Learning to Lead V: endings and beginnings. A Daenerys and Jon reread ADWD reread project

[Ragnorak]

I know y'all are Jon apologists, but this is... something. Jon gives Stannis an extremely specific battle plan and strategy for taking over the North. Jon sends Mance south to steal the Lord of Winterfell's bride. Jon arranges a marriage between a Northern noble girl and a wildling and locks up the girl's relatives who disagree. Jon announces his plans to march south against the Lord of Winterfell with an army of wildlings. None of that is oathbreaking (according to y'all).

Yet Bowen taking sides in the Night Watch's own free election for who should be the Night Watch's own Lord Commander, while simply mentioning the preference of the Iron Throne... that is taking part in the affairs of the realm?

No it should not. There is no support for this.

What? You call Marsh, Thorne, and Slynt fools, cowards, and cravens up and down and now you cite their assessment to justify your views, pretending it's a precedent?

Melisandre's chapters were included in this reread and during those chapters the issue of Mance's mission was addressed at length. One of many conclusions that was reached was that Jon did not in fact send Mance to Winterfell. It would be courteous to actually read that material before commenting and it is never courteous to degrade the contributors to a reread as "Jon apologists."

Tywin specifically says he wants to influence the outcome of the election for the new Lord Commander of the Watch and states that the method he intends to use to do so is a letter to communicate that no aid will be sent unless they choose Slynt. He has this letter sent and Bowen Marsh touts the letter as a reason to vote for Slynt. Since Tywin's threat to not send any more reinforcements can't actually effectively sway the election as he intends unless people understand he's actually threatening to not send reinforcements trying to portray it as "simply mentioning the preference" is not a remotely reasonable conclusion.

In any case "simply mentioning a preference" is in fact offensive to the member's of the Nights Watch and they clearly view even that as interfering as can be seen by the passgae Butterbumps! referenced.

"But it must be said. We brothers are only simple soldiers. Soldiers, yes! And Your Grace will know that soldiers are most comfortable taking orders. They would benefit from your royal guidance, it seems to me. For the good of the realm. To help them choose wisely.”

The suggestion outraged some of the others. “Do you want the king to wipe our arses for us too?” said Cotter Pyke angrily. “The choice of a Lord Commander belongs to the Sworn Brothers, and to them alone,” insisted Ser Denys Mallister. “If they choose wisely they won’t be choosing me,” moaned Dolorous Edd. Maester Aemon, calm as always, said, “Your Grace, the Night’s Watch has been choosing its own leader since Brandon the Builder raised the Wall. Through Jeor Mormont we have had nine hundred and ninety-seven Lords Commander in unbroken succession, each chosen by the men he would lead, a tradition many thousands of years old.”

Opposite logic day?

Consider this passage

“They kept their pledge. When Aegon slew Black Harren and claimed his kingdom, Harren’s brother was Lord Commander on the Wall, with ten thousand swords to hand. He did not march. In the days when the Seven Kingdoms were seven kingdoms, not a generation passed that three or four of them were not at war. The Watch took no part. When the Andals crossed the narrow sea and swept away the kingdoms of the First Men, the sons of the fallen kings held true to their vows and remained at their posts. So it has always been, for years beyond counting. Such is the price of honor.

The Nights Watch took no part in all of these conflicts because in all of them the other party took no part as well. If Aegon wanted Harren's brother's head he wouldn't have told his ten thousand swords to pick a new LC and asked if one of his men would be kind enough to behead him. If the Andals or any of the warring kingdoms wanted the heads of heirs serving at the Wall, the Watch would not have simply complied and offered up those heads-- they would have defended themselves and no other kingdom watching the conflict would consider it a violation of staying out of the affairs of the realms.. The Watch was only able to take no part because those other kingdoms also took no part. When one side takes no part in a conflict that the other side is taking part in the result is either a slaughter or a surrender-- neither of which I recall being part of the vows. This is a fairly basic concept that ought not be any harder to grasp than killing in self defense does not equal murder. It is a very peculiar thing to refer to as opposite logic day.

[Lummel]

I know y'all are Jon apologists, but this is... something. Jon gives Stannis an extremely specific battle plan and strategy for taking over the North. Jon sends Mance south to steal the Lord of Winterfell's bride. Jon arranges a marriage between a Northern noble girl and a wildling and locks up the girl's relatives who disagree. Jon announces his plans to march south against the Lord of Winterfell with an army of wildlings. None of that is oathbreaking (according to y'all)...

You know had you been with us on this reread and gone through those early chapters (and all of the relevant stuff will be in that first thread) then you wouldn't be making this kind of sweeping statement now.

It's pretty clear that Jon is consciously trying in the early chapters at least to walk a line between keeping and breaking his oath. You can take the above and add taking Stannis' men in, providing them with food and black watch clothing and arming the wildlings who agree to join his army.

To my mind it's clear that Jon does break the injunction not to interfere in the affairs of the realm during those early chapters (and more than once) - not that he has much choice. Not that my personal view is definitive, but you know since we are all sharing our opinions here I'll throw in my tuppence worth. Notice that he is not toppled as Lord Commander at that stage.

However when it comes to the assassination I think it's a different question and it doesn't matter if we think as readers that Jon broke his oath or was true to it. I suppose it's a fun question if you like that kind of thing, but in story terms I don't think it matters.

Instead in story terms there are two questions to answer: why do Marsh and co attempt to murder Jon and secondly does consideration of his oath affect Jon's actions?

The answer to the second is in my mind decided by "No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone." (Jon XIII p911). "If this is oathbreaking", interesting choice of words. He doesn't care about the oath anymore. He allows that it might be oath breaking, or it might not, but he's not going to spend any time debating the matter or getting a second opinion on it, he is just going to do exactly what he wants to do whether it is oathbreaking or not. That's why I think this is a parallel to Daenerys throwing off her tokar. He's rejecting the restrictions he put on himself and breaking free. I personally think he is oathbreaking, but the huge massive important significant point is that Jon doesn't care either way. ETA and just for completeness given the choice between a Jon who wants to be true to his oath and a Jon who wants to rescue his sister I prefer the latter, the tension between what society expects and what the individual wants is strong in ASOIAF so Jon is picking up on a main theme here.

With Marsh and Co, again I think discussion of if there is oathbreaking or not isn't relevant. If you believe that Marsh was warged or in a conspiracy with Melisandre or the Boltons then Marsh stabbed Jon because he was wargged or pressurised by the seductive and persuasive Melisandre or in love with Roose, not because of oathbreaking. On the other hand if you believe that Marsh stabbed Jon because he thought he was an oathbreaker, a potential new Night's King binding the men to his will and taking them away from their oath, then clearly Marsh from his POV thinks that Jon is an oathbreaker and all the eloquence of the board isn't going to change Marsh's mind :).

I think the tension in their relationship over policy is well signalled and from that beautiful exchange on top of the wall that begins "The lord commander must pardon my bluntness, but I have no softer way to say this. What you propose is nothing less than treason..." (Jon XI p715) we see that Bowen clearly has reached an extreme position and has to be prepared to either live with potential treason or potentially take extreme action to prevent it. Interestingly though Bowen accuses Jon of treason, not oath breaking. Again since treason is the more serious crime the issue of oathbreaking again becomes irrelevant. If Bowen thinks Jon is a traitor to the realm then that has got to trump any other consideration for him hasn't it?

Anyhow that's my reading...

ETA - all page numbers refer to the hardback, pagination is the same for the UK and US editions.

[butterbumps!]

I know y'all are Jon apologists, but this is... something.

What? You call Marsh, Thorne, and Slynt fools, cowards, and cravens up and down and now you cite their assessment to justify your views, pretending it's a precedent?

Pyke and Mallister were the two I'd remembered being outraged by the idea of intervening, and sundry others I couldn't remember offhand. I had admitted that I hadn't remembered if Bowen specifically had also expressed outrage. The point being that the Watchmen seemed to believe that Stannis' choosing or even influencing the election decision was a kind of taboo based on traditions, where it was clear that the men held the notion of independence in choosing sacred. So if Bowen at other points wanted to make choices based on suggestions from the IT or elsewhere, it would go against the Watch's traditional principle of independent decision-making.

I don't really appreciate that you twisted what I said in an attempt to pull out the carpet. What you extracted from my post doesn't follow from what I'd actually said, and just serves as rhetoric. This thread's been really friendly and exploratory, and we haven't been using it as a platform to prove who's right and wrong.

I also go back to the part when he was talking him out of leaving.

I got this weird vibe that Aemon was almost including Jon in familial intimacy that was seperate from his Stark family, like in a roundabout way, he was telling Jon the story of his "other" family and their deaths.

Yea, I think I know what you mean. Aemon did take a special interest in him. With one reading, if you pretend R+L doesn't exist, it could be read as Aemon's recognizing something promising in him; I mean, Jon is the one who came forward with the suggestion of Sam, and how all men can serve, that there are other ways to serve besides swordplay. That was something that impressed me (and I'll note I wasn't a huge Jon fan in the beginning). So I feel that this special attention could possibly be explained by some of Jon's actions that could have made him seem worthy (the way Jon won over the boys, and especially his treatment of Sam), combined with Aemon's wisdom about political strife, and how Jon's family situation would be increasingly perilous.

But where I think this gets interesting is if Aemon does know. How do we take his advice? Is he implicitly telling Jon that when the time comes for his identity to come forth, to leave the Watch or not? Ragnorak has a quote somewhere from Aemon, who basically tells Jon that he must make decisions that he can live with. I like that part of Aemon's advice best: decisions he can live with. I think this advice transcends the issue of Jon's parentage- that is, it applies even if Aemon isn't specifically thinking of "King Jon," but it would be quite interesting if this was said with that in mind. Do you think Aemon would want or approve of Jon's leaving the Watch if it was something he could live with?

[Chaircat Meow]

Pyke and Mallister were the two I'd remembered being outraged by the idea of intervening, and sundry others I couldn't remember offhand. I had admitted that I hadn't remembered if Bowen specifically had also expressed outrage. The point being that the Watchmen seemed to believe that Stannis' choosing or even influencing the election decision was a kind of taboo based on traditions, where it was clear that the men held the notion of independence in choosing sacred. So if Bowen at other points wanted to make choices based on suggestions from the IT or elsewhere, it would go against the Watch's traditional principle of independent decision-making.

We are actually supposed to believe Pyke and Mallister supported Jon, in part, because Sam lied to them, saying Stannis meant to 'name' the other one LC. Even if they disliked that, the election proceeded on those assumptions. So the sacred traditions were flaunted by Sam too, as far as I can see, although he was probably lying of course. I think as well 'name' the LC means more than express a preference, it basically means 'gut' the election process, or reduce it to a sham, or just do away with it. From Ser Denys 'I agree that it would be a dark day in our history if a king were to name our Lord Commander. This king especially. He is not liable to keep his crown for long.' Then Sam says 'If we do not choose a Lord Commander tonight, King Stannis means to name Cotter Pyke.' Tywin didn't 'name' anyone, he just said elect this guy or this happens, your choice, and the only stick was not sending any more criminals to the wall, when whether or not to allow someone to take the balck is explicitly presented as a lord's choice many times during the books.

Moreover, lots of other people vote based on some idea of what is liable to please this or that king, or based on how it 'looks.' So, simply the fact the king might take a choice the wrong way doesn't seem to be an invalid reason to proceed to vote on, nor is it thought to be at odds with the election process.

Yarwyck, for instance says he no longer supports Slynt as it would be like 'sort of kicking king Stannis in the mouth...' after Stannis has just said he thinks even the 'cook' would be better than Slynt, but no one objected to Stannis saying that.

As for Slynt, well, I read his suggestion as being that Stannis do rather more than indicate a preference. 'it must be said. We brothers are only simple soldiers. Soldiers, yes! And you grace will know that soldiers are most comfortable taking orders. They would benefit from royal guidance, it seems to me.' I think there was a fair bit of euphemism being employed there, soldiers don't choose their officers at all, if they are following 'orders.' I think Slynt was basically asking Stannis to impose a candidate unilaterally at this point, in other words, 'name' one, that is appoint him directly, and was dressing it up, none to slyly, as 'helping them choose.' Aemon and Cotter then object that the black brothers always 'choose' the LC, which is a bit of an overreaction if they were merely objecting to Stannis expressing an opinion rather than strong arming someone into place, like through an order, to soldiers. This reading is supported by the fact Stannis then does go on to give a preference, as I've said, at the very least a negative one, by totally ripping it out of Slynt and accusing him of corruption. Stannis views abiding by the NW's 'customs and traditions' as accepting the LC they agree on, he doesn't seem to think he can't bad mouth candidates and reveal information that might sway people's decisions. No one objects to his little speech on Slynt either.

All Marsh did was say Slynt was a good idea because among other things he had Tywin's support. That was all true. It didn't threaten the integrity of the election process, he was just stating information that was relevant and saying it convinced him. Was Marsh supposed to have kept this information secret and not mention it, because it ruined the election process?

And all this is before the fact that choosing an LC is nothing to do with interfering or taking part in the affairs of the realm.

So I don't think Marsh is a hypocrite for supporting Slynt because of Tywin's letter.

[Tagganaro]

All Marsh did was say Slynt was a good idea because among other things he had Tywin's support. That was all true. It didn't threaten the integrity of the election process, he was just stating information that was relevant and saying it convinced him. Was Marsh supposed to have kept this information secret and not mention it, because it ruined the election process?

And all this is before the fact that choosing an LC is nothing to do with interfering or taking part in the affairs of the realm.

So I don't think Marsh is a hypocrite for supporting Slynt because of Tywin's letter.

People being strong-armed into voting for a certain candidate doesn't threaten the integrity of an election process? Anyway, LC is not just a figurehead position, as we see in ADWD they wield a whole lot of power. Electing an incompetent one merely to please another leader is going to have an impact on the NW. Anyway, can we talk about this on another thread if you want, and not here?

[Lummel]

So any other ideas on the hows and whys of the assassination attempt? What about the authorship of the pink letter? Any views on that? Any takers on the Mance code?

Beyond that how do you take Jon XIII as the conclusion of Jon's arc? Does it work for you? His arc in ASOS ends with his election so the end, temporary or not or simply desired could be a big natural step...

[butterbumps!]

We are actually supposed to believe Pyke and Mallister supported Jon, in part, because Sam lied to them, saying Stannis meant to 'name' the other one LC. Even if they disliked that, the election proceeded on those assumptions. So the sacred traditions were flaunted by Sam too, as far as I can see, although he was probably lying of course. I think as well 'name' the LC means more than express a preference, it basically means 'gut' the election process, or reduce it to a sham, or just do away with it. From Ser Denys 'I agree that it would be a dark day in our history if a king were to name our Lord Commander. This king especially. He is not liable to keep his crown for long.' Then Sam says 'If we do not choose a Lord Commander tonight, King Stannis means to name Cotter Pyke.' Tywin didn't 'name' anyone, he just said elect this guy or this happens, your choice, and the only stick was not sending any more criminals to the wall, when whether or not to allow someone to take the balck is explicitly presented as a lord's choice many times during the books.

What do you mean Tywin didn't name anyone but said to "pick this guy"? Isn't that naming someone? I'm not sure what you're trying to say by bringing up Sam. My second to last post said explicitly that it was a half-truth that Sam told the men to influence the election himself. Stannis did, in fact, put pressure on the Watch to pick ASAP and he did threaten, at least in an offhanded way, that he'd pick for them (though it wasn't a public declaration, irrc). Sam "flaunted" the tradition, emphasizing the fact that an outsider would intervene in the election if a choice wasn't made soon. But this supports my point, which is that there is a long-held tradition of outsiders not getting involved in the internal affairs of the Watch and that Sam played to this. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but what you're saying supports this.

And just to be clear, for a House or a King to say it will withhold aid for the Wall unless you choose this man is overstepping bounds of keeping out of the Watch's internal affairs. The Wall is supposed to be supported by the realms it serves. From the last reading of Martin's it would seem that the North had more wealth and power prior to the consolidation of the kingdoms (since it's resources and taxes go to the Throne). We know that the North and Winterfell particularly were the Wall's biggest supporters. Since their taxes/ resources are now funneled to KL, it is up to KL to take over the role of support for the Watch, which, after Alysanne, is being grossly under funded. Personally, I find this gross negligence of the Throne's duties. And further, support is meant to fund the Wall regardless of the choice of commander. This is what neutrality means, and the fact that the men were outraged by the suggestion of an outsider's choosing supports this.

Tywin is wrong for trying to make a "carrot and stick" deal with the Watch, withholding support unless his man is chosen. This is an ugly path to start going down. How long would it be before Tywin called upon the Watch to remove Stannis, or aid in other political interests? And with Janos Slynt in charge, I would be willing to bet thousands that if Tywin said "take out the hill clans" Slynt would comply. Why else would Tywin be so interested in who the LC would be?

Moreover, lots of other people vote based on some idea of what is liable to please this or that king, or based on how it 'looks.' So, simply the fact the king might take a choice the wrong way doesn't seem to be an invalid reason to proceed to vote on, nor is it thought to be at odds with the election process.

Yarwyck, for instance says he no longer supports Slynt as it would be like 'sort of kicking king Stannis in the mouth...' after Stannis has just said he thinks even the 'cook' would be better than Slynt, but no one objected to Stannis saying that.

Now this is interesting. For all that you have been lambasting Jon for tipping the neutrality scale, insisting on a draconian delimitation of "getting involved," other Watchmen, the very same who fault Jon's involvement, operate from a political perspective. Which is precisely why I said that a defense of Bowen wasn't applicable, because he is not operating from a pure "for the Watch" framework.

Here's my view on this. On one hand, we do know that choosing a LC is a sacred tradition of the NW. It would seem that outside influence of this decision is taboo, and strictly speaking, nothing should interfere. But then the reality is that no matter how much neutrality might be desired, there are always influences that prevent neutrality, be it a king who won't send aid without some form of concession or whatever the case may be. The NW isn't an isolated island, and the rest of the realm does affect them, and because of this, men take the realm's affairs into consideration when making decisions.

I think this is an issue of theory versus the reality. As long as the Watch is dependent on external support, there will always be a "toeing of the line" in terms of neutrality- where those in a position to give support will make demands, and the men of the Watch will subsequently take those politics into consideration. This is why I have called Jon's decisions in terms of oathbreaking a "grey area," at least up to the point of chapter 13.

I think that Bowen is in denial about his lack of neutrality/ political motivations, seeing Jon's behavior as against the Watch, while not recognizing the fact that he is no less guilty. I support Jon's interpretation of neutrality more than Bowen's, because I see the particulars of Bowen's willingness to concede to the Lannisters to be short-sighted and counter productive, whereas Jon takes a wider view of the situation. A bad LC, especially someone's patsy, would invariably bring the Watch to ruin and I think it would be only a matter of time before they became more overtly involved in Tywin's affairs. Jon sought to supersede this to regain longer-term independence of the Watch to operate as it's own entity.

ETA: Sorry sorry, I didn't see Lummel's last post. Yes, let's talk about letter crackpots instead.

[Chaircat Meow]

What do you mean Tywin didn't name anyone but said to "pick this guy"? Isn't that naming someone?

I thought I argued to 'name' someone meant to appoint by 'overriding the election process,' ultimately by force. It does mean more than 'name' someone as a preference. I was arguing in my post that is the best way to understand what Denys and Sam meant by 'name' and what Slynt suggested. Neither Tywin or Bowen suggested or proposed to 'name,' but I think that is what the objections to Stannis, held to prove Tywin and Bowen's attitude was seen as some attack on the watch, were about. I also said no one seems to object to the king merely expressing his preference, and suggested Yarwyck clearly did take Stannis' dislike of Slynt into his consideration.

We disagree about the SK's duty to the watch so there's no point discussing that.

I think indicating you will offer aid to the watch if x,y and z are done does not breech any duty any lord owes to them. It might not be laudable behaviour but it is not a question of violating obligations. I have mentioned before that the text does make clear the watch does try and stay on good terms with lords by treating their sons well (Mormont's attitude to Royce) and that it would take aid attached to conditions (releasing Jon for Robb's 100 swords). It's also pretty clear you can choose whether to allow a prisoner to take the black or do something else with them meaning you are not required to send anyone to them. Not to mention the watch was originally voluntary, so how a kingdom can be 'obliged' to send it support, given that, I don't really know.

Regardless, even if Tywin's behaviour is unacceptable I'm still at an utter loss to see how Bowen's is. He can't write the implied offer from Tywin out of his mind and if he thinks acting on it is a good idea he can bring it up. If people 'choose' to agree with him that's up to them. So if the election process was violated, it's Tywin's fault, not Bowen's. Was he just supposed to have suppressed the information, when other people likely knew Tywin's views too. And given other people, in fact everybody, in that election appears to be taking some non-NW person's attitude into account flagging up Bowen's attitude as an example of hypocrisy, or interfering in the affairs of the realm, seems real weird, imo.

[Lummel]

Hmm, not seeing the relevance of any of these discussions on the election of Jon to any of the themes of this thread.

If you can use that as evidence of a Lannister-Marsh plot then that would be something, but otherwise can I remind everybody that we are on Jon XIII, there's plenty there to discuss.

Alternatively you might like to discuss the whole of Jon's ADWD arc, like it, loathe it or converted to it on a reread.

How does the Jon ADWD arc fit into the Jon Story? Do we need maybe to look again at the whole of Jon in the light of ADWD? How does he compare with other arcs? What about Jon as a leader, with apologies to Fassreiter if she is reading, but do you see Jon transforming at the end of his arc into King of the Wildings or possibly into King of Winter?

I take it you are all underwhelmed on my take of Jon's Shieldhall moment as being equivalent to Daenerys tossing off her tokar :crying: !

[The Lost Lord]

Beyond that how do you take Jon XIII as the conclusion of Jon's arc? Does it work for you? His arc in ASOS ends with his election so the end, temporary or not or simply desired could be a big natural step...

I apologize about the tone of my last post and I'll try to make a more constructive and on-topic contribution to this thread. Here are my thoughts on this chapter as a conclusion to Jon's arc for the book.

I think that GRRM has repeatedly set Jon up with dilemmas where he has "innocent life" and "what he feels is right" on one side and "duties to the Watch" or "non-interference" on the other side. When Jon switched Gilly's baby, Sam wondered when Jon's heart had turned to stone, and Aemon responded that it was when he became Lord Commander. But their assessment is wrong -- Jon's heart has not turned to stone, and later on he proves unable to stop himself from intervening to protect innocent life or to do what he feels is right. He acquiesced in the Mance mission and he arranged a marriage for the Karstark girl. Again and again, when he's presented with one of these dilemmas, he chooses to act rather than to let his hands be tied by a non-interference principle. And his actions grow more extreme and less restrained as the novel goes on, to the potential detriment of the Watch.

Now, Jon XIII opens with Selyse's words "Let them die" -- about the wildlings at Hardhome. The dilemma about innocent life is clearly stated. I think people generally agree that this is a suicide mission, right? Jon tries to rationalize it by saying they'll all come back as wights -- but I think this is a case of "bleeding heart" Jon being unable to kill the boy and stand by while innocents die, despite practical constraints.

Then, after Jon receives the pink letter, he appears to be mainly motivated by personal disgust and animus toward Ramsay. The final sentences he reflects on before making his decisions are Ramsay's "I made him a warm cloak" and "I want my bride back" (repeated). When he speaks, he mentions "this creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women." Then he thinks "we are coming for you, Bastard." So I interpret the choice, again, as Jon finally making a choice to stop this horrid monster from ruling the North -- a choice not to stand by as this woman-skinning creature runs rampant. In short, he wants to go kick Ramsay's ass. He wants to kill the bad guy. I feel this interpretation has more support in the text than the interpretations that Jon was doing this only because the Watch can't be defended from the South (something Jon does not think about at all here), or somehow for the larger conflict against the Others (again, Jon never thinks about the Others after receiving the letter).

How has Jon changed personally, from the novel's start to its end? Jon was filled with doubts in many of the early ADWD chapters -- "Now he was a man grown and the Wall was his, yet all he had were doubts. He could not even seem to conquer those." But actually, by this point he has conquered his doubts. For the past several chapters he has had fewer and fewer doubts about his actions, and increasing belief in his own rightness (some would say arrogance). For ages he's been telling himself "You know nothing, Jon Snow." But in this chapter, for the first time ever, he thinks (about Selyse) "They know nothing, Ygritte. And worse, they will not learn." Later, when Bowen and co. slip out during his speech, Jon thinks "It made no matter. He did not need them now. He did not want them." In this chapter he reflects for a paragraph on what to do about Ramsay, but after that he is all action. The closest he comes to doubt is a rationalization, telling himself he did the right thing -- "No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone."

So in that sense Jon has "killed the boy" -- he no longer doubts himself. But in several other senses Jon utterly failed to "kill the boy." As mentioned above, he remains unable to reconcile himself that innocent life must sometimes be lost. Morally admirable, but leaders have to be chastened by practicality, and the Hardhome mission is of dubious practicality at best.

Jon has also failed to "kill the boy" in the sense that he retained the identity, allegiances, and biases he had before becoming Lord Commander. In the paragraph where he's reflecting on the letter, the first two sentences he thinks of are "The Night's Watch takes no part" and "What you propose is nothing less than treason." Then he thinks of "Robb, with snowflakes melting in his hair" -- thoughts of his family superseding the Watch. No, he tells himself, "Kill the boy and let the man be born." But then there's suddenly "Bran, clambering up a tower wall, agile as a monkey," and Rickon, and Sansa, and Ygritte, and Arya -- and then evil Ramsay, wanting his bride back. These are the progression of his thoughts as he makes his most crucial decision in the book, clearly chosen and arranged very carefully by GRRM, and I don't think it's an accident that he thinks of the Watch first in this paragraph and then all of his non-Watch allegiances overwhelm these thoughts.

As others have mentioned, Jon seems to have more or less concluded that the Watch is a dead institution, and that he should be able to do what he thinks is best without the Watch's strictures. It was pointed out that Jon thinks of the Watch as "crows" when he's in the Shieldhall. After the speech, Tormund says "We’ll make a wildling o’ you yet, boy." Jon thinks he doesn't need or want Marsh, Yarwyck and "their men." He is apparently oblivious to the optics of announcing that Mance was alive, repeats unrefuted the letter's assertion that Jon sent Mance to Winterfell to steal Ramsay's bride, and sees nothing wrong with the idea of marching south with a ton of wildlings. (ETA: I agree, Lummel, that this is the "tokar" moment, where he discards the uncomfortable restrictions that his obligations to the Watch put on his freedom of action, just as Dany chose to dispense with her obligations to the Meereenese there. It's also noteworthy that Jon feels more disdain / contempt / lack of respect for the Watch (at least Bowen's portion of it), just as Dany at the pits starts to feel contempt for the bloodlust of the Meereenese people.)

When Jon is revived, I don't think he will ever be affiliated with the Watch again in any official capacity (if the Watch even survives the chaos that will quickly erupt when the wildlings see what happened). Robb's will and the R+L=J secret are apparently both in possession of Howland Reed. The will provides Jon with a quick path to becoming King of the North. (But what of Rickon?) R+L=J seems designed to orient him southward. Jon will remain focused on the conflict with the Others but at this point he would surely accept a more practical, political role in managing the Northern resistance to the Others, and perhaps in Westeros later on. Jon is used to being in charge now, and thinks he's the only one who can be trusted with power, when most of the other options are fools or monsters. "They know nothing, Ygritte."

[Blisscraft]

So any other ideas on the hows and whys of the assassination attempt? What about the authorship of the pink letter? Any views on that? Any takers on the Mance code?

Beyond that how do you take Jon XIII as the conclusion of Jon's arc? Does it work for you? His arc in ASOS ends with his election so the end, temporary or not or simply desired could be a big natural step...

As for the conclusion of Jon's arc - the posts about Aemon got me to thinking about this again, as well as your prior post, Lummel. The point about treason versus oathbreaking is especially interesting. In GOT, Aemon asks Jon why the NW's vows require that the men take no wives and father no children. Jon shrugs and says, "No." Aemon then goes on to explain, "So they will not love. . . .For love is the bane of honor and the death of duty." A bit later, Aemon tells Jon, "We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory and our great tragedy." Finally, Aemon says,

"A craven can be as brave as any man, when there is nothing to fear. And we all do our duty, when there is no cost to it. How easy it seems then, to walk the path of honor. Yet soon or late in every man's life comes a day when it is not easy, a day when he must choose."

If there is a real point to the "pink letter," it is that its arrival creates the defining moment which requires Jon to choose between love and duty. (I think that's why that wax smear is pink in color rather than grey. It is the color of excited, rather than dead flesh). Jon is choosing, for himself, love over duty. He announces his choice in the Shieldhall, the old place of honor, where former knights who joined the Watch set aside their "love" for duty. In annoucing his choice to go to Winterfell, it includes his love for his family of choice, the "free folk," not his brothers of the NW.

The assassination attempt occurs when it does because of Jon's proclamation. It's the straw that broke the camel's back. Now, after Shieldhall, there can be no mistake as to Jon's choice. Jon's choice is a betrayal of his vows and a "death to duty and to honor." In a way, Jon's choice is beyond oathbreaking, for which one can be forgiven, i.e. Molestown or Ygrette, for Jon in particular. Also, it is treason to the Crown, as Roose Bolton is Warden of the West. Make no mistake, I am not blaming the victim, Jon didn't ask to be stabbed, but his choice creates consequences, and to the "powers that be," for Jon's betrayal to the NW and the Crown, the consequence is death.

Also, I agree with Lummel that this is very like Dany's ripping off that tokar. It's a physical expression of choice. Also, Jon's choice is very like Huck Finn's with regard to his friend ship with Jim. When Huck makes his choice, he proclaims, "Then I'll go to Hell!"

[kissdbyfire]

I agree on the change is hard but I think this is a point were GRRM runs, potentially, into problems by dealing with the topic in a realistic way within the confines of of a genre novel. Gritty back stabbing politics is one thing, even violating the true pure northman mythos is forgivable but the nuts and bolts of change in society seem to have been too much for some readers.

But for us I think it makes a very interesting angle to investigate, rather like leadership, which I feel GRRM has tackled in a realistic way. I didn't doubt reading and rereading Danerys and Jon that they were in the tar pit struggling to do the right thing and to find their path.

The difficulty is will GRRM be able to sell us change at some later point in his series now that he has been dealing with it in a realistic way. He's established that it is hard, difficult and slow to change things in his world. The risk is that any change in westeros that is brought about could fail to convince us, or potentially that we will leave westeros in its current mess at the end of the series but with the possibility of change in the air.

Anyroad that's by the by. More to the point Lyanna, you think that Barristan, Tyrion and Jorah don't have their own agendas? :) I never suspected you of such innocence ;)

But why would GRRM not continue to deal with it all in a realistic way? Have I missed something...

Or is it something to do with how long it would take to do it like that? Because I think this could be an issue. That or something that will have the effect of a shock treatment. :uhoh:

[butterbumps!]

I take it you are all underwhelmed on my take of Jon's Shieldhall moment as being equivalent to Daenerys tossing off her tokar :crying: !

I need to formulate more cohesive thoughts, but something I'd like to explore is the "belly of the whale" aspect of the Shieldhall- I think it was Dr P who brought this up in another thread a while back. I do think, especially given Jon's copious thoughts on the Shieldhall itself and what happens there- the fact that he just no longer cares- does speak to the "separation of the hero between what's known and himself" that this refers to."

I think throwing off the Tokar is one aspect of this for Dany, but I think her big "belly of the whale" is when she looks into Drogon's eyes, accepts this is who she is, and departs. So I agree with your assessment, but I think that the other parts of her pit scene should be included in the parallel. It's about a full separation from the illusion of their realities into seeing a deeper truth, perhaps, and I think her confrontation with Drogon is critical.

[Blisscraft]

Just wanted to add that Huck's choice "to decide, forever, betwixt two things," to "go to hell" was provoked by a letter.

[fassreiter]

As for the conclusion of Jon's arc - the posts about Aemon got me to thinking about this again, as well as your prior post, Lummel. The point about treason versus oathbreaking is especially interesting. In GOT, Aemon asks Jon why the NW's vows require that the men take no wives and father no children. Jon shrugs and says, "No." Aemon then goes on to explain, "So they will not love. . . .For love is the bane of honor and the death of duty." A bit later, Aemon tells Jon, "We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory and our great tragedy." Finally, Aemon says,

"A craven can be as brave as any man, when there is nothing to fear. And we all do our duty, when there is no cost to it. How easy it seems then, to walk the path of honor. Yet soon or late in every man's life comes a day when it is not easy, a day when he must choose."

If there is a real point to the "pink letter," it is that its arrival creates the defining moment which requires Jon to choose between love and duty. (I think that's why that wax smear is pink in color rather than grey. It is the color of excited, rather than dead flesh). Jon is choosing, for himself, love over duty. He announces his choice in the Shieldhall, the old place of honor, where former knights who joined the Watch set aside their "love" for duty. In annoucing his choice to go to Winterfell, it includes his love for his family of choice, the "free folk," not his brothers of the NW.

The assassination attempt occurs when it does because of Jon's proclamation. It's the straw that broke the camel's back. Now, after Shieldhall, there can be no mistake as to Jon's choice. Jon's choice is a betrayal of his vows and a "death to duty and to honor." In a way, Jon's choice is beyond oathbreaking, for which one can be forgiven, i.e. Molestown or Ygrette, for Jon in particular. Also, it is treason to the Crown, as Roose Bolton is Warden of the West. Make no mistake, I am not blaming the victim, Jon didn't ask to be stabbed, but his choice creates consequences, and to the "powers that be," for Jon's betrayal to the NW and the Crown, the consequence is death.

Also, I agree with Lummel that this is very like Dany's ripping off that tokar. It's a physical expression of choice. Also, Jon's choice is very like Huck Finn's with regard to his friend ship with Jim. When Huck makes his choice, he proclaims, "Then I'll go to Hell!"

Can I like this post twice, please? I think I liked Jon never better than at this moment, reading this. Great thread, by the way! Sad to see it is almost at an end now.

Oh, and thank you, Lummel, on behalf of the Jon, King of the Wildlings issue! If I might just respond: I think that the reason the wildlings reacted so strongly to the letter being read was that it addressed the free folk as a political entity. The letter said that if Jon wanted Mance Rayder back, he should come and get him. Jon reads the letter, discards any notion that he wants to avenge Stannis or protect Selyse, and says let's go then. To me, that's a pretty clear signal. I think, regardless of whether the wildlings would follow Mance again (I think they do), bringing the leader of the wildlings into the discussion means the free folk are no longer just a bunch of savages kept at bay by hostages. They are an independent people again, and Jon made it clear he recognized that, and is willing to work with that. I think when Tormund said they were going to make a wildling out of Jon, it just means he stopped being a crow to them. They are no longer at his mercy, instead, they are going to make common cause, like the King-Beyond-the-Wall and the Stark-in-Winterfell once did.

But most likely I am just dreaming up things. And even more likely, the pink letter is probably true :(

Edit.: By the way, I think all narrative resonance the scene in the shieldhall had would be done for if the letter was written by someone else than Ramsay. If it wasn't about making the choice between love and duty, why bring Arya into the equation at all, from an author's POV? If GRRM wanted Jon to be stabbed because he let the wildlings pass the Wall, he could have had that in a much more concise, much more heartbreaking scene, without any letters and fake Aryas.

[Winterfellian]

Beyond that how do you take Jon XIII as the conclusion of Jon's arc? Does it work for you? His arc in ASOS ends with his election so the end, temporary or not or simply desired could be a big natural step...

This is going to be a little long and might come off as "Jon apologetic", but anyway...

Despite my initial desire to throw the book against the wall when I first reat it I think is a good ending for Jon's arch. It ties nicely with Aemon's advice at the beggining of Jon's story: Kill the boy. Kill the boy and let the man be born. Jon starts ADWD as half a boy despite his past experiences and with an idealistic view of leadership similar to Dany's own views. As his story progresses we see him let go of this illusions and until finally the boy is killed.

I think Jon was caught the entire time of his time as LC between a knife and a hard place. Hundreds of years of neglect, ignorance and ill suited recruits left the Night Watch and it’s LC facing this new threat, the real threat, at a disadvantage on every ground without any aopportunities but what he could be able to create for himself; something that Jon tried his best to do at every turn. Leadership is not necessarily about a position position or a title but finding purposes, goals, etc.

Given the circumstances then I feel the best Jon could do as a leader was to gamble on whatever opportunities he saw that would increase the chances for survival for his people. It doesn’t matter if it is an alliance with a former enemy, a shaky relation with an Iron Throne pretender or an impossible loan from the Iron Bank. Every decision that led some of his men to turn against him gave them the chance for survival they never would have had if Jon hadn’t been willing to throw tradition aside or use his own life as collateral to ensure the conditions necessary to make it through the winter. I think in many ways we can translate many of Jon’s actions and decisions into the phrase “as long as there is life there is hope”.

Am adamant against believing that assassination attempt=failure. First, because until the TWOW we won’t know just how many men were actually part of the conspiracy and how much was plot beforehand. Given what we have analyzed previously is very possible that Marsh wasn’t speaking for the whole of the NW as he often times claimed.

Second, as leaders are examples of real achievements and not just mere defenders of achievements we see that Jon managed to achieve many important things in his short time as LC. When Jon took command the night watch had just lost most of its best, there was a very somber mood in Castle Black, despite the long summer they didn’t have enough food for the long winter coming even leaving the wildings aside and no prospect of even money to buy more , they were facing the double threat of wildings and Others with an undermanned wall, Stannis was demanding not only fealty but castles in exchange for his help, the Iron Throne was for the first time showing interest in the wall but not to support it but to use it as another pawn in the GOT, not to mention that they stood in no position to obtain help from the Iron Throne not only because of Stannis but because Jon is the son of Eddard Stark as Cercei and Tywin made clear in previous chapters.

In other words, the conditions were unique so Jon had to rely in his own judgement and the good advice he received from people like Aemon, Sam, Mance, Dalla, etc. Now as his arch closes we see how much he has tackled all this problems and what he got to show for it:

- Replenish the Night Watch with their former enemy and thus removing one enemy (the wildings), decimate the number of potential wights for the Others while strengthening the defenses along the wall

- Obtain the loan from the Iron Bank that ensures his people to survive the NW. Given the way the IB operates is important to note that he practically use his life as collateral here. I have seen many people refer to this as the eternal “plot gift”. However I think it is fair to analyze why Tycho is there in the first place. Is certainly not to see Jon but had Jon not maintain cordial relations with Stannis then Tycho never would have bother to made his way to Castle Black. Like many of Jon’s so called “plot gifts” Tycho’s visit is a result of Jon’s actions and decisions.

- He managed to navigate a very difficult and unprecedented political sphere in the NW and still kept the NW functioning in a relatively autonomous way despite Stannis.

- This is my personal take but I feel that in JON XII, before the letter there was a significant change in the mood in Castle Black. I got the feeling that the increase number of people brought life and even hope in a way back to CB and given what they were facing morale is important.

And these are just the ones that relate directly to the NW.

His major mistakes I feel were keeping Ghost his best protector away in the end, underestimating the strong prejudice against any type of change in men like Marsh and his lot and probably sending all of the most loyal to him away thus isolating himself. I know he didn’t have much choice but I always felt he could have at least kept one or two. In his efforts to do what was best for the Watch he failed to notice that he was moving too fast and not everyone was following.

As for his infamous decision to go South at the end I think is unfair to say what were his exact plans. We don’t know if he meant to storm Winterfell (though I doubt it given his previous thoughts about how impregnable WF could be even in its current state) or if he meant to meet Ramsey halfway.

As for him breaking his vows I confess I always view Jon’s last decision as oathbreaking (though Butterbumps, Ragnorak and other made a good case against this) yet I never condemned him for it. To the contrary, I admire his acknowledgement that the values and honor of an institution or an individual are not above the lives people. In short I admire his desire to stand for what’s right the same way he has always done through his whole story. I know there are many who interpret this desire to follow the right path as weak or boring and I respect those opinions but I always thought that doing the right thing is precisely what makes him a strong character. Doing the right thing is not easy and to do it, following the dictates of your own conscience, can be unpleasant to many people even those a person is trying to lead.

[butterbumps!]

As for him breaking his vows I confess I always view Jon’s last decision as oathbreaking (though Butterbumps, Ragnorak and other made a good case against this) yet I never condemned him for it. To the contrary, I admire his acknowledgement that the values and honor of an institution or an individual are not above the lives people. In short I admire his desire to stand for what’s right the same way he has always done through his whole story. I know there are many who interpret this desire to follow the right path as weak or boring and I respect those opinions but I always thought that doing the right thing is precisely what makes him a strong character. Doing the right thing is not easy and to do it, following the dictates of your own conscience, can be unpleasant to many people even those a person is trying to lead.

lol! this was a great post. Not to get bedraggled into anything, but in the "oathbreaking thread" Lummel showed how I was overlooking Jon's thoughts and stated motivations at the end too much, and I came to the realization that yea, he's breaking oath at that point. I'd originally put a bit too much emphasis on how I read the benefit to the Watch in relation to Jon's actions, and had erroneously applied them to Jon's own motivations. I still think that what Jon's doing will be of use to the Watch, and productive in the long term, but that in and of itself isn't why he's doing it in any conscious way, which does make it oathbreaking. I mean, I don't think he's destroying the Watch by doing this, but strictly speaking he's not motivated by interests of the Watch, having come to the conclusion that it's worthless. I definitely fetishize the actual oath (I think it's a very lovely piece of writing), but I do think that the institution of the Watch has become impossible to work from, and stripping himself from its constraints is the key to moving forward at this point.

I'm not going to lie, I love that damn vow, and I hate the idea of rejecting it. But from Jon 11 onward, I've been realizing how Jon's begining to accept an identity as "a Northern leader" or even a "King of Winter" (reinforced, I think, when Jon watches Tormund's people and refers to them as "winter's people"), which I find more fascinating in many ways than upholding the vow, however beautiful it may be. I think in the long term this identity will ultimately save the Watch, but that's not what's on his mind at the end of chapter 13 (though prior to that his "leader of winter" acceptance is largely fueled by his NW duties). Anyway, I agree with your lovely post.

[Julian Rayne]

So any other ideas on the hows and whys of the assassination attempt? What about the authorship of the pink letter? Any views on that? Any takers on the Mance code?

Beyond that how do you take Jon XIII as the conclusion of Jon's arc? Does it work for you? His arc in ASOS ends with his election so the end, temporary or not or simply desired could be a big natural step...

It felt abrupt to me. A lot of plot points in ADWD left me feeling like I'd listened to a symphony that built up to a climax that was never delivered and Jon's plotline more so than any others.

[Lummel]

I apologize about the tone of my last post ...

Apology accepted. It was a good post, I like your return to 'kill the boy and let the man be born', somehow I don't think that many of us would have expected it to be so literal the first time we read Jon XIII though, and I'd agree that it does look like a step change in his thinking, he's ready to move on.

Sorry, I'm also out of 'likes' for the day having failed to husband them better. And who knows what tomorrow may bring?

As for the conclusion of Jon's arc - the posts about Aemon got me to thinking about this again, as well as your prior post, Lummel. The point about treason versus oathbreaking is especially interesting. In GOT, Aemon asks Jon why the NW's vows require that the men take no wives and father no children. Jon shrugs and says, "No." Aemon then goes on to explain, "So they will not love. . . .For love is the bane of honor and the death of duty." A bit later, Aemon tells Jon, "We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory and our great tragedy." Finally, Aemon says,

"A craven can be as brave as any man, when there is nothing to fear. And we all do our duty, when there is no cost to it. How easy it seems then, to walk the path of honor. Yet soon or late in every man's life comes a day when it is not easy, a day when he must choose."

...Jon didn't ask to be stabbed, but his choice creates consequences, and to the "powers that be," for Jon's betrayal to the NW and the Crown, the consequence is death.

I liked the Maester Aemon point so much that I added part of that to my signature!

Its striking how far Maester Aemon sets out Jon's challenges, not just kill the boy and let the man be born but also the need to make choices that you can live with for all your days and the role of love, the tension between the private personal good of intimacy versus the public requirements of the honour culture and duty. And yes that set up is there in AGOT and those issues return with Ygritte and we can say maybe that his depression on the Wall as Lord Commander was in part due to rejection of love? Love, I think, in one way or another is why he chose to go down south.

(Can't comment about Huck Finn as I've never read it, my childhood reading featured boys roasting and beating each other in Tom Brown's Schooldays and Lord of the Flies instead :leaving: )

But why would GRRM not continue to deal with it all in a realistic way? Have I missed something...

Or is it something to do with how long it would take to do it like that? Because I think this could be an issue. That or something that will have the effect of a shock treatment. :uhoh:

When I said you should respond to old posts I didn't think you were going to do that with one of mine :laugh: ! I think I meant in terms of time, if ASOS, AFFC and ADWD together cover about a year or fourteen months then is there going to be enough time in the last few books to show us change occurring and for us to be able to believe in it?

...I think that the reason the wildlings reacted so strongly to the letter being read was that it addressed the free folk as a political entity ... bringing the leader of the wildlings into the discussion means the free folk are no longer just a bunch of savages kept at bay by hostages. They are an independent people again, and Jon made it clear he recognized that, and is willing to work with that. I think when Tormund said they were going to make a wildling out of Jon, it just means he stopped being a crow to them. They are no longer at his mercy, instead, they are going to make common cause, like the King-Beyond-the-Wall and the Stark-in-Winterfell once did.

But most likely I am just dreaming up things. And even more likely, the pink letter is probably true :(

Edit.: By the way, I think all narrative resonance the scene in the shieldhall had would be done for if the letter was written by someone else than Ramsay. If it wasn't about making the choice between love and duty, why bring Arya into the equation at all, from an author's POV? If GRRM wanted Jon to be stabbed because he let the wildlings pass the Wall, he could have had that in a much more concise, much more heartbreaking scene, without any letters and fake Aryas.

I have never seen that interpretation of the letter reading before as a moment that makes a nation, I like it :thumbsup: . Agree on the importance of love (as you might guess from the above comment already!)

This is going to be a little long and might come off as "Jon apologetic", but anyway...

Despite my initial desire to throw the book against the wall when I first reat it I think is a good ending for Jon's arch. It ties nicely with Aemon's advice at the beggining of Jon's story: Kill the boy. Kill the boy and let the man be born. Jon starts ADWD as half a boy despite his past experiences and with an idealistic view of leadership similar to Dany's own views. As his story progresses we see him let go of this illusions and until finally the boy is killed...

As for him breaking his vows I confess I always view Jon’s last decision as oathbreaking (though Butterbumps, Ragnorak and other made a good case against this) yet I never condemned him for it. To the contrary, I admire his acknowledgement that the values and honor of an institution or an individual are not above the lives people. In short I admire his desire to stand for what’s right the same way he has always done through his whole story. I know there are many who interpret this desire to follow the right path as weak or boring and I respect those opinions but I always thought that doing the right thing is precisely what makes him a strong character. Doing the right thing is not easy and to do it, following the dictates of your own conscience, can be unpleasant to many people even those a person is trying to lead.

Yes I think maybe we should have called this thread 'forswearing illusion' rather than learning to lead. The ending for both Daenerys and Jon is hard, with a sense of isolation and being ready to move on and change

[Blisscraft]

Sorry about the Huck Finn reference, Lummel. No worries about not reading it. It's a very US thing, like Cather in the Rye and The Great Gatsby. I do think it's relevant, first because it's something every school child reads in the US. Second, I'm certain GRRM was one of those school children. Third, it is the great US anti-slavery book. (Sorry, Harriet B. Stowe). Finally, slavery also seems to be an issue in GRRM's world (in addition to love, duty, honor, pity and sacrifice).

As for leadership, one of the things that can arm or disable its efficacy is a sense of destiny. Jon begins in GOT without any sense of destiny. He's "just a bastard," unworthy of love or family, an outcast looking in. However, once he enters the NW. he slowly, and with the help of others realizes that he may have a destiny. Dany, on the other hand, is plagued by her "destiny" as being part of a dynasty. I will explain this further in regards to her when we go through her last chapter. For now, I'mm of to the dentist.