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

[Adam Feldman]

My thoughts on Alys Karstark and Hardhome, in Part IV.

[bemused]

Since Harrion is supposedly still alive, though captive, Jon has not given the rule of a northern house to the Thenns. Everyone in the north knows that the marriage planned for Alys by her uncles would be usurping the seat. And in the absence of the heir, or new lord, the match is acceptable to the next in line , Alys herself. Jon brokered the match , but he didn't impose it. Now a woman grown and flowered , Alyse is considered an adult and can speak up against her uncles trying to steal her claim.

Is Jon taking a risk ? Yes, but I think it's a calculated risk...And any leader who is afraid to take risk is probably doomed to failure. ( That sounds like Bowen ) He does have to guard against reckless risk, and I think Jon generally does this well.

We don't get to witness every thought that crosses his mind. We never do ,with any charcter. The pragmatic reasons for rescuing the people at Hardhome are obvious to him. It's not a thing he has to agonize over , or explain to himself , or question his own motives. He shouldn't have to explain all the exhaustive reasoning behind his every decision to his immediate subordinates. And it would have been a waste of time, since they balk at any new idea.

Unfortunately, when he was elected , he didn't have a wide selection of men that would have allowed him to immediately name new officers.We know he could have , because Bowen comes to him immediately afterwrd to say he'd be happy to stay on as chief steward if Jon wanted him to. It was ( rightly) important to Jon to have men he trusted leading the new garrisons ... And to keep the known troublemakers and malcontents close at hand, to keep an eye on them ... He made an exception of Thorne , hoping that Thorne would rise to the opportunity of command, while distance from Jon would keep him from being too disruptive , and this might actually be Jon's gravest miscalculation.

( Jon would have given the same chance to Slynt but he was stupid enough to respond with open disobedience )

But because we don't know what Jon really thought of the pink letter, and because we don't know what his calculations were with Tormund, it's too soon to truly judge his decisions. We don't know what they all were. He says ,of the letter " No. There is truth in there." , but though unspoken, the way that statement is phrased implies that there are lies in there as well. And we don't yet know how Jon had it all sorted in his mind.

Because we don't know what numbers Jon and Tormund had settled on, we don't know how many watch men Tormund will want to take. I can't imagine they would be all watch men. Tormund would have to be able to keep command of them... and I can't imagine Jon would strip the wall of men, anyway.... I really can't imagine that he would have given command to Bowen in his absence. A trip of a few hours to the weirwood grove is one thing.. but knowing first hand of Bowen's folly when Mormont left him in charge , and after all Bowen's talk of sealing the gates , I'm betting Iron Emmet or one of the other men Jon can trust would have been recalled temporarily, to take command.

Therefore, I'll be reserving judgement about how foolish or reckless these plans might be until the next book.

Once again, I really must stress that Jon's instincts are important , perhaps equally important as his deductive faculties. With suddenly resurgent magic forming the backdrop of the story , and the Starks' long history of marshalling and protecting the North ...sometimes even needing to take the lead over the Watch ( see Raymun Redbeard ) ... Jon's intuitive impulses should not be shrugged off , or seen as a weakness.

There were some very good points made, upthread, about choices needing to sit well with the heart as well as the head. ( pardon me if that's not the best paraphrase ) I think they are of utmost importance.

Now ,I'm making a prediction , but I think there are already clues pointing to Val and Dalla belonging to a special class of seers akin to the Norse Vala. I've developed this at length elsewhwere but to be brief, These women held a respected , even inviolate position in their society , and could wander about freely without fear of coming to harm. They were particularly sought out to ascertain the best location to launch a battle , or whatever the desired undertaking was. Locations and routes and finding would be a specialty. Sometimes they would tie their fortunes to a particular leader they believed in, even marry him , helping him to greatness or losing their own cachet if he failed..

Mance says he "met" Dalla on his return from WF.. after the many hints sprinkled here and there, I suggest she knew where to find him him , as Val was sure she knew where she must go, and confident of her safety when she went to find Tormund.

Jon has been kept ignorant of this because with Mel in such close proximity , and so agressively opposed to anything to do with other gods, it was not safe to reveal. But now , I predict she ( and Morna white Mask ) will be Jon's Bonus ..a couple of surprise aces up his sleeve.

Thus I think predictions of his downfall/ demise/ ruin are extremely premature.. Simultaneously Bloodraven/Bran/ the CoTF are not idle ,and so many of the BR/CoTF efforts have been bent on positioning Starks at the magical power points in the North... We don't know what's developing there , or how fast it will develop with the addition of Bran to their enclave ... And I think it's equally unwise to ignore the portents around the existence of the GNC , whichever form it's eventually revealed to take..

My own predictions may or may not be right., but there are others.. The point is, there are characters and situations that are obviously going to undergo development that will in some way dovetail with Jon's arc, and may play a part in how his decisions are ultimately to be seen.

Jon has been undergoing an apprenticeship in tactical thinking and finding the truth in forgotten and disintegrating oaths, purposes, practices of the institution. Simultaneously , he's been growing more attuned to "the Old Gods"...all of which I believe , will prove to be very necessary, if there's to be hope of success against the Others.

It's very possible that what is necessary is for Jon to take on the kind of authority wielded by the old Kings of Winter.

Too much is up in the air to predict exactly how it will all be resolved . We can't , well shouldn't, be handing down definitive judgement on the wisdom of his actions , yet.

[Lummel]

Thank you for your contribution, Ragnorak, and for posting those passages. But I feel you are conflating (I) the Watch being in need of reform and slow to awaken to the return of an 8,000 year old enemy, with (II) the idea that the Watch should affirmatively not tolerate corruption, injustice, and evil in certain instances like Craster's for the greater good, and instead should affirmatively try to right such wrongs.

... one of Martin's themes is that a leader must tolerate and even commit some injustices for the greater good...

The irony is that even this moral compromise, which hurts and angers Sam so, is all to try and save one baby from the flames. Later there will be even tougher moral dilemmas for Jon that pit Arya, Alys, and Hardhome against the "greater good" of the continued existence of the Watch and its preparation for the Others in general.

This is an ends justifies the means argument. But here in addition to having to have faith in that notion of a greater good we also have to belive that the Watch is capable of delievering those means. Unfortunately it isn't.

If the Watch was swept way at the end of ADWD an adequate defence could still be provided by the Wildlings and the King's Men, however without the Wildlings and the King's Men could the Watch hold the line with less than the three and a third men per mile that Mormont and Tyrion spoke about in AGOT? The Watch we see is irrelvent to the holding of the frontier, in some ways it's patterns and habits of thinking are a hinderance to its ostensible purpose.

Further the means come to shape the ends. The either/or between a greater good and a personal good is a false one and this is another link between the Jon and Daenerys narratives. Xaro's argument to Daenerys is that a sublime life for the few can only be achieved on through the slavery of the many. Here you are suggesting that a human controlled Westeros can be achieved through acts including the sacrifice of humans, individually and in their thousands. That potentially the Watch should tolerate the Bolton supremacy in order to defend the frontier.

We might here remember the Night's Watch oath to be a shield to guard the realms of men. We might also ask what is the value of holding a frontier if that serves to preserve Bolton rule just as we would question a civilisation dependant on the suffering of others to preserve a gilded life for the few.

Craster here is a good point. If Craster was just a wildling, a source of information about other less friendly wildlings that would support an argument that dealing with him supports a greater good. But in this case we know that he is involved with the White Walkers and therefore supporting him and dealing wiht him directly undermines the Watch's goal of shielding the realms of men. That the Watch isn't able to realise that there is something nasty in the woodshed - and in Jon III there are plenty of odd things that Craster says that suggest that something isn't kosher about him - invites us to realise that the Watch may not as an institution to be able to correctly identify what the greater good mmight be even if it broke into the Lord Commander's tower and killed various watchmen before rousing Mormont naked from his slumber. A suspicion reinforced by how easily the leadership are distracted by Wildling movements and forget about the wights.

The idea that is is a theme in ASOIAF that a leader must tolerate some injustices for the greate good is an interesting one, perhaps you have some examples that back that up. The ones that come to my mind are Tywin's toleration of Gregor Clegane, King Bob's toleration of Janos Slynt, or of Lord Baelish, maybe Roose Bolton's toleration of Ramsey Snow. I'm struggling to think of examples that don't show us that the character has a defective moral compass.

[The Crow]

Stannis losing?

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

No.

[SeanF]

Thanks again for the essay.

Jon is taking a side by providing shelter to Alys Karstark, and marrying her to the Magnar. As against that, her uncle and his sons are violating the law, as you acknowledge. If "taking no part" means tolerating blatant criminality taking place under your nose, then it seems like a worthless doctrine to me. Marriage to the Magnar at least gives Alys the chance to hold or her inheritance, or to secure it for her brother, against the usurpers.

WRT Hardhome, I think the arguments are quite finely balanced. Sending out men across country runs the risk of reinforcing failure. On the other hand, even with wildling reinforcements, Jon still has a very small force to guard 300 miles of Wall, plus spots at either end where the Wall can be flanked. His fear of the Wall being attacked by thousands of wights is not fanciful. Also, no good commander will willingly leave his own men at Hardhome to their fate.

[Julian Rayne]

I don't see how 'neutrality' applies to the Alys Karstark situation. She came into Watch territory and asked for guest right. Her uncle came in arms to the gift. The LC of the Watch is the Lord of the Gift and New Gift. Neutrality doesn't extend to allowing people to do anything they like on your land.

P.S. I apologize if this is a multiple post, either my browser or the forum is acting up.

[Yield.]

This is an ends justifies the means argument. But here in addition to having to have faith in that notion of a greater good we also have to belive that the Watch is capable of delievering those means. Unfortunately it isn't.

If the Watch was swept way at the end of ADWD an adequate defence could still be provided by the Wildlings and the King's Men, however without the Wildlings and the King's Men could the Watch hold the line with less than the three and a third men per mile that Mormont and Tyrion spoke about in AGOT? The Watch we see is irrelvent to the holding of the frontier, in some ways it's patterns and habits of thinking are a hinderance to its ostensible purpose.

Further the means come to shape the ends. The either/or between a greater good and a personal good is a false one and this is another link between the Jon and Daenerys narratives. Xaro's argument to Daenerys is that a sublime life for the few can only be achieved on through the slavery of the many. Here you are suggesting that a human controlled Westeros can be achieved through acts including the sacrifice of humans, individually and in their thousands. That potentially the Watch should tolerate the Bolton supremacy in order to defend the frontier.

We might here remember the Night's Watch oath to be a shield to guard the realms of men. We might also ask what is the value of holding a frontier if that serves to preserve Bolton rule just as we would question a civilisation dependant on the suffering of others to preserve a gilded life for the few.

Craster here is a good point. If Craster was just a wildling, a source of information about other less friendly wildlings that would support an argument that dealing with him supports a greater good. But in this case we know that he is involved with the White Walkers and therefore supporting him and dealing wiht him directly undermines the Watch's goal of shielding the realms of men. That the Watch isn't able to realise that there is something nasty in the woodshed - and in Jon III there are plenty of odd things that Craster says that suggest that something isn't kosher about him - invites us to realise that the Watch may not as an institution to be able to correctly identify what the greater good mmight be even if it broke into the Lord Commander's tower and killed various watchmen before rousing Mormont naked from his slumber. A suspicion reinforced by how easily the leadership are distracted by Wildling movements and forget about the wights.

The idea that is is a theme in ASOIAF that a leader must tolerate some injustices for the greate good is an interesting one, perhaps you have some examples that back that up. The ones that come to my mind are Tywin's toleration of Gregor Clegane, King Bob's toleration of Janos Slynt, or of Lord Baelish, maybe Roose Bolton's toleration of Ramsey Snow. I'm struggling to think of examples that don't show us that the character has a defective moral compass.

Off the top of my head I can think of only a few characters:

Ned tolerated the Boltons and King Robert's multiple crimes of condonement (is that a word?). Hoster Tully tolerated the Freys. Maester Aemon tolerated NWs the state of decay and his great nephew's lack of help. Davos tolerates Stannis.

Wish I had time to reply to the rest of your post which I find quite interesting and to which I have a number of questions.

[butterbumps!]

@ adam

How did you come to settle on your premises? The problem with your essays is not really logical validity, but in having faulty premises from which all subsequent logic is based. It's frustrating because the essays aren't exactly invalid, but rather, unsound because the premises are so flawed, and I would be more interested to see a fuller analysis of how you reached these premises than additional essays based off the rubric you've been using, since this is where our disagreement stems.

I didn't read the Dany essays as thoroughly as the Jon ones, but in my opinion, what you've produced is a series of essays that essentially say "Jon's arc is black and white," and this seems to stem from the misplaced binaries you've imposed on it that seem to take root from the primary rubric you're using.

I think without addressing the premise, debate over the products of your premise are increasingly fruitless, so I'll refrain from arguments over these additional essays, but I strongly encourage you to articulate your premises more fully so that those can be discussed independently of your essays.

[Lummel]

Off the top of my head I can think of only a few characters:

Ned tolerated the Boltons and King Robert's multiple crimes of condonement (is that a word?). Hoster Tully tolerated the Freys. Maester Aemon tolerated NWs the state of decay and his great nephew's lack of help. Davos tolerates Stannis.

Wish I had time to reply to the rest of your post which I find quite interesting and to which I have a number of questions.

er, the only example that comes close to a leader tolerating injustice for a greater good would be Hoster Tully and in that case the freys were just late not unjust. The Boltons historically had a bad reputation, but Roose was careful to prevent rumours of some of his hobbies from reaching Winterfell. The others aren't the leaders of their organisation. So as I said I'm struggling to see leaders tolerating injustices for the greater good presented as a positive thing being a theme in ASOIAF.

[Jô Maltese]

What an awesome thread (and links) this is . It took me the whole afternoon to read (most of) it.

@Adam Feldman, I am mostly onboard with you wrt your leadership analysis of Dany and Jon - and especially on the fact that leadership aptitude (and not moral value - although moral value is a strong ingredient for effective leadership) is the key to understand the arcs GRRM is building for the main characters (the IT contenders). And yes, I agree both Dany and Jon have failed their leadership test so far, IMO mostly because Dany did trust too many people (the Green Grace or the Shavepate for instance) and Jon not enough or not the right ones (Mormont, Sam, Aemon, Marsh...). In other words, they failed to take onboard the right advices and right clues to rationally assess situations and followed their inner instincts or feelings instead of observing and listening (cf. the OODA loop: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act). Therefore, neither of them have found the right balance between dispensing welfare (humanity, justice...) to their people and ensuring survival to their political entity in order to govern effectively. Like Robb, or Napoleon in real history, they are tactical geniuses but strategic dummies (for now).

I wonder where you are aiming at with your essays? Am I to expect a 3rd series focused on Tyrion? Because this is where a similar leadership-focussed (re)reading like yours took me: the character that has shown the greater leadership ability so far is clearly Tyrion for me, obviously in his strategic assessments, his acceptance to make unpopular but politically necessary decisions, but also quite unexpectedly good in other areas, like charism ('half man! half man!) or humanity (Bran, Sansa, his justice decisions). Is GRRM taking his arc to the IT then? And aiming at a final better world as (partially at least) seen by Varys: a rationally-ruled kingdom, with no more magic, no more rigid vows, no more state religion but where peace, justice and welfare prevail? Is GRRM intention to tell us (again, like Varys) that what is good for the realm is not necessarily the legitimate ruler but the more apt to it? The problem with Tyrion is his moral image (but not his true moral values - yet) and (and therefore) his legitimacy... But his 'queen' Sansa could give him a moral voucher... And his riding a Dragon (as a Targ or not) could give him the legitimacy... Crackpot, I know.

ETA: grammar

[Ser Pollo Loco]

@ adam

How did you come to settle on your premises? The problem with your essays is not really logical validity, but in having faulty premises from which all subsequent logic is based. It's frustrating because the essays aren't exactly invalid, but rather, unsound because the premises are so flawed, and I would be more interested to see a fuller analysis of how you reached these premises than additional essays based off the rubric you've been using, since this is where our disagreement stems.

I didn't read the Dany essays as thoroughly as the Jon ones, but in my opinion, what you've produced is a series of essays that essentially say "Jon's arc is black and white," and this seems to stem from the misplaced binaries you've imposed on it that seem to take root from the primary rubric you're using.

I think without addressing the premise, debate over the products of your premise are increasingly fruitless, so I'll refrain from arguments over these additional essays, but I strongly encourage you to articulate your premises more fully so that those can be discussed independently of your essays.

Beyond using presumptions as fact to reach conclusions, it's the desire to read either Jon or Dany's arc as a success or failure at any one point of ADWD (my guess). This whole noble heart theory leads to Jon's downfall is Robb 2.0

The essay's also assume that Jon never gets a demand for Mel/Selyse after a Stannis defeat regardless of what Jon does

[Greymoon]

I don't see how 'neutrality' applies to the Alys Karstark situation. She came into Watch territory and asked for guest right. Her uncle came in arms to the gift. The LC of the Watch is the Lord of the Gift and New Gift. Neutrality doesn't extend to allowing people to do anything they like on your land.

P.S. I apologize if this is a multiple post, either my browser or the forum is acting up.

Especially since "pure" neutrality does not exist, and even the "neutrality" that the Red Cross claims is filled with moral dilemmas. I’m talking about the ICRC and humanitarian organizations because “neutrality” and “impartiality” are very often discussed within the humanitarian realm, and while the NW, Jon’s decisions and humanitarianism are quite different topics, the latter’s definition of what “neutrality” is and isn’t remains valid.

Historically speaking the definition of a pure, unblemished and “apolitical” neutrality appeared in the 19th century – this neutral state is considered impossible to achieve and one has to wonder if it is even "desirable":

On the matter of moral dilemmas, being "neutral" or following a doctrine of "strict pre-determined" neutrality has for example, led the ICRC to disregard crimes committed in concentration camps during WWII – to name only one blatant example of what a strict neutrality might encompass. Other humanitarian organizations will claim that being "neutral" does not mean that one should remain blind to injustice and flagrant disregards of human lives.

Prior to the 19^th century, “neutrality” was not a pure but an imperfect state. It was a claim, a political strategy that allowed one to stand outside of a conflict and not be “endangered” or troubled by it.

Scholars like Peter Redfield have thus defined neutrality (today and in the middle ages) as a “framework,” a claim that resembles a religious sanctuary. Claiming neutrality is a political act and by no means "apolitical," since the claim's main goal is to preserve the interests of the "neutral party." In that sense, being neutral does not equal being "altruistic" and having no personal, political or economic motivations/gains in mind.

During a crisis or war preserving the interest of a neutral party might mean the continuation of trade – access to victims and security of the staff in case of humanitarian relief. Therefore, "neutrality" doesn't necessarily forbid to act or to take action – in short, it doesn’t forbid the involvement in affairs that are not directly linked to the war effort.

e.g.: a trader or a State might declare "neutral" and not take part in a conflict, that doesn't mean that the trader and/or State will not trade with the (multiple) warring parties. Declaring "neutrality" in that sense, would permit the untroubled continuation of trade.

With this more flexible definition of neutrality and not the "pure" model of the 19th century, it might reasonably be argued that Jon did not in fact breach the Night's Watch's neutrality. As some have pointed out, Alys is a woman grown, and he did not force the marriage on her, she agreed to it.

Furthermore – if the assumption that the NW still falls under the jurisdiction of the IT, and that the laws do not "stop" at the gift is correct – what Alys's uncle meant to do went against the laws of the Seven Kingdoms. Jon is the LC of the Night's Watch, yes, but he is also still, a citizen of the Seven Kingdoms. The Night's Watch does not make laws, but on his territory, Jon has the right and duty to protect the laws of the 7K.

Moreover, in marrying Alys to the Magnar Jon is also protecting/advancing the interest of the Watch. Though it may be said that he is “provoking” the Boltons and Kartstarks, he is not taking up arms in any outward manner.

Depending on the way one wishes to look at it, Jon was either 1) defending the laws of the 7k, 2) protecting a guest 3) advancing the interests of the Watch or 4) breaking with the NW's neutrality. 1, 2 and 3 are not to be dismissed and would have served as a shield to justify his actions.

Lastly, at this point neither Alys nor the Magnar officially declared for one King over the other. Alys declared against her uncle, and spoke against the Boltons. But she did not claim to side with Stannis. She chose Jon, and chose him explicitly because he is a son of Eddard Stark, not because he is LC or because he is hosting Stannis. This could eventually serve as a shield against accusations of Jon breaching the NW’s neutrality – the two people he married are of 'unknown' allegiance and it might even be said that their allegiance is to Jon in particular and by extension to the NW.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

Thank you for the new essay..

It is well written.. I enjoyed reading it. But this one is the one with which i disagree the most..

A) Alys karskark:

One cannot help his nature. If Jon wants to help Alys/hardome Wildlings, because of noble intentions, so be it. But his actions as LC shouldn´t be judged on that, but rather on the Cost/benefit equation of each decision he takes. Does helping alys enhance the NW capabilities? What are the risks (Potential costs) for the NW? The “saving arya” mission has no upside for the NW, besides its condemnable as a violation of the Neutrality convention. The alys karstark issue is not

Besides, the NW still has plausible deniability. It is not a coincidence that Melisandre acts as priest, and the wedding is carried on by Rhllor traditions, even though both parties pray to the old gods. We have a gap there, but to me it´s clear that Jon sought the queen´s permission, and he makes it look like it was her doing, as proxy of the King. After all marriage deals are done with the consent of overlords. Since Stannis never actually named a lord paramount of the north, he himself should approve marriages of northern lords and ladies. Being absent, Jon makes sure it looks like Selyse doing.

Theon plays Jon´s role in “arya´s” wedding, and no one would blame him for brokering the marriage. Jon´s “brings” the bride, since her closest relatives are either dead, or trying to steal her lands and castle. Being the last “Stark”, the Host, and the Lord Commander of the NW, his role seems reasonable.

The NW´s role is really not that much. They take the lady of Karhold as a guest (Should they reject her?). They intercept her pursuers, and only take them as prisoners once they initiate hostilities by attacking the NW in the NW´s jurisdiction (Should they allow them to march on Castle black and take their guest away from the NW protection?). Lastly, they offer their castle and hospitality to carry on the ceremony. I guess, they could reject to the wedding taking place in their castle, but still it´s a pretty weak interference in the realm disputes.

The benefits to the NW are pretty straightforward. The wedding solves the Thenn issue which would turn problematic at some point, it helps in terms of cultural integration at the wall and between the wildlings and northerns, and finally it helps to secure the aid of Karhold during the winter.

Is it the same as “giving” northern lands and castles to Wildlings, as Stannis planned? Of course not, the lady of Karhold herself wants to marry the Magnar. Who is Jon to oppose it?

“A son comes before an uncle by all the laws I know… A daughter comes before an uncle too. If her brother is dead, Karhold belongs to Lady Alys. And she has given her hand in marriage to Sigorn, Magnar of Thenn.”

Again, even if Bolton were to win, and blame Jon for the marriage, the NW would still be safe. You do this a lot, but you seem to regard Jon´s fate and the NW´s fate as the same thing. If a Lord Commander violates the neutrality convention, he could pay the price, but the NW won´t be destroyed for it.

After all, we have been told of many occasions when mayor breaches to the NW oath and traditions were done, but the NW is still standing. I´m guessing a Stark Lord usually marches on to Castle black, and demand the heads of the responsible, most likely the lord commanders and close advisors. The same thing would happen in whatever secret plots Jon participates to help stannis, or a northern lady.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

Snip

This.

All excellent points.

This one in particular since it helps to analyze most of Jon´s decisions with regards to Stannis:

e.g.: a trader or a State might declare "neutral" and not take part in a conflict, that doesn't mean that the trader and/or State will not trade with the (multiple) warring parties. Declaring "neutrality" in that sense, would permit the untroubled continuation of trade.

This is exactly what Jon has been doing in most of his dealings with Stannis: Trading favors, to enhance the NW capabilities. In a war, neutral states will keep trade, and international relations on a broad level with all parties involved in the war. The neutral state still sells to the highest bidder, and buys to those with lowest prices and so on...

Does this mean the said state is picking sides? of course not, the neutral state will do whatever is in its best interest.

To The NW, the benefits of the wedding are pretty straigthforward.

[SeanF]

Greymoon, that's very interesting about neutrality. There's a third category, too "belligerence". A State plainly favours one side in a war, and helps them, but stops short of declaring war on their opponent.

[Treemaster]

This thread is great, and I wish I had more time to deeply delve into the analysis over the particular points of debate. A lot of these fine points are unfortunately a bit over my head, since I lack the time to go back and study the chapters and to take sides. What strikes me, though, and the reason I am posting, is that, despite all the disagreement over Jon's specific actions, everyone seems to agree on the more fundamental point: Jon's arc presents Jon with a series of uncomfortable moral and political decisions, where there is not always a clear cut "right" or "wrong" answer, and where Jon's strict adherence to his oaths may conflict with what his heart tells him is the right thing to do. Thus, Jon's unexpected "downfall" at the end of ADwD (at least, it was unexpected to me) is actually well-developed and foreshadowed in Jon's chapters.

I'm feeling that some of the more knowledgeable posters may be losing the forest for the trees. Of course, being less familiar with the trees than these posters, I could be way off, as always!

[Lummel]

...Thus, Jon's unexpected "downfall" at the end of ADwD (at least, it was unexpected to me) is actually well-developed and foreshadowed in Jon's chapters...

Yes, in my in opinion you are entirely right, on the reread, when we're not hurrying to get to the end of ADWD and find out everything that is going on in Westeros, all the signs of trouble are there building up as the story moves on. Same too with Daenerys, the atmosphere of being trapped in a situation that she feels she can't escape from builds from chapter to chapter.

[butterbumps!]

This thread is great, and I wish I had more time to deeply delve into the analysis over the particular points of debate. A lot of these fine points are unfortunately a bit over my head, since I lack the time to go back and study the chapters and to take sides. What strikes me, though, and the reason I am posting, is that, despite all the disagreement over Jon's specific actions, everyone seems to agree on the more fundamental point: Jon's arc presents Jon with a series of uncomfortable moral and political decisions, where there is not always a clear cut "right" or "wrong" answer, and where Jon's strict adherence to his oaths may conflict with what his heart tells him is the right thing to do. Thus, Jon's unexpected "downfall" at the end of ADwD (at least, it was unexpected to me) is actually well-developed and foreshadowed in Jon's chapters.

I'm feeling that some of the more knowledgeable posters may be losing the forest for the trees. Of course, being less familiar with the trees than these posters, I could be way off, as always!

Well, actually, those of us disagreeing with the essays are disagreeing largely because the essays do present it as there being clear right and wrong, so there really isn't agreement on those fundamental points. So it's not arguing over details as much as we're arguing over which forest we're even supposed to be looking at.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

2) Hardhome:

Again, one cannot help his own nature. Jon´s thought process with regards to the reasons to sanction the hardhome mission is a very secondary argument.

He should be judged on terms of cost/benefit for the Night´s watch. Will it help in the war for the dawn 2.0? Are those benefits worth the risk?

There must be tens of thousands of Wildlings scattered beyond the wall, in whatever refuges they found. Those are lost to the NW. They can´t send rangers to look for them and bring them back to the wall. But Jon does have information on two mayor free folk groups. Mother mole´s and the Weeper´s.

One could argue that Hardhome is too risky, and Jon should have tried to deal with the Weeper faction first.

But still, every wildling north of the wall is a future potential enemy. And any Wildling saved, is a potential ally (we have plenty of evidence that the NW has use for every man,woman, and child). If the NW conducts a mission to save the Hardhome people, they would be highly regarded by the wildlings at the wall, and of course by those saved. Even the weeper´s faction would know the benefits of seeking terms of peace.

a) Defensive force multiplier: True a man on a wall is worth many men below the wall. But Wights are not men. We know they have super strength, climbing the wall may not be so hard to them as to wilding raiders. The defensive force multiplier isn´t that high. Besides an unmanned wall, also loses defensive capabilities. This is the NWs greatest issue at the start of ADWD (and it still is), they only had three very badly manned castles to guard a very long wall. Yes, one man on a wall can deal with many foes below the wall, but if the wall he has to guard is so long, his foes could climb without the defender even noticing. Jon has a desperate need of men to defend the entire wall for it to have such a huge defensive multiplier.

b) Ranging has been ineffective, but for many reasons which really don´t apply to hardome. The rangers now know how to deal with others and Wights. At the fist of the first men, they were a stationary target. In this mission they will be highly mobile at first. And many of the dead from the great ranging were due to internal struggle.

c) Bringing wildlings into the ranging will help the cooperation with the hardome people.

With the rest I agree.

I recommend this essay on hardhome:

http://zincpiccalilli.livejournal.com/11089.html

http://zincpiccalilli.livejournal.com/10948.html

[Adam Feldman]

How did you come to settle on your premises?

I developed this analysis after two years of rereading, discussion, and debate over what Jon's arc is about. My understanding of it has evolved, as I've said, but here are some points describing my general approach:

• I believe Martin designs his arcs in general with themes acutely in mind, rather than just as an unconnected series of events.

I try to isolate the significant decisions made by the characters and analyze the results of those decisions, while thinking about cause and effect, and thematic and character elements.

I focus most closely on the serious moral dilemmas encountered by the characters, since the author himself has said the war within the human heart is the only thing worth writing about. Accordingly, I am less interested in analyzing the parts of the arc where the characters are merely solving practical problems, or in analyses that presuppose characters are "leveling up" like in a videogame, rather than facing tough moral choices.

I look for causality and consequences, and pay close attention to the order of events, since GRRM arranged them in a very specific and particular way after spending 6-10 years fiddling with alternatives.

I am wary of the unreliable narrator. I think the spin on events in our POVs' thoughts is often just that, so we should try to envision how their decisions must look from an objective perspective and from other characters' perspectives, and not take all our POVs' analyses for granted.

And I look closely at the dilemmas and situations Martin designs for the characters, as a clue to his general theme. I look for commonalities of them, and this may be one root of your objection, as you may feel I'm putting everything into "boxes." Instead, I feel the themes are suggested by Martin's deliberate choices in the arc's design.

Jon makes a series of decisions regarding the wildlings, modernization of the Watch, practical preparation to face the Others, and matters of the North. Which decisions in each category are similar, which are different? Which work well, which poorly? Which decisions have the most important implications or consequences? Which decisions cause him the greatest struggle in his heart? Why might Martin have chosen to present him with such decisions?

You and a few others keep misinterpreting my views in saying I believe Jon's moral dilemmas are "black and white," or that I believe vows always have the answer. Not at all. But I am interested in Jon's decisions and their consequences, and what that means for Martin's themes. Is it "black and white" to say that Robb's decision to marry Jeyne Westerling proved to be a dreadful disaster? Of course not, it is merely a realistic view of consequences, with important thematic implications.

The outcome of Jon's ADWD rule appears overwhelmingly likely to be horrible bloodshed at the Wall and the near-term crippling of his efforts to face the Others. Some seem to have the approach of simply assuming this outcome is just a plot-necessary deus ex machina that would have happened in some form no matter what, and that therefore Jon bears no responsibility for it, and that it has no bearing on how we should interpret Jon's choices thematically. I tend to be skeptical of this line of thinking and I instead ask whether there were any decisions Jon could have made to avert this dreadful outcome.

Jon being brought down by the Pink Letter and his reaction to it is a very deliberate design choice by Martin. Martin chose to have Bowen stand aside and let 3,000 wildlings through the Wall. Martin chose to give the Boltons a reasonable casus belli against Jon -- Jon's involvement in the attempt to steal Ramsay's bride -- rather than having the Pink Letter show up unprovoked. As such, Jon's decision to send Mance south looms very large for me. I feel that any analysis of Jon's arc that seeks to minimize the importance of this decision, or pretend that Jon made no decision at all here, or treat this decision as just one minor decision among many he made, utterly misses the purpose of Martin's plot construction.

Hardhome also looms quite large for me. In the words of Yeade, Hardhome is widely "viewed by readers to be an obvious mistake, if not a suicidal folly." Yeade disagrees, but I concur with the strategic and military analysis of these readers. But I wondered why Martin used so much prime real estate in Jon's very last chapter on the Hardhome debate. Could it have very important thematic significance, and a larger bearing on the meaning of Jon's arc as a whole? I feel that other analyses I've read of Jon's arc don't appropriately reckon with Hardhome, and what it signifies for Jon's willingness to take extreme risks to help innocent people. Even Jon defenders have to concede that it is foolish for him to want to lead the ranging himself, and leave the incredibly volatile new status quo he's built at the Wall without adult supervision. So maybe… this is the point? That Jon is acting in a risky, foolish way to try to save innocent life? And maybe this flows into a larger thematic point GRRM is making about Jon's leadership generally?