Jon's attitude at the end

[NedStark2013]

I think sansa will help Jon feel more welcome family wise and there could be some unspoken tension that could lead Jon and sansa a couple and not Jon and dany by story's end.

[dantares83]

Did Jon willfully kill all the mutineers before resigning?

Was he so petty that he has to do that?

If he has just resign, he wouldn't have to kill any of those (at least not under his orders).

I think he did it for petty revenge and to kill a kid whose parents has been killed by his friends and subjects.

[bb1180]

4 hours ago, dantares83 said:

Did Jon willfully kill all the mutineers before resigning?

Was he so petty that he has to do that?

If he has just resign, he wouldn't have to kill any of those (at least not under his orders).

I think he did it for petty revenge and to kill a kid whose parents has been killed by his friends and subjects.

He's obviously angry with them at the start.  Who wouldn't be?  I don't think there's much else there to suggest pettiness or vengeance as the true motives, though.  His reaction at the end suggests quite the opposite, and I think he grew increasingly reluctant and even downright disturbed by the fact that he had to execute them as the scene went on. He did what he thought he had to do,  but it was the final straw in a process of disillusionment that began when we saw him talking with Davos earlier in the episode. 

[hallam]

15 hours ago, Masha said:

Unless the GOT pulls another "Starks ALMOST meet" troll on us like they did with Craster's keep battle and Jon and Bran in season 4? Where Jon actually leaves Castle Black and then Sansa arrives about 5 minutes after and nobody can trace where Jon has gone?

Or like Arya and the Hound reaching Sansa at the Eire.

They might do that. Only Jon isn't going to be gone very far from Castle Black for a start. Most likely he will be with the wildings. And the new Watch commander will be an ally of Jon's.

12 hours ago, Nymeria_Stark said:

I agree with his decision to leave. If you think about it, his watch ended when he was confirmed dead. Now that he's come back, maybe he knew that his revival was that loophole he needed. We all know about R+L=J, the widely held theory which was ALMOST confirmed in Bran's scene. SO, Jon's death and revival gave him the exact loophole he needed to leave the Wall without abandoning his oath and go south... HOPEFULLY to meet Howland Reed and learn the truth of his parentage!

What the flashback demonstrated was that reports of the backstory were grossly unreliable. Ned lied about his epic battle with the sword of the morning. It was a stab in the back that defeated him, not an epic duel.

Note here the parallel to last week's murder by the Sand Snakes - knife to the throat from behind. The showrunners love these structural symmetries.

Given that there are massive flags showing the backstory is lies, it is rather more likely that R+L=J is not true and it is a massive red herring. At the very least, it is fairly clear that Rheagar didn't rape Lyanna as Sansa said.

Also, that scream did not sound like childbirth.

Jon's parentage will be revealed by Benjen Stark. Why else would he be up in the land of always winter so long?

6 hours ago, FullingimL said:

Im annoyed by Jon's description of the "afterlife" as nothing. 

In the book, Martin's Dance prologue character wargs into a wolf and watches his human body being killed. This foreshadows that Jon will warg into Ghost upon his death. 

Im disappointed how the show ignored this very important part of Jon's dire wolf connection. 

Hard to see how the warging bit could be done on TV without being crappy.

GRRM says he can't kill a character and bring them back to life and then do POV parts for them. So he has to work out some other mechanism to bring Jon back that means he didn't die. The TV show doesn't have that constraint.

4 hours ago, dantares83 said:

Did Jon willfully kill all the mutineers before resigning?

Was he so petty that he has to do that?

If he has just resign, he wouldn't have to kill any of those (at least not under his orders).

I think he did it for petty revenge and to kill a kid whose parents has been killed by his friends and subjects.

Jon had to execute them or he would have looked weak. There would also be a real risk that they would try another mutiny. The next lord commander would have had to do the same thing. Jon didn't want to shirk his duty and leave an unpleasant task for his successor. 

Executing the mutineers was his last duty as Lord Commander that he had to complete before he could resign with honor.

[dantares83]

1 hour ago, hallam said:

Jon had to execute them or he would have looked weak. There would also be a real risk that they would try another mutiny. The next lord commander would have had to do the same thing. Jon didn't want to shirk his duty and leave an unpleasant task for his successor. 

Executing the mutineers was his last duty as Lord Commander that he had to complete before he could resign with honor.

i think u are giving Jon too much credit. If he had handed over the moment he returned from life, then it is perfectly ok. He did not break his NW vows. but because he wanted that petty revenge, he became LC for a mere of like 10 mins to kill the mutineers and then said 'f**k it, i quit' is essentially breaking his NC vows because he has essentially sign on again (after he come back to life).

my respect for Jon just down by many points because of that. 

[Greg B]

7 hours ago, dantares83 said:

Did Jon willfully kill all the mutineers before resigning?

Yes. His other option was to leave his brothers the responsibility for executing the murderous conspirators. It would certainly have been easier for Jon to abdicate that responsibility, but he took it upon himself and "swung the sword." He did the same when he led the rangers north of the Wall to bring Mormont's murderers to justice.

Of course, it was not only the honorable and responsible thing to do, it was also politically prudent. Now there is no chance that the next election for the lord commander, if there is one, will become a sectional dispute within the NW about the fate of the conspirators or the resolution of the "wildling issue." Jon cleared the table and cleaned up the mess before leaving the post to his successor.

[COYStars]

On ‎08‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 10:05 AM, McAssey said:

Jon will probably meet Sansa in the next episode, and she will fill him in on the situation in Winterfell.  Jon will probably also get a bird from Ramsay about Rikkon.  At some point Bran will learn Jon's true identity, and somehow communicate that to Jon (through the heart trees?).  These events will play a big part in Jon's next course of action.

The thing about the ToJ scene is that the viewer now knows that Howland Reed knows what happened in the Tower.

My money is on Howland Reed telling Jon who he really is.

[COYStars]

3 hours ago, hallam said:

What the flashback demonstrated was that reports of the backstory were grossly unreliable. Ned lied about his epic battle with the sword of the morning. It was a stab in the back that defeated him, not an epic duel.

Not following this. I don't remember Book Ned talking about an epic battle, let alone Show Ned. I don't remember Show Ned talking about the fight at all. Just because Dayne was killed in the Show by a stab in the back, that doesn't mean that's how he died in the book. Trying to establish that Ned lied/boasted (which given the evidence of his personality is most unlikely) based upon the dramatised show fight (which had the Sword of the Morning, wielder of the two-handed greatsword Dawn, alongside another blooming sword) would seem at best unwise and more likely rather foolish.

3 hours ago, hallam said:

Given that there are massive flags showing the backstory is lies, it is rather more likely that R+L=J is not true and it is a massive red herring. At the very least, it is fairly clear that Rheagar didn't rape Lyanna as Sansa said.

The world believed that Rhaegar abducted Lyanna against her will, we know that. It is no stretch for that to be what Sansa believed. That doesn't make it a lie. Your conclusion is fundamentally flawed.

[Fearodh]

I was surprised by Jon's "sudden" change of heart as his decision to leave the NW did not have much of a build up. Still, being murdered by his brothers and "having failed" is perfect motivation for me to leave his post.

He took it upon himself to punish the people who stabbed him and then left, which I find sensible enough. So far I am content with what D&D delivered.

Yet one fear I have. Doubts could fill Jon's mind. I hope they don't show him broken and saying 1000x times "I have faaiiiillled" just to finally take up the fight against Bolton at the end of the season. Hopefully Bran/Sansa/Rickon quickly gives him some motivation to do stuff.

[BobinIL]

If you think about it his first words were I tried to do the right thing and they murdered me for it.  Which is exactly what has happened to Ned, Rob and Catlyn.  His family all tried to do what is right and 4 of them were murdered.  I think Jon is about to go scorched earth on all of Westerose.

[C.T. Phipps]

On 5/9/2016 at 6:16 AM, Red Tiger said:

Basically this. He was all about sticking to his vows and honor, but when your honor and vows stab you in the back one too many times AND you realize that there is nothing waiting for you on the other side, well you will sorta change your lifeview.

Of course, he was just resurrected by a god. It's kind of an interesting case where a obvious religious miracle and proof of (a) god's existence has destroyed Jon's faith.

[C.T. Phipps]

On 5/9/2016 at 8:30 AM, Attitude said:

Yes, there is a supernatural aspect in the story: Magic.
Magic revived Jon. 

It was a prayer, not a spell which restored Jon. In any case, it doesn't matter as Jon could well have just not remembered whatever he saw past death.

It's a matter of...drummmmmroll faith.

Besides, if Jon actually did see an afterlife we'd know "which" faith was correct and that would kill much of the setting's fun.

[C.T. Phipps]

21 hours ago, GilletteMace said:

that whats the whole jon ressurection is all about, there simply is no soul or anything that moves on. religion, gods and souls are just creations of the living world completely meaningless in the end, because there simply is nothing. i also think that this is a beautiful and deeply truthful message. concepts of afterlife only concern the living. this insight is the highlight of this episode.

Uh, that's really not. Mel didn't work a spell, she worked a prayer which was answered.

You can't claim an afterlife doesn't exist when you have God raising the dead.

Besides, White Walkers exist and skeleton men.

The brain isn't the source of the mind in this world.

Hell, Ned's ghost visited Bran's dreams.

[Greg B]

1 minute ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Uh, that's really not. Mel didn't work a spell, she worked a prayer which was answered.

You can't claim an afterlife doesn't exist when you have God raising the dead.

What's the difference between a "spell" and a religious ritual in Martin's world? How can anyone -- even those with magic powers -- be certain of the source?

“Yet I still dream of that night, my lord. Not of the sorcerer, nor his blade, nor even the way my manhood shriveled as it burned. I dream of the voice. The voice from the flames. Was it a god, a demon, some conjurer’s trick? I could not tell you, and I know all the tricks. All I can say for a certainty is that he called it, and it answered, and since that day I have hated magic and all those who practice it."

[C.T. Phipps]

1 minute ago, Greg B said:

What's the difference between a "spell" and a religious ritual in Martin's world? How can anyone -- even those with magic powers -- be certain of the source?

“Yet I still dream of that night, my lord. Not of the sorcerer, nor his blade, nor even the way my manhood shriveled as it burned. I dream of the voice. The voice from the flames. Was it a god, a demon, some conjurer’s trick? I could not tell you, and I know all the tricks. All I can say for a certainty is that he called it, and it answered, and since that day I have hated magic and all those who practice it."

That's what I'm thinking makes it a good decision. If Jon had just returned and said, "Yeah, I saw R'hllor's realm. Lots of virgins, flames, and rubies." Then it would have changed the nature of the universe. Equally so, just saying it's nothingness is balanced by the whole business of it being a miracle.

We're left with the same level of agnostic confusion as readers before.

[Xcorpyo001]

Part of me wishes he would have left the NW after his revival, but prior to the execution. Remaining LC only to get his revenge, then leaving with a cool line makes him look like he come back to life, decided to stay with the NW, killed some traitors, then changed his mind again and left. All for a damn line.

What I don’t understand is the way he exits the scene. He executes the traitors, leaves the NW, turns his back to the NW brothers and walks into a stone tunnel. The ‘dropped the mike’ moment is somehow diminished by the fact you can clearly see the south gates in the back of the image, way behind the NW brothers.

So my question is this: why the hell is he going north of the Wall? Alone. Nearly naked, and during a WW invasion.

[Chaircat Meow]

I have to agree that resigning just after executing Throne and co makes Jon look bad. It doesn't look like he's doing it for revenge, and he wasn't enjoying it, rather he comes across as chronically thick and thoughtless (as usual). If his watch has ended he's not the Lord Commander and needed to leave their fate to the remainder of the nw. The only way he gets to execute them is if his watch hasn't ended, in which case he himself should die too because he's just gone and deserted. And for all of you saying Jon was doing the right thing and taking responsibility so the next LC doesn't have to, listen to what Jon actually says. He tells Ed to wear his cloak, or to burn it, meaning that he doesn't care one way or the other about the future of the nw anymore.

[McAssey]

2 hours ago, COYStars said:

The thing about the ToJ scene is that the viewer now knows that Howland Reed knows what happened in the Tower.

My money is on Howland Reed telling Jon who he really is.

I think that would be even better.  But then why bother with Bran visiting the ToJ? 

[Red Tiger]

23 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I have to agree that resigning just after executing Throne and co makes Jon look bad. It doesn't look like he's doing it for revenge, and he wasn't enjoying it, rather he comes across as chronically thick and thoughtless (as usual). If his watch has ended he's not the Lord Commander and needed to leave their fate to the remainder of the nw. The only way he gets to execute them is if his watch hasn't ended, in which he himself should die too because he's just gone and deserted. And for all of you saying Jon was doing the right thing and taking responsibility so the next LC doesn't have to, listen to what Jon actually says. He tells Ed to wear his cloak, or to burn it, meaning that he doesn't care one way or the other about the future of the nw anymore.

I saw the execution as Jon performing his final service and duty as Lord Commander.

[Zoe Stark]

On 5/9/2016 at 2:19 AM, jbob said:

Just didn't make any sense to me. It never did.

I remember people book readers predicting that Jon Snow will abandon the NW after he comes back and maybe tells the NW to screw themselves and goes to win Winterfell with his Wildling army. Never agreed with it and still don't. It always seemed to me that Jon was sincere in his words and actions. He was doing what we was doing because there's this giant threat of the White Walkers coming. Him no longer being bound to the NW doesn't change that. So it never made sense he'd be this flippant about it all of a sudden. "Sorry, Edd, now the WW and the end of the world everyone is going to dies is now your problem. Now that seems inconsistent to me. Needs to be more to it than that don't you think? Winning the North and Winterfell should be tied to fighting the WW.

Also, Edd's probably going to get killed with no one there to protect him.

Personally, I think what Jon is doing makes total sense. If you remember back to season 3 when Thoros of Myr brought Beric Dondarrion back for the 56748390th time and Beric said something along the lines of "a little piece of your soul dies every time you come back" or something. I can't remember the actual quote, but the point is that Jon is not the same Jon anymore. He has seen oblivion and that is not something you can just rebound from like nothing happened. He now recognizes the significance of his own life and purpose. Previously he's been so caught up in oaths and vows that he hasn't been able to really live the way he wants to. His whole life he was told he was insignificant because of his birth status. By joining the NW, he thought that he would finally find purpose. And he did for a time.

When he met the Wildlings (especially Ygritte, but let's not beat a dead horse) things changed for Jon. His eyes were opened to a completely different way of life and he was able to experience a small taste of freedom. Being the honorable guy he is, however, he knew he had to return to Castle Black. But his relationship with the Wildlings was one no  Night's Watchman had experienced before. Tormund learned to respect the hell out of him, and vice versa. When the threat of the WWs were fully introduced to Jon at Hardhome, his belief in the NW's purpose was strengthened. But that only got him killed. 

Jon now can see that life isn't all about vows and oaths. He means to do something about the WW issue. He just doesn't want to play by the rules anymore.