Jump to content

Immediate consequences of Jon's betrayal of the NW


Rondo
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/25/2022 at 8:26 AM, Darth Sidious said:

That was Jon’s fault. His operatives infiltrated the Bolton household, murdered Bolton servants, and took Ramsay’s wife. That was an act of war. Jon is an idiot for thinking he could get away with it. 

 

23 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

blah blah blah

 

Saves time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Julia H. said:

The girl who was saved by Mance and Co may have been called a wife, but in actual reality she was a slave, sold by Littlefinger and bought by the Boltons, tortured and used as chattel. That should be pretty clear to everyone who is really against slavery. 

Sure, and especially when acting on the information that said little girl had already left the Bolton household and was in immediate mortal danger.

Which makes me wonder if social justice is really so important for these readers or if their purpose is simply to agree with everything a certain character does and to criticize everything a certain other character does.

For some readers, it’s just like jeering at a rival sports team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, SeanF said:

For some readers, it’s just like jeering at a rival sports team.

Sport fans aren't half as toxic as the least noxious...users on this forum, particularly when it comes to anything Dany and anything Stark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Sport fans aren't half as toxic as the least noxious...users on this forum, particularly when it comes to anything Dany and anything Stark.

I dunno man, catch me on flamsenation.ca sometime and you'll see some evil toxicity that would make you think by comparison Darth Sidious, Mordaine, Rondo et all are Jon Snow disciples.  (ooooh I HATE those rotten flames!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

I dunno man, catch me on flamsenation.ca sometime and you'll see some evil toxicity that would make you think by comparison Darth Sidious, Mordaine, Rondo et all are Jon Snow disciples.  (ooooh I HATE those rotten flames!)

Shh, don't name names, a long time ago (a year mostly) I got ticked off for 'personal' attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 2:09 AM, Raven Princling said:

This forum can be so weird about trying to make certain characters the most evil creatures in Planetos (and I am not talking about likes of Euron)

I agree completely, I have read multiple posts seriously claiming that Renly is on the same level of villainy as Ramsay and Gregor.

The issue I have with the Ramsay one is that, as you say, I don't think a lot are actually trying to play devil's advocate, they just don't like Jon. I'm not sure whether ascribing Ramsay rationality can really be used like that because he lacks it in the first place. I thought playing devil's advocate would be something like claiming it wasn't Ramsay's fault, it was just his awful upbringing etc. rather than just completely making stuff up to make Jon look bad.

On 8/26/2022 at 3:20 AM, sifth said:

I honestly find that "Ramsay did nothing wrong" people, to be rather amusing.

My favourite is 'Poor Gregor Clegane, the suffering opium addict'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 9:47 AM, Craving Peaches said:

The issue I have with the Ramsay one is that, as you say, I don't think a lot are actually trying to play devil's advocate, they just don't like Jon. I'm not sure whether ascribing Ramsay rationality can really be used like that because he lacks it in the first place. I thought playing devil's advocate would be something like claiming it wasn't Ramsay's fault, it was just his awful upbringing etc. rather than just completely making stuff up to make Jon look bad.

I think there are two different arguments "for" Ramsay. 

The first is the institutionalist view: The NW are duty bound to remain neutral, whatever the character and deeds of the rulers, and The Warden of The North and his son are the legitimate authority in The North.  This view also tries to compartmentalise what the reader knows about Ramsay (and Roose) and imagine only what Marsh knows.  This is a narrow and limited point of view but it's a basis to really assess Marsh's actions (and Jon's) rather than Ramsay's, Ramsay himself being irrelevant to the argument.

The second is the team colours point of view: Jon = "bad" so those against Jon = "good" overstates it but those against him are certainly given a partial read.  I'm thinking less Ramsay here and more Marsh (or Slynt), there not being much anyone can say about Ramsay except the institutionalist argument for looking the other way.

Edited by the trees have eyes
accept =/= except
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

I think there are two different arguments "for" Ramsay. 

The first is the institutionalist view: The NW are duty bound to remain neutral, whatever the character and deeds of the rulers, and The Warden of The North and his son are the legitimate authority in The North.  This view also tries to compartmentalise what the reader knows about Ramsay (and Roose) and imagine only what Marsh knows.  This is a narrow and limited point of view but it's a basis to really assess Marsh's actions (and Jon's) rather than Ramsay's, Ramsay himself being irrelevant to the argument.

The second is the team colours point of view: Jon = "bad" so those against Jon = "good" overstates it but those against him are certainly given a partial read.  I'm thinking less Ramsay here and more Marsh (or Slynt), there not being much anyone can say about Ramsay accept the institutionalist argument for looking the other way.

As indicated by my post above, I have some sympathy with the institutionalist argument.  Policing the North isn't the job of the Nights Watch.  Their responsibility is the Wall and the lands beyond, plus the Gift.  Even Jon recognizes that.  His thoughts are that he can't help Arya so long as she is under Bolton control.  Not that he couldn't exert the force needed, but that it wasn't his place to do so.  And if Mance hadn't gone to Winterfell and mucked things up, Jon would still not be taking Ramsay on.  Ramsay's threats in response to Mance have effectively ended the Watch's neutrality and brought about the conflict.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Nevets said:

As indicated by my post above, I have some sympathy with the institutionalist argument.  Policing the North isn't the job of the Nights Watch.  Their responsibility is the Wall and the lands beyond, plus the Gift.  Even Jon recognizes that.  His thoughts are that he can't help Arya so long as she is under Bolton control.  Not that he couldn't exert the force needed, but that it wasn't his place to do so.  And if Mance hadn't gone to Winterfell and mucked things up, Jon would still not be taking Ramsay on.  Ramsay's threats in response to Mance have effectively ended the Watch's neutrality and brought about the conflict.  

Indeed.  I was addressing the apparent love (or absence of) for Ramsay.

The institutionalist argument has some merit but in a limited fashion - it has been the operating condition of the NW for most of its history in order to preserve it and keep it focused on its mission.  But it forgot that mission which makes adhering to the rules, without understanding their true purpose, both ironic and misguided.  Now that a LC understands the true purpose of the NW, political neutrality is unattainable and actually contrary to the mission of the NW, as rejecting Stannis's aid, impossible since he has already granted it without needing permission to do so, fractures the coalition aimed at forestalling The Others and undermines that mission.

How the whole tangle plays out, with Stannis offering to make Jon Lord of Winterfell, Jon trying to keep the NW as autonomous as possible without sacrificing Stannis's goodwill, Jon attempting to rescue F(Arya), The Lannisters / IT making it clear they want "their man" in charge, the reactionary faction in the NW taking aim at Jon for allying with the Wildlings, the institutionalists unable or unwilling to accept any aid from Stannis and the political "realists" backing the Boltons over Stannis, both before and after The Pink Letter, is pretty realistic to me.  I'm still surprised Marsh is elevated to hero status but stranger things have happened on this forum and in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Indeed.  I was addressing the apparent love (or absence of) for Ramsay.

The institutionalist argument has some merit but in a limited fashion - it has been the operating condition of the NW for most of its history in order to preserve it and keep it focused on its mission.  But it forgot that mission which makes adhering to the rules, without understanding their true purpose, both ironic and misguided.  Now that a LC understands the true purpose of the NW, political neutrality is unattainable and actually contrary to the mission of the NW, as rejecting Stannis's aid, impossible since he has already granted it without needing permission to do so, fractures the coalition aimed at forestalling The Others and undermines that mission.

How the whole tangle plays out, with Stannis offering to make Jon Lord of Winterfell, Jon trying to keep the NW as autonomous as possible without sacrificing Stannis's goodwill, Jon attempting to rescue F(Arya), The Lannisters / IT making it clear they want "their man" in charge, the reactionary faction in the NW taking aim at Jon for allying with the Wildlings, the institutionalists unable or unwilling to accept any aid from Stannis and the political "realists" backing the Boltons over Stannis, both before and after The Pink Letter, is pretty realistic to me.  I'm still surprised Marsh is elevated to hero status but stranger things have happened on this forum and in real life.

Marsh as heroic, and Slynt as a martyr, are very odd viewpoints, in my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Slynt as a martyr

I mean what was he even a martyr for? He died for refusing orders, and it's not as though the orders were anything controversial, he was just being asked to do what many other members of the institution had done before him. If I remember correctly he thinks Jon is beneath him because he's a lord and Jon is a bastard, so at best he's a martyr for sticking to the feudal class pyramid or something...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hrulj said:

Jon has betrayed the NW when he decided to interfere into affairs of the realm and break neutrality. That’s a simple fact that no moralizing can change.

So do you agree that when Daenerys invades she will be interfering in the affairs of the realm?

Jon didn't break the NW neutrality, by the time he goes to fight the Boltons, who arguably started the fight in the first place, the Watch's neutrality was already broken by Stannis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2022 at 5:49 PM, Rondo said:

Lord Commander Jon Snow betrayed the NW and dragged the ancient Brotherhood into conflict with Roose Bolton.  The immediate consequence is chaos within Castle Black.  This unrest will spread to the other forts on the wall and will lead to a divided Brotherhood.  While most will agree with Bowen Marsh, there will undoubtedly be some who will disagree with the assassination of their lord commander.  Regardless of how erratic and incompetent Jon was, he was their elected lord commander.  What will happen shortly after Jon takes his last breath:

  1. Wun the Giant will be killed but not without trouble.
  2. Bowen Marsh will take over as the interim Lord Commander.  He will organize Castle Black but the wildlings will not be placated.
  3. I do not think Bowen and the Brother will be able to stop the wildlings from leaving the castle to attack the Boltons.
  4. The Weeper and his people will come calling just when the castle is in disorder.

What else?

Weakening of the wall’s ability to defend. Jon totally messed up the watch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Hrulj said:

Jon has betrayed the NW when he decided to interfere into affairs of the realm and break neutrality. That’s a simple fact that no moralizing can change. 

Break neutrality =/= Betray the NW.  Otherwise, accepting Stannis's aid (which is given long before Jon is LC and it's not like anyone was in a position to do so anyway) is betraying the NW.  When Stannis's knights turned up to defeat Mance they came from Eastwatch-by-the-Sea with the NW garrison in tow.  No one complains that Stannis is a rebel and accepting his aid or sheltering him is a betrayal.  "Neutrality" is not some aim in itself or some shibboleth to be upheld regardless of how that cripples the NW's purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

So do you agree that when Daenerys invades she will be interfering in the affairs of the realm?

Jon didn't break the NW neutrality, by the time he goes to fight the Boltons, who arguably started the fight in the first place, the Watch's neutrality was already broken by Stannis.

Plus the Lannisters intended to break it. Multiple times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Darth Sidious said:

Weakening of the wall’s ability to defend. Jon totally messed up the watch. 

There is like 300 or 500 of them.  I think people forget that when we get into these discussions about neutrality and purpose.  They are militarily insignificant and functionally incapable until Stannis assists and Jon starts recruiting Wildlings and bolstering the ranks.

The idea that Marsh and his 300 are going to turn into Leonidas and pull a Thermopylae at The Wall is pretty funny to me.  Marsh does not have any answers and has screwed things up royally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon was actually increasing the Watch's capacity to defend itself by using the wildlings to help man castles etc. and depriving the Others of more Wights for their army, before Bowen Marsh, who some people seem to think was saving the wall, killed him. Not to mention Marsh wanted Jon to leave tens of thousands of wildlings to just die and so augment the strength of the Others. Bowen is the one who's left the Watch the weakest it's ever been. If anyone is working for the Others it's Bowen not Jon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...