Thoughts about Jon Snow in ADWD (spoilers, obviously)

If Jon Snow becomes some sort of Beric Dondarrion zombie man, or if he wargs into Ghost, or becomes a "good" wight like Coldhands -- all of these will essentially change his character. He'll become something very different from what he started the story out as. Defenders of Martin might say, "Ah, this is character development." But it's not true character development. It's a character transplant, a mutation.

True character development happens when a character learns and evolves through his own choices. Good character development feels real in the sense that we can understand the emotional journey of the character. He changes, but it's because of something internal within himself, not something external.

But if Jon mutates into a new type of person (or not even a person at all), then it's harder to relate to him because he's become something other than human. And this is the biggest tragedy of the situation, because Jon Snow is one of the few characters who was so recognizably human. He wasn't the "mother of dragons" like Dany or the "ultimate greenseer" like Bran. This is why Bran's transformation into Tree-Bran works better. Bran's journey has always been one rooted (heh) in the supernatural.

Of course, all the Starks have some supernatural stuff going one, courtesy of the direwolves and their warging abilities. But part of Jon's appeal is in his feeling of "ordinariness" and his self-doubt. Yes, he's obviously the "King Arthur" figure of the story: the ordinary, "adopted" kid who discovers he's really the heir to kings. But the appeal of King Arthur is that he never loses his sense of himself as an ordinary guy.

I would be fine with Jon become Azor Ahai reborn (or whatever the frick Melisandre's magical savior figure is called) simply by virtue of finding out his true parentage or his supernatural destiny (a la, a sword in the stone moment). But if he becomes some sort of supernatural being (as it appears he will), then that's too radical a change. If Coldhands, for instance, is really Benjen Stark, can we honestly say that he's the same Benjen that we met in the first book? Of course not. He's been totally changed by his transformation into a friendly wight. A hint of the old Benjen might be there, but it's only a hint, a shadow.

Similarly, Lady Stoneheart is not really Catelyn Stark anymore. She's a strange mutation of Catelyn, a being that is totally consumed by vengeance and bitterness.

Will Jon Snow transform into someone else as well??? Even Beric Dondarrion -- whose personality stayed relatively the same after being brought back from the dead -- always had a weary sadness about him. He knew he wasn't quite human anymore and it disturbed him. It would really depress me to think of Jon as being "not quite human" anymore.

Finally, if Martin has done all of this to "release" Jon from his oath to the Night's Watch, then I'll be royally pissed. For some reason, Martin wants to tear down every institution and show the impermanence of every oath. But one of the things I loved about Jon was his dedication to the Night's Watch. Wasn't that his big character arc in Game of Thrones? To accept his oath and do his duty? With all the cynicism going on in the places of power and politics in Westeros, it was cool to see that the institution made up of unwanted sons, criminals, bastards, and bums was the one that would save the world. It was cool to see a character like Jon retain his honor and be rewarded for it (this is what makes Jon's election to Lord Commander so satisfying). The idea that the Night's Watch, filled with all the unwanted dregs of society (and the "lesser" sons of noble houses), was to be the one institution to take its oath seriously (as embodied by Jon), was an awesome bit of irony and a powerful statement about humanity.

But if Martin "releases" Jon from his oath and his service in the Night's Watch, then he's essentially saying that even the Night's Watch is just as bad and corrupt as everything else. Now, this is not to say that the Night's Watchmen themselves are all pure and noble. There's treachery and evil there, always has been. But Jon Snow himself represented the noble *ideal* of the Night's Watch, and thus validated the whole institution. Jon's belief in his oath and the mission of the Watch was one of the few uplifting bright spots in a tale that's been filled with cynicism and degradation.

But now... Now, it seems like Martin is saying even the Night's Watch is beyond redemption and the only thing for Jon Snow to do is to forsake his vows and embrace his own individual destiny. This is a desperately cynical idea and it basically calls into question the whole point of the series. If everything is corrupt, and everyone is either acting out of selfishness or fear or greed or power, and the good people always suffer and lose in the end, and the civilization and institutions of Westeros are all rotten... THEN WHAT'S THE POINT OF SAVING WESTEROS FROM THE OTHERS? Why not just let the world be destroyed, if the world is so horrible?

Sure, it would suck for the truly good people like Davos, Brienne, Sansa, Meera, Jojen, Bran, et al. But they're only a drop in the bucket that is the absolute human putridity of the rest of Westeros. That's what bugs me about Martin as a storyteller. He's not merely dark, he seems almost hateful of humanity. And despite all of the various religions in his books, his characters never seem to experience any real moments of grace. Even when a character seems to experience a fortunate turn, he/she is almost immediately thrown into another den of iniquity.

To compare to Tolkien for a moment (as it seems so many like to slag Tolkien in order to elevate Martin): LOTR is about an existential struggle with the forces of darkness and evil and Tolkien is not afraid to show the horribleness of that evil, i.e.: Gollum, the twisted soul of Saruman, the horror of the Ringwraiths, the cruelty and stupidity of the orcs, etc. But even amidst all of this darkness, he shows us great moments of light and beauty and grace. And what's more: Tolkien was writing at a time when our world was awash in misery because of World War II (and he was also drawing on his own horrible experiences in the first World War). So in a historical moment of great danger and darkness, Tolkien infused his story with light and hope.

Martin, on the other hand, is writing in a time and place that is not as directly threatened with annihilation (which is not to say our world isn't threatened by danger or that wars are not going on right now, but only that we here in the United States are not in a state of total war as Britain was during WWII). But in an opposite turn from Tolkien, Martin infuses his story with cynicism, hopelessness, and an almost incomprehensible cruelty against his characters that is oppressive in its relentlessness.

I often wonder what good can come of the story Martin is trying to tell. Is he revealing great truths about the human condition? Or is he just wallowing in the darkness as a way to seem "gritty" and "cutting edge"?

I don't object to stories that are dark or that reveal the bad parts of human nature. In fact, these types of stories are often necessary and deal in truths about humanity that we need to face. But in writing such stories, an author must be careful not to alienate his readers from his characters. Jon Snow was, for me, one of the few characters I could still relate to, a character who felt recognizably human. But if Martin makes him into something else -- if he changes the nature of what Jon Snow has been up until now -- then I'm afraid it will be hard for me to relate to him anymore. If Jon abandons the Night's Watch, it will be just another cynical strike against the ideas of honor and duty. Yes, men can be cruel. Men can be treacherous. Men can be self-serving and filled with hatred and fear. But Jon's dedication to the Night's Watch and his belief that the oath of the Night's Watch had the ability to change a man, is all being thrown aside so that Martin can once again say, "There's no such thing as honor or duty. All men will betray you in the end." That's as false as saying all men are good. Neither extreme is true.