“I didn’t catch anything,” Bran said, “but Jon gave me his fish on the way back to Winterfell. Will we ever see Jon again?”
“We saw Uncle Benjen when the king came to visit,” Robb pointed out. “Jon will visit too, you’ll see.”
- Bran V, AGOT
There’s something so strange about this exchange because it’s preceded by Robb and Bran grieving Jory and then all of a sudden we get a random callback to Jon Snow. it’s only two lines of dialogue but I think it does quite a bit of work in terms of establishing who Jon is as a character, and also gives us a few hints of what we might expect to happen in coming books.
They’re talking about going fishing with Jory once upon a time and Bran mentions that when he didn’t catch anything, Jon gave him his fish. This, in and of itself, isn’t very surprising and it doesn’t tell us anything new about Jon’s character. That’s because he’s been established as a selfless and kind person from the very first chapter. Jon being self-sacrificial, then, isn’t something that is new to the reader at this point. But this short exchange does show us the extent to Jon’s sacrifice. He isn’t someone who takes half measures. Rather, he’s someone who goes all in.
And it’s so fascinating because Jon giving away all his fish may seem like a typical ‘big brother looking out’ moment, but I can’t help but notice the extent to which Jon looked out for Bran. Because he could’ve given him a just few fish and it would’ve been quite lovely; we would still say that he is kind and compassionate big brother. He could’ve given Bran half his fish and we’d praise him for such a great display of kindness. But Jon gave Bran everything he had. He didn’t take any half measures; he went all in. And Bran doesn’t mention Jon only giving him some, so I’m assuming that this means all.
This is something we see in an earlier Tyrion chapter, where he and Jon are parting at the Wall.
“Rickon will ask when I’m coming home. Try to explain where I’ve gone, if you can. Tell him he can have all my things while I’m away, he’ll like that.”
- Tyrion III, AGOT
Jon once again assumes the role of the big brother looking out for his younger sibling, but it’s quite stark (pun intended) how far he goes to make sure that Rickon is happy and well-provisioned. He doesn’t say “tell Rickon to pick and choose what he wants”. He doesn’t name a specific thing that Rickon might want. No. Jon means to have his brother take everything.
The depth of Jon’s kindness is quite remarkable. Yes I know, it’s not the most revolutionary thing to have the fantasy protagonist be good to people. But it’s still quite nice to see him being so kind in a series half-full of actors motivated by purely selfish reasons. It’s especially important because this flashback comes after Bran gets news of Jory’s murder - a selfish, unkind, and senseless act; it’s just pure malice. There aren’t many people in this world who would give everything they have, especially when they don’t have to. Jon had no reason to give Bran all his fish, but he did anyway. He didn’t have to give Rickon all his things, but he did it anyway. It’s the extent to which he goes about being good to people that’s impressive. And we see this develop where he starts extending that to the dozens, hundreds, and thousands.
And I would be negligent if I didn’t mention the obvious messianic framing here. We’ve got a sacrificial lord (mayhaps we might even say a prophesied sacrificial savior), a little boy, and a couple of fish. And we also have mentions of giving away all your possessions to attain true righteousness in scripture, as Jon did with Rickon.
But what I find most curious is Robb’s line. Because it reads like a promise of some sorts. Robb makes the observation that Uncle Benjen visited them when King Robert went to Winterfell, and he is using that as proof to say that Jon will visit too. It’s interesting because Jon mentions hearing his uncle talking to his father about settling people in the Gift. Plus Jon and Benjen have a pretty good relationship so he must’ve travelled there earlier. Thus, I’d assume that King Robert’s feast wasn’t the first time that Benjen went to Winterfell in Robb’s lifetime. So it just makes the connection of Jon’s arrival coinciding with that of a king all the more noteworthy. Except, Jon might be the king who visits this time around.
Robb’s line evokes the imagery of the Return of the King. And also if we go back to scripture, there’s the return of the lord/king, after a great sacrifice. So:
Bran mentions Jon’s sacrifice and then Robb promises that he will return
The savior sacrifices himself then returns in glory (scripture)
Therefore, Jon shall return to Winterfell as a glorious king after a sacrifice
It’s part of why I think we as a fandom need to be a bit more flexible when we talk about Jon’s relationship with sacrifice. I always see people say that because Jon is self-sacrificial, then he is the one who needs to/must die after sacrificing himself for the realm/other POVs. Nevermind the obvious bias in this line of thinking, which is usually in favor of other characters, but I think such opinions only got half the picture. They don’t follow the pattern that has been presented to us by the text. Yes, it’s true that Jon makes some big sacrifices. And it’s true that they’re sometimes preceded by a period of temptation. HOWEVER, these sacrifices are usually followed by something more spectacular (obviously, in my humble opinion). For example:
When they find the direwolf pups, Jon sacrifices himself so his siblings can get a pup each. However, he immediately finds Ghost afterwards who is the most special of all the dire wolves (and even becomes the largest)
He sacrifices his want for Wintefell in ASOS, but is elected Lord Commander of the NW by book’s end. So the sacrifice is followed by a great appointment to power (rather quickly, I might add). And being Lord Commander puts him in a special position in the upcoming war for the dawn.
So the quote at the beginning of this post, imo, just illustrates that pattern. A sacrifice is followed by something grand. Bran mentions Jon’s sacrifice and then Robb connects his coming to a king’s return. The question remains though: if this is something that will happen in the future, how will it happen and when? I don’t really know tbh, but it would be quite a nice bookend to have Jon’s glorious return be towards the end of ADOS so that it can parallel King Robert Baratheon’s arrival in the beginning of AGOT (which preempted Jon’s departure in the first place).
100 notes
·
View notes
Tagged by @secretwriterstudentjaune
1) Three non-romantic duos: Hmmm...brotps I adore would be Jack and Daniel (SG-1), Sam and Daniel (SG-1), and Lune and Matsen (Jade Torch -- is it cheating to use my own book??? xD) If that's cheating, then Sam and Frodo (LotR).
2) A ship that might surprise others: I kinda ship Link x Mipha from BOTW. I like Zelda x Link too, but something about Link x Mipha is just so sweet and tragic. I like that they knew each other for a lot longer than Zelda and Link knew each other.
Let's be real. I don't have a lot of crazy ships. Although, in SG-1, I do ship Vala x Tomin (but I also like Vala x Daniel).
3) Last Song: Shackleton by Adam Young
4) Last Film: My parents and I watched Hitched for the Holidays last night. Very funny romcom with Joey Lawrence. It's a Hallmark movie from 2012, so just before they all got so unbelievably cookie cutter/copy+paste with their plots.
5) Currently reading: Operation Grendel by Daniel Schwabauer
6) Currently watching: The X-Files. I'm nearing the end of season 1. I've never seen it before, and I'm loving it!
7) Currently consuming: Coffee
8) currently craving: idk. I don't have a strong craving for anything right now.
Tagging @aceofstars16 @quiescentdragon @ryeillustrates @accidental-spice @jenniferbrincho (if any of y'all have already done it or already been tagged, my bad--my memory stinks 😅)
23 notes
·
View notes
Margaret of Anjou’s visit to Coventry [in 1456], which was part of her dower and that of her son, Edward of Lancaster, was much more elaborate. It essentially reasserted Lancastrian power. The presence of Henry and the infant Edward was recognised in the pageantry. The ceremonial route between the Bablake gate and the commercial centre was short, skirting the area controlled by the cathedral priory, but it made up for its brevity with no fewer than fourteen pageants. Since Coventry had an established cycle of mystery plays, there were presumably enough local resources and experience to mount an impressive display; but one John Wetherby was summoned from Leicester to compose verses and stage the scenes. As at Margaret’s coronation the iconography was elaborate, though it built upon earlier developments.
Starting at Bablake gate, next to the Trinity Guild church of St. Michael, Bablake, the party was welcomed with a Tree of Jesse, set up on the gate itself, with the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah explaining the symbolism. Outside St. Michael’s church the party was greeted by Edward the Confessor and St. John the Evangelist; and proceeding to Smithford Street, they found on the conduit the four Cardinal Virtues—Righteousness (Justice?), Prudence, Temperance, and Fortitude. In Cross Cheaping wine flowed freely, as in London, and angels stood on the cross, censing Margaret as she passed. Beyond the cross was pitched a series of pageants, each displaying one of the Nine Worthies, who offered to serve Margaret. Finally, the queen was shown a pageant of her patron saint, Margaret, slaying the dragon [which 'turned out to be strictly an intercessor on the queen's behalf', as Helen Maurer points out].
The meanings here are complex and have been variously interpreted. An initial reading of the programme found a message of messianic kingship: the Jesse tree equating royal genealogy with that of Christ had been used at the welcome for Henry VI on his return from Paris in 1432. A more recent, feminist view is that the symbolism is essentially Marian, and to be associated with Margaret both as queen and mother of the heir rather than Henry himself. The theme is shared sovereignty, with Margaret equal to her husband and son. Ideal kingship was symbolised by the presence of Edward the Confessor, but Margaret was the person to whom the speeches were specifically addressed and she, not Henry, was seen as the saviour of the house of Lancaster. This reading tips the balance too far the other way: the tableau of Edward the Confessor and St. John was a direct reference to the legend of the Ring and the Pilgrim, one of Henry III’s favourite stories, which was illustrated in Westminster Abbey, several of his houses, and in manuscript. It symbolised royal largesse, and its message at Coventry would certainly have encompassed the reigning king. Again, the presence of allegorical figures, first used for Henry, seems to acknowledge his presence. Yet, while the message of the Coventry pageants was directed at contemporary events it emphasised Margaret’s motherhood and duties as queen; and it was expressed as a traditional spiritual journey from the Old Testament, via the incarnation represented by the cross, to the final triumph over evil, with the help of the Virgin, allegory, and the Worthies. The only true thematic innovation was the commentary by the prophets.
[...] The messages of the pageants firmly reminded the royal women of their place as mothers and mediators, honoured but subordinate. Yet, if passive, these young women were not without significance. It is clear from the pageantry of 1392 and 1426 in London and 1456 in Coventry that when a crisis needed to be resolved, the queen (or regent’s wife) was accorded extra recognition. Her duty as mediator—or the good aspect of a misdirected man—suddenly became more than a pious wish. At Coventry, Margaret of Anjou was even presented as the rock upon which the monarchy rested. [However,] a crisis had to be sensed in order to provoke such emphasis [...]."
-Nicola Coldstream, "Roles of Women in Late Medieval Civic Pageantry," "Reassessing the Roles of Women as 'Makers' of Medieval Art and Culture"
10 notes
·
View notes