Lord Varys Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 Stannis was not only aware that he didn't execute Mance, he also went to Storm's End to murder Renly. He only listens to Melisandre and decides to espouse the red falcon because Selyse promises him in the Prologue that Melisandre will give him Renly's army. The idea that Stannis should sent pregnant Mel to murder Penrose at Storm's End but not realize that the point he and Mel had sex the first time wasn't to create a shadow assassin the murder Renly is laughable. Stannis would have to be a complete moron to believe that. Not only that, but he would have to be a religious lunatic/Mel fanatic to actually go to Storm's End and believe some god he doesn't actually believe in would magicall cause his brother's death. Stannis threatens Renly, gives him an ultimatum, and goes through with the murder when Renly doesn't give in. After the fact he feels guilt and remorse and tries to distance himself from the crime he committed, but that's a very visible attempt to exonerate himself. As for the duty of the NW: I'm sorry, but there is no internal hint that anyone in Westeros ever viewed the NW as an institution serving all realms of men - only the realms of men serving and maintaining the NW, i.e. those south of the Wall who sent men, food, armor, weapons, etc. up to the Wall to man it. There is no indication that the wildlings ever supported the Watch in a similar capacity - in fact, the story about Joramun and the Night's King (which takes place not that long after the original building of the Wall) indicates that even back then the Starks of Winterfell and the wildlings beyond the Wall were enemies - they only teamed up to defeat their common enemy, the Night's King. Jon's decision to number the wildlings among the men the NW is sworn to protect is clearly a new interpretation of the vow, not something that was part of the original setup. Or rather: We would assume that the ancestors of the wildlings faced a choice back when the Wall was built: Stay south of it, help to build it, be a part of the realms of men who stand firm and true against the Others ... or return/go north of the Wall into the land of the Others and live and die there on their own terms. It is, of course, also possible that the Northmen and other Westerosi later drove certain tribes and clans north of the Wall into exile, etc. but so far nothing indicates that, either. It seems the wildlings lived always where they live now. The very idea that a wall cutting Westeros in half is supposed to protect the people on both sides of that wall makes no sense. If it is a barrier - and it is a barrier - then it can only protect the folks in the south or the north, not both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia H. Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: A "people", "nation" or "ethnic group" is most often defined by its language. The next most important cultural factor is generally religion. Often, yet, in our real world, there are languages that are spoken in several countries, and the religion may also be the same or similar, yet the people define themselves in accordance with their respective countries as different nations (with common origin). Anyway... do you want to say Northerners and wildlings are the same nation / ethnic group still? And yet you wonder why the wildlings should be united with the Northerners in this critical situation? On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: That language would be the Andal tongue, of an entirely different origin. Not quite. The Old Tongue was the language of all First Men. That includes the ancestors of wildlings and Northerners. The same original language due to their shared historical origin. Later, yes, the Northerners have adopted a new language, of indeed different origin. That (some groups of) the wildlings have also learned or adopted this other language is the result of continued interactions. So GRRM gave them the same language twice: first their common ancestral language (as one ethnic group), then the same adopted language because communication continued between them despite the divergent political development. On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Not just nowadays, it has been that way for a very long time. For a long time, but not always. They weren't always divided by cultural differences (or by a Wall). On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: The NW choosing allies in order to ensure support is precisely what the oath is supposed to block. Every house is supposed to regard the NW as neutral and worthy of support because it WON'T ever side with a rival house. Yet, this support has not been coming for a while, no matter how nicely neutral letters were sent out by Maester Aemon asking for help in their hour of need. Until Stannis arrived. On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Is defending a wall not an ordinary military purpose? No, it isn't, because it is defence against a magical, non-human enemy. On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Conscripts don't normally gain much materially, or they wouldn't have to be conscripted. Sellswords fight for gain, and we agree that's not the NW. Conscripts? Today it is more like convicts in a prison camp. But it wasn't always like this, otherwise it wouldn't be still an honourable option for the son of a nobleman to join voluntarily. On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Winterfell was not actually doing much for the NW under Robb/Bran either. Robb wanted to remove Jon from the NW to prevent Tyrion from claiming Winterfell via his marriage to Sansa. True. On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: What "in-world history" explains the Andal language becoming the most common one spoken by the wildings despite the Andals themselves failing to penetrate north of the Neck? I wonder if it is really "the most common" one - we mostly meet the wildlings who live relatively close to the Wall, so I'm not sure, but it could be. The in-world history is that the wildlings and the Northerners (who have already adopted the Andal language) have always lived close to each other, and they are not actually isolated, despite the Wall. It is the nature of humans that they want to communicate with each other. The NW is concerned with the raiders only, but besides raiders there can be trade and marriage among ordinary smallfolk, there could be occasional refugees who cross the Wall to avoid their overlord's justice and so on. Obviously, the free folk could only learn the Andal language from the Northerners (unless there were Andal groups arriving in the lands north of the Wall by sea) - which means that the communication / intermarriage between them was intensive. There is nothing unrealistic about that. Even the NW recruits who follow the Old Gods religion go north of the Wall to take their NW vows, and no one finds it strange. On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Does that kingdom support the NW or oppose it? They have been at war, but wars can be ended, and former enemies can become allies, especially when it is in their mutual interest. On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: They belong to the human race, but not to any realm. Craster is defended by nobody, and obeys no authority. They belong to their own realm, as well as to the realms of men. Craster chooses not to be defended by anyone because he has his own pact with the Others. The wildlings who are admitted into the Seven Kingdoms choose to be reunited with the Northerners and to enjoy the protection of the Wall. Many of them volunteer to help defend the Wall as well. On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Essos has its Five Forts (though as far as we know they are just the creation of the Yi-Ti empire rather than Essos as a whole) defending an entirely different area. World War 2 involved both Germany & Japan as allied countries, but the RAF fighting the former in the Battle of Britain was not thereby defending China against the latter. With the Others though, the Long Night comes, and it affects the whole world, it does not stop at the borders of any realm. So stopping a global natural disaster would be a better analogy. On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: We haven't actually learned that. The explanation we have heard from Tycho is that they are just motivated by Cersei not paying them what is owed. Yes, that's what we have heard. It does not mean that they cannot have some other motivation as well. On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: That I'm not buying. If any threat emerges from the wastes beyond the Five Forts, the NW isn't doing anything about that. No, the NW has its post on the Wall and protects humanity there. On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: True, and less meaningful than you think. More meaningful than you think. It directly pertains to one of the main themes of the novels. The lone wolf dies, the pack survives. All humanity is one pack, wars bring suffering and stop people from noticing the global danger. On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: "Rejoin"? They never lived south of the Wall. The Wall that divides them didn't always exist. On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: No, I don't think that's the point of what he wrote. Jon is a tragic hero, and not a clear villain like many of his other characters (such as ones I'm arguing about in a different thread). Jon is a person whose priorities are NOT the same as the institution of the NW, and this gives rise to conflict. Not only conflict within himself, but also with people who have been in the NW longer than him and don't share his other experiences & priorities. Not any kind of a villain. And it is made entirely clear several times that the priorities of the NW as an institution are not what they should be. On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: He's a more sympathetic version of Jaime. Jaime joined the KG with some idealistic notions about it (although he never had any intention of abiding by the oath of celibacy), was eventually forced to choose between his family and violating the most defining oath of the KG (for a very good reason), and came to decide that all oaths were worthless and that he would act purely on behalf of his family regardless of how many laws of gods or men he broke. Jon intended to be an honorable member of the NW, but has found himself torn and ultimately decides to leave his post to fight his family's enemy, only to then be assassinated by his own men for doing so. Not a version of Jaime, but in some ways his opposite. Jaime joined the NW for the wrong reason and never meant to give up what was personally the most important thing to him (sex with Cersei). Jon, on the other hand, sacrificed his love for Ygritte, his love of his family, of Winterfell, and found the purpose of his life - to protect the realms of men. Jaime only found nihilism, because he had basically joined the wrong organization, whose purpose was to keep a madman on the IT with absolute power over other people's lives. Therefore Jaime came to despise all oaths. His ultimate oathbreaking is an example of a situation where keeping an oath is arguably not the right thing to do. He betrayed Aerys out of a moral necessity. Unfortunately, he also betrayed Robert out of lust. Yet, he remained in the Kingsguard even when he could have left it despite having no illusion about the organization. Recently, there are signs that he is sorting out the meaning of oathkeeping and true commitment (to something other than one's own pleasure). Oathkeeping has its place among human values, but it is not the single most important one. Automatic, unconditional oathkeeping can be a selfish and morally coward thing to do. Jon has never denied the value of oathkeeping, yet, he is not a slave to his oath. Quote The Night's Watch takes no part, a voice said, but another replied, Stannis fights for the realm, the ironmen for thralls and plunder. On 1/27/2022 at 8:00 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Then why are the wildlings north of the Wall and why have they never sent any of their men to join the NW like the kingdoms south of said Wall have? If they'd been supporting the NW this whole time, the NW would not have "forgotten" which side they were on. We have never been told why the wildlings are north of the Wall, but it would be rather wrong to imply some collective guilt in connection with that. What we do know is that the wildlings have rejected the "kneeler" lifestyle and social structure, and it is very probable that they have preserved a more ancient way of living, which may have characterized the whole North once. They have not always supported the NW, but the historical event when the King of Winter and the King-beyond-the-Wall joined forces to free the Watch from the bondage imposed on them by the Night's King has not made it into the books by accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia H. Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 The Wall, naturally, cannot protect the people living north of it from the Others. No one is arguing that. However, when these people seek refuge south of the Wall, it is the right thing to grant them this refuge. In this respect, it is relevant that the purpose of the Night's Watch is to protect humanity. Thwarting the Long Night is in the interest of all people, even those who live north of the Wall. We do not know how and why the wildlings originally ended up on the wrong side of the Wall, but the present ones were simply born there, so they can hardly be blamed for whatever sins their ancestors committed, if it was indeed a sin (which is by no means certain) that caused them to stay there. The author shows us that they are definitely human and not so different from those living south of the Wall. Judging them by Craster would be like judging the entire Seven Kingdoms by Ramsay Bolton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 Just now, Julia H. said: The Wall, naturally, cannot protect the people living north of it from the Others. No one is arguing that. However, when these people seek refuge south of the Wall, it is the right thing to grant them this refuge. In this respect, it is relevant that the purpose of the Night's Watch is to protect humanity. I don't think we can sever the Wall from the NW, though. At least not as an institution. And to be fair - if the Others are actually magically transformed human males then they are also part of 'humanity' as such, and would thus be subject to protection. The Others are not mentioned specifically in the NW vows, so they are not exactly excluded or dehumanized in the vows. Just now, Julia H. said: Thwarting the Long Night is in the interest of all people, even those who live north of the Wall. Not necessarily in the interest of those wildlings who worship and serve the Others. Folks like Craster would have been much more prevalent in the older days than they are now. In fact, I'm expecting that a good chunk of the wildlings we met so far did worship and/or sacrifice to the Others in the past ... and some might continue to do so despite the fact that they are south of the Wall now. That's just not something they would talk about to outsiders. I mean, if we go back to the end of the Long Night and the building of the Wall then folks then must have made a deliberate choice to return or migrate to or stay beyond where the Wall was raised. Most folks must have known that they were building a magical barrier which would keep the Others and their magics and their wights north of the Wall, so whoever decided to live there did do that at their own peril - and to the detriment of humanity in the sense that they put themselves into a position where they could be transformed into wights and their sons into new Others. If you know all that then deliberately deciding to live beyond the Wall can be seen as a betrayal. And I'd not be surprised if we actually learned that most the wildlings are descendents of people who worshipped the Others during the Long Night. That many of their present-day wildlings don't appear to be doing that might have more to do with the fact that the Others were gone for so long so that the ancient ties broke, religions and rituals changed, etc. than with them always being anti-Others. Just now, Julia H. said: We do not know how and why the wildlings originally ended up on the wrong side of the Wall, but the present ones were simply born there, so they can hardly be blamed for whatever sins their ancestors committed, if it was indeed a sin (which is by no means certain) that caused them to stay there. The author shows us that they are definitely human and not so different from those living south of the Wall. Judging them by Craster would be like judging the entire Seven Kingdoms by Ramsay Bolton. Of course, but the question whether to help the wildlings or not isn't just a humanitarian question. The NW is first and foremost supposed to protect the folks south of the Wall from the Others. I'd go so far as to say that the NW certainly have the right to allow the wildlings through the Wall if they do not threaten the NW or endanger their ability to continue to man the Wall ... but if the folks in the south don't permit them on their turf then the NW cannot do anything about them. They as an institution are dependent on the support of the Hundred/Seven Kingdoms. The NW is just a border garrison ... they don't own much land nor do they rule a kingdom. And they have neither the right nor the means to influence policy in the Seven Kingdoms. [Although I actually do thing back in the early days the NW was much more powerful. During the Hundred Kingdoms the individual kingdoms were smaller and weaker but the Watch had a professional army of volunteers from all over the Hundred Kingdoms. They would have been the most powerful military force in all of Westeros. Of course, they likely were never able to huge the power they had to influence policies in Dorne or the Reach, but they certainly could influence policy in what would become the North and perhaps even in the Riverlands.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia H. Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: I don't think we can sever the Wall from the NW, though. At least not as an institution. And to be fair - if the Others are actually magically transformed human males then they are also part of 'humanity' as such, and would thus be subject to protection. The Others are not mentioned specifically in the NW vows, so they are not exactly excluded or dehumanized in the vows. Yes and no. The Wall and the NW belong together, but the Wall is an object and a sort of man-made landmark, a means of defence, while the NW consists of living, feeling and thinking people. If the Others are magically transformed people... But who transforms them? Perhaps they are victims of a power above them, but I don't see any indication of that for the time being. The fate of Craster's sons is rather obscure. There must be a reason why they are called "the Others" and why their preferred environment is one where human life is impossible. They are not mentioned in the vows, but the Wall was built against them, and the NW was established to provide protection against them. 3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: Not necessarily in the interest of those wildlings who worship and serve the Others. Folks like Craster would have been much more prevalent in the older days than they are now. In fact, I'm expecting that a good chunk of the wildlings we met so far did worship and/or sacrifice to the Others in the past ... and some might continue to do so despite the fact that they are south of the Wall now. That's just not something they would talk about to outsiders. Doesn't Craster eat and drink to stay alive? If he can feed on ice, is not bothered by extreme cold and needs no sunlight, then maybe. But I doubt it. His strategy is one where he sacrifices the future for momentary respite. Ygritte calls him cursed and says he is more like the crows than the wildlings, so it is not likely that what Craster does is typical of wildlings. They would have already died out if sacrificing all their male children to the Others had been their norm. If there was a group that did the sacrifice Craster-style, it is very probable that the current wildlings are largely not their descendants. 3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: I mean, if we go back to the end of the Long Night and the building of the Wall then folks then must have made a deliberate choice to return or migrate to or stay beyond where the Wall was raised. Most folks must have known that they were building a magical barrier which would keep the Others and their magics and their wights north of the Wall, so whoever decided to live there did do that at their own peril - and to the detriment of humanity in the sense that they put themselves into a position where they could be transformed into wights and their sons into new Others. If you know all that then deliberately deciding to live beyond the Wall can be seen as a betrayal. And I'd not be surprised if we actually learned that most the wildlings are descendents of people who worshipped the Others during the Long Night. That many of their present-day wildlings don't appear to be doing that might have more to do with the fact that the Others were gone for so long so that the ancient ties broke, religions and rituals changed, etc. than with them always being anti-Others. We know very little of their history. But we do have the bit where Northerners and wildlings (early on) did cooperate, and it was against the Night's King. We would hardly have this bit of their history if the author wanted to present them as worshippers of the Others. 3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: Of course, but the question whether to help the wildlings or not isn't just a humanitarian question. The NW is first and foremost supposed to protect the folks south of the Wall from the Others. I'd go so far as to say that the NW certainly have the right to allow the wildlings through the Wall if they do not threaten the NW or endanger their ability to continue to man the Wall ... but if the folks in the south don't permit them on their turf then the NW cannot do anything about them. They as an institution are dependent on the support of the Hundred/Seven Kingdoms. Well, the idea was to settle them on the Gift and to populate the NW castles with them, no to send them to the Reach. It is totally fair to expect them to help with the fight against the Others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 18 hours ago, Julia H. said: Yes and no. The Wall and the NW belong together, but the Wall is an object and a sort of man-made landmark, a means of defence, while the NW consists of living, feeling and thinking people. But as an institution they are bound to that landmark. It might be that they are, say, five days older than the Wall since the vow talks about 'the watchers on the walls' not 'the watchers on the Wall' but without the Wall the NW would be pretty much nothing. They have no jurisdiction outside their meager lands, no right to interfere with other people's walls, etc. 18 hours ago, Julia H. said: If the Others are magically transformed people... But who transforms them? Perhaps they are victims of a power above them, but I don't see any indication of that for the time being. The fate of Craster's sons is rather obscure. There must be a reason why they are called "the Others" and why their preferred environment is one where human life is impossible. They are not mentioned in the vows, but the Wall was built against them, and the NW was established to provide protection against them. If we want to speculate about ancient times then the Others not being mentioned in the vows is as intriguing a fact as the whole 'realms of men' thing, no? And who knows - perhaps all people can technically become Others, so they could live happily ever after in that state? 18 hours ago, Julia H. said: Doesn't Craster eat and drink to stay alive? If he can feed on ice, is not bothered by extreme cold and needs no sunlight, then maybe. But I doubt it. His strategy is one where he sacrifices the future for momentary respite. Ygritte calls him cursed and says he is more like the crows than the wildlings, so it is not likely that what Craster does is typical of wildlings. They would have already died out if sacrificing all their male children to the Others had been their norm. If there was a group that did the sacrifice Craster-style, it is very probable that the current wildlings are largely not their descendants. We don't know the details of his deal, nor what the Others actually intend to do to all humanity or what place for their pets/worshippers might still be there once they have accomplished what they want. I certainly don't expect that they will keep their word, of course, but it isn't my place to tell people in-universe what they should do about the Others or what they should hope when they make a pact with them. We should also not fool ourselves into believing Craster is somewhat special or weird - he has pretty strong ties to the Watch, after all. His knowledge about the Others and his decision to contact them must come from the wildling side of the family, not the NW tradition. And to be clear - the wildlings are no single people. There are many different clans and tribes and peoples beyond the Wall. Many of the more northern and eastern folks in Mance's vast armies appear to be very strange - there are the Hornfoots who seem to be a human sub-species with different feet, the cave-dwellers with their painted faces, strange gods, and filed teeth, the cannibalistic Ice River clans, the obscure Nightrunners, the Frozen Shore people who are said to worship gods of snow and ice which could be the Others, the Thenns, etc. We know only a few individual wildlings and most of them seem to have lived in the southernmost parts of the Lands Beyond the Wall. 18 hours ago, Julia H. said: We know very little of their history. But we do have the bit where Northerners and wildlings (early on) did cooperate, and it was against the Night's King. We would hardly have this bit of their history if the author wanted to present them as worshippers of the Others. Joramun joined with the Starks to deal with the Night's King, not all the wildlings. Vice versa, just because one LC of the NW worshipped the Others (and possibly married one) doesn't mean all LCs of the NW do worship the Others, no? It is, however, pretty obvious that people living in the very lands of the Others, lands where they can come and go as they please, where they are not hindered by a magical barrier ... are more likely to end up making alliances and pacts with the Others than the people in the lands south of the Wall where the Others cannot go. 18 hours ago, Julia H. said: Well, the idea was to settle them on the Gift and to populate the NW castles with them, no to send them to the Reach. It is totally fair to expect them to help with the fight against the Others. Considering that the wildling way of life isn't the life of the docile peasant, it makes sense why people doubt they will stick to the Gift. But, of course, technically the Watch should be allowed to settle whatever people they want on their own lands. As long as they can control them so that they do not attack their neighbors in the south. I certainly expect some wildlings to stand with Jon/the Watch against the Others. But not all of them. They ran once when they abandoned their homes, and they will run again when the Others start to really threaten the Wall. They know what those beings are capable of. They tried to fight them and they failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 On 1/27/2022 at 2:47 PM, Moiraine Sedai said: Murdering Slynt no doubt contributed to Jon’s unpopularity because it was not fair. Justice it was not. An execution isn't normally considered a "murder". Jon had authority as LC to command members of the NW, and such members can face execution if they do something like desert (see Mance Rayder). Janos repeatedly defied orders, and belongs in a different category from murder victims. On 1/28/2022 at 11:35 AM, Julia H. said: Melisandre implies that Stannis agreed to the decision to keep Mance alive. In your mind, based on info Jon doesn't have. Quote She says Stannis does not go against the law, but guess what, the law ends at the Wall. Logically, the latter argument is only needed when someone does not want to go against the law. There's no indication Stannis himself believes that (or even that she believes Stannis belives that). Melisandre is using the justification that Jon already gave & Stannis rejected. Quote The goal of making an example of Mance is perfectly achieved by burning the fake Mance. It's not "perfectly" achieved if the real Mance is around to reveal that was a sham, which is what happens. Quote At the same time, the law is upheld to all appearances - so would-be deserters are warned. Perhaps Davos could have just pretended to have lost his fingers. Quote The kingsblood goal has obviously ceased to be a goal since Melisandre is absolutely on board with letting Mance live. Ceased to be a goal for Stannis, or just for Melisandre? Stannis was tricked into thinking the ritual of burning the leeches with Edric Storm's blood actually killed three "false kings". Melisandre knows their deaths were already foreordained via her visions. Jon doesn't know that (unlike us), but he does know Melisandre is from Asshai rather than Westeros and thus has no attachment to Westerosi laws & traditions related to the NW. Quote since she is the red witch, Stannis probably does not argue with her on matters of magic We know that's just not true, and that he did argue with her about sacrificing Edric Storm (until the leeches worked). We also know that it's hardly unprecedented for a king's advisors to sing a different tune when the king is not around, for they are not always on the same page. Quote Therefore, burning the fake Mance has become enough to satisfy the practical goal, while keeping Mance alive means his knowledge of the Others can still be obtained - another practical consideration. Stannis didn't suggest anything of the sort when Jon objected, nor is he privately confiding in him now on the decision he's supposedly made. Stannis himself is not making use of the real Mance, rather Jon is to rescue his sister. Quote Stannis knows there is going to be another war, and he clearly is ready to deploy almost any weapon and use any resources to secure victory. Would he be willing to promise the Lannisters to give up his own claim in exchange for them supporting the war against the Others? Quote Why would Stannis mock Jon by giving him such a worthless gift? Is Stannis known for being a thoughtful gift-giver that everyone likes? Or is he known for being deliberately unpleasant much of the time and insisting that everyone else has to put up with him because he's in the right? "I gave you Rattleshirt. Be content with him." Quote This is very much like the Stannis who both punished and rewarded the Onion Knight at the same time. He did that openly. Quote punishment for supporting the cause of a deserter Doesn't Stannis punish people openly rather than covertly? Is he a subtle man? Quote It is also quite likely that the order was that the man's true identity was not to be revealed to Jon while Stannis was still in Castle Black. Why can't Stannis privately reveal the truth to Jon, as Melisandre did? Quote then gifted the surviving, real Mance, all his skills and knowledge That was Jon's argument to Stannis for not killing Mance, but instead making use of him. But if Stannis is "gifting" Mance, then he himself is not getting any such use. Melisandre swapping them out purely helps out Jon (and secretly subverts Stannis' upholding of the law) rather than Stannis. Quote as well as all future responsibility for him to Jon Snow. If the glamour is ever revealed, then the buck doesn't stop with Jon at all. Stannis is revealed as a fraud for supposedly executing Mance and can no longer be said to have "publicly upheld the law". 22 hours ago, Julia H. said: in our real world, there are languages that are spoken in several countries, and the religion may also be the same or similar, yet the people define themselves in accordance with their respective countries as different nations (with common origin). Do you mean like how German is also spoken in Austria, parts of Switzerland & Luxembourg? The Austro-fascists had a difficult time defining themselves as separate from Germany on the thin reed of Catholicism, which is why so many supported the Anschluss. They are separate now because the victors of WW2 didn't want to permit Germany to be that large again. Quote Anyway... do you want to say Northerners and wildlings are the same nation / ethnic group still? I think the notion of a nation/ethnic group doesn't travel very well to this fictional world. The Dornish are the closest thing to a proto-nation, but even they don't speak a distinct language. Quote The Old Tongue was the language of all First Men. It was, and logically in the present the Northerners should be speaking members of a language family descended from that. But instead they picked up the Andal language (which, again, should have fragmented over time) because it was more convenient for GRRM (who is not a linguist like Tolkien) to write it that way. Quote That (some groups of) the wildlings have also learned or adopted this other language is the result of continued interactions. So GRRM gave them the same language twice: first their common ancestral language (as one ethnic group), then the same adopted language because communication continued between them despite the divergent political development. "Communication" is not sufficient for a community to adopt an entirely different language. There's communication across the French & German borders, and the lack of geographic barriers makes them genetically indistinguishable (at least by current methods), but the French speak a Romance language (like the former Roman subjects there picked up) while the Germans speak a... German one. GRRM again just wanted to simplify things. Quote No, it isn't, because it is defence against a magical, non-human enemy. If a magical inhuman enemy suddenly appeared in our world, the actual militaries of our world would respond to fulfill their ordinary military functions. The purpose of defense does not depend on who the defense is to be against. Quote But it wasn't always like this, otherwise it wouldn't be still an honourable option for the son of a nobleman to join voluntarily. No, voluntary enlistment can exist alongside involuntary drafting. If you've ever watched Oliver Stone's autobiographical Platoon, some of the draftees laugh at his upper-class standin for enlisting out of noblesse oblige, but it's what he really did. Quote The NW is concerned with the raiders only, but besides raiders there can be trade and marriage among ordinary smallfolk What marriages have existed? Quote there could be occasional refugees who cross the Wall to avoid their overlord's justice and so on When do we hear of such people? The closest thing would be Bran being let through by Sam (and the pitch letter having Catelyn go as well when the NW can't give her refuge themselves). Quote which means that the communication / intermarriage between them was intensive. There is nothing unrealistic about that. I've mentioned France vs Germany and the many languages of Papua New Guinea (which is closer to the wildling situation since they didn't develop states). I recall you said you'd studied languages, so give me an example of something like this happening. Quote They have been at war, but wars can be ended, and former enemies can become allies, especially when it is in their mutual interest. They have repeatedly attacked the Wall, and never contributed to its upkeep. The wildlings don't even have a central government, so there is no authority to sign any kind of binding peace treaty. Quote They belong to their own realm Not a single "realm", they are fragmented into many tribes. Quote stopping a global natural disaster would be a better analogy. The Wall is a defensive military structure. Counteracting the cold would seem to require maintaining a source of magical fire instead. Quote Yes, that's what we have heard. It does not mean that they cannot have some other motivation as well. You are imagining something not actually indicated by the text when the text itself gives a sufficient explanation for what we observe. If a reader has no need of your hypothesis, they can discard it. Quote No, the NW has its post on the Wall and protects humanity there. If the Others have a navy to cross the Narrow Sea, they can already get around the Wall. Quote The Wall that divides them didn't always exist. There was no such territory as "the North" prior to that. It's called that because it's the northernmost area south of the Wall. The Wall was created defend against the Others, and it's not positioned that far south by mistake. Quote Not any kind of a villain. Yes, I said he's a tragic hero. I was contrasting it with characters I was discussing in another thread who are, to me, not only villains but clear villains. Quote And it is made entirely clear several times that the priorities of the NW as an institution are not what they should be. Those priorities are not sticking up for Jon's family and fighting his family's enemies, however much Jon would like them to be. Their priorities are the ones that have permitted them to persist for thousands of years so some people (even if they're fewer than they should be) can defend the Wall. Quote Jon, on the other hand, sacrificed his love for Ygritte He only entered into a relationship with her after he joined the NW, thus breaking his vows (although he was obeying orders to do so). Ygritte is killed by someone else. Quote He betrayed Aerys out of a moral necessity. If he was motivated by morality, he could have done it earlier. He made his decision when he was ordered to kill his own father. Quote Yet, he remained in the Kingsguard even when he could have left it KG serve for life, they can't just leave when they feel like it. Quote Oathkeeping has its place among human values, but it is not the single most important one. It is to organizations those oaths are sworn to. Quote What we do know is that the wildlings have rejected the "kneeler" lifestyle and social structure That social structure permits the maintenance of the Wall, which they repeatedly attacked. Quote They have not always supported the NW More like "never". Quote the historical event when the King of Winter and the King-beyond-the-Wall joined forces to free the Watch from the bondage imposed on them by the Night's King The wildlings opposing the LC of the NW is normal. What's unusual is the Starks opposing the LC as well because he's a villain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kierria Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 On 12/28/2021 at 2:29 PM, Odej said: Reading some posts about Jon Snow's attitudes as Lord Commander I realized that many people don't agree with Jon killing Janos Slynt and that made me curious. I always thought Jon's attitude was correct. Janos disrespected and disobeyed him publicly, letting his behavior go unpunished would make Jon weak in front of his subordinates. In an environment like the Wall, how to respect a leader whom an underling can curse and disobey him without serious consequences? Especially considering how many men who serve on the Wall were thieves, rapists and murderers. What do you guys think of Jon's decision? Slynt deserved another chance. Jon received what basically amounted to forgiveness for attempted desertion of his post and the physical attack of his training officer. Slynt deserved the same forgiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia H. Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 On 1/29/2022 at 2:47 AM, Lord Varys said: But as an institution they are bound to that landmark. It might be that they are, say, five days older than the Wall since the vow talks about 'the watchers on the walls' not 'the watchers on the Wall' but without the Wall the NW would be pretty much nothing. They have no jurisdiction outside their meager lands, no right to interfere with other people's walls, etc. I was pointing out the difference between an object and an organization consisting of people. On 1/29/2022 at 2:47 AM, Lord Varys said: If we want to speculate about ancient times then the Others not being mentioned in the vows is as intriguing a fact as the whole 'realms of men' thing, no? Talking of speculation, it is possible that the name "the Others" is not the "real" or "original" name of the Others, but that there was a taboo against mentioning them by their own name, and that's how they came to be known as the "Others", any other name they could be known by being forgotten. After all, the name of the Night's King has also been forgotten. On 1/29/2022 at 2:47 AM, Lord Varys said: And who knows - perhaps all people can technically become Others, so they could live happily ever after in that state? That would be quite a twist, but it cannot be ruled out. However, if it is so, then there is something to say for the people who managed to stay human (as a group) beyond the Wall for thousands of years. On 1/29/2022 at 2:47 AM, Lord Varys said: We don't know the details of his deal, nor what the Others actually intend to do to all humanity or what place for their pets/worshippers might still be there once they have accomplished what they want. I certainly don't expect that they will keep their word, of course, but it isn't my place to tell people in-universe what they should do about the Others or what they should hope when they make a pact with them. We should also not fool ourselves into believing Craster is somewhat special or weird - he has pretty strong ties to the Watch, after all. His knowledge about the Others and his decision to contact them must come from the wildling side of the family, not the NW tradition. And to be clear - the wildlings are no single people. There are many different clans and tribes and peoples beyond the Wall. Many of the more northern and eastern folks in Mance's vast armies appear to be very strange - there are the Hornfoots who seem to be a human sub-species with different feet, the cave-dwellers with their painted faces, strange gods, and filed teeth, the cannibalistic Ice River clans, the obscure Nightrunners, the Frozen Shore people who are said to worship gods of snow and ice which could be the Others, the Thenns, etc. We know only a few individual wildlings and most of them seem to have lived in the southernmost parts of the Lands Beyond the Wall. Lots of different groups, yes, but we know that most (or many) of them flee the Others, instead of making a pact with them. Sure, for all we know, there can be any number of humans still staying happily in the Far North, but if it is so, we don't know anything about them. We are discussing the wildlings we have seen in the books, no? On 1/29/2022 at 2:47 AM, Lord Varys said: Joramun joined with the Starks to deal with the Night's King, not all the wildlings. Vice versa, just because one LC of the NW worshipped the Others (and possibly married one) doesn't mean all LCs of the NW do worship the Others, no? Joramun being a king probably means that he did not join with the Starks as a single person, however, what really matters, I think, is the message of this historical fact in that it provides a precedent for the Starks and the wildlings cooperating against the Others (even if it was only the Night's King). The point is not the actual numbers, but that there is this historical episode, which can be quite relevant with regard to the present, and it is clearly not about the wildlings supporting the Others or the Night's King against the Watch. On 1/29/2022 at 2:47 AM, Lord Varys said: It is, however, pretty obvious that people living in the very lands of the Others, lands where they can come and go as they please, where they are not hindered by a magical barrier ... are more likely to end up making alliances and pacts with the Others than the people in the lands south of the Wall where the Others cannot go. But we have only seen one wildling feeling "safe"due to a pact with the Others, while we have seen thousands flee from them. That should mean something, either that such pact is not readily available to everyone or that these people do not want to make a pact with the Others. It is easy to assume that the wildlings ended up beyond the Wall because their ancestors chose to worship the Others, and it is certainly a possibility, but not the only one. What if their ancestors had been the captives of the Others and taken to the Far North for whatever purpose, and perhaps they only managed to free themselves well after the Long Night had ended, and by that time there was a huge Wall built across the continent, so they were stuck north of the Wall? This could be a (by now forgotten) reason why they call themselves the "Free Folk". It is even possible that another group remained the Others' slaves - the not so free folk - who have also been forgotten by now even by the free folk beyond the Wall. There are several possibilities regarding their history and their relationship with the Others. On 1/29/2022 at 2:47 AM, Lord Varys said: Considering that the wildling way of life isn't the life of the docile peasant, it makes sense why people doubt they will stick to the Gift. But, of course, technically the Watch should be allowed to settle whatever people they want on their own lands. As long as they can control them so that they do not attack their neighbors in the south. I certainly expect some wildlings to stand with Jon/the Watch against the Others. But not all of them. They ran once when they abandoned their homes, and they will run again when the Others start to really threaten the Wall. They know what those beings are capable of. They tried to fight them and they failed. That's totally reasonable to expect. Some of them will fight, some will not. Some will integrate into the North more easily, and some will cause trouble. But the people born south of the Wall will be the same. Some of them will fight against the Others, while some will flee. Some of them will help their fellow humans to survive, and some will take advantage of their fellow humans' tragedy. As for whether the wildlings would want to stick to the Gift, it is a legitimate concern, especially in times of peace (Jon demands hostages from the families to make them more likely to stick with their end of the agreement), but right now, the other option could well be that they all arrive as wights, and that would not be in anyone's interest. At least some of the wildlings will probably give up their wildling lifestyle quite happily when they can have a plot of land to call their own (if only for the total novelty of this lifestyle), but before that, spring / summer needs to come. In the meantime, the not so docile can make themselves useful as warriors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 12 minutes ago, Julia H. said: I was pointing out the difference between an object and an organization consisting of people. Yeah, but I'd say that they are pretty much linked. Without the NW the Wall could no longer exist and vice versa. 12 minutes ago, Julia H. said: Talking of speculation, it is possible that the name "the Others" is not the "real" or "original" name of the Others, but that there was a taboo against mentioning them by their own name, and that's how they came to be known as the "Others", any other name they could be known by being forgotten. After all, the name of the Night's King has also been forgotten. I'd expect that 'the Others' is a shortened version of 'the Other Men' or 'the Other People' - the original First Men must have known or eventually figured out that the Others were the male children they handed over to them ... or that were violently taking from them by the Children who created the first Others. I mean, if Craster's wives know what the Others are then the ancient folks fighting them would have known that, too. 12 minutes ago, Julia H. said: That would be quite a twist, but it cannot be ruled out. However, if it is so, then there is something to say for the people who managed to stay human (as a group) beyond the Wall for thousands of years. I don't think this will become the solution to resolve the problem, but if male infants can become Others then the next question to ask is 'can other humans also become Others, i.e. girls, adults of both sexes, etc.'. The text very much implies the Others were gone for a very long time. If they had always been in the lands beyond the Wall south of the Lands of Always Winter the wildlings would have been long gone, the NW would have never forgotten the Others, etc. 12 minutes ago, Julia H. said: Lots of different groups, yes, but we know that most (or many) of them flee the Others, instead of making a pact with them. Sure, for all we know, there can be any number of humans still staying happily in the Far North, but if it is so, we don't know anything about them. We are discussing the wildlings we have seen in the books, no? It is not that easy. Mance Rayder took over all the wildlings in his army. He decided that he and his people didn't stand a chance against the Others and he, with his knowledge of the soutern lands, decided he and his people would be safer south of the Wall. Anyone who ended up accepting Mance's overlordship - either voluntarily or because they were forced - would have to go through with his plans, especially if they were attractive for most of their own people. You cannot be a lord without subjects, or a chieftain without a clan/tribe. I expect that many of Mance's folks - especially those in the far north - openly or secretly worshipped the Others and offered their children as sacrifices to them ... but that doesn't mean that they enjoyed that status quo or wanted to maintain it after Mance provided them with an alternative. This would of course be something they wouldn't talk about among their own or with outsiders - whatever a wildling village does to survive while in the grip of a years-long winter would only concern themselves. They would also not talk about who they decided to cannibalize to survive extreme circumstances. Craster continues to stick with the Others because he doesn't want to take Mance as his king. He wants to have no mortal overlord ... which means he has to espouse the Others as his gods. How many Crasters were there before they decided to abandon the Others for Mance? We don't know. 12 minutes ago, Julia H. said: Joramun being a king probably means that he did not join with the Starks as a single person, however, what really matters, I think, is the message of this historical fact in that it provides a precedent for the Starks and the wildlings cooperating against the Others (even if it was only the Night's King). The point is not the actual numbers, but that there is this historical episode, which can be quite relevant with regard to the present, and it is clearly not about the wildlings supporting the Others or the Night's King against the Watch. They stood together against the Night's King, not the Others ... and we don't know what Joramun's issues with the Night's King were - but one would imagine that it had to do more with the Night's King reign of terror which also affected the wildlings in their lands than with the Night's King religious beliefs. Keep in mind that aside from the stories about 'his corpse queen' there is no indication that the Others or their wights were with the Night's King at the Wall. Instead, it seems the guy established a terror regime which endangered both the people south and north of the Wall. Which is something that might have had more to do with the military power the LC of the NW controlled in those days than the Others or 'black magic' in general. 12 minutes ago, Julia H. said: But we have only seen one wildling feeling "safe"due to a pact with the Others, while we have seen thousands flee from them. That should mean something, either that such pact is not readily available to everyone or that these people do not want to make a pact with the Others. Whatever safety the Others offer comes with sacrificing your male children. That's not a pact people would generally call a good deal. If you offer them a better alternative people are very likely to take it. 12 minutes ago, Julia H. said: It is easy to assume that the wildlings ended up beyond the Wall because their ancestors chose to worship the Others, and it is certainly a possibility, but not the only one. What if their ancestors had been the captives of the Others and taken to the Far North for whatever purpose, and perhaps they only managed to free themselves well after the Long Night had ended, and by that time there was a huge Wall built across the continent, so they were stuck north of the Wall? Such a scenario is completely unsupported by our knowledge so far. The Others don't seem to be making prisoners, nor do they relocate entire populations. Also, you have to keep in mind that the Long Night affected the entire world, including the south of Westeros. We have no clue how far down south the Others drove the First Men during the Long Night, where the Last Hero lived, etc. The idea that people could have survived the Long Night in the far north is not very likely ... unless we assume they were servants of the Others and safe from the extreme cold, the wights, etc. The Wall was clearly built at a place where the landmass of Westeros was narrow enough to establish it. What we can see the wildlings ancestors to be is either descendants of folks who worshipped the Others (which can also include many of the First Men living south of where the Wall would once stand, of course) and/or descendants of people who were driven out of what would eventually become the North or chose to leave because they would not bow to the rule of the Starks or any of the other petty kings extending their territories. Thus they would be more or less the same as 'the wildlings' of the Mountains of the Moon whose ancestors were driven there by the victorious Andals. In fact, it would make sense to assume that the 'free folk' attitude, the contempt of kneelers, etc. comes from the exiles who were unwilling to accept the rulership of the lords and kings who rose to power after the Long Night. The wildling lands still are attractive to people who try to escape authority, and one imagines that this only works because a constant influx of exiles and malcontents from the south keeps that attitude alive. 12 minutes ago, Julia H. said: That's totally reasonable to expect. Some of them will fight, some will not. Some will integrate into the North more easily, and some will cause trouble. But the people born south of the Wall will be the same. Some of them will fight against the Others, while some will flee. Some of them will help their fellow humans to survive, and some will take advantage of their fellow humans' tragedy. Yes, but the wildlings are only allowed south as refugees. The situation is dire in the Seven Kingdoms already, and no peasant or man-at-arms in the Seven Kingdoms is expected to fight the Others. The wildlings who made their deals with the Watch are expected to do this, and in light of their unwillingness to defend their own homes and lands earlier I'm not holding my breath that they will stand to help defend a Wall most of them actually hate. 12 minutes ago, Julia H. said: As for whether the wildlings would want to stick to the Gift, it is a legitimate concern, especially in times of peace (Jon demands hostages from the families to make them more likely to stick with their end of the agreement), but right now, the other option could well be that they all arrive as wights, and that would not be in anyone's interest. At least some of the wildlings will probably give up their wildling lifestyle quite happily when they can have a plot of land to call their own (if only for the total novelty of this lifestyle), but before that, spring / summer needs to come. In the meantime, the not so docile can make themselves useful as warriors. If I were a wildling I'd actually have great trouble to shiver and freeze on that Wall, defending a landmark and an institution I grew up to hate with a passion. Now that I'm south of the Wall I'm free of this Wall. I could take my family and friends and go as far south as south goes. I could see this Dorne where winter itself is just mild rain, apparently, so why on earth should I freeze off my balls and risk my very life just so that fat lordlings in those Seven Kingdoms don't have to? If I accept the abstract general threat the Others pose I might agree that *somebody*, perhaps even I, should fight them. But my entire cultural identity emphasizes personal freedom and independence over loyalty to higher ideals, so chances are not that good that I'd view things like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia H. Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: In your mind, based on info Jon doesn't have. That's a bit rich, when I quoted Melisandre's exact words to Jon and everything that Stannis said to Jon as well. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: There's no indication Stannis himself believes that (or even that she believes Stannis belives that). Melisandre is using the justification that Jon already gave & Stannis rejected. I pointed out why it is very likely. The logical implication in Melisandre's words is that Stannis accepted Jon's argument. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: It's not "perfectly" achieved if the real Mance is around to reveal that was a sham, which is what happens. Mance was wearing Melisandre's ruby, so it is possible that Stannis had some reassurance that this would not happen. And currently, the blame is put on Jon, not on Stannis, even though he had nothing to do with the fake Mance. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Perhaps Davos could have just pretended to have lost his fingers. That would not have served the interests of Stannis. But Stannis is capable of deceit and hypocrisy - his "Lightbringer" is proof of that, also the whole shadow baby business, his secret extra-marital affair with Melisandre. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Ceased to be a goal for Stannis, or just for Melisandre? Stannis was tricked into thinking the ritual of burning the leeches with Edric Storm's blood actually killed three "false kings". Melisandre knows their deaths were already foreordained via her visions. Jon doesn't know that (unlike us), but he does know Melisandre is from Asshai rather than Westeros and thus has no attachment to Westerosi laws & traditions related to the NW. We know that's just not true, and that he did argue with her about sacrificing Edric Storm (until the leeches worked). We also know that it's hardly unprecedented for a king's advisors to sing a different tune when the king is not around, for they are not always on the same page. Stannis argued with Melisandre about Edric Storm because he was reluctant to sacrifice a kid (and a kinsman) at the stake - at least until he was given proof that it would work oh, so well. But he does not argue with Melisandre about how magic works. If Melisandre tells him that Mance's blood would not be good enough for R'hllor, what can Stannis say against that? On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Stannis didn't suggest anything of the sort when Jon objected, nor is he privately confiding in him now on the decision he's supposedly made. Stannis himself is not making use of the real Mance, rather Jon is to rescue his sister. Stannis does not have to confide in Jon when he makes a decision. Keeping information to himself means an advantage he does not give up unless it is necessary. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Would he be willing to promise the Lannisters to give up his own claim in exchange for them supporting the war against the Others? LOL, didn't I say "almost" any means? Obviously, by "victory" Stannis means his own victory. He is willing to fight for the realm but not selflessly as Jon Snow does. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Is Stannis known for being a thoughtful gift-giver that everyone likes? Or is he known for being deliberately unpleasant much of the time and insisting that everyone else has to put up with him because he's in the right? "I gave you Rattleshirt. Be content with him." But giving Jon Rattleshirt does not make sense. Giving him Mance does. And it's an awfully big coincidence if Stannis has no idea who "Rattleshirt" is. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: He did that openly. Once. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Doesn't Stannis punish people openly rather than covertly? Is he a subtle man? He is cunning. He does things openly and he does things secretly, as it suits him. There is nothing too "subtle" about it. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Why can't Stannis privately reveal the truth to Jon, as Melisandre did? Because he does not need to. Besides, in this way, when Jon finds out the truth, it will be Jon's responsibility to decide whether the deserter is to be executed or not, since Stannis will not be there. This worked so well that even many of the fandom keep accusing Jon of letting Mance live instead of punishing him as though the whole switch had been Jon's idea. Between Melisandre and Jon, Stannis can wash his hands of the deception. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: That was Jon's argument to Stannis for not killing Mance, but instead making use of him. But if Stannis is "gifting" Mance, then he himself is not getting any such use. Melisandre swapping them out purely helps out Jon (and secretly subverts Stannis' upholding of the law) rather than Stannis. But Stannis and Jon are allies, and Stannis realizes that Jon will be holding the Wall while he is away fighting the Ironborn and the Boltons. So why not give him some help? On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: If the glamour is ever revealed, then the buck doesn't stop with Jon at all. Stannis is revealed as a fraud for supposedly executing Mance and can no longer be said to have "publicly upheld the law". Unless it's Jon who gets the ultimate blame. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Do you mean like how German is also spoken in Austria, parts of Switzerland & Luxembourg? German, English, Spanish and other languages spoken in several different countries by peoples with their own national identities. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: I think the notion of a nation/ethnic group doesn't travel very well to this fictional world. The Dornish are the closest thing to a proto-nation, but even they don't speak a distinct language. Right, call the difference / similarity between the Northerners and the wildlings whatever you want to. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: It was, and logically in the present the Northerners should be speaking members of a language family descended from that. But instead they picked up the Andal language (which, again, should have fragmented over time) because it was more convenient for GRRM (who is not a linguist like Tolkien) to write it that way. For some reason the Andal influence was strong enough for their language to become the official language even in the North. It was a process that may have taken six thousands of years to happen, a time period that real life language historians cannot really look back on. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: GRRM again just wanted to simplify things. Perhaps he wanted. But he would hardly have wanted to simplify things if the result had been contrary to his larger purpose. If he had wanted to emphasize the difference and the barriers between the wildlings and the northerners, he could have given them different languages and different religions. I wouldn't presume to say what the author "wanted" though. Whether by design or by mistake, the wildlings and the Northerners used to speak the same language and changed that old language to the same new language, and kept the same common religion. All that makes them strongly connected. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: If a magical inhuman enemy suddenly appeared in our world, the actual militaries of our world would respond to fulfill their ordinary military functions. The purpose of defense does not depend on who the defense is to be against. Come on now. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: No, voluntary enlistment can exist alongside involuntary drafting. If it is involuntary drafting for a lifetime, not just for a limited amount of time (however long), with no glory or other gains offered, then it's a slave or prison institution, and no, not an honourable option for young nobles who have committed nothing wrong. It is clearly shown by the recent decline of the Watch. A few noble houses still hold the Watch in enough respect to send a son there sometimes, but it is only for the historical reputation of the Watch. For most, it's hardly an option to consider. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: What marriages have existed? Don't they complain that the wilding raiders steal girls? At the same time, we know that stealing is the actual wilding wedding ceremony. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: When do we hear of such people? The closest thing would be Bran being let through by Sam (and the pitch letter having Catelyn go as well when the NW can't give her refuge themselves). Thanks for the examples. Why wouldn't there be such people? Noble ones can afford to go as far as Essos (like Jorah), smallfolk, however, can't pay for the voyage overseas, but can climb the Wall when they are in trouble. Crows also leave the Watch sometimes and join the wildlings. Why not ordinary people? On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: I've mentioned France vs Germany and the many languages of Papua New Guinea (which is closer to the wildling situation since they didn't develop states). I recall you said you'd studied languages, so give me an example of something like this happening. That many thousands of years of coexistence, spent in a predominantly oral culture, led to the people speaking a common language? Where is France and Germany with their short history compared to that? On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: They have repeatedly attacked the Wall, and never contributed to its upkeep. The wildlings don't even have a central government, so there is no authority to sign any kind of binding peace treaty. Which is why they do not sign anything but have other means to make an agreement. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Not a single "realm", they are fragmented into many tribes. Well, those who follow the same king can be considered to be part of the same "realm". There are tribes and other fragmented groups in the Seven Kingdoms as well, and yet you consider this country a realm. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: The Wall is a defensive military structure. Counteracting the cold would seem to require maintaining a source of magical fire instead. The Long Night comes with the Others, and the purpose of the Wall is to prevent their invasion. The Long Night doesn't only mean cold, it also means lack of sunshine, lack of light, lack of food, lack of proper water supply. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: You are imagining something not actually indicated by the text when the text itself gives a sufficient explanation for what we observe. If a reader has no need of your hypothesis, they can discard it. You forget that the series is not yet finished. There are plenty of things that have not been indicated by the text but still are parts of the story, yet to be revealed. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: If the Others have a navy to cross the Narrow Sea, they can already get around the Wall. Something happened in Essos because they also have stories of a Long Night. The Others don't need to sail, if the sea gets frozen, they can cross on foot. Or maybe it was simply the night and the cold that was extended to Essos, but it does seem sure that Essos was and can again be affected by a Long Night, therefore preventing the Long Night wherever it starts protects them as well. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: Those priorities are not sticking up for Jon's family and fighting his family's enemies, however much Jon would like them to be. Their priorities are the ones that have permitted them to persist for thousands of years so some people (even if they're fewer than they should be) can defend the Wall. Yet, it is repeatedly said that the Watch has forgotten the true purpose and how to fight for it. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: He only entered into a relationship with her after he joined the NW, thus breaking his vows (although he was obeying orders to do so). Ygritte is killed by someone else. I didn't say Jon killed Ygritte. But he did leave her behind to return to the Watch even though he was sincerely in love with her. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: If he was motivated by morality, he could have done it earlier. He made his decision when he was ordered to kill his own father. That's a kind of moral necessity, given the strong prohibition against kinslaying. He would have been cursed if he had done it. You don't believe the wildfire thing really factored into his decision? On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: KG serve for life, they can't just leave when they feel like it. I know that, but there was a point where Jaime could have done it - after Joffrey had sacked Barristan, when Tywin was at the peak of his power and wanted Jaime to leave the KG, when Jaime had already lost his hand. Not everyone would have approved, but the Lannisters were mostly past that point by then. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: It is to organizations those oaths are sworn to. But it's individuals who decide to keep or break the oaths, not the organizations. On 1/29/2022 at 11:09 PM, FictionIsntReal said: The wildlings opposing the LC of the NW is normal. What's unusual is the Starks opposing the LC as well because he's a villain. Yet, if the wildlings are Other-worshippers, shouldn't they either support or at least leave alone an Other-worshipper with great magical power? By bringing down the Night's King, the Watch was freed, and that was part of the story as well - and that's what the wildlings helped to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia H. Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: I mean, if Craster's wives know what the Others are then the ancient folks fighting them would have known that, too. Yes, though I'm not totally sure that they figured it out correctly. I mean it is possible, but it could also be some kind of self-deception. Perhaps they want to reassure themselves that their children are still alive and well. 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: I expect that many of Mance's folks - especially those in the far north - openly or secretly worshipped the Others and offered their children as sacrifices to them ... but that doesn't mean that they enjoyed that status quo or wanted to maintain it after Mance provided them with an alternative. That's absolutely possible, but I cannot blame them for doing that while they had no alternative - it is like the Others were imposing a terrible kind of tax system on them - and it is all the more important that they accepted an alternative solution when it was offered. 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: Craster continues to stick with the Others because he doesn't want to take Mance as his king. He wants to have no mortal overlord ... which means he has to espouse the Others as his gods. How many Crasters were there before they decided to abandon the Others for Mance? We don't know. Ygritte calls Craster cursed and says he is not really like the wildlings, and it shows a moral attitude towards Craster's practices. 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: They stood together against the Night's King, not the Others ... and we don't know what Joramun's issues with the Night's King were - but one would imagine that it had to do more with the Night's King reign of terror which also affected the wildlings in their lands than with the Night's King religious beliefs. I think that in this story the Night's King is a symbolic stand-in for the Others, there is a reason why it is mentioned that he sacrificed to them, and it gives an example where wildlings and Starks can fight together rather than against each other. 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: Whatever safety the Others offer comes with sacrificing your male children. That's not a pact people would generally call a good deal. If you offer them a better alternative people are very likely to take it. Exactly. Craster had a choice, which makes him different from those who may have been forced to give the Others what they wanted with no alternatives. Also, a population where sacrificing all male baby children is the norm is not likely to survive for long. 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: Such a scenario is completely unsupported by our knowledge so far. The Others don't seem to be making prisoners, nor do they relocate entire populations. It has as much ground as the one where the wilding ancestors are Other-worshippers. Possibilities, nothing more. The Others take human children from Craster, so they may have taken some humans during the Long Night as well. 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: Also, you have to keep in mind that the Long Night affected the entire world, including the south of Westeros. We have no clue how far down south the Others drove the First Men during the Long Night, where the Last Hero lived, etc. The idea that people could have survived the Long Night in the far north is not very likely ... unless we assume they were servants of the Others and safe from the extreme cold, the wights, etc. Servants or captives or slaves. 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: or descendants of people who were driven out of what would eventually become the North or chose to leave because they would not bow to the rule of the Starks or any of the other petty kings extending their territories. Thus they would be more or less the same as 'the wildlings' of the Mountains of the Moon whose ancestors were driven there by the victorious Andals. In fact, it would make sense to assume that the 'free folk' attitude, the contempt of kneelers, etc. comes from the exiles who were unwilling to accept the rulership of the lords and kings who rose to power after the Long Night. I agree that it is very possible. 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: The wildling lands still are attractive to people who try to escape authority, and one imagines that this only works because a constant influx of exiles and malcontents from the south keeps that attitude alive. I agree with this, too. 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: Yes, but the wildlings are only allowed south as refugees. The situation is dire in the Seven Kingdoms already, and no peasant or man-at-arms in the Seven Kingdoms is expected to fight the Others. The wildlings who made their deals with the Watch are expected to do this, and in light of their unwillingness to defend their own homes and lands earlier I'm not holding my breath that they will stand to help defend a Wall most of them actually hate. 1 hour ago, Lord Varys said: If I were a wildling I'd actually have great trouble to shiver and freeze on that Wall, defending a landmark and an institution I grew up to hate with a passion. Now that I'm south of the Wall I'm free of this Wall. I could take my family and friends and go as far south as south goes. I could see this Dorne where winter itself is just mild rain, apparently, so why on earth should I freeze off my balls and risk my very life just so that fat lordlings in those Seven Kingdoms don't have to? If I accept the abstract general threat the Others pose I might agree that *somebody*, perhaps even I, should fight them. But my entire cultural identity emphasizes personal freedom and independence over loyalty to higher ideals, so chances are not that good that I'd view things like that. Perhaps, but again, they are all sorts of people. Some will find it easier to integrate. Some will have more courage to fight when there is a magical Wall between them and the Others. Some may want to take revenge for loved ones killed by the Others. Some may stay because of the hostage they gave or the promise theymade. Some may come from so far North, that the Gift may seem to them to be a summer paradise. Some may have come from so far away that they have hardly heard about the Wall or the Watch, so they feel no hatred for them. It is very realistic that there will be also those who will not want to fight or those who just want to go as far South as possible. But at least they are not wights, fighting for the Others, and, of course, they'll experience the bitter realization that the Long Night is coming after them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 50 minutes ago, Julia H. said: Yes, though I'm not totally sure that they figured it out correctly. I mean it is possible, but it could also be some kind of self-deception. Perhaps they want to reassure themselves that their children are still alive and well. There is no intention that they had to 'figure it out'. They live with Craster, are his daughter-wives, likely are participating in whatever interactions Craster does have with the Others. The idea that the people who have firsthand knowledge about a pact with the Others are mistaken about the nature of that pact is very unlikely. 50 minutes ago, Julia H. said: That's absolutely possible, but I cannot blame them for doing that while they had no alternative - it is like the Others were imposing a terrible kind of tax system on them - and it is all the more important that they accepted an alternative solution when it was offered. I'm not sure anyone is blaming them for anything. I certainly don't. 50 minutes ago, Julia H. said: Ygritte calls Craster cursed and says he is not really like the wildlings, and it shows a moral attitude towards Craster's practices. We don't know what Ygritte knows about Craster's deal with the Others. She seems to know about his incest thing and condemns him for that. At his core, though, Craster is very much a wildling, caring only about himself and his own to the point that he can afford it. He is free of any mortal authority above him ... and it seems that his deal with the Others ensured that. His Keep doesn't need walls or fences, folks apparently know better than to try to steal from him. 50 minutes ago, Julia H. said: I think that in this story the Night's King is a symbolic stand-in for the Others, there is a reason why it is mentioned that he sacrificed to them, and it gives an example where wildlings and Starks can fight together rather than against each other. The Night's King is only very loosely connected to the Others. We hear he worshipped them, so we can expect him having sacrificed people to them ... but there is no indication that any actual Others were with him at the Wall. Else he would have likely just allowed them to pass through. 50 minutes ago, Julia H. said: Exactly. Craster had a choice, which makes him different from those who may have been forced to give the Others what they wanted with no alternatives. Also, a population where sacrificing all male baby children is the norm is not likely to survive for long. We don't have to assume that the Others always demanded all the male children from folks they made pacts with. It is clear that the Others are pushing Craster to sacrifice more and more since he apparently has no living animals left when the NW return to him. And we also have to see things in context - the Others are making their big move now. Twenty or hundred years ago it may have been different. 50 minutes ago, Julia H. said: It has as much ground as the one where the wilding ancestors are Other-worshippers. Possibilities, nothing more. The Others take human children from Craster, so they may have taken some humans during the Long Night as well. We have one case of an Others-worshipping wildling. We can extrapolate from that precedent and from what we know about the deities of some of the weirder wildlings. We have no textual evidence that the Others ever took any prisoners. 50 minutes ago, Julia H. said: Servants or captives or slaves. Again, no indications the Others need such people. They demand sacrifices which they seem to turn into their own and they turn human corpses into their thralls ... but they seem to have no need whatsoever for living adult humans. George even went as far as to reveal that the Others have 'no culture', so we cannot really expect that living humans would have any significance to them. 50 minutes ago, Julia H. said: Perhaps, but again, they are all sorts of people. Some will find it easier to integrate. Some will have more courage to fight when there is a magical Wall between them and the Others. Some may want to take revenge for loved ones killed by the Others. Some may stay because of the hostage they gave or the promise theymade. Some may come from so far North, that the Gift may seem to them to be a summer paradise. Some may have come from so far away that they have hardly heard about the Wall or the Watch, so they feel no hatred for them. It is very realistic that there will be also those who will not want to fight or those who just want to go as far South as possible. But at least they are not wights, fighting for the Others, and, of course, they'll experience the bitter realization that the Long Night is coming after them. In context, the whole hostage thing isn't something they are likely to like. Jon Snow doesn't trust their word, he feels the need to chain them to their posts by threatening to kill their loved ones if they misbehave. That is a very bad foundation for mutual trust. And in context - the only real advantage Jon or whoever succeeds him can have from the wildlings is that the castles are manned and somebody looks for wight armies north of the Wall. The idea that these people could actually fight the living dead isn't very likely. They don't have the weapons, they don't have the armor, they don't have the discipline. Nothing indicates the NW, the wildlings or even the rest of the Northern forces could actually hold the Wall or defeat the Others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 19 hours ago, Julia H. said: The logical implication in Melisandre's words is that Stannis accepted Jon's argument. She says nothing about Stannis changing his mind. She just repeats Jon's argument that Stannis had already rejected without giving any new reason for Stannis to have changed. And it's in one of her POV chapters, so we could have gotten her remembering Stannis privately telling her he had, but we don't. She specifies that Mance owes his life to Jon, rather than Stannis, and she refers to Mance as "A gift from the Lord of Light … and me" but not from Stannis. Quote Mance was wearing Melisandre's ruby, so it is possible that Stannis had some reassurance that this would not happen. How reassured could he be in this deal he gets nothing out of? Quote And currently, the blame is put on Jon, not on Stannis Quote Your false king lied Stannis is blamed, but Ramsay thinks he's been killed. Quote even though he had nothing to do with the fake Mance Sure he did, he sent Mance after Ramsay's bride after realizing the real Mance had escaped execution! Quote That would not have served the interests of Stannis. How does Mance surviving serve his interests? Stannis isn't sending him on any mission to help him win the throne, Jon is sending him after his sister. Quote Stannis argued with Melisandre about Edric Storm because he was reluctant to sacrifice a kid (and a kinsman) at the stake Is he not going to be reluctant to permit an oathbreaker to escape punishment for his crimes? Quote If Melisandre tells him that Mance's blood would not be good enough for R'hllor, what can Stannis say against that? She'd already sacrificed people who had no claims to king's blood at all in order to obtain favorable winds to get to the Wall in the first place. If Mance's blood is no good, then neither is his son's. Is Melisandre going to say that while she earlier said there was power in such blood, they should just nevermind? Stannis & Selyse still seem to believe wildlings have royalty (despite Jon telling them otherwise), referring to Val as a "princess". Quote Stannis does not have to confide in Jon when he makes a decision. Keeping information to himself means an advantage he does not give up unless it is necessary. But if Jon is being told my Melisandre then Stannis can't be "[k]eeping information to himself"! Quote But giving Jon Rattleshirt does not make sense. Why not? If Stannis doesn't want him (and isn't obligated to execute him for oathbreaking), better to give him away. Quote And it's an awfully big coincidence if Stannis has no idea who "Rattleshirt" is. How is it a "coincidence"? Melisandre just has to glamor one as the other, then after the execution suggest handing over "Rattleshirt". Stannis wouldn't have reason to object to that. Quote Once. It's not some one-off thing. It's a defining act for his character. Quote He is cunning. What is the most cunning thing he's done? Quote it will be Jon's responsibility to decide whether the deserter is to be executed or not How would that work? Is he going to publicly execute someone who had already been publicly executed? And Jon had already argued against Stannis executing him, there's no "decision" for him to make. Quote This worked so well that even many of the fandom keep accusing Jon of letting Mance live Really cunning of Stannis to not have a private meeting giving any such assent in order to trick readers. Too bad that doesn't help him among the inhabitants of Westeros once Ramsay reveals the deception. Quote But Stannis and Jon are allies They are different people. When Stannis offers to make Jon the Lord of Winterfell, Jon refuses. Quote Unless it's Jon who gets the ultimate blame. As I quoted above, Stannis got blamed. Quote English, Spanish and other languages spoken in several different countries by peoples with their own national identities. English & Spanish spread via colonialism, and their overseas colonies later attained independence. Does that resemble how the Andal language spread north of the Wall despite the Andals being stopped at the Neck? Quote For some reason the Andal influence was strong enough for their language to become the official language even in the North For some UNSPECIFIED reason. We are given no in-universe explanation. Quote It was a process that may have taken six thousands of years to happen, a time period that real life language historians cannot really look back on. Over that amount of time you'd expect languages to diverge. The Romance languages have had less time to diverge, but Romanian isn't mutually intelligible with any other language. Quote But he would hardly have wanted to simplify things if the result had been contrary to his larger purpose. I think there can be conflicting desires: to serve a narrative purpose and to make the story easier to write. Quote If he had wanted to emphasize the difference and the barriers between the wildlings and the northerners, he could have given them different languages and different religions. The wildlings do serve "crueler gods", but the real way to emphasize their similarity would be to have both speak the Old Tongue, rather than the Andal language. Quote It is clearly shown by the recent decline of the Watch. But the vows are not "recent" (nor is the practice of sending prisoners & defeated enemies there), even if the decline is. Quote Don't they complain that the wilding raiders steal girls? And Rhaegar is known to have stolen Lyanna, but nobody in Westeros thinks they married. Quote we know that stealing is the actual wilding wedding ceremony. "Ordinary smallfolk" don't think of it that way. Quote Why wouldn't there be such people? The Wall is in the way. Quote can climb the Wall when they are in trouble Easier said than done. Quote Crows also leave the Watch sometimes and join the wildlings. Why not ordinary people? Crows can pass through gates during rangings. Quote That many thousands of years of coexistence, spent in a predominantly oral culture, led to the people speaking a common language? Where is France and Germany with their short history compared to that? France & Germany both have governments & printing presses to encourage linguistic unity. "Thousands of years" would lead to DIVERGENCE (as with Papua New Guinea), not similar languages. English was once close to Frisian, but over time and with the separation of the English Channel & North Sea it has diverged. Quote Which is why they do not sign anything but have other means to make an agreement. What means? Quote Well, those who follow the same king can be considered to be part of the same "realm". They don't really have kings like the "kneelers". There's no dynastic succession, just one charismatic man gathering together supporters temporarily (usually to attack the Wall). Hence there is no territory to be called a "realm". Quote There are tribes and other fragmented groups in the Seven Kingdoms as well, and yet you consider this country a realm. There are mountain clans in the North, but they owe fealty to the Starks. There are also such clans in the Value, but the Arryns claim authority over them. Quote lack of light Magical fire could help with that Quote There are plenty of things that have not been indicated by the text but still are parts of the story, yet to be revealed. There are in-universe mysteries that characters don't know the answer to. Here we have an explicit explanation but you want to imagine more. Quote Something happened in Essos because they also have stories of a Long Night. Stories connected to the Five Forts, far from Westeros. Quote Yet, it is repeatedly said that the Watch has forgotten the true purpose and how to fight for it. Fighting Ramsay isn't fighting the Others. Quote But he did leave her behind to return to the Watch even though he was sincerely in love with her. He left in the confusion when the direwolves attacked after he refused to kill someone. Quote You don't believe the wildfire thing really factored into his decision? I wouldn't say it was nothing, since he killed all three pyromancers (needlessly, it would seem to me, for the latter two). But he didn't join alongside Qarlton Chelsted in opposing the plan prior to Tywin sacking KL. Quote there was a point where Jaime could have done it - after Joffrey had sacked Barristan, when Tywin was at the peak of his power and wanted Jaime to leave the KG, when Jaime had already lost his hand Fair enough. I thought you were referring to the reigns of Aerys & Robert. Quote But it's individuals who decide to keep or break the oaths, not the organizations. Yes, just as it is individuals who commit crimes even while larger organizations try to punish it. Quote Yet, if the wildlings are Other-worshippers, shouldn't they either support or at least leave alone an Other-worshipper with great magical power? I don't actually know if all Other-worshippers get along. Northerners were able to fight each other while all worshipping the Old Gods, and the Faithful have fought each other as well. 19 hours ago, Julia H. said: they are all sorts of people. Some will find it easier to integrate. The anthropologist Kenneth Good married a Yanomamo woman and brought her back to New Jersey. It didn't work out very well, so she returned to her tribe in the Amazon rainforest despite having children still in NJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 19 hours ago, Lord Varys said: There is no intention that they had to 'figure it out'. They live with Craster, are his daughter-wives, likely are participating in whatever interactions Craster does have with the Others. The idea that the people who have firsthand knowledge about a pact with the Others are mistaken about the nature of that pact is very unlikely. I'm not sure anyone is blaming them for anything. I certainly don't. We don't know what Ygritte knows about Craster's deal with the Others. She seems to know about his incest thing and condemns him for that. At his core, though, Craster is very much a wildling, caring only about himself and his own to the point that he can afford it. He is free of any mortal authority above him ... and it seems that his deal with the Others ensured that. His Keep doesn't need walls or fences, folks apparently know better than to try to steal from him. The Night's King is only very loosely connected to the Others. We hear he worshipped them, so we can expect him having sacrificed people to them ... but there is no indication that any actual Others were with him at the Wall. Else he would have likely just allowed them to pass through. We don't have to assume that the Others always demanded all the male children from folks they made pacts with. It is clear that the Others are pushing Craster to sacrifice more and more since he apparently has no living animals left when the NW return to him. And we also have to see things in context - the Others are making their big move now. Twenty or hundred years ago it may have been different. We have one case of an Others-worshipping wildling. We can extrapolate from that precedent and from what we know about the deities of some of the weirder wildlings. We have no textual evidence that the Others ever took any prisoners. Again, no indications the Others need such people. They demand sacrifices which they seem to turn into their own and they turn human corpses into their thralls ... but they seem to have no need whatsoever for living adult humans. George even went as far as to reveal that the Others have 'no culture', so we cannot really expect that living humans would have any significance to them. In context, the whole hostage thing isn't something they are likely to like. Jon Snow doesn't trust their word, he feels the need to chain them to their posts by threatening to kill their loved ones if they misbehave. That is a very bad foundation for mutual trust. And in context - the only real advantage Jon or whoever succeeds him can have from the wildlings is that the castles are manned and somebody looks for wight armies north of the Wall. The idea that these people could actually fight the living dead isn't very likely. They don't have the weapons, they don't have the armor, they don't have the discipline. Nothing indicates the NW, the wildlings or even the rest of the Northern forces could actually hold the Wall or defeat the Others. I expect that like the Norns, there are some humans who adore the Others, and some interbreeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 37 minutes ago, SeanF said: I expect that like the Norns, there are some humans who adore the Others, and some interbreeding. If it turns out that the Others are an actual species procreating a mundane manner this might certainly be true. But so far there are literally no hints in that direction. Insofar as the adoring is concerned that's pretty much obvious. They are supernatural beings with great powers, so that's going to invite worship. Thinking a little bit about Craster it is actually very odd that a guy whose father was a man of the Watch - a fact that likely explains why he maintained good relations with the Watch - ends up as a worshipper of the Others. We know his mother was from Whitetree, so one imagines he must have learned his Others-worshipping there, since we cannot really assume this kind of thing just *happens to you*. One imagines that the Others started to show up even this far in the south in the depth of winter in the decades before the series. The heart tree there looks rather scary and Jon notices burned human bones in its mouth, indicating human sacrifices. It is thus certainly possible that the good people of Whitetree used the heart tree there to sacrifice to the Others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rondo Posted February 4, 2022 Share Posted February 4, 2022 On 12/28/2021 at 2:29 PM, Odej said: Reading some posts about Jon Snow's attitudes as Lord Commander I realized that many people don't agree with Jon killing Janos Slynt and that made me curious. I always thought Jon's attitude was correct. Janos disrespected and disobeyed him publicly, letting his behavior go unpunished would make Jon weak in front of his subordinates. In an environment like the Wall, how to respect a leader whom an underling can curse and disobey him without serious consequences? Especially considering how many men who serve on the Wall were thieves, rapists and murderers. What do you guys think of Jon's decision? Jon was wrong to kill Janos Slynt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Tsarevich Posted February 4, 2022 Share Posted February 4, 2022 ignore this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Tsarevich Posted February 4, 2022 Share Posted February 4, 2022 On 2/3/2022 at 4:24 AM, Lord Varys said: George even went as far as to reveal that the Others have 'no culture', so we cannot really expect that living humans would have any significance to them. Are you referring to Spoiler the "I don’t know if they have a culture" remark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Sword Posted February 4, 2022 Share Posted February 4, 2022 Not only did Janos not follow a direct order, He publicly challenged the Lord Commander. As Lord Commander, Jon is tasked with keeping everyone in line. Punishment was certain. It could of been in a few forms, but execution in a military order for not following orders has been common throughout the ages. He wasn't out of line at all. He had Command, the decision was his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.