Jump to content

People who hate Jon..


windwaker

Recommended Posts

Yeade, just wanted to say I love your posts as always and agree with everything you say. I've softened on the Hardhome mission over my second reread...It is a necessary expedition for any honorable institution set on stopping the Others.

The sheer numbers of Wildlings make the expedition completely worthwhile. Based on how the wildlings were able to travel through North of the Wall as a large pack with only stragglers being picked off by Wights, I'd estimate at most 150-200 possible deaths for a well-trained and armed military institution. Additionally, didn't a lot of the women and children leave on that ill-fated ship that was caught at Braavos trying to sell them into slavery? That could mean as many as 2000+ wildling men of fighting capability coming back with the NW, which I would think at the very minimum would be a net gain of 1500 men for the NW. Makes the mission seem very worthwhile from not only an emotional point of view, but also a logical one.

Not only that, but when it comes down to it many of the women will be fighting too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This statement is why I don't take your argument seriously. You have no way of knowing if any of those younger officers were backed by the Starks, except for the Stark himself and even then it isn't a given.

OK, let's see what the books say:

“My lord, when I was looking through the annals I came on another boy commander. Four hundred years before the Conquest. Osric Stark was ten when he was chosen, but he served for sixty years. That’s four, my lord. You’re not even close to being the youngest ever chosen. You’re fifth youngest, so far.” “The younger four all being sons, brothers, or bastards of the King in the North."

So only 4 cases in thousands of years, and all of them happened to be very close blood relatives to the reigning King of Winter at the time. I'd say it's very obvious they were chosen mostly because the Stark at Winterfell backed them up. Don't forget that back then the NW had way more people in it (10 000 when Aegon the Conquerer arrived for example). Why would they choose a 10 year old and three other boys who were under the Westeros age of majority except as a favor to the local King? Do you it's just a coincidence they all happened to be Starks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's boring, he has a really weird arc (him rising as a Lord Commander was by far the worst part of ASoS) and he's too much of the typical standard-fantasy-underdog where ASoIaF should really be above those.

The problem with this 'ASOIAF has to be different to all other fantasy books' sentiment that I see around here a lot is that many other fantasy books and the characters in them are very good. A brief look at Eddard and a similar counterpart in Borric conDoin in Magician would tell you that ASOIAF actually shares a lot of typical fantasy character roles and that's really not a bad thing. While ASOIAF is bit closer to historical realism than other fantasy series it is still fantasy and Jon becoming Lord Commander is a bit unlikely but it was still good and gave Jon something more than being a typical Nights Watchman which we had already read about in AGoT and ACoK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quotes, kissdbyfire! It's rather ironic that Bowen Marsh provides the best counts of wildling numbers at Hardhome and in Tormund's group, though I find he shockingly underestimates the odds against the NW should the free folk turn on the black brothers after being let past the Wall by a factor of two. Unless he's guessing at only fighting strength. In which case Tormund's perhaps got hundreds more warriors following him than the five hundred to a thousand I've been assuming per Jon's assessment in his penultimate chapter.

Tagganaro, it's really difficult to predict how many reinforcements the NW stands to net if a ranging to Hardhome proves successful, IMO. The wildlings there are apparently in dire straits, but the very fact that living men still hold Hardhome suggests to me that either a significant percentage of those stranded are capable of staving off even night attacks by the wights, whether by skill or desperation, or the Others are conserving their forces to assault the Wall, content to starve Hardhome to (un)death in the belief that no rescue is coming.

And what of the ships Jon sends? Cotter Pyke's last missive tells cryptically of a failed attempt to retake one. I've speculated that Jon can address this lack of information about the situation at Hardhome by having Bran, Bloodraven, or another skinchanger do a literal flyby, lol. Bird and weirwood spies may also be helpful in tracking enemy movements in the Haunted Forest under the reasonable assumption that the Others don't have enough wights to cover every inch of ground beyond the Wall and must visibly shift their army at times.

Hardhome seems to me a high risk campaign that will fail without thorough preparations, bold leadership, stiff fighting, and not a little bit of luck. Then again, the best generals make their reputations by pulling off time and again exactly these sorts of campaigns, often against long odds and conventional military thinking, when they feel circumstances require such drastic measures.

On a meta level, a mass evacuation of the North would go a ways towards establishing the Others as a credible apocalyptic threat after being delayed for five books and counting, IMO. Jon's the leading candidate to command this retreat, so it makes sense to me for GRRM to let him practice on a trial run in Hardhome. Not to mention, I'd feel the descriptions in ADWD of Hardhome's geography and history are kind of needlessly detailed for a setting that's slated to be wiped out by the Others in short order. Similarly, the wildling clan chiefs wouldn't be named one after another if they weren't going to stick around for at least TWOW, probably as part of Jon's growing personal army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, let's see what the books say:

So only 4 cases in thousands of years, and all of them happened to be very close blood relatives to the reigning King of Winter at the time. I'd say it's very obvious they were chosen mostly because the Stark at Winterfell backed them up. Don't forget that back then the NW had way more people in it (10 000 when Aegon the Conquerer arrived for example). Why would they choose a 10 year old and three other boys who were under the Westeros age of majority except as a favor to the local King? Do you it's just a coincidence they all happened to be Starks?

Why would people be OK with Dany ruling at 13? Robb at 15? A knight of the Kingsguard being 15?

10 may be a little young, but in Westeros 16 is a grown man and teenagers are treated more like adults. You don't know that they had the backing either, they could have been sent to the wall because they did something horrible. I doubt the King backed Bloodraven just because they were related. Not to mention that these are things Sam happened to notice while he was looking for information on Others, so he obviously hadn't gone through all the LC records. He even mentions discrepancies he noticed in the count that he'd like to look at.

The fact that numbers dropped that drastically is a good reason WHY a nontraditional LC would be elected. They didn't have better choices that they could all agree upon. Slynt was the most likely to eventually gain command had Sam not acted and that would have been disastrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Because that's a false dichotomy. Jon is also worshipped, and Ned has also his share of "haters"


In general, Ned has his detractors (specifically on the issue of his naivety), however, he by no means gets the level of furious criticism that characters like Sansa, Cat, and Dany get. Of course, there's nothing wrong with criticizing or disliking certain characters, and I'm not trying to start a beef with any of those who dislike the abovementioned women. However, it seems as though the deep, vehement hatred and the tendency to blame the character in question from everything from actual mistakes to the weather in Westeros is limited to Sansa, Cat, and Danerys; whereas characters like Ned Stark are generally regarded with affection by the vast majority of readers, even as they are gently criticized by their far more significant and damning mistakes. Ned gets general chiding for his naivety; Sansa, Dany, Cat and others damning condemnations and dismissals.

As for Jon Snow, he is extremely popular. Previous to ADWD, (when I used to lurk on these boards), there seemed to have been rather equal criticism towards him and Danerys for being (to used the rather clichéd and somewhat limiting term), "Mary Sue."

At present, Danerys seems to be quite a bit more disliked, almost surely because of the way GRRM portrayed her in ADWD. Meanwhile, Jon Snow fanfare seems to be at an all time high. In the beginning, it seemed to me that Tyrion, Arya, and Jon Snow were perhaps the three characters the author painted with the most visceral sympathy; and perhaps the three that were most sympathetic/ compelling towards modern sensibilities. (Despite the obvious centrality of Ned Stark, I don't think GRRM ever quite related to him on the same level as he did Tyroin, Jon, and Arya.)

However, as of ADWD, Tyrion and Arya have become polarizing characters. Arya is still drawn with sympathy, but is no longer the perfect tomboy with a heart of gold all readers see themselves in. And Tyrion, despite apparently being still graced with the author's full sympathy and being portrayed as a tragic victim as he abuses and harasses and threatens to murder sex slaves, has for many become a pretty disturbing presence. Though many readers still sympathize with him, it seems that a fair portion of us are no longer relating to him on a firsthand level as we did in the first book.

Meanwhile, Jon Snow is more accessible than ever. Bright but not a genius; competent and brave but sometimes insecure; far above average in every possible respect and yet riddled with self doubt, Jon Snow is just what the doctor ordered for an easily relatable, "good" protagonist. His personal modesty, unawareness of his military/ leadership brilliance, competence, and, up until now, utter lack of interference from magical means/ miracles make him an appealing alternative to Danerys Targaryen in the eyes of many readers.

Jon Snow is also portrayed as competent, bright and very good at his job, whereas Danerys is portrayed as foolish and incompetent, in deep need of an advisor to tell her what to do, since she is clearly not capable of hacking it on her own. Furthermore, Jon Snow’s self-awareness and self-doubt (accompanied by wise decision making) is in flattering contrast to Danerys apparent (in the eyes of many) lack of self-awareness and unwillingness to face the truth in ADWD. Jon constantly makes good, wise decision yet is agonized by self-doubt, constantly questioning his decisions. Meanwhile, GRRM shows Danerys making quick (often faulty decisions), while maintaining the shaky vision of the goodness of her family and the wickedness of their enemies, in the face of mounting doubts. When she does face doubts, they seem more regarding who she is and is becoming as a human being on a moral/ spiritual level rather than strictly the mechanics of ruling and whether significant leadership decisions she made were right.

I cannot help but believe that GRRM is showing Danerys as one not fit for leadership without a male figure (like Tyrion) whom he relates to to rule… erm, advise her. At any rate, GRRM’s assertion that Danerys and Cersei represent “the two ways a woman can rule” is really quite disturbing in light of looking at the leadership track records of most women.

In the end, I’d venture to say that Jon S.’s immense popularity is due to his winning combination of moral goodness, wisdom, intelligence, personal modesty, and accessibility. He is not just sympathetic but relatable because the things he’s shown as grappling with (feeling ostracized/ like an outsider at home; wanting to prove himself; conflicted between love and duty; having immense responsibilities thrust upon him before he’s ready; grappling with self doubt and personal insecurities, etc.) are all pretty generalized issues central to the human condition, and are thus things that most readers will be familiar with. This, along with a “normal”, relatable attitude, modesty, and a number of attitudes that could only be dubbed “modern” in outlook, makes Jon a well-received favorite of numerous readers.

Personally, for me, he’s simply too much of a generalized, man of the seasons, Harry Potter esque white washed hero to be terribly compelling or though provoking as a character. In real life, I’d be thrilled to have Jon S. as my brother, friend, acquaintance, or neighbor; I’d hate to have, say, Stannis Baratheon as any of these. However, in the world of literature, I’d much rather read about Stannis, because while, not admirable or nice, he is incredibly complex and compelling. With Stannis, while reading chapters featuring him I am torn between annoyance, admiration, rage, amusement, and deep, visceral empathy. With Jon, I generally feel a great deal of admiration and approval, but little else; my feelings for him are rarely conflicted as they are for the most complex characters that I love reading about (and sometimes hate.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His personal modesty, unawareness of his military/ leadership brilliance, competence, and, up until now, utter lack of interference from magical means/ miracles make him an appealing alternative to Danerys Targaryen in the eyes of many readers.

While I agree with you for the most part, I'd like to point out that Jon in AGOT - ASOS was being helped by magic/miracles almost every step of the way - they were just less flashy and mostly happened through intermediary of Ghost and Mormont's raven so Jon's fans tend to discount them.

And yet: Ghost helps Jon to reach Sam, Ghost foils Jon's desertion by delaying him, Ghost finds wights, Ghost alerts Jon to the wights being out and about, lets Jon out of the cell, IIRC disables one of them, Mormont's raven tells him about fire, Ghost finds obsidian, Ghost gives Jon vision of the wildlings, Ghost attacks Quorin, when Jon can't bring himself to do so, Ghost is the reason why wildlings are more inclined to trust Jon (even so, sending Jon with the small advance force was completely unbelievable, IMHO), Summer saves Jon from certain death at Queenscrown, when Jon is almost ready to accept Stannis's offer, Ghost appears, looks into Jon's eyes and Jon remembers his duty, Mormont's raven helps Jon's election, etc.

So, it is untrue that Jon isn't helped by magic and, in fact at times I felt that Ghost was competely running his life ;).

Jon Snow is also portrayed as competent, bright and very good at his job, whereas Danerys is portrayed as foolish and incompetent, in deep need of an advisor to tell her what to do, since she is clearly not capable of hacking it on her own. Furthermore, Jon Snow’s self-awareness and self-doubt (accompanied by wise decision making) is in flattering contrast to Danerys apparent (in the eyes of many) lack of self-awareness and unwillingness to face the truth in ADWD.

True, but I feel that it happened mostly because GRRM backed himself into a corner with the Meerenese knot and ultimately giving up the gap. Dany always was at a huge disadvantage compared to Jon, because she never had relevant enducation and training, nor did she have a chance to cut her teeth on smaller tasks and gain experience/confidence that way.

Her being spontaneously brilliant at such a complex task as ruling, leave alone in a foreign culture, _would_ have been Mary Sueish. I think that with the gap we would have had a very different Dany.

OTOH, I don't particularly like how GRRM chose to depict her shortcomings and her general development in ADwD.

I cannot help but believe that GRRM is showing Danerys as one not fit for leadership without a male figure (like Tyrion) whom he relates to to rule… erm, advise her.

Yes, but Jon had many, many formidable male figures to teach and advise him before he was ready to try on his own... And even then, he wasn't completely successful. And yes, in a society they live in, male figures are more likely to posess the requisite expertise, alas.

At any rate, GRRM’s assertion that Danerys and Cersei represent “the two ways a woman can rule” is really quite disturbing in light of looking at the leadership track records of most women.

Well, I had a feeling that we were supposed to see Dany as genuinely caring about the people she rules over and ready to sacrifice for them, though not without inner struggles and occasional despair. And in the end, her course of action was even shown to be beneficial, more or less.

But yes, her POV doesn't quite work for me.

And of course, she'd have to need Tyrion rather desperately to accept him into her inner circle despite his baggage, so there is that, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to try and pretend to be anything but insulted by the posters who assume that my dislike of Jon is because I want to be some sort of hipster. In fact, I have to admit that I tried as hard as humanly possible to like Jon Snow when I first started the series. I knew he was one of the main three characters, and I knew he would have the plot armour that Ned, Robb and Cat had lacked, so I knew he was safe to connect to. But I just couldn't connect with him. And, I have to ask, what is wrong with that? I can connect with every other POV character (apart from the likes of Victarion, the Damphair and Areo Hotah), but just not him.

I didn't even realise he was popular until long after I'd finished ADWD, so my dislike of his character quite evidently has nothing to do with his popularity. If that was the case, I would also dislike Jaime and Arya (hint: I don't).

And my dislike for Jon has nothing to do with Daenerys, before one of the "usual suspects~" starts whining about her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with disliking a character, so long as you're willing to explain your opinion if you choose to weigh in on a thread that is discussing them.

The problem is certain posters who leave one line answers just to incite argument among people and never explain theirself, even though they feel the need to be a part of every conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...