295 replies to this topic

[Roose Bolton's Pet Leech]

A Gary Stu is the male form of the infamous Mary Sue phenomenon: a character so perfect they essentially warp the story (in a bad way).

Jon Snow, I would suggest, is the one gaping hole in a series populated by a fascinating collection of flawed human beings. He is a walking cliche who time and again gets unearned reward while facing straw-man opponents, and if he ends up anywhere near the throne at the end of the series, I shall scream very loudly.

Take the first book (I'll do the others in subsequent posts).

In the very first chapter, Jon is established as a deeply perceptive character, when we see him making all sorts of commentary on the royal visit to Winterfell. Now this, in itself, is not a problem: Tyrion is also very perceptive, and we are similarly treated to various character judgements through his eyes. But Tyrion is established as highly intelligent, educated, and politically savvy fellow; Jon is a 14 year old who has little experience or knowledge of politics. And whereas Tyrion's flaws are there for all to see, Jon is emphatically not ugly and crippled and afflicted with a seriously warped family environment. Jon, it seems, is just gifted.

Then Jon winds up on the Wall. And sulks a lot. He makes a enemy of a cartoonish villain (Thorne), and courtesy of being in the right place at the right time, ends up getting his hands on a Valyrian Steel Blade. Bearing in mind that Longclaw has been in the Mormont family for centuries, and that Tywin Lannister would have killed to get his hands on Valyrian Steel. If the Wall really is this tough, unyielding place, Jon should have received polite thanks, and perhaps a few nods from the old hands. A 14 year old non-Mormont has no business running around with that sort of sword, but Jon gets a kewl blade to go with his kewl wolf.

Jon also angsts about being allocated to the Stewards. In a series where Arya and Sansa are dealing with psychopaths, and where Ned is getting his head cut off, Jon's whinge is that he hasn't got into his desired class. And even that turns out to be a silver lining, since Jon gets-everything-on-a-silver-platter Snow is being groomed for the Lord Commandership (which, of course, is supposed to be a democracy. Mormont could groom him all he likes, but it's the Watch's decision, not his. Except that Snow is now destined...).

Oh yes, and Jon gets prosthetic wit courtesy of hanging out with Dolorous Ed, which sets the general precedent for the rest of the series: the character and action in Jon's storyline comes from the supporting cast, not the hero. Jon himself is a passive reactor to events, but hey, he's probably the hidden son of Rhaegar, and he's earned it all with his excellent choice of parents.

Finally, the book presents us with the first of Jon Snow's patented dilemmas. Which in pretty much every case are actually choices between making a right or wrong decision. Other characters may be faced with scenarios where every choice is bad, but as we'll see in future books, if Jon ends up in such a situation, a deus ex machina rides to the rescue to get him out. In this case it's a choice between deserting and riding to help Robb, or staying true to his vows. Which, when you stop to think about it, isn't really a dilemma at all in this context, though fortunately for Jon, he's protected from the consequences of his actions through the timely intervention of the nice, helpful, supporting cast (Lord Commander Mormont is also very forgiving). A shame we couldn't have had Robb beheading Jon as a deserter. Damn you, Sam...

All this is just the first book. Did I mention I really, really dislike Jon?

Edited by Roose Bolton's Pet Leech, 06 March 2012 - 04:23 AM.

[Horza]

Case well made.

It's done pretty well, but it is painfully obvious what's going on with Jon Snow, in ways that it isn't with the other, better, flaweder characters.

[Revan Baratheon]

with you 100%

Like father like son.Jon is every bit a cliche hero that his(supposed) dad Rhaegar was. That dosent mean i dont like his POV in ADWD,he was quite good in that book thanks to Stannis and mel.I detest Rhaegar in every way though

[All Men Must Rhyme]

I love your sarcasm haha, and yeah, it seems a bit coincidental. I can't help but think things are going to get VERY bad for him in the last two books though (assuming of course he isn't already dead. Which kind of counteracts your point )

[lojzelote]

Just you wait till he returns (ressurected or just healed) - decided that the honourable ways aren´t working properly, and he must try to achieve his goals in diffrent way. The Targ paranoia will start to creep in . . .  Just you wait.

[Free Northman]

Revan Baratheon, on 06 March 2012 - 04:29 AM, said:

with you 100%

Like father like son.Jon is every bit a cliche hero that his(supposed) dad Rhaegar was. That dosent mean i dont like his POV in ADWD,he was quite good in that book thanks to Stannis and mel.I detest Rhaegar in every way though

Err, your liking a character seems to depend on how many bad qualities he has. If Jon frequented the occassional whore, you would apparently like him more.

If he gave in to his baser emotions such as envy of Robb, hatred of Sansa and a desire for revenge against Catelyn, you would apparently like him more.

I find this fascinating.

It seems to me that people today have become so used to accepting character flaws in those around them, that the traditional virtues have become unpopular - probably because it reflects very badly on what society has become today.

I LIKE Jon for his pureness of heart, and for his determination to do what is right.

But then, Louis Lamour is one of the authors with a great influence on my life. And his characters were traditional Men of Men, who stood for their principles, had strength of character and to whom right was right and wrong was wrong and anyone who says different be damned.

I find it disturbing that so many people seem to identify with Tyrion and Jaime precisely BECAUSE of their flaws.

It is NOT ok to be flawed. Yes, we are all flawed, but we should not be so accepting of that. Instead, we should constantly strive to be better, to eradicate our flaws. Don't accept that a guy visits whores as just a weakness that has to be accepted. No, he should try to overcome his weakness instead.

Wallowing in the comfort presented by grey characters like Tyrion and Jaime, simply because they make the vices of the less moral amongst us appear more normal, well, I find that deplorable.

Edited by Free Northman, 06 March 2012 - 04:48 AM.

[the Remarkable Other]

  In a series defined by highly complex and controversial characters, Jon Snow has the depth of a B series action flick protagonist.

[Free Northman]

the Remarkable Other, on 06 March 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

  In a series defined by highly complex and controversial characters, Jon Snow has the depth of a B series action flick protagonist.

Define depth of character?

If a man believes in the basic principles of  -for want of a better word -, "goodness", does that make him a shallow character?

Edited by Free Northman, 06 March 2012 - 04:51 AM.

[Horza]

lojzelote, on 06 March 2012 - 04:46 AM, said:

The Targ paranoia will start to creep in . . .  Just you wait.

Hm.

That gets me thinking: why doesn't Jon have little bouts of Targ-weirdness, assuming he is what most of us think he is?

It occurs that having him be a bit nuts (as opposed to just bratty) would have been a good way to rough up his path a little, build some character, etc. I'm loath to believe that this has only occurred to yours truly, so perhaps its absence means that particular hypothesis about Jon's parentage isn't as locked-in as most think...

[Free Northman]

Personally, I found the most hateful act perpetrated by Jon to be his sending away of Gilly without her son. Especially the part in Dance where he threatens to kill the babe if Gilly doesn't go along with his plan.

Yet the Revans among us probably like Jon MORE because of that action. Bizarre.

[All Men Must Rhyme]

Horza, on 06 March 2012 - 04:53 AM, said:

Hm.

That gets me thinking: why doesn't Jon have little bouts of Targ-weirdness, assuming he is what most of us think he is?

It occurs that having him be a bit nuts (as opposed to just bratty) would have been a good way to rough up his path a little, build some character, etc. I'm loath to believe that this has only occurred to yours truly, so perhaps its absence means that particular hypothesis about Jon's parentage isn't as locked-in as most think...

Honestly, I think that comes with the arrogant, self righteous, smugness of knowing you're a Targ, and therefore believing that the world owes you everything and you're better than everyone. Jon thinks he's half a Stark. Once he finds out, THEN it will sink in.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Jon is very close to a Gary Stu. The one thing that keeps him interesting (for me) is: No happy future for him. He will live and die at the Wall, without family. So, GRRM, keep him there and interesting, pleasepleaseplease, I like him interesting.

[Free Northman]

Bright Blue Eyes, on 06 March 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

Jon is very close to a Gary Stu. The one thing that keeps him interesting (for me) is: No happy future for him. He will live and die at the Wall, without family. So, GRRM, keep him there and interesting, pleasepleaseplease, I like him interesting.

Then I guess you found the Old Bear interesting as well. I didn't. There nothing more boring than sitting at the Wall for 5 books.

I can't wait for Jon to interact with the rest of Westeros and leave that damn Wall for a change.

[All Men Must Rhyme]

Free Northman, on 06 March 2012 - 05:03 AM, said:

Then I guess you found the Old Bear interesting as well. I didn't. There nothing more boring than sitting at the Wall for 5 books.

I can't wait for Jon to interact with the rest of Westeros and leave that damn Wall for a change.

Mereen? (Meereen? Can't remember how it's spelt ) Either way, IT WAS BORING.

Edited by Jcooper, 06 March 2012 - 05:09 AM.

[the Remarkable Other]

Free Northman, on 06 March 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

Define depth of character?

If a man believes in the basic principles of  -for want of a better word -, "goodness", does that make him a shallow character?

To answer your question: not necesarily. But the problem with Jon is that his storyline does not allow his character to develop more, because whenever he is confronted with a serious problem, it usually ends up getting solved by someone or something else. The most important decision that he makes and also the most controversial is to march south against the Boltons and unfortunately it lacks a finality for now.

Edited by the Remarkable Other, 06 March 2012 - 05:09 AM.

[Peasant Rebel Leader]

Agree with the opening post, but I'd say, his polishedness is his flaw. He botches up the Wall in ADWD horribly by not being able to convinve his men that what he does is the correct thing to do. He has the deeply engrained belief, that there is the "right thing to do" and that the good/honourable will prevail. This he of course got from his father Ned Stark, but it can also be seen with his supposedly father Rhaegar who blindly ran into his death at the Trident, saying things like "we sort my father out when I come back". Just taking off with Lyanna could have been handed much much better. But he was a man on a mission and totally convinced it will work out. Well, it didn't. And I get the same feeling from Jon. Being blindly on a mission and being convinced he's the good guy (a la every Hollywood Thriller/Action Movie Hero) is a very dangerous mindset imho.

But up to the point where he is thrown into prison at the wall and then sent on a suicide mission to assassinate Mance, he really is a Gary Stu. Afterwards, he got his mission (defeat the others, save the wildlings/realm) which the jury is still out on wether it was the right thing to do. What if the others do not attack the South-of-the-Wall at all? If they do, Jon is the fantasy hero that saw the danger when nobody saw it. If it however happens just slightly differently, you cannot attack GRRM for him being a Gary Stue. So, in my mind, the jury is still out.

And even if he is and if the Song of Ice and Fire turns out to be the classic fantasy hero struggle story, you can't really fault him for that. At least he has more-dimensional characters elsewhere

[Lebronn Jaime]

All valid criticisms from the OP. My only suggestion would be to examine whether GRRM is employing the archtype or undermining it. He's clearly being set up for a massive shift against the character he's represented so far. He's also not flawless, as he  shirks his duty, sullies his honor, and breaks his oath in book 5:

He allows Mance Rayder to live and Rattleshirt to die in his place.
He aids Stannis in his war for the Throne by relinquishing portions of the Wall.
He announces plans to abandon the wall to rescue a traitor, settle a personal grudge, and rescue his sister.
He does mental gymnastics to justify his actions, but it's clear from the oath that the people he owes his loyalties are those behind the wall. Yet he plans to lead wildlings against the very men he is sworn to protect.

[another bastard]

Oh for gods' sake. What's wrong with having at least one character who tries above all to do the right thing, out of a cast of dozens? Believe it or not, there actually are people like that in the world, even if most of them don't have the advantages of being raised as the son of a high lord. And sure, doing the right thing ends up paying off for him sometimes ... until it doesn't. As in, like, ending up face down in the snow after being knifed four times by people he thought would always have his back. The last we saw of him, at least.

I guess since I haven't read that much fantasy, I've haven't really been that bothered by the "orphan (or bastard) who ends up saving the world and finding out he's the hidden king" cliche. Maybe I haven't really seen it that much outside of the New Testament and other ancient mythology. In any case, it hasn't really grated on me when reading Jon's character in this series. Though I too will gag if he ends up sitting on the damned Iron Throne. Aside from the fact that I don't support absolute monarchy, it's not suited to his character. Whatever his genetic ancestry, he's a Stark to the core, in the best sense (because, you know, that's what he tries to live up to), and I'd very much prefer that he keep his parentage to himself and stay on The Wall and/or at Winterfell helping raise the other Stark children.

So maybe he's the hidden son of the son of a dead king, and he tries hard to do the right thing. But is he really a Gary Stu? More than, say, Aragorn in Lord of the Rings? Or Frodo? Or Bilbo? Or Sam? Or Legolas? Or Gimli? Or Gandalf? Are there really any "good" characters in that series who face real moral dilemmas that amount to more than just the obvious right thing vs. the obvious wrong thing (e.g. whether to take the Ring or not)? And are there really any that fail, other than Boromir (who serves as the example of failing "the test," though he still gets to redeem himself heroically)? OK, Frodo at the very end too, but he gave it his all and still ends up saving the world anyway due to his prior good deeds. But maybe Lord of the Rings is an unfair comparison - as I said, I haven't read that much fantasy. How about Paul Atreides in Dune? Is Jon Snow really that bad? Is there no room in fiction for people like him, or does everyone have to be a complete f*ckup?

[lojzelote]

Horza, on 06 March 2012 - 04:53 AM, said:

Hm.

That gets me thinking: why doesn't Jon have little bouts of Targ-weirdness, assuming he is what most of us think he is?

It occurs that having him be a bit nuts (as opposed to just bratty) would have been a good way to rough up his path a little, build some character, etc. I'm loath to believe that this has only occurred to yours truly, so perhaps its absence means that particular hypothesis about Jon's parentage isn't as locked-in as most think...

Well, I personally believe that GRRM has taken pains to make Jon´s character very similar to Rhaegar´s. Rhaegar appears to be introverted individual prone to deep melancholic moods. It sound a lot like Jon´s "emo-ness", doesn´t it?
The thing is, that Rhaegar was a Targaryen Crown Prince and knew it - he was apparently well-informed abot the the Prince who was Promised Mythos and people around him expected him to do great things since the very beginning . . . Rhaegar adopted this belief, that he is destined to be (father of) this saviour figure - and in the end he wound up obssessed with that thing and it cost his family both their lives and social standing. The important thing is that that he probably always seemed to be little loony, but he did only one "crazy" thing in his life - at least from what we know of. Aerys´direct ancestors Aegon IV and Jaehaerys II seem to have been pretty stable, too. If we don´t count the whole Summerhall incident, of course but we don´t really know  what happened there. ;)Jon may well be on the same way as any of them. I have few pet theories of my own.

[Jamie Lannister]

He's not my favourite character by any stretch, but fantasy does generally benefit from at least one hero with a "bigger picture" complex. Yeah, they come off as entitled and insufferable and reap the benefits, but someone has to champion the cause. Davos needs some company.