[ADwD Spoilers] Jon and Dany character devolution

[The Bronze Wyvern]

Ultimately, Jon made a similar choice to the one Stannis made during Robert's Rebellion. His King or his brother? A hard choice, but he chose blood. Jon was choosing (or thought he was choosing, as we know it isn't Arya) between his post and his sister. A hard choice, but he chose blood...out of character? No, I don't think so (plus he thought he would deal with Winterfell/Hardhome and then resume his command, naive maybe, but sixteen year olds ARE naive and the entire arc of the Stark children concerns them learning the realities THE HARD WAY).

[Markus]

He did a horrifically bad job of getting his men on board though, and that's bad leadership.

Jon clearly didn't succeed in getting Marsh and co. on board, that much is true. The question is if this had more to do with Jon's leadership skills or with the intransigence of Marsh and co.

It's not as if Jon didn't explain why his policies were necessary after all. It's just that Marsh couldn't see it ... and mightn't have seen it even if [insert able leader of your choice] would have explained it to him.

[Volderon]

Ultimately, Jon made a similar choice to the one Stannis made during Robert's Rebellion. His King or his brother? A hard choice, but he chose blood. Jon was choosing (or thought he was choosing, as we know it isn't Arya) between his post and his sister. A hard choice, but he chose blood...out of character? No, I don't think so (plus he thought he would deal with Winterfell/Hardhome and then resume his command, naive maybe, but sixteen year olds ARE naive and the entire arc of the Stark children concerns them learning the realities THE HARD WAY).

Except Arya, Arya hasn't gotten hurt and she's been EVERYWHERE in the seven Kingdoms. But that's because she's GRRM's Goddess so. I'm just saying, we should accept Arya not being raped in the past 3 books but we have to accept Jon dying a la Mormont?

[Jaime Targaryen]

Jon clearly didn't succeed in getting Marsh and co. on board, that much is true. The question is if this had more to do with Jon's leadership skills or with the intransigence of Marsh and co.

It's not as if Jon didn't explain why his policies were necessary after all. It's just that Marsh couldn't see it ... and mightn't have seen it even if [insert able leader of your choice] would have explained it to him.

I read the chapters. It was his leadership skills. He explained his policies terribly and would only mention the most important points (wildlings are men too guys!) in an off-hand "BTW" kind of fashion after the argument had already happened.

[The Snow King]

I read the chapters. It was his leadership skills. He explained his policies terribly and would only mention the most important points (wildlings are men too guys!) in an off-hand "BTW" kind of fashion after the argument had already happened.

I don;t think he had much chance to explain anything. Generally his officers (particularly, those that never went ranging and had no idea how the life on the other side of Wall looks) were fixated on doing things the same way they always did. Yeah, Jon's PR sucked, but neither did he had time to talk because action was needed now. Muddling in discussions would just bring defeat closer. Also, there is the problem that we have feudal mentality there, and people are expect to do what they are said, and with regard to that, Jon does not have it easy as Watch consists mostly of:

1) Various criminals, mostly serious ones, guilty with rapes, murders and so on. After all, people choose Wall only to avoid some serious punishment, like having important parts of body cut off. Such people are proved to have a problem with authority in general.

2) Knights and similar, with feudal mindset deeply imprinted - but that also mean they often hold bastards in deep disregard, as 'it is known' that bastards are untrustworthy, lustful, sinful and so on. It's part of the mentality and it makes for them to listen to Jon.

If Jon had a few years to grow into command and convince people of his merits, earn some trust, things may have looked differently. But he didn't had that time, and the Others are pressing.

[Markus]

He explained his policies terribly and would only mention the most important points (wildlings are men too guys!) in an off-hand "BTW" kind of fashion after the argument had already happened.

Might be Jon could have been more persuasive. But I see no reason to say his explanations were "terrible". I found them quite convincing myself, and you say yourself that he brought up the most important points. If Marsh wasn't going to be persuaded by the important points, why should he have been persuaded by lesser ones?

So, I would argue that Marsh not being on board with Jon's policies was more down to him being intransigent than to Jon's explanations being terrible.

[GreyJackal]

I just finished the book. And I must say that Jon and Dany became the biggest idiots I have ever seen.

Jon's idiocy was so unbelievable that I often found myself rolling my eyes. It felt like GRRM felt like saying "Hmm.....who shall I troll with in this book ? I know....Jon ! I'm tired of writing him anyway."

Dany was just ridiculous. "No..... I dun wanna leave muh children !!!"

Also I want Daario dead.

[Chirios]

Ultimately, Jon made a similar choice to the one Stannis made during Robert's Rebellion. His King or his brother? A hard choice, but he chose blood. Jon was choosing (or thought he was choosing, as we know it isn't Arya) between his post and his sister. A hard choice, but he chose blood...out of character? No, I don't think so (plus he thought he would deal with Winterfell/Hardhome and then resume his command, naive maybe, but sixteen year olds ARE naive and the entire arc of the Stark children concerns them learning the realities THE HARD WAY).

Nobodies actually explained this: How could Jon have chosen his family when the letter itself said that Arya wasn't there anymore?

[Markus]

Nobodies actually explained this: How could Jon have chosen his family when the letter itself said that Arya wasn't there anymore?

Where was Arya probably going to turn up eventually? Either Ramsay would have found her somewhere or Arya would have sought Jon's protection just like Alys Karstark. In either case Jon would have had to deal with Ramsay if he didn't want to leave Arya with him.

[Blue Steel]

Good decision making doesn't make a great leader. Getting your men to go along with your decisions even when they disagree does. That's what "leader" means. Jon was a great leader before he was Commander and up until after Slint died. Then it was all downhill. Yes, you're right, his treatment of the wildlings was excellent. He did a horrifically bad job of getting his men on board though, and that's bad leadership.

I don't agree with that standard. Was Julius Caesar a bad leader? No leader is ever going to have everyone's support. There are always going to be people like Bowen Marsh who resist change.

It's not a leaders job to persuade people. There's a book called the Power of the President by Richard Neustadt, which argues that a president is not a leader but a clerk. The power of the President, according to the book, is the power to persuade because Presidents can't make unilateral decisions without going through Congress. A leader doesn't need to persuade because they often have to make unilateral decisions. The Lord Commander isn't a clerk, they don't have a congress that has to pass laws first -- decisions begin and end with them. The NW elects the LC to make the hard decisions for them -- they don't have to agree with every decision, and that's why they elect him in the first place.

[The Human Abstract]

Actually, Bowen Marsh's ideas were way stupider. There's no way Jon could've appeased that fool.

[iamthedave]

I don't agree with that standard. Was Julius Caesar a bad leader? No leader is ever going to have everyone's support. There are always going to be people like Bowen Marsh who resist change.

It's not a leaders job to persuade people. There's a book called the Power of the President by Richard Neustadt, which argues that a president is not a leader but a clerk. The power of the President, according to the book, is the power to persuade because Presidents can't make unilateral decisions without going through Congress. A leader doesn't need to persuade because they often have to make unilateral decisions. The Lord Commander isn't a clerk, they don't have a congress that has to pass laws first -- decisions begin and end with them. The NW elects the LC to make the hard decisions for them -- they don't have to agree with every decision, and that's why they elect him in the first place.

Yeah, Mormont never explained himself. He just said 'we're doing this, kthxbai'.

However, Jon ISN'T very good at getting his own way, nor at instilling respect. Mormont's very good at that, and very good at intimidating people when he needs to. Remember the disaster at Craster's Keep was nearly averted, it was actually Craster who pushed things over the edge after Mormont had calmed things down a little.

When Stannis wanted something done he locked the NW in a room and said 'make a Lord Commander or don't eat. Choose'.

Jon really should have done the same with Marsh etc. Sat them down and made sure he was satisfied that they understood why what he was doing was necessary. I certainly don't think Jon was an idiot; it's a big jump from being disgruntled to murdering your elected Lord Commander (and it's highly likely Marsh voted for Jon).

What I think was Jon's problem was that he was among the Wildlings too long. He wasn't able to see things from the Watch's perspective anymore. He couldn't explain things in a language they would understand.

He actually got close with his 'what are they if not men' argument, but he should have pressed on that point further and forced them to verbally admit it. It doesn't help to make a good point and let opponents walk away, you have to make them agree.

[The Human Abstract]

Jon actually managed to solve two vexing problems: how to man the entire wall and how to feed the entire wall. I was impressed by that, frankly.

The only thing that drove me truly nuts that he did was his decision to go leave after Bolton's (alleged) letter. Although he wound up not getting too anyway.

It also drove my partially nuts because I could see the truth in Melisandre's warnings and that author was making of point of telling me Marsh was going to do something.

[The Human Abstract]

doubled

[The Snow King]

Yeah, Mormont never explained himself. He just said 'we're doing this, kthxbai'.

However, Jon ISN'T very good at getting his own way, nor at instilling respect. Mormont's very good at that, and very good at intimidating people when he needs to. Remember the disaster at Craster's Keep was nearly averted, it was actually Craster who pushed things over the edge after Mormont had calmed things down a little.

When Stannis wanted something done he locked the NW in a room and said 'make a Lord Commander or don't eat. Choose'.

Jon really should have done the same with Marsh etc. Sat them down and made sure he was satisfied that they understood why what he was doing was necessary. I certainly don't think Jon was an idiot; it's a big jump from being disgruntled to murdering your elected Lord Commander (and it's highly likely Marsh voted for Jon).

What I think was Jon's problem was that he was among the Wildlings too long. He wasn't able to see things from the Watch's perspective anymore. He couldn't explain things in a language they would understand.

He actually got close with his 'what are they if not men' argument, but he should have pressed on that point further and forced them to verbally admit it. It doesn't help to make a good point and let opponents walk away, you have to make them agree.

But notice that neither Old Bear or Stannis does that. Or any other Lord, to be honest. They expect their commands will be done, and those who wont do those commands have rather short life expectancy. They have enough loyal or just cowed supportes, that their men do not dare to stand against them. Still, there is no way you can be completely safe from assassination - it helps to have a dedicated force, like Kingsguard, but it did not help when Joffrey was poisoned, did it?

[Steve Moss]

So Jon's decision seems to be framed as a clear choice between love and duty again.

Aren't the choices of all honorable men framed this way? And are we expecting Jon to be a saint and hold true to his vows very time? Especially in circumstances that would allow him to make a choice for love while, arguably, stay true to his vows?

Even the paragon Barristan Selmy was in love with Ashara Dayne and the only reason he did not act on it was a lack of courage, not his vows.

Good decision making doesn't make a great leader. Getting your men to go along with your decisions even when they disagree does. That's what "leader" means. Jon was a great leader before he was Commander and up until after Slint died. Then it was all downhill. Yes, you're right, his treatment of the wildlings was excellent. He did a horrifically bad job of getting his men on board though, and that's bad leadership.

Jon did get his men on board with his plan. They obeyed his orders. The castles are being remanned, with Wildling troops and NW commanders. The Wall is being secured with their willing (if grumbling) cooperation. We see him drilling them, preparing them for battle. Heck, when we see Jon interacting with the troopers, whether its invitations to meals or the practice yard, they seem downright proud of their LC. We see them defy a king on his order (the killing of fake Mance). He's turning the NW into a professional military organization which possesses esprit d'corps, not the collection of thieves, rapers and murderers it once was.

What we see is in the last chapter is 4 prejudiced, narrow minded, holier than thou, bookkeeping, malcontents with knives. Not the NW.

[Yeade]

Okay, I admit I'm a total mark for Jon Snow. That said, I tend to excuse his actions in ADWD because I can see military necessity behind each one irrespective of whatever other motivations he may have.

Take, for example, how fast and hard he forces changes upon the Night's Watch. Not only does abandoning the wildlings beyond the Wall mean thousands of additional (potential) wights but, as seen in the prologue, every moment the wildlings remain in danger the Others strengthen their already overwhelming forces. Jon must get the wildlings to the south side of the Wall right now.

He must also begin the process of fully integrating the wildlings into the NW's defense of the Wall immediately, IMO. Jon has experience holding the Wall under siege by numerically superior forces. While Donal Noye and Jon manage to fend off Mance Rayder, in the process, they grind down the men and supplies at Castle Black so severely that, were it not for Stannis's arrival, the wildlings would've certainly claimed victory in the end. Jon has no idea when or where the Others plan to hit the Wall and, given that the wights are undead with no need for food, shelter, rest, or any of the myriad comforts mortal men require, a siege of the Wall by the Others is likely to turn into a continuous onslaught. Then is not the time to still be straightening the chain of command or assigning vital duties or even stocking major resources like arrows. Once the battle is joined, it's very difficult to keep any sizable reserve, human and otherwise, when the Wall's so undermanned and in such dire logistic straits. The NW cannot afford to lose its first engagement against the Others at the Wall or the North, preoccupied with yet another bloody power struggle between Stannis and the Boltons, is quite possibly irretrievably lost.

There's even another reason besides denying the enemy cannon fodder and simple human compassion for Jon to rescue the wildling women and children. With the exceptions of the very young and infirm, these folks can act as support troops, freeing up anyone who can draw a bow to man the Wall. They can cook, clean, tend fires, fletch arrows, administer medical aid, etc. when the defenders are too busy either fighting or sleeping. And I find pretty much all of Jon's decisions in ADWD similarly based on not just one but many sound military principles.

Meanwhile, though I can sympathize with Bowen Marsh and his co-conspirators hating the wildlings given the NW's long history of guerrilla warfare with them and honoring the longstanding traditions of the organization they've devoted their lives to, I can't help yelling "STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!" at everything Marsh et al. do that doesn't involve counting barrels of pickled fish or the like. I mean, if nothing else, the manner in which Marsh and company go about shivving Jon--in front of everyone and his brother after Jon's been proclaimed king of the wildlings, who greatly outnumber the NW, in all but name--seems to prove not one in that group can strategize even three seconds ahead. If there were a Westeros Darwin Award, I think every member of this board would nominate Marsh as a top contender.

Plus, how can the argument that the NW must do whatever it takes to guard the realm from ICE ZOMBIES fail to convince anybody with a modicum of critical reasoning skills? Even if Jon doesn't articulate every point in his favor or do so well, isn't it obvious what he's planning when he spends so much time and energy on manning fortifications along the Wall or gathering intelligence on the Others? And Marsh's alternative is, as another poster said, to turn the Wall into a supernatural version of the Maginot Line. Except without soldiers along much of its length.

In short: My feeling that Marsh and friends are utterly, almost hysterically incompetent in fulfilling the primary military objective of defending the Wall kills a lot of my ability and desire to understand their viewpoint. Then again, I suppose the Old Pomegranate's the one who strips Castle Black of its most capable fighters to futilely chase after Mance Rayder's diversions in ASOS, so at least there's precedent for his blind foolishness.

Jon, OTOH, I'm willing to forgive when he desperately wants to help his last remaining family member (with as much deniability as possible when it comes to the NW and his vows) or is too brusque for successful public relations (when insanely stressed and busy) because nearly every word in his head or out of his mouth makes so much damn sense to me. He's apparently the only sensible pragmatist in Westeros who still has a heart and isn't a total jerk. Though I'm afraid he may lose a good portion of his empathy for his fellow man after this experience.

Even if you believe Jon breaks his oath or should've treated the NW with greater political care, his motivations are about as purely good as can be in such a gray world and his conception of the NW's future as idealistically visionary as anything the various contenders for the Iron Throne or other crowns have been able to offer, if not better for its inclusiveness of all humanity. What explanation is there for the behavior of Marsh et al. besides stubborn, unthinking prejudice? And how considerate are they of the NW's survival when they knife the one man instrumental to keeping the peace on the Wall?

Again, I really have trouble justifying Marsh's actions in any way, shape, or form because there doesn't seem to be any positive outcomes at all for anybody, including the assassins themselves, after killing Jon. It's very unlike Ned in AGOT, where I can see how the plans proposed by Renly, Littlefinger, Varys, and so forth will minimize bloodshed for everyone involved.

Hell, maybe not even the Freys are so stupid in sponsoring the Red Wedding because they at least wait until all their men are in place to assassinate Robb and believe they have the support of the Lannisters and Boltons. The Freys can also be partly excused for not anticipating the vehemence of the northern reaction, being sworn to House Tully, while Marsh probably doesn't have full support within the NW, never mind the wildlings or northmen, who recognize Jon as Ned Stark's son, or queensmen, who'll follow Melisandre's lead. The Freys have proven smarter than Bowen Marsh! That's just... sad. :laugh:

[Raging Bear]

The only thing Jon and Dany have "regressed" from are the Franklin D. Roosevelt and Alexander the Great archetypes many of you thought they had evolved into. Much of this comes from readers overgeneralizing from single incidences and miss-attributing motives.

Dany's actions in Astapor are not those of a ruthless conqueror but of a morally outraged champion. Think back to her conversations with Jorah after arriving in Astapor and you will see what her frame of mind is. Subduing Yunkai and taking Meereen got her neither fighters nor ships; she assaulted them solely to free the slaves. Of course she wouldn't leave them. She was smart enough to know that they couldn't survive without her, but her passion and youth blinded her to the fact that more than just the three slave cities had a stake in the slave trade, and that her taking and holding are two different things. She overestimated the strength of her position, and finally relented when faced with destruction. She did not regress but allowed herself to be backed into a corner and then had an impossible choice to make.

Jon's actions have also been consistent. One of the main reason's for Jon's devotion to the Night Watch is that they are the only family he has left, and he has always been devoted to his family. Is it really so shocking that when he found out that his sister was wandering through the snow north of Winterfell with a mad man after her that his first instict would be to go out and get her? Not that this was a factor in his death, which occurred hours after making his announcement to march south. One does not find co-conspirators for an assassination in a couple of hours. Afterall, if you ask the wrong person and they tattle on you the game is up. Jon announcement to march south may have rushed their play, but they had been planning this for days, probably weeks; most likely in reaction to letting the Wildling tribes in the ruined forts.

Jon was not being over-trusting either. These were senior members of the Watch who had served for years, and obviously took great pride in the Watch. They had never been defiant, only voicing dissent, which something you expect when you ask for council. Jon had swiftly dealt with those who openly defied him after taking command and set a good example.

One thing that we must remember with both of these characters is that people act differently when they have something to lose than when they don't. Responsibility changes people.

[Chirios]

The only thing Jon and Dany have "regressed" from are the Franklin D. Roosevelt and Alexander the Great archetypes many of you thought they had evolved into. Much of this comes from readers overgeneralizing from single incidences and miss-attributing motives. Dany's actions in Astapor are not those of a ruthless conqueror but of a morally outraged champion. Think back to her conversations with Jorah after arriving in Astapor and you will see what her frame of mind is. Subduing Yunkai and taking Meereen got her neither fighters nor ships; she assaulted them solely to free the slaves. Of course she wouldn't leave them. She was smart enough to know that they couldn't survive without her, but her passion and youth blinded her to the fact that more than just the three slave cities had a stake in the slave trade, and that her taking and holding are two different things. She overestimated the strength of her position, and finally relented when faced with destruction. She did not regress but allowed herself to be backed into a corner and then had an impossible choice to make.

My problem isn't that she didn't leave Meereen, it's that she appeared to have no deductive skills. And also no understanding of cause and effect.

Jon's actions have also been consistent. One of the main reason's for Jon's devotion to the Night Watch is that they are the only family he has left, and he has always been devoted to his family. Is it really so shocking that when he found out that his sister was wandering through the snow north of Winterfell with a mad man after her that his first instict would be to go out and get her? Not that this was a factor in his death, which occurred hours after making his announcement to march south. One does not find co-conspirators for an assassination in a couple of hours. Afterall, if you ask the wrong person and they tattle on you the game is up. Jon announcement to march south may have rushed their play, but they had been planning this for days, probably weeks; most likely in reaction to letting the Wildling tribes in the ruined forts. Jon was not being over-trusting either. These were senior members of the Watch who had served for years, and obviously took great pride in the Watch. They had never been defiant, only voicing dissent, which something you expect when you ask for council. Jon had swiftly dealt with those who openly defied him after taking command and set a good example. One thing that we must remember with both of these characters is that people act differently when they have something to lose than when they don't. Responsibility changes people.

He didn't find out that his sister was wandering through the snow north of Winterfell, he found out that she was on her way to the Wall. He wasn't going out to rescue Arya, there was no way he could've, he didn't know where she was and neither did the Boltons he was going out to attack Ramsey, big difference. And given that he had every reason to suspect that Ramsey was on his way to attack the wall, fair enough in my opinion. Though it's probably a dumb idea to march in the height of winter. Ramsey can't marshal a large host to attack the Wall, and even if he does most of them will die in the march. A few well placed outriders would've been able to inform Jon when Ramsey was close, at which point Jon could've marched out to meet him, hopefully in a nice wooded area where the Wildlings would've been at their best.

[Damocles]

There's stupidity, and then there is author-induced stupidity.

GRRM is a good writer, so he's almost never resorted to author-induced stupidity. You could say that Eddard Stark was the great subversion for this trope, even. He did in fact, repeatedly drive home that it was pragmatism that paid off. And it seemed both Jon Snow and Dany were becoming increasingly pragmatic, as over the course of three books, they gradually shed their more childish inclinations. Also, keep in mind, that GRRM originally envisioned both of them as being in their early 20s by this time. Hell, all the kids in GRRM's stories act 5 years older than they should.

So it's frustrating, that apparently his issues with fixing what nixing the gap had done to his story, was to /very liberally/ dose both Dany and Jon with author-induced stupidity. I don't care that they're sixteen. He's written them before this as growing past these kind've mistakes.

And it wasn't subtle or anything. You could tell immediately that they were both making terrible decisions. Especially Dany. Though, Jon started off better. Jon's regression was way more gradual, before taking a steep nosedive in the last chapter. Dany was painful from the start.

The only surprise in Dany's storyline was Quentyn's sudden death. Everything else was predictable.