Jump to content

An Evil Name


White Night

Recommended Posts

On 11/2/2019 at 8:32 PM, Quoth the raven, said:

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. 

Jon could end up as the main antagonists of the story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tai Pan I don't think Jon will become the main antagonist. That role belongs to Dany. What I do see happening is that Jon gets darker and flirts on the edge of being mad. Give us an uncertainty on who will fall under the madness vs. Greatness side when it comes to both of them. Though at the end Ned's legacy will prevent him from going over the edge. At worse Jon will be an anti-hero. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2019 at 5:52 PM, Many-Faced Votary said:

We don't truly know how much of Lady Catelyn is left in Lady Stoneheart or whether she can transcend her fixation, so there is little support for such a hypothesis. The biggest flaws with that theory are logistical. There is also the concern that such a deed might paint her former actions as completely in the wrong, as opposed to a reaction borne of certain aspects and complexities of the patriarchal feudal society, which specifically illustrates how highborn women and bastards are adversely affected. Nevertheless, it would be poetic if she were to ultimately sacrifice herself for the boy she believes to be her late husband's last son and her daughters' last brother, and this would be particularly profound if Arya were able to witness the pitfalls of revenge after coming across what she has become before that point.

As for Jon, there is no evidence that the reports of Arya's supposed death would be sufficient to "flip his mind to the dark side." Not only are people much more complex than that even in death, but there was also an absurd coalescence of circumstances surrounding Cat's death that resulted in LSH rising as the ruthless, vengeful entity we have seen.

We obviously are far and wide apart when it comes to agreement.  Jon lost his head over the thought of Arya and Ramsay.  Think how he would go berserk if he got word of her death.  He reacted foolishly after the arrival of the pink letter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tai Pan said:

Jon could end up as the main antagonists of the story. 

Agree.  He can't control his emotions.  I am reminded of Anikin's over attachment to his mother and how it drove him to violence.  He can't stick to the rules and pursued a relationship when it was forbidden by the order.  That is how Jon is exactly.  Jon going dark and having to be burned for the good of humanity will make for great reading and might add interest to his story line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Elegant Woes said:

@Tai Pan I don't think Jon will become the main antagonist. That role belongs to Dany. What I do see happening is that Jon gets darker and flirts on the edge of being mad. Give us an uncertainty on who will fall under the madness vs. Greatness side when it comes to both of them. Though at the end Ned's legacy will prevent him from going over the edge. At worse Jon will be an anti-hero. 

Jon is already the turncoat at the wall.  He is way worse than the anti-hero and he is the one who had the chance to defend the wall but failed because of his over attachment to Arya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Jon is already the turncoat at the wall.  He is way worse than the anti-hero and he is the one who had the chance to defend the wall but failed because of his over attachment to Arya.

Does choosing to defend thousands of human beings as opposed to a giant ice cube make you an anti hero?

I suppose it does! Wasn't there something in the oath about the "realms of men?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Agree.  He can't control his emotions.  I am reminded of Anikin's over attachment to his mother and how it drove him to violence.  He can't stick to the rules and pursued a relationship when it was forbidden by the order.  That is how Jon is exactly.  Jon going dark and having to be burned for the good of humanity will make for great reading and might add interest to his story line.

The Star Wars angle.  I agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2019 at 5:37 AM, White Night said:

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

He's the Nixon who can go to cold-China and say hello to them in his new chill body so they won't instantly strike him down as warmblooded scum but may tarry long enough to 'warm up to him' and begin a dialogue.   Finally, some human has shown the decency to appear before them in a coldbody form that, according to their ways, allows for discourse, diplomacy, safe passage and all that.   

Being the turncoat at the wall is bad if the wall has a future.   Being nigh on 1000 Lord Commanders is the bombshell here.  A symbolic jail sentence completed.  That tells me the wall's aeon is done.  By turncoating the nightswatch for the good of the world, Jon is the 'bleeding edge' trendsetter, so to speak--soon everyone will have followed his lead and overcome the wall, the great impediment to solving the North's age-old problem.  They will have either all been bled (if Jon fails) or will be celebrating a new beginning as the Others help us live through the winter instead of weaponizing it against us. 

 

Finally dealing with the Others directly will render the Watch moot.  The long appeasement of these cold gods should end.   By itself, without a lasting fix, it is just species traitorism.  (I liked the thing someone said about 'mad' Aerys maybe killing the two Starks as traitors to humanity who had been sacrificing to the Others in secret!)  The current distrust between the species of the north leads to corrupted legends and blood magic secrecy that should end.  Let's do this in the daylight.  Find out what their 10,000 year long gripe is and address it.   If they need our babies to continue their species .... uhhhh..... address it!    Part of this may involve Jon marching with Them to the Godseye, or to Oldtown, and to outsiders it may take on the appearance of a humanity-ending invasion.  It may be very tempting for the humans to panic and turn it into the apocalyptic battle of fire army vs. Ice army forseen in the House of the Undying vision by Stormborn.  But we can fight temptation?   Let us put our faith in humping!   Specifically, the interpretation of Lightbringer as a fleshy sword that fights a crotch war instead of killing people on the battlefield, and is tempered in Nissa's loins not her heart, except for how it also slays her heart when Jon and Daenerys totally get their smoochies on.   Amen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Agree.  He can't control his emotions.  I am reminded of Anikin's over attachment to his mother and how it drove him to violence.  He can't stick to the rules and pursued a relationship when it was forbidden by the order.  That is how Jon is exactly.  Jon going dark and having to be burned for the good of humanity will make for great reading and might add interest to his story line.

What relationship did her pursue that was forbidden? 

21 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Jon is already the turncoat at the wall.  He is way worse than the anti-hero and he is the one who had the chance to defend the wall but failed because of his over attachment to Arya.

I see you saying these things in different threads but never see you reply to anyone that questions your stance. 

I would be very interested in seeing the quotes you have to back up your claim that Jon failed to defend the wall because of his over attachment to Arya. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I would be very interested in seeing the quotes you have to back up your claim that Jon failed to defend the wall because of his over attachment to Arya. 

Unsolicited advice: don’t hold your breath! :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, redriver said:

Does choosing to defend thousands of human beings as opposed to a giant ice cube make you an anti hero?

I suppose it does! Wasn't there something in the oath about the "realms of men?".

I don't know about anti hero but Jon clearly sucked at his job.  He chose to meddle with the Boltons for the sake of his sister when he knew such acts would cause problems for the Nightswatch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Coonster said:

I don't know about anti hero but Jon clearly sucked at his job.  He chose to meddle with the Boltons for the sake of his sister when he knew such acts would cause problems for the Nightswatch. 

@Kissed By Fire I'm glutton for punishment. I'm gonna try again...

I would love to see the quotes that support your claim that Jon chose to "meddle" with the Bolton's for his sister's sake. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Coonster said:

I don't know about anti hero but Jon clearly sucked at his job.  He chose to meddle with the Boltons for the sake of his sister when he knew such acts would cause problems for the Nightswatch. 

how is sending someone to bring a girl riding alone in the snow meddling with the boltons?

Jon didn t send anyone to winterfell, didn t send anyone to kidnap arya… He sent someone to help her arrive at the watch...

And jon also isn t obliged to return run away brides to their husbands. He isn t sworn to the boltons… And even by westerosi standards it is highly debatable if him helping a prisoner escape is reason for the boltons to attack him. Don t Forget that part of being neutral means that he shouldn t help the boltons...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I would be very interested in seeing the quotes you have to back up your claim that Jon failed to defend the wall because of his over attachment to Arya. 

I can understand if people say that his actions are antagonising the boltons and as they are the wardens of the north on the long run he is harming the NW.

However I think this is a simplistic view on the matter. Jon knows that stannis is fighting the boltons and that some houses don t accept Bolton rule. Him protecting his sister is indirectly helping their cause. And he can t be neutral because letting farya be caught by the boltons when he could avoid it is indirectly helping the boltons. There is too much uncertainity to know what is the best course of action for the NW so why not do what jon thinks is morally better?

 

We aren t in a situation of doing the right thing for a character vs the best thing for his men. Robb had some of those situations and he mostly chose doing the right thing for his moral code. It is one of the reasons I don t think he was a great leader. I think so far has been lucky enough that most of the time what he thinks is the best thing for him to do is also the best thing for his men. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what Jon's deal is in his last chapter.   Is he under the influence?   Mel lifted his dog off of him, seemingly transferring the old gods' special connection to herself?  Or she began passing the wolf test by truly allying herself with Jon and posing no threat to him?   Did they plan the weird letter sharing plan together?   Eh.   Is there a magic component to the plan that's yet to be seen, such as Jon being only a simulacrum in that last chapter to safely determine who would stab him without putting the real Jon at risk?    Eh.   

Even if it all really happened the way we read it, with Jon losing his cool and entering the war, it's still not Jon being Evil.   It's Jon being Eventful.  And getting people killed.  You could argue that getting people killed is always an evil that tarnishes the commander and puts that blood on his hands.  I wouldn't say that.  There are good causes, times when getting people killed is one's best option, the world's best option, the best try at a good act that minimizes future evil and suffering by paying the price now in death and suffering.   

 

The cliffhanger Jon chapter of course withheld the info we need to make a final decision on whether Jon is helping the world here or merely flying off the handle and bringing the world to ruin because he reached the end of his discipline and patience.   Is it failure we're seeing or proper action?   Unclear.  But he isn't acting evil.  And the Starks weren't evil actors when the rest of them from this POV generation were alive.   So if the Stark name has been evil historically, we've seen that purged out of them and a fresh start of sorts happened when the gods sent them divine puppies. 

 

 Some of their tragedy may be them having to answer for all the bad karma their family has built up.   Even if you swing the sword for good cause, even if the blood isn't on your hands metaphorically, it's still on your hands physically, staining you and staining how other families think of you going forward.  Until you collect some judasses in your ranks.  So they're taking the brunt of that suffering in the novels.  Everyone takes aim at the top dog.   But if the test for whether they deserve to live on or die out is whether these Starks are Evil, I'd say they'll pass the test and prove to be worthy pillars of civilization, worthy of leading the winter survival effort and rebuilding the realm thereafter. 

Arya, maybe, gives me some pause, though.  Her lie detector ability may be best suited to 'reading' the true intent of the Others at any parlay meeting of the species.   And if they're evil, she may be best suited to answering them in kind, keeping pace for the win.  Is the House of Black and White infusing her with an ancient evil.....or are the Faceless and their magics an expression of true divine Justice that seems like outdated Eye for an Eye brutality but when you look closer it's actually more evolved than the justice practiced in the rest of the realm?   Depending on the answer to that, Arya may be tainted with evil or may simply have a set of magical tools that are neutral and it's how she applies her powers that will prove her goodness or wickedness.  I like the second view, and I think she'll remain Arya (not No One), but I fear that Arya won't be able to remove herself from any magic tainting of evil, if evil is what the Faceless end up being.  That could mean an eventual realization on her part that she can't return to a life in the sunlight and is defacto a shadow creature who....in her own estimation... should "make an end."    To keep the Stark name from becoming evil anew.   

But the fire and ice baby, Snow, is in a position to wipe away any smudge of ancient evil from the Stark name and renegotiate a better deal with the Others.    (Veiled Trump reference saved for the very end!  Evil to some for sure!  Dealing with the Others like that!   But what if Jon's efforts end any need for a Wall?!?!   That would make him a true hero of divine virtue, no?   Ah, we've arrived at true confusion.  Just as the author intended.    Now I'll take a bow and bring down the curtain.  Fin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 10/26/2019 at 5:32 PM, King of Heroes said:

Ice Wight Jon will make Brandon look like a cub scout.   Jon was already irrational during his last chapters.  Think how messed up his reasoning will be when he comes back after experiencing death.  He will be Stoneheart level of madness.  I too am of the opinion that he would seek revenge on the Boltons and further do damage to the realm. 

 

On 10/26/2019 at 7:25 PM, The Ghost Beyond the Wall said:

He'll definitely be more ruthless and wolf-like, I'd like to see the Boltons eradicated also, I don't think a mad Ice Wight Jon would be great for the realm though, seems like he could do more harm than good if he becomes like Stoneheart

I could see Jon going further down that hill.  It could bring interest to his part in the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the Reeds who share blood with the children of the forest.  The Starks are the descendants of the FM.  The wildlings are also FM.  What make the Starks special is their ability to skin change.  They killed a warg family during their own war of conquest for the north and brought their blood to the family.  The 13th commander mated with the corpse queen and if their children survived and reproduced with a Stark.  The Starks have Other blood too.  The bloodletting sacrifice to the heart trees fed the blood of the FM to the trees and it is the children of the forest who carry Stark blood.  Of course, I cannot rule out the Starks mating with children to produce generations of off-springs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...