On Janos Slynt

[Ygrain]

27 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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! 

I guess we kinda forgot

 

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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? 

I'd say that the fact that Jon's companions do not second-guess his command implies they were on board. They react as quickly as Slynt did back when Joffrey gave the command to kill Ned. This is no coincidence. Just as it is no coincidence that Jon entered into the common room with Emmett and Edd coming with him:

Quote

The next morning proved that hope was vain.

Jon found Slynt breaking his fast in the common room. Ser Alliser Thorne was with him, and several of their cronies. They were laughing about something when Jon came down the steps with Iron Emmett and Dolorous Edd, and behind them Mully, Horse, Red Jack Crabb, Rusty Flowers, and Owen the Oaf. Three-Finger Hobb was ladling out porridge from his kettle. Queen’s men, king’s men, and black brothers sat at their separate tables, some bent over bowls of porridge, others filling their bellies with fried bread and bacon. Jon saw Pyp and Grenn at one table, Bowen Marsh at another. The air smelled of smoke and grease, and the clatter of knives and spoons echoed off the vaulted ceiling.

It seems to me that Jon counts Mully, Horse, Red Jack Crabb, Rusty Flowers, and Owen the Oaf as his men, too, since they are mentioned there - although they do nothing during the struggle, Owen shows his colors in the end:

Quote

“Can I have his boots?” asked Owen the Oaf, as Janos Slynt’s head went rolling across the muddy ground. “They’re almost new, those boots. Lined with fur.”

The idea that Jon went to the common room with no preparation how to deal with the situation, i.e. a script that he would hang Slynt if he would not take his last offer and sufficient trusted men to actually go through with the execution as well as put down any violent resistance his order might cause makes literally no sense to me. To assume Jon went there without a plan and the means to execute it - with him only trusting that his command as Lord Commander would enough to compel obedience makes no sense. After all, the whole point of the exercise is to instill obedience in the on-lookers - to show what it means to defy Lord Commander Jon Snow.

That wouldn't have worked at all if Jon hadn't been prepared and had, in the end, perhaps been forced to retreat from the common room to save his own life.

In fact, it is also no coincidence that this chapter starts with Jon writing his 'paper shield' and then essentially ripping apart and burning said shield in the end when he has Slynt executed. It is certainly subtle, but it is there.

It is the first step in Jon's journey in ADwD to try to tell himself he does what he should as LC but his actions betray his deep wishes ... wishes that finally come to the surface in the last chapter when finally and proudly proclaims to the world that he is abandoning his post to wage war on Winterfell (and thus, in a sense, the North).

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

I'd say that Slynt is actually the least dangerous of the bunch. We all agree he was stupid, and we all do know he was propped up by Thorne as a puppet LC because he, Thorne, could never hope to be elected because he is as unpopular as he is.

And rereading Jon's internal thoughts I have trouble buying his thoughts as real concerns - either he is stupider than I think he is or George didn't come up with good enough 'real reasons'.

Take that one:

Quote

“As you will.” Jon nodded to Iron Emmett. “Please take Lord Janos to the Wall—”

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

This would be easily resolved - by separating Thorne and Slynt for good, say, by sending Thorne to Eastwatch or the Shadow Tower or on some ranging beyond the Wall (which Jon actually did later). The idea he only had the choice of killing Slynt to prevent the plotting is ludicrous.

It is something Jon tells himself to convince him that he makes the right call there.

The other is even more flimsy:

Quote

and tie him to his horse, he might have said. If Slynt did not wish to go to Greyguard as its commander, he could go as its cook. It will only be a matter of time until he deserts, then. And how many others will he take with him?

First, Jon, who actually deserted (at least) once, is sitting on a pretty high horse assuming for no good reason Slynt would desert - especially since that's effectively a death sentence.

But there was no need for him to send him away to Greyguard at all. He could throw him in a cell in CB and then make use of him afterwards.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

I don't see a very good reason to ever put myself in the position where I'd say that killing a guy for Slynt's offense there - which is minor to things Jon Snow got away with without so much as scratch. I mean, Mormont certainly would have been within his rights to hang Jon after his attempt on Thorne. Had he reacted the way Jon did there nobody would have saved Mormont from the wights ... and we now don't know what good Slynt could have done in the future.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

I don't think there were that many 'Slynt followers' as such - there were people considering him because he had allegedly connections to court. That's very different. Slynt wasn't a man who had a strong following of his own at the Wall - he was as much a compromise candidate in the choosing as Jon himself. Somebody propped up as an alternative to Mallister and Pyke.

Putting him in his place without killing him could have had a better effect. I mean, in the sternness Jon Snow isn't in the Jaehaerys I department here (who actually pardoned the man who wanted to depose him and married his own heir to the daughter of that man) he is more in the Maegor the Cruel department here (only in this one instance, of course, there's no pattern of sadistic brutality there, but this pretty extreme still). Especially with Jon doing the thing himself - we never get a character describing how Jon looked when he beheaded Slynt, but it wouldn't have been nice, and it certainly would have evoked fear in many bystanders.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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

He couldn't have done that, I assume. Slynt has no connections at the Wall, and Marsh likely did what he did only after he realized that essentially most of his stewards stood with him. I doubt he would pull something like that if he thought they would all be killed immediately by Jon's many friends in the Watch - because if that were the case then the murder of Jon would have accomplished nothing. And the point is not 'kill the bastard' but prevent the bastard from marching an army of wildlings against the Seven Kingdoms.

I don't think Marsh would have acted if he had believed that the Watch and Tormund would quickly depose of him and his men and then continue with Jon's plans as if Jon were still alive.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

Well, they don't really have a good picture of the danger they are in. They all believe the Wall will keep the Others out of the Seven Kingdoms. They don't expect it to fall.

And Marsh they will all starve to death and likely risk killing each other over the last provisions if they take in too many refugees. He knows what food they have, and he has survived winters at the Wall. Jon hasn't. He hasn't even seen a cruel winter at Winterfell.

I mean, thanks to George's writing style we'll never see how this winter is going to be three years from now or so (because things will likely happen much faster) but the characters don't know that - and Jon just tries to see some sort of big political picture without caring much about the day-to-day feeding aspect of it all.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

Well, I don't think it was that bad a decision, either. I just think it is not exactly a praiseworthy or even a particularly good decision. Just as I don't think the unjust execution of Gared was great, the murder of Dareon was great, or any other execution for a minor offense was great.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

Even if he becomes suddenly a competent zombie/Jesus politician, he still remains a failure in the sense that he never saw his own murder coming - despite massive evidence to the contrary. He should have known that.

And, in fact, I think the trauma of having been dead combined with the fact that he was murdered by people he trusted is not going to have a positive effect on his personality ... even if we assume that magic magically resolves all the issues that are going to come with him being dead (and I'm not going to assume that, either).

He could become very paranoid after that (like his dear paternal granddad got after Duskendale) or he could become very cynical, losing all hope in the goodness of men and no longer seeing why the hell he should care about doing anything for humanity. They clearly didn't serve him well the last time he tried.

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

George wrote all those decisions. Jon is just a fictional character. It is a combination between 'nothing important happened at the Wall' and 'Jon doesn't make many interesting choices of his own and doesn't show a lot of initiative all by himself'.

I mean, even the idea to save the wildlings needs a trigger (his visit at the godswood between the Wall) when in fact simple thinking could have lead to the same result. If we had gotten a simple chapter of Jon reflecting some issues, possibly after reading something about the alliance between Joramun of the wildlings and Brandon the Breaker against the Night's King to then decide that 'hey, the wildlings are people, too, we should protect them from the Others and even try convince them to help us' then the character would have looked much better and smarter (and he could have still gone out in the wild to look for some surviving wildlings).

 

[Hugorfonics]

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

Definitely delicate & while I disagree that it was unwise, I respect your opinion. 

 Course, no malice here. Just discussions/dissection of a complicated book(s)

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

I'm not sure what could have been done to stop it. Maybe if Jon had explained some of his decisions better? I agree about Marsh. 

Sure. Undoubtedly Janos friends were involved in the mutiny plot. 

Word, especially since Marsh was a friend (at the very least an ally, he endorsed Slynt for election)

So I feel like Jon did a good job explaining letting the wildlings in, maybe not great at explaining the attack on Ramsay. However I also dont think it had anything to do with the Ides. 

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

I disagree & here's why: We are in Jon's POV when he lops the top off of the pomegranate & he doesn't really think much about Alliser other than in regards to getting him away from Janos. He perceives (I think rightfully so) Janos to be the leader or main threat. I think if he had plans to kill Alliser he would have thought of them surely? 

Alliser puts his hand on his sword when Jon arrests Janos & then doesn't draw it. Jon's thought process in response to that is "I wish you would" more like yeah, give me an excuse to cross swords with you because I'll tear you apart. Not a "oh yes my main plan to kill Alliser is coming to fruition" if that makes sense? 

Word, thats true. 

About Janos being the leader or main threat I disagree, as does Jon (at least after Slynt died if not before)

Quote

Ser Alliser had grown more circumspect since Lord Janos had lost his head, but the malice was still there. Jon had toyed with the idea of giving him the command Slynt had refused, but he wanted the man close. He was always the more dangerous of the two. Instead he had dispatched a grizzled steward from the Shadow Tower to take command at Greyguard.

Probably another good deterrent for Ides would have been to send Alliser to Greyguard instead of ranging (with the promise "I'll come back) though it probably wouldn't have mattered because either Alliser didnt go ranging or he wasn't the 4th knife (i think he was)

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

 Right but Janos's crime is not going to Mole's town or attempting to run away. Jon ignores Janos's repeated disrespect & insults, calling him boy & bastard & what not. Can you imagine the Old Bear standing for that? Maybe Jon should have punished him for that alone, not beheaded him for it, but maybe the ice cells or something. Jon is their Commander & has commanded Janos to take control of another castle that needs manned on the wall. I think he is well within his rights as Lord Commander to punish insubordination. The man was given a direct order, multiple times, & multiple times refused it. He was given a night to change his mind & told repeatedly he must go. 

Janos was a dick, sure. But smallfolk have a mouth on them. Like Bronn. Sure Bronn was never punished for his insolence (because he almost always did what was asked) but neither were the kg who disrespected Tyrion. In fact Sandor did both, disrespected and insubordination. 

The KG were not punished. Sure Jon may have legality on his side but the law didnt force his hand

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

I just don't see what choice Jon had but to execute the man. 

I mean, theres other choices here. Like ice cells but indefinitely lol. Or send him to Greyguard just don't give him commmand.

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

Yeah I've often wondered if there is any rules in place or structure to follow if the NW seems the LC unworthy of their post. Like can they be voted out? Apparently not, they get killed. Possibly business will follow as usual on the wall after Jon's murder but I don't think so because Jon still has support among the men of the NW. 

I meant business as usual followed the nights king, not Jon. (Though who really knows if that's true either)

So the climate of the Wall right now, it aint cold lol.

I mean we have the Queen whos friends with Jon like her husband is, then theres Meli and her queens men (team Snow) and then theres the wildlings and loyal NW dudes. Also Wun Wun lol

So, if this was the work of 4 men, it was the work of 4 suicidal men. 

I do not think thats the case

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

 At any rate though I don't think not beheading Janos would have kept the mutiny at bay, I think the mutiny would have just come sooner. 

Possibly. Err, probably. 

But would it be the work of 4 (and a lot more) mutineers or just Slynt and his cronies? 

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

I think it would have had a multi-layered affect. First it would have led Janos to believe Jon is weak & will not punish him no matter his offence (he actually says basically this to Jon when Jon stops the hanging & Janos thinks he isn't going to be executed) Secondly it allows any other potential insubordinates think they don't have to listen either. It gives Janos more "pull" among those listening to him, which is a bad thing all around. 

Word, Jon had to show hes boss. Im just worried he made a martyr out of Janos.

[Hugorfonics]

On 11/17/2019 at 2:16 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It's an enigma to me why a rotten, no good, lying, scheming, power hungry, arsehole of a man, draws sympathy from anyone who has read these books. Clearly the author wrote Jon to be a fair, honest, sometimes making mistakes, character & Janos the opposite yet we get people condemning Jon & condoning Janos. I don't get it. 

Janos is kinda sympathetic. So firstly, theres some reason to root for him, hes lowborn. Not many successful smallfolk in the series. I like when they make it. So he does actually think Neds a traitor. This coupled with Alliser in his ear was the inital reason for his hatred of Snow. Then Sam stole the election

Plus, man lost his head. Thats not pretty

On 11/17/2019 at 2:25 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Right! I take no issue with a difference of opinion I just can't understand why people want to hang their hats on the likes of Janos & Ramsay. 

Well, Rams is just too fucking entertaining. We talked about it before, cant look away, like a car accident on the side of the road lol

However being a fan of the villain doesn't (at least in my case) equate to disliking the hero. I rather like Jon

[Lord Varys]

I don't think Slynt is supposed to be that evil of a guy - a lot of his vilification has to do with readers actually adopting the aristocratic point of view - and those pompous asses all look down on the peasants.

George has a somewhat disturbing tendency to not really develop commoners much as characters (the worst portrayal they clearly get in TSS, at least the people living in the Osgrey villages), and Slynt suffers from the same weirdo portrayal as the Freys (who are all supposed to be unsympathetic by description).

Yes, Slynt is corrupt, and he is also a coward and somewhat stupid, not really understanding how the pompous asses play their game of thrones.

But he lives at the court of a corrupt king, filled with corrupt courtiers and officials. What do we expect him to be? A paragon of virtue?

We have no idea what he knows about Cersei and her children (due to George never giving us his perspective) but we do know that he has literally no reason to prefer Eddard Stark to Cersei Lannister - the queen, the mother of the future king, and the one with vast amounts of gold. After all, we don't even know whether Littlefinger ever actually relayed Ned's offer accurately to Slynt.

And, to be very fair, the buy certainly is treated pretty badly in this whole enterprise. He plays a crucial role in giving Joffrey his throne - and then Joff's Hand, Tyrion Lannister, actually punishes him for his loyalty and his willingness to obey and execute orders (murdering Joff's bastard at the command of the Queen Regent).

Sending Slynt to the Wall is utter hypocrisy, done on the whim of a man who quickly forgets thereafter that he came to court 'to do justice'. It is not justice to punish the guy who committed the crime and spare the one who commanded it, especially if you don't approve of the crime. How hypocritical Tyrion there is can be seen when he has Bronn murder people he doesn't approve of a book later.

The guy is nowhere in *really evil territory*. He did ugly things on the command of his master - as a good servant would (and he is servant, being a born commoner who rose though the ranks), but he is not some kind of noble freak getting away with all kind of sadistic crimes (like Roose, Ramsay, Gregor, Sandor, Tywin, Euron, Victarion, etc.).

He just has a really bad reputation because he is so stupid and behaves in such an unsympathetic manner.

[Hugorfonics]

 

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sending Slynt to the Wall is utter hypocrisy, done on the whim of a man who quickly forgets thereafter that he came to court 'to do justice'. It is not justice to punish the guy who committed the crime and spare the one who commanded it, especially if you don't approve of the crime. How hypocritical Tyrion there is can be seen when he has Bronn murder people he doesn't approve of a book later.

Adding on to the fact that Slynt didnt kill the baby that was Deem, I see where your coming from. However Slynt did still commit a crime here, a babys dead. Tyrion was dispensing justice.

However this is more of a 2 birds with one stone moment. Or 3 birds 1 stone.

Tywin instructed Tyrion to make sure Janos does not gain Harrenhall. Furthermore Janos was Petyrs boy and Tyrion is not. Removing Janos is weakening Petyr. (At least that was the plan, obviously a vacant Harrenhall does not weaken Petyr)

And Silverstounge blackmailed Tyrion. It was more then simply not approving

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

Adding on to the fact that Slynt didnt kill the baby that was Deem, I see where your coming from. However Slynt did still commit a crime here, a babys dead. Tyrion was dispensing justice.

Slynt certainly passed the order on to Deem. In fact, he chose him for the task. How this is justice when the Hand punishes somebody for something the regent commanded I really don't know. I agree that murdering children is obviously a crime, but if you put yourself in Slynt's shoes for a moment then the Hand punishes him for something the regent wanted him to do.

That's how you are fucked in this world as a commoner - you nobles and royals just crush you on a whim.

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

Tywin instructed Tyrion to make sure Janos does not gain Harrenhall.

Exactly. Which is another shitty thing considering Joff owns his crown to Slynt.

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

Furthermore Janos was Petyrs boy and Tyrion is not. Removing Janos is weakening Petyr. (At least that was the plan, obviously a vacant Harrenhall does not weaken Petyr)

Weakening Littlefinger is Tyrion's private agenda (he knows about the dagger lie) - but Slynt was more Cersei's boy than Littlefinger's considering she had Joffrey name him Lord of Harrenhal. Petyr Baelish cannot grant lordships.

1 minute ago, Hugorfonics said:

And Silverstounge blackmailed Tyrion. It was more then simply not approving

Sure, but he has a man killed because of his own private problems with his dad, being unable to publicly stand up for his whore-mistress. Symon is certainly not a nice guy - but he sure as hell did not deserve to be killed for what he tried to pull. Especially not without any kind of trial.

[Hugorfonics]

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That's how you are fucked in this world as a commoner - you nobles and royals just crush you on a whim.

You nobles? Me? Hugors as common as the cold 

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Slynt certainly passed the order on to Deem. In fact, he chose him for the task. How this is justice when the Hand punishes somebody for something the regent commanded I really don't know. I agree that murdering children is obviously a crime, but if you put yourself in Slynt's shoes for a moment then the Hand punishes him for something the regent wanted him to do.

Cersei put Janos in a very precarious situation, however Slynt could have refused, or better yet snitch to Robert

Was he alive? If not then take your money sons and get the hell to Harrenhall as fast as possible.

But instructing your employee to kill a baby (at her mothers breast) is the (morally and legally) wrong move.

Politically it seemed sound at first, so I do see your frustration

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Exactly. Which is another shitty thing considering Joff owns his crown to Slynt.

Yeah, Tywins the worst. His only complaint was Janos is smallfolk. I feel for him there. Was his elevation that much greater then Petyrs?

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Weakening Littlefinger is Tyrion's private agenda (he knows about the dagger lie) - but Slynt was more Cersei's boy than Littlefinger's considering she had Joffrey name him Lord of Harrenhal. Petyr Baelish cannot grant lordships.

When Tyrion looks back at offing Slynt he thinks he replaced Petyrs' man with Varys'. Also Stannis insinuated that Petyr was partially responsible for Slynts corruption.

Cersei merely rewarded good behavior with a surplus castle. A Lannister pays her debts, and all

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but he has a man killed because of his own private problems with his dad, being unable to publicly stand up for his whore-mistress. Symon is certainly not a nice guy - but he sure as hell did not deserve to be killed for what he tried to pull. 

Idk. Hes blackmailing the fucking hand. He knows what hes getting into. You either win or die, there is no middle ground

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Especially not without any kind of trial.

Ethically sure. A few notches above Slynts baby and a few below Baelor the Blesseds walk on the beach. But thats the whole issue with blackmail, youve got to shut them the hell up.

But yea, murders not great

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Cersei put Janos in a very precarious situation, however Slynt could have refused, or better yet snitch to Robert

Robert was long dead by then. Cersei was the Queen Regent. And Slynt wanted to keep his position/lordship. He wanted advancement.

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yeah, Tywins the worst. His only complaint was Janos is smallfolk. I feel for him there. Was his elevation that much greater then Petyrs?

There is a difference there, but not that much. Littlefinger was born a nobleman, but he is basically foreign lowborn scum a couple of generations back.

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

When Tyrion looks back at offing Slynt he thinks he replaced Petyrs' man with Varys'. Also Stannis insinuated that Petyr was partially responsible for Slynts corruption.

Cersei merely rewarded good behavior with a surplus castle. A Lannister pays her debts, and all

Sure, but that's only Tyrion's opinion, not necessarily accurate. Littlefinger himself mentions that he can no longer count on the Kettleblacks - especially Osmund, who joined the KG, after Cersei advanced them - the way he did before. Slynt outranked Littlefinger as Lord of Harrenhal, and they both knew that. Originally, Slynt was Littlefinger's creature - and he still felt some loyalty towards the man - but if push came to shove Slynt would have been loyal to Cersei and Joff after he got Harrenhal, not Petyr.

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Idk. Hes blackmailing the fucking hand. He knows what hes getting into. You either win or die, there is no middle ground

The Master of Coin then, not the Hand. And the issue sort of is that the cause for the blackmail really isn't Tyrion doing anything wrong as such. He has committed no crime, he is just with the woman he loves. That he can be blackmailed there is his problem - and he takes a very wrong way to solve the problem.

 

[Moiraine Sedai]

58 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Slynt certainly passed the order on to Deem. In fact, he chose him for the task. How this is justice when the Hand punishes somebody for something the regent commanded I really don't know. I agree that murdering children is obviously a crime, but if you put yourself in Slynt's shoes for a moment then the Hand punishes him for something the regent wanted him to do.

That's how you are fucked in this world as a commoner - you nobles and royals just crush you on a whim.

Exactly. Which is another shitty thing considering Joff owns his crown to Slynt.

Weakening Littlefinger is Tyrion's private agenda (he knows about the dagger lie) - but Slynt was more Cersei's boy than Littlefinger's considering she had Joffrey name him Lord of Harrenhal. Petyr Baelish cannot grant lordships.

Sure, but he has a man killed because of his own private problems with his dad, being unable to publicly stand up for his whore-mistress. Symon is certainly not a nice guy - but he sure as hell did not deserve to be killed for what he tried to pull. Especially not without any kind of trial.

Tyrion took it out on Slynt because he can't punish Cersei.  That's fucked.

[Lord Varys]

In general it is an interesting question to consider what Slynt thought Ned would do with Cersei and the children had he assisted him (assuming again for a moment that Littlefinger actually made Slynt the offer Ned told him to make - which we simply do not know).

Considering the widespread corruption at Robert's court and Slynt's own mindset and modus operandi we can be reasonably sure he expected Ned to kill them. And if believed that and if he trusted/liked/knew Cersei and her children more than Ned (whom he barely knew) then his decision there isn't surprising.

Such a line of thinking demands that you try to pretend the guy is real for a moment and you agree that he is to be thought of as three-dimensional and living a character as the main characters, of course.

[Hugorfonics]

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert was long dead by then. Cersei was the Queen Regent. And Slynt wanted to keep his position/lordship. He wanted advancement.

Gotcha.

Advancement yeah, maybe, thats not very sympathetic. But theres the other issue, how do you say no? Cersei scary. Thats a little sympathetic. 

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is a difference there, but not that much. Littlefinger was born a nobleman, but he is basically foreign lowborn scum a couple of generations back.

Word. His blood wouldnt defame the hall of kings much more then Petyrs. 

Its ok, neither of them have ever been there lol

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but that's only Tyrion's opinion, not necessarily accurate. Littlefinger himself mentions that he can no longer count on the Kettleblacks - especially Osmund, who joined the KG, after Cersei advanced them - the way he did before. Slynt outranked Littlefinger as Lord of Harrenhal, and they both knew that. Originally, Slynt was Littlefinger's creature - and he still felt some loyalty towards the man - but if push came to shove Slynt would have been loyal to Cersei and Joff after he got Harrenhal, not Petyr.

The white cloaks different then a lordship. In fact as Stannis says to be a lord is to be false.

Also, does a lord have a higher rank then a lord of coins?

Like, if the lord of Harrenhall addressed the SC hed have to kneel, and like Davos said, hands arent petitioners. Coins not hand but its regal related

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Master of Coin then, not the Hand. And the issue sort of is that the cause for the blackmail really isn't Tyrion doing anything wrong as such. He has committed no crime, he is just with the woman he loves. That he can be blackmailed there is his problem - and he takes a very wrong way to solve the problem.

Word Coin, not Hand. My mistake. 

Plenty of politicians to this day face scrutiny for being with the one they love. Especially if theyre married. (Also especially if its a teenage hooker)

[Hugorfonics]

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In general it is an interesting question to consider what Slynt thought Ned would do with Cersei and the children had he assisted him (assuming again for a moment that Littlefinger actually made Slynt the offer Ned told him to make - which we simply do not know).

Considering the widespread corruption at Robert's court and Slynt's own mindset and modus operandi we can be reasonably sure he expected Ned to kill them. And if believed that and if he trusted/liked/knew Cersei and her children more than Ned (whom he barely knew) then his decision there isn't surprising.

Such a line of thinking demands that you try to pretend the guy is real for a moment and you agree that he is to be thought of as three-dimensional and living a character as the main characters, of course.

 Petyr did tell Janos

Quote

"I gave the command, and I'd give it again. Lord Stark was a traitor." The bald spot in the middle of Slynt's head was beet-red, and his cloth-of-gold cape had slithered off his shoulders onto the floor. "The man tried to buy me."

Also Ned prattles on that he doesnt kill innocent children in the SC which Janos is part of.

However Ned kept Theon at Ice length his whole life, mayne Janos knows that. Also who knows what Petyr says. I mean we know what its not, the truth.

[Lord Varys]

28 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

 Petyr did tell Janos

That's what he says. We don't know whether he is lying or not - nor, if he told the truth, when he was informed about Ned's offer.

In fact, if we buy Slynt got the offer then Littlefinger actually delivered Ned's offer to Slynt as he promised Ned - and Slynt rejected it, causing him to side with Cersei. Or he was bought by Cersei before through some other guy.

28 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Also Ned prattles on that he doesnt kill innocent children in the SC which Janos is part of.

Nah, Slynt doesn't sit on the Small Council.

[Bronn Urgandy]

 

 

I find this is a good exploration of Janos Slynts character, the author is handsome too

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd say that the fact that Jon's companions do not second-guess his command implies they were on board. They react as quickly as Slynt did back when Joffrey gave the command to kill Ned. This is no coincidence. Just as it is no coincidence that Jon entered into the common room with Emmett and Edd coming with him:

I agree Jon's men knew there may be an issue & that is exactly why Jon brought men with him. Men that would obey his command. It just doesn't make any sense to me for Jon to have decided & discussed ahead of time that if Janos refused again he would be hung but we never hear him speaking to anyone about it & it isn't in his thoughts. What is in his thoughts is his apparent decision making process while he is deciding what to do with him. 

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that Jon went to the common room with no preparation how to deal with the situation, i.e. a script that he would hang Slynt if he would not take his last offer and sufficient trusted men to actually go through with the execution as well as put down any violent resistance his order might cause makes literally no sense to me.

Regardless of what he planned or didn't plan to do if Slynt continued his refusal he would have taken men with him that would obey. That's only common sense. He knows there is a potential for violent resistance in whatever he decides to do with Janos. If you, as a LC, are going to give an unruly black brother one last chance to obey a direct order, one that he has refused several times already, and that you know surrounds himself with his cronies, wouldn't you take men with you that you knew you could trust to obey? I don't think this means they pre-planned the execution. 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

To assume Jon went there without a plan and the means to execute it - with him only trusting that his command as Lord Commander would enough to compel obedience makes no sense. After all, the whole point of the exercise is to instill obedience in the on-lookers - to show what it means to defy Lord Commander Jon Snow.

He went there with men he knew would obey. Men he trusts. It's as simple as that to me, I don't see any reason to complicate it further by thinking they pre-planned the execution when nothing suggests this to me. I can't wrap my head around why we would have Jon going through the process of thinking about the ice cells & dragging him off to Greyguard if it was not only pre-decided what he would do if Slynt refused but also planned or shared with the men he brought with him. He wouldn't even need to say the words in this case. Had he already told his men - If Slynt refuses, he will be hung. Then when Slynt refused, the men could have taken action immediately. No reason for Jon to give the command. 

At any rate, whether he did or didn't doesn't change much for me in how I feel about the execution as a whole. Pre-planned or no, it was deserved IMO.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That wouldn't have worked at all if Jon hadn't been prepared and had, in the end, perhaps been forced to retreat from the common room to save his own life.

In fact, it is also no coincidence that this chapter starts with Jon writing his 'paper shield' and then essentially ripping apart and burning said shield in the end when he has Slynt executed. It is certainly subtle, but it is there.

It is the first step in Jon's journey in ADwD to try to tell himself he does what he should as LC but his actions betray his deep wishes ... wishes that finally come to the surface in the last chapter when finally and proudly proclaims to the world that he is abandoning his post to wage war on Winterfell (and thus, in a sense, the North).

But he was prepared. He took men he knew would obey with him. 

Wasn't the paper shield the letter written to the Lannisters that basically say the NW takes no part? If that is based on the Lannisters getting their way then it was no shield to begin with, paper or not. I doubt the fact that Slynt was executed will change one iota of what the Lannisters would or wouldn't do. I think they would have liked to have their own man in power at the wall but they are not overly concerned with Janos Slynt & his well-being to the point they are going to attack the NW. They weren't going to help them anyway so I don't see there was any love lost here. 

As to the bolded, I think that's another discussion all in itself, but in a nutshell, yeah deep down he always wanted to fight for his family & his home. 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd say that Slynt is actually the least dangerous of the bunch. We all agree he was stupid, and we all do know he was propped up by Thorne as a puppet LC because he, Thorne, could never hope to be elected because he is as unpopular as he is.

And rereading Jon's internal thoughts I have trouble buying his thoughts as real concerns - either he is stupider than I think he is or George didn't come up with good enough 'real reasons'.

Sure he is dumb but he is more popular & like I said he is the "loudest & the proudest" People are listening to him & that in itself makes him dangerous. Alone Thorne is the more dangerous of the two but like you said Thorne is not popular, no one is listening to him. 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This would be easily resolved - by separating Thorne and Slynt for good, say, by sending Thorne to Eastwatch or the Shadow Tower or on some ranging beyond the Wall (which Jon actually did later). The idea he only had the choice of killing Slynt to prevent the plotting is ludicrous.

This was an option when he thought Slynt was going to go willingly. After his show of rebellion it wasn't a matter of just separating Thorne & Slynt but separating Slynt from anyone, everyone who would fall prey to his BS. 

I think this is just a matter of opinion. I think it's a good reason & you don't. Jon thinks it is & we will have to wait & see if GRRM meant for it to be written as a good reason - or we may never find out. 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

First, Jon, who actually deserted (at least) once, is sitting on a pretty high horse assuming for no good reason Slynt would desert - especially since that's effectively a death sentence.

But there was no need for him to send him away to Greyguard at all. He could throw him in a cell in CB and then make use of him afterwards.

It isn't for no good reason. Slynt has vehemently refused his command, told him to shove it up his arse, screamed to the rest of the watch that he is a bastard & has the mark of the devil. I think it's a reasonable assumption to make that if he ties him to a horse & forcibly sends him to Greyguard the first chance he gets he is either going to desert or come back to kill Jon. 

I don't see any good reason to assume that after all of that ruckus Slynt would just go meekly on his horse to Greyguard & do as he was told. 

Also, Janos doesn't seem particularly concerned with a death sentence. He thinks he is too important even when being faced with hanging from his LC. He would surely feel safer if he deserts & goes back to KL where his "friends" are. 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't see a very good reason to ever put myself in the position where I'd say that killing a guy for Slynt's offense there - which is minor to things Jon Snow got away with without so much as scratch. I mean, Mormont certainly would have been within his rights to hang Jon after his attempt on Thorne. Had he reacted the way Jon did there nobody would have saved Mormont from the wights ... and we now don't know what good Slynt could have done in the future.

Well, yeah. I mean I would never kill any living being for anything other than if I were forced to in defense of myself or someone else. Living in Jon's world though I think it was a reasonable response to the crime. 

 

I think we are cycling back around to a discussion we already had about what Jon did & whether or not that has bearing on what Slynt did so I won't touch too much on that but there are still plenty of men at the wall who would save Jon from a wight. I suppose we will find out how many are willing to defend or avenge Jon if we ever get tWoW but Janos wouldn't have done any good. He hasn't done any good thus far into his life & has no interest in doing any good for the institution he is a part of - he made that perfectly clear. At any rate though we cannot let a possible future act of goodness mean that his current act goes unpunished. 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't think there were that many 'Slynt followers' as such - there were people considering him because he had allegedly connections to court. That's very different. Slynt wasn't a man who had a strong following of his own at the Wall - he was as much a compromise candidate in the choosing as Jon himself. Somebody propped up as an alternative to Mallister and Pyke.

Earlier you said one of the issues with Jon's decision is that it has hardened the hearts of the Slynt supporters against him. If there are none or not many Slynt supporters I don't see how this could be an issue. 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Putting him in his place without killing him could have had a better effect. I mean, in the sternness Jon Snow isn't in the Jaehaerys I department here (who actually pardoned the man who wanted to depose him and married his own heir to the daughter of that man) he is more in the Maegor the Cruel department here (only in this one instance, of course, there's no pattern of sadistic brutality there, but this pretty extreme still). Especially with Jon doing the thing himself - we never get a character describing how Jon looked when he beheaded Slynt, but it wouldn't have been nice, and it certainly would have evoked fear in many bystanders.

Yeah, it was brutal but not extreme IMO. Definitely not nice & yes evoked fear in bystanders which is what needed to happen. We do need to keep in mind that these aren't a bunch of flower picking little girls though. These are grown men, many of them criminals prior to coming to the wall, many of them have seen their fair share of death. So while I agree it wasn't pretty I don't think it traumatized the men either. 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He couldn't have done that, I assume. Slynt has no connections at the Wall, and Marsh likely did what he did only after he realized that essentially most of his stewards stood with him. I doubt he would pull something like that if he thought they would all be killed immediately by Jon's many friends in the Watch - because if that were the case then the murder of Jon would have accomplished nothing. And the point is not 'kill the bastard' but prevent the bastard from marching an army of wildlings against the Seven Kingdoms.

Janos absolutely could have plotted a mutiny. He already had a small following & the mutiny itself only consisted of 4 men. I agree about Marsh but Slynt is arrogant & believes people won't kill because of who he is - a fact that would have been affirmed in his mind had he been allowed to live. Marsh's point wasn't to kill the bastard but Janos's may have been exactly that. I mean, it didn't happen so we are just speaking hypothetically here but Janos isn't Marsh. Marsh did what he did because he felt he had to. Janos would have much less noble reasons for wanting Jon dead. 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, they don't really have a good picture of the danger they are in. They all believe the Wall will keep the Others out of the Seven Kingdoms. They don't expect it to fall.

Jon doesn't expect the wall to fall either. The men know as much of the danger as he does. They have seen the others, fought them, seen their friends die & turn into them. What more do they need? More people north of the wall = more potential others. I think they get that. Much of Marsh's contention is that the wildlings are bad & while I understand that has been ingrained in him for many years, it still makes him closed-minded to not attempt to think for himself. 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And Marsh they will all starve to death and likely risk killing each other over the last provisions if they take in too many refugees. He knows what food they have, and he has survived winters at the Wall. Jon hasn't. He hasn't even seen a cruel winter at Winterfell.

Sure, & this is a very real concern. Doesn't Jon take out a loan with the IB attempting to resolve this issue though?

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I mean, thanks to George's writing style we'll never see how this winter is going to be three years from now or so (because things will likely happen much faster) but the characters don't know that - and Jon just tries to see some sort of big political picture without caring much about the day-to-day feeding aspect of it all.

I disagree he doesn't care about it. He just doesn't do a good job of conveying to Marsh that he cares about it. He also understands that there will be no one to feed if the bigger threat is not dealt with. 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Even if he becomes suddenly a competent zombie/Jesus politician, he still remains a failure in the sense that he never saw his own murder coming - despite massive evidence to the contrary. He should have known that.

So, now I'm a little confused because while I agreed up thread that the signs were there & he should have paid more attention to them, you stated you did not see the murder coming. Why would you expect Jon to see his murder coming when you, as a reader, with more surrounding knowledge, didn't see it coming? 

Also I don't think anyone is ever a failure because they get murdered. That seems an odd thing to be a failure for. You can't blame the victim for being murdered unless the victim got murdered because they were trying to take the life of someone else IMO. 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And, in fact, I think the trauma of having been dead combined with the fact that he was murdered by people he trusted is not going to have a positive effect on his personality ... even if we assume that magic magically resolves all the issues that are going to come with him being dead (and I'm not going to assume that, either).

Probably not a positive effect on his personality but one of your issues with him is that he didn't pay enough attention or whatever & never saw his own murder coming. This whole thing is very likely to have remedied that situation because he will probably be suspicious of every single person he is around. 

Also, being dead is just one possibility - I agree it's likely he had died & will come back somehow. But it is possible he hasn't died at all & will survive his injuries, thus avoiding the trauma of being dead. I think the effect being dead has on someone varies with how long they are dead. Beric loses a little of himself each time & while he doesn't remember a lot of his past by the time Arya meets him, he is also not Stone heart like. Cat on the other hand seems to remember her past just fine but is more zombie like. The only difference I can see in the two is that Beric is not ever dead for very long. Also Cat was murdered in a brutal way under very brutal circumstances so maybe that has some effect as well. 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He could become very paranoid after that (like his dear paternal granddad got after Duskendale) or he could become very cynical, losing all hope in the goodness of men and no longer seeing why the hell he should care about doing anything for humanity. They clearly didn't serve him well the last time he tried.

Sure he absolutely could. 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I mean, even the idea to save the wildlings needs a trigger (his visit at the godswood between the Wall) when in fact simple thinking could have lead to the same result. If we had gotten a simple chapter of Jon reflecting some issues, possibly after reading something about the alliance between Joramun of the wildlings and Brandon the Breaker against the Night's King to then decide that 'hey, the wildlings are people, too, we should protect them from the Others and even try convince them to help us' then the character would have looked much better and smarter (and he could have still gone out in the wild to look for some surviving wildlings).

Right but do you think we don't get those things because George meant for Jon to appear stupid or not as smart as others? Or do you think George wrote it the way he did because he thought it was more interesting that way or because he didn't view not having this as Jon appearing dumb or making dumb decisions? 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

17 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

 Course, no malice here. Just discussions/dissection of a complicated book(s)

17 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Word, especially since Marsh was a friend (at the very least an ally, he endorsed Slynt for election)

So I feel like Jon did a good job explaining letting the wildlings in, maybe not great at explaining the attack on Ramsay. However I also dont think it had anything to do with the Ides. 

I agree. 

17 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

About Janos being the leader or main threat I disagree, as does Jon (at least after Slynt died if not before

Yeah for sure. Thorne is the more dangerous especially now that Slynt is gone. Before he was beheaded though, while he wasn't especially dangerous in his own right he did have the ear of other people. 

17 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Probably another good deterrent for Ides would have been to send Alliser to Greyguard instead of ranging (with the promise "I'll come back) though it probably wouldn't have mattered because either Alliser didnt go ranging or he wasn't the 4th knife (i think he was)

Oh for sure. I don't know why he sent him ranging. I think he has too much trust in the institution & Thornes commitment to it. 

17 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Janos was a dick, sure. But smallfolk have a mouth on them. Like Bronn. Sure Bronn was never punished for his insolence (because he almost always did what was asked) but neither were the kg who disrespected Tyrion. In fact Sandor did both, disrespected and insubordination. 

The KG were not punished. Sure Jon may have legality on his side but the law didnt force his hand

Right but Tyrion wasn't the LC of the KG either. But I agree the law did not force his hand. When I said he had to do it, I only meant that it was the only viable option in the situation. 

17 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I mean, theres other choices here. Like ice cells but indefinitely lol. Or send him to Greyguard just don't give him commmand.

Sure there were other choices. Just not ones that Jon thought would work.

17 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I meant business as usual followed the nights king, not Jon. (Though who really knows if that's true either)

So the climate of the Wall right now, it aint cold lol.

I mean we have the Queen whos friends with Jon like her husband is, then theres Meli and her queens men (team Snow) and then theres the wildlings and loyal NW dudes. Also Wun Wun lol

So, if this was the work of 4 men, it was the work of 4 suicidal men. 

I do not think thats the case

Yeah for sure. I knew what you meant it just got me wondering about what would happen after Jon's stabbing & if the mutineers had any other option to remove him from his post.

 

17 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Possibly. Err, probably. 

But would it be the work of 4 (and a lot more) mutineers or just Slynt and his cronies? 

Well just spit balling because it didn't happen but I think it had the potential to be a lot more. I think it would depend on how quick Slynt acted. He probably would have initially gained support but that support would probably fall off once people started to realize what a jack ass he is. But you never know. 

 

17 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Word, Jon had to show hes boss. Im just worried he made a martyr out of Janos.

Right that's definitely a possibility. I think it all boils down to how many of them understand why Jon made the decision he made. He isn't very good at explaining himself sometimes though. 

17 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Janos is kinda sympathetic. So firstly, theres some reason to root for him, hes lowborn. Not many successful smallfolk in the series. I like when they make it. So he does actually think Neds a traitor. This coupled with Alliser in his ear was the inital reason for his hatred of Snow. Then Sam stole the election

Plus, man lost his head. Thats not pretty

Yeah I mean his story is sympathetic on the outside. Lowly born, fought to raise to the upper ranks, got sent to the wall for doing as he was bid, lost the election for LC by deceit & then got beheaded. 

When you look at the details individually though he isn't so sympathetic because we know what a jerk he is. But yeah I see where you're coming from. 

 

17 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Well, Rams is just too fucking entertaining. We talked about it before, cant look away, like a car accident on the side of the road lol

However being a fan of the villain doesn't (at least in my case) equate to disliking the hero. I rather like Jon

Absolutely! I'm a huge Ramsay "fan" in that I think he is a great villain & I love to read his chapters, love to hate him LOL but I don't root for him ya know. I'm looking forward to his gruesome demise. LOL

 

[Lord Varys]

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree Jon's men knew there may be an issue & that is exactly why Jon brought men with him. Men that would obey his command. It just doesn't make any sense to me for Jon to have decided & discussed ahead of time that if Janos refused again he would be hung but we never hear him speaking to anyone about it & it isn't in his thoughts. What is in his thoughts is his apparent decision making process while he is deciding what to do with him. 

We have a time jump ahead. From Jon's conversation with Slynt to him confronting him in the common room. It is quite clear he must have made a plan what to do.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Regardless of what he planned or didn't plan to do if Slynt continued his refusal he would have taken men with him that would obey. That's only common sense. He knows there is a potential for violent resistance in whatever he decides to do with Janos. If you, as a LC, are going to give an unruly black brother one last chance to obey a direct order, one that he has refused several times already, and that you know surrounds himself with his cronies, wouldn't you take men with you that you knew you could trust to obey? I don't think this means they pre-planned the execution. 

He would have not only men he could trust, he would have had men with him who knew what he expected them to do. Since commanding to execute Slynt the gang should know they might be commanded to do that in advance, so they could prepare to deal with the crowd as well as get on with the execution fast so it is over before the opposition has a time to properly react.

More or less like Ned's own execution was set up.

Just because Edd and Emmett were Jon's guys doesn't mean they may not have felt an execution was a bit extreme/not what they were expecting to hear him command - but they react immediately as if they had known. This is no proof they must have known, of course (just like, in fact, we still have no proof that Slynt was informed in advance of Joffrey's command to execute Ned) but I'd say Jon would have been pretty stupid if didn't inform or indicate to his men what he was about to do.

And I certainly would count a line like 'No matter what I command in there, do as I ask and do it quickly' as him giving them a hint what was to come.

I'm not sure there would have been any uproar of note had Jon just commanded to tie Slynt to his horse or had him just thrown into an ice cell. That kind of thing must have happen rather often - keep in mind that those men are, for the most part, criminals and scum. Discipline should be enforced at times pretty harshly - yet Slynt is actually the first and only guy at the Wall who has been executed.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

He went there with men he knew would obey. Men he trusts. It's as simple as that to me, I don't see any reason to complicate it further by thinking they pre-planned the execution when nothing suggests this to me. I can't wrap my head around why we would have Jon going through the process of thinking about the ice cells & dragging him off to Greyguard if it was not only pre-decided what he would do if Slynt refused but also planned or shared with the men he brought with him. He wouldn't even need to say the words in this case. Had he already told his men - If Slynt refuses, he will be hung. Then when Slynt refused, the men could have taken action immediately. No reason for Jon to give the command. 

If read the text it is pretty clear he only talks about hypotheticals there. He has already made his choice what to do. Like a guy who goes in to rob a bank knows he can also not go into the bank or just go in there and to open an account.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Wasn't the paper shield the letter written to the Lannisters that basically say the NW takes no part? If that is based on the Lannisters getting their way then it was no shield to begin with, paper or not. I doubt the fact that Slynt was executed will change one iota of what the Lannisters would or wouldn't do. I think they would have liked to have their own man in power at the wall but they are not overly concerned with Janos Slynt & his well-being to the point they are going to attack the NW. They weren't going to help them anyway so I don't see there was any love lost here.

It is pretty obvious that anyone at court reading Jon's paper shield letter and then receiving word that Janos Slynt has been executed it makes very clear where Jon Snow stands - especially when he also supports and works with Stannis.

It is not for the Iron Throne to prove the NW's lord commander is loyal to the Iron Throne - he has to show his loyalty to them.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

As to the bolded, I think that's another discussion all in itself, but in a nutshell, yeah deep down he always wanted to fight for his family & his home.

Then he shouldn't have taken the black in the first place.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure he is dumb but he is more popular & like I said he is the "loudest & the proudest" People are listening to him & that in itself makes him dangerous. Alone Thorne is the more dangerous of the two but like you said Thorne is not popular, no one is listening to him. 

Slynt is only listened to because people think he has influence at court. It should have been not that difficult to prove that's not the case. Or do show that the guy is a coward and a moron.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

This was an option when he thought Slynt was going to go willingly. After his show of rebellion it wasn't a matter of just separating Thorne & Slynt but separating Slynt from anyone, everyone who would fall prey to his BS. 

No, that's not what's written in the text. There is is about Thorne and Slynt would continue to plot after Slynt got out of his ice cell. Which is both just an arbitrary thought of Jon, not backed by any facts since it is a hypothetical (after all, perhaps, Slynt would gladly lick Jon's boots and become his own little Reek just because he was allowed to live and get out of the cell?) and easily rectified if Jon had taken steps to separate Slynt from Thorne.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I think this is just a matter of opinion. I think it's a good reason & you don't. Jon thinks it is & we will have to wait & see if GRRM meant for it to be written as a good reason - or we may never find out.

Most reasons people in those books give are not really good reasons. And we are not supposed to take any reasons the people give at face value, especially if they are based on limited information.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It isn't for no good reason. Slynt has vehemently refused his command, told him to shove it up his arse, screamed to the rest of the watch that he is a bastard & has the mark of the devil. I think it's a reasonable assumption to make that if he ties him to a horse & forcibly sends him to Greyguard the first chance he gets he is either going to desert or come back to kill Jon.

Jon is not afraid he would kill him, so that's really not on the table. Slynt certainly crosses a line with his insults, but it is actually quite clear his fear of being killed is speaking there. He is acting from fear and because he is stupid, not (only) because he is not exactly a nice guy.

And as we well know, his bias about Jon being a beastling freak should actually be shared by all men at the Watch. Even the wildlings do not suffer skinchangers to live with them. They banish them to live with their own.

Insisting Jon has to be very harsh there to keep his face is, in my opinion, cutting him too much slack. He shouldn't have given him just a slap on the wrist, but killing him is the most extreme possible punishment.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Well, yeah. I mean I would never kill any living being for anything other than if I were forced to in defense of myself or someone else. Living in Jon's world though I think it was a reasonable response to the crime. 

A possible response, not necessarily the most reasonable one. It is Maegor the Cruel territory. You talk back at me, you die. There are other ways to make people understand you are in charge.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I think we are cycling back around to a discussion we already had about what Jon did & whether or not that has bearing on what Slynt did so I won't touch too much on that but there are still plenty of men at the wall who would save Jon from a wight. I suppose we will find out how many are willing to defend or avenge Jon if we ever get tWoW but Janos wouldn't have done any good. He hasn't done any good thus far into his life & has no interest in doing any good for the institution he is a part of - he made that perfectly clear. At any rate though we cannot let a possible future act of goodness mean that his current act goes unpunished. 

And that's exactly why Jon Snow should have been killed a long time ago. Both for his desertion and for his attempt on the life of Ser Alliser Thorne.

I'm not sure why he deserved essentially three 'second chances' when Slynt essentially is executed for some insults and the refusal to obey a command. And this is signficant because Jon basically profits from having a forgiving guy as Lord Commander. Had Jon Snow served under Jon Snow he would have been dead a long time ago. He would not have suffered his own presumptions.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Earlier you said one of the issues with Jon's decision is that it has hardened the hearts of the Slynt supporters against him. If there are none or not many Slynt supporters I don't see how this could be an issue. 

Oh, I meant those guys who threw their stones for him. Those sort of count as followers, but I doubt Slynt would have been able to draw an actual coterie of followers around him to actual do some plotting as soon as they realized that in the Jon Snow days Slynt wouldn't be an important person at the Watch.

Marsh can plot against Jon because he is a high-ranking officer who essentially controls the entire administration at Castle Black. He is running things in the shadows. Slynt wouldn't do anything of that sort.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah, it was brutal but not extreme IMO. Definitely not nice & yes evoked fear in bystanders which is what needed to happen. We do need to keep in mind that these aren't a bunch of flower picking little girls though. These are grown men, many of them criminals prior to coming to the wall, many of them have seen their fair share of death. So while I agree it wasn't pretty I don't think it traumatized the men either. 

No, but it would have shown them that this man doesn't show mercy to men he considers his enemies/he doesn't agree with.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Janos absolutely could have plotted a mutiny. He already had a small following & the mutiny itself only consisted of 4 men. I agree about Marsh but Slynt is arrogant & believes people won't kill because of who he is - a fact that would have been affirmed in his mind had he been allowed to live. Marsh's point wasn't to kill the bastard but Janos's may have been exactly that. I mean, it didn't happen so we are just speaking hypothetically here but Janos isn't Marsh. Marsh did what he did because he felt he had to. Janos would have much less noble reasons for wanting Jon dead. 

The mutiny cannot have been just four guys. Marsh isn't the guy who would pull something with just four guys.

And killing Jon isn't the only thing they would have to do to accomplish their goal. They have to seize control of the Watch, possibly even the wildling hostage to ensure they don't turn against the Watch, etc.

And Marsh being the steward in charge certainly could have ensured that his people were guarding the hostages, he could have handed out weapons to his men, he could have them at the ready to surround and kill everybody at the Shieldhall, etc.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Jon doesn't expect the wall to fall either. The men know as much of the danger as he does. They have seen the others, fought them, seen their friends die & turn into them. What more do they need? More people north of the wall = more potential others. I think they get that. Much of Marsh's contention is that the wildlings are bad & while I understand that has been ingrained in him for many years, it still makes him closed-minded to not attempt to think for himself. 

Sure, and it seems, in the end, Marsh also got that. They didn't kill Jon before he got the wildlings through, they killed him afterwards - which makes it very likely they they were willing suffer this thing but not something like using wildlings to involve the Watch in an attack on the Seven Kingdoms.

I mean, if I wanted to kill Jon because of the wildlings, I'd have done it before he brought him through.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure, & this is a very real concern. Doesn't Jon take out a loan with the IB attempting to resolve this issue though?

Sure. And then he keeps that one to himself, never sharing it with anyone. But you cannot eat money. In this world nobody is going to sell the provisions they themselves need for winter, only surplus food - and I don't really understand how anyone could consider any of his provisions 'surplus' if there is no way to understand how long winter is going to last. I mean, how stupid would you have to sell food so you can last only, say, four years of winter when you don't know if it will be, say, 5-6 years?

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I disagree he doesn't care about it. He just doesn't do a good job of conveying to Marsh that he cares about it. He also understands that there will be no one to feed if the bigger threat is not dealt with. 

Only if the Others were to attack the Wall/Seven Kingdoms soon. But they don't really/expect that.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

So, now I'm a little confused because while I agreed up thread that the signs were there & he should have paid more attention to them, you stated you did not see the murder coming. Why would you expect Jon to see his murder coming when you, as a reader, with more surrounding knowledge, didn't see it coming? 

I honestly thought Jon kept an eye on Marsh and company, ensuring they were not the ones who would betray him. I mean, who would have you thought would kill you if you were told what Mel told you? Jon sent away all his close friends, so only other people he might trust remain.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Also I don't think anyone is ever a failure because they get murdered. That seems an odd thing to be a failure for. You can't blame the victim for being murdered unless the victim got murdered because they were trying to take the life of someone else IMO. 

Politically, Ned, Tywin, Robert, and Robb, etc. are all failures. They were killed, and whatever they wanted to accomplished failed with their deaths. Jon might come back, but that doesn't change that he failed to see his death coming and couldn't prevent his own followers from turning against him and killing him.

Jon is not killed by some robber or serial killer or anything, he is killed for a political reason.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Also, being dead is just one possibility - I agree it's likely he had died & will come back somehow. But it is possible he hasn't died at all & will survive his injuries, thus avoiding the trauma of being dead. I think the effect being dead has on someone varies with how long they are dead. Beric loses a little of himself each time & while he doesn't remember a lot of his past by the time Arya meets him, he is also not Stone heart like. Cat on the other hand seems to remember her past just fine but is more zombie like. The only difference I can see in the two is that Beric is not ever dead for very long. Also Cat was murdered in a brutal way under very brutal circumstances so maybe that has some effect as well. 

If he is not dead then this would be one of the worst plots ever. Because the only thing that can redeem this stupid plot line of 'assassinated Jon' is if he actually dies. If he was just injured very badly then this would be fan fiction kind of literature, not what you expect from George.

Not to mention that there is really no hint whatsoever that this is a fake death - unlike we have with Davos, Arya, Brienne, etc. No indication that Jon is going to be saved before the other daggers gut him, etc.

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Right but do you think we don't get those things because George meant for Jon to appear stupid or not as smart as others? Or do you think George wrote it the way he did because he thought it was more interesting that way or because he didn't view not having this as Jon appearing dumb or making dumb decisions? 

I don't know. I think George took far too much time to have Jon reach his conclusion - it does not make him appear smart. In fact, he should have concluded that back in ASoS already. After all, Mance told him they wanted to hide behind the Wall. Surely it should have struck his mind back then that they could have reached some sort of understanding.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

53 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We have a time jump ahead. From Jon's conversation with Slynt to him confronting him in the common room. It is quite clear he must have made a plan what to do.

I disagree. I'll concede it's possible but I don't think it's clear. 

54 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He would have not only men he could trust, he would have had men with him who knew what he expected them to do. Since commanding to execute Slynt the gang should know they might be commanded to do that in advance, so they could prepare to deal with the crowd as well as get on with the execution fast so it is over before the opposition has a time to properly react.

I don't think one thing necessitates the other. I think he would have men he could trust to obey & that would be prepared to deal with an unruly crowd. I don't think knowing in advance there is going to be a potential execution is a precursor for this to be true. 

57 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

More or less like Ned's own execution was set up.

Just because Edd and Emmett were Jon's guys doesn't mean they may not have felt an execution was a bit extreme/not what they were expecting to hear him command - but they react immediately as if they had known. This is no proof they must have known, of course (just like, in fact, we still have no proof that Slynt was informed in advance of Joffrey's command to execute Ned) but I'd say Jon would have been pretty stupid if didn't inform or indicate to his men what he was about to do.

In all fairness Slynt may not have known. I don't think that makes Jon stupid but it would fit in with your opinion on his decisions. If his whole "reign" as LC was a failure with several stupid decisions made, no reason to think he switched it up to be smart this time. 

58 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And I certainly would count a line like 'No matter what I command in there, do as I ask and do it quickly' as him giving them a hint what was to come.

I'm not sure there would have been any uproar of note had Jon just commanded to tie Slynt to his horse or had him just thrown into an ice cell. That kind of thing must have happen rather often - keep in mind that those men are, for the most part, criminals and scum. Discipline should be enforced at times pretty harshly - yet Slynt is actually the first and only guy at the Wall who has been executed.

I could see him saying something like that but we aren't given it. That may hint at what could potentially come but it's not pre-planning the execution. Like, listen Janos is probably going to refuse & when he does I'm going to hang him, so don't act surprised & follow my orders quickly. That is what I'm arguing didn't happen. 

Sure, I can get behind that. There wasn't much uproar of note when Jon beheaded him so there is no reason to think there would have been if he put him in an ice cell or tied him to a horse. 

But one of the reasons there was no uproar was because Jon had men with him. Janos was going to fight his consequences no matter what they were so if he ordered him into an ice cell he wasn't going to just go on his own. Jon was going to have to have men put him in there & the presence of those men are going to make Slynt's cronies second guess starting crap. 

To be fair Slynt is also the only man to repeatedly refuse a direct order from his LC also. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If read the text it is pretty clear he only talks about hypotheticals there. He has already made his choice what to do. Like a guy who goes in to rob a bank knows he can also not go into the bank or just go in there and to open an account.

Again, I don't think it is pretty clear. Pretty clear to me would mean the majority of people see it that way - which I don't think that is the case. Doesn't make it wrong, but it doesn't make it right either. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is pretty obvious that anyone at court reading Jon's paper shield letter and then receiving word that Janos Slynt has been executed it makes very clear where Jon Snow stands - especially when he also supports and works with Stannis.

It is not for the Iron Throne to prove the NW's lord commander is loyal to the Iron Throne - he has to show his loyalty to them.

That's absolutely what the Lannisters are going to take from it but that doesn't mean they are correct. He shows loyalty to them by protecting the realm. Is he expected to show loyalty in some other way? I don't think it's required for the NW to place the Lannisters man in the LC position or to safeguard the man & not punish him for insubordination to prove his loyalty to the throne. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Then he shouldn't have taken the black in the first place.

I think most people want to fight for their family, keep their family safe, don't want to see their childhood home be destroyed or placed into the hands of a sadist. What you want doesn't decide if you should take the black, it's what you do. Jon always wanted to but it is not until Ramsay threatens Jon personally & the NW that he does. I don't know if he shouldn't have taken the black but I wish he wouldn't have. I don't think it's the best place for him & apparently it wasn't, but I don't think wanting to help your family or worrying about & caring for your family means you shouldn't take the black. 

Surely, Benjen loved his brother & his nieces & nephews. It would have torn him up inside to know that Ned was killed & his home was torched & given to Ramsay Bolton & he has been a good asset to the NW. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

lynt is only listened to because people think he has influence at court. It should have been not that difficult to prove that's not the case. Or do show that the guy is a coward and a moron.

It would have came out eventually & people would have ignored him most likely but until then he was causing ruckus. I don't doubt for a moment he would have made an attempt on Jon's life at some point or another. Whether it was successful or not would depend on if it was before or after people realized what a moron he is. 

How should it have been proven he has no sway at court? I, personally, would use the fact that they sent him to the wall as evidence to myself that he doesn't hold much power at court but apparently not everyone thinks that way & power lies where people think it lies. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No, that's not what's written in the text. There is is about Thorne and Slynt would continue to plot after Slynt got out of his ice cell. Which is both just an arbitrary thought of Jon, not backed by any facts since it is a hypothetical (after all, perhaps, Slynt would gladly lick Jon's boots and become his own little Reek just because he was allowed to live and get out of the cell?) and easily rectified if Jon had taken steps to separate Slynt from Thorne.

Well, a lot of what we have tossed back & forth isn't explicitly written in the text. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior so I don't think it's near as likely that Janos was going to lick Jon's boots as he was going to continue to cause issues. Anything's is possible. It's possible pomegranates were going to fly down from the sky & carry Janos off to pomegranate-land but there is nothing to suggest this will happen. There's plenty to suggest Janos will continue to be an issue for the NW as long as he is alive, whether with Thorne or not. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Most reasons people in those books give are not really good reasons. And we are not supposed to take any reasons the people give at face value, especially if they are based on limited information.

I think there is always room to question things. Everything deserves a closer look, but at the end of the day it is a matter of opinion on whether you decide to agree the reason is a good one or not. Given what we know about the surrounding circumstances, Jon's character, Janos's character, & the situation at the wall I have come to the conclusion that Jon had sound reasoning. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon is not afraid he would kill him, so that's really not on the table. Slynt certainly crosses a line with his insults, but it is actually quite clear his fear of being killed is speaking there. He is acting from fear and because he is stupid, not (only) because he is not exactly a nice guy.

What behavior of his, specifically, makes you think he is fearful of being killed? Prior to him having his head on a block, being asked for his last words. Jon isn't afraid he would kill him, no. I just believe that's a possibility. Jon certainly wasn't afraid Marsh was going to kill him either yet he did. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And as we well know, his bias about Jon being a beastling freak should actually be shared by all men at the Watch. Even the wildlings do not suffer skinchangers to live with them. They banish them to live with their own.

They let Varamyr live with them, and Jon. Knowing both are skin changers. Janos doesn't know for sure Jon is a warg does he? Hell, Jon doesn't even know for sure he is a warg. Either way though it apparently isn't shared by the rest of the watch. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Insisting Jon has to be very harsh there to keep his face is, in my opinion, cutting him too much slack. He shouldn't have given him just a slap on the wrist, but killing him is the most extreme possible punishment.

I understand your stance, I just disagree. Death is always the most extreme possible punishment but I don't think it was extreme in comparison to his crime. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

A possible response, not necessarily the most reasonable one. It is Maegor the Cruel territory. You talk back at me, you die. There are other ways to make people understand you are in charge.

Sure, not necessarily the most reasonable, just my opinion. There are other ways to make people understand you are in charge & most of the time I wouldn't agree that insubordination had to punished with death. He did more than just "talk back" at him. It took a special set of circumstances & actions for me to think this was the most reasonable punishment. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And that's exactly why Jon Snow should have been killed a long time ago. Both for his desertion and for his attempt on the life of Ser Alliser Thorne.

Maybe. But he wasn't. It was a definite possibility but it didn't come to fruition. It has no bearing on what Jon should or shouldn't have done with Janos though. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure why he deserved essentially three 'second chances' when Slynt essentially is executed for some insults and the refusal to obey a command. And this is signficant because Jon basically profits from having a forgiving guy as Lord Commander. Had Jon Snow served under Jon Snow he would have been dead a long time ago. He would not have suffered his own presumptions.

What are the 3? He ran away & he attacked Thorne. What is the 3rd? Anyway, maybe he didn't deserve them. Jon Snow the LC wouldn't have killed Jon Snow the black brother anymore than Mormont did. Do you really think Jon would kill a green recruit for running away & coming back? Or for attacking someone that repeatedly goaded them into it? I don't think he would have. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I meant those guys who threw their stones for him. Those sort of count as followers, but I doubt Slynt would have been able to draw an actual coterie of followers around him to actual do some plotting as soon as they realized that in the Jon Snow days Slynt wouldn't be an important person at the Watch.

Yeah, it would have depended on how soon people caught on to Slynt. But if the people that threw their stones in for Slynt weren't enough to be an issue in a potential mutiny then their potentially hardened hearts toward Jon for executing Slynt aren't going to be an issue either. 

Also, if Slynt causes that much ruckus & insults, talks down to, & refuses direct orders & gets a few days in the ice cell or whatever would that not do something to affirm that he is an important person? Or that he does have some pull in court if not the NW itself? 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Marsh can plot against Jon because he is a high-ranking officer who essentially controls the entire administration at Castle Black. He is running things in the shadows. Slynt wouldn't do anything of that sort.

I don't see why not. Especially if he got the right people backing him. Janos is a mouthpiece & the IQ at the wall isn't over the top. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No, but it would have shown them that this man doesn't show mercy to men he considers his enemies/he doesn't agree with.

Yes it would have shown them he does not show his enemies mercy. He has had plenty of people disagree with him that he hasn't beheaded so that's not something they would gather from it. Showing his men that he doesn't show his enemies mercy is not necessarily a bad thing. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The mutiny cannot have been just four guys. Marsh isn't the guy who would pull something with just four guys.

No, I'm sure the mutiny was not supported by only 4 guys - Marsh wouldn't do that,  but it only took 4 guys to carry out the deed is what I meant. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And killing Jon isn't the only thing they would have to do to accomplish their goal. They have to seize control of the Watch, possibly even the wildling hostage to ensure they don't turn against the Watch, etc.

And Marsh being the steward in charge certainly could have ensured that his people were guarding the hostages, he could have handed out weapons to his men, he could have them at the ready to surround and kill everybody at the Shieldhall, etc.

Right but if we are talking about Janos here & his hypothetical mutiny - he is arrogant & believes himself to be important. Marsh understands much more than Janos ever would have. It would not be out of character for Janos to believe that if he justs kills Jon, everyone will support him & he will become LC. Of course that isn't what would happen, but Janos would believe so. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, and it seems, in the end, Marsh also got that. They didn't kill Jon before he got the wildlings through, they killed him afterwards - which makes it very likely they they were willing suffer this thing but not something like using wildlings to involve the Watch in an attack on the Seven Kingdoms.

I mean, if I wanted to kill Jon because of the wildlings, I'd have done it before he brought him through.

I agree. I think Marsh's motive was a layered one. He probably didn't like Janos being beheaded, he didn't really want the wildlings to be let through, he disagreed with Jon's policies - but he was willing to throw all those in the bucket. When Jon made the call to march on WF Marsh's bucket overfilled & he could suffer it no longer. I think one or two of those things in & of themselves may not have brought Marsh to the edge. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure. And then he keeps that one to himself, never sharing it with anyone. But you cannot eat money. In this world nobody is going to sell the provisions they themselves need for winter, only surplus food - and I don't really understand how anyone could consider any of his provisions 'surplus' if there is no way to understand how long winter is going to last. I mean, how stupid would you have to sell food so you can last only, say, four years of winter when you don't know if it will be, say, 5-6 years?

Yeah idk about the selling of food but Jon seems to think he can buy some. Maybe he is wrong, or maybe even though it doesn't make a lot of sense people do sell food in the winter. I just don't know. 

Him not sharing with anyone - this IMO is one of his biggest flaws. He will make a sound decision with sound reasoning & then TELL NOTHING. It really drives me nuts sometimes. So many issues could have been bypassed had he used his words & communicated. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Only if the Others were to attack the Wall/Seven Kingdoms soon. But they don't really/expect that.

I was under the impression they feel like the threat is getting imminent. I might be wrong. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I honestly thought Jon kept an eye on Marsh and company, ensuring they were not the ones who would betray him. I mean, who would have you thought would kill you if you were told what Mel told you? Jon sent away all his close friends, so only other people he might trust remain.

I don't remember him keeping a very close eye on anyone but it's been a while. If Mel told me that - hell idk. I would watch them all. The only people he knew he could trust he sent away. Everyone else is suspect IMO. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Politically, Ned, Tywin, Robert, and Robb, etc. are all failures. They were killed, and whatever they wanted to accomplished failed with their deaths. Jon might come back, but that doesn't change that he failed to see his death coming and couldn't prevent his own followers from turning against him and killing him.

Jon is not killed by some robber or serial killer or anything, he is killed for a political reason.

I understand why he is killed but just as you argue Jon could have dealt with Janos differently, Bowen could have dealt with Jon differently. 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If he is not dead then this would be one of the worst plots ever. Because the only thing that can redeem this stupid plot line of 'assassinated Jon' is if he actually dies. If he was just injured very badly then this would be fan fiction kind of literature, not what you expect from George.

Not to mention that there is really no hint whatsoever that this is a fake death - unlike we have with Davos, Arya, Brienne, etc. No indication that Jon is going to be saved before the other daggers gut him, etc.

Oh I agree I'm just saying it's possible. If George wrote it that way I'm confident he would write it in a manner that makes sense. 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

don't know. I think George took far too much time to have Jon reach his conclusion - it does not make him appear smart. In fact, he should have concluded that back in ASoS already. After all, Mance told him they wanted to hide behind the Wall. Surely it should have struck his mind back then that they could have reached some sort of understanding.

Yeah maybe, but back then he wasn't in a position to do anything about it & didn't really have any reason to think he ever would be. 

[LadyBlackwater]

On 11/16/2019 at 5:56 PM, sweetsunray said:

Yup! Slynt wanted to have Jon hanged frmo the get go. Him and Alliser sent Jon to Mance to kill him, knowing that if he did, he'd never return - a suicide mission. Jon was going to, but then Stannis showed up.

Slynt keeps alluding to having friends (in high places). That can only be Tywin. Further plotting was put on pause for a while, as long as Cotter Pyke was still at Eastwatch. But once Selyse left Eastwatch (not making any friends there) and Cotter Pyke left for Hardhome, he put a friend of Slynt in command - Ser Glendon Hewett who kicked Jon in the ribs when he was thrown into the cell. Then the news reached the NW that Cotter Pyke was trapped at Hardhome, and no doubt Ser Glendon Hewett feels secure that Cotter Pyke will never return, and thus can start up a plot again. After all, he was close to Alliser and Slynt.

The pomegranate has a chance to communicate with Glendon, when Jon has Bowen send reports of the gold and other posessions the wildlings gifted as a toll to pass through the Wall to Glendon.

The Pink Letter seals the deal: the men who feared Tywin's retaliation end up hearing that Stannis has died (allegedly), and so they enact what Slynt and Alliser plotted from the get go, before Stannis' arrival. It's got nothing to do with anger over letting wildlings through, or them regarding Jon as breaking his vows. They killed a man, so they can kneel and write to Cersei: we're loyal to Lannisters. They'd sell their own mother out of fear for the Lannisters. They're cowards. 

This deserves an award. You’re comment about the queen “not making any friends there” tickled me. The whole thing. Bravo.