By no means am I saying The Garfield Show is a masterpiece devoid of its share of questionable/subpar writing decisions, but sometimes I feel strongly about the fact the show is constantly plagued by misinfo/misconceptions regurgitated by people who either
1: have no real knowledge of how the characters were characterized prior to the show and outside of G&F
2: never watched the show beyond 7 episodes max (or had last watched it when they were barely 10) and formed the rest of their opinions through the same 5 clips that goes viral on Twitter annually
Garfield in general had always been ground 0 when it comes to people pulling things out of their ass en masse but TGS specifically bear the brunt of this I've noticed, at least within the ratio of what people actually get right vs total misconceptions. Specifically for this post the thing I had in mind is the recurring criticism I've seen about how Jon and Nermal underwent character assasination in the show, which... there is merits for Nermal in this argument because debatably at times they've made him far more insufferable than what's necessary, (It's About Time goes more than a bit too far for one) but that only happens in like 5 episodes at most in a 100+ episodes cartoon to feel fair to completely write him (or the show) off.
It's perfectly fine to dislike the way Nermal's characterized in the show and prefer G&F's take on him (I do too, to an extent... though when executed right I'm more partial to his later characterization) but what annoys me about this is how often people act as though the gist of Nermal's characterization in TGS was completely original to the show, thus the blame for why Nermal isn't like his G&F self is placed onto the show specifically. A lot don't really seem to get that in actuality, G&F is the one that's a fish out of water. Nermal being an impulsive, arrogant and obnoxious little boy predates The Garfield Show for more than a decade; the earliest example on top of my head that had essentially the same characterization being the Pet Force novels from 1997. Regardless of whether this is good or not, this sort of characterization for Nermal has been the mainstay for decades across the franchise (films, books, comics, cartoons, you name it!) and has shown no signs of fading.
As for Jon, you would think people's reasons for thinking the show horrifically butchered his character is due to the fact Jon's character there boils down to "what if Jon actually had a good life and an active social life with tons of people that likes him and ditched the gaudy wardrobe?", but not even that unique take on Jon is recognized, instead, everyone pivots to focus on Jon being... an evil (sometimes abusive) asshole for the sole crime of scolding Garfield?
Even during the episodes where he accuses Garfield of doing things he didn't, you gotta admit that if you were in Jon's position and the pie you poured your blood, sweat and tears into is found in crumbs, you too would suspect your cat (who's infamously known for eating everyone's food and is generally gluttonous must I add) was the one that did it. That, and while Garfield ostensibly talks in the show, no human can understand him so there's little chances for Garfield to adequately defend himself in these situations... and that's neither of their fault really. Not to mention how rarely Jon's punishment is actually harsh, if he even ends up doing anything at all (you and I both know he never means it when he says he'll starve Garfield in the spur of the moment, if anything other owners would punish Garf far more severely than the times Jon is mad enough to bluff with the kinda shit Garfield does on the daily).
