Mithras Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Jojen said the longer you stay in a wolf the more you become like one. If does end up staying in Ghost for awhile I could see him becoming more "wolfy" which would mean a quicker temper, more violence etc. “Dragons are more powerful than ghosts.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 He tried to murder Thorne back in book 1. Of course, all of his fanboys forget that for some reason. So if Jon tries to murder Thorne, who had been bullying him and goading him almost from the moment he arrived, he's a thug. But if he tries to do the right thing and behave decently, he's a bland cliche. Do I understand it right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the conquoring bastard25 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Of course there is no middle ground with Jon, he's either bland and whitewashed or he's a bully whinny brat whom is incompetent and deserves what he got at the end of Dance. Sometimes there is no pleasing people. I think that people tend to forget that while we on the boards may have iron clad ideas of how the story should play out, most of the fan's while the love the books, most probably would be happy with Jon sitting the iron throne. As the follows the a traditional fantasy troupe. Us on the board want George to smash ever troupe and if he doesn't then he's being cliché or it's bad writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VicsFieryHand Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 kinda steep expectations don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackStark Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 So if Jon tries to murder Thorne, who had been bullying him and goading him almost from the moment he arrived, he's a thug. But if he tries to do the right thing and behave decently, he's a bland cliche. Do I understand it right? I think his point was to refute the claim that Jon has been a steadfast beacon of morality throughout his whole progression throughout the books. There was nothing moral about his attempt on Thorne's life. It was an act of pique that in no way matched the perceived transgression and was incredibly stupid on his part because he knew he was being baited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 So if Jon tries to murder Thorne, who had been bullying him and goading him almost from the moment he arrived, he's a thug. But if he tries to do the right thing and behave decently, he's a bland cliche. Do I understand it right? No, he is a bland cliche in both cases. Just dumber in the first one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jet199 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Jon has never been morally pure but people ignore his mistakes because they expect him to follow the hero's journey and be proved right in the end. One thing that is worrying me at the moment is Jon's seeing red/blackout moments. No other character has these and I don't think they are just down to anger as there are a lot of angry characters in the series who don't do the same. We hear from Barristan that Aerys' madness started with small lapses, and he saw the same thing in Viserys, but annoyingly doesn't say what these lapses were. It could well be that the "lapses" both Aerys and Viserys had were what Viserys called his "waking the dragon" moments, episodes of extreme rage and violence. If that is the case then Jon may himself have a dose of Targ madness. The ides of Marsh could well end up being Jon's Duskendale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KINGpanther Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I think in that GRRM interview about Gandalf, GRRM didnt like how Gandalf came back more powerful. I dont think Gandalf's character changed, he was still a full "good guy". When GRRM resurrects his characters it is at a price which is why I hope Jon is not dead only comatose\recovering. He can still warg Ghost and wake up darker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KINGpanther Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 No, he is a bland cliche in both cases. Just dumber in the first one.You like stirring the pot dont ya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the conquoring bastard25 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Most of that post was sarcasm Yet I do think that people go crazy with the idea that George is writing the anti fantasy novel. I think that he's writing fantasy for adults and they more than good always wins and the good guy never dies in fantasy. Well on the one hand I agree that George has smashed some of those beliefs, I'll use Ned for example, he's killed at the beginning of the story and shock most readers. Yet I can't help but mention that Ned and Robb's deaths were heavily foreshadowed before they died. I know they were toast when Ned mentions to Cat his father and brother both died because of the South and Kings. Yeah George gives his characters very hard roads to walk for the most part and there are no easy rides, but that's life. Good/bad or other no one always gets a free ride. Sometimes the weak get run over by the strong, that's been the way of the world since the dawn of time so why should fantasy be any different? So it only makes sense that if he's trying to show the different types of leaders or rulers there are it only makes sense that he give them challenges that are in direct opposition with the way the deal and see the world. Example Littlefinger wasn't always a dick, yet life and some really shitty circumstances turn him into a sociopath. Could Littlefinger have made better choices of course, but because he's human and has human emotions he falls victim to lust, jealousy, hate, revenge and vengeance. The dark side of unrequited love...Turning him for Petyr into Littlefinger the most dangerous man in Westeros. Side note but just my own thought on his writing but it's almost like George is taking Machiavelli's the Prince as a template for how he want to make a "true" ruler and he's mixing and matching the diffenent principals and rulers that he describes to play out some of the disasters that these rulers could face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 You like stirring the pot dont ya? It's really all he has to work with. I think his point was to refute the claim that Jon has been a steadfast beacon of morality throughout his whole progression throughout the books. There was nothing moral about his attempt on Thorne's life. It was an act of pique that in no way matched the perceived transgression and was incredibly stupid on his part because he knew he was being baited. Jon acting dumb and allowing Thorne to goad him doesn't exactly take anything away from the fact that he is still one of the few fundamentally, consistently good people, no more than Davos's smuggling days take his goodness away from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HexMachina Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Much as I personally don't really like Jon, I have to admit that he is morally white (or an extremely light grey :p). I don't know if anyone agrees, but I also don't think he has really faced many controversial decisions/situations either; although I will admit I am wrong if people can point them out for me. I think, if Martin continues as he currently is, Jon will return (as Maester Aemon so eloquently put it to his brother) "An Aegon not and Egg" and be somewhat darker, but pretty much still light grey/white Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Much as I personally don't really like Jon, I have to admit that he is morally white (or an extremely light grey :P). I don't know if anyone agrees, but I also don't think he has really faced many controversial decisions/situations either; although I will admit I am wrong if people can point them out for me. I think, if Martin continues as he currently is, Jon will return (as Maester Aemon so eloquently put it to his brother) "An Aegon not and Egg" and be somewhat darker, but pretty much still light grey/white Stay on the Wall or go fight for Robb? Kill Qhorin or fail to infiltrate the wildlings to complete the mission? Stay with Ygritte, whom he loved, or return to the Watch? Take possession of Winterfell, which he had wanted his whole life and reject his gods, or turn down Winterfell and remain with the Watch? Shelter Stannis in return for Stannis saving the Watch from annihilation, or turn Stannis away because of neutrality? Allow the wildlings through the Wall, pissing people off, or force them to stay behind, resulting in thousands of wights? Send Mance after Arya, or not? Give Stannis advice, or not? Seeing as people constantly debates the merits of these decisions, I think they can reasonably be called controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the conquoring bastard25 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 @Apple I think I just fell in love with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HexMachina Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Stay on the Wall or go fight for Robb? Kill Qhorin or fail to infiltrate the wildlings to complete the mission? Stay with Ygritte, whom he loved, or return to the Watch? Take possession of Winterfell, which he had wanted his whole life and reject his gods, or turn down Winterfell and remain with the Watch? Shelter Stannis in return for Stannis saving the Watch from annihilation, or turn Stannis away because of neutrality? Allow the wildlings through the Wall, pissing people off, or force them to stay behind, resulting in thousands of wights? Send Mance after Arya, or not? Give Stannis advice, or not? Seeing as people constantly debates the merits of these decisions, I think they can reasonably be called controversial. Fair do, I stand corrected. (Although now I'm not entirely sure if controversial is what I meant :dunno: ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 @AppleI think I just fell in love with you That happens a lot on here. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Goat Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I would like for Jon to retain the same goals he'd had previously in the series, but I would not mind it if he went about achieving them in a far more ruthless manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingelheim Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 No, he is a bland cliche in both cases. Just dumber in the first one. That's deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Tetrarch42 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 That's deep. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjBRNqwDPrU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Carmichael Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I disagree with this. In the 5th book I find a lot of what he does morally questionable. Letting an army of wildlings through the wall without even conferring with anyone else in the area, sending a bunch of his (depleted) force of men on a suicidal mission to rescue a bunch of their wildling enemies in the far north wight-infested lands, letting Val and Mance Rayder go despite being enemies of the realm and prisoners of Stannis just because he decides he can trust them and worst of all using his own personal wildling army to go after the Boltons (who definitely have it coming but it's still totally against everything the Night's Watch stands for and the oaths he swore.) At the end I felt he had brought on his own death in a similar way that Robb did and I hope he doesn't rise from the dead in some kind of cheesy way. I agree. He's a poor leader... nobody who goes around making unilateral decisions and pissing off everybody who works for them is going to last long, especially when those decisions seem to undermine the tenets on which his organization has operated for the past several thousand years. My *guess* is that a lot of his super-fans are teenagers who relate to characters that are idealistic morons since that is how most young people see the world. Dany would be his counterpart here. Something else I noticed when reading the books was that Jon tends to take his anger and frustration out on those weaker that he is. He does it in the first book. He does it again in ADWD until Mance puts him in his place. I think it would be tight as hell if he came back as the Night's King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.