32:23 I mean, when Tolkien was young he lost both of his parents and wound up being raised by a priest, he encountered the anti-Catholic discrimination and sentiment that still existed in Britain (his wife's family disowned her when she broke off her engagement and joined the Catholic Church to marry him), and fought in the First World War where most of his friends were killed. He was also 22 when the First World War began, only five years older than George was when American involvement in Vietnam escalated in 1965.
"The North remembers", but they've forgotten what they're supposed to remember, so now they just remember insults and help as if that's what they're supposed to be remembering.
30:51 This is a pretty fundamental misreading of Tolkien; the "Old Days" you refer to included major wars, elves killing eachother, and considerable violence. It's not about going back to "the good old days," it's about recognizing decline and the transient nature of the world. In fact he explicitly criticizes the later Kings of Gondor 'building tombs for the dead more magnificent than the palaces of the living' in the books as their nostalgia for a 'better time' blinds them to the problems Gondor faces now. The Men of Numenor's desire for the long lives enjoyed by the Elves is what serves as the seed of their corruption and downfall, and they come to resent the Elves and the Valar for 'denying' them this 'gift,' allowing Sauron to corrupt them. The Elves leave Middle Earth to return to Valinor in order to escape that natural decay and change in the world, because they are functionally immortal unlike basically every other living being in Middle Earth (humans, dwarves, etc.). They don't long for the past, they long for 'heaven' essentially, and that reunion at the end of time which comes after Judgement Day, in the Catholic tradition which Tolkien followed. It's not that George and Tolkien have different socio-political outlooks, it's that their world views are different entirely: One believes in God (Tolkien), one does not (Martin), and that produces different takes on human nature, society, and the world in general.
It disappoints me how often people miss this crucial point about Tolkien, especially when comparing him and his writings to more modern writers and works. Tolkiens worldview was a truly unique one steeped in a genuine love for ancient European lore and underpinned by his, almost obsessively, devout belief in Catholicism and God. Those 2 points more thn anything separte him from the vast majority of his more modern contemporaries.
33:30 You are so right that Tyrion has already started playing the part of The Imp, becoming the monster everyone thinks he is to some extent. I'd never thought of it that way, but where we last left all of our 'main characters' (from the draft), Tyrion, Jon, Dany, Arya, and Bran, they're all set up to embrace the darkest/worst part of themselves. Tyrion, as you mentioned, is playing The Imp. Dany, in her last chapter, decided to embrace "fire and blood". Jon just got killed by his own brothers for trying to do the right/heroic thing, and the scenario you envisioned where he embraces his Stark identity/warg magic when he comes back seems very possible. Arya is almost done with her magical ninja training at the death cult, and could seek the vengeance she's been chasing for 4 books with her massive wolf pack at her pack like a warg queen. And Bran is training with the scary tree wizard (has already committed the worst abominations for skinchangers, may have eaten his friend), and may be getting tricked into going down a dark path, although since we know he's kinda the hero of the story, maybe he's the one who recognizes things are wrong and resolves to reform society. P.S. You brought up Arya/Bran and Jon/Dany at the start of the video, and I realized that the 2 magical Starks and the 2 magical Targs mirror each other super strongly for at least the last 2 books. Arya and Bran doing their magical training, and Jon and Dany trying and failing to rule/lead.
So why does he carry out the sentence then? Better to transport deserters back to the wall, or look through his fingers at the obviously mentally unwell ones, because then the deserters would not be dnagerous to the people.
@@velenteriushendeneros3251 A deserter got away once, he can again. The point of the Night's Watch is that they are NOT a prison institution, and that you expiate your crimes by voluntary service. Anyone who runs from the Night's Watch is violating the social structure and the rules that allowed him to live beyond his crimes, or breaking his solemn duty of honor. Furthermore, this particular deserter WAS dangerous to people, because he was so terrified of the Others that he ran instead of reporting. He was north of the Wall when he met them, which means he had to cross the Wall and did so avoiding any contact with the Watch, either because he was consumed with a mindless desire to get away from the threat or was afraid to return where he would be expected to lead others back to the scene and at the very least, fight the Others when the day came. He ran to get away from that possibility, which he had sworn his life to face. The guy Ned executed WOULD have done anything, would have harmed anyone to avoid going back, and he had already exhausted his share of second or more chances.
@@velenteriushendeneros3251 Because if deserting the Night's Watch only means you get shipped back, then people will be encouraged to try deserting more often because surely, they only need to succeed once.
The issue with understanding Bran is teasing out the point of symbolism around him. He's feeding corn, which casts him as more of a Garth figure. Now the symbolism of his injury. With his legs broken we have at least two lines of thought. One is that his "roots" are broken. He's taken North and grafted to those roots. It comes off as somewhat of a healing ritual in that light. The other is the subtle way many of the characters resemble the swords they hold. Waymar was untested and well dressed, his sword untested and well jeweled. Gared's sharp and nicked, which also describes Gared. In that light Bran's broken legs actually suggest a broken hilt. Which casts Bran as a blade without a hilt which is what we are hinted magic is. This places Bran as a sword in the hands of BR. Are they giving him a hilt? It's hard to say.
One part of the old way that you didn't mention is the law of the first night. I like the theory that it was part of a pact with the others, and that my beloved good queen Alyssane, when she fought to ban it, started the resurgence of the others. It's pretty clear that the nightfort was used to sacrifice children, maybe the bastards resulting from the first night as Preston theorizes, and that could have been the way the others added new others to their rank. When it was banned, we know it didn't stop completely, but the nightfort was shut. It's possible that for some time some sacrifices kept going on, and then Craster was the only one left sacrificing children. Now the others being forced to attack because of that would be an interesting motive for them, as I think they do have one unlike in the series. But then, ending the first night, a barbaric practice, ending the child sacrifice, would bring war, but would be inevitable to bring change. I don't know aboutyour theory about Starks in the trees, but I think the story is heading towards the end of a world, with the wall falling, the old ways disappearing, and possibly the whole feudal system changing.
41:48 Earth and Water, Bronze and Iron, Ice and Fire. These sound almost like the titles of the ages themselves. Like going to Elden Ring the last cycle before the Erdtree was called the Crucible. Was the age before the current one dictated not by ice and fire but bronze and iron, or were they the subjects that was thrown off balance.
A few hours ago, I checked this channel because I thought that Micheal hadn't talked about a lot of stuff recently but I guess this big boi was the reason
No worries Michael... I would rather discuss fantasy / sci-fi / horror politics any day of the week rather than the real politics of our world. We are all actively discussing the politics and the world building of an artificial planet so we have to get into the politics of it in order to figure it out. Great video bro
Did 50 guys Ned executed say they saw ice demons? That's the crux of the scene. Ned heard him out. If he didn’t say anything logical then Ned did the right thing. He probably had heard some other weird excuses for leaviing. Had Willem said there was mutiny and the Lord Commander and the Maester had been murdered Ned would have had to consider what was being said to him and take it seriously and not immediately execute him. Willem deserved execution because he had a valid way of dealing with what happened by reporting it to his superiors. Instead he knowingly, and with great difficulty, commited the crime of desertion by bypassing Castle Black. Ned should not have just known that magic was coming back into the world. At that point Westeros was had become more a place of science and tradition. It's not accurate to say that Ned made a mistake. The beheadings were based on the old belief that holding off the Others was the most important duty of the Nights Watch. That's the old way. By the time of the execution that was no longer the belief. They were fighting Wildlings, so why would Ned believe that a long dead enemy had returned? Also, was the decision entirely his? Wouldn't the Watch have alerted him that they had concluded that Willem had deserted, and it was only Ned's job to be the final judge and executioner? Lyanna was bleeding from childbirth then died. I don't get this. Regardless of what weird thing she might have said there was a baby there. A Stark baby. You're ignoring blatant facts to make your arguments. This doesn’t make any sense. Progressive and conservative politics haven't changed much over the last 50 years. They haven't changed much over the last 100 years. People who were progrssive in the 50s, 70s, 90s, 00s, or 10s would very likely still be progressive today. You could probably go back much further than that, at least the threads of it will be there. Anyone who studies history can tell you that.
Great video, Michael! It was definitely a thought-provoking one. It's giving me the wheel of the season vibes and something caused that wheel to stop spinning the way it did naturally.
It isn't circular logic that deserters must die. Ned is explaining the practicalities of the issue to his very young son. The principle at stake is that they have sworn oaths for life. If you are not going to keep an oath you have sworn for life, your life ends. That's what they say - "My watch begins...it will not end until my death". What's more, most of the men on the Wall these days are there in lieu of execution for capital crimes. Their transgressions in deserting the Night's Watch are self-evidently only able to be corrected by death. A man who will not hold an oath on which he has staked his life, both in his sworn promise, and the circumstances by which he joined the Watch instead of dying, is not a man who can logically be constrained by any other rule or law or standard of behavior. What is to keep him from breaking any other rule or law that constrains normal people, when he has proven capable of defying the conditions on which he has placed his life?
So, I got this pet theory, let's call it "The older ways": There seems to be a massive cultural divide between Wildlings and First Men and in the context of ASOIAF, where cultures seems to stay relatively uniform and static of absurdly long period of time, that cultural divide doesn't make much sense. I think that the story that we are told about the settlement of Westeros by the First Men is incorrect. I bet that the wildlings and the Mountain clans of the Vale were there before the First men. We see differences in tool and weapon manufacture, religion, political structure, language, death rites and even the relationship with magic. First Men use bronze and later steel, wildling use stone and bone, First Men bury their dead near weirwoods, wildlings don't seem to have any ritual besides burning the corpses for safety reasons. We see wildling live around weirwood tree, but we don't see them marry or take sacred oaths in front of them. The wildling speak the old tongue, as do the giants. It seems to me that the wildling were pushed north and into the mountains of the Vale as the First Men invaded, I suspect that those wildling ancestors would have been hunter-gatherer fractured in a thousands little clan and tribes and that they could not resist the strength of bronze wielding farmers. I'm assuming that the long night and the building of the wall happened as the First Men pushed north, through a long war with the wildlings, children and giants. There is speculation with the white walkers and how they fit in, but let's assume that the war ends with the pact, the walkers defeated and the wall erected. The First Men got a new religion, tied to the weirwood trees and established the political order south of the wall. The wildlings who didn't like the deal got banished or pushed militarily north of the wall. Some children remain south, living in caves and deep forests and maybe allied to the first great families of Westeros and their magical seats of power. The big question mark would be the Thenns and how they got there. Were they banished too? did they get caught north as the wall was built? I don't know how they fit in.
"First Men" effectively only means " were there before the Andals came". There's no reason the wildlings can't be a much older, different people than the Northerners that came later just because the Andals later lumped them both together with their freshly-coined term "First Men".
I don't care if this video does not intend to dump on Ned. Just giving its moronic opinion of Ned counts as dumping, because it is unfairly characterizing him as something he is not. Ned does not simply follow the law mindlessly. The law would not impel him to hear the deserter's last words. It's not on Ned to question the deserter until he get the answer only an omniscient reader knows to expect. Ned ignored the law to protect Jon, and to give Cersei the chance to save her children. This is not the action of someone who only thinks twice when it's someone he cares about. He had NO reason to care about Cersei and her children and every reason, by his society's standards and values, to see the children as abominations who need to be excised for the good of the realm. He stood up to his king over the murder of the children of a man who raped his sister, the grandchildren of a man who murdered his father and brother. He promised a prostitute that he would speak to the king on her behalf and does so at his first opportunity. This is not a man who blindly follows the rules that were taught him and only bothers to think when it concerns his loved ones.
The line about the words not reaching him made me think about the Mad King, especially because "mad" is used in the sentence. So, "Burn them all!" could make more sense.
I found it interesting as someone who is more of a casual Tolkien fan, I agree with your point about Tolkien's view of industrialization and how he just wants to chill in his garden with a pipe--the thought that popped in my head is that Tolkien probably would have liked being born as a hobbit :) Something else I wondered was that we've heard GRRM talk about the scouring of the shire and how the victory was bittersweet, and how he wants to emulate that in his story. Do you have videos on this topic, theories regarding what kind of bittersweet elements he might have in mind? I agree with a lot of the points that you bring up in your videos, so I was just wondering if this is something you've covered. Thanks for the great ASoIaF content!
Great video, but I do think it’s a very big mistake to believe that Arya’s show storyline was anything like the books. Having her be an agent of the Faceless Men for the show would have required: (a) other actresses to play Arya for most of her scenes, or even better (b) all of her scenes to be shot with two actresses, Maisie and the character whose face she is wearing, and intercutting! That would have been very expensive, complex, and slow to do! It also would have required Lady Stoneheart as a separate undead character if you don’t hand over to Arya Catelyn’s arc taking over the Brotherhood Without Banners and leading them to kill the Freys. Moreover, sending her back to King’s Landing where her book foreshadowing lies to wear other faces would have required new plot lines and at least four new characters: Young Griff, Jon Connington, Elia Sand, and Arianna Martell! Dan and Dave didn’t want to do all that extra work. So we got almost completely alternate storyline for Arya. Instead of going to King’s Landing in disguise she goes to Winterfell via the Twins.
The old gods remind me a lot of Crom from Conan the Barbarian lore They also of course remind me of Crom Cruach, with all the human sacrifice stuff and what not. I think it's interesting that the Dragon "Seen" at Winterfell describes Crom Cruach more accurately than the Dragons present in ASOIAF. Crom Cruach was a serpent/snake looking dragon in a lot of descriptions
The old ways were traditions based on 8,000 years of survival in an extremely harsh terrain (winters that last years, if not lifetimes; cold and snows that kill entire villages). No doubt the people of the north came up with survival mechanisms to avoid dying. Fail to abide by those survival mechanisms and you increase the risk of death.
I get what you say about the old way needing to be reformed, but if the deserter had gone back to the Wall; that would’ve legally changed the trajectory of the story. Night’s Watch would learn of his observations, Benjen visits Winterfell shortly after, and Ned likely makes different choices about his trip to the South
7:12 i love Grrm's devotion to thinking through situations and using that to draw such logical images from that. In other fantasy works i've seen, such minutia is usually taken for granted. ASOIAF povs in dungeons or cells sometimes give me anxiety when I think about the realities they experience. Can you imagine the absolute terror of being in pitch darkness, only able to *hear* the giant rats scuttling about. You would listen as carefully as possible for them getting close, but what about when you get exhausted from it? All men must sleep, and waking up in a daze to the not insignificant pain of being chewed by a rat. Oh and having to poop in a bucket that just sits right there for however long as a constant reminder it's there
It doesn’t really matter that the Night’s Watchmen was telling the truth that they encountered white walkers. He deserted his post…. and by his actions after that encounter broke his oath. He didn’t rush to the wall to inform the others of the danger of what they found but deserted instead. He probably had useful information that Ned should have gotten but he was still right to execute him.
No, letting Night's Watch desererters live is not a good idea. The punishment for desertion is death because Nights watchmen require incentives to not just ditch their (remote) posts and waste resources. Ned did not believe that the deserter saw the Others, and it would have been unreasonable for him to do so in that scenario. Even within the closed environment of GRRM's work, the morality of the Old Ways has well reasoned logic behind it. People didn't randomly come up with the death penalty for deserters for the lulz. Not in real life, and not in ASOIAF.
I think it's also interesting to point out that in GOT Ascent the old app game, you would have dialog dilemma's that you would have to make choices on. The choices that would give you "Old Ways" points would be the kinds of answers that would give you evil points in other video games. Also that game came out in the early days of GOT before the show had strayed as far from the books.
I hate the moral grandstanding with 20/20 hindsight. If someone came to you and was like "I know I just broke out of high security prison, But did it to warn everyone that there are demons in there. Trust me bro." you'd call the cops to get him thrown back in jail. You wouldn't hear him out, you'd think he's either crazy or lying. Despite the fact that we have stories from a thousand+ years ago that demons are real. Literally identical scenario in GoT, but we don't have the disposable resources to waist on locking the guy up after he's wasted his second chance.
I one hundred percent agree with you. The White Walkers/Others have been considered a myth for centuries by the people of Westeros. The word of a coward who abandoned his post and broke the Oath of The Night's Watch ain't gonna change anyone's mind. Not to mention that he is a deserter. Desertion was, is, and always will be a very serious crime.
You're forgetting the high security prison managers begging everyone in the nation for more manpower for guards cause they keep losing them to the demons the deserter mentioned. Doesn't even involve moral grandstanding, a savvy leader should start suspecting something is very, very wrong and start asking questions. Mind you, this is a time when Ned has the ear of Robert who is spoiling for a proper fight.
@@abelbabel8484 Lord Eddard might have been willin' to hear the deserter out, but the word of a deserter ain't gonna convince him that the White Walkers/Others are real.
Remember though, on OUR planet, the Summer King is not just the warrior opposing and defeating the Winter King and in turn being defeated by him, they are brothers and Other Selves... 20 Days till Solstice. The Longest Night marks the birth of the Winter King.
The deserter speaking Aegon's prophecy is ridiculous. He saw the Others, he saw the horror and ran. He knows and has no reason to know, anything about the prince who is promised or a Targaryen needing to fight the threat. Rhaegar's fixation has been entirely on that subject, with no indication that he understands the specific nature of the threat, despite corresponding with his great-uncle, ON THE WALL! Even Maester Aemon seems surprised by the Others, and the wights, saying nothing about any prophecy, which he only seems to tie to that threat when Melisande brings it up. Everything he says in aFfC points to a guy belatedly putting the pieces together, right when he is being hustled away and no one is listening to him. If Lyanna has any awareness of Rhaegar's prophetic motivations, there is almost no reason to think that it would be specifically about the Others. Nothing we have seen speaks of the Others specifically, that is more northern lore. Even Melisandre doesn't seem to realize that's who she has come to fight, merely anticipating a threat and intending to prepare Stannis to fight it. Finally, thematically, it doesn't fit to have Ned be told key information about the prophecies and miss them, over 15 years before they manifest. The theme of the book, especially as it pertains to Ned, is that he is the RIGHT leader, and the politics drag him away from doing the right thing and destroy him in favor of inferior leaders, but his leadership and mentorship is the basis on which the North will rally around his family to fight the Others. The point of the story is that being good and doing good matters, not learning arcane lore or getting prophetic hints. The prophesies are only there to elucidate the readers, for the characters they are a distraction and misdirection, or a justification for their own chosen course of action.
I agree with you for the most part. But if I'm remembering correct, in the books Ned does think about the man he executed a few times. but my mind could be mixing book and show cannon unintentionally.
21:26 What if the "power" in Jon is fire & blood? Instead of acting like a Stark he acts like a Targaryen? Like, if he actually embraces fire maybe even dragon fire?
“The old ways,” also known as “The status quo,” aka “that’s how we do things,” aka “Just because.” Makes people lazy, comfortable, and ultimately complacent. One is given the easy answer, which isn’t always the best or correct answer.
Reality is complex. Sure, sometimes "the way we do things" is stupid, and we need a new and better way. And sometimes the old way is actually good, and some new idea someone just came up with is stupid and destructive but nice-sounding.
18:30 So Ned is stupid for not trying to find out more from Gared, but Waymar should not be in charge, and gets them killed? Make up your mind. Their mission was not "go into the forest and return unscathed" it was to find out what is going on. Waymar is actually rather intelligent & observant, pointing out what Will and Gared missed - that the wildlings could not have frozen to death with the temperatures as high as they have been recently. Gared is right in wanting a fire and wanting to turn back by accident, and turning back would not have done any good in the big picture. Gared only HAS the information you lambaste Ned for not getting, because Waymar overrode his wishes and pressed on, finding the Others. Going back, like refraining from executing Gared until he gives a complete briefing on the Others' return, is one of those things you only think is correct because you have the benefit of hindsight!
The opening example is utterly wrong, on three points. One, that the Old Ways somehow uniquely created the problem detected in the incident and Two, that the execution was somehow wrong or Three, caused a lack of information about the return of the Others/White Walkers. One - the Old Ways have nothing to do with the cause of his execution. His crime was desertion from the Night's Watch, which is a crime everywhere in Westeros, upheld by the Targaryens, and in the rest of the Seven Kingdoms. That calls for execution, no matter who catches him, and the rest of the realm has a vested interest in maintaining that law. The only difference it made in that he was captured and executed under the Old Ways is that he got a face-to-face with the Lord of Winterfell himself. A lord under the Andal traditions would have, at most, had him brought in for a hearing and then sent him to be hanged by his executioner or master at arms, or much more likely, dispatched a retainer to review the case and ascertain that he guy was, in fact, a deserter, before ordering the execution. Two - the guy is a deserter, which carries a death sentence, and everything Ned told Bran about the necessity of execution holds true. While in many cases there is a kind of tautological reasoning behind the idea that the deserter must be killed, because he will scruple at nothing to abet his escape, since he knows he is under a death sentence, in the case of a man so terrified by the sight of the O/WW that he simply runs, without reporting to his superiors in the Night's Watch, yes, he WILL do anything to get away from what has terrified him. Furthermore, he swore an oath, possibly in order to evade a sentence of death or mutilation for some other crime, to defend the realms of men, from whatever is beyond the Wall, and specifically against the O/WW. At the very first instance of being called to fulfil the higher purpose of the oath, he failed. He committed an act of cowardice in the face of the enemy, which has, universally IRL and in Westeros, been a capital offense in almost every military body. What's more, HE is the one who is endangering the world, by not returning to Castle Black to let them know what he saw, by not giving a single other person warning about what they face, instead simply fleeing for his own self-preservation. In a book series that asserts that this fight is the only one that matters (which even the show pays lip service to in the Night Watch plotline, of season 1, at least), that's even worse of a crime. On top of all that, the whole reason the Night's Watch is an acceptable alternative to execution for capital crimes or political conflicts is that it is permanent, and when you join the Night's Watch, you effectively removed from the society of Westeros, you can no longer present a threat to the political order or the lives and property of the people. To maintain that status, deserters HAVE to die. The day a deserter is let off with a warning is the day it is no longer safe to send your failed political rivals to the Wall, and suddenly, there is no way out for many rebels or political contenders, and the only hope becomes going down fighting, and creating more bloodshed and death. The option of sending people to the Wall is one of those practices that helps end fighting and make peace, like the customs of hospitality, honoring truces, protecting envoys, respecting religious facilities, and upholding parole. The hospitality thing in general is a good idea, not just some Old Way quirk or curiosity, and as we see in the books after the Red Wedding, the Lannisters' enemies are no longer playing by the rules, leading to more murders and massacres, and Jaime unable to get Riverrun to surrender, without more gruesome threats that nonetheless mean for all he gets what he wants, the other side still resents and hates him and will undermine their agreement at any excuse (such as by smuggling the Blackfish out). Respecting the Old Ways, including to whatever greater degree the rules of the Night's Watch are upheld in the North, are actually beneficial to society. Three - The point the video is grossly missing is that Ned DID hear the guy out. He never, in either medium, says anything about the threat. On the show he whimpers an acknowledgement that he was wrong, but gives no information. In the books, it is implied that he was incoherent, in which case, no information would have been forthcoming. Yes, IF they were gifted with the readers' hindsight (it is not obvious in the books that this is the same man who was with the party in the prologue and whose death was not mentioned on page, until later on when Lord Mormont confirms that the guy Ned executed was the third member of the patrol), and held onto the guy and kept questioning him and knew what questions to ask and what to listen for, they might have discovered that he saw the O/WW, but there is no real reason to believe they could have got anything useful out of him, especially since they are not specifically looking for that datum, and in their perspective, no reason to believe they should try to get more out of him. The deserter had to pass the Wall in order to get to where Ned executed him. That means he was taking specific efforts to avoid encountering the people to whom his news would do the most good, the people in the best position to confirm the truth of his report. By the time he reaches Ned, even if he was inclined to tell what he had seen and was coherent enough to be understood, he has already shattered his credibility by failing to bring that news to the Night's Watch, who are the ones who most need to know, and most likely to listen and to whom he is duty-bound to tell! If he tells Ned that he saw the O/WW, it's going to sound like a story he made up to excuse his crime, now that he has been caught. If there is anyone or anything to blame for the news of what the deserter saw failing to reach the right ears, it is the deserter himself, not the laws of the Night's Watch, or the Seven Kingdoms' use of the death penalty, not the Old Way, or Ned's adherence to it. Instead, the Old Ways provided the one chance the deserter had to give the news to someone important, once he had committed his crime, and it is the followers of the Old Ways who would have been most inclined to listen. The point of the deserter's portrayal in the books is that he failed and broke. In the prologue, the experience and ability of the characters is contrasted. Royce, the noble knight & commander of the party solely by virtue of his birth station, is seen as callow, arrogant and unprepared for the realities of the Night's Watch or the job of a ranger. Will, the PoV narrator, has years of experience on the Wall, and considerable skill at scouting, thanks to his criminal background that brought him to the Watch, and is confident in his judgments of Royce. Gared is the old veteran, with long service on the Wall, whose combat prowess Will regards more highly than the young knight with the expensive sword. And yet, when confronted with the Others, their response is the inverse of what might be expected. The snotty, inexperienced knight, Royce, stands his ground and fights bravely. The longer-serving, tougher Will, freezes at the sight of the Others and fails to call out a warning, but in the end, remembers his duty and attempts to collect proof to report to the Night's Watch, and it is the tough, hardened veteran, Gared who utterly breaks and runs, and doesn't stop running until he is taken and killed. The whole point of that subversion of expectations is that you cannot tell who will stand and who will fail until the crisis is upon them, and there is also the inverse performance of their duty. The point in contrast is that Gared, who should have been expected by both his service record and the tropes of the genre, to stand fast is the one who utterly breaks. If the real fault is Ned and the Old Ways for not hearing him out, that point is lost. The whole reason his story is written that way is that the one man who should have been able to bring the news failed, because he wasn't ready to face it, not that the people closest to respecting the purpose and practices of the Night's Watch were the ones who shut down the warning. Thematically, it's the game of thrones that pulls attention and resources away from the true fight, not the customs and practices set up with the possibility of the true fight returning in mind.
a legal system is not a moral system. just because something is law, doesnt mean its the right thing to do. yes, we all love ned but the point is ned benefits from the corruption, he has power. so there is not incentive for him to go against the legal, and do what is right-that is just the corruption continuing through moral people.
@@betterthanrae8137 Did you read the books? Ned goes against the laws or rules all the time, in favor of what he feels is right, even most of his class would disagree. He tells Arya that her lie to protect Nymeria had honor. He offers Cersei the chance to escape punishment for her crimes, and forgoes justice he & his family are due for all her & Jaimes' harmful actions toward the Starks, just to save her children. And let's not forget committing treason against his king & friend in order to protect his sister's baby. Ned also repeatedly speaks truth to power to Robert and consistently takes the side of commoners who have been wronged by lords. The video's condemnation of Ned for executing the deserter is a bad faith argument, based solely on the hindsight knowledge that the deserter witnessed something significant. Ned gave him more than enough chances to talk, but he never did. What's more, he made his way PAST the Wall & Night's Watch, to whom he should have reported his experience in the first place. There is no diegetic reason for anyone to think they were ever going to get anything useful out of him.
No, these are just your own views on Ned and the legal system. A legal system is just a tool meant to keep humanities rampant "corruption" at bay, and of course because we already are corrupt it is often used for other things such as to control a large parts of a population. Ned used it as a tool against corruption, he even arrested and banished lords who broke the rules of the system so no one was immune. (like Jorah) Ned does not benefit from the "system" nor did he use it to benefit him as it worked him like a slave, he went to war to fix it after it killed his sister, father, brother and eventually himself.
@@GunleaverFucking beautifully laid out. Really tired of the Ned slander. By and large hes a good guy who isht near anywhere as rigid as anyone says. Hell, the whole thing with lyanna is evidence enough.
This reminds me that bit when Theon os going to Pyke and befriends Patrek Mallister but Jason Mallister doesnt want them hagging out together. It also happens to otherr characters, this need to keep stuff the same way that would definetly screw things up in the future.
Jon's violations of the neutrality of the Night's Watch is NOT about the Old Ways! Yes, that is origin of the customs and traditions and laws, but they are universally accepted and an ongoing practice. It is EXPLAINED for the deeply stupid, that the Night's Watch is, and must be, neutral in order to be trusted by the rest of Westeros, instead of being treated like a contender (and competitor) for power. It's not some archaic custom or cultural relic of the First Men, it is a specific policy established for a purpose. It's what makes exile to the Wall an acceptable alternative to the elimination of political enemies or the execution or mutilation of criminals. Not everything they do in the North is an Old Ways issue and just because the First Men practiced a custom does not make it theirs. The laws of hospitality are pretty universal, followed by the Andals and Rhoynar and probably elsewhere in the world. The North (and probably Dorne) adhere to them much closely than the southern regions because the necessity of shelter is rather more obvious in their climate. The changes and reforms that Jon makes or attempts as Lord Commander, are not against the customs and practices of the First Men, but rather the ossification of behavior that happens with any institution. One of his reforms is to emphasize archery training over swordplay. Is there any evidence that the First Men favored swords over bows? Obviously not. Jon attributes the Watch's priority to the days when a greater proportion of the Watch were trained knights when they joined, so it made sense to engage the lighter-armed and armored wildlings in hand to hand. The First Men did not have the institution of knighthood, and they had smaller horses and inferior armor. It was the Andals who brought improved steel and the cultural background for knights to Westeros, and even if the northerners who adhere to the culture of the First Men do not adopt the institution, they did take up the technology and combat styles, and, in fact, the heavy armored cavalry of the North performs rather well when they go south, in both the War of Five Kings and in the Dance of Dragons. So the institutional preference for knighthood is not a First Men thing at all, it is a general practice of Westeros, and institutional inertia has prevented them from changing to meet the realities of their current situation. In fact, in the opening chapter, we see that the trained knight, Ser Waymar Royce, despite being well-equipped by southern standards with black clothing and gear and mount, is not well-equipped to be a ranger of the Night's Watch. His horse is a powerful warhorse, meant to carry an armored knight at a charge against other heavily armored foes, while the rangers ride smaller horses, built for endurance and surefootedness and not to need as much fodder, all of which are more relevant to the rangers than their utility in combat. Waymar himself being in charge has nothing to do with the Old Ways of the First Men, and more to do with the general aristocratic privilege & prejudice of their society, which is just human nature. It's a thing we see as much of among the Andals and Rhoynar and across the Narrow Sea. In Mormont's mind, knights/aristocrats are just better and the only people he sees as fit to lead. There is nothing about the First Men or Old Ways that mandates Sam be blindly run through military training and his other uses utterly ignored because he can't or won't learn combat. In fact, Jon cites the maesters' chain as an illustration of the principle, and the maesters of the Citadel are an institution of the Old Ways and the First Men, who, like the Night's Watch, were found to be very useful and worth keeping around as the Andal culture came to dominate the continent.
They probably didn't. Most likely it was just the way they did things and when the andals invaded and brought new customs, these old customs became known as "the old ways"
Ned didn’t just kill him for being a deserter. At this point in their history, nights watch members are all criminals. They’ve already been sentenced to death, but took the wall instead. The crime wasn’t deserting that took his life, it was what got him to the wall that took his life
The nightwatch visits soon after, i presume he relayed the message, doubt anyone would've believed the deserter either way Also execution for desertion isn't part of the old ways, that's just current law
Regarding the supernatural stuff, the video is just throwing a lot of similar things together and equating them. Dany knows jack all about the Targaryen ways, just a lot of romanticized self-serving delusions and memories of an unreliable brother. The Targaryens from the first were builders and planters of trees, from Aegon & his wife-sisters, to Jaeherys the Conciliator, to Viserys II and Daeron the Good and Aegon the Unlikely, all working on building up their realm, instead of running around lashing out. Dany's turn to Fire & Blood at the end of the last book is an overreaction to her peacemaking efforts falling flat on her face. Not because she cannot build, but because she tried to make peace with those who are themselves incapable of planting trees, only stealing the fruit grown by others. It has nothing to do with older magic or ancient traditions. By contrast, in Westeros, it is the old, established common wisdom that is true and correct and the modern learning of the maesters and the power-motivated calculations of the elites that are mistaken. Old Nan's stories are all correct. Iron swords in the crypts of Winterfell, if they have any meaning, are going to be a good idea. Winterfell itself is built to fight the Others. Two concentric walls around a whole castle are kind of excessive and don't make much sense, unless you realize that, like the Wall itself, they are built to hold off an enemy that does not weaken or tire but keeps coming at you in hordes of relentless undead. The whole castle is built on a hot spring whose waters are piped through the walls so it is always warm, even in winter, to make it inhospitable as possible to the Others. Even the name, suggests it was built on the spot where the Last Hero defeated the Others in the original war. It was the place where Winter Fell. And in maintaining Winterfell, and upholding the traditions that grew around its founding the Starks gained their power. Because their castle was a place of warmth and plenty in the depths of winter, they drew others to them, seeking shelter and sustenance. And from there, they set about subduing their neighboring realms, in many cases, defeating kings and clans who practiced magic, and then MARRYING their offspring. In the ancient histories, we see the Starks repeatedly joining their bloodlines to rulers they defeated, who were said to have powers. When Bran goes back through the weirwood in the Winterfell godswood, at the end of his journey, at the very beginning, he sees a blood sacrifice to the heart tree, perhaps as the spell to protect the castle and strengthen it. Brandon the Builder is associated with three structures, the Wall, Storm's End and Winterfell, and two of those are confirmed by Melisandre to have magical protections, and be places of power. That means Winterfell, the home of Brandon's family and descendants, almost certainly has to be similarly enchanted. All of this old magic, like the skinchanging talents of all six Stark kids, is something that they will have to discover as part of utilizing their fullest ability to face the Others, and it is Bran, who most strongly identifies with all the Stark stuff, even having the quintessential Stark name. He identifies with Winterfell, he loves the godswood after his injuries, he feels safe in the crypts and he objects to Rickon bringing the Freys to "a Stark place". He presides over the harvest feast and he is the Stark who is foreshadowed to be the king in Winterfell at the end, the one who will rebuild and heal the land. He is the one learning magic, who most often recalls the tales of Old Nan, and knows the legends of the Nightfort, even more interested in them than his uncle, the actual brother of the Watch. The value of the old ways, and the preternatural powers associated with them are all tied up in Bran and the metaphysical plot. There is no need to twist around that the Stark traditions and magic are wrong and evil, because the whole point of the series is that the Stark ways are good, because they are based on protecting and taking care of people. That is the sole value GRRM holds in aristocratic or royal leadership, that they can (and should, even must) protect and care for their people. For magic gone awry we have Melisandre who places too much faith in her magic, without understanding its limits or where and how her own perceptions shade her visions and lead her to the wrong conclusions and we have Bloodraven's history of mistaken actions taken with good intentions and fixating on the wrong problems or wrong approach. The challenge is going to be for the heroes not to fall prey to the blandishments of these false prophets and advice they offer based on their misused power, but to direct that power in a better way. Stannis is going to be misled by Melisandre into sacrificing his daughter to stop the Others, but it will fall short or unleash a horror, and in contrast, Bran is going to resist going down Bloodraven's path and losing himself to the visions. Also, on the preternatural front, we have whatever horrors Euron Greyjoy is cooking up, and he himself appears to be a failed or renegade pupil of Bloodraven. It makes no sense for EVERY form of magic to turn out evil. If there is a shocker coming up with the "good" magic, it's going to be the very high price it will take to use it to defeat the Others, requiring Dany and/or Jon to offer a self-sacrifice to bring about the preternatural victory. Again, in keeping with the mythological references to the fisher king and the sacrificial king and Dany's messianic journey, with the comet heralding her "rebirth" on the pyre and leading her and her followers on journey through a desert, before she is brought to a place of temptation... The issue of magic for the heroes has been summed up in the contrasting pieces of advice Jon gets on the matter, that magic is a sword without a hilt, that cannot be wielded safely, but still a weapon and a necessary thing to have when faced with a foe. Magic is not treacherous, it will simply cut whoever uses it, because of the frailties of human wielders. The danger is the people who try to get sneaky and use it without paying the price or making others pay it for them. Dany's dragons are dangerous, and the history of Westeros bears that out, but they are also going to be necessary to save the world from the Others, and dragons and magic are closely associated in the story so that we can say the same applies to magic. Unlike the show, where dragons and magic were of no real use, they defeated the Others with plot armor and a self-destruct button.
7:44 That's only the show. In the books, Jon Snow is stabbed by people that were his friends because he was going to break his vows and head south to fight Ramsay Bolton.
It was already planned way before that, they didn't like he was bringing Wildlings through the Wall, they didn't like he wasn't sealing the gates, they didn't like his alliance with Stannis and going against the Crown and Boltons etc etc etc
@@GoblinTalk They didn't like those things because they all made the situation worse, from the perspective of the mutineers. They didn't like Jon helping Stannis because it went against 8000 years of tradition of neutrality in the wars of the realms of men, which they believed would result in the Night's Watch being destroyed by the victorious contender, since they were no longer trustworthy. Jon giving Stannis material aid and advice on operating in the North, was violating that neutrality. Giving shelter to a runaway noblewoman, arranging a marriage for her, and sending wildling troops to help her take and hold her family's castle is very definitely interfering in politics and a violation of the neutrality. Jon leading an army of wildlings south was the final straw that they could not tolerate. Even letting the wildlings in, could be seen as an act of a scion of House Stark of Winterfell, making allies to enforce their hold on the North, because of how Jon used them, and also because wildling clemency was a plank in Stannis' platform, so Jon bringing in the wildlings, despite the supplies being critically short, to outnumber the Nights Watch by a considerable degree, looks like a case of prioritizing Stannis' agenda over that of the Night's Watch. The thing about the mutineers is that they are not incorrect in their position that Jon is breaking with the tradition of neutrality. What they are wrong about is how the neutrality applies to the situation. The Boltons are clearly bad actors and no friends of the Watch. Marsh is also a tad hypocritical when one recalls that he acquiesced to Tywin Lannister's interference with the Nights Watch's neutrality by going along with Tywin's attempt to name the next Lord Commander. Marsh isn't exactly ready to die on the hill of the Night's Watch's independence. He strike at Jon over the neutrality for the same reason he knuckles under to Tywin - fear. He is willing to surrender the principle when he fears the Night's Watch being destroyed over it, and kill for the principle when it looks like violating it will have worse consequences.
Not just a random person, but the guy was from the Night's Watch. Unlike Jon, he knew the types of people in the Watch. Who he thinks is crazy too? Yeah it makes sense. Edit: she also didn't leave him alive to rehabilitate him haha it just so happened to work out that way. Edit edit: i think the assumption is "why did you desert the night's watch?" "I came to tell about the others" I thought the whole point of "questions asked answers given" is that he thinks the guy was trying to make crazy unconfirmable excuses trying to save his life.
11:08 I personally like the idea better that Jon is such a powerful Telepath that he makes his Connection to Ghost while they were there and it’s GHOST calling out for Jon in his mind because we know Ghost never makes a sound. That’s just me though…
When I read the book with 15 years I thought that guy ran away fearing no one would believe him and he would be killed any way for letting his brothers to die.
Ned Stark killed Lyanna Stark because of the “old ways,” and George R.R. Martin provides several subtle clues to support this theory. Early in A Game of Thrones, we see a symbolic scene after Ned executes the runaway Night’s Watch deserter. The group discovers a dead stag (Baratheon) that has killed a pregnant direwolf (a female Stark). This sets the stage for recurring imagery: the death of a female Stark tied to a stag. When Ned finds the direwolf pups, his first impulse is to kill them-foreshadowing his decision to spare Jon Snow, the “orphaned Stark baby,” but only after great internal conflict. This pattern continues throughout the story. Consider Robert Baratheon (the stag) and his demand in King’s Landing: he insists that Lady, Sansa’s direwolf, be executed. Ned carries out the deed himself, killing a female direwolf once again. These events mirror the central tragedy of Ned’s past-his killing of Lyanna, another “female direwolf,” for her perceived betrayal of her betrothal to Robert. Ned’s fever dream of the Tower of Joy is the only account we have of his meeting with Lyanna, but it raises questions. Fever dreams are often manipulated by the Three-Eyed Raven, who may “photoshop” events to alter their meaning. Ned recalls a scene bathed in bright white light-a motif that echoes Bran’s vision of a golden light obscuring Jaime Lannister’s face. These visual elements suggest unreliable memories, possibly altered or suppressed. The strongest clue lies in Ned’s actions regarding the dead “Ladies of Winterfell.” He ensures both Lyanna and Sansa’s direwolf, Lady, are entombed in the crypts of Winterfell. Both women (or symbols of women) are killed in ways that connect their deaths to the “reputation” or honor of Winterfell. Did Ned kill Lyanna, as he killed Lady, to protect the Stark name? And what of Lyanna’s final plea? Could her words, “Promise me, Ned,” have been her desperate attempt to save her child? This parallels Jon Snow’s tearful request as a boy: begging Ned to spare the direwolf pups. In both cases, Ned faces a choice between the old ways and the lives of innocents. Ned later tries to embrace the “New Ways” and warns Cersei that he knows her children with the Stag (Robert) are not his. Unfortunately , since Ned is not adept in the New Ways he gets captured and killed just like the deserter he killed. It is now Ned’s bones being shipped back to Winterfell to rest in the family crypt.
There are some elements in this I think have potential merit. The only point I'd make is that Ned killing Lyanna would almost certainly have been as an act of mercy rather than a punishment. Though I can see him struggling with it and feeling like he somehow did it as a punishment.
@@BeteBlanc Ned feels “obliged” by the Old Ways. But his sadness and anger when remembering her makes me feel that he has regrets. That is why he was trying to save Cersei. Also, gives a deeper understanding to the interaction of Ned taking Robert down into the crypts to see her statue. It’s like I killed my sister for this bafoon!!! Especially, that now Robert wanted to his daughter to marry his son. Again a close call of a Stag killing a direwolf.
@DD-ok2pt my personal context. I don't believe Fandom has correctly understood why Lyanna was there. I believe Lyanna was pregnant and Rhaegar agreed to hide this from Westeros at the request of Ned and Ashara. The plan was originally to allow Lyanna to have her baby and return to marry Robert with no one the wiser. Ned would have claimed Jon as his own trueborn son by Ashara. If I'm correct, then Ned would feel responsible for Lyanna's death, his father's, and the rebellion at large. It was his plan. It went sideways and so many died. A figurative parallel to a literal in the direwolf is more GRRM's style. He doesn't tend to repeat literals that exactly. It's an interesting take and I'll certainly be keeping it in mind, but I have a very hard time seeing Ned judging his own family this harshly.
Interesting but Why? Why would Ned kill his sister? What could he possibly gain from it? What could she gain from it? He may have had a hand in it depending on how the childbirth went (c-section) but I don't think it could be blamed on any deliberate intention to kill her.
It's also worth saying that Middle Earth has a very Middle Ages perspective where we were capable of building great wonders in the past (pyramids, colliseums, aquaducts) that we are no longer capable of. It's also worth bringing up that the name of the series is A Song of Ice and Fire and not Of Light and Dark or Of Good and Evil. So I don't think George is having a very clear cut change is good and stasis is evil. We see in Daenerys's chapters the problems associated when trying to self-righteously impose change upon an unwilling population, even if that change is what I think most readers consider to be good.
Okay, maybe Michal should THINK about stuff, instead of talking mindlessly. Robb did not lose half his army for executing Rickard Karstark. He lost "near 300" mounted armsmen, which he says is "All the mounted strength of Karhold." That is ALL he lost and this was BEFORE he executed Rickard. Rickard was simply lashing out without any good reason, with no justification. He had ALREADY sent his men out before he committed his crimes. There was nothing Robb could have done to prevent the loss, and the loss was not nearly as painful as the show claims. Furthermore, sending his men out rogue is the crime of desertion multiplied by 300. He is turning loose 300 men who answer to no one, under no discipline, who probably know they are in big trouble if their king catches them, so all the reasons why Ned tells Bran deserters must die applies to them, and by rights, to the man who sent them out on their bloody course. Furthermore, Rickard murders children who did nothing wrong. If there is not going to be justice or punishment for such an act, what is the point of a king and laws and a societal structure? Likewise with Jon. Jon is murdered because of his increasing support for Stannis, which violates the letter and to a degree the spirit of the vows of the Night's Watch, and because the leaders of murdering faction are afraid of the wrath of the crown for crossing their deputies. There is no connection between his execution of Slynt and his own murder. No one liked Slynt, they simply saw him as a political inevitability. FFS, Bowen Marsh, the leader of the assassins, actually reacted badly to what seemed like Jon changing his mind about the execution! Jon orders Slynt hanged, not for his involvement in Ned's murder, but because Slynt refused a lawful order from a superior officer, and given his cultivation of a following and contention for the position of Lord Commander, meant that he had to be punished or cause division among the brothers and destroy discipline. As Slynt is being taken to his hanging, Jon suddenly call off the hanging and Bowen cries out the equivalent of "Seven save us." Then Jon more or less clarifies that he is not calling off the execution, he is simply returning to the values he was raised with, and doing the execution himself. EXECUTING SLYNT was seen as a necessary act. Aliser Thorne stood aside to allow him to be taken and Bowen Marsh panicked at the thought of Jon rescinding the order. No one was pushing back against the execution, anyone who has ever served in the military, and any man of the Watch or adult in their society would have seen the execution as necessary. This execution was Jon's second chapter in the book, and he is only murdered in Jon's 13th chapter, with many, many actions taken that Marsh actually did disapprove of. To suggest that Marsh was upset over the execution, when his only given opinion was concern that Jon was not going to follow through with the sentence is beyond absurd, just on the structure of that plot. Martin, at least, is mature enough to understand that however he dislikes the idea of capital punishment, he understands that sometimes it is necessary. What he wants is for people to think long and hard about what they are doing when they call for, sentence or cause the execution or imprisonment of another person. He wants them to understand the misery and pain that punishment entails, so they only use it when justified or necessary. Martin is much more explicit with his disapproval of war, than of criminal punishment, but it is pretty clear that he considers some wars necessary, such as Robert's Rebellion and Robb's war against the Lannisters, or the suppression of Greyjoy's Rebellion and the campaign against the slavers in Essos. If you are going to go on and on about George Martin's past, and cite quotes from the books, you can't turn around and fall back on show bullshit just because it fits your idiotic narrative. Purge the fucking show from your mind entirely, if you want to do any metatextual analysis of the story, because it seems like so many shallow people, the pretty pictures make a strong impression and overwrites your recollection of what happened in the books. And the show is just incoherent nonsense, whenever it deviates from a strict adherence to the book plotlines. On the show, they wanted the Red Wedding to happen, but could not be bothered establishing the geography or political structure of the setting, aside from the most broad strokes like who has/wants the crown, so they had to invent reasons for Robb to make the agreement with the Freys that brought him into their power, and they are allergic to subtlety, so they needed a dramatic reason like "Robb lost half his army" and they are too stupid to understand the actual cause and effect presented in the books, so they read Robb as an honorable idiot who brought about his own downfall with honor-inspired stupidity, and thus they tied his execution of Rickard in with the loss of his army. Also, if you are going to snark at the show writers with comments about 8th Grade Book Reports, stop relying on their bullshit version of the story to develop your ideas!
How exactly is killing a Night's Watch deserter a problem exclusiveto the "Old Ways"? If the deserter had made it all the way to Sunspear, he'd still have lost his head if he got recognized as a deserter because that's a law valid for all of Westeros. After all, if Night's Watch deserters didn't have to face the prospect of the whole Seven Kingdoms being a potential deathtrap, they'd just try deserting more often and considering the Night's Watch consits almost entirely of various criminals and n'erdowells, I don't think any lord in the south would be inclined to show lenience. Especially when "sent to the wall" has been a convenient way of getting rid of unwanted people oermanently without killing them outright.
I don’t really agree that Ned made a ‘mistake’ killing the deserter bcos no1 would have believed the story about the others anyway. While consequences to the decision happen, that particular character death wasn’t going to change anything.
1:17 Wouldn’t have changed anything. Alliser Thorne went to kings landing with word of the dead walking, did anything happen? Ned also didn’t execute the deserter “because of the old ways” he executed him because a huge majority of the nights watch are criminals. If you committed a crime bad enough to have the option to be sent to the wall to redeem yourself. Then you run away from the wall, what more redemption can they offer you? In Ned’s eyes he had his chance at rehabilitation, and he ran away.
My only issue is that it's not true. At least, not when you read the book with an understanding of what Tolkien was doing and what his actual politics were. The man was self described as being basically an anarchist, using the actual word, and specifying that he means the sociopolitical theory, in a letter to his son. The themes in the book largely are a discussion between his religion and his politics.
@@KennethKaniff999 Okay so there *aren't* just evil race, that's a common misunderstanding. Tolkien insists that inherently there must be Uruk that are capable of goodness, because goodness is the default and they're only corrupted by their governing system and disrespect for the Earth they come from.
@@Jane-oz7ppExactly. It's sad how Tolkien's work gets so simplified by people who never even read his work. There is a lot more depth and nuance than people believe. Even PJ's film trilogy simplified more nuanced characters like Saruman and Denethor into just 'evildoers'
My understanding was Ned. Didn’t even believe that there was one in outside the wall because they had to be monsters in the year era so much that people stop believing in monsters that’s always been my belief that’s why they didn’t believe and kill him anyway.😊 cause he was lying because of that he didn’t believe in the monsters
Oddly enough, Jamie's imprisonment and mutilation did seem to help start on the path to potential redemption, but it's a very shaky path and completely unintended.
Also, there's the Onion Knight, though he was "redeemed" by Stannis' fairness and genuine ability to embrace him after he got his punishment, which seems to be the closest to trying to reform prime.
Tolkien was a CULTURAL conservative. And he was writing a heroic quest straight out the Sagas only for Britain, a national mythos. And yeah, he was writing against those "Dark Satanic Mills", even though that is actually Blake. Of course, ( and he shares this with George) his real heroes are the most grounded, humble characters. They get to live and be happy. Sam and Gilly. ❤
Your commentary on characters that go their own way and get punished for it at around 20:00 is very insightful. I think this G. R. Martin's main thesis of the series. The painful wintery death of the old ways and the spring of new life and new ways after. Too add to what you were saying at around 32:00 regarding evidence of Georges interest in these ideas.... We see in Elden ring multiple generations of new gods competing to overthrow the existing order and establish a new one. The players role is to choose and establish this new order. This is evidence that George is very much interested in writing about this idea. This is also consistent with conclusion of the TV series. See Tirions speech on the power of stories. See Varys's thought experiment on the sell sword and the three men that sets it up. The new cultural order has no physical manifestation. It's the story everyone currently believes and lives by.
Ned's character is one of those people who is a rule follower to a fault. I don't think he really thinks about who makes the rules, laws and traditions or why; he just follows them expecting that law and order will save him. I think his character death, I think, is supposed to herald us as the audience, to see the folly of his character and show us that the nature of the world is the strong at the top form a structure of law and order that protects them and thier power.
Just what is that analysis based on? Ned Stark, who rebelled against his king? Who, after putting a new king on the throne, fought with him over his ruling on the deaths of Elia's children? Who committed treason to protect his nephew from the king he himself acclaimed and helped take the throne? Who defied the customs and practices to raise his nephew as his bastard son with his own children, and lied to his wife about it for 15 years? Who gives a traitor & murderer the chance to escape, in order to protect her children? Who changes the king's will without his knowledge? Who defies his king's order to kill a rival claimant to the throne? This is "a rule follower to a fault"? What the ever-living fuck would you call a rebel? Tell you what - name me an actual rule that Ned follows "to a fault" in the books, and I'll give your comment a like.
But the realm actually does need defending just not from the enemy they thought John knows it's worth dying to fight the others... some things are worth fighting for like war itself
It feels like you're mixing the book and showing elements together too much. Jon in the Book did not die/get killed because he beheaded Janos Slynt. It was because he let the wildlings through the Wall. I only point that out because your title says ASOIAF analysis/theory - and it seems more like you're talking about things that happen in the show. Otherwise some interesting Ideas.
32:23 I mean, when Tolkien was young he lost both of his parents and wound up being raised by a priest, he encountered the anti-Catholic discrimination and sentiment that still existed in Britain (his wife's family disowned her when she broke off her engagement and joined the Catholic Church to marry him), and fought in the First World War where most of his friends were killed. He was also 22 when the First World War began, only five years older than George was when American involvement in Vietnam escalated in 1965.
"The North remembers", but they've forgotten what they're supposed to remember, so now they just remember insults and help as if that's what they're supposed to be remembering.
"The North" is from south of the wall which make it The South.
30:51 This is a pretty fundamental misreading of Tolkien; the "Old Days" you refer to included major wars, elves killing eachother, and considerable violence. It's not about going back to "the good old days," it's about recognizing decline and the transient nature of the world. In fact he explicitly criticizes the later Kings of Gondor 'building tombs for the dead more magnificent than the palaces of the living' in the books as their nostalgia for a 'better time' blinds them to the problems Gondor faces now. The Men of Numenor's desire for the long lives enjoyed by the Elves is what serves as the seed of their corruption and downfall, and they come to resent the Elves and the Valar for 'denying' them this 'gift,' allowing Sauron to corrupt them.
The Elves leave Middle Earth to return to Valinor in order to escape that natural decay and change in the world, because they are functionally immortal unlike basically every other living being in Middle Earth (humans, dwarves, etc.). They don't long for the past, they long for 'heaven' essentially, and that reunion at the end of time which comes after Judgement Day, in the Catholic tradition which Tolkien followed. It's not that George and Tolkien have different socio-political outlooks, it's that their world views are different entirely: One believes in God (Tolkien), one does not (Martin), and that produces different takes on human nature, society, and the world in general.
Great writing.
@TheTexanguy-c3n Thanks!
well said, people often ignore the views and beliefs an author holds and how that impacts their writing
@@Gotten1888 Thank you!
It disappoints me how often people miss this crucial point about Tolkien, especially when comparing him and his writings to more modern writers and works. Tolkiens worldview was a truly unique one steeped in a genuine love for ancient European lore and underpinned by his, almost obsessively, devout belief in Catholicism and God. Those 2 points more thn anything separte him from the vast majority of his more modern contemporaries.
33:30 You are so right that Tyrion has already started playing the part of The Imp, becoming the monster everyone thinks he is to some extent. I'd never thought of it that way, but where we last left all of our 'main characters' (from the draft), Tyrion, Jon, Dany, Arya, and Bran, they're all set up to embrace the darkest/worst part of themselves.
Tyrion, as you mentioned, is playing The Imp. Dany, in her last chapter, decided to embrace "fire and blood". Jon just got killed by his own brothers for trying to do the right/heroic thing, and the scenario you envisioned where he embraces his Stark identity/warg magic when he comes back seems very possible. Arya is almost done with her magical ninja training at the death cult, and could seek the vengeance she's been chasing for 4 books with her massive wolf pack at her pack like a warg queen. And Bran is training with the scary tree wizard (has already committed the worst abominations for skinchangers, may have eaten his friend), and may be getting tricked into going down a dark path, although since we know he's kinda the hero of the story, maybe he's the one who recognizes things are wrong and resolves to reform society.
P.S. You brought up Arya/Bran and Jon/Dany at the start of the video, and I realized that the 2 magical Starks and the 2 magical Targs mirror each other super strongly for at least the last 2 books. Arya and Bran doing their magical training, and Jon and Dany trying and failing to rule/lead.
I love when Michael talks about stuff so I have new stuff to think about
Grace Thinks About Stuff
Tolkien also didn't think getting blown up by artillery by the millions was very honourable compared to sword fights etc
Leaves you just as dead tbh
Ned says that a deserter knows his life is forfeit. That’s what makes him dangerous because he has nothing left to lose in his own mind.
So why does he carry out the sentence then? Better to transport deserters back to the wall, or look through his fingers at the obviously mentally unwell ones, because then the deserters would not be dnagerous to the people.
@@velenteriushendeneros3251 A deserter got away once, he can again. The point of the Night's Watch is that they are NOT a prison institution, and that you expiate your crimes by voluntary service. Anyone who runs from the Night's Watch is violating the social structure and the rules that allowed him to live beyond his crimes, or breaking his solemn duty of honor. Furthermore, this particular deserter WAS dangerous to people, because he was so terrified of the Others that he ran instead of reporting. He was north of the Wall when he met them, which means he had to cross the Wall and did so avoiding any contact with the Watch, either because he was consumed with a mindless desire to get away from the threat or was afraid to return where he would be expected to lead others back to the scene and at the very least, fight the Others when the day came. He ran to get away from that possibility, which he had sworn his life to face. The guy Ned executed WOULD have done anything, would have harmed anyone to avoid going back, and he had already exhausted his share of second or more chances.
@@velenteriushendeneros3251 because he needs to uphold the law, also it’s a sacrifice for the trees.
An obvious medieval justification
@@velenteriushendeneros3251 Because if deserting the Night's Watch only means you get shipped back, then people will be encouraged to try deserting more often because surely, they only need to succeed once.
The issue with understanding Bran is teasing out the point of symbolism around him.
He's feeding corn, which casts him as more of a Garth figure. Now the symbolism of his injury. With his legs broken we have at least two lines of thought. One is that his "roots" are broken. He's taken North and grafted to those roots. It comes off as somewhat of a healing ritual in that light.
The other is the subtle way many of the characters resemble the swords they hold. Waymar was untested and well dressed, his sword untested and well jeweled. Gared's sharp and nicked, which also describes Gared. In that light Bran's broken legs actually suggest a broken hilt. Which casts Bran as a blade without a hilt which is what we are hinted magic is. This places Bran as a sword in the hands of BR. Are they giving him a hilt? It's hard to say.
My hilt hurts :)
One part of the old way that you didn't mention is the law of the first night. I like the theory that it was part of a pact with the others, and that my beloved good queen Alyssane, when she fought to ban it, started the resurgence of the others. It's pretty clear that the nightfort was used to sacrifice children, maybe the bastards resulting from the first night as Preston theorizes, and that could have been the way the others added new others to their rank. When it was banned, we know it didn't stop completely, but the nightfort was shut. It's possible that for some time some sacrifices kept going on, and then Craster was the only one left sacrificing children. Now the others being forced to attack because of that would be an interesting motive for them, as I think they do have one unlike in the series.
But then, ending the first night, a barbaric practice, ending the child sacrifice, would bring war, but would be inevitable to bring change. I don't know aboutyour theory about Starks in the trees, but I think the story is heading towards the end of a world, with the wall falling, the old ways disappearing, and possibly the whole feudal system changing.
41:48 Earth and Water, Bronze and Iron, Ice and Fire. These sound almost like the titles of the ages themselves. Like going to Elden Ring the last cycle before the Erdtree was called the Crucible. Was the age before the current one dictated not by ice and fire but bronze and iron, or were they the subjects that was thrown off balance.
I would counter that more specifically they are referring to Pacts that began new ages, but yes
Bronze and Iron is the peace between the First Men and the Andals, Ice and Fire the peace between the Targaryens and the North
Damn man, good analysis. Reminds me why I started watching your videos in the first place
A few hours ago, I checked this channel because I thought that Micheal hadn't talked about a lot of stuff recently but I guess this big boi was the reason
No worries Michael... I would rather discuss fantasy / sci-fi / horror politics any day of the week rather than the real politics of our world. We are all actively discussing the politics and the world building of an artificial planet so we have to get into the politics of it in order to figure it out. Great video bro
Did 50 guys Ned executed say they saw ice demons? That's the crux of the scene. Ned heard him out. If he didn’t say anything logical then Ned did the right thing. He probably had heard some other weird excuses for leaviing. Had Willem said there was mutiny and the Lord Commander and the Maester had been murdered Ned would have had to consider what was being said to him and take it seriously and not immediately execute him. Willem deserved execution because he had a valid way of dealing with what happened by reporting it to his superiors. Instead he knowingly, and with great difficulty, commited the crime of desertion by bypassing Castle Black. Ned should not have just known that magic was coming back into the world. At that point Westeros was had become more a place of science and tradition.
It's not accurate to say that Ned made a mistake. The beheadings were based on the old belief that holding off the Others was the most important duty of the Nights Watch. That's the old way. By the time of the execution that was no longer the belief. They were fighting Wildlings, so why would Ned believe that a long dead enemy had returned? Also, was the decision entirely his? Wouldn't the Watch have alerted him that they had concluded that Willem had deserted, and it was only Ned's job to be the final judge and executioner?
Lyanna was bleeding from childbirth then died. I don't get this. Regardless of what weird thing she might have said there was a baby there. A Stark baby. You're ignoring blatant facts to make your arguments. This doesn’t make any sense.
Progressive and conservative politics haven't changed much over the last 50 years. They haven't changed much over the last 100 years. People who were progrssive in the 50s, 70s, 90s, 00s, or 10s would very likely still be progressive today. You could probably go back much further than that, at least the threads of it will be there. Anyone who studies history can tell you that.
this
agreed
Great video, Michael! It was definitely a thought-provoking one. It's giving me the wheel of the season vibes and something caused that wheel to stop spinning the way it did naturally.
Another spot on video, Michael.
Very pleased to see this being talked about! 👏🏻
Ahh I've been waiting for a new lore dive from you! Thank you, always love yor videos Michael.
It isn't circular logic that deserters must die. Ned is explaining the practicalities of the issue to his very young son. The principle at stake is that they have sworn oaths for life. If you are not going to keep an oath you have sworn for life, your life ends. That's what they say - "My watch begins...it will not end until my death". What's more, most of the men on the Wall these days are there in lieu of execution for capital crimes. Their transgressions in deserting the Night's Watch are self-evidently only able to be corrected by death. A man who will not hold an oath on which he has staked his life, both in his sworn promise, and the circumstances by which he joined the Watch instead of dying, is not a man who can logically be constrained by any other rule or law or standard of behavior. What is to keep him from breaking any other rule or law that constrains normal people, when he has proven capable of defying the conditions on which he has placed his life?
Excellent work Michael. I think you've got it.
So, I got this pet theory, let's call it "The older ways": There seems to be a massive cultural divide between Wildlings and First Men and in the context of ASOIAF, where cultures seems to stay relatively uniform and static of absurdly long period of time, that cultural divide doesn't make much sense. I think that the story that we are told about the settlement of Westeros by the First Men is incorrect. I bet that the wildlings and the Mountain clans of the Vale were there before the First men.
We see differences in tool and weapon manufacture, religion, political structure, language, death rites and even the relationship with magic. First Men use bronze and later steel, wildling use stone and bone, First Men bury their dead near weirwoods, wildlings don't seem to have any ritual besides burning the corpses for safety reasons. We see wildling live around weirwood tree, but we don't see them marry or take sacred oaths in front of them. The wildling speak the old tongue, as do the giants. It seems to me that the wildling were pushed north and into the mountains of the Vale as the First Men invaded, I suspect that those wildling ancestors would have been hunter-gatherer fractured in a thousands little clan and tribes and that they could not resist the strength of bronze wielding farmers.
I'm assuming that the long night and the building of the wall happened as the First Men pushed north, through a long war with the wildlings, children and giants. There is speculation with the white walkers and how they fit in, but let's assume that the war ends with the pact, the walkers defeated and the wall erected. The First Men got a new religion, tied to the weirwood trees and established the political order south of the wall. The wildlings who didn't like the deal got banished or pushed militarily north of the wall. Some children remain south, living in caves and deep forests and maybe allied to the first great families of Westeros and their magical seats of power.
The big question mark would be the Thenns and how they got there. Were they banished too? did they get caught north as the wall was built? I don't know how they fit in.
"First Men" effectively only means " were there before the Andals came". There's no reason the wildlings can't be a much older, different people than the Northerners that came later just because the Andals later lumped them both together with their freshly-coined term "First Men".
@@abelbabel8484 good point
I think you mean The Vale, not The Veil. Interesting theory.
@@ludviglidstrom6924 my bad, I'll fix it
When u mentioned catalyn being scared of the tree maybe it's because it's a deep feeling knowing her fate is tied to the old magic.
Love your videos man! Keep em comin
Got on to see that YOU , David lightbringer, and Eldric stone skin all drop something in the last 24 hours. Tis a great night for ASOIAF content ❤❤
I don't care if this video does not intend to dump on Ned. Just giving its moronic opinion of Ned counts as dumping, because it is unfairly characterizing him as something he is not. Ned does not simply follow the law mindlessly. The law would not impel him to hear the deserter's last words. It's not on Ned to question the deserter until he get the answer only an omniscient reader knows to expect. Ned ignored the law to protect Jon, and to give Cersei the chance to save her children. This is not the action of someone who only thinks twice when it's someone he cares about. He had NO reason to care about Cersei and her children and every reason, by his society's standards and values, to see the children as abominations who need to be excised for the good of the realm. He stood up to his king over the murder of the children of a man who raped his sister, the grandchildren of a man who murdered his father and brother. He promised a prostitute that he would speak to the king on her behalf and does so at his first opportunity. This is not a man who blindly follows the rules that were taught him and only bothers to think when it concerns his loved ones.
The line about the words not reaching him made me think about the Mad King, especially because "mad" is used in the sentence. So, "Burn them all!" could make more sense.
I found it interesting as someone who is more of a casual Tolkien fan, I agree with your point about Tolkien's view of industrialization and how he just wants to chill in his garden with a pipe--the thought that popped in my head is that Tolkien probably would have liked being born as a hobbit :) Something else I wondered was that we've heard GRRM talk about the scouring of the shire and how the victory was bittersweet, and how he wants to emulate that in his story. Do you have videos on this topic, theories regarding what kind of bittersweet elements he might have in mind? I agree with a lot of the points that you bring up in your videos, so I was just wondering if this is something you've covered. Thanks for the great ASoIaF content!
Great video, but I do think it’s a very big mistake to believe that Arya’s show storyline was anything like the books. Having her be an agent of the Faceless Men for the show would have required: (a) other actresses to play Arya for most of her scenes, or even better (b) all of her scenes to be shot with two actresses, Maisie and the character whose face she is wearing, and intercutting!
That would have been very expensive, complex, and slow to do! It also would have required Lady Stoneheart as a separate undead character if you don’t hand over to Arya Catelyn’s arc taking over the Brotherhood Without Banners and leading them to kill the Freys. Moreover, sending her back to King’s Landing where her book foreshadowing lies to wear other faces would have required new plot lines and at least four new characters: Young Griff, Jon Connington, Elia Sand, and Arianna Martell!
Dan and Dave didn’t want to do all that extra work. So we got almost completely alternate storyline for Arya. Instead of going to King’s Landing in disguise she goes to Winterfell via the Twins.
The old gods remind me a lot of Crom from Conan the Barbarian lore
They also of course remind me of Crom Cruach, with all the human sacrifice stuff and what not. I think it's interesting that the Dragon "Seen" at Winterfell describes Crom Cruach more accurately than the Dragons present in ASOIAF. Crom Cruach was a serpent/snake looking dragon in a lot of descriptions
The old ways were traditions based on 8,000 years of survival in an extremely harsh terrain (winters that last years, if not lifetimes; cold and snows that kill entire villages). No doubt the people of the north came up with survival mechanisms to avoid dying. Fail to abide by those survival mechanisms and you increase the risk of death.
I get what you say about the old way needing to be reformed, but if the deserter had gone back to the Wall; that would’ve legally changed the trajectory of the story. Night’s Watch would learn of his observations, Benjen visits Winterfell shortly after, and Ned likely makes different choices about his trip to the South
Love your videos! Keep up the great work!
I watched this a few days ago and randomly thought out about it again. I like this theory a lot
7:12 i love Grrm's devotion to thinking through situations and using that to draw such logical images from that. In other fantasy works i've seen, such minutia is usually taken for granted.
ASOIAF povs in dungeons or cells sometimes give me anxiety when I think about the realities they experience.
Can you imagine the absolute terror of being in pitch darkness, only able to *hear* the giant rats scuttling about. You would listen as carefully as possible for them getting close, but what about when you get exhausted from it? All men must sleep, and waking up in a daze to the not insignificant pain of being chewed by a rat.
Oh and having to poop in a bucket that just sits right there for however long as a constant reminder it's there
It doesn’t really matter that the Night’s Watchmen was telling the truth that they encountered white walkers. He deserted his post…. and by his actions after that encounter broke his oath. He didn’t rush to the wall to inform the others of the danger of what they found but deserted instead. He probably had useful information that Ned should have gotten but he was still right to execute him.
No, letting Night's Watch desererters live is not a good idea.
The punishment for desertion is death because Nights watchmen require incentives to not just ditch their (remote) posts and waste resources.
Ned did not believe that the deserter saw the Others, and it would have been unreasonable for him to do so in that scenario.
Even within the closed environment of GRRM's work, the morality of the Old Ways has well reasoned logic behind it. People didn't randomly come up with the death penalty for deserters for the lulz. Not in real life, and not in ASOIAF.
Interesting thoughts, thank you, Michael.
I think it's also interesting to point out that in GOT Ascent the old app game, you would have dialog dilemma's that you would have to make choices on. The choices that would give you "Old Ways" points would be the kinds of answers that would give you evil points in other video games. Also that game came out in the early days of GOT before the show had strayed as far from the books.
I hate the moral grandstanding with 20/20 hindsight. If someone came to you and was like "I know I just broke out of high security prison, But did it to warn everyone that there are demons in there. Trust me bro." you'd call the cops to get him thrown back in jail. You wouldn't hear him out, you'd think he's either crazy or lying. Despite the fact that we have stories from a thousand+ years ago that demons are real.
Literally identical scenario in GoT, but we don't have the disposable resources to waist on locking the guy up after he's wasted his second chance.
I one hundred percent agree with you. The White Walkers/Others have been considered a myth for centuries by the people of Westeros. The word of a coward who abandoned his post and broke the Oath of The Night's Watch ain't gonna change anyone's mind. Not to mention that he is a deserter. Desertion was, is, and always will be a very serious crime.
You're forgetting the high security prison managers begging everyone in the nation for more manpower for guards cause they keep losing them to the demons the deserter mentioned. Doesn't even involve moral grandstanding, a savvy leader should start suspecting something is very, very wrong and start asking questions.
Mind you, this is a time when Ned has the ear of Robert who is spoiling for a proper fight.
@@abelbabel8484Your forgetting that the prison wardens have been begging for men as long as anyone can remember, and nothing bad has happened yet.
@@abelbabel8484 Lord Eddard might have been willin' to hear the deserter out, but the word of a deserter ain't gonna convince him that the White Walkers/Others are real.
@@SamsonMcarthy-oo6cb That's just wrong, the Watch was well manned and well respected in very recent history.
Remember though, on OUR planet, the Summer King is not just the warrior opposing and defeating the Winter King and in turn being defeated by him, they are brothers and Other Selves...
20 Days till Solstice. The Longest Night marks the birth of the Winter King.
The deserter speaking Aegon's prophecy is ridiculous. He saw the Others, he saw the horror and ran. He knows and has no reason to know, anything about the prince who is promised or a Targaryen needing to fight the threat. Rhaegar's fixation has been entirely on that subject, with no indication that he understands the specific nature of the threat, despite corresponding with his great-uncle, ON THE WALL! Even Maester Aemon seems surprised by the Others, and the wights, saying nothing about any prophecy, which he only seems to tie to that threat when Melisande brings it up. Everything he says in aFfC points to a guy belatedly putting the pieces together, right when he is being hustled away and no one is listening to him. If Lyanna has any awareness of Rhaegar's prophetic motivations, there is almost no reason to think that it would be specifically about the Others. Nothing we have seen speaks of the Others specifically, that is more northern lore. Even Melisandre doesn't seem to realize that's who she has come to fight, merely anticipating a threat and intending to prepare Stannis to fight it. Finally, thematically, it doesn't fit to have Ned be told key information about the prophecies and miss them, over 15 years before they manifest. The theme of the book, especially as it pertains to Ned, is that he is the RIGHT leader, and the politics drag him away from doing the right thing and destroy him in favor of inferior leaders, but his leadership and mentorship is the basis on which the North will rally around his family to fight the Others. The point of the story is that being good and doing good matters, not learning arcane lore or getting prophetic hints. The prophesies are only there to elucidate the readers, for the characters they are a distraction and misdirection, or a justification for their own chosen course of action.
I agree with you for the most part. But if I'm remembering correct, in the books Ned does think about the man he executed a few times. but my mind could be mixing book and show cannon unintentionally.
Old Ways or not, the Punishment for Deserters is always harsh.
Btw, Decapitation is a preety lenient Punishment compared to what Deserters usually faced in History
21:26 What if the "power" in Jon is fire & blood? Instead of acting like a Stark he acts like a Targaryen? Like, if he actually embraces fire maybe even dragon fire?
Hi Michael I’m here for stuff talk
“The old ways,” also known as “The status quo,” aka “that’s how we do things,” aka “Just because.” Makes people lazy, comfortable, and ultimately complacent. One is given the easy answer, which isn’t always the best or correct answer.
Reality is complex. Sure, sometimes "the way we do things" is stupid, and we need a new and better way.
And sometimes the old way is actually good, and some new idea someone just came up with is stupid and destructive but nice-sounding.
18:30 So Ned is stupid for not trying to find out more from Gared, but Waymar should not be in charge, and gets them killed? Make up your mind. Their mission was not "go into the forest and return unscathed" it was to find out what is going on. Waymar is actually rather intelligent & observant, pointing out what Will and Gared missed - that the wildlings could not have frozen to death with the temperatures as high as they have been recently. Gared is right in wanting a fire and wanting to turn back by accident, and turning back would not have done any good in the big picture. Gared only HAS the information you lambaste Ned for not getting, because Waymar overrode his wishes and pressed on, finding the Others. Going back, like refraining from executing Gared until he gives a complete briefing on the Others' return, is one of those things you only think is correct because you have the benefit of hindsight!
Yay a new Michael talks about stuff video! ❤😊
The opening example is utterly wrong, on three points. One, that the Old Ways somehow uniquely created the problem detected in the incident and Two, that the execution was somehow wrong or Three, caused a lack of information about the return of the Others/White Walkers.
One - the Old Ways have nothing to do with the cause of his execution. His crime was desertion from the Night's Watch, which is a crime everywhere in Westeros, upheld by the Targaryens, and in the rest of the Seven Kingdoms. That calls for execution, no matter who catches him, and the rest of the realm has a vested interest in maintaining that law. The only difference it made in that he was captured and executed under the Old Ways is that he got a face-to-face with the Lord of Winterfell himself. A lord under the Andal traditions would have, at most, had him brought in for a hearing and then sent him to be hanged by his executioner or master at arms, or much more likely, dispatched a retainer to review the case and ascertain that he guy was, in fact, a deserter, before ordering the execution.
Two - the guy is a deserter, which carries a death sentence, and everything Ned told Bran about the necessity of execution holds true. While in many cases there is a kind of tautological reasoning behind the idea that the deserter must be killed, because he will scruple at nothing to abet his escape, since he knows he is under a death sentence, in the case of a man so terrified by the sight of the O/WW that he simply runs, without reporting to his superiors in the Night's Watch, yes, he WILL do anything to get away from what has terrified him.
Furthermore, he swore an oath, possibly in order to evade a sentence of death or mutilation for some other crime, to defend the realms of men, from whatever is beyond the Wall, and specifically against the O/WW. At the very first instance of being called to fulfil the higher purpose of the oath, he failed. He committed an act of cowardice in the face of the enemy, which has, universally IRL and in Westeros, been a capital offense in almost every military body. What's more, HE is the one who is endangering the world, by not returning to Castle Black to let them know what he saw, by not giving a single other person warning about what they face, instead simply fleeing for his own self-preservation. In a book series that asserts that this fight is the only one that matters (which even the show pays lip service to in the Night Watch plotline, of season 1, at least), that's even worse of a crime.
On top of all that, the whole reason the Night's Watch is an acceptable alternative to execution for capital crimes or political conflicts is that it is permanent, and when you join the Night's Watch, you effectively removed from the society of Westeros, you can no longer present a threat to the political order or the lives and property of the people. To maintain that status, deserters HAVE to die. The day a deserter is let off with a warning is the day it is no longer safe to send your failed political rivals to the Wall, and suddenly, there is no way out for many rebels or political contenders, and the only hope becomes going down fighting, and creating more bloodshed and death. The option of sending people to the Wall is one of those practices that helps end fighting and make peace, like the customs of hospitality, honoring truces, protecting envoys, respecting religious facilities, and upholding parole. The hospitality thing in general is a good idea, not just some Old Way quirk or curiosity, and as we see in the books after the Red Wedding, the Lannisters' enemies are no longer playing by the rules, leading to more murders and massacres, and Jaime unable to get Riverrun to surrender, without more gruesome threats that nonetheless mean for all he gets what he wants, the other side still resents and hates him and will undermine their agreement at any excuse (such as by smuggling the Blackfish out). Respecting the Old Ways, including to whatever greater degree the rules of the Night's Watch are upheld in the North, are actually beneficial to society.
Three - The point the video is grossly missing is that Ned DID hear the guy out. He never, in either medium, says anything about the threat. On the show he whimpers an acknowledgement that he was wrong, but gives no information. In the books, it is implied that he was incoherent, in which case, no information would have been forthcoming. Yes, IF they were gifted with the readers' hindsight (it is not obvious in the books that this is the same man who was with the party in the prologue and whose death was not mentioned on page, until later on when Lord Mormont confirms that the guy Ned executed was the third member of the patrol), and held onto the guy and kept questioning him and knew what questions to ask and what to listen for, they might have discovered that he saw the O/WW, but there is no real reason to believe they could have got anything useful out of him, especially since they are not specifically looking for that datum, and in their perspective, no reason to believe they should try to get more out of him. The deserter had to pass the Wall in order to get to where Ned executed him. That means he was taking specific efforts to avoid encountering the people to whom his news would do the most good, the people in the best position to confirm the truth of his report. By the time he reaches Ned, even if he was inclined to tell what he had seen and was coherent enough to be understood, he has already shattered his credibility by failing to bring that news to the Night's Watch, who are the ones who most need to know, and most likely to listen and to whom he is duty-bound to tell! If he tells Ned that he saw the O/WW, it's going to sound like a story he made up to excuse his crime, now that he has been caught.
If there is anyone or anything to blame for the news of what the deserter saw failing to reach the right ears, it is the deserter himself, not the laws of the Night's Watch, or the Seven Kingdoms' use of the death penalty, not the Old Way, or Ned's adherence to it. Instead, the Old Ways provided the one chance the deserter had to give the news to someone important, once he had committed his crime, and it is the followers of the Old Ways who would have been most inclined to listen.
The point of the deserter's portrayal in the books is that he failed and broke. In the prologue, the experience and ability of the characters is contrasted. Royce, the noble knight & commander of the party solely by virtue of his birth station, is seen as callow, arrogant and unprepared for the realities of the Night's Watch or the job of a ranger. Will, the PoV narrator, has years of experience on the Wall, and considerable skill at scouting, thanks to his criminal background that brought him to the Watch, and is confident in his judgments of Royce. Gared is the old veteran, with long service on the Wall, whose combat prowess Will regards more highly than the young knight with the expensive sword. And yet, when confronted with the Others, their response is the inverse of what might be expected. The snotty, inexperienced knight, Royce, stands his ground and fights bravely. The longer-serving, tougher Will, freezes at the sight of the Others and fails to call out a warning, but in the end, remembers his duty and attempts to collect proof to report to the Night's Watch, and it is the tough, hardened veteran, Gared who utterly breaks and runs, and doesn't stop running until he is taken and killed. The whole point of that subversion of expectations is that you cannot tell who will stand and who will fail until the crisis is upon them, and there is also the inverse performance of their duty. The point in contrast is that Gared, who should have been expected by both his service record and the tropes of the genre, to stand fast is the one who utterly breaks. If the real fault is Ned and the Old Ways for not hearing him out, that point is lost. The whole reason his story is written that way is that the one man who should have been able to bring the news failed, because he wasn't ready to face it, not that the people closest to respecting the purpose and practices of the Night's Watch were the ones who shut down the warning. Thematically, it's the game of thrones that pulls attention and resources away from the true fight, not the customs and practices set up with the possibility of the true fight returning in mind.
a legal system is not a moral system. just because something is law, doesnt mean its the right thing to do. yes, we all love ned but the point is ned benefits from the corruption, he has power. so there is not incentive for him to go against the legal, and do what is right-that is just the corruption continuing through moral people.
@@betterthanrae8137 Did you read the books? Ned goes against the laws or rules all the time, in favor of what he feels is right, even most of his class would disagree. He tells Arya that her lie to protect Nymeria had honor. He offers Cersei the chance to escape punishment for her crimes, and forgoes justice he & his family are due for all her & Jaimes' harmful actions toward the Starks, just to save her children. And let's not forget committing treason against his king & friend in order to protect his sister's baby. Ned also repeatedly speaks truth to power to Robert and consistently takes the side of commoners who have been wronged by lords. The video's condemnation of Ned for executing the deserter is a bad faith argument, based solely on the hindsight knowledge that the deserter witnessed something significant. Ned gave him more than enough chances to talk, but he never did. What's more, he made his way PAST the Wall & Night's Watch, to whom he should have reported his experience in the first place. There is no diegetic reason for anyone to think they were ever going to get anything useful out of him.
No, these are just your own views on Ned and the legal system.
A legal system is just a tool meant to keep humanities rampant "corruption" at bay, and of course because we already are corrupt it is often used for other things such as to control a large parts of a population. Ned used it as a tool against corruption, he even arrested and banished lords who broke the rules of the system so no one was immune. (like Jorah)
Ned does not benefit from the "system" nor did he use it to benefit him as it worked him like a slave, he went to war to fix it after it killed his sister, father, brother and eventually himself.
@@GunleaverFucking beautifully laid out. Really tired of the Ned slander. By and large hes a good guy who isht near anywhere as rigid as anyone says. Hell, the whole thing with lyanna is evidence enough.
This reminds me that bit when Theon os going to Pyke and befriends Patrek Mallister but Jason Mallister doesnt want them hagging out together. It also happens to otherr characters, this need to keep stuff the same way that would definetly screw things up in the future.
Jon's violations of the neutrality of the Night's Watch is NOT about the Old Ways! Yes, that is origin of the customs and traditions and laws, but they are universally accepted and an ongoing practice. It is EXPLAINED for the deeply stupid, that the Night's Watch is, and must be, neutral in order to be trusted by the rest of Westeros, instead of being treated like a contender (and competitor) for power. It's not some archaic custom or cultural relic of the First Men, it is a specific policy established for a purpose. It's what makes exile to the Wall an acceptable alternative to the elimination of political enemies or the execution or mutilation of criminals. Not everything they do in the North is an Old Ways issue and just because the First Men practiced a custom does not make it theirs. The laws of hospitality are pretty universal, followed by the Andals and Rhoynar and probably elsewhere in the world. The North (and probably Dorne) adhere to them much closely than the southern regions because the necessity of shelter is rather more obvious in their climate.
The changes and reforms that Jon makes or attempts as Lord Commander, are not against the customs and practices of the First Men, but rather the ossification of behavior that happens with any institution. One of his reforms is to emphasize archery training over swordplay. Is there any evidence that the First Men favored swords over bows? Obviously not. Jon attributes the Watch's priority to the days when a greater proportion of the Watch were trained knights when they joined, so it made sense to engage the lighter-armed and armored wildlings in hand to hand. The First Men did not have the institution of knighthood, and they had smaller horses and inferior armor. It was the Andals who brought improved steel and the cultural background for knights to Westeros, and even if the northerners who adhere to the culture of the First Men do not adopt the institution, they did take up the technology and combat styles, and, in fact, the heavy armored cavalry of the North performs rather well when they go south, in both the War of Five Kings and in the Dance of Dragons. So the institutional preference for knighthood is not a First Men thing at all, it is a general practice of Westeros, and institutional inertia has prevented them from changing to meet the realities of their current situation. In fact, in the opening chapter, we see that the trained knight, Ser Waymar Royce, despite being well-equipped by southern standards with black clothing and gear and mount, is not well-equipped to be a ranger of the Night's Watch. His horse is a powerful warhorse, meant to carry an armored knight at a charge against other heavily armored foes, while the rangers ride smaller horses, built for endurance and surefootedness and not to need as much fodder, all of which are more relevant to the rangers than their utility in combat.
Waymar himself being in charge has nothing to do with the Old Ways of the First Men, and more to do with the general aristocratic privilege & prejudice of their society, which is just human nature. It's a thing we see as much of among the Andals and Rhoynar and across the Narrow Sea. In Mormont's mind, knights/aristocrats are just better and the only people he sees as fit to lead. There is nothing about the First Men or Old Ways that mandates Sam be blindly run through military training and his other uses utterly ignored because he can't or won't learn combat. In fact, Jon cites the maesters' chain as an illustration of the principle, and the maesters of the Citadel are an institution of the Old Ways and the First Men, who, like the Night's Watch, were found to be very useful and worth keeping around as the Andal culture came to dominate the continent.
God i appreciate those videos
Did the Old Ways have a different name before they became referred to as Old? If so, when did they officially become Old?
"The Ways"
They probably didn't. Most likely it was just the way they did things and when the andals invaded and brought new customs, these old customs became known as "the old ways"
Ned didn’t just kill him for being a deserter. At this point in their history, nights watch members are all criminals. They’ve already been sentenced to death, but took the wall instead. The crime wasn’t deserting that took his life, it was what got him to the wall that took his life
The nightwatch visits soon after, i presume he relayed the message, doubt anyone would've believed the deserter either way
Also execution for desertion isn't part of the old ways, that's just current law
Regarding the supernatural stuff, the video is just throwing a lot of similar things together and equating them. Dany knows jack all about the Targaryen ways, just a lot of romanticized self-serving delusions and memories of an unreliable brother. The Targaryens from the first were builders and planters of trees, from Aegon & his wife-sisters, to Jaeherys the Conciliator, to Viserys II and Daeron the Good and Aegon the Unlikely, all working on building up their realm, instead of running around lashing out. Dany's turn to Fire & Blood at the end of the last book is an overreaction to her peacemaking efforts falling flat on her face. Not because she cannot build, but because she tried to make peace with those who are themselves incapable of planting trees, only stealing the fruit grown by others. It has nothing to do with older magic or ancient traditions.
By contrast, in Westeros, it is the old, established common wisdom that is true and correct and the modern learning of the maesters and the power-motivated calculations of the elites that are mistaken. Old Nan's stories are all correct. Iron swords in the crypts of Winterfell, if they have any meaning, are going to be a good idea. Winterfell itself is built to fight the Others. Two concentric walls around a whole castle are kind of excessive and don't make much sense, unless you realize that, like the Wall itself, they are built to hold off an enemy that does not weaken or tire but keeps coming at you in hordes of relentless undead. The whole castle is built on a hot spring whose waters are piped through the walls so it is always warm, even in winter, to make it inhospitable as possible to the Others. Even the name, suggests it was built on the spot where the Last Hero defeated the Others in the original war. It was the place where Winter Fell.
And in maintaining Winterfell, and upholding the traditions that grew around its founding the Starks gained their power. Because their castle was a place of warmth and plenty in the depths of winter, they drew others to them, seeking shelter and sustenance. And from there, they set about subduing their neighboring realms, in many cases, defeating kings and clans who practiced magic, and then MARRYING their offspring. In the ancient histories, we see the Starks repeatedly joining their bloodlines to rulers they defeated, who were said to have powers. When Bran goes back through the weirwood in the Winterfell godswood, at the end of his journey, at the very beginning, he sees a blood sacrifice to the heart tree, perhaps as the spell to protect the castle and strengthen it. Brandon the Builder is associated with three structures, the Wall, Storm's End and Winterfell, and two of those are confirmed by Melisandre to have magical protections, and be places of power. That means Winterfell, the home of Brandon's family and descendants, almost certainly has to be similarly enchanted.
All of this old magic, like the skinchanging talents of all six Stark kids, is something that they will have to discover as part of utilizing their fullest ability to face the Others, and it is Bran, who most strongly identifies with all the Stark stuff, even having the quintessential Stark name. He identifies with Winterfell, he loves the godswood after his injuries, he feels safe in the crypts and he objects to Rickon bringing the Freys to "a Stark place". He presides over the harvest feast and he is the Stark who is foreshadowed to be the king in Winterfell at the end, the one who will rebuild and heal the land. He is the one learning magic, who most often recalls the tales of Old Nan, and knows the legends of the Nightfort, even more interested in them than his uncle, the actual brother of the Watch. The value of the old ways, and the preternatural powers associated with them are all tied up in Bran and the metaphysical plot.
There is no need to twist around that the Stark traditions and magic are wrong and evil, because the whole point of the series is that the Stark ways are good, because they are based on protecting and taking care of people. That is the sole value GRRM holds in aristocratic or royal leadership, that they can (and should, even must) protect and care for their people. For magic gone awry we have Melisandre who places too much faith in her magic, without understanding its limits or where and how her own perceptions shade her visions and lead her to the wrong conclusions and we have Bloodraven's history of mistaken actions taken with good intentions and fixating on the wrong problems or wrong approach. The challenge is going to be for the heroes not to fall prey to the blandishments of these false prophets and advice they offer based on their misused power, but to direct that power in a better way. Stannis is going to be misled by Melisandre into sacrificing his daughter to stop the Others, but it will fall short or unleash a horror, and in contrast, Bran is going to resist going down Bloodraven's path and losing himself to the visions. Also, on the preternatural front, we have whatever horrors Euron Greyjoy is cooking up, and he himself appears to be a failed or renegade pupil of Bloodraven. It makes no sense for EVERY form of magic to turn out evil. If there is a shocker coming up with the "good" magic, it's going to be the very high price it will take to use it to defeat the Others, requiring Dany and/or Jon to offer a self-sacrifice to bring about the preternatural victory. Again, in keeping with the mythological references to the fisher king and the sacrificial king and Dany's messianic journey, with the comet heralding her "rebirth" on the pyre and leading her and her followers on journey through a desert, before she is brought to a place of temptation...
The issue of magic for the heroes has been summed up in the contrasting pieces of advice Jon gets on the matter, that magic is a sword without a hilt, that cannot be wielded safely, but still a weapon and a necessary thing to have when faced with a foe. Magic is not treacherous, it will simply cut whoever uses it, because of the frailties of human wielders. The danger is the people who try to get sneaky and use it without paying the price or making others pay it for them. Dany's dragons are dangerous, and the history of Westeros bears that out, but they are also going to be necessary to save the world from the Others, and dragons and magic are closely associated in the story so that we can say the same applies to magic. Unlike the show, where dragons and magic were of no real use, they defeated the Others with plot armor and a self-destruct button.
How even thit guy passed thru thru the wall back anyway?
Thank you Michael.
cant wait for the tangent!!
7:44 That's only the show. In the books, Jon Snow is stabbed by people that were his friends because he was going to break his vows and head south to fight Ramsay Bolton.
It was already planned way before that, they didn't like he was bringing Wildlings through the Wall, they didn't like he wasn't sealing the gates, they didn't like his alliance with Stannis and going against the Crown and Boltons etc etc etc
@@GoblinTalk They didn't like those things because they all made the situation worse, from the perspective of the mutineers. They didn't like Jon helping Stannis because it went against 8000 years of tradition of neutrality in the wars of the realms of men, which they believed would result in the Night's Watch being destroyed by the victorious contender, since they were no longer trustworthy. Jon giving Stannis material aid and advice on operating in the North, was violating that neutrality. Giving shelter to a runaway noblewoman, arranging a marriage for her, and sending wildling troops to help her take and hold her family's castle is very definitely interfering in politics and a violation of the neutrality. Jon leading an army of wildlings south was the final straw that they could not tolerate. Even letting the wildlings in, could be seen as an act of a scion of House Stark of Winterfell, making allies to enforce their hold on the North, because of how Jon used them, and also because wildling clemency was a plank in Stannis' platform, so Jon bringing in the wildlings, despite the supplies being critically short, to outnumber the Nights Watch by a considerable degree, looks like a case of prioritizing Stannis' agenda over that of the Night's Watch.
The thing about the mutineers is that they are not incorrect in their position that Jon is breaking with the tradition of neutrality. What they are wrong about is how the neutrality applies to the situation. The Boltons are clearly bad actors and no friends of the Watch. Marsh is also a tad hypocritical when one recalls that he acquiesced to Tywin Lannister's interference with the Nights Watch's neutrality by going along with Tywin's attempt to name the next Lord Commander. Marsh isn't exactly ready to die on the hill of the Night's Watch's independence. He strike at Jon over the neutrality for the same reason he knuckles under to Tywin - fear. He is willing to surrender the principle when he fears the Night's Watch being destroyed over it, and kill for the principle when it looks like violating it will have worse consequences.
Not just a random person, but the guy was from the Night's Watch. Unlike Jon, he knew the types of people in the Watch. Who he thinks is crazy too? Yeah it makes sense.
Edit: she also didn't leave him alive to rehabilitate him haha it just so happened to work out that way.
Edit edit: i think the assumption is "why did you desert the night's watch?"
"I came to tell about the others"
I thought the whole point of "questions asked answers given" is that he thinks the guy was trying to make crazy unconfirmable excuses trying to save his life.
11:08 I personally like the idea better that Jon is such a powerful Telepath that he makes his Connection to Ghost while they were there and it’s GHOST calling out for Jon in his mind because we know Ghost never makes a sound. That’s just me though…
İn that world others are legend Ned probably doent believe night walkers exist so the deserter was a liar to him
Sacrifice and comment to the old gods and the algorithm
Great video once again
It could indeed be said that the protagonists of ASOIAF did not just fall from a coconut tree!
Once you’re brought back to life as an ice or fire weight, you’re unburdened by what has been.
What up Michael? Talk about an insightful video. You been doin well lately?
When I read the book with 15 years I thought that guy ran away fearing no one would believe him and he would be killed any way for letting his brothers to die.
Ned Stark killed Lyanna Stark because of the “old ways,” and George R.R. Martin provides several subtle clues to support this theory.
Early in A Game of Thrones, we see a symbolic scene after Ned executes the runaway Night’s Watch deserter. The group discovers a dead stag (Baratheon) that has killed a pregnant direwolf (a female Stark). This sets the stage for recurring imagery: the death of a female Stark tied to a stag. When Ned finds the direwolf pups, his first impulse is to kill them-foreshadowing his decision to spare Jon Snow, the “orphaned Stark baby,” but only after great internal conflict.
This pattern continues throughout the story. Consider Robert Baratheon (the stag) and his demand in King’s Landing: he insists that Lady, Sansa’s direwolf, be executed. Ned carries out the deed himself, killing a female direwolf once again. These events mirror the central tragedy of Ned’s past-his killing of Lyanna, another “female direwolf,” for her perceived betrayal of her betrothal to Robert.
Ned’s fever dream of the Tower of Joy is the only account we have of his meeting with Lyanna, but it raises questions. Fever dreams are often manipulated by the Three-Eyed Raven, who may “photoshop” events to alter their meaning. Ned recalls a scene bathed in bright white light-a motif that echoes Bran’s vision of a golden light obscuring Jaime Lannister’s face. These visual elements suggest unreliable memories, possibly altered or suppressed.
The strongest clue lies in Ned’s actions regarding the dead “Ladies of Winterfell.” He ensures both Lyanna and Sansa’s direwolf, Lady, are entombed in the crypts of Winterfell. Both women (or symbols of women) are killed in ways that connect their deaths to the “reputation” or honor of Winterfell. Did Ned kill Lyanna, as he killed Lady, to protect the Stark name?
And what of Lyanna’s final plea? Could her words, “Promise me, Ned,” have been her desperate attempt to save her child? This parallels Jon Snow’s tearful request as a boy: begging Ned to spare the direwolf pups. In both cases, Ned faces a choice between the old ways and the lives of innocents.
Ned later tries to embrace the “New Ways” and warns Cersei that he knows her children with the Stag (Robert) are not his. Unfortunately , since Ned is not adept in the New Ways he gets captured and killed just like the deserter he killed.
It is now Ned’s bones being shipped back to Winterfell to rest in the family crypt.
There are some elements in this I think have potential merit. The only point I'd make is that Ned killing Lyanna would almost certainly have been as an act of mercy rather than a punishment. Though I can see him struggling with it and feeling like he somehow did it as a punishment.
@@BeteBlanc Ned feels “obliged” by the Old Ways. But his sadness and anger when remembering her makes me feel that he has regrets. That is why he was trying to save Cersei.
Also, gives a deeper understanding to the interaction of Ned taking Robert down into the crypts to see her statue. It’s like I killed my sister for this bafoon!!!
Especially, that now Robert wanted to his daughter to marry his son. Again a close call of a Stag killing a direwolf.
I'm resistant to the idea that Ned may have killed his sister, but your other points are very interesting.
@DD-ok2pt my personal context. I don't believe Fandom has correctly understood why Lyanna was there. I believe Lyanna was pregnant and Rhaegar agreed to hide this from Westeros at the request of Ned and Ashara. The plan was originally to allow Lyanna to have her baby and return to marry Robert with no one the wiser. Ned would have claimed Jon as his own trueborn son by Ashara.
If I'm correct, then Ned would feel responsible for Lyanna's death, his father's, and the rebellion at large. It was his plan. It went sideways and so many died.
A figurative parallel to a literal in the direwolf is more GRRM's style. He doesn't tend to repeat literals that exactly. It's an interesting take and I'll certainly be keeping it in mind, but I have a very hard time seeing Ned judging his own family this harshly.
Interesting but Why? Why would Ned kill his sister? What could he possibly gain from it? What could she gain from it?
He may have had a hand in it depending on how the childbirth went (c-section) but I don't think it could be blamed on any deliberate intention to kill her.
It's also worth saying that Middle Earth has a very Middle Ages perspective where we were capable of building great wonders in the past (pyramids, colliseums, aquaducts) that we are no longer capable of. It's also worth bringing up that the name of the series is A Song of Ice and Fire and not Of Light and Dark or Of Good and Evil. So I don't think George is having a very clear cut change is good and stasis is evil. We see in Daenerys's chapters the problems associated when trying to self-righteously impose change upon an unwilling population, even if that change is what I think most readers consider to be good.
Okay, maybe Michal should THINK about stuff, instead of talking mindlessly. Robb did not lose half his army for executing Rickard Karstark. He lost "near 300" mounted armsmen, which he says is "All the mounted strength of Karhold." That is ALL he lost and this was BEFORE he executed Rickard. Rickard was simply lashing out without any good reason, with no justification. He had ALREADY sent his men out before he committed his crimes. There was nothing Robb could have done to prevent the loss, and the loss was not nearly as painful as the show claims. Furthermore, sending his men out rogue is the crime of desertion multiplied by 300. He is turning loose 300 men who answer to no one, under no discipline, who probably know they are in big trouble if their king catches them, so all the reasons why Ned tells Bran deserters must die applies to them, and by rights, to the man who sent them out on their bloody course. Furthermore, Rickard murders children who did nothing wrong. If there is not going to be justice or punishment for such an act, what is the point of a king and laws and a societal structure?
Likewise with Jon. Jon is murdered because of his increasing support for Stannis, which violates the letter and to a degree the spirit of the vows of the Night's Watch, and because the leaders of murdering faction are afraid of the wrath of the crown for crossing their deputies. There is no connection between his execution of Slynt and his own murder. No one liked Slynt, they simply saw him as a political inevitability. FFS, Bowen Marsh, the leader of the assassins, actually reacted badly to what seemed like Jon changing his mind about the execution! Jon orders Slynt hanged, not for his involvement in Ned's murder, but because Slynt refused a lawful order from a superior officer, and given his cultivation of a following and contention for the position of Lord Commander, meant that he had to be punished or cause division among the brothers and destroy discipline. As Slynt is being taken to his hanging, Jon suddenly call off the hanging and Bowen cries out the equivalent of "Seven save us." Then Jon more or less clarifies that he is not calling off the execution, he is simply returning to the values he was raised with, and doing the execution himself. EXECUTING SLYNT was seen as a necessary act. Aliser Thorne stood aside to allow him to be taken and Bowen Marsh panicked at the thought of Jon rescinding the order. No one was pushing back against the execution, anyone who has ever served in the military, and any man of the Watch or adult in their society would have seen the execution as necessary. This execution was Jon's second chapter in the book, and he is only murdered in Jon's 13th chapter, with many, many actions taken that Marsh actually did disapprove of. To suggest that Marsh was upset over the execution, when his only given opinion was concern that Jon was not going to follow through with the sentence is beyond absurd, just on the structure of that plot.
Martin, at least, is mature enough to understand that however he dislikes the idea of capital punishment, he understands that sometimes it is necessary. What he wants is for people to think long and hard about what they are doing when they call for, sentence or cause the execution or imprisonment of another person. He wants them to understand the misery and pain that punishment entails, so they only use it when justified or necessary. Martin is much more explicit with his disapproval of war, than of criminal punishment, but it is pretty clear that he considers some wars necessary, such as Robert's Rebellion and Robb's war against the Lannisters, or the suppression of Greyjoy's Rebellion and the campaign against the slavers in Essos.
If you are going to go on and on about George Martin's past, and cite quotes from the books, you can't turn around and fall back on show bullshit just because it fits your idiotic narrative. Purge the fucking show from your mind entirely, if you want to do any metatextual analysis of the story, because it seems like so many shallow people, the pretty pictures make a strong impression and overwrites your recollection of what happened in the books. And the show is just incoherent nonsense, whenever it deviates from a strict adherence to the book plotlines. On the show, they wanted the Red Wedding to happen, but could not be bothered establishing the geography or political structure of the setting, aside from the most broad strokes like who has/wants the crown, so they had to invent reasons for Robb to make the agreement with the Freys that brought him into their power, and they are allergic to subtlety, so they needed a dramatic reason like "Robb lost half his army" and they are too stupid to understand the actual cause and effect presented in the books, so they read Robb as an honorable idiot who brought about his own downfall with honor-inspired stupidity, and thus they tied his execution of Rickard in with the loss of his army. Also, if you are going to snark at the show writers with comments about 8th Grade Book Reports, stop relying on their bullshit version of the story to develop your ideas!
Watching now.
im so onboard with this
How exactly is killing a Night's Watch deserter a problem exclusiveto the "Old Ways"? If the deserter had made it all the way to Sunspear, he'd still have lost his head if he got recognized as a deserter because that's a law valid for all of Westeros. After all, if Night's Watch deserters didn't have to face the prospect of the whole Seven Kingdoms being a potential deathtrap, they'd just try deserting more often and considering the Night's Watch consits almost entirely of various criminals and n'erdowells, I don't think any lord in the south would be inclined to show lenience. Especially when "sent to the wall" has been a convenient way of getting rid of unwanted people oermanently without killing them outright.
I don’t really agree that Ned made a ‘mistake’ killing the deserter bcos no1 would have believed the story about the others anyway. While consequences to the decision happen, that particular character death wasn’t going to change anything.
1:17 Wouldn’t have changed anything. Alliser Thorne went to kings landing with word of the dead walking, did anything happen? Ned also didn’t execute the deserter “because of the old ways” he executed him because a huge majority of the nights watch are criminals. If you committed a crime bad enough to have the option to be sent to the wall to redeem yourself. Then you run away from the wall, what more redemption can they offer you? In Ned’s eyes he had his chance at rehabilitation, and he ran away.
Imagine "LOTR has conservative undertones, with ASOIAF having progressive ones" triggering you. Good video
I’d say LOTR blows by conservatism into pure reaction, but there’s nothing wrong with that.
@@donkeysaurusrex7881 the idea of externalized evil with evil races just sounds uninteresting to me, but to be fair I haven't read it. I mean to soon.
My only issue is that it's not true. At least, not when you read the book with an understanding of what Tolkien was doing and what his actual politics were.
The man was self described as being basically an anarchist, using the actual word, and specifying that he means the sociopolitical theory, in a letter to his son.
The themes in the book largely are a discussion between his religion and his politics.
@@KennethKaniff999 Okay so there *aren't* just evil race, that's a common misunderstanding. Tolkien insists that inherently there must be Uruk that are capable of goodness, because goodness is the default and they're only corrupted by their governing system and disrespect for the Earth they come from.
@@Jane-oz7ppExactly. It's sad how Tolkien's work gets so simplified by people who never even read his work. There is a lot more depth and nuance than people believe. Even PJ's film trilogy simplified more nuanced characters like Saruman and Denethor into just 'evildoers'
Comparing a execution to a cop giving a ticket is weird.
Never been to actual prison but jail was bad enough especially the hole it's horrible
You’re right…Ayra just left. If that’s not forsaking your family idk what is
Its always so bizarre when people ignore the politics or claim it isnt there... in stories involving war
My understanding was Ned. Didn’t even believe that there was one in outside the wall because they had to be monsters in the year era so much that people stop believing in monsters that’s always been my belief that’s why they didn’t believe and kill him anyway.😊 cause he was lying because of that he didn’t believe in the monsters
Oddly enough, Jamie's imprisonment and mutilation did seem to help start on the path to potential redemption, but it's a very shaky path and completely unintended.
Also, there's the Onion Knight, though he was "redeemed" by Stannis' fairness and genuine ability to embrace him after he got his punishment, which seems to be the closest to trying to reform prime.
Babe get the kids Michael Talks About Stuff just dropped a new video!
Tolkien was a CULTURAL conservative. And he was writing a heroic quest straight out the Sagas only for Britain, a national mythos. And yeah, he was writing against those "Dark Satanic Mills", even though that is actually Blake.
Of course, ( and he shares this with George) his real heroes are the most grounded, humble characters. They get to live and be happy. Sam and Gilly. ❤
Who remembers anything from when they were 3? On of the few things the show got right, aging the kids up
The Hound is a merciless killer. He doesn’t deserve to live. No one who had killed as many people as he had deserves to live.
Amazing.
Let's go!!!
Your commentary on characters that go their own way and get punished for it at around 20:00 is very insightful. I think this G. R. Martin's main thesis of the series. The painful wintery death of the old ways and the spring of new life and new ways after.
Too add to what you were saying at around 32:00 regarding evidence of Georges interest in these ideas....
We see in Elden ring multiple generations of new gods competing to overthrow the existing order and establish a new one. The players role is to choose and establish this new order. This is evidence that George is very much interested in writing about this idea.
This is also consistent with conclusion of the TV series. See Tirions speech on the power of stories. See Varys's thought experiment on the sell sword and the three men that sets it up. The new cultural order has no physical manifestation. It's the story everyone currently believes and lives by.
HEY IM TOTALLY FUCKING FLIPPING OUT BRO! lol
I have given some of Ned Starks advice to my own kids.
Your volume on your videos is soooooooo low compared to every other channel. Please fix this for future videos 🙏
Ned's character is one of those people who is a rule follower to a fault. I don't think he really thinks about who makes the rules, laws and traditions or why; he just follows them expecting that law and order will save him.
I think his character death, I think, is supposed to herald us as the audience, to see the folly of his character and show us that the nature of the world is the strong at the top form a structure of law and order that protects them and thier power.
Just what is that analysis based on? Ned Stark, who rebelled against his king? Who, after putting a new king on the throne, fought with him over his ruling on the deaths of Elia's children? Who committed treason to protect his nephew from the king he himself acclaimed and helped take the throne? Who defied the customs and practices to raise his nephew as his bastard son with his own children, and lied to his wife about it for 15 years? Who gives a traitor & murderer the chance to escape, in order to protect her children? Who changes the king's will without his knowledge? Who defies his king's order to kill a rival claimant to the throne? This is "a rule follower to a fault"? What the ever-living fuck would you call a rebel?
Tell you what - name me an actual rule that Ned follows "to a fault" in the books, and I'll give your comment a like.
But the realm actually does need defending just not from the enemy they thought John knows it's worth dying to fight the others... some things are worth fighting for like war itself
The nights watchman broke his vows, if ice zombies come ruin your day you die and become a zombie too like a good crow
The strings of the past controlling the future generations is put literally by Brandon the builder controlling everything using his greenseer power
Awesome.
00:02:02 "Sometimes doing the right thing isn't doing the right thing."
Hooray.
It feels like you're mixing the book and showing elements together too much. Jon in the Book did not die/get killed because he beheaded Janos Slynt. It was because he let the wildlings through the Wall.
I only point that out because your title says ASOIAF analysis/theory - and it seems more like you're talking about things that happen in the show. Otherwise some interesting Ideas.
In the books Jon was stabbed because he was going to go south to fight the Boltons.