S06.E10: The Winds of Winter

[OhOkayWhat]

Jon arc is amazing. People were theorizing, before the season started, about how death could change Jon. Evil-UnJon? Zombie-UnJon? the same old Jon?.. And I have read people expressing why his arc made sense, and their ideas are brilliant and I agree with them.

This is the story of an incomplete resurrection. Inside Castle Back they decided to bring him back, and he came back. But he came back feeling emptiness and fear inside. Fear to live. Fear to keep working and walking forward. Something very important was lost inside him.

And that was our Jon until the day when the battle came. And the battle was not about if he was an awesome commander or a brilliant strategist. Or if he was able to guess the mind tricks of Ramsay, it was not even about vengeance.

Watch it again, the answer is not in the swords or the arrows or the cavalry that arrived at the last minute. It is not even about his mistakes. Watch it again and you will realize where is the answer. The answer is in the mud. Among the dead and the dying. Among the wounded, in the company of the despair and the fatigue.

There, in the middle of the mud and the blood and the dead, a young man finds his rebirth, it is now his time to choose. To give up, to forget about everything. To die. Or to fight. And it is not a fight for a kingdom or even for his own home. It is not a fight for glory or the crown in the North (those things came later, when he did not ask for them). It is not a fight with swords or fists. That it happened in a battlefield was just a coincidence, if it was an huge carriage accident, it could be the same, it was not about war.

His fight was the most simple fight that he ever had. The most difficult. It was the struggle to breathe. A tiny battle down there, among the dead and the wounded. A tiny battle that meant everything, because now, he was choosing to live and he was embracing his life.

It was his rebirth. An old Jon, a new Jon, the same young man, different young man. Winter is coming he remembers and winter is here he hears. And he smiles, not because the memories alone, but also because the present days, even if terrors are waiting near.

His victory was not the battle, his victory was that breath and the breaths that came after that one. He is the hero not because he is smartest man or stronger than any man, because he is not those things.

He is the hero because he just keeps going, against all the odds. He does not give up, that is who he is, that is his triumph, to find that man that he lost. Because at the end, that is the struggle that will face Westeros, Essos, everyone. Dead is coming. And people must choose Life. And that is what he did.

Edited July 8, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[SandSniper]

19 hours ago, Gertrude said:

I could also ask if you are watching the same show as I am.

I agree with Sand Sniper in theory. Sansa does say things that make me think she is completely fine with Jon taking over and she gets to advise from the back row, safe at home and not a political pawn for ambitious players. However, when Sansa is shown on screen in other situations (i.e not with Jon alone) she gets enigmatic and hard to read. Add that to Sophie Turner's interviews about Sansa and her motives and things don't line up. In the behind the scenes episode, the showrunners talk about how Sansa is a little angry and jealous of Jon. The show is trying to get us to think Sansa has more going on than just 'I love and trust my brother. Go Direwolves.'

I don't think in my gut that Sansa would plot against Jon's interests, but the show wants us to start looking at it as a possibility, so we are. That's what bothers me about this particular plot thread - I'm not buying what they are trying to sell me. Sansa is written to be more petty and shallow than what I always envisioned her as and much more than I want her to be. That's my take.

I don’t think Sansa is hard to read because I don’t have to speculate about the feelings I get from Sansa’s body language when to understand her all you need to do is just listen to the words coming out of her mouth.

There is nothing “angry and jealous” about Sansa saying Jon should take the Lord’s chambers or directly telling him he is a Stark to her.

There is nothing “petty and shallow” about the Sansa of Season 6 versus the Sansa of Season 1 when she directly states how wrong Season 1 Sansa was to pray for what she thought she wanted rather than be thankful for what she had with her family and idyllic life at Winterfell.

Conclusive proof of how far this girl has come over the six seasons is when Sansa is directly offered both the North and a seat beside potential King Littlefinger on the Iron Throne she politely but firmly (keeping his hopes alive if she needs to play him in the future) turns down Littlefinger.

That is not the behavior of an “angry and jealous” or “petty and shallow” woman but someone that knows what is important and it is Team Stark in Winterfell.

It was also very telling that the Game of Thrones writers have the friendzoned Littlefinger shortly after making Sansa his offer watching Jon be declared King in the North while Sansa is sitting right beside him in support at the Stark’s table.

Sansa has beauty and brains and has learned what is important in life. She has Ned Starks honor & Catelyn’s determination & Ramsy’s pragmatic ruthlessness & Littlefingers cunning and she is going to use them not for her own “petty and shallow” interests but to return her family which right now is Jon & her to its rightful place at Winterfell & the North.

What she doesn’t have any more is the Stark’s nativity.

I assume Dany is heading south to land her invasion force in Dorne since the Dothraki & Unsullied are used to warmer weather but I hope Varys hears of the North declaring independence from Kingslanding and they turn the fleet to starboard instead of port to make an alliance with Jon & Sansa & the North.   

So is Sansa as Ramsey’s widow the heir to House Bolton?

If yes she should “donate” the Dreadfort and the Bolton lands to the Wilding families so they can wait out the winter in comfort.

Also is Sansa still technically married to Tyrone? If so and something happens to him (& Cersei and Jaime end up dead in the invasion) she would inherit Casterly Rock.

Sansa is not in too bad a shape from the inheritance game.

Warmest Regards, SandSniper

Edited July 8, 2016 by SandSniper

[paramitch]

9 hours ago, doram said:

So in the eyes of these Lords,  Jon is exactly the same kind of deserter that Ned beheaded at the start of the story....? And they somehow think it's a good idea to crown him and *not* that little Lyanna hasn't outgrown her Old Nan tales?  

While I agree that the show has often simplified Jon's arc and abilities, I don't understand the continued reference to Jon as an oathbreaker and deserter who ought to face execution -- nor that others would feel that way in some kind of universal manner.

Jon served the Night's Watch honorably -- until his actual death at their hands. His oath was fulfilled. At that point, rising again (and having fulfilled his oath to the letter of the law) he returned back to a family and political struggle that desperately needed him. I cannot imagine anyone thinking he owes the Night's Watch that brutally and collectively murdered him in cold blood a damn thing.

Jon's murder, and his resurrection at the hands of Melisandre, appear to be both common knowledge and accepted by those around them, and the story would have lost nothing in the telling as word spread through the North. The Night's Watch absolutely knew that he had both fulfilled his oath and that he had every right to leave. I'm assuming the men of the North feel similarly.

In fact, I actually think that this is why they're more liable to follow him. Jon's return after death to lead and avenge the Starks would be an understandably emotional and inspiring thing. All Lyanna did was fire them up a little.

[Gertrude]

3 hours ago, OhOkayWhat said:

His fight was the most simple fight that he ever had. The most difficult. It was the struggle to breathe. A tiny battle down there, among the dead and the wounded. A tiny battle that meant everything, because now, he was choosing to live and he was embracing his life.

It was his rebirth. An old Jon, a new Jon, the same young man, different young man. Winter is coming he remembers and winter is here he hears. And he smiles, not because the memories alone, but also because the present days, even if terrors are waiting near.

His victory was not the battle, his victory was that breath and the breaths that came after that one. He is the hero not because he is smartest man or stronger than any man, because he is not those things.

He is the hero because he just keeps going, against all the odds. He does not give up, that is who he is, that is his triumph, to find that man that he lost. Because at the end, that is the struggle that will face Westeros, Essos, everyone. Dead is coming. And people must choose Life. And that is what he did.

 

I really love the reading of this, but it was never written into the script. It was a sequence the director thought up because what was actually written was problematic. The director suggested the sequence of Jon being trampled and D&D gave him the green light.

@Sandsniper - like I said, I agree that Sansa's words don't show jealousy or anger for the most part (aside from the 'why didn't you ask me' thing). But the writers and actors are saying it, and thus they are putting that into the portrayal. It's not my opinion, but the actual words of the people making the show. I find it bad writing because I don't buy that she would feel that way If they want her to feel that way, or at least have us think she feels that way, I think they portrayed it poorly. That's my beef with Sansa this year. Do you understand what I am getting at? I feel like you are just looking at what's on screen and dissecting that when I am trying to talk about the bigger picture.

[Gertrude]

15 minutes ago, paramitch said:

Jon served the Night's Watch honorably -- until his actual death at their hands. His oath was fulfilled. At that point, rising again (and having fulfilled his oath to the letter of the law) he returned back to a family and political struggle that desperately needed him. I cannot imagine anyone thinking he owes the Night's Watch that brutally and collectively murdered him in cold blood a damn thing.

Of course we don't think he's a deserter, and anyone who knew the story likely wouldn't either, but who else knows about his resurrection? It hasn't been talked about outside the Wall so why should the Lords think he's done anything other than desert? If they talked about it off-screen, well that's just a poor decision, isn't it? It's kind of a big deal.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Gertrude

[OhOkayWhat]

2 hours ago, Gertrude said:

I really love the reading of this, but it was never written into the script. It was a sequence the director thought up because what was actually written was problematic. The director suggested the sequence of Jon being trampled and D&D gave him the green light.

 

I know about that interview (Entertainment Weekly, if we are talking about the same article) but I disagree, because as far I understand, the job of a director in a TV show is to express with his/her own skills and language, the vision of the showrunners/writers.

He found it problematic because the weather and the time. I suppose he did not have a different vision of the scene. In other words, whatever was in the script originally, we will never know, but it is possible it was the same "Jon choose Life" idea but with more visual effects or horses or a more complex visual narrative, or with other characters involved. It does not matter, because if it was the case, Miguel was able to convey the same concept (the vision of the showrunners about Jon and his rebirth arc) with his idea (Jon crushed under the troops) creating that sequence and delivering the message the showrunners wanted.

 

 

From another interview, this time with IGN:

IGN: This episode took 25 days to shoot and also featured arguably the most impressive special effects of the series. Was there anything that needed to be cut because you didn't have money or time, or was this a case where HBO gave you all the resources needed to pull this off?

Miguel Sapochnik: As with last year the sequence was originally twice the size when it was first presented to me. That’s just the process Dan and David like to follow and my job was to work out what we could and could not do and then present ideas to them and ways to achieve the same idea but in the time we had.

Many things were cut. For example the original "wall of shields" was actually a wall of horses. However horses do not actually do well if they are marched into people and it also takes a very long time to shoot so we cut it. Also the entire field was meant to be covered in snow but the resets every time the horses ran up and down it was going to take so long that we just couldn’t do it and had to think of another way of representing cold.

Making movies is all about compromise, negotiation and sacrifice but the process helps you distill what’s really important to you and once you have identified what those these things are for any particular sequence, you hold onto them and don’t let them go.

IGN: Talk to me about choreographing the single-take Jon Snow scene. Was that in the script already or something you added? How long did it take to execute from conception to the winning take?

Sapochnik: That was something we added to answer a description in the script of Jon being in the center of chaos. It was also an idea that came from the desire to not get stuck shooting a bunch of aerial shots of a cavalry charge that would take us out of the feeling of being in there with Jon..........

(Note: the bolded part is mine)

 

 

He is talking here about the whole process and other scenes of the battle, but these bolded parts made me think that maybe the rebirth scene in the original script included references to Jon fighting for his life or almost giving up before changing and deciding he should keep fighting.

Imagine you have a big puzzle and the image that the puzzle shows you (once all the pieces are together) is an abstract painting. Well, it happens that almost all the puzzle is done, but a piece is lost. You do not know what colors you could find in that little piece that is lost, but you know the shape of it, because it is the shape that fits with the rest of the puzzle. It is the same with Jon rebirth concept.

Maybe we will never know what was exactly in the original script before Miguel Sapochnik took the decision of go "off book" and shooting without a script in the sequence, but the rebirthing and the decision of Jon to choose Life fills exactly the space in the whole arc where it is needed, giving it completeness as a concept. As Miguel said it is part of his job "present ideas to them and ways to achieve the same idea but in the time we had."

But, of course, I admit I do not know the truth, maybe the whole thing was an idea of Sapochnik, even the concept behind it (Jon choosing Life) and I am being unfair with him, but also I do not want to be unfair with the showrunners, in case the concept is part of their writing.

Edited July 8, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[Gertrude]

And maybe I am being unfair to the writers, but I've kind of reached a breaking point with the show. The last two episodes were very good, but the rest of the season felt like phoning it in and episode 8 was the point at which I finally broke. I feel that they plan the big points (FIRE! BATTLE! SEPT!) and then just fill time and do the bare necessity to get to those points. If they really meant for Jon to choose life and to live in that moment, then I wish they would have talked about it in the behind the scenes stuff. Far too often I have to reply on that to figure out what exactly they are trying to get across on screen. Like I said, I really do love your reading of Jon's arc and that moment and want it to be true.

So yeah, sorry to be a downer, but I don't have faith in D&D to do justice to the story or to even have a coherent vision anymore. I think they had their moment of glory with the Red Wedding, have been getting progressively more and more burnt out and are more concerned with one-upping themselves on big moments than telling a good story. And I really don't blame them, but I get really disheartened when I think about the fact that this is the story most people will know and think George wrote instead of the beautifully layered and nuanced story he is actually writing. Everyone will know that Arya is a bad-ass that got revenge on Walder Frey via pie and will never truly know how powerful 'the North remembers' is. My expectations are probably too high.

I did do a small rewatch of season one because I was looking for a specific scene, then got caught up in it again. The first seasons were so damn well done. The quality of dialog is leagues above what we got in the last few seasons. They can do it, I know they can, but they just aren't anymore.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Gertrude

[OhOkayWhat]

@Gertrude, do not be sorry, it is your opinion, and I respect that, even if I do not share it. And I respect the way you write it. Maybe some people do not care about the way people write their opinions, but I do. In other ASOIAF-GOT boards, commenters can be very rude and sometimes they insult each other or the showrunners, actors or George.

I love that this place is not like that, and I am glad to read your comment and to find that even if we do not agree, we can be nice and share a nice discussion too. Thank you for that.

[Gertrude]

Agreed. This is a great forum to air thoughts and love hearing people's thoughts. I sometimes get caught up in the trap so many people fall into - Someone on the internet is wrong! Rarrr! So thanks for that comment. :)

[WearyTraveler]

19 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

For me, the entire point of Jon's character is that he becomes king because he's one of the few who earned the title through deeds and leading by example - not psychological games, sinister machinations, or brute force. He leads people and inspires them when all hope is lost. In the books his ideas are so far ahead of everyone else that he loses sight of the smaller picture, to his detriment (classic tragic hero complex). In the show, weirdly, he gets declared king through rhetorical flourishes. Jon didn't lead people through a difficult situation; he simply personally fulfilled his vendetta against Ramsay. Few of the Northern lords helped, so to overcome THEIR shame, cowardice, and feebleness, and to renew their traditional fealty to House Stark, they mollify their embarrassment by declaring a king. But was it Jon himself or just some Stark figurehead they liked? To me it seems less about HIM and his personal qualities of leadership, and more about THEIR emotional management of the situation. I was not fully convinced that the show runners laid the ground work for Jon earning this and it drives me insane. 

I wasn't convinced either, but as a Jon fan?  Damn if I didn't cheer along with the Northmen! (at almost 3:00 in the morning, which is when we get to see the show)

Edited July 8, 2016 by WearyTraveler

[screamin]

16 hours ago, doram said:

So in the eyes of these Lords,  Jon is exactly the same kind of deserter that Ned beheaded at the start of the story....? 

Yes. And?

There are such things as oathbreakers in our world as well as in Westeros. Do WE condemn them all with horror equally? Do we condemn the man who perjures himself in a trial for swindling or murder exactly the same way we condemn a man who flees from an army in terror after battle trauma, or a priest or nun who leaves the church to get married and raise a family? IMO, we extend them different levels of sympathy and understanding of the oaths they broke, depending on the circumstances of their breaking and the reasons they broke them.

The same applies to Westeros. We see various oathbreakers on Westeros. And their treatment is different. Jaime broke an important oath quite publically. But he is also the son of the richest man in Westeros. We see some sticklers for the rules like Ned and Brienne despise him, but others view him better for various reasons; his looks, his talent, his powerful family, and/or the fact that Aerys needed killing. He certainly is not universally rejected. His father even thought he could get him back to the position of his heir and eventual ruler of Casterly Rock - and Tywin was no dummy.

Barristan might also be considered an oathbreaker by some sticklers - and was, initially, by Dany. But she accepted him and his reasoning because it made sense to her and because she needed more allies.

The deserter Ned beheaded was, IIRC, a man of the smallfolk. He had harmed no one, and he was running away in mindless panic. Ned executed him because it was his duty, though even dutiful Ned was disturbed that he was killing a man who was 'half-mad' with real fear of something, even though Ned didn't believe what the man told him about what had frightened him. If only Ned had had a little more flexibility and imagination, he might've held off on the execution long enough to notify The Wall about the man he had caught and asked if they wanted to talk to him before he got the chop...because the Wall would have been very interested to ask him (among other things) where he had left the body of the nobleman he'd been riding with. Benjen was sent out to look for that body, and was lost, because Ned's mindless by-the-book behavior kept that info from the Wall (Just like Ned.) 

There's oaths involved in being a maester. IIRC, they forswear marriage and even their family name. So if Aemon had tried for the kingship when he was a young maester, on his own initiative or as figurehead for others, he would have been doing it as an oathbreaker. The fact that he decided to leave court and put himself a continent away at the Wall under a second oath to reduce that risk for his family shows that he thought a significant proportion of Westerosi would accept an oathbreaker as their king.

Lastly, Aemon told Jon that he was most tempted to break his oath when Rhaegar's children were murdered. In the book, the main reason he gives for not breaking his oath was that he was too old and weak to make a difference anymore - NOT because it's impossible for a deserter to accomplish anything because everyone would unanimously reject him and put him to death. This implies that if Aemon had been thirty or forty years younger, he considered it would have been possible for him to get away clean from the Wall, and use his skills and his connections to raise some hell on his family's behalf - despite being a deserter.

Which brings us to Jon (at long last). Is it plausible that Jon (off-screen!) told all the lords that he's released from his Night's Watch vows because he died and was resurrected, and that now Westeros is threatened by the Wight Walkers and their Night King - the stuff of fairy tales? Is it likely that the lords ALL nodded as one man and said "Seems legit," believing him completely? Why wouldn't they show us this interesting and vital scene, if it actually happened?

To me, it seems much more likely that Jon didn't explain much more than we actually saw him explain, and that the Northern lords believe the most likely explanation - that Jon has broken his oath to the NW, but that he did it for reasons they can understand, sympathize with, and overlook. None of them are the Warden of the North with Ned's by-the-book OCD duty-bound attitude, they loved and respected Ned, Jon's his son, and he's fighting to avenge his father and put down enemies that have plagued the North. If they make him King - well, kings can get away with things that mere nobles can't. And if any of them hear rumors about how Jon was killed and revived and that's why he feels free of his vows, probably a lot of them would rationalize it the way we would - he had a wound and a near-death experience, and this is how he salves his conscience about leaving, and if this helps him get to sleep at night it's no skin off their noses.

Anyway, I think this is getting far afield from the original point. Even if you DO believe (without onscreen evidence) that the Northern Lords made Jon king because they totally believe he revived from the dead and he's the ONLY one who can protect them from the Night King, the White Walkers, and the snarks and grumkins, why would this make them any more likely to want Jon to start a civil war with Sansa over possession of Winterfell? Whether you think the ongoing threat is the Lannister army, the Greyjoys, or the Night King, fighting your allies right now is a really stupid idea.

Edited July 8, 2016 by screamin

[WearyTraveler]

Sometimes we don't hear about things that are important because there's simply no time, in the TV world.  It wouldn't be the first time this happened on the show either.  We didn't see all the noble houses outside of KL find out about Joffrey's death, but we know they did.  We never saw Ramsey hear or read any stories about Jon, we never saw anyone from any other house, Northern or Southern, hear about Jon's prowess with a sword, but, after the parley with Ramsey, we know that Jon is apparently a legendary swordfighter.

People talk, ravens fly, gossip spreads; but, more importantly, time in the TV version of this story is fluid, very, very fluid.  We don't know how long Jon and Sansa had been campaigning, but we know how long it took Jon and Tyrion to reach the Wall the first season, and we know they have been sending ravens like crazy to all the Northern houses, and it's implied on the show, I think, that they visited more than the two we saw on screen.  Heck! we are supposed to surmise by the almost imperceptible comment about people painting the sails of the ships and making them ready that enough time has passed for Varys to have travelled back to Meereen in order to sail with Dany.

So, I think it's very possible that someone at the Wall, let's say, Edd, has sent ravens to the Northern houses notifying them that Jon Snow's watch has ended on account of his being dead, and then resurrected. While Sansa was making those awesome clothes, I'm sure some people from Castle Black went to Mole's Town and talked about how the Red priestess resurrected Jon Snow. Pretty much like the smallfolk around the Riverlands were always talking about how Lord Beric Dondarrion couldn't be killed.  If Jon's resurrection in the books is handled in any way like Beric's comebacks, and doesn't ever result in a problem for Jon with the Northern Lords, then I think D&D might just skip all the show and tell, and move along.  They only have 13 episodes left, after all.

-----------------

I don't mind Ned's sense of honor, his duty bound attitude, or his commitment to always do the right thing.  I wish we had more people like that in the world.  I don't understand why characters like Ned are sometimes despised for their mistakes, even more so than darker, more "evil" characters.  What is it about people trying to be good, trying to live with honor and do their duty, and trying to always do the right thing that inspires so much disdain?  Is it a sense that we could never be as good (of heart, conviction, and soul) as he is?

Maybe, if we had more people obsessed with doing the right thing, we would have a lot less shootings, murders, and corruption cases.  Long live Ned Stark! :)

Edited July 8, 2016 by WearyTraveler

[PatsyandEddie]

I'm trying to use the like button for your post WearyTraveler but the site isn't co-operating.  I agree completely with what you said!  Time is of the essence and not everything can be shown so we have to accept the story as we see it. 

I never had a problem with Ned's code of honour either. Someone has to be ready to do the right thing no matter how difficult it is. 

[evilmindatwork]

I think part of why people are so hard on Ned is because we want so badly for people like Ned to stay in the world. In my opinion, Ned's compassion screwed him over maybe even more than his honor (warning Cersei). Because a person can do the technically honorable thing like Jaime (not break his oath) but ultimately still make the right decision (by saving the lives of those in Kings Landing). Ned is probably one of my favorite fictional characters of all time, but I still felt deeply annoyed at him for getting himself killed. 

[TxanGoddess]

Eh I'd call myself 90% a Ned fan but I think a careful viewing of the show makes it very debatable whether his rigidity wasn't always truly principled.  Think  of season 1 when Arya asks him about how he can bear to marry Sansa off to Joffrey after the Micah situation.  He justifies Santa's having lied in court for one, and never answers Arya or acts on the very legitimate question she posed.  

Sometimes its morally and/or intellectually lazy to say you have to stick to a certain course just cause you said you would without regard for new information.

Edited July 9, 2016 by TxanGoddess
because I sounded like a pretentious dickhead

[Ambrosefolly]

12 minutes ago, TxanGoddess said:

Eh I'd call myself 90% a Ned fan but I think a careful viewing of the show makes it inarguable that his rigidity wasn't always truly principled.  Think  of season 1 when Arya asks him about how he can bear to marry Sansa off to Joffrey after the Micah situation.  He justifies Santa's having lied in court for one, and never answers Arya or acts on the very legitimate question she posed.  

It's morally and intellectually lazy to say you have to stick to a certain course just cause you said you would without regard for new information.

I got the impression that when Arya asked Ned that question, Ned really started to question why he would marry Sansa off to someone who had shown didn't have any honor. That's what I took from the pause. I think he was too caught up in his friendship with Robert.

[Gertrude]

7 hours ago, WearyTraveler said:

Sometimes we don't hear about things that are important because there's simply no time, in the TV world.  It wouldn't be the first time this happened on the show either.  We didn't see all the noble houses outside of KL find out about Joffrey's death, but we know they did.  We never saw Ramsey hear or read any stories about Jon, we never saw anyone from any other house, Northern or Southern, hear about Jon's prowess with a sword, but, after the parley with Ramsey, we know that Jon is apparently a legendary swordfighter.

While I generally agree with this sentiment, this time it bugs me a lot. You're right, we don't need to see every reaction. I am also willing to give the show the benefit of the doubt for a lot of things. In my opinion, the show abuses this trust. I believe this particular problem is because the books will handle the aftermath of Jon's resurrection much differently than the show did. I have sympathy, because trying to come up to an alternate version of life after death sounds like a difficult task to me, but it's also their job. They couldn't come up with a plausible storyline that fits with what they've already done/planned. so they just ignore it and assume we'll roll with it.

So Ramsey knew about Jon's sword fighting ability but not that he was resurrected? If we're to assume he did, why not mention it? I'm sure Ramsey could think of a cutting remark. OK, so Ramsey knew about it but didn't want to acknowledge it. the resurrection and Jon being a special snowflake might have come in handy when trying to recruit the Houses. No, not gonna mention it there either? Not gonna even say a word that makes it seem like a well-known thing when proclaiming him King? At this point I have to assume the writers have had a creative failure on some level because a resurrection is a pretty big deal. I kept waiting for some reaction/consequence for it and nothing happened. OK, so the wildlings think he is some kind of god. We know that because Tormond said it, not because we were shown it. And with the Northern Lords, we weren't even told it. This is not the same as people reacting to Joff's death or that apparently Dorne is cool with Ellaria - these are things that could conceivably happen and people have a frame of reference for these events. Resurrection? Not so much.

I'm past the point of rolling with it. Do I think it ruins the show? No. For the most point I do roll, especially in the moment. It's when I sit down and think about thinks that it starts to drive me crazy. I mentioned in an earlier post that what actually drives me crazy is when the writing is not tight. I was a huge fan of Lost for a long time and I turned on it that last season because the writing was crap. They had a plan, knew the endgame and were still writing in little details that would have no payoff just because it was a cool thing to happen in the moment. This is exactly how I feel about this show right now. They wedge in the cool moments and don't bother to do detail work they need to do to earn those moments. It feels like it has no soul.

But yeah, I still watch and still enjoy it, I just don't respect it much anymore.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Gertrude

[Colorful Mess]

Gertrude, I can relate to a lot of what you're saying, I wish I could just turn off my brain sometimes when watching this show. Your post reminds me of A.O. Scott's dual approach to film criticism: on one level we can watch the show skeptically, demanding intellectual honesty as a necessary defense against Hollywood who serves us crap and tells us how great it is. The second is pure escapist joy, allowing the fantasy to pull us in. After Episode 10 I turned to my husband and practically screamed, "Can you BELIEVE that we're ACTUALLY watching the BEST EPIC FANTASY adaptation ever put to screen? WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE." I'm still dumbstruck that I'm watching this calibre of genre fiction on TV, that its insanely popular, and that my nerdy obsession has taken over the world. That's the escapist side of the show that I love. So when I'm watching, I'm all in...but in order to sustain that high, I come on these boards and see how others react and also try to KILL SOME FUCKING TIME until the next episode/book by picking apart everything. I think I kind of ruin it for myself, because I don't think D&D are serving us crap, like some dumb Hollywood action movie. That said, they don't seem to have the same really really high standards for this show as some of the book fans. Or they streamline things so much, to make it easier to adapt, while losing the "soul" in the process. Maybe they made a deal with the Night's King to get this show on screen. Regardless, I think its understandable to be mad at the plot holes and unearned achievements to get to the big dazzling spectacle. But the dazzle...omg its so good.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Colorful Mess

[WearyTraveler]

9 hours ago, TxanGoddess said:

Eh I'd call myself 90% a Ned fan but I think a careful viewing of the show makes it very debatable whether his rigidity wasn't always truly principled.  Think  of season 1 when Arya asks him about how he can bear to marry Sansa off to Joffrey after the Micah situation.  He justifies Santa's having lied in court for one, and never answers Arya or acts on the very legitimate question she posed.  

Sometimes its morally and/or intellectually lazy to say you have to stick to a certain course just cause you said you would without regard for new information.

Santa would never, ever, lie!!!

 

(sorry, couldn't resist)

[paigow]

19 minutes ago, WearyTraveler said:

Santa would never, ever, lie!!!

 

The real Northern King...Father of Reindeer

[TxanGoddess]

LOL, and I had edited because I thought I sounded pretentious. 

Just one letter makes the difference between pretension and ridicule. 

[Dev F]

On 7/6/2016 at 0:52 PM, Andeleisha said:

For those of you with timeline whiplash, this was bothering me too, so I put together a timeline for the show: 

http://www.fandomfollowing.com/how-much-time-has-passed-on-game-thrones/

Wow, this is really impressive work, and I'm bummed that there hasn't been more discussion of it. My thoughts:

1. I'm much less resistant than you to the notion that unconnected storylines are being presented out of chronological order. Particularly this last season, I didn't think we were meant to assume that, say, Jon has been lying dead for the entire length of time it took Jaime to get back from Dorne. Now, I don't think that means you could create an airtight timeline by shuffling the different storylines more freely -- I'm sure there would be intersection points that don't make sense, like everyone's distance from King's Landing before the Battle of Blackwater, as you point out. But it might give the timeline a little slack, so that time can pass offscreen in some storylines even while others are locked into the passage of only a day or two, and we can get somewhat closer to the "slightly less than a year a season" timeline that the dialogue seems to want.

2. Reckoning the passage of time via distance traveled is smart, but I'm not sure I would privilege it over things like the straightforward mentions of how much time has passed or the aging of the child characters. I would hope that the writers put more thought and less fudgery into direct mentions of the passage of time than into matters of distance. And to me the aging issue seems like a more important measure than either of the other two, as it's directly related to character in a way the other measures are not. But, again, I doubt that it's airtight either way. There was that period in season 4 when the writers foolishly decided to date every event "a fortnight" from the last important event, which bunched everything too close together for no good reason. And, of course, the aging of Baby Sam is hopelessly wonky.

3. But speaking of the aging of the characters, I'm always confused when people take Tommen to be such a problematic character, timeline-wise. To me it's always been clear that Dean-Charles Chapman was an older teen playing a barely pubescent character of twelve or so, which would be roughly in keeping with the "slightly less than a year a season" timeline.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Dev F

[screamin]

18 hours ago, doram said:

And yes, the Night Watch deserters are all generally - as far as the books are concerned - treated as deserters who should be murdered on sight. Anything less sets a dangerous precedent. As I said, this is not just pathbreaking. Remember that it's not just a noble Order, it's also the 'noble' alternative to Death Roll. Criminals and political prisoners are sent to the Wall to live out the rest of their lives. The moment ONE deserter escapes and is accepted back into society, then the system breaks down. Regardless of rank, blood, etc every man on the Wall is the same. 

No, they're not. Many of the NW are not criminals at all, but noblemen who are gentlemen-volunteers...and despite the equality they tout in the watch, the Commander gave an inexperienced nobleman a command over two far more experienced rangers in the beginning of the series, because he didn't want to offend the noble's father. He sent Benjen to find that noble's corpse for the same reason. And I think we're explicitly told in the book that noblemen make up the majority of the NW command and are generally given preference. If that preferential treatment happens within the Watch - where the men who most believe in Watch ideals and rules are supposedly concentrated - there's no reason it shouldn't happen outside the Watch even more often. IIRC, all the NW deserters we saw killed after the first one Ned killed were smallfolk, who were mostly actively engaged in criminal activity, except the one Arya killed. And I think it was pretty clear in the books that Arya's killing of that deserter was not an unambivalently righteous thing but a marker in her moral descent, IMO.

If a NW deserter who was a nobleman who was never a criminal, admitted to the NW as a volunteer, with a powerful family and an impressive sob story, appealed to other noble Westerosi for help - would they ALL as one man close their eyes to his nobility and history, and treat him impartially with execution as they would with any smallfolk deserter caught stealing at the market? Nah. This is Westeros. Nobility always get preference over smallfolk. And Westerosi are human, some will be more sympathetic than others.

Quote

 

The conversation with Aemon occurred after Jon also tried to abandon the Night's Watch and go to Robb to get justice for Ned's murder.

Aemon brought up his reasons specifically to dissuade Jon from making a mistake - and not as you imply, to indicate that Jon would have a better chance being young and having a brother with an army waiting for him. In addition to himself, Aemon also mentioned examples of Lord Commanders and other Crows (pardon the slur) who had as much reasons as Jon to be deserters and who couldn't. He didn't list their ages or infirmities as reasons either.

 

I know that's what Aemon was doing. And Jon had just accused him of not understanding the dilemma Jon faced. But wouldn't the best argument against leaving be, "It's futile. You couldn't help your brother or anyone else. Every single Westerosi you meet would try to execute you, even your brother's own men," if it were true? But Aemon didn't make that argument. He spoke of the nobility of the NW, who'd kept their vows despite temptations. He revealed his own illustrious lineage and sad history to show the strength of the temptations he'd resisted himself. He appealed to Jon's sense of honor to keep his vows. He didn't try to frighten Jon out of breaking his vows by saying every Westerosi would kill him if he broke them. He didn't, IMO, because that wouldn't be true.

Quote

"So you see, Jon, I do know...and knowing, I will not tell you stay or go. You must make that choice yourself, and live with it all the rest of your days. As I have."

Him saying that implies that there IS a real choice Jon can make, to go and maybe help his family as an oathbreaker or stay and keep his vows honorably. "Go and get immediately skewered by the first man who realizes you're a deserter," is not a real choice.

Most convincingly to me, Robb named Jon as his heir over Sansa and Arya. Catelyn is horrified that he is passing over his legitimate siblings left alive and argues against it. She hates the idea and fights it, but she never says that the North would never accept Jon because he would have to desert the NW to become king. She would have used that argument if it had been true, because she was desperate to change Robb's mind. IMO, she didn't, because it isn't true...the North would accept Jon as heir, even as a deserter. 

I think that's what's happening now. And until we actually SEE that Jon has told his bannermen about his resurrection and the undead and the Night King, and they believe it - and that would be an important scene that shouldn't be passed over - I continue to believe that the North is okay with Jon leaving the NW because of the current special circumstances.

Edited July 9, 2016 by screamin

[Katsullivan]

Quote

Catelyn is horrified that he is passing over his legitimate siblings left alive and argues against it. She hates the idea and fights it, but she never says that the North would never accept Jon because he would have to desert the NW to become king. She would have used that argument if it had been true, because she was desperate to change Robb's mind. IMO, she didn't, because it isn't true...the North would accept Jon as heir, even as a deserter. 

Dear Robb's heart was in the right place but he showed over and over again that he should have left the politiking to his mother. He made so many bad calls in his time as King: sending Theon to the Iron Islands, marrying Jeyne, re-allying with the Freys after insulting them...

When Robb wants to make Jon his heir, does he mention someone else leaving the Night's Watch successfully or is this just one of the (stupid) things he thinks he can get away with because "I'm the King and I can do what I want!", complete with flourish and riding off like a brat?

Question for the book readers: is there any mention of anyone abandoning the Night's Watch and not being punished for it? I know there's a World book, and there are the Dunk and Egg books, etc. Because if Jon is the first person to abandon the Night Watch and not be punished for it, I would expect that to be hyped up a great deal more than if, like WearyTraveler explained, they don't show every minutiae of Jon's discussions with his bannermen. We start the scene with Jon talking about the White Walkers at least, so we know it's not something he was deliberately hiding.

 

Quote

Sometimes we don't hear about things that are important because there's simply no time, in the TV world.  It wouldn't be the first time this happened on the show either.  We didn't see all the noble houses outside of KL find out about Joffrey's death, but we know they did.  We never saw Ramsey hear or read any stories about Jon, we never saw anyone from any other house, Northern or Southern, hear about Jon's prowess with a sword, but, after the parley with Ramsey, we know that Jon is apparently a legendary swordfighter.

This explanation takes far less mind-bending than:

Quote

they just crowned a deserter, oath breaker, traitor and mad man as their King. It's a refuttal to the argument brought up thread that the Northern Lords are only pretending to believe Jon's story. 

 

 

 

Quote

 

[WearyTraveler]

20 minutes ago, Katsullivan said:

Question for the book readers: is there any mention of anyone abandoning the Night's Watch and not being punished for it?

No.  The ones that have left the Watch and survived always went beyond the Wall (like Mance Rayder).  When Jon thinks of leaving, after he took his vows, he always thinks about how he'd be hunted down, and how he'd have to hide, steal clothes and lie until he finds his way to Robb.  He actually wonders if Robb himself would sentence him to die for breaking his oath and take his head.

After Jon comes back from his attempted escape, Mormont tells him he's not the first, and that there are so many, he never bothers sending people after them anymore because more often than not, they return after their crises of faith. He also admits that the knows many men in the NW go to the brothel in Mole Town, which is also breaking their vow (or at the most a very grey area; one could argue that they are not breaking their vow to father no children because the whores would drink moon tea, but that's for another thread), but he lets that one slide.

I get the sense that once you say your vows, your only escape is Essos or living with the Wildings.  I can see a scenario where through some political scheming someone tried to get someone else freed from their vows, but I think that for something like that to happen there have to be talks, and plans, and all sorts of maneuvers and behind the scenes manipulations, to make it happen (like, when they broke Sansa's engagement to Joffrey).  It wouldn't be easy, but I suppose if the political influencers are strong, it could happen.

I don't think any of that has happened on the show either, and they have given us no indication that the Northmen are just forgetting / forgiving Jon for breaking his promise.  Several times there was dialog to indicate that Jon's resurrection had been discussed off  camera:  Tormund said "he died for us", Jon tells Sansa that his brothers murdered him, and so on.  I think these are indications that, for all intents and purposes, on the show, we should assume two basic tenets:

1) That Jon's death and resurrection are vox populi

2) That people are willing to believe the Walkers are back.

[Gertrude]

When Tormond said he died for us and Jon tells Sansa he was murdered, those are private conversations, right? I honestly don't remember any reference to it with the larger populace. Same with the Walkers. I'm willing to believe it's the case that it's well known, but if that's true I also get to chastise the writers for not being able to come up with a way to convey this.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Gertrude

[WearyTraveler]

6 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

When Tormond said he died for us and Jon tells Sansa he was murdered, those are private conversations, right? I honestly don't remember any reference to it with the larger populace. Same with the Walkers. I'm willing to believe it's the case that it's well known, but if that's true I also get to chastise the writers for not being able to come up with a way to convey this.

Jon and Sansa's conversation is private, but Tormund is talking to all the Wildings, so, it appears to be known.

I have a hard time believing is not known, actually.  The guy was dead for three days and then resurrected, how is that not something everyone is talking about? How often does that happen? (in the North)

Edited July 9, 2016 by WearyTraveler

[Gertrude]

No, I get what you're saying. If they talk as much as we're lead to believe (Jon is famed as a swordsman) then yeah, they absolutely should know about his resurrection. My problem is that the writers couldn't figure out a way to work this into the conversation at some point. When Lady Mormont is rallying the North, this would have been a good time to slip that in. Something like - 'We've all heard how he died and came back to us, it must be for a purpose'.  My beef is with the writers just ignoring a pretty big event all together.

I don't know why they are just ignoring it, but they are. Maybe it's more powerful that the North chooses him because of his actions, not because they are awestruck by an event. Personally I think it's because the story unfolds differently in the books and they've made changes. It's fine that they make changes and I understand their constraints. However, if they make changes to converge stories and streamline things, they need to at least make an effort at plausibility. I think I'm stuck on this because it's a resurrection. This is a really, really big deal that would mark a man. If everyone knows, they are treating it very casually. The Brotherhood all converted to Rh'llor when Beric came back. Everyone up North is just like ... eh.

[WearyTraveler]

I understand your point.  I myself wish they had kept some of the things that make Jon a leader in the books.  But, I think I cut them a bit more slack than I used to because they have so little time left.  So, I kind of forgive them for it if it gets me to the end of the story.  Like, in my head I know why the Northerners would name Jon KitN, I can see the qualities that would motivate them to follow him, so, I go with it.

[Gertrude]

Fair enough. I'm essentially watching at this point because I've been waiting for so many years to get some new story, and the show is giving me some of that. It's not what I want, but it's something. And the show is gorgeous and good at spectacle, so that doesn't hurt either.

[Colorful Mess]

Maybe they aren't making a big deal about it because this is the first of many resurrections to come? Maybe he dies and comes back over and over again during the final battle? Like Alister said, he'll be fighting their battles forever. I think once he gets revived and comes back multiple times, like Beric did, then that's when people will start talking and paying attention. Just speculating here. (Btw, a meeting between Beric and Jon is one of my top five anticipated encounters). Right now his resurrection seems like a one off event that, when told by other people, could be easily dismissed. All of the people who killed him are dead and the Northerners aren't going to trust some fantastical story from the wildlings. Maybe if Melisandre were there with them when they visit the smaller houses, she could have "marketed" his resurrection a bit better. But the Northerners could be very distrustful of her too. Still, I think she has a larger role to play, by spreading the word all over Westeros about Jon.

[rose711]

I'm pretty sure Littlefinger was lying to Sansa about what he truly wants. 

Regarding Ned, he should have told his dear friend Robert the truth about his children, even on his death bed, and let the King decide what to do about it. He also should have never admitted he was a traitor.  Both things go against his basic code of honor and allowed him to be killed.  Still like him though.

Edited July 10, 2016 by rose711

[jeansheridan]

On 7/8/2016 at 3:11 AM, OhOkayWhat said:

 

He is the hero because he just keeps going, against all the odds. He does not give up, that is who he is, that is his triumph, to find that man that he lost. Because at the end, that is the struggle that will face Westeros, Essos, everyone. Dead is coming. And people must choose Life. And that is what he did.

I didn't want to be obnoxious and quote your entire post, but it was lovely.  And I hope it plays out this way.  

[jeansheridan]

Just a minor thing after rewatching the show.  Overall this season, Bran disappointed me.  It had such hopes for his character.  I love the flashbacks of course, but I was hoping for a wiser, smarter Bran after he was gone for a season.  If he's as connected as the Three Eyed Raven, shouldn't he be ...more knowing?  He can plug into any tree, watch from vantage point.  Varys would KILL for this skill.  As would Littlefinger.  Forget about "little birds", Bran has the ability to be the clearing house for information in the entire kingdom.  At least I think he does.  But the actor doesn't quite have the gravity for me.  He just sounds and seems young still.  More of a Tommen then an Arya.  And I don't see a good mentor for him (other than Varys whom I think would be a great intelligence officer and a good handler).

[Gertrude]

There was the moment where Bran came out of his Raven induced coma where he seemed very calm and knowing. As far as the story goes, I don't think Bran has had a lot of screen time to show us any gravitas. He was still an eager student when the cave was stormed, and then afterwards rescued and escorted by his uncle. In both cases he had a pre-established role as subordinate (student, nephew) I am anxious to see how he carries himself in this new role going forward.

[Ambrosefolly]

I like the actor and for me, it is a bit refreshing that Bran isn't all wise and serene all the time. He is still a kid played by a kid. Thomas Brodie-Sangster may look young, but he is a full 9 years older than Issac Hempstead Wright. I said in the Bran thread, that the Citadeal would take an interest in him since he can tap into so much lost/unknown history and knowledge, but I am sure Varys take an interest in him as well if he can overcome his fire of magic. 

[OhOkayWhat]

7 hours ago, jeansheridan said:

I didn't want to be obnoxious and quote your entire post, but it was lovely.  And I hope it plays out this way.  

I hope that too. And thank you!

[WebosFritos]

I think the writers often take too many shortcuts and don't let the characters breathe or react properly to the story. But I don't mind that the Northerners are okay with Jon leaving his post. I think Sam mentioned in season 1 that the Watch would send ravens throughout the Seven Kingdoms if Jon deserted. Obviously, the Watch hasn't been sending messages saying that their Lord Commander has deserted them but they might have written something about his resurrection. The situation in the North is such a mess and Jon is the only living son of Ned Stark (as far as they know), I can see why they are rallying behind him. And even though they didn't show any reaction shot to Wun Wun in the battle episode, I'm hoping that the presence of a giant among the wildlings has convinced quite a few Northerners that the White Walkers are real too.

19 hours ago, Colorful Mess said:

Maybe they aren't making a big deal about it because this is the first of many resurrections to come? Maybe he dies and comes back over and over again during the final battle? Like Alister said, he'll be fighting their battles forever. I think once he gets revived and comes back multiple times, like Beric did, then that's when people will start talking and paying attention. Just speculating here. (Btw, a meeting between Beric and Jon is one of my top five anticipated encounters). Right now his resurrection seems like a one off event that, when told by other people, could be easily dismissed. All of the people who killed him are dead and the Northerners aren't going to trust some fantastical story from the wildlings. Maybe if Melisandre were there with them when they visit the smaller houses, she could have "marketed" his resurrection a bit better. But the Northerners could be very distrustful of her too. Still, I think she has a larger role to play, by spreading the word all over Westeros about Jon.

Melisandre is a pretty despicable character but I'm actually really interested to see what she will do now that Jon has banished her. If she really wants to help him win the war against the White Walkers she should try to find another priest(ess) of R'hllor and send her/him to Winterfell. I like your idea of her spreading the word about Jon and Beric meeting Jon seems very likely now that the Brotherhood is heading North.

[benteen]

If the Northerners weren't too concerned with their oath to House Stark, then they shouldn't be too concerned that Jon "abandoned" his oath to the Night's Watch.

[screamin]

On 7/9/2016 at 2:11 PM, WearyTraveler said:

I don't think any of that has happened on the show either, and they have given us no indication that the Northmen are just forgetting / forgiving Jon for breaking his promise.  Several times there was dialog to indicate that Jon's resurrection had been discussed off  camera:  Tormund said "he died for us", Jon tells Sansa that his brothers murdered him, and so on.  I think these are indications that, for all intents and purposes, on the show, we should assume two basic tenets:

1) That Jon's death and resurrection are vox populi

2) That people are willing to believe the Walkers are back.

I don't think those assumptions jibe with the scene of Jon's acclamation as king. If it's common knowledge that the Night King has thousands of undead soldiers ready for a war against mankind - and ALL the Northern lords already know it and believe it - it would be senseless for them to say "The war is over, we should all go home." But that IS what the lords do say, and that is what Jon is arguing with them against. Ergo, I think the simplest explanation is that Jon has NOT told them all about the Night's King and the White Walkers - that what he says about 'the true enemy who brings the storm' is all that he has said to the lords thus far.

And IMO, he would be right not to tell them everything. At the beginning of the series, we and Jon saw Ned speak to a man who saw wights and White Walkers. Ned DID believe the man had been truly frightened by SOMETHING, but when he heard his explanations he dismissed him as a madman. Even the commander of the NW - the organization FOUNDED to stop White Walkers - no longer believed in them.  When Commander Mormont heard reports from the smallfolk about seeing White Walkers, he didn't take it seriously until two dead men tried to kill him in his own bedroom. Mormont sent a witness to KL to warn them - they laughed. Jon knows all this, and likely realizes the Northern Lords won't believe what Ned and Mormont didn't believe without proof. He's going to have to ease them into it - and the key to that is taking power first and gradually enlightening them afterwards.

As for Jon's resurrection being vox populi - I doubt anyone at Castle Black is occupied sending ravens with the detailed blow-by-blow of Jon's backstabbing and resurrection. (The maesters haven't even heard that Mormont's dead.) I'm sure rumors have spread. But remember, even in a time when people implicitly believed in magic and miracles like Israel in the first century AD, a man like Doubting Thomas - who had seen miracles worked with his own eyes - refused to believe in Jesus' resurrection until he put his fingers in the wounds in his hands and side. Resurrection is the Big One, the miracle that dwarfs all others. Surely some heard it and believed it, but surely others just took it that Jon had been badly wounded and recovered. I don't think the fact that they accepted Jon as king means that they ALL believe he died and rose on the third day...they sure didn't treat him with the awe and wonder such a person would merit.

To me it's just more likely that when the Northerners weigh Jon's hitherto blameless career, the compelling reasons for his taking up the fight against the Boltons, the fact that he's avenging his father and brothers, as well as people who've harmed the Northerners' families as well, and above all the fact that he's Ned Stark's last son - they just figured Ned Stark's victorious son with the sympathetic history and the righteous cause >>>>>NW deserter. To me that's more credible than the idea that people who have never seen magic all unanimously believe in a miracle just because they were told about it, without proof.

[bluvelvet]

My two cents about another contributing factor to Jon election to KITN, I forgot which poster mentioned it, but someone mentioned something to the effect of Jon's legend starting with the battle of the bastards.  Ramsey said that he had heard a lot about Jon, so he already had a reputation. Ramsey also knew that Jon had been made LC so I don't find it hard to believe that news of his resurrection has also made the rounds. At that battle, while Sansa did bring in the Vale troops who saved the day what people  saw were.

1) Jon rush to try and save his brother at the risk of his own life - whether or not this was a smart decision doesn't take away from the act itself

2) Jon alone ready to fight with his sword drawn on foot with hundreds of galloping soldiers coming towards him versus running away

3) Jon running after Ramsey bloodied and dirty after the battle

4) Jon advancing on Ramsey while he was being shot at point blank with multiple arrows

5) Jon taking Ramsey down and beating the crap out of him

Whether or not Jon is a great leader, all of the above makes for compelling stories that travel along with the fact that he was in the thick of it fighting alongside the men versus commanding from a distance.  Those are some things that will be remembered from the battle alone.

Also whether or not the Northerners don't believe in things that go "bump in the night", a good amount of them saw a giant fighting against/along side them so their minds should be open to other things.

Edited July 11, 2016 by bluvelvet
corrected spelling errors

[SandSniper]

On ‎08‎/‎07‎/‎2016 at 5:58 PM, Gertrude said:

@Sandsniper - like I said, I agree that Sansa's words don't show jealousy or anger for the most part (aside from the 'why didn't you ask me' thing). But the writers and actors are saying it, and thus they are putting that into the portrayal. It's not my opinion, but the actual words of the people making the show. I find it bad writing because I don't buy that she would feel that way If they want her to feel that way, or at least have us think she feels that way, I think they portrayed it poorly. That's my beef with Sansa this year. Do you understand what I am getting at? I feel like you are just looking at what's on screen and dissecting that when I am trying to talk about the bigger picture.

Sounds to me like you are projecting Sansa is petty and jealous of Jon verses what I saw on the screen which is exasperated with Jon because he still thinks like Ned while Sansa with everything she has experienced has lost the Stark naivety.

I saw Sansa genuinely exasperated in the scene in the tent planning the battle strategy because she sees Jon, Davos & Tormund thinking they are playing Ramsey when it is the trio of “good guys” that are being played by a master manipulator. This scene is what I believe Sophie Turner was referring to in interviews and not Sansa is jealous or angry about Jon being named KITN etc.

Also Sansa doesn’t know how to explain Ramsey’s character to Jon in relation to how it will lead to him fighting a battle so Jon doesn’t know how to utilize the “Sansa Intelligence” into a practical battle strategy.

Plus he is a Stark so is as honorable and dumb as a post.

Just my two dirhams worth.

Warmest Regards, SandSniper

[mac123x]

On ‎7‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 1:11 PM, WearyTraveler said:

I can see a scenario where through some political scheming someone tried to get someone else freed from their vows, but I think that for something like that to happen there have to be talks, and plans, and all sorts of maneuvers and behind the scenes manipulations, to make it happen

That's Cercei's convoluted plan for Osney Kettleblack.

1.  He confesses to sleeping with Marge, gets sentenced to death for high treason.  Tommen commutes the sentence to exile to the Wall.

2.  Osney (and some others) join Nights Watch.  He kills Jon since Cercei thinks Jon has taken sides with Stannis.

3.  Osney returns to KL, Tommen pardons him for ... well, everything, deserting the NW, sleeping with Marge, etc., and makes him a Lord.

4.  Osney and Cercei get married.  Or at least bang.

 

Whether that would have worked or not is questionable.  Also whether Cercei would have bothered with anything after step 2 is also questionable, or if she'd just let the NW hang him.

[lmsweb]

On 7/10/2016 at 6:21 PM, benteen said:

If the Northerners weren't too concerned with their oath to House Stark, then they shouldn't be too concerned that Jon "abandoned" his oath to the Night's Watch.

Except for one thing - at the time Jon and Sansa were asking for help, there really wasn't a House Stark left. Bran is MIA/dead as far as they know, Rickon is supposedly a captive of Ramsay (with no real proof of this other than Ramsay saying "come see"), Arya is MIA, Sansa is technically Lady Bolton (Ramsay is still alive at this point) and Jon is a bastard with no legitimacy to his name. As much as these are all technicalities, there's still enough gray area here that the other Lords may not have considered this as breaking their oaths. 
Jon dying though automatically ended his oath to the NW. 

[screamin]

Quote

Bran is MIA/dead as far as they know, Rickon is supposedly a captive of Ramsay (with no real proof of this other than Ramsay saying "come see"), Arya is MIA, Sansa is technically Lady Bolton (Ramsay is still alive at this point) and Jon is a bastard with no legitimacy to his name.

Only Lady Mormont really remarked on that, IIRC, and didn't consider it a drawback in her loyalty...and after all, if Sansa gets a quickie divorce from Ramsey at sword-point, she's no longer a Bolton and still a Stark by blood and name.  IIRC, at least one of the lords who refused didn't give that as his reason. He said that Ramsey had helped him rid his lands of invaders and the Starks hadn't done anything for him lately, so... And the fact that they all looked rather shamefaced when confronted by Lady Mormont shows that by their own reckoning they had been deficient in their loyalties.

[Hecate7]

5 hours ago, screamin said:

Only Lady Mormont really remarked on that, IIRC, and didn't consider it a drawback in her loyalty...and after all, if Sansa gets a quickie divorce from Ramsey at sword-point, she's no longer a Bolton and still a Stark by blood and name.  IIRC, at least one of the lords who refused didn't give that as his reason. He said that Ramsey had helped him rid his lands of invaders and the Starks hadn't done anything for him lately, so... And the fact that they all looked rather shamefaced when confronted by Lady Mormont shows that by their own reckoning they had been deficient in their loyalties.

It's too late for a divorce. Sansa is Ramsey Bolton's widow, for good or for ill. Lady Mormont is ten. She's got a child's black and white way of thinking, and is most likely a female misogynist like Arya and Cersei. "Girls are stupid," seems to be the general consensus in the North, and not just Arya's childlike dismissal of her sister.

[DigitalCount]

Cersei is Robert's widow, and I don't think anyone has ever called her Cersei Baratheon, not even during her coronation.

[OhOkayWhat]

5 hours ago, Hecate7 said:

the

It's too late for a divorce. Sansa is Ramsey Bolton's widow, for good or for ill. Lady Mormont is ten. She's got a child's black and white way of thinking, and is most likely a female misogynist like Arya and Cersei. "Girls are stupid," seems to be the general consensus in the North, and not just Arya's childlike dismissal of her sister.

Arya is not misogynist. People often forget the rest of that scene (the Tywin-Arya scene) and the context of it. It is very good scene with Tywin talking about a Targaryen male and Arya making him remember about his sisters. The context is that she was in the middle of a warzone. The things she saw and suffered contrasted with the stories and tales that MOST girls of her own age believe made her said that about MOST girls her age. Is she right saying that? Of course she IS NOT, but she is learning,mshe is discovering new things and people, at that moment she was thinking only warrior girls were awesome, but later we will see how she bonded with Lady Crane. Therefore, it is just the case of a kid who is trying to survive and somehow learning the value of ALL women ( and men too) step by step. Her main problems are mostly, the ones about identity and the darkeness growing inside her.

[Hecate7]

54 minutes ago, OhOkayWhat said:

Arya is not misogynist. People often forget the rest of that scene (the Tywin-Arya scene) and the context of it. It is very good scene with Tywin talking about a Targaryen male and Arya making him remember about his sisters. The context is that she was in the middle of a warzone. The things she saw and suffered contrasted with the stories and tales that MOST girls of her own age believe made her said that about MOST girls her age. Is she right saying that? Of course she IS NOT, but she is learning,mshe is discovering new things and people, at that moment she was thinking only warrior girls were awesome, but later we will see how she bonded with Lady Crane. Therefore, it is just the case of a kid who is trying to survive and somehow learning the value of ALL women ( and men too) step by step. Her main problems are mostly, the ones about identity and the darkeness growing inside her.

She's a misogynist. She believes that MOST girls are stupid. It's not something she heard from other girls, it's what she actually feels about them, just like Cersei at her age. The misogyny is part of the darkness. It's funny: when she finally met a girl as tough as herself, and as "nonstupid," she hated her, too, and ended up killing her. And we are glad she did.

Even misogynists love mothers who nurture them. Arya likes Catelyn, and she likes Lady Crane, because she needs a Mom. She lost hers far too soon. This is something she has in common with Cersei, who was about the same age as Arya when she lost her mother.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Hecate7

[OhOkayWhat]

57 minutes ago, Hecate7 said:

She's a misogynist. She believes that MOST girls are stupid. It's not something she heard from other girls, it's what she actually feels about them, just like Cersei at her age. The misogyny is part of the darkness. It's funny: when she finally met a girl as tough as herself, and as "nonstupid," she hated her, too, and ended up killing her. And we are glad she did.

She believed that, but she is changing. I explain it better in my next comment.

Edited July 13, 2016 by OhOkayWhat