jons resurection and "salt and smoke"

[Ser Creighton]

Just wondering but who said the strikes to Jon are not in fatal areas?

“When he put his hand to the side of his neck, blood welled between his fingers. “Why?”

That much blood welling between his fingers that quickly indicates the carotid was at least partially cut. A full cut and your dead in 12 seconds. A nick and you got minutes could be up to 10 or as little as 3 in most cases.

“Jon reached for Longclaw, but his fingers had grown stiff and clumsy.”

Interesting.

“He punched Jon in the belly. When he pulled his hand away, the dagger stayed where he had buried it.”

Stomach strikes especially in the dark ages were usually lethal. Even today if you want slow agonizing death, anything that slices into the intestines will cause peritonitis (infection in the abdominal cavity). Pre-antibiotics, death was certain. Even now, it's quite likely unless the victim gets great surgical and antibiotic therapy.

“Jon fell to his knees. He found the dagger’s hilt and wrenched it free.”

Could not grasp long claws hilt but got the dagger free but could grasp the daggers hilt.

“When the third dagger took him between the shoulder blades, he gave a grunt and fell face-first into the snow.”

This should cripple Jon, between the blades is the spine and generally you end up crippled below the point of the strike.

“He never felt the fourth knife. Only the cold …”

Why did Jon say this? Did he see a 4th knife? Were there 4 people there? Was he in fact stabbed a 4th time and just could not feel it? Felling the cold is simple enough he would still have feelings in his hands, and face. There is also a cold feeling that is common when someone becomes crippled, cold and shock as well. Cold and blood loss. But I am more interested in why he thought there was a 4th knife and why he didn't feel it if there was.

Look generally if you get struck like this you die, either blood loss, infection, shock, etc... But I do wonder about the third strike followed by lack of feeling. It would be really hard to actually save Jon in this world unless magic is used to heal him. It would be interesting if he was crippled and magically healed and everything worked. Would kind of put a question mark on Bloodravens comments to Bran.

Not to say I think Jon is dead, I just suspect he will need a little extra help to get better. Martin could always say moldy bread saved him, or boiled wine. Though generally that would just make an internal wound a lot worse. Cause the wine cools and and then you have a cold fruit based liquid floating around your open intestines.

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

2. I wasn't referring to the dragons as weapons there. I was pointing out that she's the person people will easily believe is actually a Targ. She's the clearest Targ in the mix, which makes her claim as a Targ strong.

any of the riders will have that .. three dragons.. Jon could very well be one of those riders.. Even dragon according to some theory.

I think I'm getting a clearer picture of what's going on here, based on how you're advocating for certain things. It seems like you believe the importance of R+L is that Jon will become king, and that this is really the point that's central to you.

Amogst other issues yes, i think R+L has importance with regards to how will sit the IT in the end., and since Jon has some foreshadowing, then the conclusion is reasonable... and of course i´m not completely convinced.. i just see that scenario the most likeley right now... if GRRM brings a realistic and more suprisive end then great.

But you seem to be working backwards from that conclusion-- that Jon Targ becomes king-- to fit the evidence. Like, it looks as though you really believe Jon has to become king, but can't see any way for that to happen, or for R+L to have significance, except by having Jon claim a Targ identity and use that to become king.

Ohh i see a couple of ways that could happen. Certainly R+L=J could help in that account.

I'm not convinced that Jon will become king of the IT, but I can say with pretty strong conviction that the significance of R+L is not going to be what you, and I guess a lot of others, seem to believe it is. As in, R+L =/= "King Jon Targ." I think it works much differently in this story, which is not Return of the King. If Jon becomes King of the IT, it won't be because R+L got him there. We know this, because Martin's made a point of deconstructing the notion of a "true heir" in the timeframe of this story, as well as in the histories he's developed about this universe.

I´m sure people´s support for him is the relevant issue (the most important issue actually).. But relevant people, is the status quo nobility. Nobility always has and always will be against the kind of scenario you have in mind in which a bastard, for the sake of bastardy, asumes power (as it should be, it challenges their own privileges)

Now, if Jon were to have a pre-existent claim, then things will go much better..

being a hero, is what will shifts the balance from nobility thinking he is a crazy bastard with very unscrupulous ambitions, to he is the rightful heir to the iron throne.. lets support him.

If you truly believe that Jon must become King, then there are ways set up that would allow him to take the throne as King Jon Snow. Like, this isn't fanfiction, but reading what's going on in the background of the main characters POVs, and between the lines of all the power struggles that have been occurring. Not only is this the most major civil crisis Westeros is facing, but this crisis is set during a zombie apocalypse, which you cannot deny will bring a cataclysmic shock to the system. It's like the Black Death on steroids in terms of catalyzing an interruption of the status quo.

Ok, so your point, is since westeros will face a Long Night 2.0 and a Dance of dragons 2.0 at the same time, then it will be enough to bring down the feudal institutions..

The long Night alone wasn´t enough.. but coupled with a Dance of Dragons it will.. something along those lines?

Instead of assuming that this will work like Aragorn, maybe take another look at what's really going on in this story, the messages about power being sent, and reevaluate whether R+L= King Jon Targ even has meaning in this world Martin's set up. I think once you cross that barrier of questioning, these other channels for Jon Snow to become king start opening up. And King Jon Snow is still only one of many possible endgames for Jon.

Aragorn had a claim.. but also played an important role in the war against sauron..

In Jon´s paralell he may have a claim, but he still needs to win that war for "people" to follow him..

i completely agree with that... i just don´t think any other character in LOTR would be able to be king after the war, no matter what role they played.

I´m sure Frodo was a hero as well, but he wouln´t rule Gondor with no pre-existintatn claim.

both things i find important..

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

Ok, so it's incredibly clear that you aren't interested in actually examining what the text actually says nor reading what others have written and prefer to make shit up as you go along.

You're missing the point, plain and simple. All I have been saying is that Jon's death is far from conclusive. You seem to be trying to say that Jon's death is a foregone conclusion. I'm not arguing that Jon's death is an impossible outcome. I'm arguing that it's not the only outcome, which seems to be what you believe which actually requires ignoring the text or making shit up to get there. I'm not sure if there's any point in continuing this further

Lol.. you are the one making shit up..

read again.. i have said many times.. this is MY opinion given the information i have and the probabilty I give to a last second save.. i´m ok with people thinking otherwise..there is just, no evidecce to prove otherwise, therefore i´m entitled to think what i want.. period.

you seem to think my opnion is an impossible outcome.. and the help jon needs is somehow in the text when its not.. it´s just a probability..That I, find unlikely.. you should think otherwise, i don´t care..

nor will i disqualify your opinion, (as you have done)

There is no point in continuing this fruther.. you simply just aren´t understanding what i´m saying, nor you want to apparently. You just want to be right.

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

Just wondering but who said the strikes to Jon are not in fatal areas?

“When he put his hand to the side of his neck, blood welled between his fingers. “Why?”

That much blood welling between his fingers that quickly indicates the carotid was at least partially cut. A full cut and your dead in 12 seconds. A nick and you got minutes could be up to 10 or as little as 3 in most cases.

“Jon reached for Longclaw, but his fingers had grown stiff and clumsy.”

Interesting.

“He punched Jon in the belly. When he pulled his hand away, the dagger stayed where he had buried it.”

Stomach strikes especially in the dark ages were usually lethal. Even today if you want slow agonizing death, anything that slices into the intestines will cause peritonitis (infection in the abdominal cavity). Pre-antibiotics, death was certain. Even now, it's quite likely unless the victim gets great surgical and antibiotic therapy.

“Jon fell to his knees. He found the dagger’s hilt and wrenched it free.”

Could not grasp long claws hilt but got the dagger free but could grasp the daggers hilt.

“When the third dagger took him between the shoulder blades, he gave a grunt and fell face-first into the snow.”

This should cripple Jon, between the blades is the spine and generally you end up crippled below the point of the strike.

“He never felt the fourth knife. Only the cold …”

Why did Jon say this? Did he see a 4th knife? Were there 4 people there? Was he in fact stabbed a 4th time and just could not feel it? Felling the cold is simple enough he would still have feelings in his hands, and face. There is also a cold feeling that is common when someone becomes crippled, cold and shock as well. Cold and blood loss. But I am more interested in why he thought there was a 4th knife and why he didn't feel it if there was.

Look generally if you get struck like this you die, either blood loss, infection, shock, etc... But I do wonder about the third strike followed by lack of feeling. It would be really hard to actually save Jon in this world unless magic is used to heal him. It would be interesting if he was crippled and magically healed and everything worked. Would kind of put a question mark on Bloodravens comments to Bran.

Not to say I think Jon is dead, I just suspect he will need a little extra help to get better. Martin could always say moldy bread saved him, or boiled wine. Though generally that would just make an internal wound a lot worse. Cause the wine cools and and then you have a cold fruit based liquid floating around your open intestines.

I agree.. any/all of those wounds could be his end..

in modern days he would be rushed to the hospital.. the NW doesn´t even have a maester.

GRRM could pull magic out of his ass though.. Melisandre is there, but she hasn´t shown any healing powers (has she?)..

neither has she shown any powers bringing the dead back, but othe red priests have..so it woulnt be such a mystery.

[butterbumps!]

any of the riders will have that .. three dragons.. Jon could very well be one of those riders.. Even dragon according to some theory.

Amogst other issues yes, i think R+L has importance with regards to how will sit the IT in the end., and since Jon has some foreshadowing, then the conclusion is reasonable... and of course i´m not completely convinced.. i just see that scenario the most likeley right now... if GRRM brings a realistic and more suprisive end then great.

Ohh i see a couple of ways that could happen. Certainly R+L=J could help in that account.

I´m sure people´s support for him is the relevant issue (the most important issue actually).. But relevant people, is the status quo nobility. Nobility always has and always will be against the kind of scenario you have in mind in which a bastard, for the sake of bastardy, asumes power (as it should be, it challenges their own privileges)

Now, if Jon were to have a pre-existent claim, then things will go much better..

being a hero, is what will shifts the balance from nobility thinking he is a crazy bastard with very unscrupulous ambitions, to he is the rightful heir to the iron throne.. lets support him.

Ok, so your point, is since westeros will face a Long Night 2.0 and a Dance of dragons 2.0 at the same time, then it will be enough to bring down the feudal institutions..

The long Night alone wasn´t enough.. but coupled with a Dance of Dragons it will.. something along those lines?

Aragorn had a claim.. but also played an important role in the war against sauron..

In Jon´s paralell he may have a claim, but he still needs to win that war for "people" to follow him..

i completely agree with that... i just don´t think any other character in LOTR would be able to be king after the war, no matter what role they played.

I´m sure Frodo was a hero as well, but he wouln´t rule Gondor with no pre-existintatn claim.

both things i find important..

Why must the feudal system be obliterated completely whenever the subject of social change is brought up? Talk about black and white. The way things work in this feudal structure is already changing and the status quo has taken a huge hit. Other factors are promising to shake things up further. Social change is already happening. There isn't a solid quo anymore, and more shocks to this system are coming. That doesn't mean that the whole feudal structure will be obliterated by the end. It means that what many readers seem to assume is the status quo isn't actually determining anything.

Outside of that, I really don't understand what this argument is about any more. If you think that R+L is significant to Jon's sitting the IT at the end and otherwise pointless, and it's also strongly influencing your interpretation of whether Jon's dead and will be resurrected into the role of Jon Targ, then I think we're at an impasse for this thread, and it might be more lucrative to continue a discussion of ASIOAF's social crisis and Jon's character in another thread.

I guess, were you trying to convince me that Jon's death at the end of Jon XIII is the inevitable conclusion? If so, I wasn't arguing that it can't happen, so you don't have to convince me that it's possible. I thought I've made it really clear that I don't think Jon's death and resurrection is impossible. But it's not inevitable-- there really are a lot of ways Martin can resolve this that don't involve Jon's literal death.

[Faint]

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 . . .

There is a lot of disagreement on this point as regarding Catelyn, which deals with a lot of the same issues as would come up in Jon's case. My feeling on both is that even though they would have both fundamentally changed as a result of their dying -- assuming, for purposes of this discussion, that Jon is dead and will be resurrected -- it is the circumstances of their respective assassinations and what led to them that is the prime catalyst for any changes in their character.

What is really going on here is that people are using the changes brought about by death to excuse other unwanted changes in characters they previous sympathized with (i.e., Catelyn), when those other changes actually have little to do with the fact that the characters died. I do not think Catelyn would be acting any differently had she not died but somehow miraculously escaped into the river and was found by the Brotherhood Without Banners. She would still be hanging Freys left and right and sending Brienne to retrieve Jaime under penalty of death. I know many do not want to believe that but I do.

I think the same situation will end up applying to Jon.

[Cas Stark]

He's not dead, so it doesn't matter.

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

Why must the feudal system be obliterated completely whenever the subject of social change is brought up? Talk about black and white. The way things work in this feudal structure is already changing and the status quo has taken a huge hit. Other factors are promising to shake things up further. Social change is already happening. There isn't a solid quo anymore, and more shocks to this system are coming. That doesn't mean that the whole feudal structure will be obliterated by the end. It means that what many readers seem to assume is the status quo isn't actually determining anything.

Outside of that, I really don't understand what this argument is about any more. If you think that R+L is significant to Jon's sitting the IT at the end and otherwise pointless, and it's also strongly influencing your interpretation of whether Jon's dead and will be resurrected into the role of Jon Targ, then I think we're at an impasse for this thread, and it might be more lucrative to continue a discussion of ASIOAF's social crisis and Jon's character in another thread.

I guess, were you trying to convince me that Jon's death at the end of Jon XIII is the inevitable conclusion? If so, I wasn't arguing that it can't happen, so you don't have to convince me that it's possible. I thought I've made it really clear that I don't think Jon's death and resurrection is impossible. But it's not inevitable-- there really are a lot of ways Martin can resolve this that don't involve Jon's literal death.

I just can´t see how the proud nobility of westeros would agree to have a bastard, to rule them all, with no claim whatsoever.. unless they are powerless to avoid it. Any of them will want to be in his place and feel with as much (if not more) right to be there..

If feudal system collapses, therefore they lose their power, then yes..

i wonder how king jon will keep the seven kingdoms (should they even be called like that) toghether with no nobility to hold it in his name.. that something unlikely..

i get your Long Night/dance of dragons triggering stuff, new leadership and so on.. The first one did exactly that. house stark is born, we can assume many bend the knee given their role during the war against others.. you seem to forget that even with that it took them centuries to unite, just the North.. and blood and steel as well

So Jon, with no real power to conquer the 7kingdoms, probably the southern kingdoms won´t even care that much about the Long night.. they won´t submit to his rule with no further reasons. R+L=J gives westeros gives exactly that.

R+L=J serves multiple possible purposes.. character development, it gives him dragon blood, it gives him a claim, it makes him PtwP.. its not there just for Jon to deal with identity crisis..

No, i´m not trying to convince you of anything.. just explaining why i think he is dead.. why i find it unlikely he gets saved at the last minute.. nothing more.

[Mithras]

I just can´t see how the proud nobility of westeros would agree to have a bastard, to rule them all, with no claim whatsoever.. unless they are powerless to avoid it.

Agreed. I don't see any social change and I doubt George has that in his mind. Aegon I or not, feudalism existed for thousands of years. The Reader quoted from a maester that history is a wheel because the human nature is constant, so what happened will happen again.

[butterbumps!]

There is a lot of disagreement on this point as regarding Catelyn, which deals with a lot of the same issues as would come up in Jon's case. My feeling on both is that even though they would have both fundamentally changed as a result of their dying -- assuming, for purposes of this discussion, that Jon is dead and will be resurrected -- it is the circumstances of their respective assassinations and what led to them that is the prime catalyst for any changes in their character.

What is really going on here is that people are using the changes brought about by death to excuse other unwanted changes in characters they previous sympathized with (i.e., Catelyn), when those other changes actually have little to do with the fact that the characters died. I do not think Catelyn would be acting any differently had she not died but somehow miraculously escaped into the river and was found by the Brotherhood Without Banners. She would still be hanging Freys left and right and sending Brienne to retrieve Jaime under penalty of death. I know many do not want to believe that but I do.

I think the same situation will end up applying to Jon.

No, I'm really not concerned with the prospect of Jon becoming less sympathetic or morally defensible.

Jon 1.0 has unfinished business that doesn't have the same significance to a Jon 2.0. Though I recognize the possibility that Jon 2.0 might be the one to react to that unfinished business, the fact that Jon 1.0 wouldn't be the one reacting feels abortive to me. Since I feel a lot of personal investment in Jon 1.0's arc and character evolution, the prospect of his not being the one to continue forward is something of a disappointment to me.

Are you broadly trying to say that Jon won't become a separate character after resurrection? Because I'm looking at what Martin says about his resurrections fundamentally changing the character and applying that logic here. Martin doesn't do non-transformative resurrections. Cat and Stoneheart are essentially 2 different people.

I just can´t see how the proud nobility of westeros would agree to have a bastard, to rule them all, with no claim whatsoever.. unless they are powerless to avoid it. Any of them will want to be in his place and feel with as much (if not more) right to be there..

If feudal system collapses, therefore they lose their power, then yes..

i wonder how king jon will keep the seven kingdoms (should they even be called like that) toghether with no nobility to hold it in his name.. that something unlikely..

i get your Long Night/dance of dragons triggering stuff, new leadership and so on.. The first one did exactly that. house stark is born, we can assume many bend the knee given their role during the war against others.. you seem to forget that even with that it took them centuries to unite, just the North.. and blood and steel as well

So Jon, with no real power to conquer the 7kingdoms, probably the southern kingdoms won´t even care that much about the Long night.. they won´t submit to his rule with no further reasons. R+L=J gives westeros gives exactly that.

R+L=J serves multiple possible purposes.. character development, it gives him dragon blood, it gives him a claim, it makes him PtwP.. its not there just for Jon to deal with identity crisis..

No, i´m not trying to convince you of anything.. just explaining why i think he is dead.. why i find it unlikely he gets saved at the last minute.. nothing more.

Who says there will be no nobility? Or that what remains of the nobility (much of which has already taken a huge hit) wouldn't rally for him, provided that they saw a reason that would benefit them by doing it? Westeros is in winter now. The idea that they need a king for winter (as opposed to a knight of summer) is kind of already presented. Winter has made it to KL-- they're getting snowstorms in Kevan's epilogue, so winter isn't just a northern problem. Jon Snow is of winter. The LC of the Watch strikes me as a good candidate to draw from in terms of who might know how to get shit done in the face of this.

But ok, I get why you think he's dead. I've agreed multiple times that his death is a possible outcome.

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

Agreed. I don't see any social change and I doubt George has that in his mind. Aegon I or not, feudalism existed for thousands of years. The Reader quoted from a maester that history is a wheel because the human nature is constant, so what happened will happen again.

the theory of the great council at the end was yours right?

I mean, that would certainly be a very progressive outcome.. But Jon wouln´t eve be a candidate to vote, if he didn´t have the R+L claim.. I mean whatever remains of nobility won´t pick the northern bastard, just because he was such a great leader during a war with the Others (many of the southern houses won´t even see that war)

[Mithras]

the theory of the great council at the end was yours right?

I mean, that would certainly be a very progressive outcome.. But Jon wouln´t eve be a candidate to vote, if he didn´t have the R+L claim.. I mean whatever remains of nobility won´t pick the northern bastard, just because he was such a great leader during a war with the Others (many of the southern houses won´t even see that war)

Yeah. I think a Great Council will select Jon as the king with no small thanks to Sam's machinations. And of course R+L=J will make him as a claimant. The lords will believe Jon's claim because of his deeds.

[Faint]

Are you broadly trying to say that Jon won't become a separate character after resurrection? Because I'm looking at what Martin says about his resurrections fundamentally changing the character and applying that logic here. Martin doesn't do non-transformative resurrections. Cat and Stoneheart are essentially 2 different people.

No, definitely not, quite the opposite actually. Martin hates writing like that. With him, there are always consequences. And he loves -- loves -- writing transformative arcs (i.e., Jaime, Tyrion, etc.).

If anything, I think the biggest mistake people are making with Jon is assuming he is going to be the same, or close to the same, as he was before. When has that kind of thing ever been Martin's inclination?

That said, I disagree strongly with the notion that Catelyn before and after death are two different people. That is what I am getting at. Catelyn has changed, certainly (although significantly less than most would argue in my opinion), but that was because of what done to her, not because she died; she is the same person. People change, even when they do not die.

[Mithras]

If anything, I think the biggest mistake people are making with Jon is assuming he is going to be the same, or close to the same, as he was before. When has that kind of thing ever been Martin's inclination?

Davos

[butterbumps!]

Yeah. I think a Great Council will select Jon as the king with no small thanks to Sam's machinations. And of course R+L=J will make him as a claimant. The lords will believe Jon's claim because of his deeds.

A Great Council deciding things, huh? I thought we weren't going to see "social change"?

For the record, this is precisely what I was getting at, minus Jon's Targ claim being involved.

No, definitely not, quite the opposite actually. Martin hates writing like that. With him, there are always consequences. And he loves -- loves -- writing transformative arcs (i.e., Jaime, Tyrion, etc.).

If anything, I think the biggest mistake people are making with Jon is assuming he is going to be the same, or close to the same, as he was before. When has that kind of thing ever been Martin's inclination?

That said, I disagree strongly with the notion that Catelyn before and after death are two different people. That is what I am getting at. Catelyn has changed, certainly (although significantly less than most would argue in my opinion), but that was because of what done to her, not because she died; she is the same person. People change, even when they do not die.

Right-- that's the big thing, and why I even started posting in this thread. That Jon won't be the same Jon he was prior to a resurrection is a ramification I suspect many who argue for the resurrection option underestimate.

I strongly believe that Cat and Stoneheart are 2 separate characters. I see it as Stoneheart's being like Cat's shadow-- as in Stoneheart derives from Cat-- but that ultimately, they are no longer the same person, no more than my shadow is truly me.

[Mithras]

A Great Council deciding things, huh? I thought we weren't going to see "social change"?

It won't be the first.

[sj4iy]

Just wondering but who said the strikes to Jon are not in fatal areas?

“When he put his hand to the side of his neck, blood welled between his fingers. “Why?”

That much blood welling between his fingers that quickly indicates the carotid was at least partially cut. A full cut and your dead in 12 seconds. A nick and you got minutes could be up to 10 or as little as 3 in most cases.

Absolutely no chance, read it again.

When Wick Whittlestick slashed at his throat, the word turned into a grunt. Jon twisted from the knife, just enough so it barely grazed his skin. He cut me. When he put his hand to the side of his neck, blood welled between his fingers. “Why?”

The first wound couldn't have hit anything vital. It's right there in the text.

“Jon reached for Longclaw, but his fingers had grown stiff and clumsy.”

Interesting.

...sure. Not sure what it has to do with the Jon's barely grazed neck.

“He punched Jon in the belly. When he pulled his hand away, the dagger stayed where he had buried it.”

Stomach strikes especially in the dark ages were usually lethal. Even today if you want slow agonizing death, anything that slices into the intestines will cause peritonitis (infection in the abdominal cavity). Pre-antibiotics, death was certain. Even now, it's quite likely unless the victim gets great surgical and antibiotic therapy.

Actually, I believe we were talking about wounds that would kill quickly, since some people seem to think that Jon was dead by the time he keeled over. A stomach wound wouldn't do that, and some people have survived stab wounds to the stomach without surgery. Infection would be the mostly likely cause of death from an injury to the stomach (barring bleeding out, of course)...but he wouldn't have died then.

“Jon fell to his knees. He found the dagger’s hilt and wrenched it free.”

Could not grasp long claws hilt but got the dagger free but could grasp the daggers hilt.

Still not sure what you're getting at with Jon's inability to grab Longclaw.

“When the third dagger took him between the shoulder blades, he gave a grunt and fell face-first into the snow.”

This should cripple Jon, between the blades is the spine and generally you end up crippled below the point of the strike.

It's not 'only' the spine. There's a lot of area between the shoulder blades, and a lot of ribs, which could deflect a knife wound if not aimed just in the right place. Also, he was on his knees at this point, so the knife was likely coming from above, and not directly behind. Without more information, it's impossible to tell what kind of wound this is. It could be extremely serious or it might not be.

“He never felt the fourth knife. Only the cold …”

Why did Jon say this? Did he see a 4th knife? Were there 4 people there? Was he in fact stabbed a 4th time and just could not feel it? Felling the cold is simple enough he would still have feelings in his hands, and face. There is also a cold feeling that is common when someone becomes crippled, cold and shock as well. Cold and blood loss. But I am more interested in why he thought there was a 4th knife and why he didn't feel it if there was.

Yeah, that doesn't make sense. If this is from his POV, it shouldn't be possible to bring up the 4th knife if he didn't feel it. Then again, he didn't feel Ygritte's arrow in his leg until hours later. He could have felt cold from shock (most likely) or he could have simply felt the cold of the ground beneath him.

Look generally if you get struck like this you die, either blood loss, infection, shock, etc... But I do wonder about the third strike followed by lack of feeling. It would be really hard to actually save Jon in this world unless magic is used to heal him. It would be interesting if he was crippled and magically healed and everything worked. Would kind of put a question mark on Bloodravens comments to Bran.

Jon might die later. But I don't see how he's dead right then and there from what we are told, which was the point we brought up in the thread earlier. Also, I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt that Martin would give us TWO paralyzed Starks.

Not to say I think Jon is dead, I just suspect he will need a little extra help to get better. Martin could always say moldy bread saved him, or boiled wine. Though generally that would just make an internal wound a lot worse. Cause the wine cools and and then you have a cold fruit based liquid floating around your open intestines.

I admittedly don't know how Martin will tackle it. But he's written it in such a way that Jon could feasibly survive or feasibly die.

[Faint]

Davos

You mean when he came back from Blackwater Bay?

In the first place, I do not see how he is directly comparable to Jon and Catelyn who were actively betrayed by their allies and assassinated.

And secondly, how is he not different? He tried to assassinate Melisandre; plotted the escape of Edric Storm; and convinced Stannis to sail to the Wall. He was little more than a passive observer before his brush with dead.

[butterbumps!]

It won't be the first.

And? Jon wouldn't be the first "bastard" to sit the throne either.

[Faint]

I admittedly don't know how Martin will tackle it. But he's written it in such a way that Jon could feasibly survive or feasibly die.

This entire issue is a little difficult to define because I think the most likely outcome is that Jon will not die in anything but the physical sense, but he will definitely die in that way. His heart will stop beating for a long while. His spirit though, and his sense of self, will be carried on in Ghost.

Now, if Melisandre were to heal his body, and he returned to it, could it really be said that he "died"?