Yuku free message boards

Jon, if you ask me, is probably why I think alot of people will end up disappointed in George RR Martin by the end of the series, if it ever does get printed. Martin still writes plenty of cliche fantasy themes, but he's talented enough to twist them enough to prevent people from noticing.

Eponine,

Jon is one of the least “stereotypical” characters in all of Westeros, at least insofar as Westeros thinking goes. I also think he is already a “hero.” According to the dictionary I used, a “hero” is “[a] person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.” Here are some examples of feats of courage or nobility of purpose that Jon has performed or displayed:

1. He befriended Tyrion. Virtually no other character, be they generally good or bad, has bothered to actually talk to Tyrion as a friend, without regard to his status as a Lannister or a dwarf. Jon did. In Westeros, that is not stereotypical at all. In Westeros, stereotypical is defining others by their nobility and knighthood, house and station, by the external. To talk to Tyrion – and to actually listen to him – took wisdom and displayed nobility.

2. Jon saved Samwell Tarly, and risked his own life to do so. In Westeros, for a bastard in training to openly defy a knighted brother’s orders (Thorne) during training takes real courage. For Jon to defy Thorne in order to protect Samwell Tarly took exceptional courage and also took wisdom. The additional courage was required because Jon was not only defying Thorne, he was defying conventional wisdom and thereby risking derision (and worse) by his peers as well as the wrath of Thorne. The defiance of conventional wisdom – that craven’s are to be despised, not coddled – well, that is where the wisdom part comes in. This scenario actually worked out for Jon in the end, but it could have gone very badly, which is why I believe Jon risked his life in that situation.

3. Jon risked his life to escape from the Wildings so that he could warn Castle Black of the impending attack. In doing so, he also had to betray new friendships and a new love. This took courage, nobility of purpose, and commitment.

4. Jon fought at Castle Black despite the unhealed wound he took escaping from the Wildings, and when a leader was needed, he stepped up and took command.

Jon is also undergoes several conflicts at a very early age:

1. He is conflicted about whether to stay at Castle Black or go and fight with Robb.

2. He is conflicted about his feelings for Ygritte and his vow to the Watch.

3. He is conflicted about whether to stay at Castle Black or take Stannis up on the offer of Winterfell.

Assuming its different than wisdom, Jon also displays intelligence (although I wouldn’t say he is the most intelligent character by any means). He figures out what to tell Mance in order to convince Mance that Jon has truly left the Watch. His battle plans on the wall also displayed intelligence. He used the right men for the right jobs, and utilized the Watch’s resources effectively and efficiently.

But, I agree with your analysis to a point; I don’t believe courage, wisdom, nobility, and intelligence are by any means Jon’s greatest strengths. His greatest strength is compassion. His respect for Tyrion, his courage in saving Samwell, his refusal to kill Ygritte, his concern for Bran when Bran was forced to watch an execution, his unwillingness to kill an innocent traveler on the road at the Wildings’ command – all of these things are examples of Jon’s compassion. And in Westeros, that kind of Compassion is anything but stereotypical.

I can agree that Jon is pretty boring in himself, and that a lot of his chapters make a good read more because of the story line in his area and the people he meet. On the other hand, you can't make them all funny, witty guys or emotional wrecks. If the story requires Jon to be honest and loyal, then let him. Avoiding a cliché just for the sake of it can be just as bad as writing a cliché in the first place.

I do agree however that Jon could show a little more feelings now and then. How did he react to Ygritte's death for example? To the deaths of (as he thinks) all his family? Those are things that should affect his behavior.

Perhaps we'll see more of this in the next books.

What I dislike about Jon's storyline is that he never faces any really hard choices. I don't mean that he never has any risky choices. He does. But the right thing to do is either perfectly obvious or some Deus ex Machina prevents Jon from making any irrevocable mistakes (i.e. Ghost slowing Jon down during his attempted escape from NW so that his friends could overtake and stop him, election to LC resolving Jon's dilemma re: Stannis's proposal and imminent death sentence if Slynt was elected).

Protecting Sam and sparing Ygritte was not without cost, but clearly the moral thing to do by ethical standards Jon was raised to.

Joining the wildlings and killing Halfhand - well Jon was ordered to and forced to by Halfhand himself, so his consience was pure.

Bedding Ygritte - necessary to remain undercover.

Leaving Ygritte - well, it was a choice between betraying his own people and helping the wildlings to slaughter them or leaving Ygritte. Painful, but again there was only once choice a decent person could have made. Now, if Jon could have remained with Ygritte without having to turn on his own people - that would have been a real choice.

So, compared with other characters who are faced with much more ambiguous choices where right and wrong are far from clear, who are allowed to make big mistakes, etc. Jon's storyline looks pretty contrived to me.

And it doesn't help that he bears all the earmarks of a standard fantasy hero.

I agree that Jon has some non-stereotypical (for Westeros) traits like compassion- however I fear that his story is moving into the ultimate stereotype- the underprivilaged boy (his bastardy) becomes a great fighter and leader and is discovered to be nobility (via Rhaegar) and becomes THE HERO (I have no trouble with him being "a hero", nonemphatic) whether alive or dead, after saving the people from a great danger (the Others).

I disagree that his feelings about being a bastard or the other choices that he has to make have set him apart as a Fantasy Hero. A lot of fantasy characters have Personal Inner Struggles (Rand struggling with Lews Therin, Tanis trying to reconcile his human and elfin sides, Frodo subcoming to the Ring).

On the other hand, while not my favorite character, I've liked reading Dany's storylines because the places she goes seem very vivid. And I've also liked Sansa because she has been developing as a character and has a close eye for detail. I like the political side of Westeros, which Sansa is often in position observe, better than the action side, so that biases me.