seems to care on that front. Granted, the army Stannis had parked outside his door helped skew that priority The choice to send Val out gives us both ignoring a king and a line about the worth of one man's honor. I think I see pieces that can get connected together thematically but I don't have a clear picture yet. Since the oath appears in full twice this chapter I'm assuming there's a reason. The only evolution across a spectrum I feel confident endorsing is Jon's external vs. internal moral concerns. Jon riding south back in GoT was very concerned with Sam's, Mormont's, Aemon's Robb's, etc. judgments. Here Jon doesn't care what others think of his actions and he's only plagued by doubts from his own internal moral compass. That does connect back to the notions of external judgments (appearing godly vs. hated and misunderstood) inherent in the raven and dove speech.

[Lummel]

...For Jon's part he isn't really performing for Tormund. Even the lack of any entourage speaks to not putting on a performance...

I do think Jon's ride south back in GoT is about "one man's honor" outweighing the oath and this juxtaposes nicely with the Halfhand's lesson and the series of lessons that stem from Jon's following his orders. Dance opens with Jon fretting over pleasing kings and by this point he no longer seems to care on that front. Granted, the army Stannis had parked outside his door helped skew that priority The choice to send Val out gives us both ignoring a king and a line about the worth of one man's honor. I think I see pieces that can get connected together thematically but I don't have a clear picture yet. Since the oath appears in full twice this chapter I'm assuming there's a reason. The only evolution across a spectrum I feel confident endorsing is Jon's external vs. internal moral concerns. Jon riding south back in GoT was very concerned with Sam's, Mormont's, Aemon's Robb's, etc. judgments. Here Jon doesn't care what others think of his actions and he's only plagued by doubts from his own internal moral compass. That does connect back to the notions of external judgments (appearing godly vs. hated and misunderstood) inherent in the raven and dove speech.

Don't know, as you pointed out in the chapter summary Jon's escort is a performance and a precisely calibrated one. A tail to show that he is a leader, but not so many men to suggest that he is intimidated, one ex-wildling and another new recruit which again is to send a message to the wildlings - ancient enmity can end, we can cobble together a new way of existing together. Jon's lack of bluster is itself a performance - it is a style of behaviour that exists in contrast to Tormund's manner.

For me the difference between Jon's ride south and Jon's moral doubts now is that then there was a conflict between the oath and his code, after that and up until the shield hall he's going to interpret the oath and instruction in the light of his code. But because the oath is about governing the behaviour of the Watchman rather than defining the purpose of the watch itself there's considerable room for Jon to manoeuvre as a politician - which seems to be the same position that Jaime finds himself in AFFC.

[Julia H.]

The evolution of Jon's understanding of the oath... I think beneath "the growing up and becoming his own man" theme there is also another, underlying theme of Jon sorting out his relationship with his father (or the man he believes to be his father), of coming into his own in terms of his true Ned-heritage.

When he rides south from Castle Black, his only hope is that by sacrificing his life and his "man of the Night's Watch" honour, he will deserve the honour of being called Ned Stark's son.

Let them say that Eddard Stark had fathered four sons, not three.

That is very much an "outcast" viewpoint with regard to what being Ned Stark's son means.

When Jon spares Ygritte's life, choosing what he learned from Ned instead of his perceived orders, he feels a certain amount of guilt, at least until Qhorin tells him he did not disobey any actual orders.

When he breaks his vows with Ygritte, trying to resist and failing repeatedly, he accepts what may seem to be his "logical" inheritance: the stain on his father's honour, the inability to resist the love of a woman for the sake of an oath. ("What is honor compared to a woman's love?") Jon finds himself "weak" and he resigns himself to identifying with Ned's "weakness". Riding back to Castle Black, he draws a parallel between being pledged to the Night's Watch and being pledged to Lady Catelyn. Ironically, this identification is based on a lie – the Ned he identifies with never really existed.

Later, when he is brought out of the ice cell and sent out to kill Mance and die for being a turncloak, he pays a thought to Ned, who at least did not live to see his shame. Then he sets out to try and carry out what is likely to be his last orders. There would be no honour in killing Mance that way and he may well die before he has a chance to do anything, but he has pledged his life and his honour to the Night's Watch. I think this is another moment in the evolution of his understanding the vow, another one where his Night's Watch orders and the Ned-principles clash. Instead of killing the man, he chooses to protect the man's wife and son to be born during the battle. (An interesting connection between this man of the Night's Watch and the knights of the Kingsguard guarding Lyanna giving birth to Jon...) Jon may not be thinking of Ned at the moment (I am currently separated from this particular book, so I cannot check), but protecting his foe's child (and wife and sister-in-law) is hundred percent pure Ned. At this moment, he perfectly emulates Ned Stark's code of honour without being aware exactly how far Ned was ready to go to uphold the principle of protecting children – the same principle that also made Ned Jon's "father" eventually.

Jon's refusing Winterfell either does not fit the list, or, if it does, it has a special place on it, since this time his oath and Ned are ultimately on the same side.

As he chooses his own path and gradually finds his own reading of the oath, he suddenly finds himself addressed as Ned Stark's son. While Stannis offered to make him Eddard Stark's trueborn son in exchange for certain services – services Jon chose not to provide – , Alys regards him as Ned's son and heir, giving him, as a consequence, duties and responsibilities, in his father's name, which he chooses to honour.

Ned Stark's legacy is at the moment, divided: There is a "Lord of Winterfell", who has the castle, the official title and the privileges, but Ned's true heir is the one who accepts the duties and responsibilities of the "King of Winter". On the Wall, Jon says the words: "I am still a son of Eddard Stark." He also uses the traditional Stark motto, "Winter is coming." This is very far from the notion of Eddard Stark having fathered only three sons. The irony is bittersweet, but Jon has earned the honour of being Eddard Stark's true son. He is "still" a son of Eddard Stark, the truth of his parentage notwithstanding.

Thinking again of the protecting the children of your foe principle, I find it curious that Jon just happens to openly embrace Ned Stark's legacy when he is confronted with the question "do you have the belly..?" He does not give a definite (yes or no) answer. (Beheading Slynt is obviously not the same thing as killing a child hostage.) Could he just mean, I'd be in an awful dilemma, as my father would have been? Intentional ambiguity may be part of the theatrical aspects of the meeting.

(I keep thinking of the ideas brought up here. After my last post here, I was wondering whether I was "a woman in the arena" or something else. The next day I went to my workplace and found that I was. The arena is small, but I can hear the growl of lions behind a secret door. Part of me wants to get out, but it is good to look at it this way . :) Thanks.)

On what the clans may think about Bran's whereabouts...

You know, I find this extremely sophisticated – besides making wonderful predictions based on textual evidence, you are also able to design what theories (even false theories) the characters could build from the evidence they have. I loved reading the discussion.

[Lummel]

The evolution of Jon's understanding of the oath... I think beneath "the growing up and becoming his own man" theme there is also another, underlying theme of Jon sorting out his relationship with his father (or the man he believes to be his father), of coming into his own in terms of his true Ned-heritage...

Yes I agree, what's more The Ned is wonderfully flexible as you point out, Jon is continually able to reinvent his image of his father/fatherfigure depending on what life (GRRM!) throws at him...but for the family motto, The Ned is truly for Jon a man for all seasons :laugh:

[bemused]

The Sleeper .. I don't know how to explain my thinking on the Clans' behaviour fully , yet briefly, because one thing touches another, and I wind up trying to describe a very big picture. I think I've linked to the following thread before; it's probably too long to contend with, but if you're interested , it makes those connections ( and more compatible clues have turned up since then ) ..

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/93982-benjen-is-a-leader-of-the-gnc-and-the-hooded-man/?hl=%2Bbenjen+%2Bleader+%2Bhooded

But here, I'll just try to filter out Bran and the Liddle/Clans... .. I can't honestly say which idea occurred to me first, it's a chicken or egg situation, but here are a few basic premises, so you know where I'm coming from :

1. the GNC exists, and the clans are involved. ( admittedly ,I have some very specific views on the GNC that aren't mainstream)

2. Starks ( Bran, but not only Bran) are very important to the CoTF / Bloodraven agenda.

3. the CoTF would have aided Benjen and/or enlisted him in their cause , if they had the chance.

4. For magical reasons, there must indeed always be a Stark in Winterfell, irrespective of the political situation of the day.

So, going back to the Liddle in the cave.. The clans are presented as being stalwart supporters of the Starks. The Liddle warns Bran about the flayed men asking after wolves and walking dead ...and goes on to suggest the wall is not a good destination for Bran .

We've been given examples of what is and is not the way to deal with child rulers - as pointed out by Tyrion (ACoK).. Slynt took a swallow. “As to that, well... the king commanded it, m’lord. The king himself.”

“The king is thirteen,” Tyrion reminded him.

... by Jaime (ASoS) ... “The king is eight. Our first duty is to protect him, which includes protecting him from himself. Use that ugly thing you keep inside your helm. If Tommen wants you to saddle his horse, obey him. If he tells you to kill his horse, come to me."

... and as exemplified in Luwin's treatment of Bran from the time Robb rides south ... encouraging him to think like a Lord but preventing him from acting foolishly and reprimanding him if the situation called for it.

The Liddle doesn't seem as stupid or pandering as Slynt or Trant , so it always seemed inexplicable that he would let Bran proceed ,knowing help was very uncertain at the wall. Why wouldn't he suggest an alternative ..take him to the Wulls, e.g. ,whose territory is very remote from the Boltons ? To me his hands-off attitude makes sense only if he knew Bran was going to some refuge , somewhere where friends would receive him, and/or.. if he knew Bran was needed somewhere else. ( I think there's a very limited number of ways that either of these could be so.)

Then, to quote Qhorin from ACoK ... “These kings will do what they will,” ..... “Likely it will be little enough. The best hope is Winterfell. The Starks must rally the north.”

.. and Asha in ADWD.. Galbart Glover’s maester had claimed the mountain clans were too quarrelsome to ever band together without a Stark to lead them. ... ( Because she's being attacked by clan members, Asha thinks the maester might be wrong.. but on close inspection , I think he's right .)

Those two bolded statements convey more truth than either character knows at the time , IMO.

When Bran sets out, Robb is still alive. Wouldn't The Liddle think Robb would want his brother rescued ?... After the Red Wedding , Bran should be Lord.He's not only a child, but crippled.. All the more reason for a loyal bannerman to take a more active role, unless The Liddle knows something we do not.

And finally, this exchange with Jojen is very telling , to me..

“The wolves will come again,” said Jojen solemnly.

“And how would you be knowing, boy?”

“I dreamed it.”

“Some nights I dream of me mother that I buried nine years past,” the man said, “but when I wake, she’s not come back to us.”

“There are dreams and dreams, my lord.”

Here we're invited to consider the differences between Dreaming - both literally and in the sense of wishing or hoping - and Knowing. "The wolves will come again" could express certainty, or faith , or wishful thinking, equally well . ... In the ensuing exchange , GRRM could have used many different words if the point was just to show that Jojen realises he's not just speaking to "a" Liddle, but "The" Liddle , as he shows when he closes with "my lord" ( which passes unchallenged)...and it seems a very brief questioning resulting in fairly slight proof for The Liddle to accept that Jojen has true dreams. ( Anyone might call him "my lord" with a 50% chance of being right . )

GRRM might have written - you seem sure , or what makes you say that ?, or so we all hope , etc.... (or even - oh, you think so,do you? ;) ) .. " And how would you be knowing " hints strongly to me ( after putting it in context with other clues and events) that The Liddle also knows (not just hopes) the wolves will return.. It's as if he's thinking ... I know , but how do you know ? .. as if he's just double checking... Why would the word of a "boy" he's never met before be so persuasive to him? ... Bran's only 8 ( maybe close to 9 ), Meera and Jojen , though somewhat older , don't look their ages, and Hodor needs to be told what to do... Unless he's had some assurances off-page that Jojen is to be trusted , and Bran is on an appropriate or necessary course , I don't think The Liddle would be persuaded by such slim evidence.

Also,I don't think Flint and Norrey are the only clan chiefs acting in concert . We've been told, obliquely, some of the ways the clans probably have of communicating other than by raven ( Umbers graze herds on clan lands..signal fires , etc.)

Aside - I did mention Aemon's ravens to the clans earlier and there is a possible explanation that occurs to me. Perhaps the clans can recieve ravens ( unlike Greywater Watch, their clan seats don't move ) ... but if they don't have maesters and thus, no rookeries with a continually replenished supply of ravens , sending ravens themselves would be difficult to impossible. If they needed to send a reply , e.g. when Robb called the banners, they could just rest the bird and send it back with their message. ...In the case of Aemon's bird , we know from Jon's POV that there wouldn't have been time to send aid , anyway. ( And if the wall was likely to be breached before they could get there , they would need what manpower they had to defend their homes. )... We don't know that they didn't send a reply that was received after the fact. There are other instances in the books when we know messages must have been sent or received that weren't specifically mentioned.

Paper Waver .. Well, if you think the watchers would have checked out the Nightfort .. why wouldn't they have checked out the other forts west of CB for signs of Bran & co , since then ?

And yes, Jon sent Sam , Aemon and Gilly away , but it entailed sending an escort, supplies , arranging passage from Eastwatch, and so on . Once they were underway from CB, it was no longer a secret. Jon only hoped to hide it from Stannis long enough to give them a healthy head start.

Yes, Big Liddle probably had been with Marsh chasing the Weeper , but the men exchange stories, as we see with Jon's friends, when they all reunite at CB. As it happens , I think the clans had received off-page assurances . But even if it turns out I'm wrong about that, once Flint and Norrey were at CB they would know, through the conversations of themselves and their men , that Bran was never there and Jon most probably couldn't have sent him anywhere secretly (besides Jon apparently believing Bran and Rickon to be dead.)

Back to Theatrics .. There is possibly a third small audience on top of the wall ( if an unintended one) - the guards , Ty and Owen. Earlier, we saw Ulmer come forward to actually speak for the men. The men do talk among themselves , but I've never trusted Bowen's word on what they say.. Owen's report on the meeting might not be worth much ;) ( he appears to think well of Jon, anyway ).. but Ty's opinions may carry some weight.

Ty was never mentioned on Mormont's ranging , so it seems likely he was also part of Bowen's chase, and must have some opinion as to whether it was wise , or worth losing 100 men. Though he's a steward, he's never mentioned in Bowen's intimate group .Mind you, neither is Mully, and he seems pretty suspect ( but Mully is an older man and probably has known Bowen a long time ).

However, Ty and Dannel, another steward, rescued Alys Karstark without explicit instructions from Jon , and took care of her. Ty was also with Jon when he rode south of Mole's Town to meet Cregan... One of Karstark’s men had loosed a crossbow quarrel at Ty and died for it.... ( I doubt if this would make him sympathetic to Cregan .).. He and Dannel and Left Hand Lew will be the stewards in Jon's guard when Tormund comes through the gate.

Atop the wall, though Ty and Owen are very bundled up , Jon thinks... 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. .... I guess we'll find out how well he knows them, but depending on how much of the conversation he heard , Ty may have something different to pass on to "the men" than Bowen.

The Oath - I like the points made about Jon growing up .. Growing into understanding ? Though I agree he had something of an epiphany about the realms of men at the oath-taking .. I feel it's as a result of what he's been taking in more or less by osmosis , all along... Perhaps part of the reason we don't see him thinking about it is that much of his understanding is expanding at almost a subconscious level..?

And I quite agree that that the oath can be taken different ways by different men.. and that's why the "extras" need paring away.

Aside... Though that Mormont quote about the wildlings being the wrong foe was to Sam , Jon had this from Qhorin...

Only fools like Thoren Smallwood despise the wildlings. They are as brave as we are, Jon. As strong, as quick, as clever.

.. and he knows Qhorin and Mance had been friends before they became enemies. That the enmity cost Qhorin's life must seem such a waste to Jon.

[Lummel]

...Aside - I did mention Aemon's ravens to the clans earlier and there is a possible explanation that occurs to me. Perhaps the clans can recieve ravens ( unlike Greywater Watch, their clan seats don't move ) ... but if they don't have maesters and thus, no rookeries with a continually replenished supply of ravens , sending ravens themselves would be difficult to impossible. If they needed to send a reply , e.g. when Robb called the banners, they could just rest the bird and send it back with their message. ...In the case of Aemon's bird , we know from Jon's POV that there wouldn't have been time to send aid , anyway. ( And if the wall was likely to be breached before they could get there , they would need what manpower they had to defend their homes. )... We don't know that they didn't send a reply that was received after the fact. There are other instances in the books when we know messages must have been sent or received that weren't specifically mentioned...

The lack of Maesters and Rookeries could well be the significant factor:

In the Theon chapter from TWOW we learn that almost all ravens can only fly to one destination - not there and back, so they need to be transported back (or to some other place) by man. Birds that can fly between two points are rare, ravens that can fly between several points are beyond rare. So if the clans don't have their own rookeries if they receive a ravenmail they'd have to send their response by snailmail (or overnight frog).

[bemused]

Lummel.. Right ! I had that chapter in mind ,

but was forgetting flying back was not likely an option..

..so , really next to impossible , then.

The frog makes me hope Jon meets Roose at some point so we can call up this one..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KXlBeziPJ4

ETA: In my late night ramblings , I should have said about Ty - he could also have been with Mormont , or like Emmet , suborned from Pyke or Mallister . But any way you look at him , he wouldn't necessarily be of Bowen's mindset.

ETA,ETA: I see I'm still up,so..

Back to the loan..

I had wanted to say earlier ,that I don't think there's any question Bowen is being disingenuous when he asks Jon how he intends to pay for the food he plans to bring in. Not only was it obvious that Jon and Tycho emerged from their meeting on good terms , but Jon left his copy of the agreement on his table and then stayed away from his quarters a good long while - at the time, and also on the intervening days before the meeting on the Wall ( one really long spell, when Jon goes out to meet Tormund ). Even if Mully (who I assume is Bowen's informant) can't read , there have been plenty of opportunities to let Bowen in, or take the document to him, temporarily.... ( And for future reference, I'll just point out that if one document could be removed briefly , so could another .. ;) )

Bowen probably hoped to cast any answer Jon gave in a negative light , but Jon doesn't nibble , so Bowen can't take it farther.

By giving the elapsed time of Jon and Tycho's meeting..

It took the better part of an hour before the impossible became possible, and another hour before they could agree on terms.

...I think GRRM is setting up a direct comparison to Jon's meetings with Tormund,both in this chapter ...

Finally, as the shadows of the afternoon grew long outside the tent, Tormund

Giantsbane—Tall-Talker, Horn-Blower, and Breaker of Ice, Tormund Thunderfist, Husband to Bears,Mead-King of Ruddy Hall, Speaker to Gods and Father of Hosts—thrust out his hand. “Done then, and may the gods forgive me. There’s a hundred mothers never will, I know.”

... and also in Jon's last chapter... They talked for the best part of two hours.

I won't go into the last one in detail ahead of time , but we can easily imagine why Jon's meeting with Tycho took so long .. first convincing Tycho and then the terms, which could be quite nit-picky. This first meeting with Tormund may have taken even longer, but again, lots of details and logistics to be worked out.... I'm not sure the third meeting will fit the pattern all that well , when we come to it , yet I feel sure they're meant to be compared. ( Tycho and Tormund 1 - maybe not the same length , same types of complications .... Tycho and Tormund 2 - same elapsed time , not necessarily same complications.)

[butterbumps!]

What we don't see much of is Jon thinking about the oath. This chapter is interesting in that it is quoted twice to us in full, and again as in the chapter in which they go out to the weirwood grove we get an interesting time effect with the chapter finishing at night again. But all the same do we ever get any reflection by Jon about what the wording of the oath means or could be taken to mean - that really doesn't seem to me to be his style.

I suppose I'd say that the oath is not self contained. It is going to be understood in the light of the background of the person swearing to hold to it. The way that Jon understands the oath is going to be very Neddish with some splashes of Mormont no doubt -'I didn't say it was your honour'.

I really like the chain metaphor. But I'm not sure if I follow. I think we are seeing Jon redefine the vow this chapter.

Picking up on Ragnorak's theme of theatricality can't we say that all three audiences are set pieces of theatre?

• Notice how Tormund only throws the horns after he has drunk the mead - this isn't a man who has lost his temper, but a man pretending to have lost his temper
• Ditto Jon prompting Val how to behave with Selyse
• Finally the scene on the wall - the question here is who is the audience and who the players. Have the three from the watch been brought there to see the two clan lords agree to Jon's scheme or have the clan lords been brought there to see the opposition to Jon?

It is an interesting way to look at the chapter.

I suppose this chapter isn't one where anyone is going to receive accolades for on stage performances. None of the audiences are very impressed. Tormund's performance washes over Jon and fails to get him to give more than he was prepared to before the curtain goes up. Tormund seems perfectly aware that Jon has the same difficult task of selling this deal on his own side of the Wall so this show is odd in that the performer and audience are already mostly on the same page. For Jon's part he isn't really performing for Tormund. Even the lack of any entourage speaks to not putting on a performance.

Jon and Val are performing for Selyse. Is she performing too or are her attempts to act like a queen merely a symptom of her delusion? She certainly isn't putting on a performance for Jon so I suppose we can't call her acting entitled theater. With Tormund we have a show where both parties agree on the ending before it starts. With Selyse we have a show to mitigate an ending the audience is known to hate regardless of how good the performance is.

There are two separate audiences on top of the Wall, the Northmen and the Watchmen. The individually argued points act like incidents of rising action with each new pro-Wildling notion offered by Jon building up to the climax of the hostage deal. Jon is using the theater to sell his ideas. If I had to guess despite a show for Norrey and Flint I think Jon included them on stage in the main performance for the dissenting Watchmen.

Jon seems to have a good track record on reading Northern lords so I think we can guess that he was fairly confident Flint and Norrey would accept his deal once he played the hostage card. They seem to be like the earlier two performances where the audience's thumbs up or down was a given beforehand. Jon's departing thoughts in the chapter lead me to believe he held out hope that the show he orchestrated where Flint and Norrey started on Bowen and Co.'s side but were won over by the final act would sway the Watchmen audience as well.

I suppose each bit of theater is successful in its own way except that last bit with the Watchmen. Tormund is helping to establish "ground rules" and making it clear that this isn't a surrender like the Wildling refugee program under Stannis. Jon is defying the Stannis regime here and the Selyse bit is designed to show submission while engaging in defiance and it allows him the ability to maintain the illusion of respecting kingly authority while actively not doing that very thing. The drawn out presentation with the Northmen allows Jon to lay out his underlying reasons and advocate for them before dropping the insurance policy that wins them over. The last objection they raised was about trust so Jon seems to have been successful in selling his general principles and the hostage dynamic resolved the trust issue. It is only the other Watchmen where the theatrics fail to serve the intended purpose.

As a final thought, I'm reminded of Tyrion III ASoS with the small council meeting. There Tyrion perceives the events as theatrics all settled beforehand where there's a layer of irony in that the Tyrells are also engaged in theatrics related to the Purple Wedding that have also been settled beforehand. I'm wondering how big a theme scripted theater is (certainly a big one with Varys) and how Jon does or doesn't fit into that theme.

I strongly agree with the theatrical breakdown. But I'm not fully sure that the people in each act were performing for each other.

The Tormund-Jon one looks more like theatricality set for Tormund's fellow wildlings, to make them think he put up a fight for their rights so as not to look like a weak crowlover, while simultaneously selling the idea of fair integration (Leathers and Horse, Val, emerging from the tent as friends).

I'd understood the Selyse one largely as just hollow gesturing to give Selyse some modicum of the display she so sorely craves. I think the theme here might be something like "the emptiness of decorum for its own sake." Jon doesn't particularly need to keep her sweet, nor get her to agree to anything; it's presentation for the sake of presentation, though for the reader, it gives us an even more stark contrast between Southron Fooldom and the seemingly more authentic and correct wildlings ("seemingly" given Tormund's earlier hearty performance, and Val's subsequent seemingly irrational greyscale fears).

I think the last one is little more complicated. Unlike the theatre Tormund put on for his wildlings, Jon doesn't actually need to win "the Watchmen." Ulmer came forward as the Watchman representative and seemed satisfied enough in knowing that the wildlings would come through peacefully. I don't think bringing Bowen, the drunk, Yarwyck and Clydas up was about getting them on board with anything.

I think the clansmen were the ones who really mattered here. Leathers was the "good example" case study to help Jon sell the deal to Flint and Norrey. This was really a conversation between Jon and the clans, with an implicit chastening of his officers who made their displeasure public last chapter. The clansmen surely noticed who abstained during the ceremony; they might have been harboring skepticism about an LC whose senior officers made their dissent so public. Well, Jon gives them a chance to show the clansmen firsthand just how much their dissent is worth. They are unintentionally acting as a PSA on idiocy, making it clear to the clansmen that Jon really isn't the problem. Simultaneously, by winning over the clansmen, this sends the Bowen committee the message that Jon has more political weight and acceptance on the very things they disagree with. Challenge Jon on these issues now, and the clans will answer too.

[Lummel]

I really like the chain metaphor. But I'm not sure if I follow. I think we are seeing Jon redefine the vow this chapter.

I strongly agree with the theatrical breakdown. But I'm not fully sure that the people in each act were performing for each other...

Where and how then do you see the vow being redefined? I'm not seeing it in this chapter and I am unconvinced on the evolution angle (although quite possibly we could all be using different forms of words to describe the same situation). I suppose what I see is more the evolution of Jon's relationship to the watch and its mission and the vow as a part of that. But part of the problem is that the vow is separate from the day to day activity of the watch, if we look at it in terms of what can a person do without violating the vow - well really it is quite a lot. The only grounds that I think The Mance violates the oath is by calling Dalla his wife and by fathering a child (does he wear a crown? can one speak of a crown as meaningful regalia when a kingdom doesn't exist? what is his post? who gets to define where his post is? what if the person in charge is wrong and following their orders means that you are not guarding the realms of men or being the horn that wakes the sleepers etc ?) but he does violate the organisational culture of the Watch in a huge way by running around with the wildlings.

I agree on the issue of who the parties are performing for. This chapter sees Bowen and Co isolated on all sides really. We see ordinary watchmen aren't keen to fight, we see that Jon wants to make peace, we see the Clan chiefs are prepared to back Jon. Equally we can see that Jon has no other option than peace, but equally not enough food to feed the men he has let alone thousands more.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

I think that Val was not only a messenger, she was a message as well; a message of trust, of intent to treat them as allies and equals and, most of all, that Jon really meant his proposal, enough to risk his head for it. The deal was done before the meeting even started; Tormund and the freefolk did not have many options and they knew it. The 'negotiations' would only serve to allow the freefolk to save some pride - even the ground to be given was decided in advance. Tormund's performance was given for Tormund himself, for his own relief and because the man clearly enjoys his theatrics.

It's different with Selyse, though.

“You may not [laugh when you kneel]. This is no game. A river of blood runs between our peoples, old and deep and red. Stannis Baratheon is one of the few who favors admittng wildlings to the realm. I need his queen’s support for what I’ve done.”

Jon feels that some royal backing would help make the deal more acceptable to his own. He's not really wrong - the perception of royal authority does have roots in the mindset of the people south of the Wall. However, I believe that Jon addressed to the wrong queen; he 'd have fared better with Melissandre, IMO. Perhaps Melissandre's absence was to make a "you need me" statement of her part. Jon is not wrong to mistrust and even fear her, but I think that his feelings are clouding his judgement here. He still uses Marsh and Yarwyck although he doesn't trust them, why not do the same with her, at least as a political tool?

On the Clan leaders

I believe that their main concern, and the reason they came rushing to the Wall, was the change of politics regarding Wildlings. When Stannis came to them and took them to war, he 'd certainly have informed them about his victory over the Wildlings (that's something to show off about, and present himself as the 'true' king) and his intention to accept 'those who bend the knee' into the realm.

Their reaction in this chapter makes it clear that they don't buy the Wildling vows of obedience, they are worried about the safety of their lands and people and gives an explanation of why they came: to check out the situation with their own eyes. Coincidentally, they came just about the time for the wedding, which must have fed their worries even more. It's the pragmatic argument of hostages that finally wins them over - one they have experienced themselves and deem it effective.

I don't think that Bran's whereabouts is relevent in their presence at the Wall. That Bran passed through their lands, is a "secret" I believe they don't talk about not even between them.

[OT] Reading Bran's chapter again, and especially their dialogue with the unnamed Liddle, there is the feeling of defeat and hopelessness from the clans' part. Except from this instance, they don't offer Bran and company any help. They are litteraly hiding. Bran and his little group don't present a danger themselves, but being seen helping them would put them in great danger. On the other hand, not helping them puts them to shame, and I think that this is the main reason they were hiding then, and an extra motivation to be willing to die for the Ned's little girl now: to make up for what they couldn't do for the Ned's little boy. [/OT]

On Jon and the NW vows

It seems to me that Jon has really taken to heart maester Aemon's words "you must make that choice yourself, and live with it all the rest of your days", as well as the Halfhand's, “our honor means no more than our lives, so long as the realm is safe”, along with his own conclusion that the realm that matters is the realms of men.

The vow is just words. Their gravity depends on the appeal they have to the person. The part of the vow that Jon deems more significant is the part that defines a purpose, "the shield that guards the realms of men". I agree with the Sleeper that this, for Jon, is a life purpose.

The part with the restrictions don't have an appeal except to one's personal honor of keeping his vows. For Jon, personal honor is important, still - but not important enough to define his priorities, be it the purpose of the Watch as he sees it, or the fate of his little sister. Each time he choses to do "the right thing", that is, the choice he can live with for the rest of his life. The Ned's influence is deeper, it is the in root of what defines "the right thing" in Jon's perception.

The problem is, Jon is now in a position that intents do not really matter, the "right thing" is determined by the results and as such it can only be known in hindsight. Thus the doubts of the sort "I am the guard who opened the gates and let the foe march through".

On Shireen's greyscale

I think that Val's opinion should not be taken lightly. The author put those omnimus words in the mouth of a character that he just made be viewed as very reliable. We should expect that it will be a factor in the events to come, and as much as I wish for a happy ending for Shireen, I don't feel it's likely.

[butterbumps!]

Where and how then do you see the vow being redefined? I'm not seeing it in this chapter and I am unconvinced on the evolution angle (although quite possibly we could all be using different forms of words to describe the same situation). I suppose what I see is more the evolution of Jon's relationship to the watch and its mission and the vow as a part of that. But part of the problem is that the vow is separate from the day to day activity of the watch, if we look at it in terms of what can a person do without violating the vow - well really it is quite a lot. The only grounds that I think The Mance violates the oath is by calling Dalla his wife and by fathering a child (does he wear a crown? can one speak of a crown as meaningful regalia when a kingdom doesn't exist? what is his post? who gets to define where his post is? what if the person in charge is wrong and following their orders means that you are not guarding the realms of men or being the horn that wakes the sleepers etc ?) but he does violate the organisational culture of the Watch in a huge way by running around with the wildlings.

I agree on the issue of who the parties are performing for. This chapter sees Bowen and Co isolated on all sides really. We see ordinary watchmen aren't keen to fight, we see that Jon wants to make peace, we see the Clan chiefs are prepared to back Jon. Equally we can see that Jon has no other option than peace, but equally not enough food to feed the men he has let alone thousands more.

I'm not sure how I feel about the overall proposition that Jon's idea of the vow is "evolving." As you say, we might all be using different words in this case. Elsewhere, I've stated that Jon "reinterprets" the vow in this chapter; he goes back to the core of the vow, and removes some of the customary "baggage" from it, like conforming to the king's laws and defining only one enemy that puts all people on one side-- eschewing things that had become seemingly embedded into them, but aren't actually part of the vow. He makes a case for his course of action using a more abstract and essential reading of the vow.

I'm not sure that for Jon, personally, he requires adherence to the vow to justify his own actions to himself. I'm not sure if we have enough info on that yet, and I'm undecided on the matter. But he does kind of play the lawyer card here to the clans and the Bowens as part of the message he's allowing each to send each other. By rephrasing the core of the oaths, he's showing the clansmen that the Bowens, not he, are the ones advocating acting against acting as a Watchmen despite their self-righteous claims.

[Ragnorak]

Don't know, as you pointed out in the chapter summary Jon's escort is a performance and a precisely calibrated one. A tail to show that he is a leader, but not so many men to suggest that he is intimidated, one ex-wildling and another new recruit which again is to send a message to the wildlings - ancient enmity can end, we can cobble together a new way of existing together. Jon's lack of bluster is itself a performance - it is a style of behaviour that exists in contrast to Tormund's manner.

For me the difference between Jon's ride south and Jon's moral doubts now is that then there was a conflict between the oath and his code, after that and up until the shield hall he's going to interpret the oath and instruction in the light of his code. But because the oath is about governing the behaviour of the Watchman rather than defining the purpose of the watch itself there's considerable room for Jon to manoeuvre as a politician - which seems to be the same position that Jaime finds himself in AFFC.

I'm not opposed to Jon's Tormund interactions as being part of a show. I was thinking back to Tyrion III SoS where the theatrics both seen and unseen really serve to illustrate how Tyrion's time in KIngs Landing as a "player" was more about Lannister family politics for him than it was about Iron Throne politics. I was looking for an angle that might be similarly illuminating for the theater in Jon. You Jaime parallel is a good one.

The idea of theatrics in Jon is also nagging me at a higher level. Varys our resident mummer is all about theater and he's about to put an "authentic" hidden son of Rhaegar on to the stage while we know Jon is the real hidden authentic son of Rhaegar. With that looming in the imminent future we have Jon engaged in theater claiming to be an "authentic" son of Ned Stark in the midst of a theatrical display. So I'm looking for some angle to the theatrics that may fit with that as well. Perhaps the right prism is one of morality in the game where Varys and Ned are being contrasted with the two imposter sons they've raised or some similar angle?

The evolution of Jon's understanding of the oath... I think beneath "the growing up and becoming his own man" theme there is also another, underlying theme of Jon sorting out his relationship with his father (or the man he believes to be his father), of coming into his own in terms of his true Ned-heritage.

When he rides south from Castle Black, his only hope is that by sacrificing his life and his "man of the Night's Watch" honour, he will deserve the honour of being called Ned Stark's son.

Let them say that Eddard Stark had fathered four sons, not three.

<snip>

I think the Winterfell refusal can fit the list. For quite some time the old gods are only referred to by Jon as "my father's gods." There is also a sense of Winterfell as a beacon of home and family in all the Stark POVs and Jon's thinking of the Heart Tree as defining Winterfell and belonging to the legacy of his ancestors makes it a decision very much tied to Ned and family in general.

Fathers and father figures was a prominent topic in our discussions until the end of SoS when Noye, Jon's last remaining surrogate father, dies. This is the point where Jon steps up to be the de facto surrogate father for his brothers before he gets elected LC and becomes the surrogate father in name too. Reading over your post I wish we had spent a little time trying to tie the Ned references back to the earlier fatherhood discussions. Even as recently as last chapter Jon thinks of Ned wishing for guidance. I wonder if there's a parallel between Ned sending out Beric after the Mountain and Jon's actions with Karstark. It would have been interesting to have taken all Jon's decisions and dilemmas throughout Dance and connect them back to the "fatherhood" lessons earlier in his arc.

Where and how then do you see the vow being redefined? I'm not seeing it in this chapter and I am unconvinced on the evolution angle (although quite possibly we could all be using different forms of words to describe the same situation). I suppose what I see is more the evolution of Jon's relationship to the watch and its mission and the vow as a part of that. But part of the problem is that the vow is separate from the day to day activity of the watch, if we look at it in terms of what can a person do without violating the vow - well really it is quite a lot. The only grounds that I think The Mance violates the oath is by calling Dalla his wife and by fathering a child (does he wear a crown? can one speak of a crown as meaningful regalia when a kingdom doesn't exist? what is his post? who gets to define where his post is? what if the person in charge is wrong and following their orders means that you are not guarding the realms of men or being the horn that wakes the sleepers etc ?) but he does violate the organisational culture of the Watch in a huge way by running around with the wildlings.

I agree on the issue of who the parties are performing for. This chapter sees Bowen and Co isolated on all sides really. We see ordinary watchmen aren't keen to fight, we see that Jon wants to make peace, we see the Clan chiefs are prepared to back Jon. Equally we can see that Jon has no other option than peace, but equally not enough food to feed the men he has let alone thousands more.

I think we have two primary things being contrasted. First is about serving any king sitting the Iron Throne which echoes back to Tycho and "Is that whom I serve?" Jon rejects Selyse as his queen in his thoughts and it seems clear that it isn't about whether Stannis is the rightful king or not so much as whom Jon serves. The Marsh retort towards the end is similar in that Jon is explicitly rejecting the role of kings in the Watch vows. I think this is something different and new even though it has had a build up. It is certainly a change from his attitudes when deliberating the paper shield when kings were prominent in his thoughts.

The second is Jon's Bowen retort in context with his previous thoughts and actions.

"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?”

The Wildlings were the enemy because they were attacking the Seven Kingdoms. Stannis agrees to let them through, if and only if, they agree to serve King Stannis. In other words the Wildlings cease to be the enemy when they start serving the Iron Throne. Jon bought into this to some degree. Now Jon's thinking seems to be more along the lines of the Wildlings are not the enemy period, but a realm of men that needs protection against the true undead zombie horde enemy. The Wildlings need not serve the Iron Throne at all but simply agree that the undead zombies are the true enemy and act to help defend themselves and other realms of men against that true enemy. The abandoned forts and inches of land are fairly direct references to his debate with Stannis in Jon I DwD.

"Evolving" may be a bad word choice for its potential connotations. Politicians have "evolving" positions and their campaign promises have "evolving" meanings post-elections. Jon's situation is anything but a finger lick to check the wind direction. Still, there is a build up to his stance here. We have Jon's internal criticism of the way he lets the Wildlings pass. Jon thinks back on how much he disagrees with Stannis's methods in the "apple or onion" scene at Molestown and again in the weirwood grove where he thinks Mel and her red god have much to answer for. Despite Jon's disagreements I don't think he had mentally divorced the obligations of the Watch inherent in their vows entirely from a certain duty to the Iron Throne in any of those prior scenes.

So we can lose the word "evolving" and replace it with "build up." I'd try and do the same with oath vs. say mission or duty, but the latter contrast is fairly specifically about the oath and we do get the oath in full twice this chapter so I'm finding it hard to view the oath as wholly separate from the mission. duties, true purpose, or whatever words could describe Jon's new paramount view of his organization's direction. I think the focus ought to be on the contrasts with earlier chapters. Even the Weeper stuff is a change for Jon. He had his berserker spear ripping moment and I somehow doubt extending an olive branch to the Weeper was high on his list back then. That was followed up with a threat to kill Rattleshirt. If Jon's rangers were sent out to make the same offer Val made (since he thinks Val succeeded where they failed) that may mean Jon took those heads an answer to his offer. His Weeper amnesty for all stance also offers a certain contrast to his earlier attitudes and reactions.

Setting aside weighted word choices, let's take a fresh look at what is shown by the contrasts in this chapter to earlier moments in Jon's story.

[Julia H.]

Yes I agree, what's more The Ned is wonderfully flexible as you point out, Jon is continually able to reinvent his image of his father/fatherfigure depending on what life (GRRM!) throws at him...but for the family motto, The Ned is truly for Jon a man for all seasons :laugh:

:lol: LOL.

Perhaps the right prism is one of morality in the game where Varys and Ned are being contrasted with the two imposter sons they've raised or some similar angle?

I think the Winterfell refusal can fit the list. For quite some time the old gods are only referred to by Jon as "my father's gods." There is also a sense of Winterfell as a beacon of home and family in all the Stark POVs and Jon's thinking of the Heart Tree as defining Winterfell and belonging to the legacy of his ancestors makes it a decision very much tied to Ned and family in general.

Fathers and father figures was a prominent topic in our discussions until the end of SoS when Noye, Jon's last remaining surrogate father, dies. This is the point where Jon steps up to be the de facto surrogate father for his brothers before he gets elected LC and becomes the surrogate father in name too. Reading over your post I wish we had spent a little time trying to tie the Ned references back to the earlier fatherhood discussions. Even as recently as last chapter Jon thinks of Ned wishing for guidance. I wonder if there's a parallel between Ned sending out Beric after the Mountain and Jon's actions with Karstark. It would have been interesting to have taken all Jon's decisions and dilemmas throughout Dance and connect them back to the "fatherhood" lessons earlier in his arc.

I think we have two primary things being contrasted. First is about serving any king sitting the Iron Throne which echoes back to Tycho and "Is that whom I serve?" Jon rejects Selyse as his queen in his thoughts and it seems clear that it isn't about whether Stannis is the rightful king or not so much as whom Jon serves. The Marsh retort towards the end is similar in that Jon is explicitly rejecting the role of kings in the Watch vows. I think this is something different and new even though it has had a build up. It is certainly a change from his attitudes when deliberating the paper shield when kings were prominent in his thoughts.

The second is Jon's Bowen retort in context with his previous thoughts and actions.

"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?”

The Wildlings were the enemy because they were attacking the Seven Kingdoms. Stannis agrees to let them through, if and only if, they agree to serve King Stannis. In other words the Wildlings cease to be the enemy when they start serving the Iron Throne. Jon bought into this to some degree. Now Jon's thinking seems to be more along the lines of the Wildlings are not the enemy period, but a realm of men that needs protection against the true undead zombie horde enemy. The Wildlings need not serve the Iron Throne at all but simply agree that the undead zombies are the true enemy and act to help defend themselves and other realms of men against that true enemy. The abandoned forts and inches of land are fairly direct references to his debate with Stannis in Jon I DwD.

"Evolving" may be a bad word choice for its potential connotations. Politicians have "evolving" positions and their campaign promises have "evolving" meanings post-elections. Jon's situation is anything but a finger lick to check the wind direction. Still, there is a build up to his stance here. We have Jon's internal criticism of the way he lets the Wildlings pass. Jon thinks back on how much he disagrees with Stannis's methods in the "apple or onion" scene at Molestown and again in the weirwood grove where he thinks Mel and her red god have much to answer for. Despite Jon's disagreements I don't think he had mentally divorced the obligations of the Watch inherent in their vows entirely from a certain duty to the Iron Throne in any of those prior scenes.

So we can lose the word "evolving" and replace it with "build up." I'd try and do the same with oath vs. say mission or duty, but the latter contrast is fairly specifically about the oath and we do get the oath in full twice this chapter so I'm finding it hard to view the oath as wholly separate from the mission. duties, true purpose, or whatever words could describe Jon's new paramount view of his organization's direction. I think the focus ought to be on the contrasts with earlier chapters. Even the Weeper stuff is a change for Jon. He had his berserker spear ripping moment and I somehow doubt extending an olive branch to the Weeper was high on his list back then. That was followed up with a threat to kill Rattleshirt. If Jon's rangers were sent out to make the same offer Val made (since he thinks Val succeeded where they failed) that may mean Jon took those heads an answer to his offer. His Weeper amnesty for all stance also offers a certain contrast to his earlier attitudes and reactions.

Setting aside weighted word choices, let's take a fresh look at what is shown by the contrasts in this chapter to earlier moments in Jon's story.

I like the idea of those two being contrasted by the two "imposter" sons. When I read the description of Aegon (as the ideal king-to-be) in the Epilogue of ADwD, it struck me how much of that description fits Jon.

The Winterfell refusal... When I said the oath and Ned are ultimately on the same side here, I didn't explain what I meant. The oath requires Jon to serve the Night's Watch. Stannis would give him Winterfell if Jon were willing to serve him. Jon seems to be absolutely sure that bending the knee to Stannis would be oathbreaking for him as a man of the Night's Watch (especially with Val added to the picture). He nevertheless considers the offer and he comes to the conclusion that in exchange for rebuliding the walls of Winterfell, he would have to burn the very heart of Winterfell. He chooses his father's gods over his father's castle. While at first sight Jon's choice here may seem to be between oath and family again, it turns out that both his oath and the family considerations demand the same: that he refuse the king's offer. That is a difference between this decision and many others he has had to make. I think the moment can fit the list, but it has a special place there because this time the oath and the family demand the same choice.

"Reading over your post I wish we had spent a little time trying to tie the Ned references back to the earlier fatherhood discussions." (Ragnorak)

*** Fingers crossed for another re-read...*** Ned-issues may yet surface when Jon discovers his true parentage. After so much internal struggle, finding out that he is not Ned Stark's son after all may be quite a shock.

Evolution or build-up... I could see yet another metaphor here, the onion one. The vow has layers and Jon has just reached the core (while Bowen, for example, only notices the outer surface). Perhaps each of the moments you have listed helps Jon remove a layer of the "onion" and get closer to the core. The layers are not necessarily useless, but they hide the core and it is Jon's task to find it in the historical-political moment when it is most needed. (But that, too, has probably been said before.)

I think the oath is important for Jon as guidelines or a moral compass all the time - it is repeated practically every time he makes an important decision, as though each of his decisions were to be weighed against the oath. "Interpretation" means he can apply it to different problems or situations in his life, but he is seeking the true meaning (or his own true reading) of the oath while seeking the true meaning or purpose of his life (or the true purpose of the Night's Watch even). Understanding the oath is not a purpose but a means.

[bemused]

I think eventually, an important factor in how Jon relates to the oath and his interpretation of it will have to do with King's Blood and what gives it power. Though we don't yet know the specifics, I'm feeling that it's magic, but different sorts of magic on the First Men side and Targaryen side of Jon's bloodlines.

I'm sure I'm not alone in suspecting that on the Stark side , it involves some sort of infusion of the blood (sap) of the weirwoods into Stark blood ,either by direct mingling or ingestion ( I'm of the opinion that blood magic works because it's magic and is not required by any God...particularly the Old Gods) .. If "King's Blood" dates back to the pact, it would have been a monumental task to repeat the magic with the whole First Men population , so perhaps specific magic would be worked on the various Kings among them , according to what attributes they might need to have in the Kingdoms they ruled.

This is all necessarily highly speculative at this point, but however it works , there seems to be something that innately attunes Starks to the magic that the original oath, the Wall and (no doubt) Winterfell are founded on.

So ... there are lessons Jon's learned that he's aware of , more that he's just absorbed but may not fully be able to articulate , and deeper still, an intuitive urge to be at one with the magic. This may mean that while his rational self is increasingly able to identify and articulate what the oath should mean , he's simultaneously distilling truth from all the various factors internally , and eventually this will include whatever factors come from his Targaryen side.

Among many examples , I think there's a subtle hint given from Qhorin in ACoK ...

...Qhorin Halfhand turned his head. His eyes met Jon’s, and held them for a long moment. “Very well. I choose Jon Snow.”

Mormont blinked. “He is hardly more than a boy. And my steward besides. Not even a ranger.”

“Tollett can care for you as well, my lord.” Qhorin lifted his maimed, two-fingered hand. “The old gods are still strong beyond the Wall. The gods of the First Men... and the Starks.”

The way it's phrased , "The gods of the First Men... and the Starks" , with the pause , sets the Starks apart even from the rest of the First Men.

We're often told how one faction or another remember things otherwise forgotten. But take for example "The North Remembers".. Manderly consciously remembers his house owes the Starks a debt of gratitude. All the northmen remember Ramsay's cruelties and Roose's perfidy during Robb's campaign .. the Clans remember what it was like when there was a Stark in Winterfell .. and it seems to be in their very blood ( and that of other northmen?) to be led by a Stark. ... There's conscious and unconscious remembering at work for them , and conscious and unconscious interpretation for Jon.

ETA: This is not meant to downplay the ideas Jon wrestles with , or the fact that he has to make decisions, or to suggest that he can't still make mistakes , but I think mistakes are more likely if he veers away from his instincts.

[thepooperthatwaspromised]

Never posted on this thread before, but during the midst of a separate project involving a reread of DwD and GoT, in which I happened to look at this thread and saw the mention of apples, onions, Jon's relation to Ned and other foreshadowing, I came across this and thought it might (or not) mean something to previous (sorry I'm late!) posts.

GoT, Eddard 6 (KL, Ned on his way to meet Gendry)

The Street of Steel began at the market square beside the River Gate, as it was named on maps, or the Mud Gate, as it was commonly called. A mummer on stilts was striding through the throngs like some great insect, with a horde of barefoot children trailing behind him, hooting. Elsewhere, two ragged boys no older than Bran were dueling with the sticks, to the loud encouragement of some and the furious curses of others. An old woman ended the contest by leaning out of her window and emptying a bucket of slops on the heads of the combatants. In the shadow of the wall, farmers stood behind their wagons, bellowing out "Apples, the best apples, cheap at twice the price" and "Blood melons, sweet as honey" and "Turnips, onions, roots, here you go, here you go, turnips, onions, roots, here you go here."

Following up, I looked at "Blood melon" as it was not a colloquialism I am familiar with and came across this:

The only known reference in scholarship is Tatomir Vukanović's account of his journeys in Serbia from 1933 to 1948. He wrote several years later:

The belief in vampires of plant origin occurs among Gs. [Gypsies] who belong to the Mosl. faith in KM [Kosovo-Metohija]. According to them there are only two plants which are regarded as likely to turn into vampires: pumpkins of every kind and water-melons. And the change takes place when they are 'fighting one another.' In Podrima and Prizrenski Podgor they consider this transformation occurs if these ground fruit have been kept for more than ten days: then the gathered pumpkins stir all by themselves and make a sound like 'brrrl, brrrl, brrrl!' and begin to shake themselves. It is also believed that sometimes a trace of blood can be seen on the pumpkin, and the Gs. then say it has become a vampire. These pumpkins and melons go round the houses, stables, and rooms at night, all by themselves, and do harm to people. But it is thought that they cannot do great damage to folk, so people are not very afraid of this kind of vampire.

Among the Mosl. Gs. in the village of Pirani (also in Podrima) it is believed that if pumpkins are kept after Christmas they turn into vampires, while the Lešani Gs. think that this phenomenon occurs if a pumpkin used as a syphon, when ripe and dry, stays unopened for three years.

Vampires of ground fruit origin are believed to have the same shape and appearance as the original plant.

[...]

The Gs. in KM. destroy pumpkins and melons which have become vampires ... by plunging them into a pot of boiling water, which is then poured away, the ground fruit being afterwards scrubbed by a broom and then thrown away, and the broom burned.

—Tatomir Vukanović, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society

Could be wrong, but I see so much here. Unfortunately it is crazy late and I have to sleep but if anyone is interested, I will try to unpack all of this further and how I think it pertains to this thread, Jon's arc and the overall story tomorrow...

[The Sleeper]

On the Clan leaders

I believe that their main concern, and the reason they came rushing to the Wall, was the change of politics regarding Wildlings. When Stannis came to them and took them to war, he 'd certainly have informed them about his victory over the Wildlings (that's something to show off about, and present himself as the 'true' king) and his intention to accept 'those who bend the knee' into the realm.

Their reaction in this chapter makes it clear that they don't buy the Wildling vows of obedience, they are worried about the safety of their lands and people and gives an explanation of why they came: to check out the situation with their own eyes. Coincidentally, they came just about the time for the wedding, which must have fed their worries even more. It's the pragmatic argument of hostages that finally wins them over - one they have experienced themselves and deem it effective.

I don't think that Bran's whereabouts is relevent in their presence at the Wall. That Bran passed through their lands, is a "secret" I believe they don't talk about not even between them.

[OT] Reading Bran's chapter again, and especially their dialogue with the unnamed Liddle, there is the feeling of defeat and hopelessness from the clans' part. Except from this instance, they don't offer Bran and company any help. They are litteraly hiding. Bran and his little group don't present a danger themselves, but being seen helping them would put them in great danger. On the other hand, not helping them puts them to shame, and I think that this is the main reason they were hiding then, and an extra motivation to be willing to die for the Ned's little girl now: to make up for what they couldn't do for the Ned's little boy. [/OT]

You are perfectly right. It is the obvious and logical motive and Jon's invitation to them to inform them of the terms under which Tormund will be allowed to cross, spells it out for us. I guess I got a little bit carried away with more obscure hidden motives. I also like the connection you made with their willingness to go fight for the Ned's little girl.

Still, I think that Bran's whereabouts and his eventual fate would be something of a loose end for them, though it is far form necessary for Martin to address this.

[Julia H.]

bemused...

The idea that there is actual, intentional magic in Stark blood and in Targaryen blood is intriguing.

In the case of Targaryens, their reliance on dragons must mean a form of magic by itself. Considering the fact that Jon's wound smokes and so does Drogon's, the implication is indeed that the magic has a physical, tangible presence literally in their blood (rather than some "abstract" magic linked to the family, blood in the metaphorical sense).

However, I confess I have never come to this conclusion with regard to the Starks. Instead, I have been thinking of the Stark phenomenon and the necessity to have a Stark in Winterfell in terms of responsibility, morality, tradition, upbringing and similar values. Merit, in other words. That, of course, does not mean that you are not right. The Starks have their heart tree and their nameless gods, as well as the blood of the First Men, and they are watched by Bloodraven, and all that is indeed a lot of blood. If I try to explain where my perception differs from yours, perhaps I can say I would have thought of a kind of "magic" (and I use the word magic here for want of a better word rather than in the literal sense you are using it) that "came to be" through the lives and actions of generations of Starks rather than through the conscious use of a specific act of magic, like the infusion of weirwood sap into Stark blood, which would, in effect, do the trick for all future Starks to come.

Then again, I'm aware how much more you all know of this wonderful series than I do, newbie as I am, and I will definitely look for clues in this direction as I'm re-reading the books. For the moment, I can only think of questions. Your Qhorin quote indicates that Qhorin knows how special the Starks are to the old gods. Still, do we have any indication of how much the Starks know of it? They certainly know that there must always be a Stark in Winterfell, and they know that the heart tree is the heart of Winterfell. Do the Stark POV characters ever think of the reason why?

It is a tricky question because Ned may not have to think about it at all simply because this knowledge is so deep-rooted in his psyche. Still, this is knowledge that must be passed down from father to son – the heir at least. We never see a Rob POV and we never see Ned talk about the blood magic to Rob, although Rob must have learned it at some point. (Ned can't leave Winterfell to become the King's Hand without his heir having this vital piece of information.) Jon doesn't seem to be aware of the full facts, except for metaphorical allusions (like the heart of Winterfell) or resulting practical information (like who should swing the sword). That is understandable as he was not raised to be Ned's legal heir. But we also have Bran's POV, and he is next in line of succession should Rob die without a child. It doesn't make sense if only the actual heir knows of the blood magic. Anything can happen after all. Rickard and Brendon Stark died at the same time. Had Ned learned of the blood magic before that or did he learn of it from (say) the maester as he became the heir? Does Bran seem to be aware of such a family "secret" even when he finally meets the three-eyed crow? Of course, it cannot really be a secret if Qhorin knows, but Bran is still very much a child. It is possible that he was deemed too young to be taught all the information until it was too late, yet it is strange that even as Bran is the Stark in Winterfell, with the current (childless) lord, Rob fighting a war, Maester Luwin tells him "magic does not work".

By contrast, even Dany seems to be quite well-informed, given that her only source of information on Targaryens is Viserys for most of her life.

Another question is, if there are two families with magical blood, and one of them (the ruling Targaryens) are losing their power (no dragons for two hundred years), why doesn't it occur to them (long before Rhaegar and Lyanna) to unite the two kinds of blood magic, making themselves stronger by adding Stark blood to their own? (Or did it happen?) Or does the Stark blood magic work in the North only? Would that make the Targaryens reject the idea of such a union?

Finally, to get back to Jon as the only known character (am I right?) descended from both families, what are the implications (if any) for him, personally, of the possible interaction between different kinds of magic in his blood?