Jon Snow, the Coldheart

[H Wadsworth Longfellow]

Some talk farther down the forum are trashing the loyal steward of the Nights Watch, Bowen Marsh.  The attacks are not fair.  Marsh was not an ambitious man.  He was not looking for political advancement or personal material gain.  He and his Brothers assassinated Lord Commander Jon Snow because they had a duty to.  Jon Snow put them all in danger.  They needed to end his disastrous leadership before more damage is done. 

I found this very interesting debate on Reddit.  I like what the user Feldman had to say.

 

 

 

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

1 hour ago, H Wadsworth Longfellow said:

Some talk farther down the forum are trashing the loyal steward of the Nights Watch, Bowen Marsh.  The attacks are not fair.  Marsh was not an ambitious man.  He was not looking for political advancement or personal material gain.  He and his Brothers assassinated Lord Commander Jon Snow because they had a duty to.  Jon Snow put them all in danger.  They needed to end his disastrous leadership before more damage is done. 

I found this very interesting debate on Reddit.  I like what the user Feldman had to say.

 

 

 

Just because Marsh couldn’t realize what Jon was doing was right, doesn’t make Marsh right or sympathetic. His hatred of the Wildlings kept him from seeing was was most important. And sure the Weeper and his like came across, but I’m sure as shit that there were many Crows that did horrible things to wildlings.

Marsh and his accomplices were in the wrong, 100% no questions. Whatever punishment he gets he as coming. 

[Craving Peaches]

All of these arguments act like the only thing Bowen could do was to kill Jon. This is false. Bowen had other options. He could have just imprisoned Jon. He could have tried to call for a vote of no confidence. And people should stop acting like Bowen cares about the neutrality of the Watch. He wants to break it too, but side with the Lannisters and Boltons instead. It's not about whether the Watch is neutral but who they side with for Bowen. Also, Ramsay from their POV is going to attack the whole of the Watch no matter what because they had no way to fulfil the demands of the letter. Bowen was a bigot and an idiot. When he dies, it will not be because he's trying to uphold some value of the Watch, but because he let his pettiness blind him to what was really important.

[Craving Peaches]

So we've already had 'Arya, the Darkheart', and now we have 'Jon, the Coldheart'. What's next, 'Bran, the Wolfheart'? Or will it be about poor Catelyn instead? She's already been labelled first an insane woman who started the War of the Five Kings, will she be painted as a mindless vengeful killing machine out for the poor Freys next?

Quote

Sansa lost her direwolf. She is not getting an afterlife. Catelyn is Stoneheart and Arya is Darkheart. Jon is Coldheart. Bran is Wolfheart, the boy who howls at the moon. 

Mr. Longfellow, I'm curious as to what type of 'heart' Sansa and Rickon would be.

[kissdbyfire]

21 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

So we've already had 'Arya, the Darkheart', and now we have 'Jon, the Coldheart'. What's next, 'Bran, the Wolfheart'? Or will it be about poor Catelyn instead? She's already been labelled first an insane woman who started the War of the Five Kings, will she be painted as a mindless vengeful killing machine out for the poor Freys next?

Mr. Longfellow, I'm curious as to what type of 'heart' Sansa and Rickon would be.

Exactly. I mean, literally. There was a post in one these hate threads saying exactly that, and if memory serves, by the same poster. Yawn. 

[kissdbyfire]

Didn’t realise you had already posted the lunacy in question. 
It would be more productive to engage in a debate w/ chat gpt. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by kissdbyfire

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

here it is:

I know, I quoted it in my previous comment 

[kissdbyfire]

Just now, Craving Peaches said:

I know, I quoted it in my previous comment 

Yeah, didn’t realise it at first. Already edited my reply.

 

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, H Wadsworth Longfellow said:

Some talk farther down the forum are trashing the loyal steward of the Nights Watch, Bowen Marsh.  The attacks are not fair.  Marsh was not an ambitious man.  He was not looking for political advancement or personal material gain.  He and his Brothers assassinated Lord Commander Jon Snow because they had a duty to.  Jon Snow put them all in danger.  They needed to end his disastrous leadership before more damage is done. 

I found this very interesting debate on Reddit.  I like what the user Feldman had to say.

 

 

 

Assuming that is Adam Feldman, I think he enjoys being contrarian.  His sympathies are as much with the Ghiscari slavers, as much as they are with Jon’s assassins.

[TheLastWolf]

Guys, Inkheart is already taken so can't use that for Sansa and her letter. Braveheart, well Mel Gibson wouldn't give two hoots but that isn't exactly aligned with your stark worldview...

[Darth Sidious]

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

All of these arguments act like the only thing Bowen could do was to kill Jon. This is false. Bowen had other options. He could have just imprisoned Jon. He could have tried to call for a vote of no confidence. And people should stop acting like Bowen cares about the neutrality of the Watch. He wants to break it too, but side with the Lannisters and Boltons instead. It's not about whether the Watch is neutral but who they side with for Bowen. Also, Ramsay from their POV is going to attack the whole of the Watch no matter what because they had no way to fulfil the demands of the letter. Bowen was a bigot and an idiot. When he dies, it will not be because he's trying to uphold some value of the Watch, but because he let his pettiness blind him to what was really important.

Jon was going to lead an army of Wildlings to attack the people of Westeros. It goes against the laws of the watch and the kingdom. Bowen had to stop Jon. He might have tried to place Jon under arrest but the Wildlings would block him. He didn’t have options.  

[SeanF]

A running theme in the books is what do you do in the face of gross injustice?

Is the right course of action for Dany in Slavers Bay, Jon at the Wall, and Aerys’ Kingsguard to do nothing? To say, “it’s not my problem”, “The Nights Watch takes no part”, and “We are bound by our oaths” respectively?

I would argue that those are not the morally correct courses of action.

[SeanF]

Just now, Darth Sidious said:

Jon was going to lead an army of Wildlings to attack the people of Westeros. It goes against the laws of the watch and the kingdom. Bowen had to stop Jon. He might have tried to place Jon under arrest but the Wildlings would block him. He didn’t have options.  

The Boltons are not “the People of Westeros”.

[kissdbyfire]

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

A running theme in the books is what do you do in the face of gross injustice?

Is the right course of action for Dany in Slavers Bay, Jon at the Wall, and Aerys’ Kingsguard to do nothing? To say, “it’s not my problem”, “The Nights Watch takes no part”, and “We are bound by our oaths” respectively?

I would argue that those are not the morally correct courses of action.

Wholeheartedly agree. 
 

Anyway,  give me ‘coldheart’ over braindead  any day of the week and twice today.

 

[Craving Peaches]

23 minutes ago, Darth Sidious said:

Jon was going to lead an army of Wildlings to attack the people of Westeros.

He was going to lead an army of Wildlings to ATTACK THE PEOPLE WHO WERE GOING TO ATTACK THE WATCH. What is Jon supposed to do, just sit there and let his men be killed? Do nothing? Lie down and die?

[Chaircat Meow]

4 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

1. All of these arguments act like the only thing Bowen could do was to kill Jon. This is false. Bowen had other options. He could have just imprisoned Jon. He could have tried to call for a vote of no confidence.  And people should stop acting like Bowen cares about the neutrality of the Watch. 2. He wants to break it too, but side with the Lannisters and Boltons instead. It's not about whether the Watch is neutral but who they side with for Bowen. 3. Also, Ramsay from their POV is going to attack the whole of the Watch no matter what because they had no way to fulfil the demands of the letter. Bowen was a bigot and an idiot. 4. When he dies, it will not be because he's trying to uphold some value of the Watch, but because he let his pettiness blind him to what was really important.

1. He could have tried but he was unlikely to succeed given Jon had whipped up the wildling forces at Castle Black to follow him to war. So this option was, realistically, precluded by the situation. In any case, the penalty for desertion is death not imprisonment - as Ned Stark and Jon Snow would tell you.

2. No he doesn't. Bowen never suggests attacking Stannis or trying to help the Boltons defeat their enemies. He did want to make Slynt Lord Commander as a signal to Lord Tywin that the watch wasn't siding with Stannis (a terrible plan, btw) but that's all. No one in text ever claims that amounts to 'taking part' as Lord Commanders are partly chosen for their ability to deal with other lords and the king. 

I think here you've made the conditions for not breaching neutrality so onerous no one can really meet them, which conveniently gets Jon off the hook for actually doing things like recruiting his own army and attacking a northern lord.

3. No he really isn't. He threatens to kill Jon if his demands aren't met, not every member of the NW. The Boltons are very unlikely to massacre the Night's Watch, a sacred northern institution. They have enough problems with unpopularity/violation of sacred principles already and are trying to build up legitimacy with Farya - getting her back being one of the main points of the letter. 

And if Jon thought it was obvious Ramsay was coming to massacre the Night's Watch he would have said so rather than implying in his speech marching against him was oathbreaking. 

I also agree with Adam Feldman re Bowen's motivations. 

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Chaircat Meow
tiny spelling error

[Chaircat Meow]

11 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

He was going to lead an army of Wildlings to ATTACK THE PEOPLE WHO WERE GOING TO ATTACK THE WATCH. What is Jon supposed to do, just sit there and let his men be killed? Do nothing? Lie down and die?

Your interpretation makes Jon a moron who totally misrepresented the situation for shits and giggles. If Ramsay is really coming to kill, torture and feed Bowen to his dogs then Bowen will not be a happy bunny: make sure he understands that!

[kissdbyfire]

“I want my bride back. I want the false king’s queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want his wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe. And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard’s heart and eat it.”

It’s easy to see that Ramsay clearly threatens not only Jon but the Watch as well, since it’s literally spelled out. Also it’s not just that Bowen the racist xenophobic moron wanted to side w/ Tywin and get Slynt the treasonous baby killer elected LC thus breaking neutrality in the most stupid way possible… he also plotted to get Jon killed. He’s been trying to get rid of Jon for a long time, because of his personal interests (he believes Tywin/Lannisters/IT will ‘win’) but also because he’s dumb as a bag of dumb rocks. He didn’t succeed before, and he won’t succeed now - but at least now he’ll have to face the consequences of his bigotry and stupidity. Can. Hardly. Wait. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by kissdbyfire

[Chaircat Meow]

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

“I want my bride back. I want the false king’s queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want his wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe. And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard’s heart and eat it.”

It’s easy to see that Ramsay clearly threatens not only Jon but the Watch as well, since it’s literally spelled out. Also it’s not just that Bowen the racist xenophobic moron wanted to side w/ Tywin and get Slynt the treasonous baby killer elected LC thus breaking neutrality in the most stupid way possible… he also plotted to get Jon killed. He’s been trying to get rid of Jon for a long time, because of his personal interests (he believes Tywin/Lannisters/IT will ‘win’ but also because he’s dumb as a bag of dumb rocks. He didn’t succeed before, and he won’t succeed now - but at least now he’ll have to face the consequences of his bigotry and stupidity. Can. Hardly. Wait. 

The bolded is the threat. To Jon alone. Trouble your black crows is vague - it could mean anything. It most likely refers to the next sentence - Ramsay will trouble the black crows by executing their Lord Commander if his demands aren't met.

When did Bowen plot to get Jon killed? I don't remember that at all. He actually tries to stop him going to a weirwood grove outside the Wall at one point because he's worried about him - so plotting to kill him would be out of character. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Chaircat Meow

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The bolded is the threat. To Jon alone. Trouble your black crows is vague - it could mean anything. It most likely refers to the next sentence - Ramsay will trouble the black crows by executing their Lord Commander if his demands aren't met.

When did Bowen plot to get Jon killed? I don't remember that at all. He actually tries to stop him going to a weirwood grove outside the Wall at one point because he's worried about him - so plotting to kill him would be out of character. 

Of course. Because by ‘I won’t trouble you or your black crows’ Ramsay means that he’ll have to ask Jon’s black brothers to please step to the side, I need to cut out your LC’s heart and eat it, and for the black brothers to have to step aside or back or whatever would be so much trouble.