Book Five and Hindsight.

[jjames36]

jjames36, I really object to your view of Jon's decisions in ADWD. Let's review the four you list as having nothing to do with the fight against the Others.

I apologize, Yeade, for causing such a stern reaction in you. I try to phrase my arguments carefully so that I offend no one, neither the persons with whom I am conversing, nor the persons who might be reading. If I failed in that objective in some way, I am sorry.

Next, I have said repeatedly that I do not wish to debate Jon's leadership abilities in much depth, and I have already delved far more deeply than I ever intended. That said, you put together a concise, and well argued case that my conclusions are wrong, so I think I owe you at least one reply.

I'll just have to completely submerge myself in this discussion, I suppose. So be it.

Before progressing, allow me to give you just a little bit of background on me. I am a minimalist as a writer and even more of a minimalist as a literary critic. This means if a theory doesn't come directly from the text, I am not interested in discussing it. R + L = J comes directly from the text, so it is a strong theory, whether or not it turns out to be true. In that vein, I want to look at the text to discuss your theories as to Jon's motivation in each of these controversial decisions. But as much as I would like to go read the chapters each of them appear in, transcribe relevant portions and then discuss what those portions actually tell us, I am still sick. (Turns out I have mono. Who knew the kissing virus was just a virus to which anyone fatigued and stressed is susceptible. You needn't be kissing or even sharing someone's glass. Huh.) Anyway, being sick, I don't have the energy for that much work-- I can go about forty five minutes before I need to lie down again. So I am only going to actually transcribe the text for the fourth point, Jon's march on Ramsay Bolton. I will speed through our discussion of the other three points, until one of us, or someone else, decides to incorporate Martin's text.

1) Offering strategic advice to Stannis on his war against the Boltons.

First, Lost Lord and I were not talking about all of Jon's negotiations with Stannis. We were speaking strictly about his decision to help Stannis plan an attack against the Boltons. By bringing in the rest of the two men's negotiations, you have broadened the discussion past what I actually meant. Which is fine. But let's just be aware that is what happened.

Secondly, you have made several assumptions about my position, namely that I think Jon made some mistake somewhere when I never once said as much. All I said was that helping Stannis plan his attack on the Bolton's was done without thought to the Others. I stand by that statement. In all of these negotiations, as I recall, Jon is not thinking about the Others. He is thinking about how Stannis is trying to breach the Night's Watch sovereignty, and he is carefully trying to prevent that from happening. Your conclusions as to how Jon's actions might have helped the Night's Watch are not necessarily inaccurate, but they are also not necessarily text based. Unless you can show me text that clearly shows or states Jon is saying what he's saying because he knows or believes his actions are going to help the watch defeat the Others, you do not have evidential ground on which to build your theory. You only have assumptions about how you think Jon's actions help in the battle against the Others. My purpose was not to argue how Jon might have unintentionally helped the watch win the battle that matters, but rather to argue what his actual motivations were at the time he made the choices he did. My question, then, is simple: where is the text that shows or states Jon was thinking about the fight with the Others when he talked to Stannis?

Without that text, your theory is not grounded in the evidence Martin gave us. Rather, it is grounded in your assumptions about the plot, assumptions Jon may or may not have shared. Assumptions about what a character may or may not be thinking do not help us form conclusions as to the character's motivation. Only critical analysis of the words actually in the book help us do that.

2) Abetting Melisandre's scheme to send Mance Rayder south to retrieve fake!Arya.

We agreed that this decision had little to nothing to do with the Others. So I am going to move on to the next topic.

3) Arranging for Alys Karstark to wed the Magnar of Thenn ...

Well, without looking at the text, I appreciate the context you have provided. But I once again ask you to point to the evidence that shows or states Jon was actually thinking about the Others when he arranged this marriage? I am almost 100% certain that evidence does not exist, but I haven't looked it up, so you could prove me wrong. If it doesn't exist, then we have to conclude he wasn't thinking about them, which in turn means we have to conclude the action had nothing to do with the Others, at least in Jon's head. I never said the action couldn't benefit the Watch in the short term. I only said it wasn't about the others.

With that said, let's turn to this question on the same topic.

Where's the downside in all this? Unless you're Arnolf or Cregan Karstark, I suppose.

Where is the downside? You're making the same assumption that Jon makes. That the world operates in a vacuum wherein only he and his allies have an opportunity to act. The downside is in what his enemies might do over the long term. (There is no doubt Jon created some influential enemies with this action.) Jon may think he can hide behind plausible deniability, but he's wrong. And so are you. Whether or not Anold and Cregan know Jon arranged the marriage, they will assume that he did. Even if they don't assume he did, they will know that he allowed the wedding to happen on Night's Watch property, rather than sending Alys back to Karhold where she could make the arrangements properly. That is, even if they don't know the Night's Watch planned the wedding, they will know it participated in the wedding. Where is the evidence for this claim? Cregan came to the wall with precisely that accusation.

The watch cannot participate in the affairs of the realm, and so the watch has already violated its charter. And Arnolf and Cregan aren't happy about it, which presents any number of potential long term consequences. Maybe the Karstarks bannermen refuse to swear fealty to the Thenns, the fact that their leader is married to their rightful heir notwithstanding. Maybe they side with Arnolf, and Arnolf starts a bloody feud that reverberates to the Watch. Maybe Stannis loses, and Arnolf takes his complaint to the victorious Boltons. The Boltons back Arnolf. The watch has a real problem on their hands. Maybe Stannis wins but finds the Thenns unruly and impossible to control, so, for expedient political reasons, he backs Arnolf. Now Jon has an even bigger problem on his hands.

In other words, the downside isn't in the short term. It is in the long term. I don't know what will happen, but I do know thousands of things could go wrong. I also know actions like "marrying the heir to a noble house stationed near your gates so you can prevent her from marrying a monster" have future consequences. 100% of the time. Jon is naive or arrogant enough not to care about those consequences. He looks only at the short term, and the short term produced some benefits to the watch. But the world isn't a short term vacuum, and the long term consequences of this action look gloom.

And I maintain, without evidence suggesting otherwise, there is no reason to conclude Jon was thinking about the Others when he married Alys. He was thinking about the Thenns being a problem and he was thinking about Alys having to marry a monster. He was not thinking about how this decision, with all of its long term consequences, might hurt his fight with the Others. Furthermore, your argument doesn't even address how marrying Alys will help defeat the Others. It only addresses how it might have benefited the watch in the short term, a point to which I never said anything contrary. All I said is that the decision had nothing to do with the Others.

4) Marching south with a wildling army to face Ramsay Bolton after the Pink Letter.

This time I did reread the chapter so that we could analyze the evidence. Let's do so.

To start the chapter, Jon is talking to Queen Selyse, who annoyingly (sorry, just my opinion) uses the royal we. When she doesn't tell him what he wants to hear, he listens to her banter about a supposed king of the wildlings who is, in fact, no king. She is going to marry her knights to this supposed king's daughters. Jon silently ridicules her for knowing nothing.

Then, he leaves and talks to Melisandre before seeing Ghost. Both of these characters serve the same function as Catelyn and Grey Wind at the Red Wedding, and so is when I knew Jon was going to bite it. Set that aside, Jon silently assumes Melisandre is wrong in her dark predictions, because she has been wrong about everything else. He dismisses Ghost's unruliness as a twitchiness from the fact another skinchanger is nearby.

Jon leaves Ghost and meets with Marsh et all. He silently ridicules them in much the way he did Selyse.

Are you keeping score? Jon assuming someone else is an idiot? 3. Jon thinking about the Others? 0.

From there, Jon follows Yarwyck to the cells and notes they are being overrun. He and Yarwyck arrange for the cells to be dug out and then decide to move the living prisoners. He leaves the dead ones where they are.

Torumund shows up. He and Jon talk about Selyse marrying her knights to Gerrick Kingsblood's daughters. They make fun of her, through implication if not outright insult. They're about to talk about the ranging to Hardhome when Clydas shows up with the letter from Ramsay.

After reading the letter silently, Jon sends Clydas away and then reads the letter out loud to Tormund. He and Tormund discuss Mance, and how the former King Beyond the Wall is supposedly dead. Jon doesn't reveal that Melisandre killed Rattleshirt, not Mance, but says only there is truth in this letter. And then we get to the only paragraph wherein we are told Jon's internal musing in depth. This section appears on pages 908-909 of my e-book edition.

"I won't say you're wrong. What do you mean to do, crow?" [Tormund said.]

Jon flexed the fingers of his sword hand. The Night's Watch takes no part. He closed his fist and opened it again. What you propose is nothing less than treason. He thought of Robb, with snowflakes melting in his hair. Kill the boy and let the man be born. He thought of Bran, clambering up the tower wall, agile as a monkey. Of Rickon's breathless laughter. Of Sansa, brushing out Lady's coat and singing to herself. You know nothing, Jon Snow. He thought of Arya, her hair tangled as a bird's nest. I made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell . . . I want my bride back . . . I want my bride back . . . I want my bride back . . .

"I think we had best change our plan," Jon Snow said.

They talked for the best part of two hours.

That is what Jon actually thinks about it, as told us by Martin, the author, authority, and the provider of all evidence. So let's analyze what the provider gave us.

Jon thinks of his brothers and sisters. He thinks of himself and he thinks of Ramsay's threats. He never thinks about the Night's Watch as an institution. He never thinks about his black brothers as individuals. He never thinks about the Others, the wights they create or the fight that is to come. He doesn't even think about Stannis. He thinks only about things that are very, very personal. Given this is all he thinks, it seems pretty clear to me that Martin is telling us to conclude Jon was not trying to help the Watch with this action. Jon was fed up and ready to go kill him some bad guy, for personal reasons. All of your conclusions as to how attacking Bolton might help the watch are therefore irrelevant. Jon did not think about that.

Let me take a step back. Is it possible Jon and Tormund, in their two hour meeting, discussed how attacking Bolton might help the watch? Sure. It's possible. But if you want to build a theory off of a possiblity, here's another theory for you: They talked about lemon cakes. Martin chose not to show us that meeting, so we cannot know what happened in it. It is evidence of nothing.

Moving on. Let's continue with our plot summary of the chapter before transcribing the next passage that gives insight into Jon's motivation.

After talking to Tormund for the better part of the next two hours, Jon goes to the Armory and orders Fulk and Mully to come with him. He goes to the shieldhall. We get a two paragraph description about the shields on the wall and then a description of the room's size. Jon mounts the platform, with Tormund at his side. Jon starts his speech. He starts telling the room about Hardhome and then observes the people present for this speech of his. He continues talking about the expedition to Hardhome before observing more people in the room. He says he hoped to lead the ranging himself but now he cannot go. Tormund will lead it on his own. Borroq asks where Jon will be. Jon says he'll ride south. Then, he reads Ramsay's letter out loud.

The Shieldhall goes crazy, every man shouting and arguing. Jon tells the room that the Night's Watch takes no part in the realm's affairs, so his brothers cannot come with him. They will rescue the folks at Hardhome and he will go to Bolton on his own. Then he thinks he scores a huge victory after asking if any man will join him on his trip. The free folk erupt.

The black brothers leave. As they do so, Jon thinks this (from page 911 of my e-book edition):

Yarwyck and Marsh were slipping out, he saw, and all their men behind them. It made no matter. He did not need them now. He did not want them. No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone. Then Tormund was pounding him on the back, all gap-toothed grin from ear to ear. "Well spoken, crow . . ."

Here, we get Jon's only thoughts about his black brothers. He is happy he is not making them break their vows, but he also concludes that he neither needs nor wants them. His thoughts are not, in other words, altruistic. They are not centered on how he is helping the Watch. No, quite the opposite. The first thoughts he gives his brothers are spiteful. He doesn't need or want these unhelpful people anymore. His next thoughts are a meaningless rationalization, equivalent to 'I might be breaking my vows, but at least I'm not making anyone else break theirs.' Nothing about the Others. Nothing about the good of the Watch. Nothing about anything you theorize.

Before I ask my next question, let me preface it by saying I ask it without any intent of spite or insult. It is a genuine question intended to gain access to information and nothing more. If not from the evidence in this chapter, where does your theory come from? How do you conclude Jon was trying to help the watch based off of the words Martin supplied us?

Let's continue with our plot summary before transcribing the final relevant passage.

Jon sends for ale at Tormund's request. Then, he realizes he should have talked to Selyse first, as she has the right to know Stannis is dead. On his way to Selyse, with Horse and Rory at his side, he realizes he also should have talked to Melisandre and resolves to do that when he is done with Selyse. He hears screaming and thinks it might be Val but instantly knows he's wrong, insofar as the screams do not come from a woman. He runs to the scene and sees Wun Weg Wun Dar Wun killing knights and watchmen. The giant is bleeding from several sword cuts. Northerners, free men, queen's men, all race to the scene. Ser Patrek is dead. Jon tries to order everyone to put their weapons away so that they will stop scaring the giant. He turns to see Wick trying to stab him in the neck and manages to dodge the attack. Mostly.

Jon asks why. Wick says, "For the watch." Jon reaches for Longclaw but can't get the sword out of its scabbard. Bowen Marsh appears and says, "For the watch" as he stabs Jon in the gut. That brings us to the final passage featuring Jon's thoughts. Let's take a look at it (page 913 of my e-book edition):

Jon fell to his knees. He found the dagger's hilt and wrenched it free. In the cold night air the wound was smoking. "Ghost," he whispered. Pain washed over him. Stick them with the pointy end. When the third dagger took him between the shoulder blades, he gave a grunt and fell face first into the snow. He never felt the fourth knife. Only the cold . . .

Once again, the Others are conspicuously absent from Jon's thoughts. This time, so are his black brothers. He thinks about Ghost, which might cause some to conclude he has now realized the warning Ghost was trying to offer him. Or he might just be worried about what is going to happen to his wolf now that he's about to die. Then he thinks about advice he gave to Arya, perhaps ironically.

Of course, in the moment of death, these thoughts make sense. But the point relevant to our discussion is that Jon doesn't think about how sensless his brothers' attack on him is. He doesn't think about how he was only trying to help them. He doesn't think about how he alone had the ability to kill the others. He thinks of his wolf and he thinks of something he once said to his favorite sibling. These are private, internal and personal concerns. These are not indications that Jon was trying to help the watch.

Okay. So we've analyzed the entire chapter in which Jon decides to attack Ramsay Bolton. Let's check the scorecard.

Thoughts of someone else being stupid: 3. Thoughts of himself and/or his family (including Ghost): More than 5. Thoughts of trying to help the wall: 0. Thoughts of trying to defeat the others: 0. Thoughts of not liking his black brothers: 1. Thoughts of wanting to save innocent people stranded at Hardhome: More than 5.

Don't be so quick to assume GRRM intends for Jon to be read as a "good person but horrid leader" when plenty of folks got from the same text that Jon's a visionary, cowardly murdered by a bunch of shortsighted idiots who won't be appreciated by the majority of those on the Wall for the deed any more than Caesar's assassins are lauded as heroes by the people of the Roman republic for theirs.

It is perfectly fine with me if you and others conclude Jon is a visionary leader whose greatness no one recognized.

But a careful analysis of the text in the final chapter, right before Jon is attacked, does not support the thesis that Jon was trying to help the watch. It just doesn't. It might support the thesis that Jon was trying to exact revenge on Ramsay Bolton. It might support the thesis that Jon inadvertently helped the watch even though he didn't know how he was doing so, but it wasn't his intent to help the watch with this action. At least according to the evidence. (As I said to start this monolithic post, the evidence is the only thing I really care about.)

Future books might prove you correct. The Winds of Winter might show the two hour meeting with Tormund, and we might see Jon has carefully planned out how his action is going to benefit the watch.

As of the end of Dance with Dragons, however, there isn't evidence by which to claim Jon was intentionally acting to defeat the others by attacking Ramsay. I am not going to discuss whether or not his actions inadvertently helped the watch, but it's not impossible they did. Any benefit was unintentional, which brings me back to my earlier conclusion.

Jon acts in accordance with his own sense of self righteousness. He does not subjugate the needs of the one or two for the needs of the many. And because he does not do so, Jon is not a good leader. His actions might, quite by accident, help more people than he knew he was helping, but that doesn't make him a good leader. It makes him lucky. Luck doesn't make someone a visionary; intent might, but luck does not.

j

[Bolivar]

I think they were edited poorly, especially Dance. We know Martin doesn't like to leave out chapters because a publisher wants him to, that's why he split the books in the first place. But we also know that that's exactly what happened - character POVs were taken out and climaxes were moved.

Also, one of the best parts about ASoIaF is the contrast you get between the physical and situational settings of the POVs and how they complement each other so well to make great pacing. I'm reading them together and loving it a lot so far.

The big problem is there's no climax. Martin admits they were moved out to the Winds of Winter. in AGoT, ACoK, ASoS, each story is a part of a larger whole, but each book had its climax to make it its own novel. AGoT had Ned's beheading, Robb's ascendance, the birth of dragons; ACoK had the battle of the fords, the battle on the blackwater; ASoS had the Red Wedding, the Purple Wedding, and Lysa's flight. All these books really had was the incident in the fighting pits and the taking of Raventree Hall. It just really sucks to read hundreds of pages and not know the resolutions of these sub-plot threads.

So, I doubt it.

[The Lost Lord]

Another great post, jjames36. I've gone over that chapter with a fine-toothed comb and I agree that Jon's motivations are quite clear -- personal (all the thoughts of family), kill the bad guy ("I have my swords, and we are coming for you, Bastard"), zero thoughts about the Others, zero indication that he's doing this to protect the Watch. Especially good point about Jon thinking he does not need or want the Watch anymore. (Also, the completion of the quote from Tormund you cut off after that is "We'll make a wildling o'you yet, boy. Har!" -- a further indication that Jon has effectively chosen the wildlings over the Watch, as wildlings cheer him and black brothers walk out silently.)

Yeade, in regards to the Mance/Mel mission, you said "Jon himself later realizes he makes the wrong decision here." I find absolutely no sign of this in the text of that last chapter. He shows no regrets, no belief that he has erred, and does not confront or admit his own culpability in leading the Watch into this situation.

[jjames36]

Another great post, jjames36.

Thank you again. Always nice when you find common ground.

I've gone over that chapter with a fine-toothed comb and I agree that Jon's motivations are quite clear -- personal (all the thoughts of family), kill the bad guy ("I have my swords, and we are coming for you, Bastard"), zero thoughts about the Others, zero indication that he's doing this to protect the Watch. Especially good point about Jon thinking he does not need or want the Watch anymore. (Also, the completion of the quote from Tormund you cut off after that is "We'll make a wildling o'you yet, boy. Har!" -- a further indication that Jon has effectively chosen the wildlings over the Watch, as wildlings cheer him and black brothers walk out silently.)

Agreed. Though that's no surprise given you are effectively reinforcing the argument I originally made. But still, agreed.

I thought about including that line from Tormund, but decided it less relevant than Jon's thoughts, since it's Jon's motivation we're debating, not Tormund's. I do agree with your interpretation of the line, though.

Yeade, in regards to the Mance/Mel mission, you said "Jon himself later realizes he makes the wrong decision here." I find absolutely no sign of this in the text of that last chapter. He shows no regrets, no belief that he has erred, and does not confront or admit his own culpability in leading the Watch into this situation.

Also agreed. I remember no such reflection from Jon in any of his chapters, and it definitely was not in the last one.

j

[Yeade]

First of all, there's no need to apologize, jjames36. I'm not offended by your previous post, angry or anything so silly as that. My intention's simply to express my polite disagreement with your opinions. Speaking of which, after reading your latest reply, I think the two of us can together grant your wish to not debate Jon's leadership abilities in depth because our styles of literary criticism are perhaps too divergent to ever reach a compromise.

I am a minimalist as a writer and even more of a minimalist as a literary critic. This means if a theory doesn't come directly from the text, I am not interested in discussing it.

Quid pro quo. As you've shared your approach to the text, I will now share mine.

While I do respect the text, I believe any extensive theories about plot and characterization, especially the latter, are ultimately based on a reader's interpretation of the text. This I feel is malleable to the extreme in response to factors external to the text that cannot necessarily be separated from analysis of the text because they are inherent to the reader. Personal biases (favorite character, least favorite character) and preconceived notions (good leadership, bad leadership) are obvious examples of such factors, but there exist much subtler distortions of the text unique to each individual that may have a great impact on how the text is interpreted, as well, IMO.

Take the reading of tone and connotation into words and sentences. Your interpretation of Jon's "He did not need them now. He did not want them." in reaction to Marsh, Yarwyck, and their men leaving the Shieldhall after Jon's speech to the wildlings is that Jon's thoughts of his brothers are "spiteful," that he's grateful to be rid of "these unhelpful people." What if I were to interpret the same two lines as expressing relief? As his following italicized thoughts say, Jon realizes what he's about to do can be seen as oathbreaking, though he's not sure that it is (IF), but he can keep at least a small part of his honor intact by not incriminating his brothers in his deed. Since the text neither states that Jon is spiteful nor relieved, both your view and mine must be shaped by our existing ideas of what's going on in Jon's head at the moment and are thus equally valid analyses of this particular passage.

Furthermore, I believe the text itself is limited and, so, speculation about what happens off the page as well as meta analysis of authorial intent are necessary to form comprehensive theories about plot and characterization.

There are demonstrably parts of the story not written into the text within every chapter. Jon and Tormund's mysterious two-hour council is a fine example. As you admit, when TWOW is finally published, it may be revealed that Jon carefully plans out his response to the Pink Letter with the welfare of the Night's Watch or, more broadly, the defenses at the Wall in mind. I don't know if this will be the case, and neither do you.

However, the absence of any information about what is discussed during this missing time, one way or the other, has an effect on how the present text of the chapter is interpreted, IMO. Killing Ramsay Bolton and memories of his family, with focus on Arya, are on Jon's mind, yes--though I note the exact relationship between these two points is up to interpretation--but it seems to me you cannot argue that this is all Jon thinks of because not all of Jon's thoughts are available to you as a reader.

What's more, in questioning authorial intent, the possibility of GRRM purposely excluding Jon and Tormund's council to mislead the reader as to Jon's motivations, maybe to encourage sympathy for his assassins or just to keep people guessing until TWOW hits bookshelves, is raised. Not to mention, there are a fair number of folks about the boards who feel Jon's last ADWD chapter is poorly or hastily written to begin with. Considerations such as these cast doubt on any analysis based on the assumption that the text alone tells all there is to tell, IMO.

Not that I'm arguing the text ought to be ditched entirely. That would be... strange and impossible, to say the least, lol. The text is my starting point and where I always return to, but it is not my be-all and end-all source of theories and, should I find the text lacking or nonsensical, I have no problem filling in the blanks with my own reasoning.

For instance, you and I both agree that marrying Alys Karstark to the Magnar of Thenn aids the NW in the short term, that Jon makes this decision in part to solve the problem of the unruly Thenns in Mole's Town sapping the resources of the Wall. Yet you claim I don't address how this supports the fight against the Others. I must admit I thought I didn't have to explain this: Who, exactly, is sworn to defend the realm from the Others? The Night's Watch, yes? At the Wall, yes? By this logic, anything that aids the NW within any period of time, that may win new allies to the NW's cause or allow the NW to sustain its men for longer, supports the fight against the Others. And Jon is clearly thinking enough of the Wall's needs to ask Alys to remember the favor he's done her and send to the NW the reinforcements it's so desperately short of.

Must all the above be explicitly outlined in the text for you, me, and other readers to draw this conclusion? Personally, I don't think so. Likewise, well established character motivations don't have to be repeated over and again, IMO, to justify an assumption that such motivations are still present. I don't require Jon to muse about strategy in fighting the Others every time he chooses to ally with people, like Stannis and the wildlings, who can help the NW fight the Others.

In fact, as far as I can recall, Jon's internal monologue is about how Stannis's men don't know squat about the North and how he skirts the NW's traditional policy of noninterference by offering Stannis advice, with occasional bouts of proprietary protectiveness over Winterfell that he doesn't voice except to back Sansa's claim. None of which is actually a reason why Jon's offering Stannis advice. Your theory is that Jon acts out of self-righteousness? He's revising practically Stannis's whole campaign plan against the Boltons to show Stannis and Melisandre he's correct? Out of pride in himself?

Well. As I already said, you and I probably have to agree to disagree. Your reading of the text is simply far too removed from mine for our ideas to be compatible, IMO. To each, his or her own, okay? ^_^

[T]he downside [of wedding Alys Karstark to the Magnar of Thenn] isn't in the short term. It is in the long term. I don't know what will happen, but I do know thousands of things could go wrong.

See, I believe the operative word here is could. As in, may or might. The chances of things going wrong, as you speculate, are no higher than that of things going right, with Alys Karstark retaking her rightful inheritance and Stannis returning to the Wall, victorious over the Boltons, to give Cregan Karstark to Melisandre's fires same as his father, Arnolf. If Jon is to avoid even the possibility of failure, then there's basically nothing he can do. There's not one decision Jon makes in ADWD that's free of the kind of risks you feel plague his arrangement of Alys's marriage. Hell, there's not one option available to Jon that's free of risk. Summarily kicking both Stannis and Alys off the Wall is no guarantee, IMO, that the Boltons or Karstarks will buy the NW's pleas of neutrality when it's coming from a Stark bastard.

Finally, though I'm at a disadvantage not having a copy of ADWD on hand, Jon's admission that allowing Mance Rayder south to fetch fake!Arya is wrong comes in one of the two or three chapters before his last, IIRC. The chapter wherein he can't sleep and sees Melisandre in the courtyard, mistaking her for Ygritte in the shadowed moonlight? I remember Jon regretting how he handles the situation, at any rate, even if this doesn't stop him from worrying over Arya. I could certainly be mistaken, of course.

[Punchslap]

I just want to thank jjames36 and yeade for explaining two of the divergent threads in literary criticism so coherently. There are English profs floating around who are unable to be so succinct.

[jjames36]

I think the two of us can together grant your wish to not debate Jon's leadership abilities in depth because our styles of literary criticism are perhaps too divergent to ever reach a compromise.

It would appear so. But let me respond to your more salient points, and we'll see where the conversation goes.

Since the text neither states that Jon is spiteful nor relieved, both your view and mine must be shaped by our existing ideas of what's going on in Jon's head at the moment and are thus equally valid analyses of this particular passage.

This is a good point, and I concede it to you. Your interpretation that he could be relieved is possible.

In the end, I think it comes down to likelihood, given the evidence Martin provided us. We have followed Jon throughout this very chapter, and we have repeatedly read his thoughts about the stupidity of Bowen Marsh et al. Furthermore, Jon ruminates on how his advisors are never helpful, and on how asking them questions never gets him anywhere, the repeated implication being "Why do I even ask this idiots for guidance?" Later in the chapter, we read how he thinks the watch needs men like Mormont, Halfhand and Aemon, not the morons they have.

By comparison, we do not, throughout the chapter, read that Jon thinks positively or altruistically about his brothers. Not once. Given that textual context, we have to ask ourselves whether he is more likely thinking another negative thought about them or a friendly one. It is my conclusion that Martin went to painstaking detail to show how negatively Jon views the men in the Night's Watch, and he did so for a reason. If he wanted us to think Jon was thinking positively about the watch, he would have given us those thoughts. Since he did not, there is little to no textual reason to conclude that he is relieved he has not condemned his brothers in black the same way he might have condemned himself. Given the evidence Martin gave us, I think it far more likely the thought is simply good old pride-induced glee that the naysaysers have finally gone away.

What's more, in questioning authorial intent, the possibility of GRRM purposely excluding Jon and Tormund's council to mislead the reader as to Jon's motivations, maybe to encourage sympathy for his assassins or just to keep people guessing until TWOW hits bookshelves, is raised.

Here is a point I will concede without presenting a "however" afterward. It is quite possible Martin deliberately wrote the chapter in the hopes that he would spin the reader in the wrong direction. He is certainly not above such tricks, as we have seen throughout the series.

Not to mention, there are a fair number of folks about the boards who feel Jon's last ADWD chapter is poorly or hastily written to begin with.

I would agree with every one of those people. I believe Jon's last point of view was the worst piece of George R.R. Martin writing I have ever encountered, including the other parts of Dance that left much to be desired. Prior to reading this chapter, I would never have imagined Martin could publish something so awful. The cliffhanger is probably the worst one I have ever seen (anywhere) and Jon's internal conflict is far too hasty to be believed. This chapter never should have ended a book. Either it needed to be the first chapter in Winds, elongated hopefully, or Jon's second last in Dance.

Having agreed this chapter is awful, let me also state the obvious. For all of its flaws, it is the chapter we have. So it is the one we have to evaluate.

The text is my starting point and where I always return to, but it is not my be-all and end-all source of theories and, should I find the text lacking or nonsensical, I have no problem filling in the blanks with my own reasoning.

You can feel free to do that, if you like. I am not comfortable joining you in such an approach. Nor would any of my English Literature professors at UW-Madison have been comfortable joining you.

(It is parenthetically noteworthy, I think, that in the late 1990s, when I attended the school, UW-Madison was ranked as either the 1st or 2nd best English school in the country in most publications. It was ranked in the top 5 by every publication at which I ever glanced. Its high ranking is why I majored in English, actually. I had no idea what I wanted to study, so I studied something they were supposedly good at teaching.)

And Jon is clearly thinking enough of the Wall's needs to ask Alys to remember the favor he's done her and send to the NW the reinforcements it's so desperately short of.

I had forgotten about that. It gives me something to think about.

In the end, it doesn't change my viewpoint. He is only considering the short term benefits, not the potential long term consequences, which could be astronomical. Ditto that for his indefinite imprisonment of Cregan. Do I understand why he imprisoned the male Karstark? Certainly. Does that mean it was prudent? Not necessarily. The question is this: do the short term benefits outweigh the potential long term consequences? Jon doesn't even deliberate on that question. He just acts.

If we had a President who did such a thing during the Cold War, the Earth would have been blown to smithereens.

Likewise, well established character motivations don't have to be repeated over and again, IMO, to justify an assumption that such motivations are still present.

True. But when a motivation disappears from prominence for most of the story, the reader should probably question why. Has a character change occurred, rendering the motivation no longer present? To answer that question, a skillful reader looks at the rest of the evidence available to him or her. Does the rest of Jon's story arc support the notion that he is still thinking about the Others when he marries Alys? Or when he prepares to march on Ramsay? For reasons outlined in the previous post, I do not think it does.

Your theory is that Jon acts out of self-righteousness? He's revising practically Stannis's whole campaign plan against the Boltons to show Stannis and Melisandre he's correct? Out of pride in himself?

I have not offered a theory as to why Jon helps Stannis and Melisandre. I have only offered the statement that Jon is not thinking about the Others when he gives his advice. I maintain that, at least as pertaining to the battle plans he gives Stannis.

To be clear, I think Jon actually navigates Stannis' encroachments on Night's Watch sovereignty with grace and tact. It is, to me, his shining moment in the series. I just think If Martin wanted us to conclude that Jon was acting with direct intent to defeat the Others later, he would have provided us the evidence. Since he did not, I conclude the absence of such evidence is meaningful. The meaning being the Others were not on Jon's mind.

However, I will also acknowledge merit in one of your arguments I did not quote here, that being anything that helps the watch helps the watch defeat the Others. That is a sound conclusion. So, if we are considering all of Jon's actions with Stannis collectively, I can see why you inferred that Jon was working toward victory in the battle that matters.

If we are viewing the conversation through the more limited lens Lost Lord and I originally used, I see no such grounds. (Note: I am once again talking strictly about giving Stannis battle plans.) Nowhere in that chapter, at least as far as I recall, did Jon think about how helping Stannis defeat the Boltons was going to give him more reinforcements later.

Why did Jon give Stannis advice on battle tactics? I'd have to review the chapter to re familiarize myself with the evidence. As I have not done so, I hesitate to offer a theory. But my guess is that he offered his advice because he knew the Boltons helped kill Robb, his second favorite sibling, and he hated the new supreme northern lords for it. He wanted them dead, even if it was improper for the Lord Commander to have such desires. Like I said, I have no idea if that guess has grounds in the text--been too long since I read the words Martin gave us.

... but it seems to me you cannot argue that this is all Jon thinks of because not all of Jon's thoughts are available to you as a reader.

I saved this point for last intentionally.

I will counter with the obvious: this series is written through third person limited perspective. Always has been. Probably always will be. At any given time, we are inside one person's head, with access to that person's innermost thoughts. If you want to hide a person's thoughts, you do not make them your third person limited point of view. You make someone else the limited perspective. Or you go with what I'll phrase third person minimalist in which you only show what characters do, without discussing what they think.

If Martin wanted Jon's thoughts to be unavailable to us, he would not have made Jon the POV in the chapters in question. By choosing to make Jon the POV, he is presenting us with all of Jon's relevant and interesting thoughts. Or he is literally hiding the story behind his back by keeping secret what his style of writing does not allow him to keep secret.

Note: in the previous paragraph I deliberately used the term relevant thoughts. We do not get thoughts about Jon needing to relieve his bowels, or thoughts about how he wants to have sex with some woman, because those thoughts do not move the story forward. Thoughts like, "I am giving Stannis advice on how to beat the Boltons, because that makes it likely he will win his war against the new northern lords. If he wins his war, I will get more reinforcements for my war against the Others" would absolutely move the story forward. If Jon thinks such things and Martin does not share it with us, then Martin is a much worse writer than I think he is. (Even after reading Dance with Dragons.)

By not including such thoughts, the only conclusion we can draw is that Jon did not have such thoughts. Otherwise, we're not taking this book for what it is, but rather for what we hope it is, and then any theory we want to develop, any conclusion we want to make is fair game. Said another way, if our operational model for literary theory is that I can assume POV characters think something, and build a theory off of that assumption, then any theory is reasonable. Under such an operational model, I can make the following theory and everyone has to accept it's possibility.

I assume Cersei knew that Robert was concocting gunpowder. She also knew he was getting close to perfecting the technology, whereupon he was going to obliterate the entire continent of Westeros in the hopes he would be elevated to Westeros' new God of Death. She didn't really kill Robert to get his power for herself. No. That was just an ancillary benefit. She really killed him to save the world from the certain doom Robert's hellfire powder was going to guarantee. Her POV in Feast for Crows doesn't share this information yet, but it'll come out later.

Of course, that theory is preposterous.

For that reason, I am comfortable making this positive statement about this series: Any literary theory that incorporates thoughts pertinent to the story but still absent from the text and attributes those thoughts to a POV character is every bit as unsubstantiated as my gun powder theory above.

The chapter wherein he can't sleep and sees Melisandre in the courtyard, mistaking her for Ygritte in the shadowed moonlight? I remember Jon regretting how he handles the situation, at any rate, even if this doesn't stop him from worrying over Arya.

Maybe. I don't remember it, and I'm far too tired to look it up right now.

j

[Ser Pollo Loco]

I just want to thank jjames36 and yeade for explaining two of the divergent threads in literary criticism so coherently. There are English profs floating around who are unable to be so succinct.

Yeah this has actually been a good debate, kudos guys

[jjames36]

Yeah this has actually been a good debate, kudos guys

Thank you both, Even Death May Die and Ser Pollo Loco.

It's nice to know some readers don't think I'm a complete idiot with nothing constructive to offer the conversation. :-)

j

P.S. Those of you who do think as much, are certainly welcome to continue not sharing your thoughts. ;-)

[LadyMary]

Clinton, actually.

Nobody said it was not.

That is what he did, it got him stabbed. I don't think you understand what being a leader entails: it entails people following your lead, and they only follow you so far when their only motivation is respect of hierarchy.

Do you think that the mutineers who murdered LC Mormont did so because of his lack of leadership?

Sometimes a leader has to do what's unpopular for the greater good. I think that's what Jon Snow tried to do.Some of the men under Jon Snow's command had misgivings about his plans and others didn't. There's no way he could have satisfied everyone, so he did what he thought was right. The fact that some of his subordinates were unable to adjust to seeing the surrendered Wildlings as allies was due to their prejudices. Jon was concerned about saving HUMAN lives first, and about preventing dead humans from being left as weapons of the Others secondly. What was the alternative?

[jjames36]

Do you think that the mutineers who murdered LC Mormont did so because of his lack of leadership?

Now that you mention it, yes. Over several weeks, he led men to their deaths, quite by accident. Worse, most of the men he was leading didn't believe in the cause for which they were dying. These men had been conscripted into a military branch that endures harsh conditions 100% of the time, offers little to no psychological relief from that harshness, and is disconnected from anything they once knew earlier in life. Add to that the fact that they are fighting supernatural creatures they could not have fathomed before first seeing them and you have a recipe for mutiny. The men were boiling over with fear, frustratioon, grief and fatigue. They had barely slept in however many days. They had seen countless of their friends/comrades die, and they were scared beyond our understanding.

And then Mormont made his most critical mistake. He pit stopped at a disrespectful, unappreciative and irritating host's house, despite the tension between Craster and the watch the first time Mormont stopped there. And the first time was when then watch's ranging hadn't been suffering slaughter by Other and Wight. His men hated Craster. They had been through the worst experience of their lives, from which most of them would never recover, and to which Mormont accidentally led them. On top of all that Mormont asked them to endure the disrespect and spiteful pettiness of Craster. Again. That was not smart. He walked into a boiling pot and acted as though it wasn't hot.

Yes the men needed rest and food, but Craster's , despite it's convenience, was not a good place to get it. Where else were they going to get it? I don't know, and either did Mormont, which is why he went there. But thinking he could control his men there again was thinking the respect for heirarchy meant more than it did in that moment. He had already pushed his men too far. And then he tried to push them one step further.

In so doing, his decisions (I.E.leadership) got him killed. Just like Jon's leadership got him stabbed.

Sometimes a leader has to do what's unpopular for the greater good.

But that's the debate we've been having in our recent posts. Some, maybe many, readers feel Jon did not act for the greater good. He acted for the short term good of the few and sacrificed the long good of the many. If that's not bad leadership, then I don't know what is.

j

[LittleDragon]

I think both Jon and Dany struggles with their own nature. They try to accept compromises and their situation, this is what we see in the ADWD, and they try to accept what they have and forget everything else. Jon was always in a difficult situation in all his life because of his status as a bastard. He tries hard to accept that his only way out is the Wall and the maximum he can achieve is to be the Lord Commander of a body highly underestimated and set aside in Westeros. Nobody considers is as a noble or valiant place. Deeply in his heart he does not want it, but it takes tome for him to acknowledge it. Same with Dany, she was the sister of the beggar king, having a hard childhood, dreaming about a home, snd leaving his brother filling her ears with stories about their rights in Westeros. She had a chance to live well with Khal Drogo, but she wanted more and urged him to go against Westeros, and she has lost everything again. Both Dany and Jon learn now how to rule, how to deal with people, how to establish and keep their power. It seems so easy to dream about it, but so difficult to do well. Jon was a brilliant military leader, but was not able to deal with the everyday tasks of ruling. Dany was not good neither on the battle field, but was lucky, neither in ruling. They both learn from their own failures. It would have been interesting to see Robb for exemple. During his short kingship he was only in the role of a military leader, in which role he was excellent, but his wrong decision in marriage, and the fact he has lost Winterfell shows he was not good in politics and diplomacy. It seems he was also incapable to rule and run a kingdom. I think the problem that they are all too young without enough experience to understand what is going on, whose advise should be kept etc.

[Punchslap]

Some, maybe many, readers feel Jon did not act for the greater good.

This is an interesting assertion. My impression is not that at all, but that people who have re-read the book sometimes come to this conclusion. Granted, maybe that's not the case, maybe the majority came to the scene where Jon gets stabbed and thought it was well-deserved for all his leadership mistakes. Am I right to assume jjames36 that this impression you have comes from various discussions with other readers?

[jjames36]

This is an interesting assertion. My impression is not that at all, but that people who have re-read the book sometimes come to this conclusion. Granted, maybe that's not the case, maybe the majority came to the scene where Jon gets stabbed and thought it was well-deserved for all his leadership mistakes. Am I right to assume jjames36 that this impression you have comes from various discussions with other readers?

I don't want to derail the thread, but since you asked the question, I'll answer it.

The short answer is no, that's not where I developed the impression.

Now for the longer answer. I didn't start this series until the week Feast for Crows was published. Even then, I started it reluctantly (I usually don't read fantasy fiction and wasn't interested in starting a fantasy epic, especially one that wasn't even finished yet). But then a friend bought an extra copy of Game of Thrones and put it in my hands. He had been trying to get me interested in A Song of Ice and Fire for some 11 or 12 months and was tired of waiting for me to begin it. Once he gave me the book, I felt obligated to read it.

Upon starting it, I read all four books in less than three weeks. After reading them, I read them a second time two or three months later. This time I went a bit more slowly, taking maybe two months to read all four novels. Then, I waited. Upon Dance's publication six years later, I read the first four a third time before jumping into Dance.

Over the course of our six year wait, my friend and I discussed the books. A lot. As we talked about them, we realized something that should have been obvious: A Song of Ice and Fire is not A Song of Stark. This is not the the Stark's story. Martin goes to great lengths through Game of Thrones to make us think it is, but it's not. This is a story about a cluster crazy war that screwed up many people's lives.

The moment we realized that, I lost my old emotional attachments to favored characters. I stopped thinking of Jon as the hero who was going to save Westeros. He became just another character rife with personality but also rife with flaws and weaknesses. So it was that I came to Dance no longer rooting for Jon to be the savior or the victor and thereby no longer attached to his viewpoint on the people and situations with which he interacted. He told me Marsh et al were stupid, but I disagreed with him. They weren't the best advisors, but they weren't really stupid either. He thought about all of the good he was doing without acknowledging any of the risks he was taking, but I like to think that with my objectivity enhanced, I now saw both elements of his actions. Seeing a wider picture than Jon was seeing, I formed my own conclusions. Jon convinced himself he was acting in the interest of the greater good, but even as I was reading his chapters, I disagreed with him. He was begging for war from enemies who didn't exist before he created them. And, probably more troublingly, he was begging for mutiny from followers who didn't believe in him. He increased the likelihood of mutiny when he never took steps to generate buy-in from his followers.

That's not to say I haven't discussed Dance with other readers. I have. It's just to say my discussions are not the reason I decided Jon wasn't serving the greater good, no matter his thoughts on the topic.

j

[skins7778]

Exactly jjames, its a story of Westeros and the Iron Throne. In my experience in talking to people who disliked Dance it's mainly due to the meandering storyline of Dany. I dont dislike Dance, buts its definatley not my favorite of the series.

What worries me going forward is wether Dany will ever leave Mereen, I think she will, but I still worry that she'll get back to Mereen and see her people ravaged by the pale mare and the battle and stay to rebuild. Thats my worst fear for the series moving forward.

[Errant Bard]

A Song of Ice and Fire is not A Song of Stark. This is not the the Stark's story. Martin goes to great lengths through Game of Thrones to make us think it is, but it's not. This is a story about a cluster crazy war that screwed up many people's lives.

This is an interesting remark. I don't think I can agree: for me ASOIAF is all about being the Stark's (and Dany's) story. However, that doesn't mean the heroes don't have flaws or always succeed, quite the contrary.

From what I've gathered here and there, Martin's goal is explicitly to subvert tropes of Fantasy, and it works with the assumption I had even before that from only reading the text: The very goal of ASOIAF is both to have it tell the Stark's story and deconstruct their role as heroes.

In that intention, Martin will make the story follow a classic pattern (family restored to power. Kids losing it all, parents dying, castle taken, family dispersed, training and coming back with magical powers and armies to get back their inheritance and save the world while they are at it...) but the details will all be wrong, and the heroes not looking as heroic or even right as that.

AFFC and ADWD, despite their relative unpopularity, work well within that frame, as they develop all the "heroes" in, shall we say, less than savory directions. After all we have here alcoholic misogynist rapist jerkass Tyrion, cold murderer Arya, mind-rapist cannibal Bran, oathbreaker incompetent undead Jon, "fire and blood" Dany at least decided to burn the olive trees to the ground, and surely scheming snake Sansa soon (other PoVs feels very peripheral.) So here, we have our saviours, or teenage band of gifted and destined characters. They still are the heroes, but they are all twisted compared to their obvious base archetype, and this only by merely upping the realism of human behaviour, I'd argue, which is the core reason behind the use of PoVs, in turn, I think: the spreading of views allows a more holistic take on the story and characterisation, a better grip on the twists done to archetypes. To have this better rounded view allows us to see the flaws in the characters by comparison, and allows the author to actually give the heroes those flaws: if they were less numerous, he would have to concentrate the "saviour" aspect on less people, and his characters would really become less ambivalent.

YMMV, as always.

Note: it's not derailing the thread, it is putting it back on rail, to talk about ADWD and hindsight and how perceptions change. The thread topic is not Jon.

Exactly jjames, its a story of Westeros and the Iron Throne. In my experience in talking to people who disliked Dance it's mainly due to the meandering storyline of Dany.

Hmm, for me it's all about how bad the East is, as a setting, the Orientalism. Compared to the solidity of even the villains of Westeros, it's grotesque.

It's meandering, true, but so was AFFC, and AFFC was mostly great. I am quasi certain the fault goes to the "meereenese knot" resolution: Martin isn't good with foreign cultures, but he had to get Dany out of Meereen, and this couldn't be achieved in short order without major WTF.

[Punchslap]

The short answer is no, that's not where I developed the impression.

I appreciate the response and explanation. The way I read your previous post gave me the impression that you thought a majority of readers thought Jon deserved his fate at the end of ADWD. My impression of the books is that GRRM wants us to sympathise with Jon and to be upset that he was stabbed to death. I believe that with the exception of Cersei we're meant to sympathise with all the major POV characters (Tyrion, Jon, Arya, Daenerys, Sansa, etc). In terms of the debate about Jon specifically my major problem is that it's not an effective death as written (as I believe both you and yeade have said), particularly since almost no one believes he's going to stay dead. That does not detract from the entertaining debate about his leadership skills, however.

[jjames36]

My impression of the books is that GRRM wants us to sympathise with Jon and to be upset that he was stabbed to death.

I think that is what Martin wanted, more or less. That doesn't mean Jon didn't have an important role in his demise, though.

The way I read your previous post gave me the impression that you thought a majority of readers thought Jon deserved his fate at the end of ADWD.

Not quite what I was trying to say. Mostly I'm saying Jon's enemies didn't act without provocation from Jon. Even with his provocation, their response was still entirely immoral and excessive. He did not deserve to be stabbed at least, and probably more than, four times. It's my opinion no one ever deserves that end.

I contend that while he didn't deserve it, Jon wasn't stabbed by narcissistic psychopaths who made their attack without any psychological, political or other reasons. Nothing more than that.

As to whether the majority of readers agree with me . . . well. I have no idea. I know some do. Given how many people read this series, I assume some can probably be phrased many. Truth be told, I think the many, in this case, are probably in the minority.

j

[jjames36]

This is an interesting remark. I don't think I can agree: for me ASOIAF is all about being the Stark's (and Dany's) story. However, that doesn't mean the heroes don't have flaws or always succeed, quite the contrary.

From what I've gathered here and there, Martin's goal is explicitly to subvert tropes of Fantasy, and it works with the assumption I had even before that from only reading the text:

I agree with basically everything in this post, Errant Bard. It seems to me Martin's primary purpose is to write a sweeping fantasy series that breaks fantasy tropes, just like you said.

After all we have ... Tyrion ... Arya ... Bran ... Jon ... Dany ... and ... Sansa ... So here, we have our saviours

The one minor disagreement we might have is this: I would probably add Jaime to your list of heroes. Maybe that's because I believe his story line to be the best writing Martin has done in a series that, prior to Dance, was written exceptionally well. But I think it's because Jaime's tale has been one of personal demise, re-education and now redemption (just like the Stark kids', Dany's and Tyrion's). Plus, he still breaks fantasy tropes (how many series have you read in which the hero is an incestuous king killer who threw an 8 year old off of a roof?).

If we add Jaime to our list of heroes, we have the following:

Starks:

1. Bran

2. Arya

3. Sansa

4. Jon

Not Starks:

1. Tyrion

2. Dany

3. Jaime

Almost as many Starks as non-Starks in that list. Because of that, I say it's not really the Stark's story. It's a story about a world gone to smithereens that still has six or seven individuals working hard to do their best. In the end, I don't think we're really saying anything all that differently from the other. I think we're basically using a different term for the same definition.

It's meandering, true, but so was AFFC, and AFFC was mostly great. I am quasi certain the fault goes to the "meereenese knot" resolution: Martin isn't good with foreign cultures, but he had to get Dany out of Meereen, and this couldn't be achieved in short order without major WTF.

Agreed. He couldn't do it by having her say, "Yeah. You know what? I don't want to be here after all" after she tried one thing to fix the city. She had to be, as someone else argued earlier in the thread, torn to rock bottom before making that decision. He knew that, but then went overboard in how slowly he resolved the conflict.

As I understand it, some readers dislike Dany's arc throughout the entire series. Those readers might dislike it because they only care about Westeros and she has nothing to do it with it yet. But I think others dislike Dany's Dance narrative because it was written poorly, not because it was disconnected from Westeros. Just my take.

j

[jjames36]

Note: it's not derailing the thread, it is putting it back on rail, to talk about ADWD and hindsight and how perceptions change. The thread topic is not Jon.

This is a fair point. I may have pulled the thread off topic a long time ago. Maybe I should finally answer the OP's question.

Will Dance get better with hindsight, assuming The Winds of Winter is as brilliant as the rest of the series? No. Dance, as a stand alone book, is poorly written. It will continue to be poorly written even if successive books are well written. What a well written Winds will do is pull the series back on track, so that Dance becomes a blip of rain in otherwise gorgeous weather (kind of like the 15 minute rain storms I experienced almost every October day in Jamaica). If Winds of Winter is also poorly written, Martin is going to lose a lot of readers, and the series will be remembered as less brilliant than it had potential to be. But if Winds picks up where Storm (or Feast, if you agree with Errant Bard and me that the fourth book was actually brilliant), then the series as a whole can still be as good as we thought it was going to be when reading earlier novels.

j