jons resurection and "salt and smoke"

[Driesel Snow]

People are assuming that they need Jon's body for proof to Roose? Only if Roose wrote the Pink Letter....but do we know that Roose wrote the Pink Letter?

[butterbumps!]

1) ok i just misread the killing innocents comment.

2) indeed, lots of topics introduced in the prologue. Certainly the second life is the huge on though.

3) Indeded, GRRM needs to fundamentally change the person. So, he introduces the Second Life and it´s effect on personality (the mixing of Jon and Ghost). So Jon can indeed resurrect and comply with GRRM requierments on resurrection.

Also his arc is full of aditional clues on what that personality change can be. "kill the boy and let the man be born". "wake dragons out of stone"

The second life shows us that there's no "3rd Act." If that chapter is so fundamentally critical to Jon's arc, then what it shows us is that Jon will be a wolf in the event he dies. So that Prologue tells us something different from the way it appears it's frequently taken.

I'm wondering if there's some confusion. I'm not arguing that Martin can't resurrect Jon. Not remotely. It's plausible; he's put various mechanisms in place to make that happen. We know he can be resurrected.

What we also know, as per Martin's SSM, is that in the event this happens, Jon will be fundamentally changed. Basically, a new character. The Jon going forward will not be the same Jon he had been.

So what I came into this thread to point out is that in the event Jon is resurrected, it means he will no longer be the same Jon we've gotten to know. That it's essentially a new character going forward. That the Jon who would be reacting to Bowen and R+L will not be "Jon." No more than Lady Stoneheart is Cat. Because Martin is against resurrections that do not fundamentally shift the character.

Yes, it's obviously possible for Jon to die and be resurrected. But if that occurs, then this new Jon is basically a new character, with only traces of the Jon we've gotten to know. Yes, this can happen-- Jon is dead, resurrected, and becomes a fundamentally changed, new character.

But I was asking those arguing for the idea of resurrection if they'd actually thought through what that meant for the story and for Jon's arc. As in, anything Jon does post-resurrection would mean that he's not truly accountable for it as "Jon," because a resurrection imposes a full interruption of a character's arc per Martin's logic.

[KINGpanther]

Yeh, GRRM doesn't rez people without a big shift in that persons character. The question shouldn't be "how will Jon be rezed" but "how will Jon change when he is rezed".

[butterbumps!]

Yeh, GRRM doesn't rez people without a big shift in that persons character. The question shouldn't be "how will Jon be rezed" but "how will Jon change when he is rezed".

Or he doesn't have Jon die and be resurrected at all. He's left it open enough such that Jon could conceivably walk away from this relatively unharmed, in a coma needing medical attention, or any number of other options.

Back in aCoK, Orell's eagle savages Ghost-- to the extent the eagle tried snapping his neck. When Jon and Qhorin find him, he looks dead, but when Ghost realizes Jon's there, he gets up, and stands as the party tends to his wounds. The idea that Jon can walk away from a similar savaging that would appear to have killed him already has precedent through Ghost. And further, the fact that Jon and Ghost have each other seems to raise their threshold for survival, like they draw strength from each other or something (like how Ghost gets up despite the serious wounds when he sees Jon). We also have precedent for remaining alive and in tact for more serious injuries; back in aGoT, this is basically what happened to Bran (and once again the wolf seems to have offered strength of some sort).

If Martin wants Jon to be the one reacting to R+L and Bowen and anything else, then he's amply set things up such that Jon doesn't have to die at all, in terms of both planting precedents, as well as in the ambiguousness of that last chapter.

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

The second life shows us that there's no "3rd Act." If that chapter is so fundamentally critical to Jon's arc, then what it shows us is that Jon will be a wolf in the event he dies. So that Prologue tells us something different from the way it appears it's frequently taken.

I'm wondering if there's some confusion. I'm not arguing that Martin can't resurrect Jon. Not remotely. It's plausible; he's put various mechanisms in place to make that happen. We know he can be resurrected.

What we also know, as per Martin's SSM, is that in the event this happens, Jon will be fundamentally changed. Basically, a new character. The Jon going forward will not be the same Jon he had been.

So what I came into this thread to point out is that in the event Jon is resurrected, it means he will no longer be the same Jon we've gotten to know. That it's essentially a new character going forward. That the Jon who would be reacting to Bowen and R+L will not be "Jon." No more than Lady Stoneheart is Cat. Because Martin is against resurrections that do not fundamentally shift the character.

Yes, it's obviously possible for Jon to die and be resurrected. But if that occurs, then this new Jon is basically a new character, with only traces of the Jon we've gotten to know. Yes, this can happen-- Jon is dead, resurrected, and becomes a fundamentally changed, new character.

But I was asking those arguing for the idea of resurrection if they'd actually thought through what that meant for the story and for Jon's arc. As in, anything Jon does post-resurrection would mean that he's not truly accountable for it as "Jon," because a resurrection imposes a full interruption of a character's arc per Martin's logic.

1) well yes, normally that second life would be it, since there is not a single case in history of westeros in which a warg was resurrected. But since resurrection is possible, it is also possible to speculate with a reverse warging that allows a third life..

2) Exactly, the personality change should be present, otherwise hypocrisy. That is why, IMO, GRRM introduces the second life concept. To explain us, prematurely, what death will mean to Jon´s personality. So that, in the event of resurrection, GRRM´s standards with regards to personality changes post-death will be met.

3) i agree. He should be a new character. Jon snow is dead. And certainly his arc is full of hints that that may be the case.

4) i have some ideas on what Jon would look like after his resurrection. Certainly more-Ghost like. “starks of old were like the direwolves, hard men for a hard land”,( not the exact quote, I don´t have the books right now). The boy will be dead; the man will be born (in terms of Aemon´s advice, which means a jon that will make harder choices).

And there is also the possibility that Jon will “come back” aware of his true identity. Therefore the dragon will be awake now. That certainly has interesting possibilities for personality changes (see mystery knight when Egg becomes a dragon)

[KINGpanther]

'snip'

I actually believe he will survive also (albiet after a lengthy recovery period and some warging). Jon has a knack for facing Death and surviving.

[butterbumps!]

1) well yes, normally that second life would be it, since there is not a single case in history of westeros in which a warg was resurrected. But since resurrection is possible, it is also possible to speculate with a reverse warging that allows a third life..

2) Exactly, the personality change should be present, otherwise hypocrisy. That is why, IMO, GRRM introduces the second life concept. To explain us, prematurely, what death will mean to Jon´s personality. So that, in the event of resurrection, GRRM´s standards with regards to personality changes post-death will be met.

3) i agree. He should be a new character. Jon snow is dead. And certainly his arc is full of hints that that may be the case.

4) i have some ideas on what Jon would look like after his resurrection. Certainly more-Ghost like. “starks of old were like the direwolves, hard men for a hard land”,( not the exact quote, I don´t have the books right now). The boy will be dead; the man will be born (in terms of Aemon´s advice, which means a jon that will make harder choices).

And there is also the possibility that Jon will “come back” aware of his true identity. Therefore the dragon will be awake now. That certainly has interesting possibilities for personality changes (see mystery knight when Egg becomes a dragon)

1. Ok. We all know that resurrection is possible. I'm sure the addition of Mel there to resurrect Jon while he's in a second life can happen. And if that happens, Jon will emerge as a new character than what he was before.

Let me put this another way. People often cite the way Jon can start his second life in Ghost, then be resurrected as the way Jon would avoid becoming a fundamentally new character due to resurrection. But Martin disagrees with resurrections that do not fundamentally change a character. So whether Jon goes into Ghost first or immediately gets the Last Kiss from Mel, or rises on the 3rd day from his tomb, if he is dead and comes back he will be fundamentally changed. Regardless of the mechanism Martin chooses to use here.

2. Ok. So we agree that there will obviously be a major character interruption, and that this will be a completely new character? Now, might you see why I personally dislike the resurrection option? As in, it means that the Jon who goes forward isn't the Jon we've gotten to know for 4 books? As in, we won't be seeing how Jon reacts, but rather, how this shadow of Jon will react?

3. And his arc is full of hints that he's not dead. It's either a case that he's alive, and any change in his character will be one of character development and progression. Or, he's dead, resurrected, and this is a new character who goes forward.

4. I'm not remotely convinced that Jon is actually dead.

Maybe I should reframe this. Here's the crux of the issue:

If Jon doesn't die, but recovers, then all of his future actions and thoughts will be a continuation of the Jon we knew. If he becomes more savage or dark, then it's a form of true character development, in that this is how Jon reacts to a betrayal like this and moves forward. All of his subsequent actions will be clearly traceable to the character we've known, and "Jon" will be accountable. If Jon becomes darker as a result of enduring this betrayal and starts doing morally questionable things due to this attitude shift, then he's accountable for doing them. We can read this as an evolution of Jon's character development.

If he's dead and comes back-- and if this happens, we know he's fundamentally changed-- then it's a new character we see reacting to events. It's no longer Jon. We wouldn't be seeing the Jon we've been reading about react to any of these things. That Jon will be dead in a literal sense, and it's this new character taking his place.

Look at how different this implication is. If Jon doesn't die, but becomes more savage and chooses to kill some of the child hostages for some pragmatic reason, then we, as readers, understand this as Jon's being fundamentally accountable for doing this, and that it's an evolution of his character. If Jon dies and come back and does this, well, how is Jon actually accountable for this? We have no way of reading that action as a continuation of Jon's evolution, but rather, the product of his coming back from the dead as an essentially new character.

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

1. Ok. We all know that resurrection is possible. I'm sure the addition of Mel there to resurrect Jon while he's in a second life can happen. And if that happens, Jon will emerge as a new character than what he was before.

Let me put this another way. People often cite the way Jon can start his second life in Ghost, then be resurrected as the way Jon would avoid becoming a fundamentally new character due to resurrection. But Martin disagrees with resurrections that do not fundamentally change a character. So whether Jon goes into Ghost first or immediately gets the Last Kiss from Mel, or rises on the 3rd day from his tomb, if he is dead and comes back he will be fundamentally changed. Regardless of the mechanism Martin chooses to use here.

2. Ok. So we agree that there will obviously be a major character interruption, and that this will be a completely new character? Now, might you see why I personally dislike the resurrection option? As in, it means that the Jon who goes forward isn't the Jon we've gotten to know for 4 books? As in, we won't be seeing how Jon reacts, but rather, how this shadow of Jon will react?

3. And his arc is full of hints that he's not dead. It's either a case that he's alive, and any change in his character will be one of character development and progression. Or, he's dead, resurrected, and this is a new character who goes forward.

4. I'm not remotely convinced that Jon is actually dead.

Maybe I should reframe this. Here's the crux of the issue:

If Jon doesn't die, but recovers, then all of his future actions and thoughts will be a continuation of the Jon we knew. If he becomes more savage or dark, then it's a form of true character development, in that this is how Jon reacts to a betrayal like this and moves forward. All of his subsequent actions will be clearly traceable to the character we've known, and "Jon" will be accountable. If Jon becomes darker as a result of enduring this betrayal and starts doing morally questionable things due to this attitude shift, then he's accountable for doing them. We can read this as an evolution of Jon's character development.

If he's dead and comes back-- and if this happens, we know he's fundamentally changed-- then it's a new character we see reacting to events. It's no longer Jon. We wouldn't be seeing the Jon we've been reading about react to any of these things. That Jon will be dead in a literal sense, and it's this new character taking his place.

Look at how different this implication is. If Jon doesn't die, but becomes more savage and chooses to kill some of the child hostages for some pragmatic reason, then we, as readers, understand this as Jon's being fundamentally accountable for doing this, and that it's an evolution of his character. If Jon dies and come back and does this, well, how is Jon actually accountable for this? We have no way of reading that action as a continuation of Jon's evolution, but rather, the product of his coming back from the dead as an essentially new character.

1) why would anyone think the Second Life allows Jon avoid becoming a fundamentally new character due to resurrection, when it explicitly says otherwise? I mean the whole point of the Second Life is to show how with time the person becomes less warg and more beast. By developing the concept prematurely GRRM can now resurrect jon while at the same time meet his own standards. I could allow avoiding UnCat/UnBeric solutions, but will still demand sharp character change.

2) The thing is i don´t agree with "shadow Jon" scenarios. More precise would be to call him "new Jon". I don´t necessarily think that is a bad thing for plot development.

3) is it?

4) i understand. I´m just saying that his arc is full of hints of sharp change in his personality, congruent with GRRM idea of post-resurrection requirements.

5) Ok i understand your point. I understand you would like Old Jon to react to stuff and develop in a normal manner. Its a reasonable thing to prefer that scenario.

but that doesn’t mean the evidence would point that way. I for instance, wouldn´t like that Jon escapes death once more. For starters i don´t think it’s reasonable that after being stabbed multiple times, he would survive. I think it would be rare that the betrayers allow him to survive. It would be as if Cat or Robb made it out of the Red wedding.

BTW there is no Maester around and Melisandre hasn´t shown any healing powers IIRC. Doing something like that would be a bit cheap IMO

on the other hand, some other readers might prefer a new Jon, of sorts.

[butterbumps!]

1) why would anyone think the Second Life allows Jon avoid becoming a fundamentally new character due to resurrection, when it explicitly says otherwise? I mean the whole point of the Second Life is to show how with time the person becomes less warg and more beast. By developing the concept prematurely GRRM can now resurrect jon while at the same time meet his own standards. I could allow avoiding UnCat/UnBeric solutions, but will still demand sharp character change.

2) The thing is i don´t agree with "shadow Jon" scenarios. More precise would be to call him "new Jon". I don´t necessarily think that is a bad thing for plot development.

3) is it?

4) i understand. I´m just saying that his arc is full of hints of sharp change in his personality, congruent with GRRM idea of post-resurrection requirements.

5) Ok i understand your point. I understand you would like Old Jon to react to stuff and develop in a normal manner. Its a reasonable thing to prefer that scenario.

but that doesn’t mean the evidence would point that way. I for instance, wouldn´t like that Jon escapes death once more. For starters i don´t think it’s reasonable that after being stabbed multiple times, he would survive. I think it would be rare that the betrayers allow him to survive. It would be as if Cat or Robb made it out of the Red wedding.

BTW there is no Maester around and Melisandre hasn´t shown any healing powers IIRC. Doing something like that would be a bit cheap IMO

on the other hand, some other readers might prefer a new Jon, of sorts.

1. Well, I don't get why this is used as evidence for an "unchanged" Jon either. But that comes up so often as a way of safeguarding Jon's essence, and enabling him to be restored as Jon. But full restoration is something Martin won't do.

2. I called him "shadow-Jon" because it seems like a shadow of the previous character goes into the new one. The new undead derives from the old character, but is as alike as being the first's shadow. I don't mean to imply it makes their character flat or that Martin can't write well-rounded undeads. I'm talking about a comparison between the old character and new character, in that there's just a small trace of that old person in the new one.

3. Well, ok. I should back up. This is the reason I see most frequently cited for why Jon can't be dead (and dead, meaning, no longer part of the story, no resurrection, he ceases to be): He has unfinished business, namely, the fact that he's yet to learn of R+L, and what's the point of writing R+L if Jon isn't around to react to it.

I kind of agree with that logic in so far as it's premature for Jon to leave the story without addressing his response to R+L, and further, what sort of impact that confirmation will have on the story, which can really only happen if Jon's still in this.

But if Jon dies and comes back, a new character, then we're still not getting the impact of R+L-- that same impact that's led so many readers to argue against Jon's total death in the series, as it would leave him with this unfinished business in the event of a resurrection. It still leaves Jon 1.0 without R+L.

If one believes that R+L is significant, and significant enough to prevent Martin from totally killing off his character, then it follows that Martin intends to keep Jon in tact for that reveal. That reveal is ostensibly intended for Jon 1.0, and will have significance for that character. Given Martin's views about how a character must fundamentally change if resurrected, it means that this R+L issue basically goes down the toilet, because even though Jon's body would be there, Jon isn't the one reacting to it.

4. Sure, he can evolve sharply based on his life experiences. Not an issue. Lot's to work with in terms of metaphoric deaths and resurrections. They become problematic in terms of reading Jon's character as a continuous evolution process if Martin replaces one Jon with a new character. That's really the issue for me.

5. Thing is, Martin didn't make it conclusive that those wounds were terribly serious. And how many times has an Arya or Tyrion chapter ended, looking like they were in great peril, only to get to the next one and see they're perfectly fine? It's not at all like having Robb walk out of the RW. Jon seems to get 2 wounds, while wearing mail, that seem potentially serious (shoulder blades and stomach). He doesn't feel the 4th knife. Might it be because.......it never came? How many men are really involved in this stabbing? Were there only 4, who were swiftly surrounded and neutralized by the others? Anything can follow realistically from that passage-- it's set up so that Martin can choose for Jon to die, or choose for Jon to walk away, nearly unscathed. Or any degree of wounding in between. Jumping to the "he's dead" conclusion is highly premature, because it works just as well in the extreme other direction based on what's written.

And yea, I know there's some who embrace the idea of Jon's being supplanted by an entirely new character. I wonder how they reconcile that with the R+L build-up.

[sj4iy]

1) why would anyone think the Second Life allows Jon avoid becoming a fundamentally new character due to resurrection, when it explicitly says otherwise? I mean the whole point of the Second Life is to show how with time the person becomes less warg and more beast. By developing the concept prematurely GRRM can now resurrect jon while at the same time meet his own standards. I could allow avoiding UnCat/UnBeric solutions, but will still demand sharp character change.

2) The thing is i don´t agree with "shadow Jon" scenarios. More precise would be to call him "new Jon". I don´t necessarily think that is a bad thing for plot development.

3) is it?

4) i understand. I´m just saying that his arc is full of hints of sharp change in his personality, congruent with GRRM idea of post-resurrection requirements.

5) Ok i understand your point. I understand you would like Old Jon to react to stuff and develop in a normal manner. Its a reasonable thing to prefer that scenario.

but that doesn’t mean the evidence would point that way. I for instance, wouldn´t like that Jon escapes death once more. For starters i don´t think it’s reasonable that after being stabbed multiple times, he would survive. I think it would be rare that the betrayers allow him to survive. It would be as if Cat or Robb made it out of the Red wedding.

BTW there is no Maester around and Melisandre hasn´t shown any healing powers IIRC. Doing something like that would be a bit cheap IMO

on the other hand, some other readers might prefer a new Jon, of sorts.

He was stabbed twice that we know of. It's not as if he were stabbed in the heart or the neck. That's certainly survivable.

I doubt Jon's character will fundamentally change, since we still need to see his reaction to learning about his past. It would lack any drama if Jon were a completely different person than he was before.

[Light a wight tonight]

I'm thinking they will be burning his body and he'll rise up amid the flames, reborn.

Where do they get the dragon eggs to make this happen?

[Julia H.]

Butterbumps! :agree: Really well said.

I don't like saying anything that might sound as though I knew what is going to happen, so I will only say that of the two above discussed plot possibilities (Jon resurrected and Jon wounded and healed), I also prefer the latter. At the same time, I'm quite OK with Lady Stoneheart. This is the reason why:

With Catelyn / Lady Stoneheart, the abrupt character change as a result of resurrection works because there is not half as much gradual character development invested in Catelyn's character as in Jon's. At the beginning of the novel, Catelyn is an adult, whose personality is more or less finished. Naturally, she is affected by what happens to her family, and she reacts to those dramatic events – in accordance with her already established personality. Moreover, with all the losses Catelyn suffers, her life loses all purpose and meaning. Her fundamental role in the world of the novel – as Ned's wife and the mother of the young Starks – also loses its plot significance when she loses all of her children (they are all lost from her point of view).

Lady Stoneheart is not the real Catelyn, even though she uses Catelyn's body and has Catelyn's memories, and she plays a role in the plot that is very different from that of Lady Stark, as the name change also suggests. Nor do I think that her “resurrection” is complete: her personality has not only changed, but it has lost the complexity of a real living person. Catelyn dies with her son at the Red Wedding. What comes back to “life” is Lady Stoneheart, but she is more like a mythological personification of revenge than a real living person

(In the case of Lord Beric, there is even less ground for any loss in terms of character development that the reader can feel because he is a minor character and the reader finds out very little about his personality to start with. We never have his POV. Therefore we never even notice any dramatic change in his personality. He is a “quasi-mythological' character from almost the start.)

By contrast, we see Jon grow from boy to man, we observe the various influences that shape his personality, we see how his perspective changes, how he internalizes what various mentors or experiences teach him. All that happens gradually. His character develops in a psychologically believable way. This careful character building would come to nothing if, after the Ides of Marsh, we got back a fundamentally different Jon, basically a new character, who represents only a narrow segment of the real Jon-character, or a character that is just the complete opposite of the former Jon.

I agree that the assassination attempt and its aftermath have the potential to further influence Jon's personality, to change his perspective once more in a logical and believable way. I don't see any need for a dramatically abrupt and (IMO) final and ultimate change that would be in essence a magical change (and at least as much the consequence of the magic that happens to be used as the consequence of the character's actual experience), while the true character development we have witnessed in five volumes could still be continued.

Besides, I really hope Jon's character arc will still include experiences that require a character with the complexity of feelings only a truly living human being can have (like when he discovers his true parentage) – as well as decisions that necessitate a truly living character with full moral responsibility and personal risks to take.

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

He was stabbed twice that we know of. It's not as if he were stabbed in the heart or the neck. That's certainly survivable.

I doubt Jon's character will fundamentally change, since we still need to see his reaction to learning about his past. It would lack any drama if Jon were a completely different person than he was before.

Wasn´t he stabbed four times? he didn´t feel the forth..

Why wound an enemy if you can kill him?

Jon was sorrounded by enemies..i mean, just get it done..once he is in the ground, you need one more stab well placed and he is gone.

i think with the ones we know of, with no maester around, i think he should have no way of surviving.

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

1. Well, I don't get why this is used as evidence for an "unchanged" Jon either. But that comes up so often as a way of safeguarding Jon's essence, and enabling him to be restored as Jon. But full restoration is something Martin won't do.

2. I called him "shadow-Jon" because it seems like a shadow of the previous character goes into the new one. The new undead derives from the old character, but is as alike as being the first's shadow. I don't mean to imply it makes their character flat or that Martin can't write well-rounded undeads. I'm talking about a comparison between the old character and new character, in that there's just a small trace of that old person in the new one.

3. Well, ok. I should back up. This is the reason I see most frequently cited for why Jon can't be dead (and dead, meaning, no longer part of the story, no resurrection, he ceases to be): He has unfinished business, namely, the fact that he's yet to learn of R+L, and what's the point of writing R+L if Jon isn't around to react to it.

I kind of agree with that logic in so far as it's premature for Jon to leave the story without addressing his response to R+L, and further, what sort of impact that confirmation will have on the story, which can really only happen if Jon's still in this.

But if Jon dies and comes back, a new character, then we're still not getting the impact of R+L-- that same impact that's led so many readers to argue against Jon's total death in the series, as it would leave him with this unfinished business in the event of a resurrection. It still leaves Jon 1.0 without R+L.

If one believes that R+L is significant, and significant enough to prevent Martin from totally killing off his character, then it follows that Martin intends to keep Jon in tact for that reveal. That reveal is ostensibly intended for Jon 1.0, and will have significance for that character. Given Martin's views about how a character must fundamentally change if resurrected, it means that this R+L issue basically goes down the toilet, because even though Jon's body would be there, Jon isn't the one reacting to it.

4. Sure, he can evolve sharply based on his life experiences. Not an issue. Lot's to work with in terms of metaphoric deaths and resurrections. They become problematic in terms of reading Jon's character as a continuous evolution process if Martin replaces one Jon with a new character. That's really the issue for me.

5. Thing is, Martin didn't make it conclusive that those wounds were terribly serious. And how many times has an Arya or Tyrion chapter ended, looking like they were in great peril, only to get to the next one and see they're perfectly fine? It's not at all like having Robb walk out of the RW. Jon seems to get 2 wounds, while wearing mail, that seem potentially serious (shoulder blades and stomach). He doesn't feel the 4th knife. Might it be because.......it never came? How many men are really involved in this stabbing? Were there only 4, who were swiftly surrounded and neutralized by the others? Anything can follow realistically from that passage-- it's set up so that Martin can choose for Jon to die, or choose for Jon to walk away, nearly unscathed. Or any degree of wounding in between. Jumping to the "he's dead" conclusion is highly premature, because it works just as well in the extreme other direction based on what's written.

And yea, I know there's some who embrace the idea of Jon's being supplanted by an entirely new character. I wonder how they reconcile that with the R+L build-up.

1) agreed

2) ok, its just shadow Jon, could be understood as a lesser character. That need not be the case. Now i see what you mean

3) some readers believe the R+l=J will be revealed "in between" so as to speak. An Induced dream by Bloodraven/Bran, with a meeting with Ned/Lyanna/Rhaegar in winterfell crypt.

So that, when resurrected he is reborn as Jon Targaryen. easy to explain sharp personality changes after that.

4) or because he lost sense of pain, only cold (as Varamyr)

But you are right, we won´t solve it. It´s left like that for a reason.

I ´m just pointing out, that IMO, it would be a little lame if he were to survive. We can know for sure Marsh and co are in for the kill, characters shouldn´t be that useless when it comes to killing main characters. lol..

i understand your position though.

i

[sj4iy]

Wasn´t he stabbed four times? he didn´t fell the forth..

Why wound an enemy if you can kill him?

Jon was sorrounded by enemies..i mean, just get it done..once he is in the ground, you need one more stab well placed and he is gone.

i think with the ones we know of, with no maester arround, i think he should have no way of surviving.

The first time his neck was grazed with a knife before he disarmed Yarwick. He was not stabbed at all.

The second time he was stabbed in the stomach by Marsh. Severe injury, but survivable depending on the location.

The third time he was "taken in the back between the shoulder blades" by someone unknown. We don't know the severity of that injury.

The fourth knife is unknown. Jon doesn't feel it, so we don't know where or how he was stabbed. He was already on the ground by then, though.

At most, he could have 3 serious stab wounds. All that we know is that he has one serious stab wound and another potentially serious stab wound, with one variable. It's still survivable, though.

[The Snark of Winterfell]

I really don't want to see Mel resurrect Jon in UnCat/Beric style. I think that well went dry or at least it should be.

With that said it makes sense because Maester Aemon is dead, Sam's not there, so Mel would have to presumably come to his rescue. If he warged into Ghost, I would guess Mel would be able to sense it, but who knows. So she could do whatever magic whether it be resurrection or healing, or some sort of wacky fire magic ritual to add smoke in addition to the smoke from his wounds, Jon jumps into body, boom AA reborn.

Not sure about the cold food cellar, it would make sense if they thought he was just wounded, comatosed and not dead, they can do it, but I think they would try to burn him, which once again goes back to Mel.

Suppose have to wait for WoW or Sean Bean to spill the beans and say not only am I confirming R+L=J, but also J=AA

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Where do they get the dragon eggs to make this happen?

Aemon left his there?

Here...proof Jon is not dead (yet):

"He never felt the fourth knife, only the cold..."

Show of hands please...how many of us can say that we've been dead but could still feel the cold while dead?

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

Aemon left his there?

Here...proof Jon is not dead (yet):

Show of hands please...how many of us can say that we've been dead but could still feel the cold while dead?

varaymr feels the cold when the "true death comes"

[sj4iy]

varaymr feels the cold when the "true death comes"

You feel cold from shock. Your blood pressure drops and so does your body temperature, and you feel sleepy and/or lose consciousness. If you're dead, you feel nothing.

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

You feel cold from shock. Your blood pressure drops and so does your body temperature, and you feel sleepy and/or lose consciousness. If you're dead, you feel nothing.

that should be, Cold--->loss of consciousness--->death

yet Varaymyr.. last thought as man----> death---cold...

That was his last thought as a man.

True death came suddenly; he felt a shock of cold, as if he had been plunged into the icy waters of a frozen lake.

shouldn´t his last thought as a man be the cold??

Mance should have let me take the direwolf. There would be a second life worthy of a king.

is Jon king? then this foreshadows his second life in Ghost.