When did Jon Snow start boring you to tears?

[Baitac]

I'm not sure if I've just been lucky to avoid that then, because I have never seen anything like that. I've seen people say things like "Robert should have hit her harder" which is wrong in itself, but not ridiculously over the top when talking about someone you seriously hate. I'm not quite sure what part of the forums you're reading to see posts like that, but it definitely isn't the same as mine.

Same here. Lucky for me too. As to the OP: Step away from my Starks!!!!!!

[Jory]

@JArryn - yes, they're fictional characters. We, on the other hand, are real people, and while foaming at the mouth whenever someone dares to mention violence against a female character is obviously stupid, I think a sort of cautious distancing from the slackjawed idiots who actively condone sexual violence against female characters is more than warranted. A subdivision is warranted because a subdivision already exists. You'll see people clamoring for Walder Frey's death. You won't see them hoping he gets raped.

I'm not sure if I've just been lucky to avoid that then, because I have never seen anything like that. I've seen people say things like "Robert should have hit her harder" which is wrong in itself, but not ridiculously over the top when talking about someone you seriously hate. I'm not quite sure what part of the forums you're reading to see posts like that, but it definitely isn't the same as mine.

Well, that particular gem was from a reddit thread I had been reading, I think - but it was hyperbole, regardless. My point was that there are very creepy things people say about Cersei, Melisandre, and "evil" female characters in general and that it grosses me out, even though I don't like any of them.

[James Arryn]

@JArryn - yes, they're fictional characters. We, on the other hand, are real people, and while foaming at the mouth whenever someone dares to mention violence against a _____ character is obviously stupid, I think a sort of cautious distancing from the slackjawed idiots who actively condone ______ violence against _____characters is more than warranted.

Is your argument less valid/significant because of the edit?

A subdivision is warranted because a subdivision already exists. You'll see people clamoring for Walder Frey's death. You won't see them hoping he gets raped.

You won't see many people suggesting Cersei should be emasculated, but you do see it for male characters. Again, I think you'e over thinking it.

It's more likely a result of lazy thinking than gender-specific aggression/dehumanization.

[bloodymime]

I hope my post wasn't confusing, I have always argued that it is no small thing that Jon saved Jeor from being killed by a Wight. A lot of people try to make it seem like nothing, by saying "it was Jon's job to save the Old Bear, just like with any other member of the Nights Watch". My response to that is always, yes it was Jon's job to try and save the Old Bear, but trying and succeeding are not the same thing. Jon managed to kill the Wight without getting himself and Jeor killed. Jon also managed to do this by himself, which is no small thing, considering it took multiple Brothers of the Watch to kill the other Wight, but not befor the Wight managed to kill Ser Jeremy Rykkar, the acting First Ranger in Benjen Starks absence. So again, I don't ever downplay the fact that Jon saved Mormont from a Wight. Especially when considering that, when you want to get technical, Jon was given an order to stay in his sleeping cell, because he tried to rip Allister Thorne's head off. So Jon's job was to follow orders, and not leave his cell. Instead though, Jon followed his instincts and managed to save Mormont. Most greenboys would go get help, instead of checking on Mormont first, especially if they opened their door to go outside, and they found a guard with his head completely twisted around, which is what Jon found. So Jon going to Mormont first made all the difference, in saving his life in time. That to me, is no small thing by any means, and I will argue it in favor of Jon every time.

When it comes to connections, and how they do matter, I could not agree more. Of course connections matter, every where in Westeros, connections matter. Being the son of Eddard Stark, bastard or not, you are going to have an advantage when in the North, and especially so at the Wall. The Starks have manned the Wall for thousands of years. Hell, Brandon the Builder, a Stark, built the Wall. So of course having Stark blood helped Jon get elected as Lord Commander of the Nights Watch. That, among other things, is why it was not contrived when Jon became Lord Commander.

Just to clarify though, by no means am I saying Jon was only elected because of his connections to House Stark, and by no means am I saying Jon did nothing to deserve getting elected. Jon did do a lot of things that earned him his Command, that's just not the entire reason he was chosen. There is absolutely no way that Jon would have been elected, had he done nothing to earn it. Jon saved the Old Bear. Jon found the dragonglass, with the help of Ghost, and Jon had the "vision" that inspired the Ranging through the Skirling Pass with Qhorin and co. Then Jon went with Qhorin on that Ranging, and he joined the Wildlings to gain information. Jon also broke free from the Wildlings, risking his life, and taking an arrow through the leg to do it. Then Jon warned the Watch that Styr the Magnar of Thenn was coming, with a host of disciplined Thenn's behind him. Then Jon helped fight off Styr and his Thenn's, despite being badly wounded. Then Jon held the Walll against Mance Rayder and his mighty host. It was Jon's awesome intervention that allowed the Watch to stop Mance, by coming up with the plan to smash Mance's turtle, which would have allowed the Wildlings to take cover long enough to get through the gates. It was Jon who kept the men motivated long enough to keep fighting until help could come.

So Jon definitely did a lot to earn his position as LC, that's just not the full reason for why he was chosen.

Not at all and in total agreement. I actually realized how much I was just repeating the points you already made after rereading your post. It would be completely pointless to send Longclaw back to Bear Island so it can sit forgotten in a corner until maybe a male heir came along to use it while right now one of the deadliest enemies Mormont's kind has ever faced has suddenly appeared after thousands of years. If he did waste a Valyrian blade that way we'd all be thinking like Dick and saying 'should have kept the bloody sword'.

[Jory]

Is your argument less valid/significant because of the edit?

Yes. Sexual violence in particular targets women.

You won't see many people suggesting Cersei should be emasculated, but you do see it for male characters. Again, I think you'e over thinking it.

I guess? That's a little like saying "You don't see authors writing about men's periods". First, it's hard to "emasculate" a woman in the traditional sense of the word (deprive a woman of her male identity? Sure!), but if you just mean depriving someone of their power and authority, then yes, there were plenty of people who said things like that - it actually happened in the books. What do you think the walk of shame was, if not "emasculating" Cersei?

[James Arryn]

Yes. Sexual violence in particular targets women.

Why?

And why would that matter?

You're saying something is distinct because it targets something distinct. I'm asking for a distinction in significance, not type.

Why would someone wanting/promoting violence towards one gender be more significant than the other? Aren't both pretty reprehensible? And if someone wants/promotes violence towards people, wouldn't that naturally involve women at least half of the time?

So if there is some distinction in significance depending on gender...an argument I'm waiting to see established...how exactly would you know when it is present in and of itself, as opposed to inclusive with a general violence thing?

You'd need to go through a poster's history and find that Poster X either only promotes the idea of violence towards one gender, or always promotes the idea of violence towards one gender.

Or, at a lower level, you could find a poster who always defends characters of one gender, or always attacks characters of the other.

But even that would be incomplete.

I think this kind of thing is best left to moderation, and moderation based on a general principle towards violence, not gender.

t's a little like saying "You don't see authors writing about men's periods". First, it's hard to "emasculate" a woman in the traditional sense of the word (deprive a woman of her male identity? Sure!), but if you just mean depriving someone of their power and authority, then yes, there were plenty of people who said things like that - it actually happened in the books. What do you think the walk of shame was, if not "emasculating" Cersei?

The walk of shame was a physical disfigurement?

Or, to put it another way, did Ygritte rape Jon? And if so, are there lots of threads about it?

[Jory]

e·mas·cu·late

verb /iˈmaskyəˌlāt/  

emasculated, past participle; emasculated, past tense; emasculates, 3rd person singular present; emasculating, present participle

Make (a person, idea, or piece of legislation) weaker or less effective

• - our winner-take-all elections emasculate fringe parties
  

. :dunno:

[James Arryn]

e·mas·cu·late

verb /iˈmaskyəˌlāt/  

emasculated, past participle; emasculated, past tense; emasculates, 3rd person singular present; emasculating, present participle

Make (a person, idea, or piece of legislation) weaker or less effective

• - our winner-take-all elections emasculate fringe parties
  

. :dunno:

Lol, so a witty riposte or cutting remark applied in company would emasculate someone?

Forgive me for pointing out what I assumed we held in common, but I was making a distinction about the irrevocable, as opposed to the metaphorical.

Unless we were discussing an issue with people wishing metaphorical harm on characters?

Any comment on the rest of my post?

[The King in the South]

How are you guys already talking about sexism on page 7? Jesus.

Anyways @ OP, I'm not exactly sure, but with the whining every chapter and the numerous cliches it probably happened somewhere in book one. He got better when Stannis came though.

[Ghost714]

Not at all and in total agreement. I actually realized how much I was just repeating the points you already made after rereading your post. It would be completely pointless to send Longclaw back to Bear Island so it can sit forgotten in a corner until maybe a male heir came along to use it while right now one of the deadliest enemies Mormont's kind has ever faced has suddenly appeared after thousands of years. If he did waste a Valyrian blade that way we'd all be thinking like Dick and saying 'should have kept the bloody sword'.

Exactly, the only thing that does make any sense, is for Mormont to give Jon the sword. That way it can be used in the war that actually really matters, which is fighting the Others. Mormont just told Jon that Robb's war was a joke compared to the war they would be fighting. It would have been ridiculous for Mormont to send the sword back to Bear Island, after having just told Jon that.

That's why I dont get it, people want to claim how contrived it is, when in reality, if they actually thought about it, they would see it makes complete sense. I applaud GRRM for making such well thought out situations, because all of them are very believable and understandable, when you actually know all the information.

So thank you, it's very refreshing to have another person out there arguing the same things.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Well, that particular gem was from a reddit thread I had been reading, I think - but it was hyperbole, regardless. My point was that there are very creepy things people say about Cersei, Melisandre, and "evil" female characters in general and that it grosses me out, even though I don't like any of them.

I'm sorry, are we on Reddit now?

[Abicion]

The baby swap plot.

Yeah, let's have Jon do something completely nonsensical that is pretty much just set up to get a bunch of characters killed in the most contrived way possible. I'm sure he'll still be likeable afterwards.

[Ghost714]

How are you guys already talking about sexism on page 7? Jesus.

Anyways @ OP, I'm not exactly sure, but with the whining every chapter and the numerous cliches it probably happened somewhere in book one. He got better when Stannis came though.

What is so cliche?

I personally hate it when people say this, because GRRM is very good at taking cliches, and putting his own spin on them.

But all this anti cliche stuff is getting pretty cliche IMO.

[Ghost714]

The baby swap plot.

Yeah, let's have Jon do something completely nonsensical that is pretty much just set up to get a bunch of characters killed in the most contrived way possible. I'm sure he'll still be likeable afterwards.

What exactly are you talking about?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The baby swap plot.

Yeah, let's have Jon do something completely nonsensical that is pretty much just set up to get a bunch of characters killed in the most contrived way possible. I'm sure he'll still be likeable afterwards.

I have no idea what your second paragraph has to do with the first.

[The King in the South]

What is so cliche?

I personally hate it when people say this, because GRRM is very good at taking cliches, and putting his own spin on them.

But all this anti cliche stuff is getting pretty cliche IMO.

I agree he is very good at dealing with them, except for with Jon (and Dany, but in a slightly different way) and that's probably why I don't like him as a character.

The reasons as to why he is cliche have been discussed to death but most can be categorized under various instances of cheesiness or incredible unlikelihood . For example: Allister as a mean teacher, Donan as a wise old mentor, magic sword, Sam as a bumbling sidekick, Ygritee-relationship, being elected commander at age 16, etc and then for unlikelihood: being chosen to go scouting over dozens of senior ranges by a man he's just met, not getting killed by Mance after the fist even though he clearly lied to them, Stannis arriving right as he has to make an important choice, etc.

Well some of these have explainable causes, the fact that there are SO MANY for Jon is what really turns me off. Obviously there is always going to be some cheesiness or some luck in a fantasy series, but the level for him in paticular is often ridiculous times.

[Jory]

I'm sorry, are we on Reddit now?

No, but the idea that the ASOIAF fandom spreads beyond this site isn't exactly a strange one, and so talking about the fandom means I can talk about things from other sites. I don't get your point.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

No, but the idea that the ASOIAF fandom spreads beyond this site isn't exactly a strange one, and so talking about the fandom means I can talk about things from other sites. I don't get your point.

You're chastising people for saying Tyrion deserves to rape Cersei or whatever, when the example you cited didn't even originate on this board.

[Jory]

You're chastising people for saying Tyrion deserves to rape Cersei or whatever, when the example you cited didn't even originate on this board.

I'd get what you were saying if I was actually chastising anyone in particular on this board, but I'm not, so who cares where it came from? If you really wanted me to I could go find something equally bad from this board, I'm sure, but it's obfuscating the point when all I really wanted to say was that there are some people who are gross when it comes to girl characters and I think it's weird and that it would be cool if it stopped. I'm not lecturing anyone and telling them to stop being mean to my girl Cersei, ya'll.

[Jory]

I think my original point was that the weird shit does happen in the fandom and to say that it doesn't is silly, it wasn't to go on a feminist crusade against the injustices of the patriarchy, I promise.