Crackpot (or not) theories you think are so nuts, they actually piss you off.

[Son of Jon Snarkgaryen]

1. I think that Jon was elected, not necessarily because he was the best man for the job, but because he was the least offensive man for the job to the majority of the NW. There were large factions which passionately hated each of the other candidates - enough to deny each of them a decisive victory, anyway. What Sam did was not so much convince the two leading candidates to back him because he was the best man for the job. He convinced each of them to back him with all their supporters because at least he wasn't that other guy. And this may not count as strictly cheating, but it is certainly not ethical election practices either: Sam did lie to them. He convinced each that if they did NOT vote for Jon and get the thing overwith, then Stannis was going to force them to choose his opponent.

Good point. Perhaps it is less accurate to say he was the best/most skilled man for the job than it is to say that he was the lesser of two (or however many candidates it was) "evils" - so to speak.

Also from LadyoftheNorth

I mean, seriously, imagine a scenario where there are several candidates for mayor, and the two frontrunners are deadlocked. Some little messenger guy from a third, total underdog candidate visits each of them and tells them that he has it from the governor himself: to candidate A he says, if you do not throw in with my guy, the guv is going to choose candidate B. To candidate B, he says, choose my guy or the guv is going to choose A. It would certainly be considered dirty politicking in our world, and if discovered, would make news story #1 for quite some time.

My only problem with this is: All it would take for the men Sam spoke with to verify his story is to ask Stannis, which would have been relatively easy. Unlike modern politics, there aren't as many political hoops to jump through. They were all within the vicinity of Castle Black. They could have simply approached Stannis and questioned him, and knowing Stannis, he would have told the truth. So while Sam certainly did lie to them, they made it very easy for him to get away with it by not checking his back story for even a second.

Also from LadyoftheNorth

2. I totally agree that Jon won the COUNT fair and square; no sleight of hand switcheroos of votes or "accidental" miscounts. However, I am not on the NW and a lot of the important NW guys DID believe the election was rigged somehow, and their opinion (see: mutiny) is much more important than mine on that issue. From their perspective it HAD to look like something hinky had happened, when suddenly the frontrunners pull out and suddenly a candidate everyone found laughable is their new commander. I believe that *their* suspicions of how he won play a role in their ultimate decision to get rid of him. Maybe not a huge role, but certainly a placation of their guilt in their own minds ("he wasn't even elected fairly!").

So we as readers can grasp the whole situation and know that Jon was blameless in how it all happened, and that Sam only sort of skirted the lines a bit, but that is not how it looks to your garden variety nightwatchman. To them, it looks like an unfair coup, pulled off by a guy with a direwolf, a king, and a man-burning priestess backing him, and his own best friend (not to say lackey) doing the ballot counting when most of them cannot count higher than their fingers and toes allow. They believe (some of them) that they got hoodwinked, and in the end what they believe is much more pertinent than what we readers know.

My only problem with this is that I think it ws only the high officers who probably had a problem with Jon's election. Like Jorah told Dany in AGOT: The smallfolk don't care about the game of thrones, as long as they're left alone.... The new recruits and younger/newer Brothers probably weren't upset by Jon's election..... The only ones who were probably rubbed the wrong way were the ones who had ambitions of some kind, or who had been in the NW long enough to develop a specific ideal of "how things are supposed to be".

Let's see. Jon would be Dany's nephew by her brother Rhaegar - same exact relation as Aegon (if he is Aegon*) has to her. Yet people have seen the possible shipping of Dany and Aegon without much eww factor expressed, that I have seen.

I have young adult nephews so I would definitely jump on the ewww bandwagon IRL, but these ARE Targs we are talking about (presumably). Aunt/nephew is barely related at all in that family.

* I keep trying to come up with some catchy acronym for this besides YG, which I find boring. Gwima (guy who is maybe Aegon?).

How about..... FAekgon? Fake + Aegon = FAekgon..... :thumbsup: You read it here first!! Trademark!!

[LadyoftheNorth72]

LOL! My only problem with FAekgon is that it implies that he is definitely an imposter. Although I am certainly not 100% convinced he is the real deal, I am not sure he is not, either.

You make a good point about the general rank and file not really having a dog in the fight when it comes to the LC. Whom I was mostly speaking of were the mutterers and malcontents, both officers/longer term members and whoever else they may have convinced with their griping. Jon clearly had his solid loyalists on the NW, and then all the guys who simply didn't care as long as the food supplies did not run out and they could visit Moletown periodically. But for the factions who objected to Jon's election for various reasons, you could see where they might believe they have been robbed of a real, uninfluenced, completely "fair" choosing - as well as whom they would blame, and what they would name as "evidence.". Or maybe evidence is too strong a word.

[ARYa_Nym]

Now that I've thought about it I'm not so sure that Ygritte wasn't arrogant and entitled. She thought that she knew everything and that Jon was just an ignorant Southron hence her not being able to shut up about the "you know nothing, Jon Snow."

[voodooqueen126]

Now that I've thought about it I'm not so sure that Ygritte wasn't arrogant and entitled. She thought that she knew everything and that Jon was just an ignorant Southron hence her not being able to shut up about the "you know nothing, Jon Snow."

yeah and I found her speech about how everything belongs to everybody to be a way to justify theft.

And readers wonder why the Wildlings live in anarchy.

[ARYa_Nym]

yeah and I found her speech about how everything belongs to everybody to be a way to justify theft.

And readers wonder why the Wildlings live in anarchy.

LOL!

I don't think that Val is arrogant but she acted the same way when they spoke of Shireen.

"..The child is not clean! "She seems a sweet girl. You cannot know-" "I can. You know nothing, Jon Snow." Val seized his arm. "I want that monster out of there. Him and his wet nurses. You cannot leave them in that same tower as the dead girl."

[Lemon Cake]

Now that I've thought about it I'm not so sure that Ygritte wasn't arrogant and entitled. She thought that she knew everything and that Jon was just an ignorant Southron hence her not being able to shut up about the "you know nothing, Jon Snow."

I kind of agree. That's why I never found "You know nothing, Jon Snow," to be a remotely endearing catch phrase. Quite the opposite, actually. That, and it's just an annoying thing to say over and over and over again.

That said, I adamantly do not ship Jon/Dany, so this debate leaves me feeling all ~conflicted.

[Alexia]

If I was going to ship Jon with anyone, it would be Wylla Manderly. But you know... I like her too much for that, and I ship Jon/Vows or Jon/Death or Jon/Sam or Jon/Stannis, anyway.