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

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...

I agree. He's been through so much fucked up shit, he's suffering from depression, his family dies, his friends leave, he's assassinated - eeh not very gary-stu-like to me. Just because he survived longer than most, doesn't mean he's this one-dimensional character that's the definition of a Mary Sue or Gary Stu.

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. :(

Yeah let Bryan Cogman know, oh yeah people kind of screwed that one up. Way to go book purists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah let Bryan Cogman know, oh yeah people kind of screwed that one up. Way to go book purists.

Geez, just because they go left everytime Jon in the story went right, it means I'm a book purist. I don't complain about other things, I actually like some changes, but considering they seriously f*cked up a protagonist this season (making him EXTREMELY unlikeable), did you think there'd be no backlash? :rolleyes: Oh and a writer left twitter, boo hoo, if Peter Jackson left facebook every time someone criticised his work (he is hated even by the Tolkien family), he'd have left facebook a million times by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only main character in the books who was less interesting than “Jon” was Dany. I hated every one of his chapters before Dance. I’m glad HBO has recognized this problem and addressed it. Both of them, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only main character in the books who was less interesting than “Jon” was Dany. I hated every one of his chapters before Dance. I’m glad HBO has recognized this problem and addressed it. Both of them, actually.

I'm with you on that. Although I think Show Ygritte will help a lot. Its wierd how so many of the characters that I didn't love in the book somehow translated better on TV while still keeping the feel of the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think D&D completely misunderstand Jon. They said in an inside the episode edition that jon was in search of a father figure. I think that is completely wrong. Jon has had a father figure, in fact many father figures-Ned, Ser Rodrik and Maester Luwin. What Jon has missed is a mother figure. A strong father figure (of the types Jon has had) will instill in Jon independance, stoicism, and similar traits that lead jon to be a perfect leader of men. WHat Jon has not had (and I would deem this the deciding factor in his development) was a lack of a nurturing maternal figure. How that translated to GRRMs characterization was a questioning of his place in the world. He has no idea who he is. He is not a true Stark,thus leading to feelings of inadequacy That lack of nurturing mother would reasonably result in a lack of empathy, agression and anger that I think were offset by Ned's instilled sense of honor.

Where I think D&D have gone wrong is treating Jon as a lost boy searching for a father figure, thus defining TV jons relationship with Mormont and a need to show Jon being "developed" by Mormont in ways that dont ring true with book JOn. Jon displayed from early on his leadership abilities=sword training, leading his fellow trainees, treatment of Sam. that type of maturity just does not jive with the kid who gets beat up by Caster, for not being a good steward, for incompetence on the trail with QH.

Many of the things described above about Jons "failings" in the book=taking shit from Jamie or Theon result not from a lack of self confidence or ability, but a lack of identity.

Again, book JOn, which has not translated to show Jon, is a born leader, Ned Starks son. D&D seem to miss that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have mentioned I honestly found Jon's chapters to be quite boring once he left Winterfell and headed to the Wall. And then North of the Wall.

I was hoping that the TV Series would make it more interesting but so far its just boring with beautiful scenery and thats about it. Good thing Kit Harrington is good looking because I'd fast forward every single scene. As it is the only scenes I do watch are him and Ygritte....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a thoroughly enjoyable thread to read - I actually read all six pages! I feel everyone on both sides of this debate has made really good points and that is why I don't have any to add myself, which haven't already been said or discussed.

My opinion is that Jon Snow in the series was true to the inexperienced naive way they portrayed him in the books during season one, and then somewhere along the line in season two they've forgotten to 'age' him up and let him start becoming more of the man he will have to be by the time the entire Night's Watch falls on his shoulders.

Sure - the arguments here that they've still got plenty of film time left to "turn him into a man" (and hopefully save his character's pitiful reputation at this point) - and that his killing Qhorin is that defining moment of manhood for Jon are all valid suggestions, but at this point they're just speculation. We all hope sincerely they do in fact give Jon Snow a more upward trend in his actions from here on out because he's pretty much sunk to an all time low.

I also want to say that for me, the two additional blunders for Jon that the producers added on top of everything else (Craster's attack and the Ygritte chase/capture scenes) really just felt gratuitous and not necessary. I am not sure why they felt the necessity of adding those when Jon's story line was plenty interesting enough on its own as written. It feels like they wanted him to be seen as more incompetent than he was in the books. He did make mistakes in the books, that's why his story of rise to leadership was so good. There just wasn't the need to add fictitious mistakes he didn't even do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Quotes from the episode that made me change my mind -slightly- about where they're going with this:

Qhorin: "Mance is gonna march on the Wall, and when he does, one brother inside his army will be worth 1,000 fighting against it."

So sounds like Qhorin trusts Jon enough to be THAT man.

Qhorin: "How does it feel knowing those men all died so you could skip through the snow with your little savage girl? I should have known better trusting a traitor's bastard."

Because Jon clearly "stole" Ygritte, ran away with her (as wildling men do) and endangered his brothers for the sake of her, in the next episode it's easier to say that going to the wildlings is intentional on Jon's part. He already looks like a wildling and a turncloak, and his actions back that up before he even kills Qhorin. I think D&D made this change because they didn't think killing Qhorin was convincing enough for the wildlings to believe he had turned.

Downside to this upside: regardless of whether it fits Qhorin's plan, Jon still weakened their position. Instead of being intentionally traitorous, it was just stupid thinking on his part. Damn, now I'm wondering if Qhorin's line that he "should have known better" had a bit of truth to it in his mind.

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.

You make a really good point. I've never looked at it this way but you're right. So they've been weakening his character from the get go. Great! I'm not against changes but what they've done to Jon is really pitiful. I mean, they took my favourite character from the books and made him a guy I would probably hate reading about. Dany is similar to show!Jon but that's just how she is written. And it's not just that they make him look stupid while doing dumb mistakes, they also have all the other characters tell him how stupid he is. And Jon just stares and says nothing. Even my father, who never read the books, thinks that Jon looks like an idiot.

My favourite scene from Jon's storyline this season is the dialogue between him, Sam and Gilly. It's straight out of the book and his character is the same. It's also Kit's strongest scene this season imo. And I agree with the point that D&D have their favourites. I almost never hear them talk about Jon or Kit. It's always the kids, Peter, Richard and Emilia. I believe the biggest mistakes within his storyline are somewhat reparable but I don't have high hopes at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make a really good point. I've never looked at it this way but you're right. So they've been weakening his character from the get go. Great! I'm not against changes but what they've done to Jon is really pitiful. I mean, they took my favourite character from the books and made him a guy I would probably hate reading about. Dany is similar to show!Jon but that's just how she is written. And it's not just that they make him look stupid while doing dumb mistakes, they also have all the other characters tell him how stupid he is. And Jon just stares and says nothing. Even my father, who never read the books, thinks that Jon looks like an idiot.

My favourite scene from Jon's storyline this season is the dialogue between him, Sam and Gilly. It's straight out of the book and his character is the same. It's also Kit's strongest scene this season imo. And I agree with the point that D&D have their favourites. I almost never hear them talk about Jon or Kit. It's always the kids, Peter, Richard and Emilia. I believe the biggest mistakes within his storyline are somewhat reparable but I don't have high hopes at this point.

I think even that scene gets the Sam/Jon dynamic wrong. Jon Show seems exasperated and frustrated that Sam is bringing this to him, whereas Jon Snow seemed frustrated at times with Sam, but I dont think he ever lost his patience with him and became irritable. I think he loves Sams big naive heart, and it makes him sad to have to break it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''My opinion is that Jon Snow in the series was true to the inexperienced naive way they portrayed him in the books during season one, and then somewhere along the line in season two they've forgotten to 'age' him up and let him start becoming more of the man he will have to be by the time the entire Night's Watch falls on his shoulders.''

I think its undeniable that they did capture his inexperience in the first season, as well as his sullen nature and his angst. All very important facets of Jon's character in the first book. Trouble is though, that was all they managed to portray and very significant elements of book Jon were lost. There are a number of reasons for this but the most salient is simply the decision to age him up. Perhaps I'm more hung up on the original ages than most but I thought Jon really worked as a fourteen year old. I like some teenage angst, but it ceases to be in anyway cute, endearing or sympathetic when portrayed by a twenty-four year old.

Crucially it makes show Jon look pretty immature and even underdeveloped. I always got the contrary impression from Jon Snow in the books. If you bore his age in mind when reading his chapters he seemed to cope very well for the most part, and his mistakes didn't detract all that much from his intelligence or his decent character. At the beginning of the book he was established as mature for his age (both Benjen and Luwin agreed with this) and that aspect of him is lost completely simply by having a twenty four year old play him. If show Jon actually looked anything like the character from the books he would be much more impressive I think. He was master of the training yard when he must have been one of the youngest men there. Grown men and late teens ended up being led by a little teenager. Age him up and his natural abilities and the training he received at Winterfell that made him a precocious nascent leader all vanish.

There might be no help for this, although given they were so willing to make character changes elsewhere you might have though they would be a bit more eager to undo the damage caused by giving a twenty four year old lines written for a fourteen year old.

Even if this was no good, through a series of alterations and omissions to Jon's story in the series, in particular, but not only, the opening scene with the direwolf pups, they made him a less impressive character than the boy in the books. Kind of like rubbing salt in the wound. I thought he was at his most impressive at Castle Black in book one when he persuaded Aemon to ask for Sam as his steward so he would be passed on from Ser Alliser. This was really the only time he did something bright without prompting and while they couldn't do every scene this one would, I think, have done most to remedy the unfortunate impression they created that Jon is not very bright.

Now, I don't want to be nasty to Kit Harington. He is a good actor, very committed to the show and a fan of the books too. I just don't think he is very good at getting across Jon's budding leadership qualities or his intelligence (Emilia Clarke on the other hand, seems to handle Dany very well in this respect). Perhaps I'm just not a fan of the accent D&D make him do, but his delivery fails to convey any sense that he is talented and a natural leader (to me anyway). Also, more than any other character he undergoes a lot of tutelage and he never looks very clever while this is happening. I just don't think his expressions really show him learning and pondering what he has been told and I think book Jon was a thoughtful character. Show Jon looks dopey (actually this is a substantial understatement). Loads of people seem not to mind so maybe this is not such a big deal. It seems very jarring to me.

But yeah, while Jon's inexperience sure did transition to the screen not much else did. For this reason I don't agree that D&D's characterization this season is that out. In the show Jon is unquestionably the stupidest of the Stark children and this is just being brought out this season. He isn't this way in the books but he was never the same character, even from the start. I think the changes to Jon this season from the books show D&D being perceptive about the new characters that have been created by the adaptation. They are thinking on their feet about how to develop Jon realistically now that he is very different to the way he was in the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think D&D completely misunderstand Jon. They said in an inside the episode edition that jon was in search of a father figure. I think that is completely wrong. Jon has had a father figure, in fact many father figures-Ned, Ser Rodrik and Maester Luwin.

While these figures are all strong men, I'm not sure any of them would have been father figures to Jon. A father is more than a guiding hand and life-lessons, there's supposed to be love there as well. I'm not sure that Ned ever really showed Jon affection and I think the fact that such a strong potential father figure was there and they didn't connect would eat at Jon.

Jon displayed from early on his leadership abilities=sword training, leading his fellow trainees, treatment of Sam. that type of maturity just does not jive with the kid who gets beat up by Caster, for not being a good steward, for incompetence on the trail with QH.

Jon learned in season 1 how to relate with other people his age, these next two seasons he's going to learn how to command them. Mormont criticizes Jon for not being able to look the other way, but that's not something he would've ever learned before. I have no doubt that Ned would teach he's sons to protect the weak but I seriously doubt he would teach them that discretion is occasionally the better part of valour (as he himself fails at this). So, Jon is learning something new this season its not a retread of stuff he should know so its not emasculating in my opinion.

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.

None of these things require maturity, or wisdom. He is a good sword fighter because he was trained to be, this is also how he killed the wight and, at least initially, why his peers respected him. As far as being selected as the LC's steward that means that people think he has the potential to be a great leader (and he does) not that he is ready to do so now. If Mormont thought Jon was ready to lead then he wouldn't have to groom him for the position.

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.

No they didn't. They showed him getting slightly better. Becoming a man is not a simple step up, its a long and gradual process. Yes, Jon no longer thinks he's better than his brothers; why does that mean he is now no longer ignorant of anything?

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.

I didn't take the statement as a boast, certainly not one about being better than other Rangers. Jon was trying to get Mormont and the Halfhand to give him a chance to prove himself. It's actually in line with his previous character development to. In S1 Jon would've said he deserved to go because of who he is, this season he tries to show them that he is capable, that he has fought this enemy and can defeat it. It's not "I'm a BAMF and deserve to be on this mission" it's "I won't be a liability, I can handle myself remember".

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.

I totally think "goat fuckers" is in line with Qhorin's thinking about the wildlings. It's not a slight against their religion, or lack thereof, it's simply a statement about the way they live. It's even possible that it's true. I also find it interesting that Ygritte is quick to suggest something similar about the Night's Watch. Qhorin's been done quite well I think and I'm personally quite fine with the fact that the show went out and got good actors to play minor characters like him, Edd and others rather than blowing their money on CGIing direwolves into every scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree, I believe that Jon had alot of loving male figures in his life growing up. They may not have been soft girlie men (they ar e northerners), but clearly they loved Jon, Ser Rodik and Luwin asmuch as Ned, in their own ways. Now obviously a stoic winter is coming northerner is going to be grim, but the love is there, demonstrated by the harsh life lessons taught. It is jon which instructs bran to watch the beheading, showing that Jon has been taught a similar lesson by Ned et al in the past. Jon was raised by the men of Winterfell as an equal to Robb and Bran and was affectionate with his sisters esp arya. It was cat that rejected him and kept him at a distance, but that does not mean the love that Ned or Ser rodrik or Luwin showed Jon was just dutiful, that it was less than real or at least I am not aware of any evidence to that end

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still holding on to hopes that this story can be rectified. I think a redemptive arc could be in full swing by the end of the season if -- say for example, Qhorin reiterates the failure Jon has been North of the Wall, giving him his one final task to infiltrate the Wildlings and bring them down from within. By the time Qhorin is dead and Jon joins the Wildlings his redemption arc would already be well under way. As long as Season 3 reinforces the fact that Jon was the one who saved the entire Watch by returning after the Queenscrown incident, I think there's enough basis to show his leadership abilities.

At the same time I'm worried they'll pull a Donnie Brasco and it will seem as if Jon has become a Wildling when really all they have to do is show Jon realising, "Hey, these Wildlings aren't as bad as I thought they'd be but there still my enemy." If they show the Wildlings as horrible people, when Jon let's them through the Wall it will be the pinnacle of idiocy. In fact, Jon's movements in Book 5 were smart, it's just his brothers didn't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While these figures are all strong men, I'm not sure any of them would have been father figures to Jon. A father is more than a guiding hand and life-lessons, there's supposed to be love there as well. I'm not sure that Ned ever really showed Jon affection and I think the fact that such a strong potential father figure was there and they didn't connect would eat at Jon.

Jon learned in season 1 how to relate with other people his age, these next two seasons he's going to learn how to command them. Mormont criticizes Jon for not being able to look the other way, but that's not something he would've ever learned before. I have no doubt that Ned would teach he's sons to protect the weak but I seriously doubt he would teach them that discretion is occasionally the better part of valour (as he himself fails at this). So, Jon is learning something new this season its not a retread of stuff he should know so its not emasculating in my opinion.

None of these things require maturity, or wisdom. He is a good sword fighter because he was trained to be, this is also how he killed the wight and, at least initially, why his peers respected him. As far as being selected as the LC's steward that means that people think he has the potential to be a great leader (and he does) not that he is ready to do so now. If Mormont thought Jon was ready to lead then he wouldn't have to groom him for the position.

No they didn't. They showed him getting slightly better. Becoming a man is not a simple step up, its a long and gradual process. Yes, Jon no longer thinks he's better than his brothers; why does that mean he is now no longer ignorant of anything?

I didn't take the statement as a boast, certainly not one about being better than other Rangers. Jon was trying to get Mormont and the Halfhand to give him a chance to prove himself. It's actually in line with his previous character development to. In S1 Jon would've said he deserved to go because of who he is, this season he tries to show them that he is capable, that he has fought this enemy and can defeat it. It's not "I'm a BAMF and deserve to be on this mission" it's "I won't be a liability, I can handle myself remember".

I totally think "goat fuckers" is in line with Qhorin's thinking about the wildlings. It's not a slight against their religion, or lack thereof, it's simply a statement about the way they live. It's even possible that it's true. I also find it interesting that Ygritte is quick to suggest something similar about the Night's Watch. Qhorin's been done quite well I think and I'm personally quite fine with the fact that the show went out and got good actors to play minor characters like him, Edd and others rather than blowing their money on CGIing direwolves into every scene.

When Jon said "I fought and killed a Wight, how many Rangers can say that", I don't know how it could be taken as anything but him boasting, and I think the show confirmed that, when they had Mormont saying "you also let an old man get the best of you, and take your sword"(Mormont said something like that). Also, when Jon is saying that, he is definitely implying that he has done something that most Rangers haven't, and it comes off like he is trying to say he is more qualified than most Rangers because of it. Even though killing a Wight is impressive, that does not actually mean he would automatically be an awesome Ranger. Hell, Sam killed an Other, and he would make a terrible Ranger. The Jon in season one stopped thinking he was better than his fellow Brothers in training, and now in season two he thinks he is more qualified, and in a way, better than any Ranger who has not "fought and killed a Wight. I don't know how you can think that line was not showing Jon's incompetence, because before Jon left, Mormont said "I hope you make a better Ranger than you did a Steward". So Mormont multiple times in just this one episode, not to mention the Craster episode, has said things to Jon about his incompetence.

As for show Qhorin, he is nothing like Qhorin from ACoK, physically and otherwise. Qhorin has a respect and understanding for the Wildlings, he still fights them, but he does not hate them. In the book, Qhorin was a more solemn, soft spoken kind of guy, despite him being a rather big, but slender guy. Qhorin from the books would never say "now come on, let's go find these goat fuckers". Qhorin was like Mance when Mance was still a Brother of the Nights Watch. Mance respected the Wildlings and understood them, he didn't view them like Bowen Marsh would. On page 764 of the paperback edition of ACoK, Qhorin says, "Only fools like Thoren Smallwood despise the wildlings. They are as brave as we are, Jon. As strong, as quick, as clever. But they have no discipline." The Qhorin who tells Jon something like that, is nothing like the Qhorin who call the Wildlings "goat fuckers".

And that whole speech Qhorin gave Jon, before they got to Ygritte, about how he does not want Jon to be happy to die for the Watch, and how nobody would know Jon's name, but he could know that he died to save someone south of the Wall, etc... That whole speech wasn't really out of character for book Qhorin, the delivery was a little, but that speech wasn't. However, at the end of the speech, when Qhorin asked Jon if he understands, and Jon said yes, then Qhorin said "then your even dumber than I thought. It's just words boy. Words to help us sleep at night". That's not something Qhorin would say, he was all about giving his life for the Watch, and he even said that's why they do what they do, in the books. Book Qhorin would never ridicule Jon for saying he understands, after he just went into this big rant to explain something to Jon, only to say it was all a bunch of bullshit.

I am not saying the actor playing Qhorin is bad, I am saying the writing for him is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of interest to this thread: interview with Kit Harington, who says he thinks Jon Snow is "quite stupid" and "doesn't think ahead"

That kind of upsets me, I don't know if he is saying that just from reading the books, or of the show Jon is reflecting in his view of Jon. I am glad he has read the books, the first four anyway, and I think all the actors should read the books to really get a good understanding of the characters, and the story. However, from that interview and others, I do not get that much of an impression that he really knows the books that well. I certainly would not say he knows them as well as most the fans dedicated to these forums. Again, I am glad he actually has read some of the books, I just don't think he has the best understanding of them, and Jon as a character, for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the actor has no clue.

Yeah, I don't like to think it, because I want to really like Kit Harington, because I really like Jon Snow.... But he really has no freaking clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×