Enlightening essays on Dany and Jon- ADWD (New Jon essay)

[Adam Feldman]

snip

I don't really see how any of these back up your argument that, from early in ADWD, Jon views the future survival of the Watch as inextricably tied to Stannis' success:

#1: Jon is merely saying he agrees with Stannis on a policy issue.

#2: This rebuts your point. Jon says, "It is not my intent to choose any side."

#3: Jon feels he has to feed Stannis' men. This has no bearing on whether he thinks a Stannis triumph is necessary for the Watch.

#4: Yes, Jon thinks Stannis fights for the realm and would be better than the ironborn. This is how he justifies supporting Stannis. I don't think anyone has disputed that Jon believes a Stannis victory would be better for the Watch than the ironborn. The question is whether Jon calculated that the future of the Watch was inextricably tied to a Stannis victory.

#5: Not really following this one. What does the Norrey have to do with it?

[butterbumps!]

I don't really see how any of these back up your argument that, from early in ADWD, Jon views the future survival of the Watch as inextricably tied to Stannis' success:

#1: Jon is merely saying he agrees with Stannis on a policy issue.

#2: This rebuts your point. Jon says, "It is not my intent to choose any side."

#3: Jon feels he has to feed Stannis' men. This has no bearing on whether he thinks a Stannis triumph is necessary for the Watch.

#4: Yes, Jon thinks Stannis fights for the realm and would be better than the ironborn. This is how he justifies supporting Stannis. I don't think anyone has disputed that Jon believes a Stannis victory would be better for the Watch than the ironborn. The question is whether Jon calculated that the future of the Watch was inextricably tied to a Stannis victory.

#5: Not really following this one. What does the Norrey have to do with it?

All of those quotes show that Jon sees interconnectivity between Stannis and the Watch.

1. Jon appeals to the real enemy, establishes that this enemy is one that he and Stannis share, and that they agree they should make common cause against the true threat.

2. This establishes that going against Stannis in any capacity will be a disaster for the Watch, as Jon is remarking that Stannis will continue foisting himself on the Watch more grievously if he does not comply. It also establishes that Jon believes Stannis has a chance at victory now.

3. It also shows that Stannis has made it his business to try to take what he wants from the Watch, i.e. that Jon's resistance to Stannis is futile and bound up in Stannis.

4. This is a pretty explicit example where Jon sees Stannis in terms of big-picture goals.

5. The fact that Jon appeals to the clan's friendship to the Watch shows us that he's thinking in terms of the clan's value to the Watch, not just as Stannis' fighting men. It's a direct conflation of Stannis' needs and the Watch's benefit.

I'm not arguing against the assertion that Jon- to himself-- does not articulate the full interconnectivity of this plainly. I agree with that point. But with comments like this, as well as the other ones, it's clear that the subtext of this is something Jon is aware of and is present despite the fact that he doesn't justify it to himself this way.

[Lady of Long Lake]

That's fine and dandy, but before that point, the government of Westeros, who have given Roose Bolton his position as Warden of the North, view Jon Snow as an enemy. Cersei wants him dead. Tywin would have wanted him dead, had he lived. Sending envoys to Roose Bolton isn't going to change that fact. The die was cast once Stannis arrived at Castle Black.

I agree with everything you said but I have an additional thought. I think Jon had to go "all-in" for Stannis when Stannis saved the Watch from being 100% destroyed by the Wildlings. I don't think the Watch would have survived the 10,000 wildlings for too many more days. They just didn't have the numbers to repel them indefinitely.

I would say it's irrelevent to worry about if Jon bet it all on a losing horse. Stannis was the only one that showed up and he subsequently saved their organization from extinction, IMO.

[Winterfellian]

Am still working my way through the thread, but I wanted to add my two cents in regards to Jon´s lack of rationalization when it comes to aiding Stannis.

Personally I see the fact that he doesn’t look to rationalize it as a reflection that he´s internalized the fact that what he´s doing is in service of the NW. Going back to ASOS, the levels of rationalization in comparison to Dance are very telling. In ASOS Jon tends to explain his most conflict-inflicting actions-killing Qhorin and sleeping-with Ygritte- on the whole in service of the Realm excuse, or in orders received, or even by detaching himself from the responsibility of an act (his body acted the part willingly enough in reference to him sleeping with Ygritte). Yet in Dance he stopped.

As some others have pointed out, Jon doesn’t outwardly tell himself “am helping Stannis because is in service of the NW´´, but from the quotes BB provided is clear that he has identified the fate of the Watch as tied to Stannis’. I don’t think that the lack of rationalization is a coincidence, especially when contrasted with the levels of it Jon employs in ASOS. So what has changed?

IMHO, I think the difference lies in the root of the conflict Jon is experiencing. As human beings we tend to rationalize what offends our sense of “right”. So things like sleeping with a girl in defiance of chastity vows, killing a former mentor, betraying information of the NW or even growing fond of a supposed enemy like Tomund are things Jon naturally looks to rationalize in an effort to remain “good” in his own eyes. But aiding Stannis doesn’t require the same level of rationalization because is not offending his sense of what is right for the watch, or rather the purpose of the Wall, as the fact that he continues to act on them reflects.

The way I see it, the lack of rationalization is a manifestation of the conflict-shift that occurs within Jon between ASOS and ADWD, where he goes from measuring up his actions in service of his vows, hence the need to rationalize when something is not aligned with said vows, to questioning the spirit of the vow itself (the protection of the Realms of Men), a major theme in ADWD, where rationalization is not possible because by venturing to analyze the intrinsic aspect of his vows, Jon is venturing into new territory and rationalization becomes more difficult.

Furthermore, I see the fact that Jon no longer needs to remain “good” in his own eyes as a big step towards maturity and is an aspect where he strongly contrasts with Dany as in most of ADWD she still wants to be mother and savior.

[Adam Feldman]

@Adam: Can you clarify what you mean, when you say that Jon should have prepared for Stannis losing? From what I can see, there's really nothing that he could have done...

So, what exactly could he have done to gain any support from anyone other than Stannis?

In addition to my earlier points about the importance of establishing a line of communication with the Boltons, I'd like to point out that Jon pursued and achieved a very risky peace deal with the wildlings, who were literally just at war with the Night's Watch! The two camps were just murdering each other like weeks ago. What's more, Jon made great efforts to achieve this peace. He sent out 9 rangers to find them, 3 came back dead, and 6 never returned. Then Jon risked the wrath of Stannis by sending Val off to go find Tormund (though he had promised to keep Val close). Jon made various creative symbolic, political, and practical gestures to show the wildlings that they would be welcome to work with the Watch.

What might have happened if Jon had shown the same initiative and creativity in reaching out to the Boltons, and assuring them of the Watch's neutrality, to prepare for the possibility of a Stannis defeat? We'll never know, because Jon never had any interest in trying.

[Winterfellian]

In addition to my earlier points about the importance of establishing a line of communication with the Boltons, I'd like to point out that Jon pursued and achieved a very risky peace deal with the wildlings, who were literally just at war with the Night's Watch! The two camps were just murdering each other like weeks ago. What's more, Jon made great efforts to achieve this peace. He sent out 9 rangers to find them, 3 came back dead, and 6 never returned. Then Jon risked the wrath of Stannis by sending Val off to go find Tormund (though he had promised to keep Val close). Jon made various creative symbolic, political, and practical gestures to show the wildlings that they would be welcome to work with the Watch.

What might have happened if Jon had shown the same initiative and creativity in reaching out to the Boltons, and assuring them of the Watch's neutrality, to prepare for the possibility of a Stannis defeat? We'll never know, because Jon never had any interest in trying.

The situations are so completely different that am at lost how can you even compare them. Jon could offer the wildings something they desperately needed-protection from the Others. The wildings' desperate situation and Jon's position as LC as well as his internal knowledge of the group gave him the leverage to conduct the armistice between NW and wildings under HIS terms. Not saying that it was simple, but Jon had the upper hand, at least nominally. And he knew this and took advantage of it to conduct everything as per his demands (the gold tax, the blood tax, etc…). He also factored in the potential number of wights he'd be decimating as well as the increase in numbers for patroling the Walls as a result his policies, as both motive and incentive for carrying through with the armistice.

As for the Boltons, I am curious as what do you think Jon should have done to successfully approach them. Leaving aside the well-established fact that neither Lannisters nor Boltons have proven themselves as friends of the Watch in the past, that they had ignored the desperate pleas the Watch sent at the imminence of wilding attack just a few weeks back (and that was even before Stannis’s arrival!), that Stannis was already there as a result of the general indifference of the rest of Lords and Kings making the appearance of neutrality even more difficult, that Jon had already sent out a paper shield (even if it was reluctantly) to no effect, or that as a son of Eddard Stark he might be viewed with misgivings (and that’s me sugarcoating it) by such a crowd, Jon had nothing to offer as a way of leverage that could result in a positive relationship with Boltons or Lannisters.

I think the whole thing can be reduced to the phrase, beggars can’t be choosers. And that’s exactly what the watch has been reduced to-beggars in black.

[Adam Feldman]

As for the Boltons, I am curious as what do you think Jon should have done to successfully approach them.

We'll never know if Jon could've done it successfully, because he never cared to try to do it at all. I laid out some starting points here. It surely would have been difficult and involved many wrenching and unpleasant moral compromises. But as mentioned, Theon's chapters show no Bolton plots, planned attacks, or raging anger aimed at Jon, so we don't have any text showing that such an arrangement was impossible. (Obviously that changes after the Mance mission.)

As far as leverage and mutual interest -- after facing Stannis and having their forces reduced yet again, the Boltons will not necessarily be eager for another war. And it would be a particularly hard sell and look very bad for Roose Bolton to lead a Northern army against a son of Ned Stark. Plus there's that whole "the realm faces a dire threat from the North" thing -- I know the Boltons don't believe it yet (though Roose was stuck south of Moat Cailin so it's hard to blame him for not coming) but if the Boltons do end up winning in the North the Watch will just have to try harder to convince them -- and as mentioned earlier in the thread, the pragmatic and self-interested Roose will certainly fight to defend the North, the kingdom he rules, once the threat becomes clear, as we all assume it will.

[Nictarion]

and as mentioned earlier in the thread, the pragmatic and self-interested Roose will certainly fight to defend the North, the kingdom he rules, once the threat becomes clear, as we all assume it will.

This is a very valid point. Not all the lords of Westeros have their own red woman to convince them of what the real threat is.

[bemused]

I've often thought one of Jon's major errors was in not seeing much if any need to consult with the Watch--not even with his friends, whom he sends away. He seems to have thought after his being elected LC he can simply unilaterally decide everything. He doesn't even ask advice IIRC (except when he asks Marsh etc. which wildlings he should appoint).

He's LC. He can unilaterally decide... just like every LC before him. He's not supposed to have to run everything by the watch in general. He does discuss matters with his officers at CB.. but it's an exercise in futility, because they can't see past the ends of their noses.

[shk12344]

Since many of us believe that Stannis is going to defeat the Boltons, isn't it pointless to argue about supposedly lack of preparation on Jon's part?

This remind me of argument people would have regarding the role of Jeyne Westerlings possible pregnancy will have in the future storyline, until the death of pregnant Talisa in the TV show put an end that argument.

[Mark Antony]

Since many of us believe that Stannis is going to defeat the Boltons, isn't it pointless to argue about supposedly lack of preparation on Jon's part?

This remind me of argument people would have regarding the role of Jeyne Westerlings possible pregnancy in the future storyline, until the death of pregnant Talisa in the TV show put an end that argument.

Stannis defeating the Boltons is far far far from a sure thing

[shk12344]

Stannis defeating the Boltons is far far far from a sure thing

Well, I'm 100 percent certain Stannis will defeat Bolton, just as I'm certain Jon will warg into Ghost and then be reborn. :cool4:

[bemused]

These essays are well written , but I think they take some very wrong turns along the way. One of the primary points that they fail to take into account are the supernatural / magical elements which have been getting stronger as the story has progressed. We don't understand them fully , but the clues and instances of foreshadowing are too many to ignore . Ultimately , they will have a great effect on the story and we should recognize that they're there.

There can't be much doubt that the Starks play a central role in the efforts by the CoTF to oppose the Others - at the Wall and at Winterfell. As far as I can see, Jon's major decisions have instinctively been in tune with CoTF aims , even though he's consciously unaware of it. He's attuned to the magic. As a descendant of the old Kings of Winter , that may be part of the power in his blood.

I think the Boltons will be defeated at Winterfell , though Roose may win back to the Dreadfort.. but I don't think Stannis will be the victor. I think WF will be retaken from within by forces representing the Northern Lords collectively , and the Starks will once again hold WF in their own right, not as Stannis' gift.

We shouldn't take for granted that Roose would fight to defend the North. He's just used much of his time with Robb's army to decimate the other Northern houses , not just for Tywin's benefit. I don't know that he wouldn't adopt a more Craster-like tactic when the Others come knocking.

But whether he would or wouldn't have any concern for the common good may not matter a bit since it seems, magically speaking , there really must be a Stark in Winterfell , forming a joint defence structure with the Wall and it's defenders. Without a Stark that part of the magic may fail.When Qhorin Halfhand says to Mormont , "The Starks must rally the north." .. there's a deeper resonance, a probable foreshadowing for the greater struggle , not just repelling Mance.

It's not that Jon had no interest or didn't care to try to deal with the Boltons.. he knew they didn't have a history of trustworthiness. Ned never really trusted Roose. I'm sure the Dreadfort was sent letters asking for help by Aemon just like the other northern houses. ..And then Stannis was at the wall and in control before Jon was elected. He's done very well in wresting that control away from Satnnis , bit by bit, and he was right in his estimation, his instinct , really, that there is a difference between a Baratheon and a Bolton.

Then, in his actions with Val and Tormund..although his aims were to save lives, starve the Others of potential wights, and gain more defenders for the wall , he's succeeded in gaining thousands of followers of his own. Their loyalty is to the man, not the institution or the title of LC. When he recovers ( as I feel sure he will ) , Stannis will not be calling the tune.

[SeanF]

We'll never know if Jon could've done it successfully, because he never cared to try to do it at all. I laid out some starting points here. It surely would have been difficult and involved many wrenching and unpleasant moral compromises. But as mentioned, Theon's chapters show no Bolton plots, planned attacks, or raging anger aimed at Jon, so we don't have any text showing that such an arrangement was impossible. (Obviously that changes after the Mance mission.)

As far as leverage and mutual interest -- after facing Stannis and having their forces reduced yet again, the Boltons will not necessarily be eager for another war. And it would be a particularly hard sell and look very bad for Roose Bolton to lead a Northern army against a son of Ned Stark. Plus there's that whole "the realm

faces a dire threat from the North" thing -- I know the Boltons don't believe it yet (though Roose was stuck south of Moat Cailin so it's hard to blame him for not coming) but if the Boltons do end up winning in the North the Watch will just have to try harder to convince them -- and as mentioned earlier in the thread, the pragmatic and self-interested Roose will certainly fight to defend the North, the kingdom he rules, once the threat becomes clear, as we all assume it will.

It doesn't seem likely to me that after Stannis had been provisioned for weeks at the Wall, the Boltons would say "that's okay" to any envoys sent by Jon Snow. And, even if he had sent them, there's always the risk that Jon would just appear to be duplicitous to all sides. Really, Jon's between a rock and a hard place. He has to pick a side.

[Chaircat Meow]

And as I repeatedly said, this passage does show he links them at a fundamental level. That we see Jon accept this as a fait accompli means that this condition is a subtext to Jon's subsequent decisions, though he doesn't directly articulate it this way again. Since I commented on the peculiarity of Jon's cessation of justification pages ago, I'm finding your framing this argumentatively to be very frustrating.

Huh. We all know Jon realizes Stannis is connected to the nw. He's there, and Jon is informed that his presence could cause problems. There is no point in trying to prove this, as we all agree.

The question is whether Jon sees Stannis's victory as crucial to the nw's survival, and there is never any hint he does, even though it really ought to have come up, and makes something of a nonsense of his worry wrt actually giving Stannis aid.

Wrt your last post, again, not one of those passages show Jon thinks Stannis's victory is crucial for the watch, or that Stannis needs to be helped for this reason. The comment wrt the ironborn is actually very significant, but for the opposite reason than you think. If Jon thought Stannis needed to win against Bolton 'for the realm' he'd have just said so. Instead we have this excuse that because the ironborn are just plunderers it is ok to give Stannis help against them. It is removing someone from the 'take no part' consideration on grounds that separate them from everyone else in westeros (including the IT and Bolton). Asha as it happened wanted to hold Deepwood, but it's a rationalization you would only use if you wanted to duck the question of considering Stannis set against the other mainstream powers. It is explicitly not a rationalization that sets up Stannis's fight in the south against Bolton as necessary for the watch, or the Long Night. The Norrey comments has no pertinence whatsoever, Jon just thinks he can use nw assets (in this case goodwill) to aid Stannis. It doesn't say why he's doing it.

I honestly think it's you who are arguing for the sake of argument now. The author studiously avoided giving any sign Jon felt Stannis needed to survive for the nw to fulfil its purpose, and framed Jon's desire to aid him in contrary terms. Those passages also don't create a subtext revolving around the necessity of Stannis either. They point to the obvious fact Stannis is actually concerned about the Others at the moment, and Jon agrees with some of his policies, but that his presence had potential repercussions. This would go to show, I would think, that although Jon was favourable to Stannis it wasn't his view that his command depended on Stannis, or his success, in a necessary sense. And the fact the leader of the nw doesn't think this is somewhat decisive proof against the idea the necessity of Stannis was true, but unarticulated 'sub-text.' Sam, for one, certainly didn't think like this, and he was the one who seemingly expressed the much argued for centrality of Stannis more than anyone else (of course, by the end of DwD, for a variety of reasons, Stannis had become necessary, but that issue is at the heart of Jon's increasingly reckless decision making).

[SeanF]

I agree with everything you said but I have an additional thought. I think Jon had to go "all-in" for Stannis when Stannis saved the Watch from being 100% destroyed by the Wildlings. I don't think the Watch would have survived the 10,000 wildlings for too many more days. They just didn't have the numbers to repel them indefinitely.

I would say it's irrelevent to worry about if Jon bet it all on a losing horse. Stannis was the only one that showed up and he subsequently saved their organization from extinction, IMO.

Thanks. Stannis came to the aid of the Night's Watch. Ramsay Bolton destroyed the North's last line of defence against invaders, Winterfell; massacred hundreds of Northern soldiers; and laid waste the local town. Roose Bolton murdered the North's overlord; and participated in the massacre of thousands of Northern soldiers, plus their lords and commanders. The Lannisters view Jon Snow as an enemy, and the Freys have a record of duplicity and cruelty.

Now, had Jon sent emissaries to the Boltons, maybe they'd have let bygones be bygones, and come to the aid of the Watch, but if I were Jon, I'd place far more reliance on the man who had a record of assistance, rather than the regime that has a record of murder, treachery, and undermining Northern defences.

[Zman1863]

We'll never know if Jon could've done it successfully, because he never cared to try to do it at all. I laid out some starting points here. It surely would have been difficult and involved many wrenching and unpleasant moral compromises. But as mentioned, Theon's chapters show no Bolton plots, planned attacks, or raging anger aimed at Jon, so we don't have any text showing that such an arrangement was impossible. (Obviously that changes after the Mance mission.)

As far as leverage and mutual interest -- after facing Stannis and having their forces reduced yet again, the Boltons will not necessarily be eager for another war. And it would be a particularly hard sell and look very bad for Roose Bolton to lead a Northern army against a son of Ned Stark. Plus there's that whole "the realm faces a dire threat from the North" thing -- I know the Boltons don't believe it yet (though Roose was stuck south of Moat Cailin so it's hard to blame him for not coming) but if the Boltons do end up winning in the North the Watch will just have to try harder to convince them -- and as mentioned earlier in the thread, the pragmatic and self-interested Roose will certainly fight to defend the North, the kingdom he rules, once the threat becomes clear, as we all assume it will.

We might not be able to show that some arrangement with the Boltons was impossible but I think circumstantially it looks unlikely. It's true that Bolton doesn't have to do anything at the slightest whim of the Iron Throne because of distance and logistics. But I also think that he would be careful to keep good relations with the Lannisters, since his position derives from that alliance. The council branded Jon a traitor because of Stannis's mere presence at the wall. I don't really see Bolton defying this. Combine this with the fact that Jon as a stark bastard poses a threat to Bolton rule, and I think it was nearly impossible to think that Jon could come to an arrangement with the Boltons.

However, we do have to distinguish between Jon and the NW here. Jon himself might not have had much of a chance to retain his position or his head in attempting to deal with the Boltons or the Lannisters. But I do agree that whatever Roose is, he would take the northern threat seriously and would work with the NW to defend against it. It just wouldn't be a NW commanded by a Stark bastard.

[Mrs_Darcy]

We might not be able to show that some arrangement with the Boltons was impossible but I think circumstantially it looks unlikely. It's true that Bolton doesn't have to do anything at the slightest whim of the Iron Throne because of distance and logistics. But I also think that he would be careful to keep good relations with the Lannisters, since his position derives from that alliance. The council branded Jon a traitor because of Stannis's mere presence at the wall. I don't really see Bolton defying this. Combine this with the fact that Jon as a stark bastard poses a threat to Bolton rule, and I think it was nearly impossible to think that Jon could come to an arrangement with the Boltons.

However, we do have to distinguish between Jon and the NW here. Jon himself might not have had much of a chance to retain his position or his head in attempting to deal with the Boltons or the Lannisters. But I do agree that whatever Roose is, he would take the northern threat seriously and would work with the NW to defend against it. It just wouldn't be a NW commanded by a Stark bastard.

I am not even sure about that. There are several threads in this forum, that link Roose Bolton and his son Ramsay to some kind of dark magic/blood magic or even the Others.

Additionally, the example of Craster shows, that the Others are willing to spare certain people (Craster and his wives) if they get some sort of recompensation (Craster's sons). During the War of the Five Kings Roose Bolton betrayed a great part of the Northern Host (Duskendale, Ruby Ford, Battle of Winterfell) for his gains.

If the Others somenhow made him the offer to spare his lands (I still do not know, how Craster managed to negotiate with the Others) in exchange for Roose helping them get the rest of the North (or the rest of Westeros) I am pretty sure, that Roose will work against the NW and not with it.

[Zman1863]

I am not even sure about that. There are several threads in this forum, that link Roose Bolton and his son Ramsay to some kind of dark magic/blood magic or even the Others.

Additionally, the example of Craster shows, that the Others are willing to spare certain people (Craster and his wives) if they get some sort of recompensation (Craster's sons). During the War of the Five Kings Roose Bolton betrayed a great part of the Northern Host (Duskendale, Ruby Ford, Battle of Winterfell) for his gains.

If the Others somenhow made him the offer to spare his lands (I still do not know, how Craster managed to negotiate with the Others) in exchange for Roose helping them get the rest of the North (or the rest of Westeros) I am pretty sure, that Roose will work against the NW and not with it.

I suppose I wouldn't put it past the Boltons to do that if they had the opportunity. But I think opportunity is the problem. As far as I can recall we don't have any evidence the Others have ever had any influence south of the wall to this point. We don't even have evidence that the Boltons believe in the Others. Plus once the Others show up to make their attack are they going to be in a mood to chat with people?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

He's LC. He can unilaterally decide... just like every LC before him. He's not supposed to have to run everything by the watch in general. He does discuss matters with his officers at CB.. but it's an exercise in futility, because they can't see past the ends of their noses.

Thanks for pointing this out. The Watch is a democracy only insofar as the LC is elected. After that, it is a military outfit and the LC is under no real obligation to run the Watch by committee.