King Jon snow ?!?

[TheLastWolf]

41 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

Jon is easily the worst lord commander since the NK.  The stuff he did created conflict between the watch and the Boltons over his sister.  He allowed his feelings for Arya to destroy the NW.  

All of these things will bring the ruin of the NW and it is Jon's fault.  

Haters gonna hate. Please remove your personal bias and prejudice from posts. Your not being rational. I like the North and Starks, I confess, but try to remove my bias as much as possible. 

[The Fattest Leech]

On 6/28/2020 at 11:57 AM, TheLastWolf said:

Or is it gonna be the Nightking? 

Not a chance. Aside from the fact that Nights King is a legend, it also sounds like a title that is for someone else that is already in the ASOIAF making as someone who wants "the night" as opposed to someone who wants to save the realms of men... and by realms I mean more than just the mortal ones.

[The Fattest Leech]

On 6/23/2020 at 2:36 PM, Frey family reunion said:

It depends on what kind of King the raven is calling Jon Snow.  If you take the words in order you have: Corn King Snow, Jon Snow.

In which case if Jon is a Corn King, that might bode fairly poorly for his ultimate fate.

 

https://thepaganandthepen.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/lammas-corn-king/#:~:text=The corn king%2C John Barleycorn,as Adonis%2C Osiris or Tammuz.

Not directly to FFR specifically, just in general...

I've seen this a lot in my time in the fandom. I think, for me, I've come to rely less and less and lesser less on what the real world definitions of something are and rather think GRRM is doing his own thing, even if he is stealing a general base from real world myth, etc.

“In A Song of Ice and Fire, I take stuff from the Wars of the Roses and other fantasy things, and all these things work around in my head and somehow they jell into what I hope is uniquely my own.” –GRRM

An example is from For A Single Yesterday, when we find out that Rob Winters is the one who can lead people to a future, and in that future comes regrowth (corn kernels/the seed is strong). It is from this "King of Winter" archetype that GRRM created where a future is possible. This is where "Winter fell", meaning, Winter arrived... but not in the doomtastic way we readers typically see with other authors.

"It’s a real town, too. We have electricity and a library, and plenty of food. And a doctor—a real doctor that Winters found a hundred miles from here. We got so prosperous that the Sons of the Blast heard about us and came back for a little fun. Winters had his militia beat them off and hunt down the ones who tried to escape." From For A Single Yesterday

[Lollygag]

36 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Not directly to FFR specifically, just in general...

I've seen this a lot in my time in the fandom. I think, for me, I've come to rely less and less and lesser less on what the real world definitions of something are and rather think GRRM is doing his own thing, even if he is stealing a general base from real world myth, etc.

“In A Song of Ice and Fire, I take stuff from the Wars of the Roses and other fantasy things, and all these things work around in my head and somehow they jell into what I hope is uniquely my own.” –GRRM

An example is from For A Single Yesterday, when we find out that Rob Winters is the one who can lead people to a future, and in that future comes regrowth (corn kernels/the seed is strong). It is from this "King of Winter" archetype that GRRM created where a future is possible. This is where "Winter fell", meaning, Winter arrived... but not in the doomtastic way we readers typically see with other authors.

"It’s a real town, too. We have electricity and a library, and plenty of food. And a doctor—a real doctor that Winters found a hundred miles from here. We got so prosperous that the Sons of the Blast heard about us and came back for a little fun. Winters had his militia beat them off and hunt down the ones who tried to escape." From For A Single Yesterday

There are limits to this. All forms of art are a form of communication. Visual artists have more leeway for personal meanings as the viewer is also intended to apply their personal take on an artwork. With a writer, there are more restrictions as using a personal meaning rather than a generally understood meaning puts it on the author to accept that most will simply not understand the subjective meaning as readers aren't mind readers, or the author must jump through extra hoops to communicate a unique meaning to the reader. I see this problem most with song writers. They use very subjective associations and terminology, but get *very* upset when listeners just can't follow the way the song-writer intended.

If there's a possible personal meaning rather than public meaning, did the author take steps to communicate this personal meaning in a way readers can follow? A responsible author understands that a reader will go first to a public meaning and this also underscores the importance of explaining any personal meanings to readers as, depending on the discrepancies between personal and public meanings, it may well lead to significant misunderstandings of the story. GRRM is quite aware of various kinds of public meanings and popular usages and sometimes even uses it against the reader. "Sweet" is a good example. In popular usage, this is a good thing, but GRRM's usage when examined is that it's very often associated with deceit or death - a warning to the characters as well as the reader. But the point is, this personal meaning can be found with close reading.

[The Fattest Leech]

14 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

There are limits to this. All forms of art are a form of communication. Visual artists have more leeway for personal meanings as the viewer is also intended to apply their personal take on an artwork. With a writer, there are more restrictions as using a personal meaning rather than a generally understood meaning puts it on the author to accept that most will simply not understand the subjective meaning as readers aren't mind readers, or the author must jump through extra hoops to communicate a unique meaning to the reader. I see this problem most with song writers.

I do agree, but I don't think a reader has to mind-read the author as the author sets up his/her own rules in his/her own story. This is something as author established naturally along the way with worldbuilding. It may take a few chapters to catch on to the "formula", but not something that requires extra hoops.

Actually, now that I think about it, in my own opinion, if the reader has to go to extra hoops and tons of outside sources, the author is failing at telling a cohesive, inclusive story. GRRM even says that the only story that is "canon" are the main 5 (7) books proper. That's all we need to know what is going on in this Song.

14 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

 

They use very subjective associations and terminology, but get *very* upset when listeners just can't follow the way the song-writer intended.

Right. I agree, and to add to this that there is a general rule in the lit world that if the story isn't being understood, that is on the shoulders of the author. Some people/authors/songwriters are better at developing their own stories than some others are.

14 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

If there's a possible personal meaning rather than public meaning, did the author take steps to communicate this personal meaning in a way readers can follow?

I agree and I also see this as something GRRM has polished over his ~40 years as an author who tends to admittedly repurpose many of his archetypes and world details, pulling them out again and again until he has it just right. This is why and how readers can follow, it's already been perfected.

Again in my own opinion, over the recent years I see theories that get more and more convoluted when the answer is going to have been given to us simply all along. The wait between books seems to be (sometimes) driving a few creative ideas, but ideas that fit a different story rather than what we have been given.

14 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

A responsible author understands that a reader will go first to a public meaning

My experience tells me something different. I worked for a long time in one of my states Writer's Association groups with new and established authors. Most decided right off the bat that they are doing things their own way, mostly because conventional wisdom says things have been done to death already. These writers didn't want to do (as an example) a girl being caught in the underworld, because it's been done, it automatically brings to mind Persephone, readers assume things are going 'this' way, and if it doesn't they get confused/upset because they feel duped on some level. Instead, many of these writers just throw out the tropes and tales and do it their own way from the beginning and the astute readers catch on pretty quickly.

14 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

and this also underscores the importance of explaining any personal meanings to readers as, depending on the discrepancies between personal and public meanings, it may well lead to significant misunderstandings of the story. GRRM is quite aware of various kinds of public meanings and popular usages and sometimes even uses it against the reader. "Sweet" is a good example. In popular usage, this is a good thing, but GRRM's usage when examined is that it's very often associated with deceit or death - a warning to the characters as well as the reader. But the point is, this personal meaning can be found with close reading.

The reliance on the public meanings isn't, well, creative, and this is what gets thousands of stories pushed to the slush pile so quickly.

I very much agree with your "sweet" idea. That is a great example of how GRRM ignores the normal/public meaning of sweet and established early in the story that he has his own meaning in his own world and readers catch on. We even gasp and shakes our fists, "Noooo!," when Eddard goes to drink his overly sweetened milk because we have have been shown what this means.

It seems to me that overall, GRRM is writing the ultimate story that he wants to read. He is perfecting his critical "failures" of his past stories within the pages of his magnum opus. He is actually having a lot more fun being a kid-at-heart than he is writing a 2020 manifesto on current socio-political trends and who is president (not saying you said this). There is a lot, a lot lot, to glean from his past (both personal and professional), but none of that is required to understand ASOIAF. It is there if you want, or not? It's up to the nerd (guilty face). I have actually learned more about some myths I never knew existed by participating in this fandom, but if it turns out that those myths are true inspirations (especially 1:1), I never needed to know them before or during reading to be able to understand and follow ASOIAF proper.

[Frey family reunion]

22 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Not directly to FFR specifically, just in general...

I've seen this a lot in my time in the fandom. I think, for me, I've come to rely less and less and lesser less on what the real world definitions of something are and rather think GRRM is doing his own thing, even if he is stealing a general base from real world myth, etc.

While I wouldn’t hazard to guess how GRRM is going to incorporate the Corn King motif into this story, I still firmly believe that the references to Corn King, and Barleycorn etc. are deliberate.  As a practical matter we may have already viewed the “sacrifice” of the Jon the Corn King in his last chapter in ADWD.  

My main point is that we can’t assume that any “king” symbolism attached to Jon has to necessarily relate to him being a king on an Iron Throne or even a King in the North.  After all Jesus was referred to as the King of Kings, and he never held political office in Israel to the best of my knowledge.

But to address your point more directly, I do think that there are some fundamental differences with ASOIAF then with much of GRRM’s other work.  In many ways ASOIAF seems less personal and introspective than GRRM’s other works (which at times border on navel gazing in my opinion).  

But if you look at ASOIAF as an homage to the mythologies that have shaped our literature and also specifically to the works of fiction that inspired George, then perhaps this series is George’s ultimate love letter to what has been the most important thing in his life.

[The Fattest Leech]

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

While I wouldn’t hazard to guess how GRRM is going to incorporate the Corn King motif into this story, I still firmly believe that the references to Corn King, and Barleycorn etc. are deliberate.  As a practical matter we may have already viewed the “sacrifice” of the Jon the Corn King in his last chapter in ADWD.  

To me, Jon's supposed sacrifice at the end of ADWD still does follow (to a T) GRRM's style. And I don't think it is going to be how many mythy readers assume.

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

My main point is that we can’t assume that any “king” symbolism attached to Jon has to necessarily relate to him being a king on an Iron Throne or even a King in the North.  After all Jesus was referred to as the King of Kings, and he never held political office in Israel to the best of my knowledge.

Agree, very much so.

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

But to address your point more directly, I do think that there are some fundamental differences with ASOIAF then with much of GRRM’s other work.  In many ways ASOIAF seems less personal and introspective than GRRM’s other works (which at times border on navel gazing in my opinion).  

I do agree that other GRRM stories, Meathouse Man in particular, are very personal to GRRM. He once described that story as being like a page from his diary... only set in a fantasy world x1000. Meathouse Man is in the blood ASOIAF. GRRM said that he knew his wife was "the one" because when they met, she told him how she cried when she read A Song for Lya.

• A Storm of Swords - Bran II

  "Under Harren's roof he ate and drank with the wolves, and many of their sworn swords besides, barrowdown men and moose and bears and mermen. The dragon prince sang a song so sad it made the wolf maid sniffle, but when her pup brother teased her for crying she poured wine over his head. A black brother spoke, asking the knights to join the Night's Watch. The storm lord drank down the knight of skulls and kisses in a wine-cup war. The crannogman saw a maid with laughing purple eyes dance with a white sword, a red snake, and the lord of griffins, and lastly with the quiet wolf . . . but only after the wild wolf spoke to her on behalf of a brother too shy to leave his bench.

Where I see the other part a little differently is that ASOIAF is a weaving, of sorts, of all of his work together. There are major and minor elements from all of his work that make up ASOIAF. Yes, plenty of new, but still very Martinworld-like. And in doing so, all of that personal introspective from GRRM's past is still there, just matured and polished.

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

But if you look at ASOIAF as an homage to the mythologies that have shaped our literature and also specifically to the works of fiction that inspired George, then perhaps this series is George’s ultimate love letter to what has been the most important thing in his life.

Fair enough idea

[GoldenGail3]

On 7/19/2020 at 8:16 AM, TheLastWolf said:

Haters gonna hate. Please remove your personal bias and prejudice from posts. Your not being rational. I like the North and Starks, I confess, but try to remove my bias as much as possible. 

Jon did do wrong, the NW is suppose to stay out of the rest of the realms business - not so what Jon did and go off to fight the Bolton’s when that’s not the NW’s business to begin with.

[TheLastWolf]

On 7/3/2020 at 4:20 PM, TheLastWolf said:

I confess that I'm a Stark fanboy (to quote @Alyn Oakenfist

, but what you say is an overstatement of sorts. Jon did exceptionally well considering his age, all that he went through with the wildlings and his own sworn brothers and especially Ygritte. I still think that they should have gone into the caves as she suggested because...see the above link. But the storyline would be affected, so we could not have had that.

Jon did deeds that were both honorable and also not. But the former far exceeds the latter. He defended Castle Black with only greenboys, cripples and greybeards, while he himself was injured. His trick with Magnar and his raiders could not have been done by anyone else of the Watch at such a time. His wits and swordsmanship are really good, though not legendary. He withstood Mance's assault till Stannis arrived. 

If helping Stannis was wrong. so be it. But Stannis could've taken everything by force, so what Jon did was somewhat right. Besides Stannis did help the Watch, unlike all the other pretenders and claimants.

If you call his actions of allowing the wildlings through the Wall and saving them as poor, I suggest that you reconsider. Please keep in mind that the true enemy are the Others and each dead wildling beyond the Wall is one more wight to fight. Many of the Night's Watch seem to have forgotten this when they killed/tried to kill him, like you.

Him sending Mance/Rattleshirt/Abel to rescue fake Arya was not against his duties, as Meli had him under her power, so he was sure of his return (though not sure when). What would any of us have done then in his position? (with exceptions if any are like Stannis).

Him going to march against Ramsay was wrong. but not in entirety. Please re-read the letter from Ramsay to Jon. It disrespected all the laws of the kingdoms in what it demanded in its contents.

If you truly understood how cruel and sadistic Ramsay was (as I'm sure you did), you'd agree with me.

Any other crimes or failures of Jon I might've missed???

Hope you read this before your last post @Gorosorry, @GoldenGail3

Your name is not going Goro. My bad. 

[Jeeves]

On 7/19/2020 at 11:16 AM, TheLastWolf said:

Haters gonna hate. Please remove your personal bias and prejudice from posts. Your not being rational. I like the North and Starks, I confess, but try to remove my bias as much as possible. 

You are the one who is not being rational, sir (or madam).  The NW has stood for thousands of years.  It only took a short amount of time for a conflicted Jon Snow to cause a lot of damage.  He just needed to be impartial in his judgment of Slynt and Mance.  He needed to stay out of Ramsay Bolton's business and forget about Arya (fake Arya).  He failed at both.  Now a battle between the wall's defenders will happen at the worst possible time.  

[TheLastWolf]

On 7/19/2020 at 8:03 PM, Jeeves said:

On 7/3/2020 at 4:20 PM, TheLastWolf said:

I confess that I'm a Stark fanboy (to quote @Alyn Oakenfist

, but what you say is an overstatement of sorts. Jon did exceptionally well considering his age, all that he went through with the wildlings and his own sworn brothers and especially Ygritte. I still think that they should have gone into the caves as she suggested because...see the above link. But the storyline would be affected, so we could not have had that.

Jon did deeds that were both honorable and also not. But the former far exceeds the latter. He defended Castle Black with only greenboys, cripples and greybeards, while he himself was injured. His trick with Magnar and his raiders could not have been done by anyone else of the Watch at such a time. His wits and swordsmanship are really good, though not legendary. He withstood Mance's assault till Stannis arrived. 

If helping Stannis was wrong. so be it. But Stannis could've taken everything by force, so what Jon did was somewhat right. Besides Stannis did help the Watch, unlike all the other pretenders and claimants.

If you call his actions of allowing the wildlings through the Wall and saving them as poor, I suggest that you reconsider. Please keep in mind that the true enemy are the Others and each dead wildling beyond the Wall is one more wight to fight. Many of the Night's Watch seem to have forgotten this when they killed/tried to kill him, like you.

Him sending Mance/Rattleshirt/Abel to rescue fake Arya was not against his duties, as Meli had him under her power, so he was sure of his return (though not sure when). What would any of us have done then in his position? (with exceptions if any are like Stannis).

Him going to march against Ramsay was wrong. but not in entirety. Please re-read the letter from Ramsay to Jon. It disrespected all the laws of the kingdoms in what it demanded in its contents.

If you truly understood how cruel and sadistic Ramsay was (as I'm sure you did), you'd agree with me.

Any other crimes or failures of Jon I might've missed???

Jon is easily the worst lord commander since the NK.  The stuff he did created conflict between the watch and the Boltons over his sister.  He allowed his feelings for Arya to destroy the NW.

Even after this.... @Jeeves, All I can say is NOT AGAIN !!! 

I've explained all I could in that post. Yet you put forth no points to counter that, but go on saying he's the worst, he's the worst, jingling your bells. Justify your accusations like I did to counter you haters. 

 

[GoldenGail3]

On 7/28/2020 at 12:34 AM, TheLastWolf said:

Even after this.... @Jeeves, All I can say is NOT AGAIN !!! 

I've explained all I could in that post. Yet you put forth no points to counter that, but go on saying he's the worst, he's the worst, jingling your bells. Justify your accusations like I did to counter you haters. 

 

I read your post and it’s fairly reasonable to me.

[nyser1]

Spoiler

Aegon VII but I expect him to die or be sitting on a throne in the cold alone. Because that's what happens to sulky sulkers.

 

[Bowen 747]

On 6/28/2020 at 11:24 PM, Curled Finger said:

Anyone could end up king in this story.  Jon would hate it.  

Westeros would suffer for it.  King Jon's reign will be some of the darkest years in Westeros.  Times will be bleak indeed.

[Rose of Red Lake]

The Watch will have to involve itself in "the realm's business" eventually. How else do you prepare for a zombie war? "Obedient" Jon was just sending out ravens and waiting for more criminals to be made. "Disobedient" Jon haggled with Stannis and bankers and won more men for the Watch. He unknowlingly made it easier for a Stark to get back to Winterfell so he has an asset in his court to fight the Others.

I think Jon's biggest flaw is that he's gullible and gets trapped in prophecy. Its not that he undercut a rapist's power in Winterfell, its that he believed Mel when she was wrong and disbelieved her when she was right. He will continue to screw things up while also doing some good things. 

[Hodor the Articulate]

12 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think Jon's biggest flaw is that he's gullible and gets trapped in prophecy. Its not that he undercut a rapist's power in Winterfell, its that he believed Mel when she was wrong

What is this referring to?

[H Wadsworth Longfellow]

On 7/29/2020 at 5:51 PM, Bowen 747 said:

Westeros would suffer for it.  King Jon's reign will be some of the darkest years in Westeros.  Times will be bleak indeed.

Jon failed at the wall because he has serious character defects which make him unsuitable for leadership.  Martin could put him on the throne and then have him wreck the kingdom like he messed up the night's watch.  That is one sure way to increase the misery of a long winter.  I think Jon could do alright with the free folk as a village chief.  He might have done alright as a ranger with the watch. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

What is this referring to?

When Mel was wrong about Arya being the bride / girl in grey and tried to help save her so she could win Jon to her side. Jon likely wouldn't have gotten himself into that mess in the first place for Jeyne Poole. And if he finds out that he took ALL of the risk and it wasn't even his sister, well...

[Hodor the Articulate]

9 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

When Mel was wrong about Arya being the bride / girl in grey and tried to help save her so she could win Jon to her side. Jon likely wouldn't have gotten himself into that mess in the first place for Jeyne Poole. And if he finds out that he took ALL of the risk and it wasn't even his sister, well...

How is that Jon being gullible? Mel didn't lie; she thought it was Arya.

[R2D]

Wasn't it already confirmed that Bran is going to be king?

This would completely wreck Jon. GRRM subverts tropes, and Jon even though being the long lost prince with royal blood and a magic sword and a wolf is not going to be the ultimate hero of the story.