The Jon Snow ReRead Project!

[butterbumps!]

BB - Read as metaphor, walls are traditionally feminine symbols. Sorry if this offends the literalism of you chosen carrear. Feel free to check out books regarding metaphor, symbols and signs, if you have doubts about this.

Walls do fall under feminine symbols. If that feels off, think about the poor French. Apparently "vagina" in French is a masculine noun. :dunno:

I get how "walls" suggests "feminine" imagery ("walls" plural are about enclosure). However, this particular Wall-- a single vertical, dominating, isolating, dividing plane, creating not enclosure but territory doesn't strike me as particularly gendered or feminine (I should have specified I was referring to formal theory on singular walls like this one that are exterior-occupied, and not walls of enclosure).

I certainly don't want to get into discussing what happens later or what it is all about at this stage, however I have interested in noting when these references and allusions occur, I'm rather surprised quite how much there is already at this stage. To use GRRM's gardening metaphor we are seeing the roots and stem of the plant at this stage and getting a sense of how deeply rooted certain plot developments are.

Sorry, I'd not meant your pointing to this symbolism was premature, but the debate about these symbols' ultimate significance.

[Ragnorak]

I get how "walls" suggests "feminine" imagery ("walls" plural are about enclosure). However, this particular Wall-- a single vertical, dominating, isolating, dividing plane, creating not enclosure but territory doesn't strike me as particularly gendered or feminine (I should have specified I was referring to formal theory on singular walls like this one that are exterior-occupied, and not walls of enclosure).

Not a really a big deal. I like your vantage, dividing, territorial, etc. symbolism. If you wanted a 700 foot tall... err wide and 300 league long masculine Freudian phallic symbol fallen on its side to represent Jon's inability to sleep with Lyanna or kill Rhaegar I'd be weeping blood. The dividing plane works and it is the way we come to learn the Wall is viewed by the Wildlings. Most in Westeros think of the Wall as the "end of the world" which implies there is nothing beyond to divide the realm from which goes back to vantages and isolation.

[Lady of Long Lake]

I wonder if there's a reason why only the kings of winter are mentioned specifically since the lords got statues as well, no?

Last night I was re-writing little tidbits from each chapter in AGOT. My pyrenees ate the front cover and first 2 pages off and I had lost my chapter headings and page numbers!

In the Arya chapter that is right after Jon 6, Arya remembers a scene from the Winterfell crypts:

Robb took them all the way down to the end, past Grandfather and Brandon and Lyanna, to show them their own tombs

I don't know how I missed that the first three times I read AGOT but it sounds like the Stark children ALL have their own crypts waiting for them. In that scene, Jon jumps out of an open crypt to scare them.

Unless that lie was a part of the joke (showing them their own tombs), it would seem that Ned changed the crypt rules when Lyanna was buried there. He had places for all his children reserved right after the 3 that were mentioned. If so, I certainly don't like the phrase "all the way down to the end". That could symbolize the end of the ... I refuse to even say it.

[Winterfellian]

one question though - what is the difference in your mind between becoming a nightswatchman and the things specified in the oath, could you explain that out for me please? :)

I'll try without getting too ahead...

I think it all goes back to what truly is the home of the oath. For me is the following excerpt:

I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men.

The way I see it, this line is the oath in its most basic conception and ideally the core upon what the members of the NW should act (is not coincidence it is express in the form of identity). Yet it isn't always the case. A man can take the oath, become a brother of the NW, wear the black, walk the Wall, remain celibate and landless, etc. and yet don't live to uphold the values represented by the line above (cough, cough- Bowen Marsh) so this person won't in reality become or assume the very identity he's professing to become when he says the oath- the sword in the darkness, the watcher on the walls...etc.

A NW member may not in fact be the sword in the darkness, the watcher on the walls...etc. But by the looks of it, the Sword in the darkness...etc. will be a member of the Night's Watch.

This is why I wrote about the "home" of Jon's purpose. Most of his actions and decisions in ADWD all seem to be based upon the "home" of the NW oath.

On a closer look to the oath When analyzed there seems to be a clash of sorts between intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of it, with the bold part representing the intrinsic part of the oath:

I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men

In terms of the extrinsic aspects, a man taking the oath is foreswearing lands, family, crowns or glory in order to be able to hold to the oath (love is the bane of honor, the death of duty) so this first part is extrinsically valuable and yet, based on my own personal opinion, is not instrumentally valuable to perform that which is the intrinsic aspect of the oath- protecting the realms of men.

As I said before a NW may have all the qualities listed in the extrinsic part of the oath and yet contribute nothing to what is fundamentally the core of the oath (again, just because I can't help myself, cough Bowen Marsh ;) ).

On the other hand, the bold part, which specifically brings the idea of "guarding the realms of men" has intrinsic value given that it has value for its own sake. Intrinsic values are usually at the heart of ethical or moral conflicts so no wonder Jon ponder on this lines so much later on, especially since many of his decisions transgress the line of "acting for the sake of duty" to acting in accordance to what is morally right.

[Fire Eater]

Interesting observation. Yeah, the lords get statues too but only the kings are specifically mentioned — and Lyanna. Further thematic evidence that Lyanna died a princess? It's a point of contention why she has a statue at all, given that she was not a Lady of Winterfell, with many people pointing out that as Rhaegar's wife, she would strictly speaking be a royal and as such worthy of being buried in the honored crypt.

Actually given the time of her death after Jon was born she would have died a Queen Mother.

I like the Jesus symbolism found with Lyanna/Virgin Mary and Thorne/thorns giving Jon a mocking title.

“There was a black brother,” Sansa said, “begging men for the Wall, only he was kind of old and smelly.” She hadn’t liked that at all. She had always imagined the Night’s Watch to be men like Uncle Benjen. In the songs, they were called the black knights of the Wall. But this man had been crookbacked and hideous, and he looked as though he might have lice. If this was what the Night’s Watch was truly like, she felt sorry for her bastard half brother, Jon. “Father asked if there were any knights in the hall who would do honor to their houses by taking the black, but no one came forward, so he gave this Yoren his pick of the king’s dungeons and sent him on his way.

The only black knight we have heard of up until then was Rhaegar who wore black armor.

[Isildur's Mane]

Last night I was re-writing little tidbits from each chapter in AGOT. My pyrenees ate the front cover and first 2 pages off and I had lost my chapter headings and page numbers!

In the Arya chapter that is right after Jon 6, Arya remembers a scene from the Winterfell crypts:

Robb took them all the way down to the end, past Grandfather and Brandon and Lyanna, to show them their own tombs

I don't know how I missed that the first three times I read AGOT but it sounds like the Stark children ALL have their own crypts waiting for them. In that scene, Jon jumps out of an open crypt to scare them.

Unless that lie was a part of the joke (showing them their own tombs), it would seem that Ned changed the crypt rules when Lyanna was buried there. He had places for all his children reserved right after the 3 that were mentioned. If so, I certainly don't like the phrase "all the way down to the end". That could symbolize the end of the ... I refuse to even say it.

With regards to the crypts - my understanding was that all the Starks were buried there, but only lords got statues. Ned changed the rules and gave Brandon and Lyanna a statue even though neither of them were lords of Winterfell.

That's how I read it anyway

ETA= i don't like the foreshaddowing either... :(

[Blisscraft]

BB - Singular or plural; a Wall is a wall: a feminine symbol. You need to accept that and not allow any prejudices you have (especially as to anything I have to say about it) cloud your judgment. Please, examine it for yourself in reference texts. Also, symbols, like the Wall or a sword, have feminine or masculine associations. "Gender," as a term of art, is something different. Finally, you and I disagree as to this "particular Wall," as you put it. It won't be the last time we disagree, I am sure. If you have a problem with me, personally, I suggest you and I discuss it outside the thread.

Ragnorak - Size does matter, but it doesn't effect the association with the feminine. This Wall is one big Mother, protecting her children. She has secrets and passages; height and depth and length; but that is to encircle, to protect, to shield.

[butterbumps!]

If you have a problem with me, personally, I suggest you and I discuss it outside the thread.

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I have a "personal" problem with you from my stating neutral disagreement over the assertion that the Wall is a feminine symbol. I do, however, find being told that I "need to accept that and not allow any prejudices you have (especially as to anything I have to say about it) cloud your judgment," to be both extremely condescending and introducing instigation that wasn't previously there. I have no idea where this is coming from, but this is not an appropriate way to address me or the other posters in this thread.

BB - Singular or plural; a Wall is a wall: a feminine symbol. You need to accept that and not allow any prejudices you have (especially as to anything I have to say about it) cloud your judgment. Please, examine it for yourself in reference texts. Also, symbols, like the Wall or a sword, have feminine or masculine associations. "Gender," as a term of art, is something different. Finally, you and I disagree as to this "particular Wall," as you put it. It won't be the last time we disagree, I am sure.

WallS, plural, are feminine symbols because they invoke the womb, interiority, the domestic, bounded and protected space.

THE Wall is a vertical plane. It is not inhabitable, does not provide enclosure, does not speak to the underlying reasons why wallS (plural) are associated with the feminine.

More importantly for analysis, simply drawing from a symbol encyclopedia of sorts doesn't always elicit deeper understanding of the text, and I believe this is a case where being extremely precise about the underlying reasons that make wallS (plural) a symbol of the feminine helps us understand why this wall, and other walls like it, are not. Simply calling this wall "feminine" because walls are associated with the female doesn't stand up to further interrogation.

Further, where does seeing the Wall as the "feminine" really get us? You posit that the feminine adds meaning because it:

Ragnorak - Size does matter, but it doesn't effect the association with the feminine. This Wall is one big Mother, protecting her children. She has secrets and passages; height and depth and length; but that is to encircle, to protect, to shield.

but it doesn't really do these things. "Mother" is not a symbol inherent to the Wall, as not everything involving protection necessarily equates to mother-child. The Wall and the Watch are significantly more tied to the role of "knights," and in-story, to "the warrior," "the smith," and "the stranger." The secret passages are below the Wall, underground, not part of the structure. This is an entirely exterior piece of infrastructure. Most provocatively, it explicitly does not encircle. It protects from one side, and is a net from the other.

I think there is a lot to be said for looking at the Wall rigorously as an artifact-- structurally, as a liminal space, how it functions, materially (it's no longer growing but melting, and as Nirolo correctly posists, as an emotional litmus)-- to draw symbolic meaning from it rather than apply conventional symbolism to it, especially when it doesn't quite add up.

The argument for invoking the feminine wrt the Wall makes sense when the action of going through the gate occurs, but this feminine quality really refers to the portal rather than the entire plane. I am sympathetic to an argument stating that going north through the Wall into the unknown is like a birth of sorts, and that going south is a kind of regression (such as the wildlings "returning to the womb" in DwD).

[Mladen]

Size does matter, but it doesn't effect the association with the feminine. This Wall is one big Mother, protecting her children. She has secrets and passages; height and depth and length; but that is to encircle, to protect, to shield.

I have very anatomical reference here where one wall is stopping millions of little buggers to penetrate the womb :). That sounded wrong, or at least not all elegant and subtle as I wanted :)

[Lummel]

Well the wildings coming south is about penetration and violation, even if so far this is expressed in old nan tales of thieving wildings stealing our women (although quite how wildings are meant to get women, cattle or anything bigger than a saucepan back over the Wall I suppose are worries that need to be shut up in the drawer labelled 'fantasy novel' to which the key should be thrown away, if I was a wilding I'd look into trading rather than raiding - much easier).

It is clear that the Wall is a huge division and is meant to for us to feel it as a huge division. Our first introduction is through the prologue. We've been set up to think of north of the Wall as very dangerous, hostile, populated by both human and inhuman enemies. South of the Wall is the world - which comes to an end at the Wall. North of it is absolutely alien and extraterrestrial :laugh:

Interesting then that Castle Black uses that Weirwood Grove for its oath swearing - this the equivelent of Indian territory in the old westerns according to what we've been told so far or the first chink in the idea of the Wall as an absolute division. The ususal size of the weirgrove grove here compared to the North south of the Wall (yes the southern north!) maybe suggests that this is an more intensified version of what was familar to Jon between the Neck and the Wall.

[mormont]

[mod] Let's not make things personal, please. Disagree politely. [/mod]

[Natalia Borgia]

This is a great thread! Retreading old ground the Jon chapters in GOT to this point have established that Jon is honorable, polite, valiant, etc.

We have a marked contrast between him and Robb in looks and personality but the Ned's honor streak is in them both.

How about him choosing Ghost as a name for his dire wolf?

[Lummel]

...How about him choosing Ghost as a name for his dire wolf?

Well, how about it? Sounds like a perfectly normal name to give your pet direwolf to me ;)

[bbstark]

This is a great thread! Retreading old ground the Jon chapters in GOT to this point have established that Jon is honorable, polite, valiant, etc.

We have a marked contrast between him and Robb in looks and personality but the Ned's honor streak is in them both.

How about him choosing Ghost as a name for his dire wolf?

I was under the impression he named him ghost for two reasons. One, because well he looks like one ;) and the second being that he never made a sound. Wolves growl and howl, so him being mute makes him sort of unnatural, a mere ghost of a direwolf.

[Mladen]

I was under the impression he named him ghost for two reasons. One, because well he looks like one ;) and the second being that he never made a sound. Wolves growl and howl, so him being mute makes him sort of unnatural, a mere ghost of a direwolf.

I believe Apple Martini or Tze (I believe it was one of the two of them) somewhere stated that Ghost`s name actually foreshadows that Jon is Targaryen ghost, like the baby that no one knows he exists, or something like that. It was long time ago, so I may have forgotten some part.

[bbstark]

I believe Apple Martini or Tze (I believe it was one of the two of them) somewhere stated that Ghost`s name actually foreshadows that Jon is Targaryen ghost, like the baby that no one knows he exists, or something like that. It was long time ago, so I may have forgotten some part.

like the walking talking ghost of a Targaryan past?

I like it!

See there's lots of appropriate reasons and themes for the name.

How about this: with his pelt and eyecolor, he resembles a weirwood, and the weirwoods have been used by greenseers to spy/snoop/watch over the world. In a way there is a ghostly presence in the weirwood; he is named for the wisdom and knowledge of the phantom greenseers that peer through the eyes of the weirwood faces.

[Mladen]

like the walking talking ghost of a Targaryan past?

I like it!

See there's lots of appropriate reasons and themes for the name.

How about this: with his pelt and eyecolor, he resembles a weirwood, and the weirwoods have been used by greenseers to spy/snoop/watch over the world. In a way there is a ghostly presence in the weirwood; he is named for the wisdom and knowledge of the phantom greenseers that peer through the eyes of the weirwood faces.

OK, now we are a bit derailing thread. Sorry, organizers

My theory about Ghost`s name is purely biological. Do you know there are no albino wolves? There were never found acase of albinism in wolves. That makes Ghost unique, one of a kind, and in a way, not completely wolf. So, he is something more than ordinary wolf, and quite different from his siblings.

[bbstark]

OK, now we are a bit derailing thread. Sorry, organizers

My theory about Ghost`s name is purely biological. Do you know there are no albino wolves? There were never found acase of albinism in wolves. That makes Ghost unique, one of a kind, and in a way, not completely wolf. So, he is something more than ordinary wolf, and quite different from his siblings.

You're right, we've digressed (though I don't have anything to add to the Wall symbolism conversation, just reading along for now)

though about no albino wolves, that is strange, because there are albino dogs (and they are adorable :P ).

however I do like this reason for ghost's name as well. I just no longer think there's just ONE reason for his name. Thematically speaking, there are lots of aspects of Ghost that speak of his purpose/meaning.

[sabrecmc]

I have come to see the Wall more as a litmus test for Jon's internal feelings—a giant mirror to Jon's heart, if you will.

This is interesting because we see that a lot in the Campbellian journies. Some recent examples that leap to mind are the actual mirrors in Harry Potter and the Neverending Story and Luke's experience in the cave on Dagobah. In each case, there is a reflection of the hero's innermost workings (desires, fears, who he really is at his core). The Mirror teaches the hero something about who he really is that he knows subconsciously, but which needs to be brought to the surface. Wrt the Wall, everyone who comes there is stripped of identity to a large degree, so the Wall as a Mirror in the sense of providing information about the Hero is an interesting concept. Not so much as a literal mirror, but in how Jon perceives the Wall, perhaps? Certainly his perception of the Wall changes over the course of the books, as does his perception of himself. I'm spitballing here, but I like the idea anyway.

[butterbumps!]

No, don't worry, this isn't really a derail.

The plot reason for naming him Ghost is the whiteness and silence-- Bran brings this up when he goes over all the wolf names in Bran II. (As an interesting aside, Bran envies Jon for choosing that name).

I think the term "ghost" as it pertains is supposed to work across multiple registers, and the most obvious is "apparition," which layers into the crypt imagery; we're reminded how the iron keeps the ghosts from rising; Jon is haunted by the "ghosts" of his parentage, and later, Robb, Donal, Ygritte; Jon covering himself with flour in one of the tombs to play a practical joke on his siblings-- in a nutshell it reinforces the death imagery that's so prevalent in Jon's arc. It goes a bit beyond that, though, as ghosts are traces that manifest beyond death, so I think it contributes to some sort of resurrection speculation.

Other definitions of "ghost" are a bit more provocative: soul or spirit, a breath, the seat of feeling, thought and moral action (these pertain to the living as well as the dead); a corpse, a trace, vestige of a former self, an impression, a duplicate. It's also a verb, meaning to erase (ghost out), to die, to haunt, scare, prowl.