Crackpot (or not) theories you think are so nuts, they actually piss you off.

[Miryana]

Jaime/Cersei and Tyrion not being the children of Tywin. Their father has been so crucial to their character development and self-definition, I don't see any benefit to abandoning that. Cersei likes fire? Tyrion likes dragons? Aerys is not the only pyromaniac in the history of the world, and what child wouldn't be awed by dragons. It's so totally "you are helpless before the force of your biological parentage". Tywin was the father they grew up with, and the relationship has so much more weight if they are his children, it says so much more about Tywin's own issues and failures. But Aerys? Jaime's kingslaying would become a gotcha twist and Tyrion would get to escape the burden of conscience or karmic punishment for his kinslaying. Both those options would be deeply, deeply unsatisfying to me. Real but unacknowledged Targ-Jon and acknowledged but possibly fake Targ-Aegon are enough. The twins or Tyrion being Aerys's kids would just get ridiculously "Targs coming out of the woodwork!" I just don't get the appeal. Undermining all the huge, fascinating Tywin daddy issues for what, cheap "Jaime killed his father!/Cersei burned the city!" irony or Tyrion getting a dragon (when GRRM, I think, has actually said you don't need Targ blood to be a dragonrider).

[Revan Baratheon]

the baratheons actually manage to remain a "great house" by the end of the novels will be a miracle.....

it seems house baratheon is the only house with no troops of its own but has to rely solely on bannermen..

[PatrickStormborn]

You know, this is really interesting. Is a dragon's bound to his rider stronger than the bound to his "mother". I think yes. I don't remember who compared the dragon/rider bound to a sentimental relationship, but I think that, if the bound is strong enough, most people would choose their "life partner" over a parent.

But the interesting part is, would Dany fight against one of "her" dragons? If she were to fight against, let's say, Victarion. Male Character X who happens to have a gragon, would she flee the battle rather than fighting one of her "children"?

I think that they'd definitely side with their rider, but that doesn't mean that they'd be happy to attack their mother. I think that neither Dany nor Viserion/Rhaegal would want to fight each other - especially as Drogon is so much bigger than the other two!

[Whatever]

Ok - this is a genuine question: I can understand people not liking Jon's chapters because they think they're too boring or whatever. But what is there to not like about Jon's character?? I really don't get it :)

Well, some people say that Jon is emo. I don't agree. I think he was a bit of a pick and touchy in AGOT, but that was IMO understandable and he got over that. Clash!Jon and AGOT!Jon really feel like 2 different people to me, and Jon changed for the best really quickly. I really don't get why people call Jon emo when Tyrion and his self pitying are way more emo than Jon ever was.

As a fellow Jon fan, I can tell you that the most annoying thing about him is IMO how he doesn't really DO anything for the first 3 books. Everything that happens to him isn't a consequence of an action JON did, it just happens. This is why I like ADWD!Jon so much. Of course, this was pre-ADWD. Now people dislike Jon because he does too much. Some people wil never be satisfied ;)

Anyway, the only Jon-related thing that actually piss me off is the morbid fascination that some people have with Jon's vows. It's okay for everybody to break their promises but no, Jon can't. He has to stay on that lonely, sad Wall for the rest of his life

Even though when he took those vows he was too young to understand what he was doing. Even though nowhere in the NW vows it's said that you can't get laid once in a while. Even though what Jon did in Dance was the best strategy I can think about. Even though the NW is an old dinosaur that really need to be reformed.

Yeah, I really don't get this

ETA:

I think that they'd definitely side with their rider, but that doesn't mean that they'd be happy to attack their mother. I think that neither Dany nor Viserion/Rhaegal would want to fight each other - especially as Drogon is so much bigger than the other two!

Either way, I really want this to happen now ;)

ETA:

Anything based on Daenerys being the saviour of Westeros/good queen/AA/TPTWP. Not because it's crackpot or unsupported but because it would render the series so utterly boring, imo.

Same goes for any theory advocating that she marry Jon.

Sun, I agree with you about the Tyrion part but I could be happy with Dany being AA, depending on how it's written. Same for D+J. There's so much potential about this stuff

[Sun]

Anything based on Daenerys being the saviour of Westeros/good queen/AA/TPTWP. Not because it's crackpot or unsupported but because it would render the series so utterly boring, imo.

Same goes for any theory advocating that she marry Jon.

Tyrion being a secret Targ is another pet peeve. In fact, all theories postulating that Targ blood is a prerequisite to being a plot defining heroic figure in this series piss me off.

[salt]

Targ blood is a prerequisite to being a plot defining heroic figure in this series.

Holy crap Tyrion is the true Aegon it all makes sense now.

[Errant Bard]

As a fellow Jon fan, I can tell you that the most annoying thing about him is IMO how he doesn't really DO anything for the first 3 books. Everything that happens to him isn't a consequence of an action JON did, it just happens. This is why I like ADWD!Jon so much. Of course, this was pre-ADWD. Now people dislike Jon because he does too much. Some people wil never be satisfied ;)

I think you mischaracterize the Jon criticism: nobody complains about a character doing nothing, they complain about having everything go his way (and more) while he does nothing for it. It's a problem of deserving what he gets.

Now, in ADWD, he does stuff, but he's criticized for making stupid decisions, and most of it is still about him (potentially) getting successes he doesn't deserve. kind of consistent, really.

[David Selig]

Ok - this is a genuine question: I can understand people not liking Jon's chapters because they think they're too boring or whatever. But what is there to not like about Jon's character?? I really don't get it :)

His whole persona and backstory are overused fantasy cliches. The same for his plotline until ADWD. The way he became the commander of the NW is embarrassingly contrived and illogical. He gets his magical sword against all logic too - Tywin, the richest guy in the realm, can't buy such a Valyrian sword for years because thy are so rare and highly valued, but Jon got one just like that. He kept evading having to make the big decisions in the first 3 books, which is particularly annoying in ASOIF, a series where pretty much everyone has to make tough decisions all the time and pay for their mistakes. But not Jon, he had his magical wolf and plot contrivances to save him from that. That changed in ADWD, but too little, too late for me.

And he whined way too much in the first book. Realistic, but annoying.

[Whatever]

I think you mischaracterize the Jon criticism: nobody complains about a character doing nothing, they complain about having everything go his way (and more) while he does nothing for it. It's a problem of deserving what he gets.

Now, in ADWD, he does stuff, but he's criticized for making stupid decisions, and most of it is still about him (potentially) getting successes he doesn't deserve. kind of consistent, really.

No, I actually get it. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but I meant that pre-ADWD Jon doesn't make any decisions.I complain about that too, and I like Jon. But I really don't get the Dance criticism because the way he handled the situation at the wall was the best possible, given the circumstances. The only "stupid decision" Jon made in the last book was his whole last chapter, which feels incredibly "forced" and OOC to me, not to mention that we really don't know what he was planning to do, so I guess I'll wait for Winds before I make any judgment about it.

[Tini]

There are readers who think that every decision Jon took was wrong because it involved meddling in the affairs of Westeros. I don't get it because every action the NW can take (including taking no action at all) will involve Westeros in one way or another.

[Errant Bard]

the way he handled the situation at the wall was the best possible, given the circumstances. The only "stupid decision" Jon made in the last book was his whole last chapter, which feels incredibly "forced" and OOC to me, not to mention that we really don't know what he was planning to do, so I guess I'll wait for Winds before I make any judgment about it.

But most of the ADWD criticism is based on that last chapter, is it not? (at least from what I read in the few Jon threads I read on the forums)

(also, for what it's worth, while I think his decisions prior to the chapter were both reasonable and humane, I think he handled their execution badly and this sowed the seeds of mutiny. So I disagree with "he did the best possible", and from my impression, so do a lot of people.)

@Tini: the involvement thing got him killed, that's not the best possible outcome (except narratively, where it will likely be an excuse for his non-involvement without him doing anything that could make him look bad, or something like that, once again.) Your argument is based on some twisted vision of what would have happened if Jon lived in Eddings-land: sure, if the world was like that, he would not have been stabbed, the NW wouldn't split and he would have managed to defeat Ramsay then reunite the North in time to bring back people to the Wall to counter the other's assault single-handely through the power of being a good guy. But he was stabbed, and it was, partly, his responsibility that it came to that, and this means bad decisions.

Gauging a leader's decisions based on the premise that everyone else is a carebear, or at least a sycophant, that in an ideal world what he did would work, and so people skills are irrelevant, and so are facts of his failure isn't terribly useful.

[Whatever]

But most of the ADWD criticism is based on that last chapter, is it not? (at least from what I read in the few Jon threads I read on the forums)

Actually there's a lot of criticism based on Jon's 6th and 10th chapter but those chapters are still a part of the whole "interfering with the kingdom" plot, which of course means Jon's last chapter. Although, as I said, I think we really lack informations about that. I blame GRRM's editor

EDIT: because it's GRRM, not GRMM

[Errant Bard]

The problem with doing something against rules written or unwritten is getting away with it, though, and Jon clearly didn't get away with it, so he objectively sucked, there.

Most of his defense consist of arguments on how the world rules should have been bent for him to succeed, because his decisions were right. Only, for once, he got what was coming to him. Like Ned: right, naive decisions, not factoring other people having their own mind end up not being right decisions at all.

[LadyoftheNorth72]

(also, for what it's worth, while I think his decisions prior to the chapter were both reasonable and humane, I think he handled their execution badly and this sowed the seeds of mutiny. So I disagree with "he did the best possible", and from my impression, so do a lot of people.)

This is exactly my problem with ADWD Jon. I do not so much agree that his actions were mistakes or ill judges; I think he was actually making the best possible decisions given the circumstances.

There are a TON of parallels between the way things went down with Jon (almost to the point of historical plagiarism) and the way Julius Caesar brought his doom upon himself. JC was also arguably doing the right things for the overall good of Rome, just not what was best for some of the richest and most powerful people surrounding him. He wanted to change things that had been done a certain way for centuries, because the system was outmoded and the people of Rome were suffering horribly from it. The biggest problem was not so much the changes he wanted made, as the way he went about them, which was basically "Because I am Dictator for Life and I can, that's why" whenever someone questioned his new policies.

With Jon, IMO it was much the same. I believe he could have won over a lot of key members of the NW to his plans, and his dismantling of traditions that went back hundreds of years. Instead, he chose to take council with those the NW considered enemies, and with a claimant to the throne (and that claimant's strange and frightening witch), to the almost total exclusion of men of the NW who (rightly, IMO) felt that they at least deserved a damn good and thorough explanation, and the courtesy of SOME say in what was going on. Yes, the LC's leadership is intended to be absolute and unquestioned, but the LC also has to keep in mind that ehat he is commanding is largely a bunch of former outlaws and criminals (who do not take kindly to rules in the first place), and then also in Jon's case, the facts of his youth and inexperience. He had not earned their trust yet.

He did try briefly to explain some of his basic motives periodically, but what I believe he SHOULD have done was called together a meeting of all NW in a geographical position to attend. There, he should have laid the vast majority of his cards on the table in plain view, as much as he could without betraying Stannis' secrets and plans. He could have then allowed for a Q&A session, to allow the men to feel as though their misgivings and doubts were at least being respected and heard. He should have come prepared to make some concessions on some small things, so they would feel placated somewhat. And he should absolutely made sure they understood the distinction in his mind between repaying the debt they owed Stannis, versus bending the knee and following Stannis, thereby breaking his (and by association, all of their) vows by taking a side in the war.

Simply being a good listener and allowing the higher ranking men you lead have a voice are marks of a good leader. Jon was sorely lacking in this area. His answers usually boiled down to "because I am LC and this is what I think best, so go do your part.". This generated a completely predictable and understandable resentment in his men, the ones with whom he had served, said vows, and who elected him their leader. Instead they watch him keep a giant for a pet, enjoy special privileges in his access to beautiful women like Mel and Val, and consult/plan strategy with what they consider the enemy, like Tor and Leathers.

It just never seems to occur to Jon to start trying to build some personal bridges between his new members and his old guard, or that the old guard felt that they deserved better from their years of service, compared to these barbarian wildlings they have been taught to hate and think of as the enemy. And the old guard did deserve better treatment. I believe Jon's blunders were utterly without malice and truly done with the best intentions (and were probably good ideas to boot). But sometimes it is the WAY you step on someone's toes that earns you the punch in the jaw, not the simple fact that you did it.

[LordBloodraven]

Ok - this is a genuine question: I can understand people not liking Jon's chapters because they think they're too boring or whatever. But what is there to not like about Jon's character?? I really don't get it :)

Most people hate him, because he's the closest thing to a hero among the characters. And that's just sad

[Whatever]

@LadyoftheNorth72

I agree with you. There was a lack of communication between jon and his officiers. IMO this started after chapter 10 - prior to that point he DID talk to Bowen & Co. After he planned Alys wedding and agreed to let the wildlings pass the wall, his attitude was more of a "okay, Bowen Marsh is an idiot, I won't waste my breath with him anymore. Also, finally there are some people here I can actually talk with! Let's ignore the NW" which wasn't the smartest thing to do. Anyway, I still think that Jon really doesn't deserve all the hate he gets. Plenty of characters did worse and aren't as bashed as he is.

[David Selig]

Anyway, I still think that Jon really doesn't deserve all the hate he gets. Plenty of characters did worse and aren't as bashed as he is.

What are you talking about, John barely gets any bashing, compared to the other main characters. I've seen more vitriol aimed at Dany in one of her threads than in all Jon threads since I've joined this board.

[LordBloodraven]

What are you talking about, John barely gets any bashing, compared to the other main characters. I've seen more vitriol aimed at Dany in one of her threads than in all Jon threads since I've joined this board.

One main difference is that Dany is bashed because of her actions, her character and so are Cersei, Jaime and Ramsay while Jon is bashed because his chapters are considered boring, compared to the other main characters.

[Chise]

One main difference is that Dany is bashed because of her actions, her character and so are Cersei, Jaime and Ramsay while Jon is bashed because his chapters are considered boring, compared to the other main characters.

strange... until aDwD, I actually found Dany's chapters to be the most boring ones! She was the only chara whos actions could be predicted w/out even thinking about it....

[Whatever]

What are you talking about, John barely gets any bashing, compared to the other main characters. I've seen more vitriol aimed at Dany in one of her threads than in all Jon threads since I've joined this board.

Well, not to turn this into a Dany-bashing post ;) but the fact is that she does deserve part of the bashing she gets. Dany gets some bashing for being a Mary Sue, but this is a relatively small percentage of the hate she gets, mainly because it's not true (you know, the whole being sold to Drogo thing is definitively not Sueish), but most of the Dany-hate posts are about she thinking with her hormons, not going to Westeros and having a, ahem, complicated personality. (Understatement of the year ;) ). Whether you like or dislike her, this is true.

My problem with the Jon-bashing is that isn't realated to anything he does, but it's mostly critics about Jon being a Gary Stu (which I really disagree with. The fact that he's one of the only characters who haven't been completely destroyed yet doesn't make him a Sue) and talks about his chapters being boring, Jon being emo and stuff. I could be fine with the Jon bashing if it was about his lack of initiative (because it's true), but it's mostly nothing so "deep", just a bunch of people being annoyed because they dislike a character who is definitively being set as pretty major.

After Dance, it really bugs me of Jon is also getting bashed for his actions during ADWD. As Errant Bard and LadyOfTheNorth pointed out, Jon did make his mistakes, but I really doubt that any other character in the same situation would have done better. Almost every single ASOIAF character who got to rule/being in charce of something did eventually screwed it up, yet Jon gets more critics than most of them. Actually I can't think of a single character who didn't screw up, besides the hidden chessmasters.

Anyway, @LadyOfTheNorth72, your post made me realize that almost every single character sucks at PR and propaganda. Maybe it's because Westeros is a feudal monarchy, the power of the lord is absolute and most lords don't give a crap about what their folks think anyway, but this feels really weird.

The only characters who are well loved are the Tyrells. (I don't count the Starks in the North because they are pratically worshipped and Dany because the people who love her are the slaves she freed, and the people who hate her are the guys she invaded. Those are special cases)

Anybody else noticed this?