Jump to content
Areisius

What was the purpose of Jon Snow?

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, teej6 said:

Goodness gracious! Your “source”? What are you going to say next? You know the plumber who worked in GRRM’s house and he happened to read GRRM’s notes? 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you the same poster who had a thread about cracking some big mystery and wanted a council to be formed so that they could come to a determination whether by revealing your big secret you were revealing something GRRM doesn’t want revealed? How did that turn out for you? IIRC, you had nothing, and went out with a whimper. I don’t mean to be rude but it’s hard to take someone seriously after that.

My "source" for "You know nothing Jon Snow" is from a work of literature that inspired GRRM to create the theme of Jon Snow's character arc.

Yes, I was that guy ... but if you feel like I had nothing then, I guess citing that "source" is pointless here.

That theory may have went out with a whimper because it was banned before catching more momentum ... but I have been researching it more on my own time because its fun! GRRM chose some fun inspirations for his work. I know small things like how "Harrenhal" started out as "Harrenhel", and big things like how House Stark is inspired by Tony Stark. Or maybe I just know nothing too, but whatevers ... I am enjoying it on my own.

19 hours ago, Kaapstad said:

You know I thought this story was unconventional as they showed us the death of Ned Stark, Robb Stark and his mother, his sisters being tortured. Turns out I didn’t know the name of the protagonist was Jon Snow. If you think about it that way, it’s just another conventional story like Harry Potter. Everyone gets their ass kicked but the MC miraculously survives. 

Don't worry, GRRM will give us a better story in the next two books. And I'm pretty sure Jon doesn't make it to the ending. Jon has a lot of stupid things left to do ... like being the cause of the Other's invasion of Westeros. Technically, Jon was also the reason why the Others invaded in the TV show. The TV Others destroyed the Wall with an Ice Dragon, but they only got the dragon because Dany had to save Jon Snow from his STUPID zombie-kidnapping mission. So yea, I guess it was Jon's fault too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not convinced show Jon is canon.

Pretty much all of his book accomplishments were either nerfed or left out. They left out his warging. They left out the concept of Lightbringer, AA/NN, and ignored the PTWP stuff despite actually bringing it up. They also left out his intelligence, personality, and temper. 

They even left out the fact Book Jon had the foresight to throw two corpses in the ice cells, meaning that asinine wight hunt is never going to happen. 

Then they didn’t have him kill the NK because “it’s too predictable”, and didn’t give him anything positive to do instead.

He’ll also have some sort of internal struggle about Dany. Show Jon made no effort whatsoever to comfort her, and didn’t even question if he should.

He’ll probably still kill her, but he’s not going to passively watch her collapse and not give a shit about it. 

Same thing R+L=J. Something like that has to have a bigger payoff than just being a plot device to drive Dany mad. 

The general outcome will probably be the same, but how they get there will be night-and-day different. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Techmaester said:

I'm talking from the start of episode 1 onwards, but sure even if she threatened to kill his cousin for betrayal. I think it could have been worked out in a reasonable way.

He did try to reason with her. He kept trying to explain that he wants to tell Sansa and Arya but she blew him off. And the next time, she threatened to kill her. That’s twice she threatened her by the way. First time with that "dragon eats whoever they want comment" directed at Sansa.  Anyone who jumps to death as an instant knee jerk reaction was always going to be a tyrant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Techmaester said:

I'm talking from the start of episode 1 onwards, but sure even if she threatened to kill his cousin for betrayal. I think it could have been worked out in a reasonable way.

Sansa is the sister he grew up with. That's the point that you refuse to acknowledge or respect. That's part of why you don't understand or respect the deeply held character motivations of the Starks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/3/2019 at 7:25 PM, Areisius said:

After watching this last season I'm baffled by what his purpose was? He serves the Night's watch, gets murdered by them, gets revived, retakes Winterfell, meets Dany and convinces her to help him defend the north from the White Walkers, finds out he is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna Stark, defends Winterfell from the White Walkers, fights at Kings Landing, Kills Dany, and gets banished back to the Night's watch. He does all these things to end up back at square one. I have never witnessed a main character have such an anticlimactic ending. WTF?

Imagine a story in which a guy begins on a farm living peacefully, then the government shows up and convinces him to go to war because he's such a great leader. The guy reluctantly goes to war, leads troops, unifies forces, fights in battles, watches his men die, kills Hitler, then goes back home where he belongs and retires in a time of peace, thanks to his efforts in the war.

You basically stated Jon's entire purpose when you listed all of the things he did so I'd question how you're basically baffled by your own post. If I ask you, what was Bilbo's purpose in the Hobbit, is it as equally baffling? It's practically the same line of narrative. Bilbo ends up at square one, the Shire. To cite a character returning to the place from which they started as "anticlimactic" is actually somewhat true if we put an "e" there instead of an "i" (anteclimactic) - it's called an "epilogue" and it's after(ante) the climax. The climax of Jon's purpose was to kill Dany and cause the destruction of the Iron Throne.

Edited by John Meta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, John Meta said:

Imagine a story in which a guy begins on a farm living peacefully, then the government shows up and convinces him to go to war because he's such a great leader. The guy reluctantly goes to war, leads troops, unifies forces, fights in battles, watches his men die, kills Hitler, then goes back home where he belongs and retires in a time of peace, thanks to his efforts in the war.

You basically stated Jon's entire purpose when you listed all of the things he did so I'd question how you're basically baffled by your own post. If I ask you, what was Bilbo's purpose in the Hobbit, is it as equally baffling? It's practically the same line of narrative. Bilbo ends up at square one, the Shire. To cite a character returning to the place from which they started as "anticlimactic" is actually somewhat true if we put an "e" there instead of an "i" (anteclimactic) - it's called an "epilogue" and it's after(ante) the climax. The climax of Jon's purpose was to kill Dany and cause the destruction of the Iron Throne.

Exactly. Jon might be back at the Watch but everything is different. He knows for sure that Arya, Bran and Sansa are safe. And there is no war with the Wildlings. He is right in the middle of the peacetime that he help create. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheFirstofHerName said:

Maybe OT but I wanted to share this since we are discussing Jon.  I read an older article yesterday which explained Jon’s leadership style and why people were drawn to him.  

https://medium.com/live-your-life-on-purpose/the-leadership-style-of-jon-snow-cdbf23aab9dd

That is so true. That’s why some think he would be a good king because he is a Servant to be people. I would say it has taken a toll on him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2019 at 10:41 PM, The Map Guy said:

The purpose of Jon Snow is to have a character in a story that KNEW NOTHING and LUCKED his way through life.

  • Son of dead parents, but fostered in Winterfell by a noble rich family ... not earned, just luck
  • Steward to the NW's Lord Commander only because of his family ... not earned, just luck
  • On a recon mission he decides not to kill a female wildling, and it eventually helped him infiltrate the wildlings as a spy ... not earned, just luck
  • As a virgin, he intentionally joined a brotherhood that cannot get laid, but gets laid anyways for his duty as a spy ... not earned, just luck
  • Would be eventually doomed in the Battle Beneath the Wall, but Stannis rescues the NW ... not earned, just luck
  • After Stannis saves Jon, he becomes the NW Lord Commander, but only after Samwell spoke up for him ... not earned, just luck
  • Get assassinated by his own NW's brothers, but Melisandre was able to resurrect him ... not earned, just luck
  • Would be eventually doomed in the Battle of the Bastards, but Sansa and the Vale rescues him ... not earned, just luck
  • After Sansa and the Vale saves Jon, he becomes King of the North because all Ned's heirs are dead or supposedly dead ... not earned, just luck
  • Goes on a stupid mission to kidnap a zombie, gets in trouble, and gets rescued by Dany and Benjen ... not earned, just luck
  • Would be eventually doomed in the Long Night, but Arya rescues him ... not earned, just luck
  • Was barely threaten by enemy soldiers in the Dany's Sack of King's Landing because Dany did all the work ... not earned, just luck
  • Kills Dany easily because she kind of forgot to put guards with her inside the Iron Throne room ... not earned, just luck
  • Assassinates the Queen, gives himself up, but does not get executed ... instead he gets sent back North, the place he loves ... not earned, just luck

Lucky bastard.

I have to admit I agree with this. Although I think book Jon had more agency. Show!Jon, especially after his death, was just lucky. He became KitN through no real merit of his own. If the show had been true to itself there would've been consequences for Jon putting his men in jeopardy in the battle of bastards. Also the way they showed Sansa questioning him undermined his ability to band people together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

14 hours ago, Kaapstad said:

He did try to reason with her. He kept trying to explain that he wants to tell Sansa and Arya but she blew him off. And the next time, she threatened to kill her. That’s twice she threatened her by the way. First time with that "dragon eats whoever they want comment" directed at Sansa.  Anyone who jumps to death as an instant knee jerk reaction was always going to be a tyrant. 

That was after Sansa started shit and was generally being a shitty person to a group who was saving you. At that point I'd have just left and let the savages get turned but I don't feel any moral obligation to anyone - another lesson in Danys fall I suppose. I mean the entire sequence is of events is pretty absurd and could only be explained by Dany being completely love struck. Red keep should have fallen in season 7.    

9 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Sansa is the sister he grew up with. That's the point that you refuse to acknowledge or respect. That's part of why you don't understand or respect the deeply held character motivations of the Starks.

Jons not a Stark, Sansa was never his sister(even when he thought he was Neds bastard). He's at best a pathetic suckup to a group of people who didn't even give him their last name LOL. Truly a story of failure and Stockholm Syndrome!  

Edited by Techmaester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

 

Jons not a Stark, Sansa was never his sister(even when he thought he was Neds bastard). He's at best a pathetic suckup to a group of people who didn't even give him their last name LOL. Truly a story of failure and Stockholm Syndrome!  

It's rude and insulting to shit on people's families. Jon was raised with them as a Stark, which is all that counts. But even if it weren't,  his mother makes him a Stark. Stop lying.

I dare you to go tell some orphaned cousin adopted at birth that those siblings he grew up with aren't his sisters. He'll either start bawling or punch you in the face. Or both. You're being unrealistic and disrespectful. That isn't the way the world works. Go meet those people who are in that situation and see how they feel. I HAVE. His foster family is his real family, even as a nephew. That's what Martin's lesson is.

I'm sorry you haven't learnt it yet.

Edited by CrypticWeirwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

It's rude and insulting to shit on people's families. Jon was raised with them as a Stark, which is all that counts. But even if it weren't,  his mother makes him a Stark. Stop lying.

I dare you to go tell some orphaned cousin adopted at birth that those siblings he grew up with aren't his sisters. He'll either start bawling or punch you in the face. Or both. You're being unrealistic and disrespectful. That isn't the way the world works. Go meet those people who are in that situation and see how they feel. I HAVE. His foster family is his real family, even as a nephew. That's what Martin's lesson is.

I'm sorry you haven't learnt it yet.

I will provide a more accurate scenario: You get treated like a second class citizen by your supposed half family and then find out your actual father was killed in a rebellion which included this family when your aunt is offering an opportunity to avenge his death and reconquer the continent. 

Pretty sure you're going to be flipping your loyalty pretty darn fast(I certainly would). I mean I wouldn't disregard them completely but it's obvious my allegiance would shift. This is exactly how the world would work - only in a fantasy novel would someone disregard their fathers death or their real lineage. 

Edited by Techmaester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Techmaester said:

I will provide a more accurate scenario: You get treated like a second class citizen by your supposed half family and then find out your actual father was killed in a rebellion which included this family when your aunt is offering an opportunity to avenge his death and reconquer the continent. 

Pretty sure you're going to be flipping your loyalty pretty darn fast(I certainly would). I mean I wouldn't disregard them completely but it's obvious my allegiance would shift. This is exactly how the world would work - only in a fantasy novel would someone disregard their fathers death. 

Why should Jon care about some sperm donor he never met? He got Ned, the father that he loved and honored, and nobody can take that away from him. Some murderous foriegn aunt he grew up never knowing is never going to replace the real family he had. 

Ned and his children loves Jon with all their heart, and he them. It was Cat who had the stupids. 

There's no way dead people he never knew would matter to him then the people who raised him, and who very much were his family.

This is obvious. That you refuse to understand it says more of your projection than it does of the Starks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

It's rude and insulting to shit on people's families. Jon was raised with them as a Stark, which is all that counts. But even if it weren't,  his mother makes him a Stark. Stop lying.

I dare you to go tell some orphaned cousin adopted at birth that those siblings he grew up with aren't his sisters. He'll either start bawling or punch you in the face. Or both. You're being unrealistic and disrespectful. That isn't the way the world works. Go meet those people who are in that situation and see how they feel. I HAVE. His foster family is his real family, even as a nephew. That's what Martin's lesson is.

I'm sorry you haven't learnt it yet.

In Ancient Chinese Philosophy, they have a saying that the man who actually raises a child has a superior claim to being the father (and thus receive the gratitude of filial piety) than the natural father. 

So even though Westerosi custom would say he's Rhaegars , Jon is for all practical purposes Ned Stark's son. Because Ned raised him from birth. The fact that he lost his Dragon (Rhaegal) but kept his wolf is a perfect allusion to the saying for me. 

1 hour ago, Techmaester said:

That was after Sansa started shit and was generally being a shitty person to a group who was saving you. At that point I'd have just left and let the savages get turned but I don't feel any moral obligation to anyone - another lesson in Danys fall I suppose. I mean the entire sequence is of events is pretty absurd and could only be explained by Dany being completely love struck. Red keep should have fallen in season 7.    

I agree, Dany was trying to do the altruistic thing and honor the "protector of the realm part" of her title. She showed too much trust for Tyrion's pro lannister strategy probably out of compassion for his dwarfism. The realistic thing to do would be to solidify the south in S7 and wish the North "good fortune" against the NK. If North wants independence, they should deal with NK independently. The South can fortify the neck and hold off the army of the dead there with the help of red priests, wildfire and dragon glass etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Why should Jon care about some sperm donor he never met? He got Ned, the father that he loved and honored, and nobody can take that away from him. Some murderous foriegn aunt he grew up never knowing is never going to replace the real family he had. 

Ned and his children loves Jon with all their heart, and he them. It was Cat who had the stupids. 

There's no way dead people he never knew would matter to him then the people who raised him, and who very much were his family.

This is obvious. That you refuse to understand it says more of your projection than it does of the Starks.

You see plenty of people desperate to find who their real parents are after being put up for adoption. In Jons case he wasn't put up for adoption - half of his family was killed and his moms identity hidden. That you don't think he would care is kind of mind boggling to me and reflects your own ideality. In Jons case it was even more extreme - he was never considered a "Stark" by anyone.

Lets take your position to an even greater extreme, if a person found out their perceived parents killed their actual parents and then adopted them, would they keep viewing them the same way? 

Edited by Techmaester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, John Meta said:

To cite a character returning to the place from which they started as "anticlimactic" is actually somewhat true if we put an "e" there instead of an "i" (anteclimactic) - it's called an "epilogue" and it's after(ante) the climax.

Usage quibble! :) The prefix ante- means before, or prior. The prefix post- means after, or following. As:

  • anterior, antecedent, antenatal, ante meridiem (a.m. or "before midday")
  • posterior, posterity, postnatal, post meridiem (p.m. or "after midday")

Aside from that, I tend to agree with your point - though I disliked the way his character was written - that there isn't much to be gained in seeking deep motivation for what he did. What we saw is all there was, basically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gendelsdottir said:

Usage quibble! :) The prefix ante- means before, or prior. The prefix post- means after, or following. As:

  • anterior, antecedent, antenatal, ante meridiem (a.m. or "before midday")
  • posterior, posterity, postnatal, post meridiem (p.m. or "after midday")

Aside from that, I tend to agree with your point - though I disliked the way his character was written - that there isn't much to be gained in seeking deep motivation for what he did. What we saw is all there was, basically.

This is not a quibble, it is an important point. For example, antebellum refers to a big part of US history, and many peace treaties have status quo antebellum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Br16 said:

This is not a quibble, it is an important point. For example, antebellum refers to a big part of US history, and many peace treaties have status quo antebellum. 

Correction noted. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2019 at 12:53 AM, Gendelsdottir said:

Usage quibble! :) The prefix ante- means before, or prior. The prefix post- means after, or following. As:

  • anterior, antecedent, antenatal, ante meridiem (a.m. or "before midday")
  • posterior, posterity, postnatal, post meridiem (p.m. or "after midday")

Aside from that, I tend to agree with your point - though I disliked the way his character was written - that there isn't much to be gained in seeking deep motivation for what he did. What we saw is all there was, basically.

Good eye, ante does mean before. My brain was trying to talk from two different points of view at the same time and mixed them together. It tends to do that from time to time. What I meant was that the narrative climax (throne room scene) was before the "Jon returns to square one" of the epilogue, which epilogue seemed to be understood by the original post as being the climax (therefore called anticlimactic) But that epilogue happened after the narrative climax; the narrative climax happening before: thus, anticlimactic being somewhat true if we regard the "climax" of the post (which is the epilogue) occurring after the narrative climax which happened before the presumed climax, making it anteclimactic in that the narrative climax is happening before the assumed climax which happened, through assumption, after. 

Okay, that just makes things worse doesn't it? Let's just go with; good catch, ante does mean before and leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×