Jump to content

Jon Snow: A mary sue?


Chatty Duelist

Recommended Posts

This is seriously why I hate the fact that fucking tropes are taken as self-evident support for anything on here. Perspective is just completely lost.




Forget this "McWhitey" thing for a second (or, preferably, for forever). Things are "offensive" because they send an offensive message, right? So let's walk through this:






Obviously. Even if Jon is responsible for saving the world, it will be seen as an offensive cliched trope. Because by being, he negates how much we should take him seriously.




I'm sorry to jump on your post, but this is a symptom of what the problem is on both sides, and since I'd been arguing against the opposite side, I think it's only fair I address it from this end, too.



If Jon were to be the singular hero who saved the world and the ASOIAF universe just bowed down to and worshipped in his supreme awesomeness, then yes, actually, this does open the door for the "Straight White Male" hero critique people have brought up.



Let me put this a different way: If Dany is the hero who saves the world and the ASOIAF universe cowed to her awesomeness, it would be extremely bad writing (bad writing, because such a supreme hero is not the logical conclusion of ASOIAF, so making one would be a ridiculously hamfisted asspull that would utterly contradict everything that came before it). If Jon is the hero who saves the world and the ASOIAF universe cowed to his awesomeness, it would be extremely bad writing, AND would render ASOIAF yet another regurgitation of the principle that it's only a "Straight White Male" who can save the day, so that everyone else is a supporting character. Especially as this is a story where MANY others are set up and developed as being pivotal to all of it.



So yes, if Jon were to become the hero who saves everything, then it would be problematic for the reasons posters have brought up in ways that Dany's becoming this figure wouldn't. I mean, I'd personally be more offended by the poor writing either outcome would entail, but I think it is a valid complaint for those bothered by such a message.



The crux of this-- and this is precisely why engaging very directly in the books themselves are critical here-- is that Jon is 100% definitively not the singular perfect hero who will set everything to right and everyone will love him. Jon's most certainly a protagonist, but the idea that he will be supreme at all of these things in the way "traditional fantasy" stories play out is what needs to be challenged. Sorely. By both his fans and detractors.



Because there isn't a hero and this story is all about perspectives, the fear that Jon will become a regurgitation of the "Straight White Male Savior," and therefore, that ASOIAF will send the message that it's only "Straight White Males" who can make the world a better place, isn't invalid, but rather, irrelevant, since it doesn't apply to this series.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because there isn't a hero and this story is all about perspectives, the fear that Jon will become a regurgitation of the "Straight White Male Savior," and therefore, that ASOIAF will send the message that it's only "Straight White Males" who can make the world a better place, isn't invalid, but rather, irrelevant, since it doesn't apply to this series.

This. Point. Mine. Yeah.

While Jon being The Guy or One True Protagonist could be problematic due to who else is all involved in this story, the truth is, there is no One True Protagonist. Im trying to grapple with how people can think theres One True Hero. Because of Azor Ahai, the PtwP, Stallion prophecies? The Three Heads of The Dragon? If anything, these all point to Avengers Style. In other words, many different heroes who all serve many different roles. Roles that the Classic Fantasy Hero usually encompasses over the course of his tale.

Lets look at our more heroic PoVs:

Jon: Hero Classic Archetype

Arya: Little Miss Badass/Plucky Child

Sansa: Princess Classic/Ingenue

Tyrion: Troubled Snarky Smart Guy

Dany: Lost Princess With Really Badass Toys

Davos: Roguish Moral Guy

Sam: Underdog/Crouching Moron Hidden Badass

Bran: Kid With Really Cool Powers

Jaime: Douchey McRedemptionArc/Anti-Hero Becomes Shining Armor

Brienne: Lady Warrior/Big Badass Morality

Now a classical hero McWhitey (ugh ero, i know what you mean now. :ack: ) would have a lot of those traits all rolled into his character. Or loses/gains those traits over the course of his character development. In ASOIAF, we get ALL THESE PEOPLE of different walks of life embodying the Classic Hero's Journey. I think the Monomyth applies to the series if we include all of the POV characters. Even the guys who dont look so heroic. GRRM is telling one fucking ginormous Monomyth, but is doing it with all of his characters, not just one. Our list gets even bigger if we include the less heroic characters like Theon, Cersei, Victarion, etc because they embody the negative aspect of the Classic Hero.

Thus negating any possible Suehood for any of them.

They all will have a role to play in saving the world. Even if some of them end up harming that world, their actions will result into the ultimate saving of it. Thus the bittersweet ending GRRM has been hinting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This. Point. Mine. Yeah.

I'm not sure how that was your point, though. I mean, that wasn't the point you were making in the post I was responding to. The point you were making in the post I responded to wasn't appealing to multiple hero figures.

While Jon being The Guy or One True Protagonist could be problematic due to who else is all involved in this story, the truth is, there is no One True Protagonist. Im trying to grapple with how people can think theres One True Hero. Because of Azor Ahai, the PtwP, Stallion prophecies? The Three Heads of The Dragon? If anything, these all point to Avengers Style. In other words, many different heroes who all serve many different roles. Roles that the Classic Fantasy Hero usually encompasses over the course of his tale.

Lets look at our more heroic PoVs:

Jon: Hero Classic Archetype

Arya: Little Miss Badass/Plucky Child

Sansa: Princess Classic/Ingenue

Tyrion: Troubled Snarky Smart Guy

Dany: Lost Princess With Really Badass Toys

Davos: Roguish Moral Guy

Sam: Underdog/Crouching Moron Hidden Badass

Bran: Kid With Really Cool Powers

Jaime: Douchey McRedemptionArc/Anti-Hero Becomes Shining Armor

Brienne: Lady Warrior/Big Badass Morality

Now a classical hero McWhitey (ugh ero, i know what you mean now. :ack: ) would have a lot of those traits all rolled into his character. Or loses/gains those traits over the course of his character development. In ASOIAF, we get ALL THESE PEOPLE of different walks of life embodying the Classic Hero's Journey. I think the Monomyth applies to the series if we include all of the POV characters. Even the guys who dont look so heroic. GRRM is telling one fucking ginormous Monomyth, but is doing it with all of his characters, not just one. Our list gets even bigger if we include the less heroic characters like Theon, Cersei, Victarion, etc because they embody the negative aspect of the Classic Hero.

Thus negating any possible Suehood for any of them.

They all will have a role to play in saving the world. Even if some of them end up harming that world, their actions will result into the ultimate saving of it. Thus the bittersweet ending GRRM has been hinting at.

I guess, why does everyone still need a trope-like summation? It still looks like you're "typifying," only now showing how each type melds together into a holistic monomyth. Engaging with the characters as types is what I was speaking out against, so by continuing to do that, I'm not sure how my post, which was a plea against that as I believe doing so occludes analysis, is reiterating your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has GRRM ever really forgone tropes entirely? That's probably impossible to do, as tropes are so subjective, but most of the trop-ey(?) characters have a bit of spin on them and that is why they are memorable characters. Maybe we just haven't found Jon's spin, so to speak.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how that was your point, though. I mean, that wasn't the point you were making in the post I was responding to. The point you were making in the post I responded to wasn't appealing to multiple hero figures.

I guess, why does everyone still need a trope-like summation? It still looks like you're "typifying," only now showing how each type melds together into a holistic monomyth. Engaging with the characters as types is what I was speaking out against, so by continuing to do that, I'm not sure how my post, which was a plea against that as I believe doing so occludes analysis, is reiterating your point.

Everyone gets a rough outline in the building stages of a story. Its often how authors do it. Then they start really piling on the layers and fleshing them out. Sansa begins as a classic trope but as GRRM continues building her character, she becomes something else and starts walking and talking so to speak. Brienne will likely wind up a totally different construct than where she is right now in the story. People categorize characters in this fashion to separate and thus begin to analyze them for the constructs they ultimately become. Thats why TV Tropes initially existed. I fail to see how its counter-productive seeing how these characters evolve and the concepts that GRRM is deconstructing and reconstructing with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone gets a rough outline in the building stages of a story. Its often how authors do it. Then they start really piling on the layers and fleshing them out. Sansa begins as a classic trope but as GRRM continues building her character, she becomes something else and starts walking and talking so to speak. Brienne will likely wind up a totally different construct than where she is right now in the story. People categorize characters in this fashion to separate and thus begin to analyze them for the constructs they ultimately become. Thats why TV Tropes initially existed. I fail to see how its counter-productive seeing how these characters evolve and the concepts that GRRM is deconstructing and reconstructing with them.

It's counter productive to reduce these characters-- which are incredibly developed and complex-- and try to pass it off as "analysis." Which trope is Cat, exactly? The Evil Stepmother, The Strong Mother, or maybe the Put-on Wife? Do you see what I mean? With so many facets to these--extremely well developed and dynamic characters-- "typifying" imposes a highly incomplete, warped, flat and static interpretation onto them.

I can see some value in interrogating certain tropes against their superficial alignment to the ASOIAF characters, but only as foils (for example, using the differences between the trope and the actual character to bring a greater understanding of the character), and not as some sort of actual categorization of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's counter productive to reduce these characters-- which are incredibly developed and complex-- and try to pass it off as "analysis." Which trope is Cat, exactly? The Evil Stepmother, The Strong Mother, or maybe the Put-on Wife? Do you see what I mean? With so many facets to these--extremely well developed and dynamic characters-- "typifying" imposes a highly incomplete, warped, flat and static interpretation onto them.

I can see some value in interrogating certain tropes against their superficial alignment to the ASOIAF characters, but only as foils (for example, using the differences between the trope and the actual character to bring a greater understanding of the character), and not as some sort of actual categorization of them.

So we cannot begin analysis of these characters as constructs? Cuz pretty sure thats what they are. Constructs. They may read like special little snowflakes and we can all identify with them in some manner on their complexity, but at the core, they are constructs. To ignore that is counter-productive as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we cannot begin analysis of these characters as constructs? Cuz pretty sure thats what they are. Constructs. They may read like special little snowflakes and we can all identify with them in some manner on their complexity, but at the core, they are constructs. To ignore that is counter-productive as well.

Counter-productive to what, exactly? I'm asking what purpose you believe it serves to put everything in neat little boxes.

I railed against doing this to the exclusion of actual engagement with the text and passing it off as "analysis." I am talking about how making these boxes is counter-productive to achieving a thorough understanding of these characters, since none fits into a singular little box in terms of their individual being, nor their parts in the story as a whole more generally.

I don't know if I understand what sort of distinction you're drawing about constructs. "Constructs" aren't tropes or types-- they're the actual manifestations of something, like a building or character.

If you're trying to say that as a piece of fiction, the characters (i.e. "constructs") are designed, and as such, have intentional themes associated with them, then I would obviously agree. But that doesn't have anything to do with forcing them into these boxes you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im talking about the building process though, so im not sure what you are really disagreeing with me about. When i view a character, no matter how complex they are, i begin with a framework and then build upon what i see in the text. Like Jon's character begins as a rough outline of something we've seen before and the text over the course of the series shapes him into something else. Thats what im talking about. We analyze the text that builds him.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im talking about the building process though, so im not sure what you are really disagreeing with me about. When i view a character, no matter how complex they are, i begin with a framework and then build upon what i see in the text. Like Jon's character begins as a rough outline of something we've seen before and the text over the course of the series shapes him into something else. Thats what im talking about. We analyze the text that builds him.

Can we back up for a second?

I totally get that you wrote this as a tongue-in-cheek continuation of a series of posts speaking against the reliance on using tropes to describe Jon. I also totally get that you personally believe there's no one single hero. But look at what I challenged:

Obviously. Even if Jon is responsible for saving the world, it will be seen as an offensive cliched trope. Because by being, he negates how much we should take him seriously.

Your post was taking a shot at the position claiming that Jon's character is an offensive trope for being a "SWM" savior. But the shot you took actually supported that position unintentionally. The conditional clause you set up here-- "if Jon is responsible for saving the wold"-- is exactly what gives weight to the position you're deriding has a problem with!

Your post is saying "If Jon, a Straight White Male, becomes THE Savior, it's not an embodiment of the "SWM Savior" trope, nor subject to offense for being yet another regurgitation of the concept that only "SWM" can be THE Savior." That is what I challenged-- your tongue-in-cheek condition presented the very circumstance that would render Jon's character offensive to those who has expressed offense over it.

So when you responded to my challenge-- which pointed out why finding offense over Jon's being THE Savior is valid, that there is no one singular hero thus the concept of the "SWM Savior" is irrelevant, and a plea to stop thinking in tropes-- with how what I wrote was "exactly [your] point" and a list of tropes, I was very confused.

The post I challenged was not making the point I did in my response, so to respond that way-- that what I wrote was an endorsement of the point you were making-- was misleading, and I wanted to be sure to separate that I was by no means endorsing that post by responding again. Between that and your list of tropes, the use of which I've consistently railed against in this thread and others, this is why I'm "disagreeing," to answer that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't expect that one to come from me? :huh: I have no idea what that means and how to take this. :unsure:

Cuz yer so usually UP IN ARMS. :P <3

Can we back up for a second?

I totally get that you wrote this as a tongue-in-cheek continuation of a series of posts speaking against the reliance on using tropes to describe Jon. I also totally get that you personally believe there's no one single hero. But look at what I challenged:

Your post was taking a shot at the position claiming that Jon's character is an offensive trope for being a "SWM" savior. But the shot you took actually supported that position unintentionally. The conditional clause you set up here-- "if Jon is responsible for saving the wold"-- is exactly what gives weight to the position you're deriding has a problem with!

Your post is saying "If Jon, a Straight White Male, becomes THE Savior, it's not an embodiment of the "SWM Savior" trope, nor subject to offense for being yet another regurgitation of the concept that only "SWM" can be THE Savior." That is what I challenged-- your tongue-in-cheek condition presented the very circumstance that would render Jon's character offensive to those who has expressed offense over it.

So when you responded to my challenge-- which pointed out why finding offense over Jon's being THE Savior is valid, that there is no one singular hero thus the concept of the "SWM Savior" is irrelevant, and a plea to stop thinking in tropes-- with how what I wrote was "exactly [your] point" and a list of tropes, I was very confused.

The post I challenged was not making the point I did in my response, so to respond that way-- that what I wrote was an endorsement of the point you were making-- was misleading, and I wanted to be sure to separate that I was by no means endorsing that post by responding again. Between that and your list of tropes, the use of which I've consistently railed against in this thread and others, this is why I'm "disagreeing," to answer that question.

We are really going to have to agree to disagree here. Because when im thinking of story structure, i cant not think about the building blocks of said story structure. Tropes are building blocks. Which is what sounds like what you take issue with. Its up to the author to skillfully shape them into real characters and more than just tropes. I get your point of why its "offensive" if Jon winds up the Savior of the World. My other point is that its really difficult for me to wrap my head around why anyone would get the idea that he IS Savior of the World, given the amount of POVs heroic or otherwise in the story. I agree with you that the characters are no longer Tropey McTropeson, but i was simply explaining how they begin that way. :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuz yer so usually UP IN ARMS. :P <3

We are really going to have to agree to disagree here. Because when im thinking of story structure, i cant not think about the building blocks of said story structure. Tropes are building blocks. Which is what sounds like what you take issue with. Its up to the author to skillfully shape them into real characters and more than just tropes. I get your point of why its "offensive" if Jon winds up the Savior of the World. My other point is that its really difficult for me to wrap my head around why anyone would get the idea that he IS Savior of the World, given the amount of POVs heroic or otherwise in the story. I agree with you that the characters are no longer Tropey McTropeson, but i was simply explaining how they begin that way. :dunno:

Whop whop whop!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has practically zero flaws and nothing goes against him. He's never punished for bad decisions or mistakes, Robb gets killed because he couldn't keep it in his pants, Tyrion is exiled because everyone hates him, Eddard is executed for telling Cersei. People get fucked over all the time. And Jon doesn't get even a tap on the wrist. Like literally nothing.

I'm not hating or anything, it's just weird that a series full of so many grey characters, there's a morally white guy who does everything right without a single mistake.

(Granted he get's stabbed but that doesn't mean anything because let's face it he's coming back. Oh. Another trait of a Mary Sue. Cheating death.)

I see where you're going with this but I'll disagree with you because throughout the books we can see that Jon Snow's biggest flaw is that he can't accept the fact that he's a bastard. Since he joined the NW, he wanted to prove that he's better at everything, when he was met with the choice of staying with the wildlings he was confused because they offered him a chance to be free of social conventions. Actually one of his story's central themes is that he wants to be accepted as an equal to trueborn people and to be respected among his peers. He also feels as if everyone looks down upon him for that reason even when they're not (inferiority complex much?).

In order to do that he sticks with the Stark code of honor as much as he can (it's the only actual connection that he has to his Stark heritage), he kills Ygritte in battle because of this, he refuses to marry Val after this (although he is again hesitant because marrying Val and becoming legitimized would grant him the respect he always wanted) and after he becomes the lord commander, this flaw increases to the point that he starts to not listen to his brothers and to the point where he kills one of them simply because he refused to obey his commands even though they're supposed to be his brothers and NOT his men. He also acts as if the NW belongs to him like he is a Lord in the typical way ( even though it's not a territory or a land), letting Stannis stay on it and serving him as king.He even starts to get kind of paranoid with everyone around him.

In the end his own men stabbed him to death and threw him away like he was a week old bag of garbage.

It kinda reminded me of how Dany got a bit crazy with power and is conflicted about her identity. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I like using tropes to look at these characters specifically because it is interesting to see how Martin deconstructs them so effectively, especially in comparison to other authors/novels in the fantasy genre (I'm thinking of like so cliche it's silly stuff eg dragonlance).



In response to the OP though, I think what makes Jon interesting is that he feels so much like a Mary Sue but then just isn't one, for reasons already listed by a ton of other people (late-game input)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Yeah, I can really see the logic of that.

He's raised as an outsider and a bastard, gets **** from Catelyn, Theon etc.

Then he has to go to the Night's Watch and the one opportunity he gets to get Winterfell, he declines it.

I can clearly see how he's a Mary Sue...

Yes. You've perfectly described the suffering a poor sue goes through to make the reader sympathize. They don't fit in, or another character (an authority figure or the popular girl usually) hasa petty dislike of them often to the point of just being irrationally mean. Despite his mercilessly unfair life he continues to make noble choices where a lot of people wouldn't.

how does any of this keep him from being a sue anyway? I think there is just too much confusion over what a MS really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...