Is there anyway for Jon not to become a total cliche?

[The Great Walrus]

Not trying to be offensive here, but I think that avid (seasoned, analytical, careful, observant, attentive, etc) readers are probably more comfortable with tropes/cliches/types/whatever because they see them all the time. The more seasoned reader will understand that 'cliche' is not necessarily a bad thing and also that 'cliche' doesn't mean what some seem to think it means.

The ever brilliant Dr.P hits it on the head once again...

[The Snowman]

Every character summarizes nicely into a "type" or "cliche." Talking about the clichedness characters is really unproductive, because every character we've seen can be stereotyped into a common trope (and this isn't even getting into how "cliche" it is to set a fantasy story in a pseudo Medieval context).

There's a difference between cliche (an overused type) and issues like how "white" a character is. I think those often get conflated in these discussions. Being a good guy is not what makes a character "cliche."

Cheers butterbumps. Yeah this was simply motivated by having read a few Jon reads and those who like the Jon hate a little too much were there in full force.

As I said I love Jon’s chapters and story arc and well Ghost is also made of pure awesomeness.

Not trying to be offensive here, but I think that avid (seasoned, analytical, careful, observant, attentive, etc) readers are probably more comfortable with tropes/cliches/types/whatever because they see them all the time. The more seasoned reader will understand that 'cliche' is not necessarily a bad thing and also that 'cliche' doesn't mean what some seem to think it means.

Well I did say at the start that were we expecting something different and was some cliché just what we need in the concluding books.

[Ser Wun Wun]

I actually think Jon will be less of a "cliche" after his resurrection. GRRM has said in interviews that he hates the idea of someone becoming "better" or more noble after resurrection, like Gandalf in LOTR.

So my guess is Jon is going to be a little more morally grey in TWOW, and will likely suffer from what you might call PTSD (for lack of a better term), kind of like what Beric endured, though maybe not quite as bad.

[Magic 8 Ball]

I was thinking about the who will die thread and I was going to say if GRRM doesn't want Jon to be a total cliche he will kill him off instead of having him as his Aragorn but a heroic death is also a cliche.

If he becomes a hero for the wildling then that is fulfilling the mighty whitey trope (it doesn't always have to be about race). You could say killing off Ygritte made it less cliche but he seems to be upgrading to Val. Neither Ygritte or Val fulfill the chief's daughter part of the trope but Val would be even closer to it.

Then there's the Jesus thing. There is a thread on that.

In LOTR I guess you could say the hero Frodo failed but that gets ignored. Maybe have him fail and end up in disgrace or at least unappreciated.

Fair enough point that the "Mighty Whitey" trope doesn't always have to be about race, but if that's the case you wind up painting yourself into a corner as an author, in which you cannot write about conflict in which there is a significant socio-economic disconnect.

If Jon helps the wildlings, he's Mighty Whitey. If Wildling knowledge is necessary to help the Westerosi defeat The Others, it's a patronizing "noble savage" trope.

If Westerosi muscle and know-how must couple with Wildling "nature know-how" you just moved to Tropeville central.

You're kind of trapped, really.

Heck, it didn't take Communists all that long to determine that the revolution of the proletariat had to be led by the Bourgeoise, as they were incapable of leading themselves.

GRRM will have to do something completely unexpected and off the wall to avoid the fandom from dissecting the final conflict under a microscope and criticizing it.

[Lord Boltons flaying knife]

John is a red herring. Frodo will never sit on the throne. That is reserved for Roose, Ramsay or perhaps Jamie.

[Pugsley]

GRRM will have to do something completely unexpected and off the wall to avoid the fandom from dissecting the final conflict under a microscope and criticizing it.

In this way I think the reputation he's built up of being unpredictable is a disadvantage for him. So many readers I think are expecting the finale to be unlike anything they've read before. No matter what he writes there are sure to be those who are disappointed. Ah well. As he has said, he's just gotta write his story and not worry about what the fans are saying.

[Arkantos]

His world is so full of non-cliché characters, who cares if one is?

Also, what's wrong with them? People get to stuck up on these things, "hurr durr I've seen these character traits before so it's not original".

[ARYa_Nym]

Fair enough point that the "Mighty Whitey" trope doesn't always have to be about race, but if that's the case you wind up painting yourself into a corner as an author, in which you cannot write about conflict in which there is a significant socio-economic disconnect.

If Jon helps the wildlings, he's Mighty Whitey. If Wildling knowledge is necessary to help the Westerosi defeat The Others, it's a patronizing "noble savage" trope.

If Westerosi muscle and know-how must couple with Wildling "nature know-how" you just moved to Tropeville central.

You're kind of trapped, really.

Heck, it didn't take Communists all that long to determine that the revolution of the proletariat had to be led by the Bourgeoise, as they were incapable of leading themselves.

GRRM will have to do something completely unexpected and off the wall to avoid the fandom from dissecting the final conflict under a microscope and criticizing it.

Holllywood/the Entertainment industry loves doing this while simultaneously failing to see why it's insulting and problematic.

It's not just helping them but the idea of I can live with these people for x amount of time and understand their problems and be their savior which I find to be very trivializing and cheap.

I just can't stand movies like The Help and Avatar. It's so popular too. To have these "savages" or whoever whatever is the equivalent in the setting do things for themselves or as in the Help take out the characters that the masses "identify" with it's not going to be as successful.

There was an actor (Danny Glover? I don't exactly remember who) that complained that he wanted to do a movie on something about black history but the studio said no because it didn't have a white savior in it which I find to be very sad but a reflection on why I have a problem with this trope.

[butterbumps!]

Grey morality doesn't really speak to clichedness, though.

The "clichedness" refers to summarizing Jon's arc as a "true king raised as someone else with no notion of who he is, with the assumption that he will take the throne and make things right." However, Jon's arc and the context of the story are developed to a point where calling this a "cliche" is truly disingenuous:

1. Jon is not the true king. The Targs lost their "divine right" through conquest. He's not Aragorn nor Oedipus here, as Westeros' power structure is far more complicated than this (though this is, incidentally, Aegon's storyline). Jon's being a lost heir doesn't function the way it does in other stories.

2. Jon's parentage is likely going to cause him a great deal of pain rather than bring relief. He's not going to be pleased to learn that he's not Ned's son, even if it means that his blood is even more blue and legitimate than he'd thought. The fact that there's a huge possibility Jon will keep his parentage secret goes against common iterations of this particular "trope."

3. Jon was already accepting an identity and a role; he was LC, an ad hoc King of the Wildlings, and even a sort of King of Winter (he had the respect and backing of a number of Northern clans like the Norreys and Wulls). He has had a revelation of sorts about his identity-- that he's making his own path goes against the more conventional iterations of this trope. He's not a "reluctant leader" type exactly; he's a different leader by choice and evolution than he would be simply by learning his heritage and responding to that (either by gladly or reluctantly accepting it).

4. He has been involved in the story of Ice and Fire from his 3rd chapter where he's been at the Wall; he made a choice to join the Watch without any epiphanies about his lineage, and came to learn first hand of the true battle unfolding. This tends to go against the trope, as the lost king is either fighting in obscurity, knowing it is his inherited fight, or the ignorant heir who begins to fight once his identity is revealed. It's different with Jon, more developed and subtle.

The lost heir trope has nothing to do with Jon's "goodness." Jon is less morally grey than most, but this isn't about cliche or tropes; it's about moral greyness. Morally grey and black characters can be cliches or tropes just as easily as "white" ones. In fact, if Jon were to make a bid for the Throne based on his heritage for the sake of holding power (and thereby complected the expected trope), it would be a morally black move, given the full context of the series. So this would make Jon more "grey" but also "more cliche." I just want to stress that grey morality and "cliche" are not one in the same.

[Magic 8 Ball]

Westerosi blood, Wildling heart, this Jon's made of..

There are no Others on (Earth?) he's afraid of..

And he.. will die.. with both of his lives, safely warged!!!

He's been dreaming of a time when, the Westerosi will be sick death of Lannisters, and Tyrells,

And spit upon the name Roose Bolton..

And denounce this royal line that still salutes him, and will salute him, forever!

[Magic 8 Ball]

That was a Morrisey reference, in case ya didn't know.

(and I double posted)

[eggs]

Why are people being so defensive? i dont see anyone complaining about Jon being cliche. I think Jons just gonna focus be more focused on his family after his ressurection.

[butterbumps!]

Why are people being so defensive. i dont see anyone complaining about Jon being cliche.

I think Jons just gonna focus be more focused on his family after his ressurection.

It's not an issue of being defensive, though the term "cliche" does carry a negative connotation given that it implies "overused" and "tired." The issue for me is that it's inaccurate to call Jon a cliche based on the reasons I outlined just above, as well as the fact that any character in the story can be reduced to "types" and "cliches," which makes speaking to a character's "clichedness" incredibly unproductive.

[Magic 8 Ball]

It's not an issue of being defensive, though the term "cliche" does carry a negative connotation given that it implies "overused" and "tired." The issue for me is that it's inaccurate to call Jon a cliche based on the reasons I outlined just above, as well as the fact that any character in the story can be reduced to "types" and "cliches," which makes speaking to a character's "clichedness" incredibly unproductive.

Would you agree though, that he is an obvious "Christ archetype" which really has been overdone these days, even in secular and non-Christian literature?

I don't hate Jon Snow at all, I actually like the character, but he's been on a "Jesus meets Dances With Wolves" trajectory to this point.

That's why I want to see him unressurected. That would give people something to chew on. Leave his parentage as an unexplained easter egg in the series. Make bad things happen with no savior to bail them out. Un-characters have already worn out their welcome, and by making the most obvious candidate not return to the living would atone for these annoyances. I do like Jon, but this would make my mind as a reader happy.

[kephv]

I don't want to see another resurrection either (it'd make him almost invincible) but he could always just survive without one.

[Angmar]

Cliches are not bad all in all, sometimes each author adds their own style to each other, so they can still be fresh and enjoyable.

[Florina Laufeyson]

He is exactly what ones expect from fantasy.

You say this as if its a really terrible crime.

<_<

Why cant we have a hero in a crapsack world like Westeros? Gawd....

[butterbumps!]

Would you agree though, that he is an obvious "Christ archetype" which really has been overdone these days, even in secular and non-Christian literature?

I don't hate Jon Snow at all, I actually like the character, but he's been on a "Jesus meets Dances With Wolves" trajectory to this point.

That's why I want to see him unressurected. That would give people something to chew on. Leave his parentage as an unexplained easter egg in the series. Make bad things happen with no savior to bail them out. Un-characters have already worn out their welcome, and by making the most obvious candidate not return to the living would atone for these annoyances. I do like Jon, but this would make my mind as a reader happy.

Like how Tywin is a facsimile of film Mob bosses (he even specifies kneecap smashing for punishments), Arya's been playing at Kill Bill, Sansa's the Never-ending virgin, volume 1-6, Littlefinger is the Joker, Bloodraven the token "wise old man," Dany the "most beautiful girl in the world with magical pets", Mel, the "evil succubus sorceress"?

Honestly, no. The Christ trope is actually so vague and has so many facets that it's near impossible to avoid similar elements-- Davos, Qhorin, Tyrion, Mormont and Dany have overlaps with Christ symbolism as well (sacrifice, rebirth, etc), and this doesn't even touch the eschatology of these fictional religions that parallel Abrahamic ones.

I don't actually think Jon's dead or in need of literal resurrection, if that's the concern. He's undoubtedly going to have a rebirth of sorts; if he's literally resurrected, though, I think there's strong indication that this won't leave him pure and holy, but damaged and more morally ambiguous. Which is very much out of step with the Christ Trope.

[Hans Sprungfeld]

From reading some posts on the oard there seems to a serious aversion by some people to the idea of a cliche. There are countless posts, for example, that R+L=J either isn't true or will be a disappointment because its too obvious too cliche. My problem with this line of thinking is that some stories become cliche for a reason. There are a often a very limited limited way in which a story can resolve without either becoming a cliche or relying on a twist. While twists can be fun it can be jarring if the reader realizes he cannot even attempt to anticipate event. What makes Martin, so fun to read is that whether he follows the cliche or subverts it, he is usually logical in his story telling and doesn't rely on some completely unexpected event. Sometimes the result of a logical chain of event is that the story will have to take a more cliched route, but that is the nature of story telling and should be accept because trying to avoid it will probably create much worse results.

As far as Jon's story it is cliche and it probably will end that way. I think Jon is dead, in ghost, and will return to his body because the hints are fairly clear about that, and the arguments against them seem to amount to a reader not liking the idea seeing it as too obvious or cliche. As for what his actual end is whether it is becoming king, forsaking the crown for another fate, or dying it has been done before and I'm sure anyone of those would be considered by some to be cliche.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

John is a red herring. Frodo will never sit on the throne. That is reserved for Roose, Ramsay or perhaps Jamie.

Bran is Frodo, not Jon.