Why is Jon Snow the favourite Stark (usually)?

[Lion of the West]

I would imagine that Jon gets favor because he has a symphatic character for the most part, relatable motives for most things he does and there are many, at least in my mind, traditional hero parts in his story.

And to that I think that he has so far not come up against an opponent with a nuanced character and that made an impression on the reader. Now Mance does in many ways fill this role as the nuanced opponent but so far, or at least from what I've seen, he don't seem to have made much of an impact on the fandom which kind of negates his impact on Jon's story. Which is kind of sad since its an interesting character and I think that he works pretty well against Jon Snow. Beyond Mance there are Janos Slynt, Thorne and the Boltons, all of them are pretty unlikable to most people and so Jon's opposition to them would give him credit.

Personally I am not in love with the character but I can see his appeal.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

3 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

<snip

We have no evidence to the contrary, and certainly Arya had none.

No, joining the Night's Watch is arguably worse than death, since it means a potentially long live at the worst place in Westeros with day after day, after day of drudging through snow and having to fight Wildings as part of an eternal penal colony. There is nothing good or beautiful at the Wall; the food is awful, the company is awful, the surroundings are awful and there is no hope to improve your situation beyond the most marginal level, ever again. Your identity and self-determination are stripped off you, permanently, You are now a tool for a glorified border patrol that has lost its meaning long ago and is only kept on life support because of tradition and because it marginally benefits whomever parks their behind on the Iron Throne at the moment. You are surrounded by people who have committed actual, violent crimes and by people who under some delusion that being an inmate at Castle Black is something to be proud or happy about. You will never experience gentleness or affection again. It's hell. Frankly I'm surprised that they don't have a sky high suicide rate at the Wall or that there haven't been more large scale rebellions among the Night's Watch.
The advantage of being alive as opposed to death is, usually, that you can hope to improve your lot as long as you are alive. In the Night's Watch you can't, unless you escape, in which case your life is forfeit.You might as well be already dead.

Where is the evidence that it would have been castration? If we question whether Dareon was honest about his "crime" or not, then this is questionable as well. We know for a fact how little worth the life of smallfolk has to many Westerosi nobles.

No I have not missed the reason, but I still think the Night's Watch was a awful solution to that problem, epsecially the version of the Night's Watch it has become by now. Personally I think it should be a mandatory, temporary ,military service for any noble born. As to who should fight the Others...the Wall will fall anyway before the story is over, no matter how many people in black they force to sit on it. And Westeros has armies, does it not? 

Even a boy of twelve is capable of sleeping with a girl and fathering children, doesn't mean he is capable of understanding legal systems. Sexual maturity does not equal mental maturity. Oint was, as long as a person is alive, they can grow and repent, dead people can't as far as we know. Also the book is very vocal in pointing out how putting people as young as the characters in position of extreme duty and responsibility isn't exactly healthy or fair on them.

In any case, I don't think theft should be punishable by death and last time I checked Arya is also acting against the will of her sovereign, King Tommen by not being a hostage at the Red Keep (nicer place than the Wall btw, even with Cersei there) AND against the rules of the Faceless Men by murdering someone she hasn't been assigned to assasinate. And she was punished for it, with her temporary blindness, another indication that she had no business doing so. She has broken her commitment as much as Dareon did. 

And, before people misinterpret that; NO I don't think Arya should have stayed put and allowed Cersei and the Small Council to play their games with her, far from it, I'm just saying that technically, she acted against the word of her king and if ridiculous medieval law is binding for one character, regardless of what horrible fate it would consign them to, then it's binding for the other as well, no matter how "badass" they are.

Also, to stay "just" (if you call that justice) she'd now have to kill Jon, for the same "crime". Oh wait, I forgot, Jon will probably get a handy loophole by having been technically dead for a bit. How convenient! Oh if Dareon had only known that all he has to do is to be a main character, getting stabbed and brought back from the brink of death/actual death.

We have no evidence either way but you seem to have made a determination in spite of that. Arya doesn't need evidence of whether or not he was guilty of the crime for which he CHOSE to go to the Wall. She was not passing judgment on that issue. He was absolutely guilty of deserting the Night's Watch, and that's the reason why he was executed.

First of all, the Wall is by no means the worst place in Westeros. Second it's not a penal colony. There are still people who go there voluntarily. Third, you can indeed move up. Fourth, up until the Others showed up, life at the Wall was really not much worse than anywhere else.

Nothing good or beautiful at the Wall? Oh, you've been there? Because I seem to recall that the view from up top was pretty impressive. Good and beautiful are subjective and can be found anywhere, if one wants to find them. 

The food doesn't bother any but the highborn who are used to better food. For criminals in particular, and that includes Dareon until you can provide proof that he was innocent, the fact that they have a steady source of food is a benefit. As is the fact that they are alive to eat.

The company can be awful anywhere. How awful it is depends on the individual. Once Jon took the chip off his shoulder he didn't feel as bad about the company. Good company, much like beauty, can be found anywhere.

You're confusing them with the Faceless Men. You are supposed to switch your loyalty but you don't stop being who you are otherwise. You don't lose your name, your skills, your personality. You put aside certain things for the good of the realm, and the world quite frankly. That's nowhere near as bad as becoming "no one."

BS. I'm starting to wonder if you lack imagination. There is affection at the Wall. It's not romantic, but it doesn't have to be. You clearly have no idea the kinds of bond that can form in a group like that. Gentleness doesn't depend on location or circumstances all the time. The roughest, meanest, scariest men can sometimes be the most gentle.

No, that's not hell. You get out of the Night's Watch what you put into it. A person's happiness or contentment level is largely dependent upon exactly one thing: themselves. That's as true in fiction as it is in life.

Ah, now I see where the disconnect is, or at least part of it. You think life is about "improving" your own life. Dareon would likely agree that the point is to get as much as you can out of it without regard for anyone else. I take a rather different view.

The evidence is in history. GRRM likes to keep the historical elements accurate.

You're talking about something entirely different from what I said. You don't have to be "mentally mature" to have heard about consequences for certain things. Nor do you have to understand legal systems. In a society where a boy paying too much attention to a girl above his station can mean big trouble for his entire family, it's ridiculous to think that the boys aren't warned early and often about that very issue.

Oh good grief! Seriously? When Arya disappeared Tommen wasn't on the throne. When Arya disappeared she hadn't been ordered to be a hostage. Acting contrary to someone's wishes counts for nothing unless the wishes have been stated. And since, based on a later paragraph you weren't being serious, might I suggest that kind of over-the-top nonsense is not helping your argument one bit?

Here are the differences that you're failing to see: Arya did not make any vows to the FM; Arya did not leave a group that punishes desertion with death. 

Jon did not desert. Thinking of the show, are you?  You are being completely ridiculous now. Poor fictional jerk, he didn't get to be a main character. 

[GhostNymeria]

13 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

No this is more about me absolutely loathing the Night's Watch and Medieval justice systems. it could have been Sansa doing that and I wouldn't have liked it, that would have actually made me angrier, because I would have liked her up to that point (like the time when Daenerys dealed out collective, random punishment in Meereen). 

I have no doubt you dislike the Night's Watch/Medieval justice system, but it's really not why you dislike Arya. You said this in the "Arya will become Queen" thread:

Quote

It is not worse than what many other characters in the series do, but some of the others, who might have done worse things are more entertaining to read for me and/or we aren't supposed to see it as a good thing.

It says it all. After a comment like that, your extensive arguments about why you think it was morally wrong and unjustifiable for Arya to kill Dareon doesn't matter anymore since, evident by the comment, you don't hold the other characters to the same standard, if you find them more entertaining. I'v already responded to this in the other thread. Funny how you didn't try to counter that. Frankly, I don't care if you dislike Arya or find her boring, you're free to like or dislike which character you want of coarse. My response is more to the fact that you keep trying to argue why killing Dareon was so morally wrong, while at the same time not holding other characters up to that moral standard. 

13 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

No, joining the Night's Watch is arguably worse than death, since it means a potentially long live at the worst place in Westeros with day after day, after day of drudging through snow and having to fight Wildings as part of an eternal penal colony. There is nothing good or beautiful at the Wall; the food is awful, the company is awful, the surroundings are awful and there is no hope to improve your situation beyond the most marginal level, ever again. Your identity and self-determination are stripped off you, permanently, You are now a tool for a glorified border patrol that has lost its meaning long ago and is only kept on life support because of tradition and because it marginally benefits whomever parks their behind on the Iron Throne at the moment. You are surrounded by people who have committed actual, violent crimes and by people who under some delusion that being an inmate at Castle Black is something to be proud or happy about. You will never experience gentleness or affection again. It's hell. Frankly I'm surprised that they don't have a sky high suicide rate at the Wall or that there haven't been more large scale rebellions among the Night's Watch.
The advantage of being alive as opposed to death is, usually, that you can hope to improve your lot as long as you are alive. In the Night's Watch you can't, unless you escape, in which case your life is forfeit.You might as well be already dead.

That's a very subjective description. Or do you have a qoute on all that?

13 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

Even a boy of twelve is capable of sleeping with a girl and fathering children, doesn't mean he is capable of understanding legal systems. Sexual maturity does not equal mental maturity. Oint was, as long as a person is alive, they can grow and repent, dead people can't as far as we know. Also the book is very vocal in pointing out how putting people as young as the characters in position of extreme duty and responsibility isn't exactly healthy or fair on them.

Now you are doing it again. Holding Arya to another moral standard and contradicting yourself. Did you forget all of the above applies to Arya as well? But no excuses for her apparently.

13 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

In any case, I don't think theft should be punishable by death and last time I checked Arya is also acting against the will of her sovereign, King Tommen by not being a hostage at the Red Keep (nicer place than the Wall btw, even with Cersei there).

That's arguable and agian, completely subjective. Or do you have some objective book evidence to that? 

13 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

against the rules of the Faceless Men by murdering someone she hasn't been assigned to assasinate. And she was punished for it, with her temporary blindness, another indication that she had no business doing so.

Not that it really matters, but her blindness wasn't a punishment. All faceless men in training had to go through being blind. They actually speeded up her training, which is what she wanted. 

13 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

she acted against the word of her king and if ridiculous medieval law is binding for one character, regardless of what horrible fate it would consign them to, then it's binding for the other as well, no matter how "badass" they are

If you're trying to judge one character by one moral standard, then the other characters should be judged by the same moral standard as well. See? It goes both ways.

For the record, I don't think Dareon deserved to die for wanting to abandon the Night's watch. But at the same time I also don't think what Arya did, from her perspective, was morally worse than what most POV characters have done.

Why does the unjust medieval law in a fictional book series bother you so much? Do you even enjoy reading Asoiaf then? It's kind of one of the main points about the series, and most readers can probably see how unfair it is. But by the end of the books, it's probably not going to get any better you know. 

[GhostNymeria]

For Jon, he was my favorite from the beginning. I guess I gravitated towards him more than the others because he was a bastard among highborn POVs, an underdog. I love his character development at the wall. The main reason why he's still my favorite is because he tries unselfishly to do what is best for other people, not just himself. He's the first lord commander who made peace with the wildlings, allowing them to settle in Westeros. I also like him because he doesn't judge other people by where they come from or their births, like Satin. Basically, for me, he's the closest thing to a hero in Asoiaf. Even though heroes are kind of cliché in a story like this, I still can't help but love Jon for trying to be one.

[HaeSuse]

From the beginning, Jon was lovable and cool. It's just too bad his arc is so piss poor. After book 1, I basically had to force myself to read Jon's chapters. 

[HaeSuse]

On 4/9/2017 at 2:55 PM, The Doctor's Consort said:

Are you kidding?

No.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 minutes ago, HaeSuse said:

No.

You really believe that Jon is one-dimensional character? Have you missed his PoVs?

[HaeSuse]

6 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

You really believe that Jon is one-dimensional character? Have you missed his PoVs?

Yes. More accurately, that his very few dimensions (sad bastard son.... and conflicted lone ranger), are shallow and boring. 

 

No, I haven't missed his chapters. I'm rereading right now, and each time I turn a page and see "JON" at the top of a new chapter, I have to walk away and steel my resolve to even trudge on. It's miserably painful. Awfully boring. Absolutely predictable. As I said in my posts, I loved him from the beginning of aGoT. But by the end of aGoT, all the way to the end of aDwD, I absolutely loathed reading his POVs.

 

Look. I like fantasy. Here I am commenting on a forum about it. But, the amount of sad bastard, lone ranger, confused young men, who are clearly slated for great things, is staggering. It gets old. And he got old, FAST. I hated Ned losing his head. But looking back on it, I'm glad as hell we got out of his POVs. Noble honor and duty is just plain boring. Same with Jon.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 minute ago, HaeSuse said:

Yes. More accurately, that his very few dimensions (sad bastard son.... and conflicted lone ranger), are shallow and boring. 

No, I haven't missed his chapters. I'm rereading right now, and each time I turn a page and see "JON" at the top of a new chapter, I have to walk away and steel my resolve to even trudge on. It's miserably painful. Awfully boring. Absolutely predictable. As I said in my posts, I loved him from the beginning of aGoT. But by the end of aGoT, all the way to the end of aDwD, I absolutely loathed reading his POVs.

Look. I like fantasy. Here I am commenting on a forum about it. But, the amount of sad bastard, lone ranger, confused young men, who are clearly slated for great things, is staggering. It gets old. And he got old, FAST. I hated Ned losing his head. But looking back on it, I'm glad as hell we got out of his POVs. Noble honor and duty is just plain boring. Same with Jon.

So you hate him and I can understand hate but that is not the same with him being one dimensional character. His conflicted thoughts and moral dilemmas prove that he isn't a one dimensional character

[HaeSuse]

19 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

So you hate him and I can understand hate but that is not the same with him being one dimensional character. His conflicted thoughts and moral dilemmas prove that he isn't a one dimensional character

 

 

You've got it all wrong. I love Jon Snow. Were I a character in aSoIaF, I would hope beyond hope to be his friend and companion. Were he a real life dude, I'd hope the same. He is truly an amazing creature. However, as a reader, I hate his story, his arc, his thoughts, etc. There is a difference in hating a character for who they are, and hating a character for how they are portrayed.  His conflicted thoughts only prove he's an honorable thing trying to live in a not-so-honorable world. They are not deep. I remember on my first reading, getting sick of predicting exactly how he was about to react. And I was always right. It's miserable. What are his "moral dilemmas" that you speak of? To bed, or not to bed, Ygritte? SO DEEP! It's what any hormonal teenage boy who prides himself on his honor, would go through in those circumstances. It's not multidimensional. It's utterly one dimensional. Having internal questions does not a deep man make.

 

What else? To kill or not to kill Qhorin? What was his other option? Just let the wildlings kill them both? TOUGH CALL!!!! 

 

What else? Crying about becoming a steward? Erhmagerd, how incredibly fun to read, and just so many dimensions!

 

What else? His hatred of Thorne? Jesus mother mercy, more of that?

The closest he gets to multidimensionality is maybe the whole deal with baby swapping, and allying with wildlings. And even that, in the face of otherwise certain doom, is not really deep or dimensional.

 

In each and every case, he reacts precisely as one would expect a "bastard son of Ned Stark, currently still finishing puberty out", to react. Where is the fun? Where are these "dimensions"? 

 

Not trying to be combative. But... in my mind, someone might describe a multidimensional character as follows: 

 

"He's honorable, yet makes questionably dishonorable decisions from time to time, that are hard to jive with his honor. (not Jon! honor honor honor honor honor honor!!!!). He's charming, but can be brusque, rude and curt at times! (not Jon!). He's intelligent, but makes dimwitted mistakes (not Jon!). He's kind to those he hates, and mean to those he loves! (not Jon!)."

 

Jon is precisely and exactly what NED would have been had their circumstances been reversed. That's not fun. Nor multidimensional.

 

What evidence have you in favor of this purported multidimensionality?!?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

10 minutes ago, HaeSuse said:

You've got it all wrong. I love Jon Snow.

It doesn't look like that.

10 minutes ago, HaeSuse said:

What evidence have you in favor of this purported multidimensionality?!?

  I have read his PoVs carefully and I have seen his struggles to do the best that he can no matter what result it will have to him. You may say that the fact that he cares about others is what make him boring, I say that this is what makes him the leading male character. 

[HaeSuse]

21 hours ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

It doesn't look like that.

  I have read his PoVs carefully and I have seen his struggles to do the best that he can no matter what result it will have to him. You may say that the fact that he cares about others is what make him boring, I say that this is what makes him the leading male character. 

 

I get that. Most people pick that character (or his analog) in fantasy series as their favorites. Seoman in Memory, Sorrow and Thorn. Aragorn in LOTR. Etc. Jon is a stock character that anyone could have written. He is a trope, nothing more. 

 

And, maybe you don't get it... Who wouldn't love a real human being who was as Jon is? I mean, I have 4 kids. I hope they all are as honorable, kind and true, as Jon Snow. It would be an awesome goal to strive for. But... that doesn't mean you have to enjoy his story, does it? Or maybe you think it does. "I like Character X as a person, so I have to like his story!"

 

Is that your stance? 

 

I prefer a truly multidimensional character, ala Tyrion. Or, Boromir in LOTR. Or Binabik in Memory, Sorrow and Thorn.  I don't have to think the character is a GOOD character for me to think his STORY is a good one.

 

I don't know what you can't follow here, but no worries. Carry on. Jon Snow for President.

[Foot_Of_The_King]

The underdog (in case bastard) always appeals to people. It's what made me root for him in the beginning. 

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

He is the most interesting and mysterious of the Starks .

[Gaz0680]

1 hour ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

He is the most interesting and mysterious of the Starks .

Actually, Jon is the least of the Starks on both counts.

He is the most predictable, by far, and there isn't any air of mystery about him.

[Ingelheim]

I find him to be the most interesting Stark.