The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on

[Ygrain]

I see the fun goes on...

7 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

"Form up," he shouted as he leapt to the ground. The gate moved under the impact of another blow. "Who commands here? You're going out."

"No." A shadow detached itself from the shadow of the wall, to become a tall man in dark grey armor. Sandor Clegane wrenched off his helm with both hands and let it fall to the ground. The steel was scorched and dented, the left ear of the snarling hound sheared off. A gash above one eye had sent a wash of blood down across the Hound's old burn scars, masking half his face.

"Yes." Tyrion faced him.

Clegane's breath came ragged. "Bugger that. And you."

And the quote continues:

The blood on Clegane’s face glistened red, but his eyes showed white. He drew his longsword.
He is afraid, Tyrion realized, shocked. The Hound is frightened. He tried to explain their need. “They’ve taken a ram to the gate, you can hear them, we need to disperse them—”
“Open the gates. When they rush inside, surround them and kill them.” The Hound thrust the point of his longsword into the ground and leaned upon the pommel, swaying. “I’ve lost half my men. Horse as well. I’m not taking more into that fire.”
Ser Mandon Moore moved to Tyrion’s side, immaculate in his enameled white plate. “The King’s Hand commands you.”
“Bugger the King’s Hand.” Where the Hound’s face was not sticky with blood, it was pale as milk. “Someone bring me a drink.” A gold cloak officer handed him a cup. Clegane took a swallow, spit it out, flung the cup away. “Water? Fuck your water. Bring me wine.”
He is dead on his feet. Tyrion could see it now. The wound, the fire . . . he’s done

Had Sandor not fled, there definitely would have been consequences for him, but there is one hell of a difference between a man incapacitated by fear in the middle of a battle, and the brazen insolence of Slynt insulting his Commander at breakfast time.

 

5 hours ago, teej6 said:

In a series with really evil and despicable characters, I agree Slynt is not the worst. But that still does not absolve him. 

Definitely not. It would be like saying that a sprained ankle is not an injury because a broken leg is worse.

5 hours ago, Ser Leftwich said:

Slynt disobeys and is insubordinate during the biggest crisis on the Wall in hundreds of years.

Dunno, is font 36 enough to bring this point home? 76 seemed excessive.

[Julia H.]

Yesterday I went on a brief hiking trip to a place called János Hill (not named after Slynt, but I thought I'd mention.) 

Did Slynt ever take the NW vow? It’s never mentioned, but it would be strange for someone to take part in the LC election without even taking the vow. If he didn’t take it, then I think everyone just assumes that he did. My guess is that he had to take the vow immediately after arriving at Eastwatch. He probably didn’t have to go through basic military training due to his experience, and he didn’t need time to perhaps reconsider a decision as he was sent to the Wall on the order of the King’s Hand, so I don’t think there was any reason to delay the vow. But that’s only a guess.

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

With Cat and Starks not killing women, ive never heard that before but is it the same with Tully? And treason trumps kin.

The Starks have a pattern of avoiding killing women. Ned’s death is partly due to his decision to save Cersei and her children from Robert’s revenge, Robb spares Osha even though she takes part in an attack against them, and Jon spares Ygritte’s life twice, while he has no problem killing a male wildling. There are other examples, too, which together indicate that killing women (just like killing children) is a strong taboo for the Starks. Regarding a Tully, do you think Edmure would kill his sister and the mother of his king on his own initiative for any reason? I don't think so. Family, Duty, Honor... In this order. As for reason trumping kin... I guess it depends on the kind of kin, and again, Cat is a woman and Robb's mother.

Now, back to Castle Black…

On the comparison between Jon attacking Thorne and Slynt’s behaviour:

Circumstances matter. Jon didn’t attack a senior officer because he didn’t like a perfectly reasonable order he was given but because said officer had knowingly provoked him. Mormont knew that Jon was in an emotional crisis, practically in grief. Although his father was still alive, the father’s honour and life were both in great peril, and the situation was clearly going to affect Jon’s brothers and sisters as well. It would be very hypocritical to expect someone in these circumstances to remain indifferent, vow or not. Mormont was still grieving for his own son years after losing him. What can be expected is that the black brother in question does his best to cope with the grief and continues to do his daily duties all the same. But it’s simply evil to require someone to put aside his grief for his family while goading him about the cause of the same grief.

Maester Aemon tells Jon he is not the first member of the Watch to go through such a crisis, and we can see how most black brothers sympathize with him. Then there is a senior officer, considerably older and more experienced than Jon, an officer who is perfectly aware of what is going on, someone who should know better than rub salt into the wound of a fellow black brother, and this officer deliberately mocks and provokes his much younger brother who is just trying to cope with a very recent shock and grief.

Thorne’s unethical and outright disgusting behaviour cannot be compared to Jon offering a position of command and giving a very reasonable order to Janos Slynt. What Thorne did was unprofessional and malevolent provocation designed to make Jon lose his temper. What Jon did was giving Slynt a reasonable command, a rank in the NW and a chance to prove himself a loyal and able man of the Night’s Watch.

By the way, what reason does Slynt give for refusing his Lord Commander’s order? Has this been covered?

“I will not go meekly off to freeze and die.”

This is the Night’s Watch, a military organization in a very cold place, in a situation of war. Anyone may have to face cold and death on any given day. Apparently, what Slynt refuses here is a considerably more essential duty than the command of a castle.

“No traitor's bastard gives commands to Janos Slynt!”   

Sure, Slynt, who has wanted to become Lord Commander, still hasn’t bothered to study the basic principles of the organization.

 On the comparison between Jon’s desertion in AGoT and Slynt’s refusal to obey orders in ADwD:

Regarding Mormont’s apparent leniency and Jon’s “harsh(?)” decision to execute Slynt, I think the two Lord Commanders actually handled the two situations in similar ways, and the difference in outcome was due mainly to the behaviour of the two culprits.

"I ordered a watch kept over you. You were seen leaving. If your brothers had not fetched you back, you would have been taken along the way, and not by friends." 

This indicates that Mormont gave Jon a limited chance to reconsider his decision to desert. If he was brought back by his friends, if he returned in time to report for duty in the morning, if he turned back before reaching a certain geographical location (whatever the exact condition was), it would be all right. If not, then he would be “taken along the way” and “not by friends”. Here Mormont is telling Jon that there was a “point of no return”, after which the consequences would have been serious. Jon, however, turned back before reaching that point.

In essence, Jon does the same when he says Slynt has it until the next morning to reconsider, and when Slynt doesn’t, then he gives him one more chance (or warning), but Slynt still does not relent, and then Slynt is “taken” and “not by friends”. Lord Commander Snow basically follows LC Mormont’s way of handling the issue, only Slynt does not do what Jon Snow did back then, so the outcome for him is different.

A minor detail, and I don’t know if it has been mentioned, but I think the difference between Jon’s and Slynt’s reactions to the idea of punishment is also important for anyone who is weighing the worth of the two men.

Jon stood tall. He told himself that he would die well; that much he could do, at the least. "I know the penalty for desertion, my lord. I'm not afraid to die."

Jon accepts the idea of punishment with good grace, even though it’s the death penalty. Slynt, on the other hand, never acknowledges that he has been breaking the rules: he still threatens and mocks the Lord Commander until the very last moments, when he finally begs for his life, but not once does he admit having done anything wrong or show any sign of repentance.

 

 

[Julia H.]

On Slynt and Mance Rayder being treated differently:

Mance is a special case in several ways.

First of all, the way he ended up in the NW: He wasn’t sent there as a way of atoning for his past crimes (like Slynt), nor did he choose the black voluntarily (like Jon Snow). He was at least half-wildling and spent his early childhood among his wildling family. Then he was taken by the NW, as other wildlings were killed, spared because he was a child, and raised in the NW. When he was old enough to take the vow, he had no real alternatives. I doubt the NW offered him the chance to become a wildling again (nor would he have known where to look for any remaining family or clan), he had no one and nothing south of the NW territory, and probably didn’t know much about the way of life there. He just grew into the NW with no other choice, into a punitive lifestyle that did not suit his personality and that he had done nothing to deserve, at a time when the main or only purpose of the NW seemed to be to fight off wildlings.

Secondly, his desertion: He was ranging beyond the Wall, got injured and then he was healed by a wildling woman. The famous cloak mended by this wildling woman (a stand-in for Mance’s wildling mother?) was a symbol of his lost and rediscovered part-wildling identity, which the NW could not tolerate. This was the first time in Mance’s life that he had a real choice, and he chose his wildling heritage, his wildling identity and the wildling way of life.

(For an analogy, think of Theon being expected to fight against Greyjoys for the Starks. Imagine he is doing this until one day he rediscovers who he is. Wouldn’t there be a very understandable inner conflict?)

Beyond the Wall, Mance rose to the rank of King-Beyond-the-Wall, and he was definitely a threat to the NW. But he was more than just an average turncloak, he was also a leader, someone to fight against, but also someone to negotiate with when it came to negotiations, a real, strong influence among the wildlings, whose ultimate goals, when the threat posed by the Others became apparent, were not impossible to reconcile with the new goals of the NW, and the NW needed allies more than anything. Mance had the potential to become a key figure in forging an alliance between the NW and the wildlings, both Stannis and Jon Snow knew this. He also had more experience with the Others than anyone in the Seven Kingdoms. Therefore, despite his desertion, Mance could still become a useful asset for the NW, a chance that wasn’t easy to throw away, especially since he had ceased to be a threat.  

There are reasons to spare him which simply do not apply in the case of Slynt.

[Lord Varys]

Guys, Janos Slynt isn't a nice guy, but he is not necessarily a particularly bad person. He is corrupt, yes, but who isn't corrupt at Robert's court? Even Ned shows his own corruption when he tries to bribe Slynt. Slynt is loyal servant to the masters he has chosen - Littlefinger, to a smaller degree, and Cersei and King Joffrey to a larger degree.

There is a reason why Slynt - and not Littlefinger - becomes Lord of Harrenhal after the succession crisis. Slynt ensured that Joffrey ascended the Iron Throne, and no one else.

And for that loyalty the king's uncle sends him to the Wall ... that is not you reward good service in a feudal setting.

That Slynt was willing to murder a woman and a child which posed a danger to the king (and Barra and Gendry were dangers to Joffrey should Stannis get him in his hands) makes him a man for dirty work, but every lord or king needs such men. Ruling and warring is ugly work, at times. This doesn't make Slynt a good man - but he is most definitely not the worst among the bad.

I mean, we don't even know why he stood with Cersei/Joffrey - it is entirely possible that Slynt actually believes Joffrey is the rightful king in addition to the fact that the Lannisters paid him a fortune and offered him a great seat. Slynt is also a very vain and not a very smart man - one sees that when he deals with Tyrion, and again when he deals with Jon. He doesn't understand the danger he is in.

However, Slynt's defiance against Jon is not totally without justification. I mean, when Slynt arrives at CB - along with Thorne and other Eastwatch, most likely with the authority of Cotter Pyke to take charge of the defense of CB (where the command was usurped first by Donal Noye and then Jon Snow when the true castellan was senile Ser Wynton Stout) - Jon Snow stands under accusation of being a turncloak. And he is actually never freed from that charge. There is no trial, nor proper investigation, and Jon never get his name cleared. There is just a plot and 'a divine sign' and then he is elected Lord Commander.

But how loyal do you have to be a to a Lord Commander who might be a former turncloak? A man who stands accused of having broken his vows? Don't we think the black brothers who (hopefully) stood against the Night's King or Runcel Hightower rather than with their Lord Commanders were heroes? In the Night's King case this is kind of obvious, but why shouldn't the Lord Commander name his successor?

And it is not that Marsh's assassination of Jon isn't justified with more or less the same arguments. Jon's policies enacted by a man like Jon - a man who might actually have betrayed the Watch to Mance Rayder before, before coming back and trying to pretend he was one of their own again because that suited his ends now more - make it very suspicious that this man actually tries to use his connections to the wildlings to destroy the Night's Watch and create an army to enforce his will in 'the realms of men' rather than protecting them. And in the end that's what he does when he decides to march with his wildlings against Winterfell.

Jon isn't cold-blooded plotter hellbent on acquiring power. But if you take a back seat and look at his actions while forgetting his thoughts for a time he sure as hell can be seen as a very ambitious man. And even knowing his thoughts we do know he cannot (and is not willing) to live up to the ideals of the Watch. He wants to see House Lannister destroyed, and he cannot let his sister go.

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Circumstances matter. Jon didn’t attack a senior officer because he didn’t like a perfectly reasonable order he was given but because said officer had knowingly provoked him. Mormont knew that Jon was in an emotional crisis, practically in grief. Although his father was still alive, the father’s honour and life were both in great peril, and the situation was clearly going to affect Jon’s brothers and sisters as well. It would be very hypocritical to expect someone in these circumstances to remain indifferent, vow or not. Mormont was still grieving for his own son years after losing him. What can be expected is that the black brother in question does his best to cope with the grief and continues to do his daily duties all the same. But it’s simply evil to require someone to put aside his grief for his family while goading him about the cause of the same grief.

Mormont is visibly disgusted by Jon's behavior. He isn't lenient there, nor does he understand that kind of stuff. We don't know if he intended to have Jon's head for this, but I don't think he would have come off easily. They could have taken his hand, or some other severe physical punishment. All only goes away because of the wights - which really shouldn't have any bearing on Jon's punishment. I mean, even a murderer and a villain (who was no coward) could have gone out investigating what had transpired - and why not save the Lord Commander in such a scenario so you are not punished/executed?

The reason why Jon's 'midnight ride' (which was desertion, plain and simple) and the attack on Thorne was treated leniently is that Jon was the son of Eddard Stark, the Lord of Winterfell, Hand of the King, and former liege lord of the aged Lord Commander (and nephew of the First Ranger). This was all favoritism among the ruling houses of the North.

The idea that Mormont would remain LC for long if Ned had learned that Mormont had mistreated or executed his son is not very likely.

Winterfell can make the Watch suffer without doing anything but deciding they only get half the food for the next ten years they usually get. They are dependent on their support. And it is also pretty clear that they knew that always used that to ensure the kin they sent to the Watch rose high there - those child Lord Commander who were sons and brothers and other kin of the Kings in the North prove that.

Mormont also doesn't intend to make Jon his successor because he shows great leadership potential - he does that because who he is by birth. If Chett, Rast, the Sistermen rapists, or even Samwell, Grenn, Dareon, or Pypar had pulled off what Jon did he wouldn't have been treated as kindly, that much is clear. Some men are more equal than others, even at the Wall. And Jon is, at the beginning, too stupid to understand even that. Sam has to tell him that being the Bastard of Winterfell makes him actually much better by birth than all the other recruits. Jon on the fast track to leadership from the start, without even realizing it.

[Bran Vras]

I have argued in the past that the execution of Janos is a deeply ambiguous act on the part of Jon Snow. Indeed, GRRM gives us several hints that it is so. 

First, for a general background on Jon's arc, consider an early pronouncement by Donal Noye.

“Yes. Cold and hard and mean, that’s the Wall, and the men who walk it. Not like the stories your wet nurse told you. Well, piss on the stories and piss on your wet nurse. This is the way it is, and you’re here for life, same as the rest of us.”
“Life,” Jon repeated bitterly.[...]
“Yes, life,” Noye said. “A long life or a short one, it’s up to you, Snow. The road you’re walking, one of your brothers will slit your throat for you one night.”
“They’re not my brothers,” Jon snapped. “They hate me because I’m better than they are.”
“No. They hate you because you act like you’re better than they are. They look at you and see a castle-bred bastard who thinks he’s a lordling.” The armorer leaned close. “You’re no lordling. Remember that. You’re a Snow, not a Stark. You’re a bastard and a bully.”
“A bully?” Jon almost choked on the word. The accusation was so unjust it took his breath away. “They were the ones who came after me. Four of them.”
“Four that you’ve humiliated in the yard. Four who are probably afraid of you. I’ve watched you fight. It’s not training with you. Put a good edge on your sword, and they’d be dead meat; you know it, I know it, they know it. You leave them nothing. You shame them. Does that make you proud?”

Jon III, AGoT

What is striking about this is that is not merely a warning, or a metaphorical prediction. It is actually a literal description of Jon's fate throughout ADwD, with an allusion to the number of assassins. Jon gets assassinated as a consequence of his own actions. Also, note Jon's astonishment at how his self-regard differs from what others could perceive (*).

Second, how not to draw the parallel with Ned Stark's execution? Us readers are horrified at Joffrey's cruelty. But the situation is essentially equivalent. A new leader faces a rebellion, and needs to assert his authority. For all the sympathy we have for Ned, there is no question that Ned Stark is no less of a traitor than Slynt. It is not unreasonable for men of the Watch, like Marsh, to see Slynt's execution as cruel and capricious as well.

Third, not in the same book, but at the same time, Euron earns his kingship in circumstances very much alike Jon's election (also an election, with hints of sorcery). In one of his first acts, Euron has Baelor Blacktyde executed.  How not analyze this as the need to affirm one's authority and to purge dissent? Consider that some men in the watch eventually see Jon as we see Euron, and perhaps rightly so.

The objective validity of these comparisons is not the main point. Our varying reactions as readers is. The lesson here, and in so many places in ASoIaF, is that moral evaluations are elusive, depend on our point of view, our biases etc.

 

(*) Of course, this is not a definite opinion from Donal Noye, who has sensed a certain greatness in Jon, as later events would show. But, in my opinion, it is unwise to dismiss this piece of dialogue.
 

[kissdbyfire]

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

First, not all the trainiees are Jon's friends. Again Jon had to literally threaten to kill one to get him to fall in line. And yes Jon is doing something deserving of reprimand. Jon is having the rest of the trainees commit insubordination. It is his decision to have them do this. This warrants reprimand. Aemon agrees to take Sam under his wing later after Jon threatened, or cajed, or shamed all his fellow trained, his into disobeying their superior officer to protect Sam. No one would obey Alliser in regards to sparring with Sam because of Jon. If Jon had only gone to Aemon convincing the old man to get Sam excused to fill the role of assisting Aemon, he would have committed no offenses to which would deserve punishment. But Jon did far more than what can be viewed as acceptable by a military order to get Sam off the hook from doing basic training. If a brother instructed, or threatened others into not obeying Jon's orders in front of Jon, Jon would also be acting justly by having that person punished. 

I was halfway through my full reply to you earlier and the page reloaded and I lost everything I had. I will have to come back later, right now at work and on phone.

But I wanted to address one thing here. 

You have to make up your mind about this. If "not all the 'trainees' are Jon's friends", then Jon can't have "threatened, or 'cajoled', or shamed all his fellow 'trainees'". 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I was halfway through my full reply to you earlier and the page reloaded and I lost everything I had. I will have to come back later, right now at work and on phone.

But I wanted to address one thing here. 

You have to make up your mind about this. If "not all the 'trainees' are Jon's friends", then Jon can't have "threatened, or 'cajoled', or shamed all his fellow 'trainees'". 

 Ridiculous. There is no contradiction here. Again he had to threaten the life of one(Rast), to actually get in line. He's also threatened others as well so yeah, Jon snow was not all the trainiess' friend. You don't need to be a friend to someone to threaten, cajole, or even shame them into doing what you want. Hell even Tywin cajoled the Hillmen when trying to get them to aid him. Why do you think Jon needs to be friends with someone to threaten them? Or cajole them? Or shame them? Can he not at least threaten them without being friends in your opinion? Do you suppose Rast was friends with Jon after the threat made against his life? 

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Mormont is visibly disgusted by Jon's behavior. He isn't lenient there, nor does he understand that kind of stuff. We don't know if he intended to have Jon's head for this, but I don't think he would have come off easily. They could have taken his hand, or some other severe physical punishment. All only goes away because of the wights - which really shouldn't have any bearing on Jon's punishment. I mean, even a murderer and a villain (who was no coward) could have gone out investigating what had transpired - and why not save the Lord Commander in such a scenario so you are not punished/executed?

 

Mutilation I feel would still be off the table. It would be weird to allow Jon his direwolf if there was any plan to really do him harm. Likely his career in the watch would hit a roadblock, possibly. Jeor offers Jon no sympathy towards Jon in this instance; regret at most given Jon's waste of potential; nor is he obliged to take Thorne hurting Jon's feelings(no matter how much) , as a mitigating factor for consideration on what is the just punishment for the attempt on the man's life; which can only really be seen as death; anything less, just because Thorne said something that hurt Jon's feelings is not justice. When I say Thorne hurt Jon's feelings I'm not trying to belittle Jon as he was merely being some petulant child; I get hearing someone mocking your father who may very well for all you know die, could have someone lose it. But this reason in it of itself, isn't grounds for any sort of leniency in a military order in a medeval setting.

[Julia H.]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Mormont is visibly disgusted by Jon's behavior. He isn't lenient there, nor does he understand that kind of stuff. We don't know if he intended to have Jon's head for this, but I don't think he would have come off easily. They could have taken his hand, or some other severe physical punishment. All only goes away because of the wights - which really shouldn't have any bearing on Jon's punishment. I mean, even a murderer and a villain (who was no coward) could have gone out investigating what had transpired - and why not save the Lord Commander in such a scenario so you are not punished/executed?

 

Well, I wasn't the one who complained that Mormont treated Jon too leniently. Perhaps he intended to behead the boy, who knows?  I find him sad about what has happened, not exactly disgusted, but it's a matter of opinion, I guess. Anyway, he did allow Jon to keep Ghost by his side, which indicates some sympathy for the boy.  Mormont is quite proud of how he knows his men, and we know he does not have a high opinion of Thorne, so it is quite possible that he suspected something and wanted to find out what had happened before deciding on the punishment, and even if he didn't, Jon's friends probably told him of Thorne's conduct after Jon was locked up. 

His friends were not allowed to see him, but the Old Bear did relent and permit him Ghost, so he was not utterly alone.

The wording here suggests that Jon's friends talked to him, asking him to let them stay with Jon, and perhaps he "relented" a bit and allowed Ghost because of what they told him.  

After Jon saves his life, Mormont does not simply let Jon go without punishment (which would be a great reward in itself if he was planning some really severe punishment for a serious crime), but he also gives him his son's sword. I think the parallel between his situation and Jon's does not escape his attention: He is still grieving for his disgraced son, while Jon is grieving for a disgraced father. Another thing that can't have escaped his attention is the contrast between Jorah and Jon: While Jorah soiled the family name despite being the only son and heir to his father and having received the lordship well before his father's death, Jon was fiercely defending his father's honour even in a very difficult situation, despite being only a bastard son with no name or inheritance, even "kicked out" of the family nest. Most importantly, this is what he tells Jon as one of the reasons why he has sent Thorne away:

"... it puts a thousand leagues twixt him and you without it seeming a rebuke."

Even if this is not the main reason, and he does confirm that he doesn't approve of "that nonsense in the common hall", the fact that he is saying this to Jon shows a degree of understanding (though obviously not approval). Also the way he refers to the incident in this conversation ("nonsense" and "folly") implies that in this moment he does not think of the incident as a serious crime. I don't think this is merely the result of Jon saving his life. He knows what has happened, and Mormont does not have to be a great psychologist to realize how harmful and unethical Thorne's behaviour was.  

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The reason why Jon's 'midnight ride' (which was desertion, plain and simple) and the attack on Thorne was treated leniently is that Jon was the son of Eddard Stark, the Lord of Winterfell, Hand of the King, and former liege lord of the aged Lord Commander (and nephew of the First Ranger). This was all favoritism among the ruling houses of the North.

The idea that Mormont would remain LC for long if Ned had learned that Mormont had mistreated or executed his son is not very likely.

 

Except that Ned is right now in prison, the King whose Hand and friend he was is dead, and his heir has enough problems to worry about. 

38 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

However, Slynt's defiance against Jon is not totally without justification. I mean, when Slynt arrives at CB - along with Thorne and other Eastwatch, most likely with the authority of Cotter Pyke to take charge of the defense of CB (where the command was usurped first by Donal Noye and then Jon Snow when the true castellan was senile Ser Wynton Stout) - Jon Snow stands under accusation of being a turncloak. And he is actually never freed from that charge. There is no trial, nor proper investigation, and Jon never get his name cleared. There is just a plot and 'a divine sign' and then he is elected Lord Commander.

But how loyal do you have to be a to a Lord Commander who might be a former turncloak? A man who stands accused of having broken his vows? 

 

The bolded is hilarious. 

Jon Snow does not stand accused of anything. He returned to Castle Black on his own, warning the garrison of the coming attack, told all who were there what he had done on Qhorin's orders. Those who heard him (including Maester Aemon), accepted his explanation, and Jon proved to be "valiant, loyal and resourceful" during the siege. Sending a spy among the enemy is not such a novel idea that it had never occured to anyone before the Halfhand. There must have been spies before. As for Jon clearing his name, the burden of proof is on the accuser, and no one has ever proved that Jon was a turncloak, not a spy. Jon Snow's actions were consistent with his explanation and his true allegiance, and he was a very useful member of the NW during the siege, so there was no reason to remove him from the fight while the enemy was still under the walls, vastly outnumbering the defending force. Later, when he is chosen Lord Commander, it is obvious that the majority of the NW, including officers such as Cotter Pyke, Mallister and Maester Aemon, do not consider him a turncloak. He is not charged with anything, and it is not Slynt's place to question the integrity of a Lord Commander who has already done much more for the Watch than Slynt is remotely willing to. I mean... Slynt is not even willing to suffer a bit of cold while rebuilding a castle where he can be the commanding officer, helping to defend the kingdom? 

[kissdbyfire]

5 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

The bolded is hilarious. 

It is, and utterly preposterous! 

[Hugorfonics]

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I see the fun goes on...

And the quote continues:

The blood on Clegane’s face glistened red, but his eyes showed white. He drew his longsword.
He is afraid, Tyrion realized, shocked. The Hound is frightened. He tried to explain their need. “They’ve taken a ram to the gate, you can hear them, we need to disperse them—”
“Open the gates. When they rush inside, surround them and kill them.” The Hound thrust the point of his longsword into the ground and leaned upon the pommel, swaying. “I’ve lost half my men. Horse as well. I’m not taking more into that fire.”
Ser Mandon Moore moved to Tyrion’s side, immaculate in his enameled white plate. “The King’s Hand commands you.”
“Bugger the King’s Hand.” Where the Hound’s face was not sticky with blood, it was pale as milk. “Someone bring me a drink.” A gold cloak officer handed him a cup. Clegane took a swallow, spit it out, flung the cup away. “Water? Fuck your water. Bring me wine.”
He is dead on his feet. Tyrion could see it now. The wound, the fire . . . he’s done

Had Sandor not fled, there definitely would have been consequences for him, but there is one hell of a difference between a man incapacitated by fear in the middle of a battle, and the brazen insolence of Slynt insulting his Commander at breakfast time.

The fun doesnt stop lol. There is a difference, if anything Sandor is more inclined to be killed. The Hound was insulting enough like every time he speaks to Tyrion and Janos seemed pretty scared too.

4 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Yesterday I went on a brief hiking trip to a place called János Hill (not named after Slynt, but I thought I'd mention.) 

 

The Starks have a pattern of avoiding killing women. Ned’s death is partly due to his decision to save Cersei and her children from Robert’s revenge, Robb spares Osha even though she takes part in an attack against them, and Jon spares Ygritte’s life twice, while he has no problem killing a male wildling. There are other examples, too, which together indicate that killing women (just like killing children) is a strong taboo for the Starks. Regarding a Tully, do you think Edmure would kill his sister and the mother of his king on his own initiative for any reason? I don't think so. Family, Duty, Honor... In this order. As for reason trumping kin... I guess it depends on the kind of kin, and again, Cat is a woman and Robb's mother.

Lol Janos hill, talk about coincidence. Any. Wodden blocks around?

About Starks, I always chalked it up as a coincidence, maybe your right though. About Tully, of course not. But i think Jon was wrong in killing Janos too

The main argument Ive been seeing is that when the commander is disobeyed, execution is a must. This is clearly not the case. Jon had other choices, he could have arrested him but thatd lead to further plotting or send him to Greyguard and let him escape. Instead he made him into a martyr.

When we read adwd and analyze Jons and Danys reign as a success, we're lying. They both failed. Janos' execution was a major point in Jons chapters, if Jon played his cards different he may still be breathing

[Ygrain]

28 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The fun doesnt stop lol. There is a difference, if anything Sandor is more inclined to be killed. The Hound was insulting enough like every time he speaks to Tyrion and Janos seemed pretty scared too.

Aren't you confusing this with the show? The book Slynt got scared only before the very chopping time.

If Sandor's behaviour towards Tyrion warranted execution, I'm sure the thought would have crossed Tyrion's mind at some point. However, Hand is not a military commander, and deliberate, premeditated insolence towards a military commander along with complete dejection of his orders and authority at a time of crisis is a totally different league. That's why comparing other character's disobedience just never cuts it.

[Julia H.]

3 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Lol Janos hill, talk about coincidence. Any. Wodden blocks around?

Yes, plenty. 

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The main argument Ive been seeing is that when the commander is disobeyed, execution is a must.

Seriously?

Obedience must be enforced in every military organization. Your examples of disobedient family members (Cat, Theon), runaway (so physically not punishable) soldiers (Sandor) and a man long-time loyal and still trusted by his commander (Davos) are rather self-explanatory exceptions. Clearly, the very fact that Jon Snow gives Slynt a second and a third chance and the fact that he considers various kinds of punishment shows that execution is not a "must" in every single case when disobedience occurs. For example, if Slynt had reconsidered his standpoint by the second day and had left for Greyguard, there would have been no execution for his temporary disobedience.

It is Slynt who takes the situation to the extreme, it is Slynt who shows himself to be totally unwilling to obey (very basic) orders or to respect the Lord Commander and through him the very organization he is supposed to be serving, and it is Slynt who proves to be not only useless but harmful as he is working to undermine the Lord Commander's authority in an extremely critical situation, disregarding the danger he may bring on everyone, it is Slynt who shows himself unable to take a verbal warning - and all that happening while he is already serving a sentence for his crimes. As I said, obedience must be enforced in any military organization, but especially so in the NW. Execution is a "must" only when there is no other way though. Slynt was such a case. He was not a novice in the military, and he knew exactly what he was doing, and he did not care, because he (falsely) believed himself to be immune. 

29 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Instead he made him into a martyr.

Is there any text that you can quote which shows that Slynt is regarded by anyone as a martyr? 

[Rondo]

Here is the original post:

Quote

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.  

While it is true that punishment in the military can be more strict than in civilian life, the opposite is also true.  Edmure got away with disobeying a direct order from Robb.  Robb didn't kill him.  Disrespecting a superior officer is not automatic grounds to execute that person.  Time in lockup is the usual punishment.  Jon won the confrontation without the need to kill Janos Slynt.  Slynt broke down in the end and asked to be spared.  That should have been the end of it.  Slynt backed down in front of his supporters and Jon already won.  Janos Slynt should have been sent to the ice cells instead.   Sparing the life of a man who backed down would have earned Jon some points with his critics at the wall.  Execution was the wrong choice and the blame is on Jon because it was his choice.

 

[Unacosamedarisa]

3 minutes ago, Tour De Force said:

 Sparing the life of a man who backed down would have earned Jon some points with his critics at the wall. 

There's nothing to confirm this, whatsoever. Just as likely would be that, had Jon backed down from punishing Slynt, Jon's critics would have assumed Jon was "all bark, and no bite". They'd have been even more emboldened in their insubordination. 

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, Bran Vras said:

Second, how not to draw the parallel with Ned Stark's execution? Us readers are horrified at Joffrey's cruelty. But the situation is essentially equivalent. A new leader faces a rebellion, and needs to assert his authority. For all the sympathy we have for Ned, there is no question that Ned Stark is no less of a traitor than Slynt. It is not unreasonable for men of the Watch, like Marsh, to see Slynt's execution as cruel and capricious as well.

I don't see how Ned can be seen [by the reader] as being the same as Janos Slynt. Even in-universe, for the characters, as the situations are very different. Let's say, for argument's sake, that Ned is a traitor. He confesses and offers no resistance. Slynt, on the other hand, insults Jon and refuses to obey, and does it a few times. Really, apples and microwave ovens imo.

[Rondo]

Just now, Unacosamedarisa said:

There's nothing to confirm this, whatsoever. Just as likely would be that, had Jon backed down from punishing Slynt, Jon's critics would have assumed Jon was "all bark, and no bite". They'd have been even more emboldened in their insubordination. 

Let me put it this way.  The way it all played out.  Jon killed Slynt.  That only made Slynt's supporters hate him even more.  Showing mercy to Slynt after he backed down in public could have the effect of those supporters actually accepting Jon.  

[Unacosamedarisa]

Just now, Tour De Force said:

Showing mercy to Slynt after he backed down in public could have the effect of those supporters actually accepting Jon. 

Could have. But I find it really unlikely, knowing what we know about Slynt and Thorne... Jon would always be the traitor's bastard to them, no matter what Jon did. It's a point that's been made, repeatedly, throughout this discussion... Jon was willing to put personal feelings aside, make peace/truce with Slynt and Thorne and the rest, and work with them. But, Slynt was not willing to put personal feelings aside, he threw Jon's offer back in his face, twice, and insulted him infront of the other Brothers.

Jon would always be the traitor's bastard to Slynt and Thorne... a very telling name, considering it arises from things Jon has no control over, and can't be held responsible for. 

[Julia H.]

Edmure was Robb's uncle, and his loyalty was never questioned. He misunderstood a command and won an "expensive" victory, but he did not defy his commander openly and willingly. Karstark did, and look what happened. 

3 minutes ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

There's nothing to confirm this, whatsoever. Just as likely would be that, had Jon backed down from punishing Slynt, Jon's critics would have assumed Jon was "all bark, and no bite". They'd have been even more emboldened in their insubordination. 

Exactly. Slynt broke when the block was already there, but just moments earlier he was threatening and mocking the LC, saying: 

"If the boy thinks that he can frighten me, he is mistaken," they heard Lord Janos said. "He would not dare to hang me. Janos Slynt has friends, important friends, you'll see …"

Does the LC dare to execute him? He doesn't give Jon much choice.

When, for a moment, he believes that Jon has indeed changed his mind:

The smile that Lord Janos Slynt smiled then had all the sweetness of rancid butter. 

That doesn't seem to be a grateful facial expression to me, and I guess this is the closest to a "what if" prediction that the author gives us regarding what could be expected if Slynt was spared now.  

[Unacosamedarisa]

Just now, Julia H. said:

That doesn't seem to be a grateful facial expression to me, and I guess this is the closest to a "what if" prediction that the author gives us regarding what could be expected if Slynt was spared now.  

Exactly. You can almost imagine what Slynt was getting ready to say, and it wasn't "thank you Lord Commander, I realise now the error of my ways. I apologise and promise to work with you in all things in the future". 

I can't see how anyone can conceive that, had Jon relented from punishing Slynt, that he and his fellows would have gone away thinking "that Jon fellow really isn't so bad", rather than "the traitor's bastard can't even follow through on his own decisions".