Learning to lead III: the search for decisive actions, a re-read project of the Daenerys and Jon chapters from ADWD

[Faint]

You can feel grateful to that person, but you do not owe them anything. If Jon asked Melisandre explicitly to do something for his benefit, then he would owe her.

Well, on a personal level, under which situation do you think Jon would feel he owed Melisandre more? Do you think he would be more inclined to to repay her (which is what you seem to be worried about) for getting Arya back or for getting the Queen's Men to comply with his directives?

Moreover, doesn't the fact that Melisandre is trying above everything else to get his sister back tell you what she, herself, thinks is the best way to gain his favor?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'm sorry but you're splitting hairs and arguing over nothing. Move on.

[Faint]

Melisandre saw the vision before they were married. Mance played AT THE WEDDING FEAST, remember? If Arya hadn't yet married Ramsay and was rescued from the road, Jon would be under no legal or moral obligation to give her back.

So Jon could have never foreseen a situation where the rescuing of Arya might have brought war with the Boltons?

As Lord Commander of the Night's Watch he didn't, for even a second, consider the troubles this might bring down on Castle Black?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

So Jon could have never foreseen a situation where the rescuing of Arya might have brought war with the Boltons?

As Lord Commander of the Night's Watch he didn't, for even a second, consider the troubles this might bring down on Castle Black?

I said I'm not arguing anymore. You've made your point, I don't buy it and I'm not going to. Stop beating a dead horse.

[butterbumps!]

My argument is this: He is already using her; whether he wants to admit this to himself or not. He is already very much liable for the trouble it will cause if this Arya scheme is found out because he did nothing to stop it in its tracks and in fact consented to it. Yet, despite this reality, he has qualms about asking Melisandre to do simple tasks that would help him greatly because he might feel indebted to her, even though she is already trying to saving his sister because he knows she is seeking his favor . . . What part of this is confusing?

You're right. Jon is using Mel in so far as letting her "rescue" Arya, despite his neither trusting her, nor asking for this favor. Coincidentally, you were blaming Jon for not using Mel in your initial criticism on this issue.

There is a critical difference between asking for something and accepting something willingly given. First, when you ask for something, you are by necessity in a position of supplication. The supplicant aspect of this is what creates the debt. Secondly, when someone comes to you with an offering, you are not in the supplicant position; typically, they are. When you accept something freely given, you may feel inspired to return the favor, but the obligation to retaliate is not there-- you do NOT have to reciprocate when you are given something for free.

You're issue seems to be more than just whether to trust Mel or not; you brought up an issue of the problems it might cause if Jon's found out regarding his complacency letting Mance go, right? IMO, this is a stronger basis for criticism, but it's an issue very separate than what you were initially arguing. Yes, there could be an argument that is stepping into dubious territory by not executing Mance and allowing this mission to go through.

But, I think that to explore this issue, we should look at some of the tenets of the NW's vows "protect the realms of men" and view with a critical eye "the NW takes no part" to discuss this. "The NW takes no part" is not a sanctified vow, but tradition-- a tradition that has recently been honored by one side only (the NW). I think that Jon's personal and professional interests align in the rescue of Arya from marriage to Ramsay. I know that members of the NW would not like it if this is found out, but I'm unconvinced that they are right in that view-- Jon's looking at a much bigger picture than they are.

ETA: "grateful" =/= "debt"

[Faint]

I said I'm not arguing anymore. You've made your point, I don't buy it and I'm not going to. Stop beating a dead horse.

You seem to lose interest in discussions when the paucity of your reasoning is exposed. But I'll leave you be.

[Faint]

But, I think that to explore this issue, we should look at some of the tenets of the NW's vows "protect the realms of men" and view with a critical eye "the NW takes no part" to discuss this. "The NW takes no part" is not a sanctified vow, but tradition-- a tradition that has recently been honored by one side only (the NW). I think that Jon's personal and professional interests align in the rescue of Arya from marriage to Ramsay. I know that members of the NW would not like it if this is found out, but I'm unconvinced that they are right in that view-- Jon's looking at a much bigger picture than they are.

My point with Melisandre is pretty simple. I think he should use her. Especially when he already has in the service of a much riskier venture that might completely blow up in his face.

Now, as for Arya specifically . . . are you saying that saving her aligns with the interests of the Night's Watch? In what way?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

You seem to lose interest in discussions when the paucity of your reasoning is exposed. But I'll leave you be.

If it makes you feel better to think that, go for it.

[Tagganaro]

@ Faint-

My problem with this criticism is that Jon doesn't know what's happening. He consents to allow Mel to send Mance to pick up "Arya" from a "neutral" area. Regardless of whether he sends Mance or not, "Arya" was going to arrive at Castle Black anyway because what Mel actually saw was Alys, who showed up at CB without any help. So assuming Arya = Alys in Mel's vision, what's Jon supposed to do here? If Alys=Arya, then Jon is just as well violating the neutrality by returning her to the Boltons, when she has gone to the Night's Watch of her own free will and does not want to be with the Boltons. Why should Jon break his neutrality to help out the Bolton's?

Now you're arguing that Jon should use Mel more here to help with the Queen's Men and Selyse. But the problem is that now Jon's trust in her has been completely violated and broken. He expected her to go pick up "Arya", who he now knows is Alys, who Mance didn't even bother to go pick up and Jon is under the impression that Mance is working for Mel. So why would Jon ask her to help him out at all now? He's already thinking in this chapter:

Does she never sleep? What game are you playing, priestess? Did you have some other task for Mance?

Jon gave Mel one chance to prove herself with regards to the Arya situation. She failed. Now that trust is entirely broken and Jon (logically in my opinion) does not want to ask for her help again, considering that the first time he consented to her "helping" him she was entirely wrong and at least he thinks she was lying to him. How can he trust her or ask for her help again now?

So to narrow down my answer, I'd say that it's clear why Jon won't use Mel. He doesn't trust her at all.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

So to narrow down my answer, I'd say that it's clear why Jon won't use Mel. He doesn't trust her at all.

Which is the exact same goddamn point I'm pretty sure I made at the very beginning. I don't understand what's so difficult to comprehend about this.

[Faint]

My problem with this criticism is that Jon doesn't know what's happening. He consents to allow Mel to send Mance to pick up "Arya" from a "neutral" area. Regardless of whether he sends Mance or not, "Arya" was going to arrive at Castle Black anyway because what Mel actually saw was Alys, who showed up at CB without any help. So assuming Arya = Alys in Mel's vision, what's Jon supposed to do here?

There are several things going on here. And my personal opinions have to be separated from the oaths of the Night's Watch because they are not one and the same.

I, on a personal level, like that Jon is trying to save his sister (even though I knew ahead of time that it wasn't actually his sister). Regardless, I was rooting for the fact that he wasn't willing to abandon his sister.

That being said, I instantly recognized that he was breaking his oaths in doing so. And strictly from the viewpoint of what's good for the Night's Watch, he should have done nothing. He shouldn't get involved in any affair that doesn't concern his domain.

Think of it this way: What if the Boltons win against Stannis and slaughter his force and Jon is sitting there with Alys Karstark and 'Arya Stark.' What then?

[butterbumps!]

My point with Melisandre is pretty simple. I think he should use her. Especially when he already has in the service of a much riskier venture that might completely blow up in his face.

Now, as for Arya specifically . . . are you saying that saving her aligns with the interests of the Night's Watch? In what way?

I don't find your point with Mel to be logical at all, to be honest. By letting her do her thing with Mance Jon is using her while also keeping himself out of her debt and at arm's length. If he were to go to her as a supplicant and ask her to tell her retinue to be nice to him, it would A. put him in her debt, and B. seriously undermine his position of authority. I'm not going to continue to debate the difference between accepting a gift versus asking for a loan.

On saving Arya, we went into depth about this issue in the last thread toward the end, where we discussed the essence of the NW vow, and how the whole "the NW doesn't take part" is not actually a sactified part of the vow, but a traditional status quo. Here's the summary:

The Warden of the North- whoever holds Winterfell- has a cooperative relationship with the NW. The Boltons are not particularly cooperative, and having them as Wardens of the North severely undermines the strength of the North to aid the Wall in the face of emergency. Should Arya be used to cement the Bolton's position, it will seat a very uncooperative family in a position of great authority, and the Wall will have no backing-- the Wall is the first line of defense, to be augmented by Winterfell when needed. By removing the possibility for the Boltons to sit in Winterfell, this would potentially enable a more cooperative family to hold the North, thus helping the NW protect the realms of man.

The NW cannot protect the realms of man if the realms of man are destroying each other; I understand the vow to mean that the NW must do whatever it must so that the realms remain protected, and if that means getting involved, so be it.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

<snip>

Excellently said.

[Faint]

The NW cannot protect the realms of man if the realms of man are destroying each other; I understand the vow to mean that the NW must do whatever it must so that the realms remain protected, and if that means getting involved, so be it.

By the same token, this puts the Night's Watch at risk of total annihilation. If Jon takes in 'Arya Stark' and the Boltons slaughter Stannis, then follow that by marching North, the Night's Watch is finished. The Boltons would be facing a heavily outnumbered force with little protection, and what's more, probably a divided force because there would never be unanimity about keeping 'Arya Stark' in the first place.

Essentially, you are gambling on Stannis winning a battle where he is heavily outnumbered and laying siege to Winterfell in the middle of winter.

On a pure cost-benefit analysis, I don't know how you could claim this is really the smart play where the Night's Watch is concerned.

EDIT: Incidentally, Jon realizes this point himself; which is why he plans on riding south, hoping to prevent the Boltons from besieging Castle Black.

[Tagganaro]

By the same token, this puts the Night's Watch at risk of total annihilation. If Jon takes in 'Arya Stark' and the Boltons slaughter Stannis, then follow that by marching North, the Night's Watch is finished. The Boltons would be facing a heavily outnumbered force with little protection, and what's more, probably a divided force because there would never be unanimity about keeping 'Arya Stark' in the first place.

Essentially, you are gambling on Stannis winning a battle where he is heavily outnumbered and laying siege to Winterfell in the middle of winter.

On a pure cost-benefit analysis, I don't know how you could claim this is really the smart play where the Night's Watch is concerned.

This is a good point, but it's lessened by the fact that the NW is probably facing extinction anyway if it doesn't have help from the North/Iron Throne. As we have seen, if the Wall couldn't stand on its own against a ragtag group of wildlings how on earth is it going to stand against the greatest threat the Westerosi world has ever seen?

And again, I'd point out that doing nothing is not really an option (assuming from Jon's POV that Alys=Arya and she would have arrived at CB anyway without Mance/Mel). He can either help the Bolton's or he can help his sister/Stannis.

[butterbumps!]

By the same token, this puts the Night's Watch at risk of total annihilation. If Jon takes in 'Arya Stark' and the Boltons slaughter Stannis, then follow that by marching North, the Night's Watch is finished. The Boltons would be facing a heavily outnumbered force with little protection, and what's more, probably a divided force because there would never be unanimity about keeping 'Arya Stark' in the first place.

Essentially, you are gambling on Stannis winning a battle where he is heavily outnumbered and laying siege to Winterfell in the middle of winter.

On a pure cost-benefit analysis, I don't know how you could claim this is really the smart play where the Night's Watch is concerned.

By this same token you can easily make the claim that if Jon does not interfere at all with anything, then all hope against the apocalypse is lost. Either way, the NW is doomed. It is in the NW's best interest to keep the North stable and cooperative. If Jon does nothing, it's not like things in the North will "just work out;" the only hope is by making circumstances more amenable to Stannis' victory (who is the only powerful lord/ king who has been involved with the Watch), and by extension, securing the realm.

I'm not sure what your point is. To blame Jon for not holding to the tradition of "not taking part" or because you think that taking Arya away from the Boltons is a strategically poor move? Honestly, the fact that Jon interprets vows to their true essence rather than to the word is part of what I admire so much about him. I don't believe that letting Mance rescue Arya is strategically poor, when you consider the other cooperation with Stannis-- giving advice about the North, informing him on Karstark's treachery, etc.

[Faint]

This is a good point, but it's lessened by the fact that the NW is probably facing extinction anyway if it doesn't have help from the North/Iron Throne. As we have seen, if the Wall couldn't stand on its own against a ragtag group of wildlings how on earth is it going to stand against the greatest threat the Westerosi world has ever seen?

Yes, but if you're going to make this argument, which I made ad nauseum before A Dance with Dragons came out, the best course of action is for Jon to abandon the Wall, rally the North, defeat the Boltons, and become Lord of Winterfell.

Jon did none of this (or at least not yet, he might be forced to in the next book), he stayed at the Wall and then did things which risked the Night's Watch being annihilated unless Stannis beat the Boltons (which is a risky proposition at best).

Or, in short, he went with the short percentage play every time.

[Punchslap]

By the same token, this puts the Night's Watch at risk of total annihilation. If Jon takes in 'Arya Stark' and the Boltons slaughter Stannis, then follow that by marching North, the Night's Watch is finished. The Boltons would be facing a heavily outnumbered force with little protection, and what's more, probably a divided force because there would never be unanimity about keeping 'Arya Stark' in the first place.

This presupposes that there's a scenario in which the Boltons would accept a NW with Jon as its LC, so the negative outcome you are proposing is based on a supposition. You might be right, but given how GRRM has portrayed the Boltons I see no reason for them to be happy to have a Stark in charge of the NW (particularly with Stannis having already dealt with Jon, suggesting that if that ship of reasonable interaction ever existed it is presumably gone already).

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

So just so we're all keeping score, the issues with Jon in this chapter involve the unbelievability of a vegetarian giant, and Jon's reluctance to become indebted to a fire sorceress. Oh, and he irresponsibly gives a giant alcohol.

I am not dazzled.

ETA: I'm also waiting for an explanation as to why Jon is criminally out of bounds to allow Mance to pick up "Arya" on what is very clearly neutral ground, but Ramsay is within his rights to demand hostages from the Watch. What I'm reading is, "The Watch being neutral means that they should just bend over and take it."

[Tagganaro]

Yes, but if you're going to make this argument, which I made ad nauseum before A Dance with Dragons came out, the best course of action is for Jon to abandon the Wall, rally the North, defeat the Boltons, and become Lord of Winterfell.

Jon did none of this (or at least not yet, he might be forced to in the next book), he stayed at the Wall and then did things which risked the Night's Watch being annihilated unless Stannis beat the Boltons (which is a risky proposition at best).

Or, in short, he went with the short percentage play every time.

This is interesting. In short, I agree with you (and I think Jon does as well for the most part lol). He regrets his decision to not take Stannis's offer more than anything in ADWD. The problem is- As Jon conceived of Stannis's offer, he was going to have to burn the Weirwood down at Winterfell, take a wildling as his wife, and just generally disgrace the Gods of the North and all Northmen in general and his father in particular. So I'm not sure that Jon taking Stannis's offer would be prudent- In fact, I'd argue Stannis's biggest problem is how blinded he's become by Mel and the Red God because it worked out for him earlier. He's kidding himself if he thinks the North will ever truly follow him so long as his "Queen" Mel is demanding they burn their gods.

And I'd argue if anything Jon has done the one most important thing he could do with the Wall- He brought most of the wildlings South and prevented them from becoming fodder for the Others' wights and thus increasing the numbers against Westeros. Likewise, Jon's decision to marry Alys to a wildling could have repercussions in terms of helping to integrate wildlings back into the North. So that could be Jon's lasting impact from his time at the Wall.

If Robb's will shows up like we all think it will eventually, Jon's decision to refuse Stannis's offer should look much better in hindsight as Jon will be uniting the North in a much more comprehensive way.