Jon Snow: He Knows Nothing

[Lady S.]

12 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

 

But I still say if Jon wants to hold discussions with his bannermen in which they're allowed to disagree with him publicly, but Sansa isn't, then he needs to discuss those matters with her beforehand rather than just take her for granted.  I would have thought being stabbed to death by his own men would have taught Jon the virtue of not taking people for granted, but I guess not.  And it's not as if Jon was the only Lord Commander of the Night's Watch in recent memory who was killed by his own men, see Jeor Mormont, RIP.

Oh, IA, but his problem has to do with conferring with anyone, not that's he's ignoring Sansa just because she's a woman. Sansa's gender doesn't make her special because he's not used to taking advice from anyone.

I brought up Robert because people act as if mercy never works or that anyone like this must be a noble and honorable Ned clone. 

[Constantinople]

After he was brought back from the dead, Jon Snow left the Night's Watch, more or less on the grounds that he had fulfilled his vows ("Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death").

Yet before he left Castle Black, Jon continued to serve as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, such as when he executed the Ser Alliser, Olly and the others.

A tad bit inconsistent.

[theschnauzers]

On 7/25/2017 at 10:34 PM, Constantinople said:

After he was brought back from the dead, Jon Snow left the Night's Watch, more or less on the grounds that he had fulfilled his vows ("Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death").

Yet before he left Castle Black, Jon continued to serve as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, such as when he executed the Ser Alliser, Olly and the others.

A tad bit inconsistent.

I don't think so. He had died, so Jon wasn't breaking his oath to the Night's Watch. He wanted to make sure those responsible paid the price. He also knew that staying at Castle Black wasn't going to solve the problem dealing with the Night King and the White Walkers. 

By leaving, he has now united the North and the wildings/refugees from beyond the Wall, and he's making progress towards what is needed to defend against them. Everything Jon's been doing has been towards that end. Couldn't been any more consistent than that.

Edited July 27, 2017 by theschnauzers

[YaddaYadda]

1 hour ago, Growsonwalls said:

In the books they specifically describe Catelyn as being borderline abusive to Jon growing up. Jon had the affection of Ned, Arya, Robb, etc. but I don't see Ned watching the shunning and anger and abuse from Catelyn and still holding that secret. I know this is to advance the storyline but Ned was kindhearted to a fault. Could he have watched little Jon being treated so poorly by Catelyn and said nothing?

Ned said about Robert that he was well trained at closing his eyes. 

I think Ned's reasons for not telling her anything were fleshed out well enough in AGOT. I think we might get more on that with Lady Stoneheart on the loose. She knows Arya is alive, she and the Brotherhood are actively looking for her in the Riverlands while there are people who know about Robb's will. If anyone thinks LS will just step aside and let Jon become King in the North when she was adamantly against it, I have a bridge to sell.

[Kanner]

Thank you for not being "more of the same" and not lying in the Dragonpit.  All of the game playing has brought Westeros to the point where the leaders cannot come together to actually save their own lives. As we saw Cersei had already betrayed them so all his lie would have done was weaken his position with his allies.

[Lady S.]

On 6/30/2016 at 11:19 PM, Lady S. said:

I'd like to see Jon have a new love scene just so we could have more Kitten nudity tbh.

Thank you, Kitten and everyone else who made that possible!

Can't wait for Bran to tell him how beautiful he looked banging his aunt.

[Spartan Girl]

Too bad he couldn't take out the man bun during boatsex. Dany let her hair down, why couldn't Jon?

[Colorful Mess]

Well, I feel like Jon Snow's character has been assassinated all over again.

Jon made the exact same mistakes as Robb, but eh, that doesn't matter. Jon gets everything handed to him anyway. He wins an amazing alliance and a hot babe that he’s in love with. ~of course~ he gave her the North.  WESTEROS WILL LOVE THIS COUPLE.

*points and laughs at Daario, Tyrion, Jorah, and whoever else who failed to please the Mother of Dragons by not being an attractive man who can pet her magical monster*

Oh and speaking of honesty, Jon won her over because he's SO HONORABLE! He can't even tell a lie - just like his father

What's that Ygritte? I can't hear you over the sound of all the white washing.

What's important here is that Jon is awarded the love of his life AND the fantastic alliance AND the admiration of the North AND he gets to be a Stark AND a Targaryen AND he'll defeat the zombie apocalypse with wifey AND he gets to ride a dragon AND he’ll have a son with Dany AND name him Robb.

Yes, Robb. After the brother who was brutally murdered while Jon gets rewarded! Jon will escape all punishment for falling in love with someone whom the Northerners mistrust, while Robb gets a knife in the gut for falling in love with someone whom the Northerners also mistrust. No resurrection for YOU!

I wouldn't be surprised if, instead of Aegon Targaryen, Jon's real name was Gary Stu. Everything just works out so well for him.

Do I blame D&D? Absolutely. 

Do I think D&D will fix things in S8? To some extent - yes, because no alliance or romance has ever gone well in this story, book or show. And, Jon/Dany is a super special case since its an alliance/romance combined.

Do I hope GRRM goes in the opposite direction to actually make Jon interesting in the books? Absolutely. I still have hope that Jon will be layered.

So that I don't drown in drivel, I want GRRM to make good on his promise that "If someone comes back from being dead, especially if they suffer a violent, traumatic death, they’re not going to come back as nice as ever.” (GRRM interview)

In light of that, I'd like Jon to be a bit darker and meaner. At the same time that he's less nice, I'd like to see him learning how to master the art of flattery in Southron courts out of necessity, like Sansa. Moreover, I would hope GRRM would write Robb and Jon as foils where both struggle in similar dilemmas but respond differently (i.e. one acts honorably, the other does not). I'd rather believe Jon is a "clever fool" who succeeds on his mission by playing the game to save his family. I'd rather read about his nefarious gamesmanship being exposed, and how Dany retaliates like an aggrieved Walder Frey, or Robert Baratheon. At least, then, the balance would be restored, and Jon's character shade would actually be dark grey instead of a shiny pristine white. 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[Lady S.]

7 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

Do I hope GRRM goes in the opposite direction to actually make Jon interesting in the books? Absolutely. I still have hope that Jon will be layered.

So that I don't drown in drivel, I want GRRM to make good on his promise that "If someone comes back from being dead, especially if they suffer a violent, traumatic death, they’re not going to come back as nice as ever.” (GRRM interview)

In light of that, I'd like Jon to be a bit darker and meaner. At the same time that he's less nice, I'd like to see him learning how to master the art of flattery in Southron courts out of necessity, like Sansa. Moreover, I would hope GRRM would write Robb and Jon as foils where both struggle in similar dilemmas but respond differently (i.e. one acts honorably, the other does not). I'd rather believe Jon is a "clever fool" who succeeds on his mission by playing the game to save his family. I'd rather read about his nefarious gamesmanship being exposed, and how Dany retaliates like an aggrieved Walder Frey, or Robert Baratheon. At least, then, the balance would be restored, and Jon's character shade would actually be dark grey instead of a shiny pristine white. 

Not a fan of the finale, huh? Though Robb being a disposable hero and Jon an actual protagonist, R+L=J being true, and Dany being Jon's lover/aunt instead of his enemy are all on GRRM. Execution may be different if those hypothetical books ever even get published, but some facts are inescapable.

[Colorful Mess]

2 hours ago, Lady S. said:

Not a fan of the finale, huh? Though Robb being a disposable hero and Jon an actual protagonist, R+L=J being true, and Dany being Jon's lover/aunt instead of his enemy are all on GRRM. Execution may be different if those hypothetical books ever even get published, but some facts are inescapable.

Facts?

[Lady S.]

22 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

Facts?

Are you questioning Robb the non-PoV's dispobality, Jon's parentage (which D&D famously had to guess right when they met GRRM), or Jon/Dany's connection (which Alan Taylor said post-7.06 that GRRM had told him about back in s1)?

[Colorful Mess]

11 hours ago, Lady S. said:

Are you questioning Robb the non-PoV's dispobality, Jon's parentage (which D&D famously had to guess right when they met GRRM), or Jon/Dany's connection (which Alan Taylor said post-7.06 that GRRM had told him about back in s1)?

Using that word, when we have 6 episodes left, is presumptuous. It's like watching the 4th episode of a season and making predictions from that episode and calling that prediction a "fact," then using what some director said (who hasn't even read the books) to pass off the prediction as a "fact." 

Back to Jon, since this thread is about him. I think it's important to further contrast him with Dany because I think it reveals his character in sharper relief.

The author has called Jon a Byronic Hero. I believe Dany is too. The difference, I think, is which character the author is elevating to the status of a role model for the audience. The show has invented scenes for Dany that make her far darker than her book counterpart, which suggests the direction of a Byronic hero-villain, where the hero's qualities, if enacted in the real world, would spell disaster. The main difference between the two heroes appears to be one who acts on self-interest (Dany) and the other who does not (Jon).

The author has noted that Lord Byron has been a major influence on his work.

In his poem Manfred, Byron contrasts two heroes - Manfred and Napoleon. Manfred appears more like Jon; he doesn't harm or injure others unless it is for some larger social benefit. He has no desire to exercise dominion over other people. He does not need subjects to rule or dictate to; his own guilt provides him with numerous opportunities to torture himself anyway. Manfred's heroism lies in his wise refusal to engage in a leadership role without consent of others (hence why Jon is always an elected leader). 

Napoleon, meanwhile, is a corrupted Byronic hero. The fact that Dany decided to leave Essos and felt the need to continue to conquer lands in Westeros is Napoleonic in nature, because a conqueror can never be satisfied and will press for more and more conquests until his defeat becomes inevitable. This 1814 critique of Napoleon reminds me of Dany: "Are we here only to build, with our dying bodies, your road to fame? You have a genius for fighting; what good is it to us? You are bored by the inactivity of peace. Why should your boredom concern us?" Such a conqueror is self-absorbed and has a distaste for the daily tedium of rule. Other people exist as a disposable means for accomplishing his/her own self-interested goals.

I believe Jon is the author's portrait of Aragorn, his version of an ideal king. In contrast, Dany could be an incomplete hero, an Aragorn-who-might-have-been (or at least, the Aragorn of Essos). And the reason I would say "incomplete" is because Dany is a liberator and a conqueror at the same time, which is contradictory and cannot be sustained. 

Anyway, this distinction between the two heroes is lost when we collapse them together under the banner of "shipping."

Also, to clarify my earlier point about Jon becoming a bit colder/meaner, I think what the author is doing is combining Jon's lack of self-interest with a ruthlessness that is necessary if he's going to rule. Likewise, GRRM has said repeatedly in interviews that a person can be both a hero and a villain at the same time, and I don't think the author is going to exclude Jon from that. Unfortunately there is some discourse around him that I think is really off the mark - i.e. "the most noble character to ever exist." *snort*

Edited April 4, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[Colorful Mess]

One thing that I've noticed about S7 is how many times Jon gives Dany a rousing speech. He gives her a confidence boost in almost every interaction.

• He gives Dany his best Milton Friedman impression in the cave. This appeals to her heroic idealism - like "here's an opportunity to go down in history as a hero!"
• Then immediately afterward, he flatters her about how she's done something remarkable by bringing dragons back. He appeals to her pride over her dragons but also manages to gain her ear, in a way that Tyrion or Varys could not.
• On the cliffs. He appears to make a faux pas about her dragons and attempts to correct himself, again taking the same tone as he did on the beach. "Gorgeous beasts!" We can tell he's hiding his feelings. He messes up a second time. "They're not beasts to me." Oops.
• Then wight hunt and another rousing speech with "Trust in a Stranger." Jon volunteers and talks about his deeds in a way that is uncharacteristic of him ("I'm the only one here who has fought them!" "I am a king!"). Then he goes into a moving speech about his own heroism and bravery, "I came here knowing that you could have your men behead me or your dragons burn me alive." He appeals to Dany's image she has of him, that he's a messiah for his people.
• When he leaves for the wight hunt, he drops the idea that she may never see him again "At least you won't have to deal with the KitN anymore." But that's followed up by something that has typically been said to an enemy: "I wish you good fortune in the wars to come." So that's...odd.
• The next time is the conversation on the boat. I think this is his most rousing he's ever been because he uses terms that Jorah uses, like "My Queen!" Then he tells her that she deserves the North and that his people will see her for what she really is. Wow!
• The next scene is the dragon pit. A lot of rousing speeches here. He gives her a public pledge of loyalty! Then he goes on another speech about how lies won't help him in the fight. Of course Dany is eating this up, he looks like the most trustworthy man ever. Next, he continues the pattern; telling her that she's not like everyone else. Then he boosts her confidence that her line hasn't ended yet! She's still here! And hey, maybe she's thinking illogically about that witch, because it does sound like superstition!
• Finally, he gives her another speech, a bit more subdued but nonetheless more persuasive, about why they should take a boat North. Because it will send a better message.

Each time he has out-maneuvered Jorah and Tyrion to get Dany to trust him.

This level of persuasive technique involving flattery and rousing speeches has been seen before - when he tried to get the wildlings at Hardhome to fight for him, and when he asked for volunteers to kill the NW mutineers. 

I think it's his growth arc: his ability to persuade others. The fact that he got Daenerys Targaryen, one of the most unpredictable people in the history of Planetos, to put aside her war for the moment, and go North. It's pretty freakin' brilliant. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Colorful Mess

[Smad]

I'm still confused as to how Jon was able to pet Dany's dragon. From what I gathered from the show, only people with dragon blood in their veins are able to do that (not counting Tyrion when he freed the two dragons from their chains). As we now know Jon is part Targaryen but that doesn't automatically mean dragon blood since Dany's brother didn't have any either. Back when the first white walker almost killed the commander at the wall, Jon threw a lamp at him and almost burned his hand. Those with dragon blood, like Dany, are immune to fire. So is Jon just so special snowflake that he doesn't even need dragon blood to be recognized by dragons or did the writers royally screwed up here? Or both?

[onyxrose81]

Targaryens aren't supposed to be immune to fire.  That's just something D&D created for Daenerys for the show only and it was honestly a stupid change.  I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by dragon blood...all Targs have dragon the dragon riding gene (they were part of the 40 dragon riding families of Old Valyria).    They would all be able to get near dragons.  You just need Targaryen blood, which Jon has.  House Velaryon, a loyal Targaryen house, had many dragon riders because they intermarried with House Targaryen many times.  For Tyrion, I think they just let him get close because he was trying to help them with the chains.  I don't subscribe to the Tyrion is a secret Targ theory.  

Edited October 29, 2018 by onyxrose81

[Smad]

2 hours ago, onyxrose81 said:

Targaryens aren't supposed to be immune to fire.  That's just something D&D created for Daenerys for the show only and it was honestly a stupid change.  I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by dragon blood...all Targs have dragon the dragon riding gene (they were part of the 40 dragon riding families of Old Valyria).    They would all be able to get near dragons.  You just need Targaryen blood, which Jon has.  House Velaryon, a loyal Targaryen house, had many dragon riders because they intermarried with House Targaryen many times.  For Tyrion, I think they just let him get close because he was trying to help them with the chains.  I don't subscribe to the Tyrion is a secret Targ theory.  

Why wouldn't I have the idea that not all Targs have dragon blood? It's been hammered home since S1. Dany was constantly talking about being a dragon and dragon blood. When her brother was killed she said 'he was no dragon'. I figured her fire resistance is related to that as 'fire can not kill a dragon'. So if someone isn't fire resistant , they are no dragon and have no dragon blood. I don't care about the books (using references from the book to make a point about the show doesn't work), since I'm only referring to what happened on the show and draw my conclusions from that. And dragon blood means resistance to fire means dragons will let you ride/birth them etc. I can only work with what has been said/shown in the show as I haven't read the books yet.

[domina89]

17 hours ago, Smad said:

20 hours ago, onyxrose81 said:

 

 

Why wouldn't I have the idea that not all Targs have dragon blood? It's been hammered home since S1. Dany was constantly talking about being a dragon and dragon blood. When her brother was killed she said 'he was no dragon'

Dany's comment was metaphorical.  Viserys was a Targaryen and had dragon blood, but he was weak and cruel and that's why Dany said "he's no dragon."  She was commenting on his character, not his actual bloodline.

[Smad]

3 hours ago, domina89 said:

Dany's comment was metaphorical.  Viserys was a Targaryen and had dragon blood, but he was weak and cruel and that's why Dany said "he's no dragon."  She was commenting on his character, not his actual bloodline.

Still doesn't explain anything. Dragon blood seems to mean immunity to fire. If all Targs have dragon blood then all of them are immune to it the same way Dany is. That would mean her brother and Jon as well. Neither of those guys are immune to fire however, so no dragon blood.

[onyxrose81]

You're overthinking.  The showrunners just wanted something cool for the show and didn't think beyond that (basically they're own words).  In the books, it only happened when she hatched the eggs due to a blood magic.  Targs aren't fireproof.  

[Colorful Mess]

When she's burning other people but cant be burned herself, it just seems like an evil supervillian trait. 

[Happy Harpy]

4 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

When she's burning other people but cant be burned herself, it just seems like an evil supervillian trait. 

The Human Torch begs to disagree.

[Colorful Mess]

4 hours ago, Happy Harpy said:

The Human Torch begs to disagree.

Human Torch if he used his power to destory armies so he can rule and forced people to kneel to him and call him king.

If they dont, they get to be human torches too, just not for very long. 

Jon can do heroic stuff without having to be king. Which is why I think he survives and Dany doesn't.

[Happy Harpy]

3 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

Human Torch if he used his power to destory armies so he can rule and forced people to kneel to him and call him king.

If they dont, they get to be human torches too, just not for very long.

This has nothing to do with the answer you were given. You said that someone "burning people while not burning themselves" was an evil supervillain trait. It provided an example of how it wasn't.

I'm still more afraid for Jon than for Dany. If his previous death wasn't made such a BFD, I'd be at least 50/50 on him dying again. Because somehow, the hero sacrificing his life is considered as "daring" "original" or "subversive" whereas it's imo the most tired literary cliché since JC.

[domina89]

I was rewatching season 4 recently and I noticed something Karl Tanner said to Jon prior to their fight. He said "Lord Snow. You bringing me back for trial? We had a good thing here. We were free men. You'll never be free. You'll never know what that's like." It struck me as perhaps a bit of ironic foreshadowing. I still think Jon will survive but he will refuse the throne. He's never wanted to lead, and, once given an actual choice, I think he will choose to live his life instead of ruling.  He might die- but it is pointless storytelling, imo, to let him be resurrected only to die again. It's more powerful to let him live and be the rightful ruler but choose to be the catalyst of change. He deserves freedom, not the responsibility of a kingdom. 

[anamika]

On 11/4/2018 at 8:14 PM, domina89 said:

I was rewatching season 4 recently and I noticed something Karl Tanner said to Jon prior to their fight. He said "Lord Snow. You bringing me back for trial? We had a good thing here. We were free men. You'll never be free. You'll never know what that's like." It struck me as perhaps a bit of ironic foreshadowing. I still think Jon will survive but he will refuse the throne. He's never wanted to lead, and, once given an actual choice, I think he will choose to live his life instead of ruling.  He might die- but it is pointless storytelling, imo, to let him be resurrected only to die again. It's more powerful to let him live and be the rightful ruler but choose to be the catalyst of change. He deserves freedom, not the responsibility of a kingdom. 

This is a recurring theme with Jon where several characters have told him this. And how hard the burden of leading/ruling will be.

Quote

Alliser Thorne before being hanged for mutiny:  "I fought, I lost. Now I rest. But you, Lord Snow, you’ll be fighting their battles forever."

Beric Dondarrion:  “I don’t think it’s our purpose to understand. Except one thing — we’re soldiers. We have to know what we’re fighting for. I’m not fighting so some man or woman I barely know can sit on a throne made of swords…[I’m fighting for] life. Death is the enemy. The first enemy and the last…The enemy always wins. And we still need to fight him. That’s all I know. You and I won’t find much joy while we’re here, but we can keep others alive. We can defend those who can’t defend themselves…Maybe we don’t need to understand any more than that. Maybe that’s enough.”

Aemon: “Allow me to give my lord one last piece of counsel. The same counsel I once gave my brother when we parted for the last time. He was three-and-thirty when the Great Council chose him to mount the Iron Throne. A man grown with sons of his own, yet in some ways still a boy. Egg had an innocence to him, a sweetness we all loved. Kill the boy within you, I told him the day I took ship for the Wall. It takes a man to rule. An Aegon, not an Egg. Kill the boy and let the man be born. You are half the age that Egg was, and your own burden is crueler one, I fear. You will have little joy of your command, but I think you have the strength in you to do the things that must be done. Kill the boy, Jon Snow. Winter is almost upon us. Kill the boy and let the man be born.”

Whatever Jon's ending is on the show, I don't think it will be a happy one for the character. Either he defeats the WW and dies or he is stuck with the burden of command as a reformist - making the hard, unpopular decisions that the majority of Westeros may not like. He's one of the characters I am pretty certain is going to get a bittersweet ending, whatever that maybe.

[ParadoxLost]

On 11/4/2018 at 9:44 AM, domina89 said:

  He might die- but it is pointless storytelling, imo, to let him be resurrected only to die again. It's more powerful to let him live and be the rightful ruler but choose to be the catalyst of change. He deserves freedom, not the responsibility of a kingdom. 

One of the themes of this show is that in grasping for the Iron Throne they are ignoring the true threat that they ultimately can't defeat but must battle, death.

I don't think Jon, because he was resurrected, gets to live beyond mission accomplished.

[anamika]

Jon Snow recap for seasons one to seven narrated by Kit Harington

Courtesy of deathpr0fess0r on FreeFolk.

Not bad. A pretty good concise telling of Jon's story on the show.

Edited December 10, 2018 by anamika

[spaceghostess]

On 11/26/2018 at 10:39 PM, ParadoxLost said:

One of the themes of this show is that in grasping for the Iron Throne they are ignoring the true threat that they ultimately can't defeat but must battle, death.

I don't think Jon, because he was resurrected, gets to live beyond mission accomplished.

Yup. I'll hate this outcome, but I'm quite sure it'll come to pass. I feel like Jon's been living on borrowed time since his resurrection; he'll make it through the battle with the Army of the Dead only to be struck down subsequently by some living person. Or he'll slip on some ice on the stairs at the Stark compound and take a lethal header (. . . and everyone'll be like "Oh, that's why it's called Winterfell!" after Bran has visions of 43 Stark ancestors dying the same way.)

Edited March 7, 2019 by spaceghostess
Redundancy

[Noneofyourbusiness]

On 3/5/2019 at 2:59 AM, spaceghostess said:

Or he'll slip on some ice on the stairs at the Stark compound and take a lethal header

"But he was decapitated."

"It was a very icy patch." - Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen

[Hana Chan]

On 11/8/2018 at 12:18 AM, anamika said:

Whatever Jon's ending is on the show, I don't think it will be a happy one for the character. Either he defeats the WW and dies or he is stuck with the burden of command as a reformist - making the hard, unpopular decisions that the majority of Westeros may not like.

This I agree with. Of all the contenders for the throne (including the one who's backside is currently parked in it), Jon is the one that in the end would be palatable for most factions in the Westeros. As the trueborn son of Rhegar, he would satisfy the Targaryen loyalists but because he had lived his whole lift in Westeros, he would appease those who would be inclined to see Dany as a foreign conqueror (even though she's been born in Westeros). The key is that Jon has long since outgrown the hunger for status and would probably be happy living in a cabin by himself somewhere (maybe with Ghost for company). He would probably accept the position out of a sense of duty, but he wouldn't be happy.

But in the end, that might be the best thing for Westeros as this stage because they've suffered so many years of rulers that wanted power to enrich themselves. Having a king (even with Dany as his co-ruler) who's first instinct would be service to Westeros would be a novel change.

[spaceghostess]

11 hours ago, Hana Chan said:

This I agree with. Of all the contenders for the throne (including the one who's backside is currently parked in it), Jon is the one that in the end would be palatable for most factions in the Westeros. As the trueborn son of Rhegar, he would satisfy the Targaryen loyalists but because he had lived his whole lift in Westeros, he would appease those who would be inclined to see Dany as a foreign conqueror (even though she's been born in Westeros). The key is that Jon has long since outgrown the hunger for status and would probably be happy living in a cabin by himself somewhere (maybe with Ghost for company). He would probably accept the position out of a sense of duty, but he wouldn't be happy.

But in the end, that might be the best thing for Westeros as this stage because they've suffered so many years of rulers that wanted power to enrich themselves. Having a king (even with Dany as his co-ruler) who's first instinct would be service to Westeros would be a novel change.

I think there could also be happiness for Jon in living at Winterfell with any surviving Stark "siblings"--if he could avoid being drawn into all the political bullshit  (unlikely)--but of course that won't be an option if Dany doesn't live for him to cede power to her. If she dies and he survives to lead out of duty, maybe he'd have a baby to raise, which could take some of the sting out of it? But then he'd always be worried about the burden of leadership he's handing down to his kid. Plenty of "bittersweet" brooding fodder, but I've never liked the trope of the hero who sacrifices everything and dies in battle--or lives, but can never be happy. I actually kind of hate it and rarely find it poetic or dramatically satisfying. An anti-hero with a redemption arc (Jaime) dying heroically makes sense to me, but that's not Jon. To me, Jon is a straight-up hero: a good-but-imperfect person faced with a plethora of crappy choices who tries to do the right thing (even when it literally kills him) and soldiers on against seemingly insurmountable odds. As such, he deserves some peace that's not death and maybe even some joy (assuming he could recover from what would probably be the fantasy world's worst-ever case of PTSD. 😞). I see nothing wrong with that outcome, corny as it might seem to some. 

I like the idea of Jon co-ruling with someone. A trustworthy person who won't conspire to murder him, will give him time off for brooding . . . and might even encourage him to let down his man-bun once in a while.

Edited March 8, 2019 by spaceghostess
Oy, the typos!

[Hana Chan]

Jon would be a very capable ruler in a lot of ways, especially because he's not afraid to do what might be politically unpopular for the benefit of his people. The northern lords and Sansa are going to be very bent out of shape about Jon's alliance with Dany, but he's arriving with two dragons, the Unsullied and the Dothraki to help defend the North. That's on top of forging an alliance with the Wildlings. Not too shabby, IMO.

His biggest weakness as a leader (and we saw this during his stint as Lord Commander and KITN) that he's very blunt and doesn't take the time to try to explain his rational in a way that might convince his detractors. Or at least take away any validity to their complaints beyond "Don't want to!". Someone like Dany or Sansa to run interference and help calm the complainers would certainly be useful to him in helping to tamp down dissent. Jon needs someone who can translate his big picture actions to those who might only see the small picture.

Another of his biggest assets that would make him a good ruler is that because he doesn't really want it, he won't abuse his authority. After the Mad King, Robert, Joffrey and Cersi, not to mention the Night King, Westeros really needs stability in order to heal and rebuild.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Hana Chan

[Pestilentia]

On 3/7/2019 at 10:51 AM, Hana Chan said:

The key is that Jon has long since outgrown the hunger for status and would probably be happy living in a cabin by himself somewhere (maybe with Ghost for company). He would probably accept the position out of a sense of duty, but he wouldn't be happy.

Hence the bittersweet- final fade King Jon sitting on the Iron Throne and utterly heartbroken by the prospect of having to sit there for the rest of his life.

[GraceK]

3 hours ago, LadyChaos said:

I think she will set the baseline for for taking control of Westros, but that Jon will end up leading her armies and 'conquer' Westros

That will be awesome. Let the woman do all the work of gaining the loyalty of thousands of men, losing her baby, birthing and taming Dragons, leading Dothraki just to die and have the Man take over and gain all of her accomplishments without doing anything but banging her before she died. 🙄 sweet. I know that’s the story I’ve been wanting to see. 

What makes Jon a better ruler? His own men stabbed him and Melisandre resurrected him. Sansa  saved him. His uncle rescued him. His aunt (Dany) so far has given him armies and dragonglass. Jon on the show is the epitome of the noble hero who keeps getting bailed out by his female relatives. Or his Stark connections. He has done nothing to prove that he would be a better ruler than Daenarys. She may be a conqueror but at least she has actually ruled as a queen and we have seen her striving to learn from her mistakes. She’s not perfect, and her storyline in the books is less fire and  blood and a lot deeper. A lot was lost in adaptation unfortunately. I think she would be a great Queen, and I think show Jon and Dany would  be a perfect combination. Just the fact you said Dany is a conqueror not a Queen, but then said Jon would lead her armies and Conquer Westeros as if it’s okay If HE does it is what’s wrong with this narrative. The real issue with Dany is that she is a powerful woman with Dragons. 

Replace Dany with Jon, and he’s badass. Jon riding Rhegal and conquering Westeros and becoming King? I doubt you could find anyone who would have serious problem with that scenario.

This is not a post against you personally btw. It’s the broader issue I have a problem with. 

Also, before I get jumped on , Jon Snow is my favorite character besides Dany and if I had to choose between them it would be agonizing. So this is not a slight against Jon. I adore him. 

Edited March 18, 2019 by GraceK

[LadyChaos]

2 hours ago, GraceK said:

That will be awesome. Let the woman do all the work of gaining the loyalty of thousands of men, losing her baby, birthing and taming Dragons, leading Dothraki just to die and have the Man take over and gain all of her accomplishments without doing anything but banging her before she died. 🙄 sweet. I know that’s the story I’ve been wanting to see. 

What makes Jon a better ruler? His own men stabbed him and Melisandre resurrected him. Sansa  saved him. His uncle rescued him. His aunt (Dany) so far has given him armies and dragonglass. Jon on the show is the epitome of the noble hero who keeps getting bailed out by his female relatives. Or his Stark connections. He has done nothing to prove that he would be a better ruler than Daenarys. She may be a conqueror but at least she has actually ruled as a queen and we have seen her striving to learn from her mistakes. She’s not perfect, and her storyline in the books is less fire and  blood and a lot deeper. A lot was lost in adaptation unfortunately. I think she would be a great Queen, and I think show Jon and Dany would  be a perfect combination. Just the fact you said Dany is a conqueror not a Queen, but then said Jon would lead her armies and Conquer Westeros as if it’s okay If HE does it is what’s wrong with this narrative. The real issue with Dany is that she is a powerful woman with Dragons. 

Replace Dany with Jon, and he’s badass. Jon riding Rhegal and conquering Westeros and becoming King? I doubt you could find anyone who would have serious problem with that scenario.

This is not a post against you personally btw. It’s the broader issue I have a problem with. 

Also, before I get jumped on , Jon Snow is my favorite character besides Dany and if I had to choose between them it would be agonizing. So this is not a slight against Jon. I adore him. 

Why is that whenever someone objects to Dany behavior, its automatically about her being a woman?

Several times people have made comparasions of her behavior to the Mad King.  She's been told several times that her first instincts to just burn everyone with dragon fire is just like her father's instincts to burn everything with wild fire.  

The mad king was going to burn KL so no one could have it.  Dany was going to burn down Mareen so the slavers couldn't take it back.

The mad king burned sons and lords for disobedience.  Tyrion told Dany to throw Tarly and his son in a cell to give him time to think, instead she burned them alive.  

Yes, she saved the slaves and freed them, and because of that they worship her, and their POV are skewed about who she is.  However, The Mad King was loved once.  He was a great King once.  Do you think that Aemon would have abdicated the throne to join the Maesters if his little brother was crazy?  When she invited Jon to meet him in Dragon Stone, she essentially told him to bend the knee or you'll never leave this place alive; even took his ships and weapons away so he couldn't leave or defend himself.  Tyrion was the one that made her see sense.

Jon can be foolish sometimes. But he managed to unit the wildlings with the northerners. He doesn't tell people to bend the knee or die.  He also sees the bigger picture.  He sees other options besides submission or death.  He got stabbed to death by members of the Night's watch, because they couldn't see the bigger picture and see that Jon was seeing the bigger picture, and looking out for everyone.  Alisar never saw a white walker.  He didn't realize that every wilding past the wall was another soldier in the NK's army against them all.  However Jon did.  Jon understood that you made peace with your enemies, not your friends.  Not to mention that Alisar always hated him and wanted him dead.  So it wasn't hard for him to refuse to see what Jon was doing.  It wasn't Jon's fault that the Nights Watch forgot that their true purpose was to fight the AotD, and not the wildlings.

Jon is also willing to fight for his people, for those that follow him.  He helps them, gives them purpose.  In the first book he pulls one of his brothers in training aside and teaches how to use a sword, by the end of the week he was teaching the whole training group and they were flourishing under his guidance, and Alisar hated him for it.  

Both Jon and Dany have their strengths and their flaws.  No one doubts that.  

Dany is capable of inspiring awe and fear because of her dragons and her ruthlessness. However, you cannot rule a Kingdom that way.  This is why she makes a great conqueror.  However you can't just burn everyone that disagrees with your decision.  Tywin was right, a Good ruler knows when to listen to those that are wiser then themselves, when to be merciful and just, and when to be ruthless.  So far her rule in Mareen is a giant fail. She conquered and then left a mess. The only saving grace is that the slavers are two afraid of her return to try anything. Tyrion tried to tell her, if you eliminate the structure in play, you need to put a new one in.  She freed the slaves, great. but now they are homeless with no purpose, no jobs, no way to make wages to eat and support their families.  Thats why the Sons of the harpies were able to get the former slaves to join them, they paid them, gave them money to feed and cloth their family. She freed them, and expected to love her for it, but put no system in its place to help them outside of mess tents and barrack where they were forced to fight over beds and food.

This is why she not capable of ruling.

Jon didn't have to conquer anyone or have dragons to gain their respect or their support.  He gained it, because people saw that he was willing to put his life on the line for theirs. That he was willing to make the hard choices to save all people, not just the ones that thought they deserved it. He won't idlily go to war and sacrifice thousands of people without truly understanding the cost. 

Look Dany and Jon are my two favorite characters in the series.  In an ideal world, I would love them both to be King and Queen of the Iron throne because I think they balance each other out well and he makes her think before acting, but I honestly don't think they will get a happy ending. So I have to think about who, between the two of them, is more fit to rule a kingdom.  IMO, its Jon. He exercises restraint and his first instinct isn't to kill everyone that disobeys him in one the cruelest way possible. Jon only kills thoughs that he feels that he has no other choice.  Whereas Dany has to be talked down several times from committing mass murder.

Edited March 18, 2019 by LadyChaos
im working with one hand in cast and it sucks

[GraceK]

15 minutes ago, LadyChaos said:

The mad king burned sons and lords for disobedience.  Tyrion told Dany to throw Tarly and his son in a cell to give him time to think, instead she burned them alive.  

This argument never holds up. Tarly literally refused every option given him. Given the option to bend the knee? No. Instead he insulted her and said he would never serve a foreigner with savages. Given the option to take the black? Refused and said she wasn’t his queen and would never submit. He threw his life away rather than take any option to save his life and lands. And what no one who ever uses the Tarlys against Dany ever wants to mention is that they were pillaging Highgarden and raping it’s land for all its food and gold to give to a despotic tyrant who murdered innocent people with Wildfire. Tarly supported an illegitimate Queen who murdered his actual Queen and leige lord because she promised to make him Warden of the south. Book Randall would never pull such shady shit, because he was a Targaryen loyalist. 🙄come on. This is war. Dany is getting her ass kicked all season because she refused to use her dragons and burn shit down, because she is playing fair and listening to advice, and it cost her vital allies and support. When she actually listens to her instincts and takes control , she’s “ mad”?  She dealt a much needed blow to the Lannister forces , and burned two traitors who were too stupid too take another option.

she doesn’t just “ burn everyone who disagrees with her decisions “. What show are you watching? She agreed to reopen the fighting pits because her advisers and Hizidor convinced her to, even though she didn’t agree. She locked up her dragons as soon as Drogon killed a child. It was Tyrion who made the massive mistake of trusting the slavers by trying to negotiate with them, even though Missendi and Greyworm warned him. The slavers  betrayed him immediately and started a war. Dany didn’t want to burn down Mereen, she wanted to burn all the slavers . She even executed one of her own worshippers for executing a master after agreeing to a trial. She is open to advice, and she listens and learns. Her biggest problem in season 7 was listening to Tyrion who was actually working against her interests. She was so serious about NOT harming innocent people that Cersei seized the advantage and took out all her allies. Dany has stalled her quest for the iron throne for years because she was trying to help people.  Your assertion about “several people “comparing her to the mad king is false. The only people who have done that is Cersei, who used that for propaganda, and Varys and Tyrion in a conversation together talking about how she’s different from Aerys because she listens to her advisors. She may have been bitchy to Jon when he first arrived , but he really wasn’t a prisoner.  Come on. She gave him dragonglass, they flirted in a cave, and when he actually wanted to leave , she didn’t stop him. She also was willing to rescue his ass with all her dragons in a second when he asked. She’s one of the nicest people in the series besides Jon, when Yara asked for independence, she gave it didn’t she? It was Tyrion who was against it. She’s not unreasonable. She’s just strong and ruthless when she has to be, which, in a MAN, wouldn't be questioned at all. Nothing she has done has actually shown signs of madness.

[LadyChaos]

10 hours ago, GraceK said:

This argument never holds up. Tarly literally refused every option given him. Given the option to bend the knee? No. Instead he insulted her and said he would never serve a foreigner with savages. Given the option to take the black? Refused and said she wasn’t his queen and would never submit. He threw his life away rather than take any option to save his life and lands. And what no one who ever uses the Tarlys against Dany ever wants to mention is that they were pillaging Highgarden and raping it’s land for all its food and gold to give to a despotic tyrant who murdered innocent people with Wildfire. Tarly supported an illegitimate Queen who murdered his actual Queen and leige lord because she promised to make him Warden of the south. Book Randall would never pull such shady shit, because he was a Targaryen loyalist. 🙄come on. This is war. Dany is getting her ass kicked all season because she refused to use her dragons and burn shit down, because she is playing fair and listening to advice, and it cost her vital allies and support. When she actually listens to her instincts and takes control , she’s “ mad”?  She dealt a much needed blow to the Lannister forces , and burned two traitors who were too stupid too take another option.

she doesn’t just “ burn everyone who disagrees with her decisions “. What show are you watching? She agreed to reopen the fighting pits because her advisers and Hizidor convinced her to, even though she didn’t agree. She locked up her dragons as soon as Drogon killed a child. It was Tyrion who made the massive mistake of trusting the slavers by trying to negotiate with them, even though Missendi and Greyworm warned him. The slavers  betrayed him immediately and started a war. Dany didn’t want to burn down Mereen, she wanted to burn all the slavers . She even executed one of her own worshippers for executing a master after agreeing to a trial. She is open to advice, and she listens and learns. Her biggest problem in season 7 was listening to Tyrion who was actually working against her interests. She was so serious about NOT harming innocent people that Cersei seized the advantage and took out all her allies. Dany has stalled her quest for the iron throne for years because she was trying to help people.  Your assertion about “several people “comparing her to the mad king is false. The only people who have done that is Cersei, who used that for propaganda, and Varys and Tyrion in a conversation together talking about how she’s different from Aerys because she listens to her advisors. She may have been bitchy to Jon when he first arrived , but he really wasn’t a prisoner.  Come on. She gave him dragonglass, they flirted in a cave, and when he actually wanted to leave , she didn’t stop him. She also was willing to rescue his ass with all her dragons in a second when he asked. She’s one of the nicest people in the series besides Jon, when Yara asked for independence, she gave it didn’t she? It was Tyrion who was against it. She’s not unreasonable. She’s just strong and ruthless when she has to be, which, in a MAN, wouldn't be questioned at all. Nothing she has done has actually shown signs of madness.

First, she burned one of the old family leaders alive and planned on continuing to do so until she was made to see her mistake.  Those men, she had no proof that they were behind the suns of the harpy, which we later learned were actually being being funded by Astapor and Yunkai. But that's cool right? NBD, right.  Burning men alive without proof that their the problem?

And Jon was a prisoner on Dragonstone in all but words.  She took his weapons, took their means to leave, and would not let him leave until he bent the knee.  Sure she gave him a nice room instead of a cell, but he wasn't allowed to leave.  That is a prisoner. 

And again, I'm not saying her ruthlessness is a bad thing. It makes her a great conqueror BUT NOT A RULER. Her time in Mareen was a failure.  She won their awe and fear, but she didn't keep it.  They turned on her and former slaves began to join the Sons of the Harpy because at least as a slave they had room and board instead of fighting for food and cots in tents.  

[Lady S.]

On 3/18/2019 at 9:10 AM, LadyChaos said:

First, she burned one of the old family leaders alive and planned on continuing to do so until she was made to see her mistake.  Those men, she had no proof that they were behind the suns of the harpy, which we later learned were actually being being funded by Astapor and Yunkai. But that's cool right? NBD, right.  Burning men alive without proof that their the problem?

And Jon was a prisoner on Dragonstone in all but words.  She took his weapons, took their means to leave, and would not let him leave until he bent the knee.  Sure she gave him a nice room instead of a cell, but he wasn't allowed to leave.  That is a prisoner. 

Whether they were harpies or not, they were still slavers, so no we don't need to shed any tears for them. Do you also have a problem with Dany killing all the slavers in Astapor? I thought it was pretty clear that incident in 5.05 was from a general rage against the slaver cause and a temporary reaction to Barristan's murder, not a set justice policy of burn first, ask questions later.

And what? Jon never tried to leave until Tyrion came up with his dumbass wight hunt plan, at which point Jon said he didn't need her permission as a king himself, and she let him go, thereby recognizing his kingship. Jon only bent the knee after she rescued him and pledged to fight alongside him, when he didn't really have to at all. Before that, she did try several times to persuade him, but that was their only disagreement, not whether he could leave, because why would he need to? He stayed to mine the dragonglass, the whole reason he came there. Their argument was not "Bend the knee or you'll never leave alive!", it was "If you want me to fight for the North, why don't you accept me as queen?", quid pro quo not extortion. But as I said, she dropped that condition when she rescued him in 7.06 and he just called her his queen anyway, in gratitude that she did that for him, losing his dragon, and asking nothing in return.

[Colorful Mess]

On the wight hunt, Jon says like 24 hours before he bent the knee (that he never actually bent) that Dany wants him to bend the knee. These scenes are too close together, so how does he know Dany is sincerely going to honor her pledge? She's unpredictable as all get out. GRRM even said that she is a character "who really could do anything," and he has written her to make decisions nobody could predict. 

Or maybe he realized how prideful he was being? Which doesn't make a lot of sense because Jon is a humble person in comparison to her. Dany has a lot of pride/ambition. What else made her hesitate all season? She even hesitated after she agreed to help him which I'm sure boosted Jon's confidence that he made the right choice to make her supreme ruler of the North.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Colorful Mess

[Hana Chan]

There were quite a few moments where Jon had it literally shoved in his face that pride for a leader can be a deadly thing, because it stands in the way of doing what is right and best for their followers. What happened to the Wildlings under Mance was the first example. He then had his experiences as Lord Commander, being King in the North (and dealing with the fickle Northern Lords). Tormund then tells him straight out that Mance had been wrong to be so prideful because of how many Wildlings were lost as a result. 

Jon's first and only focus is (rightly) on the AOTD coming towards them. The battle for the Iron Throne is, at best, an abstract concern that is currently only a distraction for what the real fight is. By bending just a bit, he secured a large number of fighting men, two dragons and an alliance with one of the largest military powers in Westeros. Even Dany has accepted putting aside her own pride (about her rightful claim to the throne) for the greater good.

We're going to see the "prideful" characters painted in a negative light because we know full well what they are all facing. Cersi, who would rather see the entire world burn rather than accept defeat. The Northern Lords, who'll be grousing about Jon supporting Dany and giving up the full independence of the North and likely won't get on the clue bus until the wrights are banging down their front doors. Even Sansa, who fancies herself as the Lady of Winterfell and is enjoying her newfound power and is not inclined to give her full support to Jon and Dany because she's got no idea of what's really coming for them.

[SimoneS]

On 3/18/2019 at 10:10 AM, LadyChaos said:

And again, I'm not saying her ruthlessness is a bad thing. It makes her a great conqueror BUT NOT A RULER. Her time in Mareen was a failure.  She won their awe and fear, but she didn't keep it.  They turned on her and former slaves began to join the Sons of the Harpy because at least as a slave they had room and board instead of fighting for food and cots in tents.  

Capitalizing something doesn't make it true, but here goes: Dany IS A RULER and her rule of Meereen WAS A SUCCESS on the show.The city did not rise up against Dany's rule as you claim. She did in fact win the support of most of the populace. Yes, there was an attempted coup by a group wealthy former slave owners and their allies who paid goons to kill people, Dany defeated them and restored peace to the city. She left them with a ruling council and Daario and the Seven Sons to them enforce the new laws. I will also add if Jon was such a great ruler there would be no need to drag Dany. Jon and Dany have their strengths and weaknesses as rulers. Westeros would fair better if they rule together, but if it will do well if either one of them ends up on the Iron Throne.

Edited March 23, 2019 by SimoneS

[Hana Chan]

All leaders make mistakes. Cersei made a huge miscalculation with the Sparrows that ended up costing her the life of her last child and nearly cost her control over Kings Landing. Dany made mistakes in Meereen that she eventually got a handle on but she very nearly lost control over the entire situation. Jon made errors as Lord Commander and as KITN. 

Dany left Meereen with the possibility of a good future, but the simple fact is that it's no longer in her hands. She walked away from the city to focus on her real goal and there's no way for her have any control over what happens in the future. It could go on to a prosperous future, or it could all go to shit because she and her dragons are no longer there to maintain control. Meereen was little more, in the end, than a learning experience for her about the difference between conquering and ruling.

What she has learned, from Jon no less, is that there are things that are more important than who's backside is currently in the world's most uncomfortable chair. Dany will prove her real heroism and leadership by showing her willingness to walk away, even temporarily, from her ultimate goal and putting the well-being of the kingdom ahead of her own desires. 

In the end, if either Jon or Dany survives the war with the AOTD and moves to take on Cersei, it's going to be a lot easier for them to rally the smallfolk and other houses to their cause because they will have proven that their first priority is the well-being of the kingdom and not their own grasp on power.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Hana Chan

[Smad]

22 hours ago, Hana Chan said:

There were quite a few moments where Jon had it literally shoved in his face that pride for a leader can be a deadly thing, because it stands in the way of doing what is right and best for their followers. What happened to the Wildlings under Mance was the first example.

That example was a blatant retcon. And it came from Tormund, of all people. Maybe D&D should have re-watched their own show and avoid contradicting themselves all over the place (just like all the S1 references in S7 made no sense). Mance specifically said it wasn't about pride after Jon accused him of Mance's pride being the reason he doesn't bend the knee. He made it perfectly clear that he didn't want his people involved in southern politics, specifically southern wars. He knew that if he bend the knee to Stannis, Stannis would use the Wildlings in his army for his war for the throne and many/most of them would die for Stannis' ambition. This is exactly why the North wants it's independence. They are tired of the southern ambitions for a freaking chair. Except now thanks to Jon, that's exactly what happened to the North. What few Northerners survive the fight with the AotD will then be forced to join Dany in her quest for the throne and many more will die. How is that a good thing?

Everyone is obligated IMO to fight the AotD because that is the enemy of every living creature in Westeros. But not everyone is obligated to fight someone's war for a throne to become the absolute monarch. That's definitely not what the North signed up for. Except that's exactly what happened when Jon bend the knee. Instead of a marriage alliance or Jon offering to postpone discussions of knee bending until after dealing with the AotD (room which Dany gave him when she pledged to fight without demands), he bend the knee so the North is screwed over twice instead of once. Having to fight the AotD and also Cersei/Euron/GC.

[Hana Chan]

The point that Jon understands is that if the war against the AOTD is lost, then any consideration for what happens afterwards is totally pointless. He said it very clearly that if the North falls, then whoever is sitting on the Iron Throne would be ruling over a graveyard. 

He had to make a very difficult decision here. Reject Dany's offer of support, especially after she has seen the real threat and was willing to put aside her quest for the throne in order to join her forces with Jon's, because it would be giving up the full independence of the North made no sense because what good would independence be if the Night King wins? Jon's decision was pragmatic at its core because he knows full well that all other considerations pale in the face of what is coming for them.

His decision was presented in very clear contrast to Dany, who until the moment she pledged her support to Jon, stood on ceremony and her numerous titles and demanded allegiance while threatening with dragon fire, and Cersei who would rather rule over a city of ashes than give up her power. Jon is the only one who understood that in the end, who sits on the throne isn't important. Supporting Dany's "legitimate" claim in exchange for support that is needed immediately? In the end, I don't think there was another choice he could make for the well-being of his people.

Only once the war with the AOTD is determined will and should the matter of the Iron Throne be considered and the fact is that for the continued security of the North, Cersei cannot be allowed to continue ruling. Dany, if she wins, could not be worse for the North than Cersei and supporting her claim (if that's how things play out) would further the North's security. It's practical self-interest as far as the North is concerned.

[Smad]

1 hour ago, Hana Chan said:

Reject Dany's offer of support, especially after she has seen the real threat and was willing to put aside her quest for the throne in order to join her forces with Jon's, because it would be giving up the full independence of the North made no sense because what good would independence be if the Night King wins?

Why would he reject a no strings attached, free offer? He bend the knee AFTER Dany had already pledged to fight with him because she understood that there would be no one to rule over if the AotD makes it past the wall. She also understood that further conquering would be pointless because it would only reduce the fighting force the living has against the dead.

And if independence of the North is pointless because of the NK, so is bending the knee. Either both are pointless or they are not. After all it shouldn't matter who is ruler right now or after because it makes no difference to the NK either.

And again, thanks to Jon's decision to bend the knee (and not even doing the smart thing and lying to Cersei about it) put a bullseye on the North and they will be fighting a second front thanks to that. If Jon had left the catfight for the throne to Dany and Cersei (or at least pretend to), Cersei would probably have waited until what's left of Dany's forces came South before launching an attack (going North in winter is after all foolish). Instead a second front will descend on the North from the South, all thanks to Jon.

[Lady S.]

On 3/24/2019 at 10:23 AM, Smad said:

Either both are pointless or they are not. After all it shouldn't matter who is ruler right now or after because it makes no difference to the NK either.

And again, thanks to Jon's decision to bend the knee (and not even doing the smart thing and lying to Cersei about it) put a bullseye on the North and they will be fighting a second front thanks to that. If Jon had left the catfight for the throne to Dany and Cersei (or at least pretend to), Cersei would probably have waited until what's left of Dany's forces came South before launching an attack (going North in winter is after all foolish). Instead a second front will descend on the North from the South, all thanks to Jon.

You're right, both are pointless for the time being, which means Jon bending the knee isn't the big deal you're making it out to be.

Yeah, because Cersei's always needed provocation before attacking someone, right? Jon's allegiance was just a trap so she could storm off in fake indignation and then come back with her fake agreement. I'd say name-checking honorable Ned was her way of daring him to refuse since she played a part in the honest headless guy's downfall, making Jon unlikely to betray Ned's memory by lying about neutrality toward a woman Ned hated. I really doubt she'd stop seeing Jon as an enemy if he had made a declaration of neutrality, seeing as he was already hanging with Dany and Tyrion and his family still has every reason in the world to want her dead and off the throne when all the end times shit is said and done, even if they stayed independent from said throne. If Dany and her dragons are at Winterfell, what difference does the exact status of her relationship with Jon mean to the increasingly unhinged power-mad Cersei? Jon's answer meaning anything would require Cersei to suddenly be capable of entering into good faith agreements, proving Tyrion right in arranging the whole chat, but her reveal of her real plan to Jaime shows the opposite. You're assuming both that Cersei will survive the Night King, powerful enough that Dany will need northern forces to unseat her, and that the North could otherwise remain independent without Cersei ever trying to attack them, satisfied as Queen of her limited kingdoms. I find either scenario hard to believe.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Lady S.

[MadameKillerB]

Can't decide where to put this...Just some thoughts on Kit and Emilia's chemistry affecting how believable their love affair is.

I watch all the behind the scenes stuff. My son is in film school and I like to see him geek out on camera load outs, etc, and he helps me understand filming choices, stunts, and other things.

Anyway, Kit mocked throwing up after he and Emilia did the waterfall scene kiss. He's said he doesn't like seeing his wife Leslie kissing other actors in her various projects. He has said he and Emilia are friends which makes it weird to kiss her in scenes.

That kind of sucks, though, doesn't it? For viewers, I mean. I think that is one reason I'm not so invested in their great love affair. They don't look into it.

Also, Emilia has let some of herself slip into Dany this season. I love her personality, she's goofy and fun and quick-witted. 

Anyway, I know I'm not alone in thinking Jon and Dany have no chemistry...because Emilia and Kit don't give us that in their acting.

[glowbug]

On 5/1/2019 at 11:51 AM, MadameKillerB said:

Can't decide where to put this...Just some thoughts on Kit and Emilia's chemistry affecting how believable their love affair is.

I watch all the behind the scenes stuff. My son is in film school and I like to see him geek out on camera load outs, etc, and he helps me understand filming choices, stunts, and other things.

Anyway, Kit mocked throwing up after he and Emilia did the waterfall scene kiss. He's said he doesn't like seeing his wife Leslie kissing other actors in her various projects. He has said he and Emilia are friends which makes it weird to kiss her in scenes.

That kind of sucks, though, doesn't it? For viewers, I mean. I think that is one reason I'm not so invested in their great love affair. They don't look into it.

Also, Emilia has let some of herself slip into Dany this season. I love her personality, she's goofy and fun and quick-witted. 

Anyway, I know I'm not alone in thinking Jon and Dany have no chemistry...because Emilia and Kit don't give us that in their acting.

Kit and Emilia have great chemistry in real life when they've been snapped by the paparazzi together and in the early seasons when they did photoshoots together. I was actually surprised when their onscreen chemistry was so lacking. I think it's because Emilia is not only friends with Kit but also very good friends with his wife as well. That makes the dynamic weird, especially since their offscreen chemistry has lead to rumors that the two were dating/hooking up/etc.. Every once in a while there is a hint of a spark between them but most of the time the onscreen chemistry isn't there.

[MadameKillerB]

Oh I get that. Totally. However, acting? Isn't that what it's about?

[Chaser]

If Rose was standing two feet away doing her best impression of Bran when filming then maybe I could buy the ‘they’re all friends’ thing. IMO Chemistry is chemistry. You have it or you don’t.