On Janos Slynt

[Aline de Gavrillac]

On 11/19/2019 at 6:46 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

You might get static from Sandor fans out there.  OTOH, I mostly agree with you. 

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

On 11/20/2019 at 4:35 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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

There's no "probably" about it:

Jon slid the oilcloth down his bastard sword, watching the play of morning light across the ripples, thinking how easily the blade would slide through skin and fat and sinew to part Slynt's ugly head from his body. All of a man's crimes were wiped away when he took the black, and all of his allegiances as well, yet he found it hard to think of Janos Slynt as a brother. There is blood between us. This man helped slay my father and did his best to have me killed as well.

This is at the beginning of the conversation in which Jon orders Slynt to Greyguard. Which is to say, Jon is fantasizing about cutting off Janos Slynt's the day before he beheads him. Do you really think there's no connection?

 

Not once has Slynt been punished or chastised for his behaviour at the Wall. He behaved the same way he always did (which is to say, poorly and without grace). He believed himself untouchable, and nothing anybody had done had stripped him of that belief. To go from 'nothing' to 'execution' is over the top. I suppose we'll never know for sure whether or not Slynt could've been brought around, but his last words seem to indicate he could have been.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

7 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Not once has Slynt been punished or chastised for his behaviour at the Wall. He behaved the same way he always did (which is to say, poorly and without grace). He believed himself untouchable, and nothing anybody had done had stripped him of that belief. To go from 'nothing' to 'execution' is over the top. I suppose we'll never know for sure whether or not Slynt could've been brought around, but his last words seem to indicate he could have been.

His repentance didn't come when he was being punished, didn't come when he understood his punishment was death, didn't come until he had his head on a block with a sword above his head. His words before & right up until then were more refusals & insults. Why would we ignore every single word up until that point but believe his very last words, given only out of desperation?

Just because Janos believed himself untouchable doesn't mean it was the responsibility of his LC to make it clear to him he wasn't prior to Janos getting himself in enough trouble to be beheaded. The man was sent to the wall for something he was ordered to do by the crown. If that doesn't clear things up for him, or give him a clue that he is touchable, nothing ever would.  

[Ygrain]

13 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

There's no "probably" about it:

Jon slid the oilcloth down his bastard sword, watching the play of morning light across the ripples, thinking how easily the blade would slide through skin and fat and sinew to part Slynt's ugly head from his body. All of a man's crimes were wiped away when he took the black, and all of his allegiances as well, yet he found it hard to think of Janos Slynt as a brother. There is blood between us. This man helped slay my father and did his best to have me killed as well.

This is at the beginning of the conversation in which Jon orders Slynt to Greyguard. Which is to say, Jon is fantasizing about cutting off Janos Slynt's the day before he beheads him. Do you really think there's no connection?

And Jon offers him a position of command, tolerates insubordination and insult, and gives Slynt the time to reconsider - in other words, Jon acts as a true leader, putting aside his personal grudge and attempting to utilise the man to the benefit of the organisation. And when he comes to the conclusion that Slynt needs to die, he does not think, 'now I can do what I have wanted to do for a while'. Beheading is not even the first choice, it comes as a second thought, when a much older connection is made, and he follows Ned's lesson that the man who passes the sentences should also deal the blow.

13 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Not once has Slynt been punished or chastised for his behaviour at the Wall. He behaved the same way he always did (which is to say, poorly and without grace). He believed himself untouchable, and nothing anybody had done had stripped him of that belief. To go from 'nothing' to 'execution' is over the top. I suppose we'll never know for sure whether or not Slynt could've been brought around, but his last words seem to indicate he could have been.

This is entirely ridiculous, and blatantly incorrect. Prior, there was a power vacuum, the Watch was without a Commander and Marsh as an acting Commander was weak, deferring Slynt for his supposed good connections at the court. Yet, Slynt never defied and insulted Marsh publically, never challenged his authority like he did to Jon. In other words, the level of idiocy he had displayed was on a completely different level than what he did later.

As for Slynt's last words, the promises of a coward fearing death are, well, wind. He would desert, and most likely try and exact some revenge on Jon for getting an upper hand. He had zero integrity and couldn't be trusted.

 

 

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

As for Slynt's last words, the promises of a coward fearing death are, well, wind. He would desert, and most likely try and exact some revenge on Jon for getting an upper hand. He had zero integrity and couldn't be trusted.

This, x 1,000. The degree of mental gymnastics required to try and justify Slynt’s behaviour is staggering. 

Another thing that is often disregarded or dismissed is that Martin could have left the whole thing a lot more dubious. For instance, he could have had Jon give the command, Slynt refuses, and Jon executes him. But nope, he made Slynt disobey and insult his commanding officer in a very nasty way, and not once, not twice, but three times. And w/ plenty of time for Slynt to think between Jon giving the order the 1st time, and Slynt’s head coming off. It’s a no brainer. 

[sweetsunray]

Someone mentioned a parallel between Ned's beheading and Slynt's. There is indeed a parallel to it, but it's a reverse parallel. Ned didn't make a stink after having time to "think" in a black cell, and did as the crown required, and Slynt rejoiced in the fact that Ned didn't get the mercy he was promised. And he goes down without protest, begging, insulting, and instead with dignity. Slynt refuses every of Jon's opportunity handed to him, abuses and insults Jon, until his head is on the block and then he begs for another chance. This should be another no-brainer to show that Slynt is a nasty, non-trustworthy man who enjoys killing people willy nilly, but thinks himself above the consequences of his own actions.

[Lord Varys]

One actually has to read the thing. Slynt didn't think he was untouchable. Do you even read his reaction in the actual book:

Quote

Janos Slynt’s face went as white as milk. The spoon slipped from his fingers.

His talk is the talk of a man who desperately tries to push away an impending doom - like a bully who realizes too late that he has made a mistake and he will get a beating now, but cannot stop himself from trying to save face in some stupid manner.

Quote

“No,” Lord Janos protested, flecks of porridge spraying from his lips. “No, unhand me. He’s just a boy, a bastard. His father was a traitor. The mark of the beast is on him, that wolf of his … Let go of me! You will rue the day you laid hands on Janos Slynt. I have friends in King’s Landing. I warn you—” He was still protesting as they half-marched, half-dragged him up the steps.

Those are not insults, they are desperate attempts to save his life. He wants to convince other people that Jon cannot do what's already been done. And he understands what's going on from the start. He certainly thinks too late about apologizing - but then, we have no reason to believe Jon would have relented under any circumstances after he had commanded his execution. He has been raised as a Stark, and they are trained to never show a weakness, to go through with whatever they feel they have to, even if they know they are making a mistake.

I'd say Jon thinking Slynt closed the door of going to Greyguard with his final defiance/insult before the order to execute him was given, not with everything he said thereafter.

And it is not that Thorne thought Slynt would be executed for this kind of defiance - else he wouldn't have smiled before the order to hang Slynt was given.

I don't know what those people thought - perhaps something like a boy cannot do you much harm (like Unwin Peake thought it was a great idea to employ a master-at-arms who would not befriend but torture the king (mentally and with unwanted exercises)) but the overall reaction of the people involved (Marsh included) certainly shows that this was a harsh punishment nobody of the people who were not told what to expect did expect.

And while we do not have any information on standard punishments at the Watch in similar circumstances all the interpretations or personal opinions readers come up with are sort of moot because they are based on hot air or, at best, bad analogies.

As for the fact that Jon definitely briefed Edd and Emmett beforehand - you can that deduce from Jon simply gesturing to Emmett and not mentioning Edd at all when he gives the command. I assume that I if I had been Edd and had just accidentally met the LC outside the common room and were just going in there to have a quiet breakfast I'd have not only followed a command like that if it had been given to me directly and explicitly.

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.

—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?

“—and hang him,” Jon finished.

Janos Slynt’s face went as white as milk. The spoon slipped from his fingers. Edd and Emmett crossed the room, their footsteps ringing on the stone floor. Bowen Marsh’s mouth opened and closed though no words came out. Ser Alliser Thorne reached for his sword hilt. Go on, Jon thought. Longclaw was slung across his back. Show your steel. Give me cause to do the same.

I'd say that puts the idea to rest that Jon's harsh judgment was caused by some petty insults or that he didn't know exactly what he would do when he entered the common room.

In fact, if Jon had allowed Slynt to goad him into executing him simply because of some insult he would reflect pretty badly on his leadership qualities because that would mean he is easily provoked and his judgements depend on his present state of mind rather than the matter as such.

Quote

That he did, albeit with poor grace, crossing his arms, scowling, and ignoring the naked steel in his lord commander’s hands. Jon slid the oilcloth down his bastard sword, watching the play of morning light across the ripples, thinking how easily the blade would slide through skin and fat and sinew to part Slynt’s ugly head from his body. All of a man’s crimes were wiped away when he took the black, and all of his allegiances as well, yet he found it hard to think of Janos Slynt as a brother. There is blood between us. This man helped slay my father and did his best to have me killed as well.

This is not just some reminder for the reader who Slynt is, it very well shows Jon's resentment over having to deal with the man. Jon is not as petty or ugly a guy to just kill Slynt for no reason, and he also did not intend to send him to Greyguard to be die there, but one certainly can make the case that he jumped on the first chance his position as lord commander gave him to kill Slynt.

Thoughts like that during the first conversation very much imply that Jon knows what he is going to do with Slynt if he will not take his chance:

Quote

I am giving you a chance, my lord. It is more than you ever gave my father.

And, if you all pause for a moment and think about Aemon's confession relating to his feelings about his 'poor brother's grandson, and his son and the little children' could we fault Aemon if he had long ago dealt with Benjen Stark accordingly? Did he heal Jon's arrow wound in ASoS as competently as Pycelle dealt with the Tears of Lys in Jon Arryn's system? Did he push Mormont on every turn - like Thorne may have done - to punish Jon for his offenses severely, consciously or unconsciously motivated by a hatred for House Stark? Aemon Targaryen definitely would have been as entitled to such feelings and the actions such feelings might cause as Jon Snow is to his feelings towards Slynt.

I'm not even sure whether Jon knows how lucky is that Maester Aemon doesn't have the character traits of, say, his brother Aerion. But Jon himself might come more after some of the more problematic fellows in his paternal ancestry.

Quote

“Then you had best be on your way, boy.” Slynt laughed, dribbling porridge down his chest. “Greyguard’s a good place for the likes of you, I’m thinking. Well away from decent godly folk. The mark of the beast is on you, bastard.”

“You are refusing to obey my order?”

“You can stick your order up your bastard’s arse,” said Slynt, his jowls quivering.

The bold is definitely an insult and definitely the final insubordination. And he definitely has to be punished for that.

The stuff further above seems to be well within Andal chauvinism and prejudice. Many of us have read FaB and are familiar with Septon Eustace's opinion of the Northmen and their ways - and one has to keep in mind that Slynt is a Kingslander and commoner by birth, not exactly the kind of man you would expect to have any sort of formal Westerosi education.

Bastards are reviled everywhere - even Jon resents the fact that he thinks he was born a bastard - so there is nothing wrong with mentioning that an actual bastard is an actual bastard, nor that a warg/skinchanger is an outcast who is usually not tolerated around normal folk (and it seems clear to me that had Jon joined the Watch as a full-blown Varamyr-like skinchanger they would have never accepted him, just as the wildlings do not suffer skinchangers to live with them. They are given to their own kind which means you rid yourself of them as quickly as you can.

Varamyr has claw his way through life with his special ability to become 'a lord of sorts' - then he could make other people live with him in an ugly compact. He and Orell and Borroq and whatever skinchangers there are with Mance's former host were not there because they were loved, but because Mance had need of them (and they had, in Varamyr's case, even considerable strength to offer to his army).

As for Jon's deed - which I definitely think should have resulted in his execution (and where at least those people who talk about the 'military nature' of the Watch should agree) is this here:

Quote

And then he heard the laughter, sharp and cruel as a whip, and the voice of Ser Alliser Thorne. “Not only a bastard, but a traitor’s bastard,” he was telling the men around him.

In the blink of an eye, Jon had vaulted onto the table, dagger in his hand. Pyp made a grab for him, but he wrenched his leg away, and then he was sprinting down the table and kicking the bowl from Ser Alliser’s hand. Stew went flying everywhere, spattering the brothers. Thorne recoiled. People were shouting, but Jon Snow did not hear them. He lunged at Ser Alliser’s face with the dagger, slashing at those cold onyx eyes, but Sam threw himself between them and before Jon could get around him, Pyp was on his back clinging like a monkey, and Grenn was grabbing his arm while Toad wrenched the knife from his fingers.

Thorne is definitely saying something that Jon doesn't like to hear, but he is not doing it to Jon's face or even directed at him. He talks to men around him at the far end of the table, and Jon just presumes he can try to kill a man just for pointing out something he would actually see as poetic justice.

[After all, as a Targaryen man Thorne has every right in the world to loathe and hate both Jon Snow and Eddard Stark. And there is indication that he has not right to make such comments - especially if they are not directly addressed to Jon Snow himself.]

That's how I interpret it considering the lunging at the face with a dagger (you don't have to drive a knife that far into a man's eye socket to deal him a mortal wound, especially in this world) but even if it were just an attempt to blind the master-at-arms of Castle Black it should be a crime punishable by death (in a world where you can be executed on the spot for insubordnination you sure as hell would be also executed for an attack (even a non-lethal attack) on a superior officer - that's far, far worse for morale than mere insubordination).

And to be sure, it is not clear what Mormont decided to do with him after that thing - his last comment to Jon before Jon killing a zombie suddenly made Jon's crime disappear is actually not that hopeful:

Quote

Later, much later, after they had marched him back to his sleeping cell, Mormont came down to see him, raven on his shoulder. “I told you not to do anything stupid, boy,” the Old Bear said. “Boy,” the bird chorused. Mormont shook his head, disgusted. “And to think I had high hopes for you.”

Him no longer having those hopes could have meant he was cutting his ties with the boy for good. We'll likely never know.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

16 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

His repentance didn't come when he was being punished, didn't come when he understood his punishment was death, didn't come until he had his head on a block with a sword above his head. His words before & right up until then were more refusals & insults. Why would we ignore every single word up until that point but believe his very last words, given only out of desperation?

"You see, in their last moments, people show you who they really are." - The Joker

Anyway, pardon my whimsy there. Nothing is being ignored. A question: is there anything that can cow Janos Slynt? The answer: yes, facing imminent death. That's all I was saying.

Would a stay in the ice cells also cow him? Would anything else? As I said in my earlier post, I suppose we'll never know. But we do know that there is something at least that could.

16 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Just because Janos believed himself untouchable doesn't mean it was the responsibility of his LC to make it clear to him he wasn't prior to Janos getting himself in enough trouble to be beheaded.

I agree, it's not his responsibility. That doesn't change the fact that it's something that Jon had to do if he wanted to make use of Janos.

16 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The man was sent to the wall for something he was ordered to do by the crown. If that doesn't clear things up for him, or give him a clue that he is touchable, nothing ever would.  

Not sure what relevance that has to his situation at the Wall. Janos clearly believed that, due to Tywin's obvious preference towards Janos leading the Watch, that Jon wouldn't dare spit in Tywin's eye by punishing him. A belief reinforced by Jon's reaction to Slynt's insubordination the day before the execution (which is to say, no reaction). I doubt Slynt believed he was untouchable back in King's Landing.

10 hours ago, Ygrain said:

And Jon offers him a position of command, tolerates insubordination and insult, and gives Slynt the time to reconsider - in other words, Jon acts as a true leader, putting aside his personal grudge and attempting to utilise the man to the benefit of the organisation.

He shouldn't have tolerated his insubordination at all. Going from tolerating insubordination to executing someone for insubordination is absurd. It's no wonder he thought he could get away with it, as he already had previously.

11 hours ago, Ygrain said:

This is entirely ridiculous, and blatantly incorrect. Prior, there was a power vacuum, the Watch was without a Commander and Marsh as an acting Commander was weak, deferring Slynt for his supposed good connections at the court. Yet, Slynt never defied and insulted Marsh publically, never challenged his authority like he did to Jon. In other words, the level of idiocy he had displayed was on a completely different level than what he did later.

Right. I wasn't referring to anything from before Jon was Lord Commander. Slynt seemed to think that Jon's authority was either non-existent or fleeting (a belief backed by Marsh, Thorne and the hundreds of brothers who voted for Slynt as "Tywin's chosen"). My point is that it would have been prudent for Jon to show that he is in charge, and that he's here to stay.

Now, should he have had to? Of course not (Slynt ought to have respected the vote), but that's why it needed to be corrected with a punishment. With Ser Alliser still whispering in his ear (which we see by their closeness on the morning of Slynt's execution), and Jon not doing anything to showcase his authority, there's no reason for Janos to come around to Jon. Jon could have done something.

11 hours ago, Ygrain said:

He had zero integrity and couldn't be trusted.

Maybe, but just because somebody cannot be trusted, that doesn't mean that they cannot be used. Regardless, even if it turns out that Slynt wouldn't come around after his punishment, he could always be executed later, no?

10 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

The degree of mental gymnastics required to try and justify Slynt’s behaviour is staggering.

I'm not justifying his behaviour, so this is baffling. Slynt's insubordination was completely out of order, and should have been punished, harshly. I've never said otherwise.

I firmly believe his execution was unnecessary, and that he could have been brought around. I also believe that Jon acted as he did because he was biased against Janos.

Not sure how that's justifying Slynt's behaviour.

10 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Another thing that is often disregarded or dismissed is that Martin could have left the whole thing a lot more dubious. For instance, he could have had Jon give the command, Slynt refuses, and Jon executes him. But nope, he made Slynt disobey and insult his commanding officer in a very nasty way, and not once, not twice, but three times.

Martin also could have made it a lot less dubious, by not having Jon fantasize about killing Slynt the day before he does so.

I also maintain that Jon should have punished Slynt the first time he was disobedient and insulting, potentially putting an end to it, rather that allowing it to happen twice, then thrice and executing him for it.

10 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

And w/ plenty of time for Slynt to think between Jon giving the order the 1st time, and Slynt’s head coming off.

Because Slynt's such a big thinker, right? Really the kind of guy who'll be introspective about his actions without a reason to do so.

If anyone expected Slynt to come around, without punishment, they're fooling themselves.

9 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Ned didn't make a stink after having time to "think" in a black cell, and did as the crown required,

This is actually kind of my point (well, one of them). Ned Stark, a man mostly known for putting honour and duty first, dishonoured himself and ignored his duty by giving his false confession, thereby propagating a Kingdom built on false pretenses and assisting those who murdered his King.

This is proof-positive of the idea that just about anyone can be brought around to something if the right buttons are pushed. With the right incentive, or the right punishment, or the right threats. Of course, Ned was stubborn in the face of death or an extended stay in the Black Cells, and only came around when Sansa was threatened. Jon has no such power over Slynt, but Slynt also lacks the character and conviction of Ned.

It's possible that Slynt could've been brought around if Jon cared to try, is all I'm saying.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

One actually has to read the thing. Slynt didn't think he was untouchable. Do you even read his reaction in the actual book:

If you're referring to me here, I'm saying he thought he was untouchable when he rejected Jon's order to go to Greyguard. He thought Jon wouldn't punish him, not that he thought Jon's punishment was false, when it finally came.

[Nagini's Neville]

Don't know what all this debating is here for anyway- it wasn't Jon's fault! He had no choice in the matter the poor boy! Was it his fault, that he is a hero? And that he by chance was near Janos Slynt? I think not. When Harry the berry finally falls off his horse the blaming will hopefully come to an end.

[Ygrain]

4 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Would a stay in the ice cells also cow him? Would anything else? As I said in my earlier post, I suppose we'll never know. But we do know that there is something at least that could.

I'd say that the way Slynt is depicted, we can expect a mean and vengeful streak in him, and unless he was Reeked, he would have started plotting to get back at Jon.

4 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

He shouldn't have tolerated his insubordination at all. Going from tolerating insubordination to executing someone for insubordination is absurd. It's no wonder he thought he could get away with it, as he already had previously.

That's ignoring the differences in those two situations. The first took place in private and Slynt lost his temper - and Jon could have punished him but decided not to, to give  him the chance to cool down and reconsider. Then, however, Jon issues the command again, in public and accompanied by men known to be loyal to him, so there are witnesses to the insubordination, and men able and willing to support Jon's authority. Failing to realise that this is an intentional confrontation and that public defiance might have consequences is an immense level of stupid on Slynt's part, and this becomes very obvious in comparison with Thorne's decision not to defy Jon's order and stand up for Slynt

4 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Right. I wasn't referring to anything from before Jon was Lord Commander. Slynt seemed to think that Jon's authority was either non-existent or fleeting (a belief backed by Marsh, Thorne and the hundreds of brothers who voted for Slynt as "Tywin's chosen"). My point is that it would have been prudent for Jon to show that he is in charge, and that he's here to stay.

The problem is, how was Jon supposed to show that he was in charge when no-one else was so stupid as to defy his authority in such a brazen manner? Everyone else obeyed. Some may have argued, but did as they were told all the same. Slynt's execution was what showed everyone that Jon was in charge, but Slynt himself was not the one to benefit from the lesson.

4 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Now, should he have had to? Of course not (Slynt ought to have respected the vote), but that's why it needed to be corrected with a punishment. With Ser Alliser still whispering in his ear (which we see by their closeness on the morning of Slynt's execution), and Jon not doing anything to showcase his authority, there's no reason for Janos to come around to Jon. Jon could have done something.

Could you specify what you think Jon should have done, when Slynt's disobedience was the first challenge?

Plus, I'm not really sure how Jon is responsible for Slynt's stupidity and ego - which, by the way, had got Slynt in trouble with Tyrion, yet he didn't learn his lesson back then, and he underestimated the man in charge while overestimating his own importance yet again. 

4 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Maybe, but just because somebody cannot be trusted, that doesn't mean that they cannot be used. Regardless, even if it turns out that Slynt wouldn't come around after his punishment, he could always be executed later, no?

He could, but he also had the potential to cause irrepairable trouble meanwhile. So, Jon prevented the trouble while asserting his authority, and Stannis approved. Why did Stannis the Overly Just approve if Jon was not well within his rights to execute Slynt?

 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

4 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Anyway, pardon my whimsy there. Nothing is being ignored. A question: is there anything that can cow Janos Slynt? The answer: yes, facing imminent death. That's all I was saying.

Sure, imminent death cowed him eventually. My issue is that it would have only cowed him in that moment. Had Jon let him live he wouldn't have remained humble as soon as the threat of death was no longer there. 

4 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Would a stay in the ice cells also cow him? Would anything else? As I said in my earlier post, I suppose we'll never know. But we do know that there is something at least that could.

I think the ice cells had the potential to cow him temporarily, just like the threat of death. I just don't think anything would have cowed him permanently. 

4 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I agree, it's not his responsibility. That doesn't change the fact that it's something that Jon had to do if he wanted to make use of Janos.

Right, I just don't think there was anything that was going to show Janos this. I think if Jon had put him in the ice cells he may have initially come out of them (depending on how long he was in there) humbled because he wouldn't want to go back in them right away. But he was so spiteful & bitter he would have retaliated against Jon at some point after. Maybe it would have been worth it to first put him in the ice cells & then when/if he continued to not cooperate kill him. 

4 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Not sure what relevance that has to his situation at the Wall. Janos clearly believed that, due to Tywin's obvious preference towards Janos leading the Watch, that Jon wouldn't dare spit in Tywin's eye by punishing him. A belief reinforced by Jon's reaction to Slynt's insubordination the day before the execution (which is to say, no reaction). I doubt Slynt believed he was untouchable back in King's Landing.

The relevance is that he believed himself untouchable in KL & then ended up sent to the wall, he continued to believe himself untouchable at the Wall & thought because of Tywin's preference he would be LC - he did not get elected LC. So in the face of evidence to the contrary Janos continues to believe himself untouchable. I understand you were speaking of just at the wall but the two places are not mutually exclusive. It isn't as if Janos memory or life started over once he reached the wall. At some point it would have dawned on a normal person that they are, in fact, touchable, & not important in the slightest. 

Jon's gave no reaction to Janos's insults but he gave reaction to his insubordination. He told him it was not a request, it was a command. He told him he was to be on his horse in the morning on his way to Greyguard. He made it perfectly clear that there would be no argument & that the command was not up for negotiation. I suppose he could have let Janos think it over in the ice cell overnight but I don't think a night in the ice cell would have done much for Janos except piss him off. 

As to whether or not he thought himself untouchable back in KL:

 

"What do I mean to do with you?" Tyrion let the oaf tremble for a moment before he answered. "The carrack Summer's Dream sails on the morning tide. Her master tells me she will call at Gulltown, the Three Sisters, the isle of Skagos, and Eastwatch-by-the-Sea. When you see Lord Commander Mormont, give him my fond regards, and tell him that I have not forgotten the needs of the Night's Watch. I wish you long life and good service, my lord."

Once Janos Slynt realized he was not to be summarily executed, color returned to his face. He thrust his jaw out. "We will see about this, Imp. Dwarf. Perhaps it will be you on that ship, what do you think of that? Perhaps it will be you on the Wall." He gave a bark of anxious laughter. "You and your threats, well, we will see. I am the king's friend, you know. We shall hear what Joffrey has to say about this. And Littlefinger and the queen, oh, yes. Janos Slynt has a good many friends. We will see who goes sailing, I promise you. Indeed we will."

 

So it seems he did think himself too important & untouchable back in King's landing. The fact that he & not Tyrion ended up on the wall should have done something to alert him that he was deluding himself, yet it did not. 

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

He shouldn't have tolerated his insubordination at all. Going from tolerating insubordination to executing someone for insubordination is absurd. It's no wonder he thought he could get away with it, as he already had previously.

But he didn't get away with it previously. This is the same insubordination act. He didn't refuse other orders & have no punishment & then all of a sudden get an order, refuse it, & get killed for it. He got an order, he refused, he was told he was to be on the horse in the morning, he refused, come morning Jon gave him the order a last time & he refused. He then got executed for insubordination. His insubordination wasn't tolerated at any point. It wasn't until it was time for him to leave that it became insubordination. Had he refused repeatedly the night before but then got on his horse & went to Greyguard the next morning there would have been nothing to punish other than his refusal, which in the end is not a true refusal if he goes anyway. He can yell the whole way to Greyguard that he isn't going to go but if he is going it doesn't matter what he says. 

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Right. I wasn't referring to anything from before Jon was Lord Commander. Slynt seemed to think that Jon's authority was either non-existent or fleeting (a belief backed by Marsh, Thorne and the hundreds of brothers who voted for Slynt as "Tywin's chosen"). My point is that it would have been prudent for Jon to show that he is in charge, and that he's here to stay.

I disagree that the belief that Jon's power was non-existent would have been backed by Marsh & Thorne. These are seasoned men on the wall, they know very well what sort of power the LC holds. They (especially Thorne) would have fed Slynt's fire & hatred of Jon surely. I think he did show he was in charge. He was balancing on a very thin wire. He could not punish every ill word spoken about him without becoming a tyrant, words are wind right? He can only punish actions or inactions in the face of a direct order. 

Slynt believed Jon had no power because Slynt is arrogant, self-important, & has illusions of grandeur. 

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Now, should he have had to? Of course not (Slynt ought to have respected the vote), but that's why it needed to be corrected with a punishment. With Ser Alliser still whispering in his ear (which we see by their closeness on the morning of Slynt's execution), and Jon not doing anything to showcase his authority, there's no reason for Janos to come around to Jon. Jon could have done something.

He did do something. He removed Janos's head. I'm not sure what he should have done prior to this. Put Janos in an ice cell for insulting him? Put Thorne in an ice cell for whispering about him? 

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Maybe, but just because somebody cannot be trusted, that doesn't mean that they cannot be used. Regardless, even if it turns out that Slynt wouldn't come around after his punishment, he could always be executed later, no?

Sure just because they can't be trusted doesn't mean they can't be used but Jon had no urge to use Janos. He could have punished him some other way first & executed him later if needed but that depends on how much trouble Slynt can cause given that second chance. This was something Jon wasn't willing to chance apparently. 

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Martin also could have made it a lot less dubious, by not having Jon fantasize about killing Slynt the day before he does so.

I think for all of us though it isn't dubious at all. It's very clear cut in my mind. Yes, Jon fantasized killing Slynt but he didn't. As much as he wanted to & may have reason to he did not until he was given a reason that pertained directly to his position as LC & Slynt's as a black brother. It would have been very unrealistic for Jon to not even think negative thoughts about this man who has wronged him repeatedly. He doesn't kill him because he wronged him though & that's the point. 

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Because Slynt's such a big thinker, right? Really the kind of guy who'll be introspective about his actions without a reason to do so.

If anyone expected Slynt to come around, without punishment, they're fooling themselves.

That's no one's fault but Janos's. Whether or not he is a big thinker has no bearing on the fact that Jon gave him a full night to reflect on what he was doing & the potential consequences for his actions. If Slynt did not or could not use that time wisely that's not Jon's fault & certainly doesn't mean he should have done something different to show Janos the magnitude of what he was doing. Jon is his LC not his babysitter. Janos got a chance he didn't deserve & that he didn't utilize. 

5 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

This is actually kind of my point (well, one of them). Ned Stark, a man mostly known for putting honour and duty first, dishonoured himself and ignored his duty by giving his false confession, thereby propagating a Kingdom built on false pretenses and assisting those who murdered his King.

This is proof-positive of the idea that just about anyone can be brought around to something if the right buttons are pushed. With the right incentive, or the right punishment, or the right threats. Of course, Ned was stubborn in the face of death or an extended stay in the Black Cells, and only came around when Sansa was threatened. Jon has no such power over Slynt, but Slynt also lacks the character and conviction of Ned.

It's possible that Slynt could've been brought around if Jon cared to try, is all I'm saying.

I disagree that Slynt would have come around but since we don't truly know I'll concede it's possible. I don't think it was a responsibility of Jon's to try to find that button or placate Janos into conforming though. He didn't care to try because he had tried enough & it didn't work. Janos gave absolutely no evidence that he would ever respect Jon's command let alone follow any orders given. 

 

[kissdbyfire]

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Could you specify what you think Jon should have done, when Slynt's disobedience was the first challenge?

 Plus, I'm not really sure how Jon is responsible for Slynt's stupidity and ego - which, by the way, had got Slynt in trouble with Tyrion, yet he didn't learn his lesson back then, and he underestimated the man in charge while overestimating his own importance yet again. 

Stupid people will act... stupidly. Fact of life. And anyone who supports Slynt’s actions and condemns Jon’s decision to execute him... well, they haven’t been paying attention, they don’t “get” the the author, or the story, and they’re bound to hate the last two books.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

12 hours ago, Ygrain said:

The first took place in private and Slynt lost his temper - and Jon could have punished him but decided not to, to give  him the chance to cool down and reconsider.

That's the thing: he could (and probably should) have punished him, but didn't. Slynt already thinks he won't, and this just reinforces that. When he pushes Jon in public, to the point where he has to be punished (and he had to be punished, there's no doubt about that), there's no reason for Slynt to think he'll get anything but the lightest punishment. Which is to say, there's no reason for him to reconsider.

12 hours ago, Ygrain said:

The problem is, how was Jon supposed to show that he was in charge

Moving into the Lord Commander's quarters and walking about with a tail of guards. Punishing Slynt at his first defiance is the primary thought in my mind, however.

12 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Slynt's execution was what showed everyone that Jon was in charge, but Slynt himself was not the one to benefit from the lesson.

Getting Slynt to behave as Jon wished would have been a better show of power. If you can get someone so adamantly against you to come around, you must be right, and all that.

I admit, it may not have been possible. But the attempt would have been worthwhile, nevertheless.

12 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Could you specify what you think Jon should have done, when Slynt's disobedience was the first challenge?

Sure. Rather than giving him the night to reconsider his defiance, he can have the night in an ice cell to reconsider his defiance. The next morning, if met with refusal, he can be kept there the rest of the week.

13 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Plus, I'm not really sure how Jon is responsible for Slynt's stupidity and ego - which, by the way, had got Slynt in trouble with Tyrion,

Nobody who is forced to the Wall is going to be the perfect Black Brother just because they're told to be. If Jon wanted to make use of Slynt, he needed to do something about his stupidity and ego.

Slynt wasn't sent to the Wall for anything during his interaction with Tyrion. He was already in trouble with Tyrion, stupid and egotistical or not.

13 hours ago, Ygrain said:

He could, but he also had the potential to cause irrepairable trouble meanwhile. So, Jon prevented the trouble while asserting his authority, and Stannis approved. Why did Stannis the Overly Just approve if Jon was not well within his rights to execute Slynt?

Slynt's biggest threat was during the election. He's not likely to cause any irreparable damage. Spreading sedition to those who aren't interested does nothing.

Just but harsh had been Lord Eddard's exact words, but Jon did not think it would be wise to share that.

Stannis pointed his shining sword at his brother. "I am not without mercy," thundered he who was notoriously without mercy. 

Stannis isn't likely to take issue with harsh punishments. Besides, Stannis is a hypocritical, bitter, spiteful man who is wont to play favourites (notably with his Onion Knight), seemingly disregard his vows (Melisandre), and has ordered far too many people to be burned alive. Stannis is not a just man.

But we're not here to talk about Stannis.

13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure, imminent death cowed him eventually. My issue is that it would have only cowed him in that moment. Had Jon let him live he wouldn't have remained humble as soon as the threat of death was no longer there.

The threat of death would have always been there. Letting him up wouldn't have been license for him to do as he pleased; he would have to obey without question or be back on the block.

Would've been foolish to let him up at that point, regardless.

13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I think the ice cells had the potential to cow him temporarily, just like the threat of death. I just don't think anything would have cowed him permanently. 

Ah. Well, I disagree. It takes a person of strong convictions to be stubborn in the face of all punishments. I don't see Slynt as such a man.

I don't really think Slynt is so thoroughly against Jon in particular, anyway. It's just that he thinks he should be in charge, he thinks he could be in charge, and there are people whispering these things in his ear (Thorne, in particular, it seems). Removing him from Thorne and making it clear that Jon is in charge would go a long way toward cowing Slynt.

Eh, I really think it's possible, is all. Not a foregone conclusion either way. That's all I'm saying.

13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Right, I just don't think there was anything that was going to show Janos this. I think if Jon had put him in the ice cells he may have initially come out of them (depending on how long he was in there) humbled because he wouldn't want to go back in them right away. But he was so spiteful & bitter he would have retaliated against Jon at some point after. Maybe it would have been worth it to first put him in the ice cells & then when/if he continued to not cooperate kill him. 

Yeah, it's definitely possible he'd have retaliated. It would be such a stupid thing to do... but, well, that hasn't stopped Slynt before, has it?

As to the bold, yeah, I just think it would've been worth the attempt. Worst case scenario, he's back on the execution block anyway.

13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The relevance is that he believed himself untouchable in KL & then ended up sent to the wall, he continued to believe himself untouchable at the Wall & thought because of Tywin's preference he would be LC - he did not get elected LC. So in the face of evidence to the contrary Janos continues to believe himself untouchable.

Not being elected isn't really the same as being punished. Not getting elected is certainly evidence that not everyone is going to do as Janos wants, the hundreds of brothers who voted for Slynt is evidence that much of the Watch doesn't wish to anger Tywin. Compound that with Jon seemingly letting Slynt walk over him when ordering him to Greyguard, and Thorne's whispers, it's no wonder Slynt acts the way he does.

13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Jon's gave no reaction to Janos's insults but he gave reaction to his insubordination. He told him it was not a request, it was a command. He told him he was to be on his horse in the morning on his way to Greyguard. He made it perfectly clear that there would be no argument & that the command was not up for negotiation.

Yes, but that's nothing. Jon orders Slynt to go to Greyguard. Slynt is defiant. Jon orders him to go again. Expecting anything other than Slynt is defiant to follow that is foolish.

I maintain that Jon is no fool. He just didn't care to try.

13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I suppose he could have let Janos think it over in the ice cell overnight but I don't think a night in the ice cell would have done much for Janos except piss him off.

It would show that there is a punishment for defiance. Besides, even if all it does is piss him off, there's still room for more punishment.

Wouldn't it have been worth the attempt? I think so.

13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

So it seems he did think himself too important & untouchable back in King's landing. The fact that he & not Tyrion ended up on the wall should have done something to alert him that he was deluding himself, yet it did not. 

He was alone when dealing with Tyrion. He was not alone when dealing with Jon. Also, different "friends". Tyrion was opposing Joffrey and Cersei, the Watch would be opposing Tywin. Tywin's shadow loomed even over the Wall, as Marsh's behaviour showed. To think nobody is willing to cross Tywin is a fair enough assumption.

14 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But he didn't get away with it previously. This is the same insubordination act. He didn't refuse other orders & have no punishment & then all of a sudden get an order, refuse it, & get killed for it. He got an order, he refused, he was told he was to be on the horse in the morning, he refused, come morning Jon gave him the order a last time & he refused. He then got executed for insubordination.

I agree that it's one continuous act of insubordination. But it was seemingly allowed the day before. Slynt all but spat in Jon's face during their meeting, and he walked away without any repercussions.

Put the same thing in another scenario: a thief steals an apple and is seen by a guard. The guard lets the thief go. A few minutes later, they meet again. The thief loses a hand for stealing the apple.

There's really no expectation that such a harsh punishment is coming, after the first interaction.

14 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I disagree that the belief that Jon's power was non-existent would have been backed by Marsh & Thorne. These are seasoned men on the wall, they know very well what sort of power the LC holds.

Oh, I didn't mean to say that Marsh and Thorne were backing that belief, post-election. I meant that they, and the hundreds who voted for Slynt, had a clear preference for Tywin's man being Lord Commander, and that Slynt thought this meant that Jon couldn't openly oppose him.

14 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

He can only punish actions or inactions in the face of a direct order.

But he didn't, after the meeting with Janos, which only served to strengthen Slynt's belief that Jon isn't powerful enough to oppose him.

14 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Slynt believed Jon had no power because Slynt is arrogant, self-important, & has illusions of grandeur.

Yeah, no doubt. Jon's inaction in the face of his defiance didn't help any, though.

14 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

He did do something. He removed Janos's head. I'm not sure what he should have done prior to this. Put Janos in an ice cell for insulting him? Put Thorne in an ice cell for whispering about him? 

I'd say he should have punished Slynt, yes, but not for "insulting him", but for his open defiance in the face of a direct order.

As to Thorne, no. Thorne voices displeasure in the way Jon was chosen to be Lord Commander (not a crime to voice such). People don't like him overmuch, though, so he's largely ignored. Punishing him would be more likely to gain him supporters than to remove them.

Also, even if Jon didn't punish Slynt prior to the point he did, there's still no reason for him to execute the man. Lesser punishments would have served just as well to get Jon's point across, to the rest of the Watch.

14 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure just because they can't be trusted doesn't mean they can't be used but Jon had no urge to use Janos.

Right, that's exactly my point. The Watch has need of every man. Jon bends over backwards trying to get the wildlings through the Wall, and gives them more freedoms than his advisers think is prudent in order to get them to assist. He gives Stannis more than perhaps he should, in a way that's dangerously close to "taking part". Yet he has no urge to use Janos.

Why? Because it's difficult? Because it could be dangerous? If these are his reasons, they didn't stop him with regards to the wildlings. I think it's bias.

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I think for all of us though it isn't dubious at all.

All of whom? There are plenty of people in this thread who seem to have a different view than yours.

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It's very clear cut in my mind. Yes, Jon fantasized killing Slynt but he didn't.

I mean... he did.

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

As much as he wanted to & may have reason to he did not until he was given a reason that pertained directly to his position as LC & Slynt's as a black brother.

Yes, and he chose to kill him, rather that giving him a different punishment. Other punishments were available, despite his shaky logic dictating otherwise.

I know you don't agree that his reasons for not choosing other punishments were illogical, though.

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

That's no one's fault but Janos's. Whether or not he is a big thinker has no bearing on the fact that Jon gave him a full night to reflect on what he was doing & the potential consequences for his actions.

It's like locking a blind man alone in a room and expecting him to read the book he was given. Something needs to change there in order to reach the desired outcome. If nothing changes, it's not unreasonable to think that the blind man was never supposed to read the book.

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

He didn't care to try because he had tried enough & it didn't work.

I'd say he didn't try at all. He just gave the order. Then gave it again. No attempt to make him follow the order.

7 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Stupid people will act... stupidly. Fact of life.

My point exactly. It had to be expected that Slynt would act the way he did, and Jon did nothing to change it.

7 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

And anyone who supports Slynt’s actions and condemns Jon’s decision to execute him...

Once again, I'm not supporting Slynt's actions. Not sure why you're so intent to paint it that way.

7 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

well, they haven’t been paying attention, they don’t “get” the the author, or the story, and they’re bound to hate the last two books.

And you're the authority on both the story and the author, are you?

Not sure why you'd think I'd hate the last two books, though. All of what we're discussing here happened in Dance, and I think it's quite a wonderful book.

[Bowen 747]

On 11/16/2019 at 4:47 PM, Quoth the raven, said:

Jon was wrong to kill Janos Slynt.  Jon's application of justice was flawed, biased, and inconsistent.  Justice was not served.  Jon allowed the worst criminal in the north off the hook, Mance Rayder.  That was incompetent judgement when you consider what he did to Slynt over something minor.  Mance Rayder is a deserter and an oathbreaker who deserved to get his head removed.  Two men of the Night's Watch and Jon treated them differently.  Jon was incapable of carrying justice because he was thinking of the Starks. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

The threat of death would have always been there. Letting him up wouldn't have been license for him to do as he pleased; he would have to obey without question or be back on the block

I guess my concern would be what kind of trouble Slynt would cause in between being on the block ya know? 

For instance, & obviously this is just hypothetical, Jon is going to execute Janos but doesn't because Janos agrees to comply. Janos then gathers his supporters & kills Jon. Then Jon is the idiot for not killing him when he had the chance. 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Would've been foolish to let him up at that point, regardless

Right. Any potential lesser punishment would have had to happen prior to this point. 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

was alone when dealing with Tyrion. He was not alone when dealing with Jon. Also, different "friends". Tyrion was opposing Joffrey and Cersei, the Watch would be opposing Tywin. Tywin's shadow loomed even over the Wall, as Marsh's behaviour showed. To think nobody is willing to cross Tywin is a fair enough assumption

I agree there are differences & Joff & Cersei are certainly no Tywin but at this point Tywin had been crossed. Jon was elected LC in spite of Tywin's preference for Janos. 

I think Janos couldn't see or didn't care to see the signs that clearly show he wasn't untouchable, wasn't important. 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

agree that it's one continuous act of insubordination. But it was seemingly allowed the day before. Slynt all but spat in Jon's face during their meeting, and he walked away without any repercussions

 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Put the same thing in another scenario: a thief steals an apple and is seen by a guard. The guard lets the thief go. A few minutes later, they meet again. The thief loses a hand for stealing the apple

Sure, I understand what you mean but it isn't exactly that way. To use your Apple scenario it would be more like a their telling the guard they are going to steal an apple - the guard does nothing or only tells him not to, thief tells the guard a couple more times he is going to steal the apple & again the guard tells him not to. Then the thief steals the apple & the guard chops his hand off. 

So prior to actually not going to Greyguard Slynt is really only guilty of insults. He certainly is refusing but hasn't actually carried out his insubordination yet. I don't know if Jon could or should punish the insults & refusals alone but he certainly could have & maybe should have told Slynt that the punishment for refusing the order was going to be death. 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Oh, I didn't mean to say that Marsh and Thorne were backing that belief, post-election. I meant that they, and the hundreds who voted for Slynt, had a clear preference for Tywin's man being Lord Commander, and that Slynt thought this meant that Jon couldn't openly oppose him

I gotcha. But prior to the election Jon had no power & afterwards it was apparent that while there were hundreds that didn't want to oppose Tywin there were also hundreds who did. 

 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

But he didn't, after the meeting with Janos, which only served to strengthen Slynt's belief that Jon isn't powerful enough to oppose him

Right, I don't disagree I just don't know at that point what grounds Jon had to punish him. It's a murky area to me because while Janos did say no, he isn't going he still could have insisted, in front of all the men especially, that he was going to go & that Jon punished him for no reason, potentially gaining him sympathy & more supporters. 

I do think it would have done something, either for the story &/or for Janos for Jon to explicitly say "Refusing a direct order is punishable by death" Janos still may have refused (I think he would have because I don't think he believed for one second Jon would do it) but at least then all of the cards were on the table from the jump & who knows maybe Janos would have trotted his self down to Greyguard & played nice for a while. I don't think so, but it's possible. 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Yeah, no doubt. Jon's inaction in the face of his defiance didn't help any, though

I agree it didn't. I just don't think that responsibility lies with Jon. 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I'd say he should have punished Slynt, yes, but not for "insulting him", but for his open defiance in the face of a direct order.

Yeah, maybe. Like I said earlier my worry would be that Janos would say either that he didn't refuse the order or that he was going to go despite what he said. 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Also, even if Jon didn't punish Slynt prior to the point he did, there's still no reason for him to execute the man. Lesser punishments would have served just as well to get Jon's point across, to the rest of the Watch.

Sure there were other ways. I think it comes down to where the benefit outweighs the risk. While it certainly can be argued that the risk wasn't that great or that the benefit outweighed it with a lesser punishment I think Jon believed it did not. 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Right, that's exactly my point. The Watch has need of every man. Jon bends over backwards trying to get the wildlings through the Wall, and gives them more freedoms than his advisers think is prudent in order to get them to assist. He gives Stannis more than perhaps he should, in a way that's dangerously close to "taking part". Yet he has no urge to use Janos.

I think that Jon believed Janos would do more harm to the watch than good. 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Why? Because it's difficult? Because it could be dangerous? If these are his reasons, they didn't stop him with regards to the wildlings. I think it's bias

To be fair I don't disagree there was some bias there. I think Jon tried very hard to not let that bias show or influence his decision but Janos did his best to bring it out. Clearly, the bias is in Jon's mind but I wholeheartedly believe that if Janos had done as he was told Jon would not have searched out reasons to execute him or punished him for no reason. 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

All of whom? There are plenty of people in this thread who seem to have a different view than yours

Sorry! I just meant the people in the thread arguing that share my opinion. 

There are definitely different view points, many of them valid. That's what makes the forum fun. 

I didn't mean to imply no one else sees things the way you do, only that to some of us, it isn't dubious at all. 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

mean... he did

Haha! Fair enough. I meant he didn't behead him then & there while he was fantasizing about it. Whether or not someone agrees that the punishment should have been beheading I think we can all agree (or most of us) that the act deserved punishment & was not merely because Jon fantasized about it. 

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

It's like locking a blind man alone in a room and expecting him to read the book he was given. Something needs to change there in order to reach the desired outcome. If nothing changes, it's not unreasonable to think that the blind man was never supposed to read the book

I understand your point but to be fair a blind man cannot ever read that book. Janos was capable of using his brain & opening his eyes. He wasn't wired like that but he was able to think on his actions & potential consequences. 

 

[Ygrain]

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

That's the thing: he could (and probably should) have punished him, but didn't. Slynt already thinks he won't, and this just reinforces that. When he pushes Jon in public, to the point where he has to be punished (and he had to be punished, there's no doubt about that), there's no reason for Slynt to think he'll get anything but the lightest punishment. Which is to say, there's no reason for him to reconsider.

Well... I see what you are trying to say, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why you think it was Jon's duty to try and make Slynt see reason.

Quote

Moving into the Lord Commander's quarters and walking about with a tail of guards. Punishing Slynt at his first defiance is the primary thought in my mind, however.

Getting Slynt to behave as Jon wished would have been a better show of power. If you can get someone so adamantly against you to come around, you must be right, and all that.

I admit, it may not have been possible. But the attempt would have been worthwhile, nevertheless.

Sure. Rather than giving him the night to reconsider his defiance, he can have the night in an ice cell to reconsider his defiance. The next morning, if met with refusal, he can be kept there the rest of the week.

Nobody who is forced to the Wall is going to be the perfect Black Brother just because they're told to be. If Jon wanted to make use of Slynt, he needed to do something about his stupidity and ego.

 

Quote

Slynt wasn't sent to the Wall for anything during his interaction with Tyrion. He was already in trouble with Tyrion, stupid and egotistical or not.

But of course he was. Tyrion invited him to that dinner for a reason, he needed to see the merit of the man, as did we. He may have had an idea before that interaction was what sealed the deal.

Quote

Slynt's biggest threat was during the election. He's not likely to cause any irreparable damage. Spreading sedition to those who aren't interested does nothing.

I wouldn't be so sure. The Watch stood against its ancient enemy when its strength and morale were at its lowest, with its numbers consisting mostly of criminals who had chosen to join as a way to avoid a death sentence. Fighting off the wildlings while being cold was not particularly different from any other fight, but facing wights and the Others could easily turn out more than they felt they had signed up for. In such an environment, spreading dissent could be disastrous.

Quote

Just but harsh had been Lord Eddard's exact words, but Jon did not think it would be wise to share that.

Stannis pointed his shining sword at his brother. "I am not without mercy," thundered he who was notoriously without mercy. 

Stannis isn't likely to take issue with harsh punishments. Besides, Stannis is a hypocritical, bitter, spiteful man who is wont to play favourites (notably with his Onion Knight), seemingly disregard his vows (Melisandre), and has ordered far too many people to be burned alive. Stannis is not a just man.

But we're not here to talk about Stannis.

How do you interpret Stannis' nod of approval then? 

BTW, being without mercy =/= being unjust.

6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Put the same thing in another scenario: a thief steals an apple and is seen by a guard. The guard lets the thief go. A few minutes later, they meet again. The thief loses a hand for stealing the apple.loses a hand for stealing a basket of apples while giving the guard a finger.

Fixed that for you

[Hugorfonics]

On 11/20/2019 at 12:15 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

So why Jon would trust the institution, I have no idea. I mean, what happened to the Old Bear?

But Thornes commitment, I believe is to the NW and Wall. He knows the enemy. He went to KL with the wights hand (only to get laughed at by the Imp) after all.

So it seems that either Allisers putting the commitment on hold for politics, or he actively believes that Jons leadership will doom the NW against the Others 

On 11/20/2019 at 12:15 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

Word. I mean if hes dead, it on to the next one like a Pentoshi prince. If not, I dont think so. We never hear of LCs being voted out. Just murdered like the nights king

On 11/20/2019 at 12:15 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

The thing I think about is, even if potentially a lot more, the effects the same. Our boy is dead. (Dying, err whatever)

I agree with the rest completely. Slynt gained support and votes for the simple fact people didnt know what a piece of shit he was. Unfortunately for the nw, he went to his grave without convincing the wall of his shittyness. Which is why Im worried about the martyr complex.

But, yea. We'll never know lol

On 11/20/2019 at 12:15 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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 do know. I felt the same with Joffrey. That man was entertaining, and even though he was the enemy to 2 of my favorites, well I just love me some Joff. 

Do I miss him? Sure. But would Tyrion be the dark little imp he is now without going through that ordeal? No, and frankly, I adore dark Tyrion.

On 11/20/2019 at 12:15 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm looking forward to his gruesome demise. LOL

So here Ive got to disagree. Like Joff, i didnt wish for his death (because I didn't expect dark Tyrion to so ridiculously awesome)... But I did wish for Theons. Like, I actually wished harm on Reek. (Is it my fault?) I am no longer wishing harm on no body. No one deserves what Theon went through. Nobody. Not Theon, nor even Ramsay.

Yes, I know its just a story. Which then has me thinking more, if I don't want Ramsay to die yet, maybe not even to the last page, why should he die at all? If all of these characters are fictitious why not hang my hat on Ramsay Bolton lol?

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I guess my concern would be what kind of trouble Slynt would cause in between being on the block ya know? 

For instance, & obviously this is just hypothetical, Jon is going to execute Janos but doesn't because Janos agrees to comply. Janos then gathers his supporters & kills Jon. Then Jon is the idiot for not killing him when he had the chance. 

Oh, for sure. But surely he'd be watched for signs of insubordination, right? Wouldn't just let him go do as he pleased straight away.

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Right. Any potential lesser punishment would have had to happen prior to this point.

Yep. The public order to kill Slynt pretty much put an end to any other option. It would only make it seem that Jon is cowed by Slynt's bluster, turning the event into a rather impotent show of power.

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure, I understand what you mean but it isn't exactly that way. To use your Apple scenario it would be more like a their telling the guard they are going to steal an apple - the guard does nothing or only tells him not to, thief tells the guard a couple more times he is going to steal the apple & again the guard tells him not to. Then the thief steals the apple & the guard chops his hand off. 

If the guard put a stop to the theft earlier, cutting the thief's hand off would have been unnecessary. It's just... why allow it to go that far? It almost seems like the guard wanted to cut the thief's hand off.

Mind you, I don't think Jon was being that malicious. But it is kind of baffling why Jon didn't try to put a stop to the insubordination earlier. It seems like he's genuinely attempting to give Slynt a chance to reconsider, but considering how obvious it is that Slynt wouldn't reconsider... I don't know. Jon had to know it wasn't going to happen, unless he's a complete fool (and I really don't think he is).

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't know if Jon could or should punish the insults & refusals alone but he certainly could have & maybe should have told Slynt that the punishment for refusing the order was going to be death.

That would have been something. An actual attempt to cow Slynt. I still think death is an unnecessary punishment for the crime, but if Jon was clear about it, I think it would have been enough.

Probably wouldn't have cowed him (he'd probably think Jon was bluffing), but that'd be on him, not Jon. But maybe it would have. Much better than what Jon actually did, which definitely wouldn't have.

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I do think it would have done something, either for the story &/or for Janos for Jon to explicitly say "Refusing a direct order is punishable by death" Janos still may have refused (I think he would have because I don't think he believed for one second Jon would do it) but at least then all of the cards were on the table from the jump & who knows maybe Janos would have trotted his self down to Greyguard & played nice for a while. I don't think so, but it's possible. 

Oh. We're in complete agreement. That's new! 

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But prior to the election Jon had no power & afterwards it was apparent that while there were hundreds that didn't want to oppose Tywin there were also hundreds who did.

Sure, but the vast majority of those who voted for Jon were from the Shadow Tower and Eastwatch. Castle Black was primarily for Slynt, as far as I could tell. Not entirely unreasonable for Slynt to feel pretty secure. Not entirely reasonable either though.

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Right, I don't disagree I just don't know at that point what grounds Jon had to punish him. It's a murky area to me because while Janos did say no, he isn't going he still could have insisted, in front of all the men especially, that he was going to go & that Jon punished him for no reason, potentially gaining him sympathy & more supporters. 

Mmm, I suppose that's fair enough. The idea that Jon only has power in a public setting isn't really one that he should propagate, though. He should be able to punish people, even if he's the only one who knows of wrongdoing. But you're right, it could seem like Jon's just punishing Slynt on a whim, simply because he hates him.

Definitely a touchy situation. Probably better to have people think he put Slynt in an ice cell overnight on a whim, than to have them think he executed him on a whim (it's entirely possible that many of those in the common hall thought this was Slynt's first rebuke of Jon, and he's executed for it). If he had him dragged to an ice cell at that point, rather than executed, I doubt anyone would have batted an eye.

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I think that Jon believed Janos would do more harm to the watch than good.

Hard to see the logic behind that, though. There's plenty of scum on the Wall, but they're more helpful than not (even if it's just having an extra body), so long as they can be made to obey. Slynt's comparative potential use (he must know how to perform drills, keep discipline, etc.) to the other scum, you'd think would warrant comparatively more effort getting him to be used. The complete lack of effort on Jon's part is what gets me.

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

To be fair I don't disagree there was some bias there. I think Jon tried very hard to not let that bias show or influence his decision but Janos did his best to bring it out. Clearly, the bias is in Jon's mind but I wholeheartedly believe that if Janos had done as he was told Jon would not have searched out reasons to execute him or punished him for no reason.

Oh, I agree! I'm not saying that Jon went out of his way to punish Janos, just that when a punishment was necessary (and it was, no doubt about that), he jumped at the opportunity to kill him, rather than make a more measured response.

Had he simply up and gone to Greyguard, that would have been the end of it. The trouble I see is that Jon made no real effort to make him go. He just gave the order, and expected him to follow, which was never going to happen.

I suppose, perhaps, that Jon simply thought a man of his background (much of his life spent in a disciplined, military-esque order) would be more like to follow orders than to question them. Then when the opportunity comes to establish authority over the man, he simply kills him.

He just... he could have tried.

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

There are definitely different view points, many of them valid. That's what makes the forum fun.

Yep! Discussions like this, seeing other view points I may not have considered, seeing other beliefs and interpretations, it really goes a long way to bringing more life to already wonderful books. It really is brilliant.

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I didn't mean to imply no one else sees things the way you do, only that to some of us, it isn't dubious at all.

Right, I see what you're saying. Yeah, fair enough.

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Whether or not someone agrees that the punishment should have been beheading I think we can all agree (or most of us) that the act deserved punishment & was not merely because Jon fantasized about it. 

Definitely. That it necessitated execution is the point of contention, not that it necessitated punishment. At least for me.

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I understand your point but to be fair a blind man cannot ever read that book. Janos was capable of using his brain & opening his eyes. He wasn't wired like that but he was able to think on his actions & potential consequences.

The blind man can't read the book, but he can have it read to him. Or if we get the same book but in braille, he can read it himself. Whilst he's stuck alone with a normal book, he won't be able to. Slynt could be introspective and intelligent, but it's as obvious as the hypothetical with the blind man that he wouldn't. Not unless something changed. I think it fair to say that Jon knew this.

15 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Well... I see what you are trying to say, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why you think it was Jon's duty to try and make Slynt see reason.

Call it duty, call it responsibility, call it prudence. If he wants to make use of Slynt, he needs to make him see reason. One of the first things Jon learns at the Wall is that every man is needed, no matter how distasteful.

"The Watch has need of every man it can get," Donal Noye said when they were alone. "Even men like Toad. You won't win any honors killing him."

It's something Jon uses, too:

"He could help you," he said quickly. "He can do sums, and he knows how to read and write. I know Chett can't read, and Clydas has weak eyes. Sam read every book in his father's library. He'd be good with the ravens too. Animals seem to like him. Ghost took to him straight off. There's a lot he could do, besides fighting. The Night's Watch needs every man. Why kill one, to no end? Make use of him instead."

The Watch needing every man comes up often enough:

The beacon was burning on Weatherback Ridge, and the Night's Watch had need of every man.

"I have need of every man who knows which end of the spear to stab into the wildlings."

the Wall would need every man.

"If you ask the Citadel for more maesters . . ."

"I mean to. We'll have need of every one. Aemon Targaryen is not so easily replaced, however."

Is it the duty of the Lord Commander to make his forces be as useful as they can be? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think the attempt would go amiss.

15 hours ago, Ygrain said:

But of course he was. Tyrion invited him to that dinner for a reason, he needed to see the merit of the man, as did we. He may have had an idea before that interaction was what sealed the deal.

Hmm, I don't know. Ser Bywater had already taken his place as Commander of the City Watch at this point, and was standing ready to take him to the docks, with the ship to the Wall already chosen and ready to hold him. I think it was happening anyway. Without a word to Bywater, he says this:

"We have a litter waiting for you, my lord," Ser Jacelyn told Slynt. "The docks are dark and distant, and the streets are not safe by night. Men."

So he already knew what was to happen, it seems.

15 hours ago, Ygrain said:

I wouldn't be so sure. The Watch stood against its ancient enemy when its strength and morale were at its lowest, with its numbers consisting mostly of criminals who had chosen to join as a way to avoid a death sentence. Fighting off the wildlings while being cold was not particularly different from any other fight, but facing wights and the Others could easily turn out more than they felt they had signed up for. In such an environment, spreading dissent could be disastrous.

I suppose that's fair enough. Hard to say whether anti-Jon sentiment would have any effect here, though. Any Lord Commander is going to have them fight the Others, so either they're going to flee or they're not, Slynt or no Slynt, Jon or no Jon.

Impossible to say how anyone will react to the Others, though, when it comes to an actual fight. They obviously have an otherworldly frightfulness, yet the fight against them is a fight for all life. Even the scummiest person might well choose to fight against something that will end all life. Even the staunchest might run from the supernatural. Hard to say.

15 hours ago, Ygrain said:

How do you interpret Stannis' nod of approval then?

Simple approval. But Stannis made it quite clear how he feels about Slynt, regardless of his crimes being washed away by the Watch:

Lord Slynt's jowls were quivering, but before he could frame a further protest Maester Aemon said, "Your Grace, by law a man's past crimes and transgressions are wiped clean when he says his words and becomes a Sworn Brother of the Night's Watch."

"I am aware of that. If it happens that Lord Janos here is the best the Night's Watch can offer, I shall grit my teeth and choke him down.

"Who better to command the black cloaks than a man who once commanded the gold, sire?"

"Any of you, I would think. Even the cook." The look the king gave Slynt was cold. 

Mind you, I'm not certain at the point of execution whether or not Stannis knew what Janos had done. He wasn't in the common room to witness Slynt's insubordination. It's possible somebody reported what had happened, but it all happened pretty quickly. Either he was pleased that Janos was killed simply for his distaste of the man, or he was pleased that Jon didn't allow himself to be cowed by Slynt. A bit of both, I think.

15 hours ago, Ygrain said:

BTW, being without mercy =/= being unjust.

Agreed. My point was just that Stannis is notoriously harsh, to get his reputation.

15 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Fixed that for you

Heh, fair enough. There was an escalation, but still, the point stands. If one crime is ignored, it's not unreasonable to assume that another, slightly worse crime might be ignored. It's not as if Slynt was getting away with insubordinate in one moment, then thinking he could get away with murdering his brothers in the next.

A single apple or a basket full, both thefts should be punished. If the first theft was punished, the second might well not have happened, and that's the point.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Mind you, I don't think Jon was being that malicious. But it is kind of baffling why Jon didn't try to put a stop to the insubordination earlier. It seems like he's genuinely attempting to give Slynt a chance to reconsider, but considering how obvious it is that Slynt wouldn't reconsider... I don't know. Jon had to know it wasn't going to happen, unless he's a complete fool (and I really don't think he is).

Oh, there is a suppressed malicious attempt to this. I gave the quotes about that somewhere above. Jon thinks about how easy it were to kill Slynt with Longclaw when he makes the offer.

You can make the mental test by asking yourself what Jon would have done had a brother he had less of problem with - say, Emmett or Aemon or even Sam - had had severe problems accepting a new appointment. He wouldn't have given them a command with a time limit to reconsider ... to then execute them if they hadn't come around.

That's something for a man you prefer to be dead - not a man you really want to work with.

I mean, you have to keep in mind the Watch really needs every man. You would not want to kill a man you actually want to give some important position.

And I think I've laid out that Emmett and Edd were briefed what to do when Jon came in and Slynt did not choose to go to Greyguard.

There was also a pretty easy to keep things so that Slynt's defiance was not made public - Jon could have thrown him into a cell or ordered a beating or other measure when Slynt defied him in his solar when nobody else was around.

People make much fuzz about Slynt's public defiance and insults, but there is actual no internal motivation given that those affronts were what caused Jon to command to hang Slynt.

In fact, one can make a pretty strong case that Jon actually set Slynt up to serve as an example so he can show his teeth to the Wall and Stannis and everybody else who was looking.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

, for sure. But surely he'd be watched for signs of insubordination, right? Wouldn't just let him go do as he pleased straight away

Yeah, I mean he should watch at least. But where does waiting & watching for Janos's plotting start overpowering the benefit of having another body on the wall? He has the potential to cause irreparable damage, something that is avoided by removing him from the watch all together. 

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

If the guard put a stop to the theft earlier, cutting the thief's hand off would have been unnecessary. It's just... why allow it to go that far? It almost seems like the guard wanted to cut the thief's hand off

Right but how? Does the guard punish the potential thief (because he isn't a thief until he actually steals) for saying he is going to steal? I think here, like with Jon & Janos, it would have been beneficial for the guard to tell the potential thief: The punishment for stealing is to have your hand cut off. May not have stopped the thief but it may have & even if it didn't at least he knew full well what the punishment was going to be if he got caught. 

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Mind you, I don't think Jon was being that malicious. But it is kind of baffling why Jon didn't try to put a stop to the insubordination earlier. It seems like he's genuinely attempting to give Slynt a chance to reconsider, but considering how obvious it is that Slynt wouldn't reconsider... I don't know. Jon had to know it wasn't going to happen, unless he's a complete fool (and I really don't think he is).

Yeah I think Jon knew, after the first refusal, that Janos was probably not going to reconsider. I think Jon expects everyone to think the way he does or at the very least to follow the rules whether they like them or not. They both learned a hard lesson, of course Janos's lesson was harder. 

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

That would have been something. An actual attempt to cow Slynt. I still think death is an unnecessary punishment for the crime, but if Jon was clear about it, I think it would have been enough

Sure, I agree. It would have been a good selling point at the least. Even a man like Janos can understand 2 choices: go to Greyguard or lose your head. 

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Oh. We're in complete agreement. That's new! 

 it happens. Let's not make a habit of it huh? 

Just joking of course. I think it's great when opposing view points can reach common ground 

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Sure, but the vast majority of those who voted for Jon were from the Shadow Tower and Eastwatch. Castle Black was primarily for Slynt, as far as I could tell. Not entirely unreasonable for Slynt to feel pretty secure. Not entirely reasonable either though

For what it's worth I believe Janos did feel very secure, whether it was reasonable or not & I do understand how Jon not really saying or doing much originally in response to Janos's refusal helped to reaffirm that in Janos's mind. 

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Mmm, I suppose that's fair enough. The idea that Jon only has power in a public setting isn't really one that he should propagate, though. He should be able to punish people, even if he's the only one who knows of wrongdoing. But you're right, it could seem like Jon's just punishing Slynt on a whim, simply because he hates him

Yeah absolutely. He should be able to punish people even if it's only him who knows about the wrong doing. If I were him though, I would worry a little bit about this in regards to Slynt in particular because Slynt has such a negative response to Jon before he is LC let alone after. He is loud & has somewhat of a following so I would want to be careful as to what the "public's" opinion is in regards to punishing him.

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Definitely a touchy situation. Probably better to have people think he put Slynt in an ice cell overnight on a whim, than to have them think he executed him on a whim (it's entirely possible that many of those in the common hall thought this was Slynt's first rebuke of Jon, and he's executed for it). If he had him dragged to an ice cell at that point, rather than executed, I doubt anyone would have batted an eye

Yeah, true. I don't remember the entire exchange but I think there were context clues there to alert the others that this wasn't the first time Jon told him to go to Greyguard, if the other brothers cared to look for them. I agree it would be better for them to believe he dragged him off to an ice cell on a whim rather than removed his head. As far as we know though there isn't any discord over Jon beheading Janos. Either we aren't told of it or the rest of the watch seemed to think the punishment was deserved. Or I suppose there are those that just could careless either way. 

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Hard to see the logic behind that, though. There's plenty of scum on the Wall, but they're more helpful than not (even if it's just having an extra body), so long as they can be made to obey. Slynt's comparative potential use (he must know how to perform drills, keep discipline, etc.) to the other scum, you'd think would warrant comparatively more effort getting him to be used. The complete lack of effort on Jon's part is what gets me

I see what you mean. It is a little hypocritical to give the command to Slynt because Jon believes him capable but then not put much effort into getting him to comply. Especially in light of the fact that the wall does need every man. I'll concede it would have been smart for Jon to put a little more effort into it, not a crap ton, but a little. That is, I don't think Janos was worth a whole lot & even less if he was going to continue to cause discord but considering how desperate the need is for men on the wall it would have been a good thing for the LC to try to make use of every man. At least until Janos proved himself again. 

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Oh, I agree! I'm not saying that Jon went out of his way to punish Janos, just that when a punishment was necessary (and it was, no doubt about that), he jumped at the opportunity to kill him, rather than make a more measured response

Yeah it's kinda like when you want something to happen & you don't bring it on yourself, but it happens. You jump at the opportunity presented. I think that's sort of what happened here. I think Jon would have been delightfully (or as delightful as Jon gets) surprised had Janos taken his post willingly & tried to do his duty but on the other hand there was no love lost between the two & when the opportunity to behead him presented itself, Jon willingly took it. 

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

suppose, perhaps, that Jon simply thought a man of his background (much of his life spent in a disciplined, military-esque order) would be more like to follow orders than to question them. Then when the opportunity comes to establish authority over the man, he simply kills him

Yeah I think this played a part also. I think Jon expected some ruckus & back talk out of Slynt but it wasn't until Slynt vehemently refused the order that Jon began to understand that Slynt was not going to cooperate, LC's orders or not. 

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Yep! Discussions like this, seeing other view points I may not have considered, seeing other beliefs and interpretations, it really goes a long way to bringing more life to already wonderful books. It really is brilliant

I agree! It's no fun when someone is all : Jon is stupid traitor, Janos is good man. There's so much more to it than a black & white answer. Rarely is the answer yes or no, good or bad. Occasionally we can say absolutely they shouldn't have done that (*cough* Ramsay) but it usually isn't that clear cut. 

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Definitely. That it necessitated execution is the point of contention, not that it necessitated punishment. At least for me

Sure. While I do agree with the beheading, I also agree he could have taken a different route had he taken it sooner. That route may or may not have worked out well for Jon but considering where he ended up, it probably couldn't have gotten much worse for him. 

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

The blind man can't read the book, but he can have it read to him. Or if we get the same book but in braille, he can read it himself. Whilst he's stuck alone with a normal book, he won't be able to. Slynt could be introspective and intelligent, but it's as obvious as the hypothetical with the blind man that he wouldn't. Not unless something changed. I think it fair to say that Jon

Yeah, Jon most certainly knew of his need for men. His bias is probably getting the better of him here, in that because he is bias against Janos he believes Janos is not worth the effort.