The execution of Janos Slynt was spot on

[Julia H.]

4 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The guys an ass, but if you put yourself in his shoes his motivation doesnt seem malicious like other characters, i.e Euron, Cersei

He seems malicious enough to me, but I agree that Euron is worse. 

4 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Janos thinks Jon is in league with wildlings, he knows they can climb Greywatch like Jon did. Its kind of suspect 

It is suspect mainly because Slynt thinks like Slynt and can't imagine that someone else can actually be more honourable than he is. But in any case, Slynt must remember how he sent Jon out to kill Mance, after keeping him in an ice cell for days, so Jon didn't feel fit enough "to kill a kitten" and his intention was very clearly to get Jon killed. Jon went nevertheless where he was sent. 

4 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Do they? Kevan amd Pycelle seem weird but im sure theres a reason. Kill the boy, ok but Janos is no boy and he already sent away Sam and Baby Maester

I agree with most of his decisions but they were handaled with bad pr or he wouldnt have been killed

Janos repeatedly referred to Jon as "the boy", "just a bastard boy". Jon had to prove he was more than that.

Valar morghulis and everybody makes mistakes, the two are not always related though.

It's a bit early to pronounce Jon dead, IMO. The story isn't finished yet.

But be that as it may, when someone is assassinated, it does not automatically mean that the assassinated person deserved to die and the assissin was right. Jon may have been "killed" because of his (pr) mistakes (executing Slynt or letting the wildlings into the realm weren't among them though) or he may have been "killed" simply because Bowen Marsh was an idiot. One day we'll see - I hope. 

[Rufus Snow]

17 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I guess he was an idiot, one doesnt dream up friends though. I do think Jon angered a large portion of people Janos considered his friends, hence for the slynt.

Slynt very much dreams up his friends, it's all over the way he's written! He sucks up to people in the most transparent way, then thinks he's made a friend....

 

 

17 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Of course he is though, its the Hand. Certainly the city watch and KG and just as certainly the sellswords. Now can Tyrion command Tywin or Mace? Good question, can Joffrey? Its the same question because the Hand speaks with the Kings voice.

Quote

A Clash of Kings - Tyrion IX

"Our place is beside the king," Ser Meryn said, complacent.

Cersei reared up like a viper. "Your place is where my brother says it is," she spit. "The Hand speaks with the king's own voice, and disobedience is treason."

17 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The guys an ass, but if you put yourself in his shoes his motivation doesnt seem malicious like other characters, i.e Euron, Cersei

Janos thinks Jon is in league with wildlings, he knows they can climb Greywatch like Jon did. Its kind of suspect 

His motivation is pure selfishness, he's out for his own ends, so pretty much on a par with Euron and Cersei's motivations. He may not quite plumb the same depths of depravity due to being such a poor piteous excuse of a man, but his motivation surely comes form the same place as theirs. They don't do what they do 'to be evil'. but 'to get what they want' -- which is exactly what Slynt does.

 

17 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

... Kill the boy, ok but Janos is no boy and he already sent away Sam and Baby Maester

I agree with most of his decisions but they were handaled with bad pr or he wouldnt have been killed

I cannot believe you don't understand the 'kill the boy' line?!?!

Sometimes, no matter how good your PR other people with agency will still act out their own agenda with or without your permission.

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

I guess he was an idiot, one doesnt dream up friends though.

He has no friends, only people he thinks he has ingratiated himself with, and they don't give a fuck about him, but his bloated ego makes him see himself as one with important connections. You could perhaps say that he was delusional in this.

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

I do think Jon angered a large portion of people Janos considered his friends, hence for the slynt.

Any quote about people angered by Slynt's death? To my best knowledge, there is none.

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Of course he is though, its the Hand. Certainly the city watch and KG and just as certainly the sellswords. Now can Tyrion command Tywin or Mace? Good question, can Joffrey? Its the same question because the Hand speaks with the Kings voice.

I really don't know how to express this. The Hand, or King, is like, general command, and the LC to a NW member, immediate command.

But consider this - if disobeying King or Hand is treason, then so is disobeying the LC, because he is the sole and highest authority of the Watch, with no-one above him. Case closed.

 

[kissdbyfire]

2 hours ago, Buell 2K said:

Janos Slynt resisted at first and then agreed.  He agreed to do what he was told.  Then Jon killed him anyway.  

Maybe the discussion will be easier when we've both read the same books. 

[kissdbyfire]

4 hours ago, Buell 2K said:

Changing the topic title doesn't change the fact that the execution of Janos Slynt was not justice.  Trees have eyes quoted and responded to me in Damsel in Distress' topic so I will quote back and respond.

The first (recent) thread about Slynt's execution was created by someone who thinks it was personal, vengeance, and unfair. This one was created by me, who think the execution was deserved, a fit punishment for the offence, and not at all personal. So, it's not one thread w/ different titles halfway through but rather two different threads, created by two different people, that happen to be about the same thing. 

As to the bold, there's been so many posts, probably hundreds by now, showing exactly why it was justice... actually showing it, you know, using the text and not just "it isn't because I said so and I don't like Jon Snow! *pout*". 

Quote

Janos Slynt didn't break his vows.  Being disrespectful is not breaking vows and not an offense that should have been punished by death.  That was personal and Jon was driven by his desire to get revenge for Ned.  Jon knew it was wrong and talked himself into killing Janos Slynt anyway.

 

Where is it stated that the death penalty is to be applied exclusively for crows that break their vows? The level of insubordination shown by Slynt is off the charts, and after quite a few chances to just shut up and obey, Slynt continues to show the same behaviour and attitude. He should have remembered what he had told Stannis during the choosing. 

ASoS, Samwell

“Nine days too long. I have captives to dispose of, a realm to order, a war to fight. Choices must be made, decisions that involve the Wall and the Night’s Watch. By rights your Lord Commander should have a voice in those decisions.”
“He should, yes,” said Janos Slynt. “But it must be said. We brothers are only simple soldiers. Soldiers, yes! And Your Grace will know that soldiers are most comfortable taking orders. They would benefit from your royal guidance, it seems to me. For the good of the realm. To help them choose wisely.”
The suggestion outraged some of the others. “Do you want the king to wipe our arses for us too?” said Cotter Pyke angrily. “The choice of a Lord Commander belongs to the Sworn Brothers, and to them alone,” insisted Ser Denys Mallister. “If they choose wisely they won’t be choosing me,” moaned Dolorous Edd. Maester Aemon, calm as always, said, “Your Grace, the Night’s Watch has been choosing its own leader since Brandon the Builder raised the Wall.”

 

He only changes his tune when he realises he is actually going to die. Too little, too fucking late. And something else, if Slynt weren't the despicable snivelling PoS he is, he'd have taken it like a man, but even that he is unable to do. 

@Ygrain, can't quote inside an edit, but regarding any quotes pointing to anyone being angered by Slynt's demise, of course there aren't none. But in the quote I posted here we can more or less see how some of the officers feel about the brown nosing turd. Cotter Pyke and Mallister, both men in prominent positions in the Watch, don't seem very happy w/ Slynt's efforts to ingratiate himself w/ Stannis!

 

[Rufus Snow]

47 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

“He should, yes,” said Janos Slynt. “But it must be said. We brothers are only simple soldiers. Soldiers, yes! And Your Grace will know that soldiers are most comfortable taking orders. They would benefit from your royal guidance, it seems to me. For the good of the realm. To help them choose wisely.”

This is one of the most important things Slynt said - because in the end the one thing Slynt CANNOT do is take orders. And that is what got him deaded....

[Clegane'sPup]

20 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Ah so you don't just want those who agree that it was necessary to make posts on this thread. You actually want debate I apologize for thinking otherwise. I don't mean to be snide, I genuinely apologize for thinking you just wanted an echo-chamber, to where the only views expressed would be yours that it was necessary

So that you and I may have a reasonable conversation without running in circles ---- may I ask a few questions?     Simple yes or no.

Do you think LC Snow's execution of Slynt was emotionally motivated?      Me, no I do not.

Do you think LC Snow's execution of Slynt was necessary?       Me, yes I do.

In a different post you asked the opener of this thread do you want people to agree with you when you open a thread?         I would suggest that you take into consideration that the poster who opened this thread was simply carrying on a volume two of a thread that was closed due to length.

Now my yapty yap. Story wise Slynt was doomed. A blow heart smart arse puffing up thinking he had "friends in high places." Except he didn't.

I read people comparing Clegane's to Slynt. Big difference. The Clegane's are the Lannister terminators. They don't have to make threats. They just show up. The Clegane's are loyal to Lannister (until the Hound said no). The Clegane's in story are not much loved but they are feared.

Slynt is a kiss ass. He used his position to extort his underlings. Tyrion sent Slynt to the Wall along with six others. Tyrion made the remark that Deem should be lost at sea.

In story, when Tyrion's decided that Deem should die was it justice or vengeance?  Was Tyrion's edict emotionally motivated?

The reason I ask is because martin is telling a story and while the oft quoted grey characters is spouted there seems to me that in the story there are characters who are meant to be disliked and Slynt is one of them.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

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.

There is something like the last meal a man who is going to die gets, no? I'm not saying Jon would have necessarily gotten a harsh punishment, nor do I know what would have been adequate for that aside from, you know, execution.

Jon was a man of the NW at this point, he had said his vows, and he tried to murder not only a fellow brother but also an officer of the NW. One cannot really brush this aside - and it wasn't brushed aside until Mormont got the chance due to the wight thing.

But it is clear that Mormont himself is a Stark man. He is not nice to Jon because he knows or likes the boy all that much (they spent literally no time together until Jon is through his training and named Mormont's steward). It is enough that he is the Bastard of Winterfell. If Benjen is dead, who is a better successor for Mormont than another Stark descendant?

9 hours ago, Julia H. said:

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. 

See above. Could have just been a boon for a man who is not going to be happy for the remainder of his life. As to Thorne - the man was named/kept master-at-arms by Jeor Mormont. He was Mormont's man, and it needed Tyrion for the good officers of the Watch to see that the man wasn't suited to his job. After all, what Mormont apparently looked in such a man was a 'Ser' not ability.

And Jon's defiance against Thorne makes him a good and caring friend, but not exactly the kind of youth you want in a military order, no? It shows Jon's tendency to do what the hell he wants and thinks is right, but in his job he is supposed to do what he is told, not what he thinks is right. 

9 hours ago, Julia H. said:

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.  

Kind of odd to assume that Jon's friends would ask Mormont to allow Jon to keep Ghost. For that he would have likely asked himself, no?

9 hours ago, Julia H. said:

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.  

All those mitigating circumstances shouldn't figure into a sentence there. If this is a military order and discipline has to maintained - anyone committing an offense such as Jon (attempted murder involving a superior officer) should be dealt with harshly. That's how discipline is maintained.

And if it is fine that Jon gets his mitigating circumstances there, then one can (and should) argue that Slynt should have gotten them, too. And it is quite clear that the man didn't know what he would get himself into when he was doing what he did.

I'm not saying Jon couldn't execute the man, I just say he didn't have to execute him and should possibly have considered a different option there.

But the way I see it Mormont mostly saw Jon's parentage and his own favoritism to House Stark and then decided to use Jon's heroic rescue of his own person (which basically was something pretty much anyone in his situation would most likely have done) as pretext to bury the attempted murder. That is why he doesn't want to officially rebuke Thorne - because the man doesn't actually deserve a rebuke and actually has a very strong point that a man as badly suited as Jon is to follow orders should not serve in the Watch. Thorne has every right to refer to Ned as a traitor, and Jon is his bastard. While it might be not nice to do that, Jon's behavior there is much worse and is definitely a sign that he cannot control his temper.

Making a Stark bastard your own son isn't necessarily some kind of recognition of the boy as a person, but also a way to ingratiate yourself with the ruling house in the North. If Jon wrote favorably about Jeor Mormont in any letters he might later write to Robb or Ned Stark, more supplies, men, and other support might arrive at the Wall.

But, of course, anyone who is saved from certain death at the hands of some undead monster is going to be grateful. I'd, too, but I'd then hand the issue of Jon's punishment over to some other officer who is not biased for or against Jon.

9 hours ago, Julia H. said:

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. 

That doesn't change the importance Winterfell, the Starks, and the North have for the Watch. If Robb or Ned decided to show their displeasure to the Watch, they would starve and freeze to death in the next winter.

9 hours ago, Julia H. said:

The bolded is hilarious. 

Sorry, but that's how it is. And that's also why Jon is as easily imprisoned by Thorne, Slynt, and the Eastwatch men upon their arrival. They are there on the authority of Cotter Pyke, an actual commander in the NW. Neither Noye nor Jon had any official authority while they defended CB. That doesn't mean they are not heroes in this, but it also doesn't mean they had *the right* to do what they did.

9 hours ago, Julia H. said:

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? 

The thing is that the facts support both the theory of a Jon who tells the truth as well as the theory of a Jon who is lying. And, no, this isn't a world where an accuser has to prove anything. At least not where the crime of desertion from the NW is concerned. The only proof required there is for a watchman to leave his position without leave. That's all it required. Did Eddard Stark care to find out whether Gared came down south to warn him about the Others? Does he know for a certainty that Waymar Royce did not command Gared to go down south?

Jon was seen with the wildlings, and that is more than enough to give validity to the accusation he is turncloak. That Aemon believes his story doesn't change anything. And it is clear that the new LC would have sat in judgment over Jon - it didn't happen because they had first to elect a new LC. Who then became Jon, which is very nice way to get out of this thing.

The idea that such a man - especially after he becomes the best friend of the wildlings basically - is going to be seen as a paragon of virtue just because he told a convincing tale is not very likely.

And it is not that Jon was clear whether he was a spy or a turncloak while he was fucking Ygritte, no? I'd say he did not really permanently cross a line he should not cross, but how can he possibly prove that? How can he prove he is not a man who just came back because he fell out with the wildlings for some reason? Where could have gone but to CB with the arrow in his side? What could he do to escape Mance's/the wildlings wrath but to fight against them? How else could he prove that he had been 'always loyal' to the Watch? How smart is it to keep a man embodying so many unknowns in your midst?

Slynt has a reason to mistrust Jon Snow, just as Jon as a reason to dislike and hate Slynt.

And honestly, I'm pretty sure that a huge part of the success of Marsh's cabal (who may have more than a few dozen of the men of the Watch at his back) is due to the fact that Jon looks more and more like a man who is using his power, his connection to the wildlings, and his office as a means to pursue his own goals (saving his sister, fighting the Boltons) than what he is supposed to do.

He may have good intentions, but it is clear that he doesn't communicate them in a proper way to his men, nor does he care to that in the end. Once he has the wildlings he thinks he no longer needs Marsh and the others - which is why they put him down.

And in the long run it is so blatantly obvious that his wildlings policy is not going to work. They won't defeat the Others, and the way Jon got them down south is not going to help the Watch to get the help they need from the Seven Kingdoms.

[kissdbyfire]

20 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Ah so you don't just want those who agree that it was necessary to make posts on this thread. You actually want debate I apologize for thinking otherwise. I don't mean to be snide, I genuinely apologize for thinking you just wanted an echo-chamber, to where the only views expressed would be yours that it was necessary.

Ooops I missed this.

Are you serious? I know we don't see eye to eye on most things, but a circle jerk is not really my kinda thing. 

Nope, I'm not interested in reading replies only from those who see it as I do. And if I may ask, what exactly gave you this idea? 

Because I have been trying to get people to actually reply. I would like to understand exactly where they are coming from to form some of the opinions we have seen in this debate, especially n the other thread.

And just to be very clear and super repetitive, no, I don't have a problem w/ people disliking/hating Jon or any other character. But I do have a problem with people who cannot support their claims in any meaningful way. Now, as far as I can tell, you are not doing this. Neither are others, like @Hugorfonics and a couple of other posters. But there's a group of "Jon haters" that play a very different game. And the problem then is not the disagreement part, but the attitude. Some things are subjective and a matter of opinion, personal taste, whatever. Others are not. And to deny things that are proven and spelled out in the text, clear as day, just because you don't like a character or because you want to wind people up, or... [insert reason of choice] is downright annoying, silly, infantile.

The other pattern of behaviour is to avoid replying to people they disagree with. Whenever possible they only quote one another, and the purpose is to pat themselves on the back. And I simply don't understand the behaviour. 

But the aspect that really, really does my head in is that apparently some people are willing to come across as someone who is unable to comprehend something that is spelled out by the author just... because? Because they don't like a character and want to... fuck knows.

And, mind you, I am being generous here and assuming people in general are "willing to come across as someone who doesn't get it just to wind people up". I could have been far less generous, but since it's Sunday... 

[kissdbyfire]

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But the way I see it Mormont mostly saw Jon's parentage and his own favoritism to House Stark and then decided to use Jon's heroic rescue of his own person (which basically was something pretty much anyone in his situation would most likely have done

Stop, you're killing me here!

No, seriously now... I agree. Anyone w/ a giant weirwood direwolf would have done exactly the same!

 

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

Stop, you're killing me here!

No, seriously now... I agree. Anyone w/ a giant weirwood direwolf would have done exactly the same!

Well, I would have tried, direwolf or not. I mean, it was just cold, right? I could go out, why not investigate what's going on. I am curious. And when I see the zombie I'm not going to stand idly by. Would you?

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I would have tried, direwolf or not. I mean, it was just cold, right? I could go out, why not investigate what's going on. I am curious. And when I see the zombie I'm not going to stand idly by. Would you?

Sure. If you had a giant weirwood direwolf to wake you up and let you know something was afoot, course you could. 

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

Sure. If you had a giant weirwood direwolf to wake you up and let you know something was afoot, course you could. 

Well, having a giant direwolf isn't Jon's accomplishment. And it is not that one cannot wake up without the help of some animal. 

The point just is that anyone in Jon's position would have likely done the same. He wasn't doing something greatly heroic he should have been rewarded for the way he was.

[Rufus Snow]

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, having a giant direwolf isn't Jon's accomplishment. And it is not that one cannot wake up without the help of some animal. 

Maybe not an accomplishment, but not many others around who could do it, either. Half the heroes in the 7K get there by wielding family swords of VS - heirlooms aren't accomplishments either, but it still gets songs written about you...

 

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The point just is that anyone in Jon's position would have likely done the same. He wasn't doing something greatly heroic he should have been rewarded for the way he was.

99% of people in Jon's position would have very rapidly found themselves in Othor's position instead.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, Rufus Snow said:

Maybe not an accomplishment, but not many others around who could do it, either. Half the heroes in the 7K get there by wielding family swords of VS - heirlooms aren't accomplishments either, but it still gets songs written about you...

We don't get that many songs sung about heroes with Valyrian steel, or do we?

1 minute ago, Rufus Snow said:

99% of people in Jon's position would have very rapidly found themselves in Othor's position instead.

Could very well be. But the point is that the boy didn't do something heroic. He didn't know some zombie was out there. He thought something was amiss and he went investigating. That's not something heroic. And once he chanced on the zombie he had to fight for his life - like everybody in his position would have done.

[Rufus Snow]

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And once he chanced on the zombie he had to fight for his life - like everybody in his position would have done.

Oh come on!  'everybody' ??? I'm sure you wouldn't find it much harder than I do to draw up a list of people at CB whose first response would be to look for the nearest door and run for their lives....

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

Oh come on!  'everybody' ??? I'm sure you wouldn't find it much harder than I do to draw up a list of people at CB whose first response would be to look for the nearest door and run for their lives....

Jon only realized that it was a zombie when he had to fight for his life, no?

[Rufus Snow]

Do you have daddy issues?

[Julia H.]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

See above. Could have just been a boon for a man who is not going to be happy for the remainder of his life. As to Thorne - the man was named/kept master-at-arms by Jeor Mormont. He was Mormont's man, and it needed Tyrion for the good officers of the Watch to see that the man wasn't suited to his job. After all, what Mormont apparently looked in such a man was a 'Ser' not ability.

Regarding the bolded: If it is so, it only confirms the idea that a harsh punishment is totally within the traditions of the NW. But I don't understand how you can argue that on the one hand, Mormont was going to make Jon unhappy for the remainder of his life and, on the other hand, that he was afraid to punish Jon because he was afraid of the Starks. Either this or that, no? 

Thorne was used as a master-at-arms because he was good with the sword and perhaps Mormont didn't consider him good ranger material. He may not have been good cook material either.  That doesn't mean Mormont had a good opinion of Thorne as a person (we actually know he didn't think highly of him). Thorne could be used by the Watch, so he was used, end of story.

Quote

And Jon's defiance against Thorne makes him a good and caring friend, but not exactly the kind of youth you want in a military order, no? It shows Jon's tendency to do what the hell he wants and thinks is right, but in his job he is supposed to do what he is told, not what he thinks is right. 

Jon didn't disobey any command here. He reacted, while trying to cope with shock and grief, to a deliberate, malevolent provocation by a fellow brother who should have been supporting him in this situation out of basic solidarity towards a so-called "brother". Thorne's specific position in the NW would have allowed him to become a mentor figure for young NW members, which of course he neither wanted nor was able to become, but provoking this young man (into doing something rush and punishable) was totally uncalled for and evil. 

Quote

Kind of odd to assume that Jon's friends would ask Mormont to allow Jon to keep Ghost. For that he would have likely asked himself, no?

I don't know how he could do that while he was locked up, but whatever. In the end, Mormont does seem to know what happened, it doesn't really matter how he found it out.

Quote

All those mitigating circumstances shouldn't figure into a sentence there. If this is a military order and discipline has to maintained - anyone committing an offense such as Jon (attempted murder involving a superior officer) should be dealt with harshly. That's how discipline is maintained.

No, mitigating circumstances always matter. It matters whether the black brother in question attacked only an officer who was knowingly and cruelly goading him in the worst possible emotional crisis or if he went about attacking just about anybody for no reason. I say it matters because in the former case the black brother can still be a perfectly useful NW member (there is no need to bully anybody), while in the latter, he is obviously a harmful presence in the NW. 

Quote

And if it is fine that Jon gets his mitigating circumstances there, then one can (and should) argue that Slynt should have gotten them, too. And it is quite clear that the man didn't know what he would get himself into when he was doing what he did.

I can't see the mitigating circumstances in the case of Slynt though. Jon was certainly not goading him, he was giving him a perfectly reasonable command, even a rank. The command was in accordance with Slynt's military experience. As for Slynt not knowing what he was getting himself into, well, Slynt wasn't a green boy, but a middle-aged man with experience in the military, as a commander. He even had a whole day to reconsider his position, so if his first reaction was out of impulse, he had time to calm down and think.  Can you imagine he didn't know he had to obey orders? Of course, we know he knew. He also had to know what sort of harm he was doing, but he didn't care. 

Slynt is not especially smart, but if you want to argue that he died because his IQ was waaaay below average, then someone, please, explain to me how he had landed in the position of goldcloak LC and how he had survived on a daily basis in the viper's nest called King's Landing for years. 

Quote

I'm not saying Jon couldn't execute the man, I just say he didn't have to execute him and should possibly have considered a different option there.

He actually considered different options and chose the one he deemed best on a rational basis. 

Quote

But the way I see it Mormont mostly saw Jon's parentage and his own favoritism to House Stark and then decided to use Jon's heroic rescue of his own person (which basically was something pretty much anyone in his situation would most likely have done) as pretext to bury the attempted murder. That is why he doesn't want to officially rebuke Thorne - because the man doesn't actually deserve a rebuke and actually has a very strong point that a man as badly suited as Jon is to follow orders should not serve in the Watch. Thorne has every right to refer to Ned as a traitor, and Jon is his bastard. While it might be not nice to do that, Jon's behavior there is much worse and is definitely a sign that he cannot control his temper.

Well, then Jon was better than Mormont, as he did not show favoritism towards "the Lord of Harrenhal".

The heroic rescue actually indicates that Jon is still a very useful member of the NW - not only because he wanted to save his LC but also because he actually succeeded in overcoming the wight.

Mormont does not want to officially rebuke Thorne because he does not want to create more tension in the NW, but everyone has noticed how he not only pardoned Jon but rewarded him. That already indicates that Thorne's complaint is not taken seriously any more, an official rebuke isn't necessary.

Thorne has no right to goad and provoke a fellow black brother in distress or to cause tension among his brothers - it is not just "not nice", but outright harmful behaviour for the whole organization, where teamwork and solidarity can be essential for survival. Thorne started the conflict, Jon only reacted to it. Besides, being a senior member and an officer of the NW entails a degree of responsibility that is higher than the responsibility of common soldiers. All that makes Thorne's behaviour worse than Jon's.

(I have seen a very similar story in real life, where "Thorne" verbally provoked "Jon" into a momentary rush reaction, then did everything that was possible to destroy him. Everyone who knew them had the opinion that "Jon" was a much better person than "Thorne", who was a total snake in the grass. The destruction attempt was eventually unsuccessful, and "Thorne" became widely despised in the community, but it was still a rather "dark" story in a way.)    

Quote

Sorry, but that's how it is. And that's also why Jon is as easily imprisoned by Thorne, Slynt, and the Eastwatch men upon their arrival. They are there on the authority of Cotter Pyke, an actual commander in the NW. Neither Noye nor Jon had any official authority while they defended CB. That doesn't mean they are not heroes in this, but it also doesn't mean they had *the right* to do what they did.

I don't know how you can reconcile the idea that Ser Old Senile is the legal commander in Castle Black (while Noye and Jon are usurpers) with the idea that Cotter Pyke can send another "legal" commander there. As long as the legal commander is alive, every other commander must be a usurper, regardless of whether they arrive on Cotter Pyke's order or not.   

However, that's a moot point because Cotter Pyke has no authority in Castle Black. He is commander in Eastwatch, that's his position, and Eastwatch does not command Castle Black. So no, Cotter Pyke has no more right to send a "commander" to Castle Black than the Head of the History Department has to send one of his colleagues to the English Department to see to the duties of the Head of the English Department while he is absent. Pyke merely sends a small group of men (including Slynt) to help the defenders - and he probably sends the ones he most wants to get rid of. Thorne, of course, has to go to CB anyway because he belongs there. It is much more likely that Thorne and Slynt plan their little coup together, and it's only successful because Thorne (an actual CB officer) supports Slynt, because the black brothers remaining in CB are not used to challenging orders and because Jon is taken by surprise. All that doesn't give Slynt any legal authority, which is why Maester Aemon can prevent him from executing Jon. 

"That old maester says I cannot hang you," Slynt declared. "He has written Cotter Pyke, and even had the bloody gall to show me the letter. He says you are no turncloak."

As I said, Cotter Pyke has no authority in Castle Black, so why would Slynt mind Master Aemon writing to him if Slynt is legally an acting Lord Commander in CB? It is because Cotter Pyke has authority over Slynt (he sent Slynt to CB), and he isn't on board with what Slynt is doing there. Imagine how frustrating it would be if Cotter Pyke ordered Slynt back to Eastwatch after receiving Aemon's letter!

Regarding the "right" to heroically defend the Wall, I think it was more like duty. They had to do absolutely everything for the defence of the realm, there was no more important rule than that. Official authority or not, in a battle someone needs to give orders, but not everyone is able to do that.  

Quote

The thing is that the facts support both the theory of a Jon who tells the truth as well as the theory of a Jon who is lying. And, no, this isn't a world where an accuser has to prove anything. At least not where the crime of desertion from the NW is concerned. The only proof required there is for a watchman to leave his position without leave. That's all it required. Did Eddard Stark care to find out whether Gared came down south to warn him about the Others? Does he know for a certainty that Waymar Royce did not command Gared to go down south?

Jon never left his position without leave. He went where he had been sent and returned to CB with important information, his words and actions were consistent. It's not like they had never had a spy before in 8000 years. Who was there to accuse Jon of desertion? A wildling captive, who obviously hated Jon and who was interested in creating enmity between NW members. 

In fact, Eddard tried to interrogate Gared and we don't know what exactly Gared said, only that he was very confused and afraid - even if not coherent, he might have given a confession of desertion. We simply don't know, so that's not a good example.

Quote

Jon was seen with the wildlings, and that is more than enough to give validity to the accusation he is turncloak. That Aemon believes his story doesn't change anything. And it is clear that the new LC would have sat in judgment over Jon - it didn't happen because they had first to elect a new LC. Who then became Jon, which is very nice way to get out of this thing.

The idea that such a man - especially after he becomes the best friend of the wildlings basically - is going to be seen as a paragon of virtue just because he told a convincing tale is not very likely.

And it is not that Jon was clear whether he was a spy or a turncloak while he was fucking Ygritte, no? I'd say he did not really permanently cross a line he should not cross, but how can he possibly prove that? How can he prove he is not a man who just came back because he fell out with the wildlings for some reason? Where could have gone but to CB with the arrow in his side? What could he do to escape Mance's/the wildlings wrath but to fight against them? How else could he prove that he had been 'always loyal' to the Watch? How smart is it to keep a man embodying so many unknowns in your midst?

Slynt has a reason to mistrust Jon Snow, just as Jon as a reason to dislike and hate Slynt.

Noye and Aemon believed Jon, and those who voted for him (including Pyke and Mallister) can't have believed him to be a turncloak. It just doesn't make any sense. The fact is Jon's actions and character before and after the alleged "desertion" are consistent with what he says. Slynt and Thorne, however, are not interested in the (altogether not so unbelievable) truth, they act entirely on their hatred and selfish, personal interests. 

Quote

And honestly, I'm pretty sure that a huge part of the success of Marsh's cabal (who may have more than a few dozen of the men of the Watch at his back) is due to the fact that Jon looks more and more like a man who is using his power, his connection to the wildlings, and his office as a means to pursue his own goals (saving his sister, fighting the Boltons) than what he is supposed to do.

He may have good intentions, but it is clear that he doesn't communicate them in a proper way to his men, nor does he care to that in the end. Once he has the wildlings he thinks he no longer needs Marsh and the others - which is why they put him down.

And in the long run it is so blatantly obvious that his wildlings policy is not going to work. They won't defeat the Others, and the way Jon got them down south is not going to help the Watch to get the help they need from the Seven Kingdoms.

Not that they were likely to get any help from the Seven Kingdoms anyway. As for your predictions, we'll see. Hopefully. 

[Ralphis Baratheon]

Janos Slynt on the importance of adressing someone with their proper title. 

You will address Ser Alliser as ser, and myself as m'lord. I am Janos Slynt, Lord of Harrenhal and commander here at Castle Black until such time as Bowen Marsh returns with his garrison. You will grant us our courtesies, yes I will not suffer to hear an anointed knight like the good Ser Alliser mocked by a traitor's bastard. - Janos Slynt

Also important to note that Janos Slynt is the first brother ever to be Lord of Harrenhal and commander at Castle Black simultaneously.