Jump to content
Ydra Stark

*SPOILERS* Jon useless information

Recommended Posts

So, After Everyone Being hyped about the whole R+L=J theory being true. What good did it and ultimately Jon do ? I mean, seeing Jon pushing a knive trough Dany’s heart for the sake of the realm, and then ending up with the NW ? Why was his heritage put up in the first place.. he didn’t became anything.. i think it was a total waste of Jon’s character and un unfair endin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R+L=J was absolutely critical for the most important elements of entire story. Just a very few of these are:

  • So that there would be a legitimate echo of Aegon the Conqueror's original reigning triumvirate.
  • Ned needing to pretend he'd been dishonorable to Cat and the world.
  • Robert's reign being founded on a falsehood.
  • Dany being wrong that she was heir, leading her to do terrible things.
  • The dragons liking Jon from the very beginning, cementing Dany's support of the Northern cause.
  • Jon being able to ride Rhaegar.
  • Dany finding out about Jon causing strife between them, even causing her to try to bind him to her will never to tell the truth. He can't do that.
  • Her guardian dragon Drogon letting Jon past him at the end to provide unguarded access to Dany.
  • Drogon refusing to harm Jon even after she forced him to kill her.
  • Jon ultimately being absolved of any crime here because he was actually the rightful Targeyen king and so it was his right and duty to pass the sentence dooming her.

There are lots, lots more. R+L=J was everything!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if i understand it correctly, the Lords who came together knew of Jon’s true heritage ? But because of his crime they had do select another King/Queen to judge over him ? 

Jon didn’t want to become king, he never intended to, Tyrion knew this, so that was then maybe the reason why only Jon could stop her without causing another war, because he was the rightfull king ? 

 

I’m a little confused, because it wasn’t said that the lords who gathered knew that Jon was Aegon. Only that the Unsullied and the Northerlings would evoke a war.. that is because Jon was actually King in the North. And if the Unsullied killes the King in the North, then the North would have to strike back. Not because he is actually Aegon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

R+L=J was absolutely critical for the most important elements of entire story. Just a very few of these are:

  • So that there would be a legitimate echo of Aegon the Conqueror's original reigning triumvirate.
  • Ned needing to pretend he'd been dishonorable to Cat and the world.
  • Robert's reign being founded on a falsehood.
  • Dany being wrong that she was heir, leading her to do terrible things.
  • The dragons liking Jon from the very beginning, cementing Dany's support of the Northern cause.
  • Jon being able to ride Rhaegar.
  • Dany finding out about Jon causing strife between them, even causing her to try to bind him to her will never to tell the truth. He can't do that.
  • Her guardian dragon Drogon letting Jon past him at the end to provide unguarded access to Dany.
  • Drogon refusing to harm Jon even after she forced him to kill her.
  • Jon ultimately being absolved of any crime here because he was actually the rightful Targeyen king and so it was his right and duty to pass the sentence dooming her.

There are lots, lots more. R+L=J was everything!

Very little of this were part of the most important elements of the entire story..

but to go point by point instead of a vague response.

  • Show fans have no idea who Aegon the Conqueror is and his original reigning triumvirate (and nice job using that word successfully) but to give an echo to something doesn't make it an important element of this story. It may be a nice book reader detail but it's not an important element.
  • How is Ned pretending to be dishonorable important to the story? I get why he couldn't say who Jon was, sure. But the simple fact is Robert would have killed Jon if he knew, so he didn't tell him. Now Jon's whole life purpose is to kill Dany I guess? At least as far as the story goes.
  • Why do you say that? He conquered over the Targaryeans. How is that a falsehood? He may not have known the truth with Lyanna but his reign was not a falsehood. He won fair and square. Also, why is that important?
  • This is a valid point with Dany. It wasn't the tipping point, but it definitely helped nudge her the crazy direction.
  • What was the point of him riding Rhaegar, he didn't do much in The Long Night. I do hope in the books he is more useful on a dragon though.
  • This is the same as the above point with the heir.
  • I guess...
  • He wasn't absolved because of this. He was punished as a treaty with the Unsullied. It's never mentioned that him being a Targ is getting him sent to the North.

R+L=J is a nice story line to find out the truth about Jon and give him a nice story, and in the books to hopefully ride a dragon AND be useful when he rides said dragon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, btfu806 said:

Now Jon's whole life purpose is to kill Dany I guess? At least as far as the story goes.

Right now I only have time to address this point, because it seems that the Jon-kills-Dany element is what's most irritating people.

Why do you believe that Jon's existence, his “purpose in the story”, is to do one single solitary thing?  That's a horrible super-over-simplification, but if you must have a better one one, then Jon's purpose is to save the realm from the twin threats of ice and fire. Which he did, at tremendous personal loss and even his own death.

Stepping back, more realistically Jon's actual purpose in the story is quite simply to have his story told, just as Dany's purpose in the story is to have her story told.  That's because this story is their story: the story is the Jon-and-Dany story, as reported that Martin said early during the show's beginnings. 

Both characters are tragic heroes, ones whose stories end in ruin or death, and their love story is a tragic one ending the same way. Love stories with happy endings aren't as powerful as those with tragic endings. 

Death lies on her like an untimely frost
Upon the sweetest flower of all the field.

How much of the greatness of the film Lawrence of Arabia stems from its hero’s tragic end? Why are Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, and Julius Caesar considered more powerful works than his Twelfth Night, Love’s Labour’s Lost, and A Midsummer Night’s Dream?  Do you think that TitanicSophie’s Choice, and Kiss of the Spider Woman would have been as well received had their protagonist had a happily-ever-after ending rather than a tragic one?

Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
Of all the wonders that I yet have heard.
It seems to me most strange that men should fear;
Seeing that death, a necessary end,
Will come when it will come
.

Neither of the tale’s two valiant but tragic heroes was a coward.

Edited by CrypticWeirwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted I don't care much about RLJ, but this confirms my feelings that it's a red herring. One true heir who is super special because of his birth really goes against the themes of the books. 

Jon is nothing and screwed all over the place because he's a bastard. But then suddenly he's everything because his birth is now the right and best birth. That's total B.S. Jon is the same person with the same experiences and whether his life is crap or entitled to the best based on just that is :tantrum:.

I don't think GRRM's pushing that message and all of the unjust literal demonizing of bastards and showing the B.S. of heirs reaffirms my conviction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

But the real qeustion for me remains: 

If Jon is only exiled because if they killed him it would evoke a war, or if he was freed it would evoke a war.. then what did His royal blood mean at the end ? 

It is never revealed that the Lords who gather, now of his true heritage. We know Varys wrote letters, but to whom ? 

 

Why i ask this, is because, why did Tyrion insist that Jon must kill Dany ? He is the only one who could do it. But he was also the rightfull King. Tyrion knew that if Jon killed Dany, he would have to be punished for it. It just doens’t seem to make any sense

 

Edited by Ydra Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Right now I only have time to address this point, because it seems that the Jon-kills-Dany element is what's most irritating people.

Why do you believe that Jon's existence, his “purpose in the story”, is to do one single solitary thing?  That's a horrible super-over-simplification, but if you must have a better one one, then Jon's purpose is to save the realm from the twin threats of ice and fire. Which he did, at tremendous personal loss and even his own death.

Stepping back, more realistically Jon's actual purpose in the story is quite simply to have his story told, just as Dany's purpose in the story is to have her story told.  That's because this story is their story: the story is the Jon-and-Dany story, as reported that Martin said early during the show's beginnings. 

Both characters are tragic heroes, ones whose stories end in ruin or death, and their love story is a tragic one ending the same way. Love stories with happy endings aren't as powerful as those with tragic endings. 

Death lies on her like an untimely frost
Upon the sweetest flower of all the field.

How much of the greatness of the film Lawrence of Arabia stems from its hero’s tragic end? Why are Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, and Julius Caesar considered more powerful works than his Twelfth Night, Love’s Labour’s Lost, and A Midsummer Night’s Dream?  Do you think that TitanicSophie’s Choice, and Kiss of the Spider Woman would have been as well received had their protagonist had a happily-ever-after ending rather than a tragic one?

Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
Of all the wonders that I yet have heard.
It seems to me most strange that men should fear;
Seeing that death, a necessary end,
Will come when it will come
.

Neither of the tale’s two valiant but tragic heroes was a coward.

I agree with you in the sense that a good character arc is to show, what their story is. They shouldn't be defined by the end point, but by the journey kinda thing. But you look at every character story, they have a purpose that pushes them through that story. Dany wants that Iron Throne more than anything and does terrible things to get there. There is tragedy in that character and a good character arc can be there, I think it was just executed very poorly. Like trying to tell Rome and Juliet in two acts instead of five.

What drives Jon forward? What drives this great story to tell? I think he has that story through the Long Knight. I would say that is what drives him through telling a great story. But he effectively doesn't do much that battle. It's Arya by herself that saves the day. I personally think he is robbed there but whatever. His arc keeps going, his story must continue to some point then.

So since then, what is Jon's arc? His entire life purpose up to that point was to protect the lives of men by defeating the WW. Now you can say well, it continues to killing Dany because she is now the main threat. But him as a character doesn't get there, he basically has to be persuaded by four other characters, including a very long speech by Tyrion. We see the conflict of him not wanting to make out with his aunt, but we never see the conflict till the very end of doing what is right, what is dutiful by killing his love. We don't see this inner torment that should exist. How conflicted he is. He is convinced what she does is right, even after seeing the horrors and needs many others characters to convince him otherwise...

I agree that tragedies can be great stories but in Romeo and Juliet, we saw both their points of view, we understood what each was going through to get them to the finale. Macbeth we understood the inner battles Macbeth was dealing with as far as murder goes. I think Macbeth should be a great example of what Jon should be going through in the story. But again, it's too quick. It's a few lines of Macbeth and he decides he is just going to kill. There is none of that inner struggle that we see in the story. (By the way, makes me want to read Macbeth again haha).

While I agree those specific examples show a good tragic ending, but a tragedy doesn't automatically make a great story. So you're right, my simplified answer wasn't a very good one for that point, but that is the longer drawn out point of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@btfu806 agree.

They should have done the Kings Landing Battle first. Arya kills Cersei, Dany takes the iron throne. The remaining forces then march north (with some lannister forces) unsullied, dothraki and meet up with the Northmen at winterfell. Then they fight the Night King. Jon kills the Night king, both dragons die. Dany dies from night king. Now Dany is has acheived her goal by taking the iron throne, and also broken the chians (figuratively) of the White Walker army enslaving all the living in Westeros. 

Jon is the Azor Ahai, he becomes King, TYrion hand, Sansa in the north. Arya does her thing. Sam is Maester. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he fulfilled the role of a king in spirit by doing what was necessary to protect the realm.

He was the one true king in deed if not in name.

I'm sure it will make more sense in the books, but I think many of us suspected R+L=J would not result in him being on the throne at the end, that's not GRRM's style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would have been so much more affecting, and even useful if, having killed Daenerys, Jon then killed himself.  That's generally how men do anyway -- kill their wife / girlfriend and then kill themselves.

It could have been done as in operas made from Romances, of doomed love -- oooo so poetic and loverly, as their dying arias entwine as their entwined souls ascend to lovers' heaven (though it would still be a guy killing his girlfriend to get the nerve to kill himself, but nevermind!).

That was probably too imaginative and poetic for everyone involved, from the books themselves to the HBO series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It would have been so much more affecting, and even useful if, having killed Daenerys, Jon then killed himself.  That's generally how men do anyway -- kill their wife / girlfriend and then kill themselves.

It could have been done as in operas made from Romances, of doomed love -- oooo so poetic and loverly, as their dying arias entwine as their entwined souls ascend to lovers' heaven (though it would still be a guy killing his girlfriend to get the nerve to kill himself, but nevermind!).

That was probably too imaginative and poetic for everyone involved, from the books themselves to the HBO series.

That would actually be quite a crappy thing to do. 

 

Why would Jon kill himself I think his love for Ygritte was bigger than his love for Dany. 

Share this post


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

Why would Jon kill himself I think his love for Ygritte was bigger than his love for Dany. 

Ya think? But they iz both daid (and Ygritte is one of the few characters this viewer actively disliked -- that actor just makes my teeth grind, even when she's not Ygritte -- and how long are you betting their real world marriage lasts, now there's no more bonding over working on the one most difficult shows to work for --and she hadn't worked for it in years anyway!). 

Daid, daid, daid.  What's he got to live for?  He can't have kids, since he's now back in the Crows, who have no purpose either, any more than Castle Black and the Wall have any purpose.  So how would killing himself be more miserable than the ending he's got?  Unless you believe he must live for Ghost. But until he arrived Ghost doesn't know the guy's alive or daid either. :laugh:

Share this post


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

Ya think? But they iz both daid (and Ygritte is one of the few characters this viewer actively disliked -- that actor just makes my teeth grind, even when she's not Ygritte -- and how long are you betting their real world marriage lasts, now there's no more bonding over working on the one most difficult shows to work for --and she hadn't worked for it in years anyway!). 

Daid, daid, daid.  What's he got to live for?  He can't have kids, since he's now back in the Crows, who have no purpose either, any more than Castle Black and the Wall have any purpose.  So how would killing himself be more miserable than the ending he's got?  Unless you believe he must live for Ghost. But until he arrived Ghost doesn't know the guy's alive or daid either. :laugh:

Uh, well.. Jon didn’t know he was going to sent to the NW. He responded to Tyrion asking if there was still a NW. So what you are saying doesn’t make sense. I think Jon would accept his ordeal, if the unsullied would sentence him to die. In the end he did it for the realm. But to kill himself would be kind of a lame way to get justified. And would go against his own character traits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Zorral said:

Daid, daid, daid.  What's he got to live for?  He can't have kids, since he's now back in the Crows, who have no purpose either, any more than Castle Black and the Wall have any purpose.  So how would killing himself be more miserable than the ending he's got?  Unless you believe he must live for Ghost. But until he arrived Ghost doesn't know the guy's alive or daid either. :laugh:

Purdy chur Ghost knows ’is other half is alive and ’ow ’e's doing. Ghost and Jon are bonded via skinchanger and skinchangee, maybe even as mansion of the soul. They know each other's spirits, even separated. 

Edited by CrypticWeirwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think the whole point of GRRM subverting usual tropes means that  R+L=J doesn't matter. The revelation would come too late, will mean nothing and willing change nothing in the end. It will be actually surprisingly me, if anyone outside main characters will ever find out.

As for Jon being punished for being Queenslayer, I suspect in the books Jon will decide himself to go beyond the wall, partly in his disgust with everything and partly because he might get this happy ending there by stealing and marrying Val who won't expect anything else from him. And this situation will cause the call for Great Council, to find replacement for now empty throne

Edited by Masha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you want a story about the hidden prince coming into their throne, there's plenty out there. It's one of the most beaten tropes in the fantasy genre.

Jon's story isn't defined by the fact that his grandfather was king. He accomplished everything he did without being raised in a royal court or knowing he had noble blood. He was just a bastard. But men followed him because he had the courage of his convictions, and was willing to do what was right. Saying all that spawned from his grandfather being a king is nonsense.

I think his underlying theme was that birth doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said:

Well if you want a story about the hidden prince coming into their throne, there's plenty out there. It's one of the most beaten tropes in the fantasy genre.

Jon's story isn't defined by the fact that his grandfather was king. He accomplished everything he did without being raised in a royal court or knowing he had noble blood. He was just a bastard. But men followed him because he had the courage of his convictions, and was willing to do what was right. Saying all that spawned from his grandfather being a king is nonsense.

I think his underlying theme was that birth doesn't matter.

Yeah i kinda feel that way to ! 

That’s why i asked if the heritage of Jon even mattered ? It was such a big deal for a lot of fans, but in the end it really didn’t mean anything for the story in my opinion. 

 

Share this post


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

I'm sure it will make more sense in the books, but I think many of us suspected R+L=J would not result in him being on the throne at the end, that's not GRRM's style.

Isn't the show that goes the "true king" route for Jon? In the books, the Targ succession is kind of an open question. Viserys was heir after Rhaegar died, and he in turn dies without issue. Dany says she's Viserys's heir, but it's not clear if she's formally his heir. And the books have fAegon, whom GRRM has now called Aegon VI, who would be Rhaegar's firstborn male heir. On top of all this, it's Dany who has dragons, which is what gives the house power. 

It gets one thinking what GRRM's purpose for Jon's real heritage is. I mean, he could have just been a bastard and done all that (I thought Drogon let Jon pass because he recognizes that Dany is fond of him, not just because he has Targ blood. Also why he doesn't kill him in the end.)

Jon could have just been a bastard and done all that, no? He also doesn't need to be a Targ to take the throne, He can just take it after killing the previous occupant. Maybe it's intended as something that would have once been useful (like when the throne was without a useful monarch following Robert's death) , but no longer matters when winter comes. 

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

×