Jon Connington from exile to apotheosis, two ADWD chapters

[DrunkSister]

Uncat,

I believe that boy is doomed. So if he gets to love (feel free to substitute with another four letter word lol) before he snuffs it, I really don't care with whom. For as long as he gets and actual character arc and doesn't serve only as a plot device, I'm fine. Right now he is more 2-dimensional than Miri Maz Duur and Syrio.

My logic goes:

1. he is so much nicer than Joffrey so he deserves a fate so much nicer than Joffrey's.
   
2. Martin is a great author, he will not muck this up.
   

ETA: I will add this because I don't think it is really 'anticipating the future chapters' since we are done with JC and because it ties into questions I have raised here. In Arianne II summary there is:

• no mention of camp followers;
  
• Lady Lemore is not there either;
  
• Lysanno Maar is in charge and is disliked by Arianne (Whatever happened?! He was rude? She is jealous of his nail polish?);
  

[Uncat]

To that I can only :agree:

[Lummel]

...And now I really wished I could find that quote about parents and children and dancing on strings, I think it was Tyrion who was thinking of it.

Grat thoughts! That quote is in Tyrion X ASOS, Tyrion thinking on something that Oberyn says

Strict standards of masculinity (LOL):

• Varys has no honor because he is a eunuch (and has a tittering voice);
  
• Homeless Harry is too soft and fat;
  
• Lysono Maar is too pretty and effeminate (I wonder if he is a trans-person).
  
• What sort of king was that, who would hide behind the skirts of women? :o Not even Robert!
  
• I don't get the impression that Tyrion is not manly enough. :) JC is not at all shy with condemnations and yet there is nothing to comment upon with Tyrion. Too dangerous? Too cunning? Too Lannister?
  
• I wonder if he saw Rhaegar as manly or if Rhaegar is simply above any criticism.
  

Off topic:

• I think Arthur Dayne was a camp-nut. I think he studed camp formations exstensively, wanted books or excerpts on them for nameday, made models... He also had very strict notions on it and loved to bore people. Whenever they went camping or hunting he would insist that they do things properly to practice in case they have to do it in ernest. A whole generation of young squires and knights was terorized into knowing the theory. :D
  
• What do you think about Flanklyn Flowers? Is what he wants kinslaying or does it not count if you are kin because of rape? Because his mother had to run/leave?
  
• What happened to the 'camp followers'? Four generations of Stricklands didn't grow in the cabbage patch, where are the women?
  

Yes Connington is very rigid. No surprise that he is going to beome a stone man. But those standards aren't restricted to men. Elia of Dorne was also not good enough. He is often measuring people up and finding them not good enough. He has a very rigid and judgemental outlook on the world.

Franklin Flowers is horrible - I think a dark sign for what is to come, there is just a lust for violence there. Not the arbitary indifferent violence of the rape of the Riverlands but very personalised revenge. And indeed where are the women?

...Actualy, the Golden Company from day one very much reminds me of Xenophon and his march of the tenthousand...

All foreigners in a hostile land too!

...But once you started to lean on that baggage thing and the lack of women, this gets a feeling of burned bridges, too. Or burned ships as in Nymerias tale, as a matter of fact...

Yes I thought just how glib the officers were in the first chapter, 'yeah, if we can't get the iron throne we can just fight our way back across the Stepstones'. Hmmm.

Uncat,

I believe that boy is doomed...

I agree. But then, who in Westeros isn't? ;)

[ShadowCat Rivers]

@Mirijam, great job of portaying Jon Con as a person!

I always got bad vibes from him, but just now I realized that it's this absence of love, of a genuine human passion that turns me off.

[DrunkSister]

I was trying to determine what were JC's standards when it came to masculinity. Purely for fun because I find them different from my own.

To be a real man, one must:

• have "equipment" (poor Varys - can't believe I actually said that, but yeah);
  
• dress like a man;
  
• be physically fit;
  
• be above such minor things like blisters;
  
• conduct himself with valor in combat, thought I think he has given up on honor.
  

• being attractive does not matter;
  
• being a sensitive, artistic musician doesn't hurt if the man can fight.
  

To be a real woman, one must:

• be healthy enough to bear children.
  

What do you think of his relationship with Lemore? She gets respect OTOH she has born a child.

Now I am very curious about his views on proper place of people withing different estates/classes. How do these standards apply to non-nobles, is a maester as bad as a eunuch, what about a septon etc.

[UVA]

What do you think of his relationship with Lemore? She gets respect OTOH she has born a child.

The soiled septa, that's Tyrion's observation but do you think JC even noticed her stretch marks? Given how otherwise disinterested he is in the female experience, I question his knowledge in this regard. There is respect that is due to the fact that Lemore 'gets with JC's progam' for the most part -- she does challenge him on the Shy Maid. She's a good employee. Lemore is the only female in his company though.

Now I am very curious about his views on proper place of people withing different estates/classes. How do these standards apply to non-nobles, is a maester as bad as a eunuch, what about a septon etc.

Isn't it possible JC shares the prejudices about lower classes with the rest of Westorosi nobility? Inherent in that though is the mutual dependence of the classes, but I don't see JC accepting a meritocracy.

But through all of this, what is it about Rhaegar for this guy? He's the pinnacle, I get that. But I can't get a sense of the why. Did JC really think he had a chance, go off and discuss poetry and mathematics?

[DrunkSister]

The soiled septa, that's Tyrion's observation but do you think JC even noticed her stretch marks? Given how otherwise disinterested he is in the female experience, I question his knowledge in this regard. There is respect that is due to the fact that Lemore 'gets with JC's progam' for the most part -- she does challenge him on the Shy Maid. She's a good employee. Lemore is the only female in his company though.

Isn't it possible JC shares the prejudices about lower classes with the rest of Westorosi nobility? Inherent in that though is the mutual dependence of the classes, but I don't see JC accepting a meritocracy.

But through all of this, what is it about Rhaegar for this guy? He's the pinnacle, I get that. But I can't get a sense of the why. Did JC really think he had a chance, go off and discuss poetry and mathematics?

Oh, it's quite probable that he shares the prejudice, in fact, I am certain he does. But in the context of masculinity, if Varys is not a man, then what of septons and maesters? What of non-fighters? etc.

This is not just about him, Catelyn, for example, in that infamous scene where she lights the fire while naked, threats Luwin as an asexual being. But that is a question for another thread: masculinity in Westeros - what it takes to be a man?

You might be right that he never noticed Lemore had stretch marks lol.

[UVA]

This is not just about him, Catelyn, for example, in that infamous scene where she lights the fire while naked, threats Luwin as an asexual being. But that is a question for another thread: masculinity in Westeros - what it takes to be a man?

That would be a great thread topic. Good point about Catelyn and Luwin. This is a hero-worshiping culture. Don't you think that masculinity is primarily determined in the demonstration of martial skill, and recognition of it by those who excel at it? Is this too simplistic? Doesn't Jamie at one point say that one's status as a knight is, in large part, determined by the reputation of the man who knighted you? Bringing back to JC, this is part of what I see as his idea of a 'complete man', and I say part because I think in JC's conception, it's equally important to be learned. Even before the Trident, JC would never be a fan of Robert B.

[DrunkSister]

Being learned and Robert? Ha!

[Fire Eater]

Strict standards of masculinity (LOL):

• Varys has no honor because he is a eunuch (and has a tittering voice);
  
• Homeless Harry is too soft and fat;
  
• Lysono Maar is too pretty and effeminate (I wonder if he is a trans-person).
  
• What sort of king was that, who would hide behind the skirts of women? :o Not even Robert!
  
• I don't get the impression that Tyrion is not manly enough. :) JC is not at all shy with condemnations and yet there is nothing to comment upon with Tyrion. Too dangerous? Too cunning? Too Lannister?
  
• I wonder if he saw Rhaegar as manly or if Rhaegar is simply above any criticism.
  

Those standards of masculinity could just as easily apply to Randyll Tarly. Could there be feelings for Connington that are similar to Connington's feelings for Rhaegar?

[DrunkSister]

Wait, what? Who has feelings for Connington?

Those standards would explain Randyll's treatment of his son, or treatment of Satin at the wall, why nobody suspects Littlefinger... Worth a topic in itself, but I wonder what sort of "investigation" it would take, not another reread I hope!

[Mark Antony]

Thanks for this thread Lummel, Jon Connington is a very intriguing character. I plan on referencing this thread whenever I get to his chapters in my re-read shortly.

[Maia]

Tywin changes the way the game of thrones is played by introducing the rains of Castamere gambit or winner takes all. In game theory terms he rules out the older co-operative style of play in favour of total victory.

I have been constantly coming across this notion while going through Tyrion re-read, which I am sorry to have missed, because it was great. But what is the evidence for this? We know that quite a few Houses were extinguished in the past, we know that Kings in the North were "hard men, who have done terrible things", that they had extinguished the Greystarks and were into execution of child hostages if their fathers misbehaved. We were given a peak at not just Bolton, but also Karstark and Umber hidden savagery - granted, from a somewhat suspect source, but still.

I dare say that Manderleys rather unprecedented move from the banks of the Mander to the North(!) must have been motivated by fight for sheer survival also, not just fear of losing some lands, etc. And then, there are the Ironborn, for whom wholesale slaughter of competitors was always common and Tywin's terror mode seems to be the default behavior during warfare.

IMHO, Tywin didn't change the rules, he merely reverted to "older ways", which, after Tytos, was unexpected for the Westermen. There was no treachery either, as far as we know - the rebels were in a straight-up war against the Lannisters. The unusual thing was that castles of Tarbecks and Reynes were left as ruins, rather than bestowed on somebody else, but even there, we have seen Bloodraven do something similar decades previously in The Mystery Knight.

Like you say though this sets up the board for tragedy to be played out across generations rather than to be resolved.

Eh, it is more or less luck of the draw/quality of one's successors which would decide whether it would or not.

Anyway, I doubt that Tywin would have even needed to burn Stoney Sept to the ground - he would have threatened to do so, inhabitants would have known that he meant business and delivered Robert to him. Conversely, Robert, who "wanted to be a hero", may have yielded rather than cowardly condemning the whole population of the town to death, along with himself.

BTW, speaking of chivalry - was it "honorable" of Robert to hide behind the civilian populace? It doesn't look that way to me.

Connington's mistake was not only lack of ruthlessness/inability to make a credible threat, but he also didn't manage to send out enough outriders/scouts to have a timely warning of an attacking enemy army.

Good point about Connigton not loving Aegon. This is quite sad. Yet, I wouldn't yet say that Aegon was deprived of love - it seems to me that the rest of his retinue did love him. As to their disagreements, I imagine that teenage sons in Westeros don't just act up against their mothers, but also against their fathers and father figures ;). Particularly in situations such as this, where a "son" is in a formally more powerful position and needs to prove himself.

I am not sure why so many of you folks seem to think that Connington's desire to restore Rhaegar's son equates to being delusional and living in the past. Apart from Aegon most likely being a fake and some kind of Blackfyre, that is.

I bet, that if it was Rickon whom somebody would have reared in secrecy and tried to restore to the rule of the North in a dozen years or so, you'd all say that it showed superiority of Stark leadership as well as true loyalty that they universally inspire (as opposed to inferior, wrong and delusional kind of loyalty given to Rhaegar by his stalwart supporters ;)) and an example of how Starks are intrinsic to the North!

[Lummel]

I have been constantly coming across this notion while going through Tyrion re-read, which I am sorry to have missed, because it was great. But what is the evidence for this? ...IMHO, Tywin didn't change the rules, he merely reverted to "older ways", ...Eh, it is more or less luck of the draw/quality of one's successors which would decide whether it would or not.

I thought the Greystarks died out through natural causes? And Bloodraven took 9/10ths of Butterwell's wealth and lands and let him live which is harsh, but not Rains of Castelmere harsh, the fact that sufficient Manderleys survived and were able to maintain status even if they had to relocate to the desolate north so they were not quite the Tarbucks either...

It is not the treachery or methods that matters it is the ends. If you loose what happens? If everybody in the family is killed, if all the castle are slighted, if all the lands are taken then it is complete game over for the looser - you win or you die as Cersei more or less puts it. If you loose some of your lands or all of your lands and are obliged to go into exile life at least can continue, the game goes on, maybe not easily but there is at least the chance of continuation.

I accept your point that what Tywin does may not be unique and that there may be some prescendent in the past, but what he does to the reynes, tarbucks and targaryens does not seem to be common practise at the time but something uniquely shocking. Of course given the right circumstances the cycle of violence needn't continue into another generation - but I'm not so confedient about the situation in GRRM's westeros!

Anyway, I doubt that Tywin would have even needed to burn Stoney Sept to the ground - he would have threatened to do so, inhabitants would have known that he meant business and delivered Robert to him. Conversely, Robert, who "wanted to be a hero", may have yielded rather than cowardly condemning the whole population of the town to death, along with himself.

BTW, speaking of chivalry - was it "honorable" of Robert to hide behind the civilian populace? It doesn't look that way to me.

Good points, but it doesn't really matter does it because Robert won the war and became king no matter how many skirts he hid under, Connington lost and is obsessed with that loss.

Connington's mistake was not only lack of ruthlessness/inability to make a credible threat, but he also didn't manage to send out enough outriders/scouts to have a timely warning of an attacking enemy army...

For me its more that he is trying to rationalise and justify his failure by an appeal to an external authority and is caught out about it by Toyne - its living in the past. It is only in his dreams that he can refight Stoney Sept again, the circumstances to any future battle will be different. Has he accepted the past as a fact and moved on? What is the lesson that he has internalised here - that he should be ruthless in future? - that does not bode well for Westeros!

...I am not sure why so many of you folks seem to think that Connington's desire to restore Rhaegar's son equates to being delusional and living in the past. Apart from Aegon most likely being a fake and some kind of Blackfyre, that is.

I bet, that if it was Rickon whom somebody would have reared in secrecy and tried to restore to the rule of the North in a dozen years or so, you'd all say that it showed superiority of Stark leadership as well as true loyalty that they universally inspire (as opposed to inferior, wrong and delusional kind of loyalty given to Rhaegar by his stalwart supporters ;)) and an example of how Starks are intrinsic to the North!

Well I can't really disagree with you there on the broader principle, but in detail I suppose I would say that Connington doesn't seem to be interested in restoring the Targargens as an end in itself, nor is he going about it a Targargen restoration in a rational manner - there's no reaching out to Viserys and Daenerys that we know of, no reaching out to Dorne. He comes across as fixated on Rhaegar and doing something for Rhaegar but going about it by following Varys' plan in a very narrow minded and uncritical way. That is where I see the delusional element, otherwise I think you are quite right, we know that there are Targaryen supporters here and there throughout society and in the civil war situation having the old dragon kings back probably looks like a better solution than the great lords fighting for the iron throne over everybody elses farmland. So in a big picture way I'd agree its a viable policy - though I'm not sure if Connigton could think about it in that kind of a relax, abstract way.

Thanks for this thread Lummel, Jon Connington is a very intriguing character. I plan on referencing this thread whenever I get to his chapters in my re-read shortly.

You're welcome! It was meant as a spin off from Tyrion but I'm amazed at all the interesting ideas and perspectives that have come up about a character that we see only very briefly.

Those standards of masculinity could just as easily apply to Randyll Tarly. Could there be feelings for Connington that are similar to Connington's feelings for Rhaegar?

Randyll's attitudes towards women and treatment of Sam suggest to me some kind of psychological defence mechanism, maybe a bit of projection, maybe a bit of acting out, maybe some repression - he just seems so over the top presenting some kind of hyper masculinity I find it easy to imagine him longing to do everything that he punishes his son for and more besides. But this is all very off topic and at the end of the day we don't know much about Randyll.

[SeanF]

When I watched the show, and heard Tywin explaining to Arya (in disguise) how "Aegon changed the rules" , by using dragons, I couldn't help thinking about how Tywin changed the rules, too.

Tywin will accept a surrender on terms, if he thinks it expedient, but he has upped the stakes for everyone by his actions. The absolute worst that the Reynes and Tarbecks could have expected would have been the execution of the Head of their house, not complete extermination.

[Maia]

I thought the Greystarks died out through natural causes?

Nope, their end came as a result of allying with Boltons in an unsuccessful rebellion against the Starks. ADWD, chapter 29, Davos. And, IIRC House Karstark was founded due to and as a reward for an eradication of a rebellious noble family too, IIRC. Starks of Old were hard men who did terrible things, we have been told this from the start.

Of course, we don't know the details - either in this case or in that of Tarbecks and Reynes, BTW. But Starks used to be OK with executing child hostages if the situation warranted it, so there is little reason to think that they wouldn't eradicate a repeatedly troublesome House ditto, if feasible.

And Bloodraven took 9/10ths of Butterwell's wealth and lands and let him live which is harsh, but not Rains of Castelmere harsh,

I was referring to the extravagant act of erasing the Whitewalls castle from the face of the land and salting it's fields as compared to Tywin leaving the castles as ruins, to serve as object warnings in the future.

OTOH, Bloodraven did execute everybody who had been pardoned for the previous rebellion, which would certainly apply at least to Lord and Lady Tarbeck in Tywin's case.

Also, one could argue that Lord Butterwell, who only participated in one half-assed rebellion, was punished unreasonably harshly, losing almost everything, while Yronwoods (and Reynes?) managed to participate in 3 of them and yet retain all their wealth and power.

The thing is, Bloodraven wanted to send a message and was in position to do so with Butterwell, while presumably it wouldn't have been feasible with those other Houses, even though they deserved it more.

the fact that sufficient Manderleys survived and were able to maintain status even if they had to relocate to the desolate north so they were not quite the Tarbucks either...

Their flight across the length of Westeros is pretty unprecedented and shows that they felt that exile to one of neighboring kingdoms wouldn't have afforded them safety. They had no bonds with the North previously and were very uncertain of their reception, yet went anyway. I.e. they must have been in fear of their lives.

If you loose some of your lands or all of your lands and are obliged to go into exile life at least can continue, the game goes on, maybe not easily but there is at least the chance of continuation.

How is this a good thing? It lowers the threshold for plotting and rebellion and encourages sore losers to cause trouble in the future, when they judge their overlords to be weakened or distracted. It would lead to constant bloodletting.

The threat of losing it all is always implicit as the worst case consequence for such behavior. It is seldom invoked, but it is there. There is and should be no guarantee that a rebellious House would be given a chance to bounce back.

I accept your point that what Tywin does may not be unique and that there may be some prescendent in the past, but what he does to the reynes, tarbucks and targaryens does not seem to be common practise at the time but something uniquely shocking.

I see no evidence that what Tywin did to Tarbecks and Reynes was seen as uniquely shocking, except that it came in the wake of Tytos's extreme permissiveness and was administered by a teenager. Unusual, certainly, but it served it's intended purpose to garner some respect for Tywin and the Lannisters.

It is with the Sack of KL that Tywin's image changed from "hard, but fair" to "cruel and treacherous" and that, coupled with Jaime's kingslaying certainly did tarnish reputation of House Lannister and had serious negative reprecussions for them, because their word could no longer be trusted.

Good points, but it doesn't really matter does it because Robert won the war and became king no matter how many skirts he hid under, Connington lost and is obsessed with that loss.

Well, since we had so much on the negative consequences of ruthlessness and underhandedness in Tyrion's and this thread, it is important to note the same for chivalry and consider where it is "stupid" to engage in it (see also Daemon II duelling Ball, Renly's and Stannis's agreement to join battle at dawn or Penrose challenging Stannis to a duel). And to highlight that the perception that Rebellion won by acting chivalriously isn't quite accurate.

There was just cause to threaten Stoney Sept, if they persisted in hiding Robert.

What is the lesson that he has internalised here - that he should be ruthless in future? - that does not bode well for Westeros!

Battles should be scrutinized, to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. And in violent societies such as Westeros careful application of ruthlessness is necessary to be a successful ruler and prevent greater bloodletting.

In fact, ADwD proved the truth of 2 Tywinisms:

"Don't make a threat that you are not ready to carry out"

and

"A good threat is more telling than a blow"

The former with Dany and it is self-evident.

The latter with Jon, who convinces the mountain chiefs to support his wildling policy because he makes them believe that he would execute child hostages, if required. And why is he able to do that? Because Starks had the history of doing exactly that! And, interestingly enough, because northeners fully believed Ned capable of such, too. There is and always was the "blood and steel" component in all the Stark love.

Does it matter that Connigton is doing his thing for the love of Rhaegar? Aren't various Stark allies lauded for doing things for the love of Ned? Wasn't there a popular theory of various shenangians with pregnant Jeyne, motivated by the love of Robb?

When I watched the show, and heard Tywin explaining to Arya (in disguise) how "Aegon changed the rules" , by using dragons, I couldn't help thinking about how Tywin changed the rules, too.

Except that in the books Aegon didn't - he just applied something that has been routinely used in the East for centuries, if not millenia. It were those Valyrian shepherds who first managed to tame the dragons who did that.

And neither did Tywin.

[Lummel]

...Does it matter that Connigton is doing his thing for the love of Rhaegar? Aren't various Stark allies lauded for doing things for the love of Ned? Wasn't there a popular theory of various shenangians with pregnant Jeyne, motivated by the love of Robb?...

Not necessarily, simply this is a thread in which we reread the Jon Connington chapters, we read his motivations and we discussed them. We can only infer and guess at the motivations of Manderley and co. Perhaps they are living in the past just as much as Jon Connington, or maybe they have other motivations mixed in there, who knows. Pointing out that Jon Connington is attempting to exorcise his feelings of guilt, of having failed Rhaeger, through boosting Aegon up onto the Iron Throne doesn't preclude the same being reveiled of other characters in the future.

I suspect that it does make a difference with regard to how he thinks about Aegon and Daemerys, particularly as we know that he is now under time pressure to accomplish his project before he becomes a stone man.

[UVA]

Apologies, accidentally posted

[Clariana]

Two tragic lovestories connected by a name. Jon, the only good thing that came out of a love which cost the lover crown, family and life. Jon, the one man who could have saved the loved one from this doom but - eager to proof himself (before the beloved prince most of all?) - prepares the way for that doom.

Jon, the boy who newer knew his father and Jon, the man who was never recognized as a lover by that man, who fathered Jon.

Maybe I'm overinterpreting, but I would love to read something working into that direction! What a lovestory! Breaks my heart.

Beautifully made points but can I add that I always assumed that Ned called Jon, Jon due to his filial love for his protector Jon Arryn?

So Ned calls his adopted son Jon out of love for his adopted father, Jon Arryn. Jon is the lovechild of Rhaegar and Lyanna, Ned's sister. Jon Connington, who was in love with Rhaegar, brings up a boy who he believes is Rhaegar's legitimate child... Rhaegar's love affair with Lyanna started a civil war and Ned's love for Jon Arryn started another civil war.

It's a great story full of people bound by links of affection and duty.

[Mithras]

JonCon loved his Silver Prince but failed him at Stoney Sept. Now he is frozen in time and turning into a living statue. He mocked Bittersteel as a broken man but Bittersteel is happy because his dream is coming true. Perhaps JonCon will be broken during the Dance, especially after his doubts about Aegon build up.

What about Richard Lonmouth (Lem)?

I think he is gay too but in love with Robert. Perhaps he was broken in Stony Sept as well. The Ghost of High Heart teases him knowing that he is gay and tries to steal a kiss from him.

By the way, Tyrion was said to be possibly turning to stone from inside. I think regardless of whether he caught greyscale or not, that might be a hint that he will transform like Lady Stoneheart.