Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Eternally_His said:

Do you think that Wylla loved Robb and part of the reason she refused to marry a Frey was that it would be wrong to do it with a member of family complacent in his murder?

Of course not. We are never told of anything going on between Sweetie and Wylla. She refused the marriage to a Frey because she despises the treacherous weasels, and rightly so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frenin said:

He did actually, hell that's the reason why Jon stayed in the watch. Sorry, but you're giving post hoc arguments that aren't really related to the topic, but to your believes.

This is mostly about the edgelords who show up in every Stark discussion to harp about how evil and corrupt Jon and Robb are for breaking their vows, offering no concern for nuance or parallels to modern day problems. The problem of following orders too well and being the "perfect knight" or the "perfect follower" is a theme, not just my belief. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

This is mostly about the edgelords who show up in every Stark discussion to harp about how evil and corrupt Jon and Robb are for breaking their vows, offering no concern for nuance or parallels to modern day problems. The problem of following orders too well and being the "perfect knight" or the "perfect follower" is a theme, not just my belief. 

Why don't argue my thoughts instead of someone's other??

The problem of just breaking your vows because you believe is the right thing to do is also a theme. That's why Jon does not join Robb's army and stayed in the watch. That's why we have Aemon' speech and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, frenin said:

Why don't argue my thoughts instead of someone's other??

The problem of just breaking your vows because you believe is the right thing to do is also a theme. That's why Jon does not join Robb's army and stayed in the watch. That's why we have Aemon' speech and so on.

Aemons speech is about vows being tested and the dilemmas we face, not about how its morally wrong to break oaths! He's not telling us either way how to think. He's just stating that its hard.

As I've said, breaking vows as a morally wrong act doesnt have relevance to the modern day as much as following orders to the letter. The dangers of the Kingsguard empowering tyrants and doing their dirty work has far more harmful implications for society, than desertion or choosing someone else to marry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Of course not. We are never told of anything going on between Sweetie and Wylla. She refused the marriage to a Frey because she despises the treacherous weasels, and rightly so. 

Just because we don't know it, doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Aemons speech is about vows being tested and the dilemmas we face, not about how its morally wrong to break oaths! He's not telling us either way how to think. He's just stating that its hard.

As I've said, breaking vows as a morally wrong act doesnt have relevance to the modern day as much as following orders to the letter. The dangers of the Kingsguard empowering tyrants and doing their dirty work has far more harmful implications for society, than desertion or choosing someone else to marry.

Hmmm no. He's saying that we should keep to our vows, that's why he talks about him and the Hoare LC and that's why Jon eventually decides to not march. 

 

As I said, using modern days  politics to back your claim is simply a non argument.  There is a reason why the worst KG are those who actively played the GoT not those who supported tyrants.

One can assume that those who supported tyrants are in a close second post, but they are not the worst.

Ofc we all have to think for ourselves tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Eternally_His said:

Just because we don't know it, doesn't mean it wasn't there.

But it does. Seriously, what would be the point if the readers are never going to learn about it? You just want everyone and their dogs to be in love w/ Sweetie, but that doesn’t mean they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

But it does. Seriously, what would be the point if the readers are never going to learn about it? You just want everyone and their dogs to be in love w/ Sweetie, but that doesn’t mean they are. 

Arya x Sandor x Robb sounds compelling too. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenin said:

Hmmm no. He's saying that we should keep to our vows, that's why he talks about him and the Hoare LC and that's why Jon eventually decides to not march. 

Thats not what he says at all.

“I will not tell you stay or go. You must make that choice yourself, and live with it all the rest of your days. As I have.” His voice fell to a whisper. “As I have . . . ”

Jon decides not to leave because Mormont forces him to rank his priorities. He doesn't even tell him to not break his oaths, he just presents it as one war being more important than another. 

No one really cares about the damn oath. They care more about the ice zombies. If anything, the series is coming to the point that letter of the oaths matter less than the spirit, and some oaths need to be broken. 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

As I said, using modern days  politics to back your claim is simply a non argument.  There is a reason why the worst KG are those who actively played the GoT not those who supported tyrants. One can assume that those who supported tyrants are in a close second post, but they are not the worst. Ofc we all have to think for ourselves tho.

Whether they're following them for personal advantages or following them because they're true believers, the end result can still be the same: doing the dirty work of a tyrant. Dissent isn't the problem. Its lack of it in authoritarian regimes. This is a philosophical and sociological dilemma that society faces now and in the past, and wrestling with this means the work ties back to the Holcaust and the question of why mass violence occurs. It's a deeper question than "break oaths, get hanged." We don't need to be told that, and if that was the larger message his work would be lesser because of it. The radical idea is that maybe we should be less loyal from time to time. . . .

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jon defends the realm from ice zombies but his family is his main motive to do so, who the fuck cares. If he abandons his post to help Robb - its not the worst thing in the world. Maybe he could have given Robb better advice, and Robb could have been the remaining Stark in Winterfell to face the zombie threat. He would just pay a personal cost. If he leaves his post to attack Ramsay, so what. The Boltons aren't going to do anything to help the Watch and need to go. Stannis is already trying to do that. Who cares if Jon tries next. All he needs to do is defend the realm from all of its many threats; don't care if his motives are for "The Starks" or "the Watch." Don't care if he defends it from wildling raids, Gregor's goons, flaying madmen, pirates, ice zombies, or dragons. If he married someone, so what. If he fathered a bastard, so what. If he didn't plan to attack Ramsay, the assassins would have killed him anyway for letting the wildlings across the Wall. Even if he fucked off to Braavos like Dareon, oh well. At least he didn't empower a tyrannical regime by enthusiastically doing whatever mass murder needed being done that day. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon certainly violated the neutrality of the Nights Watch.  And, one motive was to get revenge for what had been done to his family by the Boltons.  There are other motives.  He respects Stannis, believes he owes him for coming to the rescue of the Nights Watch, and thinks he would make a better ruler than the current regime.

The important thing to remember is that the neutrality of the Nights Watch is a tradition;  it does not form part of the Night's Watch oath.  And, in any case, it's a tradition whose usefulness has come to an end.  Cersei is planning to murder Jon;  the North's defences against the coming threat have been badly, maybe fatally weakened by the Boltons' betrayal.  Seeking the replacement of the Boltons is legitimate IMHO.  Remaining neutral is in effect to pick a side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Jon certainly violated the neutrality of the Nights Watch.  And, one motive was to get revenge for what had been done to his family by the Boltons.  There are other motives.  He respects Stannis, believes he owes him for coming to the rescue of the Nights Watch, and thinks he would make a better ruler than the current regime.

Why do you assume the bolded? We have Jon’s thoughts and vengeance was never a motivator for him. The only time he thinks remotely of revenge is when he states he wants to bring death and destruction on the Lannisters in regards to signing the paper shield. He quickly dismisses this fleeting thought and signs the paper shield.

In terms of Stannis, he gives support, first, because he has no choice — Stannis saved the NW and was the only King who answered the NW’s call, and besides Stannis could just take over if he wanted to — Jon doesn’t have the men or strength to oppose him. Secondly, Jon thinks he can make better use of the Wildlings than Stannis and wished to keep them alive. And yes, he did have a begrudging respect for Stannis and this may have subconsciously affected his decision. Below, I’ve quoted Jon’s thoughts from the Jon chapter where we see him advising Stannis on mustering support from the North:

Quote

King Stannis said, “Lord Snow, tell me of Mors Umber.” The Night’s Watch takes no part, Jon thought, but another voice within him said, Words are not swords.

other foes.” “I see.” Jon’s tone was wary. What does he want of me? “I have no love for Lord Bolton or his son, but the Night’s Watch cannot take up arms against them. Our vows prohibit—

How many times will he make me say it? “My sword is sworn to the Night’s Watch.

Jon realized that his words were wasted. Stannis would take the Dreadfort or die in the attempt. The Night’s Watch takes no part, a voice said, but another replied, Stannis fights for the realm, the ironmen for thralls and plunder. “Your Grace, I know where you might find more men. Give me the wildlings, and I will gladly tell you where and how.”

“To you they are only arrow fodder. I can make better use of them upon the Wall. Give them to me to do with as I will, and I’ll show you where to find your victory … and men as well.”

Not once in this chapter or any other I know of is Jon motivated to give support to Stannis out of a desire for revenge. As you can see, Jon wrestles with the thought of giving even advice to Stannis but concludes for various reasons — apart from vengeance — that it would be alright for him and his desire to keep his vows to do so. 

In terms of Jon’s last chapter, he was only reacting to Ramsay’s threat to the NW and his person — he is the LC and a direct threat to his life is a threat to the NW. Even so, he asks the NW men only to join him if they feel it’s right to do so. 

Edited by teej6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2020 at 8:41 AM, frenin said:

As I said, using modern days  politics to back your claim is simply a non argument.

This brings up something I find really interesting: the idea that readers shouldn't consider the actual world we are living in right now while discussing a purely fictional world.

It is a fact that Westeros, etc. and all the people therein only exist (non-literally) in one actual reality: the reality of late-20th/early-21st Century Earth. It's not only valid to look at Westeros etc. with a modern-day lens, it also can be useful and illuminating to do so.

Please note I'm not saying that that is the only way to regard Westeros. There definitely is a reality in the books, and it's absolutely worth discussing - but it's more akin to "reality" in quotes. The books are necessarily a reflection or a mirror of the world that we inhabit right now; it could hardly be otherwise since it is being created by/for and consumed by people who live here now, in this reality (without quotes).

I think extricating our lived reality from the imagined world we are looking at is not only impossible, it's also kinda missing the point of the books in the first place. And (just because it needs to be spelled out) I am really not saying that there can be no discussion of the story as its own reality (or "reality"), just maybe don't try to shut down discussion on the basis that our world and experiences therein are irrelevant. I don't believe they are.

Edited by The Ned's Little Girl
Shockingly saying "it's" instead of "its". One of my pet peeves! I hope I'll be able to live this down D;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Why do you assume the bolded? We have Jon’s thoughts and vengeance was never a motivator for him. The only time he thinks remotely of revenge is when he states he wants to bring death and destruction on the Lannisters in regards to signing the paper shield. He quickly dismisses this fleeting thought and signs the paper shield.

In terms of Stannis, he gives support, first, because he has no choice — Stannis saved the NW and was the only King who answered the NW’s call, and besides Stannis could just take over if he wanted to — Jon doesn’t have the men or strength to oppose him. Secondly, Jon thinks he can make better use of the Wildlings than Stannis and wished to keep them alive. And yes, he did have a begrudging respect for Stannis and this may have subconsciously affected his decision. Below, I’ve quoted Jon’s thoughts from the Jon chapter where we see him advising Stannis on mustering support from the North:

Not once in this chapter or any other I know of is Jon motivated to give support to Stannis out of a desire for revenge. As you can see, Jon wrestles with the thought of giving even advice to Stannis but concludes for various reasons — apart from vengeance — that it would be alright for him and his desire to keep his vows to do so. 

In terms of Jon’s last chapter, he was only reacting to Ramsay’s threat to the NW and his person — he is the LC and a direct threat to his life is a threat to the NW. Even so, he asks the NW men only to join him if they feel it’s right to do so. 

Indeed. Only he actually tells his NW men not to join him because he doesn't want it being said that any of them have forsaken their vows. It's a fine line Jon walks irt his NW vows when he announces his intention to march on WF but the claim that he did it for his family or his sister is just false. He does it, in direct response to Ramsays letter that is threatening the LC & the NW. I, personally, don't think that answering that letter should be considered breaking any vows or oaths but there are those that argue this is meddling in the realms affairs. (I disagree) But since Jon does question if he is forsaken his vows (by telling his men he won't ask them to) I understand the situation may not be as clear cut as all that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2020 at 9:56 AM, Finley McLeod said:

It's obvious Arya is mentally and emotionally damaged.  It is also obvious the telepathy connection exists between Arya and her wolf.  Wolves do not menace humans except to feed on their livestock and take only what they need for sustenance.  The only questions remains if the wolf's strange behavior is due to the connection with a deranged minded little girl or it's out of it's natural environment.  Creatures of the north have not fared well in the warmer south.  Perhaps that has also twisted Nymeria's mind.  Must be the heat, eh.

A little of both. Arya's madness is affecting her wolf.  It is also partly due to the direwolf being larger and more savage than the normal wolves in the south. Arya is indeed deranged and when combined with her savagery, results in the totally messed up person she is. Nym is a natural savage like Arya. Add mental problems and it gets worse. The trackers will find them eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

This brings up something I find really interesting: the idea that readers shouldn't consider the actual world we are living in right now while discussing a purely fictional world.

It is a fact that Westeros, etc. and all the people therein only exist (non-literally) in one actual reality: the reality of late-20th/early-21st Century Earth. It's not only valid to look at Westeros etc. with a modern-day lens, it also can be useful and illuminating to do so.

Please note I'm not saying that that is the only way to regard Westeros. There definitely is a reality in the books, and it's absolutely worth discussing - but it's more akin to "reality" in quotes. The books are necessarily a reflection or a mirror of the world that we inhabit right now; it could hardly be otherwise since it is being created by/for and consumed by people who live here now, in this reality (without quotes).

I think extricating our lived reality from the imagined world we are looking at is not only impossible, it's also kinda missing the point of the books in the first place. And (just because it needs to be spelled out) I am really not saying that there can be no discussion of the story as its own reality (or "reality"), just maybe don't try to shut down discussion on the basis that our world and experiences therein are irrelevant. I don't believe they are.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that using the reality of the current times to guess what the author had in mind 20 years ago when he started his saga is a non argument. 

If we are to discuss for example, the effects of Trump's policies in Martin's work, we should start doing so when WoW comes, not with AGOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 12:16 AM, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Winterfell was already lost to the Starks when the two mutton heads broke their oaths.  Robb and Jon broke their oaths after Winterfell and the north were already lost.  The IB had taken the north already.  Jon betrayed the NW and broke his vows after Winterfell had already gone to the Boltons.  There are no excuses for their oath breaking though.  Indeed they are S/Hs as you say.  Robb, Jon, and Arya at least.

Robb and Jon are idiots.  Arya is not really an idiot, she's just severely messed up in the head.  You might say she's functioning in many ways but she is nuts.  She has good problem solving despite being insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Centurion Piso said:

Robb and Jon are idiots.  Arya is not really an idiot, she's just severely messed up in the head.  You might say she's functioning in many ways but she is nuts.  She has good problem solving despite being insane.

How do you figure Arya is insane I'd like some example from text if you could provide some?  What thought process of hers do you find unreasonable?

Edited by Darksnider05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, frenin said:

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that using the reality of the current times to guess what the author had in mind 20 years ago when he started his saga is a non argument. 

If we are to discuss for example, the effects of Trump's policies in Martin's work, we should start doing so when WoW comes, not with AGOT.

But that is a very narrow way to view the modern times. Some things are the same now just like they were 20 years ago. There are general things in aSoIaF that ring true throughout human history, from hundreds years past and more current. Rape and abuse happened 2000 years ago just like they do now. Marital rape hasn't even been accepted as a concept and condemned by law until the very recent past (20 years or so). Child brides still exist. There are still societies functioning on a patriarchy where women are nothing more than cattle. Forms of monarchy/feudalism or similar systems also still exist. War has been part of humanity's entire existence. Revenge is also a timeless concept. Class divide is still in existence, even in our oh so modern western world. There are still the rich and the poor.

Humanity and society might keep evolving (or not) and might change how they view these topics but that doesn't make them go away or even change them. And you can't fully detach from how you view some of these topics because it depends on which time or where in the world you grew up. I try to detach and view the story and characters according to the world that GRRM has set but even I can't help to sometimes stumble in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×