[ADWD Spoilers] Jon, Stannis, Melisandre

[Duskfire]

Melisandra being sympathetic toward Davos will forever make her awesome in my eyes. He has plotted against her, planned to murder her, etc etc, and yet because of his loyalty to Stannis she is symapthetic toward him.

I personally dont see what she has done that is so evil. Her killing Renly saved thousands of lives, same with killing Penrose. she herself had no obligation them. Everyone she has burnt have been criminals and responsible for horrible crimes. Yes killing a child is bad, but if you believed killing that child would save the world, wouldnt you do the same? shes not evil at all, just on a different moral wavelength then everyone else. She believes she knows the answers, and getting those answers means doing some not so great things for the better of mankind.

[Tagganaro]

I personally dont see what she has done that is so evil. Her killing Renly saved thousands of lives, same with killing Penrose. she herself had no obligation them. Everyone she has burnt have been criminals and responsible for horrible crimes. Yes killing a child is bad, but if you believed killing that child would save the world, wouldnt you do the same? shes not evil at all, just on a different moral wavelength then everyone else. She believes she knows the answers, and getting those answers means doing some not so great things for the better of mankind.

Ehh, you could actually make that argument about any crime though. For example, Tyrion criticizes Tywin for the Red Wedding and Tywin has a similar response. By taking out Robb and his followers at the Wedding, thousands of further deaths were avoided in the war that was raging.

I had a little bit of a problem harmonizing Mel's POV in ADWD with what we've seen of her. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved her little bit about Davos as he's the man so it made me like her a lot more. But killing an innocent child is never right imo, and the way Renly and Penrose died was just flat-out wrong.

[DoctorSwerve]

How is killing a child different from killing an adult? Extinguishing life is extinguishing life, no matter the age, sex, national origin, cultural background, race, creed, etc. As far as I'm concerned though, all is fair in love and war. I have no issue with people taking action that they think is right. They just have to be able to live with themselves afterward, because I would hate to have the person become a load on society.

[Tammy]

Many people have used Mel's visions in the flames as part of the evidence that Jon is Azor Ahai, but I find something troubling about that (as much as I really want Jon to be important for the rest of the series and fulfill some prophecy) B)

But, in Mel's chapter when she looks into the fires, she doesn't ask to see a glimpse of Azor Ahai. She says "Show me Stannis, Lord...show me your king, your instrument." She sees a variety of images, and then sees Jon Snow and hears the whispering of his name.

Later she reflects that she asks R'hllor for a vision of Azor Ahai but all he shows her is Snow. But, the thing is she didn't ask to specifically see Azor Ahai, she asked to see Stannis, his king, his instrument. Because she is convinced she is correct about other visions she thinks when she asks about Stannis, she's asking about Azor Ahai, and therefore when we read her think that way we read it that way too.

Now, of course we don't know how she words her other requests to the flames, but what this vision suggests is that Jon is an instrument of R'hllor against the other. What type of king, I don't know, but it would fit in well with the raven's statement earlier when he said "King," then "Snow. Jon Snow."

It's still entirely possible that he is AA, but I thought it was interesting that she didn't ask specifically for AA but assumes that she did. Regardless, it seems he's a pretty important piece to the puzzle of fighting the others.

[Jamie Lannister]

But, in Mel's chapter when she looks into the fires, she doesn't ask to see a glimpse of Azor Ahai. She says "Show me Stannis, Lord...show me your king, your instrument." She sees a variety of images, and then sees Jon Snow and hears the whispering of his name.

Later she reflects that she asks R'hllor for a vision of Azor Ahai but all he shows her is Snow. But, the thing is she didn't ask to specifically see Azor Ahai, she asked to see Stannis, his king, his instrument. Because she is convinced she is correct about other visions she thinks when she asks about Stannis, she's asking about Azor Ahai, and therefore when we read her think that way we read it that way too.

That's a very good point. We also know that Robb named a certain Jon Snow his legal successor to the King in the North title, so...

[Fredwin]

How is killing a child different from killing an adult? Extinguishing life is extinguishing life, no matter the age, sex, national origin, cultural background, race, creed, etc. As far as I'm concerned though, all is fair in love and war. I have no issue with people taking action that they think is right. They just have to be able to live with themselves afterward, because I would hate to have the person become a load on society.

How is it different? Should be obvious for many reasons.. for starters, a Child hasn't had a chance to even experience life. Children aren't fully developed and can't make fully informed decisions. A child has very little control over their situation and needs guidance. They have no way to properly defend their own self.

Not having the empathy to realize that is what makes one a sicko and gives credence to being called Evil.

There is no doubt that Mel is evil. I agree she is awesome and that the book wouldn't be the same without her, but she is evil as evil gets. Sacrificing children for power is a crime that can't ever be undone or overlooked.

Obviously, Martin is a genious and his characters are multi-faceted. Evil never comes in pure black. Even the most insane and detached killers have their own motives which make them seem "less bad". This is why Essos is a very gray world, and just because you can sympathize with Mel, you shouldn't forgive her crimes.

Davos and Stark obviously have the right idea. There is very little gray to them at all. Sacrificing children for a swift victory is no victory at all.

[Whatever]

But, in Mel's chapter when she looks into the fires, she doesn't ask to see a glimpse of Azor Ahai. She says "Show me Stannis, Lord...show me your king, your instrument." She sees a variety of images, and then sees Jon Snow and hears the whispering of his name.

Later she reflects that she asks R'hllor for a vision of Azor Ahai but all he shows her is Snow. But, the thing is she didn't ask to specifically see Azor Ahai, she asked to see Stannis, his king, his instrument. Because she is convinced she is correct about other visions she thinks when she asks about Stannis, she's asking about Azor Ahai, and therefore when we read her think that way we read it that way too.

IMO, this doesn't matter: clearly Mel considers Stannis Azor Ahai, and when she asks for Stannis, she's obviously asking for Azor Ahai, and vice versa. Does it make sense? The fact that she later thinks "i asked R'hloor about AA" when she asked for stannis, is the proof. Is either this or she's already seen Jon before, when she asked about AA (she thinks about it like if it's something that happens often)

I think the red herring here is Mel asking for stannis when she was actually meaning "i want to see AA". Because the vision doesn't make sense otherwise: jon could be azor ahai, but he's most definitively not stannis ;)

[Syrio Florel]

I think Melisandre will sacrifice the baby to bring Jon back.

[Whatever]

I think Melisandre will sacrifice the baby to bring Jon back.

why?

val would tell her he's not mance's son (ALthough, IMO she's already figured it out) and there are many other people to kill.... if she's looking for somebody with king's blood, that karstark guy could have a bad day ;)

[firestorm]

It's rather clear from Mel's pOV chapter that she sincerely believes Stannis to be AA. Also, Dondarrion finally kicked it when he resurrected Cat.

Indeed. She definitely believes him to be AA.

Regarding Dondarrion......he only kicked the bucket reviving Cat because she had been dead for days, of so it seemed from reading Thoros' words.

Thoros told Dondarrion that she had been dead too long and the kiss of life would not work. Don did it anyways and instead of a simple res, it passed the life

[Black Crow]

Many people have used Mel's visions in the flames as part of the evidence that Jon is Azor Ahai, but I find something troubling about that (as much as I really want Jon to be important for the rest of the series and fulfill some prophecy) B)

But, in Mel's chapter when she looks into the fires, she doesn't ask to see a glimpse of Azor Ahai. She says "Show me Stannis, Lord...show me your king, your instrument." She sees a variety of images, and then sees Jon Snow and hears the whispering of his name.

As I've said on another thread I think the significance of this has been missed in the rush to proclaim Jon as the true AA.

Mel went looking for Stannis, however she chose to address him, but the vision business isn't straightforward and she ended up seeing the weirwood and the face and the eyes, the warging, a lot of death, a lot of skulls and then finally in the middle of them, Jon Snow; but she didn't just see Jon, there was that chorus of voices speaking his name.

I just can't shake off this business of Mel explaining to Davos that the name of the Great Other must never be spoken, and here we have Jon's name being spoken amongst all these skulls/images of death. Its been interpreted as Mel seeing that Jon is in danger - but what if Jon is the danger?

[DoctorSwerve]

But, in Mel's chapter when she looks into the fires, she doesn't ask to see a glimpse of Azor Ahai. She says "Show me Stannis, Lord...show me your king, your instrument." She sees a variety of images, and then sees Jon Snow and hears the whispering of his name.

First she asked to see Stannis, and the she said show me your king, your instrument. Stannis obviously isn't R'hollor's king or instrument, therefore Jon was shown.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

First she asked to see Stannis, and the she said show me your king, your instrument. Stannis obviously isn't R'hollor's king or instrument, therefore Jon was shown.

My main issue with this has always been that every other time that Melisandre asked to see R'hllor's chosen king, STANNIS was shown to her.

So.. if Stannis is meant to be a false vision, why are we so certain that her vision of Jon is any more true??

[DoctorSwerve]

How is it different? Should be obvious for many reasons.. for starters, a Child hasn't had a chance to even experience life. Children aren't fully developed and can't make fully informed decisions. A child has very little control over their situation and needs guidance. They have no way to properly defend their own self.

Not having the empathy to realize that is what makes one a sicko and gives credence to being called Evil.

There is no doubt that Mel is evil. I agree she is awesome and that the book wouldn't be the same without her, but she is evil as evil gets. Sacrificing children for power is a crime that can't ever be undone or overlooked.

Obviously, Martin is a genious and his characters are multi-faceted. Evil never comes in pure black. Even the most insane and detached killers have their own motives which make them seem "less bad". This is why Essos is a very gray world, and just because you can sympathize with Mel, you shouldn't forgive her crimes.

Davos and Stark obviously have the right idea. There is very little gray to them at all. Sacrificing children for a swift victory is no victory at all.

Based on the set of morals that was drilled into you as a child. Different faiths have different levels of morality. It doesn't make it right or wrong. Just different. When it comes to Mother Nature, do you think that she cares what age you are? Do you think she cares how "good" of a person or how "innocent" you are? These are relative perceptions of reality and your definition of goodness and innocence may be completely different from someone else's.

[DoctorSwerve]

My main issue with this has always been that every other time that Melisandre asked to see R'hllor's chosen king, STANNIS was shown to her.

So.. if Stannis is meant to be a false vision, why are we so certain that her vision of Jon is any more true??

I just assume that R'hollor originally showed Stannis since if he showed Jon, Melisandre wouldn't know how to find him. The visions have been leaving clues leading her to AA.

[Tammy]

My main issue with this has always been that every other time that Melisandre asked to see R'hllor's chosen king, STANNIS was shown to her.

So.. if Stannis is meant to be a false vision, why are we so certain that her vision of Jon is any more true??

It would definitely be interesting to know what exactly Mel asked for when seeing the visions with Stannis. We know that her visions have truth to them; the arrival of Alys after her seeing a girl on a dying horse in her visions shows that. She, however, misinterprets it because she wants it to fit what is going on at the time. And IIRC she never got another vision of the girl, even when she asked the flames to show her Jon's sister.

Maybe her visions don't necessarily have anything to do with what she asks for. Maybe the flames only show her what she needs to know, regardless, not what she wants to know. Therefore, if there was a danger to herself, she would see that because she would need to know it and didn't necessarily have to ask.

The flames may have simply shown her Stannis in the beginning because she was being directed to him for whatever reason, and it didn't matter what she asked of the flames. She then set out to interpret them incorrectly based upon her own ideas and desires. She's said so herself.

Morroq's visions are rather accurate so I can't write off the visions as being false. Her interpretations of them are what I question.

[Tammy]

As I've said on another thread I think the significance of this has been missed in the rush to proclaim Jon as the true AA.

Mel went looking for Stannis, however she chose to address him, but the vision business isn't straightforward and she ended up seeing the weirwood and the face and the eyes, the warging, a lot of death, a lot of skulls and then finally in the middle of them, Jon Snow; but she didn't just see Jon, there was that chorus of voices speaking his name.

I just can't shake off this business of Mel explaining to Davos that the name of the Great Other must never be spoken, and here we have Jon's name being spoken amongst all these skulls/images of death. Its been interpreted as Mel seeing that Jon is in danger - but what if Jon is the danger?

This is an interesting theory; it certainly would be a twist on the idea of Jon the hero. I just keep coming back to his dream, though in which he's fighting the others.

Wasn't Patchface also seen amongst skulls and images of death? She thinks he's a dangerous individual. What if he's more dangerous than we think?

[Black Crow]

First she asked to see Stannis, and the she said show me your king, your instrument. Stannis obviously isn't R'hollor's king or instrument, therefore Jon was shown.

I think you're missing the point; read the chapter again because she doesn't just ask to see "your King, your instrument" and get shown Jon instead. What she did see was a whole sequence of images of the weirwood and a face in it which may have been Bloodraven or Bran (neither being AA candidates), a bit of warging which could have been Jon but as the man in question isn't recognised, could just as easily have been Bran or even our old friend Rumplestiltskin, then there's the Wights attacking a stockaded settlement, the cliff with the caves and the fires being snuffed out by the unnatural cold mist, lots of skulls and then and only then Jon (surrounded by skulls) and that chorus of voices speaking his name.

So no, she didn't ask to see Stannis and get shown Jon instead, thus proving that Jon not Stannis is AA. Context is everything and the context of his eventual appearance in that vision doesn't support that interpretation at all.

[jon rr stark]

Many people have used Mel's visions in the flames as part of the evidence that Jon is Azor Ahai, but I find something troubling about that (as much as I really want Jon to be important for the rest of the series and fulfill some prophecy) B)

But, in Mel's chapter when she looks into the fires, she doesn't ask to see a glimpse of Azor Ahai. She says "Show me Stannis, Lord...show me your king, your instrument." She sees a variety of images, and then sees Jon Snow and hears the whispering of his name.

Later she reflects that she asks R'hllor for a vision of Azor Ahai but all he shows her is Snow. But, the thing is she didn't ask to specifically see Azor Ahai, she asked to see Stannis, his king, his instrument. Because she is convinced she is correct about other visions she thinks when she asks about Stannis, she's asking about Azor Ahai, and therefore when we read her think that way we read it that way too.

Now, of course we don't know how she words her other requests to the flames, but what this vision suggests is that Jon is an instrument of R'hllor against the other. What type of king, I don't know, but it would fit in well with the raven's statement earlier when he said "King," then "Snow. Jon Snow."

It's still entirely possible that he is AA, but I thought it was interesting that she didn't ask specifically for AA but assumes that she did. Regardless, it seems he's a pretty important piece to the puzzle of fighting the others.

By Robb's decree Jon is the King of the North. When I read the raven's statement I thought it was referring to Jon as a King.

[Fredwin]

Based on the set of morals that was drilled into you as a child. Different faiths have different levels of morality. It doesn't make it right or wrong. Just different. When it comes to Mother Nature, do you think that she cares what age you are? Do you think she cares how "good" of a person or how "innocent" you are? These are relative perceptions of reality and your definition of goodness and innocence may be completely different from someone else's.

What is your point, exactly? You can devolve any conversation into abstract nonsense.. but what is it specifically, that good and evil is an abstract concept in itself?

This is a story about humans and human conflict. People are social animals not solitary beings, they need to be able to exist in a social setting. Which means you have to act a certain way to be accepted. People are born to fit in. They are also born with the ability to reason. While it's true your morals and perception of goodness are instilled upon you at an early age, it's only been developed that way because it's the optimum setting for advancement. Empathy plays a major role in this. You can't function in a social unit without it, and you can't determine what is right or wrong within that unit either.

People evolve and so does society to match. Society creates laws to benefit the most people possible and to hopefully create a stable living environment. Mel is stupid, selfish, or both, and has put her needs before anyone else, and she thinks she is above this law because her god told her so...