A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / A Clash of Kings II / Jon and Ygritte

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Zer0hour
User ID: 1432154 Jan 11th 10:00 PM
I dunno if anyone has brought this up yet as i was away from the board for a LONG time, but what do y'all think of Jon and Ygritte--getting together, just friends, not even that much, she'll die and he'll move on, he'll die and she'll move on??? What's up?

Padraig
User ID: 8290473 Jan 12th 1:08 PM
Oh I don't know. I suppose she will be one of Jon's buddies in the next book but I don't imagine it'll go any further that that. Jon may develop feelings for her but he will not allow himself to act on them. Because of his vows and all that. I know some people think their relationship will develop further.

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Jan 12th 3:40 PM
Depends on how long he has to stay with the wildlings. If he has to choose between his oath, and staying just a _little_ longer, to wheedle out the wildlings' secret plan to get past the Wall, I think he'll choose the latter.

Rhoe
User ID: 8890073 Jan 12th 4:25 PM
How many 16/17 year old boys do you know that could pass up some nookie when offered? I don't think any oath will kkep Jon boy from sampling the goods when they are offered.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Jan 12th 4:36 PM
Actually, we do see him get the opportunity -- he could have gone to Mole's Town. But he didn't, specifically because he wanted to keep his oaths.

Admittedly, if he finds a naked and eager Ygritte in his sleeping roll on a night, that would be more difficult. I think Jon could -- no, would -- manage it, however. At least the first time. Then she'd be realize he's playing hard to get and be even more interested in seducing him.

But, at first, sure. He'll resist the temptation.

Rhoe
User ID: 8890073 Jan 12th 4:39 PM
Going for prostitutes is different. Jon is more like Ned than the other Starks and I do not beleive he would lower himself to whores.

Once he gains some kind of emotional attachment to a girl, he will not be able/want to resist her charms.

Kevin
User ID: 0053014 Jan 12th 5:11 PM
What if the wildlings test his vows by putting her is his bed? If Jon is no longer a crow, then he shouldn't have a problem bedding an eager girl should he? It could be as much of a test as killing Halfhand.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Jan 12th 5:18 PM
Rhoe, I think you're right. Jon's a 16 year old virgin, and some nice looking and very willing girl is going to slip into his bed. And of course, Quorin asked him to infiltrate Mance's "organization", so I think duty calls....?

Even without Quorin's order, though, I think that he _might_ be able to resist only for a very short period. Its one thing not to go to moletown in the first place. Its quite another to kick a girl out of the bed once you're there.

Nikki
User ID: 0415304 Jan 13th 7:55 AM
I think that Rhoe is right - of all the Starks, Jon is most like Ned, and that borderline annoying sense of honor and duty will prevent Jon from doing anything to break his vows. Though I do wonder what would happen if it WAS a wildling test.

Rhoe
User ID: 8890073 Jan 13th 10:22 AM
Jon is set on his course of action and there is no turning back. He will have to take and pass any test the Wildings set for him. His only other choice is death.

IIRC, Jon getting a little nookie would not break his vows to the Crows. His vow is that he will not marry, not be celibate. Now, the other thing we have to remember is that the Wildings are a free people. They cannot force Jon or any woman to marry, so that cannot be a test.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Jan 13th 10:29 AM
Rhoe, I think that getting a little nookie would break his vows. Otherwise, why all the secrecy about going to Mole Town?

The celibacy rule is stupid. If/When Jon rises to be Lord Commander, he'll abolish it.

Rhoe
User ID: 8890073 Jan 13th 10:45 AM
Did it say it was celibacy? I don't remeber that. The Crows always talked about never having a wife or a child that they would know. It was common for all of them to visit Mole Town, they only bif thing when Jon's buddies went was that one was going to lose his virinity.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Jan 13th 11:23 AM
It's celibacy. The Watch is so undermanned and so removed from its original creation that they really can't enforce it -- they'd lose even more of the men they had, and they can't afford that when their strength is under 1,000 and almost every keep and stronghold along the Wall has been abandoned because of it.

On the other hand, I'm not certain of its stupidity. It's stupid _now_, I think. The desperate Watch should be willing to risk men building emotional bonds outside of the Watch and fathering bastards who'd be raised to the black.
But back in the old days? No problem. They were 10,000 strong and the majority of them were clearly volunteers.

And when/if Jon becomes Lord Commander? He won't abolish it. Either there's more important things to think of -- fighting the Others -- or the Watch will gain a huge swell of support after the Others are defeated .... or, the Watch will no longer exist.

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Jan 14th 4:00 AM
It is stupid for at least one more reason. If the Brothers were allowed to have families close to the Wall, the choice of staying would not only be between own life on one side and one's honor on the other side.

If you have family, one would think you'd like to protect it against marauding wildlings, after all, and how better to achieve that than to keep the wildlings (or the Others, for that matter) from passing the Wall.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Jan 14th 7:24 AM
A "better" way, and the reason for the celibacy in the first place, would be that some Brothers would figure that there are plenty of others who can guard the Wall and no one will miss them if they take their woman and child(ren) away to safety further south.

You don't want to give men any reason to be selfish. Having a family is too good an excuse for selfish and wanton abandonment of duty.

Zer0hour
User ID: 1432154 Jan 14th 8:31 AM
I see what you're all saying about the whole celibacy and marriage and keeping the Crows on the wall. But I don't think Jon would want to do all that. I see him saying to himself: "I'm a man groan and still a virgin. What the hell! I can fix this right now and no one would know if I didn't tell them...no broken oaths if no one knows." He is still a teenage boy, and if you guys (and some of you girls) remember when you were all teenagers, 4 out of 5 of you "broke your oaths" and the other 1 out of 5 of you sure thought a lot about it.

Emily
User ID: 2192024 Jan 14th 10:31 AM
The exact wording of the oath is 'I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children.' This does not specifically mention celibacy, but someone with the Stark sense of honour would probably take it as such - it IS the only way to be sure of not fathering children. At least if the Seven Kingdom's forms of contraception are as basic as medieval Europe's.

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Jan 14th 10:32 AM
Ran;

If you're going to be _selfish_, one's own life is reason good enough to flee in the first place. That won't change with a family.

Besides, cynically speaking, if one first does flee south of the Wall for one's family, the deserter is more easily caught dragging around with a wife and kids, than if he went on his own.
If the Watch was plagued with deserters they couldn't catch, they'd do well to hamper it any way they can.

Were I in charge of things, I'd see to (if possible) that the families were assembled in one or more walled town(s) just south of the Wall - they would be under some restraint from leaving the town, especially without proper escort. Most peasant families don't move around a lot anyway.

Furthermore, the whole 'having no family' argument
of the Night's Watch is more or less bullshit in the first place.
These people _have_ family; the Night's Watch just don't like to think about that overmuch. Basically they're saying:
"Yeah, we know you had a father, mother, siblings and cousins - but that's all over now. As a substitute, we give you a plethora of _new_ brothers, among them a slew of criminals. Isn't that nice?"

What keeps the Crows perched on the Wall, is one's honor, the friends you have there, or else the threat to one's life. Having a wife and kids around will not change much, IMNSHO.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Jan 14th 11:17 AM
Notice the problem though -- you're measuring the Night's Watch of _now_ with the Watch of _then_.

The first incarnation of the Watch, for apparently several thousand years -- heck, it seems even up to three hundred years ago -- was made up primarily of volunteers. _Not_ criminals. We're talking honorable men -- honorable men who had to be able to clear their conscience about taking the Wall and leaving their kin behind.

Yes, the Watch of now "should" change, but tradition is a strange and powerful motivator to keep things the same -- even if it's only superifically.

The Night's Watch was a brotherhood of honorable men almost entirely, I suppose. The last three hundred years have seen its decline, but the leaders are men who are trying to cling to the ideal, and they're men capable of it -- Benjen Stark, Jeor Mormont, Qhorin Halfhand, and other such who were cut from the old mold.

I think, in the past, that it certainly made sense for them to guard the Wall in the way they did. They wanted truly dedicated men, men who were willing to give up families and carnal pleasures. And no doubt they had a profusion of volunteers as it was.

It's not fair to compromise a man's honor with having to fear for his family. That's why they give them up.

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Jan 14th 12:17 PM
I don't buy it.

As I said - they _have_ family. They _are_ fearing for it, as Jon's example shows (I'm kinda expecting that you see him as honorable, but perhaps you'd despute that). If they had families as an (semi-)integral part of the Watch, they're as much fighting for them as for their brothers.

Hell, if the Brothers are that fearful for their families' safety, set up a small standing organization to evacuate it, if someone seems to threaten the Wall. What lord (pre-Aegon, at least) would compromise his honor by refusing to protect the families of the Brothers?

The oath of celibacy might make sense in the context of the Kingsguard, who protects one person, but not for the Night's Watch, who protects the whole realm, and not the king or a lord.

Well can I have some understanding that they didn't think of alternatives in this feudal society, but it doesn't make the present solution any less misfit.

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Zer0hour User ID: 1432154	Jan 11th 10:00 PM I dunno if anyone has brought this up yet as i was away from the board for a LONG time, but what do y'all think of Jon and Ygritte--getting together, just friends, not even that much, she'll die and he'll move on, he'll die and she'll move on??? What's up?
Padraig User ID: 8290473	Jan 12th 1:08 PM Oh I don't know. I suppose she will be one of Jon's buddies in the next book but I don't imagine it'll go any further that that. Jon may develop feelings for her but he will not allow himself to act on them. Because of his vows and all that. I know some people think their relationship will develop further.
KAH User ID: 0541004	Jan 12th 3:40 PM Depends on how long he has to stay with the wildlings. If he has to choose between his oath, and staying just a _little_ longer, to wheedle out the wildlings' secret plan to get past the Wall, I think he'll choose the latter.
Rhoe User ID: 8890073	Jan 12th 4:25 PM How many 16/17 year old boys do you know that could pass up some nookie when offered? I don't think any oath will kkep Jon boy from sampling the goods when they are offered.
Ran User ID: 0867924	Jan 12th 4:36 PM Actually, we do see him get the opportunity -- he could have gone to Mole's Town. But he didn't, specifically because he wanted to keep his oaths. Admittedly, if he finds a naked and eager Ygritte in his sleeping roll on a night, that would be more difficult. I think Jon could -- no, would -- manage it, however. At least the first time. Then she'd be realize he's playing hard to get and be even more interested in seducing him. But, at first, sure. He'll resist the temptation.
Rhoe User ID: 8890073	Jan 12th 4:39 PM Going for prostitutes is different. Jon is more like Ned than the other Starks and I do not beleive he would lower himself to whores. Once he gains some kind of emotional attachment to a girl, he will not be able/want to resist her charms.
Kevin User ID: 0053014	Jan 12th 5:11 PM What if the wildlings test his vows by putting her is his bed? If Jon is no longer a crow, then he shouldn't have a problem bedding an eager girl should he? It could be as much of a test as killing Halfhand.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Jan 12th 5:18 PM Rhoe, I think you're right. Jon's a 16 year old virgin, and some nice looking and very willing girl is going to slip into his bed. And of course, Quorin asked him to infiltrate Mance's "organization", so I think duty calls....? Even without Quorin's order, though, I think that he _might_ be able to resist only for a very short period. Its one thing not to go to moletown in the first place. Its quite another to kick a girl out of the bed once you're there.
Nikki User ID: 0415304	Jan 13th 7:55 AM I think that Rhoe is right - of all the Starks, Jon is most like Ned, and that borderline annoying sense of honor and duty will prevent Jon from doing anything to break his vows. Though I do wonder what would happen if it WAS a wildling test.
Rhoe User ID: 8890073	Jan 13th 10:22 AM Jon is set on his course of action and there is no turning back. He will have to take and pass any test the Wildings set for him. His only other choice is death. IIRC, Jon getting a little nookie would not break his vows to the Crows. His vow is that he will not marry, not be celibate. Now, the other thing we have to remember is that the Wildings are a free people. They cannot force Jon or any woman to marry, so that cannot be a test.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Jan 13th 10:29 AM Rhoe, I think that getting a little nookie would break his vows. Otherwise, why all the secrecy about going to Mole Town? The celibacy rule is stupid. If/When Jon rises to be Lord Commander, he'll abolish it.
Rhoe User ID: 8890073	Jan 13th 10:45 AM Did it say it was celibacy? I don't remeber that. The Crows always talked about never having a wife or a child that they would know. It was common for all of them to visit Mole Town, they only bif thing when Jon's buddies went was that one was going to lose his virinity.
Ran User ID: 0867924	Jan 13th 11:23 AM It's celibacy. The Watch is so undermanned and so removed from its original creation that they really can't enforce it -- they'd lose even more of the men they had, and they can't afford that when their strength is under 1,000 and almost every keep and stronghold along the Wall has been abandoned because of it. On the other hand, I'm not certain of its stupidity. It's stupid _now_, I think. The desperate Watch should be willing to risk men building emotional bonds outside of the Watch and fathering bastards who'd be raised to the black. But back in the old days? No problem. They were 10,000 strong and the majority of them were clearly volunteers. And when/if Jon becomes Lord Commander? He won't abolish it. Either there's more important things to think of -- fighting the Others -- or the Watch will gain a huge swell of support after the Others are defeated .... or, the Watch will no longer exist.
KAH User ID: 0541004	Jan 14th 4:00 AM It is stupid for at least one more reason. If the Brothers were allowed to have families close to the Wall, the choice of staying would not only be between own life on one side and one's honor on the other side. If you have family, one would think you'd like to protect it against marauding wildlings, after all, and how better to achieve that than to keep the wildlings (or the Others, for that matter) from passing the Wall.
Ran User ID: 0867924	Jan 14th 7:24 AM A "better" way, and the reason for the celibacy in the first place, would be that some Brothers would figure that there are plenty of others who can guard the Wall and no one will miss them if they take their woman and child(ren) away to safety further south. You don't want to give men any reason to be selfish. Having a family is too good an excuse for selfish and wanton abandonment of duty.
Zer0hour User ID: 1432154	Jan 14th 8:31 AM I see what you're all saying about the whole celibacy and marriage and keeping the Crows on the wall. But I don't think Jon would want to do all that. I see him saying to himself: "I'm a man groan and still a virgin. What the hell! I can fix this right now and no one would know if I didn't tell them...no broken oaths if no one knows." He is still a teenage boy, and if you guys (and some of you girls) remember when you were all teenagers, 4 out of 5 of you "broke your oaths" and the other 1 out of 5 of you sure thought a lot about it.
Emily User ID: 2192024	Jan 14th 10:31 AM The exact wording of the oath is 'I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children.' This does not specifically mention celibacy, but someone with the Stark sense of honour would probably take it as such - it IS the only way to be sure of not fathering children. At least if the Seven Kingdom's forms of contraception are as basic as medieval Europe's.
KAH User ID: 0541004	Jan 14th 10:32 AM Ran; If you're going to be _selfish_, one's own life is reason good enough to flee in the first place. That won't change with a family. Besides, cynically speaking, if one first does flee south of the Wall for one's family, the deserter is more easily caught dragging around with a wife and kids, than if he went on his own. If the Watch was plagued with deserters they couldn't catch, they'd do well to hamper it any way they can. Were I in charge of things, I'd see to (if possible) that the families were assembled in one or more walled town(s) just south of the Wall - they would be under some restraint from leaving the town, especially without proper escort. Most peasant families don't move around a lot anyway. Furthermore, the whole 'having no family' argument of the Night's Watch is more or less bullshit in the first place. These people _have_ family; the Night's Watch just don't like to think about that overmuch. Basically they're saying: "Yeah, we know you had a father, mother, siblings and cousins - but that's all over now. As a substitute, we give you a plethora of _new_ brothers, among them a slew of criminals. Isn't that nice?" What keeps the Crows perched on the Wall, is one's honor, the friends you have there, or else the threat to one's life. Having a wife and kids around will not change much, IMNSHO.
Ran User ID: 0867924	Jan 14th 11:17 AM Notice the problem though -- you're measuring the Night's Watch of _now_ with the Watch of _then_. The first incarnation of the Watch, for apparently several thousand years -- heck, it seems even up to three hundred years ago -- was made up primarily of volunteers. _Not_ criminals. We're talking honorable men -- honorable men who had to be able to clear their conscience about taking the Wall and leaving their kin behind. Yes, the Watch of now "should" change, but tradition is a strange and powerful motivator to keep things the same -- even if it's only superifically. The Night's Watch was a brotherhood of honorable men almost entirely, I suppose. The last three hundred years have seen its decline, but the leaders are men who are trying to cling to the ideal, and they're men capable of it -- Benjen Stark, Jeor Mormont, Qhorin Halfhand, and other such who were cut from the old mold. I think, in the past, that it certainly made sense for them to guard the Wall in the way they did. They wanted truly dedicated men, men who were willing to give up families and carnal pleasures. And no doubt they had a profusion of volunteers as it was. It's not fair to compromise a man's honor with having to fear for his family. That's why they give them up.
KAH User ID: 0541004	Jan 14th 12:17 PM I don't buy it. As I said - they _have_ family. They _are_ fearing for it, as Jon's example shows (I'm kinda expecting that you see him as honorable, but perhaps you'd despute that). If they had families as an (semi-)integral part of the Watch, they're as much fighting for them as for their brothers. Hell, if the Brothers are that fearful for their families' safety, set up a small standing organization to evacuate it, if someone seems to threaten the Wall. What lord (pre-Aegon, at least) would compromise his honor by refusing to protect the families of the Brothers? The oath of celibacy might make sense in the context of the Kingsguard, who protects one person, but not for the Night's Watch, who protects the whole realm, and not the king or a lord. Well can I have some understanding that they didn't think of alternatives in this feudal society, but it doesn't make the present solution any less misfit.