What exactly is the appeal of Jon Snow?

[lostcause]

You are being disingenuous, It's not hard to understand that a generic character from an overused archetype might feel less interesting to read about than characters with an original spin. It's about originality.

I don't really care what is supposed to "touch my subconscious", all I see is that if Jon is supposed to that, then GRRM failed hard.

Said another way, it's not because simple bread has been sustaining men for millenia, and is something I regularly eat, that it's not bland and less interesting than a dish, or even simply toast with marmalade. When you are not understanding why some people find Jon uninteresting, it is just as if you were not understanding why at a feast, people would find the little foie gras and fig toasts accompanied by a flute of champagne more interesting than white bread with a glass of tap water.

If you think any of the characters in this story are original in that sense, you have a very limited literature experience.

It's how the mix and recycling of characters are put together that makes for interesting reading.

As for the analogy on food - it's such an easy argument to make, with little merit since you say Jon is bland, another will say he's layered and full of flavour.

[SerStinger]

Considering he quoted it from a post that clearly didn't use the same definition, that seems like an oxymoron.

I only read your quote of him so I don't know.

[Budj]

Marmalade...ew.... Jelly/Jam all the way.

But a perfect example of different flavors for different folks. I get tired of these debates. Both sides colour behaviors/actions through their personal feelings on a character and it just goes in circles. Some people like marmalade...others like jam...

That said I can't wait to count down the minutes between this thread falling off the recent posts and another very similar one taking its place.

[Peko]

Something that just occurred to me about the whole 'Jon not making any choices until ADwD, particularly hard ones' argument.

Jon is the ONLY PoV character who is inserted into some sort of hierarchical order, and at the bottom, no less. And this takes place not only at the Wall in AGoT, but north of it as well in ACoK, and then he's not much more than a prisoner of the wildlings in ASoS. There are people he must answer to, else his life is forfeit. He's not some lord or lady or lordling with a near endless supply of resources, men, and freedom like every other PoV character.

It seems as to me people love to totally disregard the times where he DID make a choice (something his standing gives him limited ability to do, mind you), such as when he helped Sam, left the Wall to help his family (rectified by Sam, a result of a prior action of his, thus not cheap at all in my eyes), didn't kill Ygritte, and didn't kill the old man. Instead they want to focus on Ygritte conveniently dying and Stannis saving him from (not) killing Mance (which I think we all know Jon has since made it clear which path he would have chosen). The former definitely could have been handled better, such as having Jon kill her himself. And the latter would have almost certainly led to Jon's death either way, whether at the hands of the Night's Watch or the wildlings, so yes, plot armor was effective here.

My point being that Jon throughout the first three books has a very limited ability to make large-scale decisions, so I find it incredibly foolish to annoint him as a terrible character because of it. Boring? Sure, depending on personal preferences. Note that in ADwD when people's like for Jon seems to become more widespread, he actually has the power to make the aforementioned decisions, since he's now in charge of said hierarchical order.

[Prince of the Green]

I value the opinions of the Stark children, Ned, Tyrion, etc. They all have, if not glowing, then very profound and touching memories of Jon. That settled the matter for me. Arya misses Jon very much, and vice versa. Sansa reminisced about Jon and how seeing him would be grand; that surprised me, considering her lack of interest in anything having to do with Jon.

Regardless, he is a Stark at heart, and the collective is just as interesting as the individuals. We hardly ever hear Jon voice his concerns or whine about this or that. If we had access to an interior monologue of most 16 year olds, we'd probably be reading emotions along the lines that Jon has.

You also have to keep in mind that all of the direwolves reflect their owners. Nymeria and Arya are both very stubborn, Sansa and Lady are both gentle, Robb and Grey Wind both were very fast, in the case of Robb, his ascent from Lord's son to King in the North, Rickon and Shaggydog are both very confused, angry, and scared, Bran and Summer are both very intuitive and smart. Jon and Ghost are content to do things apart from the rest, though always wanting that familiarity of a pack. And both remain silent.

I like Jon because he is a man of few words; we may hear much and more about his plight, his worries, his dreams, but Sam is really the only one he feels comfortable even broaching this topic with, and that's rare. I think he remembers a truth that the First Men learned millennia ago. Those who speak too often risk having their words freeze in their throats and their chests when winter comes.

Besides, if he is the PTWP or AA-R, then it wouldn't so much be plot armor or plot gifts that he is given. Rather, it is divine will.

[Errant Bard]

If you think any of the characters in this story are original in that sense, you have a very limited literature experience.

Yay for strawmen and believing originality is binary.

As for the analogy on food - it's such an easy argument to make, with little merit since you say Jon is bland, another will say he's layered and full of flavour.

Yeah, it's not like I was defending my opinion on why I find Jon generic and why this makes it less interesting to me, you know.

Also, this is stupid, I was specifically answering someone who argued that genericity was good, not one who was saying Jon had a unique flavour.

My point being that Jon throughout the first three books has a very limited ability to make large-scale decisions, so I find it incredibly foolish to annoint him as a terrible character because of it.

But it's not foolish: he is a character from a fiction book, what he can and cannot do is entirely determined by the author, and if the making of this character involves a setting where he cannot and will not act, then in the end it makes that character uninteresting in a lot of ways. Nobody is saying that Jon isn't a nice guy.

[Handsome Man]

Budj and Peko put it best about this topic, you'll like the characters based on your opinion. I think many replies to the post alone shows why Jon Snow has appeal. You don't even have to be specific, as Peko did greatly, but to the original poster the fact the many can come up with many different rationale should be proof enough for you.

[Evee Shadowcat Reed]

He knows how to kiss a lady?? :drunk: :laugh:

[grindylow]

We hardly ever hear Jon voice his concerns or whine about this or that. If we had access to an interior monologue of most 16 year olds, we'd probably be reading emotions along the lines that Jon has.

This is exactly what I like about Jon. He is such a teenage boy. He was such a typical bad high school boyfriend to Ygritte - doesn't want anything to do with her because of Important Reasons, except when she's warm all pressed up against him and - hey, is that a boob? Guess he'd better touch it, Qhorin said he must not balk.... He's got his pretty hilarious pride and swagger in the beginning at Winterfell - when Tyrion meets Ghost and Jon is all casually, "Yeah if I weren't here he'd totally rip out your throat *examines fingernails*" and then thinks, Okay, not true yet, but it will be soon!!!

He's got all these Big Ideas and all this arrogance and all these affectations, like any teenage boy. And for all that, he's a good kid, and it's funny and sweet and sad to watch those ideas crash against reality. To watch him have to kill his idols - like Qhorin - or betray them - like Mance. To watch him get with a girl even though he was determined to never do anything of the sort, and then to find he loves her, and then to betray her, and then to lose her. Watching him try to convince himself that the fact that it was someone else's arrow that killed her made any difference at all after he screwed her over and led the attack against her party.

I'm not used to seeing teenagers written with all their bluster and puffery and insecurity and arrogance and good intentions. I just think that in Jon, GRRM has done an excellent job of capturing that phase where you announce to all and sundry, "This is who I am!" and then have to work out how it is you actually become that person.

[lostcause]

Yay for strawmen and believing originality is binary.

Yeah, it's not like I was defending my opinion on why I find Jon generic and why this makes it less interesting to me, you know.

Also, this is stupid, I was specifically answering someone who argued that genericity was good, not one who was saying Jon had a unique flavour.

Why? You argued that you disliked Jon because he wasn't original. As if that is a trait unique to Jon in the story.

Jaime, Varys, Littlefinger, Ned, Arya, the Hound, Sansa, Gregor, Bolton, Tywin, Tyrion and on and on, they are all templates for your typical hero, anti-hero, villain and/or evil henchmen.

But hey let's throw out the term Strawmen as we do unoriginality shall we? :)

As for the other, I agree that might be stupid. I only read your quote and not the post you replied to.

I still think it's an analogy that lacks some specifications to be really useful.

[wolverine]

I hate to be the resident champion for Alliser Thorne because I don't actually like him but isn't a 'moustache twirler' a villain? Thorne is an unlikable and bitter man but 'moustache twirler'!? I say if you think he is you need to examine him more closely and consider that he comes across as such largely because he has particularly antagonistic relationships with the POV's he encounters.

Is Thorne so villanous? He got sent to the Wall not for some crime but for being on the losing side of a war (possibly the source of his bitterness as so many others got pardons after the same war). He was a terrible master-at-arms because he openly despised all his students for their lack of skill, but that makes him small, not villanous (remember, he initially hated Jon least because Jon was the most capable student). He hates being mocked and turned against both Tyrion and Jon when they made japes at his expense (again he's small and unlikable, not a villain). He got sent to KL on a mission, had an abrasive manner when petitionig that was counter-productive, but did at least return to the Wall from what would have been a prime opportunity to desert if he had not had at least some honour. When Slynt is in charge at Castle Black he exploits that in his grudge against Jon (and further was IIRC the proposal of the plan to breach the parley with Mance) so I give him no credit there and think an objective assessment of his actions at this time were villainous - but an objective assessment of nearly any character would say they act villanously at least once and would not reduce them to a 'moustache twirler' (and the situation is complicated by the fact that Jon was genuinely under suspicion of committing the crimes of which he was accused). After Jon was elected LC Thorne was openly scornful of him and reluctant to obey orders, but he did eventually obey those orders - and is still doing so as far as any of us know.

I disagreed with the rest of your post too, but plenty of other people here have got the defense of Jon covered.

I think they mean a 'mustache twirler' as someone who is a jackass just to be a jackass, he has no reason behind his doucheyness as you explain in your post, but is just a prick who is very easy for everyone to hate.

[greywindsrage]

I don't really care much for the character. The only time I liked the guy was when he got really pissed about what was happening to Arya and considered going South. Aside from that he came across as very bland to me and I found no real reason to like the man. His arcs only interesting because of his interactions with funny characters like Tormund n Ygritte, the backdrop of the Others and the wall; then Stannis arrival. But for the most part I felt like he was just a pair of eyes to relay info about whats going on at the wall to the reader. He just doesn't seem to have as much of a character or personality or be anywhere near as interesting as say Jamie, or Tyrion, or even Theon as a POV character. Also, I don't think he suffered any real setbacks or suffered to anywhere near the extent of the other characters; nor did he have to contend with massive failure. Other characters have a lot of weakness (Dany) or they suffer a lot (Arya). Jon does not, nor does it come across. He joins an order, he immediately ingratiates himself with the wildlings, he escapes, saves the wall and becomes Lord Commander. He then does an extremely good job of running the wall, but is stabbed by a handful of traitors which ends his lucky star quite randomly. Until that point very few (if any) other characters had had it as good as Jon Snow. Hes a character without flaws and in this series its his only defining trait and you get the feeling from Tyrions POV that we're supposed to feel that "this guy should be a King". In other words, we're meant to be impressed by this guy and thats why we're supposed to like him. I don't know, just didn't care for the guy and the character.

So, whats his appeal meant to be exactly?

1-Not at all, he acts like an ordinary person but in the context of the series we call this honourable.

2-No hes not. There are funny characters in his story. He is not funny himself.

3-But hes had it easy for a human.

4-Hes a block of ice the man has a few lines with Arya and thats it.

5-Not really. Up until ADWD he always stays with the NW and doesn't join the Wildlings. Thats stock fantasy. He doesn't become a Theon for instance and betray the wall.

6-Others have been through and suffered more whilst gaining far less; ie Arya and Sansa.

7-Which is annoying. Martins given the character a free pass. Even if he has the weaknesses you state he has kept him in a context where he has not really been able to suffer for them like Ned did. Him dying at the end of ADWD was random. It would have been like somebody had taken a pistol to Napoleon in the midst of his army. Nothing to do with success or weakness just a random event by a handful of people.

I don't really care much for the character. The only time I liked the guy was when he got really pissed about what was happening to Arya and considered going South. Aside from that he came across as very bland to me and I found no real reason to like the man. His arcs only interesting because of his interactions with funny characters like Tormund n Ygritte, the backdrop of the Others and the wall; then Stannis arrival. But for the most part I felt like he was just a pair of eyes to relay info about whats going on at the wall to the reader. He just doesn't seem to have as much of a character or personality or be anywhere near as interesting as say Jamie, or Tyrion, or even Theon as a POV character. Also, I don't think he suffered any real setbacks or suffered to anywhere near the extent of the other characters; nor did he have to contend with massive failure. Other characters have a lot of weakness (Dany) or they suffer a lot (Arya). Jon does not, nor does it come across. He joins an order, he immediately ingratiates himself with the wildlings, he escapes, saves the wall and becomes Lord Commander. He then does an extremely good job of running the wall, but is stabbed by a handful of traitors which ends his lucky star quite randomly. Until that point very few (if any) other characters had had it as good as Jon Snow. Hes a character without flaws and in this series its his only defining trait and you get the feeling from Tyrions POV that we're supposed to feel that "this guy should be a King". In other words, we're meant to be impressed by this guy and thats why we're supposed to like him. I don't know, just didn't care for the guy and the character.

So, whats his appeal meant to be exactly?

Jon Snow has had to deal with the fact that he is the bastard of a well respected and honorable lord who he himself idolizes. Most people frown upon bastards, nobility and peasantry alike. At every turn it is thrown into his face so that he will never forget it. This makes him an underdog. Most people love the underdog (Think Rocky).

Just like Arya, Sansa and Bran, we get to see Jon grow. He might not suffer that much but he does grow. He is clearly a boy at the beginning of the series who thinks he knows what he wants but he comes to realize later on what he really signed up for. He wants to be honorable like Ned but his service in the Nights Watch has forced him to question what is really honorable.

Jon has been forced to make some hard decisions. When Ned died he wanted revenge , only to be reminded that he had taken an oath. His Uncle warned him about what he was giving up but he never listened and that must hurt to have to completely understand it through Ned's death. Plus he has had to deal with Robb's death, Bran and Rickard's "deaths", the capture of Winterfell, Sansa's captivity and Arya's unknown whereabouts. It might not be what happened to Theon but it would still stress out anybody who would have to live with that.

Now I will agree that his POV is the most cliche out of all of them. However I have enjoyed watching him grow and overcome his obstacles while at the same time wrestling with his conscience. It is through Jon that we learn about whats really going on beyond The Wall and we see him trying to protect the Realm when he is receiving no help from from the South who believe that there is no threat other than the Wildings.

To say that he has it really easy is a bit unfair. Plus just because he doesn't suffer horrifically doesn't mean he can't be likeable. Jon's situation took a complete turn when he joined the Nights Watch. From a privileged bastard to a Man of the Black and he has had to face that fact. It is for these reasons why I can say his story appeals to me.

[greywindsrage]

But Jon is not perfect! That is kind of the point here. As Arya Targaryen says, it is the choices that the characters make that make them successful, not the plot armor or gifts. GRRM is trying to show us that the choices that we make make us heros, not accidents of birth like station or looks. Jon makes largely successful choices because he is motivated by his compassion and understanding of people, in comparison to Dany (mod: indulge me here please) who makes her choices according to her sense of entitlement. She deserves to love whomever she likes, so Daario becomes a problem; she deserves to rule, so it doesn't matter what the slaves may want or how they will suffer. Jon actively listens to those around him and makes the tough choices after weighing all the impacts; Dany simply weighs the impact on herself. Jon's character development has made him closer to the hero archetype as the story as progressed. He certainly didn't start out that way. So you could say that GRRM is de-volving him into a more predictable character. Sorry if that bores you, OP. I find it fascinating.

Brilliantly put. Jon has learned how to be a leader from the bottom to the top and it wasn't easy. Dany, in the blink of an eye, gained immense power through the birth of her dragons but she has not learned to listen to others.

[ARYa_Nym]

He looks like Harry Styles from One Direction. :wub: :wub:

Zayn is the cute one imo. Harry is too baby faced and I don't like his hair.

[mormont]

Brilliantly put. Jon has learned how to be a leader from the bottom to the top and it wasn't easy. Dany, in the blink of an eye, gained immense power through the birth of her dragons but she has not learned to listen to others.

Dany spends a considerable amount of time in ADWD listening to, and trying to take account of, the counsel of others: in fact, probably her primary problem is that she pays too much attention to their views.

[pat]

Jon is not original sure, but that assumes people know where his story is going. All these people showing up to do things for him and teach him things help the story. Halfand and friends is one of the better parts of all the novels. That he got a sword from Mormont doesnt affect most people at all. He earned it the last person Mormont gave the sword to crapped all over the family name. He got advice from Aemon and help from Sam sure thats a crime. well how many people at the wall had their fathers killed that day? the people he interacts with are a lot more real to me than the fools in KL. My first fantasy novel i read the hidden hero type was an assistant pig keeper. and he was a lot like Jon. But it wont ruin the story for me.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I hate to be the resident champion for Alliser Thorne because I don't actually like him but isn't a 'moustache twirler' a villain? Thorne is an unlikable and bitter man but 'moustache twirler'!? I say if you think he is you need to examine him more closely and consider that he comes across as such largely because he has particularly antagonistic relationships with the POV's he encounters.

GRRM is quite capable of producing interesting and compelling villains. Tywin Lannister, pre-AFFC Cersei, Littlefinger, Roose Bolton, Walder Frey: these are objectively 'bad' characters who can nevertheless command the reader's respect. They come across as real people. Then there are the outlandish villains: Gregor Clegane, Ramsay Snow, Biter, who provoke interest not because they're particularly deep characters (they aren't), but because they are such larger-than-life moral train-wrecks. With them, it is their sheer grotesquery that is fascinating.

Alister Thorne and Janos Slynt are neither: their villainy is cartoonish, rather than complex, and they exist only to reinforce Jon's moral position within the narrative. Nor are they made interesting by their excesses: they are petty and pathetic, too uninteresting to be psychopaths. This is what I meant by moustache-twirler: a dull character wearing a black hat for no reason other than the author's own convenience.

[The Marquis de Leech]

TV Alister Thorne is a massive improvement from his book counterpart, incidentally. TV Thorne's an arsehole, but he's an arsehole with motivation. Book Thorne exists for us to cheer Jon.

[pat]

GRRM is quite capable of producing interesting and compelling villains. Tywin Lannister, pre-AFFC Cersei, Littlefinger, Roose Bolton, Walder Frey: these are objectively 'bad' characters who can nevertheless command the reader's respect. They come across as real people. Then there are the outlandish villains: Gregor Clegane, Ramsay Snow, Biter, who provoke interest not because they're particularly deep characters (they aren't), but because they are such larger-than-life moral train-wrecks. With them, it is their sheer grotesquery that is fascinating.

The slightly moral Lords and Knights in the story are laughable. Gregor and friends are close to real life depictions of such people.

[King Aemon I]

It is true that Jon makes less decisions than the other POVs, but his decisions are a lot more important.. Mostly he lives the adventures there are happening around him, unlike Tyrion or Dany.. Dany didn't found her super-animal like Jon, she brought them back to life from the stones. Tyrion kept his location and power in KL while the sister who hates him tried to protect her children from the man who loves them. Tyrion did the best he could, and he is my 2. best, but he failed to keep his power. Jon made the foolish decisions of all times, a man who loves his family chose his honor over his family, chose to watch the most ancient House world has ever seen goes to Boltons, traitors and the killers of that House instead of saving himself from that snowhole and making himself the Lord of Winterfell. Even if Stannis would fail, Jon would still be a legitimate Stark and then he could even be the King in The North after the Winter hits and the Freys and the Tyrells loose their strength in the North.. But in his own way, he is the broker of the chains, changed the "Wildlings are bad" opinion a little and made them cooperate with the NW.. He chose to left without a release from the Oath, or a legitimation... He is the foolest male POV probably, but he still keeps the love on him from thousands, that is the plain appeal of him..

More mercy than admiring makes us love Jon.. At first of course.. He carries his blood as sin, Jon is Martin's article for bastardy.. Poor boy has the same blood with Robb but the "legitimacy" forbids him to take Winterfell.. As far as I remember, there was talk of a death of a house, no members but a bastard cousin of the Last Lord, a minor house.. And they give the lands to another person.. Come on, the house lives, bloodline lives you ...... whatever.. I hate injustice, more than anyone and react to it more than anyone, so I love Jon a lot.. And he thought he should be in the NW to have honor, but all he found was insults and chains.. He denied legitimation but he regretted, he wants to be a big man but honor and ambition fights inside him.. I see that as the battle of Stark honor and Targaryen greed..