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

[Chaircat Meow]

Ah, I see. Killing your male offspring and "marrying" your daughters is only morally bancrupt when you know that it´ll help your enemy. Good to know.

Uh, no, I'm not saying Craster isn't immoral.

[Chaircat Meow]

It's really bizarre when those excusing the Watch's actions, or at least justifying the failure to put this together, are also those arguing that the Boltons will somehow accept the information that the Others are back and mobilize accordingly. If the claim is that the Watch-- the organization tasked with keeping the Others away weren't aware of how big this is and needed more proof-- why the hell would a House not tasked with such concerns-- and with total incentive to not split forces at the moment-- accept that they've returned prior to an invasion? It would look like a trick to undermine them.

People are going to have a hard time accepting this.

But there are tonnes of witnesses to all this now though ...

I just don't think Mormont believed, or necessarily should have believed, Craster was swelling the ranks of the Others through the sacrifices. It is clear in aGoT Mormont is proceeding on the grounds there is a supernatural threat, but ... he doesn't really know much about it, there are stories and so on, but are they true ..?

[Lykos]

Sorry, I wasn´t quite accurate.

Ah, I see. To ally yourself with someone, who is killing his male offspring and "marrying" his daughters is only morally bancrupt when you know that it´ll help your enemy. Good to know.

Bumps!, it´s all for the greater good.

[butterbumps!]

Bumps!, it´s all for the greater good.

lol, yea.

But I mean this is one of the fundamental problems with the Boltons though. Even without Stannis around, Winterfell is stymied from sending any sort of aid. Telling Roose to come to the Wall to fight Others will sound like a stupid trap set by those who want him out and vice versa. Roose might want nothing more in life than to keep the Others off his land, but he can't conceivably give aid-- nor would he likely believe the Others are back-- until they actually invade given the atmosphere of the North.

btw Lykos-- as you know I think Roose is planning to use the Others in his plans (though in this discussion, I'm merely arguing the politics). But one thing that might give some credence to that idea is this: the Boltons inter their dead in crypts, yet when bodies start dropping in Winterfell, he orders them burned. It's a little odd, and I don't know if that's a clue he's maybe less ignorant of this situation than one might think. ETA: that's meant to be an aside, not part of my political argument.

[Adam Feldman]

Let me just point out that the Watch / Craster relationship in fact did turn out to be crucial to the survival of many in the Watch in ASOS (and would've led to even more surviving if not for the Watch men's own mutiny). Most obviously, if Craster didn't let them in, then there's probably no more Sam and the knowledge of how to kill an Other never makes it back to the Wall.

So I think those reading the scene as a condemnation of Night's Watch corruption and evil are rather missing the point. The point is, that there are very real practical benefits to the Watch and the larger struggle of working with Craster, at the cost of tolerating some moral corruption and injustice. And that the attempt to right all wrongs in the world, could end up weakening and undercutting the Watch's position in the larger struggle.

Denying those practical benefits, and focusing only on Craster's evil, ignores the trade-off. We don't yet know if Craster's babies are hugely important to the existence of the Others in some way, and Mormont and Jon certainly don't know that at the time, so I don't think that's particularly relevant in analyzing the scene.

[butterbumps!]

Denying those practical benefits, and focusing only on Craster's evil, ignores the trade-off. We don't yet know if Craster's babies are hugely important to the existence of the Others in some way, and Mormont and Jon certainly don't know that at the time, so I don't think that's particularly relevant in analyzing the scene.

But you brought it up in your essay as proof that the Watch is never supposed to intervene, so that's why it was being discussed. It's not really an issue of righting all the wrongs in the world. It's about becoming complicit in incest rape and Other sacrifice. It's one thing if the Watch had known about Craster and didn't bother with him, but the cooperation with a man like that is not something we're supposed to walk away from accepting as proof as the way things ought to be done. Especially after it becomes more evident just what tolerance of Craster's lifestyle leads to. Rangers had other ways of surviving before Craster was around; sometimes the easy quick fix is not the right one.

[Chaircat Meow]

But I mean this is one of the fundamental problems with the Boltons though. Even without Stannis around, Winterfell is stymied from sending any sort of aid. Telling Roose to come to the Wall to fight Others will sound like a stupid trap set by those who want him out and vice versa. Roose might want nothing more in life than to keep the Others off his land, but he can't conceivably give aid-- nor would he likely believe the Others are back-- until they actually invade given the atmosphere of the North.

I don't find this convincing. It might happen, but any number of things could happen on either a Roose or a Stannis victory. You can keep putting down the negative aspects of each scenario if you like. We know Roose did intend to liberate Deepwood from the ironborn, so he's not averse to campaigning in order to shore up his power. I'm sure he can send someone to investigate the situation at the wall, or go there himself in the company of a number of knights and lords. Garrisoning the castles and supervising that himself isn't without its advantages. If a lot of Manderly knights are persuaded to take the black that might be good for Roose. If a lot of lords are required to attend him at the wall, as part of their duty to the realm he could keep a closer eye on them. I don't pretend to know exactly how it could work, I'm just saying either of us can imagine any number of possible good/poor outcomes of whatever happens. This should dissuade us from drawing certain conclusions about what would happen in any given scenario.

[Adam Feldman]

But you brought it up in your essay as proof that the Watch is never supposed to intervene, so that's why it was being discussed.

Not "never supposed to intervene." But that well-intentioned interventions to right the wrongs of the world can create costs and danger to the Watch and therefore the larger struggle. And that as Jon impressively and competently prepares for that struggle overall in ADWD, he also repeatedly chooses to pile risk upon risk to help individuals, behavior that eventually brings these costs down on the Watch, and ruins the preparation for the larger struggle.

[butterbumps!]

Not "never supposed to intervene." But that well-intentioned interventions to right the wrongs of the world can create costs and danger to the Watch and therefore the larger struggle. And that as Jon impressively and competently prepares for that struggle overall in ADWD, he also repeatedly chooses to pile risk upon risk to help individuals, behavior that eventually brings these costs down on the Watch, and ruins the preparation for the larger struggle.

But Craster would be a case in point where non-intervention led to utterly devastating consequences in exchange for the ease of having someplace warm on rangings. In the long run, I think we see that the long term devastation of friendship with Craster outweighs any material gains he's given to the Watch. I'm not challenging your other assertions; I'm challenging what you've taken as proof to use as a premise for non-intervention, that's all.

Wrt to Roose-Stannis logistics: The Ironborn are a known enemy, unlike the Others. The fact that Roose comments that Stannis intends to flush the Ironborn and that they should endear themselves to the North similarly doesn't parallel how he'd react to the Others. For one thing, the damn Ironborn are actually in the North and no one doubts their existence. Telling Manderly to go out and fight Others is going to look like a stupid trap, and I'd hazard the guess the wants to keep Manderlys and Umbers as far from Ned's son as possible right now; similarly, a message from the Watch telling Roose to leave Winterfell the Others are here and expecting that Roose will think it's anything other than a conspiracy is laughable.

The sad truth is that as long as the Boltons are in power but with a tenuous hold, the North won't take the threat of the Others seriously until they invade.

[Chaircat Meow]

Wrt to Roose-Stannis logistics: The Ironborn are a known enemy, unlike the Others. The fact that Roose comments that Stannis intends to flush the Ironborn and that they should endear themselves to the North similarly doesn't parallel how he'd react to the Others. For one thing, the damn Ironborn are actually in the North and no one doubts their existence.

The example is telling you very clearly leading the northerners in a united effort against a common foe in order to build support is Roose's policy. Obviously Roose will have to find out about the Others, that can't be denied, but its a general problem for everyone when you're facing a newly remerged enemy who are supernatural. It takes time.

Telling Manderly to go out and fight Others is going to look like a stupid trap, and I'd hazard the guess the wants to keep Manderlys and Umbers as far from Ned's son as possible right now; similarly, a message from the Watch telling Roose to leave Winterfell the Others are here and expecting that Roose will think it's anything other than a conspiracy is laughable.

Telling all the lords to send their best men to man castles, or appealing for new members of the nw doesn't seem like it would be a trap. Roose wasn't going to sit at WF for years terrified of doing anything. He might want certain lords away from Jon, although (if he doesn't bump Jon off someway) he'd want to keep an eye on him, and he can do that if he follows events at the wall closely.

The sad truth is that as long as the Boltons are in power but with a tenuous hold, the North won't take the threat of the Others seriously until they invade.

Not really. We don't know what would happen, and constructing any one very hypothetical scenario so it coheres with our way of reading the sub-text of the story isn't the most compelling argument.

[butterbumps!]

This is insane.

I'm not arguing that the North structurally cannot band together to fight a common foe even with Botlon in charge.

The problem is that when the enemy is a grumkin, both Roose and the rebels will think this is a bullshit feint to undermine the other side. It's just a continuation of the current stalemate. Unless both sides have real and tangible proof that the Others are here, preemptive help is not going to happen. The issue isn't whether once Others pass, if the North would unify against them. The issue is whether this can happen before the damn Others show up outside Winterfell if the Boltons are in charge.

[nirolo]

Rangers had other ways of surviving before Craster was around; sometimes the easy quick fix is not the right one.

But Craster would be a case in point where non-intervention led to utterly devastating consequences in exchange for the ease of having someplace warm on rangings.

butterbumps!, I find your statements a little underwhelming. The way Mormont tells it, having Craster's keep available to the NW means the difference between life and death for the rangers. So I would argue it's a little more than just an easy quick fix or just some warm place to stay.

Quote:

“Yet it would be an ill day for us if Craster died. Your uncle could tell you of the times Craster’s Keep made the difference between life and death for our rangers.”

[butterbumps!]

butterbumps!, I find your statements a little underwhelming. The way Mormont tells it, having Craster's keep available to the NW means the difference between life and death for the rangers. So I would argue it's a little more than just an easy quick fix or just some warm place to stay.

Quote:

“Yet it would be an ill day for us if Craster died. Your uncle could tell you of the times Craster’s Keep made the difference between life and death for our rangers.”

You do realize that Craster has not been around since the dawn of time and that rangers made do previously, right? As in, there are ways to get around working with Craster, but Craster is the easiest option.

[Chaircat Meow]

This is insane.

I'm not arguing that the North structurally cannot band together to fight a common foe even with Botlon in charge.

The problem is that when the enemy is a grumkin, both Roose and the rebels will think this is a bullshit feint to undermine the other side. It's just a continuation of the current stalemate. Unless both sides have real and tangible proof that the Others are here, preemptive help is not going to happen. The issue isn't whether once Others pass, if the North would unify against them. The issue is whether this can happen before the damn Others show up outside Winterfell if the Boltons are in charge.

Lets not throw insanity around shall we?

My problem is you keep introducing unknowns, or hypotheticals, as some sort of resolution of the question whether we ought to see a Roose or Stannis victory as favourable to the nw and the battle for the Long Night.

Here its timing. Will Roose be persuaded there is a threat before the Others launch their putative assault on the wall. Dunno. Will Stannis be back at the NF in time for that. Dunno (given we don't know what he plans, esp with those mercenaries, how long it will take to defeat Roose). Maybe the Others are already 'here' in Jon XIII and its all too late. There isn't anything in the book that will give you the time to persuade lord Bolton there is an Other threat, set against the period before the Others launch an attack. So I don't see how an argument can be made in regard of it. It is fishing around in the book for something that isn't there, and I don't think that sort of operation can be used to undergird interpretations of big story arcs or moral problems and characters the book sets up.

[Chaircat Meow]

butterbumps!, I find your statements a little underwhelming. The way Mormont tells it, having Craster's keep available to the NW means the difference between life and death for the rangers. So I would argue it's a little more than just an easy quick fix or just some warm place to stay.

Quote:

“Yet it would be an ill day for us if Craster died. Your uncle could tell you of the times Craster’s Keep made the difference between life and death for our rangers.”

Yep. Talk about proffering a quick, easy fix for an issue that was set up as a serious dilemma in the book.

[Lykos]

Butterbumps!, regarding Winterfell.

I think that is really a complicated situation. I agree with you that Roose wasn´t likely to help untill he was sure the North would turn to him for help (and be duly thankful and submisive. "A peaceful land, a quiet people."), but I don´t think that Jon should have accepted Stannis offer of taking Winterfell.

It´s true that the Mountain Clans seem to turn to him now ad are aiding Stannis because they have the impression that this is backed by the Starks of Winterfell, so it seems taking up Stannis´ offer and becoming Lord of Winterfell would have saved a lot of time, but would the Clans have accepted Jon as Lord if he had done that?

I don´t think so. They know that Bran, the Lord of Winterfell, has moved north and that the Castle of Winterfell is an empty shell. The saying that there always have to be a Stark in Winterfell, also means that Winterfell without a Stark is nothing and in order to be accepted as a Stark, you have to act like one, that´s why the Clans turn to Jon now.

As for Roose burning the dead in Winterfell, I´m fairly certain that he knows, but less so on what information he acts. I think he monitors what´s going on at the Wall, since I believe that he regards the Watch as an important factor.

The Boltons also appear to be the strongest traditional rivals of the Starks, since the demise of the Greystarks and it´s probable that they have less interupted history of historical events.

The reason I´ve brought up the three main parties in all the historical crises earlier is that I believe Roose recognized that the Starks often (if not always) where associated with all three parties, yet the surviving one was perceived as the savior from great evil and thereby gained the loyalty of the North.

I think Roose is trying to transfer this principle onto House Bolton, and the Others play a part in this.

I also think that erroneously Roose believes this loyalty stems from fear of the Starks being capeable of releasing this evil rather than from the sacrifices they made in order to deal with it, because that´s what the Boltons have been thinking for a long time. That´s why they wear the skins of their enemies, to emulate the unleashing of the Wights. As Thormund tells Jon, nothing is as terrifying as having to face your own undead son attacking you.

[Mladen]

Lets not throw insanity around shall we?

I believe we shouldn't throw insanity around, but one has to ask to which point one incredibly baseless opinion, that contradicts logic and canon material in order to spite certain posters can be actually respected...

butterbumps!, I find your statements a little underwhelming. The way Mormont tells it, having Craster's keep available to the NW means the difference between life and death for the rangers. So I would argue it's a little more than just an easy quick fix or just some warm place to stay.

Quote:

“Yet it would be an ill day for us if Craster died. Your uncle could tell you of the times Craster’s Keep made the difference between life and death for our rangers.”

I think that greatest issue here is taking someone's words for granted. Craster is possibly the easiest solution, but far from the only one. So, I am not getting how Mormont's words could be taken with such seriousness as I you suggest. They knew Craster is up to something sinister, and they let him be. Because he is giving them warm bed every once and a while... Talking about "serving the Kingdoms"

[Lykos]

<snip>

Quote:

“Yet it would be an ill day for us if Craster died. Your uncle could tell you of the times Craster’s Keep made the difference between life and death for our rangers.”

Yes, because the Watch failed to set up / maintain a shelter of their own. Wether they were capable of it is another matter. Interestingly ethic behaviour is often thrown overboard in dire times, but that usually only helps in the short term and is the destruction of civilization in the long run. Think about the greater good.

[butterbumps!]

The issue is not just merely whether Roose will be apprised of the Others, it's whether he can also convince all those other men who currently want to kill him and seize Winterfell of this matter too.

The problem is that the Winterfell tap is closed, and there is nothing from a politically strategic view that lends any credence to the belief that as long as Roose is in charge and he's presiding over rebel factions (knowing that they are rebels), that the Others will be taken seriously and dealt with until they arrive.

Stannis is favorable simply because he interrupts this stalemate. The more surgical and quickly Stannis ends this Winterfell stalemate, the faster aid comes to the Wall. Stannis is the right choice to back if all is done to ensure that he does this as quickly and efficiently as possible. By influencing Stannis' victory to be as fast and surgical as it can, as well as preparing for the aftermath of said victory, the logic is that this ends the stalemate in the chance that this relief will come before the Others cross.

@Lykos-- I don't actually think refusing back in aSoS was a mistake at that point. I don't think the time was right.

[Chaircat Meow]

I believe we shouldn't throw insanity around, but one has to ask to which point one incredibly baseless opinion, that contradicts logic and canon material in order to spite certain posters can be actually respected...

I'd be careful with this, since I'm not the one making nasty personal attacks.