Between Thoughts -Intellectual Musings

Assessing Jonasi Gomora Through a Behavioural Lens

I was given constructive feedback that my article did not assess Jonas. I had skipped the most important character in the Netflix series adaptation,  the protagonist. The critique was direct: I did not examine the man. Since the man is the problem and the cause of all this pain.

At first, I did not find it useful to critically assess someone who had already been concluded as a problem and a villain. But the feedback deserved a fair hearing. So I took it.

“Good is just more interesting… Evil is silly. It may be horrible, but at the same time, it’s not a compelling idea. It’s predictable. It needs a tuxedo, it needs a headline, it needs blood, it needs fingernails. It needs all that costume...” — Toni Morrison

Toni Morrison, in her interview at The Connecticut Forum (and echoed in her talks at the 92nd Street Y), offered a brilliant breakdown of why she was inherently ‘bored‘ by depictions of evil. And this is exactly why I found the Netflix character of Jonasi boring, predictable, unoriginal,  a figure who relies on elaborate costumes to grab attention. The Netflix series did not make him more complex, intellectually demanding, or genuinely fascinating.

So I initially ignored him. He had been more than thoroughly dissected on all social media platforms, and not just Jonasi,  but by extension, all men. Not one man, not some men, but all men. I find it exhausting and intellectually lazy when human beings who happen to be men are summed up using a sample of one.

To be balanced, and taking the feedback as constructive, I will attempt to assess Jonas. Maybe I am scared to assess him, because he resides in me. I am more capable of being an oppressor than a freedom fighter. Perhaps I am honest enough to admit that Jonas’s shadows are my shadows.

Amazingly, Jonas’s shadows are the shadows of the human race. But very few are honest enough to admit that they too are Jonas. Our luck is that our lives are not on Netflix for millions to view.


The Book Versus the Screen
I am not a trained book-versus-film adaptation critic, but I will give it a try and welcome film experts to dive deeper.

When you read the book, the character of Jonasi has far more depth and detail than the Netflix series provides. I have always believed there are very few film or TV adaptations that surpass the source material and bring to life the full complexity of a character’s being and way of being. I advise: read the book first, then watch the adaptation.

ADAPTATION COMPARISON AT A GLANCE
Books generally deliver deep internal monologues, complex worldbuilding, and unrestricted storytelling. Visual adaptations often excel at pacing, musical atmosphere, and vivid action sequences,  but at a cost to interiority and nuance.


DIMENSION COMPARISON
Characterisation
Book: Deep internal thoughts and slow, earned growth.

Screen: Visual acting choices but limited internal depth.

Pacing
Book: Thorough, detailed, and world-focused, contains all subplots and minor characters.  Screen: Streamlined, faster, and action-driven.

Plot Completeness
Book: Complete and multi-layered. 

Screen: Cuts massive amounts of lore to fit runtime.

Tone
Book: Slow-burn social commentary.

Screen: High-octane telenovela melodrama.

1. Cultural Shifts and Identity
What the adaptation missed: The book is deeply rooted in Zimbabwean society,  navigating the specific cultural expectations, socioeconomic realities, and modern dynamics of Harare. The screen transplanted the story into a South African setting, primarily Johannesburg. While this opened the show to a glamorous world of corporate South African wealth, it lost the distinct ‘British polish meets raw Zimbabwean reality‘ that gave the book its unique cultural tension.

2. Tonal Shift: From Social Commentary to Melodrama
Sue Nyathi’s novel is a slow-burn, thought-provoking examination of institutional polygamy, gender politics, ownership, and how a man’s insatiable greed can systematically break four very different women. Netflix packaged it into a high-octane 22-episode telenovela. To keep viewers binging, the creators traded the book’s quiet, internal processing for loud public meltdowns, serial seduction, and anxiety-inducing plot twists.

3. Character Depth vs. Telenovela Archetypes
The book tells a balanced narrative split between the perspectives of the four women. The show shifts the spotlight heavily onto the central couple.

Joyce Gomora (The First Wife): In the book, her journey is a deeply internal struggle with tradition, public humiliation, and aging. In the series, she becomes a savvy, calculating social media influencer,  ruthless and cunning. Gugu Gumede’s performance is highly praised, but the character behaves much more like a telenovela villain.

Jonasi Gomora: The book takes time to show how Jonasi uses his charisma to draw his wives into thinking polygamy is a mutually beneficial tradition. The show speeds up his trajectory, positioning him more directly as a symbol of toxic corporate greed and unchecked lust whose downfall drives the narrative engine.

Assessing Jonas: The Persona, the Human, the Man
Let me be clear: Jonas exists in all men. Yet Jonas is not a representative sample of all men. To conclude so is reductionist.

The Netflix adaptation flattened Jonasi Gomora into a predictable, melodramatic villain. When a television series reduces a complex human being into a simple object to throw stones at, it invites intellectual laziness.

The fundamental flaw of the adaptation is that it focuses entirely on what is wrong with Jonasi, transforming him into the predictable, tuxedo-clad evil that Toni Morrison so rightfully disdained. A behavioural look at Jonasi reveals a far more harrowing and human story: a man deeply traumatised by early scarcity, who used corporate power and multiple relationships as a shield against his own mortality. He is not a representative sample of all men,  he is a cautionary tale of what happens when a human being’s shadows are amplified by absolute power.

What is ‘Wrong’ With Jonasi? The Pathological Shadow
To avoid simply pathologising him, behavioural science looks at his destructive actions not as random evil, but as a specific cluster of psychological survival mechanisms gone wrong.

Subclinical Narcissism and Impunity
Jonasi exhibits what is known as ‘Hubris Syndrome‘,  a disorder of possessors of great power, characterised by a loss of contact with reality, reckless actions, and a total disregard for the feelings of others. His wealth acts as a psychological shield. He genuinely believes that because he created the empire, he is immune to the biological, social, and moral consequences that govern ordinary men.

The Hyper-Transactional Mindset
Through a sociological lens, Jonasi views relationships through the prism of capitalism. He has commodified affection. To him, women are acquisitions meant to signal his status, much like his corporate assets. He pathologically treats emotional contracts like business mergers, assuming any boundary violation can be settled with a financial payout or a lifestyle upgrade.

Cognitive Dissonance and Denial
His choice to hide his partners and default on medical realities,  like HIV/AIDS treatment as highlighted in the series,  is a textbook defence mechanism. It is a profound manifestation of compulsive denial. To admit vulnerability or sickness would crack the false omnipotent mask he has spent a lifetime building.


What Happened to Jonasi? The Humanising History
Looking at what happened to him is where we find his humanity. This is where he stops being a monster and becomes one of us,  a person whose shadows are simply dancing out loud.

STAGE DESCRIPTION
Rags to Riches: Childhood scarcity and township trauma. The formative wound.
Hyper-Compensatory: An  unquenchable need to prove worth via accumulation, wealth, status, women.
The Illusion: The delusion of absolute invulnerability. The empire becomes the armour.

The Scarcity Trap: Township  Trauma
To understand Jonasi, you must look at his origin story with Essie in the poverty-stricken township. Behavioural psychology shows that childhood scarcity can create an unquenchable thirst for security in adulthood. When a person starts with nothing, their adult life often becomes a hyper-compensatory reaction. He isn’t simply accumulating wealth and relationships out of lust,  he is running from the terrifying phantom of his past poverty.

The Deconstruction of the ‘Self-Made Man’
In sociology, the myth of the self-made man places an unbearable psychological burden on an individual. Jonasi had to fight systemic odds to become a banking magnate. This breed of trauma often breeds an insular mentality: ‘I survived the world alone, therefore I owe the world nothing.’ His lack of accountability is born from a survivalist instinct that hardened into a weapon.

Jonasi’s Yin and Yang: A Dual Perspective
The Yang.  The Light, the Magnetic Subject

Jonasi possesses genuine charismatic authority. He is an empire-builder, a visionary, and an undeniable provider whose drive initially lifted people out of obscurity. He is capable of deep loyalty and vulnerability, evident in how he maintains a space for Essie,  the woman who knew him before the money. He is the archetype of African resilience: an example of what sheer determination can achieve against restrictive societal structures.

The Yin. The Dark, the Consuming Shadow
His tragic flaw is his incapacity for emotional equity. The tragedy of Jonasi is that his survival strategies became his undoing. The same ruthlessness that built his banking empire destroyed his family empire. By choosing secrecy over transparency and indulgence over partnership, he weaponised a cultural tradition into a tool of unilateral ego gratification.

Men who study Jonas as a problem are no different from men who study prison inmates as problems they will never become. We all have shadows. We wear fake moral masks that allow our shadows to dance unseen, unnoticed.

Conclusion: The Mirror We Refuse to Look Into.
Ultimately, Jonasi Gomora is neither a flat villain to be easily discarded nor a representative sample of all men. He is a mirror. By  looking past the Netflix adaptation’s melodramatic armour and asking what happened to him, rather than simply what is wrong with him, we uncover a profoundly human story about the trauma of scarcity and the corrupting illusion of absolute power.

Jonasi’s life stands as a psychological cautionary tale of what occurs when our survival strategies harden into weapons, and our internal shadows are allowed to dance out loud without accountability. He teaches us that evil is indeed predictable when reduced to corporate greed and unchecked lust,  but the true, intellectually demanding journey lies in understanding how easily any human being can lose their humanity when they commodify affection and mistake conquest for security.

In the end, analysing Jonasi forces us to drop our own fake moral masks,  prompting a necessary introspection into how we manage our own shadows, our own privileges, and our own capacity for emotional equity.

PS:
The next time a screen adaptation hands you a convenient villain to hate, challenge yourself to look past the elaborate costumes of their bad behaviour. Demand art that uncovers what happened to them. Confront the uncomfortable realities of their humanity. Use their reflection to examine the unmasked shadows hiding within yourself.

=========
Dr. Mzamo Masito
Between Thoughts — Intellectual Musings

Where the uncomfortable questions get a seat at the table.