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

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

:agree: Especially the emphasized part. Can't believe to defend Jon posters including me had to actually cite the bad things he's done. The opposite of what goes on in other threads. :bang:

I know, right?! I don't think it speaks well to how we value characters when we have to dredge up bad things they do to defend them. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Then again — as I've said before in another thread by this particular OP — no one who likes Jon owes an explanation worth shit to anyone who doesn't.

[straits]

Yeah but when you reread the passages about Hodor you realize Martin wrote him to be basically a human dog. He forgets everything he's doing and runs when he smells food. He freaks out if you try to wash him but will happily jump in the water by himself. Goes nuts during thunder storms and starts barking his head off I mean Hodoring his head off.

I was going to say that it was then just a matter of Bran beating him down into submission but there was never really any fight in that dog to begin with.

You mean Hodor was written into the story for this purpose? Everyone is written into the story for a purpose. If you reread the passages Hodor clearly does not like what is happening. Silence is not consent. Being incapable of describing how he feels does not make him less than human. You ever read 1984? I'm not implying that Hodor had impoverished language and articulation forced on him, but it does not make things right.

[Rolex Baratheon]

Dany grey? *cough cough*

[redviper9]

Then again — as I've said before in another thread by this particular OP — no one who likes Jon owes an explanation worth shit to anyone who doesn't.

:bowdown: :agree:

[Melonica Stormborn]

I know, right?! I don't think it speaks well to how we value characters when we have to dredge up bad things they do to defend them. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Then again — as I've said before in another thread by this particular OP — no one who likes Jon owes an explanation worth shit to anyone who doesn't.

But we live an era where kindness is mistaken for weakness or stupidity, so...... :bang:

Again, not saying that Jon is the ultimate good guy...

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

:bowdown: :agree:

And that goes for any character, by the way. It's one of the reasons why I despise topics like, "How can people actually like so-and-so?" If you want to actually debate merits or a character's actions within the realm of the story, fine. But those types of questions — which in my experience are never done for good-faith debate, but are rather the OP looking to have his or her opinion validated — stray too close to "I think you owe me an explanation for why you like or dislike this character," like some sort of personal judgment's being passed. It does not sit well with me.

[Florina Laufeyson]

:agree: Especially the emphasized part. Can't believe to defend Jon posters including me had to actually cite the bad things he's done. The opposite of what goes on in other threads. :bang:

HOLY CRAP I know right? Hey OP, thanks for making me have to take a steaming dump on my favorite character. :lmao:

I know, right?! I don't think it speaks well to how we value characters when we have to dredge up bad things they do to defend them. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Then again — as I've said before in another thread by this particular OP — no one who likes Jon owes an explanation worth shit to anyone who doesn't.

Arr. Why do we have to defend "good" characters? When i want to discuss a "good" character, like say...i dunno...Sansa? Ok yeah, ill use Sansa as an example. I just want to freaking discuss them! Say i want to discuss Sansa and every aspect of her character, the "good" and the "bad". But for some reason i cant do that. Not without replies like "YOU MONSTER" or "did we even read the same series?" Catelyn is also one of the biggest victims of this. And now Jon? We cant like Jon now because hes...ummm...gee i dunno...Likable?

I ask you this, people:

Why cant i like characters like Jon and also like characters like Dany? Why cant i find various characters interesting? I dont like Cersei but that doesnt mean i dont find her interesting. Honestlyy....

And that goes for any character, by the way. It's one of the reasons why I despise topics like, "How can people actually like so-and-so?" If you want to actually debate merits or a character's actions within the realm of the story, fine. But those types of questions — which in my experience are never done for good-faith debate, but are rather the OP looking to have his or her opinion validated — stray too close to "I think you owe me an explanation for why you like or dislike this character," like some sort of personal judgment's being passed. It does not sit well with me.

:D You and i just both asked the same question at the same time! hahaha

[redviper9]

I ask you this, people:

Why cant i like characters like Jon and also like characters like Dany? Why cant i find various characters interesting? I dont like Cersei but that doesnt mean i dont find her interesting. Honestlyy....

It's incredibly frustrating that some threads seemingly force us to choose between one character or another. Liking Jon does not automatically make one a Dany hater, just like liking Dany doesn't automatically make one a Jon hater. Both characters have well-developed and interesting arcs; both have strengths and appealing qualities; and both of them have flaws.

And you know what? I like both of them, and I'm looking forward to seeing what they do in TWoW. I shouldn't have to choose one or the other, nor will I (but I'll be more than happy to, oh, I don't know, discuss their various traits/strengths/flaws/decisions).

[danm_999]

How is that a character flaw?

It makes him sullen, treated poorly, prone to jealously, socially stigmatised.

To be a Mary Sue, a character is supposed to be so blessed their shit don't stink. Jon is pretty signalled as lesser in standing than his siblings in AGoT.

[Tagganaro]

And that goes for any character, by the way. It's one of the reasons why I despise topics like, "How can people actually like so-and-so?" If you want to actually debate merits or a character's actions within the realm of the story, fine. But those types of questions — which in my experience are never done for good-faith debate, but are rather the OP looking to have his or her opinion validated — stray too close to "I think you owe me an explanation for why you like or dislike this character," like some sort of personal judgment's being passed. It does not sit well with me.

All very true and well-put as per usual. I'll still maintain that these types of threads work for characters like Bowen Marsh though....Because seriously, personal judgment should be passed when a character like that is liked.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

All very true and well-put as per usual. I'll still maintain that these types of threads work for characters like Bowen Marsh though....Because seriously, personal judgment should be passed when a character like that is liked.

What's interesting about people defending Bowen, at least to me, is that they don't come across as defending Bowen so much as they're being antagonistic toward Jon.

[danm_999]

Hes only a teenage boy My own brother acts that way all the time.

So let me get this straight. You're saying Jon Snow is not written with any nuance, depth or realism, but then when it's pointed out that, in fact, he is a bit of a pill, you admit it's only because Martin's written an accurate representation of some of the character defects lads of his age have.

See my problem with this?

But yes, screaming at Aemon is pretty dam bad. But I don't think its gotton him in the deep end that much. Plus, as the reader we see his better side and know he has reasons to be all emoish.

The point isn't necessarily consequences, it's reaction. Jon reacts badly to many things, even in ADWD, though he has learnt to curb his temper compared to AGoT. He gets rather petty and short with Bowen Marsh and Axell Florent on multiple occaisons (especially when Florent suggests they become eskimo brothers via Val).

Dany is physically beautiful but one continent thinks she is a monster who bathes in the blood of children to stay young and another continent thinks shes insane like her father. Neither of these things are true. Just because people treat Jon and Dany as pariahs doesn't mean they are right.

But it precludes them being Mary Sue's. Mary Sue's don't get demonised by a significant amount of the characters in their story, or if they are, they're opposed for very flimsy reasons. There are good people that have dim views of Jon, like the Blackfish.

Plus, their appearence has little to do with such judgements. If anything Dany being oh so sexy is used agaisnt her by the Yunkish and others who don't see her as a ruler.

Appearance is a huge part of being a Mary Sue. Having a unique, attractive appearnce is one of the major characteristics of the trope. Jon Snow is never described as particularly good looking or handsome, and his look isn't super unique (it's so common a look several people are about to identify him as having the Stark look).

Now, a bit more is made of Kit Harrington's appearance on the TV show, but that's about the actor, rather than the character.

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.

And he failed in several steps along the way, and lost people he cared about. Ygritte died. Donal Noye died. Mormont died. Many of the buildings were made into ruins. He is not without his failure and losses. In AFFC and ADWD, we get several more; sending Aemon away turns out to get him killed. At least three Rangers he sent out are killed. Hardhome is shaping up into an epic mess. He gets stabbed by his brothers.

He doesn't always succeed. He has his failures.

Then he showed masterful leadership on the wall as LC.

I think Jon is a decent Lord Commander, but he hasn't given "masterful leadership" on the Wall. Remember, several of his sworn brothers have tried to murder him as of ADWD.

[butterbumps!]

I wholeheartedly agree that Jon Snow is not perfect (as a man or a ruler) however, I also question whether he is as thought provoking, nuanced, fascinating, and rich in verisimilitude as some of the morally ambiguous/ evil POV characters we get to know. Most everyone likes him and he's undoubtedly the best candidate for king right now (once he learns from the mistakes he made the first time around.) However, is a great deal of thought/ analysis necessary to really "get" him? Does he draw the reader in and fascinate with complexity/ originality? Does he ultimately feel as "real" as the more amoral, less (IMO) strictly likable characters in the series?

I don't disagree with your post exactly, but speaking as someone who's spent countless hours on here arguing over things like the difference in running away in aGoT versus at the end of DwD (for example), I'd have to say that Jon's character is complex and worthy of analysis. I found that there's a lot of nuance in his internal dialogue, especially when looked across the entire series. I find Sansa's arc to be quite rich in a similar capacity.

Tyrion's probably the most conflicted character- and conflicted not just in world, but also in that he completely conflicts with a lot of our sensibilities as modern readers when you really look at what he's doing. I grant that this instigates a certain heightened interest in the reader, but I still think that Jon's presence-- as a complement to the "monsters"-- is really rewarding as a gestalt whole.

[Florina Laufeyson]

What's interesting about people defending Bowen, at least to me, is that they don't come across as defending Bowen so much as they're being antagonistic toward Jon.

More or less. They arent ever saying "Bowen is so not a scum! Hes like a totally awesome dude!" Only, "Jon got what he deserved."

I think GRRM relates very much to the self interest and sensibilities of Tyrion (indeed, Tyrion's views on women in general and hookers in particular are, by GRRM's portrayals, pretty darn close to the author's own),

I love how it always ends up with author bashing. :read: :/

[JonnSnow]

While everyone else is trying to claim their birthrights, Jon is trying to save everyone's ass from the greatest evil.

His character is compelling to me because he wants to protect them at every cost. He has to make some decisions which are not always morally correct or perfect. (Plus like I said earlier he is involved in politics of westeros too for personal reasons.) But thats what makes his story arc interesting for me. How will he be able to save realm of men? Can he? If yes at what cost? Will he able to forget his old family and only be brother of NW? All those are interesting questions to me.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I don't disagree with your post exactly, but speaking as someone who's spent countless hours on here arguing over things like the difference in running away in aGoT versus at the end of DwD (for example), I'd have to say that Jon's character is complex and worthy of analysis. I found that there's a lot of nuance in his internal dialogue, especially when looked across the entire series. I find Sansa's arc to be quite rich in a similar capacity.

I agree with this, having read several of your pieces about Jon and his leadership. There's definitely a rich trove of analysis there. And frankly asking a question like, "Is much thought or analysis necessary to 'get' him?" when it refers to one of the main characters borders dangerously on, "Jon isn't complex in my opinion and anyone who analyzes him is similarly noncomplex." Or, "If you think Jon's complex you're simple-minded." :rolleyes:

To put it another way, I hate Dany's guts, but she's nothing if not complex and I'd never say she wasn't.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

While everyone else is trying to claim their birthrights, Jon is trying to save everyone's ass from the greatest evil.

His character is compelling to me because he wants to protect them at every cost. He has to make some decisions which are not always morally correct or perfect. (Plus like I said earlier he is involved in politics of westeros too for personal reasons.) But thats what makes his story arc interesting for me. How will he be able to save realm of men? Can he? If yes at what cost? Will he able to forget his old family and only be brother of NW? All those are interesting questions to me.

I think this is a great point. Nearly everyone else in this story is motivated by personal and/or selfish goals. Even characters that are variously viewed as heroic like Stannis and Dany. Both are motivated by the desire to take the throne. Robb was fighting for northern independence. For nearly all of these people, they have at least some hope of attaining personal power or glory or wealth by their actions. Jon, by definition of his vows, can hope for none of that. And yet he keeps fighting, knowing that he's facing a greater threat and something more important than a worthless iron chair, but also knowing that because of his vows and his station, he'll have to do this anonymously.

[butterbumps!]

More or less. They arent ever saying "Bowen is so not a scum! Hes like a totally awesome dude!" Only, "Jon got what he deserved."

It's really hard impossible to make a successful argument that Bowen Marsh is anything but a scum, being as how he's King Scum.

I agree with this, having read several of your pieces about Jon and his leadership. There's definitely a rich trove of analysis there. And frankly asking a question like, "Is much thought or analysis necessary to 'get' him?" when it refers to one of the main characters borders dangerously on, "Jon isn't complex in my opinion and anyone who analyzes him is similarly noncomplex." Or, "If you think Jon's complex you're simple-minded." :rolleyes:

To add, when I did that "Oathbreaking" thread, there were aspects of his final chapter that I'd even overlooked, and I was doing the Jon-Dany reread at the time as well, so that should say something. I think part of the issue is that the discussion of his character often takes a very superficial tone, like, "oathbreaker or not," and I hadn't seen too many debates where some of the other aspects of his arc were discussed in depth that give his character due justice. I get the sense sometimes that, like Arya, he's one of the best loved and least understood given some of the discussion. Which is not to suggest that those who don't find him interesting must do a reread or something, but rather that at least I personally do find a lot there.

[Summer is Ending]

I don't disagree with your post exactly, but speaking as someone who's spent countless hours on here arguing over things like the difference in running away in aGoT versus at the end of DwD (for example), I'd have to say that Jon's character is complex and worthy of analysis. I found that there's a lot of nuance in his internal dialogue, especially when looked across the entire series. I find Sansa's arc to be quite rich in a similar capacity.

Tyrion's probably the most conflicted character- and conflicted not just in world, but also in that he completely conflicts with a lot of our sensibilities as modern readers when you really look at what he's doing. I grant that this instigates a certain heightened interest in the reader, but I still think that Jon's presence-- as a complement to the "monsters"-- is really rewarding as a gestalt whole.

It's always disappointing to see Jon's changing into a leader be dismissed by people as Jon simply being emo especially when Martin spells it out as plain as day he's following lessons instilled into him by Ned.

Jon makes mistakes but a lot of them are mistakes he doesn't have the luxury of not making. He's racing against a clock that everyone else refuses to see.

[Melonica Stormborn]

"Boring" is a very subjective term. Being the quintessential "good guy" puts a certain limit on what one can and would do as a person, which in effect makes him look passive, or "boring", as some would put it. Good guys finish last because there are lines they would not cross to get what they want. We are naturally drawn to those who cross the line because in real life, most of us would never cross the line and want to know what it would look like.

Again, Jon is not the ultimate good guy, but being a good guy does not mean you are not complex or that you are boring. What makes a good guy tick? Why does a good guy continue being good despite the bad things happening in his life? Aren't these questions in complexity that goes beyond mere sunny disposition? In Jon's case, we know that family is the one thing that makes him tick. The decisions he made in the name of his family are not the best ones he had, and arguably strayed him from being the "good guy" he supposedly was. The fact that until ADwD the decisions in his life have to be made by someone else before he does is not the author preventing him from bloodying his hands, in my opinion. It's a sign of his indecision and confusion at that time.