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

[redviper9]

Yes, he saved the wall and has guarded the realms of men. Holding it until Stannis could arrive. Thats what he wanted, thats what he got. Then he showed masterful leadership on the wall as LC. Yes, he doesn't have that trick Dany does where she can make people insanely loyal to her. But, substance matters more and it doesn't alter the fact that on the whole his tenure was an amazing success. Unlike Dany who tries to appease the Mereenese nobles and they may even have still tried to kill her; without solving any issues and ruining a chance to ally with the Dornish. I still think we're meant to consider Jons abrasive but succesful endeavors better than Danys concilatory but disastrous endeavours.

And what issues has Jon resolved, up to this point? Have the Others been defeated? Are the Wildlings and Sworn Brothers singing Kumbaya arm-in-arm by Melisandre's night fires? Did the senior Watch officers fall in line with his plan? Are Northern lords no longer gunning for his head?

Jon succeeded as Lord Commander in that he realized that the Wildlings were nowhere near as big a threat as the Others; that led to him reaching out to the Wildlings, which has proved successful. He's also respected by the Watch's rank and file. But he failed miserably in communicating his vision to the senior officers. Like I stated earlier, it's similar to a king being beloved by the smallfolk, but alienating the paramount lords and Small Council. I wouldn't consider a king a smashing success if his Hand led an assassination attempt against him, even if that Hand was a scum. A good leader surrounds himself with trustworthy people whose constructive criticism is helpful. Jon realizes that Marsh isn't any help to him, but he doesn't seek a fresh perspective, and he sends the people who might be helpful away.

Dany and Jon are in similar situations in that they're trying to undo centuries of practice. Meereen was a slave society; everything revolved around that, so it's not an easy task to transition to a society of freedmen/women. Until the Old Bear was attacked by the wight, many believed that the Others probably never existed. That led to the Watch essentially being a unit dedicated to fighting Wildlings; it's not going to be easy to get everyone used to the idea that there are bigger threats than Wildlings. And both Jon and Dany -- for different reasons in each case -- failed in winning over important people to their cause.

And regarding the Mary Sue, I actually think the character that comes closest to that is Rhaegar. If you discount Robert's hatred and JonCon's love, you still get the impression that Rhaegar was too good to be true (beautiful, noble, intelligent, artistic, great warrior, "would have made a better king than any of the ones I served," unable to find happiness, which elicits sympathy). I've never felt that Jon Snow was too good to be true.

Because he's Frodo though instead of getting Samwise the brave he gets Samwell the butterball.

And Frodo famously failed at the end.

[straits]

2/3 into the series seems a bit much before you start unveiling big character changes. Although I agree with you that Jon has had an isolated, almsot world denying situation and a far simpler moral dilema. Be executed for desertion to help family or save the realm. Not as harsh or bleak a decision as other characters like Theon or Jamie.

No I think we see two dragons trying to rule and using different strategies. Dany tries to be concilatory. Jon is abrasive. Both end the same, but Jon still achieved far more before he was killed. Dany may have inadvertantly preserved her army intact before Vic arrives and she masters Drogon; but thats just coincidental. She would have been destroyed without those interventions.

Why do you keep ringing this bell? You don't need to throw kids down towers then profoundly reminesce 'the things i do for love' to be a realistic character. Nor do you need to rape a woman and behead her boys. Just because one person in a totally different situation thousands of miles away has it worse than Jon, or has had to make damning decisions, does not make them more 'realistic'.

[SeanF]

Has he? I have a rather different view of his character arc in "Dance". He alienates himself from his natural allies within the Night's Watch. He fails to listen to good advise from characters like Bowen Marsh and Melisandre. He pretty much mocks the Queen's Men and distances himself from the Baratheon court. He faces a significant supply problem by adding even more people to the population needing the supplies. Hoping that the situation will somehow resolve itself. He orchestrates a doomed expedition to Hardhome and gets every man aboard killed. (I agree with Melisandre that they won't be coming back). He plans to lead a second ill-planned expedition, when even Patchface sees it as a fool's errand.

He fails to explain his perspective to anyone. His seemingly erratic behavior making him a prime target for assassination. I viewed his decision making process as a train-wreck and was actually relieved to see him get what he so richly deserved: a dagger to the throat.

When did Bowen Marsh give him good advice, in ADWD? I never read anything other than one long moan from Marsh. He is not wrong to distrust Melisandre (and everyone feels uneasy in her presence), but he ought to have made better use of her.

He contrives to remain on good terms with Stannis, without compromising the Night's Watch's independence (no mean feat); he is right to let the wildlings through the Wall. Not only is it compassionate, it's the pragmatic thing to do. The Wall cannot be held without substantial reinforcements, which won't be forthcoming from the rest of Westeros. Thus, they have to come from the Wildlings. And, letting them through means that they don't get turned into wights.

He solves the supply problem by negotiating a loan from the Iron Bank, and then by taking jewellery from the Wildlings to repay the loan.

Hardhome was not a stupid decision, even if it turned out badly. There was good reason to try and rescue the Wildlings, and even after things have turned sour, a good commander won't just abandon his men to their fate.

[straits]

What's wrong with likeable, competent, honourable characters? You don't think those kinds of people are realistic? I could name a few real ones.

As for him being a cliche, sometimes cliches exist for a reason, those kind of characters/storys are good and so they become prevalent.

I have a friend who is nice and has things working out for him well in life. People like him. I am surprised that he has not disintegrated yet due to being so one dimensional.

[Scipio Africanus]

A good leader surrounds himself with trustworthy people whose constructive criticism is helpful. Jon realizes that Marsh isn't any help to him, but he doesn't seek a fresh perspective, and he sends the people who might be helpful away.

Except life doesn't work that way, not even in a fantasy novel apparently. You don't always get to chose who you work with. At that point and time, Marsh (and his buddies) was one of the few elder, more experienced Rangers left. A lot of senior Rangers were dead at that point in time (which Jon lemates). Jon wouldn've never been elected under normal circumstances because of that. Something which a lot of people here tend to forget.

Bob Baratheon forgave a whole bunch of people too after the Trident and Jon basically did the same by keeping on Marsh and trying to get him on board with his plans (he realizes it is a futile excercise in the end and start ignoring Marsh).

And you really can't fault Jon for not knowing Marsh was a patsy (Cercei wanted to contact him and get him to kill off Jon, which Marsh did in the end but not at the orders of Cercei but another). Jon is not omniscient.

[sarah.jenice]

2/3 into the series seems a bit much before you start unveiling big character changes. Although I agree with you that Jon has had an isolated, almsot world denying situation and a far simpler moral dilema. Be executed for desertion to help family or save the realm. Not as harsh or bleak a decision as other characters like Theon or Jamie.

No I think we see two dragons trying to rule and using different strategies. Dany tries to be concilatory. Jon is abrasive. Both end the same, but Jon still achieved far more before he was killed. Dany may have inadvertantly preserved her army intact before Vic arrives and she masters Drogon; but thats just coincidental. She would have been destroyed without those interventions.

I've put in another post that I think Dance was a big comparison between Jon and Dany and how they both reacted in ruling:

I think A Dance with Dragons really shows the parallels between Jon and Dany's stories:

- They both come into positions of power at the end of A Storm of Swords (Jon through his friend's scheming and Dany is thrust into the role of Mother of the freed slaves)

- They both spend ADWD trying to overcome numerous difficulties that come with their new roles

- They both have counselors/advisers that don't listen to them/are unhelpful

- Dany cannot gain the love of the people/Jon cannot get all of the Night's Watch on his side

- Dany causes an upset by freeing slaves and makes questionable decisions in court (won't punish slaves for crimes during fight)/Jon lets the Wildlings through the gate

- They are both about to be fighting wars

- They are both attacked because people are conspiring to stop their rule

Also, I've really enjoyed your posts and comments lately. It's been fun talking with you! :)

[Flig]

I never actually used that word or took it in that direction. If I was saying that, I don't know, a real person would have done this on the wall or Jon Snow wouldn't have done as good as he did then I'd get where you were coming from. But really all I've done is appraise his character traits and succeses vis a vis others in the series. Which he comes out looking a lot better despite the minor issues which others have listed. So having a bit of a strop in a context like my brother would when somebody insults your "traiterous father, bastard" is pretty understandable. Whilst something like Dany hating all "usurpers dogs" in the context we've had hammered into us for several books and knowingly ignorant of the issue; is a bit much especially when she had all of ADWD to talk to Barristan about this after promising to do just that. One is very understandable and sympathetic. The other, just isn't and is extremely abrasive given what the reader knows. Just one example, but its common for most of the other characters. Jon is a bit understandably nieve. Not as much as Sansa or Ned. etc etc

So your problem is that...Jon Snow isn't an idiot? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that the quality of a character is directly proportional the the amount of times they fuck-up combined with how many morally reprehensible actions they commit. That just seems a tad...silly.

[sarah.jenice]

My guess is that Melisandre will play a major part in Jon's recovery, and that they will become lovers in TWOW.

Well we know she was interested in getting in his pants in Dance. This is why I really hope she is not the one who heals him. I don't want her to have any power over Jon.

[total1402]

So your problem is that...Jon Snow isn't an idiot? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that the quality of a character is directly proportional the the amount of times they fuck-up combined with how many morally reprehensible actions they commit. That just seems a tad...silly.

No, I'am saying that the text presents Jon Snow as a better character than Daenerys in the part you quoted. Thats just logical from reading the text. I really have to scrape the barrel to critique that man and he doesn't screw up as much. That appraisal has no real bearing on me being a Dany fan because I sympathise with Dany when she fails since they're very humanising chapters and as much as I despair at some of her flaws; she can be such a badass. I mean, my god she is so awesome. But, simply put, I'am not arguing that Jon Snow is a badly written character because he comes closest to being a Mary Sue when compared to the other characters. Other posters have suggested that this is because his death will have an immense character changing effect on his character and such.

[redviper9]

Except life doesn't work that way, not even in a fantasy novel apparently. You don't always get to chose who you work with. At that point and time, Marsh (and his buddies) was one of the few elder, more experienced Rangers left. A lot of senior Rangers were dead at that point in time (which Jon lemates). Jon wouldn've never been elected under normal circumstances because of that. Something which a lot of people here tend to forget.

Bob Baratheon forgave a whole bunch of people too after the Trident and Jon basically did the same by keeping on Marsh and trying to get him on board with his plans (he realizes it is a futile excercise in the end and start ignoring Marsh).

And you really can't fault Jon for not knowing Marsh was a patsy (Cercei wanted to contact him and get him to kill off Jon, which Marsh did in the end but not at the orders of Cercei but another). Jon is not omniscient.

Marsh isn't a ranger (although he did lead the defense against the Weeper at the Bridge of Skulls); he's the First Steward. And outside of overhearing Marsh scheming to get Janos Slynt elected Lord Commander -- and it was technically within Marsh's right to do that, since he can support whoever he'd like -- Jon didn't have to forgive him for anything when he became Lord Commander. Yes, the Old Bear hadn't been overly fond of Marsh, but by all accounts he was at least decent at his job (and he hadn't led any assassination attempts that I know of).

[Tommen]

Jon's nowhere near Jaime Lannister-handsome. Yes, he's very good-looking in the show, but I'm certain that in the books he's described as having that same Stark plainness as his father and Arya (maybe a less obvious beauty, if you consider that Lady Smallwood calling Arya pretty after scrubbing her up a bit). In any case, it's clear that Robb and Sansa are the lookers in the family, the distinction between Robb and Jon is made clear in Bran I.

And I think Jon's fault is that he "knows nothing", his journey is a learning experience and the lessening of his ignorance and acquiring of a more radical, rational way of thinking is his character development. You could say that ignorance is still his problem; unlike Bran he hasn't opened his "third eye" (maybe try to imagine Melisandre as the Jojen figure in that she understands the importance of Ghost better than Jon but he disregards her advice and suffers the consequences). He has done morally questionable things. Was it really ok to "betray" the Watch just because Qhorin told him to? Was his escape from his Wildling companions honourable? And now he'll have to decide whether he has moral precedent for forsaking his vows now that the senior Brothers have literally stabbed him in the back.

[straits]

No, I'am saying that the text presents Jon Snow as a better character than Daenerys in the part you quoted. Thats just logical from reading the text. I really have to scrape the barrel to critique that man and he doesn't screw up as much. That appraisal has no real bearing on me being a Dany fan because I sympathise with Dany when she fails since they're very humanising chapters and as much as I despair at some of her flaws; she can be such a badass. I mean, my god she is so awesome. But, simply put, I'am not arguing that Jon Snow is a badly written character because he comes closest to being a Mary Sue when compared to the other characters. Other posters have suggested that this is because his death will have an immense character changing effect on his character and such.

If you look at characters as products of their environment you can't criticize one or the other. Going by the bolded sentence, you just pointed out that your only reason for disliking Jon is because he is doing ... better than Dany? Because the only other option is to criticise his character structure. How is he doing better than her? Dany isn't dead, and she's just tamed a dragon.

Or do you not like the way Dany appears to other readers? You think that in the eyes of others, she unfairly looks bad due to her decisions? Your thread title basically asks why a different shade of grey is not like the other shades of grey.

[Iron-born]

I don't think Jon is a cliche, let's see how wholly original this creation is:

• He is an orphan whose parents died when he was a baby
  
• He never quite felt he belonged with his family
  
• He is constantly mistreated and the subject of jokes
  
• He has slight anger-management problems, but not enough to make him totally unlikable
  
• He is very talented in fighting skills
  
• He has a certain fondness for outsiders and misfits, being one himself
  
• He is not described as breathtakingly handsome, but he is not ugly either
  
• He was killed but will certainly come back to life to fulfill his destiny to be a hero and save everyone from evil
  

Please, I wouldn't be surprised if Voldemort was behind the assasination attempt

[Scipio Africanus]

Marsh isn't a ranger (although he did lead the defense against the Weeper at the Bridge of Skulls); he's the First Steward. And outside of overhearing Marsh scheming to get Janos Slynt elected Lord Commander -- and it was technically within Marsh's right to do that, since he can support whoever he'd like -- Jon didn't have to forgive him for anything when he became Lord Commander. Yes, the Old Bear hadn't been overly fond of Marsh, but by all accounts he was at least decent at his job (and he hadn't led any assassination attempts that I know of).

I meant he was a senior member of that order and Jon had no real reason to distrust him as badly as he did Slynt and Thorne. And even then he tried to at least get Slynt and Thorne to obey orders.

Cercei knowing who Marsh is should say enough. It means he was at the very least someone of who the Lannister know they can at least deal with.

That Marsh wasn't involved in the two assassination attempts on Old Bear was more due to that he wasn't present. There's also a reason why Old Bear didn't trust Marsh (and Thorne). He probably knew they had neither the intellectual capacity nor the moral to serve the realm.

[straits]

I don't think Jon is a cliche, let's see how wholly original this creation is:

• He is an orphan whose parents died when he was a baby
  
• He never quite felt he belonged with his family
  
• He is constantly mistreated and the subject of jokes
  
• He has slight anger-management problems, but not enough to make him totally unlikable
  
• He is very talented in fighting skills
  
• He has a certain fondness for outsiders and misfits, being one himself
  
• He is not described as breathtakingly handsome, but he is not ugly either
  
• He was killed but will certainly come back to life to fulfill his destiny to be a hero and save everyone from evil
  

Please, I wouldn't be surprised if Voldemort was behind the assasination attempt

- Circumstantial.

- He got along well with Rob, his closest peer. He had a loving father, Ned and a sister he was close to, Arya.

- He was subjected to less harsh treatment in Winterfell than most victims of bullying are in our modern world. Only in the NW did people pick on him, and everyone gets picked on there.

- Is this rare?

- He needed a direwolf to beat Halfhand and Mance beat him into the ground easily. He's the best of the B team with the untrained kids at NW.

- Because fat kids are misfits. What other misfits did he befriend?

- How is being average cliched?

- TBA.

[PatrickStormborn]

I actually think Jon is a grey enough character with plenty of flaws ... The problem is that the fandom completely white-washes him. It doesn't matter that Jon's arrogance involves insulting and degrading his brothers, and it doesn't matter that Jon is incredibly immature (even in ADwD he ends up rolling around on the floor in a fistfight with Rattleshirt/Mance)... But as soon as another character shows very similar flaws (arrogance and quick temper -- I wonder who that could be?), they're branded as "mad" and "the main villain". :stillsick:

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

Here's google's definition: "A fictional character, usually female and especially in fanfic, whose implausible talents and likeableness weaken the story."

Jon's "likeableness" is certainly implausible to me -- all the "good" characters immediately like/respect him (Qhorin Halfhand, Tyrion, Tormund, Mance, etc.), and the only people who dislike him are portrayed as weak, unlikeable or just generally "bad" (Janos Slynt, Alliser Thorne, Selyse Florent, etc.)

I wouldn't call Jon a Mary Sue (the term is far too over-used), but Jon does have the problem of implausible likeability -- particularly when one considers that he's not particularly good company.

I don't think Jon Snow is ever described as handsome.

Like all main (male) heroes in fantasy, Jon is slightly above average in his appearance. That way he doesn't threaten any potential male fans, and he's not ugly enough to be ridiculed, so he's still cool to like.

[Kanon]

I don't think Jon is a cliche, let's see how wholly original this creation is:

• He is an orphan whose parents died when he was a baby
  
• He never quite felt he belonged with his family
  
• He is constantly mistreated and the subject of jokes
  
• He has slight anger-management problems, but not enough to make him totally unlikable
  
• He is very talented in fighting skills
  
• He has a certain fondness for outsiders and misfits, being one himself
  
• He is not described as breathtakingly handsome, but he is not ugly either
  
• He was killed but will certainly come back to life to fulfill his destiny to be a hero and save everyone from evil
  

Please, I wouldn't be surprised if Voldemort was behind the assasination attempt

/thread

[SeanF]

I have the sense that quite a lot of characters that Jon interacts with respect him, but he only has quite a small number of friends (and he has to distance himself from them as LC). That makes sense, because while he is pretty competent, he comes over as pretty cold in non-POV chapters.

[Iron-born]

- Circumstantial.

- He got along well with Rob, his closest peer. He had a loving father, Ned and a sister he was close to, Arya.

- He was subjected to less harsh treatment in Winterfell than most victims of bullying are in our modern world. Only in the NW did people pick on him, and everyone gets picked on there.

- Is this rare?

- He needed a direwolf to beat Halfhand and Mance beat him into the ground easily. He's the best of the B team with the untrained kids at NW.

- Because fat kids are misfits. What other misfits did he befriend?

- How is being average cliched?

- TBA.

-Circumstancial, but overtly cliche in the fantasy genre

-He got along with them, but he still felt he wasn't one of the Starks and he still felt the weight of being a bastard

-Catelyn did treat him pretty badly

-It is not rare but it certainly is fashionable in current fantasy

-He is not the ultimate fighter but is definetely up there with the best in the NW

-He befriended Tyrion, and he identified the most with his problems

-Again, it is very cliche in fantasy, especially in YA fantasy (see Harry Potter, Katniss, for instance)

-If he does stay dead I will gladly eat every single one of my words, because dying in such an anticlimatic manner is the least cliched thing that can happen to the supposed hero of the story and it would be a massive subversion of the genre

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

I'm curious, what exactly does he have to do to be grey nuanced enough for you? Does he have to harm some innocent? Does he need to rape someone? Maybe he has to kill Satnnis, Mance & Thormund, & declare himself King? :bang: :rolleyes: