[ADwD Spoilers] A Different Look at Jon's Decision

[Darth Dragonstone]

Uh, no, Arya's life was never in question. She escaped, you see. It's even in the letter. And Ramsay just wants her back, he doesn't want her dead. It was between his vows and vengeance. Personal dislike. Personal matters.

Key aspect about Ramsay/Arya here that I haven't seen mentioned yet.

Jon doesn't know that Arya really isn't Arya. But Ramsay does. The Boltons aspirations in the North are at existential risk on that lie remaining secret. That much explains why his defacto declaration of war on the Nights Watch was so strident. He has to smash everything in the north to find and kill the fake Arya.

And even if the fake Arya had not been lost......as long as any of the Stark children or Jon Snow remained alive, the lie about the fake Arya was at risk.

No question. Ramsay was coming for the Jon and the Nights Watch. Jon didn't realize fully why, but he did realize that Ramsay's letter was an ultimatum that could not be satisfied, that Ramsay wanted war.

[Yeade]

There are other important things in the world too. But vows are supposed to be serious stuff. Evading the vows, trying to look for loopholes in them to get what you want while maintaining you're technically in compliance? That's weaselly behavior and betrays a lack of respect for the principles the vows embody. [snipsnip] I read the Jon defenders as saying, "Aemon is wrong. There's no cost to sticking to your vows. You don't have to choose. It's okay to get what you want through loopholes and such while still technically remaining true to your vows. GRRM did not make Jon face a wrenching and difficult choice between fundamental values, he gave him an easy choice where there was a clear solution and Jon doesn't have to sacrifice anything."

And you believe Jon doesn't take his vows seriously or evinces a lack of respect for the founding principles of the NW? After all, Jon argues for allying with the wildlings in defense of the Wall on what's basically a loophole--the NW being sworn to guard the realms, plural, of men with no mention of the free folk at all, as friends or enemies. You seem to have no issues with this decision on, presumably, the basis that the NW's true purpose is to fight the Others and using the wildlings to man the Wall serves this ultimate goal. And if there exists a reasonable argument that defeating Ramsay Bolton also contributes to the NW's war against the Others?

Marriage vows and the Kingsguard oath are poor analogies for what sort of actions are permissible under different interpretations of the NW vows, IMO, because the former two are so much more narrowly defined--be faithful to your wife, defend and obey your king--than the NW's mandate to serve the realm in conflict with the Others. How should the "realm" be defined? Jon's already broadened the NW's conception of this term to include the wildlings. How involved can the NW get in military and political affairs to best "serve" Westeros? My suspicion is that, should Jon remain Lord Commander, he'll eventually end up de facto King in the North, King of Winter, and Warden of the North else the fighting forces above the Neck can't be sufficiently prepared to meet the Others or will lack a competent war leader and strategist who's also charismatic enough to unite all factions. Of all the oaths in ASOIAF, I consider the NW vows the most expansive as the black brothers are sworn to humanity in general for apocalyptic times when military necessity tends to rule the day.

Aemon is not entirely wrong, I think, but he's not entirely right either. There's often a cost for holding to your oaths, but "often" is not "always." You sometimes have to choose between duty and love; you sometimes don't have to choose, though the ambiguity of such situations means this is not necessarily easier than picking one over the other. You may have to do what you don't want to. Then again, you may have to do what you want to. There's no clear definition of what counts as a technicality. Or what's true to your vows versus untrue once you move beyond the obvious. Thus, poor Jon Snow's life is complicated. ^_^

Besides, despite all my talk of how it's uncertain whether Jon breaks his vows or not in ADWD, I never deny that others, both in Westeros and real life, will think Jon an oathbreaker. He may still suffer the attendant and usually fatal consequences of this perception (already has!) except with the added irony of perhaps being mostly innocent. Anyways, my pet theory's that Jon's destined to violate some part of his oath beyond any shadow of a doubt by the end of the series. I'm just saving that big moment for when Dany finally arrives in Westeros and R+L=J hits the fan, lol, and am content to let Jon bend his vows six ways to Sunday without overstepping his bounds too much in the meantime. For dramatic effect, of course.

Finally, I hope I haven't scared folks off by being so persistent, if not aggressive, in defense of my opinions. I cut my online debating teeth on another discussion forum: TheForce.Net's Jedi Council. The furor over ADWD and the HBO series before it ain't nothing compared to the veritable implosion of the JC after the release of The Phantom Menace. Ah, those were the good ol' days of boardwide, weeks-long flame wars between prequel trilogy bashers and gushers. And I'd be so grateful if I never have to spend hundreds of pages expounding on continuity issues that range from relatively minor headaches like the history of the Death Star plans to the terrific catastrophe of the Clone Wars timeline. No matter how much you may dislike the directions in which GRRM takes his story and characters, he'll always be more consistent than the Star Wars multimedia franchise by several lightyears. Or, rather, parsecs. :laugh:

edit: BBCode formatting

[1000 Needles]

Or, rather, parsecs. :laugh:

Oh man, you went there... :thumbsup:

In my opionion, a lot of this hullaballoo stems from Martin's habit of misleading the reader through selective or false information.

John is playing "Xanatos Speed Chess" with the intention of stopping the impending invasion of The Others. Sticking to his oath too closely will doom the realm. So he has to skate the edge, and perhaps even step over it to accomplish his goals.

Jon is smart enough to know that abandoning the wall just to rescue Arya will doom them all anyway. He's going there to stop Ramsay before he can attack the wall from it's indefensible south side.

By taking the battle to Ramsay, he can seize the initiative and choose a battleground that plays to his strength. Jon knows Winterfell and it's envirions way better than any of the Boltons, and should have no problem exploiting a weakness.

The heavy snows and conflict with Stannis have left the Bolton's weak (Jon can probably surmise this), and Jon's wildlings are the best guerrilla force available for raiding and harrassing under winter conditions.

Rescuing Arya is not just something to warm Jon's heart. Arya is the only thing that legitimizes the Bolton's control of the north and snatching her back from the Bolton's will cripple their cause. Even worse, it will expose the Boltons as frauds (though Jon doesn't know this yet).

Getting Arya back is the key to destroying the Bolton's power and consolidating the control of the north. Jon can't fight the others with a civil war in his rear, and this gives him the perfect opportunity to strike back.

Once Arya is free she can take control of Winterfell and rally the north.

So yes, his scheme makes sense in relation to his duties at the wall. While his vows do state that he's not supposed to interfere with matters of the realm, ignoring it will doom everybody. When the watch was founded, the probably did not take into consideration the possiblity of a civil war at the same time as an attack by the others. To fulfill his duty he must bend or break the rules.

Now Martin has only given us part of the information, with the intention of misleading the reader. He's done this before, several times (deaths of Theon, Bran, Rickon, Arya, Gregor, the Hound, etc). He wants the reader to be unsure about Jon's motivations.

Then, when the next book rolls out, he can reveal the full plan, steamroll the Boltons and look like a badass.

The same technique is used in the Harry Potter books. Snap is portrayed as a villain, and only Dumbledore vouches for his loyalty. And then Snape kills Dumbledore, and it seems like Snape really was a villain all along. And then we find out that Dumbledore was already dying, and that Snape's actions allowed him to infiltrate Voldemort's gang and save the day. Turns out that Dumbledore was right, and that Snape is one of the biggest heroes in the story. Of course it also makes Dumbledore look badass for figuring out a way to make his death hurt his enemies.

The flaw with Jon's plan is that he's got a bunch of disgruntled whiners bitching about how things were better back in the old days. By sending his most loyal men away, he's left with nobody to counter the naysayers. By ignoring the threat, he's let these men form a fifth column tha ultimately results in his attempted assasination.

[The Lost Lord]

And you believe Jon doesn't take his vows seriously or evinces a lack of respect for the founding principles of the NW?

He actually does take them seriously, which is why he doesn't try to justify his final decision as being consistent with his vows. He knows it isn't.

And if there exists a reasonable argument that defeating Ramsay Bolton also contributes to the NW's war against the Others?

I'd take the argument more seriously if there was even the slightest indication that Jon or any other character in the books believed it. But it does not appear in the books at all and it's being trotted out as an after-the-fact justification for actions that are clearly motivated by Arya. The words "Others" and "realm" never appear when Jon is deciding what to do, he specifically says it's not the NW's place to march against Ramsay, and he never thinks or argues that Ramsay has become a threat to the NW. He talks and thinks about only three things: (1) treason and oathbreaking, (2) his love for Arya and his dead siblings, (3) how evil Ramsay is and how he's gonna kick his ass.

My suspicion is that, should Jon remain Lord Commander, he'll eventually end up de facto King in the North, King of Winter, and Warden of the North… my pet theory's that Jon's destined to violate some part of his oath beyond any shadow of a doubt by the end of the series.

My suspicion is that Jon is dead and warged into Ghost to be resurrected later, that the NW and wildlings will massacre each other right away, and that the arc about the vows is over.

John is playing "Xanatos Speed Chess" with the intention of stopping the impending invasion of The Others… He wants the reader to be unsure about Jon's motivations. Then, when the next book rolls out, he can reveal the full plan, steamroll the Boltons and look like a badass… The same technique is used in the Harry Potter books. Snap is portrayed as a villain

GRRM's books are not about flawless badasses, they're about flawed people and "the human heart in conflict with itself," as he puts it (quoting Faulkner). When we see the "Ghost" chapter header in the next book, it will be clear that there was no master plan.

[Yeade]

The Unrepentant Moogle, thanks for being entertained by my almost embarrassingly geeky joke! It's always great to meet another Star Wars fan! (At least I assume you're one...) Man, I have such fond memories of people whipping out dissertations on the astrophysics of black holes to explain that line of Han's. :laugh:

I'd take the argument [that among Jon's motives in marching south is how ending Bolton rule serves the NW's purpose of defending the realm] more seriously if there was even the slightest indication that Jon or any other character in the books believed it. But it does not appear in the books at all and it's being trotted out as an after-the-fact justification for actions that are clearly motivated by Arya. The words "Others" and "realm" never appear when Jon is deciding what to do, he specifically says it's not the NW's place to march against Ramsay, and he never thinks or argues that Ramsay has become a threat to the NW. He talks and thinks about only three things: (1) treason and oathbreaking, (2) his love for Arya and his dead siblings, (3) how evil Ramsay is and how he's gonna kick his ass.

Then what do you suppose Jon discusses with Tormund for two hours? It seems rather implausible to me that the two could've hashed out the details of a campaign to either Hardhome or Winterfell (never mind both!) in such a short time, but merely turning over command of the Hardhome ranging, rashly deciding to head to Winterfell, and getting advice on how to win the wildlings shouldn't take so long. More to the point, why does GRRM deliberately keep this council secret from us readers? And why does Jon focus on asking Melisandre to locate Ramsay instead of Arya if he's so concerned for her?

In fact, now that I think about it, the moment when Jon chooses to commit to the course he does is completely off-page. He tells Tormund plans have to be changed but doesn't specify what, if anything, he has in mind, then he's already set on what to do when he arrives in the Shieldhall.

Additionally, the impression of a fair number of posters here is that Jon's OOC in his last chapter. Despite the fact that he realizes the Pink Letter is a mix of truth and lies, he doesn't bother to apply any of the methodical reasoning, even cold calculation, he's been practicing the entire novel? Readers are able to deduce how defeating Ramsay might help the NW's cause and construct the argument that the Pink Letter represents an imminent threat to the Wall within minutes of being presented with Jon's situation, but he never once comes to any of these conclusions after two hours of conferring with a sympathetic but relatively objective Tormund? Though Jon spends a good portion of the book regretting that his love for Arya leads him to approve Mance Rayder's shot at playing Bael the Bard by way of James Bond, when the troubles this mission causes reaches the Wall, his response is to repeat his mistake on a larger scale and at higher risk for the very same reason?

Should your interpretation of events turn out to be true, I, for one, would face a potentially bigger problem: I'd have to admit this chapter is poorly conceived or written by GRRM because he fails to convince me and an apparently significant portion of his other readers at Westeros.org that Jon's actions are a natural progression of his characterization and not a plot twist thrown in at the last second to leave everybody on a "cliffhanger" of dubious quality, as almost nobody truly believes Jon's gone for good. I'd rather blaming GRRM stay my option of last resort, seldom considered, criticisms of the Essos POVs and Aegriff development notwithstanding.

Case in point, the numerous attempts to explain what the hell happens with, frankly, kind of outlandish sorcery (Melisandre! Borroq! Bloodraven! Bran!). If Jon's motivations are so understandable given his narrative, there wouldn't be such a concerted effort to rationalize what he and, for that matter, his assassins do with magic, IMO.

Regarding Jon's internal monologue, did you miss my speculation that Jon's whole speech, including the possibly excised reading of the Pink Letter, is a political gambit to assure the loyalty of the wildlings? Or my observation that Jon has the habit of dwelling on his emotions once he's decided on an action, no matter how logical? Can a guy not savor for a brief few minutes the prospect of kicking the ass of a bastard who truly deserves it? Others have already pointed out the crucial IF in Jon's thoughts on oathbreaking immediately after he finishes talking. Also, let's not forget that Jon, regardless of his parentage, is raised a son of Ned Stark and can be expected to have impossibly high standards of personal honor. Besides, as The Unrepentant Moogle argues, GRRM occasionally hides what a POV is planning when it suits him. Take Tyrion and his Blackwater chain. Really, it's gotta be something of a first in the ASOIAF fandom for so many to believe there isn't any furtive activity beyond what's stated in the text, lol.

Bottom line, my stance is not that all my theorizing is definitely correct. Simply that the chapter has enough inconsistencies and holes to allow Jon another motive or two in how he deals with the Pink Letter besides his love for Arya causing him to summarily abandon the post he's devoted five books' worth of time to when it's more important than ever that the Wall be competently commanded. I mean, Jon being so overcome by emotion he goes a bit crazy just strikes me as a unsatisfying answer when it's not hard to layer on a couple other complications and let the existence of his feelings add ambiguity to the situation.

My suspicion is that Jon is dead and warged into Ghost to be resurrected later, that the NW and wildlings will massacre each other right away, and that the arc about the vows is over.

Though, personally, I'd rather Jon simply be healed (by whatever means) from grievous wounds or clinically dead but resuscitated, I don't see why Jon warging into Ghost for a time and a bloodbath ensuing at Castle Black, probably a wildling victory, is mutually exclusive to any of the ideas I've presented. (Please note: My theory does not say Jon's aware beforehand of Bowen Marsh and his co-conspirators plotting to assassinate him!) I've actually stated in another thread that I'd like to see Jon exercise his skinchanging talents, even though Robin Hobb uses a similar plot device, because it's a skill Jon needs to tap and he can speak with Bran during the process.

As for your assumption that Jon's struggles with his NW vows are over, tell me, when Robb's will finally emerges from the plothole it's fallen into for two novels and names Jon his heir, as many suspect, what's to stop Jon from abdicating in favor of Rickon, who's bound to surface with Davos at some point, then installing himself as regent? Littlefinger and Sansa's storyline comes to nothing but the Vale as Rickon's claim to Winterfell, backed by Jon's military expertise, is better than hers? Dany at last reaches the shores of Westeros, meets Jon, and says, "Oh, Mr. Tall, Dark, and Dangerous, you're my nephew, the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark, and I want you to marry me, sit the Iron Throne beside me as king, and ride one of my dragons!" Why wouldn't Jon, after weighing the issues of incest with a beautiful stranger versus gaining access to Dany's forces and a flying flamethrower the size of small house for use in the war against the Others, gladly accept her offer? Exempt Jon from his NW oath and these future major conflicts fritter away into anticlimax, the cliches some folks hate so are that much more likely to occur, and Jon's character arguably flattens until he's not interesting to read about, if you ever thought he was to begin with.

I find the idea that GRRM ought to leave Jon dead for the sake of defying genre conventions difficult to swallow for the exact same reason. What feels like dozens of outstanding mysteries and scenarios involving the character, a few dating all the way back to AGOT, would amount to very little indeed. "R+L=J, huh? Too bad the kid's dead." Narratively speaking, I'd be one very unhappy customer.

edit: BBCode formatting

[1000 Needles]

GRRM's books are not about flawless badasses, they're about flawed people and "the human heart in conflict with itself," as he puts it (quoting Faulkner). When we see the "Ghost" chapter header in the next book, it will be clear that there was no master plan.

John *is* flawed. He sends his loyal officers off to other posts, he doesn't allow himself to become close to his men, and he ignores it when people like Marsh undermine his authority by sniveling about his descisions. When he's told by Melisandre to keep his guard up because people want to kill him, he locks Ghost up and leaves himself wide open. So yeah, he's deeply flawed in certain areas.

But he *is* a badass in many other ways. He's a brilliant military strategist, and he's capable of thinking outside the box, unlike his mutinous assasins. He's good at the big-picture stuff, but is not as politically astute as he should be (much like Ned).

It's bad writing for Jon to risk it all for Arya, without taking the bigger picture into consideration, especially when you factor in the impending invasion of the Others. Jon is smart enough to realise that they represent the most important threat to the realm and everything he holds dear.

But it's good writing to leave the readers with an incomplete picture of events so that you can dazzle them with a plot twist in the next installment.

[Guest]

Yeade, please keep writing. I love your explanations. And I agree with you 98% of the time! Have you finally finished the book now?

Throughout this debate thoughts of Gared return to me and the sense of doom I felt on my second read as this character was beheaded for desertion by the "cruel" Starks. Jon, an "old hand at justice," was perceptive enough to notice Gared's fear, although he didn't know exactly why he was so afraid. This then leads to Bran asking Ned "can a man be brave if he's afraid?" We know Ned's reply by heart.

I waver on whether Jon is acting out of character or not. If Jon listens to his inner Ned when he beheads Slynt, why would he neglect to consider how the North deals with justice for desertion? These two lessons came out of that crucial opening scene, yet Jon only abides by one of them? Remember Ned's opinion on desertion:

In truth, the man was an oathbreaker, a deserter from the Night's Watch. No man is more dangerous. The deserter knows his life is forfeit if he is taken, so he will not flinch from any crime, no matter how vile.

Would Lord Commander Jon Snow agree? Is Jon embarking south on a suicide mission to commit a "vile crime"? Or is Jon's desertion similar to Gared's: motivated from fear, courageous in its own way, and sort of blameless considering the circumstances?

Honestly, I'm out of answers. I'll just continue to ask a bunch of questions.

[1000 Needles]

The Unrepentant Moogle, thanks for being entertained by my almost embarrassingly geeky joke! It's always great to meet another Star Wars fan! (At least I assume you're one...) Man, I have such fond memories of people whipping out dissertations on the astrophysics of black holes to explain that line of Han's. :laugh:

A lot of people have suggested that he shaved distance off of the Kessel run through a hyeprspace shortcut or somesuch. It might even be an official Retcon. But it's still displays a poor understanding of science on the part of the writing staff.

Lucas should not be allowed to do any of the actual writing or directing for that matter, because he's not good at either one. The "Alien" plot from the last Indiana Jones movie was his idea, and he wrote and directed the prequel trilogy, which is why it comes off so poorly.

If you really want to be horrified, see if you can find a copy of the original Star Wars script. It would probably have been MST3K-worthy without a rewrite. Francis Ford Coppola helped him strip away a lot of the cheese.

ASOIAF has it's flaws, but none are as bad as the things they've done to Star Wars.

[chrisdaw]

John *is* flawed. He sends his loyal officers off to other posts, he doesn't allow himself to become close to his men

Why he did this and why it's the right decision are well shown in the book.

[Howdyphillip]

He's going there to stop Ramsay before he can attack the wall from it's indefensible south side.

This is one of the quotes that I have been hearing a lot about and just wanted to stop for a second and pontificate. Why is the Wall's South side not defensible? I can understand that the castles on that side might not be, but a wall is a wall. If the NW were to be sent on top of the structure, and the elevators were to be secured, then it seems to me that a 700 foot structure would be as easily defensible from either position. Why couldn't supplies just be ferried up there before a battle. Especially with enough time to make arrangements?

[Fantasy Fan]

Did Jon Snow break his oath?

No.

Why do people think so?

1. The imaginary clauses

a. Some appear to think that the Nights Watch oath includes the clause, "I will not interfere in the politics of Westeros."

In reality, this is a tradition of the Nights Watch, not a clause of the oath. The problem with such interference is that it is a distraction from the duties that are central to the oath. At best, the resources of the Nights Watch would be frittered away supporting the winning side in some civil war. At worst, the Nights Watch would be destroyed for supporting the losing side. And then, the Nights Watch will not be prepared to defend the realm from the Others.

b. Some appear to think that the Nights Watch oath includes the clause, "I will never travel south of the wall."

In reality, members of the Nights Watch can go far south of the wall. It is only desertion if you go without permission. Most members would need permission from somewhere in their chain of command. The Lord Commander can just decide. Who else would give him permission. I think it is fair to say that ordinary members given orders or permission to go south would be expected to return when their mission or leave is done. Similarly, if the Lord Commander sends himself south, he should expect to return.

c. Some appear to think that the Nights watch oath includes the clause, "I will no longer care about my parents or siblings."

In reality, this is a tradition. I missed my family is no excuse for going AWOL. And I think it is clear that getting special leave for family reasons would be unusual. But would asking mean your vow was broken? (What do you mean, Benjen? You really want to go to Winterfell because you miss your brother and nephews and nieces. Oathbreaker, off with his head. Oh, you don't really like any of them, and this is just a painful duty to you? To get a little face time with the King? OK.)

d. Some appear to think that the Nights Watch oath includes a celibacy clause.

In reality, that is a tradition. You can't marry and have children. Of course, celibacy is the morally correct way to keep that vow. And a man of the Nights Watch who begins to dote on the prostitutes kid because it looks like him _is_ breaking the oath, I think that those who say that visiting the prostitutes is vow breaking are confusing tradition with the oath.

2. Ignoring the "If"

Some think that because Snow thinks that if what he plans to do with Ramsey is oath breaking, then he will do it alone, it must be oath breaking. In english, "if" doesn't mean the same thing as "because" or "since." We can take from this that Jon does see this as a grey area. It might be oath breaking and it might not. He might well think that it is not oath breaking, but he recognizes that he may be wrong--it is a close thing. Or, he might not know. That is, it could be equally likely (in his view) that it is or is not oath breaking. Reading this to mean that he thinks it is oath breaking, and therefore won't ask others to do it, is inconsistent with the word "if."

3. False alternatives

Some assume that by leading Wildings to get Ramsay, GRRM has decided to have Jon recognize that Stannis is King of Westeros, to have Jon himself be (of the breakaway North as a Stark or of Westeros as a Targaryen) or to make himself Lord of Winterfell (by order of Stannis.) Anything that involves Jon becoming Lord or King is breaking his oaths.

My view of Jon is that he is coming to accept that the Others are the real enemy and that everything must be subordinated to that struggle. The key is "coming to understand." And, more importantly, he is asserting leadership in that struggle. Stannis demanded the castles on the wall for his vassals. Jon refused, and said that Stannis' men can man the castles, but under the command of men of the Nights Watch. He is doing the same thing with Wildings. It is no longer the plan of people join the Nights Watch and man the wall and watch/wait, but rather Jon, through the Nights Watch is directing all military forces in the struggle against the Others.

I think the Wall will fall, and the Others will cross it. As Jon leads the retreat south, civilians will be forced to evacuate and become an army of refugees heading south, food and other resources will be commandeered, and fighting men conscripted. Jon will not claim to be Lord of the North, or King of the North, or work through Stannis as pretender to the Iron Throne. He will be commander of the Nights Watch, but marshal of all of humanities resources against the Others. Lords, like the Boltons, who don't get with the plan, will be crushed. No one is going to be left behind to become ice zombie troops. No food or livestock are going to be left behind on the hope they will still be there, and no one is going to be allowed to play the Game of Thrones.

What part of the oath is left? All the traditions that developed with the Nights Watch was a prison camp devoted to blocking Wilding raids of the North will be irrelevant. All surviving members of the Nights Watch will be south of the wall, and going further south. "Taking no part?" The Nights Watch will be directing all sorts of people in the struggle against the Others.

[The Lost Lord]

In fact, now that I think about it, the moment when Jon chooses to commit to the course he does is completely off-page… as The Unrepentant Moogle argues, GRRM occasionally hides what a POV is planning when it suits him.

it's good writing to leave the readers with an incomplete picture of events so that you can dazzle them with a plot twist in the next installment.

[

We witness Jon's stream of consciousness thoughts right before he says "I think we had best change the plan." The thoughts are about (1) treason/oathbreaking, (2) his love for Arya and his dead siblings, (3) disgust at Ramsay's evil and what he'd do to a recaptured Arya. Judging by what's on the page, these are the factors that went into his decision.

Additionally, I do not understand the dramatic logic of why Martin would hide Jon's true motivations here, and reveal them only when he's warged into Ghost at the start of the next book. If Jon had a super-secret plan, it is now irrelevant -- quite unlike Snape, and unlike the secret plans of Tyrion and Dany that have been hidden from the reader at certain moments and revealed dramatically later on when the plans are executed. Jon's motivations will be clarified immediately in his next POV and events have already made his plan irrelevant. "Darn, I wish those guys had understood I was doing it all for the Watch! Well, on to the next thing…"

Additionally, the impression of a fair number of posters here is that Jon's OOC in his last chapter… Should your interpretation of events turn out to be true, I, for one, would face a potentially bigger problem: I'd have to admit this chapter is poorly conceived or written by GRRM because he fails to convince me and an apparently significant portion of his other readers at Westeros.org that Jon's actions are a natural progression of his characterization and not a plot twist thrown in at the last second

It's bad writing for Jon to risk it all for Arya, without taking the bigger picture into consideration, especially when you factor in the impending invasion of the Others. Jon is smart enough to realise that they represent the most important threat to the realm and everything he holds dear.

This is the heart of the issue. I'll use the phrase "vow-following robot" again and ask -- what if the person you loved most in the world was about to be condemned to a hellish life of being tortured, flayed, mutilated, and raped by an evil monster -- but you could perhaps save him/her? Do you abandon her to that fate? Any functioning human with the capacity to love would feel horribly torn by this. For most of the book, Jon was not prepared to confront this choice, and he hoped and prayed Stannis and Mance would solve that problem for him. But when he finally had to confront that choice, he chose love. Aemon faced the choice and he let his family die. In the end, Jon was not Aemon.

As for your assumption that Jon's struggles with his NW vows are over, tell me, when Robb's will finally emerges… Littlefinger and Sansa's storyline… Dany at last reaches the shores of Westeros… Exempt Jon from his NW oath and these future major conflicts fritter away into anticlimax…

Yeah, because of Stannis' offer in book 3 and R+L=J everyone expected that the rest of Jon's arc was gonna be about him chillin' at the Wall and being tempted repeatedly with more and more power, and saying "my vows! … the throne! … which do I choose??" But instead the final test of Jon's vows was in a form that nobody expected (he was tempted by love for family rather than power and status) and his arc is going in a direction nobody expected (zombie).

Anyway, I really don't think Jon will keep giving a crap about the NW vows after he's just been betrayed and killed by the NW, I think that would kinda discredit the institution in his eyes. And regardless, it's kind of a moot point because, like I said, I have a hard time seeing how the NW survives even one more day after he wildlings respond to Jon's death -- in fact the NW kinda has to be destroyed for the Others to really threaten Westeros.

John *is* flawed. He sends his loyal officers off to other posts, he doesn't allow himself to become close to his men, and he ignores it when people like Marsh undermine his authority by sniveling about his descisions. When he's told by Melisandre to keep his guard up because people want to kill him, he locks Ghost up and leaves himself wide open. So yeah, he's deeply flawed in certain areas.

These are not about "the human heart in conflict with itself." They're tactical errors.

[Yeade]

Yeade, please keep writing. I love your explanations. And I agree with you 98% of the time! Have you finally finished the book now?

You're too kind. :blush: And, no, I still haven't finished ADWD! Keeping up with this thread and others is distracting me bad! Or feeding my natural inclination to procrastinate, lol. I'm currently working my way through the run of Meereen POVs before Jon's last chapter. Which I skipped ahead to read so I could write my post-ADWD OOB for the Wall and participate in discussions here.

A lot of people have suggested that [Han Solo] shaved distance off of the Kessel run through a hyperspace shortcut or somesuch.

The explanation I've heard is that the Millennium Falcon flies so close to the black holes that she and her passengers suffer some of the space-time warping associated with humongous concentrations of mass. And we'd better leave this topic there 'cause I'm no astrophysicist, lol. Generally speaking, I'm a lot more forgiving of cheesiness in the Star Wars films than many, largely due to my recognition of these as pulp adventure stories at heart and my experiences in the Expanded Universe, where crackpot ideas are truly dime-a-dozen.

Why is the Wall's South side not defensible? I can understand that the castles on that side might not be, but a wall is a wall. If the NW were to be sent on top of the structure, and the elevators were to be secured, then it seems to me that a 700 foot structure would be as easily defensible from either position. Why couldn't supplies just be ferried up there before a battle. Especially with enough time to make arrangements?

I'm at best an armchair general, but my first instinct is to dismiss shifting all defenses to atop the Wall as unsustainable folly. I suppose you could disable or destroy the winch cage as well as the staircase up (newly rebuilt, BTW). However, the Wall itself isn't very hospitable. The only shelter from the elements seems to be the occasional guard post or warming shed, and there are no places for long-term food storage of quantities sufficient to survive a lengthy siege, no kitchens or even that much wood, besides structures, to burn for fires. Much material must necessarily be lost in such a move to the enemy or the torch, as it's unlikely you'd be able to empty the vast supply inventories beneath and within the Wall, plus Castle Black itself has to be given up as lost. A smart attacker would simply establish a supply line, stay out of bowshot (assuming you don't run out of arrows), and wait for you to starve. Falling back to the Wall from the south is, I think, an option of last resort and should not be done unless there's absolutely no other way to preserve your forces. Anyways, retreating lengthwise along the Wall to another of the castles is probably the better option.

We witness Jon's stream of consciousness thoughts right before he says "I think we had best change the plan." The thoughts are about (1) treason/oathbreaking, (2) his love for Arya and his dead siblings, (3) disgust at Ramsay's evil and what he'd do to a recaptured Arya. Judging by what's on the page, these are the factors that went into his decision.

What's in the text is Jon's initial burst of emotion after presumably hitting upon the idea of marching south to face Ramsay, IMO. He has an additional two hours to ponder all the ins and outs of his situation, however, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to suppose he considers a few of the many implications and consequences of the Pink Letter as well as warring with Bolton that us readers have proposed given much the same knowledge as Jon has access to. You assume that once Jon feels how personal the stakes are, he's stuck on this aspect and incapable of realizing any of the other connected problems can be addressed or even exist.

For instance, the repetitive "I want my bride back" could indicate Jon's lingering on the horrors awaiting Arya should she fall back into Ramsay's hands, true, but it could just as well be the idea that the Boltons have lost the tiny scrap of legitimacy their rule of the North had--meaning now's a good opportunity to cut them to pieces--slowly dawning on Jon. Another poster theorized that Jon may have caught on to Arya never having been in Bolton custody though, personally, I don't see how. Or any combination of all these plus whatever other interpretations folks have.

Point is, neither you nor I know for sure because Jon's line of reasoning after he decides plans have to be changed is missing. It's like trying to guess the degree of an angle when one of the three points required to form it is unknown. Is the angle acute? Obtuse? Right? Who can tell? Jon's first reactions upon receiving the Pink Letter are on the page for perusal; the question's where his mind goes during the mysterious two-hour council, IMO, which can't be definitively answered with what's given in the text.

Additionally, I do not understand the dramatic logic of why Martin would hide Jon's true motivations here, and reveal them only when he's warged into Ghost at the start of the next book. If Jon had a super-secret plan, it is now irrelevant -- quite unlike Snape, and unlike the secret plans of Tyrion and Dany that have been hidden from the reader at certain moments and revealed dramatically later on when the plans are executed. Jon's motivations will be clarified immediately in his next POV and events have already made his plan irrelevant.

Who says all of Jon's original plans must be clarified in his next POV (as Ghost or whatever)? I figure he'd be too damn busy retaining his identity and powwowing with Bran, then sorting out the bloody mess at Castle Black and kicking himself over his political mistakes to dwell much on the details of either Hardhome or Winterfell.

This is not to say my theories are irrelevant. No, of course not, lol. Are you familiar with the speculation that Stannis decamps to the Dreadfort after revealing the Boltons' Arya deception and thereby winning the support of the northmen, possibly with Arnolf Karstark burned for his treachery? Manderly betrays the Freys during an engagement with Crowfood Umber, strikes a deal with Stannis (Rickon!), and returns to Winterfell with fake!Lightbringer, an assortment of generic frozen heads, and Stannis's men disguised as Freys, claiming Stannis is dead. Roose Bolton sets off for the Dreadfort, too, with the threat of Stannis apparently neutralized, chastising Ramsay but leaving him in command of Winterfell with orders to find Jeyne Poole pronto. The Pink Letter is Ramsay's attempt to do just that, and he may yet march on the Wall since he believes his bride and Reek are there. Meanwhile, his father winds up in a surprise battle with a very much alive Stannis, who's now turned the Boltons' northern allies.

Okay, I admit I really want to see a vicious bastard vs. bastard throwdown on the kingsroad, maybe somewhere around Long Lake. Plus, Ramsay's dogs have to be given their shot at a direwolf, and it's about time Ghost prove his doggy supremacy in some feat of cool awesome, lol. Both Nymeria and Summer have fought wolves already, and Shaggydog's on the island of unicorns and cannibals!

From a plot perspective, I figure the Boltons are finished less than halfway through TWOW, and Jon contributing to their downfall by killing Ramsay complicates my favorite version of a mid-TWOW three-way northern succession crisis between Jon, Sansa, and Rickon after the latter two emerge from hiding and Robb's will comes back into play. This in turn sets up conflict between Jon and Stannis with Melisandre in the middle, who I hope unravels the Wall's magical wards in one last misguided attempt to prove Stannis is AAR while he's at the Nightfort. Then it's bring on ADOS!

Granted, I'm no GRRM, but the above is one example of how Jon's pre-assassination strategy to deal with Ramsay can be woven back into the story.

I'll use the phrase "vow-following robot" again and ask -- what if the person you loved most in the world was about to be condemned to a hellish life of being tortured, flayed, mutilated, and raped by an evil monster -- but you could perhaps save him/her? Do you abandon her to that fate? Any functioning human with the capacity to love would feel horribly torn by this. For most of the book, Jon was not prepared to confront this choice, and he hoped and prayed Stannis and Mance would solve that problem for him. But when he finally had to confront that choice, he chose love. Aemon faced the choice and he let his family die. In the end, Jon was not Aemon.

You continue to present what I feel is a false or at least exaggerated dichotomy between love and duty. Aemon is a wise man, no doubt, but even the wisest can be wrong at times. His life is not Jon's life and, while Jon can certainly learn from Aemon's experiences, his choices need not inform how Jon chooses. My issue with your view is that you leave no room whatsoever for the possibility that duty and love may align. The analogy I give several posts back of Margaery, Loras, and the Kingsguard oath is such an instance, and it doesn't require breaking the laws of the universe to happen. When have I ever denied that Jon's personal desire is to save Arya? My argument's that Jon can in fact honor part of his vows by pursuing his selfish ends in this circumstance and that he knows this but is probably discomfited by the sensation because the boy's been conditioned to believe anything that makes him happy, makes him an oathbreaker also.

At this point, I'm beginning to sense that the two of us will never compromise on this question. So, for the final time, I feel the trick to oaths is to recognize that you've many different obligations, not all of them sworn, that are not necessarily in competition or of equal value and to pick the option that fulfills as many of your most important responsibilities as possible even if it means bending or breaking some of the minor clauses.

Can we just agree to disagree now? ^_^

Yeah, because of Stannis' offer in book 3 and R+L=J everyone expected that the rest of Jon's arc was gonna be about him chillin' at the Wall and being tempted repeatedly with more and more power, and saying "my vows! ... the throne! ... which do I choose?" But instead the final test of Jon's vows was in a form that nobody expected (he was tempted by love for family rather than power and status) and his arc is going in a direction nobody expected (zombie).

Well, I sincerely hope Jon's arc isn't going to turn into Night of the Living Dead anymore than it already is, lol. Plus, everybody's likely to be well away from the Wall, which may not even exist, by the end of TWOW or the whole ice zombie apocalypse's in danger of fizzling out.

Furthermore, I don't see why I can't have Jon being tempted by love of family, romantic love, crowns and titles, power, status, and glory. Yes, at increasingly large scales and higher risk. I mean, why limit myself? No two temptations are exactly the same, and the offers will come from all sorts of characters, each of whom Jon will have a unique relationship with. It would also serve to give Jon's story a thematic unity or some such.

Anyway, I really don't think Jon will keep giving a crap about the NW vows after he's just been betrayed and killed by the NW, I think that would kinda discredit the institution in his eyes. And regardless, it's kind of a moot point because, like I said, I have a hard time seeing how the NW survives even one more day after he wildlings respond to Jon's death -- in fact the NW kinda has to be destroyed for the Others to really threaten Westeros.

The NW at Castle Black's certainly in dire straits, but what about the Shadow Tower, Eastwatch, Cotter Pyke's forces at Hardhome, and the various men Jon assigns to castles along the Wall, like Iron Emmett and Dolorous Edd at Long Barrow, or sends ranging, like Alliser Thorne? I tend to support the NW's survival as an organization, though much changed, because 1) there's need for a conventional military with experience combating the Others to hold the ground and order the retreat if the North isn't going to be wiped out when the Wall is breached and 2) it's a nice metaphorical Lightbringer for potential AAR candidate Jon Snow, lol.

Ironically, by removing his friends and supporters from Castle Black, Jon may have unwittingly facilitated the silencing of his diehard political opponents in one fell swoop, and Bowen Marsh ultimately helps Jon clean house. The two options for the fate of the NW I've seen bandied about are that the NW will never accept Jon back into the ranks or will be decimated as an institution. Here's a third possibility: The NW is almost ruinously damaged by the melee at Castle Black, but Jon remains in command because, by the time the dust settles, nobody who wants to oppose him dares to. I imagine this hypothetical Jon's pretty liberal with Longclaw and chopping blocks. Actually, I'd like to see Jon kill one or more of his young wildling hostages for the misbehavior of their fathers. Maybe if the Weeper and his band end up crossing the Wall peaceably? I prefer my heroes with a ruthless streak!

edit: BBCode formatting

[The Lost Lord]

You continue to present what I feel is a false or at least exaggerated dichotomy between love and duty... My argument's that Jon can in fact honor part of his vows by pursuing his selfish ends in this circumstance and that he knows this but is probably discomfited by the sensation because the boy's been conditioned to believe anything that makes him happy, makes him an oathbreaker also. At this point, I'm beginning to sense that the two of us will never compromise on this question. So, for the final time, I feel the trick to oaths is to recognize that you've many different obligations, not all of them sworn, that are not necessarily in competition or of equal value and to pick the option that fulfills as many of your most important responsibilities as possible even if it means bending or breaking some of the minor clauses. Can we just agree to disagree now? ^_^

I quite understand your position on love and duty not being mutually exclusive. My problem is that you said that if my interpretation turns out to be right, you'll think the chapter was poorly conceived and that Jon was acting OOC.

I asked why it would be OOC for Jon to choose love over duty if he feels he can't choose both. Your response is that you don't think love and duty are mutually exclusive in this situation and that you think Jon shares your views on this. But we agree that Jon usually has a very strict interpretation of his vows -- so why do you think it would be OOC for him to take a strict interpretation of his vows in this situation too, like I am? Also, if Jon's assessment of the choice was more in tune with mine and Maester Aemon's, do you think it would be OOC for him to choose love over duty?

[Lord Damian]

Jon has always been a more signifigant character than Robb. Although Robb was a king, John has been there with pov since the beginning. Jon will remain with the story but in what form?

[1000 Needles]

It's remotely possible that Jon could survive his wounds, if he gets some first aid, pronto.

But I think the likeliest options are warging into Ghost (or somebody else!), or being healed by Melisandre.

If he doesn't die immediately, he can be healed like the red priest on the Victarion's ship. I think the whole reason this was included in the ADWD is to introduce the idea of Rlhorr's healing powers before the next book rolls around.

If he dies, then he mighthave to go the Un-Jon route, which would warp his personality and memories (less likely, IMOHO).

[Ethan Dirtch]

Without reading the whole thread, I'll just chime in for what it's worth:

I do think that Jon has shown throughout the book that protecting the entirety of the realm is paramount to anything else, and that when he read Bolton's letter indicating that Stannis is dead, that left him with what he believed to be his ONLY option left to him: take the reins himself, unite the north, force them to see the thread they face and get the assistance he needed. I think he was also prepared to die for his treason.

Jon is pragmatic, and he's pretty smart, but I don't think he was clever enough to see through the lies of the letter like we were: he believed it was Ramsay, and he believed Ramsay's words were true. His only option was to help Arya take Winterfel, and if that fails, to take his 'birthright' himself as Sansa was married to the enemy.

I think this will still be his plan somehow. He's done all he could at the Wall, saved all those he could save and those that wanted to be saved. His only course left is to get Westeros to wake up. Whether he died and was revived, is simply in some sort of coma as he recovers, the fact that he's been kicked out of the Watch will make his job harder because people will see him as a traitor (not that the Watch's influence was much respected south of the Neck anyway). His course will now involve the Wildings he's saved (as they'll likely be harassed by whoever takes over as Lord Commander of the Watch into moving north of the Wall again).

With all that said, however, I think he'll still have lots of friends in the Watch. Dolorous Edd and Iron Emmett, Leathers, Pyp and Grenn, Satin, etc and etc, all of whom might just leave the Watch and join him if they found out he lived through the attack.

[Howdyphillip]

I'm at best an armchair general, but my first instinct is to dismiss shifting all defenses to atop the Wall as unsustainable folly. I suppose you could disable or destroy the winch cage as well as the staircase up (newly rebuilt, BTW). However, the Wall itself isn't very hospitable. The only shelter from the elements seems to be the occasional guard post or warming shed, and there are no places for long-term food storage of quantities sufficient to survive a lengthy siege, no kitchens or even that much wood, besides structures, to burn for fires. Much material must necessarily be lost in such a move to the enemy or the torch, as it's unlikely you'd be able to empty the vast supply inventories beneath and within the Wall, plus Castle Black itself has to be given up as lost. A smart attacker would simply establish a supply line, stay out of bowshot (assuming you don't run out of arrows), and wait for you to starve. Falling back to the Wall from the south is, I think, an option of last resort and should not be done unless there's absolutely no other way to preserve your forces. Anyways, retreating lengthwise along the Wall to another of the castles is probably the better option.

I just wanted to say that I appreciate the amount of thought and detail that went into formulating your opinion on this. If there is ever a vote, then you absolutely have my nod for "armchair general."

Did Jon Snow break his oath?

No.

You would clearly be correct in your summation if all of the laws of the Night's watch were contained in the verbal oath that Jon spoke at the wierwood tree. They are obviously not. I have mentioned this before in another thread, but following the rule of order in the NW is every bit as important for a member as following the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) is for an American soldier. Our soldiers do not quote the whole text while swearing in, but it is more then implied that they are to follow the law.

1. Jon had a sexual relationship with Ygrette - As the punishment for this offense is described to include the possibility of execution, then I would say that it is breaking the law of the NW to do this.

2. Interfering with the politics of the south - It is textually established that the NW is not supposed to do this. Jon over and over again teters the line as to not break this law. He finally decides that he will when he rides south to meet Ramsey

3. Family is to be put aside for the brotherhood of the NW - There is a whole chapter in a Game of Thrones dedicated to this rule. Aemon clearly talks to Jon about this very thing. Throughout the series, Jon is conflicted with this. He finally decides to break this rule to go to the aid of a family member

There are laws in the NW that Jon is breaking. These are the same laws that we witness people being executed for breaking. Jon is breaking these laws when he makes his decisions. Thus he is breaking his oath. GRRM specifically stated that Jon's character was going to become more grey in ADWD. If everything that he did was out of some Palidin's sense of duty, then there would have been no shading of the character what so ever.

I do not want to come across as someone trying to tell someone how he/she has to interpret what they read. I just feel like that the belief that Jon didn't break his vows takes away from the story. I personally think that Jon is a multi dimensional character that has been placed in a no win situation. Making the decision to break his vows to ride to the aid of his sister is clearly the right choice, but to do so, he has to sacrifice his personal honor.

[tozka]

You would clearly be correct in your summation if all of the laws of the Night's watch were contained in the verbal oath that Jon spoke at the wierwood tree. They are obviously not.

Obviously ?! Please show me these laws, show me anywhere that someone talks about it being a law. The Watch takes no part is more of a tradition, I doubt it is any law. I might be wrong though.

I am certain that there are some regulations and rules in the NW, as is normal for thousand of years old organization. In some of these laws must be that the Lord Commander rules the Watch, or perhaps that's a tradition as well ? And who creates these laws - supposedly the Lord Commander is the ruler of the Watch and if anybody can make laws that would be him. In that case he may as well abolish laws. Or maybe his word is law. Or maybe these laws are made from some sort of assembly or maybe it is something else.

As you can see I am speculating, the same as you were, because the only thing we know about the laws of the NW is their Oaths, anything else we have not idea if it is a law or tradition, we don't know how laws are created - is the LC the sole source of all laws - in that case there could not be argument for Jon breaking them - he unmake as well as he can make laws (as long they don't break his oaths). We have not seen an indication of anything else. Since the dawn of the Night Watch the LC has always been the supreme authority within the Watch. Even if he wants to name himself a Night King - he can do that - one did.

1. Jon had a sexual relationship with Ygrette - As the punishment for this offense is described to include the possibility of execution, then I would say that it is breaking the law of the NW to do this.

I've not seen anyone executed for having sex. Actually Mormont mentions if that execute every man who visits Mole's Town (aka whores) only ghosts will guard the Wall.

2. Interfering with the politics of the south - It is textually established that the NW is not supposed to do this. Jon over and over again teters the line as to not break this law. He finally decides that he will when he rides south to meet Ramsey

Is it a tradition or a law? It is never established and if it is a law does Jon have the right to break it? Jon does not think so himself but Jon is Eddard's son - he is way to hard on himself.

3. Family is to be put aside for the brotherhood of the NW - There is a whole chapter in a Game of Thrones dedicated to this rule. Aemon clearly talks to Jon about this very thing. Throughout the series, Jon is conflicted with this. He finally decides to break this rule to go to the aid of a family member

Nobody does that, all people are conflicted and all have to choose , some have chosen their family, some had stayed true to their oaths. Jon while towing the line did stay true to them. Only when Ramsay threaten the Watch did he have to react. Why did he react? Was it only for Arya, I doubt it. I think it was more of a complex decision - his thoughts are pretty muddy - he does think about his family but the writer wrote it all vague for a reason I think. No doubt it was saving Arya that clinch it for him. But somewhere on the way he must have (or did he?) that he needs to do it if he does not want to see Bolton and the Watch/Queen Men/wildlings fighting and destroying each other while the Others prepare

I think in a technical sense he does not break his vows but in a more personal level Jon believes he is , or at least fears he might be which is the important part. As long as he is believing that he is breaking them - in a sense then he is breaking them.

[Howdyphillip]

Obviously ?! Please show me these laws, show me anywhere that someone talks about it being a law. The Watch takes no part is more of a tradition, I doubt it is any law. I might be wrong though.

I would say the evidence of both thoughts, words, and actions of members of the NW clearly establish that there was laws that were not specifically mentioned in the Oath members took to swear in. Take in point, that if there were no laws about not participating in the politics of the South, then Jon or Mormont for that matter (to a lesser extent), would have clearly felt free to not remain neutral.

I am certain that there are some regulations and rules in the NW, as is normal for thousand of years old organization. In some of these laws must be that the Lord Commander rules the Watch, or perhaps that's a tradition as well ? And who creates these laws - supposedly the Lord Commander is the ruler of the Watch and if anybody can make laws that would be him. In that case he may as well abolish laws. Or maybe his word is law. Or maybe these laws are made from some sort of assembly or maybe it is something else.

We have evidence again that the LC does not create all the laws. Councils are met to establish them, as with the appointment of the LC, and the council that would have relived Aemon from his vows. The LC is the supreme commander in military matters, but even he must follow guidelines.

As you can see I am speculating, the same as you were, because the only thing we know about the laws of the NW is their Oaths, anything else we have not idea if it is a law or tradition, we don't know how laws are created - is the LC the sole source of all laws - in that case there could not be argument for Jon breaking them - he unmake as well as he can make laws (as long they don't break his oaths). We have not seen an indication of anything else. Since the dawn of the Night Watch the LC has always been the supreme authority within the Watch. Even if he wants to name himself a Night King - he can do that - one did.

The Night's King had his name stricken from every record, and his number removed from the roles of the Watch. I think it is more then safe to assume that he violated his oaths and broke laws...

I've not seen anyone executed for having sex. Actually Mormont mentions if that execute every man who visits Mole's Town (aka whores) only ghosts will guard the Wall.

No, but mentioning this law is unenforceable is absolute proof that the law did in fact exist. Otherwise, there would be no need or framework for this conversation to take place.

I can understand and appreciate your point of view. the very fact that this subject is debatable at all is a testament to the subtlety that Jon's dilemma was written. I do however have to come to the conclusion that Jon Snow was left with a decision to make. Either to stay loyal to the Watch and keep his vows, or to take actions on the injustices that were being committed by the Boltons. I firmly believes that makes Jon a much deeper and more developed character.