What exactly is the appeal of Jon Snow?

[Winter's Knight]

He bores me honestly-I don't like the Wall and I don't like the Wildlings.

However, my biggest beef against Jon is Gilly's baby.

[Davos' fingertip]

sorry, but some people DO actually prefer honorable, just, fair guys like Jon Snow. Thats what appealing about him.

[David Selig]

I don't want to go overboard in terms of defending Jon pertaining to the assassination attempt, but I do want to mention that there have been leaders cut down by their own men despite the fact that they were "good" people or "good" leaders- Judas and Christ (and no, I'm not trying to be indulgent about a Jon=Christ parallel, just illustrating an example), Caesar, even Lord Commander Mormont. So I really have trouble looking at the dissension in the ranks as something tangible that points to Jon's wrongness here.

Good leaders make mistakes too and those shouldn't be ignored just because they are competent in general. This was my point from the start. Being assassinated in the way Jon was doesn't make automatically someone a bad leader too, but it most likely indicates a significant problem or flaw in their leadership. They've trusted and given important responsibilities to someone they shouldn't have.

BTW, I've always thought Jeor Mormont was a poor leader, but that's a topic for another thread.

I don't know if I fully understand what your contention is with this. You say that Jon was wrong for not keeping an eye on Bowen. But this is precisely what he does by keeping him in that position as counsellor. I think Jon is right for not conceding to Bowen's "advice," but I think he's also right for keeping Bowen close by to keep an eye on him (i.e. not overtly replace him for someone else). Keeping him in council is precisely keeping tabs on him.

If that's what Jon was doing, he failed spectacularly, didn't he? He had no clue Marsh was organising his assassination.

[Lonin]

wow, I must be one of the few that like Jon ( I like all the Starks), he's not my favorite, but I like him and also think that he has had a comparatively easy path. I must be doubly wrong :blushing:

[Bushido]

^ not one of the few,quite a few people love Jon :)

[Tagganaro]

Good leaders make mistakes too and those shouldn't be ignored just because they are competent in general. This was my point from the start. Being assassinated in the way Jon was doesn't make automatically someone a bad leader too, but it most likely indicates a significant problem or flaw in their leadership. They've trusted and given important responsibilities to someone they shouldn't have.

Not that Jon's perfect or anything, but I still fail to understand why ignoring stupid advice from Bowen Marsh and Othell Yarwyck is a mistake. If Jon is being smart and visionary, and dumb and reactionary people react to that by trying to assassinate him, why does that necessarily indicate a significant flaw in his leadership? Jon can lead a horse to water but he can't force it to drink from it. It's clear that Jon does not trust Bowen Marsh and co. (he explicitly says as much) and it's also clear that he's very aware that he's walking a thin line and is in danger (he thinks several times to Mel's prophecy and has several gloom and doom thoughts about his future over ADWD). But he's not omniscient or prescient.

BTW, I've always thought Jeor Mormont was a poor leader, but that's a topic for another thread.

Totally agree with this. I love the Old Bear as a character, but he's certainly not a shining example of good and thoughtful leadership.

If that's what Jon was doing, he failed spectacularly, didn't he? He had no clue Marsh was organising his assassination.

Again, Jon is not prescient and cannot predict or see the future. Wouldn't you complain just as much of him being a fantasy cliche if he somehow knew about stuff like this beforehand? Additionally, there's not much evidence that Marsh "organized" any assassination for long- Rather, the attempt seems very lame and desperate, orchestrated at the last minute in front of hundreds of Jon's "allies" when a most likely unrelated distraction presented itself. The fact that Ghost sniffs Bowen Marsh right before Jon receives "the letter" in ADWD and does not react harshly to him indicates to me that the assassination was not even being planned at that moment.

And also again, it's clear that Jon is not blind to the danger he faces or his thin ice that he's walking on with Bowen marsh and co.- On the contrary he is very clear that they are not to be trusted. But he can't act or won't act on just thought alone- There needs to be some action by them first I would think, otherwise Jon risks alienating them even further and possibly men under them who adhere to their way of thinking.

[Winter's Knight]

But Bowen Marsh's objections do make sense. The Wall has very little food, winter is coming-taking on so many Wildlings with no way to feed them will only mean that they die slowly of hunger rather than a quick death-by-cold.

[Tagganaro]

But Bowen Marsh's objections do make sense. The Wall has very little food, winter is coming-taking on so many Wildlings with no way to feed them will only mean that they die slowly of hunger rather than a quick death-by-cold.

They really don't to me because of 2 specific things- Context and actual complaint. For the context part, the Wall and the NW are facing an extinction event from an army of Ice Demons. Jon (and all the Rangers) know that with so little men and so many castles left not garrisoned, there are large swaths of the Wall unguarded and unwatched. By not allowing wildlings through, not only is there a serious humanitarian problem in terms of condemning thousands upon thousands to die (which goes against the very Oath of the NW), but there's a serious practicality problem as well. If they say no to wildlings, the wildlings will attack again and will bleed the NW further. They will either succeed and destroy the NW and get through, or fail, bleed the NW, and die North of the Wall only to add to the enemies already far superior numbers as wights, who will then again attack the Wall.

As for actual complaint, if this was actually Bowen Marsh's main concern I would agree with you. But it really isn't- He complains about it a few times but is far more interested in his extreme passionate hatred of wildlings and doesn't make any kind of serious stand for it.

So, no, I really disagree that he has any kind of sense or point to his objections. He just hates wildlings and he wants to see them all die. As I have asked on other threads, it's not like Jon is choosing between mass starvation on the one hand and feasts and parties and good living on the other hand. It's between starvation and murder/annihilation at the hand of the Others.

Low food supplies are far more easily remediable than low numbers in the face of overwhelming invasion odds, especially when you consider that by not allowing wildlings through, not only are you depriving yourself of added numbers, but you're essentially giving the real enemy (the Others) twice the amount of manpower they would have (once as living wildlings attacking the Wall, and then again as wights attacking the Wall).

The sad thing is Bowen Marsh knows all this- He fell victim to a feint attack from Mance Rayder and the Weeper's forces which got him wounded. He knows that the Wall can't really truly be guarded all the way across with such few numbers. He knows the Others exist and are waiting to attack. He knows the wildlings will attack the Wall again if they are not allowed through. He knows they will rise again as wights if they die north (or he should know at least).

There really is no excuse/logic to his thoughts at all in my opinion. He's specifically built up as an extreme idiot racist who should not be respected.

[Darth Rivers]

If Jon wasn't constantly getting lucky, he'd be dead many times over, and would likely come off as an ass.

Just wait and see how he surprisingly doesn't get harmed by the attack, how Stannis just happens to die, and how unexpectedly he defeats the Others with some gimmick before or after becoming the king.

[Winterfellian]

@ the OP, I do feel that your dislike for Jon is more for personal reasons which you are entitled to but I find the list of reasons you gave us deeply flawed as it seems that your reasonings were guided by your own dislike for Jon more than anything else.

I agree entirely with some of the defense people have come uo for Jon, particularly those pertaining to his setbacks. The reasons I like Jon:

- He love and didn't grew up resentful of his siblings even though he was always a little cast out compared to them. Even with Cat, with whom he had a less than ideal relationship, he doesn't seem to harbor a deep hatred or resentment and even when thinking of her he calls her Lady Catelyn

-He's a good guy who is not afraid to do the right thing. Whether it is defending a fat guy from a bully, refusing to kill an old unknown man for lightning a fire or throwing millenia of tradition off the wall to rescue the wildings. Recognizing the right path is easy; having the guts to follow it through no matter where it takes you is another thing entirely.

- He's not afraid to listen and follow advice. Even if it is given by people others in Westeros may scorn like blacksmiths, imps, oathbreakers (Mance) or wilding women (Ygritte, Dalla and Val)

- For refusing Stanni's offer

- Risking his life with every decision he took as LC

- Because he recognizes that men are just men. It doesn't matter if you wear a wilding pelt or the black

- Edd, fetch me a block

- Because he tries to gain the respect of people through his own merits like with Stannis

- Because he's not interested in playing the game of thrones or in power for power's sake.

I could go on but I guess I can summed it up by saying that I relate to Jon and people like him, Davos and Ned are the type of persons I admire in real life and therefore I find his struggles and his good intentions in a harsh world like Westeros absolutely compeling.

[The Wolves]

If Jon wasn't constantly getting lucky, he'd be dead many times over, and would likely come off as an ass.

Just wait and see how he surprisingly doesn't get harmed by the attack, how Stannis just happens to die, and how unexpectedly he defeats the Others with some gimmick before or after becoming the king.

1. Jon is one of the few people in this book who is trying to do the right thing and who doesn't care about a ugly ass chair.

2. Stannis deserves to die. He murdered his brother for a ugly a ass chair, he needs to be shanked, kicked, and burned.

3. So what if he defeats the others he is the only character or one in like threes who really cares about the real enemy.

[Tagganaro]

If Jon wasn't constantly getting lucky, he'd be dead many times over, and would likely come off as an ass.

Just wait and see how he surprisingly doesn't get harmed by the attack, how Stannis just happens to die, and how unexpectedly he defeats the Others with some gimmick before or after becoming the king.

If Dany, Davos, Sansa, Arya, Jon, Tyrion, Cersei, Jaime, Brienne, Bran, and Sam weren't constantly getting lucky, they'd be dead many times over, and would likely come off as asses. That's what you meant to say right? Because certainly a main character not dying in a fantasy series although their life is at risk many times is a rarity, and clearly shows some kind of favoritism/cliche on the part of the author, right?

[Winter's Knight]

If Dany, Davos, Sansa, Arya, Jon, Tyrion, Cersei, Jaime, Brienne, Bran, and Sam weren't constantly getting lucky, they'd be dead many times over, and would likely come off as asses. That's what you meant to say right? Because certainly a main character not dying in a fantasy series although their life is at risk many times is a rarity, and clearly shows some kind of favoritism/cliche on the part of the author, right?

Wait, Brienne?

[thelivingocean]

If Jon wasn't constantly getting lucky, he'd be dead many times over, and would likely come off as an ass.

Just wait and see how he surprisingly doesn't get harmed by the attack, how Stannis just happens to die, and how unexpectedly he defeats the Others with some gimmick before or after becoming the king.

Stannis is a single-minded stubborn prick who doesn't care about his men's lives. All he is concerned with is getting what he believes is his. I hope he gets burned.

[Budj]

I love Jon...my only complaint about him is for being an idiot and not realizing the horn he dug up in a cache of dragonglass that Ghost led him to was probably the horn of joramun (sp?)...I mean....come on dude! I expect him to manifest a keyboard and smash his own head against it when he makes the connection.

[Errant Bard]

Jon is the protagonist of about 50% of Fantasy books. There is a reason for it, but conversely it also make him rather dull to read.

As far as I'm concerned, he ranks very low in my list of interesting characters, I already know what will happen, it's not rocket science: if he has to kill someone or be killed, some wolf will appear and save his ass, or that someone will attack him, or an army will appear and allow him to do neither, or he'll get resurrected. He'll win at the end. It's rather telling that nobody believes him dead at all, despite the rather unequivocal stabbing scene, speaking of that.

Meh, he's too archetypal for anything he does to have meaning, and beyond that he's wishy washy and bland in personality: good but not too much, daring but actually not doing anything when it matter (who care, his plot armour will save him), ambitious but not really (who cares, he'll get the best position without even trying for it anyway, triply true considering Lord Commandership, Robb's will and the hypothetical Targaryen kingly blood stuff), horny but not acting on it (heh, he gets women who force him, anyway, not his fault). His arrogance was interesting, but he toned it down fast, to utter blandness, to being a guy who stands there crying about himself while everything falls in his lap.

[ElizaMartell]

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

[total1402]

To the OP, let me guess you didn't like Ned either?

What are you on about. Its Sean Bean! Hes epic!

[Florina Laufeyson]

You're missing the point. I'am saying Martin satirises/subverts/degrades most of the other POV characters and that Jon escapes this treatment. He is not subverted as an archtype. He is an archtype. If you put a Commisars cap on his head and gave him a bolt pistol he'd make a good stand in for Gaunt. The character felt like a Mary Sue to me for this reason. It feels jarring given how Ice and Fire treats the rest of the characters.

While its true that subversion and deconstruction of character archetypes and tropes are the things that Martin does, i do not believe that Jon is immune. There's quite a few instances that its clear Jon is a subject of this.

He doesnt get his way of being a ranger. Instead, hes a steward.

He has to turn his cloak and this actually doesnt go as well for him as people think. While he did (kinda) win over some wildlings, its was more about him walking in their shoes for a while. Mance Rayder still isnt his biggest fan, you know.

Comes back to the Night's Watch, but he realizes just how dishonorable they can be. (Craster's Keep incident anyone?) Plus the Watch is hideously undermanned and this results in a great deal of problems.

He may get the girl, but that ends....messily.

While he does get elected Lord Commander, this is actually done via Sam's finagling. Its not due to Jon being oh-so-amazing.

While being LC, he realizes the serious problems in the NW that he didnt quite anticipate. Even under the Old Bear's thumb. He's also made rather unpopular in the eyes of the rest of the Watch. He goes against the grain and allows wildlings to cross the Wall, deals with Stannis, etc and so forth. Building tension between him and his brothers is seriously happening. Once Jon decides to make a (an albeit rash) decision to go save his "sister", the Watch shanks his ass!

Yeah doesnt look to me that Jon is immune to trope and archetype fuckery here. Jon actually might be an example of reconstructing that particular fantasy archetype.

While we are supposed to be on his side during the story, and hes a pretty cool guy and tries to not afraid of anything, shit happens anyway.

Personally, im a Jon fan and im cool with him. Is he flawless like a Mary Sue? lolol nah.

[Naathi Prince]

Jon's a great character for a few reasons

1. He's smart and describes things well. Most people in Westeros are pretty stupid, and the smart ones are pretty evil. Jon is neither.

2. He's not "gray" they "grayest" things Jon does are going are sleeping with Ygritte (which he had to do to accomplish the mission Qhorin sent him on) and the move to rescue Arya. The rest of the time Jon Snow is trying to do the best for both himself and others.

3. He's funny. Seriously, Jon's hilarious reread his POVs if you need a reminder.

4. He's loyal. He could have been Lord of Winterfell if he was willing to burn his father's gods.