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

[nirolo]

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.

You are assuming there weren't always some "Crasters" out there before the Craster we know of existed. Anyway, having Craster available to the NW did make the difference between life and death for the rangers. And I would hardly call it an easy fix if having it tipped the balance of life and death.

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

This is a good observation. Mormont is lecturing Jon about priorities and the true purpose of the NW. As Adam pointed out in his essays and posts, the same issue of choosing comes up time and again in ADwD.

Quote:

“Craster is his own man. He has sworn us no vows. Nor is he subject to our laws. Your heart is noble, Jon, but learn a lesson here. We cannot set the world to rights. That is not our purpose. The Night’s Watch has other wars to fight.”

Other wars. Yes. I must remember.

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"

I don't have a reason to doubt Mormont's words. Jon asked him point blank whether he knew about Craster's sacrifices. Mormont could have easily denied it. He didn't. So I trust his words.

Yes, because the Watch failed to set up / maintain a shelter of their own. Wether they were capable of it is another matter.

I doubt the NW is capable of maintaining their own shelter when they can barely maintain what they have at the Wall. And I would imagine a lonely outpost north of the Wall would not survive long to make a real difference due to all the wildling attacks such a shelter would draw.

[Mladen]

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

What does this mean? I have read your posts here, had a good laugh, dismissed them due to fallible logic, poor arguments and what truly lies behind them. I actually think that some borderline harassing behavior on this forum should stop, and as for advises, if I were you, I'd graciously exit this thread. Arguing is one thing, harassing someone completely different...

[nirolo]

What does this mean? I have read your posts here, had a good laugh, dismissed them due to fallible logic, poor arguments and what truly lies behind them. I actually think that some borderline harassing behavior on this forum should stop, and as for advises, if I were you, I'd graciously exit this thread. Arguing is one thing, harassing someone completely different...

Zunni, I don't see any of Bran's posts as harassing. So let's try to avoid going down that direction, shall we?

[Adam Feldman]

I'd like to urge Here Me Meow not to exit this thread and to please continue to make the many well-reasoned, well-thought-out points you are making.

[butterbumps!]

You are assuming there weren't always some "Crasters" out there before the Craster we know of existed. Anyway, having Craster available to the NW did make the difference between life and death for the rangers. And I would hardly call it an easy fix if having it tipped the balance of life and death.

We can't just assume that there were other Crasters before this. Mormont's trying to make himself look less like an asshole here, so if this was some long held tradition, you'd think he'd remark on it.

The reality of bedding with Craster is that in exchange for the lives of a few rangers, the Others were raised/ strengthened by Craster's continued existence. Good for a handful of rangers, bad the for the realm. And bad for the realm because he's in league with the damn enemy the Watch is supposed to be fighting in the first place.

The point I've been speaking to is that we can't take Mormont's words about getting in with bad people and staying neutral from this episode as some premise from which to base an assertion about non-involvement because sometimes doing so has wildly devastating, perhaps unforeseen, consequences.

[Lykos]

Butterbumps!, I know you were just wondering. I think Stannis posed the only possible solution as we see in Manderly using Davos, but I think Jon was right to be extremely cautious in his dealings with Stannis and especially Melisandre.

My take on this is extremely wobbly.

I changed my opinion, from thinking Jon already let himself be drawn too far into their schemes and will start to trust Mel should she save him, to Jon managed things admirably and prevented Mel from succeeding (to get him to go to Winterfell most likely), to it wasn´t really Jon who managed things, but the "three eyed crow" - the collective consciousness of the Old Gods that messed with Mel´s visions and influenced Ghost and Mormont´s raven, three times at least while writing this sentence.

[Winterfellian]

About Craster and the NW, I think we ought to contemplate it as the easy choice, because that is exactly what it is. This is something I really took issue with in regards to the second essay. The author seems to use Mormont’s words to put the concept of neutrality in this neat little spot, to fit his own black and white mentality approach towards Jon’s situation, when in reality neutrality is too rich and complex a concept to approach in such a simplified way.

Personally I think both Mormont’s speech and Aemon’s ought to be looked as mirrors of each other. If Maester Aemon’s speech encouraged us to analyze the individual cost for the price of choosing to remain neutral, the NW’s attitude towards Craster invites us to analyze what happens when is other people who directly paid this price. For Aemon neutrality was the hardest choice, in the case of Craster and the NW it seems that is actually the easiest one.

What we can take of this is that the choice to remain neutral (when there is such a choice, which I don’t think is the case for Jon and the NW) does not put the individual/institution who chooses it in this high pedestal detached from those around him. Neutrality can be both a means to further the purpose of an institution such as the NW, as well as create a situation that helps and oppressor and not the victim. The line between this two is not as defined as the author seems to approach.

If anything I think Mormont’s words and the Watch approach towards Craster exemplifies perfectly how taking the easy road can lead to the corruption of the fundamentals of an institution. In their choice to take the easy road, in view of THEIR benefit, they are passively contributing to the strengthening of their own true enemy, The Others.

[Mladen]

Zunni, I don't see any of Bran's posts as harassing. So let's try to avoid going down that direction, shall we?

Oh, dear, it's too late... We have been on that part ever since Bran started behaving that way...

I'd like to urge Here Me Meow not to exit this thread and to please continue to make the many well-reasoned, well-thought-out points you are making.

And those of us who disagree with you, they can, or have to go? I imagine, that is the logic behind certain open hostility towards those that actually dared to read your essays and disagree with them, for no open-minded person would remind Apple Martini not to come to thread like you have done.

I don't have a reason to doubt Mormont's words. Jon asked him point blank whether he knew about Craster's sacrifices. Mormont could have easily denied it. He didn't. So I trust his words.

As butterbumps perfectly noted, Craster hasn't been around since the dawn of time. So, apparently he is replaceable, or at least not as necessary as you think. Simply, Craster is an easy way.

[Lykos]

Well said, Winterfellian.

<snip>

I doubt the NW is capable of maintaining their own shelter when they can barely maintain what they have at the Wall. And I would imagine a lonely outpost north of the Wall would not survive long to make a real difference due to all the wildling attacks such a shelter would draw.

To use Adam Feldman´s words with regard to Jon and seeking aid from the Boltons / Lannisters. They didn´t try as far as we know.

[Sansa_Stark]

We can't just assume that there were other Crasters before this. Mormont's trying to make himself look less like an asshole here, so if this was some long held tradition, you'd think he'd remark on it.

The reality of bedding with Craster is that in exchange for the lives of a few rangers, the Others were raised/ strengthened by Craster's continued existence. Good for a handful of rangers, bad the for the realm. And bad for the realm because he's in league with the damn enemy the Watch is supposed to be fighting in the first place.

The point I've been speaking to is that we can't take Mormont's words about getting in with bad people and staying neutral from this episode as some premise from which to base an assertion about non-involvement because sometimes doing so has wildly devastating, perhaps unforeseen, consequences.

I think you are being a little bit unfair to Mormont though. Possibly everything we do can have wildly devastating, perhaps unforeseen, consequences.

It could be as simple as taking your family out to dinner. And then bam! Drunk driver.

[nirolo]

We can't just assume that there were other Crasters before this. Mormont's trying to make himself look less like an asshole here, so if this was some long held tradition, you'd think he'd remark on it.

The reality of bedding with Craster is that in exchange for the lives of a few rangers, the Others were raised/ strengthened by Craster's continued existence. Good for a handful of rangers, bad the for the realm. And bad for the realm because he's in league with the damn enemy the Watch is supposed to be fighting in the first place.

The point I've been speaking to is that we can't take Mormont's words about getting in with bad people and staying neutral from this episode as some premise from which to base an assertion about non-involvement because sometimes doing so has wildly devastating, perhaps unforeseen, consequences.

I would argue that Mormont saw working with Caster as a necessary evil conducive to the greater purpose of the Watch, which is to fight the Wildings at that time. The threat of the Others barely even registered in AGoT. So I don't know how you can blame him for something he could not have foreseen. Unless your argument is no one should ever work with anyone who is evil.

Well said, Winterfellian.

To use Adam Feldman´s words with regard to Jon and seeking aid from the Boltons / Lannisters. They didn´t try as far as we know.

Why try if it's doomed to fail? And of course you counter argument would be, how do you know it's doomed to fail if you don't try. :drunk:

[butterbumps!]

I think you are being a little bit unfair to Mormont though. Possibly everything we do can have wildly devastating, perhaps unforeseen, consequences.

It could be as simple as taking your family out to dinner. And then bam! Drunk driver.

I agree you to an extent. I do think a critical look at Mormont might be an interesting exercise (we've been kind of hard on him in the current Jon reread actually-- and a bit hard on Jon too), but I'm not sure Mormont ought to be raked over the coals for the Craster-Other business.

For background, the author of the essays under debate posited that we should take Mormont's words to Jon wrt not getting involved with Craster at face value, and was using this as a premise to posit further assertions that intervention is incorrect. My investment in the Mormont-Craster issue is merely to say that this can't be taken as some sort of rule based on what Mormont says here, as this would be a case where intervention would have been justified, if not only for moral good, but as a means of protecting the realm.

@Nirolo-- I'm not arguing about whether Mormont ought to be chastised for this (I do happen to believe Mormont behaved wrongly, but that's not what I'm arguing about in the thread). The author of the essays took this example and turned it into a rule that he then based further conclusions on. I'm not beating up Mormont here so much as challenging whether this intervention business can be taken a rule, as per the essays.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

If anything I think Mormont’s words and the Watch approach towards Craster exemplifies perfectly how taking the easy road can lead to the corruption of the fundamentals of an institution. In their choice to take the easy road, in view of THEIR benefit, they are passively contributing to the strengthening of their own true enemy, The Others.

Very well said.

I'd like to urge Here Me Meow not to exit this thread and to please continue to make the many well-reasoned, well-thought-out points you are making.

So people who agree with you can stay in and have a circle jerk, everyone else out. Right?

[Sansa_Stark]

fair enough

[nirolo]

@ butterbumps!

Would you care explaining what actions you believe Mormont should have taken with respect to Craster and your reasons for believing that? I think I know what your arguments are, but it would be nice to have you clarify it.

[King Aerys the Just]

Well, couldn't he just have killed Craster and then seized his "keep" as a base for the Watch?

[Sansa_Stark]

Well, couldn't he just have killed Craster and then seized his "keep" as a base for the Watch?

In a way, that's really messed up.

This is a guy who is providing you food and shelter when you need it.

Sure, you can kill him, but usually he is protected by guest rights, and Mormont isn't a dick. He was grateful even for meager help that Craster gave him once.

[King Aerys the Just]

In a way, that's really messed up.

This is a guy who is providing you food and shelter when you need it.

Sure, you can kill him, but usually he is protected by guest rights, and Mormont isn't a dick. He was grateful even for meager help that Craster gave him once.

Meh.

He didn't need to kill him while there as a guest either. He could have just sent a party of rangers from Castle Black to take Craster's head when he had the men and time to spare.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Well, couldn't he just have killed Craster and then seized his "keep" as a base for the Watch?

Sure, if he wanted to violate guest right and thus become cursed.

[butterbumps!]

@ butterbumps!

Would you care explaining what actions you believe Mormont should have taken with respect to Craster and your reasons for believing that? I think I know what your arguments are, but it would be nice to have you clarify it.

Winterfellian did a fantastic job of articulating it fully.

The situation is that Craster was the easy option for the rangers. For the benefit of not having to go back to previous ways of coping or finding new ones, they opted to tolerate his indisputable heinousness. The option shouldn't have been either/ or-- Craster was not the only way for rangers to survive, but they got in bed with this monster for short-term, small gains.

The lesson that's being taken was that sometimes you have to get in bed with obvious immoral enemies for the greater good of serving the Watch. This sets up a false dichotomy though-- Mormont may rationalize Craster as essential, but the reality is that Craster was not always there, there had been other ways, and they completely compromised their morality by going for the lazy solution. And to make it worse, not only was he incestuously raping his daughters, he was supporting the actual enemy of the Watch the whole time.

Well, couldn't he just have killed Craster and then seized his "keep" as a base for the Watch?

"answered prayer."