Jump to content
Marcelowww

Jon Snow's death

Recommended Posts

On 1/3/2019 at 1:39 PM, Tagganaro said:

Expectations vs reality right?  The reality is that if Mance had stuck to what Jon ordered him to do, he would have simply helped Alys Karstark get to the Wall quicker.  I don't think this absolves Jon of responsibility entirely, but it does limit his portion of blame.  Jon's thoughts afterwards confirm that he was expecting Mance to return with the "grey girl on the dying horse" as he wonders what Mance is up to.

As for Jon forgiving Mance, sure you could argue it could be considered a betrayal.  But two things- First, that was kind of taken out of Jon's hands by Stannis/Mel, who usurped that authority by "burning Mance" for show.  Sure, Jon probably could have killed Mance on the spot once he revealed himself, but we should also remember that Jon assumed Mance was dead and that Jon himself killed him.  Second, and more importantly, we see Jon struggle with the practicality of killing Mance when he tries to get Stannis to spare him.  Jon considers all the terrible things Mance has done, but still sees him as useful to the NW (which I'd argue Jon is 100% correct about).

I'm not trying to paint things in black and white and say that Jon was doing everything wrong, but I do think he has way more responsiblity than people usually admit.  We as readers who don't have an ancestral wall to take care of can understand his decisions and see that he's right about a lot of things, but objectively speaking, he made decisions that were not accoding to his responsibility and those will inevitably have consecuences.

On 1/3/2019 at 1:39 PM, Tagganaro said:

Regardless of its original purpose or how misguided it is, the NW has tried to prevent the passing of wildlings for so many years that it has become one or their purposes. my point is that going against that purpose will understandably be considered as a betrayal of the NW.

By the people who are giving their life to defend the wall. I got the impression that considering the wildlings the enemy was the widespread belief, although maybe I'm remembering things wrong. I agree that it's pure racism and that Jon is right, I'm just saying that it would make sense for other people at the wall to think that he's wrong.

On 1/3/2019 at 1:39 PM, Tagganaro said:

Does Jon actually think he's breaking his vows?  I think his exact thought is "if I am forswearing my vows."  Jon is someone who acts for any good, whether it is greater or smaller.  As we see when "Arya" turns out to be Alys karstark, Jon is not about to leave anyone to suffer when he can help them.  Jon sent Mance to retrieve a girl on a dying horse fleeing a presumably bad marriage...knowing Jon he is not about to let that horse die and the girl suffer when he can help them, especially if he thinks that girl is his beloved sister but I think actually regardless Jon would act similarly.

He thinks that he won't ask his brother to follow him to look for Ramsay so that no one can say that he forced the to forswear their vows and that if that was oathvreaking, the crime would be his alone. To me that sound like he's quite sure that searching for Ramsay means going against their vows. And I know he's a really good person, but personally, I'm not sure at all that Jon would have searched for a girl escaping her marriage if he didn't though she could be Arya.

On 1/3/2019 at 1:39 PM, Tagganaro said:

I would not say Marsh and co. had equally valid priorities- they are largely looking to save their own skin and ignoring the apocalyptic threat that Jon and us readers know is coming down on them.  Jon is consumed by the "bigger threat", which he began to learn from Mormont and Qhorin Halfhand and was solidified by his trip to the weirwood grove.  But Jon is also a fundamentally good person who wants to help people wherever he can.

Jon had basically no options if you consider his reasoning correct that leaving the wildlings to die would be disastrous not only from a humanitarian standpoint but a practical one (adding to the army of the dead while the Wall doesn't have enough defenders to begin with).  I'd say Jon is 100% correct here as well, while Marsh is written to be close-minded for a reason.

I also think that Jon was right worrying about the other as that is absolutely the bigger problem, but I do consider issues like insuficient food, a debt they can't pay or being threatened by people who're far more powerful than them to be real problems too. As much as Jon prepares for the others, it won't matter if the NW, the first defense against them, are considered traitors to the realm and get destroyed before they can make people undestand the danger. Like I said, I don't think things are black and white, I think both sides have good points.

 

Share this post


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

How so? Are you avsolutely sure that Jon would've bothered to search for this girl if he didn't believe she could be Arya? And again, even if she wasn't Arya, a girl escaping from a marriage is none of his business as lord commander of the NW.

Yes, I am, given what we know of the character. My understanding is that Jon would help anyone, man or woman, who was fleeing from the Boltons. Jon is well acquainted w/ the Boltons’ reputation, same as most of the north. If he manages to find the fleeing individual before they are re-captured, he can bring them to CB where they’d be protected by guest right. But as I clearly said in my previous reply, I have no doubts he really hoped it would be Arya. 

Quote

Yeah, really. You're not being as clear as you think. You seem to think that Jon had no responsibility for Ramsay's letter because he didn't have Arya at the wall,

No, Jon has no responsibility for Ramsay’s letter because he never sent anyone to kidnap Ramsay’s wife from Winterfell. 

Quote

and then you put that quote about Jon thinking that Melisandre could find Ramsay, which I don see what it's supposed to prove since we all agree that Jon wants to go find Ramsay.

But we don’t all agree, that’s the point of the quote. I don’t yet know where you stand on any of these issues - well, now I do, but only in some - and I can tell you that we see a whole lot of posts claiming completely unsupported wishful thinking fan fiction stuff as if it’s all gospel. So I threw in that quote for good measure, and as a general reminder. 

Quote

My point wasn't that Jon already had Arya or that he doesn't want to make Ramsay answer for his actions, but that Ramsay's threats an demands were mostly a result of Jon's actions.

See above.

Quote

How insightful.

Cheers. 

Quote

I lend the books to my brother. Would it be too bothersome for you to answer those questions and enlighten a poor ignorant soul such as myself?

Cute. 

Quote

Of course I am, that's what I'm trying to make you see, the point of view of the bean-counters, aka Jon's NW brothers.

You don’t have to try and make me see, I fully understand why Marsh thinks the way he does, and I can see where he is coming from. That doesn’t mean I have to agree w/ his myopic and cowardly world view. Also, I don’t think all the black brothers have this mentality. In fact, I’d say thebean-counter mentality is the minority. 

Quote

It seems perfectly undestandable from their perspective to think that accepting the wildlings was going against their purpose, and even if they're missing the forest and the bigger threat, they have some legitimate concerns. Besides that, Jon siding with Stannis made sense because he was the only one who helped the watch and had more power than them, but that still went against their vows of neutrality and was partly the reason of Ramsay's letter. Forgiving Mance and allowing him to go to Winterfell made sense from an emotional perspective, but it was motivated by personal desires, not a greater good, and that was another part of the reason of Ramsay's letter. And then Jon plans to abandon the wall to make Ramsay answer for his threats, which Jon himself considers as breaking his vows. Again, I'm not saying Jon had bad intentions or anything, but it's not hard to understand why his brothers thought that he was destroying the watch.

 

Again, yes, one can understand the conspirators’ actions but that doesn’t mean Jon was wrong. A lot of characters will have to make some pretty difficult choices, and some of these choices will be seen as unlawful and treasonous, and yet they will be the morally correct choices, consequences and all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yes, I am, given what we know of the character. My understanding is that Jon would help anyone, man or woman, who was fleeing from the Boltons. Jon is well acquainted w/ the Boltons’ reputation, same as most of the north. If he manages to find the fleeing individual before they are re-captured, he can bring them to CB where they’d be protected by guest right. But as I clearly said in my previous reply, I have no doubts he really hoped it would be Arya. 

No, Jon has no responsibility for Ramsay’s letter because he never sent anyone to kidnap Ramsay’s wife from Winterfell. 

But we don’t all agree, that’s the point of the quote. I don’t yet know where you stand on any of these issues - well, now I do, but only in some - and I can tell you that we see a whole lot of posts claiming completely unsupported wishful thinking fan fiction stuff as if it’s all gospel. So I threw in that quote for good measure, and as a general reminder. 

See above.

Cheers. 

Cute. 

You don’t have to try and make me see, I fully understand why Marsh thinks the way he does, and I can see where he is coming from. That doesn’t mean I have to agree w/ his myopic and cowardly world view. Also, I don’t think all the black brothers have this mentality. In fact, I’d say thebean-counter mentality is the minority. 

Again, yes, one can understand the conspirators’ actions but that doesn’t mean Jon was wrong. A lot of characters will have to make some pretty difficult choices, and some of these choices will be seen as unlawful and treasonous, and yet they will be the morally correct choices, consequences and all. 

Ok, whatever. Agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 5:14 PM, EvreiBolshevick said:

damn, i really hope he wont be resurrected, it would be such a lame move.

Killing him in the first place is the problem. I was never Jon's greatest fan - although I very much enjoyed the love story back in ASoS and his leadership in the fight against the wildlings, and also his lonely ride with Qhorin in ACoK - but it is his chapters in ASoS where his POV just becomes very boring. He doesn't do much and that what he does he does either pretty half-heartedly (backing Stannis) or without preparing for the inevitable fallout (wildling policy). There is pretty much no interesting background information/world-building in his chapters, despite the fact that there could have been many an interesting conversation with Melisandre about her religion or perhaps some reads in those old tomes or speculations about the Others.

Most of the Wall plot is just killing time until the Others finally attack, anyway. I wait since AGoT for Jon to hook up with the other main characters. The cast of supporting characters up at the Wall was never that great, even less so with most of the remaining ones leaving in AFfC/ADwD.

It is great how he finally acknowledges that his duty/war is to deal with the Others up there. But that's his second last chapter. His last chapter turns all that on its head.

Killing him means he has to pay a real price by the rules of that novel. And paying that price is not going to make him a nice and proper character for a series such as this. If he doesn't take the Beric or Catelyn or even Victarion path he'll get out cheep, lessening the impact of his death, and should he actually become a more twisted, less human person then his entire heroic story arc up that point was a waste of time.

There is a reason why most readers liking Jon as a person and hoping he is going to be this great hero kind of guy (with or without a crown on his head at the end) desperately hope/want to believe/argue that he wasn't actually killed. They know that a proper resurrection should come with a very high price and that what this would not fit all that well with what they thought the future of the character was.

Right now the only thing I can reasonably see for him is his death and resurrection preparing him for his ultimate sacrifice at the end of the series. This is not a world where undead guys rule over living, breathing folk.

Share this post


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

Killing him in the first place is the problem. I was never Jon's greatest fan - although I very much enjoyed the love story back in ASoS and his leadership in the fight against the wildlings, and also his lonely ride with Qhorin in ACoK - but it is his chapters in ASoS where his POV just becomes very boring. He doesn't do much and that what he does he does either pretty half-heartedly (backing Stannis) or without preparing for the inevitable fallout (wildling policy). There is pretty much no interesting background information/world-building in his chapters, despite the fact that there could have been many an interesting conversation with Melisandre about her religion or perhaps some reads in those old tomes or speculations about the Others.

Most of the Wall plot is just killing time until the Others finally attack, anyway. I wait since AGoT for Jon to hook up with the other main characters. The cast of supporting characters up at the Wall was never that great, even less so with most of the remaining ones leaving in AFfC/ADwD.

It is great how he finally acknowledges that his duty/war is to deal with the Others up there. But that's his second last chapter. His last chapter turns all that on its head.

Killing him means he has to pay a real price by the rules of that novel. And paying that price is not going to make him a nice and proper character for a series such as this. If he doesn't take the Beric or Catelyn or even Victarion path he'll get out cheep, lessening the impact of his death, and should he actually become a more twisted, less human person then his entire heroic story arc up that point was a waste of time.

There is a reason why most readers liking Jon as a person and hoping he is going to be this great hero kind of guy (with or without a crown on his head at the end) desperately hope/want to believe/argue that he wasn't actually killed. They know that a proper resurrection should come with a very high price and that what this would not fit all that well with what they thought the future of the character was.

Right now the only thing I can reasonably see for him is his death and resurrection preparing him for his ultimate sacrifice at the end of the series. This is not a world where undead guys rule over living, breathing folk.

The “other medium” of the story may be crap, but I doubt they would have gone in a completely different direction on something this fundamental to the plot. He is one of the two main characters, after all.

So I think we have a fair idea of the broad strokes. The details of how and when it will happen, of course, may be wildly different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×