Why The Jon Hate?

[Cruella]

I reserve hate for the likes of Tyrion, Jon just bores me to death. He's a good guy and all, but in the book, despite interesting surroundings, he just doesn't seem compelling. All his "faults" are carefully calculated to present him in as likable way as possible - for example, if he wasn't tempted to run to help Robb, people might consider him too hard and cold - but that would show character and be somewhat compelling. If he DID manage to run away he'd be breaking the vow, so of course there are people to stop him just in time. So we get a likable impulse that doesn't actually make him do anything bad.

ETA: Martin has to make him Lord Commander, but Jon can't show any ambition, because then he could be seen as power hungry. IRL, it is ambitious people who usually get power, because they fight for it, but Jon has to be practically forced into position he wasn't aiming for. God forbid Jon actually coveted this position and smartly fought for it, using his intelligence. Than someone could dislike him, and that would be horrible.

If Jon left Ygritte to be killed by wildings, it would be a tragic choice but a choice. But of course the situation works out in the way that he HAS to run away, not decide to leave her.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Other see greater good and I see something that strikes me a singularly cruel to do to a mother.

I view it as both.

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.

I disagree, from reading both Jon's POV and Mel's POV.

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.

Why wouldn't she believe him?

That would have ran the chance of Mel seeing the truth in the flames. Jon is operating under the belief that Mel has "powers" that he does not understand. Before you say, "she could have saw his plot in the flames"; Mel had no reason to believe that Jon was swapping the babies, so Jon had no reason to believe that Mel would be looking for the truth of it in her flames.

And remember that Jon told Gilly he would make sure BOTH children were burned if she did not agree to swap the babies.

How else do you get a mother to give over her child? The only way is to convince her that she has no other choice.

From what we know of Jon's character in ADwD, I'm guessing that he probably would have gone through with it.

From what we know of Jon's character in ADwD, I'm guessing he would have placed himself between harm and the baby. It works both ways.

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).

Mel is cruel when it serves her own interest.

It's easily Jon's most grey action, and I'm always surprised by how easily it's dismissed.

Did I dismiss his action?

I can agree that it was something horrible to say to Gilly without believing that it is one of the worst atrocities committed in the books. I can also still like Jon's character after that action considering he didn't kill Gilly or the babies.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

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.

It's only stupid in hindsight. It made more since to rescue the wildlings than to let them all die and become wights.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

Yes, attempted... It's symptomatic of the problem.

What do you mean?

As for Hardhome, I'm not sure how many think it was bloody stupid, based on past discussions about it.

Care to ellaborate?

[Winterfellian]

Callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.

Behavior that causes pain or suffering to a person or animal.

Cruelty comes in other definitions and forms aside from the two 2 you wrote. Doing a quick search I found this one:

Cruel describes someone or something that deliberately causes pain or suffering.

When she sent those shadows she was deliberately sending them to cause damage and/or suffering to Renly and Penrose, so she fits the definition just fine. I personally find her propensity to not only watch but actively seek to burn people alive as bordering in callous indifference to human life. The value of those lives represent nothing to her but means of furthering her own ends. But that's a personal opinion.

[Errant Bard]

It's only stupid in hindsight. It made more since to rescue the wildlings than to let them all die and become wights.

You mean, try to rescue the wildlings, for the second time, using a more chancy route, without logistics to actually come back, when the first, better planned rescue attempt by the safer path failed miserably?

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

You mean, try to rescue the wildlings, for the second time, using a more chancy route, without logistics to actually come back, when the first, better planned rescue attempt by the safer path failed miserably?

It's that, or the possibility of them becoming wights. I would have tried again too.

[PatrickStormborn]

I had the intention to stay away from this thread, but I realize I can't ignore this:

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.

Excuse me?

Melisandre is not cruel. Everything she does is for what she believes to be the greater good. She's clearly not alive in the true sense of the word, so she has a very different attitude towards death than most people. But I don't see how any of her actions can be seen as "cruel". She would not burn Gilly's son just to prove a point, just as she did not burn Mance Rayder. For all Jon knew, Melisandre could have been a cruel woman who would have burned the baby regardless of whether or not it was Mance's - or she could have intervened and stopped the switch. But she didn't.

Erm, I mentioned Daenerys because I think it's an interesting parallel, but I didn't dwell on it because it isn't the topic of the thread. All I said was that Dany is put in a very similar position in the narrative but fails where Jon succeeds. And yes, he does succeed through luck where this matter is concerned. He was very lucky that Gilly didn't call his bluff or run to Melisandre; he was very lucky that Melisandre and Stannis believed him and did not proceed to call his bluff and burn the child anyway, etc. If we contrast this with Dany, she faces a horrible problem as her people are being slaughtered in the streets, yet despite her fearsome reputation they decide to keep pushing her and testing her - purely so GRRM could keep Dany in Meereen.

I don't see how this is reducing "the success of Jon's actions". Clearly these actions were successful because the plot required them to be, just as his later actions weren't successful because the plot required them to be. Everything is motivated by the plot, including Jon and Dany's success (or lack thereof).

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:

My biggest problem is that Jon threatened to make sure Gilly's baby burned if she refused to swap the babies. From what we know of Jon in ADwD, it's very likely that he would have went through with it, and that is a very chilling thought.

[The Great Walrus]

@PatrickStormborn, um..just because she belives what she does is for a greater good does NOT make it right in the least...

[PatrickStormborn]

@PatrickStormborn, um..just because she belives what she does is for a greater good does NOT make it right in the least...

... Did I say it made her actions "right"?

No. I used it to support the idea that she isn't cruel - at least by my definition. One only needs to read the ACoK Prologue to see that, whilst her actions are harsh, she's not a cruel person in the same way that Selyse and Stannis are.

[David Selig]

It's that, or the possibility of them becoming wights. I would have tried again too.

And when the rescue party you send fails (which looked inevitable by the time the second one was sent), they get turned into wights too, and you've only increased the number of wights and lost a lot of men you can't afford to lose.

Cruelty comes in other definitions and forms aside from the two 2 you wrote. Doing a quick search I found this one:

Cruel describes someone or something that deliberately causes pain or suffering.

When she sent those shadows she was deliberately sending them to cause damage and/or suffering to Renly and Penrose, so she fits the definition just fine.

By this definition pretty much all ASOIF characters are cruel. Jon, Ned, Brienne, Arya - all have caused plenty of pain and suffering. Mostly in combat, true, and for a good cause, but it doesn't matter according to this definition.

[Budj]

My biggest problem is that Jon threatened to make sure Gilly's baby burned if she refused to swap the babies. From what we know of Jon in ADwD, it's very likely that he would have went through with it, and that is a very chilling thought.

I would like an example for this. The correlation that comes to my mind is the Slynt beheading, but I would argue that a guy bucking your command in front of everyone under your command is a lot different than a woman not wanting to give up her baby in a private discussion.

[Errant Bard]

What do you mean?

Care to ellaborate?

Well, not really, since cruella already said it ←here.

Jon suffers from authorial choices, because he absolutely cannot do anything lest he antagonises part of the audience... So anything that could reflect badly on him, he only attempts. I suspect GRRM is also purposefully building him as the regular reluctant hero because his schtick is all about having the most cliched characters possible, only explored very in-depth, and in a harsher environment than normal.

Cruelty comes in other definitions and forms aside from the two 2 you wrote. Doing a quick search I found this one:

Well, yeah, it's in line with the second definition I pasted, not sure what's your point, since I wrote that I thought the original poster was probably using the first definition, so the existence of other definitions is already acknowledged and taken into account.

It's that, or the possibility of them becoming wights. I would have tried again too.

And when the second attempt fails, it's that many more wights and that many less soldiers for you. The fist of the First Men is not something "only known in hindsight".

[GillyTarly]

Jon's not perfect. He makes mistakes like everyone else does. Jon grew up with the Starks. He wants to be honorable and honest. He knows what's out there.

[LordBloodraven]

Excuse me?

Melisandre is not cruel. Everything she does is for what she believes to be the greater good. She's clearly not alive in the true sense of the word, so she has a very different attitude towards death than most people. But I don't see how any of her actions can be seen as "cruel". She would not burn Gilly's son just to prove a point, just as she did not burn Mance Rayder. For all Jon knew, Melisandre could have been a cruel woman who would have burned the baby regardless of whether or not it was Mance's - or she could have intervened and stopped the switch. But she didn't.

Erm, I mentioned Daenerys because I think it's an interesting parallel, but I didn't dwell on it because it isn't the topic of the thread. All I said was that Dany is put in a very similar position in the narrative but fails where Jon succeeds. And yes, he does succeed through luck where this matter is concerned. He was very lucky that Gilly didn't call his bluff or run to Melisandre; he was very lucky that Melisandre and Stannis believed him and did not proceed to call his bluff and burn the child anyway, etc. If we contrast this with Dany, she faces a horrible problem as her people are being slaughtered in the streets, yet despite her fearsome reputation they decide to keep pushing her and testing her - purely so GRRM could keep Dany in Meereen.

I don't see how this is reducing "the success of Jon's actions". Clearly these actions were successful because the plot required them to be, just as his later actions weren't successful because the plot required them to be. Everything is motivated by the plot, including Jon and Dany's success (or lack thereof).

My biggest problem is that Jon threatened to make sure Gilly's baby burned if she refused to swap the babies. From what we know of Jon in ADwD, it's very likely that he would have went through with it, and that is a very chilling thought.

Shit, Hitler is not cruel. Nor is Stalin or Tywin Lannister. Because everything they do is a step to what they believe to be the greater good

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Everything she does is for what she believes to be the greater good.

So she is a un-cruel person that does cruel things. That still gives Jon reason to suspect she will burn the baby, and also gives us reason to suspect that she would have burned the baby.

She's clearly not alive in the true sense of the word, so she has a very different attitude towards death than most people.

Mel knows what death means in the traditional sense.

But I don't see how any of her actions can be seen as "cruel". She would not burn Gilly's son just to prove a point, just as she did not burn Mance Rayder.

But she would have burned Mance's baby for its "kings blood".

For all Jon knew, Melisandre could have been a cruel woman who would have burned the baby regardless of whether or not it was Mance's - or she could have intervened and stopped the switch. But she didn't.

Jon knew that Mel only wanted the baby for the "kings blood". She probably didn't stop the switch because she didn't know about the switch.

I don't see how this is reducing "the success of Jon's actions". Clearly these actions were successful because the plot required them to be, just as his later actions weren't successful because the plot required them to be. Everything is motivated by the plot, including Jon and Dany's success (or lack thereof).

Well, in that case there's no reason to discuss anything.

My biggest problem is that Jon threatened to make sure Gilly's baby burned if she refused to swap the babies. From what we know of Jon in ADwD, it's very likely that he would have went through with it, and that is a very chilling thought.

Jon would not have burned the babies.

[The Great Walrus]

... Did I say it made her actions "right"?

No. I used it to support the idea that she isn't cruel - at least by my definition. One only needs to read the ACoK Prologue to see that, whilst her actions are harsh, she's not a cruel person in the same way that Selyse and Stannis are.

Okay then, how is Stannis cruel? If Mel, who uses unholy shadow magics and burns for rather meager gains is not cruel, then who is?

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

And when the rescue party you send fails (which looked inevitable by the time the second one was sent), they get turned into wights too, and you've only increased the number of wights and lost a lot of men you can't afford to lose.

And when the second attempt fails, it's that many more wights and that many less soldiers for you. The fist of the First Men is not something "only known in hindsight".

If I don't send this rescue crew, I KNOW there is going to be a ton of wights.

If I send the rescue crew, there's a chance they may make it. If not, I'll have a few more wights in addition to the wildlings numbers.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Okay then, how is Stannis cruel? If Mel, who uses unholy shadow magics and burns for rather meager gains is not cruel, then who is?

Exactly, following that reasoning Stannis is also an un-cruel person that does cruel things.

[PatrickStormborn]

Shit, Hitler is not cruel. Nor is Stalin or Tywin Lannister. Because everything they do is a step to what they believe to be the greater good

This is so completely ridiculous that I'm not sure where to begin.

Melisandre does not practice "ethnic cleansing" or genocide, and she doesn't hand innocent young girls over to be raped by soldiers.

Melisandre actually knows about the threat of the Others and she does everything in her power to try and save human life. We've read her POV, we know that she doesn't fit the definition of being "cruel". None of her actions are done for personal gain or are committed out of enjoyment.

Okay then, how is Stannis cruel? If Mel, who uses unholy shadow magics and burns for rather meager gains is not cruel, then who is?

I used Stannis as an example because he was actually cruel to Cressen in the Prologue, as was Selyse. Melisandre was not.

So she is a un-cruel person that does cruel things. That still gives Jon reason to suspect she will burn the baby, and also gives us reason to suspect that she would have burned the baby.

Exactly. Jon has EVERY REASON to believe that Melisandre will burn Gilly's son. By swapping the two babies, Jon is showing that he places more value on the life of Mance's son. This is explicitly stated in one of Sam's chapters IIRC.

Jon would not have burned the babies.

Why are you so sure of that? If he allowed Gilly to undermine his authority, he would no longer be a threatening or commanding figure and therefore not a suitable leader for the Night's Watch.