Jump to content
Damsel in Distress

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

Recommended Posts

Won't somebody please think of the the corrupt selfish climbers who use nothing but their boot-straps to rise above their humble beginnings and then, when sent to the wall, continue to do the dirty work of the Lannisters and even try to eliminate Jon by sending him on suicide missions to assassinate Mance Rayder?

 

Poor misunderstood frog-faced corrupt guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lady Fevre Dream said:

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

Yeah,  it’s right up there with the Frey family values ideas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Yeah,  it’s right up there with the Frey family values ideas. 

#FreyFamilyValues 

Share this post


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

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.

What Jon did was worse than what the horny boys who took a break with the intention of returning did.  Jon had no intention to return.  He was leaving.  Jon knew from the first chapter of the series how serious the vows are when he saw Ned executed Gared.  Jon still broke his vows and intended to leave the wall.  The other boys who went to get sex took a break from their job, they didn't intend to leave the watch.  Jon intended to leave the watch.  Jon was brought back.  He didn't decide to return.  Mormont kept it secret but we, the reader know better.  Jon broke his vows.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

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?

 

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

Meh, probably not imo . Slynt simply would not have the potential to be a nuisance to Jeor's plans for the watch as he could be for Jon. Slynt's backers were traditinioalists who naturely were opposed to Jon's radical plans(allowing tens of thousands of "savages" especially so close to winter), so there's likely going to be very little risk in him opting for a none-lethal punishment, Jeor (by Jon's opinion) wouldn't be one let Wildling migrate south of the wall, and is deeply respected by the majority of the watch. A man with Slynt's background is hard to come by, executing him would eliminate all possibilities to properly use him. 

As to the question of his leniency effecting the Watch's performance; probably didn't hurt it. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


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

Won't somebody please think of the the corrupt selfish climbers who use nothing but their boot-straps to rise above their humble beginnings and then, when sent to the wall, continue to do the dirty work of the Lannisters and even try to eliminate Jon by sending him on suicide missions to assassinate Mance Rayder?

 

Poor misunderstood frog-faced corrupt guy.

Omg-no one is saying Slynt is a good guy-some are just saying that his execution was mistake.

Which meh. I don't know about that honestly. But no ione s saying the baby killer is nice. 

I do think it's apparent Slynt was underutilized by Jon given his credtionals, and given his relationship with House Lanister. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


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

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. 

Mormont who they don't really have that much more reason to trust than Jon. Claims of the supernatural are going to met with skepticism by the none-simple minded-especially when the person making the claim has reason to lie.  But the crown did send prisoners to help the watch.  and the hand that  Allister brought to the red keep spoiled by the time Tyrion bothered to come see it moving. Tyrion's patent dislike for Alister made him ignore the knight until the hand was fully dead-having someone the current power at the Redkeep sees as on their side, delivering the news of the apocalypse potentially happening is going to mean more likely  to  to have the power listen than someone who the current power has little reason to trust. Where are you getting Qyburn used the hand Allister was brought with him was used to help revive the moutain? Cersi never sent anyone to the watch to kill Jon-planned to, didnt have chance to go through with it since Osney Kettlebeck(the person she planned to send) was arrested by the faith and gave her up. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 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.

Wasn't he referring to winter magic? That poison is just poison, and black arts, to which he was referring, is whatever makes dead flesh animated - winter/wight magic. Send a knight to kill a knight, archer to archer, black arts against black arts. He wasn't experimenting on the Mountain, to turn him into a poison-bomb, he was going to turn him into a wight, that will be created thru winter magic, that he "extracted" from the hand, that they received from The Wall, months prior Jon became NW's Lord Commander.

44 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And again Jon Smow did not zombies were coming-there is no reason 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. 

Lord Mormont has sent to KL a letter, and a messenger with the wight's hand. He has informed the Crown, about what is going on. He wrote them about wights. And they ignored it.

24 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

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? 

I don't think, that Jon is a saint, or that he never makes mistakes.

26 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

There is zero evidence in the books that he was going to be executed.

What do you think, they were going to do?

Share this post


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

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.

 

Well, I very much doubt the OP’s intent is to make Jon more interesting, rather I suspect it is to create another tiresome Jon hate thread.

As to the complexity of Jon’s character, GRRM’s remarks about Faulkner’s quote “the only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself” comes to mind. Jon, if anything, comes closest to the typical hero trope in the series but even such a character is faced with moral dilemmas that he has to navigate. From Jon’s POV chapters we see that Jon is always debating/questioning his choices and at the end tries to do what is right according to his moral code (instilled in him by Ned). 

One of the posters above stated that Jon wanted to kill Janos Slynt from the beginning. While I agree that Jon did contemplate revenge against Slynt and rightly so — the man participated in the murder of his father and then conspired to kill him, what the poster fails to state/comprehend is that Jon decided against his base instinct for revenge and gave Janos Slynt a chance to live and even to lead. We have Jon’s thoughts on the subject “I am giving you a chance, my lord. It is more than you ever gave my father”. So contrary to what the poster above said Jon was not set on killing Slynt or wasn’t setting a trap for him, instead he assumed (wrongly I must say) that Slynt could lead and decided to let bygones be bygones. He even states this about Slynt “a man does not rise to command of the gold cloaks without ability” but we as the readers know (what Jon isn’t aware of) that Slynt’s meteoric rise can be ascribed (at least partly) to the machinations of Littlefinger. 

In regards to whether Slynt’s punishment is apt for his crime, I would have to say yes. The NW is comparable to a military order in medieval times where insubordination and insulting your commander (in front of all the men that too) is punishable most severely. Jon decides to execute Slynt because he knows Slynt will try and undermine his command and collude against him again. Jon in coming to his decision sees Slynt as a threat to his command and the NW. Here’s Jon’s thoughts at that point: “and confine him to an ice cell, he might have said... And the moment he is out, he and Thorne will begin to plot again. —and tie him to his horse, he might have said... It will only be a matter of time until he deserts, then. And how many others will he take with him?” On the other hand, Mormont does not see men going to Moletown or Jon’s midnight run as acts that threatened the NW. In Jon’s case, we don’t know how Mormont would have acted had Jon not come back. He may have declared him a deserted whose life was forfeit. But GRRM does not put Mormont or Jon in that situation. In terms of Jon attacking Thorne, again, we don’t know what Mormont would have done had Othor not happened.

It always surprises me how many Jon hate threads sympathizes with Janos Slynt - a character GRRM wrote with no redeeming quality in a series full of amoral characters with backstories/justifications for their vile actions. You can argue that Slynt is a tertiary character but even so he is written as truly despicable. When Slynt gets his comeuppance, there is no doubt in my mind that the author meant it to be a hurrah moment. I’m sure we’ll see more such moments for the Starks/Jon Snow before the series ends.

Edited by teej6

Share this post


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

Wasn't he referring to winter magic? That poison is just poison, and black arts, to which he was referring, is whatever makes dead flesh animated - winter/wight magic. Send a knight to kill a knight, archer to archer, black arts against black arts. He wasn't experimenting on the Mountain, to turn him into a poison-bomb, he was going to turn him into a wight, that will be created thru winter magic, that he "extracted" from the hand, that they received from The Wall, months prior Jon became NW's Lord Commander.

His stateted intentions to Cersi was to merely find out more about the poison. He was clearly interested interested in more than a mere poison but finding out more about the poison was all he said  to Cersi he was ultimately interested in doing regards to the moutain. Where does it say Qyburn used the hand Alister brought to show Tyrion in the moutain's resuerction? 

8 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Lord Mormont has sent to KL a letter, and a messenger with the wight's hand. He has informed the Crown, about what is going on. He wrote them about wights. And they ignored it.

The crown(acting through Tyrion) in response to Alister did send prisoners. You act as if Mormont only sent a letter to KL-he sent letters to every king, none took him seriously, they were no reason to.  Tyrion saw the hand Allister brought it was dead. Tyrion couldn't really do much besides give some Alister his some prisoners. A letter from an old man  in charge of an organization likely to be overrun by some savages is going to like Jeor is desperate, or mad unless proof is. The watch just got attacked by Wildlings; why shouldn't the crown assume he was talking about them? 

16 minutes ago, Megorova said:

What do you think, they were going to do?

Who knows? But if Jeor  was  going to execute him or seriously considering  it makes little sense they would consign him to room and not an ice-cell and allow Jon's direwolf to be with the boy-the thing is a killing machine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

I don't think, that Jon is a saint, or that he never makes mistakes.

And yet you are jumping to conclusions that no one in the book considers to justify his emotional response to settling the score with the man who executed his father.  

Quote

What do you think, they were going to do?

I doubt anything to severe, the guard that was put on his door was more to stop Jon from doing something stupid, like going back after Thorne or trying to escape. The fact that Mormont allows him his direwolf, an animal that would kill anyone trying to hurt Jon, shows that his life was not in danger from Mormont. Jon nor Sam consider that his life was in jeopardy. 

 

11 minutes ago, teej6 said:

 

It always surprises me how many Jon hate threads sympathizes with Janos Slynt - 

What a trite way to try and shut down conversation. Labeling people you disagree with as haters is weak and adds nothing to that actual discussion. 

I have zero problem with a character acting like an actual human being, him getting revenge against the man who murdered his father is normal, the vast majority of people in his shoes would have done the same, look for an excuse to finish him off. 

Another watch member would not have faced that same punishment had they done the same as Slynt the man who would happily order the murder of a baby if it was in his best interests.  No one is claiming that Slynt was a good person or that Jon's actions make him evil, just that his decision was an emotional one and not a practical one or fair given the vows of the nights watch. Slynt was killed for what he did before he said his vows, not something he did after. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, teej6 said:

but we as the readers know (what Jon isn’t aware of) that Slynt’s meteoric rise can be ascribed (at least partly) to the machinations of Littlefinger. 

No? Slynt was appointed to his position around the time of Robert's rebellion-before that he was the captain of the iron gate. LF was just a boy(15-17)  from lower-noble house when  Slynt was appointed to be commander of the gold cloaks. It would take years for LF to get to a point to where'd he'd be able to influence the appointment for anything anything important. LF may have bought the man but he did not propell Slynt to his position. Jon Arryn appointed Slynt to command the gold cloaks and he wouldn't have done so if Slynt was competent at his job, if Slynt didn't have a history of being effective.  

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

What a trite way to try and shut down conversation. Labeling people you disagree with as haters is weak and adds nothing to that actual discussion. 

I have zero problem with a character acting like an actual human being, him getting revenge against the man who murdered his father is normal, the vast majority of people in his shoes would have done the same, look for an excuse to finish him off. 

Another watch member would not have faced that same punishment had they done the same as Slynt the man who would happily order the murder of a baby if it was in his best interests.  No one is claiming that Slynt was a good person or that Jon's actions make him evil, just that his decision was an emotional one and not a practical one or fair given the vows of the nights watch. Slynt was killed for what he did before he said his vows, not something he did after. 

If you read my entire post, you’d see that I gave my rationale and justification for Jon’s actions. I didn’t as you say try to shut down the discussion or blindly say Jon was right. In fact, I agreed with your assertion that Jon did dislike Slynt and contemplated revenge. Where I disagreed with you is that he acted on his desires. Inspite of Jon’s personal hatred for Slynt, he decided to give the man a chance. And contrary to what you state, Jon based his decision on executing Slynt on what he believed Slynt would do in the future. Again, if you read my post, you would see that I provided textual evidence on Jon’s thoughts right before he decides to execute Slynt. He’s not thinking this man killed my father so he needs to die rather he’s thinking this man will continue to plot against me or desert and cause others to desert if I let him live.

And yes, many threads that justify Slynt appears to be simply out of hate for Jon and not based on any textual evidence. How about you read my entire post and respond to the arguments I make rather than latch on to one statement and call my entire post trite. 

Edited by teej6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Comes back after months of absence, because there was nothing to talk about*

Hey everybody so what are ya....

*Sees yet another "Jon Snuuu is EBILLLLL!!!!!!!" thread*

....never mind. See you when Season 8 of GoT hits.

*Leaves again*

Share this post


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

No? Slynt was appointed to his position around the time of Robert's rebellion-before that he was the captain of the iron gate. LF was just a boy(16-17)  from lower-noble house by time Slynt was appointed. It would take years for LF to get to a point to where'd he'd be able to influence the appointment for anything anything important. LF may have bought the man but he did not propell Slynt to his position. Jon Arryn did and he wouldn't have done so if Slynt was competent at his job, if Slynt didn't have a history of being effective. 

You you are right, Slynt was appointed by Arryn and may have been appointed based on his competence/merits. Still we know he was corrupt and eventually became Littlefinger’s stooge. The point I was making is that Jon in appointing Slynt to a leadership role acknowledges that Slynt must be competent to have risen so high in KL and therefore must be given a chance at the NW. This was to refute @Bernie Mac claim that Jon handed Slynt command of Greyguard to trap him.

Edited by teej6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, teej6 said:

Well, I very much doubt the OP’s intent is to make Jon more interesting, rather I suspect it is to create another tiresome Jon hate thread.

As to the complexity of Jon’s character, GRRM’s remarks about Faulkner’s quote “the only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself” comes to mind. Jon, if anything, comes closest to the typical hero trope in the series but even such a character is faced with moral dilemmas that he has to navigate. From Jon’s POV chapters we see that Jon is always debating/questioning his choices and at the end tries to do what is right according to his moral code (instilled in him by Ned). 

One of the posters above stated that Jon wanted to kill Janos Slynt from the beginning. While I agree that Jon did contemplate revenge against Slynt and rightly so — the man participated in the murder of his father and then conspired to kill him, what the poster fails to state/comprehend is that Jon decided against his base instinct for revenge and gave Janos Slynt a chance to live and even to lead. We have Jon’s thoughts on the subject “I am giving you a chance, my lord. It is more than you ever gave my father”. So contrary to what the poster above said Jon was not set on killing Slynt or wasn’t setting a trap for him, instead he assumed (wrongly I must say) that Slynt could lead and decided to let bygones be bygones. He even states this about Slynt “a man does not rise to command of the gold cloaks without ability” but we as the readers know (what Jon isn’t aware of) that Slynt’s meteoric rise can be ascribed (at least partly) to the machinations of Littlefinger. 

In regards to whether Slynt’s punishment is apt for his crime, I would have to say yes. The NW is comparable to a military order in medieval times where insubordination and insulting your commander (in front of all the men that too) is punishable most severely. Jon decides to execute Slynt because he knows Slynt will try and undermine his command and collude against him again. Jon in coming to his decision sees Slynt as a threat to his command and the NW. Here’s Jon’s thoughts at that point: “and confine him to an ice cell, he might have said... And the moment he is out, he and Thorne will begin to plot again. —and tie him to his horse, he might have said... It will only be a matter of time until he deserts, then. And how many others will he take with him?” On the other hand, Mormont does not see men going to Moletown or Jon’s midnight run as acts that threatened the NW. In Jon’s case, we don’t know how Mormont would have acted had Jon not come back. He may have declared him a deserted whose life was forfeit. But GRRM does not put Mormont or Jon in that situation. In terms of Jon attacking Thorne, again, we don’t know what Mormont would have done had Othor not happened.

It always surprises me how many Jon hate threads sympathizes with Janos Slynt - a character GRRM wrote with no redeeming quality in a series full of amoral characters with backstories/justifications for their vile actions. You can argue that Slynt is a tertiary character but even so he is written as truly despicable. When Slynt gets his comeuppance, there is no doubt in my mind that the author meant it to be a hurrah moment. I’m sure we’ll see more such moments for the Starks/Jon Snow before the series ends.

I am not gonna presume what the OP's intent was and I don't care that Janos was killed, and don't think he had a shred of decency.

My argument is against people trying to paint Jon's decision as a just and honest one. Death is an extreme punishment for back-talk and insubordination. I don't claim that Jon set a malicious trap against Janos but all he needed was a reason to act out his vengeance. A truly just action would be a few days in a cage or something of the sort. As you said, Jon thinks he got to his position through merit and some ability, he would be valuable to Nights Watch in his own unbiased view, so after some deliberation in a cold cage, Slynt would have reconsidered his stupid decision and been sent to man the castle. Maybe even don't give him a castle, have him serve a menial role under the command of someone more capable and trustworthy. At the very least you have another sword on the wall.

Instead, Jon acted like a human being with emotions and executed him with the primary motivation being vengeance. All the reasons he lists in his mind, why he can't keep Slynt alive are justifications and rationalizations to himself.

Janos was a huge dick and he is dead because of it, not because Jon acted out rationally and justly. And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 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.

Not at all. Juan came back at his friends request, at night, in private. Slynt disobeyed Jon in public in front of the whole of castle black. Jon's youth, and being the son of Ned was also a factor in his not being punished, but again, he never publicly talked shit to the LC either. The two situations are completely different, but as a Slynt fan, seeing corruption and insubordination can be hard to see.  

21 hours ago, Damsel in Distress said:

 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. 

His public execution of the lord of Harrenhal was needed to ensure his command. As for Mance, everyone, including Jon figured him dead as they saw "him" die. 

21 hours ago, Damsel in Distress said:

  That is not proper conduct for a leader and a disgrace for a lord commander. 

 Insubordination = Desertion. Like Jeor, Jon gave his subordinate a chance to reconsider, and since Slynt is a dumb as a bag of rocks, he couldn't see that.   If Jon had kept going he would have died. But he didn't. Slynt did, and he lost his head. Jon did what he was taught to do by Jeor. 

21 hours ago, Damsel in Distress said:

 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. 

Winter is coming, food will be scarce and Slynt has made it clear he will never respect Jon nor take orders from him. And yes, Jon was thinking of his dad, specifically the lesson told in the first Bran chapter in game. 

21 hours ago, Damsel in Distress said:

 It was personal. 

Not at all, but I can see how a Slynt fan would have trouble with something like respecting the chain of command.

21 hours ago, Damsel in Distress said:

  Jon was not objective when he passed judgment on Janos Slynt. 

 He was. There is no question about it. 

21 hours ago, Damsel in Distress said:

 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.  

Slynt's pre-watch crimes had nothing to do with it. It was all about disobeying the LC. 

Edited by Dorian Martell's son

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 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. 

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”.  

I haven't read the whole thread because these usually turn into a Jon bashing session, but the damage in King's Landing was already done.

Tywin did not want to help the NW in ASOS because whatever was happening in the north was the northmen and the ironborn's problem. And Slynt wrote to King's Landing to tell them that Stannis was trying to make common cause with the wildlings (Cersei IV, AFFC 17). Jon's command is already undermined. The letter Maester Aemon wrote and that was sent was meaningless after that.

Share this post


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

I am not gonna presume what the OP's intent was and I don't care that Janos was killed, and don't think he had a shred of decency.

My argument is against people trying to paint Jon's decision as a just and honest one. Death is an extreme punishment for back-talk and insubordination. I don't claim that Jon set a malicious trap against Janos but all he needed was a reason to act out his vengeance. A truly just action would be a few days in a cage or something of the sort. As you said, Jon thinks he got to his position through merit and some ability, he would be valuable to Nights Watch in his own unbiased view, so after some deliberation in a cold cage, Slynt would have reconsidered his stupid decision and been sent to man the castle. Maybe even don't give him a castle, have him serve a menial role under the command of someone more capable and trustworthy. At the very least you have another sword on the wall.

Instead, Jon acted like a human being with emotions and executed him with the primary motivation being vengeance. All the reasons he lists in his mind, why he can't keep Slynt alive are justifications and rationalizations to himself.

Janos was a huge dick and he is dead because of it, not because Jon acted out rationally and justly. And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

And the argument I made (with textual evidence) is that Jon, though he wanted revenge, decided against that course of action and gave Slynt an opportunity. The fact that Slynt refused the opportunity, not once but twice and insulted Jon, his LC, in front of all his men and questioned Jon’s authority as LC is what got Slynt killed. You can dislike Jon’s judgement of executing Slynt and debate whether it was too harsh but his reasons for doing it are clearly provided in the text by the author. Jon did not execute Slynt out of vengeance. Like I said earlier, GRRM even gives us Jon’s thoughts and reasoning for executing Slynt right before he does it. Jon thinks of what Slynt will do in the future if he let’s him live — continue to threaten his leadership and the NW — and comes to a decision that its best to execute Slynt rather that the alternative punishments. I’m going to go with what’s in the text rather than assume vengeance as the primary motive for Jon’s act and dismiss the reasons he thinks to himself as just justification and rationalizing. All through Jon’s POV, we see his thoughts of himself and his actions as being more judgmental and harsh than necessary. Jon is not someone who’s portrayed as self-righteous. 

Edited by teej6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Widow's Watch said:

I haven't read the whole thread because these usually turn into a Jon bashing session, but the damage in King's Landing was already done.

These threads don't turn into a .jon bashing session, but rather that's their sole purpose of being.

Let's see... we already have the Bowen Marsh Fan Club, the Ramsay Bolton Apprecition Society, and  now we get the Janos Slynt Most Honourabe Man of the 7K Award! 

And the list of folks who are not gonna be happy w/ Winds grows ever larger! :D

 

I agree re KL. 

43 minutes ago, Widow's Watch said:

Tywin did not want to help the NW in ASOS because whatever was happening in the north was the northmen and the ironborn's problem. And Slynt wrote to King's Landing to tell them that Stannis was trying to make common cause with the wildlings (Cersei IV, AFFC 17). Jon's command is already undermined. The letter Maester Aemon wrote and that was sent was meaningless after that.

The "paper shield". And Jon knows it's not gonna help any, Sam basically has to convince Jon to sign it. They've been trying to get rid of Jon since ASoS, and that's a fact. 

Too bad Marsh's plans are gonna bite him in the arse. 

Share this post


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

×