Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mulled Wino

[Book Spoilers] The countinuing emasculation of Jon Snow

Recommended Posts

@ summer_stark:

Well lawyered... and no, that isn't sarcasm.

Just a couple of semi-rebuts...

(1) I don't think either of us could prove that a comatosed Bran felt threatened by the would-be assassin Catelyn fought. Catelyn felt the threat, certainly, but whether Bran did or not depends on how aware one feels he could have been in that state.

(2) I guess I always saw Shaggy and Summer's aggression toward the Walders as a greater recognition by the d'wolves (greater than the Starks, that is) that the Walders were bad news.

well, i am a lawyer...lol (seriously).

the ones on the second list (i.e., bran being attacked) -- are the versions that are of objective knowledge of threat -- and we know that bran was not dead to the world during this time -- he was w/the three eyed crow -- and possibly also w/summer.

but the point i was making with the second list was that it looks just like the first. i.e., they attack when they themselves feel their masters are in danger, and also when they sense their masters subjective feelings of threat. in other words -- not just one or the other.

as for the walders -- also not borne out by the books, wherein rickon pals around with the walders after the fight and shaggydog is fine with them. shaggy attacks because he feels rickon is being threatened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaime's act was the height of arrogance and stupidity, but he has since learned from it. Tyrion was taken by surprise, having no reason to believe he was in hostile company, so not stupid. Eddard was simply outplayed and payed the price. Jon's beyond the wall storyline has been one giant blunder after the other, so much so as to border on the implausible. Yes, it has definitely weakened his character.

Please, explain.

Jon couldn't kill Ygritte, just as he couldn't kill her in the books. The difference being he couldn't let her go either in the show because she would tell Mance of their coming, which actually makes a lot of sense. Jon gets led into a trap by Ygritte when he believes he is safe due to having her as a hostage. Ygritte had outplayed him, just as Littlefinger had done to Eddard. Both characters are out of their elements in their new-unfamiliar surroundings, so that comparison is easy.

Tyrion was taken by surprise. I suppose Jon knew there was Wildlings ready to capture him hiding behind the hills in that snowy valley.

Jaime's capturing was stupid, you are right, yet he learns from it later? Well, yeah he does, I agree with that. So, all your saying is their is room for Jon to learn from his mistakes later. True, thank you for reinforcing exactly what I'm arguing.

Go ahead, find a leg to stand on. Your arguments are weak at best and are based entirely off the fact they happened in the books and we know the result of all of them. Jon's story has been changed substantially but his character arc is not ruined, just heightened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not agree more with the OP, they have really screwed Jon as a character, or at least the awesome character he was in the books. Literally in every single episode Jon has been in this season, they have found some way to make him look incompetent, and it is really bugging me. In season one, they were pretty true to the book, so Jon had his good moments, but now like a lot of things, they have gone away from the books, and Jon's character looks like a fool. None of Jon's actions at all for season two make any sense with his development from season one. In season one, they showed Jon getting over himself, and they show him growing as a character. Then in season two, we get Jon saying things like, "I fought and killed a Wight. How many Rangers can say that?"

I really don't understand there reasoning for doing this to Jon, the Jon from the books, and the Jon from the later part of season one, would never say something like that to Lord Commander Mormont. It's like they have completely forgotten all the development Jon made from season one.

I could go on about all of Jon's other blunders this season, but I am sure everybody in this thread is aware of them. It just really makes me angry when you can tell who the writers favor and who they like best. The writers have done similar things to Stannis, but in a different way, they have made Stannis all around more of an unlikeable person, than he was in the books. D.B. Weiss actually said in a video that Stannis would make a horrible King, and I really don't agree with that. I along with many others, think Stannis would make a good King. That's the beauty of the books, it's up to the individual on how the see a character. However with the show they are basically writing in their own personal opinions of characters, and it is showing. They shouldn't be telling the viewers how to feel about characters. They should leave it like the books, and let the audience deside if the like, or dislike someone.

Ultimately, I just hate what they have done to Jon. At this point it makes me wonder if they are going to have him be chosen as Lord Commander, because at this point, that would be seriously unbelievable, even with Sam doing some trickery. The show Jon doesn't seem capable of leading himself to take a piss at night, let alone being the Lord Commander of the Nights Watch. I guess some people might say that's the point, Jon was not "capable" of leading the Nights Watch, and that's why he was stabbed, but that is an arguable subject, either way though, the book Jon was far more capable of leading the Watch, in comparison to the show Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, explain.

Jon couldn't kill Ygritte, just as he couldn't kill her in the books. The difference being he couldn't let her go either in the show because she would tell Mance of their coming, which actually makes a lot of sense. Jon gets led into a trap by Ygritte when he believes he is safe due to having her as a hostage. Ygritte had outplayed him, just as Littlefinger had done to Eddard. Both characters are out of their elements in their new-unfamiliar surroundings, so that comparison is easy.

Tyrion was taken by surprise. I suppose Jon knew there was Wildlings ready to capture him hiding behind the hills in that snowy valley.

Jaime's capturing was stupid, you are right, yet he learns from it later? Well, yeah he does, I agree with that. So, all your saying is their is room for Jon to learn from his mistakes later. True, thank you for reinforcing exactly what I'm arguing.

Go ahead, find a leg to stand on. Your arguments are weak at best and are based entirely off the fact they happened in the books and we know the result of all of them. Jon's story has been changed substantially but his character arc is not ruined, just heightened.

i feel the need to step in here and show you the leg the other posters are standing on.

on the one hand, you are correct -- the differences are the show v. the books, with the latter not being an emasculation by the show b/c the books already did that. the point they are making is that the show is emasculating jon snow in a way that the books didn't -- not that the books emasculated other characters, therefore this isn't emasculation, or this emasculation is on the level. those arguments fail to address the points being made.

the points being made are:

1) the books made the characters a certain way --

2) whether or not the way the books made the characters was emasculating is irrelevant. the point is that the characters are being changed such that the producers are emasculating them.

3) the difference b/t the show emasculating them and the books emasculating them is not an insignificant point. the fact of the matter is that the show is based on the characters in the books. period. therefore, though fidelity to storylines and minor characters is unnecessary, the characteristics of major characters is necessary for the show to move in the same direction as the books without feeling awkward or contrived.

4) even if one concedes that the book emasculates other characters, it in no way defeats or addresses the emasculation of jon snow. one does not equal the other. so any points you make about other characters in no way answers whether jon snow has been emasculated on the show compared to what his character is like in the books.

further, the facts of the matter are these: jon snow is an intelligent, capable man of the night's watch in the books. his wolf and being a stark -- with the blood of the first men and the old gods -- is why qhorin picks him -- he says that the old gods are important beyond the wall, and therefore, jon is seen as a good luck charm of sorts. not only that, but he has a bamf for a dw.

in the books it is nonessential that jon kills ygritte -- the point was for qhorin to understand jon -- b/c like qhorin says, if he wanted the job done, he wouldve done it himself, or given it to someone who would carry it out.

on the show, it is essential that he kill ygritte, but he not only fails to do so, but he lets her get the drop on him. this is a textbook definition of emasculation: to make weaker or less effective. it is not a subjective thing you're debating. in one instance he lets her go -- taking the moral high ground (stupid though it may be); in the other instance, he fails to keep her -- making him a less effective nights watchman. emasculation personified.

in the books, jon stays with qhorin and ghost. on the show, he somehow has no control over ghost and loses qhorin. he is a weaker and less effective nights watchman.

whether you want to debate the merits of making jon so effective at such a young age in the books is a different argument altogether. your agreement with the change does not address the fact that those changes emasculate jon. if i substitute the word emasculate for a synonym -- weaken -- the point is more obvious.

jon is a weaker, less effective person in the show. the show has made him this way. he is not this way in the books at this point in the story. therefore, the show has emasculated him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i feel the need to step in here and show you the leg the other posters are standing on.

on the one hand, you are correct -- the differences are the show v. the books, with the latter not being an emasculation by the show b/c the books already did that. the point they are making is that the show is emasculating jon snow in a way that the books didn't -- not that the books emasculated other characters, therefore this isn't emasculation, or this emasculation is on the level. those arguments fail to address the points being made.

the points being made are:

1) the books made the characters a certain way --

2) whether or not the way the books made the characters was emasculating is irrelevant. the point is that the characters are being changed such that the producers are emasculating them.

3) the difference b/t the show emasculating them and the books emasculating them is not an insignificant point. the fact of the matter is that the show is based on the characters in the books. period. therefore, though fidelity to storylines and minor characters is unnecessary, the characteristics of major characters is necessary for the show to move in the same direction as the books without feeling awkward or contrived.

4) even if one concedes that the book emasculates other characters, it in no way defeats or addresses the emasculation of jon snow. one does not equal the other. so any points you make about other characters in no way answers whether jon snow has been emasculated on the show compared to what his character is like in the books.

further, the facts of the matter are these: jon snow is an intelligent, capable man of the night's watch in the books. his wolf and being a stark -- with the blood of the first men and the old gods -- is why qhorin picks him -- he says that the old gods are important beyond the wall, and therefore, jon is seen as a good luck charm of sorts. not only that, but he has a bamf for a dw.

in the books it is nonessential that jon kills ygritte -- the point was for qhorin to understand jon -- b/c like qhorin says, if he wanted the job done, he wouldve done it himself, or given it to someone who would carry it out.

on the show, it is essential that he kill ygritte, but he not only fails to do so, but he lets her get the drop on him. this is a textbook definition of emasculation: to make weaker or less effective. it is not a subjective thing you're debating. in one instance he lets her go -- taking the moral high ground (stupid though it may be); in the other instance, he fails to keep her -- making him a less effective nights watchman. emasculation personified.

in the books, jon stays with qhorin and ghost. on the show, he somehow has no control over ghost and loses qhorin. he is a weaker and less effective nights watchman.

whether you want to debate the merits of making jon so effective at such a young age in the books is a different argument altogether. your agreement with the change does not address the fact that those changes emasculate jon. if i substitute the word emasculate for a synonym -- weaken -- the point is more obvious.

jon is a weaker, less effective person in the show. the show has made him this way. he is not this way in the books at this point in the story. therefore, the show has emasculated him.

Great post, and very well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree but in a way I think it will make Jon's development as a character more dramatic, from an inexperienced boy to the man who serves Donal Noye greatly during the defense of Castle Black. Even though it will make him a little less believable as a character, making that drastic development by just staying with the wildlings for a while, it will be very satisfactory for the viewers. If you want to make his rise to greatness dramatic, you'll have to start low. It's a bit cartoony and over-simplified but for a TV-show it sort of makes sense. I think it's a general rule that the show-writers have to paint with broader strokes than GRRM, but considering time and budget constraints I'm okay with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is Jon a Gary Stu in the books? I'd be the first to say he's a boring cliche, but to be a Gary Stu he has to be some sort of wish fulfilment fantasy for the writer, and who'd want to be Jon Snow? His life sucks throughout the books. He loses his father and his brothers, he lives on the end of the world where it's cold all the time, he can't get married or even have sex without feeling guilty, his girlfriend dies fighting against him, he gets assassinated by his own men...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is this "Ghost" character people keep mentioning? He sounds interesting but invisible.

I imagine next week we will find that Ghost has been warging into Jon Snow and taking control. Jon's apparently poor decision making is due to Ghost being conflicted between ripping Ygritte apart with his teeth or humping her leg..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon is still a boy - and this has to be underlined in the early seasons. He has to make many mistakes, at both craster's place and the wildlings, so that he will reflect on these later on and become a MAN of the night's watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon and Ghost have definitely lost their mojo.. What i fell sad about is the fact that we did not get this fabulous " warg" connection between Jon and ghost ( the discovery of where all the widling were) and Jon explaining his dream to Qhorin, Qhorin understanding what was going on with Jon and calling him a warg, the trees have eyes again...ect i was so looking forward to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hes been training for his entire life to do exactly what hes doing now. Its pretty much medieval knighthood 101. He is 100% in his element at this point in the story. Whats more, while some people think Jon is just a "regular joe" hes definitely not. This isnt a kid whose had a carefree easy going life, hes someoen who has been trained to a very specific job and do it very well, and he is doing that job. Its exactly the reason Robb can outfox Tywin Lannister, they arent "green boys" they are highly trained young men who are doing exactly the things they trained for. Now thats not to say that Jon and Robb dont make mistakes, because they do. But they mistakes they make are not for lack of competence, but lack of wisdom and foresight. Jon in trying to run off when news of Eddards death, his initial attitude toward the other trainees, his initial attitude at being named a steward or in his failure to see the other officers of the NW plotting against him. And in each case (well except the last one) he tends to learn his lessons quickly. TV show Jon on the otherhand shows basic incompetence. He doesnt think through the consequences of sparing Ygritte, he begs to go on a ranging (when in the books at that point he knows and accepts his duties, and moreover understands and agrees with the logic behind it). He also shows instances of courage and competency in the books, hes not just there for the ride, but hes showing actual ability. But ultimately what drives me nuts is that I think its made pretty clear in the book that Jon a pretty stoic guy. Hes always had a pretty large amount of misfortune heaped up on him, The reason that that he can hold the wall after Noye's death, the reason Sam, Pyp and Grenn look to him, the reason that he is the lord commander who can stand up to stannis is because outwardly, the guy is just a pillar of strength. The mary sue comparisons drive me nuts because he doesnt do things blindly thinking that hes going to do the right thing and its going to work out for the best because hes good, He does things where he knows the very real very serious consequences that coud result, and he chooses to do them anyways.There is something deeply fatalistic about Jon's character that the TV series doesnt even come close to capturing. And thats actually the biggest gripe I have about the Qhorin plotline turn. Jon would have easily preferred to fight with Qhorin against the wildlings to the death. He doesnt have any hopes or dreams for himself, doesnt dare to allow himself to have them (and thats what makes Stannis's offer of Winterfell so seductive, the dream is something he cant have). Instead Jon selects duty, dishoner in the case of the wildlings, and what looks like death. I mean, the one unquestionably sweet and pure thing he has in his adult life, with the exception of his bond with ghost perhaps, is Ygritte's love. And he (indirectly) kills her for duty.
:agree:

well stated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, it's not like the Wildlings don't capture Jon and Qhorin in the books, they just do it differently and earlier in the show.

the difference is in the book he was captured under orders otherwise he would (probably) have fought to the death, he certainly spoke of willingness to do so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i feel the need to step in here and show you the leg the other posters are standing on. on the one hand, you are correct -- the differences are the show v. the books, with the latter not being an emasculation by the show b/c the books already did that. the point they are making is that the show is emasculating jon snow in a way that the books didn't -- not that the books emasculated other characters, therefore this isn't emasculation, or this emasculation is on the level. those arguments fail to address the points being made. the points being made are: 1) the books made the characters a certain way -- 2) whether or not the way the books made the characters was emasculating is irrelevant. the point is that the characters are being changed such that the producers are emasculating them. 3) the difference b/t the show emasculating them and the books emasculating them is not an insignificant point. the fact of the matter is that the show is based on the characters in the books. period. therefore, though fidelity to storylines and minor characters is unnecessary, the characteristics of major characters is necessary for the show to move in the same direction as the books without feeling awkward or contrived. 4) even if one concedes that the book emasculates other characters, it in no way defeats or addresses the emasculation of jon snow. one does not equal the other. so any points you make about other characters in no way answers whether jon snow has been emasculated on the show compared to what his character is like in the books. further, the facts of the matter are these: jon snow is an intelligent, capable man of the night's watch in the books. his wolf and being a stark -- with the blood of the first men and the old gods -- is why qhorin picks him -- he says that the old gods are important beyond the wall, and therefore, jon is seen as a good luck charm of sorts. not only that, but he has a bamf for a dw. in the books it is nonessential that jon kills ygritte -- the point was for qhorin to understand jon -- b/c like qhorin says, if he wanted the job done, he wouldve done it himself, or given it to someone who would carry it out. on the show, it is essential that he kill ygritte, but he not only fails to do so, but he lets her get the drop on him. this is a textbook definition of emasculation: to make weaker or less effective. it is not a subjective thing you're debating. in one instance he lets her go -- taking the moral high ground (stupid though it may be); in the other instance, he fails to keep her -- making him a less effective nights watchman. emasculation personified. in the books, jon stays with qhorin and ghost. on the show, he somehow has no control over ghost and loses qhorin. he is a weaker and less effective nights watchman. whether you want to debate the merits of making jon so effective at such a young age in the books is a different argument altogether. your agreement with the change does not address the fact that those changes emasculate jon. if i substitute the word emasculate for a synonym -- weaken -- the point is more obvious. jon is a weaker, less effective person in the show. the show has made him this way. he is not this way in the books at this point in the story. therefore, the show has emasculated him.

I have no response. Excellent post. Thank you for coming up with an intelligent argument, which is something hard-found on internet message boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh and they didnt capture qhorin

I meant they surrounded them and forced them to either fight or submit. I see that as capture. Oh well, my point has been disproved already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh and they didnt capture qhorin
I meant they surrounded them and forced them to either fight or submit. I see that as capture. Oh well, my point has been disproved already.

Just a point of interest here. Do you think Rattleshirt would've let the Halfhand live?!? Correct me if I'm worng, but when Jon and Qhorin are captured in the books Rattleshirt wants to kill them both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

absolutely not, nor would qh allow himself to be taken alive, but i suppose it can work, just assum qh was knocked un conscious during the fight and the wildings want to take him to mance, doesnt make sense for a subsequent death match though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×