|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On May 31 2017 00:42 opisska wrote:
Where does anyone who has ever come anywhere close to the world of this story take the idea that somebody would ask the common people of Westeros for their opinions about ... anything? Anyone who would be in position to question Jon, would be in position to be properly briefed on the facts, or swiftly disposed of.
Dunno, i think it also works for people in power instead of the "common people".
Why would anyone actually believe that he came back from the dead? There really is no good reason to believe that, just like there is no good reason for us to believe it in the real world.
Magic isn't common in everyday life here, people don't believe in it for the most part.
But yeah overall it doesn't matter anymore, Jon now has power on his side. I just thought it could have been a topic in the show, it wasn't. Same with him coming back in the first place, there really wasn't much development there either. Kinda disappointed tbh.
|
It's really only a relevant discussion because the Starks actually believe in honour, and the North believes in the honour of the Starks.
|
Dunno it also helps to characterize Jon. If we think he did everything "honorably" aka not desert then it's simply that. No possible flaw in his character here.
If we think he is a deserter then we can talk about his motivation, etc and still come to the conclusion that it's maybe questionable what he did. That's more interesting.
Same with him coming back from the dead. You would assume it changes him in one way or another, but there really isn't much going on besides a short focus on "they really killed me, damn let's get out of here" and "don't bring me back again".
It's not developed at all for his character and it's not really developed as a general topic among people around him.
I think these are flaws in the story, neglecting all of that simply to advance the plot faster.
|
Well, I meant more that if it was anyone else there wouldn't even be a discussion. Like when Sandor ditched the King's Guard.
Point is that Jon and the Starks, and by extension the North, actually care about upholding honour.
|
my understanding was that jon's oath to the nights watch ended when he died. being rezzed later doesn't somehow change the fact that he is free from it
|
I think the fact that he was murdered by the Night Watch has really stifled any desire to enforce the oath in the remaining members. And it would be a really dull plotline if they went down that path.
|
He was assassinated by Night Watch men, not by the Night's Watch, the organization. Many hated him, but I don't really think it's clear the ones in the coup were the majority or that a majority wanted him dead.
Plus, he hanged those that participated in the coup, so the ones left are the ones that want him there and have loyalty towards him. They're the ones getting abandoned.
|
On May 31 2017 23:08 Sbrubbles wrote:
He was assassinated by Night Watch men, not by the Night's Watch, the organization. Many hated him, but I don't really think it's clear the ones in the coup were the majority or that a majority wanted him dead.
Plus, he hanged those that participated in the coup, so the ones left are the ones that want him there and have loyalty towards him. They're the ones getting abandoned.
Organizations are just groups of people. If the members of the Nightwatch think John’s watch is over, its over. They do not seem that into the idea of holding him to it. This is sort of the point of Game of Thrones, that power structures only function as long as people have faith in them. A king is only a king because people want a king. Heirs are only heirs because they have an army and can hold the throne.
|
The oath is worded quite vaguely, and Jon can certainly argue that he is free from it. I remember another instance when the wording mattered: about the Sam + Gilly situation. It basically says Crows can't get married or father any children, which technically makes it ok to have a girlfriend and sex.
|
On May 31 2017 23:54 Scorch wrote:
The oath is worded quite vaguely, and Jon can certainly argue that he is free from it. I remember another instance when the wording mattered: about the Sam + Gilly situation. It basically says Crows can't get married or father any children, which technically makes it ok to have a girlfriend and sex.
That was the same bad logic, it is quite clear what is meant with the phrasing. Again, this isn't phrased by people working in law.
Ofc plansix is right that it only matters when people care about it. Though as i said before, i think it would have been interesting to have some people who would engage Jon about this very topic. And about him apparently coming back from the dead. More depth to be found and not just the big battle against Ramsay.
Though there probably was no time for that and there won't be time for anything in the last two seasons either (most likely).
I think that's disappointing because GoT (in the earlier seasons) had some time for things like that.
I mean let's be real, at least something about his resurrection would have been nice. Yes there were a few lines about the wildlings but that's not really much.
|
On May 31 2017 23:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 23:08 Sbrubbles wrote:
He was assassinated by Night Watch men, not by the Night's Watch, the organization. Many hated him, but I don't really think it's clear the ones in the coup were the majority or that a majority wanted him dead.
Plus, he hanged those that participated in the coup, so the ones left are the ones that want him there and have loyalty towards him. They're the ones getting abandoned. Organizations are just groups of people. If the members of the Nightwatch think John’s watch is over, its over. They do not seem that into the idea of holding him to it. This is sort of the point of Game of Thrones, that power structures only function as long as people have faith in them. A king is only a king because people want a king. Heirs are only heirs because they have an army and can hold the throne.
I'm not disputing the possibility that there is a certain consensus among the Night's Watch that Jon is now free of his vow. I'm saying that using "he was killed by the Night's Watch" to justify it doesn't make sense because that would be attributing the action of a few men to the group as a whole in a situation in which it's not clear the group would be in favor of said action and the group's rules go clearly against said action.
Plus, what the Night's Watch thinks of the status of Jon's vows may be irrelevant anyway, because as far as I can tell the lords of Westeros enforce those vows themselves. The Night's Watch doesn't hunt for traitors itself beyond a certain distance from the wall (though I could be wrong about this).
|
On June 01 2017 00:14 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 23:47 Plansix wrote:On May 31 2017 23:08 Sbrubbles wrote:
He was assassinated by Night Watch men, not by the Night's Watch, the organization. Many hated him, but I don't really think it's clear the ones in the coup were the majority or that a majority wanted him dead.
Plus, he hanged those that participated in the coup, so the ones left are the ones that want him there and have loyalty towards him. They're the ones getting abandoned. Organizations are just groups of people. If the members of the Nightwatch think John’s watch is over, its over. They do not seem that into the idea of holding him to it. This is sort of the point of Game of Thrones, that power structures only function as long as people have faith in them. A king is only a king because people want a king. Heirs are only heirs because they have an army and can hold the throne. I'm not disputing the possibility that there is a certain consensus among the Night's Watch that Jon is now free of his vow. I'm saying that using "he was killed by the Night's Watch" to justify it doesn't make sense because that would be attributing the action of a few men to the group as a whole in a situation in which it's not clear the group would be in favor of said action and the group's rules go clearly against said action. Plus, what the Night's Watch thinks of the status of Jon's vows may be irrelevant anyway, because as far as I can tell the lords of Westeros enforce those vows themselves. The Night's Watch doesn't hunt for traitors itself beyond a certain distance from the wall (though I could be wrong about this).
If we are to use modern law as a bad, the question if the actions of those few represented the Watch as whole would be a question of fact. Did the majority of the Night Watch accept the murder and new leadership as valid? Did it take the threat of violence to force them to challenge the coup? And if Jon’s death ended this responsibility would be a question for case law and how oaths are treated. Do oaths survive beyond the oath giver? Can they be inherited? If a member of the Black Watch has a child illegally, can that child inherit the duties and limits on personal freedom of the Night Watch member due to their birth?
|
Wow, there's a chance the 8th season might come in 2019 instead of 2018...
|
On June 01 2017 00:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2017 23:54 Scorch wrote:
The oath is worded quite vaguely, and Jon can certainly argue that he is free from it. I remember another instance when the wording mattered: about the Sam + Gilly situation. It basically says Crows can't get married or father any children, which technically makes it ok to have a girlfriend and sex. That was the same bad logic, it is quite clear what is meant with the phrasing. Again, this isn't phrased by people working in law. Ofc plansix is right that it only matters when people care about it. Though as i said before, i think it would have been interesting to have some people who would engage Jon about this very topic. And about him apparently coming back from the dead. More depth to be found and not just the big battle against Ramsay. Though there probably was no time for that and there won't be time for anything in the last two seasons either (most likely). I think that's disappointing because GoT (in the earlier seasons) had some time for things like that. I mean let's be real, at least something about his resurrection would have been nice. Yes there were a few lines about the wildlings but that's not really much.
There's still a chance we get to read another one or MAYBE two books, so ...
|
So what? This is about the show
|
On June 03 2017 06:15 FreakyDroid wrote:
Wow, there's a chance the 8th season might come in 2019 instead of 2018...
Highly unlikely given all the marketing and hype
|
On June 14 2017 09:47 Hyperbola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 06:15 FreakyDroid wrote:
Wow, there's a chance the 8th season might come in 2019 instead of 2018... Highly unlikely given all the marketing and hype
Good chance actually. They said they plan on doing about a year in a half on the final season as they want it to be spectacular. It would be early 2019 if it does take them that long instead of mid 2019.
|
Sucks, I have trouble getting into it as it is, which is only getting worse now that a year is 7 eps. Watching without knowing all the details is only half the fun, but rewatching is too much work.
|
Rewatching certainly doesn't feel like work to me.
|
On June 15 2017 01:45 rotta wrote:
Rewatching certainly doesn't feel like work to me.
It's a 60 hour investment. Whether it qualifies as work or not is debatable, but it's a pretty big time investment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
