Besides joining the Night's Watch, what other alternatives did Jon Snow have?

[Azarial]

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Of course this is George’s intent. He wants to advocate that a quiet spoken technocrat without human emotion and compassion would make the perfect ruler. So by his reasoning Joseph Stalin was a perfect ruler because he was a quiet spoken back office man. That’s what Bran is. Some cold blooded reptile who George thinks would be good because he has cast aside his own ego and embraced knowledge. Whereas Dany is thrown under the bus as representing the ultimate fate of passion as self destructive. I am fully aware that’s his intent; which is why I disagree with it.

You can’t take the authors assertions at face value because he can control his examples.  Of course, people loving each other is bad because it means twincest would happen! That means love must be the death of duty! It’s absurd. 

So when the author tells me that Jon is being so so smart because he makes suggestions at the same level as a Dungeons and Dragons player I don’t buy it. Stannis could easily get this information from any number of sources. I think the author felt he had to show Jon achieve something in his own right precisely for the purpose of impressing the reader. I mean hell Benjen literally tells Jon on remarks to the Kings Arrival that “wow you’re so smart Jon!”. George is not a subtle man.

The dude bringing everyone together to face the greater threat has been done many many times. Again, your typical D&D party would be trying to negotiate with the Wildlings. You can’t give the character praise and credit for this. George contrived a ridiculous situation to make this idiot look good.

The Nights Watch and Northerners are barely racist towards the Wildlings. It’s tame. A false conflict that George is going to hand wave to make it easy for Jon to unite both cultures. In fact George has to produce some Andals to play the racist fools to make Jon look good and avoid insinuating the Northerners could be bad. My point is that you are giving him credit where credit is not due. Is he a bad man for playing diplomat and wanting to make peace. No. But it’s not worth praise and not worth my time because it’s so contrived and generic it offends me. 

Well actually Jon is using might makes right here. He could not compel the diplomatic option without demanding everyone respect his authority as Lord Commander. In fact he kind of chops a mans head off. Totally had nothing to do with his Dad of course. So he is using violence and it’s threat to get what he wants. I mean it’s 4D chess move to cut a mans head off who back talks to you.

You don’t think it’s pretentious to make yourself out to be the stoic man of dignity? To me that’s just as insincere and a demand for attention as throwing on all the glam and being a braggart. It’s an act. It’s a way of selling yourself. Oh, he must be intelligent because he’s introverted and soulfully reflecting on life. So deep and brooding. To me, if you make the effort that shows that you care what other people think; that’s the virtuous behaviour. 

George is also talking about a non issue. The technocrats and bureaucrats run every country on this planet. If you’ve ever seen the TV show Yes Minister then you’d know what I mean. Doesn’t matter who the front man is. It’s absurd to complain that as a society we aren’t putting smart people into positions of power or placing value in them. 

I d rather have somebody with fire in their heart and compassion for their fellow humans than a robot who wouldn’t think twice about killing you if it served its calculations. If power has to exist in the world then what matters is how it’s wielded and power isn’t going anywhere.

Also his reasoning invariably leads to status quo Burkean conservatism. War is bad so whoever is the incumbent ruler must be in the right and the person at fault is the trouble maker trying to overthrow the natural order.

 

 

 

That's the abomination. In the books Bran is not cold or uncaring. He does some messed up things and is not one of my favorite characters. But in GRRM more blunt first book way he has Cat tell us why he will be the best ruler and it's because he's warm, and easy to laugh and quick to laugh and smile. The exact opposite of what you claim. The cold emotionless back room guy isn't accurate to what we've been shown so far. And if he does end up that way most people will be unhappy.

D&D is played by people in modern society, with modern values so I don't think something being logical in that RPG is relevant to a character in this worlds actions. Anything that goes against societal norms in their world is difficult for a character. Any character. You are judging Dany based on in world things, the sexism, the magic, then judging Jon based on the modern world. That is biased. They must both be judged by what is realistic of a person in their world, with their values and upbringing. Jon's decisions are outside of the norm. You don't have to like that that is the norm the books established. But it doesn't change the fact that this was established, and all characters act based off of the same world building. Dany faces people that seem cartoon villains, that gain depth. So why assume that the mountain clans won't gain depth now that they've been introduced. And why complain about one and not the other. These elements are in BOTH their plots.

I also find it interesting that you say taking the time to show you care what others think is virtuous. I agree, but given your character likes and dislikes I'm surprised. Since their actions are the inverse of that opinion more often than not. Dany doesn't take the time to understand the people of Slavers Bay and it causes issues. Jon does take the time to talk to people and he's the one you dislike. It's interesting is all. Sometimes we like characters that are different from us, as they're more interesting, so I get it, but didn't expect you to say it.

Pretending to be stoic would be a negative for sure. But we are in Jons head, he's not faking it for appearances, he truly is that way. Just like I respect Dany's flamboyance more than Visery's because she really is that way and believes it, while he's putting on a show. And GRRM doesn't show stoic as always good. Stannis is not supposed to be likable, for example. He's able, but his lack of personality and warmth is clearly shown as a negative. When Jon goes into a mood in dance his friends are upset by how withdrawn he is. This isn't shown as a good thing. It's one of Jon's most obvious flaws.

Ah, so you missed his I would support fighting in world war II interview, where he explains when he feels war is justified. He doesn't make whomever the incumbent ruler is the one in the right no matter what, I assure you. He also said he wants the belief of if a war was right or wrong to be up to the reader. So I'm trusting that he wont do some theological rant telling us how to feel. 

And he was less subtle in book one, when he thought he was writing a trilogy, and didn't know that the internet would be group thinking everything. But that has changed, your comments are primarily about Dance. And in Dance the things in Jons plot are much more subtle than what was in book one. This is true for all the characters. 

Jon has a traditional female plot structure, Dany has a traditional male plot structure. The traditional male plot structures are flashy, full of passion, sex and violence. The traditional female plot structure is slower, and uses listening, and empathy to gain soft power. It's not for everyone. But, hating the character because you think GRRM is making a point you disagree with sets you up to miss things that may be important. The biggest misconception of one of Jons chapters come from some not noticing the word If for example. That's subtle, as it's one word in one random thought that puts what a skim read would leave us believing he's doing into question.

Regardless, as interesting as this discussion is, we're way off topic. And I think we both understand the others position pretty clearly. Although I do hope GRRM surprises you, and doesn't do the themes you believe he's heading towards. I wouldn't like those themes either and hope for something much more positive based on what we are told in the story about warmth and love being important. As cliche as that is, I prefer cliche over nihilism.