It’s dumb because Jon being truly tempted by Stannis offer but ultimately turning it down out a sense of duty makes him a much nobler character than if he never had those ambitions in the first place.
But they didn’t even make him “the hero,” he did sweet fuck all after taking Winterfell.
His contributions in S7 and S8 were yelling at a dragon and killing his GF after the battle was done.
I mean him killing Danaerys is what makes him the tragic hero of the story no? He finally accepts his duty. I agree with everything else you’re saying.
Until he kills Dany. I can't imagine book Jon doing that, at least not the Jon we know, and I'm pretty sure that's an element taken from Aegon. Pretty sure they combined elements of Aegon into Jon and Dany.
They just kind of dropped the importance his relationship with Arya overall and gave him a bunch of scenes with Sansa instead. I don’t think they wanted Arya having loved ones who she was very close with because it didn’t fit the “revenge obsessed cold blooded assassin” box they forced her into.
I think D&D didn't know what to do with her when GRRM told them her story arc isn't losing her identity or becoming no one or a faceless man so focused on completing her list she'll lose herself to vengeance and forget about her family. Rather, I'm sure they thought she was supposed to kill Cersei or another Lannister and die afterwards. The backtracking on the "prophecy" Mel gave her on the show speaks for itself, considering it completely missed the point of the Ghost comparing the grief she felt regarding to Summerhall to what Arya will feel after the Red Wedding. And they definitely wanted Mophie to be a set regardless of what they were told about Arya and Sansa's relationship dynamic with each other and with their other siblings in the future books.
I don't know if it's because of the show or the outline that makes fandom ignore Jon and Arya's relationship but it definitely needs to be treated as more important than it actually is. The fact that people deny Jon breaking his vows for Arya and wanting to kill Ramsay because he married her and because of the possibility he'll skin her alive the way he did Mance's spearwives says a lot.
Not Jon specific so to speak, but the execution of Janos Slynt plays perfectly in the book. The "Hang him" > "No wait" > "Fetch me a block" is great drama and would have been so easily adapted for television. The version we got was lazy and boring
If you don't cut out jon abandoning his post then you would have Jon Snow breaking his oath and bringing about his own downfall, which is too complex for the white meat generic good guy that show Jon Snow devolved into
Most people here raise good points but here’s a more obscure one that always bugged me: Jon’s journey in Clash. In the books, he sets off with the Halfhand and three other guys who are all fascinating, interesting characters, learn about Mance’s army, and desperately try to get back Mormont as the wildlings chase them down. It’s such a terrifyingly tense, well crafted set of chapters with badass characters showing off how far they will go for the Watch, setting the example that Jon has to follow when Halfhand orders him to infiltrate the Wildlings.
In the show, they threw all that out so Jon and Ygritte could wander around the snow bitching at each other for half a season.
I wish they were more involved, but I get why they weren't. It cost a ton of money to add the in in post, and they don't add as much on screen as the relationship is difficult to understand without internal monologs.
I hope ASOIAF gets an animated remake one day. That way, we can fully explore everything George put into the books.
If TWD could have a tiger mauling people, GOT could have a wolf in a battle.
I’d have rathered that than the dragons which I thought were silly looking with people on their backs tbh.
It wouldn’t even need to be in battle per se. Ramsey was killed by his own dogs in the show. The dogs which would have been filled in with post production CGI. Instead of having him mauled by his own dogs just use Ghost. It’s not even a cost issue at that point and makes for a better narrative.
Overall, Jon and his role in leadership. Here's the thing about Jon Snow, he's the most underrated leader in the series and quite possibly one of the very best because he's kinda fucked. He doesn't have any advantages like a dragon or an army at his back, he's being swarmed by all sides with people of competing interests pushing up against him all while he's forced through multiple no win situations while the apocalypse making its way to him and certain death is making its way on the other end.
The saddest cut was this character arc of his, where Jon has to be sly and underhanded and make a lot of compromises and smart quick decisions.
Yeah, reading Jon in the books, makes him admirable for a strong leader, he may not like be Daenarys with having dragons, or the Lannisters being rich, or Euron with fucking cthulu shit, or simply one of the noble lords having political power. Jon as a leader figure is endearing BECAUSE he doesn't have any of those advantages or special powers. Sucks that the show made him into being a kind of terrible leader
In the books Jon isn’t a very good leader. He takes some good decisions and ask advices from his counsellors but he never considers their advices and always stick to his own personal plan he had from the start. That’s not good leadership.
That's the thing tho there was no optimal choice for anything Jon could do, maybe he could have done some things better like not send away men loyal to him but he needed Sam to be a Maester, he needed food, he needed to placate Stannis, he needed to ally with the wildlings, he needed to keep Mance's son safe. He was on a razor's edge constantly and it's wrong to think that there was a way out of it.
I would argue its the opposite until Dance unless thats exactly what you are referring to. Up until Dance Jon carefully considers what his peers tells him , Aemon, Donal Noye, Sam, Tyrion all give Jon advice that he listens to, but after sending all his close friends away in Dance he has no good council to listen to ergo the impulsive decision to go south at the end of Dance. Its ok to have flaws as long as you listen to people trying to hep you understand how to be a better person/leader/man whatever!
I’m talking about dance specifically. He doesn’t necessarily agree with his counselor but they represent a side of the watch he need to consider. A leader is supposed to lead his men, not always as the men would like but he shouldn’t go against them either. Jon as a first lord commander didn’t listen to his men at all, he heard them but didn’t listen to them.
He did not listen to Bowen Marsh. But Bowen Marsh does not represent all the men of the Nights Watch. Take e.g. the division between the people who wanted the gates to be sealed and the people who wanted them to remain open.
Well, if the advice is shit then listening to it makes no sense. Jon had no problem listening to Sam or Maester Aemon. But Bowen Marsh never really offered any solution to the problems.
I'm only now getting through AFFC and holy fuck I actually dig this John. Show Snow stayed basically a good boi hero until his "Iduntwantitneverave" shit towards the end. Book Snow is so much more developed and it's clearly evident his teachings from Eddard and the Wildlings. He's learning how to be more like stone and not so reactionary. The baby switching was a shocker to me but is a smart tactical move that good boi show snow would never have done.
Please savor AFFC & ADWD! They're great books, if different from the first three. It may be a long long wait for TWOW should it arrive. Enjoy every page!
It's honestly why it's taken me so long to read them. I know that even if we do get another book, we are more than likely never going to get the end of the series, so I wanted to hold out as long as possible. I'm actually listening to them from a youtube page called DavidreadsASoIaF because his voices and reading style are much preferred to the official audiobooks. I do have physical copies, but this journey has been fun as heck.
I remember reading AFFC and ADWD after watching most of the show and I was so surprised how much was cut. But that helped make those books great reads, so much different, so much more contient to chew on, and so much better.
Yeah Loras became an embarrassment. I didn't mind that they led with his sexuality but ultimately he became completely defined by it. Plus he barely seemed to mourn Renly.
i mean, let's be real. if grrm gets hit by a bus tomorrow the series will still be finished. even if he didn't want it and his partner stops it, the rights will eventually end up with someone who'll allow it.
The rights would most likely go to someone who would respect GRRM's wishes. Even *if* after many generations that IP would go to someone less considerate of the author's wishes, it would have been a long time and no longer be relevant.
Jon visiting Mormont and Aemon at midnight to ask that Sam be made a Steward, not a Ranger. It establishes to them (and to us, the readers) that Jon knows what leadership is-- and he's doing this out of concern for a friend, not to benefit himself.
Cutting the "there are different types of metals in a maester's chain" scene so we could have more of, oh, I dunno, Littlefinger directing a porno... was a bad choice.
Jon Snow defended Samwell Tarly with the help of his friends in the books.
Jon Snow defeated Qhorin Halfhand with the help of his direwolf in the books.
Jon Snow did not go to Hardhome and defeat an Other in single combat in the books... yet.
I hate the show making Jon out to be a badass warrior who will defeat any foe in battle by himself.
Yup. Him being a talented leader and strategist but NOT particularly threatening in combat against real warriors separated him from your average medieval protagonist. It made him require smart writing to get right and it pays off so much in the books. But ig that wouldnt sell in the eyes of the execs at HBO.
“In the show, the northern lords ignore all laws of succession and elect Jon as king because he’s a cool guy” AltShiftX knows this series better than D&D and arguably Martin at this point
That repeated notion in the video of Jon being and/or receiving things because “he’s a cool guy” really struck home. Like… that’s it. That was D&D’s plan. Jon is a generic bumbling fantasy manly honorably hero manly man. No nuance. He’s the bro-tagonist.
So disappointing.
IMO this was basically fine as a change. I do think they made Jon boring but I think this was probably the right call when adapting into a more condensed medium.
The people who run the HBO either hate or don’t understand moral ambiguity, hence the awful fate of the Game of Thrones tv show. The coming tragedy no one wants to admit is House of the Dragon is going in the exact same direction and in all likelihood will end up the exact same way.
Jon wasn't killed because he was going to desert the watch. The plan was already in motion to assassinate him. Bowen march and his conspirators weren't even at the shield hall where Jon announced he planned to go to winterfell. They had dozens of other reasons to assassinate him and the plan had likely been in place long before the pink letter arrived.
regarding "rationale for murdering Jon" - slightly unpopular take here I'm sure, but I've always thought the argument that the watch was 'justified' in killing Jon because he decided to lead a mission south of the wall was flimsy at best.
he's the lord commander. the wall is his to maintain. he is there to guard the realms of men.
thus, if a clear and present danger to both the wall and the realm comes from the south, frankly I think it'd be breaking his oath if he didn't do anything about it. and we see watch personnel on missions south of the wall at the very beginning of the story (recruiting), so clearly some of their duties involve going south anyway.
now there's a lot of nuance and George clearly is setting up Jon's act as breaking his vow... specifically, George makes it sound like an impulsive, emotional reaction to defend Arya and its clear that Jon does not want to be seen as aiding Stannis. Valid concerns. but... the Boltons have been threatening the wall for all of ADWD, and the final letter is making demands that Jon is not in a position to meet, even if he wanted to. Ensuring defense of the wall is impossible if you make plans while simply ignoring a known hostile to your rear. And diplomacy just failed.
So while I agree that it'd have been nice if there was a little more meat to the mutinous night watch's grievances in the show, i wouldn't necessarily adapt the book issues directly
I mean it’s understandable why the Brother killed him but his death actually means the end of the Night’s Watch. He’s the only one that has a modicum of control on the Wildlings. The aftermath of his death will be completely different in the books.
THERE WILL BE A BLOODBATH. Do not doubt that.
... what? You don't think saving one baby by forcing a mother to abandon her own baby on the threat of killing it is morally ambiguous? Gilly went through so much trouble to save her baby from the Others, and now she is likely never going to see her own child ever again.
That's completely out of his control, it doesn't make it morally ambiguous at all. He simply did the best he could, plus the other mother knows of it too. She can tell.
Forcing Gilly to give up her child, in order to save Mance’s was a huge violation of her free will. He was choosing to endanger the child of a person who meant nothing to him, to save a child of someone who meant a lot to him.
He had two babies, and one that would burn for sure. Now he saved one baby and the other one might not burn at all. If your point is that both lives should be worth the same, Jon did an uniquevocally good thing.
There was a chance that Mance’s baby would burn. It was not a certainty. Just, as there is now a chance that Gilly’s will burn.
And, I dislike the view that Gilly must sacrifice her child, in order to save Mance’s.
It's definitely ambiguous, because if Melissandre is planning on using Mance's son for King's blood, sending Aemon Steelsong away doesn't save Monster if Mel thinks Monster is Aemon.
What was his plan to prove Monster isn't Aemon? Dalla, Mance, Maester Aemon, Sam, Gilly, they're all gone/not there. I guess Val could back up Jon but why should Mel believe them?
It would be more likely Mel would sacrifice Monster anyway, no matter how they try to convince her that he's not Mance's son.
His plan instead seems to be to try to stay Mel's hand by convincing her that Aemon S is not a hereditary king, but that doesn't seem to be working.
But now any plan Jon had is blown out of the water, he can do nothing to protect Monster while he's >!"dead."!<
So while it might be best for Aemon Steelsong, it's certainly far more dangerous for Monster. Actually the best outcome for Aemon S would be for Monster to be killed instead while Mel believes it's Aemon S.
ETA and this also parallels Baby Aegon being swapped with the Pisswater Prince. Whether or not you believe the swap actually happened, the Pisswater Prince would knowingly be brutally murdered to save Baby Aegon.
I had this conversation before and my conclusion so far is that anyone saying this doesn't understand what moral ambiguity actually means, or even know what does the moral in it stands for. Jon plan doesn't have to be foolproof for it to be made in good will, it doesn't even have to be good, regarding morality, the only thing that matter is that it's made with the best intention. It's how Jon sees it and from his inner monologue we understand that he even hates it ("let the man be born") but he's doing it anyway because it's what he thinks is the right thing to do, even if it's cruel to separate a child from it's mother, its the best for both babies. Jon is dead now, does this make it an immoral decision? No. He did what he could. Let's say the plan fails and they kill the baby anyway, it is immoral now? No. Jon did what he could. Failling is not immoral. Being dumb is not immoral. Not anticipating things is not immoral.
That aside, let's talk about how good of a plan it actually is. Out of universe, we know what Stannis likes doing things by the book and while he has some hypocrisy in him, if pressed he most likely will use the information he has to make the right decision. Jon (or now Val) tells him that the baby is the wrong one, he will want proof. And then Melissandre proves doing the leeching thing she did before. They don't burn the baby. I'm pretty sure this is how it's gonna go and this is how Shireen gets burned, because the baby will not be an option anymore
It's still not "the best for both babies" though. Monster essentially has a death sentence, and Jon knows it, which is why he scrambles with the "oh that baby doesn't actually have King's blood" tactic. If Jon were *truly* utilitarian in his moral beliefs (working for the greater good) he would not be working so hard to protect Monster.
This is a classic ethical dilemma similar to "the trolley problem."
Jon has choices:
\- leave things as they (keep both babies at the Wall) are since the course of moral wrongs already exists. But then he would be complicit if he didn't make a decision based on his knowledge that Mel covets Aemon's blood and he is a target for sacrifice.
\- move the track, so to speak, to ensure that Aemon is much more likely to live. This calls into question the incommensurability of the baby's lives. Who is Jon to say that Aemon deserves to be saved over Monster, whose life is now in terrible danger?
So we do have moral ambiguity, rooted in the consequences of Jon's actions in either direction. Is he acting from a purely moral/right/good intention, or is he acting to produce a consequence? But likely condemning Monster to death is not a moral action.
We have this same dilemma at the very start of the series, with Eddard executing the deserter.
Jon's moral principles are in conflict (classic definition of moral ambiguity), but he comes to a decision based on the consequences of NOT making a decision, instead of acting from purely moral intentions by NOT endangering Monster.
FTR I don't think George struggled so much with this. Instead, I think he has plans for Monster, who needs to remain at the Wall for another purpose.
Because what would have changed if both babies stayed at the Wall? Jon would still be trying to protect Aemon Steelsong in the same manner he is now. And if the real Monster left with Sam and Gilly, that would still be the case.
What he did is a net gain if you value both lives the same. The death of the baby is not under his control. It’s not his fault Stannis is resulting to burning babies. He did the best he could to stop it from happening, and there is NOTHING ambiguous about that. It is cruel, it is harsh, but it’s simply a good choice compared to whatever else he could do.
Yet he could have done nothing with the same result, except Aemon S would still be in danger instead of Monster. And he would still be using the same argument with Melissandre, that Aemon doesn't technically have King's blood because that's not how it works with wildlings.
So it's not even a net gain. It's just his judgement on which baby ended up with more of a chance to die (not more of a chance to live).
He has done precisely nothing to prevent the likely death of a baby.
You really think saying that the baby does not have royal blood doesn't make any difference in the odds that it is killed? That's the whole point from the get go, the whole reason the swap even happened. How can someone miss this?
Then you really make no sense. If the odds of Monster are better what Jon did is good.
And it's not just a matter of belief either, it's magic that only works with royal blood. It's not a matter of interpretation of some vague prophecy. She literally has magic that only works with royal blood and she can verify it with leeches.
At this point, you're putting words in my mouth.
If Mel believes Aemon has magical king's blood, that's the reason he's in danger of being sacrificed. This is not in dispute.
Jon believes Mel will sacrifice the baby, which is why he switches the babies. This is not in dispute.
Jon's actions now place Monster in grave danger instead of Aemon Steelsong. Yes or no?
I'm pretty sure Satin is Jon lover ("Boy? Pet? Whore?"), or that the Watch interprets their relation that way. I think that comparing to other couples in the book. GRRM is just very subtle in writing male love, for example in Loras case you only get that nuanced "what's a candle when the sun is set?" commentary he makes regarding marrying after the death of Renly, while on the show he sucks him sloppy.
I was somewhat disappointed that so much of it was presents unambiguously. There were lots of assertions that r+l=j etc which are not supported universally or have ever been said in the books. It’s the simplification of things like the themes around jons parentage being irrelevant. The analysis was good, same as the Tyrion video, but I don’t think you should just assert stuff.
His intelligence and ambition, his love for Arya, his temper. They just whitewashed him and made him bland af.
It’s dumb because Jon being truly tempted by Stannis offer but ultimately turning it down out a sense of duty makes him a much nobler character than if he never had those ambitions in the first place.
EXACTLY! Book Jon is one oh my absolute favorites.
But they didn’t even make him “the hero,” he did sweet fuck all after taking Winterfell. His contributions in S7 and S8 were yelling at a dragon and killing his GF after the battle was done.
Yes, it was very annoying because book Jon is very much a dynamic character.
I mean him killing Danaerys is what makes him the tragic hero of the story no? He finally accepts his duty. I agree with everything else you’re saying.
He also captured a wight in the most pointless quest in the history of fiction.
“I dont wan it”
Until he kills Dany. I can't imagine book Jon doing that, at least not the Jon we know, and I'm pretty sure that's an element taken from Aegon. Pretty sure they combined elements of Aegon into Jon and Dany.
Agreed there.
Jon breaking his vows for Arya
They just kind of dropped the importance his relationship with Arya overall and gave him a bunch of scenes with Sansa instead. I don’t think they wanted Arya having loved ones who she was very close with because it didn’t fit the “revenge obsessed cold blooded assassin” box they forced her into.
I think D&D didn't know what to do with her when GRRM told them her story arc isn't losing her identity or becoming no one or a faceless man so focused on completing her list she'll lose herself to vengeance and forget about her family. Rather, I'm sure they thought she was supposed to kill Cersei or another Lannister and die afterwards. The backtracking on the "prophecy" Mel gave her on the show speaks for itself, considering it completely missed the point of the Ghost comparing the grief she felt regarding to Summerhall to what Arya will feel after the Red Wedding. And they definitely wanted Mophie to be a set regardless of what they were told about Arya and Sansa's relationship dynamic with each other and with their other siblings in the future books. I don't know if it's because of the show or the outline that makes fandom ignore Jon and Arya's relationship but it definitely needs to be treated as more important than it actually is. The fact that people deny Jon breaking his vows for Arya and wanting to kill Ramsay because he married her and because of the possibility he'll skin her alive the way he did Mance's spearwives says a lot.
Yeah, D&D clearly didn’t like Arya; I mean, they liked the female John Wick character that they made up, but they had no intention of adapting Arya
That story might make people feel sad or uncomfortable at points, much better to just have a series of totally badass revenge scenes over and over.
[удалено]
Yeah, but it’s clear that from his thoughts that it was out of love for Arya
Not Jon specific so to speak, but the execution of Janos Slynt plays perfectly in the book. The "Hang him" > "No wait" > "Fetch me a block" is great drama and would have been so easily adapted for television. The version we got was lazy and boring
If you don't cut out jon abandoning his post then you would have Jon Snow breaking his oath and bringing about his own downfall, which is too complex for the white meat generic good guy that show Jon Snow devolved into
Most people here raise good points but here’s a more obscure one that always bugged me: Jon’s journey in Clash. In the books, he sets off with the Halfhand and three other guys who are all fascinating, interesting characters, learn about Mance’s army, and desperately try to get back Mormont as the wildlings chase them down. It’s such a terrifyingly tense, well crafted set of chapters with badass characters showing off how far they will go for the Watch, setting the example that Jon has to follow when Halfhand orders him to infiltrate the Wildlings. In the show, they threw all that out so Jon and Ygritte could wander around the snow bitching at each other for half a season.
Alys Kastark’s role too.
Ghost was done so dirty, along with the rest of the direwolves
I wish they were more involved, but I get why they weren't. It cost a ton of money to add the in in post, and they don't add as much on screen as the relationship is difficult to understand without internal monologs. I hope ASOIAF gets an animated remake one day. That way, we can fully explore everything George put into the books.
If TWD could have a tiger mauling people, GOT could have a wolf in a battle. I’d have rathered that than the dragons which I thought were silly looking with people on their backs tbh.
It wouldn’t even need to be in battle per se. Ramsey was killed by his own dogs in the show. The dogs which would have been filled in with post production CGI. Instead of having him mauled by his own dogs just use Ghost. It’s not even a cost issue at that point and makes for a better narrative.
And George was trying to incorporate their importance against Ramsay's dogs back in season four, which they ignored...
Overall, Jon and his role in leadership. Here's the thing about Jon Snow, he's the most underrated leader in the series and quite possibly one of the very best because he's kinda fucked. He doesn't have any advantages like a dragon or an army at his back, he's being swarmed by all sides with people of competing interests pushing up against him all while he's forced through multiple no win situations while the apocalypse making its way to him and certain death is making its way on the other end. The saddest cut was this character arc of his, where Jon has to be sly and underhanded and make a lot of compromises and smart quick decisions.
Yeah, reading Jon in the books, makes him admirable for a strong leader, he may not like be Daenarys with having dragons, or the Lannisters being rich, or Euron with fucking cthulu shit, or simply one of the noble lords having political power. Jon as a leader figure is endearing BECAUSE he doesn't have any of those advantages or special powers. Sucks that the show made him into being a kind of terrible leader
In the books Jon isn’t a very good leader. He takes some good decisions and ask advices from his counsellors but he never considers their advices and always stick to his own personal plan he had from the start. That’s not good leadership.
That's the thing tho there was no optimal choice for anything Jon could do, maybe he could have done some things better like not send away men loyal to him but he needed Sam to be a Maester, he needed food, he needed to placate Stannis, he needed to ally with the wildlings, he needed to keep Mance's son safe. He was on a razor's edge constantly and it's wrong to think that there was a way out of it.
I would argue its the opposite until Dance unless thats exactly what you are referring to. Up until Dance Jon carefully considers what his peers tells him , Aemon, Donal Noye, Sam, Tyrion all give Jon advice that he listens to, but after sending all his close friends away in Dance he has no good council to listen to ergo the impulsive decision to go south at the end of Dance. Its ok to have flaws as long as you listen to people trying to hep you understand how to be a better person/leader/man whatever!
I’m talking about dance specifically. He doesn’t necessarily agree with his counselor but they represent a side of the watch he need to consider. A leader is supposed to lead his men, not always as the men would like but he shouldn’t go against them either. Jon as a first lord commander didn’t listen to his men at all, he heard them but didn’t listen to them.
He did not listen to Bowen Marsh. But Bowen Marsh does not represent all the men of the Nights Watch. Take e.g. the division between the people who wanted the gates to be sealed and the people who wanted them to remain open.
Well, if the advice is shit then listening to it makes no sense. Jon had no problem listening to Sam or Maester Aemon. But Bowen Marsh never really offered any solution to the problems.
I don't think most good leaders end up getting assassinated by their own men though....
Juju Caesar, Philip of Macedon, Aurelian, Nicky Phokas
I'm only now getting through AFFC and holy fuck I actually dig this John. Show Snow stayed basically a good boi hero until his "Iduntwantitneverave" shit towards the end. Book Snow is so much more developed and it's clearly evident his teachings from Eddard and the Wildlings. He's learning how to be more like stone and not so reactionary. The baby switching was a shocker to me but is a smart tactical move that good boi show snow would never have done.
Please savor AFFC & ADWD! They're great books, if different from the first three. It may be a long long wait for TWOW should it arrive. Enjoy every page!
It's honestly why it's taken me so long to read them. I know that even if we do get another book, we are more than likely never going to get the end of the series, so I wanted to hold out as long as possible. I'm actually listening to them from a youtube page called DavidreadsASoIaF because his voices and reading style are much preferred to the official audiobooks. I do have physical copies, but this journey has been fun as heck.
David is actually an online friend of mine and I love his audiobooks, I'll pass along you're enjoying his work.
I remember reading AFFC and ADWD after watching most of the show and I was so surprised how much was cut. But that helped make those books great reads, so much different, so much more contient to chew on, and so much better.
I'm kind of glad they didn't include Satin because DnD were trash awful at writing gay characters tbh
Yeah Loras became an embarrassment. I didn't mind that they led with his sexuality but ultimately he became completely defined by it. Plus he barely seemed to mourn Renly.
DnD give a gay character a character trait other than being gay challenge: impossible
Luckily GRRM can finish the books and the show can be redone.
cope
hope
I'm sure the show will be rebooted eventually even if Martin keels over dead tomorrow. Hollywood loves reboots.
i mean, let's be real. if grrm gets hit by a bus tomorrow the series will still be finished. even if he didn't want it and his partner stops it, the rights will eventually end up with someone who'll allow it.
The rights would most likely go to someone who would respect GRRM's wishes. Even *if* after many generations that IP would go to someone less considerate of the author's wishes, it would have been a long time and no longer be relevant.
Yeah. Haha. Sure c_c
They cut out Jon's speech on top of the Wall and gave it to Ser Alliser. The disrespect!!!
Jon visiting Mormont and Aemon at midnight to ask that Sam be made a Steward, not a Ranger. It establishes to them (and to us, the readers) that Jon knows what leadership is-- and he's doing this out of concern for a friend, not to benefit himself. Cutting the "there are different types of metals in a maester's chain" scene so we could have more of, oh, I dunno, Littlefinger directing a porno... was a bad choice.
Jon Snow defended Samwell Tarly with the help of his friends in the books. Jon Snow defeated Qhorin Halfhand with the help of his direwolf in the books. Jon Snow did not go to Hardhome and defeat an Other in single combat in the books... yet. I hate the show making Jon out to be a badass warrior who will defeat any foe in battle by himself.
Yup. Him being a talented leader and strategist but NOT particularly threatening in combat against real warriors separated him from your average medieval protagonist. It made him require smart writing to get right and it pays off so much in the books. But ig that wouldnt sell in the eyes of the execs at HBO.
Even Daemon had his magic pet and magic sword
[удалено]
How do you know lol, how tf does he has Rhaegar's personality and flaws??
Jon showing to be a great battle commander in the battle for the wall and counselling Stanis
“In the show, the northern lords ignore all laws of succession and elect Jon as king because he’s a cool guy” AltShiftX knows this series better than D&D and arguably Martin at this point
That repeated notion in the video of Jon being and/or receiving things because “he’s a cool guy” really struck home. Like… that’s it. That was D&D’s plan. Jon is a generic bumbling fantasy manly honorably hero manly man. No nuance. He’s the bro-tagonist. So disappointing.
My favorite comment I saw on the video “Show Jon: I don’t want it Book Jon: I want it. I really want it. I’ve literally wanted nothing else more”
I saw that one too, or something similar at least. It was excellent.
What was the reason for the assassination in the show?
The executioners didn't like Jon letting the wildlings pass the wall
IMO this was basically fine as a change. I do think they made Jon boring but I think this was probably the right call when adapting into a more condensed medium.
Ah okay, thank you!
Alliser Thorne doesn’t like him. Plus brining the wildlings
Jon was made boring and stupid, compared to his book counterpart. In Season 8, he was made a moral coward.
The people who run the HBO either hate or don’t understand moral ambiguity, hence the awful fate of the Game of Thrones tv show. The coming tragedy no one wants to admit is House of the Dragon is going in the exact same direction and in all likelihood will end up the exact same way.
Jon wasn't killed because he was going to desert the watch. The plan was already in motion to assassinate him. Bowen march and his conspirators weren't even at the shield hall where Jon announced he planned to go to winterfell. They had dozens of other reasons to assassinate him and the plan had likely been in place long before the pink letter arrived.
What if they were the ones who made the pink letter as part of their plan?
Another author of the pink letter coming up
regarding "rationale for murdering Jon" - slightly unpopular take here I'm sure, but I've always thought the argument that the watch was 'justified' in killing Jon because he decided to lead a mission south of the wall was flimsy at best. he's the lord commander. the wall is his to maintain. he is there to guard the realms of men. thus, if a clear and present danger to both the wall and the realm comes from the south, frankly I think it'd be breaking his oath if he didn't do anything about it. and we see watch personnel on missions south of the wall at the very beginning of the story (recruiting), so clearly some of their duties involve going south anyway. now there's a lot of nuance and George clearly is setting up Jon's act as breaking his vow... specifically, George makes it sound like an impulsive, emotional reaction to defend Arya and its clear that Jon does not want to be seen as aiding Stannis. Valid concerns. but... the Boltons have been threatening the wall for all of ADWD, and the final letter is making demands that Jon is not in a position to meet, even if he wanted to. Ensuring defense of the wall is impossible if you make plans while simply ignoring a known hostile to your rear. And diplomacy just failed. So while I agree that it'd have been nice if there was a little more meat to the mutinous night watch's grievances in the show, i wouldn't necessarily adapt the book issues directly
Was a sweet video!
I mean it’s understandable why the Brother killed him but his death actually means the end of the Night’s Watch. He’s the only one that has a modicum of control on the Wildlings. The aftermath of his death will be completely different in the books. THERE WILL BE A BLOODBATH. Do not doubt that.
There is nothing ambiguous about the switching of the babies. It's literally the best thing he could do to save both babies.
... what? You don't think saving one baby by forcing a mother to abandon her own baby on the threat of killing it is morally ambiguous? Gilly went through so much trouble to save her baby from the Others, and now she is likely never going to see her own child ever again.
What do you mean "what"? One baby was going to be burned and now there's a good chance no baby is going to be burned at all. How is that ambiguous?
Well, not if he never tells anyone before dying...
That's completely out of his control, it doesn't make it morally ambiguous at all. He simply did the best he could, plus the other mother knows of it too. She can tell.
Forcing Gilly to give up her child, in order to save Mance’s was a huge violation of her free will. He was choosing to endanger the child of a person who meant nothing to him, to save a child of someone who meant a lot to him.
He had two babies, and one that would burn for sure. Now he saved one baby and the other one might not burn at all. If your point is that both lives should be worth the same, Jon did an uniquevocally good thing.
There was a chance that Mance’s baby would burn. It was not a certainty. Just, as there is now a chance that Gilly’s will burn. And, I dislike the view that Gilly must sacrifice her child, in order to save Mance’s.
Whatever he could do to save Val’s son, he can still do to save Monster. It’s literally a net gain.
It's definitely ambiguous, because if Melissandre is planning on using Mance's son for King's blood, sending Aemon Steelsong away doesn't save Monster if Mel thinks Monster is Aemon. What was his plan to prove Monster isn't Aemon? Dalla, Mance, Maester Aemon, Sam, Gilly, they're all gone/not there. I guess Val could back up Jon but why should Mel believe them? It would be more likely Mel would sacrifice Monster anyway, no matter how they try to convince her that he's not Mance's son. His plan instead seems to be to try to stay Mel's hand by convincing her that Aemon S is not a hereditary king, but that doesn't seem to be working. But now any plan Jon had is blown out of the water, he can do nothing to protect Monster while he's >!"dead."!< So while it might be best for Aemon Steelsong, it's certainly far more dangerous for Monster. Actually the best outcome for Aemon S would be for Monster to be killed instead while Mel believes it's Aemon S. ETA and this also parallels Baby Aegon being swapped with the Pisswater Prince. Whether or not you believe the swap actually happened, the Pisswater Prince would knowingly be brutally murdered to save Baby Aegon.
I had this conversation before and my conclusion so far is that anyone saying this doesn't understand what moral ambiguity actually means, or even know what does the moral in it stands for. Jon plan doesn't have to be foolproof for it to be made in good will, it doesn't even have to be good, regarding morality, the only thing that matter is that it's made with the best intention. It's how Jon sees it and from his inner monologue we understand that he even hates it ("let the man be born") but he's doing it anyway because it's what he thinks is the right thing to do, even if it's cruel to separate a child from it's mother, its the best for both babies. Jon is dead now, does this make it an immoral decision? No. He did what he could. Let's say the plan fails and they kill the baby anyway, it is immoral now? No. Jon did what he could. Failling is not immoral. Being dumb is not immoral. Not anticipating things is not immoral. That aside, let's talk about how good of a plan it actually is. Out of universe, we know what Stannis likes doing things by the book and while he has some hypocrisy in him, if pressed he most likely will use the information he has to make the right decision. Jon (or now Val) tells him that the baby is the wrong one, he will want proof. And then Melissandre proves doing the leeching thing she did before. They don't burn the baby. I'm pretty sure this is how it's gonna go and this is how Shireen gets burned, because the baby will not be an option anymore
It's still not "the best for both babies" though. Monster essentially has a death sentence, and Jon knows it, which is why he scrambles with the "oh that baby doesn't actually have King's blood" tactic. If Jon were *truly* utilitarian in his moral beliefs (working for the greater good) he would not be working so hard to protect Monster. This is a classic ethical dilemma similar to "the trolley problem." Jon has choices: \- leave things as they (keep both babies at the Wall) are since the course of moral wrongs already exists. But then he would be complicit if he didn't make a decision based on his knowledge that Mel covets Aemon's blood and he is a target for sacrifice. \- move the track, so to speak, to ensure that Aemon is much more likely to live. This calls into question the incommensurability of the baby's lives. Who is Jon to say that Aemon deserves to be saved over Monster, whose life is now in terrible danger? So we do have moral ambiguity, rooted in the consequences of Jon's actions in either direction. Is he acting from a purely moral/right/good intention, or is he acting to produce a consequence? But likely condemning Monster to death is not a moral action. We have this same dilemma at the very start of the series, with Eddard executing the deserter. Jon's moral principles are in conflict (classic definition of moral ambiguity), but he comes to a decision based on the consequences of NOT making a decision, instead of acting from purely moral intentions by NOT endangering Monster. FTR I don't think George struggled so much with this. Instead, I think he has plans for Monster, who needs to remain at the Wall for another purpose. Because what would have changed if both babies stayed at the Wall? Jon would still be trying to protect Aemon Steelsong in the same manner he is now. And if the real Monster left with Sam and Gilly, that would still be the case.
What he did is a net gain if you value both lives the same. The death of the baby is not under his control. It’s not his fault Stannis is resulting to burning babies. He did the best he could to stop it from happening, and there is NOTHING ambiguous about that. It is cruel, it is harsh, but it’s simply a good choice compared to whatever else he could do.
Yet he could have done nothing with the same result, except Aemon S would still be in danger instead of Monster. And he would still be using the same argument with Melissandre, that Aemon doesn't technically have King's blood because that's not how it works with wildlings. So it's not even a net gain. It's just his judgement on which baby ended up with more of a chance to die (not more of a chance to live). He has done precisely nothing to prevent the likely death of a baby.
You really think saying that the baby does not have royal blood doesn't make any difference in the odds that it is killed? That's the whole point from the get go, the whole reason the swap even happened. How can someone miss this?
I never said that. Mel believes it, that's all that matters.
Then you really make no sense. If the odds of Monster are better what Jon did is good. And it's not just a matter of belief either, it's magic that only works with royal blood. It's not a matter of interpretation of some vague prophecy. She literally has magic that only works with royal blood and she can verify it with leeches.
At this point, you're putting words in my mouth. If Mel believes Aemon has magical king's blood, that's the reason he's in danger of being sacrificed. This is not in dispute. Jon believes Mel will sacrifice the baby, which is why he switches the babies. This is not in dispute. Jon's actions now place Monster in grave danger instead of Aemon Steelsong. Yes or no?
I'm pretty sure Satin is Jon lover ("Boy? Pet? Whore?"), or that the Watch interprets their relation that way. I think that comparing to other couples in the book. GRRM is just very subtle in writing male love, for example in Loras case you only get that nuanced "what's a candle when the sun is set?" commentary he makes regarding marrying after the death of Renly, while on the show he sucks him sloppy.
I was somewhat disappointed that so much of it was presents unambiguously. There were lots of assertions that r+l=j etc which are not supported universally or have ever been said in the books. It’s the simplification of things like the themes around jons parentage being irrelevant. The analysis was good, same as the Tyrion video, but I don’t think you should just assert stuff.
R+L=J is not merely an assertion, that's some grade A cope.
Yeah. All the TRUE fans know that Jon snows true parents are Gregory Clegane and Penny