Jon Snow: A mary sue?

[ARYa_Nym]

1) Much is made of the fact that the wildlings are not so different from southerners- that their ways are a little rougher but the only real difference is that someone put a wall up. Certainly they have the same ethnic ancestry, and they share many of the same customs. I really don't see how you got a 'McWhitey' trope out of Jon's interaction with them, given that this is actually a fairly major theme of his time with them.

2) The point has been made repeatedly that the series rejects the notion that there can be a 'rightful' King, that Martin is constantly pushing against this whole idea. Instead of engaging on this point you've just fallen back on repeatedly on saying Jon fills 'secret rightful King' trope. It's crucial to Jon's arc that Martin makes mockery of the notion of rightful kings.

It's made from Jon's POV which actually happens. The main character in Avatar did the same thing. He becomes close to them and realized that they are not "savage" like they are portrayed. Let's pat him on the back for being "enlightened." He's sooo goood.

I never mentioned anything about being rightful. I just said hidden king which does apply to him. According to Bloodraven he's a king now.

[WeddinGuest]

She feels remorse but that doesn't change her past actions or her future actions.

I don't even know what this means. Of course she can't change the past, and I guess you're arguing that her remorse over previous kills don't keep her from making more kills? Okay, but I guess we have different definitions of "cold-blooded killers", I think Arya feeling remorse in the first place (which I'm glad you're actually admitting to) makes her NOT a cold-blooded killer. You know who actually are cold-blooded killers? Walder Frey. Tywin Lannister. Roose Bolton. All of whom kill or order kills, and don't seem to be affected by it at all. (Many others kill, such as Robb and Sandor, but GRRM makes it clear that their actions are affecting them; Robb seems to go into a total dissociative state after he kills Karstark, and Sandor winds up confessing to nonexistent sins to try to get Arya to kill him.) Perhaps especially Roose Bolton, as Frey and Tywin actually DO let anger and resentment affect their decisions, even if they pretend it doesn't. I can't call Arya a cold-blooded killer when I compare her to Roose Bolton.

But I can see some of the frustration his detractors have with him especially with the way the fandom acts like every other character's story revolves around him. Dany is going to give up her claim for Jon. Arya's purpose in the story is to be his Nissa Nissa. Sansa will get the Vale lords and use that to help Jon. If Jon wants to be king in the North Rickon certainly won't be a factor. Bran is learning superpowers and of course he will use that to help our hero Jon. Jamie will redeem himself so he can be in Jon's KG. etc. etc. etc. It's annoying now.

But none of that is Jon's fault, or GRRM's fault. Anymore than it was the fault of Ned and Robb that readers assumed they were the traditional heroes of the story before they got themselves killed. Most major characters attract ridiculous stans who think the whole story revolves around them and that all other protagonists should bow down to them, Stannis and Dany (who also have been hailed as "promised ones" in-story) attract this kind of response as well, Sansa does, even Cersei does. Doesn't mean they aren't well-written characters.

[butterbumps!]

He may desire Winterfell, but he still doesn't take it when given the chance and if he ever does take it will be because Robb conveniently made him his heir because Winterfell conveniently fell and he believed Bran, Rickon, and Arya dead while Sansa was forcibly married to the enemy.

How is the fact that he didn't take it a problem with the craft of his character in your view?

Also, how is Robb's making him heir "convenient?" Are you seriously suggesting that Robb had no reason whatsoever to name Jon his heir? As though this doesn't somehow make sense?

I think you're responding to the allegations the fanbase makes about Jon rather than a critical look at his actual character.

Where did I say that she subverts tropes? Saying Arya is a cold blooded killer doesn't make her subvert a trope.

I don't have a problem with Jon's fulfillment of other traditional tropes except for the McWhitey one which does not apply to Arya.

You consistently bring up the fact that Jon is a walking trope as justification for your believing he's a traditional fantasy cliche. Whether Arya subvert tropes or not has nothing to do with this. The point is that you have consistently appealed to the notion that Jon aligns with all these tropes to defend your position that he is uniquely flat/ generic/ cliched/ and so forth, but seem to only apply this to Jon, despite the fact that any other character would equally apply to "aligning with tropes."

In other words, you use the fact that Jon aligns with various tropes to justify your calling him a cliche. But the fact that he aligns with cliches is not unique to his character, and is therefore, an invalid argument for asserting that Jon is uniquely cliche.

Having now pressed further, it turns out that what you really mean is that you simply dislike parts of Jon's storyline that happen to align with a trope you find particularly galling. Which means that you've been trying to make arguments about Jon's "objective" clichedness, but really, it boils down to your simple lack of interest/ dislike in a facet of his arc, and are trying to present it with a veneer of objectivity by citing it as a common trope.

The problem then, is not that Jon's arc aligns with tropes as some unique phenomenon to him. It's because you, personally, dislike a particular trope you believe applies.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

It's made from Jon's POV which actually happens. The main character in Avatar did the same thing. He becomes close to them and realized that they are not "savage" like they are portrayed. Let's pat him on the back for being "enlightened." He's sooo goood.

But the wildlings aren't established as an alien species or even an entirely different culture. Importantly, they have essentially the same cultural heritage as Jon himself. And his journey isn't about coming to realize that they're not savage, it's about realizing that they're not the true enemies of the NW.

As I recall, in Avatar the main character ends up siding the blue aliens over the humans. Jon ends up siding with the NW over the wildlings, and then forging an alliance between the two by acknowledging their basic similarity. It's really an entirely different situation.

I never mentioned anything about being rightful. I just said hidden king which does apply to him. According to Bloodraven he's a king now.

Ok, but we can't really draw meaningful conclusions about Jon's objective 'trope-i-ness,' for lack of a better word, based on this one point in isolation. Hence, it's crucial to also consider what Martin would have us think about the meaningfulness and consequence of a secret 'King' being exposed.

[ARYa_Nym]

I don't even know what this means. Of course she can't change the past, and I guess you're arguing that her remorse over previous kills don't keep her from making more kills? Okay, but I guess we have different definitions of "cold-blooded killers", I think Arya feeling remorse in the first place (which I'm glad you're actually admitting to) makes her NOT a cold-blooded killer. You know who actually are cold-blooded killers? Walder Frey. Tywin Lannister. Roose Bolton. All of whom kill or order kills, and don't seem to be affected by it at all. (Many others kill, such as Robb and Sandor, but GRRM makes it clear that their actions are affecting them; Robb seems to go into a total dissociative state after he kills Karstark, and Sandor winds up confessing to nonexistent sins to try to get Arya to kill him.) Perhaps especially Roose Bolton, as Frey and Tywin actually DO let anger and resentment affect their decisions, even if they pretend it doesn't. I can't call Arya a cold-blooded killer when I compare her to Roose Bolton.

She said that she didn't care. Dareon deserved to die. You don't think this is cold? What is it then? You don't think not caring about whether the guard had a family who cared is cold? You don't think not knowing whether or not the insurance man deserved to die but killing him anyways is cold?

Like I said before though she's not evil. But she's not what you were saying that she only wants to kill out of revenge or self defense and it didn't make much sense that the FM would have use for her.

But none of that is Jon's fault, or GRRM's fault. Anymore than it was the fault of Ned and Robb that readers assumed they were the traditional heroes of the story before they got themselves killed. Most major characters attract ridiculous stans who think the whole story revolves around them and that all other protagonists should bow down to them, Stannis and Dany (who also have been hailed as "promised ones" in-story) attract this kind of response as well, Sansa does, even Cersei does. Doesn't mean they aren't well-written characters.

I didn't say that he was poorly written. I said Rhaegar was flat.

You consistently bring up the fact that Jon is a walking trope as justification for your believing he's a traditional fantasy cliche. Whether Arya subvert tropes or not has nothing to do with this. The point is that you have consistently appealed to the notion that Jon aligns with all these tropes to defend your position that he is uniquely flat/ generic/ cliched/ and so forth, but seem to only apply this to Jon, despite the fact that any other character would equally apply to "aligning with tropes."

In other words, you use the fact that Jon aligns with various tropes to justify your calling him a cliche. But the fact that he aligns with cliches is not unique to his character, and is therefore, an invalid argument for asserting that Jon is uniquely cliche.

Having now pressed further, it turns out that what you really mean is that you simply dislike parts of Jon's storyline that happen to align with a trope you find particularly galling. Which means that you've been trying to make arguments about Jon's "objective" clichedness, but really, it boils down to your simple lack of interest/ dislike in a facet of his arc, and are trying to present it with a veneer of objectivity by citing it as a common trope.

The problem then, is not that Jon's arc aligns with tropes as some unique phenomenon to him. It's because you, personally, dislike a particular trope that applies.

You brought up Arya subverting tropes not me.

You sure keep bringing up the word cliche when I never called him cliche in the thread. I just said he is a traditional lead. I didn't say why I thought he was flat. ETA: Correction dry and generic. I just said that he and the actor in Avator fulfill the same trope and are both dry and generic but I didn't say it was because of the trope. I think they're that way as a character in Jon's case and as an actor in Sam's case. My feelings are beyond the trope and actually don't have much to do with tropes but in terms of the subject of talking about Jon and tropes that one particular trope is one I have a problem with.

[butterbumps!]

You brought up Arya subverting tropes not me.

You sure keep bringing up the word cliche when I never called him cliche in the thread. I just said he is a traditional lead. I didn't say why I thought he was flat. I just said that he and the actor in Avator fulfill the same trope and are both dry and generic but I didn't say it was because of the trope. I think they're that way as a character in Jon's case and as an actor in Sam's case. My feelings are beyond the trope but in terms of the subject of talking about Jon and tropes that one particular trope is one I have a problem with.

No, I brought up the fact that you fiercely defend Arya against being reduced into simple tropes to ask why you assume we should read Jon with such reductive lenses, and pointed out that the Jon that's actually written does subvert those tropes you were appealing to.

I don't care what specific word you're using-- cliche, generic, dry, flat, and so forth, they are essentially being used as synonyms here.

You have, however, pointed to the fact that Jon merely aligns with a bunch of tropes as the basis of your arguments. You did not specify that you disliked one specific trope particularly until a few posts ago. You have been relying on the argument that Jon aligns with tropes-- just the mere fact that certain tropes apply-- to conclude he's a generic character.

Since you're now talking about your dislike of one particular trope you believe applies, and that your issue is, therefore, a subjective one, and not evidence that Jon is truly more cliched than anyone else, are you still asserting the "traditional fantasy trope generic flat" etc determinations?

Further, I actually agree with OAR about the applicability of the Avatar-trope. It looks like it could be, but under scrutiny doesn't hold up. The wildlings aren't the violated, peace loving hippies who don't harm a fly and have a morally superior culture to Jon's world. If anything, that cultural exchange Jon negotiates shows us that neither the realm nor the wildlings have it all figured out. It's not really the "noble savage" thing going on.

[Sages]

And yet he suffers nothing physically.

I have to disagree here.

1. Burns his hand saving Lord commander Mormont. Has to keep flexing it throughout the series so that it wont grow stiff, One could argue if he hadn't saved the commander, he would have been better able to defend himself when he was betrayed in book 5. There is a specific part that says he couldn't get longclaw, because his hand had become stiff and clumsy.

Orell tried to rip out jon's eyes through the eagle. Jon most likely has been walking around with scars on his face since book 2.

Jon gets shot when he flees from the wildings to warn his brothers. He almost bleeds out and dies on the way back. He is bedridden for a while. When he fights in the battle, he is limping around. And to quite literally add insult to injury, the person that he cares about Ygritte, is the one that shoots him in the leg.

Mance Rayder beats him down in the yard when he is disguised as rattleshirt.

In the last book he is betrayed by his brothers trying to calm down Wun Wun. He was stabbed at least three times I think.

I think Jon has been through a lot. He thinks that he's lost his entire family. Shot and almost killed by the woman that he loved. He has isolated himself from his friends and sending his best one away. And then he is undermined and betrayed by the very people he is doing his best to defend. If he comes back I think that he will be more than a little jaded about life.

[WeddinGuest]

Sorry to everyone else for this very-off-topic Arya discussion. But just to clarify:

She said that she didn't care. Dareon deserved to die. You don't think this is cold? What is it then? You don't think not caring about whether the guard had a family who cared is cold? You don't think not knowing whether or not the insurance man deserved to die but killing him anyways is cold?

Like I said before though she's not evil. But she's not what you were saying that she only wants to kill out of revenge or self defense and it didn't make much sense that the FM would have use for her

I will give you the point that Arya does kill out of more than just revenge or self-defense. However, so much of her FM arc is about her NOT really conforming to their ideology, that you can argue that her acceptance into their ranks was contrived, and I wasn't even focused on that, I was focused on how she made it the House of Black and White anyway.

Also, just because Arya says, or even thinks to herself, that she doesn't care, doesn't mean she actually doesn't care. Sandor keeps claiming he doesn't care too, actually says he enjoys killing people, yet obviously there's more going on under the surface with him than that. (There's actually a lot of parallels between the two).

I guess I'm just comparing her to the various OTHER characters who are responsible for death on a MUCH more massive scale than Arya has been so far, and who also show no sign that they care about the bereaved families of those they kill. Did the "green levies" of lowborn conscripts Stafford Lannister raised against Robb's forces really deserve to die? Is Robb "cold-blooded" too for killing them in order to pursue his own interests? Interestingly, Robb kills people, but we know he's also really really trying to create new life so he can have an heir.

BTW, I've never accepted the common stereotype that the FM seem to hold, that only women have "life-giving" and "parenting" as a vocation. Why is it that men can do both, but women can only choose death or life? After all, while Dany may or may not be barren, she HAS accepted a "mothering" role along with being a conqueror, and is also responsible for literally thousands more deaths than Arya has.

Anyway, I really don't want to go much further with this. I wasn't trying to single Arya out as having a contrived story arc. My point was that Jon's arc is really not that much more contrived than others. And speaking of Dany, I think Dany fits the "white savior" trope MUCH more than Jon does. The Ghiscari are painted as either obvious villians who can be slaughtered at will, or helpless victims just waiting for Dany to save them. The wildlings seem much more complex than that.

[ARYa_Nym]

No, I brought up the fact that you fiercely defend Arya against being reduced into simple tropes to ask why you assume we should read Jon with such reductive lenses, and pointed out that the Jon that's actually written does subvert those tropes you were appealing to.

Oh?

Arya_Nym,

Given your posts in here, fiercely defending why Arya's arc shouldn't be reduced to tropes because she's far more complex and gestalt essentially, why are you making the assumption that this other character you happen to engage less with is actually worthy of the reductive trope arguments you're using? Why are you seeing Arya's character as inherently more complex and subverted, while asserting such dismissive summations of Jon?

I said he can subvert tropes by failing or dying off as an example but the one I have a problem with is already fulfilled.

I don't care what specific word you're using-- cliche, generic, dry, flat, and so forth, they are essentially being used as synonyms here.

Not really because he can be generic and dry and it has nothing to do with tropes or being cliche. As a person, as chapters (dry, boring), the actor who plays him also is generic and dry. Another Sam.

You have, however, pointed to the fact that Jon merely aligns with a bunch of tropes as the basis of your arguments. You did not specify that you disliked one specific trope particularly until a few posts ago. You have been relying on the argument that Jon aligns with tropes-- just the mere fact that certain tropes apply-- to conclude he's a generic character.

Um, no when I brought up him being generic that was when I brought up the specific trope and I didn't say that it was because of the trope. You're saying that.

I said that he aligns with tropes but that I personally don't have a problem with that fact.

^I didn't say that his story was bad because of the other tropes just that the worst part of his story is this particular trope.

Well he's already fulfilled the McWhitey trope. Many people argue that he's King of the Wildlings already. So that's already a traditional lead story. He has several different ones going at the same time. Messianic hero. Hidden heir who becomes king. GRRM could change some of the others like have him be a complete failure or kill him off but at this stage he's already done one.

^I said that he may not even fulfill the other traditional tropes. They can be subverted.

I don't have a problem with Jon's fulfillment of other traditional tropes except for the McWhitey one which does not apply to Arya.

^I said that I don't have a problem with him traditionally fulfilling tropes except for one in particular. My problem is not because it's cliche but because it's offensive.

I don't think Jon is a mary sue. I think Rhaegar is much worse than him when it comes to this. He's terrible and flat. But I can see some of the frustration his detractors have with him especially with the way the fandom acts like every other character's story revolves around him.

^This has nothing to do with fulfilling tropes.

Further, I actually agree with OAR about the applicability of the Avatar-trope. It looks like it could be, but under scrutiny doesn't hold up. The wildlings aren't the violated, peace loving hippies who don't harm a fly and have a morally superior culture to Jon's world. If anything, that cultural exchange Jon negotiates shows us that neither the realm nor the wildlings have it all figured out. It's not really the "noble savage" thing going on.

They don't need to be peace loving. In Avatar they weren't even. They had warriors. When it's Native Americans they aren't peaceful hippies and they definitely aren't portrayed as morally superior to white people a lot of the time. The morally superior really only needs to be there in terms of the hero in question.

[ghosts in winterfell]

A writer in a specific genre constructs his story by using patterns of story-telling best suited for that specific genre. News @ 11.

[ARYa_Nym]

Anyway, I really don't want to go much further with this. I wasn't trying to single Arya out as having a contrived story arc. My point was that Jon's arc is really not that much more contrived than others. And speaking of Dany, I think Dany fits the "white savior" trope MUCH more than Jon does. The Ghiscari are painted as either obvious villians who can be slaughtered at will, or helpless victims just waiting for Dany to save them. The wildlings seem much more complex than that.

GRRM said that Sandor was a deeply disturbed individual and is a killer and villain. But we can agree to disagree on this subject.

They both do. Dany doesn't seem like she's going to be seen as a hero in the end though. She comes off as not someone who saves but makes things worse. I have a problem with her when it comes to this too for instance that moment on the show when she was in a sea of brown people was horrendous. Jon also fits it by being their king or defacto leader and saving them at the Wall.

[butterbumps!]

Oh?

I said he can subvert tropes by failing or dying off as an example but the one I have a problem with is already fulfilled.

Not really because he can be generic and dry and it has nothing to do with tropes or being cliche. As a person, as chapters (dry, boring), the actor who plays him also is generic and dry. Another Sam.

Um, no when I brought up him being generic that was when I brought up the specific trope and I didn't say that it was because of the trope. You're saying that.

I said that he aligns with tropes but that I personally don't have a problem with that fact.

^I didn't say that his story was bad because of the other tropes just that the worst part of his story is this particular trope.

^I said that he may not even fulfill the other traditional tropes. They can be subverted.

^I said that I don't have a problem with him traditionally fulfilling tropes except for one in particular. My problem is not because it's cliche but because it's offensive.

^This has nothing to do with fulfilling tropes.

They don't need to be peace loving. In Avatar they weren't even. They had warriors. When it's Native Americans they aren't peaceful hippies and they definitely aren't portrayed as morally superior to white people a lot of the time. The morally superior really only needs to be there in terms of the hero in question.

The fact that you argue at length that Arya does not conform to the tropes that are superficially evoked in her arc does imply that you believe there is subversion. But I don't know why you're holding onto this one point, which was a small detail of the gist I was speaking to about your inconsistent method of applying determinations of "cliche" to the characters.

Look, you don't like Jon or find him interesting. Fine. But you were defending that position by trying to present Jon as generic by virtue of his alleged alignment with these common tropes. When it was repeatedly pointed out by many posters that Jon cannot fairly be deemed generic according to your methodology without making the same generic determination to everyone else, (not to mention, that these tropes do not actually apply squarely to him) you moved your position to the fact that you take issue with one very specific trope you see in Jon's arc.

Which means that your issue with Jon is rooted in something other than the fact that his arc intersects with tropes. Which means that your position that Jon is traditional, generic, flat, etc, has not been actually substantiated or progressed in any way, and still remains to be defended if you still believe those things about his character.

Also, why are you so fixated on boxing things into "tropes"? What purpose does that serve? Does it bring a deeper understanding of a storyline or something? I can see a case for bringing up how certain types apply superficially, but only in the context of foiling the pair. Like, bringing Avatar up wrt Jon's wildilng time actually shows us how completely different Jon, the realm and the wildlings are from what appears in the film (so by extension, would be more of a subversion than reiteration). But I don't get the point of keeping them at superficial comparisons, or insisting that they fit exactly and that therefore, Martin fucked something up.

[ARYa_Nym]

The fact that you argue at length that Arya does not conform to the tropes that are superficially evoked in her arc does imply that you believe there is subversion. But I don't know why you're holding onto this one point, which was a small detail of the gist I was speaking to about your inconsistent method of applying determinations of "cliche" to the characters.

I didn't argue that she didn't conform to the tropes. Again, saying that she is cold blooded is not the same thing as saying she subverts tropes. Isn't O'ren from Kill Bill a cold blooded killer also? I was arguing over the plausibility of the progression of her storyline not whether she subverts tropes or not.

Because you keep replying that I'm making points that I never made.

Look, you don't like Jon or find him interesting. Fine. But you were defending that position by trying to present Jon as generic by virtue of his alleged alignment with these common tropes. When it was repeatedly pointed out by many posters that Jon cannot fairly be deemed generic according to your methodology without making the same generic determination to everyone else, (not to mention, that these tropes do not actually apply squarely to him) you moved your position to the fact that you take issue with one very specific trope you see in Jon's arc.

No, I didn't. I just supplied you with my quotes. I didn't say he was generic because he aligns with the tropes and I told you I don't have a personal problem with him fulfilling so many tropes.

Also, why are you so fixated on boxing things into "tropes"? What purpose does that serve? Does it bring a deeper understanding of a storyline or something? I can see a case for bringing up how certain types apply superficially, but only in the context of foiling the pair. Like, bringing Avatar up wrt Jon's wildilng time actually shows us how completely different Jon, the realm and the wildlings are from what appears in the film (so by extension, would be more of a subversion than reiteration). But I don't get the point of keeping them at superficial comparisons, or insisting that they fit exactly and that therefore, Martin fucked something up.

Not really.Just because 12 Years A Slave doesn't have the exact same circumstances does not mean that Brad Pitt's character wasn't a McWhitey for example. They had to put a character that the audience identifies with as the hero. The idea of them saving themselves just isn't as marketable.

[butterbumps!]

I didn't argue that she didn't conform to the tropes. Again, saying that she is cold blooded is not the same thing as saying she subverts tropes. Isn't O'ren from Kill Bill a cold blooded killer also? I was arguing over the plausibility of the progression of her storyline not whether she subverts tropes or not.

Because you keep replying that I'm making points that I never made.

No, I didn't. I just supplied you with my quotes. I didn't say he was generic because he aligns with the tropes and I told you I don't have a personal problem with him fulfilling so many tropes.

Not really.Just because 12 Years A Slave doesn't have the exact same circumstances does not mean that Brad Pitt's character wasn't a McWhitey for example. They had to put a character that the audience identifies with as the hero. The idea of them saving themselves just isn't as marketable.

If you really think the volumes of posts you've written in this thread clarifying Arya's character against the tropes other posters brought up don't imply that you believe Arya is more subverted and nuanced in her trope intersection than Jon, then I don't know what to say.

You accused him of being, and I quote, "generic, flat, traditional fantasy, dry." And probably others that I missed. If you don't connect the intersection of alleged tropes to these qualifications in your mind, then I have no idea why you kept bringing up the fact that he intersects with tropes, especially when you only clarified that you personally hate one trope particularly very late in the game, after insisting he hit on all these tropes in general. Since, according to this last post, the fact that he intersects with tropes "doesn't bother you," and, apparently, isn't what renders him generic in your view.

Instead of insisting that Jon's wildling period is just like the trope you're asserting it is as some self-evident support for your position that it's offensive, why not actually engage with the text of ASOIAF and explain what it is about this storyline that upsets you so much? I'm not saying that there is nothing to be offended by. I'm asking that instead of resorting to "because X is like Y and I think Y is offensive, ergo X is offensive" that you lay out precisely what you find problematic in the text of ASOIAF itself.

[E-Ro]

Well it got real heated in here. lots of walls of text and big words.

Anyway, I take back what I said about jon being a generic character. Hes not generic, I was using the wrong word. I just think hes a loser. I should have been clearer with my intent.

[ARYa_Nym]

If you really think the volumes of posts you've written in this thread clarifying Arya's character against the tropes other posters brought up don't imply that you believe Arya is more subverted and nuanced in her trope intersection than Jon, then I don't know what to say.

The argument wasn't over a trope. Stop talking about implications when I flat out told you that I wasn't arguing that.

You accused him of being, and I quote, "generic, flat, traditional fantasy, dry." And probably others that I missed. If you don't connect the intersection of alleged tropes to these qualifications in your mind, then I have no idea why you kept bringing up the fact that he intersects with tropes, especially when you only clarified that you personally hate one trope particularly very late in the game, after insisting he hit on all these tropes in general. Since, according to this last post, the fact that he intersects with tropes "doesn't bother you," and, apparently, isn't what renders him generic in your view.

Instead of insisting that Jon's wildling period is just like the trope you're asserting it is as some self-evident support for your position that it's offensive, why not actually engage with the text of ASOIAF and explain what it is about this storyline that upsets you so much? I'm not saying that there is nothing to be offended by. I'm asking that instead of resorting to "because X is like Y and I think Y is offensive, ergo X is offensive" that you lay out precisely what you find problematic in the text of ASOIAF itself.

No, I accused Rhaegar of being flat and I said that he fits the Mary Sue better than Jon does.

I said that Jon is a traditional leader but that's not what I said what my problem with him was.

It was not late in the game. I have said that from the very beginning but you keep ignoring that point and keep up your preferred argument that I dislike Jon because he's so cliche and fulfills traditional tropes which I never said.

I already did but you ignore them. I don't like the self congratulatory/morally superior (the audience identifies with hero). Jon is better than Bowen Marsh who just can't see. Jon is better than Ygritte who murders the old man for him. He's better than the other Westerosi who just sees them as savages.The fact that he becomes their leader and they no longer lead themselves if it's true that he's their king now. & that they don't save themselves.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Not really.Just because 12 Years A Slave doesn't have the exact same circumstances does not mean that Brad Pitt's character wasn't a McWhitey for example. They had to put a character that the audience identifies with as the hero. The idea of them saving themselves just isn't as marketable.

This is sort of off topic, but Brad Pitt's character was based on a real person who did just what the movie said he did, according to Solomon Northrup's account. It wasn't so much a question of what was 'marketable' as much as 'what happened.' Plus, he was in the film for about ten minutes or so and I think it's really stretching, and mistaken, to come away viewing him, rather than Solomon, as the 'hero' of the story.

In any case, Jon doesn't fit the 'Avatar' trope because the intercultural distinction you're imposing on wildlings vs Westerosi doesn't exist the way blue aliens vs humans did in Avatar, or whatever other example you have in mind. Instead, the wildlings and North are shown to have a shared and cross-pollinating culture stretching back millennia. He doesn't go out and embrace their customs and decide they're not savage, he realizes that they're only slightly different and not the true enemy. It's entirely different.

[El Guapo]

Well it got real heated in here. lots of walls of text and big words.

Anyway, I take back what I said about jon being a generic character. Hes not generic, I was using the wrong word. I just think hes a loser. I should have been clearer with my intent.

That is not very nice.

:rofl:

[ARYa_Nym]

This is sort of off topic, but Brad Pitt's character was based on a real person who did just what the movie said he did, according to Solomon Northrup's account. It wasn't so much a question of what was 'marketable' as much as 'what happened.' Plus, he was in the film for about ten minutes or so and I think it's really stretching, and mistaken, to come away viewing him, rather than Solomon, as the 'hero' of the story.

In any case, Jon doesn't fit the 'Avatar' trope because the intercultural distinction you're imposing on wildlings vs Westerosi doesn't exist the way blue aliens vs humans did in Avatar, or whatever other example you have in mind. Instead, the wildlings and North are shown to have a shared and cross-pollinating culture stretching back millennia. He doesn't go out and embrace their customs and decide they're not savage, he realizes that they're only slightly different and not the true enemy. It's entirely different.

I know that but Brad specifically wanted to play that character because he didn't want his children to see him in a negative role. He is a savior. There are cases of Hollywood flat out refusing to market films unless there's a savior in it. This movie was put on the back burner and they had to fight to get it released. Solomon doesn't save Patsy. She is left behind. Brad's character gets him out but only him.

It does exist. They are anarchists who don't kneel. They have different views towards relationships/marriage and property. The Northerners also hate them because of their pillaging so they call them savages. Jon spends time with them and learns to care for him and that they aren't so different to him.

[Winter's Knight]

Well it got real heated in here. lots of walls of text and big words.

Anyway, I take back what I said about jon being a generic character. Hes not generic, I was using the wrong word. I just think hes a loser. I should have been clearer with my intent.

:lmao: