Jump to content
Barbrey Dustin

Bowen Marsh was right to remove Jon from office.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Agent Orange said:

Arya is past the point of coming back to decency. 

  Reveal hidden contents

Read the sample chapters from the next book. 

The girl is not only lost but she is an abomination just like Stoneheart.  Her sickness even infect her direwolf and cause it to behave like it does.  

What book are you even reading? :huh: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nevets said:

Little Walder was bad news at Winterfell before Ramsay ever appeared.  As Osha told Bran, "he's aptly named.  Big on the outside, little inside, and mean to the bones."  Ramsay was merely working with what was already there.

Sure, just as he would have with our Arya. Say, Roose had taken her with him back in the North as she asked? What do you think would have become of her then? She is still a child, just as Little Walder is. Sure, the boy certainly has a meaner nature than Arya but he clearly is less traumatized and less accustomed to violence than Arya. He didn't live through the abuse at the hands of Gregor and his people.

This isn't the topic, but Arya's suffering really is a textbook example for the childhood of (criminal) psychopaths. She is totally in the hands of abusive people and has a strong feeling of complete helplessness, something she resents and never wants to feel again. That's how she feels while she is with Gregor and - even more so - when she is abused by Weese at Harrenhal. She only gets out of this misery when she has absolute power over life and death with the help of Jaqen. That's the kind of emotion murderous psychopaths thrive on - the feeling that they have absolute power over life and death and have total control over other people. Now, having reduced emotions and less empathy doesn't mean you have to kill. But we have every reason to believe that Arya wants to kill. Perhaps only evil people she thinks deserve to die (and who may even deserve the death penalty by the standards of the worlds we are talking about here) but this doesn't chance the fact that she wants to kill. And she kills very effectively, especially in the case of Raff. The fact that he may have deserved it (I don't think he did but I'm not an advocate of the death penalty and have been raised in a society where it is a thing of the past for over sixty years) doesn't change that it is very, very wrong that an 11-year-old girl is doing it.

9 hours ago, Nevets said:

While Arya's experiences and actions trouble me, I don't think she is past the point of no return, yet.  She is getting close, though.  However, I think the actions of the preview chapter are going to cause trouble with the FM, and what moral compass she has remaining from her upbringing as a Stark and Tully will keep her from going off the deep end.  And meeting Jeyne Poole, which I expect to happen, could have unexpected effects.  Of course, I could be wrong.  Call me an optimist, but I don't think GRRM has gotten her this far to simply have her become totally lost.

The problem I have with that kind of reasoning is the idea that a person like Arya can be realistically depicted as becoming 'whole' again. If you put a real child in Arya's shoes and have it live through her experiences you will ruin it for life. Perhaps there are chances to put it back together if there is a lot of modern therapy and medication but that's not going to happen in Martinworld. Nor are we going to see Arya's (late) adolescent or adult life (which certainly is a pity, I'd be very interested in seeing what kind of woman she would grow into).

Her being reunited with her family isn't going to make her forget what's happened to her. This is not a question of a point of no return. Her experiences have had impacts on (the gestation of) her personality and character that isn't going to go away.

In that sense you can compare her to Theon. He has gone through even more torment and trauma than she did and he is never going to be his old self again, neither psychologically nor physically. The only thing he can hope for is to get a little better but he will never be whole again.

In fact, we are actually not unlikely to see echoes to various degrees of those dreadful and cruel Kings of Winter in Arya, and perhaps even Bran and Jon. Being a Stark is not being a nice guy. And there must be a reason why the idea that the ancient Starks were cruel and unforgiving is reinforced again and again since the very beginning of the series. This seems to be more than a trivial detail of world-building.

8 hours ago, Jon Ice-Eyes said:

Radio Westeros has a great theory that Jeyne will go to Braavos and ask for the gift of death as the House of the Undying -- seeing as how she is super depressed and her life is a complete ruin. This is where Arya will step in, and acquire her face. Then Arya will become fArya. The ultimate irony! 

This may allow her to reconnect with her sense of self, and if she is lucky, enough of her innocence not to end up a hollow psychopath. Here's hoping. 

Quite honestly, I'd consider this turn of events very sickening. Surely Jeyne deserves a better fate than death, and any person 'reconnecting' with her family while hiding beneath the literal face of the best friend of her sister would be, well, very twisted. If my sister did that with me I certainly might be happy to see her again but, well, let's say I'd not want to share rooms with her or live in the same neighborhood as she does.

We all should hope for Arya that she is reunited in some form with the surviving members of her family but that in and of itself doesn't make her experiences and crimes go away. Nor is it going to restore her to emotional and mental health. A reunion like 'And while she was weeping in Jon's arms all the pain and anger she felt left her like the spring sun outside was melting the last snows of winter' would be an ending we could get in a fairy-tale but not in this series. There might be tears and there might be joy but it is not going to unmake or change the past.

George would destroy his own sense of realism by going down that route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe Arya's story will have a happy ending.  I am biased because I dislike her and I dislike Jon.  But we have discussed this endlessly on this forum so I will not derail this thread.  So back to the topic, yeah, poor Bowen was put in a situation where he had to fire Jon.  Jon's illegal activities left Bowen Marsh with no other choice but to act.  

Edited by Widowmaker 811

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the funny part. The folks defending Jon, here (whom, I will reiterate for the 1000th time, I adore), say that keeping Mance alive was the right thing to do.

 

So... was it the wrong thing to do, to allow Mel to burn Mance? Because that was what Jon did originally. Completely support the burning alive of Mance Rayder. Not even beheading him. Not executing him. Not "swinging the sword because he gave the sentence". But, allowing a foreigner to burn him alive. Sure, it turned out to be Rattleshirt. Maybe you're all claiming he knew all along in his golden heart of hearts that it wasn't Mance! Or maybe it's yet another long winded, bending over backwards to pat your own back, dodging of the issue. But, Jon has both sentenced Mance to death, and allowed him to live, to serve his non-NW realm concerns. If you approve of one, you can't approve of the other. If you think letting him live to go do side-quests to level up in the realm is the right thing, then letting a witch burn him alive is the wrong thing. And vice versa. I think both were inherently wrong. But allowing him to live was the one that gave his brothers in the NW just cause to remove him from office. If you're gonna sentence him to death, swing the sword, Jon.  And, if you're gonna let him live, then resign as LC of the NW, and go about your life as a deserter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, HaeSuse said:

Here's the funny part. The folks defending Jon, here (whom, I will reiterate for the 1000th time, I adore), say that keeping Mance alive was the right thing to do.

 

So... was it the wrong thing to do, to allow Mel to burn Mance? Because that was what Jon did originally. Completely support the burning alive of Mance Rayder. Not even beheading him. Not executing him. Not "swinging the sword because he gave the sentence". But, allowing a foreigner to burn him alive. Sure, it turned out to be Rattleshirt. Maybe you're all claiming he knew all along in his golden heart of hearts that it wasn't Mance! Or maybe it's yet another long winded, bending over backwards to pat your own back, dodging of the issue. But, Jon has both sentenced Mance to death, and allowed him to live, to serve his non-NW realm concerns. If you approve of one, you can't approve of the other. If you think letting him live to go do side-quests to level up in the realm is the right thing, then letting a witch burn him alive is the wrong thing. And vice versa. I think both were inherently wrong. But allowing him to live was the one that gave his brothers in the NW just cause to remove him from office. If you're gonna sentence him to death, swing the sword, Jon.  And, if you're gonna let him live, then resign as LC of the NW, and go about your life as a deserter. 

Well, here I'd defend Jon Snow. Mance Rayder was King Stannis' prisoner, and King Stannis sentenced him to die and decided to burn him alive. This wasn't Melisandre's or Jon's decisions but Stannis'. And there is nothing wrong with that in this world since the king has every right to sentence traitors and turncloaks to die and also decide how exactly that sentence is executed.

Jon didn't completely support that sentence, though. He argued against it and he actually convinced Stannis and Mel not to kill Mance although he only learned that much later. Jon's decision to have his men give 'Mance' a mercy killing while the man was burning is also a clear sign that he didn't like the whole thing. But he had, of course, no means of stopping it considering that the Watch is essentially at Stannis' mercy.

Insisting that Jon should have killed Mance later on after he learned who Rattleshirt actually was also doesn't make much sense - after all, Stannis gave Mance to Jon because Jon rightfully pointed out that the man knows a lot about the Others, etc. Killing him when Jon actually believed the man to be an asset would be stupid.

What was wrong was to send a man down south/to Winterfell to 'save' Arya Stark. It was especially wrong to send Mance - because should he be captured and recognized Stannis and Jon wouldn't exactly become popular among the Northmen - but anyone else wouldn't have been much better.

Any man working under the orders of the Lord Commander interfering with the affairs of the Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North would inevitably become a problem. Even if he succeeded at his mission - what he did would eventually become known, and if the Boltons didn't punish Jon for that the Lannisters and the Iron Throne eventually would. And the Watch would suffer for that, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HaeSuse said:

Here's the funny part. The folks defending Jon, here (whom, I will reiterate for the 1000th time, I adore), say that keeping Mance alive was the right thing to do.

 

So... was it the wrong thing to do, to allow Mel to burn Mance? Because that was what Jon did originally. Completely support the burning alive of Mance Rayder. Not even beheading him. Not executing him. Not "swinging the sword because he gave the sentence". But, allowing a foreigner to burn him alive. Sure, it turned out to be Rattleshirt. Maybe you're all claiming he knew all along in his golden heart of hearts that it wasn't Mance! Or maybe it's yet another long winded, bending over backwards to pat your own back, dodging of the issue. But, Jon has both sentenced Mance to death, and allowed him to live, to serve his non-NW realm concerns. If you approve of one, you can't approve of the other. If you think letting him live to go do side-quests to level up in the realm is the right thing, then letting a witch burn him alive is the wrong thing. And vice versa. I think both were inherently wrong. But allowing him to live was the one that gave his brothers in the NW just cause to remove him from office. If you're gonna sentence him to death, swing the sword, Jon.  And, if you're gonna let him live, then resign as LC of the NW, and go about your life as a deserter. 

Jon never passed the sentence tough, that was Stannis. Jon pleads on Mance's behalf, and Stannis says no, he's a deserter and laws should be made of iron not pudding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Bowen or someone else could've shown Stannis who's the boss in the NW and put him, Mel and the army in their place for interfering in their affairs? Like he did with Jon, right? That's the right thing isn't it? Remove Stannis from office.

But wait, he couldn't. Because, power rules. Not some ancient vows and oaths you can keep when it suits you.

So asking from Jon to "allow" something in that position is nonsense.

He asked for help and Stannis helped.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And btw, to all those defending Bowen Marsh, here's what LC Mormont had to say about the man:

AGoT, Tyrion III

 In two years I will be seventy. Too old and too weary for the burden I bear, yet if I set it down, who will pick it up? Alliser Thorne? Bowen Marsh? I would have to be as blind as Maester Aemon not to see what they are.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2017 at 10:21 PM, 300 H&H Magnum said:

Of course he could meet those terms.  Better yet, if Jon was truly dedicated to protecting the realm and if he's responsible enough to put the needs of the many over the needs of Arya, he would surrender himself to Ramsay and admit that it was all his fault.  Remember, it was all Jon's fault to begin with for getting himself involved in Bolton affairs when he had no right to interfere with their activities in the first place.

Exactly.  It was Jon's decision to rescue Arya that angered the Boltons.  It was all Jon's fault and as I wrote Bowen was correct when he fired Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14.9.2017 at 0:35 AM, kissdbyfire said:

And btw, to all those defending Bowen Marsh, here's what LC Mormont had to say about the man:

AGoT, Tyrion III

 In two years I will be seventy. Too old and too weary for the burden I bear, yet if I set it down, who will pick it up? Alliser Thorne? Bowen Marsh? I would have to be as blind as Maester Aemon not to see what they are.

Jeor Mormont himself isn't exactly an exemplary Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. He tolerates whoring and turns a blind eye to sworn brothers of the Night's Watch breaking their vows at Molestown.

He also puts high hopes in Jon Snow not because he knows the boy as a person but because he is a Stark bastard and the nephew of his First Ranger. That is favoritism and sucking up to your (former) liege lord's family. We see how badly Mormont judges character when he actually think Jon would not try to kill Alliser Thorne for his taunting.

That doesn't mean Jon is a bad guy, of course, just that he is unstable youth - but it also shows that Mormont failed to see that. Just as he failed to realize that he was surrounded by cutthroats and mutineers after the Fist. He isn't exactly that great a judge of character.

Also remember that Mormont actually named Ser Alliser Thorne master-at-arms.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea Jon should have totally not have let the Wildlings in and allowed the Whitewalkers to murder them and join the army of the dead, also he should have allowed Ramsey Bolton to march on castle black btw which can't be defended from the South and allowed all his fellow brothers to be slaughtered..........  It was Jons duty as LC to just do stupid shit because that's what the Nightwatch do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jeor Mormont himself isn't exactly an exemplary Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. He tolerates whoring and turns a blind eye to sworn brothers of the Night's Watch breaking their vows at Molestown.

He does that because he is a realist too. He knows that if he kills every men who breaks his wows there will be no man at the Wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Wolf of The Wall said:

He does that because he is a realist too. He knows that if he kills every men who breaks his wows there will be no man at the Wall.

Exactly. Mormont was a good LC, and he at least knew what the Watch's purpose is. He also knew what kind of man Marsh is, and clearly he didn't think much of the man and was certain Marsh was not fit to be LC. Which doesn't matter, because he won't be anything once Tormund, Leathers and the rest are done w/ him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Wolf of The Wall said:

He does that because he is a realist too. He knows that if he kills every men who breaks his wows there will be no man at the Wall.

Nobody said anything about killing. But whoring is oathbreaking. And oathbreaking is a crime. Those men have to be punished if the Night's Watch is going to maintain discipline. The fact that Mormont didn't punish those men - say, by castration or perhaps only by putting them into an ice cell or giving them shit duties for a couple of months - shows he was a bad commander who couldn't maintain discipline and was encouraging his men to contemplate sedition or even treason.

If you have to work with the scum the NW has to work with you have to teach those men their place. Which Mormont didn't. Or at least did not do strongly enough.

I'm pretty confident that discipline was much better enforced under Lord Commander Rivers, say.

31 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Exactly. Mormont was a good LC, and he at least knew what the Watch's purpose is. He also knew what kind of man Marsh is, and clearly he didn't think much of the man and was certain Marsh was not fit to be LC. Which doesn't matter, because he won't be anything once Tormund, Leathers and the rest are done w/ him. 

Well, it was Mormont who made Bowen Marsh his Lord Steward, no? And Jon Snow who kept him as such. If Marsh was such a bad man then this also reflects badly on his commanders - especially if they claim to know how bad he is but did nothing to replace him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it was Mormont who made Bowen Marsh his Lord Steward, no? And Jon Snow who kept him as such. If Marsh was such a bad man then this also reflects badly on his commanders - especially if they claim to know how bad he is but did nothing to replace him.

Simply put, no. Bowen Marsh is the perfect bean counter, and as such he is absolutely not fit to command my dead nan let alone the NW. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Simply put, no. Bowen Marsh is the perfect bean counter, and as such he is absolutely not fit to command my dead nan let alone the NW. 

Sure it does. Every commander is responsible for the men under his command. If the NW sucks the Lord Commander is to blame, and if the officers of the NW suck the Lord Commander is to blame, too. Thus are the ways of military orders in this society. You see that on a less orderly setting with the men of the Mountain. Gregor's reputation reflects on them and decent men like Hasty won't suffer them under their command.

If Jon or Mormont don't want Marsh to succeed him they should made him the cook or a serving man, not the Lord Steward. The Lord Steward is a leading officer of the Watch and thus eligible to be elected Lord Commander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure it does. Every commander is responsible for the men under his command. If the NW sucks the Lord Commander is to blame, and if the officers of the NW suck the Lord Commander is to blame, too. Thus are the ways of military orders in this society. You see that on a less orderly setting with the men of the Mountain. Gregor's reputation reflects on them and decent men like Hasty won't suffer them under their command.

If Jon or Mormont don't want Marsh to succeed him they should made him the cook or a serving man, not the Lord Steward. The Lord Steward is a leading officer of the Watch and thus eligible to be elected Lord Commander.

No, it's two different things, don't you see it? Marsh is exactly where he is supposed to be: counting beans. That's what he's good at, and therefore having him as First Steward is the right decision. And that has fuck all to do w/ him being a bad option for LC. 

And I have no idea why you say "if Jon or Mormont don't want Marsh to succeed". Again, fuck all to do w/ anything, since that's not how leadership works in the NW. No one "succeeds" anyone else, and the position of LC is filled by the black brother w/ the most votes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh gosh, this debate again lol.  Been seeing this for 5+ years on this forum.  As I have said before, Marsh is consistently described as a good "counter" but nothing more.  Hence his role as a steward being the perfect and only role for him in the NW.  I think in his heart of hearts he means well and is true to the NW, but he's also the perfect example of what is wrong with the NW as he's an old man filled with old hatred for the wildlings which clouds his judgment.  In this way, I really don't understand why people feel the need to identify with Marsh and defend his actions.  He is wrong and written to be wrong about his views of the wildlings and the NW's true purpose.  We know Jon is right about this- it is not a legitimate plan to essentially stick your head in the ground and hope for the best, which is what Marsh is advocating.  We know that Jon has the right of the argument about the white walkers and the wildlings.

And again, Marsh is written specifically to be unlikable.  He is a Janos Slynt supporter and I believe he's written as a guy whose judgment has gone missing especially after his debacle running Castle Black when he was tricked by Mance and wounded in battle.  He has become cowardly and just wants to hide behind the Wall and hope for the best.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

No, it's two different things, don't you see it? Marsh is exactly where he is supposed to be: counting beans. That's what he's good at, and therefore having him as First Steward is the right decision. And that has fuck all to do w/ him being a bad option for LC.

No, the officers of the Watch are the pool from which the next lord commander is drawn. Not every man is eligible to be elected. Or else Hobb would have gotten more votes than he did.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

And I have no idea why you say "if Jon or Mormont don't want Marsh to succeed". Again, fuck all to do w/ anything, since that's not how leadership works in the NW. No one "succeeds" anyone else, and the position of LC is filled by the black brother w/ the most votes. 

LOL, no. Sure, the Lord Commander is elected but the group of people from which he is elected is the elite of the Watch. And the previous Lord Commander clearly sets and grooms his successor. That's what Mormont intended to do with Jon, that's why Benjen Stark's and his successors as First Ranger essentially were the most likeliest successors of the Old Bear. Sure, all men vote but not all men have the standing of actually being elected. You see this very well in Jon's election when the men actually follow the advice and endorsements of the men who withdraw from the race rather than their own opinions. Not to mention that part of the reason why people thought Jon would make a fine lord commander is because people told them the Old Bear had intended to groom him as his successor.

When Mallister and Pyke suddenly endorsed Jon the men of Eastwatch and the Shadow Tower supported him for the most part, very much indicating that most men there vote as they are told.

35 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

I shudder to think what some NW members would turn to if there were strict rules preventing them from seeking out whores in Mole's Town.

Again, that's what's castration is for in a world like this. I'm pretty sure that's how this problem was dealt with in the good old days when the Wall was a noble calling and men were considered to be 'fallen' and oathbreakers when they visited a brothel. That usually entails the attempt to father a child, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×