People who hate Jon..

[mythsandstuff]

But it is a huge decision and fear of Jon's to be seen as an oathbreaker. Just because he knows he isn't one doesn't mean that he escapes from the concerns of how others will view him, and more disturbingly how he begins to view himself (as he gets deeper into the relationship with Ygritte, begins to sympathise with the wildlings etc). What happens with Ygritte emerges out of that initial conflct to do what with Qhorin is asking and become an oathbreaker. I honestly don't see why the actual decision that Jon makes or didn't make with regard to sleeping with her is so harped upon. We know he didn't want to and we know his reasons for not wanting to. The important point to me is what results from this action, not whether Jon had to personally choose to jump in the sack with Ygritte.

So I went back and did some Jon/Ygritte rereading, and it occurs to me that what happens actually comes out of an earlier conflict, his decision not to kill her - that's at the end of that great scene, where she tells him the Bael the Bard story and he comes to realize "It's all in where you're standing." This is followed by the conversation with Qhorin about why Jon was allowed to decide, and how Qhorin knows him better as a result. And I think that scene is where my frustration comes from - when Jon is allowed to decide, as Qhorin allows him, as a reader, I get to know more about him. When the plot doesn't allow that, I see it as a missed opportunity.

I think it gets harped on for the same reasons the "unkiss" comes up repeatedly - our understanding of that event, and the character's response to it, is important to character development. In fact, I see Jon's response as very similar to Sansa's - she's chosen to remember a fantasy as if it were fact, and he's chosen to take responsibility for what happened with Ygritte. But in my reading, both are reconstructing their own narratives to fit their own psychological needs.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you had made those claims, I was really speaking generally there to other points I've seen made. I do have to disagree about decisions being taken out of his hands. At Queenscrown he makes the choice not to kill the old man and still has to face consequences, same thing with Ygritte. Perhaps the issue here is that Jon isn't facing the kind of consequences some people would like to see - death/disaster?

I don't want to see anything bad happen to him - one of my issues is actually the way that any time the Starks take action (with the exception of Bran, maybe, except for the fact he feels responsible for the miller's sons), bad things happen. When I'm talking about consequences, I'm talking about the results of the decision, and the way the character works through those results- the kinds of things that, as Qhorin says, allow me to know Jon better than I did before.

I think the point is that there isn't a clear definition for Jon between right and wrong anymore, if there ever was, and as readers we're caught within this drama as well. Does it matter that Jon didn't have to personally kill Ygritte when we know he still carries the shame and blame for how it ended? I think it's fascinating to watch Jon's internal struggles and negotiations with different problems that can't be solved by an us vs. them mentality.

The fact that he carries shame/blame for Ygritte does actually tell me something about him, in that he's willing to take on that responsibility, but the decision being taken out of his hands keeps me from knowing whether, when it comes down to it, he's the kind of man who would plunge a sword into his lover's heart, if that's what needs to be done. And I get that hedging around that issue is why the decision gets taken away, but it's still frustrating.

Well you could boil down every character arc to its repetitive elements. Arya with vengeance, Sansa on the loss of idealism, etc :) For the first three books most of the characters have been stuck in situations where their essential personalities and struggles are established. After this, we see them moving into more active roles and how they navigate the learning experiences and challenges therein.

It occurs to me that the repetitive elements with other characters may feel less like a feedback loop because they get to move geographically more than Jon does, and that helps me understand part of my frustration as my own issue, as Jon's chess piece kind of needs to stay where it is. That being said, I noticed repetition, in a general sense, a lot more in the last two books than in the first three. I've blocked the annoying thing that Mat kept saying/thinking in the last WoT book I forced myself to read, and nothing in ASOIAF is at that level yet, but I'll be damned if I didn't think of Jordan every time a phrase got repeated in my reread earlier this summer.

[brashcandy]

So I went back and did some Jon/Ygritte rereading, and it occurs to me that what happens actually comes out of an earlier conflict, his decision not to kill her - that's at the end of that great scene, where she tells him the Bael the Bard story and he comes to realize "It's all in where you're standing." This is followed by the conversation with Qhorin about why Jon was allowed to decide, and how Qhorin knows him better as a result. And I think that scene is where my frustration comes from - when Jon is allowed to decide, as Qhorin allows him, as a reader, I get to know more about him. When the plot doesn't allow that, I see it as a missed opportunity.

Good point. I'll have to reread that scene. FWIW, I do understand the point you're making, and I can see where some of the criticism comes in, but I do think it's because Jon's development has been very internal up to this point, and we're now getting a much fuller portrayal in ADWD.

The fact that he carries shame/blame for Ygritte does actually tell me something about him, in that he's willing to take on that responsibility, but the decision being taken out of his hands keeps me from knowing whether, when it comes down to it, he's the kind of man who would plunge a sword into his lover's heart, if that's what needs to be done. And I get that hedging around that issue is why the decision gets taken away, but it's still frustrating.

Jon as AA :) In my reading of Jon, I've always seen him as being capable of making such hard decisions. Returning to his duty after wanting to go and join Robb's rebellion was hard. Putting up with Cat for all those years was hard :P. Jon wouldn't have been giving Cersei fair warning in my opinion.

It occurs to me that the repetitive elements with other characters may feel less like a feedback loop because they get to move geographically more than Jon does, and that helps me understand part of my frustration as my own issue, as Jon's chess piece kind of needs to stay where it is. That being said, I noticed repetition, in a general sense, a lot more in the last two books than in the first three. I've blocked the annoying thing that Mat kept saying/thinking in the last WoT book I forced myself to read, and nothing in ASOIAF is at that level yet, but I'll be damned if I didn't think of Jordan every time a phrase got repeated in my reread earlier this summer.

Yeah, I think this happens with Sansa criticism too. She's trapped in KL so it's difficult to sometimes appreciate how she manages to not only survive in that space, but to grow within it, and open up new opportunities for herself.

[Mulled Wino]

No, I am not saying this. I was showing how silly and over the top your claim was by turning it around.

The Unsillied are on a bigger scale and as a single example for a plot gift and a contrivance can't be beaten. But Jon had plenty of those on a smaller scale, more than any other character IMO, which was my claim from the start.

Longclaw. Smaller scale, but just as ridiculous.

Mance not killing him after he learned about the NW men at the Fist, against all logic.

Elected for NW in a ridiculous way. And before anyone say "the job sucks, so it's not really a gift," remember that Slynt would've executed him if he had become LC

It's not the thematic basis of anything, they are just big magical wolves. the series would've been fine without them, they are a very minor element.

And I am not saying I don't like them. I am saying Jon literally stumbled upon a magical wolf in the very first chapter without having to do anything and this is an example of a plot gift.

See, this is one of the problems with his plotline. It's mostly realistic when it comes to boring stuff like inventory but unrealistic with more important things like taking tough decisions without plot interventions out of left field saving his ass time and time again. It's a bad combination.

And of course, when the inventory showed major problems with food supply which meant that Jon's plan for the wildlings was not feasible long term, Jon immediately got the solution handed to him on a silver platter when the representative of the Iron Bank came to him at exactly the most convenient moment. I was so shocked by this... :cool4:

The Iron Bank is a good example.

But c'mon, tyrion smashes Jon in plot armor.

[Winter's Knight]

The Iron Bank is a good example.

But c'mon, tyrion smashes Jon in plot armor.

Tyrion doesn't have plot armour, he has a plot force field.

[Kittyhat]

Skipped to the end (sorry ... tl; dr), but I just wanted to agree with a lot of what was said at the beginning: basically, Jon's not interesting enough to hate. I can hate Stannis, who whatever else he is (*cough*KnightTemplarVillain*cough*) is at least interesting. Jon's just sort of ... there, doing whatever it is Jon does. I don't really even care whether he's alive or not, despite the fact I've posed the "what if he's really dead?" question myself.

[Mulled Wino]

Tyrion doesn't have plot armour, he has a plot force field.

Complete with plot tractor beams and a planet destroying plot super laser.

[Mulled Wino]

Skipped to the end (sorry ... tl; dr), but I just wanted to agree with a lot of what was said at the beginning: basically, Jon's not interesting enough to hate. I can hate Stannis, who whatever else he is (*cough*KnightTemplarVillain*cough*) is at least interesting. Jon's just sort of ... there, doing whatever it is Jon does. I don't really even care whether he's alive or not, despite the fact I've posed the "what if he's really dead?" question myself.

I like Jon but I would LOOOoooooooove it if he was really dead. Twould make GRRM untouchable.

[CoolGirlsMurderFriend]

The Iron Bank is a good example.

But c'mon, tyrion smashes Jon in plot armor.

That's not a good example at all. Events need to happen to move the plot forward. Jon offered all the wealth of the wildlings as collateral for a future loan. He shafted the wildlings on that.

Can we please stop saying "plot gift" and the like? It's an incredibly dumb phrase considering anything that happens to a character EVER could be a plot gift since theyre in a freakin book.

[Yeade]

This topic is so nostalgic. Some of my earliest posts on these forums are about the nature of epic heroes and, more specifically, Jon's ASOS characterization in a discussion with Errant Bard, IIRC. The heroic archetype is likely my favorite in all of literature, truth be told, and one I never tire of seeing my favorite authors tackle but, my personal biases aside, I find there are two key factors that determine whether such characters will appeal to you.

First, it's a matter of critical perspective, IMO. To borrow terminology from the Sherlock Holmes fandom, lol, as a reader, you can take either a Doylist or Watsonian view of the story. On a meta level, heroic characters are not only hard to miss but act predictably in the sense that the writer must develop the plot in certain ways to, for instance, establish their heroic credentials by basically setting up straw villains for them to kick the stuffing out of. Alliser Thorne, Bowen Marsh, and Jon's other enemies in the Night's Watch play this role to an extent, as do the slavers of Essos for Dany, and are as a result often accused of being one-dimensional characters. That their starting antagonists are considered as flat and dull as cardboard in deed, if not in motivation, creates in turn the impression that Jon and Dany haven't faced any significant trials or conflicts.

Similarly, the authorial need to have protagonists alive for the final resolution of the story means one can expect Jon, Dany, Tyrion, and a host of other characters to survive even the most dire of predicaments. This undoubtedly undermines the suspense of many dramatic moments, notably Jon's "death" in ADWD. I've also seen some readers express the sentiment that they tend to resist the writer's attempts to generate empathy or sympathy for the apparent leads if the techniques used strike them as too transparent. For one, it's probably no accident that Jon's first introduced to readers in AGOT through the POVs of Bran and Arya, his younger siblings who dearly love and look up to him, in addition to his own. Not to mention the R+L=J hints in Ned and Catelyn's chapters lending him an air of mystery.

My default critical perspective is in-universe. This attitude is greatly influenced by my first fandom, Star Wars, which features a rather complex hierarchy of canon and a rabid fanbase that's been contemplating the death of God since Han shot first, lol. At any rate, from this view, that improbable sequences of events happen to Jon has little bearing on his depth or credibility as a character because his psychological responses to these events are genuine. As he can't know he's the designated hero of an epic fantasy, none of the dilemmas he faces are false or contrived to him. He has no assurance of his own survival or moral standing compared to characters in storylines a continent away.

If, then, Jon's character arc is unsatisfying, the fault lies with GRRM for not allowing situations to develop in directions that'd test Jon's mettle to the fullest. That is, there's nothing inherently wrong with the character or archetype that prevents gripping storytelling. All depends on how one or both are presented. Don't hate Jon for being boring. Hate GRRM for writing Jon as boring. :laugh:

Which brings me to the second point. I've always been of the opinion that heroic archetypes are actually the hardest to deconstruct. So hard, in fact, that most authors simply fail or give up. Bound inextricably together with epic heroism, IMO, is the concept of greatness, and countless people across the whole span of human history have been stumped by the question of how and why individuals distinguish themselves from the masses to become truly great. Even when the qualities essential to, as an example, a great military leader can be identified, it's pretty much impossible to say from where many of these character traits arise. What American Civil War historian Shelby Foote calls four o'clock in the morning courage--the man who, when shaken out of bed in the middle of the night to be told the enemy's flanked him and destroyed a good part of his army, doesn't run about like a headless chicken with the rest but immediately grasps the situation and calmly starts giving orders--some have it, some don't, and no one can tell who belongs in which group for sure until the pressure's on.

The typical explanations of love, duty, and honor are, I think, kind of inadequate. I love my parents, as I imagine all here do, but my very ordinary experience doesn't grant me much insight on how Luke Skywalker can forgive Darth Vader. Gray morality characters often act out of selfishness, which I personally find quite easy to project to ridiculous extremes because it's ultimately driven by the basic instinct of every human to survive. Villains are often just crazy, with the worst being outright psychopaths and sociopaths. Heroes usually can't plea insanity, no matter how crazy their actions, and they act in spite of the impulses familiar to us average men and women. How to account for such behavior? In the end, this opaqueness frustrates modern authors and readers alike, IMO, whose prime measure of good characterization is the existence of understandable motivations.

On another note entirely, Jon's internal monologue after his speech to the wildlings in the Shieldhall suggests to me he's not certain whether what he's about to do is oathbreaking. The key word here is IF. What's more, I tend to believe this is a truer reflection of Jon's views because what he says is a political gambit aimed at rallying the wildlings to a cause they have no reason to care about. I've speculated that Jon purposely makes it out as if the Night's Watch is incapable of fighting Ramsay the Monster in part to fan the wildlings' pride in themselves as heroes, defenders of innocent women and children when the hated crows are helpless to do so. I've even theorized that Jon excises all mention of Mance Rayder and his sekrit mission given that nobody has Tormund's initial reaction of asking why Mance still lives.

[Mulled Wino]

That's not a good example at all. Events need to happen to move the plot forward. Jon offered all the wealth of the wildlings as collateral for a future loan. He shafted the wildlings on that.

Can we please stop saying "plot gift" and the like? It's an incredibly dumb phrase considering anything that happens to a character EVER could be a plot gift since theyre in a freakin book.

He "shafted" the wildlings by procuring them food for the winter?

[CoolGirlsMurderFriend]

He took all of their worldly goods, made them watch their king (or so they thought) burn to death, and burn a piece of their gods. Ya, i'd say so.

[Tagganaro]

He "shafted" the wildlings by procuring them food for the winter?

He took all of their worldly goods, made them watch their king (or so they thought) burn to death, and burn a piece of their gods. Ya, i'd say so.

Not to mention he had Tormund angry as hell because he took a price of 100 child hostages from the Wildlings to guarantee their good behavior. Which makes Bowen Marsh's "concerns" even more ridiculous. He doesn't even think the wildlings have enough humanity to care about their children getting hurt.

So Jon gets Thousands of more defenders for an undermanned Wall, forced into good behavior by hostages, takes all their wordly possessions, and still gets criticized by Bowen Marsh...That pretty much shows what Marsh's views amount to. Locking up the Wall and trying to man it with the miniscule amount of men available to defend not only against Wildlings and Others but the very same Wildlings who would add thousands to the Other's ranks after being "wightified" due to Marsh leaving them to die (if he had his way) is not a remotely viable option.

And Jon spends more time than is reasonable trying to explain to Bowen Marsh's face exactly why Bowen Marsh is so wrong. I really don't know what else he could have done besides the powerpoint option suggested earlier. He wasn't convincing Marsh of anything because Marsh is a total idiot and coward.

[CoolGirlsMurderFriend]

And Jon spends more time than is reasonable trying to explain to Bowen Marsh's face exactly why Bowen Marsh is so wrong. I really don't know what else he could have done besides the powerpoint option suggested earlier. He wasn't convincing Marsh of anything because Marsh is a total idiot and coward.

That's just it, Marsh refuses to see reason because of his prejudice. His way would have destroyed the watch, the wall , and possibly all life.

[Mulled Wino]

He took all of their worldly goods, made them watch their king (or so they thought) burn to death, and burn a piece of their gods. Ya, i'd say so.

As opposed to the alternative?

[Yeade]

A couple other points:

mythsandstuff, you note that Ygritte speaking for Jon to the wildlings is an outgrowth of his earlier decision to spare her life. I'm thinking in particular of her vouching for the sincerity of his defection when Rattleshirt's band of raiders catches up to Qhorin Halfhand and Jon. How other characters who aren't complete monsters are likely to react favorably to heroes is a factor I find is often overlooked in debates about how plausible such storylines are.

Take Jon's election as Lord Commander. A common complaint about this development is that Jon does nothing to secure the position for himself. He's entirely passive with Sam politicking on his behalf to Cotter Pyke and Denys Mallister, then Mormont's raven winging over to him in what's apparently an incredible stroke of good luck. However, who points out to Sam that Janos Slynt's bound to win the election so long as Mallister and Pyke are at odds? Jon. And, further back, who makes the effort to defend Sam and cultivate a friendship with him? Jon. It's not much of an exaggeration to say Sam owes Jon his life, in Jon protecting him as a recruit from Alliser Thorne's vicious attentions, and his gradual acceptance by men like Grenn and Pyp, who follow Jon's example of including Sam as a brother. Sam idolizes Jon. No surprise that, when Pyke and Mallister basically ask Sam who else is worthy of being Lord Commander, he immediately thinks of Jon.

Given the revelations of ADWD, the behavior of Mormont's bird is not simply authorial fiat to ensure Jon becomes Lord Commander but Bloodraven's support of the probable rightful Targaryen heir to the Iron Throne and a prime AAR/PTWP candidate. What's more, Jon holding Castle Black against Mance Rayder's gathered strength in the absence of any ranking officers of the Night's Watch is undoubtedly influential in the black brothers voting for him.

While it can be said that Aemon pushes Jon to accept command of the Wall after Donal Noye's death, the old maester sees leadership potential in Jon because of Jon's own actions, such as when Jon appeals to Aemon in pulling Sam from training early. Not many men in the current NW have the insight or eloquence to make the argument Jon does on Sam's behalf, and I believe Aemon's impressed enough to not only take Sam as his steward as Jon requests but possibly approve of Jon to Lord Commander Mormont as a successor and later give Sam tacit permission to use his name in convincing Pyke and Mallister to cooperate. Maybe even to compromise on Jon, as I can't quite imagine Aemon thinking Sam would pick anyone else in anything.

It'd be pretty OOC for Jon to pursue political office when he's as depressed as he is at the end of ASOS, IMO, numb with grief over Ygritte and his brothers, whose deaths he receives news of in fairly quick succession upon his return to the Wall. Jon's frustrated anger at the murderers of his kin and irrational survivor's guilt continue to plague him well into ADWD, though he recovers his daily functionality. Whereas it's perfectly reasonable for Sam, Aemon, and Bloodraven to feel Jon ought to be Lord Commander. Why would they not act on this given opportunity? Even Sam's cowardice is no great obstacle, as he can be brave for Jon's sake. And Aemon may be concerned about Slynt hanging Jon for a deserter and oathbreaker should Slynt be elected, no matter how resigned to this fate Jon himself is.

No character lives in a vacuum, and I find the hero tends to accumulate long strings of favors that are willingly offered in hard times by people who owe their lives to him and/or admire his heroic qualities. Contrast this with villains, who tend to accumulate long strings of grudges instead, with people who hate their guts waiting to exact karmic retribution for wrongs done. Which is the better strategy in the long run? Case in point, Ned's legacy versus Tywin's in ADWD.

Secondly, I'm not sure why some folks seem to believe characteristics like ruthless pragmatism are mutually exclusive to heroism. For one, there's arguably no distinction between heroes and villains except in their intentions. Heroes are not unlike the vegan sharks in Finding Nemo, lol. They may be friendly with the fish, but they're still sharks. Charisma, intelligence, sharp instincts, quick adaptability, a broad perspective of conflicts, a certain willingness to spill blood--heroes and villains have much in common, hence the frequent crossovers between the two groups.

If Jon, say, ends up executing a number of those wildling child hostages, I wouldn't consider him a gray morality character, his heroic status somehow diminished. Just as with Slynt, Jon has no other choice politically should the wildlings prove troublesome, and he certainly won't kill children because he wants to or take any pleasure in the act. Making unilateral decisions about who dies for the cause? That's practically a hero's job description in war. I'd hate to think GRRM can't at least match JKR and George Lucas in creating heroic characters who are also manipulative bastards (see Dumbledore, Yoda and Obi-wan).

[CoolGirlsMurderFriend]

As opposed to the alternative?

As opposed to calling it a "plot gift"

[Mulled Wino]

Well, the watch is broke and has no food. We havent seen a banker from the Iron Bank in 3 books and he shows up at the wall....Dragonstone is close to Braavos, why didnt they go there when Stannis was at Braavos?

Back to the other topic, what deal should Jon have brokered with the Wildlings? Free passage?

[Budj]

Yeade,

Awesome post. Never conciously thought about it that way, but I found myself saying "wow I feel that way" the whole time, haha.

[Tagganaro]

Well, the watch is broke and has no food. We havent seen a banker from the Iron Bank in 3 books and he shows up at the wall....Dragonstone is close to Braavos, why didnt they go there when Stannis was at Braavos?

Because they were still counting on the Lannisters to repay their debt...Cersei didn't inform them until AFFC that she wasn't going to repay them. Then they went to find Stannis, who was at the Wall when the Bankers left but by that time had left the Wall. Pretty simple really, in terms of being a logical plot progression. It's not out of left-field, if it is then everything that happens in a book is out of left field. Bank wants to get paid, goes to next claimant for Throne in hopes he repays them, said claimant is at the Wall where Jon is, Bank meets Jon, Bank works out deal with Jon...Not to hard to understand imo.

[Scipio Africanus]

@ Yeade

I agree with your posts but I fear they're quite long for the average reader.

Jon was elected because he was of noble birth even though he was a bastard. Not only that he was a Stark. He was the perfect dark horse candidate considering the division within the NW. Dark horses being elected into power has happened numerious times in history. That Sam was able to pull it off was no surprise either. And why Sam thought Jon was a good candidate? Becaues he isn't stupid, because Jon helped him out and would help others out and because Maester Aemon Targayan would've approved.

As for your Shelby Foote reference. The best generals (Jackson, Lee, Grant, Sherman) took no head in casualties (of course they tried to avoid losing heavily) and made difficult decisions when they thought they had no other choice which they took responsibility for regardless. Good generals order assaults even if the potential is suffering heavy casualties. Good generals accept that and live with it. Which is way McClellan was a failure. He never dared to order high casualty assaults (even though some of them ended up to be just that) and was reluctant to face the result.

I recognize a bit of a good general in Jon. Too bad he got wacked or so it would seem.