Posted 06 March 2012 - 03:36 PM
I don't agree with this whole topic, but the biggest thing that I have read on this thread that angers me is the whole Longclaw thing. The way Jon got Longclaw was so well done in my opinion, and I physically can not understand how anyone can think otherwise.
Jeor gave the Sword to Jorah, Jorah brought shame to his House, and left the sword on Bear Island, when he went into exile. Many people dont understand why Jorah didn't sell the sword, but it makes sense to me that he would leave it. Yes he was so desperate for money, that he sold some poachers as slaves, and Jorah probably would have sold the sword next. However the way I read it was, when Jorah heard Ned Stark was coming for him, that was a wake up call, that he had gone to far. Jorah couldn't take back what he had done, so the least he could do was leave the Sword to his family. Jorah was still in love with Lynesse, so he was still willing to do many things to keep her happy. That's not to say though that he thought he was in the right about it. When Jorah gets across the narrow sea, instead of continuing to sell slaves, he becomes a Sellsword to try and keep his wife happy. I think that shows Jorah had realized he went to far with the slave selling, and it shows why Jorah wouldn't go as far as to keep Longclaw.
Many people then have a problem of why Maege brought the Sword back to Jeor. They think that Maege should have kept the Sword, and because she "didn't", then that must be contrived, because "who wouldn't keep such a sword". I mean Tywin Lannister would have "killed for a Valyrian steel sword blah blah blah. How does that mean that Maege or Dacey felt the same way? And why can't people understand that, the reason none of the she bears wanted the damn sword, is because it was a constant reminder of the dishonor that Jorah brought on their House? It's the same reason Jeor doesn't carry the sword, and why he put it away and forgot about it.
Jon Snow, as a greenboy, then manages to save Jeor's life and people think that he doesn't deserve the sword? Jon wasn't even suppose to leave his cell, but he breaks the rules to see what's going on. Then he finds the guard outside his door, with his head nearly twisted off, and instead of running for help, like most would have, Jon is brave enough to check on his Lord Commander first. Some people say that it was Jon's job to save the old Bear, so Jon shouldn't have been specially rewarded, but that's not really true. If you want to get "technical" by saying that, Jon's job "technically" was to stay in his cell until he was told otherwise. Jon however listens to his gut, and ends up saving the LC, but somehow he doesn't deserve to be rewarded, because that was his "job". Something else I want to point out is that, The wight, Jafer Flowers, managed to kill Ser Jaremy and four other men before it was destroyed. So it took multiple seasoned men, to kill one wight, but not before the wight killed five men, one of those men being the active First Ranger..... yet Jon shouldnt be rewarded for killing one by himself??? Seriously? Jeremy Rykker must have been a pretty badass dude, to be acting First Ranger, yet is killed by the wight. That's why Jon was rewarded, he acted bravely and used his instincts to save the LC, and succeeded to kill a Wight, by himself, without getting himself or the LC killed. That's what distinguishes Jon from the other NW members that were "just doing their jobs".
The only thing I can think of, for why people fail to see this, is because they just want to go against the grain, otherwise they aren't "cool" and "individual", gods forbid people like something that they- by all rights- should like.
And like Apple Martini said, when has Longclaw saved Jon, or given him some special advantage???
This whole topic, about cliche this, cliche that, it's getting so old, that it's becoming it's own cliche, to be 100% anti cliche.
I just don't understand how anybody could read a story, while thinking how "contrived" it all is, where is the fun in reading like that? To me, it's more realistic when something lucky happens to a character for a change, like when Stannis comes to fight Mance. That wasn't contrived, it was lucky for Jon, doesn't change that he was still willing to do what he was sent to do. Out of all the bad and unlucky thing that happen in these books, it would be unrealistic if nothing lucky happened. Because people do get lucky, when Cat found Tyrion in the Inn, that was lucky for her, and unlucky for Tyrion, not contrived! When Bronn happens to be willing to champion Tyrion, that is lucky for Tyrion, and unlucky for Catelyn. The list goes on, one could argue that their are contrived situations for every character, but honestly how is it fun to read like that?
And how can anybody say that "Jon always chooses the right decision, because it's so obvious what decision should be made", when Jon himself is constantly wondering if he has made the right decision?
What kind of world do we live in, when people are against a character, just because they don't fuck their sister, or rape women?