GRRM, literary conventions and Jon Snow

[Dragonstar]

I don't think GRRM wrote the series with the specific idea of subverting existing tropes. That would imply that his whole series exists in the negative space - that its whole point is to be "not your typical" fantasy.

As a bad writer and a better reader, I can say this - very few gifted story tellers tell their stories with any purpose other than to simply tell their stories. And what a story this is.

[The Idiots Lantern]

My biggest issue is that people start insisting, loudly, and with well-annotated "evidence," that Jon Snow is the Song of Ice and Fire. He's the Main Hero, the morally pure guide for goodness who will do the right thing always, save the world, and he's a secret prince with magical powers too. How could he not end up being the Main Hero? He so obviously DESERVES it.

Nevermind that he ended his last book bleeding out from multiple stab wounds. He'll shrug that off. Someone will give him a band-aid or something. Or Mel will save him with her magic powers, although we don't know of any spells that work like that...

If his body dies and he spends time in Ghost...and then as a resurrected Corpse...I will think that's a cool subversion of the trope. To end up Saving the World as a rotting corpse with yawning gashes leaking magic fire....

[Spinebreaker]

The vast majority of readers have NO IDEA about RLJ. Or Cleganstein. They think Sandor's dead and haven't wondered who Jon's mother is.

This forum is an extremely focused minority... Your average reader didn't notice belarion, or Brienne finding Dunk's shield. People, by and large, are stupid and have no idea how to use the word 'trope' in a sentence.

90% of the readership would be surprised by Jon's reveal (if RLJ) 'cause they haven't discussed it ad infinitum on here.

All that is needed to subvert the trope is that Jon ends up on the Throne with NO IDEA who he is. Or he learns who he is, and no-one believes it.

It would be INCREDIBLE if GRRM has another story for Jon and RLJ *isn't* true, but the alternative makes as much sense, and has been foreshadowed and hinted at. He'd not only surprise the casual readers, but he'd have done an astonishing double bluff on us obssesives.

[ozbluei]

Soooo how big are the odds that both Jon Snow and Daenerys Targaryen actually end up as antagonists by the last book? :P

I'd say close to 0% since Jon is dead ;)

People are discussing subversion of fantasy cliches and yet are indulging in them themselves I think. Everyone assumes that Jon the hero must survive being stabbed 4 times. Plot armor doesn't exist in this series. For me, Jon was simply a point of view to illustrate what was happening North of the Wall - which is now unneccessary. I prefer to believe Jon is dead until proved otherwise. Actually, I have a hope that no Stark will survive the series - because it would make an elegant contrast to the opening chapter.

[The King's Justice]

Take for example, Jon’s hidden parentage and Kingship. His lineage certainly might provide him with a claim to the throne, but almost from the beginning GRRM subjected him to an institution and vows that nullify whatever claim he might have had through his connection to Rhaegar, therefore subverting our own expectations for its parentage once we realize it. If we, as readers, still expect Jon to become King we must asks ourselves, how then? Robb’s will? Duty? He might see it see it as duty to accept Robb’s will in order to further the chances against the Others. But then, how will his siblings view this act through their own POVs? Will him accepting the will make him a traitor in his siblings’ eyes and prove Cat’s fears about him true?ll by himself.

When Jon is Betrayed by the men of the watch and stabbed several times he is technically dead. The Nights Watch oath states that my watch shall not "end until my death". By him dying there, his watch is over, and he is technically free to do what he wants should he manage to be revived in some way.

I think he is a Targaryen but probably still bastard born. He has a dream where he is armoured in black ice fighting the others on the wall so I think he will help fight them but him marrying Daenerys and living happily ever after seems a bit unlike George RR Martin. Especially when Daenerys can't have children and continue the Targaryen line.

No one know's what's going to happen and that's what makes this series outstanding!

[The King's Justice]

I'd say close to 0% since Jon is dead ;)

People are discussing subversion of fantasy cliches and yet are indulging in them themselves I think. Everyone assumes that Jon the hero must survive being stabbed 4 times. Plot armor doesn't exist in this series. For me, Jon was simply a point of view to illustrate what was happening North of the Wall - which is now unneccessary. I prefer to believe Jon is dead until proved otherwise. Actually, I have a hope that no Stark will survive the series - because it would make an elegant contrast to the opening chapter.

I think that would make a good story too, and if Jon is dead the story would continue and the wall would come down and seven hells would break loose and it would be outstanding!

However, the next book (The Winds of Winter) was originally meant to be called "A Time for Wolves" .... I think that spelt out too literally what was going to happen in the next book so George RR Martin changed it! So I think Bran and Rickon will come back and Arya will start changing her face and Sansa will be whipped out from somewhere and some, if not all of those Starks will survive.

[mcb]

I'd say close to 0% since Jon is dead ;)

People are discussing subversion of fantasy cliches and yet are indulging in them themselves I think. Everyone assumes that Jon the hero must survive being stabbed 4 times. Plot armor doesn't exist in this series.

It has nothing to do with fantasy cliches, but with storytelling in general. Jon's storyline has been simply too big to allow him to simply exit stage left in the last chapter of Book 5, with two more to go. Similarly: some haters indulge in a fantasy of Dany never going to Westeros - she will, and it has nothing to do with exiled heirs, ancient prophecies and other stock fantasy shit. It's simply dictated by the sheer volume of her POV chapters and the fact that the master plot takes place in Westeros, hence Westeros and Dany will meet.

And yes, some characters do enjoy powerful plot armor (protecting from death, mind you, not from pain). Arya. Bran. Arya. Dany, Tyrion, and yes, Lord Snow. And Arya. (And I don't mind, just to be clear.)

For me, Jon was simply a point of view to illustrate what was happening North of the Wall - which is now unneccessary.

Nope, Jon Snow was not another Areo Hotah. Way too much back story, for one. There's still the mystery of his parentage, for example: that's a Chekhov's gun, and a Chekhov's gun needs to discharge. But if Jon's dead like a Norwegian Blue parrot, then the issue of his pedigree is rendered completely irrelevant - a Chekhov's dud.

[Lonin]

I don't think GRRM wrote the series with the specific idea of subverting existing tropes. That would imply that his whole series exists in the negative space - that its whole point is to be "not your typical" fantasy.

As a bad writer and a better reader, I can say this - very few gifted story tellers tell their stories with any purpose other than to simply tell their stories. And what a story this is.

:agree:

[PG_Tips]

A lot of Jon's story has been about learning to lead. And I think his time as LC was part of that and not that the prior lessons were leading to it. I can only assume it's leading somewhere.

[ozbluei]

I completely disagree. I think that being killed in the text is evidence that he is dead, not evidence that he will live for 2 more books !

Big storylines have to end somewhere....and involving the Night's Watch in kingdom politics was an unforgiveable sin.

[Winterfellian]

I completely disagree. I think that being killed in the text is evidence that he is dead, not evidence that he will live for 2 more books !

Big storylines have to end somewhere....and involving the Night's Watch in kingdom politics was an unforgiveable sin.

Did we see him dead in the text though? We saw him stabbed. That's it. His "death" as you put it doesn't correspond with the deaths of other pov characters, where we see them died in their own pov (like Cat) or receive almost immediate confirmation by another (as is the case of Ned and Quentyn). Jon's "death" resemble more a cliffhanger, like Brienne's in AFFC or Davos in ACOK. And if we were to strictly adhere to the hero archetype, Jon's assassination fits the parameters of hero's death prior to resurrection.

I agree with you that story lines have to end somewhere but Jon's isn't over yet and it takes a lot of wishful thinking to pretend otherwise. As mcb points out, Jon isn't the Areo Hotah of the Wall. No matter how much you wish it was otherwise. He's a character on his own right and there's still much to be resolved regarding him. Killing him now will be like killing Dany before reaching Westeros, which is to say that his death now will amount to nothing and rendered the copious amounts of times spent in developing his character in the previous books a complete waste of time.

[Spinebreaker]

I completely disagree. I think that being killed in the text is evidence that he is dead, not evidence that he will live for 2 more books !

Big storylines have to end somewhere....and involving the Night's Watch in kingdom politics was an unforgiveable sin.

Like when the text told us Berric Dondarion was dead. Or when the text told us Bran and Rickon were dead. Or when the text told us Mance Rayder was dead. Or when the text told us Sandor was dead. When the text made it seem Davos was dead. Or perhaps when Arya was hurt and we didn't know the full extent. Or when Tyrion could have been dead. Or when Catelyn or Gregor clegane died on the page.

Jon's been stabbed and fallen into the Snow.

Ice preserves.

Anyone, who's ever read ANYTHING with any kind of narrative structure more complex than a Mr. Men book can see Jon's story isn't finished. Subverting a trope is one thing, but disregarding the structure of fiction is something completely different.

[TheTowerOfJoy]

I completely disagree. I think that being killed in the text is evidence that he is dead, not evidence that he will live for 2 more books !

Big storylines have to end somewhere....and involving the Night's Watch in kingdom politics was an unforgiveable sin.

GEORGE R.R. MARTIN: Oh, you think he’s dead, do you?

[lacunajilly]

Analysis like this is always so interesting and certainly there is a lot of knowledge to be gained by looking at how Martin has defying expecations by subverting tropes or how he can use the world he has built up to "save" all the work he has put into the Jon Snow story. But it seems very unusual to me that nearly all of the theories about Jon Snow overlook the actual character. Martin has very strong characterization, he didn't build up all that characterization just to throw it away.

The only way that Jon Snow is going to stop being Jon Snow is if being reborn as AA means his personality is replaced with AA's. Sure finding out who his parents are will effect him and change him, so will the ongoing war with the others, so will being stabbed to death by his own brothers. But do you honestly think he is going to wake up from his stabbing and say: "Hey guys I was dead for 10 seconds that means my vows to the Night Watch are complete, thanks for that I can now go claim my throne, see ya!" Seriously where do you find that in the characterization? Even if Jon is dead for days and Mel brings him back as UnJon it just doesn't fit with his characterization.

I agree with Dragonstar, Martin is a storyteller, a master storyteller and whatever happens he will develop and cultivate the characterization foundations he has laid for us. Personally I have begun to think of how if the boy Jon is dead the man will either crumble in this trama or be forged stronger. I can completely see betrayl of the NW mixing with the grief for his family and turning Jon into a very dark antagonist and I can also see another path where Jon who has always been so much Ned's son will begin to learn from Ned's mistakes. After all Jon's stabbing was sort of like watching Ned just walk right up the blade again.

[Summah]

As a bad writer and a better reader, I can say this - very few gifted story tellers tell their stories with any purpose other than to simply tell their stories. And what a story this is.

A lot of writers (and very gifted ones) tell their stories with much more purpose than to simply tell their stories. Here are a few examples: the Crucible (a play, but still a story) by Arthur Miller is superficially a story about the Salem witch trials, but it's really a polemic against McCarthyism and has been used more recently against some of the unconstitutional aspects of the fight against terrorism post-9-11. A light reading of Pride & Prejudice by Jane Austen is a romantic comedy, but warns against blindly believing superficial first impressions, acting without considering the thoughts and feelings of other people and the folly of entering relationships without consideration of aspects other than purely love (ie financial stability, character, no affection etc). On the surface Machiavelli's the Prince can be read as a guide to gaining and keeping for people with questionable ethics, but underneath it's a satire of those types of politics and is actually arguing for republicanism. And that's without even discussing Shakespeare who is arguably the master of this type of literature. Of course not all literature has multiple meanings, for example, I doubt many harlequin romances have hidden meaning (though I don't read them, so I could be wrong).

I don't think GRRM wrote the series with the specific idea of subverting existing tropes. That would imply that his whole series exists in the negative space - that its whole point is to be "not your typical" fantasy.

One of the big themes of postmodern literature is deconstructing existing literary conventions. Authors include William S. Burroughs, Kurt Vonnegut, Thomas Pynchon, Yann Martel, Michael Chabon and lots more. I am not claiming GRRM is a postmodernist, I don't know enough about him and I have not read any of his other work. But one could probably make a decent argument for ASOIAF as postmodernist literature. I'm not sure though that anyone here wants delve into subjects like critical theory, Derrida and Foucault.

[Wanderer]

Honestly, who reads stories because they "subvert tropes". Isn't it a bit hipster to like something only because its different? Never mind the quality, functionality, etc?

Hero structures can imo be played with and I know there is this cultural pressure to think out of the box, but there are structures to our stories across all cultures that share common themes. This points to a certain truth in our nature that shouldn't be denied or suppressed for the sake of novelty. I think we should be careful what we wish for and let the master finish his work.

[Summah]

Honestly, who reads stories because they "subvert tropes". Isn't it a bit hipster to like something only because its different? Never mind the quality, functionality, etc?

Hero structures can imo be played with and I know there is this cultural pressure to think out of the box, but there are structures to our stories across all cultures that share common themes. This points to a certain truth in our nature that shouldn't be denied or suppressed for the sake of novelty. I think we should be careful what we wish for and let the master finish his work.

I read generally—first and foremost—for quality of writing, I don't care how good the characters or plot are, if the prose is not good, I won't read it. Second, I look for interesting and well developed characters. Other aspects follow those two. If a plot is horrible or boring then I probably won't read it or finish it, but I've been known to make exceptions for beautiful prose. If something is very cliched, I probably won't finish it if I started it. If the surface plot is all there is to something, I will probably finish it if the writing and characters are good, but I won't find it very interesting and certainly won't reread it.

[Addam of Hull]

Analysis like this is always so interesting and certainly there is a lot of knowledge to be gained by looking at how Martin has defying expecations by subverting tropes or how he can use the world he has built up to "save" all the work he has put into the Jon Snow story. But it seems very unusual to me that nearly all of the theories about Jon Snow overlook the actual character. Martin has very strong characterization, he didn't build up all that characterization just to throw it away.

The only way that Jon Snow is going to stop being Jon Snow is if being reborn as AA means his personality is replaced with AA's. Sure finding out who his parents are will effect him and change him, so will the ongoing war with the others, so will being stabbed to death by his own brothers. But do you honestly think he is going to wake up from his stabbing and say: "Hey guys I was dead for 10 seconds that means my vows to the Night Watch are complete, thanks for that I can now go claim my throne, see ya!" Seriously where do you find that in the characterization? Even if Jon is dead for days and Mel brings him back as UnJon it just doesn't fit with his characterization.

I agree with Dragonstar, Martin is a storyteller, a master storyteller and whatever happens he will develop and cultivate the characterization foundations he has laid for us. Personally I have begun to think of how if the boy Jon is dead the man will either crumble in this trama or be forged stronger. I can completely see betrayl of the NW mixing with the grief for his family and turning Jon into a very dark antagonist and I can also see another path where Jon who has always been so much Ned's son will begin to learn from Ned's mistakes. After all Jon's stabbing was sort of like watching Ned just walk right up the blade again.

While I agree that Martin has carefully built Jon's characterization from the ground up, I would be leery of misinterpreting peoples arguments and analysis of Jon and his story arc. Notably, Jon's story revolves around vows in a very similar way to Jaime's. Through Jon, Martin explores what it means to take an oath, how taking one affects a person, and how oaths can be as much a crutch as anything. Jon's storyline is especially focused on the nature of oaths and how they should be obeyed -- is the important part of a vow the words that are said or the intentions behind the vow? How are oaths meant to be followed? Is it acceptable to break your oaths? Or should you follow them blindly? These questions are also explored in Jaime and Barristan's POV, but of all the characters in ASOIAF, Jon seems to be one of them that takes his oaths the most seriously.

He also struggles with them more than any other character. He's tempted by a lot of different things - the desire for vengeance for his father, the desire to be loved, the desire to father a son, the desire to save his family - but there's a running undercurrent amid all these struggles that form a single, poignant conclusion: the only thing that actually matters is protecting the realm. It's a conclusion that Jon reaches in ADWD when he begins to garrison the Wall with Wildlings. He doesn't them to take the vows, he simply needs them to fight and keep the realm safe. The oaths themselves are largely irrelevant in front of protecting Westeros and the people that live there. Qhorin alludes to this ACOK when he tells Jon that one man's honor is nothing compared to keeping the realm safe.

And I think fundamentally, Jon's arc is flowing in the opposite way that Jaime's is. Jaime is a man who has soiled himself by breaking his vows and it is in renewing those vows that he finds a purpose again. Jon is headed the opposite direction. More and more within the course of ADWD, he bucks against tradition and the institution of the Night's Watch as a whole. Unlike Jaime, who finds new meaning as Lord Commander in the Kingsguard, Jon finds himself shackled as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. I don't think it's by coincidence that both of their stories end on something of a cliffhanger, with Brienne potentially escorting Jaime to his own hanging or to his freedom. For Jon, I can't help but think that his story is leading him to the point where he has to break with the Watch, not because he wants to, but because it's the right thing to do. Perhaps it seems counterintuitive, but this tendency of doing what's right despite his vows is one of his innate characteristics - see sparing Ygritte and then the old man at Queenscrown. Such a break is coming, I think, and it runs counter to a lot of peoples beliefs and expectations. Readers believe that Jon will stay at the Wall because it's the honorable thing to do and because they believe that Jon, as a person that is generally a good person, would not stoop to truly breaking his vows. But one of the challenges Martin puts to us is to let go of our preconceived notions of what's right and wrong and look deeper at the heart of the matter.

The concept of oathbreaking is looked at with a negative light - both in the books and by many readers. And it's that belief that Martin tries to challenge with Jon's story line. A man can break his oaths and vows and be called an oathbreaker and a liar and a traitor, but still be a fundamentally good person. Doing the honorable thing and keeping one's vows is not always right.

I'm not sure where Martin wants Jon to go next. He might be a King and he might be a Wildling or he might just be a man barely surviving. But what I am confident of is that Jon's story will eventually involve him deliberately parting ways with the Night's Watch because it's the right thing to do.

[Darryk]

While I agree that Martin has carefully built Jon's characterization from the ground up, I would be leery of misinterpreting peoples arguments and analysis of Jon and his story arc. Notably, Jon's story revolves around vows in a very similar way to Jaime's. Through Jon, Martin explores what it means to take an oath, how taking one affects a person, and how oaths can be as much a crutch as anything. Jon's storyline is especially focused on the nature of oaths and how they should be obeyed -- is the important part of a vow the words that are said or the intentions behind the vow? How are oaths meant to be followed? Is it acceptable to break your oaths? Or should you follow them blindly? These questions are also explored in Jaime and Barristan's POV, but of all the characters in ASOIAF, Jon seems to be one of them that takes his oaths the most seriously.

He also struggles with them more than any other character. He's tempted by a lot of different things - the desire for vengeance for his father, the desire to be loved, the desire to father a son, the desire to save his family - but there's a running undercurrent amid all these struggles that form a single, poignant conclusion: the only thing that actually matters is protecting the realm. It's a conclusion that Jon reaches in ADWD when he begins to garrison the Wall with Wildlings. He doesn't them to take the vows, he simply needs them to fight and keep the realm safe. The oaths themselves are largely irrelevant in front of protecting Westeros and the people that live there. Qhorin alludes to this ACOK when he tells Jon that one man's honor is nothing compared to keeping the realm safe.

And I think fundamentally, Jon's arc is flowing in the opposite way that Jaime's is. Jaime is a man who has soiled himself by breaking his vows and it is in renewing those vows that he finds a purpose again. Jon is headed the opposite direction. More and more within the course of ADWD, he bucks against tradition and the institution of the Night's Watch as a whole. Unlike Jaime, who finds new meaning as Lord Commander in the Kingsguard, Jon finds himself shackled as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. I don't think it's by coincidence that both of their stories end on something of a cliffhanger, with Brienne potentially escorting Jaime to his own hanging or to his freedom. For Jon, I can't help but think that his story is leading him to the point where he has to break with the Watch, not because he wants to, but because it's the right thing to do. Perhaps it seems counterintuitive, but this tendency of doing what's right despite his vows is one of his innate characteristics - see sparing Ygritte and then the old man at Queenscrown. Such a break is coming, I think, and it runs counter to a lot of peoples beliefs and expectations. Readers believe that Jon will stay at the Wall because it's the honorable thing to do and because they believe that Jon, as a person that is generally a good person, would not stoop to truly breaking his vows. But one of the challenges Martin puts to us is to let go of our preconceived notions of what's right and wrong and look deeper at the heart of the matter.

The concept of oathbreaking is looked at with a negative light - both in the books and by many readers. And it's that belief that Martin tries to challenge with Jon's story line. A man can break his oaths and vows and be called an oathbreaker and a liar and a traitor, but still be a fundamentally good person. Doing the honorable thing and keeping one's vows is not always right.

I'm not sure where Martin wants Jon to go next. He might be a King and he might be a Wildling or he might just be a man barely surviving. But what I am confident of is that Jon's story will eventually involve him deliberately parting ways with the Night's Watch because it's the right thing to do.

Like.

Couldn't agree more. Characters in ASOIF are constantly forced to choose between what's honorable and what's right. I believe this pattern will repeat itself with Jon, and I agree it may likely result in his breaking off from the Night's Watch.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

I'd say close to 0% since Jon is dead ;)

People are discussing subversion of fantasy cliches and yet are indulging in them themselves I think. Everyone assumes that Jon the hero must survive being stabbed 4 times. Plot armor doesn't exist in this series. For me, Jon was simply a point of view to illustrate what was happening North of the Wall - which is now unneccessary. I prefer to believe Jon is dead until proved otherwise. Actually, I have a hope that no Stark will survive the series - because it would make an elegant contrast to the opening chapter.

Fortunately Martin says otherwise and has all but said out right that Jon is not dead.