People who hate Jon..

[PatrickStormborn]

But everyone doesn't like him. At all. He's just not hated, like Bran and Ned. Are they cardboard?

I don't like Arya very much, I don't hate her though and I'm sure anyone else does.

Aside from the fact that Arya and Bran are children for the duration of the series, yes, plenty of readers dislike them. Bran is disliked for warging Hodor, and Arya is disliked for being a "cold-blooded" assassin.

[PatrickStormborn]

I don't really understand the "contrivance" or "standard" aspect that stands out to people in Jon's arc specifically as opposed to other characters' plot gifts (Dragons? Arya's coin? LF scheme for Sansa? Tyrion not dying 300 times?​).

The dragons followed the deaths of Drogo and Rhaego, so not a "gift" in the traditional sense of the word; similarly, Sansa getting abducted by Littlefinger is hardly a "gift". :P

[Chaircat Meow]

Aside from the fact that Arya and Bran are children for the duration of the series, yes, plenty of readers dislike them. Bran is disliked for warging Hodor, and Arya is disliked for being a "cold-blooded" assassin.

I think Bran is starting to make people uncomfortable. Same with Arya. Hatred though, I don't think so.

My objection was the idea you had to be capable of inspiring very strong dislike to be a 'strong character.'

[Chaircat Meow]

The dragons followed the deaths of Drogo and Rhaego, so not a "gift" in the traditional sense of the word; similarly, Sansa getting abducted by Littlefinger is hardly a "gift". :P

I think Butters just meant 'plot gifts' as ways of moving characters from A to B.

Doesn't mean they necessarily got something nice for Christmas.

The unsullied of Astapor are just the biggest, fattest, most implausible plot contrivance ever. Although I don't mind it so much, what Dany manages to pull there would be much more egregious than anything that has happened to Jon, if I were someone who got all hot and bothered about these things.

[PatrickStormborn]

I think Bran is starting to make people uncomfortable. Same with Arya. Hatred though, I don't think so.

My objection was the idea you had to be capable of inspiring very strong dislike to be a 'strong character.'

But it's true -- no one really dislikes Jon. They're just indifferent to him. Arya and Bran aren't met with the same response (particularly after AFFC/ADWD), so I'd argue that they were stronger characters.

[Winter's Knight]

What bugs me about Jon is how, until Dance he comes off with very little moral culpability. He just bounces from situation to situation without doing anything.

[Chaircat Meow]

But it's true -- no one really dislikes Jon. They're just indifferent to him. Arya and Bran aren't met with the same response (particularly after AFFC/ADWD), so I'd argue that they were stronger characters.

See, I think this is mistaken. I've seen one of GrrM's interviews where he talks about why its a mark of a good author for people to react differently to all his characters. He just meant, imo, everybody shouldn't have the same reaction to a character and in Jon's case they don't.

Your position seems to be that the character must be morally ambiguous or troubling in some way in order to be a 'strong character.' I just don't understand why and when I think about it this just seems utterly absurd as a position to hold about the merits of literary creations.

[butterbumps!]

Because Jon gets a lot more of those plot gifts than anyone else, and in a more contrived and implausible way. IMO, of course.

The dragons followed the deaths of Drogo and Rhaego, so not a "gift" in the traditional sense of the word; similarly, Sansa getting abducted by Littlefinger is hardly a "gift". :P

I strongly disagree that Jon's "plot gifts" are more contrived and implausible than the other characters'. Maybe it would be better if I asked what "plot gifts" you believe Jon has received? I get the way he became LC is a potential case-in-point, but given Jon's inner monologue in DwD, being LC is far from a "gift" as one might get.

In general though, I don't think the issues being raised are exactly that Jon is drawn as an implausibly contrived character. His lack of "tough" decisions are frequently referenced, but I think it's a different issue that's causing this "malaise."

In Jon's universe, his decisions are incredibly heretic and "immoral". However, to us as modern readers, his decisions come off as easy and obvious, because our system of beliefs seems to be more closely aligned to the course of action Jon takes. We know that he is, in fact correct about the real threat, correct about the fact that the NW has lost its true purpose, and we tend to be sympathetic toward his new allies, the Wildlings. It's not so much that he doesn't make tough decisions, it's that the decisions he makes cause friction in his own universe, but don't challenge our beliefs in the way that Tyrion does, for example. The controversy doesn't realy exist for our universe, but it's clear Jon is struggling to foster those beliefs/ decisions in his world.

[brashcandy]

What bugs me about Jon is how, until Dance he comes off with very little moral culpability. He just bounces from situation to situation without doing anything.

I don't understand this criticism, WK. As butterbumps! accurately noted, what may seem to us as a lack of moral challenges due to our modern perceptions isn't necessarily the same in Jon's world. Jon faces many different conflicts to do with identity and duty long before ADWD, and he's called upon to make hard decisions and sacrifices for the good of the Watch. If it's a matter of Jon always seeming to make what seems in our perspective to be the best, and ultimately most moral decision, then again, that's due to our modern appreciation of these concerns and shouldn't be used as a criticism of the character's lack of complexity.

[Winter's Knight]

I don't understand this criticism, WK. As butterbumps! accurately noted, what may seem to us as a lack of moral challenges due to our modern perceptions isn't necessarily the same in Jon's world. Jon faces many different conflicts to do with identity and duty long before ADWD, and he's called upon to make hard decisions and sacrifices for the good of the Watch. If it's a matter of Jon always seeming to make what seems in our perspective to be the best, and ultimately most moral decision, then again, that's due to our modern appreciation of these concerns and shouldn't be used as a criticism of the character's lack of complexity.

I do not deny his complexity nor do I dislike Jon but he bores me. His tendency to moan about being a bastard, his never-ending agonising over his vows all grate. In the earlier books, he also tends to be pushed from one scene to the next.

He s a complex, likeable character though-the scene when he fled the wildlings and turned his back on Ygritte to honour his vows is one of my personal favourtes.

[Winter's Ghost]

Jon is one of my favorite character's, but I don't think he is universally liked. Yes, he is generally liked by people more than some others, but I have seen some people who don't like him.

[Ser Hippie]

He lacks the winning personality, charm and stunning personal hygiene that makes Bowen Marsh a better choice for Lord Commander

Paid for by the "For the Watch' Foundation.

[David Selig]

One of my main problems with Jon in the first three books is that quite often Martin sets up a really tough moral dilemma for him and then undermines it somehow by making the choice much easier or entirely removing the option for Jon to choose. Take the moment when Jon is sent to kill Mance - just when he had to choose, Stannis's force attacked and he didn't have to make a choice at all. Take the whole situation with Qhorin - in the end Jon was basically forced to kill him in self-defence, again he really had no choice.

This is really different from any other main character in ASOIF. Having to make tough choices and live with the consequences without the typical fantasy practice of presenting a seemingly tough choice for the hero and then undermining it somehow, is one of the things I love about ASOIF.

[Faint]

I'm a little disappointed that he didn't become a more morally questionable figure in A Dance with Dragons which I was given to understand was going to happen. He ended up coming off somewhat dull and emotionally stuck in the book, which has given rise to my questioning whether Theon has surpassed him as my favorite male character in the series.

[mythsandstuff]

One of my main problems with Jon in the first three books is that quite often Martin sets up a really tough moral dilemma for him and then undermines it somehow by making the choice much easier or entirely removing the option for Jon to choose. Take the moment when Jon is sent to kill Mance - just when he had to choose, Stannis's force attacked and he didn't have to make a choice at all. Take the whole situation with Qhorin - in the end Jon was basically forced to kill him in self-defence, again he really had no choice.

This. So much.

Another case in point: he wonders if he'll have to kill Ygritte, but someone else does it for him. Someone else intervenes to make him LC, to keep him at the Wall when he tries to run off...

Jon's one of my favorites, but with a lot of the big decisions, he's really passive. And then the last book was all about him getting screwed for the decisions he does make. It's a troubling pattern, for me.

ETA: he doesn't even get to decide about getting in bed for Ygritte - there's obviously an attraction there, but even that decision is taken away, so he can say he "never had a choice." I think the reason this bugs me so is that it's setting up a pattern, with the harping on vows, to get him out of the vows, since he "never had a choice" there either.

[Faint]

It is interesting, this pattern where many of his most difficult decisions are taken out of his hands. And it looks set to continue too, since it looks like he will be forced to leave the Night's Watch as opposed to making a conscientious choice of doing so.

[Mulled Wino]

Anyway, for me personally Ned is a lot more interesting character than Jon for many reasons. He doesn't get contrived plot gifts all the time (unlike Jon), he has to make tough choices much more often and paid for his mistakes. His plotline is also way more interesting IMO - the politics and the intrigues in the capital are much more exciting to read about than Jon's training by Thorne or how he infiltrated the wildlings in the most cliche way possible.

at bare minimum, do you agree that that scene was exciting, from the skirtling pass killings to getting cornered by Rattleshirt and his hunters?

[Mulled Wino]

Because Jon gets a lot more of those plot gifts than anyone else, and in a more contrived and implausible way. IMO, of course.

Jon may have more plot gifts than anyone, but Tyrion has more plot armor than every character combined, IMO, of course

[ARYa_Nym]

He became one of my favorites after ADWD. He just better not become king of the wildlings. That would be ridiculous IMO. It's like in Avatar when the character clearly was working for the other side started to understand the "savages" and became their savior and one of them. I just don't like that type of story line.

[Mulled Wino]

He became one of my favorites after ADWD. He just better not become king of the wildlings. That would be ridiculous IMO. It's like in Avatar when the character clearly was working for the other side started to understand the "savages" and became their savior and one of them. I just don't like that type of story line.

Nooooooooo! Jon compared to the most contrived movie ever...... Ugh