jons resurection and "salt and smoke"

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

Jon wasn't killed, George himself has basically confirmed this. Also, "reborn" could mean alot of different things.

Has he? IIRC awoiaf says he died.

Reborn can mean a lot of things.. one thing that it doesn´t mean is to be killed.

[butterbumps!]

Martin left those last lines so open that any outcome from "barely wounded" to "dead" can follow logically as outcomes.

This might be a meta-question, but for those advocating for a "dead + resurrected" outcome, are you also thinking through the implications what that entails? Not in an "is this possible" sense, as Martin's certainly set up that resurrections are possible. But what this means for Jon as a character and Martin's attitude toward resurrections?

[RumHam]

Martin left those last lines so open that any outcome from "barely wounded" to "dead" can follow logically as outcomes.

This might be a meta-question, but for those advocating for a "dead + resurrected" outcome, are you also thinking through the implications what that entails? Not in an "is this possible" sense, as Martin's certainly set up that resurrections are possible. But what this means for Jon as a character and Martin's attitude toward resurrections?

I would probably mean the loss of him as a POV, for one thing.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

Martin left those last lines so open that any outcome from "barely wounded" to "dead" can follow logically as outcomes.

This might be a meta-question, but for those advocating for a "dead + resurrected" outcome, are you also thinking through the implications what that entails? Not in an "is this possible" sense, as Martin's certainly set up that resurrections are possible. But what this means for Jon as a character and Martin's attitude toward resurrections?

Sharp personality changes for certain. but That isn´t neccesarily bad in terms of plot development.

the books, and Jon´s arc specifically are full of clues on what jon will be once he "comes back".

More Ghost-like for certain.. "kill the boy and let the man be born".. " wake dragons out of stone"

[butterbumps!]

I would probably mean the loss of him as a POV, for one thing.

Well, not just that, but he'd be basically a different character. Martin's big criticism of LotR is that when Gandalf was brought back from the dead, his character wasn't fundamentally changed. That's the attitude Martin's taking about undeaths-- they aren't aren't necessarily good things (there are worse things than death), and leave the character fundamentally changed from what they once were. We see this in action with Cat and Lady Stoneheart as well.

I guess, I'd only wanted to point out that while jumping to the assumption that Jon's dead and can be easily resurrected is one of the outcomes that makes narrative sense in a "this is possible" way, the ramification of that seemingly tidy outcome is pretty dramatic, and not one I suspect too many readers will want, or even necessarily one that makes narrative sense in the grand scheme of things. An undead Jon coming back will basically be a new Jon, different from the one we've gotten to know. So we wouldn't be seeing Jon's reaction to Bowen + Co or R+L in the future, but a different person.

Sharp personality changes for certain. but That isn´t neccesarily bad in terms of plot development.

But in terms of character development, it's dismal.

[Nictarion]

Sharp personality changes for certain. but That isn´t neccesarily bad in terms of plot development.

:agree: I'm hoping for a much darker Jon Snow in future books.

[butterbumps!]

:agree: I'm hoping for a much darker Jon Snow in future books.

But don't you want that to be a natural development of Jon's trajectory, and a choice he is personally making? Imagine what will happen if he's undead and starts killing innocents. I can see it already: Jon fans arguing that we can't hold him accountable for killing child hostages because this new undead Jon isn't the Jon we knew, and the Jon we knew wouldn't kill child hostages.

[BitsOfBrains]

IF Jon is AA and IF he is "reborn" somehow I see it going down like this.

Jon is shanked and dies. His corpse is taken beneath the wall and preserved in the ice at Melisandres command so he doesn't rot while she tries to revive him.

The best place to preserve a corpse, which is really just meat when you get right down to it, is where they keep there preserved meat stores.

So Jon is revived in a room full of smoked hams and salt beef.

"Born amidst smoke(d hams) and salt (beef)."

[sj4iy]

:agree: I'm hoping for a much darker Jon Snow in future books.

If his personality is fundamentally changed, then I disagree.

We saw him at his darkest in ADWD, but he wasn't bad...he simply had hard decisions to make. I don't think there's any need to change Jon's personality- in fact, I would think it is detrimental to his storyline. He will have harder and more impossible decisions to make, but he should suddenly wake up UnJon like Catelyn did.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

But don't you want that to be a natural development of Jon's trajectory, and a choice he is personally making? Imagine what will happen if he's undead and starts killing innocents. I can see it already: Jon fans arguing that we can't hold him accountable for killing child hostages because this new undead Jon isn't the Jon we knew, and the Jon we knew wouldn't kill child hostages.

i think you are assuming the only model for rebirth is the kiss of Rhllor. And yes, fire consumes.

But jon is the song of ice and fire. It would be more fitting if he were to be reborn using both kinds of magic. Both Melisandre and Bloodraven could be involved in some way. I think Yoklboy had a theory on this.

[Nictarion]

If his personality is fundamentally changed, then I disagree.

We saw him at his darkest in ADWD, but he wasn't bad...he simply had hard decisions to make. I don't think there's any need to change Jon's personality- in fact, I would think it is detrimental to his storyline. He will have harder and more impossible decisions to make, but he should suddenly wake up UnJon like Catelyn did.

If he's survives that's fine, but if he is dead and is resurrected it has to come at a cost.

[butterbumps!]

i think you are assuming the only model for rebirth is the kiss of Rhllor. And yes, fire consumes.

But jon is the song of ice and fire. It would be more fitting if he were to be reborn using both kinds of magic. Both Melisandre and Bloodraven could be involved in some way. I think Yoklboy had a theory on this.

No, I'm applying the logic Martin himself is holding himself to. Martin believes that resurrections where death doesn't fundamentally change a character are mistakes. As in, you don't get to die and come back without being fundamentally changed:

Martin had once stated that Gandalf should have stayed dead (in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings). He still holds to that position, despite some of the events in A Storm of Swords. However, if "he had returned as an evil flesh-eating zombie", that could have been different. Martin does not believe his "resurrections" are remotely similar to what Tolkien did. Death actually made Gandalf greater, improving him and increasing his power. And, quibbles aside, Martin still thinks that Tolkien was the greatest of all fantasists.

This is about how Martin has a very clear position on resurrections in his novels in general. No matter what the mechanism they were resurrected by, no one gets a free pass and keeps their essence-- that is, it's a discontinuity of character.

If he's survives that's fine, but if he is dead and is resurrected it has to come at a cost.

It makes perfect sense that Jon will come out of the stabbing much darker; that's character development. But forcing a change like an undeath would is a major interruption of Jon's character development, and separates his future accountability for the actions performed by this undead person.

[The Prince Of Tatters]

The biggest ant-climax would be if the first chapter in AWOW were to be Jon's POV and started like this. "Jon woke from his dream..."

[BastardlyRock]

Can we at least all agree on one thing... Jon won't ever be the same again :D

[Disputatious]

Jon wasn't killed, George himself has basically confirmed this. Also, "reborn" could mean alot of different things.

The actual text says that AA will be born again, not that AA reborn will be born again: a birth not a "rebirth" of someone who has already been born. One can get around this, I suppose, by invoking the bleeding star, but that has come and gone. And as observed (clever point) the Dallas Cowboy's logo (oops, I mean Ser Patrick's sigil) is bloody but not itself bleeding--- it was Ser Patrick that was bleeding.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

No, I'm applying the logic Martin himself is holding himself to. Martin believes that resurrections where death doesn't fundamentally change a character are mistakes. As in, you don't get to die and come back without being fundamentally changed:

Martin had once stated that Gandalf should have stayed dead (in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings). He still holds to that position, despite some of the events in A Storm of Swords. However, if "he had returned as an evil flesh-eating zombie", that could have been different. Martin does not believe his "resurrections" are remotely similar to what Tolkien did. Death actually made Gandalf greater, improving him and increasing his power. And, quibbles aside, Martin still thinks that Tolkien was the greatest of all fantasists.

This is about how Martin has a very clear position on resurrections in his novels in general. No matter what the mechanism they were resurrected by, no one gets a free pass and keeps their essence-- that is, it's a discontinuity of character.

And i agree that means a sharp change in personality. I just don´t think the parallel should be Lady Stoneheart. UnJon might not be a revenge seeking zombie.

there might be other options.

Otherwise, what´s the point in the conecept of the Second life, if not to apply in Jon´s case?

[jobmartell]

What is he a ham?

Or, or, What Is he, pancetta?

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

"Then Bowen Marsh stood there before him, tears running down his cheeks. 'For the Watch.' He punched Jon in the belly. When he pulled his hand away, the dagger stayed where he had buried it."

"Jon fell to his knees. He found the dagger's hilt and wrenched it free. In the cold night air the wound was smoking. 'Ghost', he whispered."

All the proof I'll personally ever need.

I know Lady Blizzardborn just mentioned these, but I thought a direct pull from the text would help. :cool4:

Kill the boy to let them man be born? Also, sorry folks, but Ghost is totally getting sacrificed. Jon is both AAR and Lightbringer. Dany will be TPTWP.

Edit: Have to add this since I went and read the whole thread:

There are two things often overlooked about Jon and UnCat

1. If Jon is in a coma, or dies and is resurrected, I think we can all assume he will warg into Ghost. I think the prolonged effects of existing in the direwolf's conscious must be factored in in any character change/development with regards to future Jon. Also, the method of said resurrection must be factored in (Ghost sacrifice, Mel's magic, UnCat kiss, etc. etc.)

2. Using UnCat as a comparison or projection of what UnJon/Jon Reborn (or whatever you want to call him) will be is a bad idea. Cat's dying thoughts were her husband's dead, her children are all dead or doomed, she watched "the last son" die in front of her, and she knew her houses (Stark and Tully) were ruined (and really a lot of other horrible thoughts I'm sure. Hell, she probably committed murder for the first time just before she died too). She had a bad day. And now she has a vendetta that was inspired before her death. This explains UnCat rather simplistically, but makes her character change much more understandable. Jon on the other hand died like Caesar, and so his last thoughts were likely shock, pain, and whatever else you'd like to assume. Jon might witness some shit as Ghost that could greatly effect who he is when he returns (if he ever does). And as I said before, I strongly believe the method of his revival will have a significant impact on who he becomes.

[Steelborn]

Like Disputations said, isn't the prophecy saying "born" amidst salt and smoke and not "reborn". Well, I don't know if that word is important, but yes, it may mean lots of things.

[Fire Eater]

Why would they be trying to preserve Jon's body for a long period of time? Wouldn't they just burn him? Even if they do put his body in the ice cells, I don't believe they salted or smoked the other bodies currently stored there.

I think Marsh would want to preserve Jon's body so he could show it to Bolton's as undeniable proof of Jon's demise.

I don't think Mel will be working to help Jon, but BranRaven.

No, I'm applying the logic Martin himself is holding himself to. Martin believes that resurrections where death doesn't fundamentally change a character are mistakes. As in, you don't get to die and come back without being fundamentally changed:

Martin had once stated that Gandalf should have stayed dead (in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings). He still holds to that position, despite some of the events in A Storm of Swords. However, if "he had returned as an evil flesh-eating zombie", that could have been different. Martin does not believe his "resurrections" are remotely similar to what Tolkien did. Death actually made Gandalf greater, improving him and increasing his power. And, quibbles aside, Martin still thinks that Tolkien was the greatest of all fantasists.

This is about how Martin has a very clear position on resurrections in his novels in general. No matter what the mechanism they were resurrected by, no one gets a free pass and keeps their essence-- that is, it's a discontinuity of character.

It makes perfect sense that Jon will come out of the stabbing much darker; that's character development. But forcing a change like an undeath would is a major interruption of Jon's character development, and separates his future accountability for the actions performed by this undead person.

Exactly, Jon resurrected via the last kiss would badly hamper his character development, and he would likely cease to be a POV character as was Cat's case. GRRM doesn't do full-scale resurrections, so that is why I think Jon is in a coma, not dead. Also, the last kiss would a trite overuse of the trick, storywise.