This drives me crazy about Lord Snow

[kwvapor]

The breaking of Jon's vow, I think stems from the reemergence of Arya Stark. He thought they were lost, everyone, everything. Now all of a sudden boom! She is alive, the red lady tells him, so he does everything she says except keep Ghost nearby and starts to become Jon Snow again, not the JS of the NW or the LC Jon Snow.

He's crying out save my sister!

The breaking point for his men is when he breaks the vow. I think they were still with him, putting up with his suicidal leadership style but probably agreed on lines that the LC should not cross and when and if he does, they'd have to kill him.

They were shock to hear Mance was still alive and probably thought he conspired with the Freefolk. And what is Mance and 6 spearwives doing in Winterfell? He doesn't explain to anyone, but the implications are JS has already broken the vow and lied to us all.

Imagine if you was one of the NW in that room when Jon Snow read that letter. You'd feel that JS betrayed the NW not the other way around.

As LC he should of went to the mountain people himself to ask the 4000 or so North men to come garrison the Wall. Instead gave his NW more evidence that he had a hand in the realm's business.

He had already broken the vow more than once when he helped Stannis multiple times.

[Silverx2]

and why the entire Quentyn storyline exists.

this was the most frustrating part of ADWD for me.

That whole storyline was nothing but filler.

[Ser Pollo Loco]

I think the plot began when the letter arrived, i think it was read and Marsh and his cronies, ghost wants to attack of them before jon reads the letter to the wildlings, and i think bowen killed him not because he broke his vows/let the wildings through (though it probably played a role), but because he thought jon had made his bed with stannis and lost...for the watch is not because primarily because jon had gone astray but because bowen believed they had to do it or bolton would hold them all responsible hence the tears

[Christine K]

The breaking of Jon's vow, I think stems from the reemergence of Arya Stark. He thought they were lost, everyone, everything. Now all of a sudden boom! She is alive, the red lady tells him, so he does everything she says except keep Ghost nearby and starts to become Jon Snow again, not the JS of the NW or the LC Jon Snow.

He's crying out save my sister!

The breaking point for his men is when he breaks the vow. I think they were still with him, putting up with his suicidal leadership style but probably agreed on lines that the LC should not cross and when and if he does, they'd have to kill him.

They were shock to hear Mance was still alive and probably thought he conspired with the Freefolk. And what is Mance and 6 spearwives doing in Winterfell? He doesn't explain to anyone, but the implications are JS has already broken the vow and lied to us all.

Imagine if you was one of the NW in that room when Jon Snow read that letter. You'd feel that JS betrayed the NW not the other way around.

As LC he should of went to the mountain people himself to ask the 4000 or so North men to come garrison the Wall. Instead gave his NW more evidence that he had a hand in the realm's business.

He had already broken the vow more than once when he helped Stannis multiple times.

I agree with you. Jon's my favorite character but I think that the letter forced him to think like Jon Stark and not the LC of the NW. And also the fact that some of the NW were going to go with him probably forced the others against Jon to take action because they didn't want everyone in the NW to start taking part in the matters of the realm.

[Mulled Wino]

That wasn't me trying to provide the model answer, it's just how I read Jon based on my own experiences. I'm not a good leader myself but I did the training and I saw other people develop into good (and a few great) leaders - and Jon meets a lot of those criteria. My post was mostly written in response to the critism that Jon did not follow Ned's leadership style by spending time with the men, and I was trying to illustrate that he did.

The decision to send some of his most trusted commanders away is a different question, and not what I took you to be questioning in the OP. I think your original premise was wrong - Jon didn't miss the plot to kill him because he failed to socialize with his men (he did) but because only a small percentage of the men were plotting against him (and he knew they were resistant to his changes, just not the extremes they would go).

+

I think it was more than a small percentage and he should have been prepared for any extremes. I mean, he lopped off slynt's head.

and the other stuff was me answering your post that deviated from my OP. just more discussion, which I certainly appreciate and personally found thought-provoking and interesting. i wasn't trying to diss at all.

[Mulled Wino]

The breaking of Jon's vow, I think stems from the reemergence of Arya Stark. He thought they were lost, everyone, everything. Now all of a sudden boom! She is alive, the red lady tells him, so he does everything she says except keep Ghost nearby and starts to become Jon Snow again, not the JS of the NW or the LC Jon Snow.

He's crying out save my sister!

The breaking point for his men is when he breaks the vow. I think they were still with him, putting up with his suicidal leadership style but probably agreed on lines that the LC should not cross and when and if he does, they'd have to kill him.

They were shock to hear Mance was still alive and probably thought he conspired with the Freefolk. And what is Mance and 6 spearwives doing in Winterfell? He doesn't explain to anyone, but the implications are JS has already broken the vow and lied to us all.

Imagine if you was one of the NW in that room when Jon Snow read that letter. You'd feel that JS betrayed the NW not the other way around.

As LC he should of went to the mountain people himself to ask the 4000 or so North men to come garrison the Wall. Instead gave his NW more evidence that he had a hand in the realm's business.

He had already broken the vow more than once when he helped Stannis multiple times.

while I think this is different from my original topic, I think its an interesting point. the letter regarding arya is actually finally the evidence that his enemies need to depose him. the proverbial straw, and i think if he was meeting with his people on a more social level, he may have been more privy to this plot that more than a small percentage of the NW was involved in.

[Buried Treasure]

I think it was more than a small percentage and he should have been prepared for any extremes. I mean, he lopped off slynt's head.

Would killing Slynt not have counted as one of Jon's most popular actions? He was pretty much disliked by all. ;)

In all seriousness, dealing with Slynt was something Jon needed to do. He tried giving Slynt a get-out, an independent command where he was not going to be a threat, but when Slynt did not go Jon handled it pretty well. He made sure that the final showdown was widely witnessed and that Slynt openly disobeyed direct orders. Then he split up and sent away the few Slynt sympathisers (which is part of the reason he also had to send away his own loyalists to the same places).

and the other stuff was me answering your post that deviated from my OP. just more discussion, which I certainly appreciate and personally found thought-provoking and interesting. i wasn't trying to diss at all.

Yeah, I definately misunderstood the emphasis on your OP. I think just because I'm super-sensitive to the critisism that 'Ned got to know his men by eating with them and Jon didn't' - which I think is a misreading of both of them.

[Mulled Wino]

Would killing Slynt not have counted as one of Jon's most popular actions? He was pretty much disliked by all. ;)

In all seriousness, dealing with Slynt was something Jon needed to do. He tried giving Slynt a get-out, an independent command where he was not going to be a threat, but when Slynt did not go Jon handled it pretty well. He made sure that the final showdown was widely witnessed and that Slynt openly disobeyed direct orders. Then he split up and sent away the few Slynt sympathisers (which is part of the reason he also had to send away his own loyalists to the same places).

Yeah, I definately misunderstood the emphasis on your OP. I think just because I'm super-sensitive to the critisism that 'Ned got to know his men by eating with them and Jon didn't' - which I think is a misreading of both of them.

S

Slynt wasn't THAT unpopular, he was likely to win the Lord Commander position if Sam didn't throw Jon's name in,

I like what he did with Slynt, but he definitely upped the ante- his enemies knew he was for real at that point and they would need a deathblow if they were ever going to mutiny.

[Christine K]

So why exactly did Jon decide to go south instead of north? To save Winterfell, or Arya, or both or are their other or completely different reasons? Because earlier in ADwD he wasn't going to go help Arya because he knew he couldn't break his vows but then he did later and I'm wondering exactly why that was.

[Chirios]

So why exactly did Jon decide to go south instead of north?

So that George could have his plot twist.

[Guest]

What are Jon's goals? What does he want? He seems conflicted to the core. I find this very frustrating.

[Yeade]

I'm of the opinion that Jon's actions in his last ADWD chapter don't make much sense if you assume his primary motivation in marching south is Arya. If the Pink Letter's to be believed, Ramsay has lost Reek and his bride for long enough that he thinks they've made it to the Wall. Jon knows for a fact that this isn't true. Which means Arya could feasibly be anywhere in the trackless wilderness between Winterfell and Castle Black. Does Jon intend to ask Melisandre to locate his sister though? No, he specifically considers how Melisandre may be able to find Ramsay.

Besides this discrepancy, it seems rather OOC for Jon to summarily ditch his obligations to the NW and defense of the realm to hare off after Arya when 1) he's been concerned with almost nothing else but preparing for the Others for the entirety of the novel, 2) he refuses to rise to Ramsay's earlier provocation regarding Arya, and 3) he admits to himself that allowing Mance Rayder south to retrieve his beloved sister under suspect circumstances is a mistake.

The last point is especially striking to me because the Pink Letter is trouble caused in part by Abel's sekrit mission that's flown back to roost on the Wall and endanger everything Jon's achieved there. So, Jon's response is to pursue the exact same course of action (directly challenging the Boltons) for the exact same reason (his love for Arya) on a much grander scale? No wonder that the insanity plea's a popular explanation for Jon's behavior, though personally I find the idea that Jon suffers an emotional nervous breakdown less than satisfying.

My preferred theory for Jon's motivations in this chapter is that he correctly reads the Pink Letter as an imminent threat to the Wall. Even if it weren't morally reprehensible to turn women and children over to a monster like Ramsay, Jon can't produce the hostages Ramsay demands because he either doesn't know where they are (Theon, Jeyne) or would incite violence between the factions at Castle Black trying to secure them (Melisandre, Selyse, Shireen, Val, "Monster"). Should Jon refuse Ramsay, Ramsay would then have no choice but to march on the Wall. Jon, in fact, can't be certain Ramsay isn't already on his way to Castle Black. And it's hard to see how a hostile Bolton army led by a madman with a grudge on the vulnerable southern side of the Wall can fail to lead to armed conflict that'll ruin the realm's only defense against the Others.

Of the forces on the Wall, Jon can only expect to command two--the Night's Watch and wildlings. The NW tradition of political noninterference aside, the black brothers are ill-suited for a campaign against the Boltons with their numbers so low, scattered all along the Wall, and up to half the men, many of whom are old or green boys, usually in noncombat support roles. The free folk, OTOH, are practically perfect for winter guerrilla actions against Ramsay's line of march provided Jon can win their loyalty and convince them to follow him into a battle they could care less about. Jon must then immediately set out down the kingsroad so he can organize his ambush and, at the same time, put the fighting as far away from the Wall as possible.

When he announces his intentions to march south and confront Ramsay, I think Jon's plans are as follows:

Neutralize the danger Ramsay presents to the Wall by killing him and wrecking his army using the wildlings as raiders in a meeting engagement somewhere on the kingsroad between Winterfell and Castle Black.

If the above succeeds:

- Send out scouts to find Arya.

- Learn the fate of Stannis and his forces.

- Treat with whoever's in charge at Winterfell and negotiate a ceasefire.

- Forage for food and generally beg for aid on behalf of the Wall.

If the above fails:

- Jon's dead or Ramsay's prisoner, wishing he were dead.

- Which may appease Ramsay enough for him to abandon any notions of heading to the Wall.

- The NW can disavow Jon as a rogue Lord Commander in league with wildlings and even Stannis.

- Ramsay's forces will be weaker for having fought a battle in addition to making a winter march.

- The NW is in a better position to bargain or fight as necessary.

All in all, I can't come up with a better strategy that's as flexible in covering the contingencies so well. Jon's distraction and angst are due to, IMO, him being quite aware that he's skirting oathbreaking and the poor boy's conditioning to believe anything that brings him personal satisfaction is by default wrong. The tactician in him, who's taught by Ned alongside Robb, knows what he's doing is correct, but Jon still feels he can't trust his own judgment because he really, really wants to kill Ramsay and save Arya. Such a dovetailing of his desires and duty hasn't happened to Jon since he first decides to join the NW in AGOT, and I think he's understandably shaken at the prospect after becoming so practiced at denying himself joy to fulfill his responsibilities.

[MallisterTheMighty]

Yeade i couldnt agree with you more

and just my two cents on why it seems Jon didnt expect to be betrayed, is that i always felt Jon had that Lord mentality that since he is Lord Commander that they must obey whatever he decides, just like all the bannermen of a High Lord...even more so that they chose him collectively between themselves.

it doesnt help that the NW is full of theives, murderers, rapist, basically the scum of the realm. So ironically a rebellion (if you will) is more likely to happen more so than in the case between a Lord and his vassels

[Ghost714]

Ned always ate with his men because it was good for him to. Ned was always the Lord to his men, if not he was the son of their lord(for any of his older men). So Ned was always looked at like the Lord, someone who is stationed above the men. With Jon in the Nights Watch, he started out as an equal to some, and below many, as far as the Nights Watch hierarchy goes. So for Jon it was important for him to distance himself from the men, for awhile. That's the only way they would start seeing him as their Lord Commander, and not just one of their fellow Brothers. After awhile, I imagine Jon would have started to dine with his men again, but not until it was well established that he was their Lord Commander. Most the time, the Lord Commander was probably a former officer, so most the men would already be accustomed to taking orders from them. That was not the case with Jon, he went from being above some of the men(only by respect of his deads, not by title), to being above all the men.

So unfortunately, Jon did not share the same luxury as Ned and Robb, he was not able to sup with the men at first, but I believe after time he would have started to.

[Yeade]

MallisterTheMighty, I've had some thoughts along the same lines as you. Though Jon's situation at the end of ADWD is oft compared to the fates of Ned and Robb, it seems to me that Jon's authority as Lord Commander is slightly different from that of his late father and brother.

The power of the Hand of the King versus that of members of the royal family or Small Council is negotiable based on the wishes of the king, IMO. That is, Ned is betrayed by his effective peers in rank. Robb's lords bannermen, OTOH, do swear oaths of fealty to him directly. However, Robb's common subjects are vassals beholden to whatever nobility there is in their immediate area, creating a chain of command that can easily be broken by the lords bannermen. The Freys, for example, even have an additional degree of separation from Robb because their liege lords are actually the Tullys.

When the men of the Night's Watch elect Jon Lord Commander, they grant him executive authority over every individual black brother. Bowen Marsh may be First Steward and Othell Yarwyck, First Builder, but Jon has the right to order any and all of the stewards and builders with or without Marsh and Yarwyck's say-so. The NW as an organization isn't the equivalent of an alliance of noble houses that are at least nominally of the same standing below a ruler as both Robb's kingdom and Westeros are. No, the NW is a single military force, one army, led by the Lord Commander. A better analogy for Marsh's actions against Jon, IMO, is the Joint Chiefs of Staff gunning down the President of the United States, elected commander in chief of America's armed forces. The military has a term for this--mutiny and, in extreme cases, treason--offenses punishable by death.

At any rate, I think ultimately this sort of legal mumbo jumbo is less important than Marsh's motivations in attempting to assassinate Jon (myopic fear and prejudice, IMO) and the practically suicidal methods he's chosen. Jon's arguably an oathbreaker and is certainly guilty of upending many of the NW's traditions, but Marsh doesn't do too well himself when judged in this light, no matter how much his "for the Watch" appears to be a claim that he acts in the NW's interests. Personally, I feel Marsh's characterization and the cold, hard truths he refuses to face (the threat of the Others, the indifference of the realm to the NW's plight, etc.) put the lie to this interpretation.

Regarding Jon, one of the root causes of his troubles is that he's too humble, IMO. He doesn't think of himself as an exceptional man. Us readers can recognize that Jon's the linchpin in the fragile peace at the Wall, but I get the impression that Jon has little understanding of just how badly everything would fall to pieces in his absence. While popular theory here has Jon as the uncrowned king thrice over (R+L=J, Robb's will, the wildlings) and possibly the only character capable of uniting Westeros against the Others who also has the skill to pull off a victory, Jon has no conception of any of this.

He, of course, tries to do his best as a leader. He hasn't realized that there's pretty much no one around who can match his best, though. If Jon gets himself killed on the way to Hardhome or Winterfell, good cause or no, what does he expect will happen to the NW? I imagine he hopes that a competent brother of his, probably Denys Mallister or even Marsh at a Castle Black stripped of wildlings, would assume command. Now, me? I question whether anybody else in the NW has Jon's strategic sense and knowledge of the North, not to mention of the free folk. He's a Stark with an education fit for a prince, too, and has the supple courage of youth.

Again, I don't think this would occur to Jon at all because, well, he's just a bastard, right? There's nothing remarkable about him or his abilities. Other people can accomplish just as much given time and opportunity. It's not like his life's indispensable. (Wrong!)

[Chirios]

I think you're being a little harsh calling Jon's death not organic . Organic to me at least is gut wrenching and a shock , which is exactly how I felt at the end of that chapter.

It would be a shock to find out that Jon was secretly the avatar of Satan. However it would not be organic.

Here's the thing though , we have no clue what's happened to Jon as of yet. We've got no idea how his story line ends which is why I think it's a little premature to judge and say stuff like George had a "writer's block" . We saw the end of Ned's story , there was no question of it proceeding from there. Whereas Jon we haven't seen it through yet , we haven't seen it play out. Given than Martin knew the fate's of all these characters before he started the book, I would think he has a good idea of where all this is going and if it's going to pay off or not.

... ADwD and AFFC are considered to be two halves of the same book, similar to Blood and Gold and Steel and Snow. Combined ADwD and AFFC round out to over 2000 pages hardback, exactly how much writing do we need to consider before we're able to judge?

I'm not defending the literary decisions GRRM makes. Some of them are questionable to me as well. But keep this in mind when you are commenting on how realistic or organic these characters are.

No. Why? Because your argument is based on a very big faulty premise. So what if I'm not Jon Snow? That makes absolutely no difference when I'm judging the quality of the writing. I've never been female either, nor have I ever been caucasian, does that mean I'm not allowed to point out that it's a bit weird if Arya all of a sudden decides that all she's really ever wanted was to be a princess and have lots of sons and follow her husband around dutifully? Further, we've already spent 3 books and thousands of pages in Jon's head, we know his character.

The problem with Jon's storyline in this book is not: It's not understandable, it's that it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense if you're an impartial observer looking at what you would do, it doesn't make sense if you look at it from Jon's point of view; because we already know Jon's character from the 3 books he's previously been in. The only way it makes sense is if you assume that George said: "Okay, in this book, I'll have Jon DIE! That'll get em!" And then tried to write a story around that premise, accidentally making a character who had previously seemed somewhat sensible look like a drooling idiot in the meantime.

[Budj]

I don't think any of Jon's decisions were stupid or bad. I agree 100% with Yeade's assessment on the situation here. Marsh was not a big picture thinker...and you only need one small-minded devious bastard to assassinate Jon Snow in this situation.

Jon did not break his oath marching on Winterfell. Ramsay threatened the night's watch...he picked a fight. This wasn't strictly realm politics (partly was...but that is moot)...Jon/NW was threatened...saving / finding Arya from Ramsay was just an added bonus as a result of that threat.

[mor2]

I think that in the end Jon has failed, regardless of taking the best course of action for the watch on every turn.

I also think that marching on Winterfell would have been a complete violation of his vows. No one cares if he was threatened, if he had marched, it would be a defacto declaration of war on the current warden of the North, and the Iron Throne Authority.

[Lady of Long Lake]

I think that in the end Jon has failed, regardless of taking the best course of action for the watch on every turn..

I think he'll be considered a hero for saving those 3k wildlings. Their future generations will sing songs about the man that saved the wildlings from the Others and lost his life for doing the good deed. It's the stuff of legends:)

[Yeade]

mor2, aside from the technicality that the NW's tradition of noninterference in the political affairs of Westeros is not actually mentioned in the vows, it seems ridiculous to me to expect the NW to do nothing in defense of the Wall, individual black brothers (not the least of whom is the Lord Commander), or even the organization's autonomy as a neutral faction should any of these be threatened by a third party. From your perspective, no matter what hostile actions are taken by the lords of the Seven Kingdoms against the NW or members thereof, the NW cannot take up arms in self-defense or engage in another form of retaliation? That's no way to assert neutrality, IMO, but rather an invitation for every minor noble with men and weapons at his disposal to make demands.

The NW's neutrality relies on the NW remaining apart from political disputes south of the Wall, yes, but I think it's pretty obvious that the willingness of the Westerosi powers to ignore the NW when playing the game of thrones is also a significant factor. Realistically, the NW's neutrality ended the moment Stannis shows up at the Wall with his army, intending to stay, and no paper shield or amount of fast talk can convince Stannis's enemies otherwise when they've roundly ignored the NW's requests for aid. The situation's not improved by Jon being elected Lord Commander; he has friends and foes both who don't care about anything except that he's the last surviving son of Ned Stark. I don't believe for a second that, even absent the complications of Stannis and the whole fake!Arya debacle, the Boltons and their supporters, the Lannisters, would be content to leave Jon in command and alive to potentially challenge their rule of the North.

When confronted by a third party that has no respect for the NW's neutrality, I consider the Lord Commander well within his rights to insist upon the NW's political autonomy with the judicious use of force. Especially if the NW's ability to carry out its primary sworn duty of defending the realm from the Others is endangered.

Not to mention, summarily acceding to Ramsay's demands is a political act, as well. The NW is no more beholden to the Iron Throne or whoever's in charge at Winterfell, whether the Boltons or the Starks, than it is to Stannis. Forcing Ramsay to march on the Wall in order to retrieve his hostages in person just puts the NW and the painstakingly rebuilt infrastructure of Castle Black, the Nightfort, etc. at ground zero for a battle between Bolton's men, Stannis's, and the wildlings. This is besides concerns such as Melisandre, Selyse, Shireen, Val, and "Monster" being under the protection of guest right or the NW's debt to Stannis for saving everybody's asses by defeating Mance Rayder.

And, so far as preemptive strikes go, the NW has no issues with ranging beyond the Wall to attack wildlings amassing to march on the North. Why is the situation different when the threat to the Wall is coming from the south? The direction, in fact, that the NW's particularly vulnerable to enemies, as the Thenns demonstrate in ASOS.

Bottom line, I find that you and Bowen Marsh are under the same (mistaken, IMO) impression that the Warden of the North and Iron Throne are neutral, even friendly, in regards to the NW. How can this possibly be true when the Queen Regent is plotting to send false brothers to assassinate the Lord Commander and the heir to Winterfell (ugh!) has similarly threatened to cut that Lord Commander's heart out?

Unless you're arguing that the NW ought to bow to external political pressure and remove Jon from command despite him being more or less fairly elected to his post. And if the Iron Throne or Warden of the North continues to demand Jon's head because he's the son of Ned Stark? Is the new Lord Commander obligated to turn Jon over to those who would see him dead? To order him on a convenient suicide mission? How is this maintaining the NW's neutrality? What's more, there's no guarantee the Boltons or Lannisters will forgive the NW for sheltering Stannis when there's no other choice without reparations of some kind. And the problem of how to comply with an ultimatum to take Stannis's red priestess, queen, and heir prisoner without inciting violence at the Wall remains.