Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Eternally_His

The Starks

Recommended Posts

23 hours 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. 

I'd need to think some more about that.

I'm not bashing Jon for his actions, very much the reverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I'm not bashing Jon for his actions, very much the reverse.

I know :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2020 at 9:51 AM, 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.

Right. I like themes. If an author hits on a good one, it’s relevant to any time period, while some themes are specific to a feudal society. A speculative fiction writer’s job is to tell a cautionary tale, and predict what troubles we’ll face in the future based on the present and past. This is how some authors like Orwell, Clarke, and Atwood are seen as prescient.  Discussing asoiaf as a work of speculative fiction is valid. Especially since the author is constantly talking about power, Vietnam, climate change, and nuclear war in his interviews. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2020 at 7:25 PM, Jean-Louis Schiffer said:

The Lannisters are right up there with the Starks in shitheadedness.  Jamie in particular.  

The Greyjoys are worse than they are.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2/26/2020 at 6:10 PM, teej6 said:

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. 

Quote

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.

I just want to say that IMO the quote above says it all that we need to keep in mind about neutrality. 

Words are wind. In some cases it is impossible to remain neutral, no matter how it is dictated by custom or tradition. In some other cases remaining neutral may even be immoral - like when one party fights for the country (which happens to be your own goal, too) and the other party is plundering it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...