Why is Jon Snow not as grey or nuanced as all the other characters?

[SeanF]

It's not unreasonable in a series made up of mostly morally grey characters to have one or two, like Jon and Brienne, who are pretty good.

GRRM does give Jon an easier ride than most (up till his apparent assasination). He manages to avoid getting his hands dirty, when, in real life, he probably wouldn't have been able to. In real life, someone in his position would have had little option but to kill Ygritte, or cut the throat of the wildlings' prisoner.

[David Selig]

IMO Martin, being a smart writer who knew what the situation on the fantasy market was in the mid 90s, wrote Jon Snow and his plotline specifically to cater to the fans of more traditional fantasy characters and plotlines, who need a traditional hero to root for. That's why Jon Snow's character and plotline are so cliche.

Or maybe I am too cynical...

[total1402]

If you think Jon Snow is a Mary Sue, it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the term.

A character with no flaws, who succeeds all the time and the plot propells them to a position of great importance. Thats how I understand it. No, before you say it; Dany is not a mary sue. She has and retains a lot of character flaws. Definetly does not succeed all the time, indeed has catastropiclly failed several times. Whilst during ACOK and ADWD her place in the verse remains very static. So by my standards she can't be seen as a Mary Sue character, her "plot gifts" have all been earned and in many cases haven't bourne fruit or even worked agaisnt her. .

But as soembody said earlier the question I made differs from what I talked about. Somebody said that he might become the Night King and whilst I think he won't. It is still possible that when the series was a trilogy Jon was meant to have a darker turn related to his death. Certainly possible. However I feel after so many books such a turn would feel a bit off; given how established the character is. To suddenly make him an evil bastard.

[David Selig]

Mary Sue is supposed to be primarily a wish-fulfilment fantasy for the author and readers. Jon Snow's life sucks - who'd want to be him?

[Batman]

it's almost like people think this is a bad thing.

[LordBloodraven]

A character with no flaws, who succeeds all the time and the plot propells them to a position of great importance. Thats how I understand it. No, before you say it; Dany is not a mary sue. She has and retains a lot of character flaws. Definetly does not succeed all the time, indeed has catastropiclly failed several times. Whilst during ACOK and ADWD her place in the verse remains very static. So by my standards she can't be seen as a Mary Sue character, her "plot gifts" have all been earned and in many cases haven't bourne fruit or even worked agaisnt her. .

But as soembody said earlier the question I made differs from what I talked about. Somebody said that he might become the Night King and whilst I think he won't. It is still possible that when the series was a trilogy Jon was meant to have a darker turn related to his death. Certainly possible. However I feel after so many books such a turn would feel a bit off; given how established the character is. To suddenly make him an evil bastard.

Ineptitude is different from flaws. Jon has many flaws (stubbornness, certain arrogance, inability to delegate sometimes) and Dany is inept at ruling. Dany was given three dragons (not Viserys, Dany); his rapist husband fell in love with her and she bathed in fire but just lost her hair. She was given three ships full of riches, tricked the Three Stooges and had the best infantry in the world, conquered a rich and powerful city. Nobody came close to this yet

[danm_999]

A character with no flaws

• Bastard
  
• Quick to anger
  
• Arrogant
  
• Distant, even with friends
  
• Impulsive
  
• Stubborn
  
• Physically deformed (burnt hand, scarred face).
  
• Suspected traitor and warg
  

, who succeeds all the time

• Failed to escape Castle Black to join Robb in his war.
  
• Failed ranging with Quorin Halfhand, who he was forced to kill.
  
• Failed to follow direct order from Halfhand, and kill Ygritte.
  
• Failed to lie convincingly to Mance, to the extent he was forced to break his vows with Ygritte to maintain cover.
  
• Failed to convince the Magnar he was loyal to the Wildlings, so he had to flee. Failed to flee without being shot with an arrow.
  
• Failed to convince Bowen Marsh to support him when elected Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, which resulted in his brutal assassination.
  
• Failed to make the right decision regarding Hardholme, which seems to be a fucking disaster.
  

Thats how I understand it.

The operative phrase.

No, before you say it; Dany is not a mary sue.

Agreed.

[total1402]

There you go, a flaw. But I think I can see which direction you're going in given this stance.

Or maybe they saw opportunity in his offers, him being the first LC to negotiate face to face. He didn't impress them, they happened to need certain things like right of passage, which he was able to offer. It was practically a trade. And wildlings are not mindless, nor are they rabid. With the Others on your trail, you don't really need to be 'impressed' by anyone to accept going through the gate. I do not understand how you can see this as a feat of Jon's charisma.

He doesn't basically do that. He tells Stannis all that he knows. Stannis does not know very much about the North anyways. It was Stannis who won over the clans, not Jon. And this does not imply that he is a better leader than Stannis. If you want something to support that point you could have talked about his leading of the defense of the Wall. And even then he led a handful.

Dany has a much harder task ahead of her. She's governing a populace. Jon is governing a military organisation who is by law under him. The people Dany needs to rule are not obliged to obey.

Him being a boring emo might irritate me. But it clearly doesn't bother people or hold him back the same way it does with Stannis and his poor social graces. Or another younger character like Quentyn.

They agree to help defend the wall and settle lands rather than surge south or just betray him at the first opportunity. Why stay at the wall to die fighting the Others? Tormund in particular works with Jon snow a lot in this and even gets the giants on board. That is a big achievement. He even arranges a marriage with a Karstark and seems to be binding these people together from both sides of the wall.

Yes but the strategy Stannis took was of Jons devising and seems to have worked minus the blizzard. Stannis now has a lot of extra support from several small northern houses including the Mormonts for instance. Thats not just general knowledge that shows great potentialfor forming strategy.

We have always been meant to comapre and contrast Dany n Jon. They have very parrallel stories. Its no coincidence that they both have Mormonts as mentors essentially. If one does an excellent job and the other stagnates to the point of ruin then its by design. I can see where you come from and have talked about the bad context Dany is saddled with. However, I think Martin is still making this point about Jon being a better leader, ruler and administrator than Dany. Mainly because his works emphasises character defects as the cause of ruin rather than context.

[redviper9]

He's definitely on the lighter side of gray, but it's not like he's some white knight. He's very much like Ned (another character on the lighter side of the gray scale) in that a lot of his struggles are internal to himself and they usually don't manifest themselves in blatantly obvious ways that draw attention (e.g., Ned keeps most of his thoughts regarding Jon's mother to himself, much like Jon keeps most of his thoughts about Ygritte to himself; Jaime Lannister's struggles, on the other hand, ended with him assassinating a king).

He was naive when he first joined the Watch, and the reality of what he signed up for led to disillusionment that manifested itself as arrogance in the training yard. You're right, he did eventually win over Grenn, Pyp, and most of the other recruits, but only after a stern talking to from Donal Noye and only after a serious effort on his part (by the way, the OP mentions that Jon got Sam forgiven; forgiven for what? Sam was extremely cowardly, but I don't remember him doing anything in AGoT that got him into hot water).

The OP mentions his time with the Wildlings and how there was never a doubt that Jon's desertion was feigned, but he came extremely close to genuinely deserting once he started sleeping with Ygritte. Again, the debate is internal, but reread the chapter where they're in the cave, and it's obvious that Jon would be quite willing to forsake his vows and stay with her. He even admits while being interrogated by Alliser Thorne and Janos Slynt that his relationship with Ygritte went far beyond the orders that Qhorin Halfhand gave him. Up until the events of Queenscrown, the "validity" of his desertion was in the balance. And, if it was so obvious that he'd never actually desert, why do so many of his Sworn Brothers still hold it against him?

Regarding his defense of the Wall, I wouldn't call that a smashing victory. The defense against the southern assaults on Castle Black is organized by Donal Noye as much as anyone. Jon doesn't "get" the Wall until Noye's death, and by then, the assault is coming from the north, which gives Jon and the Watch an advantage because they hold the high ground; defending the Wall from an assault from the north is like defending Moat Cailin from an assault from the south: a small, determined force can hold out for quite some time because of the terrain and the nature of the structure being defended. And he's losing the Wall by the time he parleys with Mance Rayder. Mance knows this, Jon knows this, and had it not been for Stannis, the Wall would have been taken. And Stannis isn't there because "knight in shining armor" Jon Snow needs help; Stannis is there because he thinks he's the knight in shining armor.

Regarding the offer of Winterfell, it wasn't humility that led him to turn it down, but his sense of honor and duty (again, much like Ned, something that puts him on the lighter side of gray). The decision is something that he struggles with -- internally -- but it's not an easy thing for him to give up.

And I wouldn't call his tenure as Lord Commander a complete success. Yes, he sees the big picture regarding the Others, and yes, he successfully reaches out to the Wildlings. But he has one major failing: he can't win over his senior advisors. He has a great rapport with the rank and file of the Watch, but his relationship with Bowen Marsh and company is less than stellar. It's similar to someone sitting the Iron Throne being beloved by the smallfolk but disliked by the paramount lords and the Small Council; not a situation that's conducive to success. In fact, Jon's situation is similar to Dany's in Meereen: the commoners and freed slaves love her, but she can't win the Meereenese elite to her side. Jon should have either found a way to better communicate his grand vision to the senior officers, or find senior officers who would be more helpful (Jon realizes at one point that he knows what Marsh will say to every suggested action; if you already know what you're going to hear, it might be a good idea to bring in a fresh voice). And for the record, despite Jon's failures to win Marsh over, Marsh is still a scum.

So yeah, Jon is a lighter shade of gray, but he's not completely devoid of nuance; it's just a nuance that doesn't manifest itself in killing people or being a jerk. We still don't know what direction his arc will take if he survives the assassination attempt.

[Melonica Stormborn]

I won't be surprised if the subversion with Jon's character is the lack of subversion, if that even makes sense. If not this, then maybe it's a long-term subversion plan and we won't know until the series ends. In any case, Jon is also flawed, even if it's mostly internal struggles for him. Maybe we'll get an evil Jon after the stabbing, who knows.

[DaeneryStormBorn]

Ineptitude is different from flaws. Jon has many flaws (stubbornness, certain arrogance, inability to delegate sometimes) and Dany is inept at ruling. Dany was given three dragons (not Viserys, Dany); his rapist husband fell in love with her and she bathed in fire but just lost her hair. She was given three ships full of riches, tricked the Three Stooges and had the best infantry in the world, conquered a rich and powerful city. Nobody came close to this yet

Sorry misread that rapist part

[total1402]

• Bastard
  
• Quick to anger
  
• Arrogant
  
• Distant, even with friends
  
• Impulsive
  
• Stubborn
  
• Physically deformed (burnt hand, scarred face).
  
• Suspected traitor and warg
  

• Failed to escape Castle Black to join Robb in his war.
  
• Failed ranging with Quorin Halfhand, who he was forced to kill.
  
• Failed to follow direct order from Halfhand, and kill Ygritte.
  
• Failed to lie convincingly to Mance, to the extent he was forced to break his vows with Ygritte to maintain cover.
  
• Failed to convince the Magnar he was loyal to the Wildlings, so he had to flee. Failed to flee without being shot with an arrow.
  
• Failed to convince Bowen Marsh to support him when elected Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, which resulted in his brutal assassination.
  
• Failed to make the right decision regarding Hardholme, which seems to be a fucking disaster.
  

• Bastard - Rhaegar n Lyannas son n gonna become the Targ the North wants.
  
• Quick to anger - Badassery is no character flaw
  
• Arrogant - His time with the trainees n Sam suggested otherwise. Likewise his tolerence and understanding of the wildlings.
  
• Distant, even with friends - But does not hinder his ability to make friends or inspire confidence. So more a quirk than a flaw.
  
• Impulsive - Badassery is no character flaw
  
• Stubborn - Badassery is no character flaw
  
• Physically deformed (burnt hand, scarred face). - On a man this is becoming; hes still meant to be pretty fit. Plus, Badassery is no character flaw.
  
• Suspected traitor and warg- Not his own problem, more peoples misjudgement.
  

What was Hardholm?

Maybe a bit too merciful and not as good a liar as Tyrion. But he nevertheless gets out of his entanglement with the wildlings. This comes off as more quirky and endearing than true failure. One mans hatred doesn't make him a bad leader. I don't think he could deal with a mans irrational prejudice unless he was placating the man and then would be harming his cause to get men.

@Redviper9- I was refering to Sam being bullied by the other trainees and the trainer guy abusing Sam. Jon getting the others to not beat Sam and let the trainer (Is this Bowen Marsh?) go all Full Metal Jacket on them; which this scene heavily reminded me of. Sam is basiclly Gummer Pile.

[Daphne23]

Jon is very much like Ned, but with some unique baggage (namely some serious issues about his status as a bastard). When we meet him in A Game of Thrones, he is naive and arrogant. He grows out of that for the most part, but he still has some serious anger issues as late as the end of A Storm of Swords.

Once he becomes Lord Commander, he develops the fatal tendency of not trying to win his subordinates over to his plans, he just expects them to obey and isolates himself from the rest of the Watch, which by the end of A Dance with Dragons leads to a serious case of knife-in-belly.

I agree. I love Jon, but his fatal flaw is that he still - although this evolves somewhat over the course of the five books - has a major chip on his shoulder. Unfortunately, this means he often over-reacts to perceived or actual slights, and this leads to trouble when he has to win over subordinates who are not convinced by his plans. Bowen behaves idiotically in the latter half of DwD, but unfortunately for Jon, he has to work with this idiot and others - he doesn't have the luxury of being able to choose better men. Although the situation is difficult and this may not have worked, I feel Jon could have done more to try and keep the men's loyalty, and might have been more open with them about some of his plans.

I also might speculate - although a Jon re-read would be needed to confirm this impression - that Jon has a tendency to deliberately isolate himself. He falls in love with Ygritte although - or perhaps, because - he knows he can't stay with her, and seems to be falling for Val only after he has turned Stannis's offer of marriage to her down. He also seems to isolate himself unduly from his friends on the Watch - although some of this is inevitable given his position of authority, he's clearly taken to heart Ned's lesson that a commander must know his men, and so the degree of isolation he adopts seems unnecessary. I wonder if some of this might stem from his position at Winterfell throughout his childhood and youth - knowing that he both belongs and doesn't belong, and he cannot keep the castle or his family as, for example, Robb can.

I did think that Jon was a little idealised in the first three books, but after DwD (and some re-reading of his arc in GoT, where he's pretty sulky and naive at times), I really don't think he's a perfect character or lord commander, although he's still one of my favourite characters in the series.

[Melonica Stormborn]

it's almost like people think this is a bad thing.

I don't. I like Jon. But he lacks in the PR department (another flaw). He has an inkling on what Bowen feels about his decisions and did not actively do anything about it.

[DaeneryStormBorn]

Most of Jons actions lead to something that further move his plot as the main character the Author chooses to become the main protagonist at the end of the series. Even the actions made by people surrounding him, there are some flaws to his actions too but yes he is nearly the perfect old fashioned hero from fantasy books.

[danm_999]

Bastard - Rhaegar n Lyannas son n gonna become the Targ the North wants.

Treated like a bastard, which means he's treated as untrustworthy, sullen, degenerate, etc.

Quick to anger - Badassery is no character flaw

Screaming at Maester Aemon that he doesn't understand what he's going through (vis a vis Ned being executed) in AGoT, or attacking Allister Throne when Throne clearly baited him are examples of Jon's anger that are not badass. They're clear examples of when he's wrong and flawed.

Arrogant - His time with the trainees n Sam suggested otherwise. Likewise his tolerence and understanding of the wildlings.

He flips out pretty quickly when he's not assigned to the Rangers, and starts shitting on the Stewards and what they do as beneath him. Likewise, he views his fellow recruits as little better than scum initially. Jon has a strong tendency to arrogance in him.

Distant, even with friends - But does not hinder his ability to make friends or inspire confidence. So more a quirk than a flaw.

It gets him stabbed at the end of ADWD, and even when he's elected Lord Commander, Pyp and Grenn are making japes about how snooty he's become. It ain't a quirk.

Impulsive - Badassery is no character flaw

It's not a badass trait, because it causes him to make decisions that are clearly wrong and bad, like attempting to desert to join Robb.

Physically deformed (burnt hand, scarred face). - On a man this is becoming; hes still meant to be pretty fit. Plus, Badassery is no character flaw.

Having a burnt hand is not becoming. Mary Sue characters are supposed to be immaculate physically, and Jon is all sorts of banged up. On top of that, he's apparently not that attractive to begin with, which also precludes him being a Mary Sue character.

Suspected traitor and warg- Not his own problem, more peoples misjudgement.

Mary Sue characters are not treated as pariahs.

What was Hardholm?

Maybe do a re-read to the extent you know about the big plot points in Jon's arc before you're creating character analysis topics?

Maybe a bit too merciful and not as good a liar as Tyrion. But he nevertheless gets out of his entanglement with the wildlings. This comes off as more quirky and endearing than true failure.

Yeah it was pretty quirky when he was having fever dreams from the arrow sticking out of his leg, or when he was weeping over Ygritte's corpse. That gosh darn Jon Snow always wins, huh?

[LordBloodraven]

I don't. I like Jon. But he lacks in the PR department (another flaw). He has an inkling on what Bowen feels about his decisions and did not actively do anything about it.

That's too true. Jon knew in advance how his two principal subordinates felt about his plans, knew they would never change from their prejudices, yet hardly did anything to reinforce his inner circle. He under-estimated them

[The She Wolf]

Oh he is definitely flawed. Maybe a lot less flawed than other characters, kind of like Ned. If you re-read his chapters and pay attention to all his internal struggles you can tell he isn't all goody-goody. He was very unlikable when he first arrived at the wall, and that was because of his own behavior. Look at how he interacts with Benjen in AGOT, and even imagines his uncle dead in his fury. And then he tried deserting the NW too and would have if it wasn't for his friends. Perhaps all this is fixed by the end of AGOT but there are even more flaws later.

He fails miserably as LC at the end of the day. He is hated and unable to inspire loyalty among a good portion of the NW. And he's unable to see that coming. Let's look at the reasons why people in the NW hate him. They think him a turncloak, they believe he's not remaining neutral enough with the issues of the realm (Stannis, Ramsey). He's not exactly 100% innocent of all those accusations.

[Melonica Stormborn]

• Bastard - Rhaegar n Lyannas son n gonna become the Targ the North wants.
  
• Quick to anger - Badassery is no character flaw
  
• Arrogant - His time with the trainees n Sam suggested otherwise. Likewise his tolerence and understanding of the wildlings.
  
• Distant, even with friends - But does not hinder his ability to make friends or inspire confidence. So more a quirk than a flaw.
  
• Impulsive - Badassery is no character flaw
  
• Stubborn - Badassery is no character flaw
  
• Physically deformed (burnt hand, scarred face). - On a man this is becoming; hes still meant to be pretty fit. Plus, Badassery is no character flaw.
  
• Suspected traitor and warg- Not his own problem, more peoples misjudgement.
  

What was Hardholm?

Maybe a bit too merciful and not as good a liar as Tyrion. But he nevertheless gets out of his entanglement with the wildlings. This comes off as more quirky and endearing than true failure. One mans hatred doesn't make him a bad leader. I don't think he could deal with a mans irrational prejudice unless he was placating the man and then would be harming his cause to get men.

While I agree that Bowen Marsh is irrationally prejudiced and Jon doing anything may not have changed anything, I think quickness to anger, stubbornness, impulsiveness and physical injuries are not equal to badassery, at least not in the way that Jon was stubborn or impulsive. The first three are serious character flaws that are bad for leadership. Well Jon's injuries were made to look cool, so maybe it qualifies as some badassery...........

Also, when Sam came to the Night's Watch, Jon was basically over his arrogant phase and has become very tolerant of most anyone. This didn't prevent him from throwing tantrums for being steward, though.

[DaeneryStormBorn]

Yes he is flawed but all this flaws are putting him in a position where readers are sympathetic towards him/action justified. And it's putting him a in a better position to further advance his character as the main hero. The inner struggle we see from him is giving us insight of him being flawed but in his flaws we see him as a good guy. Whereas Dany when we read through her it's hard not to get annoyed or not get angry at her for the actions shes makes, she repeat same mistakes, acts like a real smitten little girl, stubborn etc. This is why I like Dany better.