Jump to content
Nagini's Neville

What are some significant differences between Robb and Jon?

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Lord Walder's malice and bad temper jumps you in the face when you so much as talk to him - to believe such a man, a man who could have married a daughter or granddaughter to a king only to be thwarted by the basic lust of a young boy who must marry the first girl he deflowers would be satisfied by the kind of apology the Freys give him is just utter stupidity. Not just because the grievous wounds they dealt him, but also because the poor position the Starks are in overall. How could they have believed the Freys would still want to be on their side at this point? They had already lost the war.

Robb wasn't a 'King' when the promise to marry a Frey was accepted. - I'm not arguing he shouldn't have known better before hand, I'm just saying what was offered as compensation - marrying Edmure, was essentially the same thing they agreed to in the beginning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2019 at 3:11 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

This is pretty subjective I think. Robb in particular didn't betray his position, he betrayed Walder Frey. Whether or not Jon betrayed anything I think is arguable. I can think of a lot worse reasons to betray something than for love though & while Robb made his decision based on the honor of Jeyne & his love for her, I think Jon's decision to march on WF had much more to do with anger than love. 

In a way I think you can say that robb betrayed someone when he declared himself king instead of suporting some of the pretenders for the IT. I don t think a lord can declare himself king and not betray someone. And I like to think that jon's decision to march on WF was a well thought plan that used his knowledge of WF and the wildlings abilities to scale walls during the night that a emotional response. After all he spent hours talking with tormund about the plan...

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It was stupidity and self-involvement on Robb's part that caused him to fail to see what he had done. He, now a king, thought everybody would see things his way just because he wished it so - but they did not.

I don t think that was the issue. Robb was willing to negotiate with walder to make him happy. He didn t order him to marry one of his kin to edmure, be happy about it and join the war effort. Robb's problem was that he failed to see the consequences for the riverlands once his army returned north. He was basically condeming the riverland lords… Once again showing his inability to think politically...

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In Jon's case the fact that he was pushed into the role of Lord Commander by his scheming friend and a maester also has to be considered. He is pissed that he has to fulfill that office now - he did not want to do that. And that's part of the reason why he later lashes out at his friends, sending them all away.

That is just wrong. Jon sends his friends away because he actively choses to have people he can trust as leaders of the other castles of the NW instead of his enemies. And while people might disagree given jon's outcome I think it was a smart decision… He couldn t have a bowen marsh or alister thorn deciding to kill all the wildlings jon sent to his castle and cutting off comunications or ploting with other important people of the NW against him… 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

He eventually understands what he did, but not back at the Crag. There he thinks he can just apologize to the Freys present or offer amends that do not involvement the removal of Jeyne Westerling - which is a ridiculous approach.

He only tries 'to fix' his error because without the Freys 'the King Who Lost the North' cannot even try to get home. Apologizing to the Freys is only on his agenda when he needs them again, not when he doesn't need them.

Lord Walder's malice and bad temper jumps you in the face when you so much as talk to him - to believe such a man, a man who could have married a daughter or granddaughter to a king only to be thwarted by the basic lust of a young boy who must marry the first girl he deflowers would be satisfied by the kind of apology the Freys give him is just utter stupidity. Not just because the grievous wounds they dealt him, but also because the poor position the Starks are in overall. How could they have believed the Freys would still want to be on their side at this point? They had already lost the war.

I dont think that you are sure about robb only wanting to apologise once he needs the freys again. He was in the middle of a war and probably didn t have time to go back to the twins until tywin returned to KL… 

The part that I agree with you is that robb ofered a very bad deal to walder. Basically he would marry one of his kin to edmure who had no means of defending the riverlands once robb returned north. Basically robb's way of apologising was to offer walder the oportunity of joining the tullys and defending the riverlands alone while he returns north… 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, divica said:

In a way I think you can say that robb betrayed someone when he declared himself king instead of suporting some of the pretenders for the IT. I don t think a lord can declare himself king and not betray someone. And I like to think that jon's decision to march on WF was a well thought plan that used his knowledge of WF and the wildlings abilities to scale walls during the night that a emotional response. After all he spent hours talking with tormund about the plan...

Sure, Robb is betraying the Iron Throne. I don't know what "betraying his position" is meant to mean though honestly & can't think of an instance where Robb betrayed his position. To me that would mean using his position, as one of power, to directly harm or manipulate someone else. For instance, if Robb had taken Jeyne against her will claiming it was his right as KitN or as Lord of WF. That would be betraying his position to me. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Robb wasn't a 'King' when the promise to marry a Frey was accepted. - I'm not arguing he shouldn't have known better before hand, I'm just saying what was offered as compensation - marrying Edmure, was essentially the same thing they agreed to in the beginning. 

I know that Robb wasn't a king originally, but he was later, and the Freys did get worked up on the fact that Elmar was going to marry 'a princess'. One can see how Robb's prospective brides all look forward to meet this king who would pick one of them and make them a queen. And nothing came of that. That was a huge insult, especially after Freys (including Lord Walder's own heir!) and bled and died for Robb's cause.

Edmure wasn't the same rank-wise as the Lord of Winterfell. The Tullys were raised up by the Targaryens but they are still dwarfed by their vassals, the Freys included. The Starks once ruled as kings.

3 hours ago, divica said:

In a way I think you can say that robb betrayed someone when he declared himself king instead of suporting some of the pretenders for the IT. I don t think a lord can declare himself king and not betray someone. And I like to think that jon's decision to march on WF was a well thought plan that used his knowledge of WF and the wildlings abilities to scale walls during the night that a emotional response. After all he spent hours talking with tormund about the plan...

If Ramsay told the truth about Stannis all the Northmen left would stand united against Jon's ragged band of wildlings. It would be a hopeless gesture no matter what, especially since they would have to besiege or storm Winterfell.

3 hours ago, divica said:

I don t think that was the issue. Robb was willing to negotiate with walder to make him happy. He didn t order him to marry one of his kin to edmure, be happy about it and join the war effort. Robb's problem was that he failed to see the consequences for the riverlands once his army returned north. He was basically condeming the riverland lords… Once again showing his inability to think politically...

To be sure, the Riverlords insisted on taking their levies back to their own lands - they never cared much about 'protecting' the 'kingdom' of their new 'king'. I'm reasonably sure essentially all of the Riverlords would have immediately bent the knee to Joffrey as soon as Robb's army had left the Riverlands - because they had no reason to continue this enterprise. The Red Wedding certainly soured some of them, but even then pretty much all of them bent the knee.

3 hours ago, divica said:

That is just wrong. Jon sends his friends away because he actively choses to have people he can trust as leaders of the other castles of the NW instead of his enemies. And while people might disagree given jon's outcome I think it was a smart decision… He couldn t have a bowen marsh or alister thorn deciding to kill all the wildlings jon sent to his castle and cutting off comunications or ploting with other important people of the NW against him… 

I meant Samwell, Aemon, Pyp, and Grenn. Neither of those command castles, and neither of those should have been sent away from basis of real world politics. Instead, they should have been followed their lord commander to high office, ousting the officers other men chose for the Watch so that Jon Snow actually has a power base in the Watch. That is how to ensure you do not only have nominal power but actual power.

You also keep a close eye on the people you sack and use the slightest pretext you get (plotting, complaining, etc.) to come down on them hard.

Jon made a good, perhaps even to brutal a start with Janos Slynt, but afterwards he became very soft for no good reason.

And sending away sworn enemies to other castles could also have worked - if he had surrounded them by men loyal to Jon. That way they would have had at best nominal command over those castles.

3 hours ago, divica said:

I dont think that you are sure about robb only wanting to apologise once he needs the freys again. He was in the middle of a war and probably didn t have time to go back to the twins until tywin returned to KL…

He sent no envoys to the Twins, he did not even have the grace to inform the Freys that he was cancelling the marriage before he married Jeyne. If he had told the Freys he was inclined to marry the Westerling girl and would, say, offer both Catelyn's and Edmure's hand to the Freys if then this could have made a difference.

Not to mention that politically Robb had no reason whatsoever to marry. If he wanted to dump the Freys dump them when you have exploited them enough - i.e. after the war is over, not when you are still depended on them.

3 hours ago, divica said:

The part that I agree with you is that robb ofered a very bad deal to walder. Basically he would marry one of his kin to edmure who had no means of defending the riverlands once robb returned north. Basically robb's way of apologising was to offer walder the oportunity of joining the tullys and defending the riverlands alone while he returns north… 

See above. There is no chance that the Riverlords wouldn't have all jumped the Tully ship to make their own private deals with the Iron Throne after Robb had left. They had nothing to gain from remaining loyal to Robb or his 'kingdom'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If Ramsay told the truth about Stannis all the Northmen left would stand united against Jon's ragged band of wildlings. It would be a hopeless gesture no matter what, especially since they would have to besiege or storm Winterfell.

Obviously that they would not engage in a normal fight. Jon would need to storm winterfell by night and achieve something important like killing roose and ramsay or burning their food stores. And if theon could conquer winterfell with a few ironborn jon is better equipped to do it with hundreds of wildlings that can scalle walls.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

To be sure, the Riverlords insisted on taking their levies back to their own lands - they never cared much about 'protecting' the 'kingdom' of their new 'king'. I'm reasonably sure essentially all of the Riverlords would have immediately bent the knee to Joffrey as soon as Robb's army had left the Riverlands - because they had no reason to continue this enterprise. The Red Wedding certainly soured some of them, but even then pretty much all of them bent the knee.

The tullys couldn t just surrender. You are making my point. Ofering edmure in mariage is an awfull deal for walder because once robb left for the north edmure would be in an unwinable position and walder would be tied to him.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I meant Samwell, Aemon, Pyp, and Grenn. Neither of those command castles, and neither of those should have been sent away from basis of real world politics. Instead, they should have been followed their lord commander to high office, ousting the officers other men chose for the Watch so that Jon Snow actually has a power base in the Watch. That is how to ensure you do not only have nominal power but actual power.

You also keep a close eye on the people you sack and use the slightest pretext you get (plotting, complaining, etc.) to come down on them hard.

Jon made a good, perhaps even to brutal a start with Janos Slynt, but afterwards he became very soft for no good reason.

And sending away sworn enemies to other castles could also have worked - if he had surrounded them by men loyal to Jon. That way they would have had at best nominal command over those castles.

Aemon needed to leave. Jon was right in fearing that mel would burn him and not many people would want to opose her and stannis for an old man...

In regards to the others. They just didn t have the ability to become leaders in the NW and jon had trouble making them understand that now he was their leader. He couldn t behave as if he was their friend. I don t remember jon's exact thought process and why he sent them away but I am almost sure he gave good reasons.

Another problem is that jon's enemies are leaders within the NW. He can t send them to other castles and expect them to have no power there...

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

He sent no envoys to the Twins, he did not even have the grace to inform the Freys that he was cancelling the marriage before he married Jeyne. If he had told the Freys he was inclined to marry the Westerling girl and would, say, offer both Catelyn's and Edmure's hand to the Freys if then this could have made a difference.

Not to mention that politically Robb had no reason whatsoever to marry. If he wanted to dump the Freys dump them when you have exploited them enough - i.e. after the war is over, not when you are still depended on them.

I think it would be worst to send envoys instead of appearing personally. It is a really big insult...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

know that Robb wasn't a king originally, but he was later, and the Freys did get worked up on the fact that Elmar was going to marry 'a princess'. One can see how Robb's prospective brides all look forward to meet this king who would pick one of them and make them a queen. And nothing came of that. That was a huge insult, especially after Freys (including Lord Walder's own heir!) and bled and died for Robb's cause

Sure, I mean it was a huge insult either way. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Ramsay told the truth about Stannis all the Northmen left would stand united against Jon's ragged band of wildlings. It would be a hopeless gesture no matter what, especially since they would have to besiege or storm Winterfell

What do you mean by this? If Ramsay told the truth about beating Stannis ? I don't understand why that means the leftover northmen would stand united against Jon?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

be sure, the Riverlords insisted on taking their levies back to their own lands - they never cared much about 'protecting' the 'kingdom' of their new 'king'. I'm reasonably sure essentially all of the Riverlords would have immediately bent the knee to Joffrey as soon as Robb's army had left the Riverlands - because they had no reason to continue this enterprise. The Red Wedding certainly soured some of them, but even then pretty much all of them bent the knee

I might be mixing up times &/or what you are saying but the Riverlands didn't bend the knee even upon Robb dying right? The Blackfish held RR against the siege. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2019 at 1:46 PM, Widowmaker 811 said:

They are the same people.  They serve the same purpose.  They illustrate the reasons why the best laid plans go very badly because of a lack of internal discipline within the person making the decision.  Jon and Robb are case studies for the failure of leadership.  While they both possess some talents for fighting battles, they both also possess fatal flaws that make them unsuitable for leadership.  They both failed the test of leadership. 

All Robb had to do was honor an oath to Walder Frey.  But he was too concerned with looks.  He was worried the Frey bride will not have a pleasant appearance.  In other words, his future Frey bride was not going to be pretty.  He rebelled against his own oaths and chose the attractive girl over the unknown girl whom he thought would be ugly.  

Jon had a harder test than Robb, but it was still a test that most of the boys at the wall have had to face and passed.  The readers should not be swayed by Jon's support group who claim that it was an impossible test to pass.  It was not.  Most of the boys and men on that wall had to leave loved ones behind when they took the black.  Those same loved ones left behind were put in peril by wars, famine, epidemics, wildling attacks, etc.  The boys still stayed at the wall.  It must not have been easy but they stayed.  They put all of that behind them and dedicated themselves to the watch.  They kept out of the kingdom's business and stayed neutral.  Jon could not.  

Same decisions.  Where it may differ is how they handled the reconciliation with the Freys.  Robb was more diplomatic and bit his tongue.  Jon would have been more aggressive towards Lothar.  Lothar still wins because the lame guy will adjust his reaction to aggression in such a way that he gets what he wants.  I cannot imagine Jon apologizing to Walder Frey even when the Starks are wrong.  Robb is more socially graceful, Jon is more animal like, less polished.  Jon is tone deaf to the concerns of those he doesn't like.  But it is possible his more primal nature might have kept him from trusting Walder.  

Ned's youth is still an unknown.  He would be worst than they were if he knowingly participated in his father's plot to unseat Aerys.  Revenge-driven?  Jon is the more so than Robb.  Do you remember what Jon did to Janos Slynt?  That was revenge.  

Robb was just an idiot.  I never liked Jon.  That boy is dark inside.  He is a bag of angry emotions waiting to burst out.  It came out when he killed Janos.  

I do not find either character appealing.  Honorable?  Good lord, they are the opposite of honorable.  Dishonorable is more like it.  That's why their own men gave them a dishonorable discharge from duty.  

:agree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, divica said:

Obviously that they would not engage in a normal fight. Jon would need to storm winterfell by night and achieve something important like killing roose and ramsay or burning their food stores. And if theon could conquer winterfell with a few ironborn jon is better equipped to do it with hundreds of wildlings that can scalle walls.

I'm sure they may have tried to do something, but Ramsay wrote the letter to goad Jon into doing something rash - he played him like a fiddle, and he would have played him even better if what he said was actually true. Ramsay would expect Jon in such a scenario. His men would expect him or even attack on his march down to Winterfell.

7 minutes ago, divica said:

The tullys couldn t just surrender. You are making my point. Ofering edmure in mariage is an awfull deal for walder because once robb left for the north edmure would be in an unwinable position and walder would be tied to him.

The Tullys did surrender in AFfC. They would have also surrendered in a setting without a Red Wedding as soon as 50,000 Tyrells were preparing to ravage the Riverlands some more.

7 minutes ago, divica said:

Aemon needed to leave. Jon was right in fearing that mel would burn him and not many people would want to opose her and stannis for an old man...

At this point there is no indication that Mel ever intended to burn Aemon. Or Mance's child for that matter. That seems to have been paranoia on their part.

7 minutes ago, divica said:

In regards to the others. They just didn t have the ability to become leaders in the NW and jon had trouble making them understand that now he was their leader. He couldn t behave as if he was their friend. I don t remember jon's exact thought process and why he sent them away but I am almost sure he gave good reasons.

Aemon tried to teach Jon a lesson - grow up. But grown-ups do have friends, too. Aegon V - the man Aemon tried to teach a similar lesson did not send his best friend away when he became king - he made him the Lord Commander of his Kingsguard.

Jon didn't do anything of this sort. He sent away his friends and other men he could rely on and trust. He basically made exactly the same mistake Ned made in KL when he sent away more and more of his own Winterfell men.

Jon Snow himself is far too young to command the NW. Yet he was elected Lord Commander. He could put other young people in crucial offices, too. Or at least replace them with men he know he can trust. Why not make Pyp and Grenn his bodyguard and constant companions, men he would involve in everything he does so they do not feel as if he were casting them aside?

7 minutes ago, divica said:

Another problem is that jon's enemies are leaders within the NW. He can t send them to other castles and expect them to have no power there...

Sure, he could. He could demote them. Or he could sideline them by giving them only nominal command and surround them with his own people. If Thorne or Marsh had, say, two dozen men with them they wouldn't be much of a threat - especially if half of them were wildlings.

7 minutes ago, divica said:

I think it would be worst to send envoys instead of appearing personally. It is a really big insult...

Oh, I meant before he make amends himself. The immediate step after the fallout would have been to send some sweet-talker of his own to the Twins, to try to mitigate the thing.

15 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

What do you mean by this? If Ramsay told the truth about beating Stannis ? I don't understand why that means the leftover northmen would stand united against Jon?

Ramsay claims there was a seven days battle. What do you think would have happened there if Stannis is actually dead? They would have killed them all - and those who survived would have bent the knee to the Boltons the very moment Stannis himself died.

And they are not suddenly going to change that for some bastard and the wildling army he is leading in their lands. The Northmen hate the wildlings more than they hate the Boltons.

15 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I might be mixing up times &/or what you are saying but the Riverlands didn't bend the knee even upon Robb dying right? The Blackfish held RR against the siege.

Riverrun only yielded in AFfC, but the rest of the Riverlands yielded before that, and actually helped the Lannisters and Freys to besiege Riverrun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 Ramsay claims there was a seven days battle. What do you think would have happened there if Stannis is actually dead? They would have killed them all - and those who survived would have bent the knee to the Boltons the very moment Stannis himself died.

And they are not suddenly going to change that for some bastard and the wildling army he is leading in their lands. The Northmen hate the wildlings more than they hate the Boltons

I gotcha. I guess I was just thinking after a 7 day battle there wouldn't be much of anyone left, but agreed those left would have bent the knee to Ramsay. 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Riverrun only yielded in AFfC, but the rest of the Riverlands yielded before that, and actually helped the Lannisters and Freys to besiege Riverrun

I remember now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The decisions they made have less to do with being kin.  It's about their hearts and what it wanted.  Duty wants something else.  George set Jon up beautifully because he was a POV.  We know what led him to betray the watch because we are given his thought process.  We did not get that from Robb. 

George Martin is doing his job when his fans are reacting strongly to what his characters do and what happens as a result.  Robb and the red wedding was not as well done.  I'm not looking at statistics but just a rough guesstimate based on the fan response to the red wedding.  About 70% or more condemn the Freys and sympathize with Robb.  The response to Jon's assassination is more evenly divided.  Like 50/50.  Jon is the more divisive character among the fan base. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

The decisions they made have less to do with being kin.  It's about their hearts and what it wanted.  Duty wants something else.  George set Jon up beautifully because he was a POV.  We know what led him to betray the watch because we are given his thought process.  We did not get that from Robb. 

George Martin is doing his job when his fans are reacting strongly to what his characters do and what happens as a result.  Robb and the red wedding was not as well done.  I'm not looking at statistics but just a rough guesstimate based on the fan response to the red wedding.  About 70% or more condemn the Freys and sympathize with Robb.  The response to Jon's assassination is more evenly divided.  Like 50/50.  Jon is the more divisive character among the fan base. 

 

That's interesting I actually sympathize more with Jon. I never got the impression, that his assassination wouldn't have happened without freeing mance. Him taking on the wildlings and wanting to get them to safety played a big role. But he was right here though imo. If they don't take them on and let them behind the wall, they'll be used against them later- so what was he supposed to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2019 at 7:28 PM, Moiraine Sedai said:

Their appearance.  That is all.  

Just out of curiosity why would you read a series if you believe the writer has created two characters, identical in all but looks? That would be rather redundant I would think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2019 at 7:26 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Just out of curiosity why would you read a series if you believe the writer has created two characters, identical in all but looks? That would be rather redundant I would think. 

Didn't the author himself say people are more alike.  Their differences are minor compared to what they have in common. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Didn't the author himself say people are more alike.  Their differences are minor compared to what they have in common. 

I don't know if the author said that or not but that is a far cry from being exactly alike in all but appearance & have a hard time believing this is what he meant when he made the statement you are referring to. 

We don't really need a statement from the author in this case do we? We all are aware that human beings share several things in common while they remain very different people right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much has already been written and I can agree with some of the stated differences.  Robb took after the Tully.  He looks normal.  Jon took after the traditional Stark and inherited the loooong face.  Robb chose sound tactics and duties to his men over his sisters.  Jon chose his sister over his duties to his men and the kingdom.  In the end, however, it was the same choice.  They put who they loved over who they have a duty to protect.  Lover over duty and that is what make them poor leaders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2019 at 1:15 AM, Nagini's Neville said:

Robb and Jon always sort of felt like the same person to me. Just like young versions of Ned. Before you get mad at me, I know it's probably a very subjective feeling. I fully acknowledge, that I'm not an expert, when it comes to Robb and Jon. I haven't spent that much time analyzing their characters/personalities yet. And it's not that easy for me to relate to them. But I'm looking forward to  maybe change that. I'm currently on a reread and I'm trying to understand them better! Traits that stuck out to me so far about Jon are that he is observant and in his head more than Robb in the beginning of the story. But I guess, that could also be because of their different upbringings/status and their roles in WF.

Some questions:

What are some significant differences between Robb and Jon? In which situations, you think, Jon would have acted/reacted differently than Robb, if he'd been in the same situation and vice versa? (Maybe Red Wedding and also Jeyne)

In which situations would they have acted definitely the same? What makes both of them different from Ned? ( Imo Robb might be more revenge-driven/emotional and Jon is more suspicious )

If Robb or Jon are your favorite characters, why? Which traits, behavior, situations makes you like them so much? ( please, don't shy away from getting detailed :))

For the men: Can you relate to Jon and Robb?(Why?) From your experience do you think they are accurate/realistic depictions of boys/ men their age? Or does their appeal lie more in, that one would aspire to be like them, since they are so honorable?  (Robb feels more realistic to me, because he makes some serious "teenage boy" mistakes, while Jon always felt a bit to much Gary Stu for me) (For the women, if you can relate to Jon and Robb, please answer as well :) )

 

To me they are both completely down to nurture and therefore very much unlike each other. But as sons raised by Ned Stark they both have a lot of him in them which makes their values pretty much the same; honour and all that.

Biggest difference is self-assuredness. Rob has a lot and Jon has very little - one is a future lord and the other a bastard of the Nights Watch, fates that they are fully set for and in Jon's case really wants. Jon has so little of it he has to continuously question himself and everything else too, which makes him more observant but also suspicious-seeming.

Rob on the other hand seems just as naive as a person who hasn't tasted a single set-back ever. 

I don't think Jon would have slept with Jeyne and so Red Wedding would not have happened (maybe it would but in that case with another excuse). But then again if Jon was Rob he would likely be far more like Rob than he is, so.. :dunno:

One thing I can't see them acting differently is that they'd both legitimise the other. Which really is the sweetest bro-love-moment ever. :wub:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 8:15 PM, Nagini's Neville said:

Robb and Jon always sort of felt like the same person to me. Just like young versions of Ned. Before you get mad at me, I know it's probably a very subjective feeling. I fully acknowledge, that I'm not an expert, when it comes to Robb and Jon. I haven't spent that much time analyzing their characters/personalities yet. And it's not that easy for me to relate to them. But I'm looking forward to  maybe change that. I'm currently on a reread and I'm trying to understand them better! Traits that stuck out to me so far about Jon are that he is observant and in his head more than Robb in the beginning of the story. But I guess, that could also be because of their different upbringings/status and their roles in WF.

Some questions:

What are some significant differences between Robb and Jon? In which situations, you think, Jon would have acted/reacted differently than Robb, if he'd been in the same situation and vice versa? (Maybe Red Wedding and also Jeyne)

In which situations would they have acted definitely the same? What makes both of them different from Ned? ( Imo Robb might be more revenge-driven/emotional and Jon is more suspicious )

If Robb or Jon are your favorite characters, why? Which traits, behavior, situations makes you like them so much? ( please, don't shy away from getting detailed :))

For the men: Can you relate to Jon and Robb?(Why?) From your experience do you think they are accurate/realistic depictions of boys/ men their age? Or does their appeal lie more in, that one would aspire to be like them, since they are so honorable?  (Robb feels more realistic to me, because he makes some serious "teenage boy" mistakes, while Jon always felt a bit to much Gary Stu for me) (For the women, if you can relate to Jon and Robb, please answer as well :) )

 

They should feel similar to you because they were raised around the same people.  They share the same Stark temperament.  Which is to say, nasty.  Both of them are young men with a lot of hubris who have no idea how weak they were.  They were the wrong men to put into the positions they were in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mon ami said:

They should feel similar to you because they were raised around the same people.  They share the same Stark temperament.  Which is to say, nasty.  Both of them are young men with a lot of hubris who have no idea how weak they were.  They were the wrong men to put into the positions they were in. 

What do you mean "nasty temperament"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sigella said:

To me they are both completely down to nurture and therefore very much unlike each other. But as sons raised by Ned Stark they both have a lot of him in them which makes their values pretty much the same; honour and all that.

Biggest difference is self-assuredness. Rob has a lot and Jon has very little - one is a future lord and the other a bastard of the Nights Watch, fates that they are fully set for and in Jon's case really wants. Jon has so little of it he has to continuously question himself and everything else too, which makes him more observant but also suspicious-seeming.

Rob on the other hand seems just as naive as a person who hasn't tasted a single set-back ever. 

I don't think Jon would have slept with Jeyne and so Red Wedding would not have happened (maybe it would but in that case with another excuse). But then again if Jon was Rob he would likely be far more like Rob than he is, so.. :dunno:

One thing I can't see them acting differently is that they'd both legitimise the other. Which really is the sweetest bro-love-moment ever. :wub:

 

Thanks! Really interesting what everyone thinks! :) Haven't read through it all yet. Your answer makes a lot of sense to me. 

I guess we also have to keep I'm mind, that we are never in Robb's head so we are not really exposed to all the self-doubt, that might possibly go on in there. And in his position he can't show any weakness and he is also kinda trying to get rid of his mom and we only see that from her perspective. I used to take it really hard, that he didn't even attempt to get his sisters back, even though it could have even helped his cause. But now I try to acknowledge, that we are never in his head. So we don't know his thought process, doubts, if he felt like a failure at times etc. And I think he took Ned's death really hard! Imo it was an extreme schock for him even more so than for the rest of the Starks (inc Jon). And he saw it as his responsibility as the new head of the house to right this unimaginable wrong. Not to get justice felt unbearable for him imo.

I also don't think Jon would have slept with Jeyne, since he did only with Ygritte, when he really didn't have any other choice anymore.

But the RW was part of the plot so...

OMG I wanted so badly to see them interact again! So we could experience more sweet bro-love-moments! or at least have more flashbacks of them together! But I want that for all the Stark kids really :) 

I had to laugh so hard over your profile picture!! :lmao:took me a moment to notice it's supposed to be Dany. She got sharp teeth lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×