Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Barbrey Dustin

Bowen Marsh was right to remove Jon from office.

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

I never said that the previous 997 Lord Commander's considered the Wildlings friends, though I find it highly unlikely that the first couple of LC's though that way. In the time between the Long Night and the present events in the series both the NW, the Seven Kingdoms and the Wildlings had all forgotten the true purpose of the wall and they all came to believe that it was there for to defend against wildlings.

Actually during the NK's terror reign, Northerners and Joramun King Beyond the Wall joined forces to liberate the NW from him.

 

1 hour ago, HaeSuse said:

But there is a clear understanding (be it right or wrong) from several thousand years of black brothers, that it meant the realms south of the wall. There is even textual evidence to support that it was built for just that purpose. They clearly did not have Slaver's Bay in mind, when they built the wall. 

Actually the Wall is built to prevent the Others from gaining a large domain to engulf the whole world into a Long NIght. The Long Night is not just a local phenomenon that only operates in Westeros, but all of Planetos. Why else does every culture from Yi Ti to the North have stories about this and that hero saving the world otherwise?

So, yeah, the Wall was built to protect all of humanity, even those in Slaver's Bay.

And since George does make a comparison to our current issue of Global Warming, the threat of the Others is meant to be seen as a global threat able to destroy all of humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

Hardly, clearly as Lord Commander some of the men in the Nights watch will follow him but when he says I won't trouble your black crows, he clearly doesn't mean the entire Nights Watch but just Jon's "lackeys" so to speak. 

No. That fine distinction isn't expressed in any way in Ramsay's (if it was his, but that's another topic) courteous diplomatic note.

1 hour ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

Ramsay can't destroy the Nights watch,

If you mean "can't", then sure he can, it's been reiterated time and again that the Wall is indefensible from the south, and how weakass the Watch is nowadays.

And if you mean "he wouldn't do that, because that wouldn't be proper and well received", then let me remind you that we're talking about a man who had his wife raped by dogs. His second wife, I mean, not his first wife, whom he starved to death. Sorry, partially flayed and then starved to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Actually the Wall is built to prevent the Others from gaining a large domain to engulf the whole world into a Long NIght. The Long Night is not just a local phenomenon that only operates in Westeros, but all of Planetos. Why else does every culture from Yi Ti to the North have stories about this and that hero saving the world otherwise?

Even if so... It does not change the fact that just short of 1000 Lord Commanders have considered Wildlings a threat. Why call them wildlings if not? Why have "kings beyond the wall" build armies to forcefully invade the 7 kingdoms? Be it right or wrong (and look, I've admitted in this very thread that I agree that the wall was built to keep Others out, not wildlings), it is absolutely going against what the NW has done for thousands of years. There is no arguing that point. And, to boot, the other offenses. Not taking Mance's head. Letting Mance loose south of the wall, to do non-NW work. There were more than enough oaths broken, and rules unfollowed, to where, even if Jon is 100% right in his approach to the freefolk, he still abused/misused his powers as LC of the NW. So, bickering over this one thing becomes a moot point, regardless.

Share this post


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

Even if so... It does not change the fact that just short of 1000 Lord Commanders have considered Wildlings a threat. Why call them wildlings if not? Why have "kings beyond the wall" build armies to forcefully invade the 7 kingdoms? Be it right or wrong (and look, I've admitted in this very thread that I agree that the wall was built to keep Others out, not wildlings), it is absolutely going against what the NW has done for thousands of years. There is no arguing that point. And, to boot, the other offenses. Not taking Mance's head. Letting Mance loose south of the wall, to do non-NW work. There were more than enough oaths broken, and rules unfollowed, to where, even if Jon is 100% right in his approach to the freefolk, he still abused/misused his powers as LC of the NW. So, bickering over this one thing becomes a moot point, regardless.

Then why did you start bickering about it in the first place? So, your argument does not work out, and now it's "bickering over a moot point, regardless"?

Well, the other "offenses" have been addressed, and were not what you were going on about when you asked whether "Realms of Men" includes Slaver's Bay or not. If you think that is not the issue, at least have the grace to bow out and say, "okay, wildlings and slaver's Bay" do fall under "Realms of Men", instead of suddenly calling it irrelevant.

Share this post


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

1. Lord Commanders are allowed to host guests, especially those that save them. Giving Stannis advice is stretching his oath about and warning him about Karstark is a violation of the oath. Morally right, but still a violation. Responding to a threat made by Ramsay isn't a violation unless there is another way out. Which there isn't. Jon didn't send Mance to Winterfell. He allowed Mel to send him to Long Lake to intercept the fleeing girl betrothed to Ramsay (he thought) but Mance went to Winterfell on his own initiative.

2. Not really. She didn't burn any septs or godswoods or any of the brothers did she.

3. Yeah, that's true.

4. Yes, letting them through was right both morally and as LC. Even if it was against his oath, I would support it anyway, as would any smart or any way reasonable people.

5. No. The Stark's and their bannermen have fought alongside the NW before, without taking the black. In the coming novels a lot of people not in the NW will fight alongside them. So that shouldn't be an issue. What's wrong with women fighting? It's perfectly acceptable in wildling culture and while there is a stigma attached to it, it's not illegal or unheard of south of the wall.

1) Not just giving Stannis advice, but doing so while at the same time sending the Lannister lackeys a note saying "we aren't collaborating with the Stannis host!". Not just meddling in the affairs of the realm, but doing so on one side, while trying to play the other side! Sweet holy Drowned God, how much more clear can it be? "Go out into the mountains, the clansmen will rally to you!" ??? 

2) No, she just glamoured 2 key freefolk, burned the one who didn't need to burn, saved the other, and was attempting to use Kingsmen, Queensmen, NW, and Freefolk to accomplish her meddling BS goals, as usual. Is deceiving the LC of the NW, deliberately and completely lying to him, burning a man alive (who wasn't sentenced to death), and saving a man (who was sentenced to death) nothing to  you? What about influencing and manipulating Jon into the whole Abel/Spearwives/Arya plot?

3) Yeah it is. And how many of these offenses do you need in order to agree with the OP title?

4) No! I mean, if every lord in the 7 kingdoms says "NO"! and you only exists at the pleasure of the 7 kingdoms, then how/why can you justify this? Morally, I agree. But as LC? How? Are you saying the NW draws its power and autonomy from somewhere other than the Iron Throne? If the 7 kingdoms stopped sending men and money, it would cease to exist... IT would be like saying.... If President Trump ordered an absolute end to immigration, and got it approved by congress, and the Supreme Court... Then the Marines helping needy/starving/homeless/wartorn/refugee people immigrate.... Saying "that's justifiable by law!" No, it would not be! I'd still support it MORALLY, but there is no LEGAL defense of it. Same here.

5) The issue with women fighting isn't an issue with women fighting. I support a system where women can be soldiers, in our modern world. If they want a gun, and prove they can use, give it to them. The issue is putting women around men sworn to celibacy in combat situations (or at all).

Share this post


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

I never said that the previous 997 Lord Commander's considered the Wildlings friends, though I find it highly unlikely that the first couple of LC's though that way. In the time between the Long Night and the present events in the series both the NW, the Seven Kingdoms and the Wildlings had all forgotten the true purpose of the wall and they all came to believe that it was there for to defend against wildlings. They were wrong though, because the wall was originally built to protect all men against the Others.

It might have been funded and built by the Westerosi but that's only because that's where the Long Night took place. Even if you consider the phrase 'realms of men' to only mean the Westerosi, the Wildlings are still part of the realms of men.

As to your point about there being no evidence that the Wall wasn't meant to protect Essos as well; there is also no evidence to say it wasn't, nor is there any evidence to say that there have been 998 Lord Commanders, or that the Stark's, Martell's, Lannister's etc have ruled for 8000 years. In this series, history is deliberately incomplete and inaccurate. What can't be disputed is that the Nights Watch vow says they are to 'guard the realms of men'. Not 'guard the realms of men, but only those who swear fealty to one king or another'.

 

Again, we're arguing a point we agree about. For the 10th time this thread: I agree the wall wasn't intended to keep wildings out. I agree the wall was intended to stop the Others. I'm just saying that precedent goes a long way. And all precedent GRRM cared to share with us, pointed toward a neverending history of wildlings being a threat to the realms of man. Kings beyond the wall never said "Let us be the 8th kingdom!". They said "WE WILL NOT BEND THE KNEE, WE WILL CONQUER BY FORCE". Right? I mean, can you at least agree to that? And now there's another king beyond the wall doing the same thing. And he might even have a frikkin magical horn that will reduce the wall to rubble. 

 

And he's.... wait.... not the enemy?

I'm not saying he's more of an enemy than frozen zombie magic kings of cold, and all that jazz. But.... come on.... really?

Share this post


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

Are you saying the NW draws its power and autonomy from somewhere other than the Iron Throne?

The NW predates the IT for thousands of years. And if the IT didn't want it to be autonomous they should have actively commanded and manned it.

4 minutes ago, HaeSuse said:

If the 7 kingdoms stopped sending men and money, it would cease to exist

They have lands to make money of, in theory.

But overall the IT fucked the NW over, big time. In 300 years they went from 10k to 1000 men.

6 minutes ago, HaeSuse said:

The issue is putting women around men sworn to celibacy in combat situations (or at all).

:lmao: No, those women should be in Mole Town so the celibate men can go dig for treasure there, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marching south personally to save Arya was a betrayal of the Watch, Jon admits this himself. Beyond that the Pink Letter he reads makes he clear he spared Mance Rayder for the sake of his own family somehow. Marsh is not a mind reader. As for conspiracies, Jon was made LC by a conspiracy too, Sam gave false advice to the two main candidates and the only thing we know about the actual vote is that Sam, who is heavily comprimised in favor of Jon, counted the vote on behalf of blind Aemon. Marsh shown to be muttering on the side is nothing compared to that. Jon KNEW he was pushing the Watch by going against everything they stand for, and massivily emptying their food stores and destroying their ability to make it through the winter in so doing, dooming them all (for a good cause), and then he decided to push them further. Because he didn't want them anymore, we do hear his inner monologue. You back something in a corner and it'll strike back eventually, even a coward like Marsh. Still wasn't the right thing to do, but it was very understandable, lots of stuff that has gone on is less understandable.

Share this post


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

Then why did you start bickering about it in the first place? So, your argument does not work out, and now it's "bickering over a moot point, regardless"?

Well, the other "offenses" have been addressed, and were not what you were going on about when you asked whether "Realms of Men" includes Slaver's Bay or not. If you think that is not the issue, at least have the grace to bow out and say, "okay, wildlings and slaver's Bay" do fall under "Realms of Men", instead of suddenly calling it irrelevant.

You miss the point. I have agreed, and did from the start about that point. It is logically valid to say that.... 1) realms of men should include wildlings, when actually presented with the "real" threat of the Others. 2) During other times, when the "freefolk" are actively campaigning to do the "realms of men" harm by grouping up with a "king beyond the wall", it is just as reasonable to consider them "enemies". 3) It makes no sense to allow "men" and "women" into a realm bound under the law of a throne defined by serfism and feudalism, when those "men" and "women" refuse to do the "rightful king" leal service. 4) tradition plays a huge part in what the LC is expected to do 5) tradition, beyond the recollection of any living human being, says "wildlings are an enemy" 5) Mance was aiming to do the "realms of men" harm, and believed he could bring the wall down, and intended to posssibly do so, with the horn.

 

But the key point in all of those, is point 2. Let us presume that Jeor Mormont allowed wildlings to pass. Would he have been campaigned against by the brothers? Uh, yup. No doubt. Would he have been assassinated by his brothers? Who knows, but highly likely. Would the Iron Throne have kicked him out of there, alive or dead? You know they would have. It might not even have been the IT. Maybe Ned Stark would've, when 50k wildlings (who had been raping and pillaging his cities as long as he'd been alive) showed up. 

 

Would you be saying, in that case, "Nope. Jeor did the right thing, allowing Mance and his men through the wall?"

Or would you be saying "wildlings are enemies?" 

Laugh and mock me all you want, you've made a habit of it, now. That's fine. Take the white side, or the black side. You've done that consistently, as well. This one is as gray as any of them. And no matter whether it's light gray, or dark gray, he still refused to take Mance's head, and sent Mance to save his "sister", both of which are the breaking of oaths. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

Hardly, clearly as Lord Commander some of the men in the Nights watch will follow him but when he says I won't trouble your black crows, he clearly doesn't mean the entire Nights Watch but just Jon's "lackeys" so to speak. 

How can you possibly know that? That's right, you can't. 

 

3 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

Ramsay can't destroy the Nights watch, he could get away with Winterfell because anybody who survived is either beyond the Wall(bran) on a far-away island with a bunch of cannibals(Rickon)(Osha) or is a bunch of poor Northerner farm boys in Stannis's army.  Moat Cailin was taken by the Iron-born I don't see any problem with it unless you believe that the Iron-Born are rightful claimants of the towers and should have the right to stay in it? 

I know, I'm repeating myself, but what else can I do when you make totally unsupported claims that are nothing more than your opinion. So, again, how can you possibly know that? And again, you can't. 

3 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

Also no it isn't the most likely outcome, it's the one you can come up with to somehow justify Jon breaking his oath. 

*Yawn*. Don't need any other justification for Jon to break his oath other than he broke an oath for the greater good. And abso-fucking-lately yes, ridding the world of Ramsay Bolton is for the greater good. Also, CB is totally vulnerable to an attack from the south. You know that, right? And you should also know that before the wildlings came through, the crows at CB numbered less than 400. So yeah, Ramsay could very well put them all to the sword and be done with it, 

3 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

 

It doesn't matter, he already committed Treason and broke his oaths when he let Mance Rayder kidnap Arya Stark. By all intents and purposes Jon is a dead man either way. 

Which book(s) have you read? Where, when and how did Jon tell Mance to go and kidnap Arya Stark? :lmao:

*something went wrong with the quote thing and the rest of your post disappeared. I'll reply to that separately.

Share this post


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

It makes no sense to allow "men" and "women" into a realm bound under the law of a throne defined by serfism and feudalism, when those "men" and "women" refuse to do the "rightful king" leal service

Well, the Gift and the New Gift is not part of the 7 kingdoms and not under a king's control. A LC does not answer to a king on the IT, nor should his subjects in the Gift. If those subjects are wildlings who serve the Watch, then they don't have to kneel to a king. Which is exactly what Jon orders them to and keeps hostages for to ensure they would. Plenty of wildlings volunteered to man empty castles for Jon.

Those men and women that Stannis let through did kneel to the "rightful king" as far as I know.

5 minutes ago, HaeSuse said:

During other times, when the "freefolk" are actively campaigning to do the "realms of men" harm by grouping up with a "king beyond the wall", it is just as reasonable to consider them "enemies".

Depends on the freefolk's intentions. As I said, Joramun was "king beyond the wall" and meant no harm whatsoever to the "realms of men". He and his freefolk fought together with the North and Lord Stark against the Night's King.

It's quite clear that the majority of the freefolk seek refuge, rather than harm the realms of men. Those that do not and are unwilling not to harm the people they're bound to fight and live with will not be allowed to pass beyond the wall.

9 minutes ago, HaeSuse said:

tradition plays a huge part in what the LC is expected to

:rolleyes: Tradition is the poorest excuse ever, when it's based on prejudice and wilfull blindness, while times are-a-changing

11 minutes ago, HaeSuse said:

tradition, beyond the recollection of any living human being, says "wildlings are an enemy"

See Joramun, the first King Beyond the Wall mentioned and remembered in collective memory and stories.

12 minutes ago, HaeSuse said:

Mance was aiming to do the "realms of men" harm, and believed he could bring the wall down, and intended to posssibly do so, with the horn.

He was bluffing. He knew that horn was BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

 

You think Ned Stark when he stopped the deserters decided to listen to their side of the story and what sort of reasoning and thinking he used to decide to desert? No Ned Stark knew he was a deserter and was to be punished with death. He then beheaded him, no hesitation, no consideration of ulterior motives or interpretation of a letter. He was told what he did and was killed. Ramsay was doing something similar but instead offered a option instead of outright executed Jon which he would have been in the right for. 

Gods be good, where to start? Yes, Ned executed Gared and we are not privy to the convo he had w/ Gared before chopping his head off. And there's a reason we're not allowed to listen to what they say. And although Ned was totally within his right and his duty as Warden of the North, Gared's execution is one (of many) mistake(s) Ned made. 
And to,claim Ramsay was doing the same thing, only better b/c he gave Jon an option is not only incorrect b/c Ramsay is NOT Warden of North, but it's also ludicrous. As a matter of fact, any argument made in defence of Ramsay Bolton is preposterous, full stop.
 
3 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

 

I like Jon just as much as the next guy but attempting to pretend he didn't break his oath is sorta ridiculous. Do I fault Jon for the choice he made? No but by the law he is to be punished by death, whether by the Lord of Winterfell or by some of his sworn brothers, it makes no matter. 

No, what is truly ridiculous, and a HUGE reading comprehension fail, is to put adherence to vows and laws above the greater good and common sense. 

"Words are wind!"

3 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

 

How is it irrelevant? I am showing a example of how a democratically elected leader can be punished and killed and not the organization go through the same fate. 

I won't bother w/ your insistence on a silly real world example because it is irrelevant and silly and there's no place for it here.

3 hours ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

 

Thank you. 

You're welcome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 01/07/2017 at 4:14 PM, The Doctor's Consort said:

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

 

19 hours 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.

Not the Guest Right. But kinslaying. Because Jon and Bowen are brothers.

Share this post


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

The NW predates the IT for thousands of years. And if the IT didn't want it to be autonomous they should have actively commanded and manned it.

They have lands to make money of, in theory.

But overall the IT fucked the NW over, big time. In 300 years they went from 10k to 1000 men.

:lmao:No, those women should be in Mole Town so the celibate men can go dig for treasure there, right?

Right? Or as Jon said, set them to sew lacy smallclothes. After all, women must be either whores or mums. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HaeSuse said:

I like Jon. He's a good dude. Stuck in between a hundred loyalties, oaths, honors, families, and vows. What's a man to do?

 

Regardless of the love/hate thing going on here, and in the previous thread, I believe that the brothers who wanted him gone, had every reason to want him gone. While Jon's actions may have been the right things for him to do, they were not the right things for the 998th Lord Commander of the Night's Watch to do. I don't condone his murder. I don't appreciate or like his killers and their conspirators. I love Jon. I want him to do well, and end up on top at the end of these novels. But, the case against him as the LC is pretty strong.

 

  1. Taking part in the realm's concerns (20 times over): from fArya, to Stannis, to the Boltons
  2. Allowing a Red Witch to do her Red things, in her Red manners, which is an affront to all of the sworn brothers of the Night's Watch.
  3. Not killing Mance, after taking Janos's head (which I applaud, by the way. Stupid frog man Lannister lickspittle).
  4. Letting the Wildlings through. Which morally was the right thing to do. But, as LCotNW? 
  5. Arming wildlings (Even women) and allowing them to fight with the Brothers (a different thing entirely if they take the black).

HaeSuse

 

1. How's that famous quote again about good men doing nothing? 

 

2. It's called religious freedom. Jon didn't convert, and that was his main reason to decline Stannis' offer. But to each their own. As a matter of fact, several nightswatchmen did convert and are now followers of Red Rahloo. Should Jon have prevented that? Should he have forced men to follow the Faith or the Old Gods? I think not. 

 

3. We'll, he thought he had but later finds out that that was Rattleshirt. I can agree w/ the argument that Mance should have been executed b/c he is a deserter. But again, the man is worth a lot more alive than dead, and once again, if the law/custom/vow no longer serves the greater good, out with it. 

 

4. Yes, absolutely the right thing for the LC to do, not a shadow of a doubt in my mind. 

 

5. Of course arm them! Or should se set them to sew lacy smallclothes? And what's the problem w/ arming the women too? Many wildlings women are warriors, and they have every right and the duty to do their part and help in the upcoming battles.

 

And here in reply to another post of yours I can't find now, sorry. 

Are the inhabitants of New Ghis, Lys and Mereen human beings? If your answer here is "yes" then my own answer is Fuck yeah.

Share this post


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

You miss the point. I have agreed, and did from the start about that point. It is logically valid to say that.... 1) realms of men should include wildlings, when actually presented with the "real" threat of the Others. 2) During other times, when the "freefolk" are actively campaigning to do the "realms of men" harm by grouping up with a "king beyond the wall", it is just as reasonable to consider them "enemies". 3) It makes no sense to allow "men" and "women" into a realm bound under the law of a throne defined by serfism and feudalism, when those "men" and "women" refuse to do the "rightful king" leal service. 4) tradition plays a huge part in what the LC is expected to do 5) tradition, beyond the recollection of any living human being, says "wildlings are an enemy" 5) Mance was aiming to do the "realms of men" harm, and believed he could bring the wall down, and intended to posssibly do so, with the horn.

 

But the key point in all of those, is point 2. Let us presume that Jeor Mormont allowed wildlings to pass. Would he have been campaigned against by the brothers? Uh, yup. No doubt. Would he have been assassinated by his brothers? Who knows, but highly likely. Would the Iron Throne have kicked him out of there, alive or dead? You know they would have. It might not even have been the IT. Maybe Ned Stark would've, when 50k wildlings (who had been raping and pillaging his cities as long as he'd been alive) showed up. 

 

Would you be saying, in that case, "Nope. Jeor did the right thing, allowing Mance and his men through the wall?"

Or would you be saying "wildlings are enemies?" 

Laugh and mock me all you want, you've made a habit of it, now. That's fine. Take the white side, or the black side. You've done that consistently, as well. This one is as gray as any of them. And no matter whether it's light gray, or dark gray, he still refused to take Mance's head, and sent Mance to save his "sister", both of which are the breaking of oaths. 

Jon is not Jeor, Jeor didn't come to the Wall just a few years ago and then spend most of that away on an expedition few lived to recall him from or outright with wildlings. Jeor didn't become LC in an election Stannis was heavily involved in, if he supported him, the Watch would have cause to see it as an impartial decision. Jeor didn't spent as much time with wildlings as with the Watch, again if he made the decision Jon did, it would be impartial. Nor is Arya Jeor's sister. All these things were the right thing to do, but Jon had no business to make them for the Watch as he as personal investements he ought not to have everywhere, Sam hoodwinked people into giving him that job, Jon knows this, and furthermore knows that the reason Sam got away with it is because Stannis gave them a timelimit. The Watch has every reason to subscribe motives beyond the wellbeing of the Watch or the realms of men to Jon (and they would be right), whereas they'd have little reason to see them in Jeor. He was been there for decades and has consolidated his power and might now be in position to make changes. Jon came in out of blue, did it overnight without expecting blowback.

Share this post


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

It really does come down to the white/black readers, and the gray readers. To a lot of people Jon is just holy untouchable savior land. And Tyrion is a misshapen horrible beast. And Ramsay is indefensible "full stop". 

Jon is gray. Tyrion is gray. GRRM explicitly wrote this set of books to have no white or black characters, but some readers have to have a good guy, and a bad guy. So be it. Pick your sides and scream about them. It's all good.

I never really liked the "everyone is gray so there is no good or bad people" argument.  Sure everyone is gray to the point that no one is perfect, or evil incarnate.  But two of your examples, Jon and Ramsay.  Jon is a guy I could see myself following, which is pretty rare in the real world.  And Ramsay would be a guy that I would think needs to be killed immediately, which again, IMHO, is pretty rare in the real world.

A story still has to have heros and villians, it's still just a story, and GrrM isn't reinventing the wheel when it comes to writing books.

Share this post


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

It really does come down to the white/black readers, and the gray readers. To a lot of people Jon is just holy untouchable savior land. And Tyrion is a misshapen horrible beast. And Ramsay is indefensible "full stop". 

Jon is gray. Tyrion is gray. GRRM explicitly wrote this set of books to have no white or black characters, but some readers have to have a good guy, and a bad guy. So be it. Pick your sides and scream about them. It's all good.

I disagree. I know, shocking, but there you go. I do agree Jon is grey as are most characters. Most, not all. Ramsay is not grey, not by any stretch of the imagination, but that's another discussion that belongs elsewhere. My point is, yes, Jon is grey. He breaks vows and customs for the greater good, that's what being grey is, in part, all about. Feeling extremely conflicted about difficult decisions that must be made, and still being honourable enough to make the right decisions despite what the law says or whatever vow one swore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve got a soft spot for the book version of Jon Snow.

Most members of the NW believe as they have believed for bunches of years that the wildlings or free folk are the enemy. They would be leery of the transactions LC Snow is undertaking.

Jon & the group of men who went ranging with Mormont understand the true threat. The wildlings/free folk understand the true threat.

There was a plot to rid the NW of Snow. The plot centers on Slynt and Thorne. I find it very difficult to believe Marsh is the brains behind the assassination attempt on LC Snow.

Technically speaking the moment Mance was revealed to LC Snow, Jon should have taken him into custody for being a deserter from the NW.

Except, that does not seem to be the way Martin wanted the story to go.

 

Jon, believes because of the wedding invitation that may have been forwarded by an unknown northman, that the girl on the horse in Mel’s vision is his sister, Arya.

This is before the pink/bastard letter. I think(?).

Like I said, LC Snow when discovering the Rattleshirt/Mance switcharoo should have taken Mance into custody. Complicated isn’t it, considering all the stuff that is transpiring.

LC Snow did not send Mance and his spearwives to WF. That can’t be used in arguments as to whether LC Snow is a traitor deserving of death. LC Snow sent Mance to intercept a girl near a lake. Mance for some odd reason ended up at WF.

This frekking mind fuck of a pink/bastard letter ends up at the Wall threatening the LC and the NW.

Where is Martin taking the story? What juicy bit of information is Martin going to reveal in his pending WoW book number six of ASOIAF? It took three books to discover who tried to kill Bran. I’m still not sure about who instigated Joffrey’s death.

Like the snowflake or not ---- LC Snow did not send Mance to WF. When the Mance/Rattleshirt reveal came about LC Snow should have taken Mance into custody. He didn’t. Hell, Jon even tried to convince Stannis of Mance’s importance.

Why did Martin do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Why did Martin do that?

I said it a lot of times. But my view is the vows concept is a slavery. One you put on yourself. Whether it is because you end up serving the wrong person. Or because it makes you do something you think is wrong. What did Jon was right. Nearly all along. But the vows were telling him otherwise. Therefore the vows are wrong. This is the stale concept of honor. Fucking stupidity. Think larger man! Where did it send Ned? You do what you believe is right. The gods, or a just Commander, will judge you for that. Take your responsibility!

Share this post


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

×