Jon Snow: A mary sue?

[Nictarion]

but he also uses his institutional power to seperate a rape victim from her son just to save his friend's child, effectively choosing the child of King-Beyond-the-Wall over the child of a young, unprotected, victimised woman.

My biggest gripe with Jon by far. It really was pretty terrible.

[Roddy the Ruin]

My biggest gripe with Jon by far. It really was pretty terrible.

I agree, he may have the intent to save both, but it was by far the most horrible thing he has ever done.

[butterbumps!]

I don't think Jon implementing in theory some egalitarian measures is as interesting as other characters actually living it, I mean yes, he does allow spearwives in the Watch but he also uses his institutional power to seperate a rape victim from her son just to save his friend's child, effectively choosing the child of King-Beyond-the-Wall over the child of a young, unprotected, victimised woman.

It may not be as interesting...... to you. That's what I'm trying to get at. It's one thing to assert he's not an interesting character to you because you prefer seeing through the POVs of characters who are PoC, have physical disabilities, are queer or otherwise not "Straight White Males," but the fact that Jon is a SWM (though, with another sort of social handicap) doesn't render his character somehow less interesting in an objective sense.

The fact that this otherwise egalitarian character chose to separate mother from child would seem to bring some fiction to these issues you're speaking about, yes? You say you would rather read about Jaime, but didn't he allow Jeyne Poole to go North to a Bolton marriage simply because she wasn't the real Arya? Do the characters have to be feminist all of the time to find them interesting? Because Jaime's lack of intervention wrt to Jeyne would fall under a lapse of that too, yet, you find him interesting.

It's one thing to talk about how you like or dislike characters, find them uninteresting, etc. This is perfectly valid-- a character might not interest you enough. But I take issue with passing off attributions like "he's an uninteresting character," "he's unchallenged" or "he's generic" as objective assertions, when the issue is really that his arc doesn't really speak to a particular reader in light of that reader's personal interests.

[Winter's Knight]

My biggest gripe with Jon by far. It really was pretty terrible.

And it comes out of nowhere-there's no indication that he's the sort of person who'd sacrifice someone else's child like that.

I agree, he may have the intent to save both, but it was by far the most horrible thing he has ever done.

How could he save them both though, since he's never told anyone he made the swap? If he had gone to Stannis after Sam and Gilly left and told him, I might see it but at this point, it seems that he was going to wait till Mel decided to burn him. In which case why assume she-or anyone else-would believe him? And if they'd believe him, why switch the babies?

[Winter's Knight]

The fact that this otherwise egalitarian character chose to separate mother from child would seem to bring some fiction to these issues you're speaking about, yes? You say you would rather read about Jaime, but didn't he allow Jeyne Poole to go North to a Bolton marriage simply because she wasn't the real Arya? Do the characters have to be feminist all of the time to find them interesting? Because Jaime's lack of intervention wrt to Jeyne would fall under a lapse of that too, yet, you find him interesting.

I never said I require a character to be eglitrian at all times-you pointed out that Jon was one suh character and I was merely saying that his egalitrianism is cosmetic.

I make no claims to objectivity.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

“They’ll burn my babe, then. The red woman. If she can’t have Dalla’s, she’ll burn mine.”
“Your son has no king’s blood. Melisandre gains nothing by giving him to the fire. Stannis wants the free folk to fight for him, he will not burn an innocent without good cause. Your boy will be safe. I will find a wet nurse for him and he’ll be raised here at Castle Black under my protection. He’ll learn to hunt and ride, to fight with sword and axe and bow. I’ll even see that he is taught to read and write.” Sam would like that. “And when he is old enough, he will learn the truth of who he is. He’ll be free to seek you out if that is what he wants.”

Maybe we can second guess whether it's a good plan. But his intent is clearly not to sacrifice Gilly's child for Dalla's.

[E-Ro]

I realize you're trolling me, but can you explain how this renders him "generic?"

Because he's pretty much Aragon. Or any other fantasy chosen one.

I would agree with this up until the Ides of Marsh

Yeah, I agree.

[Winter's Knight]

Maybe we can second guess whether it's a good plan. But his intent is clearly not to sacrifice Gilly's child for Dalla's.

I do not doubt his intent.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I do not doubt his intent.

And yet you refer to it as a decision to 'sacrifice' Gilly's child, which it is emphatically not.

Because he's pretty much Aragon. Or any other fantasy chosen one.

You'd think this would appeal to you, given that you seem to think of yourself as the forum's 'chosen one,' complete with shirtless sword-swinging antics.

[butterbumps!]

I never said I require a character to be eglitrian at all times-you pointed out that Jon was one suh character and I was merely saying that his egalitrianism is cosmetic.

I make no claims to objectivity.

I know you didn't. I simply pointed out that social and gender issues are very much present in Jon's arc, and that he happens to be one of the characters with the proto-feminist leanings you said you'd found interesting in other characters.

But in terms of claiming objectivity, when you post assertions as intrinsic to Jon's character, you are making the argument that the issue you take lies in the writing of the character, not your subjective level of interest, as per this:

I have no issues with introverts, leaning more towards the introvert side of the scale myself. JonS is not the only introvert in the books either-the other one,Brienne being one of my favourites.

Jon is colourless, he's generic. Until Dance he was bland, unchallenged, pampered and whiny.

It might help prevent similar misunderstandings in the future to explain that you personally find non-SWM characters more compelling for "X" reasons, and frame your position around that. But I guess that still doesn't address the "unchallenged" and "pampered" assertions, which are determinations about the character itself, and I think those should be supported with evidence.

Because he's pretty much Aragon. Or any other fantasy chosen one.

You might want to choose a different battle, brah.

[Winter's Knight]

And yet you refer to it as a decision to 'sacrifice' Gilly's child, which it is emphatically not.

He is more willing to run the risk with Gilly's child rather than Mance's and in the end cause her unnecessary grief as well.

[David Selig]

It's one thing to talk about how you like or dislike characters, find them uninteresting, etc. This is perfectly valid-- a character might not interest you enough. But I take issue with passing off attributions like "he's an uninteresting character," "he's unchallenged" or "he's generic" as objective assertions, when the issue is really that his arc doesn't really speak to a particular reader in light of that reader's personal interests.

Jon's objectively generic. You can find at least one character very much like him in numerous fantasy series or novel. The Chosen One with a mysterious background who happens to be the Secret Heir to the throne. The nice boy forced into taking on major responsibilities at an early age. Etc, etc.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

He is more willing to run the risk with Gilly's child rather than Mance's and in the end cause her unnecessary grief as well.

See, you are doubting his intent. But you're misstating his intent, he's not 'more willing to run the risk with Gilly's child,' he's quite convinced Gilly's child will not be at risk, as per the quote I provided.

Whether his plan was quite necessary is a separate issue.

[Winter's Knight]

I know you didn't. I simply pointed out that social and gender issues are very much present in Jon's arc, and that he happens to be one of the characters with the proto-feminist leanings you said you'd found interesting in other characters.

But in terms of claiming objectivity, when you post assertions as intrinsic to Jon's character, you are making the argument that the issue you take lies in the writing of the character, not your subjective level of interest, as per this:

It might help prevent similar misunderstandings in the future to explain that you personally find non-SWM characters more compelling for "X" reasons, and frame your position around that. But I guess that still doesn't address the "unchallenged" and "pampered" assertions, which are determinations about the character itself, and I think those should be supported with evidence.

I did point out Bumps that Jon suffers from contrast-he comes off as pampered because his woes strike one as petty after Daenryss, Sansa, Arya et al,he comes off as unchallenged because everyone falls in love with at the first sign of him turning on the charm, the exceptions being characterised as terrible people -scums if you will.

It is not that these problems are present only with Jon-Jaime, Cersei and Tyrion are pampered, Dany's villains are caricatures-but they are all present with Jon.

[butterbumps!]

Jon's objectively generic. You can find at least one character very much like him in numerous fantasy series or novel. The Chosen One with a mysterious background who happens to be the Secret Heir to the throne. The nice boy forced into taking on major responsibilities at an early age. Etc, etc.

Everything's a generic trope when you give reductive summations like that. I somehow think you'd not appreciate the wide adoption of calling Cat the "Evil Stepmother" trope (and I certainly wouldn't either, but by claiming one character is objectively generic based on a cherry-picked reductive summary legitimizes doing so for everyone else).

All these reductive summaries tell me is that there is an unwillingness to actually engage in his character. Which is fine-- something doesn't personally interest you as much, there's nothing wrong with not looking deeper-- it's supposed to be fun for us, after all. But it's ridiculous to try claiming this sort of "generic trope" scrutiny is unique to Jon, and an objective reason to dislike his arc.

I did point out Bumps that Jon suffers from contrast-he comes off as pampered because his woes strike one as petty after Daenryss, Sansa, Arya et al,he comes off as unchallenged because everyone falls in love with at the first sign of him turning on the charm, the exceptions being characterised as terrible people -scums if you will.

It is not that these problems are present only with Jon-Jaime, Cersei and Tyrion are pampered, Dany's villains are caricatures-but they are all present with Jon.

What petty woes are these? "Pampering?" Dany is literally waited on and bathed by her hand servants/ Xaro's slaves for these books; I don't think it's correct to say that Dany is "pampered," but surely that term might apply more closely to her than anything Jon's experiencing.

The people who hate Dany (outside of the Usurpers Dogs) are like a convention of Snidely Whiplashes. Jon endures more physical suffering than Dany, but I'd say that they both have terrible lives full of depressive episodes, and don't think either really has it much better in some objective sense.

[E-Ro]

You'd think this would appeal to you, given that you seem to think of yourself as the forum's 'chosen one,' complete with shirtless sword-swinging antics.

Me being the chosen one and Jon being the chosen one are two completely different things. I'm allowed and Jon isn't because he's in a book.

You might want to choose a different battle, brah.

Omg, what is this intimidation tactics?

[ARYa_Nym]

I think that Jon has the benefit of a lot of plot armor and plot gifts, but to me, he hasn't been so much luckier than the others that it "bends the universe" or makes him a Mary Sue. Jon winding up LC at age 16 isn't that much contrived to me than Osric Stark winding up LC at age 10, or Robb and Joff being crowned as teens, or Bran being Lord of Winterfell at age 8 -- sure, he didn't make any major decisions, but he was supposedly the Stark in Winterfell. How about Arya just happening to be in a position to put a Faceless Man in her debt, and winding up being accepted into a cult that usually does NOT accept women? What so special about the canon Arya that resulted in the FM bending the rules that much, especially when she's really not anywhere near the cold-blooded professional killer a FM has to be? (She's a hot-blooded killer, of course, but until she gets to the FM, all her kills have been about either self-defense or revenge -- even the Harrenhal guard kill was so she could flee the place. Note how she has to convince herself her first hit deserved to die, before she can go through with it.) Or how about Tyrion suddenly being revealed as a great warrior? How's that not bending the universe?

I disagree. First of all they don't like having female recruits but the only other person Arya gets acquainted with at the FM besides the KM is female. They have their uses too.

Secondly, I think certain portions of the fandom have the tendency to overrate Arya's sense of justice and thinks her morality is similar to that of a comic book hero when it's not.

She's been coldblooded since the second book.

The Harrenhal guard imo isn't self defense. He didn't do anything to her. I don't agree with those that think it's murder but I think IRL it might be a lesser charge. It's not self defense though. She has a motive to kill him but all killers have motives that doesn't make them not guilty.

The guard could have been a nice man with a family who was just doing his job. She doesn't think or care about this ever. He's in the way of her goals. It's premeditated because she plans and after she does it she coldly thinks the rain will wash the blood off.

Other examples I would use are that she contemplated killing Gendry. She had motive there too. She decides against not because he's an innocent, he doesn't deserve to die, he's her friend, she cares about him, etc. No, she doesn't do it because she thinks she can't get away with it. That's cold.

She does this again with the woman who cheated her. She doesn't think maybe cheating me is not a justified reason to murder someone. She thinks she can't get away with it because there are too many witnesses.

The insurance man is more of the same mindset with the guard. He's in the way of her goals. She wants to advance so he needs to go. I think people value too much of her rationalizing it when let's remember she wanted to kill his guards for no legitimate reason and the KM had to tell her no. The KM also tells her that it doesn't matter if he's a bad person and isn't necessarily one so her initial hesitation ultimately doesn't count for much.. She accepts that answer and kills him. If she really wasn't cold then she would say I can't do it. But of course not. This is reminiscent of previous behavior from her.

Murdering Dareon was cold as hell. She hung out with this man. Let him think he was safe in her presence. She's indifferent to him wanting to enjoy life or the reasons why he had to go to the Wall in the first place. She takes the law in her own hands and this is the one murder where she has zero remorse.

Even if she wasn't cold blooded she's a child. IRL dangerous groups love children because they are easier to mold, manipulate, indoctrinate, or what have you.

Anyways, on topic while Jon has many traditional aspects to his arc the worst part of Jon's story for me is the McWhitey trope that he has in his arc. That wildling b.s. storyline fits it almost to a tee. Upgrading from Ygritte to Val only makes it stronger. & you know the actor in Avatar who fulfilled this trope was bland and dry as hell too.

[Jojosh]

This seems like a troll topic

Jon is no sue now dany yeah theres your sue but in the asoiaf world even perfect people like rhaegar end up failing big time so that's not saying much

Jon has risen high on the wall but he was also being groomed for the role, no need to think he's the big brave hero of heroes yet

[butterbumps!]

Omg, what is this intimidation tactics?

lol, no, just that I don't think you'd get the result you wanted from trolling me on that particular issue.

If you're calling him "generic" because you believe that R+L makes him a "return of he king"/ "secret king" trope, then I need to point out that there's no such thing as a "true king" in this series, and frankly, R+L means nothing in terms of the throne for Jon at all. Lineage isn't what gives you the throne or power.

R+L doesn't work the way I think a lot of readers might think. Rather than telling us that Jon is the "true king," it's actually telling us that any notion of there being a "true king" is completely obsolete. Jon is never going to be given the throne because he's allegedly a Targ-- so he's neither Aragorn, nor the "unwilling king" trope. If Jon ever takes the throne, it will be for reasons that have nothing to do with R+L as a factor of legitimacy.

[Jojosh]

The main reason I hate R+L is exactly what's being attributed to jon now being a generic rise to the throne type character mary sue. I'd much prefer it if he were a product of brandon and ashara dayne's brief fling vs the one true savior of all of westeros