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

I'm holding faith in the writers. I have to, because if they mess up Jon's thread in the long-term then they've messed up the whole series. So I'm holding faith that:

-they chose to focus on Ygritte this season in order to have her story arch hold more weight for non-readers next season.

-they added her scenes with Jon b/c they're going to remove some of their future "romance building" scenes next season to focus more on the action.

-they will show his development into a leader and fighter next season

-Ghost will get face time next year (I actually hold little faith in this as they seem to have dropped all the wolves from prominence which really ticks me off)

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.

I'm getting a little tired of this argument as well, and how much he's going to "develop" next season. First of all, the latter is a total cop out. He should be "developing" the entire time, not backtracking.

As far as to your point, if jon is such a boy, explain this:

1) He was by far the best recruit in his training class, everyone expected him to be a ranger

2) He was selected to be the Lord Commander's steward, a role that even the producers of the show exhibited to be a grooming position within the NW to be a future commander

3) He saved the LC's life with ghost by killing a wight.

4) His character depth grew in GOT when he became a leader amongst his peers and took Tarly under his wing and protected him against the other recruits. This led to Sam being accepted and liked amongst his peers when that never ever would have happened before.

5) jon earned respect of tyrion

So that is where we leave off GOT with Jon Snow. Then we pick up this season, he's getting chastised left and right by the LC and others. He's getting beaten up by Craster and Ghost is nowhere to be found. All of his accomplishments in this book are being ignored. Finding the dragonglass, finding the wildling host, climbing and killing a watcher and taking ygritte a prisoner bosslike, being respected by the Halfhand, evading capture by the wildling hunters for days on end.

He was a prodigy coming out of GoT and now, he's a twit. It's laughable. Name another character who has had every change made to make him or her look weaker. Littlefinger started that way this season but is clawing his way out of that hole, but it still wasn't half of the changes for the worse they've made for Jon Snow.

It might give him a bigger redemption arc, but it also gives him a less believable, much more inconsistent redemption arc. The show can't even maintain consistency from season to season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm getting a little tired of this argument as well, and how much he's going to "develop" next season. First of all, the latter is a total cop out. He should be "developing" the entire time, not backtracking.

Respectfully, I don't think it's a cop out. Or, to specify, I think the decision by the writers could be justified.

Let me start by saying I love Jon's story in the books, and am annoyed by how the series has adapted it to the screen. I'm REALLY annoyed that my girlfriend hates when they switch "to the snow scenes" more than any other setting....even more than when they cut to Qarth!! I want her to love Jon's story like I do, but all the meat has been cut out, leaving hardly more than a few scraps of bone.

Ok, that said: I don't think it's farfetched to watch his 'development' take a step back in his new setting, even if you take into account all the points you made about his role last season. He wasn't ready to be a Ranger, even if he was sure he was ready, and now we're seeing just how not ready he was.

Let's face it, Ned Stark would have made a horrible Ranger, and Jon has too much of his father in him to be able to just jump into the role and run with it. He's too questioning, too green, too sympathetic, and still not accepting enough of his role as a Man of the Night's Watch. Just as he was getting comfortable behind The Wall, he was dragged further north, and he's out of his element again.

If there's any major fault I find with the writers right now it's that they've written no sense of foreboding into the area beyond the wall. To non-readers in particular I think it looks like a bunch of men wandering around in the snow. That landscape is bleak, but save the one baby-stealing scene there's very little for a viewer to hold on to. ....And then there's the whole Ghost vanishing thing...

Anyway, sometimes a character develops best when it takes a few steps back, and as long as they have Jon take giant leaps forward next season I can roll with this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the whole I am pretty pleased with the adaptation from books to TV but this is the one thing that bugs me each and every time we see Jon for me they have totally screwed his arc in Clash, in the book he has a good enough reputation that Qhorin chooses him to accompany him, he then has a rather significant development IMO that is completely left out and that is his warging of Ghost and discovering the wildling host, then his scene where Qhorin orders him to turn his cloak. In the show it just seems to be oh no Jons on screen he is about to screw up again and get himself and others into more trouble and Ghost isn't even there to help him out.

In the books by far the most boring parts for me were from the Greyjoys in the show unfortunately I seem to be adding Jon to that, the rest of the adaptation is great i just can't stand the butchering of Jon in this series so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was critical in the books that Jon warged with Ghost found the Weirwood in the milkwater and talked to Bran from the dark. It let us know that Bran wasn't truly dead and that Jon had warging powers. Now, Jon not only knows nothing, he is nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me its not a big deal who found the dragonglass. And as Sam is the one who slaughters the Other, just give him the honour to find the dragonglass to. Who cares. And finding it by digging shitholes is a nice movement.

I think the time of aging up for Jon is still to come even in the books. He is forced to kill Quorin, to go with Mance, then abandons Ygritte.These are hard decisions for him and he grows on them.

Afterwards he organizes the defense of the wall against the Ygritte companie and then against Mance.

I think his caracter has still time to grow up, so perhaps nothing is lost. Besides some boring scenes in this episode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It doesn't bother me too much if a character is changed to be weaker or stronger - as traits by themselves it might be an improvement in adaptation.

I care if they're boring/uninteresting.

If they're boring and stupid/weak, that's probably the worst combination of qualities for a character. What a snooze. ShowTheon is weak and stupid but he's definitely not boring. ShowCat is, at this point, a weaker character, both stubborn and stupid, sort of one-note, but she drives the action, and now she's being branded a "traitor." ShowRobb seems like a Competent Good Guy, but that also makes him painfully boring (to me at least).

If ShowJon was stupid but also something definable- prideful, misguided, flawed, broken, or damaged, then audiences might have more invested in his story. But he's stupid and dull. I can see how the show is trying to make Jon look like an underdog who gets crapped on wildlings and watchmen alike. To make that work successfully, the antagonisms have to be unjustified. I thought Mormont's chiding of him wasn't justified; but it seems like Halfhand's "it's your fault they died" was actually his fault. So it's a mixed bag.

I do notice that no one on any message board debates Jon's moral complexity; that's because there's nothing there to debate. If anything, his weakness as a character should give us more fodder to contemplate, but there's nothing much to say about naivete. I suppose the only moral danger he's in is in breaking his vows (in multiple ways), which does come from a place of weakness for him. I'm thinking of Jimmy's character in Boardwalk Empire - somehow it was riveting to see him make painfully naive decisions as he continued to lose against those who bested him. It was weak, but it definitely wasn't a bore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
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.

I agree, we shouldn't be able to tell which "king" the writers favor. It's even difficult to determine which character GRRM would prefer to be king (although I've seen some convincing guesses; definitely NOT Joffrey). Not to get too OT, but do you think that they have been overtly undercutting Stannis' good qualities as a king? I thought they were doing an OK job conveying that; especially in this last episode. But yeah, the writers don't seem to care about Jon that much. All I know is - I can't wait to see Jon and Stannis interact because Jon should have the upper hand in those scenes. If they make Jon look like an idiot at that point, then we're in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great post, and very well said.
I feel the need to step in here and say that summer_stark Is a bamf.
I have no response. Excellent post. Thank you for coming up with an intelligent argument, which is something hard-found on internet message boards.

thanks guys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, we shouldn't be able to tell which "king" the writers favor. It's even difficult to determine which character GRRM would prefer to be king (although I've seen some convincing guesses; definitely NOT Joffrey). Not to get too OT, but do you think that they have been overtly undercutting Stannis' good qualities as a king? I thought they were doing an OK job conveying that; especially in this last episode. But yeah, the writers don't seem to care about Jon that much. All I know is - I can't wait to see Jon and Stannis interact because Jon should have the upper hand in those scenes. If they make Jon look like an idiot at that point, then we're in trouble.

Yes, they definitely have cut out the things that would make Stannis a good King IMO. They have made Melisandre seem almost more evil, in comparison to the little screen time they have given her, and because Stannis is with Mel, that makes him look worse. I know he is with her in the books and stuff, but in the books we have more information, so we can see more of Stannis's redeeming qualities. It's like the writers D&D have made up their minds that Melisandre and Stannis are both "bad guys", and IMO that is a bunch of chicken shit. Nobody in the story is pure bad, or pure good, they are suppose to be shades of grey. However, D&D seem to have forgotten that, and I hate how their own personal take on the books is reflecting in how they are writing characters in the show.

Most like, after reading ADwD, D&D thought Jon was an idiot from then on, for the "bad" decisions he made in that book. So now it seems like, because they now have it in their minds that Jon is an idiot, that's how they are writing his character for season two. That's the only thing I can think of, because in season one they showed how Jon had the ignorance of youth, but they showed him developing past that. So thats the only thing I can think of, because in ACoK, Jon was not the blundering fool that they show in season two. When they are doing an adaptation, I consider it very bad writing for the writers own personal opinion to shine through into the characters. GRRM's characters are golden, I don't know why they feel the need to change them. The fact that they feel like they have the right to change them, thats a whole different subject that also makes me mad, but I won't go into that. With characters like Margaery, and the need to combine her character with Olenna Tyrell, I think they have done a great job with that, and it was neccisary. Its obvious that they are very proud of their version of Margaery, and I don't have a problem with that, because the character had to be changed for good reasons. However, there isn't really a good reason for changing Jon at all, especially when it's changing him for the worse, and not the better, and especially when their changes completely contradict all the development Jon made in season one. Judging by Jon's character this season, had someone never seen season one, I guarantee you that person would never guess Jon got over himself, and actually started to help his fellow recruits.

The line that is most out of character, and the line that bothers me most, is when Jon says "I fought and killed a Wight, how many Rangers can say that?". I am not even sure that is something Jon would have said when he first got to the Watch, let alone after being there for a while. Jon at first thought he was good enough to be a Ranger, and he probably still does, and in the books he probably is good enough to be an actual Ranger. However, Jon would never think he is actually better than most Rangers, he knows that he is no where near the level of Rangers like Qhorin and Benjen. Jon would also never say something like that infront of Lord Commander Mormont, same goes for Qhorin Halfhand. That should have got him laughed at, and it should have been a reason for Qhorin not to pick him. Instead, because of that line, Qhorin lets him go with him? It makes no sense.

Speaking of Qhorin, they have completely screwed his character up. Qhorin in the book would never call the Wildlings "goat fuckers". That's something a Steward would say, not a Ranger, and especially not Qhorin. Qhorin has spent a lot of time with the Wildlings, he knows they aren't just godless savages. He knows that they are men, just like him, and he respects them more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, we shouldn't be able to tell which "king" the writers favor. It's even difficult to determine which character GRRM would prefer to be king (although I've seen some convincing guesses; definitely NOT Joffrey).

You can’t tell which “king” Martin would see king? Really? It’s right there just as plain as day so that even a little child could see that Martin’s choice for the kingship is indisputably...

HODOR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Respectfully, I don't think it's a cop out. Or, to specify, I think the decision by the writers could be justified.

I'm saying the argument is a cop out, not necessarily what the writes did was a cop out. Just brushing over inconsistencies and blatant attempts to alter a character from the book by saying, "just wait until next season" is a cop out argument to me. You could say that about anything. "Robb Stark's character is ruined"- "well, just wait till next season, they'll fix that". It's a weak argument.

Let me start by saying I love Jon's story in the books, and am annoyed by how the series has adapted it to the screen. I'm REALLY annoyed that my girlfriend hates when they switch "to the snow scenes" more than any other setting....even more than when they cut to Qarth!! I want her to love Jon's story like I do, but all the meat has been cut out, leaving hardly more than a few scraps of bone.

agreed, its painful compared to how amazing the north is in the books.

Ok, that said: I don't think it's farfetched to watch his 'development' take a step back in his new setting, even if you take into account all the points you made about his role last season. He wasn't ready to be a Ranger, even if he was sure he was ready, and now we're seeing just how not ready he was.

I disagree. Sure he could have some setbacks---IF HE HAD THEM IN THE BOOKS. That's the point of this thread. Every deviation has made him look more incompetent than the books, much more incompetent. Why leave out that the Halfhand asked for him? Why make him look like a moron infront of the LC? Why have someone else find the obsidian?

It's too much, but lets consider the show only. If he's going to have setbacks, don't make him go from the prodigy to a complete boob. Throw him a bone here or there. At no point should he look more composed ranging or traveling with the NW than Sam Tarly. EVER. Now its going to be even more of a joke when Mance takes him under his wing.

Let's face it, Ned Stark would have made a horrible Ranger, and Jon has too much of his father in him to be able to just jump into the role and run with it. He's too questioning, too green, too sympathetic, and still not accepting enough of his role as a Man of the Night's Watch. Just as he was getting comfortable behind The Wall, he was dragged further north, and he's out of his element again.

Disagree again. He had all the tools to be a ranger and possibly LC, hence him being selected as Mormont's steward. It's not like he never saw snow before or hunted anything. Shit, the Halfhand requested him. Oh ea, he also walks around with a gigantic white direwolf that never makes a sounds and is supposed to help and protect him.

If there's any major fault I find with the writers right now it's that they've written no sense of foreboding into the area beyond the wall. To non-readers in particular I think it looks like a bunch of men wandering around in the snow. That landscape is bleak, but save the one baby-stealing scene there's very little for a viewer to hold on to

agreed, craster's keep was mildly creepy.

. ....And then there's the whole Ghost vanishing thing...

yea, I mean, what's the point of direwolves? they're an afterthought.

Anyway, sometimes a character develops best when it takes a few steps back, and as long as they have Jon take giant leaps forward next season I can roll with this one.

no point in making the changes they did, only serves to make his possible giant steps less realistic. One day this guy loses his companions in a minute in snow that should leave tracks everywhere, gets punked out by ygritte, then he's holding the wall against thousands of wildlings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all of this Robb shit, I hadn't even realized how badly they messed up Jon too. either that, or I'm just in denial that HBO managed to singlehandedly ruin both of my favorite characters :ack:

Bring back smart, snarky, not embarrassingly useless Jon, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, they definitely have cut out the things that would make Stannis a good King IMO. They have made Melisandre seem almost more evil, in comparison to the little screen time they have given her, and because Stannis is with Mel, that makes him look worse. I know he is with her in the books and stuff, but in the books we have more information, so we can see more of Stannis's redeeming qualities. It's like the writers D&D have made up their minds that Melisandre and Stannis are both "bad guys", and IMO that is a bunch of chicken shit. Nobody in the story is pure bad, or pure good, they are suppose to be shades of grey. However, D&D seem to have forgotten that, and I hate how their own personal take on the books is reflecting in how they are writing characters in the show. Most like, after reading ADwD, D&D thought Jon was an idiot from then on, for the "bad" decisions he made in that book. So now it seems like, because they now have it in their minds that Jon is an idiot, that's how they are writing his character for season two. That's the only thing I can think of, because in season one they showed how Jon had the ignorance of youth, but they showed him developing past that. So thats the only thing I can think of, because in ACoK, Jon was not the blundering fool that they show in season two. When they are doing an adaptation, I consider it very bad writing for the writers own personal opinion to shine through into the characters. GRRM's characters are golden, I don't know why they feel the need to change them. The fact that they feel like they have the right to change them, thats a whole different subject that also makes me mad, but I won't go into that. With characters like Margaery, and the need to combine her character with Olenna Tyrell, I think they have done a great job with that, and it was neccisary. Its obvious that they are very proud of their version of Margaery, and I don't have a problem with that, because the character had to be changed for good reasons. However, there isn't really a good reason for changing Jon at all, especially when it's changing him for the worse, and not the better, and especially when their changes completely contradict all the development Jon made in season one. Judging by Jon's character this season, had someone never seen season one, I guarantee you that person would never guess Jon got over himself, and actually started to help his fellow recruits. The line that is most out of character, and the line that bothers me most, is when Jon says "I fought and killed a Wight, how many Rangers can say that?". I am not even sure that is something Jon would have said when he first got to the Watch, let alone after being there for a while. Jon at first thought he was good enough to be a Ranger, and he probably still does, and in the books he probably is good enough to be an actual Ranger. However, Jon would never think he is actually better than most Rangers, he knows that he is no where near the level of Rangers like Qhorin and Benjen. Jon would also never say something like that infront of Lord Commander Mormont, same goes for Qhorin Halfhand. That should have got him laughed at, and it should have been a reason for Qhorin not to pick him. Instead, because of that line, Qhorin lets him go with him? It makes no sense. Speaking of Qhorin, they have completely screwed his character up. Qhorin in the book would never call the Wildlings "goat fuckers". That's something a Steward would say, not a Ranger, and especially not Qhorin. Qhorin has spent a lot of time with the Wildlings, he knows they aren't just godless savages. He knows that they are men, just like him, and he respects them more than that.

yessir. Plus he let them take him alive? C'mon...... He wasn't asking Snow where Ghost was? Qhorin would be all over that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't bother me too much if a character is changed to be weaker or stronger - as traits by themselves it might be an improvement in adaptation. I care if they're boring/uninteresting. If they're boring and stupid/weak, that's probably the worst combination of qualities for a character. What a snooze. ShowTheon is weak and stupid but he's definitely not boring. ShowCat is, at this point, a weaker character, both stubborn and stupid, sort of one-note, but she drives the action, and now she's being branded a "traitor." ShowRobb seems like a Competent Good Guy, but that also makes him painfully boring (to me at least). If ShowJon was stupid but also something definable- prideful, misguided, flawed, broken, or damaged, then audiences might have more invested in his story. But he's stupid and dull. I can see how the show is trying to make Jon look like an underdog who gets crapped on wildlings and watchmen alike. To make that work successfully, the antagonisms have to be unjustified. I thought Mormont's chiding of him wasn't justified; but it seems like Halfhand's "it's your fault they died" was actually his fault. So it's a mixed bag. I do notice that no one on any message board debates Jon's moral complexity; that's because there's nothing there to debate. If anything, his weakness as a character should give us more fodder to contemplate, but there's nothing much to say about naivete. I suppose the only moral danger he's in is in breaking his vows (in multiple ways), which does come from a place of weakness for him. I'm thinking of Jimmy's character in Boardwalk Empire - somehow it was riveting to see him make painfully naive decisions as he continued to lose against those who bested him. It was weak, but it definitely wasn't a bore.

I understand where you're coming from and I certainly agree with Jon's character being boring, stupid, and vapid. What I don't understand is why the changes were made to intentionally make him look weak, when its inconsistent with how he's been portrayed in the books and on the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm saying the argument is a cop out, not necessarily what the writes did was a cop out. Just brushing over inconsistencies and blatant attempts to alter a character from the book by saying, "just wait until next season" is a cop out argument to me. You could say that about anything. "Robb Stark's character is ruined"- "well, just wait till next season, they'll fix that". It's a weak argument.

It's more about giving them time to show what they've developed for the character. And yes, it's more about 'hope' than anything when we have nothing to view that shows us what's coming.

If the HBO Jon was the Jon in the books, I'd have lost interest in Jon early on. I'm depending on the writers to deliver that Jon by the time he gets back to the Wall. Then again in the show we don't have the benefit of getting inside his head.

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 agree with your points and the OP that Jon's story really has been weakened.

A possible alternative to how they could have written the story is for Ygritte to have escaped when Jon chased after her, then have Jon rejoin with Qhorin and be ordered to kill him when the wildling's corner them much earlier in the season. Then have the Ygritte flirting while walking thru the snow conversations AFTER Jon has joined them. It seems they could have done that in roughly the same amount of screen time and kept the story more faithful.

It will be interesting to see if Jon kills Qhorin this season or next. After all the reason the wildlings kept them alive was to bring both to Mance, but Mance has not been cast this season as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the OP concerning the changes between Jon Snow and Jon Show in the second season. However, I don't think D&D are being as inconsistent as some people think. Jon Show was never really much like Jon Snow, even in the first season, its just that he did roughly the same kind of stuff and had most of the same lines, so book readers didn't always note the very profound differences.

Personally I think D&D made it clear in the very first episode that Jon Show was an emasculated, weaker version of his book counterpart. In the novel the first chapter consists of GRRM having Bran beat us round the head with what a precocious, serious, snarky and silver-tongued fourteen year old Jon Snow is. Jon dominates the scene where they find the wolf pups, he is portrayed as bright and sweet, as well as composed and even somewhat haughty. All his lines are there to tell us about his character. In the show, Jon delivers his lines about why they should keep the wolves and about his not being a stark in as unremarkable a way as possible, indeed, they sound like exposition rather than character points.

Even if this was just the way Harington wanted to play it, D&D rob Jon of his best line, 'I think not Greyjoy' and instead have Theon give him Ghost! Honestly, Jon getting Ghost from Theon is practically the equivalent of being raped and to make it worse Theon mocks him while he is at it, and Jon Show has no comeback. In the novels of course he rides back alone, having heard Ghost scrabbling and finds his own wolf, putting Theon down (who was five years his senior), with an icy stare and a line that dripped of cool composure. In the show there is a soul destroying shot of Jon holding little Ghost with a rather less than masterful expression on his face (the kindest way to put it).

Examples could be multiplied, but suffice to say this does establish a trend whereby Jon Show finds himself right at the bottom of the food chain in terms of wit and composure. In the novels, right after the first chapter, he was the Stark child to watch out for. In the show D&D showed us Jon's new place, on all fours, on his belly, getting owned by Theon Greyjoy.

Basically, this is all by way of saying that I don't think Jon Show was ever really the same character as Jon Snow. He was always less quick-witted, snarky and competent, a man who was the shadow of the boy he was in the books.

Some of this, perhaps most of it, is down to the age difference. In the show he can't look younger than twenty and Jon Snow is well written in the novels as a fourteen year old. The rest is due to the character being changed to the same extent as show Cat differs from book Cat.

Jon Show's behaviour in season 2 is therefore in line with his character in season 1 I think, to a greater extent than people are willing to give D&D credit for.

Edit: Having just watched the finding of the direwolves again I need to point out that I was totally wrong to say Jon gets given Ghost by Theon. He does find him himself, in an admittedly underwhelming way compared to the book. But Theon does mock him, 'the runt of the litter, that one's yours snow,' and Jon Show does lack a comeback, quite unlike the books. In the books I'm pretty sure Theon says 'the runt of the litter, its sure to die soon.' In the show Theon kind of apportions Ghost to Jon in a way he doesn't in the books by telling Jon Ghost is his wolf while in the books, 'this one is mine,' is a very forceful line delivered by Jon himself. Theon doesn't hand Jon Ghost though and I was in error here, although I think the basic point still stands. Also in the books I'm pretty sure Ned asks Jon why there is no wolf for him and he says I'm not a Stark to Ned making the statement more dramatic. In the show the line is very subdued, almost cowed, and he just says it to Bran so it has less affect. Please do correct me if I'm wrong here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I understand where you're coming from and I certainly agree with Jon's character being boring, stupid, and vapid. What I don't understand is why the changes were made to intentionally make him look weak, when its inconsistent with how he's been portrayed in the books and on the show.

Seems like Benioff and Weiss treat Jon as a plot device instead of a fully realized human being. "Jon goes beyond the Wall to find out what's happening up there" is how they seem to view him. In interviews they also talk adoringly about Richard Madden, so they clearly have their favorites. @Procopius - welcome to the forum, interesting post! Don't forget that scene between Jaime and Jon, where Jaime was picking on him like a school yard bully, and Jon could do nothing but take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone needs to show the writers this thread. Let them know we are severely disappointed with a major character's story. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×