Jump to content
Damsel in Distress

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

Recommended Posts

On 7/13/2018 at 10:09 PM, 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.  

 

Correct.  It was revenge for the execution of Ned Stark at the hands of the Lannisters.  Slynt supported the Lannisters and that made him the enemy in Jon's prejudiced heart.  There was no justice done in that execution.  Slynt was set up.  You could tell Jon wanted to kill him.  

Share this post


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

I sure as hell didn't know Janos Slynt or Bowen Marsh had so many fans...

You know Bowen Marsh is not a bad man.  He had every reason to kill the lunatic Lord Commander before more harm is done.  Slynt is not a nice man but even he deserved justice.  He was set up by Jon so he can be murdered.  Jon is the one who is wrong in this discussion.

34 minutes ago, Faera said:

#WalderFreyDidNothingWrong... I guess.

In all seriousness though, characters can be awful people and still not deserved what happened to them, (Joffrey was the ultimate prick but his death was arguably a needlessly cruel thing to happen to a thirteen-year-old boy); I just don't think that was ultimately is the case with Slynt. He dug his own grave. He could have been a half-decent person and I still would be shaking my head and thinking, "How the hell did you think publically disobeying the LC and insulting him to his face was going to end?" That's sort of where it ends for me. We can make it a debate of whether this makes Jon a tyrant or a horrible person but that's not what I took away from it myself.

I get what you're saying but I cannot agree.  Insubordination is a punishable offense but killing Slynt is way too harsh.  Jon was emotional and wanted Slynt's blood.  Jon misused his authority to get back at a Stark enemy.   A day or two later and Jon basically gives Mance a pass.  Mance isn't just guilty of insubordination.  That man is guilty of oath breaking, desertion, and attacking the watch with his wildlings.  Mance is still legally a brother of the night's watch and subject to its laws.  Killing Slynt and then turning around to let Mance get away with his crimes is double-standard.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2018 at 11:23 PM, Free Northman Reborn said:

I don’t entirely disagree. I find the major euphoria among the fandom about the Slynt execution somewhat bewildering.

Many fans see it as an awesome moment of Jon being badass, major payback for past wrongs and generally intended to be a big emotional payoff moment for readers. I don’t get that at all.

Mostly because Slynt is a nobody. It is kind of like Walder Frey killing Catelyn’s children and now Martin makes a big show about Lady Stoneheart hanging the insignificant, somewhat pathetic Merric Frey, or whatever he drunkard’s name was.

I guess my view is that for real payback, Jon needed to kick the door of Casterly Rock down, ride into the Great Hall on his horse and behead Tywin Lannister on his high chair.

Instead, Martin makes a dramatic show of Jon beheading some incompetent nobody, down to having Stannis look on approvingly as if it was some big thing. It was not. The big things will be when Jon kills Roose (not Ramsay, who is another incompetent nobody), and when Arya kills Walder Frey and Cersei Lannister. And Littlefinger, above all. Never forget Littlefinger.

Janos Slynt? Who cares about him?

It's not about liking Janos Slynt.  It's about criticizing Jon's killing of Janos Slynt.  Jon was wrong.  Jon wanted Slynt's blood.  Jon made it personal and that's where all justice went out the window.   

Share this post


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

They don't, I''d be surprised if a single person who likes Janos Slynt as a character, I know I certainly don't, but the idea that we can only discuss characters we are fans of is ridiculous. 

 

Ahh no, if you dont agree with someone saying  x really bad thing  about a character generally disliked by the fandom or think an action by a more popular character against the less popular one was not wise/justified, you're a fan of the character that is generally disliked. Seriously, though such notions are ridiculous. I don't need to be a fan of Stannis at seeing the wisedom of wanting castles that the NW owns for his men, nor a hater by saying his appointment of Davos as his hand pointedly absurd.   Its ridiculous as pretending anyone is a fool who doesn't believe in lord Jon at his word or take his warnings seriously just because he's the leader of the watch. 

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The Transporter said:

It's not about liking Janos Slynt.  It's about criticizing Jon's killing of Janos Slynt.  Jon was wrong.  Jon wanted Slynt's blood.  Jon made it personal and that's where all justice went out the window.   

But Jon is the ultimate authority at the Wall.  He's dealing with someone who is known to be corrupt and ethically challenged.  A person who tried to kill Jon by sending him on a suicide mission to kill Mance.  A person who openly disrespects him and who refuses to follow orders in front of the rest of the Watch.  Imprisonment might have lead to more challenges to his authority in the future but killing Janos Slynt removed those possibilities and was within his authority as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. 

It was an extreme solution but it wasn't unjust.

 

 

Share this post


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

I sure as hell didn't know Janos Slynt or Bowen Marsh had so many fans...

Innit? Brings to mind the old "show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are". 

But this is really a Jon hate thread, not a "I :wub: Janos Slynt" one. It's always the same, w/ the same handful of rabid Jon haters patting each other on the back and sharing congratulations for... really fiercely hating a fictional character! :lol:

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths the haters will go to. I mean, to be willing to come across as someone who lacks the ability to understand the text, in order to justify these numerous threads. The mind boggles. Unless, of course, it's not so much being willing to come across as someone who just don't understand and instead the issue is truly a massive reading comprehension fail. And I'm not sure which is worse! :laugh:

2 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

For some reason, Janos has fans in-universe as well. Tyrion caught flak for sending him to the Wall because he was "too honest" for Tyrion, and Jon lost quite a bit of support for his execution of Slynt.

Did he? Care to back that up? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone remind me why Tyrion decided to send Slynt to the Wall? or why Tyrion suggested that one on Slynt's companions might be shoved overboard (not arrive at the Wall).

I have to agree with a few of the posters that this thread is a thinly described anti Jon Snow tread. Yea, tread.

The kid did not campaign to be LC. Aemon and Sam finagled the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we ask about justice it is quite clear that Jon didn't execute Slynt because the man had talked back to him. He did it, to send a message to Slynt's supporters (and even the Lannisters) that he was standing for their shit. But that's not justice, that's politics.

Jon showed that he and Stannis were building a cabal up at the Wall, doing what they deemed best, and shedding the whole pretense of 'Watch neutrality'.

The idea that Slynt deserved to die for anything he did before taking the black also goes against core values of the NW and the Seven Kingdoms. Anybody taking the black should actually try to leave all the other stuff behind them. Thousands and thousands of black brothers did that in the past. Or do we believe back in the days of the Hundred Kingdoms the men taking the black continued their petty wars and blood feuds at the Wall? If they did do that, the Watch wouldn't have survived until the arrival of the Andals...

And, yeah, Jeor Mormont is a pretty lenient commander. I doubt Bloodraven would have stood for the shit Mormont let stand. However, it is pretty clear, too, that Jon's attack on Alliser Thorne was a pretty big conundrum. Jon is the son of the Lord of Winterfell and the Hand of the King. Executing or severely punishing him for whatever he did could have had severe repercussions.

If I were Ned I'd most definitely not allow Jeor's kin to keep Bear Island if the man had mistreated my son. Not to mention what Mormont would have faced if Benjen Stark had returned from beyond the Wall to find his nephew dead.

Share this post


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

If I were Ned I'd most definitely not allow Jeor's kin to keep Bear Island if the man had mistreated my son. Not to mention what Mormont would have faced if Benjen Stark had returned from beyond the Wall to find his nephew dead.

Ohhhhhhhh, moving on.

Could someone remind me why Tyrion decided to send Slynt to the Wall? or why Tyrion suggested that one of Slynt's companions might be shoved overboard (not arrive at the Wall).

Share this post


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

When we ask about justice it is quite clear that Jon didn't execute Slynt because the man had talked back to him. He did it, to send a message to Slynt's supporters (and even the Lannisters) that he was standing for their shit. But that's not justice, that's politics.

Jon showed that he and Stannis were building a cabal up at the Wall, doing what they deemed best, and shedding the whole pretense of 'Watch neutrality'.

The idea that Slynt deserved to die for anything he did before taking the black also goes against core values of the NW and the Seven Kingdoms. Anybody taking the black should actually try to leave all the other stuff behind them. Thousands and thousands of black brothers did that in the past. Or do we believe back in the days of the Hundred Kingdoms the men taking the black continued their petty wars and blood feuds at the Wall? If they did do that, the Watch wouldn't have survived until the arrival of the Andals...

And, yeah, Jeor Mormont is a pretty lenient commander. I doubt Bloodraven would have stood for the shit Mormont let stand. However, it is pretty clear, too, that Jon's attack on Alliser Thorne was a pretty big conundrum. Jon is the son of the Lord of Winterfell and the Hand of the King. Executing or severely punishing him for whatever he did could have had severe repercussions.

If I were Ned I'd most definitely not allow Jeor's kin to keep Bear Island if the man had mistreated my son. Not to mention what Mormont would have faced if Benjen Stark had returned from beyond the Wall to find his nephew dead.

For a bit of context we should mention that even in the current real world insubordination at the time of war can be punishable by death (for example in the US military). Janos was given two chances before he was executed for insubordination at the time of war.

Share this post


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

For a bit of context we should mention that even in the current real world insubordination at the time of war can be punishable by death (for example in the US military). Janos was given two chances before he was executed for insubordination at the time of war.

There is no indication that he had to be as harsh as he was, though. The Lord Commander of the Night's Watch isn't an absolute ruler.

If Slynt deserved to die for his talk, then Jon certainly deserved to die for his attack on Ser Alliser (as well as for his desertion in AGoT and for the love he felt for Ygritte, etc.). If there were 'extenuating circumstances' for Jon then sure as hell could have found such circumstances if he wanted to spare Slynt's life.

10 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Could someone remind me why Tyrion decided to send Slynt to the Wall? or why Tyrion suggested that one of Slynt's companions might be shoved overboard (not arrive at the Wall).

The man betrayed another Hand of the King and he executed Cersei's command to kill Robert's daughter. Allar Deem was the one who killed Barra and her mother.

Share this post


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

There is no indication that he had to be as harsh as he was, though. The Lord Commander of the Night's Watch isn't an absolute ruler.

If Slynt deserved to die for his talk, then Jon certainly deserved to die for his attack on Ser Alliser (as well as for his desertion in AGoT and for the love he felt for Ygritte, etc.). If there were 'extenuating circumstances' for Jon then sure as hell could have found such circumstances if he wanted to spare Slynt's life.

When Jon attacked Alliser there was no war and he was a recruit. Janos acted at wartime and was an experienced ex-commander and ex-lord.

Share this post


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

When Jon attacked Alliser there was no war and he was a recruit. Janos acted at wartime and was an experienced ex-commander and ex-lord.

There is no indication the Watch follows your real world comparison there.

Not to mention that there was no war when Slynt was executed, anyway. Stannis defeated the wildlings, did he not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Ohhhhhhhh, moving on.

Could someone remind me why Tyrion decided to send Slynt to the Wall? or why Tyrion suggested that one of Slynt's companions might be shoved overboard (not arrive at the Wall).

What @Lord Varys said regarding the murder of Robert's bastards. And the fact Tyrion knew Slynt was a despicable lickspittle and he didn't want Slynt n the small council.

Share this post


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

There is no indication the Watch follows your real world comparison there.

Not to mention that there was no war when Slynt was executed, anyway. Stannis defeated the wildlings, did he not?

Stannis won a battle. The war continued as evidenced by the actions of the Weeper and Jon later agreeing peace with Tormund (but not all the wildings).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kissdbyfire said:

What @Lord Varys said regarding the murder of Robert's bastards. And the fact Tyrion knew Slynt was a despicable lickspittle and he didn't want Slynt n the small council.

It was part of ridiculous notion that he was going to do justice while ruling in KL as Hand. He sobered up quickly enough, but Slynt became a victim of his crusade there. If he had already been in the mood he was when he dealt with Pycelle the man would most likely not have gone to the Wall.

After all, Slynt was corrupt, no doubt about that, but in the end he was a Lannister crony, and more than willing to work with them. Turning against your own pawns isn't smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dorian Martell's son said:

True, it is more about people's hatred of Jon. Which is also highly irrational. so there you go 

I don't hate Jon, I don't even have a problem with how he dealt with Slynt, life is not fair and Jon had very good reasons for ridding himself of Slynt, but none of them had to do with him being insubordinate. He had him killed for the actions Slynt did before he took the black and for what he may have done in the future. Jon abused his power to murder a rival. 

 

1 hour ago, White Ravens said:

But Jon is the ultimate authority at the Wall.  He's dealing with someone who is known to be corrupt and ethically challenged. 

That applies to the majority of the people who are sent to to the Wall, the point of becoming a brother is that this is a chance of redemption and the sins of the past are no longer held against you. Jon, who clearly points out he could never think of Slynt as a brother, ignores that. 

 

32 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

 

Could someone remind me why Tyrion decided to send Slynt to the Wall? or why Tyrion suggested that one of Slynt's companions might be shoved overboard (not arrive at the Wall).

Two reasons

  • Tyrion was very conscious what happened to the previous Hand, he was not going to allow the Lord Commander of the Gold Cloaks a loyalist of Littlefinger/Cersei
  • Tywin did not want Slynt to have Harrenhal, so an easy way to do so was to send him to the Wall. Tyrion was about to make an enemy of Slynt when he took back the Lordship, pointless letting him remain to get revenge. 

 

10 minutes ago, Tucu said:

When Jon attacked Alliser there was no war and he was a recruit. Janos acted at wartime and was an experienced ex-commander and ex-lord.

The Watch is constantly at 'war'. 

 

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Innit? Brings to mind the old "show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are".

wow, that is an amazing conclusion you have came to in regards to strangers you know nothing about beyond some of their opinions on fictional characters

 

 

Share this post


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

Stannis won a battle. The war continued as evidenced by the actions of the Weeper and Jon later agreeing peace with Tormund (but not all the wildings).

And this was evident how (or playing a role when) Jon executed Slynt?

I mean, I can also fantasize about there being 'a war' since the Prologue when the Others declare war on the NW by butchering Waymar and Will, and if that was 'true' then Mormont most definitely should have executed Jon because there was war as evidenced by the attack of the wights.

It isn't justice when a criminal doing one good deed gets off the hook. Understandable and all, sure, but not justice. I mean, Jon basically got off the hook for attempted murder because he saved the life of the judge.

Share this post


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

And this was evident how (or playing a role when) Jon executed Slynt?

I mean, I can also fantasize about there being 'a war' since the Prologue when the Others declare war on the NW by butchering Waymar and Will, and if that was 'true' then Mormont most definitely should have executed Jon because there was war as evidenced by the attack of the wights.

It isn't justice when a criminal doing one good deed gets off the hook. Understandable and all, sure, but not justice. I mean, Jon basically got off the hook for attempted murder because he saved the life of the judge.

This quote is from just before he decides to assign Janos to Greyguard and Giant to Icemark:

Quote

Three hundred might not be enough. Jon kept that doubt to himself. It was true that climbers were desperately vulnerable whilst on the ascent. Stones and spears and pots of burning pitch could be rained down on them from above, and all they could do was cling desperately to the ice. Sometimes the Wall itself seemed to shake them off, as a dog might shake off fleas. Jon had seen that for himself, when a sheet of ice cracked beneath Val's lover Jarl, sending him to his death.

If the climbers reached the top of the Wall undetected, however, everything changed. Given time, they could carve out a toehold for themselves up there, throwing up ramparts of their own and dropping ropes and ladders for thousands more to clamber over after them. That was how Raymun Redbeard had done it, Raymun who had been King-Beyond-the-Wall in the days of his grandfather's grandfather. Jack Musgood had been the lord commander in those days. Jolly Jack, he was called before Redbeard came down upon the north; Sleepy Jack, forever after. Raymun's host had met a bloody end on the shores of Long Lake, caught between Lord Willam of Winterfell and the Drunken Giant, Harmond Umber. Redbeard had been slain by Artos the Implacable, Lord Willam's younger brother. The Watch arrived too late to fight the wildlings, but in time to bury them, the task that Artos Stark assigned them in his wroth as he grieved above the headless corpse of his fallen brother.

Jon did not intend to be remembered as Sleepy Jon Snow. "Thirty men will stand a better chance than none," he told Giant.

He was preparing to continue the fight with the wildlings (and the wights later).

Share this post


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

×