[Spoilers ] Why hasnt Sam mentioned Bran to Jon yet?

[iknownothingjonsnow]

God, you guys are exhausting sometimes.

In the book, Sam promised not to tell anyone.

In the show, Sam made no such promise.

There is no rational explanation as to why Sam has not told Jon, he has clearly not told Jon, it is a plot hole.

Regardless of what Sam thinks he would do with the information, it is Jon's decision to make. Those of you who think that Sam is voluntarily concealing that information are characterizing Samwell as a tremendously selfish asshole and (for some reason) trying to justify his alleged idiocy.

The reason we know that Jon learned about Robb and the RW is because we saw him react to it in 4x01. Not only was there no promise to Bran in 3x10 but there was also no reaction from Jon in 4x01 - that is a plot hole. It is a problem that was created that was not resolved, and now you have people talking about it. When you have to create a thread to discuss a flaw in logic and come up with moronic and bogus explanations (e.g. Maybe it happened off camera...) that is a plot hole.

[Theda Baratheon]

Sam's a smart guy. He knows that if Jon just learns that Robb died but Bran is alive, he will try go and tell someone (who? Well, who knows).

I think that we're so easily assuming that he simply forgot to tell him or he won't. We might probably have a scene of Jon speaking about Bran and Sam's deciding he won't say anything and later knowing his reasons or maybe Maester Aemon says something that makes Sam decides it's better that way. It's just that Jon already has too much problems to deal with that. After all, Bran is well, as far as Sam can see and he's better not being found out.

Yep, this is what i'm thinking.

[Khal Shaggydog]

There is no plot hole whatsoever, unless you don't read the books, and in that case, most of the TV only people can barely keep track of the characters so they don't realize Sam met Bran, and the Bran and Jon are "brothers". Also, TV viewers won't realize just how close Jon and Bran were, when Shaggydog and Summer helped him escape.

The only plot hole was Jon, in the books or the show, not thinking more about the appearance of two dire wolves at his exact moment of need, and what that most likely meant (proximity of Starks).

That whole scene in Castle Black was tingling with near misses and withheld information. Not just Sam and Jon with Sam's knowledge of Bran being alive, but also the whole interplay between Aemon and Jon, and their potential shared lineage. Just awesome.

[Cyvasse Khal]

God, you guys are exhausting sometimes.

In the book, Sam promised not to tell anyone.

In the show, Sam made no such promise.

There is no rational explanation as to why Sam has not told Jon, he has clearly not told Jon, it is a plot hole.

Regardless of what Sam thinks he would do with the information, it is Jon's decision to make. Those of you who think that Sam is voluntarily concealing that information are characterizing Samwell as a tremendously selfish asshole and (for some reason) trying to justify his alleged idiocy.

The reason we know that Jon learned about Robb and the RW is because we saw him react to it in 4x01. Not only was there no promise to Bran in 3x10 but there was also no reaction from Jon in 4x01 - that is a plot hole. It is a problem that was created that was not resolved, and now you have people talking about it. When you have to create a thread to discuss a flaw in logic and come up with moronic and bogus explanations (e.g. Maybe it happened off camera...) that is a plot hole.

Things can happen off screen you know. In your way of thinking we could say in future episodes "wait how can Stannis be at the wall, we never saw him travelling there!". Some things just don't need to be spelled out, and one of those is Bran wanting Sam to keep quiet. And for the many reasons in which people have pointed out, Sam is not being a 'selfish asshole' at all, but protecting both of them. It's not a decision Jon needs to make, because there is no decision to make, Jon has JUST come back and needs to justify his oath breaking, what is going after Bran going to do? Nothing but get him hanged on his return.

[Chebyshov]

There is no plot hole whatsoever, unless you don't read the books, and in that case, most of the TV only people can barely keep track of the characters so they don't realize Sam met Bran, and the Bran and Jon are "brothers". Also, TV viewers won't realize just how close Jon and Bran were, when Shaggydog and Summer helped him escape.

Except that the scene TV viewers got last season was Sam specifically saying "you're Jon's brother! I've heard all about you!" and never making any promise to Bran not to say anything. The TV viewers (Unsullied...Sweet Summer Children, what do we call them?) may not to be able to distinguish between Roosey B. and Stannis, but I'm pretty sure they've got the Starks down.

Things can happen off screen you know. In your way of thinking we could say in future episodes "wait how can Stannis be at the wall, we never saw him travelling there!". Some things just don't need to be spelled out, and one of those is Bran wanting Sam to keep quiet. And for the many reasons in which people have pointed out, Sam is not being a 'selfish asshole' at all, but protecting both of them. It's not a decision Jon needs to make, because there is no decision to make, Jon has JUST come back and needs to justify his oath breaking, what is going after Bran going to do? Nothing but get him hanged on his return.

I'd agree with you, but the scene with Sam & Bran left no indication that anything further was said on screen. It seemed to be their complete interaction.

[jennyT]

hello

i just wanted to say that in this video kit says that jon finds out about bran being north of the wall off screen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbrd1w-8KNk

[David Selig]

Plot induced amnesia.

[GHOSTSTARK]

Sam keeps his word. told Bran & company he wouldnt say anything to anyone

[iknownothingjonsnow]

Things can happen off screen you know. In your way of thinking we could say in future episodes "wait how can Stannis be at the wall, we never saw him travelling there!". Some things just don't need to be spelled out, and one of those is Bran wanting Sam to keep quiet.

Except that's not my way of thinking. Issue->Resolution->Aftermath. When the issue is established (or self-evident) and you observe the aftermath, it is then logical to assume the resolution. If Stannis is observed in once place and ends up at another, it is logical to assume that he travelled there.

Ironically, if we take the "logic" you guys are applying to the Sam/Jon/Bran situation, it would be the equivalent of observing Stannis in one place and then (for no reason whatsoever) assuming that he both travelled to and is currently located in a completely different place despite having no evidentiary basis for either conclusion.

And for the many reasons in which people have pointed out, Sam is not being a 'selfish asshole' at all, but protecting both of them. It's not a decision Jon needs to make, because there is no decision to make, Jon has JUST come back and needs to justify his oath breaking, what is going after Bran going to do? Nothing but get him hanged on his return.

And I'm sorry, but Sam has no right to make that decision for Jon and doing so would make him a selfish asshole. Selfish because it is not his place to decide how Jon gets to live his life (even if they are both brothers of the Night's Watch) or what information about his family he is permitted to have. An asshole because (1) he assumes that Jon can't be trusted to reach the same "correct" decision that he did and (2) because Jon is just as likely to make a rash decision based on the fact that he no longer has any brothers than he would trying to save the presumed half-brother who is still alive and potentially in peril.

They were right to go after Jon when he abandoned the Wall following Ned's death. It would have been wrong not to tell Jon about Ned's death out of fear that he would abandon the Wall (which is the rough equivalent of what you guys are proposing here).

[Chebyshov]

hello

i just wanted to say that in this video kit says that jon finds out about bran being north of the wall off screen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbrd1w-8KNk

More people should pay attention to this post. Jon knows about Bran. It will make

Stannis's offer a lot easier to turn down for Jon, and may also complicate The North's plotline later.

Good find, jenny T

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

hello

i just wanted to say that in this video kit says that jon finds out about bran being north of the wall off screen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbrd1w-8KNk

Welcome to the forums and a great first post, Thanks!

"He found out off screen" about Bran seems to be a bit weak though. Hopefully there will at least be a mention of it with Sam at some point in the future because with him knowing what is out there, its a big issue that anyone is going North at all.

[P. frontalis chiripepe]

God, you guys are exhausting sometimes.

In the book, Sam promised not to tell anyone.

In the show, Sam made no such promise.

There is no rational explanation as to why Sam has not told Jon, he has clearly not told Jon, it is a plot hole.

I'm sure you find people who disagree with you exhausting. ;). Again, every time a character does something you personally disagree with it is not necessarily a plot hole. Many reasons why Sam might not have told him have been listed above your post. It may be 'exhausting' for you to read them, and must less tiring for you to just ignore them and keep saying 'plot hole', but maybe if you take a nap you'll feel refreshed. :P. Anyway, Sam made a decision I personally probably wouldn't have made, but its not a plot hole.

If we called every action we disagreed with in this show a 'plot hole' then we would have probably 25 hours of plot hole lol. Yes, Sam may have had no right to withhold the info. Many people have had no right to do many of the things they've done. There's a difference between a poorly executed action/decision and a 'plot hole'.

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

I'm sure you find people who disagree with you exhausting. ;). Again, every time a character does something you personally disagree with it is not necessarily a plot hole. Many reasons why Sam might not have told him have been listed above your post. It may be 'exhausting' for you to read them, and must less tiring for you to just ignore them and keep saying 'plot hole', but maybe if you take a nap you'll feel refreshed. :P. Anyway, Sam made a decision I personally probably wouldn't have made, but its not a plot hole.

If we called every action we disagreed with in this show a 'plot hole' then we would have probably 25 hours of plot hole lol. Yes, Sam may have had no right to withhold the info. Many people have had no right to do many of the things they've done. There's a difference between a poorly executed action/decision and a 'plot hole'.

It turns out that Sam made no such decision. As was linked just above, Kit revealed in an interview that he was told about Bran being North of the Wall "Off Screen". Several million people watch the show. Only a couple of thousand have seen that interview. An on-screen acknowledgment by Jon that he knows really should be made, and soon, to prevent several million people having to ask the question.

[Ilúvatar]

1. Some kind of promise of secrecy may have been implied, even if we didn't witness it clearly in dialogue.

2. Sam may fear for himself if Jon finds out that he not only allowed his crippled brother to go beyond the wall, but showed them the way.

3. Sam may fear that Jon going after them would jeapardize Bran's mission.

4. Sam may fear that Jon going after them may jeapardize the Watch without his leadership.

5. Sam may not have found the right words yet, despite planning to tell Jon. With news about Robb and Jon under interrogation, the timing may not be right.

All perfectly plausible explanations.

[Chebyshov]

It turns out that Sam made no such decision. As was linked just above, Kit revealed in an interview that he was told about Bran being North of the Wall "Off Screen". Several million people watch the show. Only a couple of thousand have seen that interview. An on-screen acknowledgment by Jon that he knows really should be made, and soon, to prevent several million people having to ask the question.

I'm sure it will be...we are one episode in. If not for that interview, I'd be thinking it was a huge plot-hole. Now after seeing that, I know it's simply a change in plot.

[P. frontalis chiripepe]

It turns out that Sam made no such decision. As was linked just above, Kit revealed in an interview that he was told about Bran being North of the Wall "Off Screen". Several million people watch the show. Only a couple of thousand have seen that interview. An on-screen acknowledgment by Jon that he knows really should be made, and soon, to prevent several million people having to ask the question.

lol, I saw the link now. Excellent, so its even less of a plot hole.

[P. frontalis chiripepe]

1. Some kind of promise of secrecy may have been implied, even if we didn't witness it clearly in dialogue.

2. Sam may fear for himself if Jon finds out that he not only allowed his crippled brother to go beyond the wall, but showed them the way.

3. Sam may fear that Jon going after them would jeapardize Bran's mission.

4. Sam may fear that Jon going after them may jeapardize the Watch without his leadership.

5. Sam may not have found the right words yet, despite planning to tell Jon. With news about Robb and Jon under interrogation, the timing may not be right.

All perfectly plausible explanations.

Correct, not to mention that Jon at this point Jon is dangerously close to losing his head for 'breaking his vows' as it is. Sam may suspect that Jon would go looking for Bran, thus breaking his vows again, and probably paying for this 'crime' with death. This is only a plot hole to a mind unable to see the viewpoint of others. But as someone said above, it appears that Jon WAS told after all.

[iknownothingjonsnow]

lol, I saw the link now. Excellent, so its even less of a plot hole.

Perhaps your aversion to my use of the term 'plot hole' is that you clearly have no idea what it means?

Less than 30 minutes ago you were declaring that one version of events had occurred, based on information presented in the show. Now, based on extraneous information from a completely separate source, you are declaring the exact opposite. I applaud your malleability, but I'm afraid you can't have it both ways.

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

lol, I saw the link now. Excellent, so its even less of a plot hole.

Well its a plot hole to the millions who haven't seen that interview. They will need to show that Jon knows in the show.

[P. frontalis chiripepe]

Perhaps your aversion to my use of the term 'plot hole' is that you clearly have no idea what it means?

Less than 30 minutes ago you were declaring that one version of events had occurred, based on information presented in the show. Now, based on extraneous information from a completely separate source, you are declaring the exact opposite. I applaud your malleability, but I'm afraid you can't have it both ways.

No, I did no such thing, lol. Also, by 'malleability' you seem to mean 'the ability to change ones thoughts due to new information". You should try it. And it appears, the way you are willfully remaining ignorant to all the sound explanations for why Sam might not have told Jon, it is actually you who misses the definition of 'plot hole'. But nice try. ;)