Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Carrie Ann

Jon Snow: He Knows Nothing

Recommended Posts

It'll be interesting to see how Jon navigates the animosity of Ser Alliser Thorne and Janos Slynt, even with the aid of Maester Aemon. Thorne seems to have enough malice in him to put his own hatred of Jon ahead of the safeguarding of The Wall, though he could surprise us by actually being a real man of the Nights Watch. But Slynt? He already showed he had no understanding of anything, when he scoffed at Jon's story.

Jon has always been one of my favourite characters in the series, because he's one of the few people who genuinely wants to behave honourably and do the right thing, and is prepared to give up his life for the safety of others. Boring to some, but to me that makes him hero material. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that Benioff and Weiss, and maybe even GRRM himself, find the character boring, and would rather devote their energies to the more villainous, 'cool' characters.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm really enjoying Jon Snow so far this season.  He's toughened up a lot.  You could see that beginning at the end of last season: 'you were right the whole time' was awesome - but I think you can really see now how he's changed from season 1.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the actor has gotten better too. Just the little bit we've seen of him in season 4 has been better than most of his pre-season 3 episode 5 stuff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Jon Snow going off solo doesn't inspire me with confidence.

 

In Season 2 he got knocked out because he couldn't keep track of Craster.  He killed Qhorrin Halfhand in a duel to the death, but Quorrhin was trying to lose.

 

In Season 3, Ygritte & the direwolves bailed him out when he wouldn't kill the horse breeder.  Later, Ygritte snuck up on him as if he were invisible and had him dead to rights.  He only survived because Ygritte pulled her punches, as it were.

 

In Season 4, Karl was kicking Jon's ass until one of Craster's wive's stabbed Karl in the back, and later Ollie had his back during the Battle at the Wall.  True, Jon managed to kill the Chief Thenn by himself, but he was losing and were it not for finding that hammer, he would have lost that as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, he did manage to kill a wight on his own in s1, or do we count Mormont as help for bringing the lantern? Either way, yes, his record is not great.

 

I think the actor has gotten better too. Just the little bit we've seen of him in season 4 has been better than most of his pre-season 3 episode 5 stuff.

I think a lot of that is the writing, badass action scenes and sassy comebacks to enemies always comes off great, it's with other material that we got the slackjawed face of confusion and pretty pout face. The writing has been pretty hard to screw up recently, but I still think he wasn't handled great in the first two seasons. IMO the character should come off as somewhat of a dry-humored brooder more than an emo pouter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I started reading the books after I watched the show, so I don't know which mental picture comes first, but in the books (I'm still in the first one) he seems extremely emo to me, especially in some scenes that the show wisely cut (like Tyrion haranguing him to the point of tears until Ghost is about ten seconds away from tearing out his throat). The show does influence me, but I still manage to see characters like Catelyn and Tyrion as different in the book, so I don't know.

 

I don't think Kit is a great actor, or even a particularly good one, but I think he does decently enough. I really don't think there's much material that a better actor would have elevated. Jon's story stalled out for two full seasons while he went on a walkabout and got laid. I think sometimes acting ability is overrated in certain roles. 

 

What mattered with Jon was that he had a believable connection to the Starks (or most of them, as he never really interacted with Sansa or Rickon on the show), that he had a believable bond with Sam, that he had integrity, that he was believable in battle, and that he had chemistry with Ygritte. 

 

I think Kit Harington has had all of this. And this really isn't as easy as some people make out. It's taken for granted, especially romantic chemistry. If Kit and Rose Leslie had had the chemistry of Dany and the Daarios, that would have been a season and a half of uncomfortable garbage.

 

Yes, Jon is somewhat boring, but I think the show needs a character with integrity and heart. The show has more than enough "anti-heroes" and "flawed heroes," and frankly, the show isn't all that great at writing for a lot of them. I like that Jon is a contrast, even if I hope his stories will be less dragged out and kept to the side.

 

He's also the only reason I still care about any Stark reunion, as unlikely as that seems at this point.

Edited by PeteMartell

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, he's definitely a mopey kid in the books, but it feels less pitiful, y'know? Like the scene with Tyrion goes on to

have Ghost attack Tyrion and Jon make him beg for help

and then later when he has that locker room confrontation with Grenn and the gang,

he goes beserker on one of the guys for calling his mama a whore and tries to bash the guy's head in

, so I'd say book Jon has

a certain asshole streak to his brooding that doesn't ever come out on the show,

also I'd say

he has more of a sense of humor.

One scene in s1 where his slackjaw drives me crazy is when he finds Ghost, a 6th direwolf pup, after it was a whole deal that there were only 5 for the legit Stark children. He's not excited to have one of his own after denying himself the option when there were five because his name was Snow and not Stark, he just stares at puppy Ghost and Ghost becomes his because Theon says "ha ha a runty albino, that one should be for the bastard".  (Giving someone a puppy is not an insult, Theon, you idiot.) Why can't Jon show some small sign of happiness? Why can't he tell off Theon? Why is Robb standing there just staring at him smolderingly? Okay, I've just lost my train of thought thinking of smoldering Robb, but okay, what I mean is I don't think Jon Snow needs to be written as so pouty all the time or even so noble Ned-like all the time, but thankfully that hasn't been the case this season. i knew having Janos Slynt at the Wall would be bound to make Jon look cooler.

Edited by Lady S.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Man I really hope she isn't. Remember that Ned didn't even want to tell Bobby B who his mother was. Ned's supposedly all super-noble and all about the honor. So he getting some on the sly does not compute. He married Cat because his older brother was supposed to (or did, I can't remember) and he loved/loves her. He's Mr. Black and White, no room for "Well, just maybe this once." And he promised to tell Jon who his mother was once Jon returned from the Night's Watch training or Ned's return to him (I also can't recall which here) but it definitely felt like a "this is the kind of news I want to make sure you're ready for before I drop the bomb." Personally, I don't think that Ned's even his dad also. I think that whoever his true parents are is some super-secret for Jon's protection. I'm leaning towards a not-dead Targaryen kid kind of similar to how most of Westeros thinks Bran and Rickon are dead...Targaryen mainly because Ned showed up with the kid to Cat right after Robert's Rebellion. Plus, we saw how trigger-happy Bobby B is when it comes to surviving Targaryens. Ned even flipped out and quit being the Hand when Robert set out to actively assasinate Danerys. If Jon is one then that's a pretty good reason why Ned would keep that from Robert. When did Ned's older brother die? Maybe it's his kid and he didn't want to hurt Cat's feelings one way even though it would hurt her a completely other way by her thinking he's Ned's. Or do we know why Benjen wanted to join the Night's Watch? Maybe that honor thing runs in the family and for whatever reason felt shame for having a kid so he joined up. Did they ever tell us where he was during the Rebellion? We already know that Jon and he have a close relationship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdH-dq--lxE

Brandon died before the war actually started, after (idiotically) going to King's Landing to try to get justice from Rhaegar after hearing about Lyanna. He was Cat's first love but since he was dead and gone anyway I think it'd hurt her a lot less to know he had a bastard than to live with her current husband's. But more so I think she'd notice if baby Jon was several months older than baby Robb, so I think that's a hole in any theories requiring Jon to be conceived before the Rebellion actually started. As for Benjen, there must always be a Stark in Winterfell, so I assume that was him during the war since there appears to be a shortage of other Starks. If Ned calling Jon "his blood" set off any bells for you the way it did for me, I think Lyanna is the only option for Uncle Ned, and that certainly fits with wanting to lie to Robert and makes Jon a secret relative of Dany and Maester Aemon. I have lately started suspecting Benjen knew Lyanna's secret though, it makes it more plot meaningful for him to also disappear after telling Jon Snow they'd talk when he returned.

Edited by Lady S.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

IMO there's clearly an intentional mystery regarding Jon Snow's parentage. Ned's refusal to tell Jon anything about his mother, including whether she was even alive or dead, until he was a fully sworn brother of the Night's Watch, while supplying a name to Robert only would be a misdirection that I don't think reflects well on Ned, if Jon Snow's mother really is simply some chick named Wylla. And Robert only says he thinks Ned told him her name before, not that he ever actually saw Ned with the babymama in question. If Ned was meant to have some great lost love with Wylla, possibly already knowing her down South before he inherited Winterfell and his brother's girlfriend, then I call writing foul on not giving any real indications of this in the story. People say the Rhaegar/Lyanna theory is "too easy" but a) most people don't just jump to this conclusion b) Ned/Wylla actually being true is worse writing imo but I see no reason for Ned to lie about Jon's mother unless he isn't Jon's father and c) all other explanations for Ned not being his father are a lot less implausible and some even feel like crackpot theory territory to me. Though I am disappointed that the timeline doesn't really work for Brandon to be the father, because Jon Snow also being a product of incest through Brandon/Lyanna is one of my favorite crackpot theories.

 

Anyway, I bet Jon Snow was happy he got to introduce himself for once, saying he's Ned Stark's son instead of his bastard.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Wylla could have been Lyanna's alias during the secret pregnancy and birth. So maybe not a complete lie in this possibility still not the truth as saying that name still deceives. 

Share this post


Link to post

I think even Ned Stark could do a complete lie in this case if it was part of Lyanna's dying wishes, we've already seen Ned lie when he thought the situation was dire for his family. To protect Sansa, he swore Joff was the one rightful heir to the Iron Throne and that he had tried to steal the throne from Joffrey himself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Forbiden Love. In Game of Thrones not only is it Tragic but it starts wars and kills thousands and we have several examples. I read a historical example of this too during the middle ages King goes off and marries for love so starts war but I am so bad with proper names don't recall who. 

 

At least with John it only gave Ygritte extra rage so she might only have killed only a few more than she would have done calmer. 

 

Will delude myself Red Witch only wants to get laid by John till next season. That could be hot but .......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Holy crap - I can't believe I missed this, but I just realized Jon didn't hesitate to drink with Mance because he was afraid of poison. He hesitated because sharing a drink in Mance's tent meant they were both protected under the guest right, and assassinating him would put him in the same category as Walder Frey. I didn't see that until the IO9 recap pointed it out.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Holy crap - I can't believe I missed this, but I just realized Jon didn't hesitate to drink with Mance because he was afraid of poison. He hesitated because sharing a drink in Mance's tent meant they were both protected under the guest right, and assassinating him would put him in the same category as Walder Frey. I didn't see that until the IO9 recap pointed it out.

I don't know if its worse under guest right for the host to kill the guests, or the guest to kill the hosts, or if there's no difference at all. I only mention it because Jon was the guest, not the host as Walder Frey was. Jon would be in the same position as the mutineers who killed Craster.

For that matter, do we know that the Wildings recognize or practice guest right? As Mance pointed out to Stannis, they're not in the Seven Kingdoms.

The Lord Commander was outraged that the mutineers attacked and killed Craster, but the Lord Commander was from south of the Wall, so he may be just have been projecting his values to somewhere north of the wall. Similarly, Bran's story about guest right told of guests visiting the Night's Watch, i.e., guests at the Wall, not North of the Wall. Bran mentioned that the gods damned those who violated the right, but he didn't say if they were the old gods or the new gods in the story. Moreover, even if its the old gods, that doesn't mean the Wildlings and "Northerners" have the exact same belief system about the old gods.

It's also notable what Mance didn't say when he realized Jon might try to kill him. Mance just said that Jon would die slow at the hands of the Wildlings. Mance didn't say anything about violating guest right, or how outrageous it would be for Jon to violate it.

Edited by Constantinople

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know if its worse under guest right for the host to kill the guests, or the guest to kill the hosts, or if there's no difference at all. I only mention it because Jon was the guest, not the host as Walder Frey was. Jon would be in the same position as the mutineers who killed Craster.

For that matter, do we know that the Wildings recognize or practice guest right? As Mance pointed out to Stannis, they're not in the Seven Kingdoms.

Why would guest right not protect the host offering protection? It's a covenant between both parties. The mutineers at Craster's were violating guest right, that's why Mormont was yelling about the gods cursing them. Breaking guest right isn't about a formal law, it's a sacred taboo, of the old gods and new. (Bran's story was set in the North where the old gods still hold power, while the farmer the Hound robbed thought Walder Frey would burn in the seventh hell.) And as Osha once told Bran, the old gods are the only gods beyond the Wall. Mormont was willing to overlook Craster marrying his daughters because there are no laws beyond the Wall, but he felt the gods wouldn't care about geographical technicalities when it came to breaking guest right.

 

On the show, maybe the wildings don't care about guest right, they are pretty underdeveloped, so we just don't know. But in ASoS, Mance

offers Jon food and drink when they first meet and Jon is still undercover, and Mance says something along the lines of even savages beyond the Wall observe guest right.

I'm not even sure the gods would frown on killing a guest who has just broken guest right.

 

Anyway, killing a man during peace negotiations is still pretty dishonorable (and therefore unNed-like), as Mance pointed out, but at least Jon wouldn't have to worry about being reincarnated as a rat for eternity.

Edited by Lady S.

Share this post


Link to post

It's debatable whether a drink alone invokes guest right. I was of the assumption that it had to be drink and food? For example, Robb, Catelyn et al, when they first arrived, were all specifically offered (and ate) bread & salt to invoke guest right whilst at The Twins.

Share this post


Link to post

Why would guest right not protect the host offering protection?

I'm not saying hosts aren't protected, only that perhaps guests are given a little more leeway with itchy trigger fingers since they're not on home ice and thus less able to protect themselves than the host.

 

It's debatable whether a drink alone invokes guest right. I was of the assumption that it had to be drink and food? For example, Robb, Catelyn et al, when they first arrived, were all specifically offered (and ate) bread & salt to invoke guest right whilst at The Twins.

...On the show, maybe the wildings don't care about guest right, they are pretty underdeveloped, so we just don't know....

The Wildlings are undeveloped, which why I said we don't know if they adhere to guest right or not. The only people we know who do are from south of the Wall. For that matter, we don't really know the scope of guest right, when it applies and when it doesn't.

I believe Robb, Walder Frey, et al ate a pinch of bread and salt to establish guest right. Jon Snow didn't eat anything when he was in Mance's tent, but only had a drink. As SilverStormm suggested, perhaps one must symbolically break bread for guest right to apply.

That sounds like technicality, because it is, but I assume there are some restrictions.

For example, I'd be surprised if guest right applied to commercial transactions or prospective commercial transactions, such as in inns and taverns.  Polliver and his friends may have been a bunch of child molesting, thieving rapists, but no one suggested they violated guest right.

For that matter, were the Night's Watch truly guests of Craster when they showed up in Season 3? They didn't really give Craster a choice.  A covenant suggests a voluntary agreement by both parties.  Jamie brutally strangled the Karstark who was guarding him, but did he violate guest right?  I suspect not.

On the flip side, on one ever suggests that Olenna violated guest right by poisoning Joffrey at the reception, although it seems a clear violation of guest right. Nor did anyone call Tyrion out for violating guest right. Admittedly, there's the little of issue or regicide involved, but if violating guest right is truly the worst thing one can do, shouldn't some mention have been made of it?

Perhaps Walder Frey is right to be pissed off. People are violating guest right all the time and he's the only one who gets called on it. I'd have to see the scene again, but I not even sure if Arya mentioned or alluded to guest right when the Hound knocked out the farmer who fed them and stole his silver. She objected that the farmer was a good man who didn't deserve this, but I don't know if she said anything more.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think Olenna did violate guest right, but no one in the audience cares because it was Joffrey. Tyrion had been a full-time resident of the Red Keep for some months then, and would have continued living there if not for his arrest, so he wasn't really a guest imo. I doubt the farmer knew the specifics of Robb and Walder's bread-and-salt ceremony so he must have been condemning Walder just on the basis that he served food and drink at the wedding feast, which is exactly what the farmer gave Sandor and Arya. So Sandor, who told the farmer guest right didn't mean much anymore, did break guest right there. Arya, not being very pious, wasn't concerned with the sacrilege aspect of his crime. No one forced Craster to shelter the Night's Watch in s3 anymore than they did in s2, not like Mormont was about to fight him. If he was hiding food from them, then he was still in charge of his own home to some extent. I just don't think the gods care all that much about such semantics. Jaime was definitely not a guest of Robb's, and I agree travelers in inns probably don't apply, but the Night's Watch were sheltered and fed in a man's home at his discretion and Mormont regarded him as their host, saying the gods would curse them for killing him, so that part seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. It's a weird choice to include such a line if it means nothing, in the same season where the concept of guest right is introduced, and after Mormont was the one to tell Jon Snow pretty much anything goes at Craster's.

 

Anyway, topic.

tumblr_inline_n7ajsjqSnM1rnw7mz.jpg

During Jon/Sam's talk last ep about Ygritte, I was reminded of their first talk about girls, when Jon plodded through a monologue about Ros.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not saying hosts aren't protected, only that perhaps guests are given a little more leeway with itchy trigger fingers since they're not on home ice and thus less able to protect themselves than the host.

 

The Wildlings are undeveloped, which why I said we don't know if they adhere to guest right or not. The only people we know who do are from south of the Wall. For that matter, we don't really know the scope of guest right, when it applies and when it doesn't.

I believe Robb, Walder Frey, et al ate a pinch of bread and salt to establish guest right. Jon Snow didn't eat anything when he was in Mance's tent, but only had a drink. As SilverStormm suggested, perhaps one must symbolically break bread for guest right to apply.

That sounds like technicality, because it is, but I assume there are some restrictions.

For example, I'd be surprised if guest right applied to commercial transactions or prospective commercial transactions, such as in inns and taverns.  Polliver and his friends may have been a bunch of child molesting, thieving rapists, but no one suggested they violated guest right.

For that matter, were the Night's Watch truly guests of Craster when they showed up in Season 3? They didn't really give Craster a choice.  A covenant suggests a voluntary agreement by both parties.  Jamie brutally strangled the Karstark who was guarding him, but did he violate guest right?  I suspect not.

On the flip side, on one ever suggests that Olenna violated guest right by poisoning Joffrey at the reception, although it seems a clear violation of guest right. Nor did anyone call Tyrion out for violating guest right. Admittedly, there's the little of issue or regicide involved, but if violating guest right is truly the worst thing one can do, shouldn't some mention have been made of it?

Perhaps Walder Frey is right to be pissed off. People are violating guest right all the time and he's the only one who gets called on it. I'd have to see the scene again, but I not even sure if Arya mentioned or alluded to guest right when the Hound knocked out the farmer who fed them and stole his silver. She objected that the farmer was a good man who didn't deserve this, but I don't know if she said anything more.

 

Jaime violated guest right when he pushed Bran out of the window at Winterfell also. I think the issue with Olenna and Jaime for example, is that no-one in the general population knows who committed those acts, whereas, everyone knows what Walder Frey did. I'm sure if it was public knowledge, they too, would be considered violators of guest right. Therefore, Walder Frey has no reason to be pissed off because he is unaware that it has been broken by anyone else and they have 'got away' with it.

Also Jaime killing the Karstark guard didn't violate guest right, he was a prisoner, not a guest. Guest right is a convenant entered into willingly by both the host and the guest; I am sure that had Robb Stark executed Jaime as a POW, he wouldn't be considered to be breaking guest right and vice versa.

 

As for The Hound, Ayra being a child, it probably isn't what she would immediately think of "oh you've violated guest right"; the more childish thought of "it isn't fair to do that" is a natural instant reaction from someone her age. How often do we hear our kids wail "it isn't fair!" to every perceived wrong?! ;)

 

Anyway to bring this post back on topic re Jon & Mance: guest right is considered inviolate because to break it is to incur the wrath of the gods (old & new), ergo, The Wildlings (well the human ones at least - i.e. non giants) follow the old gods of the First Men and thus it is reasonable to assume that they would also follow this ancient and sacred rite. Personally, I doubt a drink alone invokes guest right though.

Share this post


Link to post

Anyway, topic.

tumblr_inline_n7ajsjqSnM1rnw7mz.jpg

During Jon/Sam's talk last ep about Ygritte, I was reminded of their first talk about girls, when Jon plodded through a monologue about Ros.

Jon & Ygritte wouldn't work out.

Jon would always be thinking, "I don't think being kissed by fire means what you think it means".

Share this post


Link to post

In the book Ned reveals who Jons Mother is (at least he alludes to it and names the lady).  On the show its a secret I dont think anyone has revealed.  Anyone know why?

forgive me if this has been addressed already, I just started reading the books :)

Share this post


Link to post

On the show, he told Robert who the mother was back in season one. Of course this doesn't mean anything, if the R+L theory is correct, then Ned would've had every reason to lie about it.

 

About the guest right: I got the impression that the whole bread & salt thing is quite pivotal. Yes, it's symbolic and technical, but that's the point of it - it seems like it's a very specific formal requirement. Giving someone a cup of wine or some meat, stew or whatever and it doesn't count as invoking guest right. You need to serve bread and salt, so everyone knows "okay, no killing then". Why would they otherwise even serve just a slice of dry bread at a big wedding if a juicy mutton chop would do just as well?

 

As far as Olenna goes, I doubt the Lannisters would even think of invoking guest right. They Tyrells are allies, after all, so there would be no need to do so (at least that's what they thought, hehe). I think it's more like something that you would do when you and your guest aren't exactly on friendly terms or one of the parties could have some doubts about the other one's intentions. Same with the Hound and the farmer, he didn't think there was any need to do that, because if he did, he wouldn't have invited them in the first place.

Edited by Conan Troutman

Share this post


Link to post

On the show, he told Robert who the mother was back in season one. Of course this doesn't mean anything, if the R+L theory is correct, then Ned would've had every reason to lie about it.

 

About the guest right: I got the impression that the whole bread & salt thing is quite pivotal. Yes, it's symbolic and technical, but that's the point of it - it seems like it's a very specific formal requirement. Giving someone a cup of wine or some meat, stew or whatever and it doesn't count as invoking guest right. You need to serve bread and salt, so everyone knows "okay, no killing then". Why would they otherwise even serve just a slice of dry bread at a big wedding if a juicy mutton chop would do just as well?

It wasn't dry bread in the middle of the big feast though, it was dry bread when they first walked in the door and Robb had to make his apologies while expecting a tense reception, which did prove pretty unfriendly but at least offered the appearance of peace from the start.  The point of the bread and salt thing was that that was a touchy enough situation when Cat visited the Freys back in s1, offering formal protection for Robb and his higher-ups as soon as they were in the door gave them an extra false sense of assurance, it meant they all believed they were safe right away, before Robb and Edmure's men set up camp and hours before the actual feast. But surely you don't think the Freys publicized this ceremony when bragging about killing Robb? And the other witnesses were captured or killed, so the farmer who hosted Arya and the Hound must have been referring to the feast where they were all killed when mentioning sacrilege. Walder Frey was a testy old douche, but he was the one who invited them and offered this new marriage alliance as soon as Robb made overtures, so he'd made his intentions known, he was just lying about what his object really was. I don't think the smallfolk would think the Starks/Tullys would have expected this was all a ruse and assume their overlords must have demanded a formal ceremony of protection prior to the wedding.

 

Bran's ghost story made no reference to any ceremony and didn't give the impression that this was an obscure rite offered by only certain hosts. Maybe the Rat Cook wasn't as methodical about his cannibalism as Walder Frey was about the Red Wedding and didn't feel the need to formally lull his guests into a sense of some security. His guest was the king so he shouldn't have the felt for formal protection from a lowly Night's Watch cook, when the Watch as a whole should be considered honorable allies.

 

In the book Ned reveals who Jons Mother is (at least he alludes to it and names the lady).  On the show its a secret I dont think anyone has revealed.  Anyone know why?

forgive me if this has been addressed already, I just started reading the books :)

? It hasn't been addressed because Ned revealed the name Wylla in the second episode of the show.

 

I noticed that Jon not only went to the trouble of dragging Ygritte beyond the Wall to burn her, it looked like he did so under a weirwood tree. I also liked his scene with Tormund where he said he didn't have a king and Tormund said he must have spent too much time with them and wasn't a kneeler any more, it reminded me of their first meeting where Jon thought Tormund was Mance and kneeled and called him Your Grace.

Edited by Lady S.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, it seems I have misinterpreted this bread & salt thing. Maybe any food will do, but it's the go-to method of making it extra clear that guest right is invoked right now. Apparently good taste is another human sense Westerosi are lacking, but whatever.

Share this post


Link to post

"Bread and Salt" is a figure of speech that comes from our world. GRRM used it in the books because he assumed people knew it. The showrunners didn't have the same faith, so they made it literal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On the flip side, on one ever suggests that Olenna violated guest right by poisoning Joffrey at the reception, although it seems a clear violation of guest right. Nor did anyone call Tyrion out for violating guest right. Admittedly, there's the little of issue or regicide involved, but if violating guest right is truly the worst thing one can do, shouldn't some mention have been made of it?

Perhaps Walder Frey is right to be pissed off. People are violating guest right all the time and he's the only one who gets called on it. I'd have to see the scene again, but I not even sure if Arya mentioned or alluded to guest right when the Hound knocked out the farmer who fed them and stole his silver. She objected that the farmer was a good man who didn't deserve this, but I don't know if she said anything more.

I was actually thinking about that. I think it was mostly that regicide is a bigger deal than breaking guest right.

Also I feel like breaking guest right is kinda like kinslaying. It's officially frowned upon and it can ruin a persons reputation forever but it can also be ignored if convenient.

Like with Walder Frey the people of the north really hate him for breaking guest right and Bolton for allying with him but I think a big part of it is just that they don't want Bolton as their lord. If it would have been the reverse with Robb, as a guest, slaughtered all of Frey's men at the wedding I think his bannermen would crinkle their noses and be mad at him but most of them would probably still accept him as their liege lord. Sure, it would create all sorts of problems down the road for him. His bannermen wouldn't trust him as they had the other Stark's and they'd be much more likely to rebel if they felt they might benefit from it. But I don't think they would rebel against him just for breaking guest right.

 

About the guest right: I got the impression that the whole bread & salt thing is quite pivotal. Yes, it's symbolic and technical, but that's the point of it - it seems like it's a very specific formal requirement. Giving someone a cup of wine or some meat, stew or whatever and it doesn't count as invoking guest right. You need to serve bread and salt, so everyone knows "okay, no killing then". Why would they otherwise even serve just a slice of dry bread at a big wedding if a juicy mutton chop would do just as well?

 

 

"Bread and Salt" is a figure of speech that comes from our world. GRRM used it in the books because he assumed people knew it. The showrunners didn't have the same faith, so they made it literal.

My impression of guest right is based mostly on how it's featured in The Crusades Trilogy which is these series of historical novels that takes place in early medieval Sweden. In those novels bread and salt is used as a polite formal way to great guests and it's understood that guests and hosts are not supposed to attack each other. But when some long time feuding families meet everyone is on their guard because it's understood that in the end family comes first.

I don't have a clear idea how it's supposed to work in GRRM's world. It seems honor and keeping ones word is important there even to people that you don't feel deserve it because one of theirs cut your great grandfathers hand of or whatnot.

Share this post


Link to post

Honor is an ideal. It is proclaimed with great fanfare, but so is the requirement to keep the uniforms parade ready. Both will be abandoned to the necessities of war, even if those are merely perceived.

Share this post


Link to post

Guest right is considered very sacred. In practical terms, it has to trump everything, otherwise no one feels safe at your house, and no one trusts your truces or promises at all. Frey considered himself above guest right where Robb Stark was concerned, but his culture will not agree. The Rat Cook story Bran told reminds me of the House of Atreus--an endless curse followed them, and everyone believed fervently in that curse. It's very difficult to get anything done if people believe that a) you and all your descendents are cursed by the Gods, and b) you will violate the most important taboo of your culture, ergo there is no promise or treaty you will not break, no safety under your roof for anyone, and no truce that you will ever keep.

 

Although cultures often give lip service to things like this, more often the violators gradually lose all power, as no one considers them a real ally and every conflict becomes a fight to the death, since nothing else is safe. The Lannisters suffer from this, too--you can't make peace with them if you don't want to be House Reyne.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Hi, I am new in here. I read the book first and turned into a fan of it and started watching the series. Jon Snow and Arya had been my most favourite characters from book 1. I love the way his character has progressed and I want to see more of him both in the book and the show. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I refuse to blindly accept the

Jon dies

scenario. Refuse. One way or another,

he walks away, perhaps living, perhaps as a blue-eyed whatever.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

So, Jon's importance to fandom and the question of his parentage has extremely ratcheted up in recent weeks, so I thought I'd address the Stark hair color issue that people seem weirdly hung up on.

  •  Yt6gy2h.jpg

    We already had a black-haired Stark in MIA Uncle Ben, and I believe his hair was even darker than any of the three Baratheon kings.

  •  Kla5aho.jpg

    Robb's hair was darker than Cat or Lysa's, but still resembled Tully red more than Ned's dirty dishwater brown wig.

  •  k4YsnFB.jpg

    In conclusion, Stark hair was never uniform and ranged from Rickon's dirty blond to Robb's reddish-brown to Jon and Benjen's hair as dark as their black cloaks. And if sons taking after their mothers isn't common, then Joffrey may as well have been born with the wrong skin color and there's no excuse for it taking 17 years for the truth of Robert's cuckolding to come out.

OK, on to the rest of Jon's story, I've been seeing reviews draw a parallel between Dany's proposed marriage and Jon's proposed union of the NW and the free folk, but seems to me Jon's already more integrated with the wildling cause than Dany could ever be with Hiz and his people. By taking it upon himself to free the free folk to fight the frozen undead horde instead of joining theam, Jon has just become Mance's surrogate heir and successor as well as Mormont's. Meanwhile, poor Stannis can only stare at Jon longingly as the stubborn ingrate son he never got to have. But maybe that's another sign that Jon's wised up since his "you Starks are hard to kill" early days, since becoming Jon Stark means hitching himself to Stannis as much as Dany has hitched herself to the rats' nest in Meereen, and as our slimy little pimp game-of-thrones player pointed out in 5.04, betting on Stannis to win the North is a gamble, and Jon's gambling with more lives than just his own. If he got killed in battle against the Boltons before the WWs' attack hit, then the realms of men would be really fucked. Edited by Lady S.

Share this post


Link to post

In the books, Lyanna and Ned looked the most alike.  All of Cat's and Ned's kids are reddish haired except for Arya and one of the younger ones.   It is commented on many times that Arya looks a lot like Lyanna.  Cat was always upset because Jon looked more like Ned than Rob did (mainly because of the hair).

 

My question....Isn't everyone dead who would know what Jon's parentage is?  Only 2 Robert supporters left the battle where Lyanna was, Ned, and I think Jon Aryyn.  I think the Show is heading to a reveal, but the books, not so much.  If GRRM doesn't let us know who his Mom is, I'll be even more upset than i probably will be with whatever he comes up with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

My question....Isn't everyone dead who would know what Jon's parentage is?  Only 2 Robert supporters left the battle where Lyanna was, Ned, and I think Jon Aryyn.  I think the Show is heading to a reveal, but the books, not so much.  If GRRM doesn't let us know who his Mom is, I'll be even more upset than i probably will be with whatever he comes up with.

I don't have access to the books right now, but wasn't the person who was at the Tower of Joy with Ned a Reed, Jojen and Meera's father?  And if I remember correctly, he is still alive, although completely ignored by the show. 

Edited by kcbuckeye2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Howland Reed. So far absent from the show. 

 

I'm thinking that the audience is going to get the reveal through Bran. I'm not sure about how Jon is going to find out though. I'm thinking about the possibilities.

 

Varys seems like he could know but I don't really see any indication that his character will ever head North. Maybe he'll just tell Dany? 

 

Oberyn seemed like he had some idea that Lyanna wasn't kidnapped but I admit the conversation was vague. It made me wonder though if Doran ever suspected anything or heard any rumors. 

 

Stannis just seems to know that Ned didn't just have a quick fling with some girl from a tavern. He doesn't seem to particularly doubt Ned's paternity. 

 

What about Littlefinger? I'm thinking of the conversation he and Sansa had in the crypt about Lyanna. On the show could he have heard whispers of a different tale? If he knows or heard any rumors about Jon could he somehow work it to his advantage or is that something that he'd probably want kept quiet? 

 

Are there any other characters who could potentially know or have information to help put the pieces together about RLJ?

Edited by Avaleigh

Share this post


Link to post

Oberyn definitely indicated that Dorne believed that R&L ran off together rather than R kidnapped L.  Given the positive manner that Ser Barrister talks about R to Dany, I suspect that are many who don't believe he kidnapped or raped L at all, but that would have just been rumors and whispers that couldn't be spoken when Robert B was king.  Since both Littlefinger and Varys specializes in rumors/whispers/knowledge, one or both of them might suspect, but I don't think they'd know.

 

At this point, I think the show could reveal through Bran or in some kind of vision in the fire if Mel ever reconnects with Jon (she does seem to sense that he has power).  They could also go the path that some theorize and introduce an old priest of some kind to tell us that R actually married L, but that would be an as yet unknown character.  I really don't think any of the characters on the show would have living knowledge of R+L=J.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Howland Reed. So far absent from the show.

 

I saw something recently, quoting GRRM, that Reed WILL make an appearance.

Edited by FemmyV
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Bringing my spec to Jon's thread.

I think there is a significance to Jon declining Stannis's offer of legitimization and refusing the name Jon Stark.

Kill the boy, and let the man rise...the man known as Jon Targaryen.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Bringing my spec to Jon's thread.

I think there is a significance to Jon declining Stannis's offer of legitimization and refusing the name Jon Stark.

Kill the boy, and let the man rise...the man known as Jon Targaryen.

 

He wouldn't get the Targaryen name unless Rhaegar legitimized him prior to his death.

 

Just to add more complexity to the situation lol

Share this post


Link to post

He wouldn't get the Targaryen name unless Rhaegar legitimized him prior to his death.

 

Just to add more complexity to the situation lol

 

You know nothing, Attaboy. 

 

(Kidding.) 

Share this post


Link to post

He wouldn't get the Targaryen name unless Rhaegar legitimized him prior to his death.

 

Just to add more complexity to the situation lol

That presumes he was illegitimate in the first place. The Targaryeans practiced polygamy so Rhaegar could have taken Lyanna as a wife and Jon would then be his legitimate heir and entitled to use the Targaryean surname once he knows it belongs to him.

 

That said, I kinda imagine that even if he did know, he'd keep the name 'Snow' simply because he's wrapped so much of his identity up in being a bastard. It would also fit some of the visions of the 'empty' Iron Throne... with Snow on it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'd be cool Jon starting a new line and name altogether if he if he doesn't want to settle on Targaryen or Stark. Although I don't admittedly love any of the Stark/Targaryen name combos. Maybe something like Redfyre or Whitefyre or Fyrestark. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'd be cool Jon starting a new line and name altogether if he if he doesn't want to settle on Targaryen or Stark. Although I don't admittedly love any of the Stark/Targaryen name combos. Maybe something like Redfyre or Whitefyre or Fyrestark. 

or Icefire :p

 

Nevertheless, I think that even though I fell in love with this series because it went against the grain of regular fantasy, I'd actually prefer if the ending followed *some* common tropes (eg. Jon Snow saves the world, etc etc)

 

And Arya going on a 30 minute killing spree montage, backed up by some epic music...a'la Tarantino

Edited by Attaboy000
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×