Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Story wise why did Slynt think he had authority at the Wall?

Most likely because the current Castellan of Castle Black, Bowen Marsh, gave him the responsibility in his absence. 

14 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Once a LC dies the men of the NW do a choosing.

Yet, once Slynt arrived at CB he acted like he was in charge.

well Bowen Marsh was left in charge by Mormont so technically he was commanding until the new election and he favored Slynt allowing him the freedom to act like an officer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tucu said:

Janos abandoned all his privileges when he took the black and swore the oath.

That has no effect on how things are handled informally. Or do you think Jon's handsome face is the reason why the Lord Commander grooms him to be his successor? Jon is the son of the Lord of Winterfell and the nephew of the First Ranger - men with noble blood rule the Watch just as they rule everything else. And men still carry their titles at the Wall, considering that many 'Sers' run around there. Lordly titles would be empty, of course, but one doesn't seem to lose honorifics when one takes the black.

9 minutes ago, Tucu said:

Jon was giving him command of a castle and I can't see how that can be publicly consider disrespect.

The disrespect is the fact that he is executed for his transgression.

9 minutes ago, Tucu said:

We can argue if the execution was too harsh or not, but there is not much evidence that Janos' fate had major negative (or positive) consequences.

We don't have any evidence on the inner workings of Bowen's conspiracy, but it would be very odd if the thing didn't play a role there. 

9 minutes ago, Tucu said:

Jon not realising the danger posed by Marsh's xenophobia is a separate matter.

It isn't xenophobia (Marsh is a First Man himself, being a Northman) it is a realistic view of the wildling culture and their history with the Watch and the North. Yes, yes, the wildlings would be good allies against the Others, but nobody is fighting the Others as of yet. And bringing wildling in to fight wars in the Seven Kingdoms is ... treason regardless how you spin it. Making the wildlings allies of the Watch might make the Seven Kingdoms the enemies of the Watch. And how long are they going to survive if that happens? Bowen Marsh has actually survived winters at the Wall. How many winters (at the Wall) has Jon Snow survived?

The whole issue up there is that Jon is insisting backing the horse named Stannis whereas Marsh and his party think it might be prudent to not exactly antagonize the Lannisters and their allies (who are very likely to end up on top in the end in any realistic assessment of the situation). From the point of view of the Watch I can't see a problem with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Story wise why did Slynt think he had authority at the Wall?

Yet, once Slynt arrived at CB he acted like he was in charge.

Because he was a noble black brother with a title and connections, basically. This is how this world works. The people in charge are in charge, even at the Wall. And when all the people holding offices of note are dead or absent, such noblemen with the strength and ambition to seize power will take it.

I mean, nobody put Donal Noye in charge, either. The man just usurped command from Ser Wynton Stout, the nominal castellan, who was senile dotard.

Slynt did the same thing, basically, only it worked not so well in his case. Or, well, it would actually have worked pretty well if the schemers Aemon and Samwell hadn't intervened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Most likely because the current Castellan of Castle Black, Bowen Marsh, gave him the responsibility in his absence. 

Marsh gives Slynt responsibility why. Truthfully, once Mormont dies I dunna known who is in charge of the NW. Are you suggesting that Marsh, the castellan, gave Slynt the authority to arrest Jon Snow as a tratior?

12 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

well Bowen Marsh was left in charge by Mormont so technically he was commanding until the new election and he favored Slynt allowing him the freedom to act like an officer. 

Marsh favored Slynt, newly arrived at CB from Eastwatch via KL and allowed Sllynt the freedom to act like an officer of what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Because he was a noble black brother with a title and connections, basically. This is how this world works. The people in charge are in charge, even at the Wall.

As a noble black brother sent from KL to the Wall under the order of Tyrion for crimes that Slynt commuted the men of the of the NW grant Slynt special favor.

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Slynt did the same thing, basically, only it worked not so well in his case. Or, well, it would actually have worked pretty well if the schemers Aemon and Samwell hadn't intervened.

Aemon Targ, the one that arrived with Bloodraven at the Wall is a schemer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

As a noble black brother sent from KL to the Wall under the order of Tyrion for crimes that Slynt commuted the men of the of the NW grant Slynt special favor.

When there is power vacuum ambitious men fill the vacuum. And it is not that Slynt arrived there alone. He came from Eastwatch, with Eastwatch men and Alliser Thorne (a knight and seasoned Watchman, even if without a proper office at that time). It might even be that Pyke sent him and the other men to see to defenses of CB in Marsh's absence.

2 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Aemon Targ, the one that arrived with Bloodraven at the Wall is a schemer.

Did he or did he not scheme to make Jon Lord Commander. Marsh was scheming to make Slynt Lord Commander. One can be of a different opinion as to who would have been the better LC (and I definitely favor Jon) but they used similar means to accomplish their goals. Aemon manipulated the election with the help of Samwell Tarly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Marsh gives Slynt responsibility why.

The officers of the watch were mostly dead or missing, those roles, even temporarily, had to be filled. 

Slynt was a man of leadership experience, he was the most experienced of any brother at that time, it makes sense that he would be used in that capacity. 

Quote

 

Truthfully, once Mormont dies I dunna known who is in charge of the NW. Are you suggesting that Marsh, the castellan, gave Slynt the authority to arrest Jon Snow as a tratior?

The Castellan is the person in charge until a new lord commander could be chosen. 

Quote

Marsh favored Slynt, newly arrived at CB from Eastwatch via KL and allowed Sllynt the freedom to act like an officer of what.

An officer of the watch. Officer is just a military expression for someone in command. 

 

7 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

 

Aemon Targ, the one that arrived with Bloodraven at the Wall is a schemer.

kind of, he encouraged Sam to fix the election against Slynt. 

"I recall," Maester Aemon said, "but Sam, I am a maester, chained and sworn. My duty is to counsel the Lord Commander, whoever he might be. It would not be proper for me to be seen to favor one contender over another."
"I'm not a maester," said Sam. "Could I do something?"
"I'm not a maester," said Sam. "Could I do something?"
Aemon turned his blind white eyes toward Sam's face, and smiled softy. "Why, I don't know, Samwell. Could you?"
I could, Sam thought. I have to.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

It is pretty clear from his reaction that he never thought death was a possible punishment, it is not like desertion were everyone knows what the possible consequences are, and even then we know the previous lord commander was lenient on some. 

He quickly retracted when told what his punishment would be. 

Then perhaps he should have never disobeyed the order(twice) in the first place if he wasn't sure of the punishment. 

29 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Sure, but not to murder him. The punishments Jon considered in that split second would have been justice, instead Jon bases his judgement not on the crime Slynt had committed but what he could do in the future. That is not justice. it is understandable, but not justice. 

But Slynt does not only refuse the order, he outright threatens his Lord Commander after refusing the order.

 No. I will not go meekly off to freeze and die. No traitor's bastard gives commands to Janos Slynt! I am not without friends, I warn you. Here, and in King's Landing too. I was the Lord of Harrenhal! Give your ruin to one of the blind fools who cast a stone for you, I will not have it. Do you hear me, boy? I will not have it!

36 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Of course they didnt, Jon had just executed one person he did not like, why would anyone else put themselves in that situation. 

Or perhaps since they all have been at the Wall much longer than Slynt they realized the LC was their ultimate superior and respected his position as LC. Unlike Slynt who believes that his old rank in KL and his former appointment as Lord of Harrenhal somehow makes him special.

43 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

His hatred for Thorne and the man who removed his fathers head are worlds apart. 

Your own quotes from earlier show how Jon wanted Thorne to draw his sword and give him a reason to do the same. Yet unlike Slynt, Thorne knows better and gives his new LC no reason to settle old grievances.

51 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

the same morning Jon was fantasizing about killing him, it was something he very much wanted and was looking for any excuse to do it. That is not justice. 

I'm sure Jon Snow fantasizes about doing lots of things, yet it does not mean he is ever going to do them. He may fantasize about creeping into Val's tower and bedding her, doesn't mean he is ever going to do it. Yet had Slynt not disobeyed his order  we have no reason to expect Jon would have done anything other then sent him to the castle he ordered him to go too. He didn't fantasize about killing the steward from Shadow Tower he eventually sends in place of Slynt.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

As I have repeatedly said, I have no problem with Jon doing what he did, it was an entirely human response, but it was not justice it was personal and that is what this thread is about

He may have hated Slynt for personal reasons, the same as Thorne. However he executed him for not following his order and threatening him. Had Jon planned on killing Slynt from the beginning then why did he order him away from Castle Black? Again though, Janos Slynt sealed his own fate by disobeying and threatening his LC, no one forced him to do that. It was a very stupid thing to do, no matter who the LC was at that point.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Order, one order.

The only order he was ever given by the new LC. Slynt disobeyed it, twice. The last time in front of everyone while he threatened his LC by warning him about his friends in KL and the Wall and his former lordship of Harrenhal. 

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

He clearly did not think that execution was on the cards for an offense that did not warrant it.

Then Slynt was stupid and was a victim of his own arrogance and ignorance. He shouldn't have refused an order of his LC while threatening him doing so if he wasn't prepared for the consequences.  He honestly thought his former short lordship of Harrenhal should be a factor in whether he should have to follow an order or not. Even though he never he set foot in Harrenhal after he was granted it. The man talked in third person and was suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

When there is power vacuum ambitious men fill the vacuum. And it is not that Slynt arrived there alone. He came from Eastwatch, with Eastwatch men and Alliser Thorne (a knight and seasoned Watchman, even if without a proper office at that time). It might even be that Pyke sent him and the other men to see to defenses of CB in Marsh's absence.

Did he or did he not scheme to make Jon Lord Commander. Marsh was scheming to make Slynt Lord Commander. One can be of a different opinion as to who would have been the better LC (and I definitely favor Jon) but they used similar means to accomplish their goals. Aemon manipulated the election with the help of Samwell Tarly.

Of course Slynt didn't arrive at EW alone. Did Slynt stay at EW a while before Alliser arrived at EW. Either way I guess Slynt was vetted by the commander of EW. Slynt and Thorne arrived at Cb with their lackeys and Marsh the castellen bows down. 

Yes, Aemon Targ did give Sam the idea to politic. Story wise why would Aemon Targ care. if Jon Snow was elected LC.

There are quite a number of working parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On July 14, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Seams said:

The question "What is justice?" is one of the central themes of the books, isn't it? Particularly with regard to the death penalty.

In the first prologue, we meet Gared, who seems dedicated to his work for the Night's Watch and, next thing we know, Ned is beheading him. Ned says the King's Justice requires it but do we all really agree 100% that Gared deserved to die? Do we even know for sure that he deserted? Bran says there is some talking before the execution, but we don't know what was said. Going by the rules, Gared almost certainly should have gone back to report to the commander after Waymar and Will died. But we also learn that Jeor Mormont would not have killed Gared for going to Winterfell, whatever Gared's reason might have been; Mormont simply couldn't afford to lose a seasoned ranger when he was already short of men.

So that was the first example of an honorable man executing what appears to be another honorable man. In some of the other examples, the lines are blurry: we like the victim but not the executioner (Ned / Joffrey), or vice versa (Karstark / Robb). Isn't GRRM's point to show us the irony? To make us question whether we are really being fair when we see one execution as justified and another as wrong?

We see an honorable man execute desertor for violating the laws of the realm to which all brothers must live by.  Jeor could not afford to have a known desertor in his ranks anyway.

On July 14, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Seams said:

I think these examples are going in the right direction. We can also examine Theon shooting Todric after the slaughter of the Wild Hares. Todric breaks the rules about drinking and fighting over plunder. Theon intends to shoot him in the hand but Todric moves and the arrow hits him in the gut. So Theon pretends that he wanted the guy dead for disobeying orders, even though that wasn't his original intent. Stannis ordering the deaths of Alester Florent, the four men from House Peasebury and Mance / Rattleshirt might also be examined in this context.

Meh, I'd elect to use Theon's killing of the two farm boys-he looks far more unworthy of leadership through his attempt to look strong in front of his followers. I think besides mance/Rattleskirt  Stannis' execution have been productive towards his aim. 

On July 14, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Seams said:

One of the things that makes a difference in some of these death penalty situations is family name or connections. Maybe Jeor didn't execute Jon Snow for his attack on Thorne because House Stark is too important to the Night's Watch and Mormont couldn't afford to alienate Ned Stark by killing his son. When Jon returns from his attempted desertion, Mormont tells him he wants Jon's blood and his wolf beyond the Wall -- although this may have less to do with being highborn per se and more to do with some unique magical quality Jon doesn't know that he carries.

Possibly. The Watch needs the Stark family's backing-especially now given there is a wildling army amassing to launch an invasion. Executing Jon for attempting to murder his superior though it would be completely just would probably do more harm than good in the end. 

If a random peasant decided to attempt to kill a superior over having his feelings hurt I think it's reasonable for one to think said peasant would face the risk of sever punishment-he likely wouldn't be sent to his room and allowed direwolf to keep him company while the command shorts out what exactly to do with the guy.

On July 14, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Seams said:

Another thing to examine with Slynt is the butcher symbolism. Arya's friend Mycah was also a butcher's son. He seems completely innocent -- not to mention, he is a child -- but The Hound runs him down and kills him with a massive cut from his sword. King Cleon of Astapor was a butcher before he came to power through underhanded and violent tactics, including castrating the sons of the previous rulers in order to create a new army of Unsullied warriors. Tyrion sent Slynt to the Wall for slaughtering the bastard children of Robert Baratheon. So there is a link between these butcher characters and causing harm to children, but it's not a straight line that works the same way in each case. Could GRRM's point be that it is never o.k. to punish someone by killing them?

Perhaps the connection between Mycah and Slynt in how they're punished by their social superiors. Mycah was killed by the hound-no one besides Ned are disinheartened by Mycah dying , and not even Ned thinks to try to punish the hound over it-while Arya Stark came out of the conflict with no sort of punishment.

Slynt is sent to the wall with the pretense for it being having carried out his orderers to execute Robert's bastards, while Cersi herself cannot be touched over it. 

Admitably Slynt is no innocent like Mycah-he is a murderer, and corrupt of course.

I don't  think the point of showing these displays of power through execution backfiring are meant to highlight of killing someone as punishment is always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Of course Slynt didn't arrive at EW alone. Did Slynt stay at EW a while before Alliser arrived at EW. Either way I guess Slynt was vetted by the commander of EW. Slynt and Thorne arrived at Cb with their lackeys and Marsh the castellen bows down. 

No, Marsh wasn't there. He was at the Shadow Tower, fighting at the Bridge of Skulls. That is why Stout was castellan, and why Noye and then Jon effectively took command - until the Eastwatch men with Thorne and Slynt arrived. They threw him in an ice cell, and then they took him out to have him go kill Mance Rayder.

And aside from Thorne's resentment they had a reason to mistrust him considering what they knew about his time with the wildlings. And nobody still *knows* whether Jon's Qhorin tale is true or whether he is just a double turncloak.

Ned Stark would take his head just to be sure. Just look what the man did to poor Gared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

The officers of the watch were mostly dead or missing, those roles, even temporarily, had to be filled. 

Slynt was a man of leadership experience, he was the most experienced of any brother at that time, it makes sense that he would be used in that capacity. 

The Castellan is the person in charge until a new lord commander could be chosen. 

An officer of the watch. Officer is just a military expression for someone in command. 

 

kind of, he encouraged Sam to fix the election against Slynt. 

"I recall," Maester Aemon said, "but Sam, I am a maester, chained and sworn. My duty is to counsel the Lord Commander, whoever he might be. It would not be proper for me to be seen to favor one contender over another."
"I'm not a maester," said Sam. "Could I do something?"
"I'm not a maester," said Sam. "Could I do something?"
Aemon turned his blind white eyes toward Sam's face, and smiled softy. "Why, I don't know, Samwell. Could you?"
I could, Sam thought. I have to.
 

Bernie, Slynt was sent to the Wall in disgrace.

The commander of EW merely decided that Slynt was --- remind me of the NW titles ---LC, rangers, stewards, builders

FFS I have been typing this for years --- yes Aemon encouraged Sam to politic in Jon Snow's favor. Why did Aemon do that.

Jon Snow did not campaign --- Aemon set Sam to the task to get JS elected LC ---- how did Mormonts raven get into the kettle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Story wise why did Slynt think he had authority at the Wall?

Once a LC dies the men of the NW do a choosing.

Yet, once Slynt arrived at CB he acted like he was in charge.

Slynt thought he brought his rank of LC of the GC and Lord of Harrenhal with him to the Wall. He seemed to think his accomplishments and titles in KL should transfer over to the Night's Watch. I don't think he was playing with a full deck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, Marsh wasn't there. He was at the Shadow Tower, fighting at the Bridge of Skulls

This is a bit confusing for me, but as you know that is nothing new, I thought Jon told Mance that Marsh was in charge of CB while Mornont was away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Then perhaps he should have never disobeyed the order(twice) in the first place if he wasn't sure of the punishment. people

People don't live like that though, a person who does not know the punishment for j-walking is not going to expect to be executed for doing so. 

In the previous five books there was zero indication that insubordination carried a death sentence at the Wall.

1 minute ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

But Slynt does not only refuse the order, he outright threatens his Lord Commander after refusing the order.

 No. I will not go meekly off to freeze and die. No traitor's bastard gives commands to Janos Slynt! I am not without friends, I warn you. Here, and in King's Landing too. I was the Lord of Harrenhal! Give your ruin to one of the blind fools who cast a stone for you, I will not have it. Do you hear me, boy? I will not have it!

 

What exactly is the threat in that quote? Is having friends now grounds for execution? 

 

1 minute ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Or perhaps since they all have been at the Wall much longer than Slynt they realized the LC was their ultimate superior and respected his position as LC. Unlike Slynt who believes that his old rank in KL and his former appointment as Lord of Harrenhal somehow makes him special.

could well be, but as I said, there has been zero indication in the previous five books that it was a crime worthy of death, the fact that the people seemed shocked at the punishment backs this up. 

And then there is Robb thinking of the actual punishments he should be giving Slynt, but him not liking them because of who Slynt was rather than the crime he had just commited. 

1 minute ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Your own quotes from earlier show how Jon wanted Thorne to draw his sword and give him a reason to do the same.

exactly, he was looking for any excuse to end him, and that is just Thorne, Slynt was the man who executed his father, his hated of him far exceeded that of anyone else. 

You do understand that Jon, quite logically, hated Slynt more than he hated Thorne, right? 

1 minute ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Yet unlike Slynt, Thorne knows better and gives his new LC no reason to settle old grievances.

Thorne was not given a mission at that point, it is only after he has murdered his father's killer does he give Thorne a mission. By that point no one is going to take the chance that insubordination would not mean them losing their head

1 minute ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

I'm sure Jon Snow fantasizes about doing lots of things,

Not that we are aware of. By all means list all of his fantasies in ADWD. 

This is literature, Jon fantasizing about killing someone he kills a few pages later is not some kind of random coincidence.

1 minute ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

yet it does not mean he is ever going to do them. He may fantasize about creeping into Val's tower and bedding her, doesn't mean he is ever going to do it.

We are not talking about what he may do, we are talking about fantasies the author actually told us about. It is an important distinction, GRRM has not just randomly included it. 

1 minute ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

 

Yet had Slynt not disobeyed his order  we have no reason to expect Jon would have done anything other then sent him to the castle he ordered him to go too. He didn't fantasize about killing the steward from Shadow Tower he eventually sends in place of Slynt.

eh? I'm not seeing your point. 

1 minute ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

He may have hated Slynt for personal reasons, the same as Thorne. However he executed him for not following his order and threatening him.

no, he makes it clear he executed him because he was scared that he would one day plot against him

—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?
 
1 minute ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

 

Had Jon planned on killing Slynt from the beginning then why did he order him away from Castle Black?

who has claimed that? What people are pointing out is that Jon's punishment was not justice, that he fantasized about killing him and jumped on it the first chance he got. Most other brothers would have likely not faced death for insubordination that morning, but Slynt, due to being the man who chopped his father's head off along with the fact that he was one of the favorites to become LC,  was executed. 

Jon did not offer justice with that sentence as all brothers crimes and past deeds are supposed to be forgotten when they take the black, jon, in his own words, could never think of Slynt as a fellow brother. 

1 minute ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Again though, Janos Slynt sealed his own fate by disobeying and threatening his LC, no one forced him to do that. It was a very stupid thing to do, no matter who the LC was at that point.

Is anyone really disagreeing with this? No one is arguing that Slynt was smart for doing so, they are pointing out that it was not justice, the punishment did not fit the crime. 

This does not mean that Jon is evil, or bad, it makes him fallible like every other human who has ever lived. He had the man who killed his father and was a possible future threat to his leadership murdered for a crime that did not warrant murder as a punishment. 

1 minute ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

The only order he was ever given by the new LC. Slynt disobeyed it, twice. The last time in front of everyone while he threatened his LC by warning him about his friends in KL and the Wall and his former lordship of Harrenhal. 

You do realize that everyone here is aware of the situation, you are not offering any new information here. 

1 minute ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Then Slynt was stupid and was a victim of his own arrogance and ignorance.

Totally agree. That does not mean it was justice, which is what this thread is about. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

True to a degree. Probably another reason why Tywin was so adamant about not turning over the moutain to Dorne. Slynt was corrupt but he had apparently serviced House Lanister's interests. Sentencing him to the watch sends the impression House lanister will punish you for following the orders they give you-how can followers work effectively if they're constantly wondering if they'll be sold for doing what their masters wanted them to do? 

Though LF could bribe Slynt(for he was corrupt), but honestly Tyrion could have easily outbid Baelish and taken Slynt's sons as wards at Castely Rock thus putting Janos firmly in the hand of House lanister-instead of relying on Bywater whose allegiance is probably more to Varys than Tyrion and who no one apparent that can be used by Tyrion to insure good behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

 

:agree:

On 7/14/2018 at 3:03 AM, Bernie Mac said:
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."

This is the damning evidence against Jon Snow.   He was looking for an excuse to murder Slynt.  I might understand why a nobody like Arya can entertain thoughts of revenge but this is unacceptable from an officer of the NW who has a duty to unite the brotherhood. 

Bernie Mac.  Thank you for quoting this passage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...