Heresy 130

[TheTowerOfJoy]

Nope. I think that it has been hinted that Bronn fights all of the Sand Snakes at once. They are probably going there to save the show casting Arys Oakheart and Balon Swann. Also, because Jerome Flynn rocks. They don't want to put that on the shelf.

Though if he's taking Oakheart's role, his could certainly be a significant death this season (probably moreso than Oakheart).

I cant' quite figure out what they're doing with Tristane. It seems they are combining Arianne and Tristane's characters, of course that could be awkward later if Arianne is betrothed to Aegon. I wonder if Tristane will end up taking on Quentyn's role as well and end up travelling to Mereen. Have you guys seen the recent theories that Quentyn is not actually dead, since we were only told of his death second hand?

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

...Mormont chose Jon because he was a son of Winterfell and a backup for Benjen. Later Aemon reminds Jon that he is a son of Winterfell as one of the reasons why he should lead. Some of the common NW members chose Jon because of Old Bear and Benjen, both of which are related to him being a son of Winterfell.

"Might be Snow would be better. He’s been longer on the Wall, he’s Ben Stark’s nephew, and he served the Old Bear as squire.” Yarwyck shrugged. “Pick who you want, just so it’s not me.” He sat down.

As we see, two out of three reasons Yarwyck gave are directly related to Jon being a son of Winterfell. And I assume some people who voted for Yarwyck at least decided to vote for Jon because of this. Not all the members of the NW are in a position to judge for themselves, they rather vote according to certain figureheads.

It seems to me that a distinction should be made between what it means to be "a son of Winterfell," and what it means to be a Stark. We have a variety of texts that demonstrate the fact that these terms do not amount to the same thing.

[ETA: See my next post.]

[butterbumps!]

It seems to me that a distinction should be made between what it means to be "a son of Winterfell," and what it means to be a Stark. We have a variety of texts that demonstrate the fact that these terms do not amount to the same thing.

I agree with this, and Feather Crystal as well.

I really think these nuances are what Martin's going for with this specific case, as well as the construction of power more generally.

Winterfell has been synonymous with Northern authority, but being Stark is not enough to give one power, nor does not being a Stark preclude one from having power. Power and authority are fluid constructs.

Jon's connection to Winterfell-- his being a son of Winterfell-- has given him no shortage of advantages. People are looking to him as an authority in this power vacuum because of this connection. But they aren't looking to him as "Jon Stark of Winterfell." His being a son of Winterfell is what enabled him to become LC, and from the LC position, helped him earn more credibility and authority. His pedigree and his LC position are mutually conditioning in terms of building momentum, but at the end of the day, it's the LC position that, by nature, transcends any specific factional boundary, jurisdiction, or group for representation.

I guess, to put this a different way, where many see Jon's owning the Stark name, becoming KitN, or even King Jon Targ in order to trump division and unify, I see the LC position as the one with the most fluidity to that end. He can write those rules himself, especially because he comes with the advantage of having the Stark pedigree behind him to set that ball rolling, and this position-- by nature, a "democratically" chosen one-- is the one position of authority removed from "claims" and conquest, with a real vision and focus on something pretty universal.

ETA: Just to put this out there, what I'm suggesting about the LC position as a "King of/ for Winter" is kind of synonymous with being a "Night's King," for what it's worth. So to expand on FC's earlier comment, a King for the Long Night (Night's King) is kind of where I'm going with all this.

[TheTowerOfJoy]

That theory is proven to be false because the wife of Aenys was Alyssa Velaryon, which will be revealed in TWOIAF.

I still have a theory about Starks having Targ blood though. I think Jenny of Oldstones was a Flint of the Mountains and her daughter from the Prince of Dragonflies (Duncan Targaryen who was banned from inheritance and using Targaryen surname) was Arya Flint, who was Ned's grandma from the maternal side.

I think it's the other way around. I think that Targaryens have Stark blood from a very long time ago. I think all magical human abilities are a direct result of the Pact. One branch of said magic found mastery over ice magic, while the other went to Asshai and mastered fire magic. Jon is special because he's the re-unification of those two branches, the song of Ice and Fire.

[The Free Folk]

I certainly believe the theory that the Stark on the wall was the King of Winter, the Stark in power pre-overthrow of the Night's King, and only after that did the title of Lord Commander as an inferior to the Stark in Winterfell get created. If this is the case, Jon could be acting as the Stark in power, on the wall, as the King of Winter, without being the Stark in Winterfell. He is the ruling Stark, but in the Old way, as the King of Winter with the Wall as his seat, IMO.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

It seems to me that a distinction should be made between what it means to be "a son of Winterfell," and what it means to be a Stark. We have a variety of texts that demonstrate the fact that these terms do not amount to the same thing.

(Moving this from a late ETA, into a separate post)

Sorry... that thought may have been incomplete and unclear. The dilemma that confronts Jon at one point (the end of ASOS) is whether to accept Stannis' offer to make him Lord of Winterfell. And ultimately, two things join together to convince Jon that he cannot accept the offer: (1) the fact that "Winterfell belongs to the old gods," but Stannis' offer was contingent upon his agreeing to uproot the heart tree ("the heart of Winterfell") and feed it to Melisandre's flames; and (2) his reunion with Ghost, with the recognition that Ghost, too, "belongs to the old gods." As Jon noted elsewhere, "to claim his father's castle, he [would have to] turn against his father's gods."

In other words, Jon's decision to reject Stannis' offer comes of his realization that he cannot both claim Winterfell and remain true to Eddard Stark... paradoxically, perhaps, allowing himself to become a Stark (under those circumstances, at least) amounts to something like kinslaying. Meanwhile, the old gods have already assigned him a role to play... as a Snow.

[Mithras]

I wanted to point that Jon’s position as the LC is dependent on his connection to Winterfell among other things. He might not be able to do all the things he did as the LC if he was a random Snow, let alone becoming the LC in the first place. He might be a bastard but he was raised like a legitimate son of Ned and people know that. So, being a son of Winterfell or being a Stark does not make much difference, especially when all the known Starks are dead.

In the future, I expect Jon to hang onto his duty as a man of the NW and the LC but I think he will make use of his Stark connection and Targaryen heritage more explicitly. I even think that Jon might want to act as the regent of Rickon.

I don’t see him merely concentrating on his role as the LC and becoming King Jon Snow in the end, denying his Targaryen heritage especially if he becomes the last of his line.

[butterbumps!]

I certainly believe the theory that the Stark on the wall was the King of Winter, the Stark in power pre-overthrow of the Night's King, and only after that did the title of Lord Commander as an inferior to the Stark in Winterfell get created. If this is the case, Jon could be acting as the Stark in power, on the wall, as the King of Winter, without being the Stark in Winterfell. He is the ruling Stark, but in the Old way, as the King of Winter with the Wall as his seat, IMO.

I can't say I disagree with this view, but even in this capacity, I see him as Jon Snow, whose name is winter. I'm not sure if you were meaning this as his identifying as a Stark; if not, my apologies-- we're not in disagreement about it.

I wanted to point that Jon’s position as the LC is dependent on his connection to Winterfell among other things. He might not be able to do all the things he did as the LC if he was a random Snow, let alone becoming the LC in the first place. He might be a bastard but he was raised like a legitimate son of Ned and people know that. So, being a son of Winterfell or being a Stark does not make much difference, especially when all the known Starks are dead.

In the future, I expect Jon to hang onto his duty as a man of the NW and the LC but I think he will make use of his Stark connection and Targaryen heritage more explicitly. I even think that Jon might want to act as the regent of Rickon.

I don’t see him merely concentrating on his role as the LC and becoming King Jon Snow, denying his Targaryen heritage especially if he becomes the last of his line.

No one is missing the fact that his being a son of Winterfell moved him into the LC position. I am saying that he is-- above everything else-- Jon SNOW, a son of Winterfell, and LC of the Watch. I am simultaneously saying that:

A. I, like many, believe Jon needs more power to bring his vision to fruition

B. But unlike the prevailing arguments in favor of this power deriving from his claiming either a Stark or Targ identity, that it's the LC position itself with the fluidity to get him there, bolstered by his being a son of Winterfell.

C. That LC + Jon SNOW + "son of Winterfell" = profit. At least in terms of mobilizing for the Long Night and augmenting Jon's power.

Analysis of Jon's character tells us he won't choose to identify as Jon Targ. Analysis of the way Martin's deconstructed and reconstructed power in story (and, especially, the reintroduction of Aegon) tells us that people won't believe or care about Jon Targ.

ETA: I hasten to add that I'm making this argument entirely separately from any argument of "King Jon Snow of the IT." My fundamental disagreement with you over in the General section is about whether Jon can become king of IT as Jon Snow. Yes, he can, it is not only possible, but more possible than the "King Jon Targ" version.

But that isn't the outcome of the story I actually believe will happen. It's an issue where the predominant insistence on King Jon Targ as the only possibility for kingship is what I'm against over there. So that's what I argue.

Right now, I'm not even addressing final outcomes. I'm talking solely about what identity and which position of authority is in Jon's best interest to pursue in terms of effecting his vision.

[The Free Folk]

I can't say I disagree with this view, but even in this capacity, I see him as Jon Snow, whose name is winter. I'm not sure if you were meaning this as his identifying as a Stark; if not, my apologies-- we're not in disagreement about it.

No, I think we are in agreement here. I'm not arguing that Jon is identifying as a Stark, but rather that his Stark blood and not the Stark name allows him to assume the role of King of Winter. Eventually embracing Snow is vital to his character arc, IMO.

[Black Crow]

To come back to Littlefinger I always had the suspicion that our two great schemers (Varys and Littlefinger) represent the two sides of the great conflict (fire vs ice) and this theory provides Littlefinger's link to the ice side.

I've not looked on Littlefinger as a player in that particular game before, but its an intriguing idea which recalls the thought the other day that Sweetrobin displays an awful lot of the characteristic signs of a changeling. It was hard to see at that point why that might be the case, but are we really convinced that Sweetrobin really is Jon Arryn's son - or might Lysa the Mad have had a Bael[ish] encounter of the intimate kind?

[Melifeather]

I've not looked on Littlefinger as a player in that particular game before, but its an intriguing idea which recalls the thought the other day that Sweetrobin displays an awful lot of the characteristic signs of a changeling. It was hard to see at that point why that might be the case, but are we really convinced that Sweetrobin really is Jon Arryn's son - or might Lysa the Mad have had a Bael[ish] encounter of the intimate kind?

I thought Lyssa's father made her drink Moon tea to abort Petyr's bastard?

[Black Crow]

I thought Lyssa's father made her drink Moon tea to abort Petyr's bastard?

Yes, but Sweetrobin is a much more recent arrival and we don't know for how long she and Littlefinger were planning Jon Arryn's demise

[Melifeather]

Yes, but Sweetrobin is a much more recent arrival and we don't know for how long she and Littlefinger were planning Jon Arryn's demise

That would be interesting but I don' t think it's a necessary plot development, and would we then assume Petyr doesn't know? His idea for marrying Sansa to Harry the heir indicates he expects Robin to die.

Now you make me wonder what happens when a changeling has a child with a female with skinchanging genes?

[Black Crow]

On the Son of Winterfell business and the Lord Commander being a de facto King of Winter its worth noting a couple of interesting things; there's that curious attitude of almost reverence to the Starks displayed by the spearwives - and more strikingly there's the way so many of the Wildlings coming through the Wall pledge allegiance to Jon Snow - in effect kneeling!

[Melifeather]

One contrary fact regarding the LC as King of Winter is Lady Mormont's declaration that Robb was King of Winter.

[Black Crow]

That would be interesting but I don' t think it's a necessary plot development, and would we then assume Petyr doesn't know? His idea for marrying Sansa to Harry the heir indicates he expects Robin to die.

But if Sweetrobin is indeed a changeling rather than a natural son of Bael[ish] his sole purpose in being planted may have been to help bind Lysa and now that purpose is done he's no longer required.

[Melifeather]

But if Sweetrobin is indeed a changeling rather than a natural son of Bael[ish] his sole purpose in being planted may have been to help bind Lysa and now that purpose is done he's no longer required.

Would that make Petyr in cahoots with the Children? Where are you going with this?

[Melifeather]

Would Petyr be perhaps a child that was exchanged at one time and then returned to do the work of the fae?

[Black Crow]

One contrary fact regarding the LC as King of Winter is Lady Mormont's declaration that Robb was King of Winter.

That's an interesting one because its the first we hear of a King of Winter, but although I'm happy to travel with Butterbumps' suggestion that the Lord Commander is the de facto King of Winter I'm also inclined to believe that there hasn't been an actual King of Winter since the Nights King was overthrown

[Black Crow]

Would that make Petyr in cahoots with the Children? Where are you going with this?

I'm not really going anywhere with this one yet; I'm just making the point that Sweetrobin being a changeling would be consistent with Armstark's suggestion about Petyr Baelish's real motives.