What exactly is the appeal of Jon Snow?

[wolverine]

Actually, Donal Noye gave him that speech. The TV show has Tyrion talk to him, because introducing too many characters at once fries the poor tv-watchers' brains.

Note: this next little rant isn't an attempt to make you feel bad. I just think this is an appropriate place to make it...

It bothers me how much people get the show confused with the books. The events in the two diverge in places, and sometimes those divergences can mean EVERYTHING. I can't begin to imagine how many arguments have taken place on these boards solely because someone mis-remembered and swapped out the show events in their heads. Please, people, for the health of the boards and your own understanding of the series, re-read as often as possible. If anything surprises you or seems particularly interesting, or conflicts with something you remember.. it's a good idea to write it down. It'll help you remember, and you can have a little laundry list of factoids to look through later.

Of course, that may sound a little extreme...but we're all here, aren't we? This is a place where extreme has lost all meaning.

And so they could show some more how great Tyrion is :ack:

[wolverine]

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

Ned is Ned. Did you know Jon Snow before the show came out? Sean Bean is a guy who plays Ned, he's not Ned.

[Jon Icefyre]

Ned is Ned. Did you know Jon Snow before the show came out? Sean Bean is a guy who plays Ned, he's not Ned.

Ya but sean bean played Ned as if he really was Ned no one could have done it better.

[wolverine]

Ya but sean bean played Ned as if he really was Ned no one could have done it better.

That wasn't the point. They were answering whether or not they like the character Ned by saying Sean Bean is awesome. Sean Bean is not Ned regardless how awesome he is or how awesome he played him.

I think Sean Bean did a great job, but it's pretty tough to say no one could have done it better when you have seen one person do it.

[Jon Icefyre]

That wasn't the point. They were answering whether or not they like the character Ned by saying Sean Bean is awesome. Sean Bean is not Ned regardless how awesome he is or how awesome he played him.

I think Sean Bean did a great job, but it's pretty tough to say no one could have done it better when you have seen one person do it.

I agree with your statement the actor has nothing to do with the character itself. Although I still think no one would be a better Ned then Sean Bean haha

[Peko]

I've often found it odd that so many people dislike Jon, but at the same time, adore Ned. I feel that the Ned we know in AGoT is more or less the end result of what Jon will be like when he's older, since it sounds like Ned struggled with his identity when he was younger, constantly living in Brandon's shadow and having to emerge from it. Kind of like how someone we know struggles with being a bastard. With both of them, doing the right thing is of the utmost importance. Also, both of them have gone against honor at one point by lying in order to protect a child, with Ned protecting Jon, and Jon protecting Mance's son.

Which leads me to why I like reading about Jon more than Ned: Ned is the final result of the said metamorphosis, whereas Jon is currently undergoing it, which is more fascinating for me to read about.

[Noimporta]

I've used the analogy before, but I've yet to find a more apt description. Jon Snow is the Will Smith of Westeros: Good, nonthreatening, and a little bland.

[NachosOfIceAndFire]

I don't particularly find Jon's POV to be that interesting, but not because I find the character himself to be uninteresting, just because his storyline doesn't intertwine too much with the rest of the book. Like with Dany, it's almost a different book onto itself, and I get tired of waiting for the white walkers to invade, or whatever else is supposed to be happening with that story line.

[Errant Bard]

And I'd rather root for an unexciting GOOD person over an exciting sociopath any day of the week. Being a nasty prick does not, by default, make one "interesting."

But that's a fallacy: it's not because I find Theon interesting, or Arya, or Brienne, or Jaime, or Sansa, that I necessarily root for them, and it's not because I find Jon to be cliched Fantasy Main Character MCCCLXII that I don't wish for him to win. It's just, there is no interest in it, he will win anyway, and his struggles are painfully bland.

Meanwhile, being a nasty prick never made someone interesting (case in point: Tyrion), I don't think anyone said that, can you point to the posts you saw arguing that point? However, a character is made more interesting by having a less archetypal build and moving in a setting where not everything railroads him towards winning -where his actions mean something, where his choices are not always painfully obvious or where his personality leads readers to ask themselves questions about morality/justice/fairness/whatever-. The only thing you get from Jon before the second half of ADWD is the usual comfortable escapism.

[Tagganaro]

But that's a fallacy: it's not because I find Theon interesting, or Arya, or Brienne, or Jaime, or Sansa, that I necessarily root for them, and it's not because I find Jon to be cliched Fantasy Main Character MCCCLXII that I don't wish for him to win. It's just, there is no interest in it, he will win anyway, and his struggles are painfully bland.

Meanwhile, being a nasty prick never made someone interesting (case in point: Tyrion), I don't think anyone said that, can you point to the posts you saw arguing that point? However, a character is made more interesting by having a less archetypal build and moving in a setting where not everything railroads him towards winning -where his actions mean something, where his choices are not always painfully obvious or where his personality leads readers to ask themselves questions about morality/justice/fairness/whatever-. The only thing you get from Jon before the second half of ADWD is the usual comfortable escapism.

Can you explain why his struggles are bland? You know or at least probably know that several major characters will "win" in the end- It wouldn't be a series if every major character was killed off or defeated.

And I really disagree with this "archetypal build" idea...Just because he's an archetype it doesn't mean GRRM can't take him to interesting places, and likewise just because someone isn't an archetypal character build it doesn't make him/her interesting. I think AM's original point still stands.

And maybe I misunderstand the point you're making, but clearly Jon does do things that lead readers to question the obviousness of his choices, that lead them to question his morality/justice/fairness. We've had several threads about such on this site, as I would think you would know.

Personally I find his chapters/moral issues very compelling. He's always internally debating the merits of his life vs his honor, of his honor vs his oath, of his oath vs general decency/compassion. I can really understand if Jon is just not someone's cup of tea, really that's fine to me. But I struggle to understand this whole "He's an archetype/cliche fantasy character so I automatically dislike him". GRRM is writing a fantasy series, that involves characters that have been done before or ideas that are based on preexisting values. I really don't see why that should automatically eliminate a character from being interesting, considering that several other characters to lesser or equal degrees also fulfill this "archetypal build" role. Does that eliminate any possible enjoyment you have for them?

[Errant Bard]

Can you explain why his struggles are bland?

Because it's always a variation on either do something right and get rewards or do something evil for the lulz, or when it's not someone comes to spare him the consequences of making the choice. It's vanilla, and it's stuff I already read in half the Fantasy books I ever read, especially YA.

You know or at least probably know that several major characters will "win" in the end- It wouldn't be a series if every major character was killed off or defeated.

Somehow, it's not the same. I can take Arya winning as long as Martin strays from making her the princess with a heart of gold, the Fantasy tropes subversion makes it interesting to follow. Jon is the least original or subverted of all the characters. It doesn't help that the story structure of ASOIAF is incredibly generic and the selling point is how the characters differ from the usual.

And anyway, if I look at Fantasy series I like, like the First Law, the Long Price, the Prince of Nothing, or Monarchies of God, off the top of my head, I cannot really say that several major character always win or win in the end, you know.

just because someone isn't an archetypal character build it doesn't make him/her interesting. I think AM's original point still stands.

AM's point was to imply that if people didn't find Jon interesting, they rooted for psychopaths, and wanted the monsters to win. No, I don't think it stands at all.

And Jon being archetypal is precisely the thing that makes him uninteresting to me. Maybe he can hold your attention, but for me beyond a point, reading the same thing I've already read a hundred times holds way less interest.

And maybe I misunderstand the point you're making, but clearly Jon does do things that lead readers to question the obviousness of his choices, that lead them to question his morality/justice/fairness. We've had several threads about such on this site, as I would think you would know.

Hence why I said "until the second half of ADWD". I disagree his morality justice and fairness were discussed in these threads however: what it always boils down to is him making mistakes by being too moral, the sticky point is always stupidity or incompetence, which doesn't contradict my view in any way.

I really don't see why that should automatically eliminate a character from being interesting, considering that several other characters to lesser or equal degrees also fulfill this "archetypal build" role. Does that eliminate any possible enjoyment you have for them?

Not any, but most of it, yes.

[Mulled Wino]

Satire? No. Simple subjective rant

Jon had it easy then. You mean like he had a limitless supply of gold to bail him out of any and all trouble easy? Easy is having all your brothers and father killed and not being able to do anything about it. Then the part about putting Jon down because he was actually competant.

[pat]

Ive never gotten an arrow in the leg but if i do ill have to remember im getting off easy.

If anyone kills all my family ill do the same thing. Or when some childhood friend burns the house i grew up in. Or the next time a co-worker makes me kill him. And if i ever get third degree burns on my right hand .

Must be nice to have it so easy in life.

[Leto]

Generally speaking, though, there will always be characters whom you like but others hate, and vice versa. There are characters whose appeal is totally lost on me, and yet they have their fans. And you know what? They don't owe me any explanation for their feelings, just like people who like Jon have nothing to prove to you.

This should be the only needed post in this thread, really. What is the point of asking why people like someone and then just say that they are wrong? Every answer for liking john that is posted here is obviously right, unless you think everyone is just lying to piss you off.

[Jon Icefyre]

Ive never gotten an arrow in the leg but if i do ill have to remember im getting off easy.

If anyone kills all my family ill do the same thing. Or when some childhood friend burns the house i grew up in. Or the next time a co-worker makes me kill him. And if i ever get third degree burns on my right hand .

Must be nice to have it so easy in life.

Hahahaha well said.... don't forget about the part where you make an oath to basically live in Antarctica for the rest of your life

[Mumatil]

Jon has one flaw for sure not contemplating that was hes doing is going to angst his own order.

Like Ned hes to trust worthy.

But overall he doesn't have enough flaws to be interesting in my opinion.

Also all the scars he gets make him look cool. you know the old slash on the eye but amazingly gets to keep his eye and the burned hand that he constantly flexes.

[Lady Arianne Martell]

As I said, I will like him if he doesn't end up being generic harry potter luke skywalker main character.

I like this series because of a lack of main character. Let's keep it that way. I loved a Feast for Crows because I didn't have to see Tyrion, Dany, etc. only.

[The Marquis de Leech]

A repost of why I detest Jon Snow:

In Jon we have a character who (if R+L=J) is a secret orphaned royal. At 14 he's more politically perceptive than the rest of his family. He gets sent away to suffer under Alistair "Moustache-Twirler" Thorne, and horror of horrors, finds himself a steward not a ranger. Oh, poor Jon. In a world where Sansa and Arya face down psychopaths, he's upset at not getting into the class he wanted. But never mind: he gets given a priceless Valyrian Steel Blade that Tywin Lannister himself would kill for. He also gets prosthetic wit in the form of Dolorous Ed and prosthetic brain in the form of Sam (Sam, of course, saves Jon from actually suffering the consequences of running away).

In the next book, Jon finds himself handpicked by Qhorin (because god forbid Jon actually show agency), allows the Enemy to run away, only to be forgiven by Qhorin (because Jon rarely-if-ever suffers the consequences of his choices), and is finally forced to kill Qhorin by Qhorin. Someone's driving the story here, and it ain't Jon.

Then there's Ygritte. Who pretty much exists to ensure that Jon isn't a virgin when he (inevitably) hooks up with Daenerys: she's the prosthetic penis to match Dolorous Ed's prosthetic wit. Oh the immense moral dilemma Jon faced. To have sex with the hot red-headed chick, live, and obey Qhorin's orders in terms of getting info on the wildings, or to refuse and get his head cut off, and help nobody. Most other characters would have killed to find themselves in that sort of predicament. Even so, it's still Ygritte who actually drives things.

Then once someone else kills Ygritte (again, highlighting lack of agency, and also neatly averting the problems of a pregnancy), he gets back to the Wall. To discover a second Moustache Twirling enemy in the form of Slynt. Slynt puts him in a dilemma (to kill Mance or not to kill Mance) from which he is conveniently rescued by Stannis. Once again our passive hero is saved from actually doing something interesting. Meanwhile, he is gifted the Lord Commandership by the actions of Sam: the most contrived moment in ASOS (honestly, if you want a compromise candidate you pick someone old - which ensures that you get another shot a couple of years down the line. A young compromise candidate defeats the purpose).

So, yes, the basic problem with Jon: he's a passenger, not a driver, and the world shifts to accommodate him, giving an 'unearned' aura. Tyrion may have plot armour, but he has enough character flaws to keep him interesting, and more importantly Tyrion Does Stuff.

[Ghost Rider]

And Jon being archetypal is precisely the thing that makes him uninteresting to me.

Frankly, it's hard to understand the problem some of you guys got with "archetypes". Archetypes exist for a reason in thousands of stories for thousands of years. They are composed of elements that touch humans subconsciously on a deep level. They make for characters that most people deeply care for and that's exactly what most authors aim for with their protagonists.

Now do these archetypes have to be flat and one-dimensional stereotypes, which probably is what you are really arguing? Of course not, a good author is able to enrich these archetypes, to make them believable, round characters. What's more, most characters are constructed upon a skeleton of an archetype or two, but that doesn't mean they're flat and boring.

Yes, Jon is the hero archetype, mixed with the outcast archetype. The elements of the outcast (need to prove oneself) are used as the psychological motivation for becoming a hero. His need to prove himself to his society (bastards can be honourably too!) is contrasted with his need to live up to his own expectations of himself (our honour is worth no more than our life).

It's entirely possible that you still think Jon or any other major character (supporting characters are supposed to be rather flat, with one or two defining traits that makes them easy to recognize in the few instances they appear. I am always very ... surprised when some forists name supporting characters as their favs) is stereotypical and one-dimensional, but none of the arguments brought forward so far to support that belief really stands up to scrutiny. Every case in point has been refuted again and again, so that in the end it comes down to nothing but personal preference.

[the hounds dog]

He's the generic fish out of water character who knows just as much as the reader.