Jump to content

An Evil Name


White Night

Recommended Posts

On 10/28/2019 at 8:15 PM, Many-Faced Votary said:

It is certainly a possibility, but I would respectfully disagree that it is one worth considering.

Firstly, all evidence points to ice wights essentially being akin to the popular modern depiction of zombies: mindless creatures of the grave. Regardless of whether this is completely true, they do seem to have lost their sense of self and are objectively ensorceled by the Others. Transforming one of the main characters into such an entity would hardly make for a satisfying story; this is especially important because his overarching purpose appears far from complete.

Furthermore, although a certain group of people might believe that awakening as a fire wight is akin to waking from a nap, this is not the case: fire wights (Lord Beric and Lady Stoneheart) have drastically changed physically and physiologically as well as mentally and emotionally. This is the most sensible approach with Jon, as it deals with consequences of resurrection while retaining a sufficient amount of Jon's humanity such that his story is still worth telling.

Lastly, the "Song of Ice and Fire" has a great number of meanings, several of which relate specifically to Jon Snow. It would be quite fulfilling if the "fire" of his undead self kindled at the "ice" of the Wall in addition to the other interpretations, particularly if he is meant to be Azor Ahai reborn.

As for the "how," presuming the above is true, we do not yet know. The most popular theories assume Melisandre will be the one to bring him back in some way, but there are also propositions such as LSH passing the flame onto Jon.

The Starks are the ice side of the story equation.  There are semi-rotting zombies like Beric and Cat.  A similar creature should be Jon's future.  His betrayal of the wall should have negative consequences for him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

Jon will be the enemy of the living.  He will betray the people and lead the Others through the wall. 

A bold take indeed, but not implausible. Mayhaps he does embrace the "ice" within the veins of the Starks and become the Others champion. It would tie in nicely to the idea that the Starks have the blood of the Others in their veins as well, maybe because it was a stipulation of the pact that ended the first long night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2019 at 4:05 AM, The Ghost Beyond the Wall said:

A bold take indeed, but not implausible. Mayhaps he does embrace the "ice" within the veins of the Starks and become the Others champion. It would tie in nicely to the idea that the Starks have the blood of the Others in their veins as well, maybe because it was a stipulation of the pact that ended the first long night.

Although this is an interesting idea, it is at odds with the facts surrounding his life.  He went to the wall a naive boy with the notion of the Night's watch honour as directly related to defending the wall from wildlings. His later experience with the wildlings, cleverly designed by the Halfhand, resulted in him empathising with the supposed enemy and recognising the greater one; the Others.  His journey of growth is most likely not ended yet. He keeps emphasising that in order to defeat the enemy, we must understand him. His death or near death experience could very well be the catalyst for that understanding, i.e., seeing things from their perspective. All logical analysis points to him not coming back as himself--whether he actually died or not--yet there's a dispute as to which side of the war he's supposed to champion. Will he turn into a fiery monster or a cold demon? Him going to either extremes would nullify any significance of his parentage; a marriage of the warring elements, therefore making it unlikely. It's reasonable to assume he'll come back initially bitter, and maybe his bitterness will be compounded when he learns his true parentage, making him temporarily believe that the whole world has conspired against him, from Ned denying him his true identity and labelling him a bastard, Cat treating him as a bastard, Benjen colluding with with the whole scheme, to his brothers in the NW stabbing him to death. I think, eventually, he'll overcome his bitterness and his misunderstanding of the Others' motivations to see the big picture and take on his true role in this story, a conciliator. If anyone in the whole novel is going to broker a peace between cold and fire, there's no one more fitted to be that person other than Jon. Which brings me back to the Night's King, who I think is one of the most misunderstood characters. There are many parallels between the two  which I think will unfold as the story progresses. 

 

Another thing  I have not seen mentioned before is the probability that Jon will not have a POV in the next books. GRRM, in answering a question related to post resurrection mental condition, has pointed to the fact that none of the resurrected characters has POV chapters. If this is actually the case, then it makes sense to have introduced Mel's POV in the last book, as our medium to events at the Wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, White Night said:

Although this is an interesting idea, it is at odds with the facts surrounding his life.  He went to the wall a naive boy with the notion of the Night's watch honour as directly related to defending the wall from wildlings. His later experience with the wildlings, cleverly designed by the Halfhand, resulted in him empathising with the supposed enemy and recognising the greater one; the Others.  His journey of growth is most likely not ended yet. He keeps emphasising that in order to defeat the enemy, we must understand him. His death or near death experience could very well be the catalyst for that understanding, i.e., seeing things from their perspective. All logical analysis points to him not coming back as himself--whether he actually died or not--yet there's a dispute as to which side of the war he's supposed to champion. Will he turn into a fiery monster or a cold demon? Him going to either extremes would nullify any significance of his parentage; a marriage of the warring elements, therefore making it unlikely. It's reasonable to assume he'll come back initially bitter, and maybe his bitterness will be compounded when he learns his true parentage, making him temporarily believe that the whole world has conspired against him, from Ned denying him his true identity and labelling him a bastard, Cat treating him as a bastard, Benjen colluding with with the whole scheme, to his brothers in the NW stabbing him to death. I think, eventually, he'll overcome his bitterness and his misunderstanding of the Others' motivations to see the big picture and take on his true role in this story, a consolidator. If anyone in the whole novel is going to broker a peace between cold and fire, there's no one more fitted to be that person other than Jon. Which brings me back to the Night's King, who I think is one of the most misunderstood characters. There are many parallels between the two  which I think will unfold as the story progresses. 

 

Another thing  I have not seen mentioned before is the probability that Jon will not have a POV in the next books. GRRM, in answering a question related to post resurrection mental condition, has pointed to the fact that none of the resurrected characters has POV chapters. If this is actually the case, then it makes sense to have introduced Mel's POV in the last book, as our medium to events at the Wall.

I think a Mel POV could shed light on many things, and is definitely plausible. I like the idea of Jon ending up an ambassador/conciliator between the forces of fire and ice, would be a pretty neat idea and would fit into the idea of his being "the song of ice and fire". He could be the one to restore balance to the world by helping form a pact between the two forces. I think one pitched battle between ice and fire to settle things isn't really what GRRM has in mind to end it anyway 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Ghost Beyond the Wall said:

I think a Mel POV could shed light on many things, and is definitely plausible. I like the idea of Jon ending up an ambassador/conciliator between the forces of fire and ice, would be a pretty neat idea and would fit into the idea of his being "the song of ice and fire". He could be the one to restore balance to the world by helping form a pact between the two forces. I think one pitched battle between ice and fire to settle things isn't really what GRRM has in mind to end it anyway 

I think you'll find that's a way too sensible interpretation for our resident Stark haters to stomach.It will be voted down an their local incel meetings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, redriver said:

I think you'll find that's a way too sensible interpretation for our resident Stark haters to stomach.It will be voted down an their local incel meetings.

People who see Dany as Azor Ahai riding her weapons of war to liberate cities and kingdoms and installing her own interpretation of justice  are the same people who vote for western intervention in other people's lands via endless wars and bombing to forcibly bring their western values on other cultures wether they want or not. The results are the same as well. Astapor is a mirror image of Iraq after the western powers bombed them to the sun and back in order to bring them democracy they didn't ask for; death, ruin and civil war. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And the worst kind of tyrants are the ones stubbornly convinced of their moral right to force their misguided values unto others. GRRM stance as anti-war stems from him being a student of history, which I"m sure all Dany fans are not. A war between good and evil only exists in one's conscious as the author brilliantly emphasises. Anyone who expects a battle between good fire and evil cold, especially with Danny championing the cause of good, will be laughed at when the novel finishes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, White Night said:

People who see Dany as Azor Ahai riding her weapons of war to liberate cities and kingdoms and installing her own interpretation of justice  are the same people who vote for western intervention in other people's lands via endless wars and bombing to forcibly bring their western values on other cultures wether they want or not. The results are the same as well. Astapor is a mirror image of Iraq after the western powers bombed them to the sun and back in order to bring them democracy they didn't ask for; death, ruin and civil war. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And the worst kind of tyrants are the ones stubbornly convinced of their moral right to force their misguided values unto others. GRRM stance as anti-war stems from him being a student of history, which I"m sure all Dany fans are not. A war between good and evil only exists in one's conscious as the author brilliantly emphasises. Anyone who expects a battle between good fire and evil cold, especially with Danny championing the cause of good, will be laughed at when the novel finishes. 

The nutjobs who criticize Daenerys Targaryen's liberation war in Slaver's Bay are the same people who would justify slavery and would have sat on their behinds and allowed the South to continue slavery.  Peace is not worth it if the price is slavery.  In the case of Slaver's Bay, that was the price of "peace."  Yes peace existed on the surface for the free people but a violence worse than the violence of war was being inflicted on the slaves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bowen 747 said:

The nutjobs who criticize Daenerys Targaryen's liberation war in Slaver's Bay are the same people who would justify slavery and would have sat on their behinds and allowed the South to continue slavery.  Peace is not worth it if the price is slavery.  In the case of Slaver's Bay, that was the price of "peace."  Yes peace existed on the surface for the free people but a violence worse than the violence of war was being inflicted on the slaves.

A prime illustration of the fan base previously mentioned. 'You're either pro Dany or pro slavery; the good us vs the evil them.' A black and white view of the world coupled with a complete ignorance of history.  I suppose you think Abraham Lincoln was Dany personified as well? The white hero riding his white horse to liberate the black slaves for the good of humanity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2019 at 8:33 AM, Widowmaker 811 said:

For what could be more precious than the sacrifice of the innocent who also happens to be your own child.  

Who among humanity would you entrust with Otherization besides your own blood?     Is it a sacrifice if you know they're being given over to eternal coldlife and awesome empowerment?   It's a bloodmagic baptism into the big leagues, it's like a lottery win for the geneology.  Be the first to cross over into a new speciation that ensures the babes will endure forever.   More a dark prize than a sacrifice.   And especially a no brainer for Night's Watch, who have already waved goodbye to the joys of civilization.  If you're already a lifelong shiverer in the cold, how much are you really losing out on by giving yourself over to the cold completely?

 

But what about Boltons' cold blue eyes of death?  Doesn't it kind of piss on their chances of having Otherblood if we're now saying the Starks have it?  Maybe a deal can yet be brokered here to allow Stark magic to come from Otherblood while also saying Boltons stole some of that cold magic action for themselves the way they steal skins.  Odd contrast.  Boltons aren't interested in your magic blood, they want what's on the surface, the derm layer.  They'll wade through your silly blood to get the skin off of you to steal your visage.    Like a counterfeiter hoping to sneak past some magical checkpoint on the road to hell.   Stupid, right?  I mean anyone alive could look at them wearing someone's skin and instantly know something was amiss.  So they're not fooling anyone......alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/17/2019 at 12:23 PM, John Suburbs said:

Could have been a Stark originally, then went on to found House Bolton some years, or centuries, later. Or he could have been a Bolton first and Old Nan is just retelling the myth that evolved over the eons.

Old Nan has been accurate.  If she says the NK was a Stark, means he was a Stark.  He was too in love with the Nightqueen to get on and build the Dreadfort.  The north would not tolerate him to rule over the castle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2019 at 10:49 PM, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

Jon will be the enemy of the living.  He will betray the people and lead the Others through the wall. 

He led the wildlings through.  Some would argue that it will be the death of civilization.  Jon has already done enough harm to the NW.  He doesn't need to do anything else to be the enemy of the realm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2019 at 11:33 AM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Excellent theory and wonderfully presented.  I too suspect a sinister history to the Starks.  Jon will come back and become NK 2.0.  Who will play the role of the ice queen?  Val.  
 

The NK and the NQ were sacrificing to keep the Others away.  Not at all dissimilar to the free cities bribing the Dothraki not to sack their cities.  The brotherhood went along with it because the sacrifice kept the enemy away.  Know who else did this? Craster.  For what could be more precious than the sacrifice of the innocent.  The offering of an innocent who also happens to be your own child.  

I'm getting serious Shireen vibes from this theory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is all in the story.  The 13th commander, night's king, was not intending to harm the watch nor the south.  He just happened to see a woman that got him horny and he was too brave for his own good.  His hormones got the better of him and next he was sleeping with her.  I have to ask the question:  why did the sworn brothers tolerate this?  Why not rebel?  The part ice, part Stark babies were buying the peace.  It is one possible reason.  Mormont tolerated Craster.  It's the payment to keep the others away.  Why did it take so long for the Winterfell Starks to respond?  Because the commander was their kin.  They looked away because it bought them peace.  It's a sweetheart of a deal.  The others promised them lordship over the north in exchange for blood sacrifice.  We know it works.  The man who was murdered at Winterfell thousands of years ago was not an isolated case.  The Starks were savages and were sacrificing to the trees.  It kept the others away.  Rickard passed the duty to Brandon but he died for his crimes before they could pass the legacy to a son.  Ned and Benjen never knew of the pact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sire de Maletroit said:

The 13th commander, night's king, was not intending to harm the watch nor the south.

I find it strange that Castle Black is only half as old as the Nightfort. 

Its as if there was a very long gap between when the Wall and Nightfort were built and when men from the south began to fortify it as a defensive structure. 

Perhaps his rule lasted much longer than 13 years?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2019 at 8:30 PM, Quoth the raven, said:

Old Nan has been accurate.  If she says the NK was a Stark, means he was a Stark.  He was too in love with the Nightqueen to get on and build the Dreadfort.  The north would not tolerate him to rule over the castle.

Old Nan, accurate? The woman who says Dagmar Cleftjaw had his head split in two and then just held the two halves together with his hands until it healed? She can't even get the present right, let alone the mythical past.

But he may very well have been a Stark. At some point, though, he become a Bolton, founded the Dreadfort, adopted the Flayed Man sigil, and wore the flayed skins of his enemies, including the Starks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2019 at 8:16 AM, Texas Hold Em said:

George says he is more like Samwell Tarly than Tyrion.  Samwell is the farthest thing from brave.  Is this George Martin's criticism against bravery?  Sad if it is. 

Jon IV, AGoT

Quote

...He wondered what Tyrion would have made of the fat boy. Most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it, the dwarf had told him, grinning. The world was full of cravens who pretended to be heroes; it took a queer sort of courage to admit to cowardice as Samwell Tarly had.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2019 at 10:49 PM, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

Jon will be the enemy of the living.  He will betray the people and lead the Others through the wall. 

He's the last in a line of traitors.  Lyanna betrayed Robert and her father.  Robb betrayed Walder.  Eddard betrayed Robert by keeping Cersei's secret. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...