Why is Jon Snow so popular? Maybe Spoilers?

[E-Ro]

and the answer is... no. :crying: :crying: :crying:

I wonder why?

[Rawien]

Well, as someone put it in another threat, Jon is a bit "too monochromatic" next to the rest of the cast. He doesn't share the deep flaws that other characters tend to have and what flaws he does have seem superficial and don't really hinder him, he just goes around "being awesome". Someone said earlier on this thread that he's "trusting almost to a fault" which pretty much encapsulates it, even his faults are really virtues, and this in a series which has brutally punished other characters (Ned, Sansa, Brienne) for similar naivety.

Jon whines a bit then sits down and makes the right decision in the end, whereas Robb and Dany for instance make decisions that have terrible, terrible repercussions for themselves and everyone around them even when they're trying to do the right thing. One of the big differences with Jon is that I never felt he had any choice; whenever he makes a "bad" decision or one with "bad" consequences, it's because he was forced into an impossible situation or because everyone around him is blind, stupid or vindictive; not because it's his fault (at least until his "death", and I'm not buying that for a second). Plus, when Dany does something rash without thinking it through, she tends to destroy civilisations, on the other hand, every time Jon breaks his vows, he gets forgiven and ends up better off than he was before.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, I feel like he's treated differently to the rest of the cast and so I agree that he is Sue-ish. I know that lots of people don't and I'm not really trying to convert anyone

I have to echo what StarFall has said here as to why there are repeated mentions of "Gary Stu"/"Mary Sue" etc. I totally agree that in the narrative of the story Jon is never really forced to make a hard decision and suffer the consequences, he's always left quite blameless to ensure the good, white knight image. I personally find that the combination of his lack of flaws and lack of "error in judgement" moments, (most other characters have quite a few, e.g. Jaime throwing Bran out the window, whether he meant it or not it was pretty evil and there have been very nasty consequences,) to lead to a perfect and untouchable character that I don't enjoy reading. I would be much more open to his good naturedness and overall hero quality if he felt a little more human. Right now it feels like good things just fall into his lap, e.g. Commander of the watch at 15, Stannis' friendship etc. Not to mention that if we're all right in thinking R+L=J he has all sorts of cool blood bonus' like possible dragon riding. I do see it's nice to have a hero but I enjoy reading about the heros that are more human, with flaws and all.

[The Red Pope]

Well, as someone put it in another threat, Jon is a bit "too monochromatic" next to the rest of the cast. He doesn't share the deep flaws that other characters tend to have and what flaws he does have seem superficial and don't really hinder him, he just goes around "being awesome". Someone said earlier on this thread that he's "trusting almost to a fault" which pretty much encapsulates it, even his faults are really virtues, and this in a series which has brutally punished other characters (Ned, Sansa, Brienne) for similar naivety.

Jon whines a bit then sits down and makes the right decision in the end, whereas Robb and Dany for instance make decisions that have terrible, terrible repercussions for themselves and everyone around them even when they're trying to do the right thing. One of the big differences with Jon is that I never felt he had any choice; whenever he makes a "bad" decision or one with "bad" consequences, it's because he was forced into an impossible situation or because everyone around him is blind, stupid or vindictive; not because it's his fault (at least until his "death", and I'm not buying that for a second). Plus, when Dany does something rash without thinking it through, she tends to destroy civilisations, on the other hand, every time Jon breaks his vows, he gets forgiven and ends up better off than he was before.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, I feel like he's treated differently to the rest of the cast and so I agree that he is Sue-ish. I know that lots of people don't and I'm not really trying to convert anyone

Well he did get Ygritte and the rest of that troop killed. And he sent that fleet to Hardhome, that turned out fine.

[Scipio Africanus]

Why do people say Sansa "disliked" Jon in some way (or vice versa)? If you read the books, her feelings are entirely different as she matures in AFFC and Jon thinks of her as still the sole heir of Winterfell. That she called him bastard as soon as she could, well kids are cruel and pick up on words like that.

[LeoSuperstar]

Well he did get Ygritte and the rest of that troop killed. And he sent that fleet to Hardhome, that turned out fine.

And his counselors agree with everything he does without ever questioning him...

[Lady Sansa Stark]

And his counselors agree with everything he does without ever questioning him...

Don't forget that he surely didn't kill Halfhand, super easy decision and all. And don't forget that he thinks life at the Wall is the most amazing thing there is and that he is grateful to be there.

[butterbumps!]

Well, as someone put it in another threat, Jon is a bit "too monochromatic" next to the rest of the cast. He doesn't share the deep flaws that other characters tend to have and what flaws he does have seem superficial and don't really hinder him, he just goes around "being awesome". Someone said earlier on this thread that he's "trusting almost to a fault" which pretty much encapsulates it, even his faults are really virtues, and this in a series which has brutally punished other characters (Ned, Sansa, Brienne) for similar naivety.

To be honest, I think that this is a really superficial reading of his arc. Jon has faults. They are not fake flaws, i.e. actually virtues in disguise. Unlike most of the cast, Jon actually meets his flaws head on and overcomes them. They aren't meatball pitches meant to give "superficial depth," but rather, Jon's arc is one of constantly acknowledging and overcoming his demons, not just evolving but progressing. They don't hinder him because he overcomes them.

Jon whines a bit then sits down and makes the right decision in the end, whereas Robb and Dany for instance make decisions that have terrible, terrible repercussions for themselves and everyone around them even when they're trying to do the right thing. One of the big differences with Jon is that I never felt he had any choice; whenever he makes a "bad" decision or one with "bad" consequences, it's because he was forced into an impossible situation or because everyone around him is blind, stupid or vindictive; not because it's his fault (at least until his "death", and I'm not buying that for a second). Plus, when Dany does something rash without thinking it through, she tends to destroy civilisations, on the other hand, every time Jon breaks his vows, he gets forgiven and ends up better off than he was before.

Dany may hold civilizations in her hand, but Jon's holding back the apocalypse, for heaven's sake.

Again, I think that this is fairly superficial. Put Tyrion in Jon's shoes for some of these "plot gifts." Would Tyrion have spared Ygritte if he were commanded to kill her? When marching out to meet Mance, would another character have made the decision to kill him (as Jon grudgingly accepted he had to do), would another character have run off and deserted?

Jon did have choices. Other characters would not have responded the way he did in each of the trials Jon has seen. Because he makes the choices that we, as modern readers tend to agree with doesn't mean that these were his only choices or that he's a "stu." He's no more "stu-ish" than a kickass little girl playing samurai assassin games across the sea, or the clever little garden gnome thrust in the chaos vortex who finds himself touching the lives of each of the most important players on the field and somehow still manages not to die.

I kind of wish there were a law that banned "stu" "plot gift" and "cliche" from the forum.

[redviper9]

Well for me jon is cool because Stannis likes and respects him. Any man Stannis respects has my respect as well.

For the thread is long and full of Stannis.

[Scipio Africanus]

For the thread is long and full of Stannis.

Why can't the Stannatics leave even Jon alone? Haven't they hogged enough threads? The Old Gods will sort them out soon enough in WoW. :bowdown:

[redviper9]

To be honest, I think that this is a really superficial reading of his arc. Jon has faults. They are not fake flaws, i.e. actually virtues in disguise. Unlike most of the cast, Jon actually meets his flaws head on and overcomes them. They aren't meatball pitches meant to give "superficial depth," but rather, Jon's arc is one of constantly acknowledging and overcoming his demons, not just evolving but progressing. They don't hinder him because he overcomes them.

Dany may hold civilizations in her hand, but Jon's holding back the apocalypse, for heaven's sake.

Again, I think that this is fairly superficial. Put Tyrion in Jon's shoes for some of these "plot gifts." Would Tyrion have spared Ygritte if he were commanded to kill her? When marching out to meet Mance, would another character have made the decision to kill him (as Jon grudgingly accepted he had to do), would another character have run off and deserted?

Jon did have choices. Other characters would not have responded the way he did in each of the trials Jon has seen. Because he makes the choices that we, as modern readers tend to agree with doesn't mean that these were his only choices or that he's a "stu." He's no more "stu-ish" than a kickass little girl playing samurai assassin games across the sea, or the clever little garden gnome thrust in the chaos vortex who finds himself touching the lives of each of the most important players on the field and somehow still manages not to die.

I kind of wish there were a law that banned "stu" "plot gift" and "cliche" from the forum.

:agree:

[Kittykatknits]

Not sure if trolling or...

You can say a lot about Jon and his family, but they were nothing less than a loving, close family. With possible the exception of Catelyn, which is not irrational at all. Jon is the child of another woman, the living proof her loving husband cheated on her even if it's a long time ago. He grows up next to her own children, learns how to fight with her sword - along with her children. The bastard gets the same treatment as her own children. In Westeros, a bastard who grows up and gets the exact same treatment as trueborn children is something really abnormal. In fact, I think Ned is the only one who does this. So please, do not speak of Ned being ignorant about him, or Catelyn being irrational, or Sansa being a condescending bitch, if there are simply no grounds for such assumptions.

First, great post. Second, just want to point out something about the highlighted sentence. There is another man who treats his bastard children similar to the way Ned does - Walder Frey. Hardly great company and says quite a lot about Ned's actions here I think.

"Edd, fetch me a block".

(Jon won my heart with one line there.)

Best fist-pumping moment in the entire series for me.

[Rawien]

To be honest, I think that this is a really superficial reading of his arc. Jon has faults. They are not fake flaws, i.e. actually virtues in disguise. Unlike most of the cast, Jon actually meets his flaws head on and overcomes them. They aren't meatball pitches meant to give "superficial depth," but rather, Jon's arc is one of constantly acknowledging and overcoming his demons, not just evolving but progressing. They don't hinder him because he overcomes them.

But I don't see Jon as being that flawed. Other than the fact that he's a bastard, (and as has been discussed above he was well treated by all otehr standards), I just don't see where his flaws are? He's "loyal to a fault", he's "trusting to a fault", he has alot of honor etc but he manages to be great at swordplay, leadership and commanding. He's a great ranger, he makes friends easily, he kills whites, he has-an-awesome as hell direwolf, he finds dragonglass, he's probably got Targaryen blood... He has so many good and useful character traits that everyone on the watch is in his shadow. What do you think his flaws are?

[Stannis-the-Mannis]

Regarding Jon's Gary Stu-ness, IIRC didn't he spend most of ADwD being a fairly bad NW commander? Sending Cotter Pyke on that rescue mission struck me as a supremely dumb move. He surrounds himself with enemies while sending away all of his friends. Getting stabbed at the end of the fifth book ought to have been a very predictable outcome for him.

[Florina Laufeyson]

He may seem like a gary sue (and is)

No.

Do i really need to explain it again? Looks like i do. <_<

A Mary Sue is a character that acts as utter wish fulfillment. Usually an Author Avatar/Self Insert type. This character has everything in the plot, every character, everyTHING revolving around them. They literally have no flaws in-universe. If they have a flaw, its something very superficial like being klutzy and the characters around them find this enduring instead of actually irritating. Everyone loves Mary Sue. Even the villain wants a piece of Sue, and not in the violent way. Mary Sue usually has a "tragic" backstory, but its usually superficial at best. Sue rarely has character development.

This does not describe Jon at all. Jon rarely blames others for his misfortunes. He dwells on these things but its usually a self blame type thing. The first huge clue we get about how Jon rolls is his interaction with Catelyn during the infamous "It should have been you." scene. Jon does not react in a way that a lot of other characters would react. He doesnt think to himself "Oh Lady Catelyn...what a terrible person. Shes so nasty and ugh." No. He feels more like its something he did. He faults himself for his bastard status. He never has animosity for his siblings, Ned, or even Cat. Hes not exactly fond of Cat, but he never really hates her for that.

Jon of course, develops as a character. He goes from a bit of a whiner to a competent person and leader. Notice how when Thorne chastises Jon, Jon's reaction is a bit defiant but also thinks there may be something wrong with his own manner of doing things. The fact he didnt make ranger caused Jon to inquire as to why. When he receives the advice from Benjen and Aemon, it makes sense to him. Jon also is a guy who stands up for his friends.

Jon is also forced to make some very difficult choices. He does this by really thinking in an unconventional manner. "Outside the box" so to speak. Does this make him popular to his peers and later to the rest of the Night's Watch? No! It doesnt! The Night's Watch balks at his decisions to aid the wildlings and Stannis. Clearly not something Mary Sue would encounter. ;) But it shows us, the reader, that Jon is willing to do what he feels is right regardless of popular opinion.

Jon is also the most rounded character in terms of how he thinks of others. He doesnt look at station or gender or anything like that. This is a vastly different viewpoint than other characters. (even Arya.)

This is why Jon is my favorite character. Deal with it.

[Scipio Africanus]

Regarding Jon's Gary Stu-ness, IIRC didn't he spend most of ADwD being a fairly bad NW commander? Sending Cotter Pyke on that rescue mission always struck me as a supremely dumb move.

As opposed to adding thousends to the ever growing Wight army the Others were rapidly gathering?

Yeah what a bad idea trying to prevent that...

[redviper9]

This is why Jon is my favorite character. Deal with it.

:commie:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Jon Snow: right for the Wall, right for the North, right for the Realm.

[E-Ro]

Why can't the Stannatics leave even Jon alone? Haven't they hogged enough threads? The Old Gods will sort them out soon enough in WoW. :bowdown:

Aww thats so cute.

Come the dawn we will see.

[butterbumps!]

But I don't see Jon as being that flawed. Other than the fact that he's a bastard, (and as has been discussed above he was well treated by all otehr standards), I just don't see where his flaws are? He's "loyal to a fault", he's "trusting to a fault", he has alot of honor etc but he manages to be great at swordplay, leadership and commanding. He's a great ranger, he makes friends easily, he kills whites, he has-an-awesome as hell direwolf, he finds dragonglass, he's probably got Targaryen blood... He has so many good and useful character traits that everyone on the watch is in his shadow. What do you think his flaws are?

Actually, he's neither loyal to a fault nor trusting to a fault-- I'd disagreed with those statements, but disagreed with his stuishness more.

From his very first POV chapter in aGoT, we see that he's extremely cautious and even distrustful. Jon is a good observer, but one thing he struggles with is getting outside of his own head. He's extremely melancholic and sometimes short-sighted. It's only after his Mance adventures that the big picture really starts being something he knows that he needs to consider. He's a good judge of character, but extremely taciturn when it comes to conveying his thoughts, though when he does, he delivers his positions quite well.

Jon's biggest problem is honestly "getting over himself."

He's great at swordplay because he grew up in a noble household and learned the relevant skills.

[jon stark I]

When Jon said "Edd fetch me a block" i imagined the seen and i see Ned standing at Jons side and watching his son.Really it was perfect.I see more blocks in future

[E-Ro]

This thread is going places, I can feel it.