What if Robb was the sole survivor of RW?

[Eternally_Theirs]

6 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No, that isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm explaining to you that while there are posters who, in direct opposition to the text, believe that anyone that partakes in the downfall of the Starks are great because they hate the Starks but the poster that you quoted: TheThreeEyedCrow, is not one of them & I didn't think they suggested they were in their post. 

They're still advocating for Robb's death, and I will disparage anyone who thinks that nice characters - like Robb - had to die, no matter their reasons.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

6 minutes ago, DR Supporter said:

They're still advocating for Robb's death, and I will disparage anyone who thinks that nice characters - like Robb - had to die, no matter their reasons.

That's fine, I understand you don't want Robb to die. But you also understand the difference between someone advocating for Robb's death merely because they don't like Robb, attempting to masquerade it behind silly reasoning & someone saying plot wise it needed to happen right? That's all I'm trying to point out here. The former are the schmucks, the later just have a different opinion than you. 

[sweetsunray]

6 minutes ago, DR Supporter said:

They're still advocating for Robb's death, and I will disparage anyone who thinks that nice characters - like Robb - had to die, no matter their reasons.

There's a difference between advocating for it from a literary standpoint, and with George's writing that is a very valid argument, because George has heroes and protagonists die since he was a teen.

But I'll give you another example, an entirely different story. My favourite fairytale as a child was the "little mermaid", though it broke my heart. In the original story she doesn't get the prince, has to kill him in order to save her life, but doesn't and ends up as seafoam, but she gained a soul and access into heaven. I so much wished for the little mermaid's happy ending, but no matter how often I raed the story, she never got it. And then when I was much older Disney came out with their Disney version of it. And in that version Ariel gets her prince and lives and thus her happy ever after. And when I saw it, I was angry. I hate that version. It's not that I don't feel for Ariel or believe she deserves to die. But I've also learned to see that the prince was a shallow dick (he really is when you read the original as an adult) who could never value the little mermaid. I also learned to see that it's wrong for woman or man to give up their identity (their voice) and change their appearance in the hope they will make someone else fall in love with them. Realastically it can only lead to a very unhappy little mermaid who ends up spending her life with a superficial shmuck and she would have grown to realize that at some point in the future.

Christian Anderson chose an ending that considered the most realistic outcome if the little mermaid could have gotten that particular prince she wanted - a very unhappy marriage, where she could never be who she truly is and a prince who'd be having extramarital affairs in no time. And he didn't want to lie to readers, especially to little girls dreaming of princes. His message was "fall in love, because love transforms you, but don't change who you are for them, because you won't win someone who loves you for who you are." And that message is very very important, I believe. Because it's true. And by the time I saw the Disney movie I started to understand that lesson from the story, and so I was upset with Disney for going with a fanfic ending that teaches little girls the worst lesson.

Most of us have been deeply heartbroken by Robb's fate, and we will always defend Robb against those who argue he "deserved" what the Freys did to him. But time and the continuation of the story also helped us understand that storywise Robb would have to die somehow, just like Ned had to die somehow, at least in the way and intention that George writes stories (and we love him for it). The story was never about Robb defeating Lannisters and carve out his own new kingdom. Without the Others, without his siblings, without Dany, then yes, that would have been the story. It wouldn't have necessarily be boring, but it is a standard storyline written about before by other people. It makes for a feel good story, and wouldn't make us question Robb's mistakes or even the wrongs he did to the smallfolk. But the Others are part of the story, and Robb's siblings are important and so is Dany. And we recognize that as long as Robb would remain alive, he would remain in the limelight and stand in the way of the growth path of his siblings.

[Eternally_Theirs]

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

That's fine, I understand you don't want Robb to die. But you also understand the difference between someone advocating for Robb's death merely because they don't like Robb, attempting to masquerade it behind silly reasoning & someone saying plot wise it needed to happen right? That's all I'm trying to point out here. The former are the schmucks, the later just have a different opinion than you. 

And I will counter their opinions irregardless.

43 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

There's a difference between advocating for it from a literary standpoint, and with George's writing that is a very valid argument, because George has heroes and protagonists die since he was a teen.

But I'll give you another example, an entirely different story. My favourite fairytale as a child was the "little mermaid", though it broke my heart. In the original story she doesn't get the prince, has to kill him in order to save her life, but doesn't and ends up as seafoam, but she gained a soul and access into heaven. I so much wished for the little mermaid's happy ending, but no matter how often I raed the story, she never got it. And then when I was much older Disney came out with their Disney version of it. And in that version Ariel gets her prince and lives and thus her happy ever after. And when I saw it, I was angry. I hate that version. It's not that I don't feel for Ariel or believe she deserves to die. But I've also learned to see that the prince was a shallow dick (he really is when you read the original as an adult) who could never value the little mermaid. I also learned to see that it's wrong for woman or man to give up their identity (their voice) and change their appearance in the hope they will make someone else fall in love with them. Realastically it can only lead to a very unhappy little mermaid who ends up spending her life with a superficial shmuck and she would have grown to realize that at some point in the future.

Christian Anderson chose an ending that considered the most realistic outcome if the little mermaid could have gotten that particular prince she wanted - a very unhappy marriage, where she could never be who she truly is and a prince who'd be having extramarital affairs in no time. And he didn't want to lie to readers, especially to little girls dreaming of princes. His message was "fall in love, because love transforms you, but don't change who you are for them, because you won't win someone who loves you for who you are." And that message is very very important, I believe. Because it's true. And by the time I saw the Disney movie I started to understand that lesson from the story, and so I was upset with Disney for going with a fanfic ending that teaches little girls the worst lesson.

Most of us have been deeply heartbroken by Robb's fate, and we will always defend Robb against those who argue he "deserved" what the Freys did to him. But time and the continuation of the story also helped us understand that storywise Robb would have to die somehow, just like Ned had to die somehow, at least in the way and intention that George writes stories (and we love him for it). The story was never about Robb defeating Lannisters and carve out his own new kingdom. Without the Others, without his siblings, without Dany, then yes, that would have been the story. It wouldn't have necessarily be boring, but it is a standard storyline written about before by other people. It makes for a feel good story, and wouldn't make us question Robb's mistakes or even the wrongs he did to the smallfolk. But the Others are part of the story, and Robb's siblings are important and so is Dany. And we recognize that as long as Robb would remain alive, he would remain in the limelight and stand in the way of the growth path of his siblings.

That may be, but if you want the truth, here it is: I've never cared about any of his siblings (other than Bran) on a personal level, like I did for him, or his father, or Shireen, or Tommen, or Myrcella or Dany.

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

8 minutes ago, DR Supporter said:

And I will counter their opinions irregardless

You are more than welcome to do that but you, as of yet, have not. You've only falsely accused someone of being a schmuck. If you aren't interested in discussion or a difference of opinion why open the thread? 

 

[Eternally_Theirs]

And as for the Others, Robb's death actually hurt the chances of them being taken down rather than increase it. Think about it. Thanks to Frey/Bolton betrayal, Robb's death and Roose becoming the Warden of the North, the North is divided. The North is divided when the threat of Others is looming above them. Could Roose gather all the North Houses and clans - most of whom hate him for his involvement in RW and for his stabby-stabby-stabbying of their former ruler - in time to repel the Others? Hell no. Could Robb? Maybe, except that Roose freaking killed him.

Well, when the Others attack and wipe out half the continent, you can blame Walder/Roose for killing the guy whose brother was the LC of Nights Watch and whose joint effort with said brother would have ensured that the living actually stood a chance.

Instead of a decent ruler, who would actually listen to Jon as King of the North, we have a power-hungry man who would probably disregard anything Jon would say as Warden of the North. Result: Others wipe out half of the continent. Thanks Walder/Roose. Thanks a bunch.

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, DR Supporter said:

That may be, but if you want the truth, here it is: I've never cared about any of his siblings (other than Bran) on a personal level, like I did for him, or his father, or Shireen, or Tommen, or Myrcella or Dany.

I'm sorry that you then don't have much enjoyment with the rest of the story and likely will not like the rest of the story either. George always intended Robb for this fate from the outset, and his siblings along with Dany and Tyrion were the main characters to write a "coming of age" story. And while some readers let their enjoyment of the story depend on the fate of their favourite being a happy-ever-after, a lot of readers can enjoy the story and the read of POVs of characters they may not like. There are several POVs I thoroughly think ill of, but I still find their experiences an interesting read.

 

2 hours ago, DR Supporter said:

And as for the Others, Robb's death actually hurt the chances of them being taken down rather than increase it. Think about it. Thanks to Frey/Bolton betrayal, Robb's death and Roose becoming the Warden of the North, the North is divided. The North is divided when the threat of Others is looming above them. Could Roose gather all the North Houses and clans - most of whom hate him for his involvement in RW and for his stabby-stabby-stabbying of their former ruler - in time to repel the Others? Hell no. Could Robb? Maybe, except that Roose freaking killed him.

The North was already divided while Robb was king. Theon managed to capture Winterfell and made sure that everyone in the North would believe Robb's brothers are dead. And with Ramsay's help, Theon also decimated Robb's Northern reserves he kept there to keep the peace. Not that they did such a good job of it. Before Theon captured WF, Ramsay and Manderly were having a mini civil war over the lands of the Hornwoods. On top of that Robb dismissed any witness accounts of Osha about the threat in the North and he delayed any decision to deal with the widow Hornwood which created an opportunity for Ramsay. Instead of consolidating his kingdom, let alone his home, he attacked the Westerlands. And despite having had victories due to Greywind, he was detaching himself from his bond.

Robb didn't fully trust Roose and the man scared him, and yet he ignored any further signs that he had an opportunistic rival leading a large part of his host in the Riverlands. Robb cares for the North, deeply, but as much as it pains me to say it, he did neglect the North and the potential backstabbing dangers as well as the double threats north of the Wall (King Beyond the Wall and the Others). Robb was a great warrior, but he failed his kingdom. Robb starts to realize it when he hears the news of his brothers being dead, the destruction of Winterfell, the Ironbon holding Moat Cailing and thereby preventing him from getting back north. 

Did he deserve to be killed for these mistakes? Of course not. Was he the person to rectify it though? I don't think so, because he still trusted Roose, his wife's family, etc.

Is Roose or Ramsay the person to do it? Of course not. But I'm reminded of the BBC series I Claudius, where towards the end, emperor Claudius defends his inaction against his stepson Nero and his wife as "let all the poison surface from the muck" (paraphrasing here). This is the literary purpose of "evil" - so that "good" people can unite against it. However, it's difficult to unite against someone who hasn't done the despiccable yet, but is only suspected of being able to do it. And we see that with Roose's self-serving betrayal, more untrustworthy men in the North are coming out of the woodwork. Take the Karstarks for example. The Karstark's castellan Arnolf Karstark, brother to Rickard Karstark, and Arnolf's son Cregan are basically scum. They are in truth cooperating with Ramsay and Roose for the same selfish reasons as the Boltons. But in order to have Rickard's heir Harrion killed they will pretend to be Stannis supporters, all so that Alys forcibly married to Cregan will be heir after her brother and Cregan Karstark the new Lord of Karhold. Except these ploys are starting to unravel. Confident with Roose as warden, they dare to reveal their plans to Alys, who managed to escape. Instead of just plotting they dare to reveal their hand. And thus instead of Robb fighting an outsider enemy (Lannisters), never knowing who his enemies are that call themselves friends (Roose, Arnolf, Theon), it has become far easier for Robb's surviving true allies to identify who the enemy within the North is. Robb being a martyr in their eyes also helps.

Quote

Well, when the Others attack and wipe out half the continent, you can blame Walder/Roose for killing the guy whose brother was the LC of Nights Watch and whose joint effort with said brother would have ensured that the living actually stood a chance.

Instead of a decent ruler, who would actually listen to Jon as King of the North, we have a power-hungry man who would probably disregard anything Jon would say as Warden of the North. Result: Others wipe out half of the continent. Thanks Walder/Roose. Thanks a bunch.

The Freys and Boltons will be dead before the Others come.

There are plenty of hints that a Red Wedding 2.0 is coming and that it will happen at Riverrun during a wedding feast where the Warden of the West will wed a Frey daughter. That LS is planning this. That's why Tom Sevenstrings showed up in Jaime's arc at Riverrun and decided to stay there and be the singer there. He's spying for the BwB and opening the gates and portcullis to them during the wedding preparations.

Meanwhile Stannis will whipe out the Frey army at the ice lakes where he's huddled up in aDwD. And with enough Frey  heirs dead, house Frey will self destruct. Only Roslyn will escape that fate likely and her brother Olivar, who is most likely the mysterious "ward of Rosby" occupying the Rosby castle near KL and preventing Cersei from getting her greedy hands on it.

Roose and Ramsay lost fArya, the one person they used as a shield and hostage to keep the lords they expect to turn against them is gone. Without Arya their claim upon WF becomes unatainable and without the lords and ladies within WF surrounding Roose having to fear Arya ending up killed by Ramsay, they will more easily turn against Roose. And while officially the North is back to being a region of the 7K under Tommen's rule, Cersei and Tommen have other issues to deal with at their very own doorstep, and no armies to spare: most of the Lannister host is either at the RL and will end killed by rebels and BwB (and the RL lords who surrendered, but in their heart are still anti-Lannister and anti-Frey), or they're on the Redwyne fleet to be decimated by Euron.

 

[Eternally_Theirs]

And you other people will be more likely to listen to Jon, who is known as a bastard? No, the only people willing to listen to him (Ned and Robb) got deaded, and Roose/Walder had a hand in the death of the latter.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 minute ago, DR Supporter said:

And you other people will be more likely to listen to Jon, who is known as a bastard? No, the only people willing to listen to him (Ned and Robb) got deaded, and Roose/Walder had a hand in the death of the latter.

Stannis seems pretty willing to listen to Jon. 

[Eternally_Theirs]

2 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Stannis seems pretty willing to listen to Jon. 

Stannis isn't of the North.

[sweetsunray]

3 minutes ago, DR Supporter said:

And you other people will be more likely to listen to Jon, who is known as a bastard? No, the only people willing to listen to him (Ned and Robb) got deaded, and Roose/Walder had a hand in the death of the latter.

Intelligent people who want what's best for their land, rather than just themselves, will listen to what an intelligent bastard has to say.

As @Lyanna<3Rhaegar pointed out: Stannis listens. But I will add some more to the list: Alys listens, Tormund and Val listen, the Iron Bank is listening, and several of the leaders of the mountain clans came down to CB to listen as well.

[sweetsunray]

2 minutes ago, DR Supporter said:

Stannis isn't of the North.

I should hope that not only Northerners start listening to a bastard about the threat of the Others.

[Eternally_Theirs]

1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

Intelligent people who want what's best for their land, rather than just themselves, will listen to what an intelligent bastard has to say.

As @Lyanna<3Rhaegar pointed out: Stannis listens. But I will add some more to the list: Alys listens, Tormund and Val listen, the Iron Bank is listening, and several of the leaders of the mountain clans came down to CB to listen as well.

And that disputes the theory that Robb was the only one who could have helped how? Roose won't listen and Roose is the current WoN. And even if they drive him out and replace him with Rickon, Rickon would be just as unlikely to listen due to his age. Robb was truly the only hope against the Others and Roose/Walder took that hope away.

Of course, if they made Jon the WoN, it'd be a different matter, but he is a bastard and he refused that position, twice.

[kissdbyfire]

6 minutes ago, DR Supporter said:

And that disputes the theory that Robb was the only one who could have helped how? 

Of course it does. That’s the whole point of what’s being said, that Robb wasn’t “the only one who could have helped”.

[Eternally_Theirs]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

Of course it does. That’s the whole point of what’s being said, that Robb wasn’t “the only one who could have helped”.

Except he was. Stannis and the Mountain clans and Alys could listen, but the ultimate decision on whether to help out or not rests with the WoN. Which is now Roose, who won't help. And he killed the previous ruler, who would have.

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, DR Supporter said:

Except he was. Stannis and the Mountain clans and Alys could listen, but the ultimate decision on whether to help out or not rests with the WoN. Which is now Roose, who won't help. And he killed the previous ruler, who would have.

Roose won’t keep his position much longer. And the point is that there are characters who are aware of the threat, and determined to do something about it. Robb died before he even heard anything about the WWs, so it’s silly and erroneous to say that Robb was the only one who could have helped. 

[Eternally_Theirs]

Just now, kissdbyfire said:

Roose won’t keep his position much longer. And the point is that there are characters who are aware of the threat, and determined to do something about it. Robb died before he even heard anything about the WWs, so it’s silly and erroneous to say that Robb was the only one who could have helped. 

Yeah, there are characters who are aware of the threat, but none of them are WoN. Even if Roose doesn't keep his position much longer, who do you expect to do something about it, as WoN? Rickon? He is 9 years old.

We had an ideal candidate who could have done something about Others as WoN, but Roose 'lemme-stab-him' Bolton killed said candidate.

[sweetsunray]

19 minutes ago, DR Supporter said:

And that disputes the theory that Robb was the only one who could have helped how? Roose won't listen and Roose is the current WoN. And even if they drive him out and replace him with Rickon, Rickon would be just as unlikely to listen due to his age. Robb was truly the only hope against the Others and Roose/Walder took that hope away.

Of course, if they made Jon the WoN, it'd be a different matter, but he is a bastard and he refused that position, twice.

It is on you to prove that Robb would be the sole one who could help. Creating a fictional scenario and being blind to the fact that people do listen to a bastard, who's not even king doesn't help your case.

1. Robb ignored and dismissed any warnings of a threat north of the Wall, including an army of wildlings led by a KbtW. So, Robb is as likely to listen than anyone else.
2. Robb also ignored insider threats and ignroed domestic northern issues. We have little evidence that he would listen to Jon even if he hadn't been betrayed at the Twins yet, but had managed to drive off the IB from Moat Cailin.
3. While it's true that Rickon's a kid and thus there would be a regent and that regent could ignore anything that Jon has to say, Rickon's also a strong wilfull personality who's seen and experienced things, who'd potentially send Shaggy after his regent if he feels they ought to listen to Jon.
4. Even if Robb would listen to Jon and managed to get the North back under his control, his political position of insisting on Northern independence, would basically isolate him from everyone else south of the Neck to come north to deal with the Others. Any of his warnings, calls for help would be met with suspicion that it's a trick or you'd have rulers and southern lords and ladies think - he wanted his independence, now let him deal with it on his own. In fact Tywin already argued such a thing when it came to the warnings and call for help from the Wall. That means, that even while Robb might end up wanting to help, he'd actually stand in the way of the realm uniting against the threat.
5. You keep on insisting on Jon being a bastard as if nobody would listen to him, and yet we have given you ample examples of people who did in fact listen to the bastard. And thus yes, that does disprove that solely Robb could be a saviour king.

Changing the goal post to "but it's not the WoN listening to Jon" is not helping your case. More and more people are listening and they're ignoring the WoN, Roose, or actively fighting him. When the majority of the North ignores the WoN, then his title means nothing.

 

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, DR Supporter said:

Yeah, there are characters who are aware of the threat, but none of them are WoN. Even if Roose doesn't keep his position much longer, who do you expect to do something about it, as WoN? Rickon? He is 9 years old.

Rickon is 6, actually. And you’re getting too hung up on the title “WotN”. Why only the WotN can do something about it? 

2 minutes ago, DR Supporter said:

We had an ideal candidate who could have done something about Others as WoN, but Roose 'lemme-stab-him' Bolton killed said candidate.

If we’re being perfectly honest, we can’t even know if Robb would have believed in the threat. 

[Eternally_Theirs]

2 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

It is on you to prove that Robb would be the sole one who could help. Creating a fictional scenario and being blind to the fact that people do listen to a bastard, who's not even king doesn't help your case.

1. Robb ignored and dismissed any warnings of a threat north of the Wall, including an army of wildlings led by a KbtW. So, Robb is as likely to listen than anyone else.
2. Robb also ignored insider threats and ignroed domestic northern issues. We have little evidence that he would listen to Jon even if he hadn't been betrayed at the Twins yet, but had managed to drive off the IB from Moat Cailin.
3. While it's true that Rickon's a kid and thus there would be a regent and that regent could ignore anything that Jon has to say, Rickon's also a strong wilfull personality who's seen and experienced things, who'd potentially send Shaggy after his regent if he feels they ought to listen to Jon.
4. Even if Robb would listen to Jon and managed to get the North back under his control, his political position of insisting on Northern independence, would basically isolate him from everyone else south of the Neck to come north to deal with the Others. Any of his warnings, calls for help would be met with suspicion that it's a trick or you'd have rulers and southern lords and ladies think - he wanted his independence, now let him deal with it on his own. In fact Tywin already argued such a thing when it came to the warnings and call for help from the Wall. That means, that even while Robb might end up wanting to help, he'd actually stand in the way of the realm uniting against the threat.
5. You keep on insisting on Jon being a bastard as if nobody would listen to him, and yet we have given you ample examples of people who did in fact listen to the bastard. And thus yes, that does disprove that solely Robb could be a saviour king.

 

1 & 2. He might have listened, eventually, if Roose didn't nip that chance in the bud.
3. That is supposing that Rickon would think that Jon ought to be listened to, which he might not.
4. And that makes Roose/Stannis/Alys more likely to help how? The North (and South) won't listen to Stannis because they don't view him as their King. They won't listen to wildlings/mountain clans because they deem them as a threat. They won't listen to Roose because he stabbed their King - one that they chose - in the heart.
5. And? None of the people who listened to him are Wardens of the North as far as I know, and it's ultimately Warden of the North's decision, not theirs.