[TV/Books] Game of Thrones ***SPOILER Discussion***

[Deleted]

Because he was stabbed for other reasons in the TV show, they diverted on that one.

Exactly. They left out a very important part of the story, yet Jon had to be stabbed. So they made up Olly, which had one purpose: suggesting the audience that Jon was stabbed because he formed alliances with the wildlings.

This doesn't change the fact that Jon marches to Winterfell, assuming he's resurrected in the book as well. But it does significantly determine how the readers see Jon and how the TV show audience views Jon. Respectively as an oath breaker and as an innocent victim of maleficent brothers in black.

[Sooba]

That's one, but I doubt it will change in quality. I cringed every time there was a Dorne chapter myself. Which doesn't mean it was poorly written, or bad story telling. It just wasn't as entertaining as everything else.

I think that may be because it simply hasn't come to fruition yet. Dorne is very clearly playing into the final Blackfyre rebellion.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure what you're on about since there was no Olly in the books and afaik even the characater he's loosely based on didn't partake in stabbing. I think you're mixing the two in your head.

/sigh. Yes, I should have been more clear but didn't want to have to take the extra two paragraphs to sort it out.

Olly is very clearly the distillation of a number of character-motivations from the books. A slew of brothers with a hatred for the wildlings due to run-ins leading to the death of Nightwatchmen. By having him involved, they are showing those same motivations attacking Jon for his attempt at clemency.

Again, the attempt on Jon's life very clearly had the makings of a fair amount of planning. Something like that doesn't just occur spontaneously. Therefore the proximal event cannot have been the most important factor in it's inception. Were they upset about it? Most certainly. But they would have killed him anyway. Which means that other events were not only sufficient, but the primary cause.

I got entirely too lazy in my reply style. Yes I know Olly is not from the books. Apologies for the laziness.

[Deleted]

Exactly. They left out a very important part of the story, yet Jon had to be stabbed. So they made up Olly, which had one purpose: suggesting the audience that Jon was stabbed because he formed alliances with the wildlings.

This doesn't change the fact that Jon marches to Winterfell, assuming he's resurrected in the book as well. But it does significantly determine how the readers see Jon and how the TV show audience views Jon. Respectively as an oath breaker and as an innocent victim of maleficent brothers in black.

I thought you were talking about the show.

And even if we are talking about the books, he asked who would come with him, but still didn't have time (as I recall might be wrong) to do it because he was stabbed before hand.
If that's the case he was going to break the oath, but didn't leave Castle Black, therefore didn't get involved, thus not breaking any oaths (yet).

[Sooba]

Exactly. They left out a very important part of the story, yet Jon had to be stabbed. So they made up Olly, which had one purpose: suggesting the audience that Jon was stabbed because he formed alliances with the wildlings.

This doesn't change the fact that Jon marches to Winterfell, assuming he's resurrected in the book as well. But it does significantly determine how the readers see Jon and how the TV show audience views Jon. Respectively as an oath breaker and as an innocent victim of maleficent brothers in black.

And this is what I'm getting at. The brothers don't give a damn about Winterfell on an emotional level. They do care about the wildling solution on an emotional level. One of these is very clearly the greater cause for the mutiny.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought you were talking about the show.

And even if we are talking about the books, he asked who would come with him, but still didn't have time (as I recall might be wrong) to do it because he was stabbed before hand.
If that's the case he was going to break the oath, but didn't leave Castle Black, therefore didn't get involved, thus not breaking any oaths (yet).

Oh that's right. I had forgotten that portion. He wasn't even making a forced march and hadn't even fully broached the topic yet. Curious to say that's the reason for his death when a good portion of the murderers wouldn't even have known about it yet...

[Deleted]

And this is what I'm getting at. The brothers don't give a damn about Winterfell on an emotional level. They do care about the wildling solution on an emotional level. One of these is very clearly the greater cause for the mutiny.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh that's right. I had forgotten that portion. He wasn't even making a forced march and hadn't even fully broached the topic yet. Curious to say that's the reason for his death when a good portion of the murderers wouldn't even have known about it yet...

In the show. An alliance with the wildlings, isn't mutiny, nor is it breaking his oaths. "Defend the realms of men."

I thought you were talking about the show.

And even if we are talking about the books, he asked who would come with him, but still didn't have time (as I recall might be wrong) to do it because he was stabbed before hand.
If that's the case he was going to break the oath, but didn't leave Castle Black, therefore didn't get involved, thus not breaking any oaths (yet).

He had decided, he had made up his mind. He even rallied troops. The oath was broken - period.

[Sooba]

In the show. An alliance with the wildlings, isn't mutiny, nor is it breaking his oaths. "Defend the realms of men."

I'm not calling an alliance with the wildlings mutiny. I'm calling the brothers killing Jon mutiny. It's kind've a textbook example.

And yes, I know the oath...

[Deleted]

In the show. An alliance with the wildlings, isn't mutiny, nor is it breaking his oaths. "Defend the realms of men."



He had decided, he had made up his mind. He even rallied troops. The oath was broken - period.

I can't remember if he left CB, if he didn't I don't see it as broken. He wanted to interfere, he was ready to interfere, ready to break the oath, he died beofre doing it.
"I shall live and die at my post". As long as he hasn't left CB for the South he hasn't left his post.

- - - Updated - - -

And this is what I'm getting at. The brothers don't give a damn about Winterfell on an emotional level. They do care about the wildling solution on an emotional level. One of these is very clearly the greater cause for the mutiny.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh that's right. I had forgotten that portion. He wasn't even making a forced march and hadn't even fully broached the topic yet. Curious to say that's the reason for his death when a good portion of the murderers wouldn't even have known about it yet...

Thanks for the condescending tone when I did say I didn't recall perfectly.
Glad that people like you are alive in this world

[Deleted]

I'm not calling an alliance with the wildlings mutiny. I'm calling the brothers killing Jon mutiny. It's kind've a textbook example.

And yes, I know the oath...

That was in fact mutiny.

I can't remember if he left CB, if he didn't I don't see it as broken. He wanted to interfere, he was ready to interfere, ready to break the oath, he died beofre doing it.
"I shall live and die at my post". As long as he hasn't left CB for the South he hasn't left his post.

He was about to. His stabbing, was a spur of the moment thing. You could argue that he hadn't left yet, so technically no oaths were broken. But that would be silly, in my opinion.

[Sooba]

I can't remember if he left CB, if he didn't I don't see it as broken. He wanted to interfere, he was ready to interfere, ready to break the oath, he died beofre doing it.
"I shall live and die at my post". As long as he hasn't left CB for the South he hasn't left his post.

- - - Updated - - -



Thanks for the condescending tone when I did say I didn't recall perfectly.
Glad that people like you are alive in this world

It's irrelevant anyway. Night's Watch brothers tried to leave all the time, were rounded up and returned. This is exemplified when Jon makes his run the first time and Aemon sends Sam after him. Mole Town survived economically on brothers "breaking their vows". The statement is even made that if they executed everyone who left for a time, there'd be nobody left to serve.

The motivation, emotionally AND temporally, for the mutiny is very clearly not Jon's desire to save "Arya" or his "breaking of vows" but rather his complete disregard for their prejudice and myopic outlook on what their true purpose was. Even their deeming him "oathbreaker" was because of this.

--- Think about it. You're a NW brother #185433. You've taken a vow you have mixed feelings for. You've definitely known a woman or two, and have even taken a brief "vacation" South-ish for an indeterminate amount of time. You serve the 7 Kingdoms and have a mild distaste for the politics that left you stranded here. But you hate Wildlings. Fuck you hate them. They've killed many of your friends, and might have even killed your family. You even think that they're what you're supposed to be guarding the realm against.

Suddenly your world goes topsy turvy. Stuff of legends seems to be just around the corner. Your LC lets the people you hate the most in this world come waltzing through the wall in response to it and worse even seems to feel it's justified. He, at a later date, also asks some volunteers if they'd follow him to go fight some battle you don't really care about.

Which enrages you? That he wants to go on a sword-influenced-vacation with some of the men? Or that he let the people you hate most in this world come right into your own back yard ---

Ultimately the show got the motivations right. And I'm not sure why people seem so insistent on trying to pursue it. Is it knee-jerk dislike of the show and wishing to find discrepancies? Or is it a desire to try and find any flaw possible in Jon's character because people feel he's a Gary Stu? The former needs no help as there's a plethora of much more irritating issues, and the latter has plenty of flaws without resorting to getting his motivations (or theirs) wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

That was in fact mutiny.

That's my whole point. You tried to tell me what mutiny wasn't. I very clearly used mutiny correctly and you tried to correct me. Why are you now affirming that I used "mutiny" correctly?

[Airlick]

you're going to have to post full quotes and context to convince me that this was their actual intent (and not just some pretext). It's very clear, even in the books, as to why they wanted Jon dead.

Can't give you any, as there were none either way.

What we do know - the tensions between Jon Snow and those loyal to him and the rest of the Night's Watch (mostly builders and stewards) were high for a good while before the stabbing. We do know they were conspiring, but they might very well have been planning to kill him OR they might have simply been watching his every step for a proof of his betrayal, only at which point they would start considering killing him. We don't know anything about their intentions, but we do know the actual stabbing was triggered by Jon's announcement that he would leave south to fight Ramsay. We don't even know how many people actually did the stabbing (at least 4, but the chapter cuts at the 4th stab, so we don't know exactly. In the show it was about 10 people), but we do know even some of them weren't completely commited to the cause, as evidenced when the first guy who stabs Jon breaks down and goes "No, no, it wasn't me, it was them".

So it's obvious it was decided on a moment's notice. Again, there's no solid proof for either scenario, but those little things do imply that the killers didn't intend to actually kill Jon before his announcement.

Suddenly your world goes topsy turvy. Stuff of legends seems to be just around the corner. Your LC lets the people you hate the most in this world come waltzing through the wall in response to it and worse even seems to feel it's justified. He, at a later date, also asks some volunteers if they'd follow him to go fight some battle you don't really care about.

Which enrages you? That he wants to go on a sword-influenced-vacation with some of the men? Or that he let the people you hate most in this world come right into your own back yard ---

Ultimately the show got the motivations right. And I'm not sure why people seem so insistent on trying to pursue it. Is it knee-jerk dislike of the show and wishing to find discrepancies? Or is it a desire to try and find any flaw possible in Jon's character because people feel he's a Gary Stu? The former needs no help as there's a plethora of much more irritating issues, and the latter has plenty of flaws without resorting to getting his motivations (or theirs) wrong.

It's not like this "stuff from legends" is just around the corner. They saw it. They saw the wights kill people in Castle Black, which is what triggered the initial expedition beyond the Wall. Then they saw the whole army of the Others. Obviously not all builders and stewards were there, but enough of those who were survived that they could attest to Jon's words. They knew the Others are coming. So, if we assume the common brothers of NW couldn't understand that and they still couldn't get over letting the wildlings over the Wall, then yes, this could be the motivation for Jon's killing. But it's been months between the battle at the Wall and that.

Summing up, what I believe they couldn't get over, understandably, is that Jon decided to leave his post and go south to play around with his new friends instead of staying at the Wall, and, as he and the wildlings swore, defending the realms of men. I think the brothers of NW did get over the notion of fighting the Others alongside the wildlings, but they could not get over the idea of Jon using same wildlings against the people they swore to protect. They were probably well aware who Ramsay was, but they didn't care - he was far away and he was not a threat to the Night's Watch as long as the NW knew its place.

[Gaman]

Yes, he had. This thread is about the TV show and the book. If you don't like that we, literate people, discuss the pages, don't participate in the conversation.

Thread name: [TV/Books] Game of Thrones ***SPOILER Discussion***

Indeed thread name: Game of Thrones. Not, A song of Ice and Fire. Thus in here, we primarily talk tv-show.

So Im mighty fine with discussing book stuff when not included in the show/ changed in the show or whatever. And how that will affect the tv-show story and whatnot.

But answering a show-(speculation)-post with a book fact, that, is simply not a fact at all in the TV show, is pretty much pointless in this thread. Which is what you did, and keep doing. Thus my comment about "Stop taking book shit that have not happend in the show, and tell it as a show fact just because you wish it should be so."

So if you, literate man, wants to talk book stuff only. Make a thread about A song of Ice and Fire.

[eschatological]

Indeed thread name: Game of Thrones. Not, A song of Ice and Fire. Thus in here, we primarily talk tv-show.

So Im mighty fine with discussing book stuff when not included in the show/ changed in the show or whatever. And how that will affect the tv-show story and whatnot.

But answering a show-(speculation)-post with a book fact, that, is simply not a fact at all in the TV show, is pretty much pointless in this thread. Which is what you did, and keep doing. Thus my comment about "Stop taking book shit that have not happend in the show, and tell it as a show fact just because you wish it should be so."

So if you, literate man, wants to talk book stuff only. Make a thread about A song of Ice and Fire.

Any television show that is an adaptation of a written work will always be compared to the source material. The thread title is because the show named itself after the first book in the series, and is not an indication of a "restriction" about talking about the books.

The whole "point" of comparing it to the source material, then, is as a critique or potential analysis of the show itself, not a supposition that it's a fact in the show's universe.

[Deleted]

Indeed thread name: Game of Thrones. Not, A song of Ice and Fire. Thus in here, we primarily talk tv-show.

No, we don't. Reading is difficult, I know. "Books" /bʊks/ - It's right there, in the title. Now get over it or move along.

I very clearly used mutiny correctly and you tried to correct me. Why are you now affirming that I used "mutiny" correctly?

I misunderstood, evidently. It happens, even to me:

An alliance with the wildlings, isn't mutiny, nor is it breaking his oaths.

[Deleted]

Game of Thrones S6E03 Explained.

Alt Shift X
May 11, 2016

[Gaman]

Any television show that is an adaptation of a written work will always be compared to the source material. The thread title is because the show named itself after the first book in the series, and is not an indication of a "restriction" about talking about the books.

The whole "point" of comparing it to the source material, then, is as a critique or potential analysis of the show itself, not a supposition that it's a fact in the show's universe.

And I have no problem with people comparing stuff to the source material, but the thread title is Game of Thrones for a reason, it got started after the show came out. We talk primarily show, and use the books for refrence and upcoming events, talk about stuff that was excluded from the show that are in the books and whatnot. Thats how it started. A place to talk show, and discuss upcoming book stuff without beeing afraid of getting hated for posting upcoming book stuff that might happend in the show.

But if someone asks the question "Why did they stab Jon Snow?" in this very thread, and someone answers "He got a pink-letter taunting him about stuff happening at Winterfell so he wanted to leave the NW to take back Winterfell, so he was about to break his oath, so they stabbed him for it." (yes yes, short version)

That is just completely false in this context. And an answer I am going to call out for beeing false, which is kinda what I did. Had there been a simple "In the books" before said answer, no one would bat an eye.

Its a reason this thread is mostly dead for 9months a year and alive for 3. We come here to discuss episodes, we compare it to the book story, we hate it, or we love it, its all good fun.

[Grimbold21]

Photos of the incoming episode: http://watchersonthewall.com/new-pho...book-stranger/

Meanwhile, GRRM has released another sample chapter of TWoW. Another Arianne chap http://www.georgerrmartin.com/excerp...nds-of-winter/

Not sure if someone has posted that already or if it's allowed here.

[Deleted]

Game of Thrones S6E03 Explained.

I don't think it really needed an explanation though

Photos of the incoming episode: http://watchersonthewall.com/new-pho...book-stranger/

Meanwhile, GRRM has released another sample chapter of TWoW. Another Arianne chap http://www.georgerrmartin.com/excerp...nds-of-winter/

Not sure if someone has posted that already or if it's allowed here.

Oh nice! Too bad it's not another chapter about Stannis

[TirielWoW]

Game of Thrones S6E03 Explained.

Alt Shift X
May 11, 2016

I love his videos. He explains the episodes so well.

[Deleted]

/sigh. Yes, I should have been more clear but didn't want to have to take the extra two paragraphs to sort it out.

Olly is very clearly the distillation of a number of character-motivations from the books. A slew of brothers with a hatred for the wildlings due to run-ins leading to the death of Nightwatchmen. By having him involved, they are showing those same motivations attacking Jon for his attempt at clemency.

Again, the attempt on Jon's life very clearly had the makings of a fair amount of planning. Something like that doesn't just occur spontaneously. Therefore the proximal event cannot have been the most important factor in it's inception. Were they upset about it? Most certainly. But they would have killed him anyway. Which means that other events were not only sufficient, but the primary cause.

I got entirely too lazy in my reply style. Yes I know Olly is not from the books. Apologies for the laziness.

No, Jon's stabbing was very clearly made in haste. He was about to march away and desert. He just revealed this to everyone and also the fact that he has not killed Mance and that he has been helping Stannis. It's no coincidence he was killed just after his speech. The guys who already had a thing against him quickly decided he needed to go. And the event which made it possible wasn't premeditated. The giant killed one of Stannis's knights and everyone went there. Jon arrived first, where they killed him amongst the chaos.

And this is what I'm getting at. The brothers don't give a damn about Winterfell on an emotional level. They do care about the wildling solution on an emotional level. One of these is very clearly the greater cause for the mutiny.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh that's right. I had forgotten that portion. He wasn't even making a forced march and hadn't even fully broached the topic yet. Curious to say that's the reason for his death when a good portion of the murderers wouldn't even have known about it yet...

No the greater cause for the mutiny is the potential destruction of the NW. And Jon has fully broached the topic. He announced his plans and his past deceits to everyone. He also announced he will just leave the NW like it's no big deal when desertion is punishable with death, by law. The murderers were also in the hall listening, they knew. If someone wasn't there he was told. When Jon is talking he notices NW brothers leaving the room.

I thought you were talking about the show.

And even if we are talking about the books, he asked who would come with him, but still didn't have time (as I recall might be wrong) to do it because he was stabbed before hand.
If that's the case he was going to break the oath, but didn't leave Castle Black, therefore didn't get involved, thus not breaking any oaths (yet).

I can't remember if he left CB, if he didn't I don't see it as broken. He wanted to interfere, he was ready to interfere, ready to break the oath, he died beofre doing it.
"I shall live and die at my post". As long as he hasn't left CB for the South he hasn't left his post.

First things first. It's not just about what he is going to do. It's also about what he has already done. Imprisoning Cregane Karstark, helping Stannis, leaving Mance alive and lying to everyone. Secondly, what kind of logic is that? He hasn't done anything yet so it doesn't count? What? Even though he announced everything he will do. Do you wait for the point where Jon is about to leave with thousands of wildlings and then come with 200 men and say: ''Uhm, you can't go.'' They either act, or lose their chance for ever. When someone says he is going to comitt a terrorist attack, do you wait until it happens and then do something? And once again leaving and deserting the NW is punishable by death. In the books Jon thinks he's doing the right things, but he is just fucking everything up. In the show he is a classic good guy, who got stabbed by petty racists who just don't get him, and how he is doing everything good.

[Deleted]

First things first. It's not just about what he is going to do. It's also about what he has already done. Imprisoning Cregane Karstark, helping Stannis, leaving Mance alive and lying to everyone. Secondly, what kind of logic is that? He hasn't done anything yet so it doesn't count? What? Even though he announced everything he will do. Do you wait for the point where Jon is about to leave with thousands of wildlings and then come with 200 men and say: ''Uhm, you can't go.'' They either act, or lose their chance for ever. When someone says he is going to comitt a terrorist attack, do you wait until it happens and then do something? And once again leaving and deserting the NW is punishable by death. In the books Jon thinks he's doing the right things, but he is just fucking everything up. In the show he is a classic good guy, who got stabbed by petty racists who just don't get him, and how he is doing everything good.

There is a major difference between the sentence of someone that comitted a crime and the sentence of someone that intends to comitt a crime. The crime being for the moment non existant, the sentence will be far less severe than someone that actually did it.
And the question was not about if he deserved to die or not it was if he broke is oath or not. And in my opinion the oath is technically not broken. He has every intentions of doing so, but he died before actually did it.
For example, if I have every intentions to break the law, but get arrested before hand, I haven't broken the law. I will be condemn as someone who had "every intentions to do so".
Jon Snow had every intention to break his Oath he was on the starting line to do so. But got killed before he could do so, and labeled an Oathbreaker. As you said they seized their chance before he became untouchable, thus killing him before his oathbreaking.

In his mind, and everyone else, he is an oathbreaker indeed. But he technically didn't do it yet.