Stannis the character was ruined for me

[JonCon's Red Beard]

As opposed to Martin? Who flat-out said in an interview that the reason he did the RW was to top the shock of Ned's death. 
http://www.ew.com/article/2013/06/02/game-of-thrones-author-george-r-r-martin-why-he-wrote-the-red-wedding

"I killed Ned because everybody thinks he’s the hero and that, sure, he’s going to get into trouble, but then he’ll somehow get out of it. The next predictable thing is to think his eldest son is going to rise up and avenge his father. And everybody is going to expect that. So immediately [killing Robb] became the next thing I had to do." - GRRM

 

That's not what Martin said. Not at all.

What he said, and what he has always implied in his interviews, is that he doesn't want to follow the common tropes and clichés of fantastic storytelling,. And in fantasy, the good guys always win by the power of good. He wanted to subvert that trope as people probably was expecting that Robb would succeed on avenge Ned and win the war, but that would have been, according to how the plot was being crafted, impossible because Robb was taking all the wrong choices.

GRRM is trying to write a very realistic fantasy. Dragons and magic he has, but he also doesn't rely on things such as "the good always win despite all the odds against them!" because that is not what happen in real life.

Speaking of the books/show in general and not just the RW, which was done well in my opinion.

The RW itself wasn't done bad. But that was it.

The RW is part of the Northern storyline, and we didn't have that for almost two seasons. It was just people from the North being here and there like the forgot the Lannisters butchered their Lords and men

[Lautrec]

That's not what Martin said. Not at all.

What he said, and what he has always implied in his interviews, is that he doesn't want to follow the common tropes and clichés of fantastic storytelling,. And in fantasy, the good guys always win by the power of good. He wanted to subvert that trope as people probably was expecting that Robb would succeed on avenge Ned and win the war, but that would have been, according to how the plot was being crafted, impossible because Robb was taking all the wrong choices.

GRRM is trying to write a very realistic fantasy. Dragons and magic he has, but he also doesn't rely on things such as "the good always win despite all the odds against them!" because that is not what happen in real life.

The RW itself wasn't done bad. But that was it.

The RW is part of the Northern storyline, and we didn't have that for almost two seasons. It was just people from the North being here and there like the forgot the Lannisters butchered their Lords and men

Yes, of course he wanted to subvert those tropes, and he wanted to subvert them to shock his readers.

And yes, we didn't have the northern story for almost two seasons, just like we had LSH for only two pages in two thousand of them. Besides, Walder Frey is confirmed for S6, I guess you just have to wait in the show just like in the books.

[Le Cygne]

https://meereeneseblot.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/other-wars-part-v-the-peace-the-pink-letter-and-the-shieldhall-speech/

I don't think the right thing is an either/or thing. I don't think Duty > Love. I think it's more complicated than that. In other words, the greater good and doing what's right, that's part of the same thing. So I don't think Jon necessarily failed in that sense. The story isn't over yet, but his struggle was a good one. (Not on the show, of course, they never get into anything that deep.)

[A Ghost of Someone]

The only characters they seemingly are trying to flesh out and they are twisted from the books by them anyway to be more sympathetic and they are Tyrion and Cersie, better known as St Tyrion the Pius and Carol. Hell, I might should have thrown in Tywin to that mix as they turned him into a loving Grandfatherly man with Arya in Season 2. The bias against Stannis in particular is pretty obvious. Not really a likable character to begin with from the books but how they essentually had his character walk the plank in Season 5 was really awful and too rushed. Poor writing altogether but the worst part of it, they won Emmy's for this and the other Season's travesties.

[thehandwipes]

I don't think the right thing is an either/or thing. I don't think Duty > Love. I think it's more complicated than that. In other words, the greater good and doing what's right, that's part of the same thing. So I don't think Jon necessarily failed in that sense. The story isn't over yet, but his struggle was a good one. (Not on the show, of course, they never get into anything that deep.)

I don't think GRRM was trying to say that Jon necessarily was doing the wrong thing by attempting to rescue fArya.  GRRM is at his best when he gives his characters hard choices that test their beliefs and their character and let the reader decide what was right.  He's at his best when he's asking you questions, not giving you answers.  I think that's one of the reasons so many people hate Dany but love Stannis.  Stannis's story is full of moral questions that aren't easy to answer, whereas Dany is always right (in her own mind at least).

The point the Blot was making is that Jon's story more than any other follows the traditional coming of age heroes journey.  Heroes kill monsters and rescue people in need.  His decisions to go to Hardholme and rescue his sister don't come out of left-field, they're in character even if they seem unwise (because they are).  If he had done nothing to help Arya and left her in the hands of Ramsay Bolton, that would have been out of character.

One of my favorite scenes from ADWD is when Jon disingenuously tells Mel that as a man of the Night's Watch he has no sisters, "only brothers."  In my head cannon, she slaps him hard across the face and when she sees that was surprised, responds: "Oh, I thought you wanted me slap you across the face, why else would you say something like that about you're beloved little sister?"  In D&D's head cannon, Mel takes her clothes off and forces Jon to grope her.

But of course D&D have a much better understanding of the material than we do.

[Le Cygne]

I don't think that's all that the essay was saying, I have issues with his arguments.

I don't think GRRM was saying that Jon was wrong by attempting to rescue Arya. I think that was a moment of truth, that his story had been building to, and that was what was missing from his approach to that point.

[thehandwipes]

I don't think that's all that the essay was saying, I have issues with his arguments.

I don't think GRRM was saying that Jon was wrong by attempting to rescue Arya. I think that was a moment of truth, that his story had been building to, and that was what was missing from his approach to that point.

There's more to it than that, but I was responding to someone saying Jon;s decisions didn't make sense.

It's impossible to say that the "right thing to do" would be to leave fArya in the hands of Ramsay Bolton if you have it your power to prevent it.  But he definitely is abandoning the "greater good" to do the "right thing."  Its not just an important personal character trait, its seems to be a family trait, and just like Ned's death and the Red Wedding, it doesn't just come out of left-field but is a consequence of rational, if ill-advised, decisions.

[Le Cygne]

I just don't think one, it's necessarily ill advised, and two, that you can separate the greater good and the right thing like that. I think doing the right thing often comes from a personal space, what seems right to the heart. If you just weigh decisions in terms of greater good, you can miss the heart of the matter, and thus end up doing neither greater good, nor what's right. In other words, I don't think you can separate the two.

[thehandwipes]

I just don't think one, it's necessarily ill advised, and two, that you can separate the greater good and the right thing like that. I think doing the right thing often comes from a personal space, what seems right to the heart. If you just weigh decisions in terms of greater good, you can miss the heart of the matter, and thus end up doing neither greater good, nor what's right. In other words, I don't think you can separate the two.

I have to disagree.

The mission to Hardhome is a terrible military decision, and antagonizing the Boltons a terrible political one.  All at a time when the Night's Watch's mission is relevant again for the first time in 8000 years.

There are plenty of threads about this in the book forum, so I don't necessarily want to hijack this thread to debate the Blot.  But I think you can separate whats "right" from the "greater good."  That's why we have the expression "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good."  Jon thinks he can have it all, that he can save the wildlings, his sister, and stop the Others.  And if this was Star Wars, he would of succeeded.  He would have been wiser, though less sympathetic, if he had abandoned the Hardhome mission and his sister to their terrible fate.  Abandoning the perfect in favor of preserving the good.

Personally, though, I would of lost a lot of respect for him if he didn't try to help his sister.  Which is what makes reading GRRM so much fun, he doesn't let you have the easy answers, he challenges you.

[Le Cygne]

I have to disagree.

The mission to Hardhome is a terrible military decision, and antagonizing the Boltons a terrible political one.  All at a time when the Night's Watch's mission is relevant again for the first time in 8000 years.

There are plenty of threads about this in the book forum, so I don't necessarily want to hijack this thread to debate the Blot.  But I think you can separate whats "right" from the "greater good."  That's why we have the expression "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good."  Jon thinks he can have it all, that he can save the wildlings, his sister, and stop the Others.  And if this was Star Wars, he would of succeeded.  He would have been wiser, though less sympathetic, if he had abandoned the Hardhome mission and his sister to their terrible fate.  Abandoning the perfect in favor of preserving the good.

Personally, though, I would of lost a lot of respect for him if he didn't try to help his sister.  Which is what makes reading GRRM so much fun, he doesn't let you have the easy answers, he challenges you.

I just wanted to make the point, I like reading your responses, and I understood why you made the point (the link) and appreciate that. I didn't mean to disagree with your point in response to the other poster, it's true that there's a lot behind what happened in the books and I agree with you there. I just disagree with some of the arguments of the person on the blog (although I do like his Dany essays, I take exception with his Jon essays).

I agree that Jon made some bad decisions, it's the false dichotomy I am arguing against. The world they live in is changing, and the Night's Watch had to as well. And I think the same could be said for Stannis, the show would have better served both characters by keeping some of that complexity. Dumbing a story like this down just makes it confusing, before you know it, it's about Olly and killing your only heir instead of going fishing.

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.

(John Donne, by the way. )

[thehandwipes]

 

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."

One of my all-time favorite quotes.  Hopefully Bowen Marsh will carve it on Jon's headstone with tears in eyes, because that's exactly the very noble and humane kind of thinking that got Jon killed.  It wouldn't be GRRM if it didn't.

Edit: Just think of all the movies where the villain says "Ah ha!  Now I've got you Spiderman (or whoever), either you can save Mary Jane or stop me from destroying the city, btu you can't do both."  And Spiderman is just like, "Well I'll just do both, cause I'm the freakin Hero of this story."  Jon tried to do both but that shit doesn't fly in GRRM's universe.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Yes, of course he wanted to subvert those tropes, and he wanted to subvert them to shock his readers.

Actually, there is an interview when he says otherwise. Those who have it maybe can post it bc I can't find it.

I think you're mixing up "shocking" with what a narrative naturally does. You need highs and lows to keep the readership entertained. But that's something you have to set up otherwise, then you better start dropping pianos on your character's heads because it would be the same effect.

Martin didn't kill Ned Stark out of nothing. The book leaded to that, and, despite we're used to stories in which the hero is saved at the last moment, GRRM took the realistic approach and got him killed. But Ned didn't just die because Martin said so: he actually got in a situation in which he faced death and wasn't danger. Shocking would be that he's all good and suddenly, he dies because some mysterious character poisoned him.

 

I don't think that's all that the essay was saying, I have issues with his arguments.

I don't think GRRM was saying that Jon was wrong by attempting to rescue Arya. I think that was a moment of truth, that his story had been building to, and that was what was missing from his approach to that point.

This are the kind of things that are neither "right" or "wrong", and GRRM doesn't judge his characters but let that we readers do the dirty job.

Jon's arc has always been "duty against love", specially because that was what set up Rhaegar's and Ned's fates. That's something Jon also faced several times in his arc: first, when he heard of the war and was ready to abandon the Watch to join Robb, even knowing that he could be hunted and executed. Then, when he fell in love with Ygritte for real, yet, he was in charge of the defence that got her killed.

What I think Martin wants to say isn't that Jon did "wrong", but that people dont' really care that you do the "right" thing if they think the "right" thing is wrong. Jon trying to save his sister is very noble, but it goes against the interests of the Watch and its members, so, what is "right" for him, it can be seen as "wrong" by others. What if the Boltons get mad and charge against the very diminished Wall?

[Le Cygne]

What I think Martin wants to say isn't that Jon did "wrong", but that people dont' really care that you do the "right" thing if they think the "right" thing is wrong. Jon trying to save his sister is very noble, but it goes against the interests of the Watch and its members, so, what is "right" for him, it can be seen as "wrong" by others. What if the Boltons get mad and charge against the very diminished Wall?

Excellent point. I think in the long term, for someone who leads, the noble things do matter. The short run, something may seem to be for the greater good, but not the long run. That's where I think you have to have a more in depth approach to seeing these things.

[Dragon in the North]

https://meereeneseblot.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/other-wars-part-v-the-peace-the-pink-letter-and-the-shieldhall-speech/

The essay was quite long and I haven't had the chance to read it all, but so far, it's a nice read. However, my main problem with Jon's ultimatum in the fifth book between his duty and his family is that it already has been done in the first book. Jon ran away from the Watch to join Robb's war before his friends and Lord Commander Mormont reminded Jon of his vows and persuaded him to uphold them. I thought this was a big character moment for Jon and was truly impressed at the time that Jon was willing to set aside his personal feelings in order to concentrate on doing what was best for the realm. With the Pink Letter, when Jon chose to take men away from the Wall's defenses for personal reasons, I couldn't help but feel that Jon's character development had taken a step backward.

[thehandwipes]

The essay was quite long and I haven't had the chance to read it all, but so far, it's a nice read. However, my main problem with Jon's ultimatum in the fifth book between his duty and his family is that it already has been done in the first book. Jon ran away from the Watch to join Robb's war before his friends and Lord Commander Mormont reminded Jon of his vows and persuaded him to uphold them. I thought this was a big character moment for Jon and was truly impressed at the time that Jon was willing to set aside his personal feelings in order to concentrate on doing what was best for the realm. With the Pink Letter, when Jon chose to take men away from the Wall's defenses for personal reasons, I couldn't help but feel that Jon's character development had taken a step backward.

I think for someone in Jon's position, the conflict between his oath and his family would never go away. And Arya is, as far as he knows, his last surviving family, the sibling he was closest to, and in the hands of Ramsay Bolton.

But his arc has much more to do with his heroic instinct conflicting with the responsibilities of leadership.  From Sam, to Gilly, to Ygritte, to that guy he couldn't kill, Jon has always been a protector even at the expense of his duty or his own personal well being.  That's downright heroic, but now he has the responsibilities of leadership and they conflict with his nature.  Involving himself and Nights's Watch in the Karstark affair, the rescue of Arya, and the attempt to salvage the Harhome expedition were all born from his desire to help people who could not help themselves.  Admirable, but not necessarily a wise use of his position as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch.

[Le Cygne]

The Night's Watch is a failing institution. Mormont going along with Craster is one example. Jon can do more good in a different leadership capacity. One where he can help the one and the many.

[thehandwipes]

The Enterprise already has a captain.

Ultimately, I think his time in Ghost will make him more connected to his family.  And by his family, I mean this guy.

[StepStark]

 

I thought the events that happened after the Pink Letter were pretty illogical. Jon Snow spent the entire book trying to convince others that the White Walker threat existed and that was the enemy they should be focusing on. Pink Letter came and Jon conveniently forgot everything he had been saying and decided to take a large force from the Wall and attack the Boltons.

He didn't march with an army when his sister was marrying a Bolton, but he marched when his sister escaped? That doesn't make sense to me.

And what was Jon supposed to do? Just wait on the Wall for Ramsay to come and kill him? Jon's motivations are complicated, which Martin nicely built and introduced (Arya as the last member of his family Jon's really attached to), but his actions are very simple and self-explanatory. Even without Arya, he couldn't just sit there and wait for Ramsay to come and kill him, especially with Others approaching - he had to deal with Ramsay before The Other come. So, in the book it really makes sense. 

[Le Cygne]

The Enterprise already has a captain.

Ultimately, I think his time in Ghost will make him more connected to his family.  And by his family, I mean this guy.

You mean Rover. Be nice to Jon, it's bad enough the show made his last word "Olly"...

[A Ghost of Someone]

The show actually made a point in the Night's watch vows which Jon recites, "protect the realms of men", human beings. The Night's watch was founded to guard against the others but they are also charged with protecting the Watch itself. Ramsay was a known monster in the books, he is famous in the North and he believed that his "bride", the same person Jon thinks is "Arya" is headed to Jon at the Wall. Ramsay or someone claiming to be Ramsay directly threatened Jon, the Watch itself and guests of theirs at the Wall. Jon may have wanted to go and kick Ramsay's ass but was restrained from doing so. When he sent Mance to get Arya out of there, he did so with the more than logical notion that Arya was wed to Ramsay against her will and through force. However, when he and the watch are directly threatened with "invasion" by Ramsay, that gave Jon the legitimate and justifiable pretext to go to war with him. Jon was in the right to an extent but when he said that he would lead the men South, it perhaps gave the impression that he was abandoning the Watch to pursue Castle and maybe a crown. Everyone knows who Jon is the supposed son of and brother of and he is perceived to be the last male survivor of House Stark, bastard or not. There has always been a target on his head. Hell, Cersie wants him dead and her and Qyburn in the books discussed having him killed because of who he is kin to (of course, Carol on the show would never do that as that would make her out to be a monster, same as would hunting down Robert's impovrished bastards and having Ser Janos Slynt murder them, including and infant because they had their father's black hair and blue eyes)