Ponys123 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I'd like to remind you that this perfect decision making character just got assassinated.Attacked by a minority group of prejudiced idiots, and about to be resurrected, you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickStormborn Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I knew that was coming. :DNope, I didn't want to shake Jon because I knew he was doing it for the greater good. I also knew that it hurt him to say that to Gilly. It was the only way he saw to guarantee that neither baby would be harmed. I never got the impression that he would allow Gilly's baby to be burned, or that he meant to sacrifice Gilly's baby in place of Mance's baby. I was extremely hurt for Gilly, but I didn't want to shake Jon. At this point in the series Jon had no way of knowing that Melisandre would not burn Gilly's son. From my reading of the chapter I got the impression that he thought Gilly's son would be burned. Even if he told Melisandre that he swapped the children, why would she believe him? He might as well have just kept Mance's son there and pretended he had switched the child with Gilly's.And remember that Jon told Gilly he would make sure BOTH children were burned if she did not agree to swap the babies. From what we know of Jon's character in ADwD, I'm guessing that he probably would have gone through with it. He's very lucky that the threat was successful and that Melisandre is not cruel (we could compare this to Daenerys where, for plot reasons, GRRM made sure that none of the slavers were afraid of her and actually tested her threats, but that's not what this thread is about).It's easily Jon's most grey action, and I'm always surprised by how easily it's dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isalie Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Even though it doesn't excuse what he did to Gilly, I was never under the impression that he would let her son burn. I might be naive though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponys123 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Jon might do something potentially bad, but it always turns out alright, or blame gets forcefully tossed into someone else's face by ol' Grum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolves Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 At this point in the series Jon had no way of knowing that Melisandre would not burn Gilly's son. From my reading of the chapter I got the impression that he thought Gilly's son would be burned. Even if he told Melisandre that he swapped the children, why would she believe him? He might as well have just kept Mance's son there and pretended he had switched the child with Gilly's.And remember that Jon told Gilly he would make sure BOTH children were burned if she did not agree to swap the babies. From what we know of Jon's character in ADwD, I'm guessing that he probably would have gone through with it. He's very lucky that the threat was successful and that Melisandre is not cruel (we could compare this to Daenerys where, for plot reasons, GRRM made sure that none of the slavers were afraid of her and actually tested her threats, but that's not what this thread is about).It's easily Jon's most grey action, and I'm always surprised by how easily it's dismissed.I have never discussed the baby switching thing concerning Jon and he was wrong for that. I honestly believe that Jon would have The Night Watch take up arms against anybody who tried to harm Gilly's baby or any child for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkAndFullOfTurnips Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Jon might do something potentially bad, but it always turns out alright, or blame gets forcefully tossed into someone else's face by ol' Grum.So you would prefer that Jon just got killed for doing good things like his alleged old man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter's Knight Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 So you would prefer that Jon just got killed for doing good things like his alleged old man?Didn't that happen already? Pity it occurred just as he piqued my interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordBloodraven Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 At this point in the series Jon had no way of knowing that Melisandre would not burn Gilly's son. From my reading of the chapter I got the impression that he thought Gilly's son would be burned. Even if he told Melisandre that he swapped the children, why would she believe him? He might as well have just kept Mance's son there and pretended he had switched the child with Gilly's.And remember that Jon told Gilly he would make sure BOTH children were burned if she did not agree to swap the babies. From what we know of Jon's character in ADwD, I'm guessing that he probably would have gone through with it. He's very lucky that the threat was successful and that Melisandre is not cruel (we could compare this to Daenerys where, for plot reasons, GRRM made sure that none of the slavers were afraid of her and actually tested her threats, but that's not what this thread is about).It's easily Jon's most grey action, and I'm always surprised by how easily it's dismissed.So Mel decides to burn "Mance Rayder's son to wake dragons out of stone". If Jon steps forward and tells him that he has sent everybody who has a drop of king's blood out of her grasp and specifically identifies the "wildling prince" and "Maester Aemon Targaryen", they'll have to consider what he just said and that it's very plausible. Mel can see that in her fires if she cares and if she's too headstrong to consider that possibility, I don't think that Stannis will stand by and let her proceed.What he did was cruel to Gilly but letting Mance Rayder's son die without even trying to save him would be more cruel. Nobody dismisses it but you have to acknowledge the reasons behind it. He didn't do it out of fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponys123 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 So you would prefer that Jon just got killed for doing good things like his alleged old man?Yes, it'd spice up the action. But him surviving is a foregone conclusion, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkantos Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Yes, it'd spice up the action. But him surviving is a foregone conclusion, unfortunately.It'd end the action, not spice it up. Do you not like Jon as a person or just find him too boring to read about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponys123 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 It'd end the action, not spice it up. Do you not like Jon as a person or just find him too boring to read about?How would it end the action? With no mary sue to win all the time, the Others can get through the wall. As for why I dislike Jon, I dislike him on principle. He's so perfect it's obnoxious. I hate perfect characters, especially the old "teenage hero of mysterious birth". I mean, I started with the show, and from the very beginning I knew he was one of, if not the protagonist, since he's a bastard, angsty and handsome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkantos Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 How would it end the action? With no mary sue to win all the time, the Others can get through the wall.As for why I dislike Jon, I dislike him on principle. He's so perfect it's obnoxious. I hate perfect characters, especially the old "teenage hero of mysterious birth". I mean, I started with the show, and from the very beginning I knew he was one of, if not the protagonist, since he's a bastard, angsty and handsome.The Others can still get through the wall with Jon there, even if he had plot protection and could never die, it doesn't mean that the rest of the watch will and he will automatically hold the wall.Handsome? I always assumed he was average looking.Perfect? He's a dick a lot of the time and makes bad decisions like sending his most loyal followers miles away and not trying to build bridges or explain his reasoning better.Being angsty sort of points to him not being perfect doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingelheim Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 How would it end the action? With no mary sue to win all the time, the Others can get through the wall.As for why I dislike Jon, I dislike him on principle. He's so perfect it's obnoxious. I hate perfect characters, especially the old "teenage hero of mysterious birth". I mean, I started with the show, and from the very beginning I knew he was one of, if not the protagonist, since he's a bastard, angsty and handsome.The Show Jon is a pretty stupid guy. They made a bad work with his character. In season 2, he was even boring.Dany is a teenage hero, the most beatiful woman in the world. And Tyrion is the typical man with physical problems that basically is smart and very capable. And that doesn't make them worse characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erudain Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Wait, Kit Harington is a secret Targ? :dunce:In fact he is Rhaegar live & kicking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterfellian Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I had the intention to stay away from this thread, but I realize I can't ignore this:He's very lucky that the threat was successful and that Melisandre is not cruel (we could compare this to Daenerys where, for plot reasons, GRRM made sure that none of the slavers were afraid of her and actually tested her threats, but that's not what this thread is about).It's easily Jon's most grey action, and I'm always surprised by how easily it's dismissed.Am sorry, but this is just :lmao: This woman has no problems burning people alive (including kids) or birthing shadow abomination to assassinate political enemies and you're saying she's not cruel. Why you need to bring comparisons to Dany to make her seem as the victim of the plot and the fans every chance you get is beyond me but please don't reduce the success of Jon's actions to plot contrivances or the fact that this or that isn't as pictured on Dany's arch. It gets old.About the baby switching, I do feel bad for Gilly but switching the babies was important. It wasn't enough that Jon lied about it otherwise Mel could have easily see it in her fires that Jon was lying just as she could easily see that the current baby at the wall isn't Mance's son if she care to look (which she hasn't). This is perhaps Jon's greyest action and I do feel he was prepared to choose between one life or the other but by splitting the babies he was at least giving them both a chance, provided that Mel could see in her fires the truth. Not to mention he was risking his own head with this, so is not like the gamble included just the two babies. At least that's the way I see it :dunno: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errant Bard Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 So you would prefer that Jon just got killed for doing good things like his alleged old man?But getting killed isn't the only way for things to not "turn out alright", and good things can be achieved without backlash if you play it right...What's annoying is not playing it right and being rewarded for it: when the plot armour becomes much too visible.Am sorry, but this is just :lmao: This woman has no problems burning people alive (including kids) or birthing shadow abomination to assassinate political enemies and you're saying she's not cruel.crueltyNounCallous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.Behavior that causes pain or suffering to a person or animal.Mel has never been presented as enjoying what she does, but as a fanatic who knows she does bad things, but still does them for the greater good, she does not burn people for the lulz. I don't think it meets definition 1), which is most probably the one that was used in the post you respond to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Eats No Peaches Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 How would it end the action? With no mary sue to win all the time, the Others can get through the wall. As for why I dislike Jon, I dislike him on principle. He's so perfect it's obnoxious. I hate perfect characters, especially the old "teenage hero of mysterious birth". I mean, I started with the show, and from the very beginning I knew he was one of, if not the protagonist, since he's a bastard, angsty and handsome.Jon is not perfect. He attempted to break his vows more than once and made stupid decisions like the Hardhome expedition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Walrus Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 At this point in the series Jon had no way of knowing that Melisandre would not burn Gilly's son. From my reading of the chapter I got the impression that he thought Gilly's son would be burned. Even if he told Melisandre that he swapped the children, why would she believe him? He might as well have just kept Mance's son there and pretended he had switched the child with Gilly's.And remember that Jon told Gilly he would make sure BOTH children were burned if she did not agree to swap the babies. From what we know of Jon's character in ADwD, I'm guessing that he probably would have gone through with it. He's very lucky that the threat was successful and that Melisandre is not cruel (we could compare this to Daenerys where, for plot reasons, GRRM made sure that none of the slavers were afraid of her and actually tested her threats, but that's not what this thread is about).It's easily Jon's most grey action, and I'm always surprised by how easily it's dismissed.What, are you serious? Melisandre is very evil and cruel, i don't know how you can believe otherwise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingelheim Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 At this point in the series Jon had no way of knowing that Melisandre would not burn Gilly's son. From my reading of the chapter I got the impression that he thought Gilly's son would be burned. Even if he told Melisandre that he swapped the children, why would she believe him? He might as well have just kept Mance's son there and pretended he had switched the child with Gilly's.And remember that Jon told Gilly he would make sure BOTH children were burned if she did not agree to swap the babies. From what we know of Jon's character in ADwD, I'm guessing that he probably would have gone through with it. He's very lucky that the threat was successful and that Melisandre is not cruel (we could compare this to Daenerys where, for plot reasons, GRRM made sure that none of the slavers were afraid of her and actually tested her threats, but that's not what this thread is about).It's easily Jon's most grey action, and I'm always surprised by how easily it's dismissed.Well, I can't think in anyone more cruel than her. Except the monsters that we know: Ramsay, Gregor, Tywin's men at Harrenhal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errant Bard Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Jon is not perfect. He attempted to break his vows more than once and made stupid decisions like the Hardhome expedition.Yes, attempted... It's symptomatic of the problem.As for Hardhome, I'm not sure how many think it was bloody stupid, based on past discussions about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.