Bowen Marsh was right to remove Jon from office.

[BalerionTheCat]

27 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

That would be awesome! Just imagine the epic reactions of Dany's fans here!

The Yi Ti legends talk of "the God-on-Earth, the only begotten son of the Lion of Night and Maiden-Made-of-Light". Is it not something like "The Song of Ice and Fire"? I'm pretty sure the Lion of Night is The Great Other, and his demons the Others. The current ruling system is fucked. Because if at one point you have a good king like Aegon V, at the next generation or so you will have a shit like Aerys II. If people are dying to get a new era of peace, be it for more than 50 years. Like this God-on-Earth who gave a golden age of 10,000 years.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 hour ago, BalerionTheCat said:

The Yi Ti legends talk of "the God-on-Earth, the only begotten son of the Lion of Night and Maiden-Made-of-Light". Is it not something like "The Song of Ice and Fire"? I'm pretty sure the Lion of Night is The Great Other, and his demons the Others.

I hadn't thought about it but now you mention it I can definitely see that. For many years now as I have theorized and have already written in one of my threads, my favorite theory, that almost all the Messianic figures in GRRTH are all about the same character. And now this comment makes more sense and kind of fits with my theory.

 

1 hour ago, BalerionTheCat said:

The current ruling system is fucked. Because if at one point you have a good king like Aegon V, at the next generation or so you will have a shit like Aerys II. If people are dying to get a new era of peace, be it for more than 50 years. Like this God-on-Earth who gave a golden age of 10,000 years.

THANK YOU!  I have tried to say that for many years now. The fact that the Targs had one or two good Kings doesn't mean that they have the divine right to rule, especially since in less than 300 years they have created more than a dozen wars which were created solely by the Targ family.

[BalerionTheCat]

1 hour ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

I hadn't thought about it but now you mention it I can definitely see that. For many years now as I have theorized and have already written in one of my threads, my favorite theory, that almost all the Messianic figures in GRRTH are all about the same character. And now this comment makes more sense and kind of fits with my theory.

TWoIaF made me think so. But this (TWoW) has increased my confidence in something along these lines.

Spoiler

The Damphair vision in "The Forsaken". A vision produce by the wine of the warlocks. Not some Euron banter: “Your god will come for you tonight. Some god, at least."

"The bleeding star bespoke the end,” he said to Aeron. “These are the last days, when the world shall be broken and remade. A new god shall be born from the graves and charnel pits."

 

[SFDanny]

Much of this discussion is consumed with an analysis of Jon's plan to march a wilding army to Winterfell and how this violated his oath or was part of his mission to defeat the Others. Or both. However, let me say the premise of the thread also assumes a "right to assassinate" a Lord Commander who members of the Watch think is violating his oath. I find this absurd. One can argue Marsh's point of view, if for some strange reason one believes he is right, but I don't see how one can argue that the Watch should be ruled by assassination.

Nor can one argue that this was some spur of the moment plan in reaction to Jon's decision to march a wildling army against Ramsay Bolton. The Caesar-like  attack on Jon is clearly long in the making and in the planning. Marsh accuses Jon of treason against the Watch in his decision to allow the Free Folk south of the Wall, and this is his motive in planning the killing his Lord Commander. Hatred of the wildlings is the central motivation, not some outrage about how Jon responds to threats from Ramsay. The conspiracy is long in planning complete with individual conspirators stabbing Jon and saying "for the Watch." THIS is treason against their oaths and to their Lord Commander who they are bound to obey. But beyond that the motivation of letting the Free Folk die beyond the Wall by the hands of the Others is an abdication of the core mission of the Watch. Nothing that Jon has done makes that acceptable.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 hour ago, BalerionTheCat said:

TWoIaF made me think so. But this (TWoW) has increased my confidence in something along these lines.

  Hide contents

The Damphair vision in "The Forsaken". A vision produce by the wine of the warlocks. Not some Euron banter: “Your god will come for you tonight. Some god, at least."

"The bleeding star bespoke the end,” he said to Aeron. “These are the last days, when the world shall be broken and remade. A new god shall be born from the graves and charnel pits."

 

Could the red star is a sign about the LN 2.0 and not the rebirth of AA?

If you are interested this is the topic about ll the Messianic figures in GRRTH are all about the same character, Jon.

 

[kissdbyfire]

Just now, SFDanny said:

Much of this discussion is consumed with an analysis of Jon's plan to march a wilding army to Winterfell and how this violated his oath or was part of his mission to defeat the Others. Or both. However, let me say the premise of the thread also assumes a "right to assassinate" a Lord Commander who members of the Watch think is violating his oath. I find this absurd. One can argue Marsh's point of view, if for some strange reason one believes he is right, but I don't see how one can argue that the Watch should be ruled by assassination.

Nor can one argue that this was some spur of the moment plan in reaction to Jon's decision to march a wildling army against Ramsay Bolton. The Caesar-like  attack on Jon is clearly long in the making and in the planning. Marsh accuses Jon of treason against the Watch in his decision to allow the Free Folk south of the Wall, and this is his motive in planning the killing his Lord Commander. Hatred of the wildlings is the central motivation, not some outrage about how Jon responds to threats from Ramsay. The conspiracy is long in planning complete with individual conspirators stabbing Jon and saying "for the Watch." THIS is treason against their oaths and to their Lord Commander who they are bound to obey. But beyond that the motivation of letting the Free Folk die beyond the Wall by the hands of the Others is an abdication of the core mission of the Watch. Nothing that Jon has done makes that acceptable.

Great post, couldn't possibly agree more.

I find that many of the arguments defending Marsh's actions are tainted by many posters' general dislike of Jon as a character. Which is fine, but to try and justify Marsh's Caesaring of Jon this way is just plain silly. And when these arguments devolve into a defence of the Boltons the whole thing becomes just nauseating. 

[SFDanny]

17 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Great post, couldn't possibly agree more.

I find that many of the arguments defending Marsh's actions are tainted by many posters' general dislike of Jon as a character. Which is fine, but to try and justify Marsh's Caesaring of Jon this way is just plain silly. And when these arguments devolve into a defence of the Boltons the whole thing becomes just nauseating. 

Yes. And thank you. To your last point, what could possibly make readers believe anyone outside the Watch has a right to tell them what they must do, much less threaten them with violence if they don't do so? Especially Ramsay Bolton. 

[867-5309]

On 6/30/2017 at 3:58 PM, Barbrey Dustin said:

Too bad the original topic was closed.  I appreciate all of the thoughtful replies.  Here is a link to the original discussion.  Please feel free to continue commenting. 

 

I admire the persistence of both sides.  I am on your side of the debate though. 

[kissdbyfire]

5 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Yes. And thank you. To your last point, what could possibly make readers believe anyone outside the Watch has a right to tell them what they must do, much less threaten them with violence if they don't do so? Especially Ramsay Bolton. 

My take is that it's not necessarily that people actually believe that, but rather that it's one way to justify the actions of those who "killed" Jon b/c they don't like the character. Bit baffling imo. 

[SFDanny]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

My take is that it's not necessarily that people actually believe that, but rather that it's one way to justify the actions of those who "killed" Jon b/c they don't like the character. Bit baffling imo. 

I agree with you about that. There is a strong bias against Jon in some readers view. I don't think it quite reaches the level of hate towards Catelyn or Sansa sometimes, but it is undeniably there. I remember many "Mary Sue" threads aimed at Jon from readers who saw no growth in his character and were unable to see what other characters like Mormont or Aemon saw in him. That maybe the OP view of Jon. I like to think others bias doesn't go quite that far.

My own view is that Martin's strength is in character development. So many of his characters including seemingly minor ones have arcs of development and almost none are stereotyped good or bad. Outside of little Rickon, I think we have seen that in all of the Starks. Perhaps the problem is they want their heroes without flaws, and their villains without any virtue. If so, I think they are reading the wrong story.

[Fire Eater]

On 7/1/2017 at 4:37 PM, kissdbyfire said:

Great post, couldn't possibly agree more.

I find that many of the arguments defending Marsh's actions are tainted by many posters' general dislike of Jon as a character. Which is fine, but to try and justify Marsh's Caesaring of Jon this way is just plain silly. And when these arguments devolve into a defence of the Boltons the whole thing becomes just nauseating. 

 

On 7/1/2017 at 4:28 PM, SFDanny said:

Much of this discussion is consumed with an analysis of Jon's plan to march a wilding army to Winterfell and how this violated his oath or was part of his mission to defeat the Others. Or both. However, let me say the premise of the thread also assumes a "right to assassinate" a Lord Commander who members of the Watch think is violating his oath. I find this absurd. One can argue Marsh's point of view, if for some strange reason one believes he is right, but I don't see how one can argue that the Watch should be ruled by assassination.

Nor can one argue that this was some spur of the moment plan in reaction to Jon's decision to march a wildling army against Ramsay Bolton. The Caesar-like  attack on Jon is clearly long in the making and in the planning. Marsh accuses Jon of treason against the Watch in his decision to allow the Free Folk south of the Wall, and this is his motive in planning the killing his Lord Commander. Hatred of the wildlings is the central motivation, not some outrage about how Jon responds to threats from Ramsay. The conspiracy is long in planning complete with individual conspirators stabbing Jon and saying "for the Watch." THIS is treason against their oaths and to their Lord Commander who they are bound to obey. But beyond that the motivation of letting the Free Folk die beyond the Wall by the hands of the Others is an abdication of the core mission of the Watch. Nothing that Jon has done makes that acceptable.

I'd add that the signs of Marsh plotting Jon's assassination were clearly there. When he comes to meet Jon after he sent Val off, Marsh is the only one to refuse when Jon offers his party food and drink. In the final meeting he has with Jon, he doesn't even touch the wine Jon had placed for him. This refusal of hospitality is one sign. Mance also mentions Marsh balking about him sitting next to his group when he is talking to them "about the high walls." If Marsh is only talking about something as innocent as closing all the Wall's gates then why is he so paranoid about people listening in? 

[kissdbyfire]

3 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I agree with you about that. There is a strong bias against Jon in some readers view. I don't think it quite reaches the level of hate towards Catelyn or Sansa sometimes, but it is undeniably there. I remember many "Mary Sue" threads aimed at Jon from readers who saw no growth in his character and were unable to see what other characters like Mormont or Aemon saw in him. That maybe the OP view of Jon. I like to think others bias doesn't go quite that far.

Yeah, I remember those threads. Never quite understood the argument, tough, but to each their own. 

Quote

My own view is that Martin's strength is in character development. So many of his characters including seemingly minor ones have arcs of development and almost none are stereotyped good or bad. Outside of little Rickon, I think we have seen that in all of the Starks. Perhaps the problem is they want their heroes without flaws, and their villains without any virtue. If so, I think they are reading the wrong story.

Agree again on Martin's strength at character development. As to the bold, I think that applies to some but my feeling is that for many it's something a lot sillier... it's like there's two camps: you're either a Dany fan, or you're a Jon fan. Like, these are mutually exclusive things, and if you're n one camp, you must bring readers who are on the other down, no matter what, and anything goes to "achieve" this. Even making pathetic arguments in defence of things like Ramsay Bolton's "rights", or how honourable and brave Bowen Marsh is. Go figure.

ETA: I brought this up with friends just a few days ago, but this thread and its previous iteration made me want to re-read the old "learning to lead" threads. 

 

1 hour ago, Fire Eater said:

I'd add that the signs of Marsh plotting Jon's assassination were clearly there. When he comes to meet Jon after he sent Val off, when Jon offers his party food and drink, Marsh is the only one to refuse. In the final meeting he has with Jon, he doesn't even touch the wine Jon had placed for him. This refusal of hospitality is one sign. Mance also mentions Marsh balking about him sitting next to his group when he is talking to them "about the high walls." Marsh is only talking about something as innocent as closing all the Wall's gates then why is he so paranoid about people listening in? 

Ah! So glad you brought this up! I had forgotten about it, and it's so very significant.

[The Fattest Leech]

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I agree with you about that. There is a strong bias against Jon in some readers view. I don't think it quite reaches the level of hate towards Catelyn or Sansa sometimes, but it is undeniably there. I remember many "Mary Sue" threads aimed at Jon from readers who saw no growth in his character and were unable to see what other characters like Mormont or Aemon saw in him. That maybe the OP view of Jon. I like to think others bias doesn't go quite that far.

My own view is that Martin's strength is in character development. So many of his characters including seemingly minor ones have arcs of development and almost none are stereotyped good or bad. Outside of little Rickon, I think we have seen that in all of the Starks. Perhaps the problem is they want their heroes without flaws, and their villains without any virtue. If so, I think they are reading the wrong story.

Very much agreed with this. And to the bold, this is the definition of being a one note character. George does have real talent when it comes to character development that even his (really) short stories have an identifiable change.

[BalerionTheCat]

7 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yeah, I remember those threads. Never quite understood the argument, tough, but to each their own.

I saw once someone saying he/she was hating Jon, because many Jon's "lovers" were hating Danerys. And she was his/her preferred character. There is no logic in hating one character because someone else hates another one. BTW, I don't hate Danerys. Not even after things seen here. I believe she could have been much like Jon if the context had been different. But Visery was not Ned, the Green Grace is not maester Aemon. And she was born a princess in exile, now bent to regain her heirloom, not a bastard only good to serve his betters.

[Mon ami]

19 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Much of this discussion is consumed with an analysis of Jon's plan to march a wilding army to Winterfell and how this violated his oath or was part of his mission to defeat the Others. Or both. However, let me say the premise of the thread also assumes a "right to assassinate" a Lord Commander who members of the Watch think is violating his oath. I find this absurd. One can argue Marsh's point of view, if for some strange reason one believes he is right, but I don't see how one can argue that the Watch should be ruled by assassination.

Violating his oaths was not the only reason that Jon was killed.  He was about to lead a pack of wildlings to attack the Bolton family.  Bowen disagreed with many of Jon's previous decisions but he accepted them and resigned himself to the changes that Jon made.  But when your fool of a commander just announced he 1) effectively pardoned Mance Rayder, 2) sent a small wildling force to get his sister away from her husband, c) is about to take the wildlings and raid the Boltons, no sworn brother of the watch can stand by and let Jon continue with his madness. 

Nor can one argue that this was some spur of the moment plan in reaction to Jon's decision to march a wildling army against Ramsay Bolton. The Caesar-like  attack on Jon is clearly long in the making and in the planning. Marsh accuses Jon of treason against the Watch in his decision to allow the Free Folk south of the Wall, and this is his motive in planning the killing his Lord Commander. Hatred of the wildlings is the central motivation, not some outrage about how Jon responds to threats from Ramsay. The conspiracy is long in planning complete with individual conspirators stabbing Jon and saying "for the Watch." THIS is treason against their oaths and to their Lord Commander who they are bound to obey. But beyond that the motivation of letting the Free Folk die beyond the Wall by the hands of the Others is an abdication of the core mission of the Watch. Nothing that Jon has done makes that acceptable.

I can definitely argue that it was a spur of the moment decision reaction to Jon's public confession and admission.  It was a desperate attempt to stop a madman, Jon,  from compounding his bad decisions. 

 

[kissdbyfire]

3 hours ago, Mon ami said:

 

1. Bollocks

2. Bollocks x 2 

Read what  @Fire Eater posted just a few posts up thread. I can agree that Marsh's plan may not have been to off Jon when he did, but it's clear that there were plans being made well before it happened.

 

[Shi Qiang]

On 7/1/2017 at 10:14 AM, The Doctor's Consort said:

Just a question, doesn’t Bowen broke the Guest Right when he attacked Jon under Jon’s roof?

Absolutely not.  Castle Black is not the property of the lord commander.  He cannot will it to a relative nor can his children (which he's not supposed to have but even if he had one before he joined up he could not will the property to his child).  Bowen is not a guest. 

 

On 7/1/2017 at 11:21 AM, BalerionTheCat said:

The gods disagree with you. Because Jon will be reborn. Certainly not in something ordinary human. Half a god I expect. GRRM would have just wounded him if it was to expose Marsh treason and the NW disintegration. Marsh will die. Marsh will be remembered, if in anything, as the traitor and destroyer of the NW.

It's Jon who will be remembered as the traitor who betrayed his brothers.  Jon will be remembered as the Night's King 2.0.

[kissdbyfire]

TWoW cannot come soon enough.

[SFDanny]

22 minutes ago, Allardyce said:

Absolutely not.  Castle Black is not the property of the lord commander.  He cannot will it to a relative nor can his children (which he's not supposed to have but even if he had one before he joined up he could not will the property to his child).  Bowen is not a guest. 

Curious. Who set up this strawman? Jon is not giving Night's Watch property to any relative, but, as the Lord Commander he has the right to do with it as he sees fit. That includes trying to get more people to settle in the Gift and the New Gift, or giving over the Nightfort to Stannis, or taking on debt to see the Watch through a long winter. That all falls on the decision of the Lord Commander, as does to whom he grants guest right.

Now, Bowen is not a guest. You're right in that. But what are Bowen Marsh's duties, and whether he lives or dies, is up to Jon as his Lord Commander. Assuming Jon survives the assassination attempt, he has every right to chop off the heads of every conspirator, and none of them has a right to challenge his decision. Slynt learned that lesson, and, if Marsh isn't already dead, he will too.

34 minutes ago, Allardyce said:

 It's Jon who will be remembered as the traitor who betrayed his brothers.  Jon will be remembered as the Night's King 2.0.

Curiouser. Jon has one basic duty. To lead the defense of the realms of men in the War for the Dawn against the Others. How he does or does not fulfill that duty is how he will be remembered. One can disagree with how Martin has him going about preparing for that war, but as long as he wins, no one will think of him as the Night's King 2.0. So, unless Jon dies and comes back as the new commander of the Others, your prediction is just silly nonsense. We shall have to wait and see if Martin has Jon go down that road.

[DMC]

I am entirely sick of seeing threads like this at the top of the page.  Thank you @SFDanny, @Fire Eater, and @kissdbyfire for bringing reason into this iteration.  Bottom line:  Jon did what he thought was right - and was fairly accurate in doing so.  Moreover, the author makes clear Jon is wrestling with ethics midway through ADWD (Jon VIII, 515):

Quote

"I will." Do not fail me, he thought, or Stannis will have my head. "Do I have your word that you will keep our princess closely?" the king had said, and Jon had promised that he would. Val is no princess, though. I told him that half a hundred times. It was a feeble sort of evasion, a sad rag wrapped around his wounded word. His father would never have approved. I am the sword that guards the realm of men, Jon reminded himself, and in the end, that must be worth more than one man's honor.

I'm glad Jon comes into his own and embraces leadership by the end of ADWD, even if it results in assassination.  Same way I'm glad Dany seems to embrace her own capacity and reject her semi-forced marriage.  Same way I'm glad Tyrion seems to embrace his Machiavellian abilities to support the "right" side by the end of ADWD, even if it's self interest.  And same way for Sansa and Arya too:

Spoiler

In terms of Sansa playing the game with Harry the Heir and LF, and with Arya reclaiming her identity.

I'm glad about all of that because these are, quite clearly, the characters the author has emphasized we should root for (there are others of course).  Are they flawed?  Yeah, that's the point.  May they come in conflict with one another?  I sure hope so - what would be the fun if they didn't?  But, I honestly don't understand all of the digital ink that's been spilled making the case for why one is better than the other.  I root for all of them, and look forward to their future exploits.  What I look forward to in particular is when they all realize they have a common enemy and should focus on that.  And that's exactly what the narrative has been pushing towards since the very first word.