hey what's your fave but sublte political jon scene?
Ooooo good question! So in order to keep with the call of your question, I think I need to say some of the less-obvious scenes but ones that I wouldn’t call “subtle”:
1) Jon’s “we sail together” proposition scene
2) Jon interactions with the “Magnificent 7″ on the wight hunt
3) Jon on the boat after the wight hunt
- Those 3 are pretty good but I think aren’t quite as subtle as:
1) The Drogon Petting scene
Because Jon had absolutely no reason to want to pet Drogon. He knows it’s incredibly dangerous. He has zero clue whether Drogon will try to eat him. Drogon did the fly-by intimidation tactic when he arrived at Dragonstone…and as far as Jon knows, Dany has gone to eliminate the Lannister army and he’s basically hoping and praying that she didn’t decide to level the Red Keep.
So why does he pet Drogon out of all of this? Was he attracted to her because she just decided to use her dragons - and he had to warn her not to use them to commit a mass killing - and returned victorious? Dany lands Drogon (remember their last 1 on 1 conversation ended in Dany AGAIN demanding that he bend the knee) and tries to intimidate him. Like she did with the Lannister troops who surrendered and like she eventually does at the Dragonpit.
She tried to scare Jon again…and Jon gets the sense of her that she’s looking for an action hero. So he approaches and pets Drogon.
This is a direct link to Quentyn Martell in the books - only Jon is successful.
But his ONLY reasonable internal reason for doing this in the first place is because he thinks it will impress Dany - and there’s nothing of their previous interactions that tell me that he’s trying to impress her for any romantic reasons. His are political but I’ve never even seen it theorized that he did this because he wanted to win her favor.
I like the idea of political jon and undercover jon, although I have to admit that I like the idea of undercover jon more, because in the theories that I have seen, he at least has a plan, political jon sounds more like jon is acting as time goes by, and it sounds more like reactionary jon, rather than a king acting politically, with a long term plan that benefits his nation, but that is my point of view. in my opinion he was not even responsible for making dany decide to go north, because
(2) it was cersei and her promise that she was going to help them that made dany go north, the only thing he did when dany said she was not sure What to do, was to say we are fuck. I see undercover Jon, not as a person who decided to betray Dany from the beginning, but more that he saw her attraction for him and decided to use it in his favor, he knelt because he knew that the North would not support him and neither he was going to force them to do it, and he knew that that was going to keep dany
(3) more enthusiastic (I do not think Jon thinks he can convince them, or that an agreement can be reached, I think Jon was sincere when he said that his people were not going to support a southern queen) and was planning to sleep with her from the moment she said she wasn’t sure to help them, to see if her feelings for him were enough to convince her. the only thing that worries me about both theories is that he knows dany was raped and sold, and I don’t know if he would be able to use a woman
(4) after knowing that, and in both theories he is doing it.
Dear nonny,
if I understand you correctly, you would distinguish between ‘Undercover’ and ‘Political’ and maybe ‘Sacrificial’ Jon. ‘Undercover’ would be Jon in cohots with Sansa and a plan to go undercover, seduce Da€nerys for her dragons. ‘Political’ would be Jon having as a main goal to the the dragons and adapting to the problem, that he has to somehow persuade Da€nerys to commit to a cause despite her being all about ‘bend the knee’. ‘Sacrificial’ Jon would be Jon not giving a fuck about what happens to him, since he thinks he’ll die anyway. He’ll sacrifice anything, his own honour, the independence of the North, just as long as the North and Winterfell are protected.
You seem to be somewhere between undercover and political. I myself am somewhere between political and sacrificial. I don’t think that Jon planned on going undercover or seducing Da€nerys, and I’m quite certain he didn’t make a secret plan with Sansa. Sansa’s face when he told everyone he would leave did not look like it would have if Jon had spoken to her imho.
I think he gave Da€nerys the benefit of the doubt and decided to treat with her in person to give her a ‘partial payment’ of trust, not because he trusted her, but probably because he trusted Tyrion. This was a bold move and not unlike his move in the Karstark/Umber case. Sometimes to earn trust you have to give trust. It’s a gamble, but Jon does gamble, he did also gamble in his negotiations with the Freefolk, in books and show, and it payed off.
His trust was betrayed at Dragonstone. Da€nerys demanded bending the knee, his ship was taken and there was no indication that she would let him leave any time soon. She allowed him to mine for dragonglass, so he might have had some hope to still persuade her. So, instead of throwing a tantrum, he brooded on the cliffs, voiced his longing for home, and then made another attempt to persuade Da€nerys. @thelawyerthatwaspromised made an excellent post on how Jon learns from Da€nerys’ entourage and how he ups the level of persuasion in each episode, until he finally knocks at her door.
I do think that Jon does not expect to stay KitN, he signed his last letter as ‘warden’ after all, probably knowing that his correspondence is read by others. So, he probably expects, that all Da€nerys gets from her promise to help him is his personal allegiance - an allegiance he fully plans to hold to imho, only the RLJ reveal will come into it.
As for Da€nerys I would say, she has different priorities than Jon. The whole time, Jon wanted to convince her that his priority for the living is the only one that counts. And as I see it, she still is not fully committed by the last episode. When Jon woke up on that ship in episode 6, he knew they were heading south, knew that Da€nerys was still bent on getting that truce, and at the Dragonpit meeting he realised that they are ‘fucked’. I think he would have avoided publically declaring for Da€nerys, but Cersei left him no choice but to be open about it. He couldn’t lie about that and still keep Da€nerys’ trust. He didn’t want the truce. For him the meeting at Dragonpit was pointless, because he doesn’t trust Cersei anyway.
So, now after they get the truce (which is no truce at all, because Cersei will go behind their backs), Da€nerys finally is free to pursue Jon’s priority and Jon tries to ensure that she stays enlisted so to say. But they still don’t have the same priorities! Jon doesn’t care about the war in the South and we will see next season what will happen if Da€nerys learns about Cersei and the GC.... Guess what, their priorities will differ again.
So, does that mean Jon uses Da€nerys for her dragons: Yes, it does. He is just like all the other suitors that want her dragons, just like all the men who wanted her hand in the books, Xaro, Hizdahr, Quentyn.... etc. It is foreshadowed in the books, when Jon contemplates in ASOS how useful dragons would be in defending the wall.
Is he capable of doing that, even knowing that she was used in the past? I would say yes. He was capable of using Ygritte. He rode with the wildlings, sang with them, slept with Ygritte, stayed with them climbing the wall (which was the one goal that was identical with Ygritte’s goals) and then he left them. Did Ygritte deserve that? Probably not. Do people in ASOIAF get what they deserve? I’d suggest you ask Ned or Robb or Catelyn about that. Would Jon be the villain if we had Ygritte’s PoV? Probably. I would say the only difference to the Ygritte situation is, that Jon does not plan on betraying Da€nerys, at least not as far as his own personal allegiance goes.
But won’t she feel betrayed anyway, when the North wavers in his loyalty to someone who is after all not Ned’s bastard son, but a Targ, someone who ‘sold’ their independence for some dragons? Will Da€nerys not feel betrayed in any case, whatever Jon’s intention, if she is suddenly short one kingdom and in exchange ‘gained’ a nephew with a claim to the Iron Throne that is stronger than hers? I think it will play out like that. Da€nerys will think that Jon knew all along about RLJ.
Does Da€nerys deserve being betrayed and used like that? That’s a difficult question, I think. She fully expects someone who is her prisoner to kneel to her? She fully expects the people of Westeros who ousted the Targaryens for very valid reasons to hail her as the new queen? She is very naive in the sense that she doesn’t think things through, she never thinks about consequences, she is a volatile narcist with occasional bouts of benevolence and all in all a very dangerous person. Does that mean she ‘deserves’ to be betrayed? Honestly, I dont know, and I fully expect GRRM to tell the three treasons that are in tow for her from her PoV, so that the reader can see how all the foreshadowing unfolds, have pity on her and shudder at what she’ll do after the treasons. This would imho make for very satisfying story telling, even if Jon would not be the honourable fool everyone in Westeros (and in the fandom) thinks him to be..... He is not by the way. Certainly not in the books, but also not in the show, if you look closely.
In a way, Jon may have had benevolent reasons to save the free Folk, to spare Karstark and Umber, but he has also very sound political reasons for doing the things he did. The fandom sees a good act and automatically assumes benevolent, morally good reasons behind that. This is why Da€nerys is hailed as an abolutionist, when she is not. She freed the Unsullied not to free them, but to get an army. And Jon saved the free Folk not only to save them, but also to recruit them against the WW and prevent the Others to turn them into wights.
If you think that motives must play a role in judging characters, then it should be noted that Jon is a grey character. All in all his motivations for acting or not acting are thought through, sound and rational, but if you look closely (like with the baby swap in the books), he can also be quite cruel to individuals, if he thinks it will serve the cause of the living, or save lives. He gambles and juggles and tries to save the realm and his family. I think, when he will be resurrected in the books, his focus will be more on saving his family. I think that Jon who bullied Gilly, another abused girl, into giving up her son (in the books) is capable to play a woman whom he thinks has the key to defeating the WW (and who held him prisoner in the show). The twist is, that probably the dragons are not the solution but another problem and that for all his plans, the RLJ reveal will blow up everything.
Thanks for the ask! And sorry, it took me so long. I’m well behind in asks!
So I want to discuss something that had always bothered me about some people in the fandom for ASOIAF and even in the Jonsa family.
The idea that some ppl have no belief in Jon as a character true to his book counterpart because of the show writers. I've read a lot of metas and other people's thoughts on UCL Jon and just his character in general. The thing that bugs me is how little faith ppl seem to have in his character staying true to himself and all that comes with UCL theory. Some have totally disregarded Jon as not being so clever or again, have no faith in him; show-wise.
Though I can truly understand considering the way the show has gone, but at the same time I don't understand the hate he gets or the fact that some fanfic writers seem intent on punishing him (usually heavily Sansa Stans) in their stories. I've fallen out of stories for that very reason, or stopped following ppl who post Jon hate (Not joking hate, but real hate on his character).
My thoughts are that GRRM only allowed his books to be a show because of D&D's love for the series and obviously there had to be a contract between the three of them. GRRM had to have known that though D&D love the series that they didn't fully understand the material so deeply (I mean the guy worked with them for what?? Three to four seasons, you get to know ppl pretty good by then and in preproduction) and so I believe that there has to be something in the contract that keeps them on track. Yes, they promised the same ending as the books, but that also means they cannot butcher the characters (Jon) beyond recognition.
I truly believe that though the path is not the same as the books that there has to be some types of constraint on each character via a contract to keep them from absolutely destroying these beloved characters. GRRM had stated how he wouldn't let other studios take his child and warp it to their ideas so what makes everyone think that he'd let D&D do the same without some type of pay off??
I can't believe that GRRM would allow these two to change such drastic things to fit their vision, if that were true then we wouldn't have a show. I love writing and I want to eventually write my own work and I've always stated that I would want to be a show/script writer to keep my work true to its self. So why do so many (or at least the few I've seen) believe so badly that D&D will destroy the series and make it into the Dany show??
Maybe it's because I'm such as optimistic person and can see both sides, but choose to hope for the best. Yet again, this series of books will define GRRM for the rest of his life and be his legacy once he's gone (knock on wood) including the show, so there is no way he'd let these two completely deface his life's work without some safety guards in place. Have they been shitty on translation from book to show without GRRM's hand to lead them; of course!! But that does not mean they were given unconditional creative license to change the show completely.
And so I digress, I believe in all of the metas stating that Jon is not entirely truthful to Dany or in love with her, I believe in Jonsa as endgame and I believe that D&D were not given the absolute authority to change any truly major events = UCL being true and true to Jon's character. I know some people will still be skeptical and that seeing is believing for them, but I can't see a man who's spent hours and years perfecting a series only to have it destroyed so easily and without a fight.
Thank you for listening to my rant, feel free to comment and whatnot, now I go to bury myself and do studying for midterms. 😣😣😣😣😣📖📖📖📖
So, this is a meta (I thought it was gonna be small, but it ran away from me- oops) on why I do not believe Jon Snow has actually bent the knee.
We all know that the Northerners in Game of Thrones- and A Song of Ice and Fire, have fought long and hard for their independence. We know that it was out of character for Jon to bend the knee to a foreign ruler he hardly knew. Thereby sacrificing the North’s hard won independence and his own power. Power he didn’t want, and definitely did not want for his own sake. But power that gave him a greater ability to defend his beloved home, the North, and his family. The same family that he has canonically, in both the show and the books, been shown to abandon honor and duty for in the past.
We know that A Song of Ice and Fire draws a great deal from history. The weapons, from Valyrian steel to wildfire are based on ancient weapons we have been unable to recreate in the modern day. The struggle for Westeros is specifically meant to mirror The War of the Roses. The First Men = The Celts, The Andals = The Angles and Saxons. A big issue in the series is the conflict between the nobles and the small folk, and a glacially paced transition to a more democratic system.
So, when I was reading up on the source of my state motto: “Live Free or Die (This is New Hampshire’s motto, for those who don’t know) I was struck by the similarities between General John Stark’s story and Jon Snow’s own story line. And I think it will be hugely ironic if George I’m a Huge History Nerd RR Martin, didn’t base Jon off this guy, at least partially.
John Stark was born in Londonderry, New Hampshire. When he was a teenager he was captured by a group of Abenaki Native Americans and brought all the way to Quebec, Canada. While there he and another captive were forced to “run the gamut,” as in charge a line of armed warriors. He surprised one of the men, stole his spear and attacked. The Abenaki were reportedly impressed by his bravery and quick thinking and adopted Stark into the tribe. John Stark was ransomed later that year and sent home to his family.
Later, John Stark fought in the French and Indian War as a member of Roger’s Rangers. He was second in command to Robert Roger and gained a lot of experience fighting in the war. However, when the Rangers were ordered to attack St. Francis, Canada, Stark, refused to join the attack as his Native American foster parents resided in St. Francis. He instead, returned home to his wife.
John Stark later fought at Bunker Hill and reached the rank of Brigadier General in the Continental Army. He later resigned his post because he was disgusted that a less experienced general got a promotion over him. Then he accepted a post here in New Hampshire as Brigadier General, but only on the condition of, wait for it:
Not having to ever answer to Continental Army authorities. (Gosh, I really like this guy) He served with distinction in the battle of Saratoga and became a war hero for his work and famous rallying cry: "There are your enemies, the Red Coats and the Tories. They are ours, or this night Molly Stark sleeps a widow!"
Our motto comes from a letter he wrote to his comrades after his retirement saying, “Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.”
In short: this guy was a badass.
But, can you see now where I’m going with this? They both grew up in a northern state. They both were captured by and adopted by a people living in what could easily be called the far north. They both learned to respect those people and then later fought against those same people. However, when push came to shove both Jon Snow and John Stark could not forget their love and respect for their foster family. They both served as member of a rangers group and were disgusted by the politics that plagued their society.
Also, JOHN STARK.
So, for Jon Snow to bend the knee to someone who does not truly know his people- regardless of whether they help with an overwhelming threat, have a technical right to rule, or the best of intentions, it would be a huge departure from his characterization. Whether he has any affection, like many non-Tory colonists did for Great Britain, for this aforesaid foreign power it would be enormously strange for him to bend the knee.
But- it would not be out of character for Jon to act the fool. To lie. To gain the trust of his current enemy. Like he did with the Wildlings. Like he did with Stannis.
For him to bend the knee, it would take either a horrific and deliberate character assignation by the writers, a bout of canonical insanity, or shrewd calculation on Jon’s part that a lie is necessary in order for him to get what he wants. If Jon Snow has really bent the knee I can guarantee you, it won’t be for long.
(Also, sudden, idea. Ghost is supposed to be a metaphor for Jon. And Ghost not only has weirwood coloring (in other words he is Northern to the bone), but additionally, a white coat on a wolf also kinda reminds you of the phrase “A wolf in sheep’s clothing.” doesn’t it?)
"If we die, we'll die, but first, we'll live."―Ygritte to Jon Snow.[src]
There is no way in all the the Seven Hells that Jon has bent the knee.
I don't believe Jon & Daenerys are going to end well. The "romantic" scenes contain dialogue that emphatically separates the two characters yet people see romance. Why? Lighting and music.
This scene with Mance Rayder in S5xE1 is almost the exact same situation as Jon faced with Daenerys in the cave scene of S7xE4. Add some beautiful music, make the lighting warmer, and you have the same scene.
Jon and Daenerys are viewed romantically, why not Jon and Mance? All the sudden, the scene becomes warmer with a much different tone. BUT THE CONTENT OF BOTH SCENES IS REMARKABLY SIMILAR.
What is the UCL theory in Game Of Thrones, if you don’t mind me asking?
The UCL theory is the belief that Jon didn’t bend the knee to D because he’s so madly in love with her and believes she will be a great ruler without thinking about the consequences of his actions. It basically theorises that Jon is manipulating her and using her affections to gain her trust and loyalty so that she will fight for the North and protect them from the Others.
It’s not such a wild theory when you consider the fact that he did the exact same thing with Ygritte, only he messed up there and actually fell in love with her later (though he doesn’t even realise he is until she’s dead; the show romanticised their relationship).
I’m not sure where all of my reblogged UCL theories are located (because I’m really not that organised) but most should be under my Jon Meta tag. Or Anti-Jonerys tag but I wouldn’t recommend going in there if you’re a fan of the ship.
Anyone want to link Anonny with some good metas?
I’m having a very lazy day today. Sorry, Anonny. <3
