What exactly is the appeal of Jon Snow?

[total1402]

What is your point? All I said is that Jon saves people lives and get stabbed. Hardly a free pass... Can you disagree that a assassination attempt because someone saves people live is unjustified? After all is that a thread about who was abused more?

I'am being asked to respect the character. IMO he has not suffered truly or on anything like a level of the other characters. This makes what he has endured seem tame and hence he has not endured the sort of trial by fire that would justify that level of respect. Hes had it easy. Everything he does works. He instantly earns the respect of people. Rarely do things backfire harshly on him and I can only put this down to a very forgiving context that has plastered over his flaws. Most other characters even if they had strengths were put in positions of weakness where they couldn't use them or suffered. Jon hasn't, therefore I can't respect the man (like I could Gaunt in GG) which is what the story is demanding of you to do.

[total1402]

The thread is not about Dany, people. Stay on-topic.

Also, at the point where someone is saying that actually being killed* is not a setback, I think you just have to agree to disagree.

*usual qualifiers apply.

Its a random setback. Not the result of weakness. Like if Rob Stark was hit by a lightening bolt on the way South. A few people who attacked Jon when he was putting things together incredibly well.

One big setback for five books is incredibly good going. Most of the main POV have been systematiclly destroyed and torn up; often explicitly humiliated in their ways. Jons had it good.

[Lady Aislinn]

Its a random setback. Not the result of weakness. Like if Rob Stark was hit by a lightening bolt on the way South. A few people who attacked Jon when he was putting things together incredibly well.

One big setback for five books is incredibly good going. Most of the main POV have been systematiclly destroyed and torn up; often explicitly humiliated in their ways. Jons had it good.

I think the problem is your notion that a character has to lose a hand, an arm, a leg, head, raped, pillaged, sold as slave in order to be interesting. These are not mutually exclusive. You can have everything and a free pass and come off as an ass or vice versa, you suffer a lot and you act even more like an ass.

Sorry about bringing up Dany again, but I do personally feel that GRRM loves her character so much, and yet it has the exact opposite effect on the readers.

[Little Wing]

I don't see why characters should suffer for me to like them.....As I said it's Jon's compassion that's appealing to me among other things, not going to repeat myself.

[E-Ro]

The idead that having something bad happen to you gives you a free pass to do bad things is ridiculous, complete and utter nonesense. Let me get this straight, in order for you to like a charecter something horrible has to happen to them? And this horrible thing cant be in your opinion, "random". That is really kind of odd, to each his own I geuss.

[total1402]

I think the problem is your notion that a character has to lose a hand, an arm, a leg, head, raped, pillaged, sold as slave in order to be interesting. These are not mutually exclusive. You can have everything and a free pass and come off as an ass or vice versa, you suffer a lot and you act even more like an ass.

Sorry about bringing up Dany again, but I do personally feel that GRRM loves her character so much, and yet it has the exact opposite effect on the readers.

Its not just about interesting or not, its the insistence that I respect the man, and his ability to get away with doing the right thing because Martin gives him forgiving contexts to work with.

R u saying I don't like Dany? :D I like Dany, but Martin tries overly hard to avoid making her out to be a Mary Sue character and IMO has thrown an obscene amount of setbacks/difficult contexts at the character. He put a warpstorm between her and Westeros for christs sake!

[JaimeTheMannister]

1. He constantly got put down by catelynn despite being a great sibling to her children

2. Him and arya were basically best buds so if you follow her storyline I think deep down you want him to make it just to save arya any more grief

3. He's honorable much like Ned

4. He's the man when it comes to swordplay

5. I always thought it was cool that he has a valyrian steel sword now that ice is in the hands of Lannisters

6. And last but not least you really want him to find out who his mother is after all this fuss and speculation

[total1402]

The idead that having something bad happen to you gives you a free pass to do bad things is ridiculous, complete and utter nonesense. Let me get this straight, in order for you to like a charecter something horrible has to happen to them? And this horrible thing cant be in your opinion, "random". That is really kind of odd, to each his own I geuss.

To respect a character, horrible things have to happen to them; yes. Every fantasy book is like that; overcoming obstacles that are in line with the context of the story. Martin set the bar very low for Jon Snow and gives him a favorable set of circumstances to work with; unlike every other character out there. He impressed Tyrion right from the beginning and hence had few character flaws. He was a suffering bastard who prooves open-minded and compassioante to those around him. He gets away with this when other benign and compassionate traits are poison and the doom of other characters.

[E-Ro]

To respect a character, horrible things have to happen to them; yes. Every fantasy book is like that; overcoming obstacles that are in line with the context of the story. Martin set the bar very low for Jon Snow and gives him a favorable set of circumstances to work with; unlike every other character out there. He impressed Tyrion right from the beginning and hence had few character flaws. He was a suffering bastard who prooves open-minded and compassioante to those around him. He gets away with this when other benign and compassionate traits are poison and the doom of other characters.

So you cant respect someone unless somethig horrible happened to them? :dunno: I find that kind of funny. And how is jon being a bastard sent to the wall a favorable set of circumstances? Tyrion respecting him means he has few flaws? What? Im not following the logic here.

[brashcandy]

To respect a character, horrible things have to happen to them; yes. Every fantasy book is like that; overcoming obstacles that are in line with the context of the story. Martin set the bar very low for Jon Snow and gives him a favorable set of circumstances to work with; unlike every other character out there. He impressed Tyrion right from the beginning and hence had few character flaws. He was a suffering bastard who prooves open-minded and compassioante to those around him. He gets away with this when other benign and compassionate traits are poison and the doom of other characters.

No, sorry. To respect a character involves seeing how they react to the horrible things that happen to them and around them. That Jon Snow strives to respond in a decent, considerate manner, whilst looking at the big picture, and having to make unpopular decisions nevertheless is what makes readers admire him. For some reason it pisses others off who equate depravity and selfishness with character development and depth.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

snip

once again because his action to save people's lives don't backfired at his face.

So to sum up, when someone:

Is and been treated like an outcast.

Don't know even who his mother is.

Is been emotionaly abused.

Has been throw out of his house.

Has to join criminals and be around them.

Thrown into an ice cage.

Being treated as a traitor's bastard.

Humiliated, a lot.

Has his dream about being a ranger taken away from him, instead he becomes a servand.

Faced and killed an Other.

Being hurt from fighting the Other (3 years later and he has scars)

Had to deal with his father death.

Had to stay true to his words instead of pursuing revenge for his father death.

and all those only in the first book when he is 14 isn't suffering enought? :stillsick:

[Peko]

Not all characters have to be batshit insane or overly cynical like Tyrion, Jaime, Cersei, and Theon. People come with all different sorts of personalities, with some being more grounded than others. That's really all I can say without spending an hour typing a fleshed out, but ultimately meaningless, response.

And I find it funny when anyone says Jon hasn't suffered. Uh, what? Last time I checked, he's been on the Wall or north of it the entire series, a place that's supposed to be harsh and hellishly cold, to the extent that NO ONE wants to go there save for Tyrion and his curiosity. And to be north of the Wall in the Haunted Forest with god knows what? Most people would be scared shitless. And then there's all the physical and emotional hardships he has faced, as outlined by Jon's Queen Consort.

[butterbumps!]

Let's accept your premise that Bowen is as bad morally and incompetent as you claim (I have my doubts, but let's leave this aside for now). Why did Jon kept him as what amount to his second or third in command then and didn't do anything to keep an eye on him? Isn't this a serious failure of leadership?

I know we disagree strongly on this issue :cool4: .

I think this is one facet that really highlights how crippled the Watch is institutionally. Jon can't "honorably discharge" men, and unless Bowen refused a direct order (which he hadn't), Jon had no basis on which to punish or detain him. Jon's trying to "do the right thing" and in order to do this, is trying to work according to his brothers' strengths and abilities; however, this creates discord amongst those who are used to privilege through seniority and elevated ranks.

When it comes down to it, Jon opposes Bowen in terms of not following his advice, but remains respectful and still hears his counsel. Jon isn't hostile to Bowen, but rather tries to get Bowen to see his side and continues treating him as befits his rank. I don't know if Jon had to take such dramatic action as replace Bowen's nominal position of importance; he does do this de facto with Tormund + crew, but continues to meet with Bowen. What I'm trying to say is that I think it was a good diplomatic move to keep Bowen in his position, as it doesn't look like Jon's stripping him of rank or replacing him overtly. It's a quieter form of rebellion that Jon plays to.

I don't know if I fully understand what your contention is with this. You say that Jon was wrong for not keeping an eye on Bowen. But this is precisely what he does by keeping him in that position as counsellor. I think Jon is right for not conceding to Bowen's "advice," but I think he's also right for keeping Bowen close by to keep an eye on him (i.e. not overtly replace him for someone else). Keeping him in council is precisely keeping tabs on him.

I think I'm also unclear about Bowen's virtue. I'm not really sure that Jon is to be blamed for not heeding this man. I've tried explaining how Bowen, himself, chose not to give Jon useful advice according to his expertise. Jon wanted Bowen to help brainstorm alternatives; when Bowen realized that the wildlings' coming south was non-negotiable, he explicitly refused to offer sound wisdom in retaliation. Effectively, Bowen went on strike in terms of advice giving because he did not like the fact that these "big baddies" were going to be offered sanctuary.

I don't want to go overboard in terms of defending Jon pertaining to the assassination attempt, but I do want to mention that there have been leaders cut down by their own men despite the fact that they were "good" people or "good" leaders- Judas and Christ (and no, I'm not trying to be indulgent about a Jon=Christ parallel, just illustrating an example), Caesar, even Lord Commander Mormont. So I really have trouble looking at the dissension in the ranks as something tangible that points to Jon's wrongness here.

[Lady Aislinn]

No, sorry. To respect a character involves seeing how they react to the horrible things that happen to them and around them. That Jon Snow strives to respond in a decent, considerate manner, whilst looking at the big picture, and having to make unpopular decisions nevertheless is what makes readers admire him. For some reason it pisses others off who equate depravity and selfishness with character development and depth.

OT. But your sig is just awesome. Hear, hear!

[WithPointyEnd]

He hasn't suffered enough?? Aside from all other things (betrayals,deaths,battles,plots, vs vs.) only being at the Wall and being a member of NW can be seen as a punishment.It's bloody cold out there,and Jon has to deal with a huge host of wildlings who are only running from WW.He was a bastard from the beginning and he was never truly loved at Winterfell either.Cat despised him and from what I can guess whatever the secret behind his birth,Eddard showed him little affection (I am not saying he didn't have affection,but he didn't show.He had a family in which he was already lonely and lost that family too.He lost his first love,he lost his uncle and countless other things.He has suffered enough.Jamie Lannister havent suffered for his entire life,so losing his hand of course changed him.Same is not true for Jon.

In my opinion Jon's POV is sometimes boring,but his character is not boring.I think the Wall was really boring before Stannis arrived but when Jon was out there,amongst the free folk and climbing the Wall with Magnar's men etc it was epic.

Jon is an honourable man.He has shown us he can be ruthless and he is also pragmatic too.In the entire series,Starks were flawless except their pride and their extraordinary self-righteousness.Jon being a bastard does not have that.

Yeah,he is the good guy.But in the GRRM world good guy freezes at the Wall whereas incest-born psychos or drunks rule the kingdom.

[mormont]

[mod] Seriously, people. Not about Dany. Stay on the topic of Jon. [/mod]

[Light a wight tonight]

Wow, we have fans of psychopaths, sociopaths, embezzlers, entitled ditzes, all sorts of oddballs and someone has to bag on a moderately normal character. Edd, bring me a block.

[Ragnorak]

Jon is a character we get to watch evolving from a boy into a man while enduring very personal struggles of self, love, duty, and honor. He is hated by Cat but still deeply loves all his siblings. He excludes himself from the Starks to convince Ned to keep the direwolves, lies to Robb about his mother being kind when he said goodbye to Bran, and is able to make friends with Tyrion despite the open hostility between Lannisters and Starks.

When he reaches the Wall he is alone, bitter, and disillusioned but manages to overcome his internal problems and befriend his fellow recruits with some help and advice from Noye and Tyrion. He even manages to unite them against Thorne in defense of Sam. Sam repays him by helping him understand why he was selected as the LC's steward and not a ranger. His heart is still with his family and father and this angry young man is still hot headed enough to run off and join Robb, but is stopped by the loyal friends he earned himself in his brief time at the Wall. Jon isn't the confident leader with self control he eventually grows into, but someone who gives friendship and loyalty that earns him the help he needs on his journey.

i love the Northmen and the Wildlings and especially the Stannis that shows up at the Wall. Jon is our gateway POV to these fascinating characters, but they are only seen in this interesting light because of who Jon is. If Jon were a lickspittle or a power monger we would never see the humorous or "softer" side of Stannis. If he hadn't earned Aemon's respect we would never get the Targaryen reveal speech about choosing. The colorful cast of characters we only see through Jon's eyes are as vivid as they are because of Jon.

People like to focus on the "fetch me a block" line but the first beheading was Ygritte. The whole point of looking into someone's eyes and hearing his last words is that he (or she in this case) might not deserve to die. This choice to emulate Ned and spare Ygritte is what leads the Halfhand to trust Jon with going over to the Wildlings and introduces us to Tormund, Mance, Val, Ygritte, etc as Jon completes his rite of passage journey. The Jon we see return to the Wall has transformed from a hot headed youth into the consummate quiet professional where a far greater portion of his character development and struggles are internal. The choice to go south after Arya is the full circle culmination of his entire development and stuggles. An immature emotional boy would have fled south after Robb but a wiser more level headed man chooses to lead men south after Arya.

Nothing says you have to like Jon's character or story. If you find the reasons Martin presents to like Jon bland, that's a your preference. No one's going to hire a Faceless Man over it. But if you don't see any reasons at all I think you're missing out on a lot of the story.

[Melifeather]

Jon and his POV is one of my favorites. As a bastard child being raised within the same home as his father and a mother figure who resents him even being there, he could have turned out a lot worse. Instead of being angry, resentful and spiteful, he is loving, respectful and honorable. Yes he was disallusioned at first by the type of men the Watch actually were, and he had a superior attitude towards them, but LC Mormont quickly brought him back down to earth and he really came to understand and empathized with the men, especially the new recruits. He didn't let Bowen Marsh get to him, nor believe his insults. He proved him and his cronies wrong and rose above the negative attacks thrown his way and bettered himself. He shows true leadership abilities. He isn't one to verbally demand respect...he earned it.

[wolverine]

To the OP, let me guess you didn't like Ned either?