Jump to content

On Janos Slynt


kissdbyfire

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't get Jon's thought process in full. We only get enough to know that he had other options. In fact, we are presented his thoughts in such a manner that we don't know what he plans to do - sort of like we don't know what he is going to do about the Pink Letter until he does, or how he is attending a wedding and we only realize some paragraphs later who is marrying whom.

We don't know why Jon wants to kill Slynt. He never gives us any internal motivation or explanation for this aside from the fact that he disobeyed an order and his admission that he could have punished him less harshly.

We are given all we need to understand his decision-making process. Whatever is left out is left out to avoid beating a dead horse and to create suspense for the reader. The whole, “this is wrong. I will not hang him”...  “Edd, fetch me a block” would be utterly pointless and stupid if we’d seen Jon make that decision internally before giving the command for Edd to bring him a block. 

 

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon's own thoughts tell us there are a number of ways to deal with disobedience and he chose the harshest possible punishment. It is not unheard of, apparently, but it is both cruel and extreme given the circumstances and the person involved (Jon's main rival in the race for the position of lord commander).

It’s not cruel at all, and not extreme in the least. We will never agree on this, as we will never agree on most things. And that’s fine. The NW is a military order in a feudal-like society. Getting executed after very vocally and publicly disobeying  your commanding officer and telling him he has the mark of the beast and should shove his order up his bastard’s arse is 100% adequate and fitting the offence.  

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Things are not just magically great or right just because Jon Snow does them. Killing Slynt makes him look bad because he was his main rival. It shows to Slynt's supporters and Jon's own opposition that he doesn't intend to be their lord commander - or a just lord commander for all. It shows that he is playing favorites.

This is laughable, seriously. It doesn’t make Jon look bad. That’s why, as I said before, Edd and Iron Emmett don’t bat an eyelash; that’s why even Thorne gets out of the way and doesn’t say anything. Slynt is, on top of many things, a very stupid man. He thought his few cronies would stand up to Jon, that’s why he acted the way he did. Only the handful of buddies he has know bloody well that it was completely within Jon’s authority to execute Slynt. 

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Which I find fine - if he had had the brains to actually give himself a proper power base rather than essentially repeating Ned's and Robb's mistakes both - eroding his own base by sending trusted friends and followers away and completely ignoring the danger he was in when he had more than enough evidence and hints to keep and eye on those people. I mean, they were all in his castle. He didn't even need to go to another man's castle to be killed like Robb.

He has a solid power base. But let’s leave this for now b/c, again, we will never agree. I’ll make sure to address this topic w/ you again once Winds is out. 

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

One can make the case that Jon was too harsh in the Slynt case. Slynt was never a big problem. He was a bumbling fool. Marsh is the one who arranged Jon's murder. He was the real danger, not Slynt, not even Thorne, apparently.

I see. We'll get back to this point in the future as well. 

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And it cannot be denied that we don't know to what degree Jon's personal issues with Slynt as well as his knowledge what the man did back at KL influenced his sentence there. It is ridiculous to assume this didn't influence his decision-making process, especially since it is quite clear that Jon very much hates the Lannisters and their machinations and openly admits as much to his friends. It is also quite clear that those are his reason to help Stannis, to send Mance to fetch his sister, etc.

It can be denied, look: I disagree. But again, I’m repeating myself, and you’re repeating yourself. We are given enough of Jon’s thoughts to understand how and why he decided to execute Slynt. 

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I mean, we can all agree that Jon wouldn't have taken Aemon's or Sam's head had they flat-out refused to go to Oldtown, right? Not even Dareon's if he had insisted he would remain at Eastwatch.

No, we can’t agree on any of that. Things change, friendships and alliances shift, people are weird. There are any number of things that could have happened to change these relationships dramatically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't get Jon's thought process in full.

What are we missing? It seems to be a complete thought process to me. 

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We only get enough to know that he had other options. In fact, we are presented his thoughts in such a manner that we don't know what he plans to do - sort of like we don't know what he is going to do about the Pink Letter until he does, or how he is attending a wedding and we only realize some paragraphs later who is marrying whom.

But we do know what he intends to do. He specifically says "hang him" Then stops them & says Edd, fetch me a block. I agree we don't hear his "thoughts" or reasons between switching from hanging him to beheading him but some thoughts are just on an subconscious level. Like we have to think for our arm to move but we don't realize we are thinking it. Jon likely had no conscience thought here as it happens very quickly. I don't think this means we are not getting his complete thought process. 

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't know why Jon wants to kill Slynt.

I would argue that's because he doesn't want to kill Slynt. 

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He never gives us any internal motivation or explanation for this aside from the fact that he disobeyed an order and his admission that he could have punished him less harshly.

But we do. We get Jon's explanation in full. He says specifically why he doesn't send him to an ice cell, & why he doesn't force him to go to Greyguard as a cook. His internal motivation is that he feels he has no choice but to punish this man & his explanation for beheading rather than something less harsh is given to us in Jon's own words. 

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon's own thoughts tell us there are a number of ways to deal with disobedience and he chose the harshest possible punishment. It is not unheard of, apparently, but it is both cruel and extreme given the circumstances and the person involved (Jon's main rival in the race for the position of lord commander).

Yes & they also tell us why he does not choose those other, less harsh routes. I disagree it is cruel & extreme & Janos being Jon's main rival in the race for LC should have absolutely no bearing on what Janos is allowed to get away with or how he is punished. Why would it?

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Things are not just magically great or right just because Jon Snow does them. Killing Slynt makes him look bad because he was his main rival. It shows to Slynt's supporters and Jon's own opposition that he doesn't intend to be their lord commander - or a just lord commander for all. It shows that he is playing favorites.

No, but neither does your assertion that it was cruel and extreme make it wrong. If I or someone else agree with Jon's decision it doesn't mean that we think everything he does is magically right because Jon did them any more than you disagreeing with Jon means you think everything Jon does is automatically wrong just because Jon did it. 

I think Jon let it go on as long as he did because of the rivalry. He wanted no question as to whether or not Janos deserved what he got & as far as we know there isn't one in universe. I don't recall one single person suggesting Jon shouldn't have, that it was too much, that they had negative feelings toward him because of it, that the mutiny was in part due to it, none of that. I suppose I could have missed it but there cannot be much if any. 

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Which I find fine - if he had had the brains to actually give himself a proper power base rather than essentially repeating Ned's and Robb's mistakes both - eroding his own base by sending trusted friends and followers away and completely ignoring the danger he was in when he had more than enough evidence and hints to keep and eye on those people. I mean, they were all in his castle. He didn't even need to go to another man's castle to be killed like Robb.

Why would playing favoritism be fine? I agree he should have kept his friends in power positions but THAT would be playing favoritism no? It would be the smart move but people absolutely would have been hostile about it. 

I mean do you honestly believe he was written to be a dumb character? Or is it possible he was written to make mistakes & not always see the bigger picture while still having average to above average (at least on the wall) intelligence? Could he have seen it coming? Sure. Should he have seen it coming? Probably, the signs were definitely there if he would have looked. Does not seeing it coming mean he is stupid or without brains? I don't think so. I think it means hindsight is 20/20 & it is very easy for someone not in the same position, on the outside looking in & seeing the entire picture, to say he should have done this or how can he miss that. 

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

One can make the case that Jon was too harsh in the Slynt case. Slynt was never a big problem. He was a bumbling fool. Marsh is the one who arranged Jon's murder. He was the real danger, not Slynt, not even Thorne, apparently.

Sure that's how it turned out to be but had Slynt lived it may not have been so, and while there were signs that Jon was in danger he couldn't not have, in good faith, executed Bowen or Alliser - that hadn't done anything to deserve it up & until Bowen stabs him. He may have un-covered the plot earlier, assuming the plot was to kill Jon from the beginning, had he dug a little deeper but again, if Slynt had lived it may have been a completely different situation. 

24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And it cannot be denied that we don't know to what degree Jon's personal issues with Slynt as well as his knowledge what the man did back at KL influenced his sentence there.

Except we get Jon's thoughts on this. He specifically says he is giving him a chance, he is trying to make nice despite the things he did in KL. IRL, if I were LC & Janos had played a part in my father's death etc I would agree that probably a part of me, even if a subconscious part, would be relieved at beheading the man or at the very least felt he ended up getting what he deserved. That doesn't mean that he didn't get what he deserved though & Jon is not IRL & George writes this passage the same as he writes all passages - with painstaking detail to the words. If Jon's resentment toward Janos played a part in his beheading, surely, George would have given us something indicating that? Instead he gives us Jon specifically thinking that it isn't because of what he did in KL & that he is giving him a chance to make his own way in the NW. 

28 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is ridiculous to assume this didn't influence his decision-making process, especially since it is quite clear that Jon very much hates the Lannisters and their machinations and openly admits as much to his friends. It is also quite clear that those are his reason to help Stannis, to send Mance to fetch his sister, etc.

Quite clear to whom? His reasons behind helping Stannis are clearly because Stannis helped him & he feels obligated to do what he can in order to get that continued help. Without arguing the semantics of what you said in regards to Mance (because I disagree that is what happened) Mance going to find fArya has nothing to do with hating the Lannisters. Sure he hates them - a lot of people do & with good cause. That doesn't mean every decision he makes is based off of hating the Lannisters. 

30 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I mean, we can all agree that Jon wouldn't have taken Aemon's or Sam's head had they flat-out refused to go to Oldtown, right? Not even Dareon's if he had insisted he would remain at Eastwatch.

We can agree that Sam would not have directly refused an order. We know this because Sam does not want to go to Oldtown but Jon tells him it is a command & he goes. Aemon is a different situation but he also would not have directly refused. Aemon may have explained the reasons he thought it wasn't a good idea & Jon may have conceded to his advise but that isn't refusing. He most definitely would have taken Dareon's head if he refused to go. The fact is most of the NW obey the LC. You would be hard pressed to find another person willing to defy the LC the way Janos did. That isn't because Jon hates Janos, that's because Janos hates Jon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditto @kissdbyfire on these. Especially the last. Janos Slynt defied Jon as a power play, attempting to assert his ability to disregard the duly elected Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. He was a man actively attempting to maintain a group of dissidents who would back him. He was a poison in the Night's Watch, dangerous and dangerously deluded. Jon determining that he couldn't let the rot continue, and his honest and real attempt to try and find him a suitable position that best used his talents while also keeping away from the bulk of the Night's Watch, were all genuine efforts to try and get a positive result. Slynt ended up throwing it in his face and then making a public display of his defiance with his buddies around -- he was directly challenging everything Jon was and how the Night's Watch worked. Death was, by the standards of the Watch, a correct punishment.

I can't imagine a scenario where Aemon or Sam refusing to go to Oldtown would have any of the deliberate, provocative attack on the organizational principles of the Watch that Janos's mutinous efforts had, so no, Jon wouldn't execute them.

OTOH, if Daeron decided to refuse to go, and then proceeded to make repeated open mockery of Jon's efforts to command him and basically insinuated that Jon wasn't fit to be Lord Commander and wasn't fit to give him orders, I think Jon would have reluctantly taken "Kill the boy, and let the man be born" to heart as a moment where he had to show strength, had to show he wasn't going to let old friends have the benefit of that relationship, and maybe he would have gone that direction if Daeron was provocative enough.

It's not unlike the situation where Catelyn tells Robb that he will have to make decisions on his own and be resolute because otherwise his bannermen won't respect him, except in the Watch these things are much more fraught with the tension that so many people on the Wall are very unwilling to be there and/or are people who have committed crimes and were already chafing against authority by natural inclination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He was a guy who was caught on his lands. And unlike Jon Eddard Stark is actually the Lord of Winterfell. The NW are not the Starks.

And? Ned killed the guy because he was the one that ordered his death. By that logic jon would kill any prisoner whose death he orders.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

See above. That kind of talk really frightens me because it reveals you actually take a personal opinion of a character as 'the literal truth'. Think of other POV justifications of their actions. You thinking Jon is a good guy or things must be good because he did them or they cannot be bad because he did them are not, in fact, necessarily accurate.

What I said is that if you think jon chose to kill him because of personal bias due to janos conections to the lannisters then give a quote. You are using the fact that jon takes time to think through all possible punishments and choses what he thinks is best to proof that he didn t have to kill janos. As if people don t think what punishment is more suitable before passing a sentence...

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Only on the surface if you think a criminal getting away with a crime is not guilty. The fact that they gave Jon to time to change his mind doesn't mean he is less guilty - or that his guilt just disappears when he changes his mind.

That is an oversimplistic view of what happened. The facts is that jon returned before he was needed. I don t think anybody is called a deserter if he disapears for a few hours and then returns… But ok, I can agree that this is open for interpetation….

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He has a sorceress telling him people he doesn't suspect will kill him. If you were Jon, who would you suspect under those circumstances...?

Jon is exactly the same moron as Robb in ASoS

She doesn t tell him that. She tells him that there are daggers in the night or something similar and that he is danger. However she is mistaken about alys being arya, constantly talks about everyone beeing doomed, that the wildlings worship false gods and I think she was also wrong about some detail about the dead rangers.

If jon made decisions based entirely on what mel tells him then he would be a moron. She just isn t a trustworthy source of information. Besides, jon can t spend months on high alert expecting an attack that might come from either the NW, the wildlings or even queensmen trying to take his valyrian sword from him or any other reason… You expect the characters to behave in ways that aren t realistic...

And robb had many flaws, but how was he supposed to imagine that walder would violate guest rights and kill him during a wedding? Nobody has done such a thing in thousands of years! It just isn t done in westeros...

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We do have reason to assume that Stannis knows that Mance is Rattleshirt - Mance himself even implies that Stannis knows.

And Jon is stupid enough to allow Mance team up with some wildling women of his and go down in the North for all the world to see. It is not the same as publicly announcing Mance Rayder is still alive, but it comes close to that - after all Ramsay figured it out, didn't he? And he is not going to keep quiet about it

I have no idea of what mance implied.

However when mance left CB he was disguised as rattleshirt. Nobody would recognize him and he would simply go to a deserted region help farya ride to the Wall… He had no idea that mance would go to winterfell or that mel would lose her control over him… Hell, one of the reasons jon agrees with letting mance go is because mance owned him for saving his son from mel… He doesn t really have motives to believe mance would betray him now….

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon had all the power. He could have killed Mance. He could have imprisoned him ... and he sent him down south. It was his call. Jon does all kinds of things without caring about Stannis (sending Val beyond the Wall, marrying people, planning expeditions beyond the Wall, inviting wildlings south of the Wall, etc.).

And he, Jon Snow, never hides behind Stannis in this Mance issue. He never says he couldn't have killed Mance. Instead, he says he could and should have done it ... but did not, because he wanted Mance to bring him back his sister. He is not afraid of Stannis.

Val, expeditions beyond the Wall or inviting the wildlings to fight on the Wall and ocupy the gift are all things within jon's responsability and power. Stannis has no power over the NW actions.

However abducting a prisoner from stannis, declaring him a liar and killing the prisoner are thing the NW doesn t do. Have you ever seen the NW hunting deserters south of the Wall? Or asking for deserters heads?

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I meant actual treason - talk like, 'we kill the bastard if does such and and such' or 'the plan for the assassination of the bastard goes done this way...' Mance, while there, mentioned he overheard Marsh and some people talking, indicating they were not amused that they were being spied at. This is the first hint that something is amiss - assuming Jon didn't catch Mel's vision in the very first chapter...

In asoiaf how many times have you read about people planing to send people to infiltrate his enemies and learn what they are planning? Very few because that just isn t the way most people think in the books. And surely jon with his northern upbringing isn t recruiting people to spy on his men to learn who is loyal to him… That isn t something you can realisticaly expect jon to do...

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, right.

All that talk but you haven t found a single quote...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2019 at 11:20 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

and confine him to an ice cell, he might have said. A day or ten cramped up inside the ice would leave him shiveringand feverish and begging for release, Jon did not doubt. And the moment he is out, he and Thorne will begin to plot again.

Here is the quote. Jon considers putting him in an ice cell but discards that idea because he knows as soon as Janos is out he will begin to plot with Thorne again. 

Killing a person because of what he might do in the future is not justice.  Jon's killing of Janos Slynt was not justice.  That makes it a corruption of justice.  That makes Jon Snow wrong for doing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ran said:

Ditto @kissdbyfire on these. Especially the last. Janos Slynt defied Jon as a power play, attempting to assert his ability to disregard the duly elected Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. He was a man actively attempting to maintain a group of dissidents who would back him. He was a poison in the Night's Watch, dangerous and dangerously deluded. Jon determining that he couldn't let the rot continue, and his honest and real attempt to try and find him a suitable position that best used his talents while also keeping away from the bulk of the Night's Watch, were all genuine efforts to try and get a positive result. Slynt ended up throwing it in his face and then making a public display of his defiance with his buddies around -- he was directly challenging everything Jon was and how the Night's Watch worked. Death was, by the standards of the Watch, a correct punishment.

I can't imagine a scenario where Aemon or Sam refusing to go to Oldtown would have any of the deliberate, provocative attack on the organizational principles of the Watch that Janos's mutinous efforts had, so no, Jon wouldn't execute them.

OTOH, if Daeron decided to refuse to go, and then proceeded to make repeated open mockery of Jon's efforts to command him and basically insinuated that Jon wasn't fit to be Lord Commander and wasn't fit to give him orders, I think Jon would have reluctantly taken "Kill the boy, and let the man be born" to heart as a moment where he had to show strength, had to show he wasn't going to let old friends have the benefit of that relationship, and maybe he would have gone that direction if Daeron was provocative enough.

It's not unlike the situation where Catelyn tells Robb that he will have to make decisions on his own and be resolute because otherwise his bannermen won't respect him, except in the Watch these things are much more fraught with the tension that so many people on the Wall are very unwilling to be there and/or are people who have committed crimes and were already chafing against authority by natural inclination.

Mance Rayder is guilty of terrible crimes much worse than what Slynt did.  Jon doesn't punish Mance Rayder.  They are all Brothers of the Night's Watch and deserve to be judged equally and impartially.  Jon Snow failed to do that because the bastard decided to take the opportunity to get even with the man who helped arrest his father. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Centurion Piso said:

Killing a person because of what he might do in the future is not justice.  Jon's killing of Janos Slynt was not justice.  That makes it a corruption of justice.  That makes Jon Snow wrong for doing it. 

He killed him for insubordination, for what he did already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Centurion Piso said:

Killing a person because of what he might do in the future is not justice.  Jon's killing of Janos Slynt was not justice.  That makes it a corruption of justice.  That makes Jon Snow wrong for doing it. 

Sigh. Jon didn’t execute Slynt because of what he might have done. He had to punish Slynt for his defiance and the utterly unacceptable behaviour of disobeying a direct order from his LC in a very public and nasty way. Jon ponders a few options, like confining Slynt in an ice cell or forcibly taking him to Greyguard, but in the end decides, correctly, that execution is the way to go. You know, because Slynt is blatantly defiant and insubordinate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

We are given all we need to understand his decision-making process. Whatever is left out is left out to avoid beating a dead horse and to create suspense for the reader. The whole, “this is wrong. I will not hang him”...  “Edd, fetch me a block” would be utterly pointless and stupid if we’d seen Jon make that decision internally before giving the command for Edd to bring him a block. 

That isn't the point. The point is that we don't know how exactly Jon made up his mind about what to do when Slynt (as had been expected) would refuse the order to go. Because it is crystal clear the decision to hang him then was not made on the fly but is basically something Jon and his inner circle had agreed on before.

In fact, the entire scene is obviously written as a variation of Ned's execution. Slynt was part of a setup to execute Ned, having been briefed by somebody before what to do when King Joffrey would command to execute Eddard Stark rather than pardoning him, and a similar thing happens to Slynt now.

Sure, Slynt isn't set up the way Ned was, but the author creates a scenario where he is fed his own medicine. And it is also quite clear that Jon gave Slynt the chance Slynt himself never gave Ned.

5 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

It’s not cruel at all, and not extreme in the least. We will never agree on this, as we will never agree on most things. And that’s fine. The NW is a military order in a feudal-like society. Getting executed after very vocally and publicly disobeying  your commanding officer and telling him he has the mark of the beast and should shove his order up his bastard’s arse is 100% adequate and fitting the offence.

I'd not be so quick to condemn Slynt for pointing out that Jon is a beastling freak - wargs and skinchangers are not popular in Westeros, neither beyond the Wall nor in the Seven Kingdoms. Jon himself doesn't like what he is because his culture doesn't like that. Slynt certainly misjudges how skinchangers are seen this close to the Wall, but one assumes he only expresses a sentiment there that's shared by the average Kingslander.

Hanging certainly is seen as a more cruel execution method than beheading (that is why nobles get beheading, while lowborn scum get hanged) - and the original plan of Jon's was to hang Slynt.

I'm not saying Jon was not well within his rights to execute Slynt for talking back at him - apparently he was. I'm merely pointing out that this kind of 'justice' is closer to, say, Jon's granddad burning Jon's uncle (allegedly) because he demanded that Jon's father 'come out and die' - which I'd say was somewhat of an overreaction to, if it truly was the reason why Brandon was killed - than, you know, a measured way at doing justice.

5 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

This is laughable, seriously. It doesn’t make Jon look bad. That’s why, as I said before, Edd and Iron Emmett don’t bat an eyelash; that’s why even Thorne gets out of the way and doesn’t say anything. Slynt is, on top of many things, a very stupid man. He thought his few cronies would stand up to Jon, that’s why he acted the way he did. Only the handful of buddies he has know bloody well that it was completely within Jon’s authority to execute Slynt. 

Edd and Emmett are in on the plot. They know what to do. They are there with Jon so they go through with the execution if there is going to be one.

And Thorne realizes this - he realizes Jon is prepared to have him killed, too, should he interfere. Jon is not making the decision to execute Slynt spontaneously, just as he doesn't spantaneously give the speech he gives in the Shieldhall.

5 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

He has a solid power base. But let’s leave this for now b/c, again, we will never agree. I’ll make sure to address this topic w/ you again once Winds is out.

Not sure I'll still be around when TWoW is coming out. Got some health problems.

Jon had a rudimentary power base in the Watch but, like Ned, he sent away all those men who could have helped him, who could have warned him, most importantly, protected him from the men who murdered him. In the end he is pretty much alone.

I'd also be very surprised if TWoW would give as a lot of talk about the size of Jon's power base or the knowledge various tertiary characters had on the assassination of Jon's politics in general. The book is hopefully moving the plot along, not dwelling the past.

5 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

It can be denied, look: I disagree. But again, I’m repeating myself, and you’re repeating yourself. We are given enough of Jon’s thoughts to understand how and why he decided to execute Slynt. 

No, we are not there when he makes the plan for the confrontation. And George never gives us all the thoughts and motivations of a character, especially not when there are those weirdo time jumps. We still don't know how much Haldon told Tyrion and what he figured out himself.

5 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

No, we can’t agree on any of that. Things change, friendships and alliances shift, people are weird. There are any number of things that could have happened to change these relationships dramatically. 

Oh, we can certainly agree on the fact that Jon wouldn't have called his guards in to drag Sam out to the Wall to hang him there had he told him he could go fuck himself with his order to send him to Oldtown early on in ADwD. He would have thrown him out of his office. Then he would have talked to him again and again ... and when he had remained defiant he would have started to punish him. But he wouldn't have executed his best friend for something like that. The very thought of it is ridiculous.

I mean, you are also aware that Jon wants Sam as his maester, right? He is a valuable resource - Slynt could that be, too, but in Slynt case Jon doesn't give enough about Slynt's possible worth in relation to his desire to see him death in combination with Slynt being insubordinate.

6 hours ago, Ran said:

Ditto @kissdbyfire on these. Especially the last. Janos Slynt defied Jon as a power play, attempting to assert his ability to disregard the duly elected Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. He was a man actively attempting to maintain a group of dissidents who would back him. He was a poison in the Night's Watch, dangerous and dangerously deluded. Jon determining that he couldn't let the rot continue, and his honest and real attempt to try and find him a suitable position that best used his talents while also keeping away from the bulk of the Night's Watch, were all genuine efforts to try and get a positive result. Slynt ended up throwing it in his face and then making a public display of his defiance with his buddies around -- he was directly challenging everything Jon was and how the Night's Watch worked. Death was, by the standards of the Watch, a correct punishment.

I have no big issue with that. I'm just saying he could also sent home the fact that he was the guy in charge in less lethal manner. There are so many ways in a medieval justice system to break a person that you don't have drag out the block or the noose all the time. Jon could have taken Slynt's tongue, putting an end to him talking back. That kind of thing very effectively establish dominance. He could have given him a beating, he could have publicly humiliated him, etc. And if that hadn't worked he could have taken his head. There was no need to rush things, was there?

And I certainly maintain that Jon was sending Slynt's buddies (and other people having doubts about him) the wrong message there. There is an all-or-nothing element there. A 'you are with me or you are dead' kind of thing, that cannot be that great in an order like the NW. The lord commander is neither a proper lord, nor a king. He doesn't own the Wall the way the lords own their castles and lands, he just administers it. And he is chosen by his brothers - who remain his brothers after his election. He is not their stern father and they his obedient children, he is still a brother among brothers.

6 hours ago, Ran said:

I can't imagine a scenario where Aemon or Sam refusing to go to Oldtown would have any of the deliberate, provocative attack on the organizational principles of the Watch that Janos's mutinous efforts had, so no, Jon wouldn't execute them.

Sure. And even if they were defying him in public in a straightforward manner - they are his friends while Slynt is one of the murderers of his father (and a guy who wanted to see him dead, too). There is a difference there. A difference that did and should influence Jon's decision-making process. He is not a machine.

6 hours ago, Ran said:

OTOH, if Daeron decided to refuse to go, and then proceeded to make repeated open mockery of Jon's efforts to command him and basically insinuated that Jon wasn't fit to be Lord Commander and wasn't fit to give him orders, I think Jon would have reluctantly taken "Kill the boy, and let the man be born" to heart as a moment where he had to show strength, had to show he wasn't going to let old friends have the benefit of that relationship, and maybe he would have gone that direction if Daeron was provocative enough.

He may have punished that one more harshly, but executing him? No, I don't see that.

I actually think Jon sort of missed the point about Aemon's counsel, by the way. Egg was already a man grown when he became king, whatever boy he had to kill was likely some carefree, mischievous side - him having fun with his children and his wife, him hanging out with the commoner friends he may have made during his travels (aside from Dunk), him taking on course that were, compared to the common good of the Realm and its people, pretty insignificant, etc.

But Aegon V did not banish/send away the men he needed to rule when he took the throne. He did not send away Dunk, for starters (a man who could easily have become a liability considering he was once his knightly master and may have still viewed Egg as the boy he trained rather than the king he had to serve). Meaning that, by comparison, that it certainly was right for Jon to no longer joke and hang out with his buddies, but not necessarily right to send them away. Instead some sort of middle ground could have worked nicely - making Pyp and Grenn Jon's bodyguards, squires, attendants, whatever - a position where they could continue their friendship under the changed circumstances.

6 hours ago, Ran said:

It's not unlike the situation where Catelyn tells Robb that he will have to make decisions on his own and be resolute because otherwise his bannermen won't respect him, except in the Watch these things are much more fraught with the tension that so many people on the Wall are very unwilling to be there and/or are people who have committed crimes and were already chafing against authority by natural inclination.

I'd say there were alternatives to killing to establish that authority. But in principle I certainly agree. A public insult demanded severe punishment.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

What are we missing? It seems to be a complete thought process to me. 

See above. I meant the decision-making for the setup/plan what to do if Slynt refuses again.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But we do know what he intends to do. He specifically says "hang him" Then stops them & says Edd, fetch me a block. I agree we don't hear his "thoughts" or reasons between switching from hanging him to beheading him but some thoughts are just on an subconscious level. Like we have to think for our arm to move but we don't realize we are thinking it. Jon likely had no conscience thought here as it happens very quickly. I don't think this means we are not getting his complete thought process. 

I think he definitely decides to switch to beheading and does it himself because of the Stark thing - not because he finds Lord Janos deserves the death of a nobleman.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I would argue that's because he doesn't want to kill Slynt.

You only kill a person because you want to - especially if you do it with your own hands. The framework of this shitty society is no excuse. One can say that toxic nobility/honor easily pushes people to points where they think they have not other choice - but they do have such choices. Just as Tytos Lannister.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But we do. We get Jon's explanation in full. He says specifically why he doesn't send him to an ice cell, & why he doesn't force him to go to Greyguard as a cook. His internal motivation is that he feels he has no choice but to punish this man & his explanation for beheading rather than something less harsh is given to us in Jon's own words.

And we don't have to take those thoughts as 'the truth'. Especially since they do not account for other possibilities Jon doesn't think about - like, as I said, a good beating, cutting out of his tongue (which certainly would put a stop his talking; and not many men at the Watch could read what he may write).

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yes & they also tell us why he does not choose those other, less harsh routes. I disagree it is cruel & extreme & Janos being Jon's main rival in the race for LC should have absolutely no bearing on what Janos is allowed to get away with or how he is punished. Why would it?

Because such things do not happen in a vacuum. The whole thing was a show of force and meant as such - and I don't think it is completely ineffective there. I just also think it sent the message to Slynt's followers and friends that everything Slynt said about the guy is right.

In a way, Jon is Cersei there, giving credence to Stannis' lie by persecuting the people who repeat it. It is not a completely accurate analogy because something had to be done about Slynt - and I think those men who were not working with Slynt got the right message (i.e. Jon's friends and the neutral brothers). But it certainly could - and likely did - harden the hearts of the others.

I mean, who knows? Perhaps Marsh wouldn't have considered murdering Jon had he not had the image that Jon might take his head, too, were he to push him too far.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No, but neither does your assertion that it was cruel and extreme make it wrong. If I or someone else agree with Jon's decision it doesn't mean that we think everything he does is magically right because Jon did them any more than you disagreeing with Jon means you think everything Jon does is automatically wrong just because Jon did it. 

I think I have a pretty nuanced view of Jon. I actually find his character more interesting right now than I did in the past (ADwD's Jon was a huge letdown for me, both because of the end and Jon's overall stupidity in the book) because there are rather interesting themes and conflicts addressed with this character. I found him becoming Lord Commander a great idea (and I'd also have liked to see him as Lord of Winterfell when Stannis made him that offer) and, the arrow nonsense aside, I find the Jon chapters about the battle of Castle Black to be among the most gripping chapters in ASoS (the best dialogue scene is Lysa's rambling monologue in Sansa's last chapter, though), but I don't really think the character was well-used in ADwD. I mean, George really spent a lot of time telling us that Jon is the smart one. He is more perceptive than Robb, he can think, and he is pretty smart in the earlier books, and then he is just such a letdown in ADwD.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Why would playing favoritism be fine? I agree he should have kept his friends in power positions but THAT would be playing favoritism no? It would be the smart move but people absolutely would have been hostile about it. 

The point is that feudal politics can, essentially, be reduced to favoritism. If you get into high office you ensure your family and friends profit from your success. That's how this is done, that's how noble families acquire and remain in power.

Jon was chosen as a compromise candidate. He wasn't a favorite of the Watch, he was the surprise guy they came up with when they could not elect one of the people who should have been chosen. That is a pretty weak position to start with - meaning you should erode the power of the establishment - which are basically all the other officers Jon confirms rather than replace them - by putting your own men in high places. Jon is a favorite of the young gang - most of his fellow recruits as well as those who came after him worship him. That would be the people he could turn to - in addition to those who he also befriended like Edd, Emmett, etc.

And Jon does that later - but instead of realizing that it is not going to work to have both Marsh and Leathers as officers in the Watch, he thinks he can do both. That doesn't work.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I mean do you honestly believe he was written to be a dumb character? Or is it possible he was written to make mistakes & not always see the bigger picture while still having average to above average (at least on the wall) intelligence? Could he have seen it coming? Sure. Should he have seen it coming? Probably, the signs were definitely there if he would have looked. Does not seeing it coming mean he is stupid or without brains? I don't think so. I think it means hindsight is 20/20 & it is very easy for someone not in the same position, on the outside looking in & seeing the entire picture, to say he should have done this or how can he miss that. 

I didn't see the Jon murder coming at all. Honestly, I couldn't see that happening because I actually thought if Marsh were to betray Jon he would not only see that coming but he would actually prevent it. I mean, Robb was foolish enough to believe a house known for their desire to side with the winner would actually see any profit in restoring their alliance after the Blackwater. That was just stupidity and complacency - and then we get essentially the same thing from Jon, too. He talks to his officers and dismisses them and their opinions because he can predict what they would offer as advice - like it is enough for a politician to predict what you are told in conversation everyday when in fact you have to know what they are planning and doing what they are not saying to you.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Except we get Jon's thoughts on this. He specifically says he is giving him a chance, he is trying to make nice despite the things he did in KL. IRL, if I were LC & Janos had played a part in my father's death etc I would agree that probably a part of me, even if a subconscious part, would be relieved at beheading the man or at the very least felt he ended up getting what he deserved. That doesn't mean that he didn't get what he deserved though & Jon is not IRL & George writes this passage the same as he writes all passages - with painstaking detail to the words. If Jon's resentment toward Janos played a part in his beheading, surely, George would have given us something indicating that? Instead he gives us Jon specifically thinking that it isn't because of what he did in KL & that he is giving him a chance to make his own way in the NW.

I think it certainly played a part in him deciding to make an example of Slynt. I'm not saying he looked forward to/wanted to kill him in any possible scenario - I just say he was prepared to kill if push came to shove. That was his plan there.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Quite clear to whom? His reasons behind helping Stannis are clearly because Stannis helped him & he feels obligated to do what he can in order to get that continued help. Without arguing the semantics of what you said in regards to Mance (because I disagree that is what happened) Mance going to find fArya has nothing to do with hating the Lannisters. Sure he hates them - a lot of people do & with good cause. That doesn't mean every decision he makes is based off of hating the Lannisters. 

Jon goes down a slippery slope. He sends a clear message to KL that he is Stannis' man and not willing to work with Tommen/the Lannisters. Slynt was their man, so killing Slynt certainly sent a message. And then he certainly does much more than he has to to help Stannis - I'm not saying that's wrong in principle (I'd have done the same), I just say it is not what a lord commander should be doing.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

We can agree that Sam would not have directly refused an order. We know this because Sam does not want to go to Oldtown but Jon tells him it is a command & he goes. Aemon is a different situation but he also would not have directly refused. Aemon may have explained the reasons he thought it wasn't a good idea & Jon may have conceded to his advise but that isn't refusing. He most definitely would have taken Dareon's head if he refused to go. The fact is most of the NW obey the LC. You would be hard pressed to find another person willing to defy the LC the way Janos did. That isn't because Jon hates Janos, that's because Janos hates Jon. 

The point here was just to illustrate that you judge people you like much better than people you don't like - which is part of the reason why the Westerosi justice system sucks pretty hard. I mean, Tywin sort of tries to keep appearances when he invites Oberyn as a judge in the Tyrion trial - which is an utter sham considering Tywin is Tyrion's own father and the late king's grandfather and Mace the father-in-law of the late king.

I'm not saying Jon does a bad job at being partial to his own family and their cause - but as a black brother and eventually the Lord Commander he is rightfully held to other standards than the rest of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Centurion Piso said:

Killing a person because of what he might do in the future is not justice.  Jon's killing of Janos Slynt was not justice.  That makes it a corruption of justice.  That makes Jon Snow wrong for doing it. 

Jon didn't kill Janos because of what he might do in the future. This has already been explained a couple times in this thread. He was executed for insubordination. The reason he was executed & not given a lesser punishment is because Jon deduces these lesser punishments will only cause more issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but Slynt wasn't executed for insubordination alone. It was the combination of insubordination and the plotting.

Insubordination is defined as just disobedience and drunken orneriness, refusals of orders based on honest disagreements or principle, someone just being an ass or letting their anger get away from them, there's all kinds of reasons that orders are disobeyed (Jon himself ended up in an ice cell) which don't and shouldn't result in death. And given that the NW is the dumping ground for society's undesireables, insubordination probably isn't that uncommon, at least for the newer and younger ones. Hell, even Sam went off the rails with Gilly. When Jon was just thinking about the order for Greywatch alone, his punishment was the ice cell.

Slynt's plotting crossed Jon's mind as he was making his decision and it changed that decision from the ice cell to execution. But Jon didn't punish Slynt for what he had yet to do. Jon had what amounted to a confession from the conversation he overheard in ASOS and Slynt just demonstrated that talk had escalated into action in a very public way. Slynt practically announced as much in front of everyone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That isn't the point. The point is that we don't know how exactly Jon made up his mind about what to do when Slynt (as had been expected) would refuse the order to go. Because it is crystal clear the decision to hang him then was not made on the fly but is basically something Jon and his inner circle had agreed on before

Not at all. I believe the text shows pretty clearly that the decision to hang him was made on the fly. If it wasn't there would have been no hesitation when he was telling the men what to do with him. Why go through the internal dialogue of deciding what to do with him if the decision was already made prior to that? 

Also all of this happens in one chapter, Jon's POV. Why wouldn't we get any thoughts of his pertaining to his ready made decision to hang him if he refused if there were those plans made? 

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

think he definitely decides to switch to beheading and does it himself because of the Stark thing - not because he finds Lord Janos deserves the death of a nobleman

Agreed 

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You only kill a person because you want to - especially if you do it with your own hands. The framework of this shitty society is no excuse. One can say that toxic nobility/honor easily pushes people to points where they think they have not other choice - but they do have such choices. Just as Tytos Lannister

Well yeah, I agree in that sense. I thought you were saying Jon only kills him because he wants to. As in he set out to find a way to kill him. Certainly he must've wanted too more than he didn't want to, or felt he must or he wouldn't have done it. 

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 we don't have to take those thoughts as 'the truth'. Especially since they do not account for other possibilities Jon doesn't think about - like, as I said, a good beating, cutting out of his tongue (which certainly would put a stop his talking; and not many men at the Watch could read what he may write

We do have to take them as the truth unless we believe Jon is lying to himself. Or at the very least that Jon believes it to be the truth. He definitely could be wrong but what he is saying to himself he believes to be the truth. 

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Because such things do not happen in a vacuum. The whole thing was a show of force and meant as such - and I don't think it is completely ineffective there. I just also think it sent the message to Slynt's followers and friends that everything Slynt said about the guy is right

This definitely is a possible consequence of him killing Slynt but I think what they will believe about Jon if he did not execute him would be much worse. 

I can certainly see where you are coming from with this though & it's possible negative consequences. 

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

way, Jon is Cersei there, giving credence to Stannis' lie by persecuting the people who repeat it. It is not a completely accurate analogy because something had to be done about Slynt - and I think those men who were not working with Slynt got the right message (i.e. Jon's friends and the neutral brothers). But it certainly could - and likely did - harden the hearts of the others

Yeah, I mean I think this is a very real possibility. 

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

mean, who knows? Perhaps Marsh wouldn't have considered murdering Jon had he not had the image that Jon might take his head, too, were he to push him too far

Right well we won't know unless it's explained in the next book but I'll agree it's a possibility. I think it's also a possibility that had Jon not taken Janos's head that the mutiny would have occurred quicker & potentially more damaging to Jon. 

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

think I have a pretty nuanced view of Jon.

I agree. Just to clear my earlier statement up I wasn't saying you think everything that Jon does is wrong because it is Jon, I'm was saying my agreeing with Jon has no more to do with it being Jon than your disagreeing with him has to do with him being Jon - if that makes sense? 

56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

find his character more interesting right now than I did in the past (ADwD's Jon was a huge letdown for me, both because of the end and Jon's overall stupidity in the book) because there are rather interesting themes and conflicts addressed with this character. I found him becoming Lord Commander a great idea (and I'd also have liked to see him as Lord of Winterfell when Stannis made him that offer) and, the arrow nonsense aside, I find the Jon chapters about the battle of Castle Black to be among the most gripping chapters in ASoS (the best dialogue scene is Lysa's rambling monologue in Sansa's last chapter, though), but I don't really think the character was well-used in ADwD. I mean, George really spent a lot of time telling us that Jon is the smart one. He is more perceptive than Robb, he can think, and he is pretty smart in the earlier books, and then he is just such a letdown in ADwD

I mostly agree here. I just don't think some of Jon's decisions were are stupid as you do. 

59 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

was chosen as a compromise candidate. He wasn't a favorite of the Watch, he was the surprise guy they came up with when they could not elect one of the people who should have been chosen. That is a pretty weak position to start with - meaning you should erode the power of the establishment - which are basically all the other officers Jon confirms rather than replace them - by putting your own men in high places. Jon is a favorite of the young gang - most of his fellow recruits as well as those who came after him worship him. That would be the people he could turn to - in addition to those who he also befriended like Edd, Emmett

Oh, I agree 100% this is what he should have done. I'm saying the Jon haters in & out of universe would scream to the high heavens if he had done that. I wish he would have. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

didn't see the Jon murder coming at all. Honestly, I couldn't see that happening because I actually thought if Marsh were to betray Jon he would not only see that coming but he would actually prevent it. I mean, Robb was foolish enough to believe a house known for their desire to side with the winner would actually see any profit in restoring their alliance after the Blackwater. That was just stupidity and complacency - and then we get essentially the same thing from Jon, too. He talks to his officers and dismisses them and their opinions because he can predict what they would offer as advice - like it is enough for a politician to predict what you are told in conversation everyday when in fact you have to know what they are 

I guess maybe I misunderstood the statement of yours I was replying to here. I would look back but it's late & I'm tired. I know my point was that Jon wasn't stupid for not seeing the dangers surrounding him - not the specific dangers. He would have seen there was danger (albeit not necessarily from Marsh) had he listened better - which I believe is essentially what you are saying also.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon goes down a slippery slope. He sends a clear message to KL that he is Stannis' man and not willing to work with Tommen/the Lannisters. Slynt was their man, so killing Slynt certainly sent a message. And then he certainly does much more than he has to to help Stannis - I'm not saying that's wrong in principle (I'd have done the same), I just say it is not what a lord commander should be doing.

I agree this is probably what the Lannisters took from it but I don't think this was Jon's goal. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

point here was just to illustrate that you judge people you like much better than people you don't like - which is part of the reason why the Westerosi justice system sucks pretty hard. I mean, Tywin sort of tries to keep appearances when he invites Oberyn as a judge in the Tyrion trial - which is an utter sham considering Tywin is Tyrion's own father and the late king's grandfather and Mace the father-in-law of the late king

Sure, I mean I think generally speaking this is true. I don't think Jon did a bad job at attempting to be impartial with Janos though. He did a much better job than I think I would have. 

I would just like to thank you for your civil discussion & disagreement with me - sincerely. It's very hard to find someone to discuss things with that doesn't get angry or resort to insults. 

I very much enjoy discussing things with you, particularly when we are on opposite sides of the debate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

If Jon sending him there in the first place was foolish what do you think he should have done with him?

Oh, I wasn't very clear. I don't think it was foolish, I think it was a brilliant idea. It would put an end to Slynt's plotting while putting him somewhere he can be of most use.

But then Jon contradicts this in his reasoning for not putting Slynt in an ice cell.

12 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

If Jon had executed Janos merely because he wanted to wouldn't his thoughts betray that, at least a little? Wouldn't the author provide us some clues as to this being the case?

But his thoughts do betray him. Jon is intelligent and level headed. Capable of sound judgement. Yet when the time comes to punish Slynt, his arguments for a measured response are poorly thought out, leading him to "the only conclusion" that Slynt needs to be killed. I can't stress enough how little sense Jon's reasoning makes, regarding the ice cells:

Put Slynt in ice cells as punishment (1)

Continued plotting (2)

Need new solution (3)

1+2=3. Makes sense, except Jon already has a solution to point two. Sending Slynt to Greyguard severely limits his plotting abilities. Yet Jon still comes to the same conclusion. 1+0=3. Nonsense.

 

The why of it is obvious. Jon's obvious, overwhelming, perfectly understandable negative bias towards the man. Sound judgement is almost impossible to make in the face of a strong bias.

11 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yup. We have Jon’s thoughts here and in regards to Ramsay and the PL. And yet, his thoughts are always dismissed or ignored. It’s like, “I don’t like what the author did, so I’ll just pretend the character is lying to himself”. :lol:

Because nobody has ever lied to themselves, or allowed their bias to cloud their judgement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Not at all. I believe the text shows pretty clearly that the decision to hang him was made on the fly. If it wasn't there would have been no hesitation when he was telling the men what to do with him. Why go through the internal dialogue of deciding what to do with him if the decision was already made prior to that? 

I think that's the kind of dialogue you also write when you have a character in a book kill somebody for the first time. Going through the options you technically also had but won't go through with because you already have made up your mind.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Well yeah, I agree in that sense. I thought you were saying Jon only kills him because he wants to. As in he set out to find a way to kill him. Certainly he must've wanted too more than he didn't want to, or felt he must or he wouldn't have done it. 

That was never my position.

However, we should keep in mind that it stands out that Jon first targets Slynt in this fashion rather than, say, Thorne. He could just as well have kept Slynt with him for the time being and isolating him from others by first getting rid of them.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Slynt was the one who was dealt with first.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

We do have to take them as the truth unless we believe Jon is lying to himself. Or at the very least that Jon believes it to be the truth. He definitely could be wrong but what he is saying to himself he believes to be the truth. 

Just as Vic believes he had to kill his wife. There are arguments in favor of all that which make sense in the context of the world of the story.

I'm not saying Jon's reasoning is completely without grounds, just that nothing in the world made killing Slynt his only option.

It is the same silly 'dichotomy argument' we have with Jaime murdering Aerys II. It was simply not necessary to kill the king to save the city. There were other ways to accomplish this goal.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

This definitely is a possible consequence of him killing Slynt but I think what they will believe about Jon if he did not execute him would be much worse.

I can't imagine how people would have less respect for Jon if Slynt had been a broken man after Jon was through with him. I also don't see anyone respect Jon more because of this execution (aside from Stannis, who likely approved of this execution because of Slynt's past crimes back in KL). It never comes up in Jon's later interactions.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Right well we won't know unless it's explained in the next book but I'll agree it's a possibility. I think it's also a possibility that had Jon not taken Janos's head that the mutiny would have occurred quicker & potentially more damaging to Jon. 

Honestly, I don't think Marsh ever wanted to kill Jon. Especially not before the wildlings thing started - which started some time later. And even then I think the crucial element was the Pink Letter. Marsh doesn't hate Jon, he has no personal issues with him. His support for Slynt was his support for Tywin's man - the man he thought they needed to live through winter and had to get along because he would win/already had won the war.

That is not some evil thing to do.

The people drawing a direct line from pre-choosing plotting to Jon's assassination are clearly wrong and don't do the character of Marsh as portrayed much justice.

And his stance towards the wildlings make some more sense after FaB where we hear about cannibal wildlings and their routine and pretty hunger raidings in winter. In light of stuff like - which finally gives some clear picture how winter is in this world - there is no surprise at all while the Watch and the North really hate them.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree. Just to clear my earlier statement up I wasn't saying you think everything that Jon does is wrong because it is Jon, I'm was saying my agreeing with Jon has no more to do with it being Jon than your disagreeing with him has to do with him being Jon - if that makes sense? 

Oh, well, I'm not sure it makes that much sense to just defend the actions of a character because you like them - especially not in this series.

I mean, I'm going by 'Lord Varys' doesn't mean I like that guy and would defend his actions for some reason. It is a nod to a personality trait of mine to gather knowledge and like to be the guy who knows a lot.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I mostly agree here. I just don't think some of Jon's decisions were are stupid as you do.

Well, George made him a failure. He will always remain the guy who got himself killed - even if they get him back somehow. And it got killed by a couple of pretty old and cowardly guys, being killed in his very own castle. That's just a huge letdown.

And that's not the kind of story I was expecting for Jon. And it definitely should be a huge turning point for him.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Oh, I agree 100% this is what he should have done. I'm saying the Jon haters in & out of universe would scream to the high heavens if he had done that. I wish he would have. 

Well, Jon doing something for a start that's not just reacting to things. Reports about wildlings, some girl that arrived, a banker that paid him a visit, the queen that showed up, Hardhome going to hell, etc. - but where is his own agenda? His own political plays? Letters written to the Lords of the North? Him actually talking shit with anyone. I mean, that's another topic but Jon basically doesn't do anything in ADwD to convince so much as a single Westerosi south of the Wall that the Others are real - nor does he do anything to figure out what the Others are up to.

Even the Mel interaction was a huge letdown. There was so much interesting in the first chapter there ... and then they are essentially talking about the same stuff in the last chapter when Jon gets killed - him being in danger from guys he doesn't suspect. Great development.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree this is probably what the Lannisters took from it but I don't think this was Jon's goal. 

He isn't living in a vacuum. He has to keep such things in mind. And he must know that his paper shield is basically worth nothing after he killed Slynt.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I would just like to thank you for your civil discussion & disagreement with me - sincerely. It's very hard to find someone to discuss things with that doesn't get angry or resort to insults. 

I very much enjoy discussing things with you, particularly when we are on opposite sides of the debate. 

Well, that's the point of such a forum. One should discuss issues and not persons ;-).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I think that's the kind of dialogue you also write when you have a character in a book kill somebody for the first time. Going through the options you technically also had but won't go through with because you already have made up your mind.

Ok but coupled with the fact that we don't have any internal dialogue indicating there was future made plan of action doesn't it seem more likely that there wasn't one? 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That was never my position.

Right, I understand that now.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

However, we should keep in mind that it stands out that Jon first targets Slynt in this fashion rather than, say, Thorne. He could just as well have kept Slynt with him for the time being and isolating him from others by first getting rid of them.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Slynt was the one who was dealt with first.

Sure, maybe he targeted Slynt first because he wanted to see how he would react &/or knowing he would refuse would get the chance to kill him but it's also just as likely that he targeted Slynt first because he was the loudest & the proudest of the bunch & thus more important to move away. 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Just as Vic believes he had to kill his wife. There are arguments in favor of all that which make sense in the context of the world of the story.

I'm not saying Jon's reasoning is completely without grounds, just that nothing in the world made killing Slynt his only option.

We know it wasn't his only option. He gives other options. He had other options he didn't consider as well - removing his tongue like you suggested, or doing absolutely nothing at all. They were not all viable options but they were all options. He chose what he believed to be his best option. 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is the same silly 'dichotomy argument' we have with Jaime murdering Aerys II. It was simply not necessary to kill the king to save the city. There were other ways to accomplish this goal.

Right but whether or not the other options would have accomplished his goal is a matter of opinion. You are of the opinion some of these other options would have accomplished his goal & he is of the opinion that they would not have. At least to the ones he considered. 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I can't imagine how people would have less respect for Jon if Slynt had been a broken man after Jon was through with him. I also don't see anyone respect Jon more because of this execution (aside from Stannis, who likely approved of this execution because of Slynt's past crimes back in KL). It never comes up in Jon's later interactions.

Well my point was in response to you saying Slynt supporters are going to be hardened against Jon. I don't see how making him a broken man would help that case, especially if Slynt was still alive to get in their ears. I don't know if they respect him more because of it but I am sure none of them will refuse an order from him. 

It doesn't come up in his later interactions but neither does any of Slynt's men's discord for his beheading. 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Honestly, I don't think Marsh ever wanted to kill Jon. Especially not before the wildlings thing started - which started some time later. And even then I think the crucial element was the Pink Letter. Marsh doesn't hate Jon, he has no personal issues with him. His support for Slynt was his support for Tywin's man - the man he thought they needed to live through winter and had to get along because he would win/already had won the war.

I agree about Marsh, I'm saying if Slynt had remained alive Slynt may have arranged the mutiny. 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And his stance towards the wildlings make some more sense after FaB where we hear about cannibal wildlings and their routine and pretty hunger raidings in winter. In light of stuff like - which finally gives some clear picture how winter is in this world - there is no surprise at all while the Watch and the North really hate them.

Sure, but there is definitely something to be gained in letting them through. I don't think Marsh is evil, I think Marsh thought he was doing what was best for a group he most certainly feels very deeply for. I disagree that he did the best thing for them, but I agree he thought that. I think him being so opposed to them coming through is being pretty closed-minded especially in light of the upcoming Long Night. 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, well, I'm not sure it makes that much sense to just defend the actions of a character because you like them - especially not in this series.

I mean, I'm going by 'Lord Varys' doesn't mean I like that guy and would defend his actions for some reason. It is a nod to a personality trait of mine to gather knowledge and like to be the guy who knows a lot.

It doesn't - That's my point. Earlier you said something along the lines of that just because Jon did something doesn't make it magically right because it was Jon who did it. I was pointing out that isn't the reason why I & at least some others (certainly there are always exceptions) think what Jon did was right. I think what Jon did was right because I agree with his decision making, not because it was Jon who did it. 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, George made him a failure. He will always remain the guy who got himself killed - even if they get him back somehow. And it got killed by a couple of pretty old and cowardly guys, being killed in his very own castle. That's just a huge letdown.

And that's not the kind of story I was expecting for Jon. And it definitely should be a huge turning point for him.

It was a letdown but I wouldn't count Jon out yet. I think it will be a huge turning point for Jon & while you may view him as a failure right now I don't think that's how he will end up. 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, Jon doing something for a start that's not just reacting to things. Reports about wildlings, some girl that arrived, a banker that paid him a visit, the queen that showed up, Hardhome going to hell, etc. - but where is his own agenda? His own political plays? Letters written to the Lords of the North? Him actually talking shit with anyone. I mean, that's another topic but Jon basically doesn't do anything in ADwD to convince so much as a single Westerosi south of the Wall that the Others are real - nor does he do anything to figure out what the Others are up to.

Even the Mel interaction was a huge letdown. There was so much interesting in the first chapter there ... and then they are essentially talking about the same stuff in the last chapter when Jon gets killed - him being in danger from guys he doesn't suspect. Great development.

Sure, I think by & large aDwD was a letdown. I think this is more an issue with George's writing that with Jon's decisions though. 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He isn't living in a vacuum. He has to keep such things in mind. And he must know that his paper shield is basically worth nothing after he killed Slynt.

I think he expects (probably rightfully so) that the Lannisters don't care a whole lot about Slynt. If they had would they have allowed him to be sent to the wall to begin with? I agree fully that he is not politically aware & I think this is mostly because he expects people to follow the rules. It wouldn't hurt him in the slightest to do some things on his own agenda, pay attention to what is going on with the Lannisters & not assume that they are going to play nice. He does know the paper shield isn't worth much but says it's worth more than no shield at all (or maybe Sam says this to him?) At any rate it's mentioned. 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, that's the point of such a forum. One should discuss issues and not persons ;-).

I agree but it isn't always that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Oh, I wasn't very clear. I don't think it was foolish, I think it was a brilliant idea. It would put an end to Slynt's plotting while putting him somewhere he can be of most use.

But then Jon contradicts this in his reasoning for not putting Slynt in an ice cell.

No, he originally thinks sending him to Greyguard will be a good idea. That is before he realizes how vehemently Janos is going to oppose him. After Janos refuses in such a manner, has a night to think about it & still refuses, in front of all the men, calling Jon bastard & having the mark of the beast, Jon realizes that sending him to Greyguard nor putting him in an ice cell is going to help the situation.

13 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

But his thoughts do betray him. Jon is intelligent and level headed. Capable of sound judgement. Yet when the time comes to punish Slynt, his arguments for a measured response are poorly thought out, leading him to "the only conclusion" that Slynt needs to be killed. I can't stress enough how little sense Jon's reasoning makes, regarding the ice cells:

No they don't. Jon gives clear, concise, reasons for not choosing to put him in an ice cell or drag him off to Greyguard. It isn't because he is lying to himself (something we would be given some clue on no?) It's because the situation has changed. When Jon gave the command to go to Greyguard he was hopeful Janos would see it as a good thing - being given command of other men, being in charge of restoring a castle, having the opportunity to be useful. It's clear after Janos refuses that he doesn't give a hoot about anything other than refusing whatever Jon wants him to do. At that point it is clear that Janos is not going to be an asset to the watch, he is going to be a hinderance no matter where he is sent.

15 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

he why of it is obvious. Jon's obvious, overwhelming, perfectly understandable negative bias towards the man. Sound judgement is almost impossible to make in the face of a strong bias.

But it isn't. Obvious to me would mean more than knowing that if someone did this to you or me that we would have a bias toward the man. Which we most certainly probably would. Jon probably does too to some extent but if his bias had any bearing on his decision we would have internal dialogue, spoken word, - something indicating to us that this is the case. It makes no sense for the author to write specifically that Jon is trying to give the man a chance in spite of what he has done previously if the truth is he was never going to give him a chance because his bias was just too strong. 

15 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Because nobody has ever lied to themselves, or allowed their bias to cloud their judgement?

Sure but when this happens in a book a good writer will clue us in about it. For instance we know Sansa lies to herself sometimes because we get indication of it. We have no indication that Jon has previously lied to him self or that he is lying to himself in this instance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2019 at 5:46 PM, Ran said:

 Slynt ended up throwing it in his face and then making a public display of his defiance with his buddies around -- he was directly challenging everything Jon was and how the Night's Watch worked. Death was, by the standards of the Watch, a correct punishment.

A similar situation that comes to mind is Rohane Webber's utmost ruthlessness dealing with her opponents. If a woman must needs piss twice as hard if she wants to rule, a boy of sixteen or so, with traitor charges in his background, must needs do his maths, as well. He cannot afford to seem weak, he must not allow his authority to be questioned, and he must put his foot down so hard that he crushes the opposition once and for all. He gave Slynt all the chances he could, yet Slynt was too stupid, too self-assured, to see the comeuppance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, The Way of the Dragon said:

On Janos Slynt

Are you soliciting general comments on Janos Slynt?  There isn't much to talk about.  He was the victim of an incompetent commander. He finished his role in the plot.  His execution was another warning sign to the reader of Jon's instability.     

One would think the contents of the thread would speak for themself on what exactly the thread is soliciting but apparently not. 

You're right though. Poor Pomegranate lost his jowly head all because Jon "The Devil" Snow is incompetent. It's a good thing The George gives us this clear sign of incompetence & instability else wise we might get the mistaken impression Jon is a good guy or something. Thanks for pointing that out to us. 

Hey guys! There is nothing more to discuss. Our fine friend here has cleared it all up for us! And just in time too! I was almost convinced Jon wasn't the devil spawn! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, The Way of the Dragon said:

Are you soliciting general comments on Janos Slynt?  There isn't much to talk about.  He was the victim of an incompetent commander. He finished his role in the plot.  His execution was another warning sign to the reader of Jon's instability.     

He was a victim of his own stupidity and ego.

And no, Jon is not being unstable, just like Dany is not just yet - he's being forced by the circumstances to be increasingly ruthless. That's the meaning of "kill the boy and let the man be born".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...