295 replies to this topic

[Free Northman]

Maester Zoidberg, on 06 March 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Well put. I loved Ned (even we could debate on how he was honourable and good), but I would have had a very bitter taste if he somehow got rescued at the last second.

You would not have wanted him to be rescued at the last second? Seriously?

OK, then we just differ in what we enjoy to read, I guess.

[Darth Pipes]

I have no problem with Jon receiving Longclaw.  He saved the Lord Commander's life and Mormont chose to reward him with it.  Who else was he going to give the sword to?  I suspect Jon would do the same thing if he were to stay in the Night's Watch for the next few decades.

Now, why Maege didn't keep the sword, I don't know.  Why Joran didn't sell the sword when he could have made a fortune off of it, I don't know.  Perhaps it was the one thing he couldn't bring himself to part with.  It may also be that he was afraid of what people would think if they knew he had become so desperate for money that he sold a Valaryian sword that had been in his family for generations.

Although given Jorah's desperation, his not selling the sword is probably a plothole in the story.

[Maester Zoidberg]

Free Northman, on 06 March 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

You would not have wanted him to be rescued at the last second? Seriously?

OK, then we just differ in what we enjoy to read, I guess.

I most definitely would have wanted him to be rescued, but sometimes when you get something you want you realize it's maybe a double-edged sword. Any successful rescue at that stage would have smelled seriously of deus ex machina.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

For what it's worth, and obviously I can't know what's in peoples' minds, I think the Jon Snow haters are the same people who hate the new popular band, or any trendy popular thing. It's not about disliking 'good characters.' It's jadedness and contrarianism, and has no real relation to Jon's plot being more contrived than anything else in the books.

Edited by OnionAhaiReborn, 06 March 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[The King in the South]

OnionAhaiReborn, on 06 March 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

For what it's worth, and obviously I can't know what's in peoples' minds, I think the Jon Snow haters are the same people who hate the new popular band, or any trendy popular thing. It's not about disliking 'good characters.' It's jadedness and contrarianism, and has no real relation to Jon's plot being more contrived than anything else in the books.

The word you're looking for is "Hipsters", i.e., those that reject something that is mainstream/cool simply because it is mainstream.

Personally I don't like reading about Jon because I feel like his entire storyline seems out of place in ASOIAF, and would be better suited in something like LOTR. He still has some cool scenes though, and without him we wouldn't have Edd...

[Apple Martini]

I don't get the logic of saying that Jon's a Gary Stu and then turning around and pointing out his flaws. If he's a Gary Stu as is claimed, he wouldn't have these flaws. And he does have them: He's sullen, starts out feeling bitter and entitled, has deep resentment of his position as a bastard, he has trouble communicating his ideas, he seems to have inherited Ned and Robb's rigidity in many ways and he micromanages too much, at his peril. He's shown a capacity for smugness, and he took a baby from his mother. All of these are decent reasons to dislike him or find him annoying, but I'm not sure how they add up to him being a Gary Stu.

Jon's fundamental decency is one of the reasons I like him. I agree with Free Northman in that I don't think that adding a few token flaws automatically makes someone more "fleshed out" or "interesting."

And I humbly suggest that anyone who thinks Jon hasn't had to make tough choices seems to have skimmed his chapters in Storm and Dance, because there, those were nothing but hard choices.

ETA: And I'm sorry but the bitching about him getting Longclaw is ridiculous. Jeor left it with Jorah, Jorah disgraced himself and left it on Bear Island, and Maege brought it to Jeor after she became Lady of Bear Island. Jeor had Longclaw because Maege made the decision that he should have it. In that respect, it's his sword and apparently that's how she saw it too. Maege had the chance to keep it on Bear Island and wield it or give it to her daughters, and she chose to give it to Jeor. It was Jeor's sword and Jeor is no longer a member of House Mormont, so he can give the sword to whomever he damn well pleases. Jon saved his life from an ice zombie, ergo Jeor thought it was fitting to give it to Jon.

And unless someone can point out an instance where having Longclaw has given Jon a tangible, marked and significant advantage, I don't see how it's anything other than Jeor giving thanks to Jon for saving his life. Valyrian swords are good weapons but they seem to be mostly status symbols, things to pass on in a family, heirlooms. Longclaw can't be any of those things because of the inherent nature of the Night's Watch. In one fell swoop, much of its allure is negated and it becomes just a sword. A high-quality and rare sword, sure, but a sword nonetheless.

Edited by Apple Martini, 06 March 2012 - 02:35 PM.

[Darth Vader's Bastard]

yeah, but Jon is just to f'ing cool.

[The Beard]

I don't want to drive this off topic but I would love to have had Ned rescued as long as it was exceedingly well written.  It's hard to picture such a situation now since his death was one of the major catalysts of much of the current story.  But even all of this time later, I still mourn the loss of Ned Stark from the world of ASOIAF.

Perhaps that's part of why I like Jon so much.  For a while I cheered on Robb as Ned's successor as the man of decency and honor in the story.  Now I see Jon as that character.  Of course my favorite characters have a certain knack for becoming dead so I'm not getting my hopes up that Jon will survive the events of Dance in a way that I find pleasing.

Edited by The Beard, 06 March 2012 - 01:46 PM.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The King in the South, on 06 March 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

The word you're looking for is "Hipsters", i.e., those that reject something that is mainstream/cool simply because it is mainstream.

No I'm not looking for the word hipster. I know what hipsters are, I've walked among them. I've liked the same music as them, popular music. I've talked about Game of Thrones with some of them (granted, just the show, not the books). They're just people, maybe more stylish than most, certainly trendier. It's not about hipsterism, it's about contrarianism. There will always be people in any group who go against the grain to go against the grain. Again, just my opinion.

Edited by OnionAhaiReborn, 05 April 2013 - 04:12 PM.

[Darth Pipes]

Quote

And unless someone can point out an instance where having Longclaw has given Jon a tangible, marked and significant advantage, I don't see how it's anything other than Jeor giving thanks to Jon for saving his life.

Jon also makes the point of saying that he doesn't feel he's even good enough to wield the sword.  Valaryian steel isn't something that automatically makes you a better fighter.  Jon's not in the class of men like Qhorin and Mance, even with the sword.

[another bastard]

Free Northman, on 06 March 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

That is precisely why you need men of conviction, rather than men of convenience in this world. To make the world more like it aught to be.

Well, I don't know if we're ever going to "make the world more like it ought to be," short of a mass worldwide democratic-socialist-egaliatarian-ecological movement - global warming will probably bite us in the rear before anyone gets a chance to build one - but on individual and local levels, at least, I agree that people - men and women - who try their best to do the right thing are all that prevents us from sliding into a complete Hobbsian nightmare, of either the anarchistic (see Somolia) or totalitarian (see North Korea) variety.

On the other hand, overly rigid and inflexible moral codes can be just as bad as having too little of a code at all, which is why I dislike Stannis, for example, almost as intensely as the OP dislikes Jon. I just see Jon's "code" as being rooted more in empathy than in absolute rules, which makes him more flexible and adaptable and ultimately more visionary - as another poster (who was criticizing him) put it - and thus able to bring about some positive change to his pretty atrociously backwards society. Brienne still seems trapped in a pretty rigid moral code - well, unless she's a zombie - but she's still young and has time to learn.

I'm just hoping that Jon meets up with Dany and Tyrion and maybe a couple of others post-icepocalypse to reform the political system of Westeros and set it on the path to democratic constitutional monarchy. To hell with all of this "blood of the dragon" and "right to rule" bullsh*t. That's the kind of crap that created all of this mess in the first place.

[Ororo727 Jon Snow Fangirl]

Darth Pipes, on 06 March 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

I like Jon and I think he's a good character.  Though I did have some problems with him...

1) His portrayel as Lord Commander in ADWD.  It blew up for him at the end but it felt like no matter what situation occurred, he was making all the right choices and was possessed with a wisdom he was too young to have.  He grew up as the son of Ned Stark so he learned a lot from his father but still.  Not to mention his tendancy to be judgmental with anyone he didn't like, which was a ton of people.

2) I also have a hard time believing that a 15-year-old bastard, with only a year's worth of experience on the Wall would have mustered so much support to be elected Lord Commander.  Though I don't see his being a bastard being a big deal to most of the members of the NW.

The youngest LC of the NW was 10, so your point is?

[another bastard]

Noimporta, on 06 March 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

That's my problem with Jon (and his female counterpart), the world either bends or is set up in a way that they'll almost always be in the right, or they'll avoid the hardest decisions. He hooks up with Ygritte, but she dies just in time for it to have no consequences, he's sent to Mance's tent on a suicide mission, but Stannis comes just in time to save the day, etc.

Yeah, I agree that the two examples you mentioned were pretty cheesy plot devices (maybe the author just trying to wrap the book up in the latter case). I would have much preferred to see him handle the actual dilemmas.

[Apple Martini]

Darth Pipes, on 06 March 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

2) I also have a hard time believing that a 15-year-old bastard, with only a year's worth of experience on the Wall would have mustered so much support to be elected Lord Commander.  Though I don't see his being a bastard being a big deal to most of the members of the NW.

Just remember that, at the time of the election, much of the leadership of the Watch had been wiped out. Jeor was dead, Benjen was missing, Qhorin was dead, Donal Noye was dead. Many of the men who otherwise could or would have been elected Lord Commander simply weren't around to stake their claim. Pyke or Mallister each would have been well suited, but their factions deadlocked and canceled each other out.

If Sam hadn't done his maneuvering, the Watch could have been commanded by Janos Slynt, someone with even less experience on the Wall than Jon — no experience, for that matter — who'd only just arrived and actually missed the pivotal beyond-the-Wall ranging. Would that have been easier to believe?

[Knez Snow]

so first jon gets personaly chosen by Mormont
-he was the best swordsman among recruits(which is totaly logical given his background as raised in castle etc.)
-he was of Stark blood (very improtant stuff to people in the north like Mormont it seams, + Starks in NW history, + Benjen being hotshot in NW
-he has a direwolf, and i would be very suprised if Mormont had absolutley no clue what could that mean (warging stuff). Mormont is northerner, + his raven +Bloodrevan was in nights watch, + Aemon knew Bloodraven and he is around Mormont a lot, even if Mormont did not knew Bloodraven personaly he must have heared about him. Probably there is Mormont's raven(bird)-Bloodraven connection. Or Mormont could be sort of wargish guy himself.

than he gets valyrian sword
-all of the above +
-saved Mormont's life
-Jorah dissapointed Joer
-what was relationship with Mormont girls and Joer? maybe it wasnt so good, maybe he wanted for sword to remain in Nights Watch, and with it he "marked" Jon as possible important for later, +sword is kind of a thing that may sway Jon more to staying in nights watch vs deserting. Jon is in nights watch so no1 would get his sword after him-sword stays in nights watch
-given possible Bloodraven-Mormont connection, it is possbile that he had even more insight in Jon. he may have revieled more after Jon proves himself, but he died.
-there are not much worthy and honourable man in nights watch(rapers, murdurers and stuff), making Jon even more improtant for Mormont
-the adopted "son" stuff, replacing Jorah
-there is that line, when Mormont's raven says like "King" or something when Jon is around and Mormont gives him meaningfull look or something. Possibility of some other insights, or gut feelings Mormont has about Jon? or Mormont-Bloodraven connection or SOMETHING. maybe
-maybe Mormont values his life very much. as much as valyrian sword maybe. maybe more.

Spoiler

became lord commander
-all of the above
-chosen by Mormont and Qhorin
-not much worthy commander material in NW
-what Sam did
-other stark and stark bastard comanders, some younger than he is in NW history
-defended wall against widllings

-he has plenty of flaws
-some people in real life just have it all, even that would not be unrealistic(it is ok and perfectly understandable to hate them;) ). But Jon CERTANLY is not one of those
-bastard
-lost father
-lost brother
-lost uncle
-thinks he lost 2 more brothers
-thinks arya is raped by ramsy
-thinks sansa is raped by tyrion(his FRIEND)
-lost ygritte
-his honor and reputation is hurth by going over to wildlings
-arrow in his leg
-his hand got burned
-he got stabbed at least 2 times
-he is in nights watch, so no land chieldren woman and other stuff
-if R+L=J it will be subverted trope. I cant imagine George playing it straight.  http://tvtropes.org/.../SubvertedTrope
-he is cold all the time, and winter is coming
-think of psichologycal impact of all above(imagine yourself losing so much family members, and all other stuff and conflicts inside Jon. envy of Rob-Rob dies. Can get Winterfell and become Stark because his brothers all died. I mean REALLY? he has it all? he is on the roll?...)
-makes mistakes as lord commander

-Cat hates him
-Blackfish doesnt like him
-theon doesnt like him
-thorne is not a villan. he is cool
-not so great relationship with sansa
-when he was arrogant, grenn pyp rast and others hated him, as he deserved.
-cersei wants him dead


decisions:
-to desert or not to desert, that is the question
-going over to the wildlings, his oath and stuff; ygritte(lol that one was easy;) the sweet, swett worries, i get it.
-babies
-letting wildlings trought wall
-refusing winterfell
-assisting stanis
-going for ramsy

resulting in him getting stabbed. maybe by nights watch, maybe by that wildling warg. both cases, he is betrayed(if warg is Tormunds guy).

etc.
would you like to be in his skin?

Edited by Knez Snow, 06 March 2012 - 03:45 PM.

[Arya Targaryen]

another bastard, on 06 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Yeah, I agree that the two examples you mentioned were pretty cheesy plot devices (maybe the author just trying to wrap the book up in the latter case). I would have much preferred to see him handle the actual dilemmas.

Well, in Ygritte's case he did handle the situation: he left her, betrayed her, and fought against her. He didn't kill her though, but ever since he has a dream in which it was his arrow that killed her. He did a tough decision and it resulted in the death of a loved one. True, he never had to face the decision of marrying her or fathering a bastard - but in a way he did, and he chose to leave her.

The suicide mission: I had a feeling that he did make the decision, (to kill Mance and die afterwards), he was just lucky enough that he didn't have to carry it out. Call it a plot armor, if you like, but the fact is, if Stannis  didn't come in time, Jon would have died. Either by killing Mance and suffering the results or going back to Slynt saying, hey, I didn't kill him. In that case Slynt and Thorne wold have made sure he dies, they would have executed him for being a turncloak. You just can't put the blame on Jon (and GRRM) that he doesn't die in a story where he is one of the most important characters. Hey, even Davos and Brienne are alive, and they survived weird situations - due to plot armor. They clearly have further things to do, just like Jon. So Stannis must have arrived to save Jon, that was his only chance.

And previously, he did make a similar tough decision, killing Quorin. He was his friend (Mance is his enemy), he liked and respected him (he sort of likes and respects Mance as well), and killing Quorin meant losing his honor in the eyes of his fellow brothers/rest of Westeros. And he just killed the only man who knew he was innocent. Killing Mance would have meant gaining his honor back - proving his loyalty to the Watch. But killing Quorin allowed him to live and do important stuff (which makes sense plotwise). Killing Mance would have resulted in his death - making no sense at all plotwise.

[another bastard]

The Storm Queen, on 06 March 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

It does not help that his decisions often do not have the same grave consequences as those of other characters (such as Catelyn or Jaime for example), that he rises way too fast in the NW and that every good person loves him  (even if there is no reason for that, see: Mance) while every baddie hates him.

But I'd say that all of his decisions since the end of AGOT - and especially by ADWD - have had the single overriding goal of saving the continent and possibly the world from being overrun by bloodthirsty ice marauders and their zombie armies, rather than playing the silly, bloody and ultimately futile game of thrones that most of his peers are occupied with, or trying to enforce misunderstood and rigid conceptions of the NW's mission like a substantial portion of his "brothers" are. He's one of the few characters who actually see the real issue, aside from Bloodraven and Bran (who are currently trapped beneath a cave, sitting on internet trees), and possibly Mance and Val to some degree, and Sam to some degree (all of whom have little power to do much about it on their own), and possibly Mel to some degree (but only in her skewed, self-certain, self-righteous, fanatical, intolerant, human-sacrificing and ultimately counterproductive way). Basically, in other words, the only one who saw the real issue and was in a position to actually do something about it, at least until Bowen and co. decided to pull their little Brutus and co. act.

Anyway, wouldn't you say that those are some pretty "grave consequences"?

(Real world analogies: people who actively worked to stop nuclear apocalypse during the Cold War - rather than playing all of the games that were there to be played, or upholding rigid ideologies - and people who are actively trying to prevent climate apocalypse today.)

I'd also say that Mance etc. "like" him because they can see some good qualities in him, and a potential ally in the real struggle.

[Karimbus]

Use spoiler tags people.

[DornishKnight]

But... I liked Jon in ASOS, he's the Anti-Robb .  I don't like him as much as, say, Jaime or Arya but I find him relatable (he's FAR better than Areo, Arys, Dany, Aeron, the other Jon, Ned, or Quentyn).  The appeal is that (post AGOT) he rose through merit, not his bloody heritage (which is why I laugh when people argue on the board who is "rightful" based on bloodline, sorry to sound like LF).  

His arc goes like this (so far):
AGOT: Learning he will be judged based what he does rather than who he is (which is where is character diverges wildly from Robb or that prick Ned).
ACOK: Him actually doing stuff, even actions that anyone would find uncomfortable (Qhorin).  No more training, it is time to get serious.
ASOS: The best part of Jon's POV.  Test of loyalty causes tragedy, rise to leadership that he earned (unlike Robb).
ADWD: The trials of leadership and consequences of his actions.

Pretty standard, but at least its not "I take ur city, lulz.  I suck at ruleing but shud totes b ruler of irn throan bcuz I haz dragonz."
I think he should be Rhaegar's son, but turns down the throne in disgust.

Edited by DornishKnight, 06 March 2012 - 03:32 PM.

[Ghost714]

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?