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

[kissdbyfire]

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

I loved every word, and thought it could have gone on a bit more. :)

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.

That’s exactly how I felt too. I do think it’s a perfect fit for ‘ kill the boy and let the man be born’.

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”.

This came up elsewhere earlier. I’m not so sure certain ‘traditions’ of the NW exist more because of a need (literacy for high-ranking officers, for instance).

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.

Hear hear. To be honest, I can see the assassination attempt as a sign of success (I don’t believe for a second Jon’s dead). The changes that are happening/about to happen are quite drastic, and people like Marsh can’t see the whole picture no matter the evidence supporting the fact that these are changes they will have to make to survive.

If I had to guess how many black brothers at CB are with Marsh, I’d say maybe 30% and I think I’m being generous with Marsh. That’s just a wild guess, I have nothing to back it up.

<snip>

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.

This. So, so much. But all of it, really. I think him being apart from Ghost is a mistake the boy made that the man who is about to be metaphorically reborn, imo, will not repeat.

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.

I can’t wait to see the aftermath of the assassination attempt. But I will have to wait for a long time. :bawl:

I don’t think I’d call it oathbreaking. At least not until I have actual evidence of what the NW’s vows really are – the original vows. But even if it is oathbreaking, I agree with you. Vows shouldn’t make your decisions for you. I’d argue that not doing the right thing to blindly follow a vow could be much worse. And it makes me think of Dunk beating the hell out of Aerion Brightflame for what he was doing to Tanselle. :)

[The Lost Lord]

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 agree with this entirely. I also think it's very important, narratively, to have the Pink Letter be a result of choices Jon made, rather than a deus ex machina coming out of the blue. This is why I object so strongly to attempts to excuse Jon from responsibility for the Mance mission.

Martin very carefully structures both Jon and Dany's ADWD arcs to give them as much agency as possible. Again and again they have to make choices, and those choices have consequences. For example, in Meereen Dany chooses to establish a peace through compromise of her own autonomy and giving certain changes she wanted to make -- and then she herself realizes that she hates the peace, chooses to throw off her tokar, flies away from the city, and then embraces fire and blood in the Dothraki Sea. All of this occurs without any provocation from the Harpy or the Yunkai'i to break the peace and force her hand, which I think is very important. The story would've been weaker if the Harpy or Yunkai'i double-crossed her and forced this change in her, she had to come to it on her own (I think Shavepate poisoned the locusts, but this incident doesn't have a material effect on her thinking anyway).

Jon is also constantly making choice after choice after choice, which is what leadership is all about. Every day he must balance his duties to the realm and to the Watch with practical concerns, moral concerns, his emotions, the concerns of his men, and his own personal desires. He made many intelligent and moral decisions. But while we may view his decision to authorize a secret Mance mission to save Arya as morally admirable, I think we also have to grapple with the fact that it always had a high chance of going horribly wrong and putting the Watch at great risk if his involvement was exposed. Jon chose to take this risk ("all to save my sister"), just kind of crossing his fingers and hoping for the best. He took a gamble that it would all work out and would stay secret -- but when the Pink Letter arrives, it's clear that the opposite happened. Choices have consequences, and now Jon has to decide have to deal with those consequences.

Under the alternative interpretation (where Mel sent Mance and Jon bears no responsibility for it), or under the interpretations that Stannis or Mance wrote the letter, the whole thing just becomes a deus ex machina, appearing out of nowhere to provoke Jon into a reaction that then gets him stabbed. He would be a character being changed by the choices of others, rather than a character with agency making his own choices and grappling with their consequences.

[PatrickStormborn]

Warning: this is going to be an unpopular post (I mention Daario far too often). :P There has been such great analysis from everyone with regards to Jon's final chapter that I don't have much to add... So I'm going for what I hope is a slightly different angle.

In Jon's final chapter, I believe we see him turning towards becoming a "Daario-esque" figure (and the same goes for Dany's chapter in Daznak's Pit). Daario representing Dany's "dragon" has already been noted in this thread, but in some ways I think it's a similar situation for Jon. I definitely don't think Daario as a character is anything like Jon (or Dany for that matter), so when I compare the two please remember that I'm focusing on what Daario represents, not who he is as a person.

The chapter begins with Jon attempting to win Selyse over, although by now he realises that this is a futile effort. As she "never fails to disappoint". Afterwards he speaks with his advisers, whose advice he deems to be unhelpful (although, as has been mentioned, Yarwyck's advice is actually quite solid). He's realised by this point that Selyse and Bowen Marsh et al. are not going to help him, but he gives them a last chance to assist him and share their views. He refuses to "Let [the wildlings] die", as Selyse and Melisandre insist, and he refuses to send the wildlings off to Hardhome so that they die too. This reminds me of his decision to allow ALL the wildlings through the Wall, even the Weeper and his men. Jon's goal is not just to save those he deems worthy of saving; his goal is to "guard the realms of men" -- all men. He's not going to compromise that just to win Selyse and Bowen Marsh et al. over, because he's very well aware that he's already lost them. This demonstrates the first part of Jon's transformation, as he shows his unwillingness to compromise.

Ramsay's letter is the most significant part of this chapter, imo, because it acts as the catalyst for Jon's transformation. Suddenly his whole situation has been reversed -- Stannis has lost, Mance has been exposed, Arya has escaped, Ramsay is marching to the Wall. Now his goal has changed slightly. No longer does he believe he must leave the suicidal expedition to Hardhome; he realises he has a more important goal than that in the short-term. He has to defeat Ramsay before he can march on the Wall and weaken it as it faces its darkest threat. Jon now knows what he needs to do, and his first decision is to ask for advice from Tormund -- not because he wants to please him, but because he knows he needs his help. Selyse and Bowen Marsh et al. aren't even considered at this point, because he has finally come to the realisation that he doesn't need them for this. Like Dany throwing off her tokar, Jon has decided to play his game, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

Where does Daario come into this? Well, imo, Jon is clearly showing signs of becoming more ruthless and pragmatic, much like Daario. He's accepted that Selyse and Bowen Marsh et al. are unhelpful -- they're not interested in helping work toward his goal, so he's not interested in giving them empty courtesies such as asking for their (unwanted) advice. In the Shieldhall, Jon tells the men of the Night's Watch that they do not have to break their oaths with him, making his thoughts regarding his oaths clear, and also making it clear that he will not be moved on this issue. Jon has finally killed the boy within him by doing what he believes is right, rather than following the "template" set by his oaths. I also think it's worth noting that he almost appears to disregard the other "templates" for his morals he has from other characters:

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 a 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 as 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 the plan,” Jon Snow said.

At this point he's decided to follow his own heart, wherever that may lead him, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Daario, as we know, has a careless attitude and seemingly disregards the views of everyone else -- if he wants to do something, he doesn't let himself be stopped (although perhaps that's just Dany projecting her own desires onto Daario...), as is shown with his advice to simply kill off the Meereenese nobles at Dany's wedding. Of course I don't think Jon is going to want to orchestrate a RW Part Two anytime soon, but I do think he's moving more towards this way of operating.

In short: although frustrating, this chapter provides a nice conclusion to Jon's arc, as he moves from following Aemon's advice to "kill the boy", to actually killing the boy by disregarding the views and advice he's received (including the advice to, you know, kill the boy!). He's learned that, to kill the boy and let the man be born, he has to do what he believes is right. I think this links nicely back to his conversation with Aemon in AGoT, where he's told to stay or go depending on what he deems is the right thing to do. Jon is no longer a boy playing at being the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch; he's now moving towards being a figure worthy of the title 'King of Winter'.

(Sorry for the lack of cohesion and the aimless rambling, lol. I intended to bring up more comparisons with Daenerys, but I cut them out because they were too heavily focused on her last chapter, which we haven't yet reached.)

[Lummel]

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.

No, no, not at all, I was just having a bit of fun. It would be strange if GRRM hadn't read Huck Finn and I'm sure when he's writing that's the kind of reference he expects imagines his readers will pick up on, so I think you're quite right to mention it. Plus this is the man who snuck a three stooges reference into AGOT...

I look forward to hearing more about the force of destiny!

[Lykos]

<snip>

Dance, Jon

<snip>

I´m convinced that Mance wrote the letter ever since I posted this quote in the last thread. In the underlined part Rattle-Mance "tells" Jon that he is really Mance Rayder. The bolded terms are used in the "pink letter".

Your false king is dead, bastard.

He and all his host were smashed in seven days of battle. I have his magic sword.

Tell his red whore. Your false king’s friends are dead. Their heads upon the walls of Winterfell.

Come see them, bastard.

Your false king lied, and so did you. You told the world you burned the King-Beyond-the-Wall.

Instead you sent him to Winterfell to steal my bride from me. I will have my bride back.

If you want Mance Rayder back, come and get him. I have him in a cage for all the north to see, proof of your lies.

The cage is cold, but I have 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 the false king’s queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want his wildling princess.

I want his little prince, the wildling babe. And I want my Reek.

Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows.

Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard’s heart and eat it.

It was signed,

Ramsay Bolton,

Trueborn Lord of Winterfell.

I believe that Mance is trying to tell Jon that he is at WinterfellAnd as Butterbumps mentioned we only ever hear wildlings calling the Night´s Watch men crows (of course we don´t hear people of the south talk about the Night´s Watch as their enemies.).

I have the feeling we should discuss this some other place, but our believe of how this cliffhanger will play out has a huge influence on how we judge Jon´s decisions and actions. I´ll have to catch up with you first though. If I don´t read back, I´m lost.

[The Lost Lord]

Like Dany throwing off her tokar, Jon has decided to play his game, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Where does Daario come into this? Well, imo, Jon is clearly showing signs of becoming more ruthless and pragmatic, much like Daario... At this point he's decided to follow his own heart, wherever that may lead him, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Daario, as we know, has a careless attitude and seemingly disregards the views of everyone else -- if he wants to do something, he doesn't let himself be stopped (although perhaps that's just Dany projecting her own desires onto Daario...), as is shown with his advice to simply kill off the Meereenese nobles at Dany's wedding. Of course I don't think Jon is going to want to orchestrate a RW Part Two anytime soon, but I do think he's moving more towards this way of operating.

I agree with almost all of your post but I do have to mention that Jon's arrogant treatment of Selyse and the others who object to the Hardhome ranging is because he wants to save a bunch of innocent people. Which is very much unlike Daario. This is still a very important part of Jon's character and we haven't seen signs of him compromising on this yet. In fact his very last action before getting stabbed is to try to pacify Wun Wun and end a conflict there so no one else gets hurt. He's running around being a do-gooder hero right up to the end:

Couldn’t they see the giant had been cut? Jon had to put an end to this or more men would die. They had no idea of Wun Wun’s strength. A horn, I need a horn. He saw the glint of steel, turned toward it. “No blades!” he screamed. “Wick, put that knife ...”

So I think you're right that Jon is growing more arrogant and ruthless to some extent -- but mainly towards those he views as his enemies or obstacles to what he wants to do (he fantasizes about beheading Cregan). When it comes to his overall goals, he is still very much a do-gooder.

[PatrickStormborn]

I agree with almost all of your post but I do have to mention that Jon's arrogant treatment of Selyse and the others who object to the Hardhome ranging is because he wants to save a bunch of innocent people. Which is very much unlike Daario. This is still a very important part of Jon's character and we haven't seen signs of him compromising on this yet. In fact his very last action before getting stabbed is to try to pacify Wun Wun and end a conflict there so no one else gets hurt. He's running around being a do-gooder hero right up to the end:

So I think you're right that Jon is growing more arrogant and ruthless to some extent -- but mainly towards those he views as his enemies or obstacles to what he wants to do (he fantasizes about beheading Cregan). When it comes to his overall goals, he is still very much a do-gooder.

Oh yes, don't worry, I'm very much in agreement, and I think the same is true for Daenerys. They're certainly becoming more ruthless, but I believe that they will both use this newfound pragmatism as a force for good.

[butterbumps!]

Warning: this is going to be an unpopular post (I mention Daario far too often). :P There has been such great analysis from everyone with regards to Jon's final chapter that I don't have much to add... So I'm going for what I hope is a slightly different angle.

I think I see Daario similarly to you so I agree largely. The only thing I would say is that I don't see Jon embracing the "ruthlessness" (and I think Daario's also a kind of shyster and far more arrogant), but I do agree with the aspect that both represent "getting the job done by their own devices." I mean, Jon's fueled by love and rectification, while Daario is fueled by only god knows what. Their motivations are quite different, but both represent/ come to embrace a kind of freedom of answering to no one, so yea, I agree.

[kissdbyfire]

@Patrick, love your post, and I am a bona fide Jon fan. :)

I wonder if Jon takes into consideration the fact that playing by the 'rules' and being honourable only brought destruction on house Stark. I would imagine this to be part of his thought process here.

[Alia of the knife]

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.

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?

In terms of how we take Aemons advice, I think it's possible that Aemon is testing Jon to see if he will choose duty over love. I also think Aemon wants Jon to be in the place he's most effective.

Jon was still a boy when he came to the NW with that youthful idealism.

But, if Jon had not been a bastard, and the NW wasn't the only thing open to him to fulfill his desires for honor, I do wonder if Jon would be there.

(Even in the real world, you want people where they are most effective and know they are there because they really want to be).

I think it's safe to say from Selmys POV and his interaction with Dany, that though Rhaegar was a good and promising Ruler, in the end, he did choose love over duty, hence Selmys concerns over Danys choices, and his stream of thought on Targaryen past loves, and love being a slow poison.

And I'd say that Aemon is aware of Rhaegars choices, and Jon at least for the time being, has safisfied Aemons concerns.

Thoughts?

Edit: On Daario, love the analogies, I would just add that I agree with you on the shyster thing, and I would add, "smarmy."

He's the guy you DON'T want to make eye-contact with in a bar. :leer:

[Lykos]

kissedbyfire, I think Jon came to realise, that the Night´s Watch and it´s rules must have changed in recent couple of centuries. I was trying to figure out in the past weeks how the Stark / King-Beyond-the-Wall relationships play into the story.

Jon remembered the last King, Raymun Redbeard, climbing the Wall while "Sleepy" (former "Jolly") Jack Musgood (from the Stormlands) took no part. Raymun beheaded William the lord of Winterfell and was defeated by the "Drunken Giant" Harmond Umber and Artos Stark the "Implacable", Jon is reminded of this story in this chapter by Tormund. This happened at the time of lord Rickard´s grandfather so probably the second last winter, the one before the short mild one of Lyanna´s and Eddard´s youth.

We know of three more Kings-Beyond-the-Wall.

- Joramun, who allied with the Stark of Winterfell to defeat the Night´s King.

- Gendel, who got lost in the secret paths under the Wall when he retreated after being defeated by the King in the North, who awaited him and his brother Gorne. Gorne was killed by the son of the King in the North after he killed the king and

only Gorne knew the way through the paths.

- Bael the Bard, who stole the daughter of the lord of Winterfell, who in turn sent the Crows after him. Bael was killed by his own son, who has become the Lord of Winterfell by the time Bael tried to lead the wildlings south.

There is a connection between the Starks the Night´s Watch and the King-Beyond-the-Wall that repeats itself in history in variations. Sadly it always lead to the death of a Stark and in Bael´s case brought the curse of the kinslayer upon them. :frown5:

[butterbumps!]

Edit: On Daario, love the analogies, I would just add that I agree with you on the shyster thing, and I would add, "smarmy."

He's the guy you DON'T want to make eye-contact with in a bar. :leer:

I refer to him as "Captain Smarm" to my friends actually. Perhaps it's time this becomes canon on the forum, lol.

I think it's safe to say from Selmys POV and his interaction with Dany, that though Rhaegar was a good and promising Ruler, in the end, he did choose love over duty, hence Selmys concerns over Danys choices, and his stream of thought on Targaryen past loves, and love being a slow poison.

And I'd say that Aemon is aware of Rhaegars choices, and Jon at least for the time being, has safisfied Aemons concerns.

Thoughts?

I agree with what you said about being in a position of greatest effectiveness. I think that Mormont had given Jon a lecture to a similar effect as well (regarding Jon's running off with Robb versus staying).

I'm not sure where I fall on the love/ honor divide. It's a really interesting issue that hangs over the entire series, but I don't know if I have a consistent position that I can maintain on the subject. I mean, I see why a leader or a Watchman theoretically shouldn't succumb to love-- it's a matter of keeping perspective and objectivity that's imperative for practical reasons. And I'm normally hard on leaders making decisions based on emotion, because the short-term gains can have heavy costs, and aren't always based on what I consider an overriding moral right. I suppose sometimes "the right thing" is perhaps to choose love, and other times it's not. That's not much of an answer, though, is it? :frown5:

[Lykos]

Butterbumps, actually some thoughts I had about Stannis´ and Davos´ relationship might be an answer to this question. I see Davos´ (nonromantic) love for Stannis as one of the few cases of true love in the books (Nedbert is another example).

This love involves confronting the loved one with the truth and your honest opinion, which is hard if the loved one is an institution. An Institution is too complex especially if you´re part of it.

To make it short I think there is no honour without love. And for love and honour you have to be true to yourself and loyal to your loved one, but you don´t have to agree with every thing your loved one does or represents.

[kissdbyfire]

@butterbumps! and Lykos, great posts.

I think I stand on 'each case is unique, and must be analysed for its own merits'. Also, I love maester

Aemon but I don't necessarily agree with him 100% of the time.

I have always interpreted his reminiscing to Jon about honour and love and their duty as men of the NW as him empathising with what Jon was going through mixed in with his own recollections of what he had gone through back in the day. In a way more than simply the re-telling of what had happened.

Does that even make any sense? It does in my head but I'm failing at explaining myself here. I'm going to stop now. :dunce:

[Lykos]

kissedbyfire, yes it´s possible that there was a time when Maester Aemon´s love for knowledge ( the institution of the Citadel) was challenged by a different love. His family, the realm, an unknown person or dragons.

That´s where my short answer becomes long again ( or rather unanswerable ), when your different loves conflict each other, just as Jaime notices with the conflicting vows of Knighthood and the King´s Guard, there is no possible honourable way to go, as perceived by the outside / public.

It´s entirely up to you to make a decision and then stay true to it.

There´s a difference in appearing honourable and being honourable, though to appear honourable might be of greater importance to a leader than actually being it. Some "bad men where good kings" after all.

[butterbumps!]

Yea, I agree with you both. And it's incredibly hard to articulate. For instance, I by no means think that the "Arys Oakheart Stratagem" should be taken as a virtue, but there are some instances where I think we'd all say that love is the correct choice over honor. Ned's promise to Lyanna is probably one uncontested example. This one might be more tricky, but Ned renouncing his "treason" to protect his daughters is another. *Warning* I'm a huge Cat fan, and though I see the practical problems of her choice to free Jaime, it was a choice that I personally found compelling and "right" in its own way. I mean, the love issue can be frivolous and wasteful, but Lykos' point about the intersection of love and honor probably gets to putting it perspective. Ned was honor-bound to turn over Jon, yet I actually find it more honorable that he kept his promise. I suppose when there is a real moral good at stake- like not killing a child, protecting the innocent and weak-- I suppose the love and honor do intersect compatibly. I don't know how to weigh the costs that can come, however. I guess at what point does a utilitarian argument dictate the "worth" of the choice?

[Tagganaro]

So I'm out for the whole day and miss all this fantastic discussion...typical. Many quotes follow:

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!"

Yes, very much agree with all this. The shield hall, as Lummel pointed out, is Jon's tearing off of his floppy ears, similar to Dany's tokar moment. Jon, for all intents and purposes, has very much already extended far beyond the pail in terms of the NW mission statement. He's making serious changes, giving advice and support to Stannis, creating marriage alliances for other Northern Houses, and basically uniting/creating a whole new population of Northerners (the wildlings obviously). Jon has already been acting as a de facto King of the wildlings, King of Winter type figure, and now is the moment where he finally admits it to both himself and the rest of the NW and everyone at the Wall.

I think in terms of analyzing Jon's plot and theme throughout the books, which I intend to make a longer post about as well to answer Lummel's question, you can very much look at Jon through the prism of Aemon's advice, and additionally Qhorin Halfhand's, who I'd say besides for Ned are clearly the 2 biggest influences on Jon at this point (maybe Mance as well, although Jon doesn't want to admit it there's probably a lot of similarities between the 2.)

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.

This is a very interesting perspective. I'd have to think more about it, but I tend to just view the reaction as an outpouring of support for Mance Rayder (is anyone surprised by this lol?) and additionally for de facto King Jon Snow. And Ramsay Bolton also does a hell of job uniting people together with his general psychopathic idiotic behavior.

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

You take that back, you take that back right now! :cool4: We all know that Mance is alive and well, probably sitting on in the high seat in Winterfell's great hall, being proclaimed the new King in the North. Don't you take this away from me lol.

Snip

Fantastic post. I'd probably like to respond to it more by taking out particular portions, but for now I just want to say I agree with all of it, and I don't think it's overly apologetic. The situation Jon "inherits" at the Wall is not enviable at all- Depleted manpower from the Fist of the First Men, lack of superior officers and veteran NW men (who all died at the Fist), One King at the Wall making all sorts of demands, another on the Iron Throne who has pretty much taken to ignoring the NW, Prospect of annihilation event at the hands of the Others and further encroachments by desperate wildlings trying to escape those Others...

That's just a really shitty situation to be in charge of. I think we'll have to wait for TWOW to really judge whether Jon's stint as a leader was successful or not, but I definitely agree that assassination does not equal failure by any means.

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.

Yes, Lummel quite convinced me as well to look at that a little differently. And it hasn't hurt my Jon Snow love at all lol. As I've said, and I probably plan to expand on at some point, Jon has actually been acting as a de facto King of the Wildlings and possibly even Lord in the North for far longer than the past few chapters. I also view his arc as him getting "seduced" by the wildling way of life. I'd say the letter and the Shieldhall moment is the culmination of all that- Jon has finally killed the boy (the NW member who could always fall back on his vows or i.e. his parental advice/structure, and been reborn the man, making his own path now and doing what he thinks is right without regards to the vows.

SNIP- Jon= Daario

Brilliant post, but I'm not sure I can forgive you for comparing Jon and Daario :cool4: lol. I'd like to think of Qhorin/Mance more here as the catalysts and comparatory figures. Qhorin for his "Honor means no more than our lives (which, should be noted, Jon has shown several times to have almost no concern for his own life, something that we've discussed much with the Iron Bank loan and other instances) and Mance (for obvious reasons of being an awesome oath breaker).

kissedbyfire, I think Jon came to realise, that the Night´s Watch and it´s rules must have changed in recent couple of centuries. I was trying to figure out in the past weeks how the Stark / King-Beyond-the-Wall relationships play into the story.

Jon remembered the last King, Raymun Redbeard, climbing the Wall while "Sleepy" (former "Jolly") Jack Musgood (from the Stormlands) took no part. Raymun beheaded William the lord of Winterfell and was defeated by the "Drunken Giant" Harmond Umber and Artos Stark the "Implacable", Jon is reminded of this story in this chapter by Tormund. This happened at the time of lord Rickard´s grandfather so probably the second last winter, the one before the short mild one of Lyanna´s and Eddard´s youth.

We know of three more Kings-Beyond-the-Wall.

- Joramun, who allied with the Stark of Winterfell to defeat the Night´s King.

- Gendel, who got lost in the secret paths under the Wall when he retreated after being defeated by the King in the North, who awaited him and his brother Gorne. Gorne was killed by the son of the King in the North after he killed the king and

only Gorne knew the way through the paths.

- Bael the Bard, who stole the daughter of the lord of Winterfell, who in turn sent the Crows after him. Bael was killed by his own son, who has become the Lord of Winterfell by the time Bael tried to lead the wildlings south.

There is a connection between the Starks the Night´s Watch and the King-Beyond-the-Wall that repeats itself in history in variations. Sadly it always lead to the death of a Stark and in Bael´s case brought the curse of the kinslayer upon them. :frown5:

Yeah....I love this. I love the interconnected Northern relationships between the Starks, wildlings, and NW. There's a certain balance to those relationships, where it's almost like a system of checks and balances when one of those groups gets out of line, the other 2 kind of step in and put him down. What we have going on here is a very interesting inversion of all these stories, which is another post I'd like to make exploring this further...We have no Stark in Winterfell but a "Stark" at the Wall (NW), a fake "Stark" in WInterfell being used by the Stark enemy from the Bael the Bard legend to "hypnotize" Northern Lords to follow (perhaps echoing the Night King), and we have the NW Stark and the King wildling working together against the Lord in Winterfell. I believe we really need to get that Stark back in Winterfell to restore the proper order so we can have NW/Stark/wildlings working together against the Others to defeat them.

[Lykos]

Maybe not only does the dragon need three heads but Winter needs three Kings and Osha should have said that Winter does not have one king.

[Lummel]

Any of you familiar with Antigone?

I think this is the kind of conflict that The Ned and now Jon have to resolve for themselves and indeed that's the question Aemon asks of Jon

"Tell me, Jon, if the day should ever come when your lord father must needs choose between honor on the one hand and those he loves on the other, what would he do?"

Jon hesitated. He wanted to say that Lord Eddard would never dishonor himself, not even for love, yet inside a small sly voice whispered, He fathered a bastard, where was the honor in that? And your mother, what of his duty to her, he will not even say her name. "He would do whatever was right," he said...ringingly, to make up for his hesitation. "No matter what."

(ETA whoops that's from AGOT Jon VIII) The boy misjudges the man's choice. We know that The Ned chose love over honour, and more than once. Now we now that Jon did too.

ETA. Jon the Daario eh. Now I imagine Jon going down to Mole's Town, getting himself a gold tooth and the sleaziest pair of naked women handled short swords and swanking about the north :rofl: . Good stuff :)

[Maia]

So any other ideas on the hows and whys of the assassination attempt? ..

Well, I wrote a humongous post about Jon XIII yesterday, but the PC ate it :(. Anyway, IMHO the "whys" are clear - Jon is about to destroy the NW and leave the Wall undefended.

He orders NW contingent of Castle Black on a suicide mission to Hardhome under the command of a distrusted former enemy who had just ceased being an enemy (ostensibly). And who is he sending? Their very last few rangers, stewards and builders. And wants them to take along wayns with food. In the deep snow, through the trackless wood. IMHO, Jon's commands here are utterly insane and could only result in loss of men and supplies.

But to top it off he also intends to take undisciplined and perhaps not wholly trustworthy wildlings south against the (ostensibly) victorious Boltons - which looks like a doomed enterprise that is sure to raise ire of the Northmen and invite retaliation against the NW, as well as leaves the Wall completely undefended.

All Jon's previous arguments that the wildlings are needed to defend the Wall from the Others look like complete lies in hindsight, since he clearly has no compunctions about pulling _all_ the manpower away for selfish reasons and/or unrealistic pet agendas.

What is more, since Jon admits leaving Mance alive which is against both letter _and_ spirit of the vows and the laws that govern NW, sending him to Winterfell to kidnap his sister from the Boltons _and_ intends to march an army agains the Warden of the North, he is clearly engaging in the worst oathbreaking possible.

Which also means, BTW, that he no longer has any lawful authority to order the ruinious Hardhome mission.

So, Bowen et al. feel compelled to stop Jon at all costs. I saw comparison to Mormont's murderers, but IMHO the difference is that in this case the assassins are truly loyal to NW as they see it and are ready to sacrifice their lives to protect it.

As an aside, there was an argument that Marsh et al. didn't actually have any followers, but here we see "the men" that they were talking about in the flesh - they aren't mythical.

Finally, I know that it is an unpopular opinion, but IMHO that's where Jon, who has been mostly ahead in the terms of leadership versus Dany, really screws up. He can't cut his losses, he can't put his duty over his personal attachements, etc.

The assassination attempt is the the less gentle intervention of fate than in AGoT to prevent Jon from making an irrevocable mistake. He was struck down because he wasn't supposed to be leaving the Wall and interfering in the Northern politics (further). I don't for a second believe that he is dead.

Now, the frustrating thing is that unlike Dany, we don't see the aftermath from another PoV and have no idea which, if any of changes introduced by Jon would stick. I suspect that the result, like with Dany, will turn out to be less catastrophic than it seems.

But like Dany, Jon had to be taken out of the action for a time, because he no longer had the right idea about what had to be done at this point.

IMHO, YMMV, of course.

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?

Sometimes changes can be really drastic and catastrophic. Reading the diaries of people who lived in Russia between the years 1914 and 1918, it is really amazing how quickly everything can change.