Jon Snow shoulda stayed Dead

Jon Snow dying was the capstone of a long and consistent theme in Game of Thrones : those who play the game poorly suffer the consequences.

"I probably should have implemented a Suggestion Box mechanism for feedback on whether any of my decisions were unpopular..."

"I probably should have implemented a Suggestion Box mechanism for feedback on whether any of my decisions were unpopular..."

Jon Snow was a nice enough guy, but he knew very little about how power worked. After a long period of meandering around the fringes of influence, he was elected head of the Night's Watch, and immediately stopped thinking about the short term, thought only of the long-term, turned his back on the people he relied upon, and suffered the consequences fairly quickly. That's entirely fair and true to the ethos of a series called Game. Of. Thrones. Play the game badly, you die. You can be brave, you can be loved, you can be noble : but it's a game of thrones and stakes are death if you don't play the game well. So along with the producers deciding that death no longer means a final end, to me it's even worse because it now suggests there are no consequences for playing the game poorly.

Look at the Lannisters : hated, sure. But still in power. Making decisions - being brutal, being expedient, keeping an eye on the long-term AND short-term risks, balancing both, making alliances and enemies and doing it in full view. That Cersei Lannister is still alive is incredible, and is testament to how utterly committed she is, and how hard-working she is, and the schemes and protections she's placed around her. Meanwhile, other players suffer incredible ups and downs (Danaerys), or bide their time (Littlefinger), or are constantly underestimiated (Ramsay), or suffer the consequences (Joffrey, Theon).... always knowing that the penalty for failure is or could be death. The point is : actions have consequences

"But... but... I'm too good looking to die!"

"But... but... I'm too good looking to die!"

And now suddenly they don't.

See, if it's about learning from your mistakes, it's kind of even worse, because Jon Snow is the THIRD Stark in a row to make a variation of the same damn mistake, showing clearly that a failure to learn from history sees you doomed to repeat it. Except not anymore.

Ned was a good man who followed his conscience, failed to watch his back, and failed to make proper alliances - DEAD. Robb Stark was a good man who failed to stay true to his alliances, and failed watch his back - DEAD. And now Jon Snow, a third Stark, with two family members having outlined the consequences of a failure to watch ones back..... died because he made long-term plans without getting the support of his backers.... and failing to watch his back - DEAD. And then NOT DEAD. Why?

What are we meant to make of the story's baffling decision to NOT kill him for this mistake? That he's too popular to die? That the rules of politics don't apply when your hair is awesome enough?

"You're lucky. You saved your game progress and can now resume playing at the last save point".

"You're lucky. You saved your game progress and can now resume playing at the last save point".

I don't get where the show is going. I loved it becauase it showed politics and game theory and strategy and planning and adaptability in action. Now... matters are worse. Now it's turned arbitrary.

Jon Snow shoulda stayed dead.