Jump to content

Archived

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

Damsel in Distress

The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

We know that brothers broke their vows constantly  under Mormont, he looked the other way and gave chances and would explain his decisions to them in private, unless he was offering Jon preferential treatment when he spoke to him in private. 

Jon, who is literally fantasizing about chopping Slynt's head off that very morning, is trying to isolate Slynt and giving him a shit position based to rid himself off him. 

Jon was looking for an excuse to murder someone, as far as we know Mormont has never been in the same position. 

Apples and pears. We are not talking about breaking the vow of chastity, we are talking about very public insubordination and insolence toward the commander in a paramilitary organisation consisting mainly of men of dubious morals. If it was Mormont giving Slynt the same order, and if Slynt dared to respond to him the same way he did to Jon, how would Mormont react?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Apples and pears. We are not talking about breaking the vow of chastity, we are talking about very public insubordination and insolence toward the commander in a paramilitary organisation consisting mainly of men of dubious morals. If it was Mormont giving Slynt the same order, and if Slynt dared to respond to him the same way he did to Jon, how would Mormont react?

Like @Bernie Mac says; Who can say? Perhaps Jeor would have lashed Janos bloody; or put him in a icy cage for a couple hours or days(as Jon mulls over as an option to use as a punishment for Slynt but decides against),  or found another way to both teach the lesson of you should obey your lord commander  and not deprive the watch as a brother

And speaking honestly, the vow of chastity is still a vow-Mormont is lenient here but I don't think anyone would argue that he would be in his rights should he execute or castrate a brother who breaks it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Like @Berniemack Who can say? Perhaps Jeor would have lashed Janos bloody; or put him in a icy cage for a couple hours or days(as Jon mulls over as an option to use as a punishment for Slynt but decides against),  or ound another way to both teach the lesson of you should obey your lord commander  and not deprive the watch as a brother

Yep. He does consider it, and reject it. And were Mormont in the same situation, do you think he wouldn't go along the same line of reasoning as Jon did? Do you think Jon's assessment of Slynt as detrimental to the unity and morale of the Watch was incorrect?

—and confine him to an ice cell, he might have said. A day or ten cramped up inside the ice would leave him shivering and feverish and begging for release, Jon did not doubt. And the moment he is out, he and Thorne will begin to plot again.
and tie him to his horse, he might have said. If Slynt did not wish to go to Greyguard as its commander, he could go as its cook. It will only be a matter of time until he deserts, then. And how many others will he take with him?

 

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And speaking honestly, the vow of chastity is still a vow-Mormont is lenient here but I don't think anyone would argue that he would be in his rights should he execute or castrate a brother who breaks it. 

Yes, he would definitely be within his rights. Did his lenience undermine the ability of the Watch to act?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Apples and pears.

no, not really. 

Quote

 

We are not talking about breaking the vow of chastity, we are talking about very public insubordination and insolence toward the commander in a paramilitary organisation consisting mainly of men of dubious morals.

Exactly, when we see the trainee Jon attack one of his commanders in the same Hall with a dagger, infront of men with dubious morals Mormont does not throw the book at him for doing something worse than verbal insubordination, he takes him aside

Quote

 

If it was Mormont giving Slynt the same order, and if Slynt dared to respond to him the same way he did to Jon, how would Mormont react?

nothing in the books suggests that Mormont would have acted i the same way as Jon

1 hour ago, Leonardo said:

Slynt was worth waaaay more as an example than he was on the Watch.

you might want to actually read the chapter again, Jon is well aware of the example he is setting, the officers of the watch, the same people who ended up  murdering him are taking notice of what happens if you disagree with Robb, he executes you. 

Some had chosen Jon to be their lord commander. Others had cast their stones for Bowen Marsh, Ser Denys Mallister, Cotter Pyke … and some for Janos Slynt. Hundreds of them, as I recall. Jon wondered how many of those men were in the cellar right now. For a moment the world balanced on a sword's edge.

 

Quote

 

He was a coward,

he is not. this is one of the most tiresome aspects of the fandom, the idea that they think of the series like a fairy tale were all the villains are cowards

Quote

he sucked, he had no valuable skills

he is literally the most qualified leader on the wall, he has commanded 2,000 Gold Cloaks and policed an entire city,, given that Jon has no experience of the former and is in desperate need to police the wildlings behind the wall against the mountain clans and other northern people then his experience could have proven invaluable at keeping the north content with his decision to settle the wildlings on the new gift. 

Quote

aside from being able to read,

well first of all, clearly wrong, a butcher's son does not rise to the position of commander of the Gold Cloaks without having more going for him than being able to read

secondly Jon was sending Aemon and Sam away (someone who he argued should be exempt from passing his training because of how valuable his reading ability was) so having more people who could read and write was a necessity

 

Quote

 

and he was a prime member of the coalition looking to shit on Jon's command, oppose it at every turn,

and considering members of this coalition ended up murdering when they disagreed with his breaking of his vows it clearly did not help improve relations. 

once you start killing people who disagree with you, you put them in a place were they don't think you will listen to reason.  the killing of Slynt over such a petty reason created divisions that Jon would never be able to heal. 

Quote

 

and was also stupid.

again, based on what? 

you are speaking like this is a book for toddlers where all the baddies are cowards and stupids and the goodiess always make the right decision. 

Quote

 

He was completely insubordinate more than once and undermined the Lord Commander's watch totally and entirely. He shit on the opportunity to lead a garrison, which should be an honor, therefore devaluing the position to the next man.

Are you kidding with this? it was not meant to be an honour, we have Jon's thoughts on the subject, he, nor anyone else considered it an honour. 

the fact that you are being so disingenuous in this discussion speaks volumes. 

Quote

 

Jon fantasizes about it, then denies his impulses 

no, he gives into his impulses, and he was hoping that Thorne would give him the same opening

Janos Slynt's face went as white as milk. The spoon slipped from his fingers. Edd and Emmett crossed the room, their footsteps ringing on the stone floor. Bowen Marsh's mouth opened and closed though no words came out. Ser Alliser Thorne reached for his sword hilt. Go on, Jon thought. Longclaw was slung across his back. Show your steel. Give me cause to do the same.

jon was looking to rid himself of his enemies. He would not have killed Grenn, Pyp or Emmett if they had been insubordinate, when Sam initially refuses to go to the Citadel he is not punished for it. 

Quote

 

If you're really looking to poke at Jon's impartiality, you should be bringing up Alliser, which almost certainly had to do with getting rid of someone who was actively trying to connive and usurp his command in secret at every opportunity. Janos had almost no value, while Alliser had plenty of value to the Watch in a dark time.

you are confusing the show with the books, a man who had risen from the bottom to lead the gold cloaks clearly had value

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:
Quote

 

Exactly, when we see the trainee Jon attack one of his commanders in the same Hall with a dagger, infront of men with dubious morals Mormont does not throw the book at him for doing something worse than verbal insubordination, he takes him aside

In case someone thinks @Bernie Mac is lying or merely exaggerating things; 

Jon VII

In the blink of an eye, Jon had vaulted onto the table, dagger in his hand. Pyp made a grab for him, but he wrenched his leg away, and then he was sprinting down the table and kicking the bowl from Ser Alliser's hand. Stew went flying everywhere, spattering the brothers. Thorne recoiled. People were shouting, but Jon Snow did not hear them. He lunged at Ser Alliser's face with the dagger, slashing at those cold onyx eyes, but Sam threw himself between them and before Jon could get around him, Pyp was on his back clinging like a monkey, and Grenn was grabbing his arm while Toad wrenched the knife from his fing

 

Jesus Christ, I can't believe I forgot just how violent Jon's confrontation with Allister over laughing about Ned's execution was.  Morrmont really had to be one of the most lenient commanders the watch has ever had if a trainee can attempt to murder a superior over the superior hurting said trainees feeling and not get any real punishment. 

I withdraw my claim that Jeor would have to punish Jon if he brazenly attempted to desert in front of everybody instead of the dead of night. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah, didn't Jon say himself afterwards that he was hoping that Alliser Thorne would take the bait so he could execute him aswell?Isn't that the whole premise of these books, that nothing in life is fair and no single character is completely white in morality. Had Janos won the election he would also be trying his hardest to have Jon executed, and I bet he would have been alot less subtle about it.

Jon took Janos aside the previous day and gave him his orders, Janos refused so Jon gave him basically 24 hours so he could sleep on it, yet the next day he still hadn't followed his orders, and then when Jon called him out on it Janos insulted him in front of all the men at Castle Black. It reminds me alot of Robb's beheading of Rickard Karstark in some ways. 

Do I think its some crowning moment of badassery on Jon's part? No. Do I think it was a justified execution? Yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What are the other options at that point? Jon(the beloved bastard of Eddard Stark who the lanisters executed) send a needlessly cryptic letter saying the watch is in need help to fight things largely consigned as myth and hope they don't(obviously) see it  as a merely a lame plan to get more men and/or justify their harboring of Stannis?

When the shield that guards the realms of men writes a letter and says they need help, YOU LISTEN. Why the fuck would it matter what the name of the foe is? The foe are the wights/Others, not people. The NW is doing their job, fulfilling their true purpose. Many things in this world have multiple names for the same entity, so the name doesn’t matter. 

Cersei’s ego defining pride got in the way and has now greatly endangered the realm. That’s it. George did not write characters like Slynt and Cersei to be secretly sweet people. He wrote them as antagonists, and that is what they do; they antagonize the situation for the protagonist, or “hero”.  

 

And in general, funny that many here complain that Jon Snow is too predictable and too “perfect”, yet when the author puts Jon in a situation that shows he is not so perfect, posters STILL complain. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Damsel in Distress said:

Mormont cut Jon some slack for his desertion of the watch and for breaking his vows.   Jon could have shown the same mercy to Janos Slynt, whose offense was a lot less than his own.  His execution of Janos Slynt was personal and made a mockery of justice when he later allowed the most insubordinate Night's Watch brother of them all in Mance Rayder walk away unpunished.   That is not proper conduct for a leader and a disgrace for a lord commander.  The appropriate punishment and wisest decision would have been to lock Slynt in one of the cells.  Jon was thinking of Ned when he killed Slynt.  It was personal.  Jon was not objective when he passed judgment on Janos Slynt.  Whatever Slynt may have done during his life before the took the black is no longer important.  Any brother who takes the black get their past crimes forgiven.  

 

:agree:   

 

The execution of Janos Slynt was a corruption of justice.  It is another example of Jon's lack of objectivity in matters involving the Starks.  Jon was an unfit commander.  I can see why Bowen Marsh and the other men would want to remove Jon from office.   He gave a sworn brother the death penalty for something minor and gave the biggest offender in Mance a free pass.  I don't think Jon is emotional but he is a complete moron.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Jesus Christ, I can't believe I forgot just how violent Jon's confrontation with Allister over laughing about Ned's execution was. 

Ned's imprisonment, not his execution.

His punishment was way too light, though. Imprisoned in his room, not even in one of the ice cells. He let Jon keep his wolf, too, for some reason. Admittedly, it turned out to be a good decision on Mormont's part, but there was no way he'd have known the dead would rise and that he'd need Jon's help.

I agree that Jon didn't need to kill Slynt. There was plenty he could have done to punish him, without killing him. He could have had him scourged, imprisoned in the ice cells, had one of his hands off, had his tongue out. He could have set him on triple shifts mucking out the stables, had him be the cooks servant, put him in the stocks for all to jeer at. He could have sent him to another of the castles, one under the command of a brother he trusts. Killing him was foolish and wasteful, all emotion, no thought. Amusingly, I'm seeing a nice parallel to Joffrey's execution of Ned.

15 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

When the shield that guards the realms of men writes a letter and says they need help, YOU LISTEN.

That shield hasn't guarded the realms of men for thousands of years. According to the stories the wildlings tell, the last time a King-beyond-the-Wall actually threatened the realms of men, the Starks had to take charge of the situation. When anybody claims that they need help against myths, you don't listen. Not without proof. Especially not when they're housing traitors.

18 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

George did not write characters like Slynt and Cersei to be secretly sweet people.

I don't think anybody's accusing Slynt of being a real sweetie-pie, just that he didn't deserve to be executed. He was already punished for the crime he was executed for; all crimes are washed away when someone takes their vows. Slynt's insubordination required punishment, yes, but not execution.

21 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

And in general, funny that many here complain that Jon Snow is too predictable and too “perfect”, yet when the author puts Jon in a situation that shows he is not so perfect, posters STILL complain. 

Presumably, most of those are different people. People who dislike Jon, or dislike some of Jon's actions, don't necessarily dislike Jon or those actions for the same reasons. I'm sure there are hypocrites with those opinions, sure, but there are hypocrites with all kinds of opinions. People will complain about everything. Though by "complain", I really mean "be opinionated". Calling the discussions here "complaints" seems unnecessarily combative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

When the shield that guards the realms of men writes a letter and says they need help, YOU LISTEN. Why the fuck would it matter what the name of the foe is? The foe are the wights/Others, not people. The NW is doing their job, fulfilling their true purpose. Many things in this world have multiple names for the same entity, so the name doesn’t matter. 

Cersei’s ego defining pride got in the way and has now greatly endangered the realm. That’s it. George did not write characters like Slynt and Cersei to be secretly sweet people. He wrote them as antagonists, and that is what they do; they antagonize the situation for the protagonist, or “hero”.  

 

And in general, funny that many here complain that Jon Snow is too predictable and too “perfect”, yet when the author puts Jon in a situation that shows he is not so perfect, posters STILL complain. 

 

To mangle a cinematic reference............Jesus, Grandpa, what did I read this thing for?  You know what I'm saying? 

I really don't see the situations of Jon's outburst at Thorne and Slynt's continued disobedience and almost outright mutinous behavior as comparable.  Jon was a young recruit at the time, not even 'adult' in this world, and Slynt is a grown man, a known quantity.  There is nothing to wait and see about when it came to Slynt in these circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

That shield hasn't guarded the realms of men for thousands of years.

And? Do you see the irony that the author is writing in to the story? 

Quote

 

According to the stories the wildlings tell, the last time a King-beyond-the-Wall actually threatened the realms of men, the Starks had to take charge of the situation. When anybody claims that they need help against myths, you don't listen. Not without proof. Especially not when they're housing traitors.

Asking for proof sounds like some show talk. Cersei already has a dead guy in her service. She is acting as Queen and the Queen (and King) is supposed to be the protector of the realm. Do you see the irony in the protector not protecting, but the “bastard” trying to do his job is? This is one of the reasons why GRRM says he put the NW in Black, which was to undo the white knight trope because in his story the NW in black are the heroes. It is very basic protagonist vs antagonist. 

Quote

 

And now the quoter is going wonky. But anyway, me using the word and making the general statement that people are still complaining is not combative. Come on. 

Share this post


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

This is so true, GRRM is being more than clear that Jon overreacted, he has him fantasizing about killing Slynt on the morning of the day he sentences him to death. 

That he did, albeit with poor grace, crossing his arms, scowling, and ignoring the naked steel in his lord commander's hands. Jon slid the oilcloth down his bastard sword, watching the play of morning light across the ripples, thinking how easily the blade would slide through skin and fat and sinew to part Slynt's ugly head from his body. All of a man's crimes were wiped away when he took the black, and all of his allegiances as well, yet he found it hard to think of Janos Slynt as a brother. There is blood between us. This man helped slay my father and did his best to have me killed as well.
"Lord Janos." Jon sheathed his sword. "I am giving you command of Greyguard."
 
 
He was looking for a reason to kill the man who executed his father and he found it. Human nature is still stronger than the vows of the nights watch, Jon's desire for revenge was always going to win out. 
 
 

Wrong! (to the bolded part in black) - Jon thought, how easy it will be to just kill Janos, that there's blood between them, and he hates him, etc., though he wasn't going to act on those feelings. Giving Greyguard to Janos, wasn't Jon's trick to make the guy to rebell. He really was going to let him go there, and command that castle. You totally misinterpreted Jon's intentions. He did the opposite, of what you think. He was willing to let it slide, whatever Janos did before, whatever he did to Ned and Jon, Jon was letting him go unpunished. If Janos obeyed his order, the past between them would have been forgotten, at least on Jon's side. But that blatant disregard of his order, he couldn't let slide. Not after what other watchers did to previous Lord Commander. So Jon had to show to everyone, that disobedience will be severely punished. And there was nothing personal in it.

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The second he'd left castle black without leave(I.e abandon his post-seriously where would the cut off point be if not there? ) with clear intent to never come back he could've been easily charged and executed for desertion if Jeor was inclined to-luckily Jon, Jeor was sympathetic, and could easily be kept secret-the boy had potential to be a valuable member-it'd be a shame to kill him if it isn't absolutely necessary. If Jon or anyone attempted to desert to go help out some family in front of everyone the person who tried this would have to be executed-else more would follow with the expectation when caught they merely need to say they are willing to go back and resume their duties to avoid punishment. 

:agree:

Many Watchers frequently went to Mole's Town, to visit whores. They were also gone for a night, or so. But none were executed for that. They broke two rules - left their posts, and slept with women. Jon broke only one rule - left his post. So why should he be punished, for lesser violation, compared with what others did. If others were forgiven for leaving their posts, than Jon also has a right to be treated the same way.

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

We know that brothers broke their vows constantly  under Mormont, he looked the other way and gave chances and would explain his decisions to them in private, unless he was offering Jon preferential treatment when he spoke to him in private. 

But that's totally different thing. Those others, they didn't said to Mormont's face, in public, that they are going to Mole's Town, to fuck whores, and that they don't care, what Mormont thinks about it. They did it in secret, they sneaked away at night, behind his back. So even though, what they did, was against NW's rules, it wasn't a blatant in-your-face disregard of direct order, given by Lord Commander, in presence of entire NW.

For offence, done in public, the punishment also should be done in public.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Slynt was murdered because he killed Ned. 

Jon let Slynt to stay unpunished, for what was done to Ned. Slynt was executed for disobeying Lord Commander's order, and declining to take back his refusal, even when he was given second chance.

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What are the other options at that point? Jon(the beloved bastard of Eddard Stark who the lanisters executed) send a needlessly cryptic letter saying the watch is in need help to fight things largely consigned as myth and hope they don't(obviously) see it  as a merely a lame plan to get more men and/or justify their harboring of Stannis?

Jon's letter wasn't the first request of help, from NW to King's Landing, and Lannisters/Crown ignored all of those previous inquiries, same as later they have ignored Jon's. Mormont wrote letter. And more than one. He even sent a messenger, with dead hand, to King's Landing. Qyburn took that hand, studied it, and used, what he learned from that, to revive the Mountain. He knew, that what Watchers said, about the walking dead, was true. Nevertheless, they didn't sent any help. Those people, that they did sent, were a decoy. Cersei has sent a killer to murder Jon, and with him has sent other people, for them to be a cover for that killer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Exactly, when we see the trainee Jon attack one of his commanders in the same Hall with a dagger, infront of men with dubious morals Mormont does not throw the book at him for doing something worse than verbal insubordination, he takes him aside

:blink: He didn't just took him aside! Jon was put under guard. And they were going to punish him next morning. Maybe they were even going to execute him.

So it was very lucky for Jon, that those two wights has chosen to raise on that night. Jon was spared of his punishment, because he saved life of Lord Commander, and also made a discovery, how to kill wights. Jon didn't killed Thorne, he only attacked him. So attack on one of NW's commanders was forgiven, for saving life of NW's Lord Commander.

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And speaking honestly, the vow of chastity is still a vow-Mormont is lenient here but I don't think anyone would argue that he would be in his rights should he execute or castrate a brother who breaks it. 

Technically sex is not forbidden for Watchers. The vow says, 'I won't take a wife', not 'I will be celibate/won't have sex'. So, if there is a 'no sex' rule in NW, then it's one of additional rules, and not part of the official vow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As it should. Who wants to read a story about a hero who acts like a robot, putting aside all personal feeings in favour of duty?

Would be super boring.

Except Jon is not a hero.  Sam is boring but he's a better read than Jon.

Share this post


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

Many Watchers frequently went to Mole's Town, to visit whores. They were also gone for a night, or so. But none were executed for that. They broke two rules - left their posts, and slept with women. Jon broke only one rule - left his post. So why should he be punished, for lesser violation, compared with what others did. If others were forgiven for leaving their posts, than Jon also has a right to be treated the same way.

Jon didn't leave his post to get naked with the ladies.  He broke his vows because he wanted to leave permanently.  He was going to war with the Lannisters to help the Starks.  I hope you can see just how wrong Jon was.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it fascinating how the OP is actually an interesting observation of Jon being a complex character with his own downfalls - in this specific case a need for vengeance, but some people are hell-bent on making Jon out to be as boring and infallible as they possibly can.

In the words of the wise Christopher Walken - Shame on you, so called Jon Snow fans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

When the shield that guards the realms of men writes a letter and says they need help, YOU LISTEN. Why the fuck would it matter what the name of the foe is? The foe are the wights/Others, not people. The NW is doing their job, fulfilling their true purpose. Many things in this world have multiple names for the same entity, so the name doesn’t matter. 

Yeah no. It's ridiculous to pretend anyone who hasn't read ASOIF should take Jon's letter seriously given it doesn't even specifically cite what "foe" he's talking about, and ignore  he has every reason to lie to them given he's being shown to have given shelter to House Lanister's enemies and he's the son of the man they killed.

The most logical conclusion that the "foes" Jon are referencing is merely the savages beyond that come south of the wall to raid and pillage and rape smallfolk of the north-which ultimatey seems more like a northern problem, to which if the watch truly falls short of doing its duty, the northern lords can probably step in and handle it themselves. 

The watch always asks for more aid to keep the realm safe; what exactly is so special about Jon's request? 

3 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Cersei’s ego defining pride got in the way and has now greatly endangered the realm. That’s it. George did not write characters like Slynt and Cersei to be secretly sweet people. He wrote them as antagonists, and that is what they do; they antagonize the situation for the protagonist, or “hero”.  

 

 

Why are you singling out Cersi? No other power in the realm(besides Stannis-and that's because he's got a witch to show him what's up), took the Watch's pleads for far more aid that seriously, and at times simply thought of ways on how to capitalize on it, Tywin thinks, the watch being weak  could help in the crown's war-effort, Robb planned to give the watch the manpower it's been asking for in exchange for Jon, hell Tyrion only sent men but he did so because he remembered the eerie feeling he had at the wall-if not for that he would simply laughed at Allister who declared unambiguous, the watch needed help to fight the dead. 

Cersi doesn't have to be sweet to not automatically halt everything because the boy-lord of the watch is saying the watch needs help to fight off the true "foes". 

 

 

2 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:
Quote

 

Asking for proof sounds like some show talk. Cersei already has a dead guy in her service. She is acting as Queen and the Queen (and King) is supposed to be the protector of the realm. Do you see the irony in the protector not protecting, but the “bastard” trying to do his job? This is one of the reasons why GRRM says he put the NW in Black, which was to undo the white knight trope because in his story the NW in black are the heroes. It is very basic protagonist vs antagonist. 

No asking for proof is totally sensible even for Cersi. At the point Cersi and her small council receive Jon's letter, Gregore is still being  experimented on by Qyburn, who stated his experiments were merely for the purpose founding out more about the poison Doran infected Gregore with;  

A Feast for Crows - Cersei II

"Tend to him?" She laughed. "Let Ser Ilyn tend to him."
"If that is Your Grace's wish," Qyburn said, "but this poison . . . it would be useful to know more about it, would it not? Send a knight to slay a knight and an archer to kill an archer, the smallfolk often say. To combat the black arts . . He did not finish the thought, but only smiled at her.He is not Pycelle, that much is plain. The queen weighed him, wondering. Why did the Citadel take your chain?"
 
He is not Pycelle, that much is plain. The queen weighed him, wondering. "Why did the Citadel take your chain?"
"The archmaesters are all craven at heart. The grey sheep, Marwyn calls them. I was as skilled a healer as Ebrose, but aspired to surpass him. For hundreds of years the men of the Citadel have opened the bodies of the dead, to study the nature of life. I wished to understand the nature of death, so I opened the bodies of the living. For that crime the grey sheep shamed me and forced me into exile . . . but I understand the nature of life and death better than any man in Oldtown."

Do you?" That intrigued her. "Very well. The Mountain is yours. Do what you will with him, but confine your studies to the black cells. When he dies, bring me his head. My father promised it to Dorne. Prince Doran would no doubt prefer to kill Gregor himself, but we all must suffer disappointments in this life."

 Hell Qyburn provides a head labeled as Gregore and not really implied Cersi in the know of what Qyburn is actually doing to Gregore-hell in the very chapter Cersi receives Jon's letter she refers to Gregore quite clearly in the past tense; Cersi IV "He will be at Harrenhal, if he is still alive. GregorClegane took him captive." The Mountain had not always been gentle with his prisoners, even those worth a goodly ransom. "If he is dead, I suppose we will need to send Lord Manderly the heads of those who killed him, with our most sincere apologies." If one head was enough to appease a prince of Dorne, a bag of them should be more than adequate for a fat northman wrapped in sealskins.

Its  unlikely she ever figured Qyburn would/could literally make a zombie-why would she? Qyburn has done nothing yet to show he can back up his claims

And again Jon Snow did not say ice-zombies were coming-there is no reason for the automatic assumption  for the "foes" he's referencing are the wildlings who just attacked Castle black and whose been the stated enemy of civilization by the people of the seven kingdoms. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Megorova said:

:blink: He didn't just took him aside! Jon was put under guard. And they were going to punish him next morning. Maybe they were even going to execute him.

no, they were not. There is zero evidence in the books that he was going to be executed. Is this really what it comes to, making up shit because you don't like the fact that Jon is a fallible human being guilty of the same emotions we'd all have in his place? 

 

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

Wrong! (to the bolded part in black) -

hardly, the chapter starts with him fantasizing about killing Slynt and Jon telling the reader that he could not bring him to treat him like a brother of the watch, that he could not forgive his former deeds. 

GRRM is not being subtle here. 

1 hour ago, Megorova said:

 

Jon thought, how easy it will be to just kill Janos,

yup, that is a huge giveaway to what is motivating Jon. no one, certainly not Janos, suspected what he would say would warrant his death. jon overreacted because of who Slynt was, he'd never have done the same to Grenn or some other random member. 

 

Share this post


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

Jon didn't leave his post to get naked with the ladies.  He broke his vows because he wanted to leave permanently.  He was going to war with the Lannisters to help the Starks.  I hope you can see just how wrong Jon was. 

Yes, he WAS wrong, when he left his post. But later he did went back. So no harm was done. At least not that time.

Also you're judging him too harsh. He wanted to desert, to help his family, not to scratch his itch. Do you think, that him leaving, because he was sympathetic towards his family, is worse, than what others did, when they left their posts, just because they were horny?

Also, even though Jon was intending to leave permanently, he has returned, even though he haven't done yet anything to aid Starks against their peril. While other Watchers, that deserted, even though they went away only temporarely, has returned, only after they got their hands, and other body parts, on those whores in Mole's Town. They returned, only after they got, what they wanted. And Jon returned, even though he didn't get, what he wanted. He returned, because he rememberer his vows, and his duty to NW.

It doesn't matter, that he wanted to leave permanently. Because he returned, and he haven't done anything, out of what he wanted to do after his leave. No harm done. None.

Share this post


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

×