What exactly is the appeal of Jon Snow?

[LordBloodraven]

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.

Huh, I was talking about the OP. What do you mean by first post?

[sifth]

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

Also let’s not forget how pretty much every other father figure the kid had was killed, how he was sent on a suicide mission at the end of ASWoS, and “certain” events that follow the ending of ADwD

yea this kid has it easy

[eggV]

Chooses to serve values greater than himself without becoming blind fanatic - is clearly shaped to became a leader of the fight "to defend realms of men" - no matter if/ how long he will survive it (some heritage will).This is an archetype of some kind(good leader for the time when humanity itself is in danger, time of apocalyptic disaster) .Why shouls it be boring or unlikeable?When you are going to see some Shakespeare piece on theatre, you generally know the story, what is interesting is: how will it be played?Classicly or with a twist and there are some interpretations possible...

[Darkstar is the Key]

To the OP, the whole site is unanimously disagreeing and flogging you, maybe you should gie up this I hate Jon and you should too crusade.

[Bluemangosteen]

In the very first chapter of AGOT (Bran's POV) we see more of Jon's character than anyone elses. He takes the paternal role with Bran when Ned carries out his execution of the NW deserter. Robb certainly does not step up, just remarks that "the deserter died bravely" while Jon seems to look deeper in to the situation, he sees the fear in the deserter's eyes. Theon just kicks the deserter's head. Shortly after comes the direwolf pups, I fell for it, I've liked Jon ever since.

[AteTooManyLemonCakes]

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.

I disagree here. Even though it doesn't seem nearly as important, Jon was emotionally abused for being a bastard his whole life before the series by Catelyn and as well as during the series by various other characters that wanted to get him down. Yeah, in comparison to dragons this really doesn't seem like much, but that can really get to a person, and it definitely affected his personality. I mean he chose to not to have sex so there was no chance of any children before marriage because he didn't want them to grow up like bastards and have the same life as he did.

He also has to deal with his whole family getting murdered/killed and he can't do shit about it.

Not to mention the burning question about who his mother is, and his father figure keeping it from him even though he knows he knows.

Jon's setbacks and sufferings are very emotional and definitely contribute to his honourability.

Also imagine a 15 year old kid (or was he 16 by that point?) getting the command and expected to do great things. Pretty high expectations for one so young even if he is "a man grown"

[Arya Targaryen]

For me, these stories are not about the outcome, but the choices that lead the characters there. I'm interested in their choices. It's easy to choose between good or bad, the right or the wrong thing to do, but what about between two good or two bad things? Jon had to make a lot of choices, even if these were not as dire than in case of other charaters. Most things others like to call "plot gifts" are in way a result of his choices, or at least a certain "plot reward" for something he had done. Like he got Ghost only after he saved the other pups and was willing not to have one. He saved Sam (more than once) and he helped him with the election. He spared Ygritte and Quorin trusted him with the spying job. He went back to the Watch (chose duty over love) and Ygritte died. His whole leadership arc is about choosing the old way (=honor in others' eyes) or reforming the watch (= treason in others's eyes, but according to him the right thing to do). Choosing his duty as LC or taking part in politics and saving Arya (family) - what is right in these cases? It's hard to tell. Half of the readership says he would have been an asshole if he didn't do anything to save his little sister - the other half says he shold stick to his vows. Even the readers have a hard time deciding which way he should take, and we have more information about the circumstances. Jon's story is not predictable at all: the outcome may be (he will be a hero), but his choices that lead him there are not. Several topics with hundreds of posts arguing about it prove this.

Someone mentioned that other characters had been through much more than him, like Jaime losing his hand. For me, it is about choices and because of the magic in-story (the Old Gods - and the case of the Rat Cook: he got punished for violating guest right) sometimes the consequences reach the target in an unusual way. Jaime violated guest right, in Winterfell, and crippled Bran. Bran loved to climb and lost his legs. The Old Gods Revenge: Jaime got crippled, and lost his sword hand. I won't feel sorry for him, because of this. He sort of got what he deserved. But I'm still interested in his choices afterwards (and started to like him)

The only occasion when Jon was saved from making a difficult choice was when Stannis arrived and he didn't have to kill Mance. Obviously something had to happened otherwise he would be dead no matter what he had chosen, and the main characters usually don't die before the endgame (no, I dont consider Ned to be a main character at all, he is a supporting character). But even in this case it was foreshadowed in a previous Davos chapter, and we know the Watch asked for help, so it makes perfect sense the help arrives just in time to save the day.

Comparison: someone mentioned Sansa, and how much she has been through. A lot, I admit. But she is still a virgin! She is a beautiful young girl, being held captive, escaped rape (the Hound helped her, how convenient!) and even if she was forced to marry Tyrion, he didn't rape her on the wedding night! There was no foreshadowing it like in Stannis' case. Tyrion just suddenly decided not to do it. Plor armor?

About the wolf pups:

Arya lost her wolf - but she is still a warg, the wolf helped get rid of her enemies, the cat in Braavos helps her through the blindness. And meanwhile she is never accused of being a warg!

Robb: has the advantage of his wolf, but noone really suspects he is a warg. After his death the Freys are saying all that bullshit about an army of wargs and stuff, that nobody in his right mind would ever believe.

Jon, on the other hand: is a warg, and he knows it. What is more, most people around him knows it as well. They held it against him! Having Ghost at this point is clearly a disadvantage, because south of the Wall people seem to detest skinchangers. Free folk and rangers probably know better, but that doesn't mean they like him because of it. They may fear him, though. There is a eason the Reed kids warned Bran not to tell anyone who he is, because his own people will turn against him.

[Lady Arianne Martell]

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.

But I think some of the supporting characters have more appeal...

Jon Snow is lovely, but if he is being built up to be the hero that saves the day, becomes king, etc. it will be so generic for him as a character.

[Darth Rivers]

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.

Yeah, so you agree that Jon is a boring cliche. Seriously, haven't you all grown tired of perfect people in literature?

[Risha]

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.

[sifth]

If he was “perfect” as some of you might think, would he have honestly have ended up in the state he did at the end of ADwD. I think some of you are getting the word “perfect” mixed up with the word “good”.

Is it honestly strange to enjoy reading about one of the few good men in a world filled with corrupt ones? The kid is trying to save the world and is not motivated by greed like the Lannisters, Little Finger, Danny, and many other characters. I tend to see Jon as a breath of fresh air

[RenlyIsNotRight]

1. He's honorable
   
   
2. He has a sense of humor unlike what is said
   
   
3. He's human, not a superhero
   
   
4. His emotions are human too, what is called "emo" by people who evidently lack feelings
   
   
5. His story is amazing with a lot of twists and conflicts
   
   
6. He has been through a lot
   
   
7. Future holds many promises for him as a character
   

8. He knows where to put it

[TerraPrime]

To the OP, the whole site is unanimously disagreeing and flogging you, maybe you should gie up this I hate Jon and you should too crusade.

You didn't read this thread, did you.

[Elder Sister]

You didn't read this thread, did you.

Terra, you are so extremely witty this week...if you keep this up, I'm going to have to start stalking you. And I'm married, and you're, we'll, you, and it's doomed to leave me bitter and unhappy.

You need to stop being so darned entertaining, okay?

[Buried Treasure]

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).

{snip}

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.

[Winter's Knight]

Terra, you are so extremely witty this week...if you keep this up, I'm going to have to start stalking you. And I'm married, and you're, we'll, you, and it's doomed to leave me bitter and unhappy.

You need to stop being so darned entertaining, okay?

You're not the first and you certainly shan't be the last. We need a Terra Prime fan-club/support group.

[ServantOnIce]

1. He's honorable
   
   
2. He has a sense of humor unlike what is said
   
   
3. He's human, not a superhero
   
   
4. His emotions are human too, what is called "emo" by people who evidently lack feelings
   
   
5. His story is amazing with a lot of twists and conflicts
   
   
6. He has been through a lot
   
   
7. Future holds many promises for him as a character
   

But unlike what you say, he does have flaws, he's a bit stubborn, and he sometimes can act a bit too harshly.

/end thread]

[Errant Bard]

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.

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.

[SerStinger]

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.

He's using the Jung's use of the word, and he's right.

[Errant Bard]

He's using the Jung's use of the word, and he's right.

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