Why the hatred for Jon?

[sj4iy]

No, my problem is that Jon seems to be one of the few that gets an escape from serious repercussions when having to make moral decisions. For example, when Jon has to make a choice between his honor/morality or risking his life (the Old Man incident) he gets an escape by the way of Summer saving his life. In contrast, when Robb has to make a similar decision about what to do after bedding Jeyne W. it ends up causing his, his mother's, and a number of his followers' their lives. Similarly, the same could be said about Ned's decision to tell Cersei or Catelyn's decision to attempt to release Jaime.

I don't see how betraying the Wildlings, getting shot by Ygritte and then later finding her dying is 'escaping serious repercussions'. He has his share of heartbreak and tragedy throughout the story, just like the other characters have. Just because some characters die and some don't doesn't mean the ones who don't have 'escaped' anything.

[Minsc]

Well, as I said yesterday, Jon makes the decision to not kill the guy, and Ygritte is the one that intervenes. An argument begins. Then Summer helps speed Jon's escape. It's not quite as "convenient" as I think you're presenting it as. He's also pretty badly wounded in the aftermath. I'm not really certain how much of Jon's life was in that balance at that point. I mean, Ygritte wasn't killed, despite having harbored what is now very clearly a Watchman, covering for him. It might have actually blown over. Summer is what helps get him back to the Watch before the attack, so I think that's the specific result Summer enables.

But I think I should really be asking a different question. Why is it some necessary condition that one has to be punished for making moral decisions in ASOIAF? Some decisions are both moral (from one angle or another) as well as monstrously idiotic. But morality and idiocy aren't a packaged deal. And idiocy goes just as easily with villainy. Why must moral decisions have negative repurcussions?

None of that addresses the fact that the plot bails out Jon when he has to make a difficult decision between what should have been his life or his honor/morality. While, other characters are forced to suffer immensely when having to decide between similar difficult decisions.

There doesn't, but in cases where it was being set up as either a life or death decision it is pretty weak that Jon is able to escape the proper repercussions when choosing death. In contrast, something simple like Jon standing up for Sam (a moral decision) I have no problem with Jon not suffering for and benefiting from as that isn't a life or death decision.

[Bran17]

I disagree and let's not exagerate. And most Jon's fans only believe one or two of what you proposed. They just not agree on what it is. Jon having a claim on a lot of things is confusing but he's certainly not going to be all of these things.

Actually, I've seen dozens of Jon fans claiming that 4 or 5 of the things I mentioned are undoubtedly going to happen. Apparently, the likelihood of R + L = J happening makes Jon the only character that matters.

If you're a Jon fan and doesn't think that way, forget about what I said. But you're in the minority.

[sj4iy]

Well, as I said yesterday, Jon makes the decision to not kill the guy, and Ygritte is the one that intervenes. An argument begins. Then Summer helps speed Jon's escape. It's not quite as "convenient" as I think you're presenting it as. He's also pretty badly wounded in the aftermath. I'm not really certain how much of Jon's life was in that balance at that point. I mean, Ygritte wasn't killed, despite having harbored what is now very clearly a Watchman, covering for him. It might have actually blown over. Summer is what helps get him back to the Watch before the attack, so I think that's the specific result Summer enables.

But I think I should really be asking a different question. Why is it some necessary condition that one has to be punished for making moral decisions in ASOIAF? Some decisions are both moral (from one angle or another) as well as monstrously idiotic. But morality and idiocy aren't a packaged deal. And idiocy goes just as easily with villainy. Why must moral decisions have negative repercussions by default? I'd argue that we do see some repercussions of Jon's morality, and they're actually positive. Like Sam's loyalty is a good example. Which also earned him a great deal of respect from Aemon.

I agree completely. Jon hasn't 'escaped' everything. No more than Tyrion, Dany, Bran, Arya, Sansa, etc etc etc.

[Ingelheim]

Actually, I've seen dozens of Jon fans claiming that 4 or 5 of the things I mentioned are undoubtedly going to happen. Apparently, the likelihood of R + L = J happening makes Jon the only character that matters.

If you're a Jon fan and doesn't think that way, forget about what I said. But you're in the minority.

Nope. No one here is saying anything about him being the valonqar, etc.

[butterbumps!]

None of that addresses the fact that the plot bails out Jon when he has to make a difficult decision between what should have been his life or his honor/morality. While, other characters are forced to suffer immensely when having to decide between similar difficult decisions.

There doesn't, but in cases where it was being set up as either a life or death decision it is pretty weak that Jon is able to escape the proper repercussions when choosing death. In contrast, something simple like Jon standing up for Sam (a moral decision) I have no problem with Jon not suffering for and benefiting from as that isn't a life or death decision.

Yes, it does address it. I think the fact that Summer isn't what spared Jon here is pretty salient in light of how you keep positing that Summer's convenient arrival is what saved Jon's life and kept his honor in tact. It's what helps save the other Watchmen, not Jon.

It really appears that you keep equating morality with punishment. How often are these "moral actions" these characters do simultaneously mind-numbingly stupid? And/ or how often are these characters put into these positions in the first place because of their own mind-numbingly stupid actions? Is it morality or stupidity (or even more mildly, simply being outsmarted) that brings them down?

Are when Ygritte intervenes and when Stannis arrives are the two major incidents you're referring to wrt Jon's being prevented from having to get his hands dirty? I mean, it's not like he didn't make a decision either or those two times (he wasn't going to kill the man, and in the second, he'd decided to kill Mance for the Greater Good, though, admittedly, changed his mind once Mance started reasoning with him). In some ways I actually think Stannis' arrival may have been fairly inconvenient (for the record, that battle is what led to Hardhome, so this "lucky save" caused quite the pickle for Jon down the road).

[sj4iy]

Actually, I've seen dozens of Jon fans claiming that 4 or 5 of the things I mentioned are undoubtedly going to happen. Apparently, the likelihood of R + L = J happening makes Jon the only character that matters.

If you're a Jon fan and doesn't think that way, forget about what I said. But you're in the minority.

...since when did thinking he might be AAR or TPTWP (when it's clearly been hinted at in the text) mean that people think he's 'everything' or the 'only character that matters'?

[Knight Owl]

...since when did thinking he might be AAR or TPTWP (when it's clearly been hinted at in the text) mean that people think he's 'everything' or the 'only character that matters'?

Exactly, there is certainly foreshadowing in the book that he will fulfill certain prophecies, with some very plausible ones being AAR or TPTWP. There is also talk that he might get some dragon action, but I don't see how thinking that the scenarios I just mentioned might come to fruition is ridiculous or outlandish.

I think Jon is poised to play a pivotal part in the struggle that lay ahead, and based on hints in the story thus far, I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption.

[sj4iy]

Exactly, there is certainly foreshadowing in the book that he will fulfill certain prophecies, with some very plausible ones being AAR or TPTWP. There is also talk that he might get some dragon action, but I don't see how thinking that the scenarios I just mentioned might come to fruition is ridiculous or outlandish.

I think Jon is poised to play a pivotal part in the struggle that lay ahead, and based on hints in the story thus far, I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption.

Agreed. But even if he does, he clearly won't be the only character to do so.

[Knight Owl]

Agreed. But even if he does, he clearly won't be the only character to do so.

I guess you're referring to him becoming a dragon rider? If so, then we're on the same page. It just wouldn't make sense for him, or anyone for that matter to ride/control more than one dragon at a time.

[sj4iy]

I guess you're referring to him becoming a dragon rider? If so, then we're on the same page. It just wouldn't make sense for him, or anyone for that matter to ride/control more than one dragon at a time.

Well, I think he might ride a dragon, yes...but I don't think being AAR, TPTWP or a dragon rider will make him the 'most important person' in the story. I think the other characters will all play very important parts, as they have done up to this point. Stannis says "Even Azor Ahai did not win his war alone", so there's no reason to believe that if Jon is the prophesied hero, that he would be the only one fighting against the Others. Far from it. I think we'll have to see people from Westeros AND Essos work together to defeat the Others, so it can't just be down to 'one person' in the end.

[Knight Owl]

Well, I think he might ride a dragon, yes...but I don't think being AAR, TPTWP or a dragon rider will make him the 'most important person' in the story. I think the other characters will all play very important parts, as they have done up to this point. Stannis says "Even Azor Ahai did not win his war alone", so there's no reason to believe that if Jon is the prophesied hero, that he would be the only one fighting against the Others. Far from it. I think we'll have to see people from Westeros AND Essos work together to defeat the Others, so it can't just be down to 'one person' in the end.

I haven't really considered Essos getting involved in the upcoming war against the Others, but the more the merrier, especially when it comes to opposing WW. I agree that even if Jon fulfills some of the bigger prophecies, such as AAR or TPTWP, that he will be an instrumental leader in the conflict ahead rather than a straight up silver bullet. I've got a feeling that a powerful coalition, with very capable leaders, such as the likes of Jon will be needed if the world hopes to turn back whats coming.

[-Winterfellian-]

I noticed that there seems to be a lot of hate toward his character, I'm not sure why one of my told me he hated his character because he was a Gary stu.

To be Honest I do not think Jon is such a hated character. He has his detractors, sure, but he does not get as much hate as some others. In regards to the bolded.

I still find it hard to believe these plot gifts/gary stu arguments are still thrown around.

The first point is just confusing. This is a freaking story, which means everything that happens to X character serves to further along the narrative or in service of the plot. It is an argument that can be applied to every character, big or small, so trying to pin point it to a single one just seems like a lazy argument.

In regards to Jons blandness, I get why he may not be everybodys cup of tea and that is fine. But also, when analyzing Jon I feel is important to keep in mind not only the training he is exposed to in the first three books, but also to not confuse him taking predictable action in service of the narrative with boringness. We readers may expect Jon to do the right thing and so, when he does in the context of our privileged omniscient POV we may called that predictable or boring, even if for in-story characters his actions are indeed challenging.

I would add the argument that a great part of his story is not about choosing what is honorable or even what is right, but about making the kind of decision he can live with. Understanding what drives him to have the actions he feels he can live with aligned with what we pay perceive as right even if they clash with in-world views or expectations is a source of interesting analysis for me to understand his character better. In other words, Jon is not good just because.

That said, is rather simplistic to say Jon choices are restricted to right and wrong or that he never had to choose between the least of two evils as has been implied in previous posts. The thing with his actions is that because they tend to be on the side of what can be perceived as goodness we are more liable to disregard them as easy or predictable as they do not normally leave a trail of blood soaked bodies behind him. Whats more, GRRM seems to set these instances in a way where the line between these concepts- good and right/ hard and easy, etc. is deliberately subtle.

Take for example Jons wilding policy upon becoming LC, particularly the admittance of men like the Weeper and his ilk into the Realm under the idea that peace means peace for all.

Back in ACOK we have the example of Craster and the NW where Mormont justified the alliance with a man like Craster in service of the greater good. But in reality by engaging in such an ethical compromise they were taking the easy way out. This decision helped the opressor, but not the victims. Jons choice to ally the NW with a man like The Weeper on paper may appear the same but upon closer analysis we find that is not only a pragmatic one (more wildings will eventually equal to more wights) like Mormonts, but also the hard choice to make. His life will certainly be a lot more stress free is he had just figuratively buried his hand in the snow and pretended everything was peachy!

This decision is the fruit of a carefully crafted character development which in turn enabled Jon to see the difference between the two situations (I seriously doubt the narrow-minded boy he see in the first Jon chapter in AGOT will would have acted the same way) and not the result of Gary suishness of his part or Jon simple being a good guy just because.

[PirateVergo]

Nope. No one here is saying anything about him being the valonqar, etc.

Dany is the PTWP, the STMTW, the valonqar, also Azor Ahai Reborn, the last hero, the greatest conqueror than ever lived, the younger more beautiful queen.

List goes on.

[Ziriath]

Jon himself is OK, he has given Arya the Needle and so on. It's the hype around him what I hate.

[Bran17]

Who hates Arya? Send them to me, we are going to have a serious conversation^^

I do. Damn, why is that brat still alive? :bang: Her chapters are terrible.

[Bran17]

Nope. No one here is saying anything about him being the valonqar, etc.

You got my point. :laugh:

PS: Jon is not Azor Ahai.

[BastardlyRock]

I do. Damn, why is that brat still alive? :bang: Her chapters are terrible.

:commie: Picking on the only Stark I genuinely like!

[sj4iy]

You got my point. :laugh:

PS: Jon is not Azor Ahai.

PPS: Jon has prophetic dreams.

[Rhaegal Targaryen]

You got my point. :laugh:

PS: Jon is not Azor Ahai.

And if i may,how do you know that Jon is not Azor Ahai?