The Virgin Jon Snow
- A foundling who killed his mother
- His lineage is an embarrassing secret
and causes all sorts of problems
- Grew up in a castle in the shadow of
the Stark kids
- Gets a Valyrian blade only because
his boss had no one else to give it to
- Takes a vow of celibacy, breaks it for
the first girl who smiles at him
- Always begging for help
- Stabbed by his underlings
- Gives up his birthright to some BPD
chick for some sexy time
- Screwed over by everyone at the end
and sent right back where he started
The Chad Aragorn
- Was his mama's pride and joy
- Proud and open descendant of great
heroes and the most ancient line of kings
- Grew up hunting orcs with elf-lords
- Reforges the Sword that was Broken,
in fulfillment of the prophecy
- Women fall at his feet, he stays true
to his intended and focused on the task at
hand
- Always helping others
- His rivals love him
- An elf-Princess gives up her
immortality to be with him
- Unites the Realms of Men
How droll! But it cuts to the very real distinctions between A Song of Ice and Fire and
The Lord of the Rings. Jon Snow is in a very real sense, the victim of his saga, while Aragorn is a
hero of his. Jon Snow's courage and good-heartedness, even his reveal as the rightful heir to the
Iron Throne, avail him nothing: he is cast aside by the Lords of the Seven Kingdoms in exchange
for peace. Aragorn comes through his trials and becomes the Messiah that birth and prophecy
intended for him. Jon Snow is a man needed for a moment; Aragorn is a World-Historical
Figure.
The question is: why? The Virgin Vs. The Chad doesn't help us here: Jon Snow and
Aragorn are what the are because that's what the respective authors intended. And whatever
Martin's shortcomings are vis-a-vis Tolkein, they are both authors who have crafted believable
and absorbing fantasy worlds that sold sufficiently well to be transmuted into popular
entertainment. What is the real difference between them?
A popular idea is that Martin's books are a "realistic deconstruction" of the tropes of high
fantasy. This viewpoint has some merits, but it doesn't cut to the heart of the matter. For one
thing, a judicious reading of Tolkien's works will show that they do not lack verisimilitude.
Dwarves and Hobbits may have to pass through darkling woods on their way to the Lonely
Mountain, but the Elf-King they meet on the way will be a fully-formed character, with likes and
dislikes, virtues and flaws, rather than a bland reflection of a dualistic worldview. The sufferings
and errors of Boromir, Denethor, Theoden, and Smeagol are rendered with an artist's polish, by
someone who deeply understood the human condition. The language might seem stilted to post-
modern ears, but the realities unmasked ring very true.