Post by nanother on Aug 3, 2015 13:29:01 GMT
Sorry markg171 but I think you're being totally unreasonable here. Just show one piece of evidence that Jon's skin is said to be significantly darker in comparison to a Stark (with the Stark look, that is).
If anything, all evidence points to Jon not having any features at all that are characteristic enough to guess at her mother, and that has to include skin colour. Are you seriously saying that Tyrion wouldn't have taken the skin colour into consideration when analysing Jon's looks? That no-one ever commented on his obviously too-dark-for-a-Stark skin amidst all the speculation?
As for the Bran passage:
In the most literal interpretation, you could argue that "dark where Robb was fair" refers back to the skin color. In which case, I'd have to believe that the typical Stark look involves dark skin. If it doesn't, then the logical place for adjustment is re-interpreting this phrase, rather that going against the mountain of evidence that Jon has no distinctly non-Stak charasteristics.
So, maybe the Starks, and therefore Jon's skin is not that dark after all (but still not 'fair', like the Tullys'). Does that fit with the above quote? Pretty much. It's never outright said that Jon's skin is dark. It's obviously not a strict checklist-comparison with Robb's earlier description either - Jon's hair isn't even mentioned separately. Moreover, the last sentence is more a stand-alone triplet of contrasts summing up their differences than part of a list of attributes to contrast with Robb's earlier description. And with 'fair' vs 'dark' being the only item referring to colouring it's entirely reasonable to think it means the combined effects of skin, hair and eyes. In which case, the skin doesn't need to be extra dark because the hair and eyes already are doing most of the job.
If anything, all evidence points to Jon not having any features at all that are characteristic enough to guess at her mother, and that has to include skin colour. Are you seriously saying that Tyrion wouldn't have taken the skin colour into consideration when analysing Jon's looks? That no-one ever commented on his obviously too-dark-for-a-Stark skin amidst all the speculation?
As for the Bran passage:
"The deserter died bravely," Robb said. He was big and broad and growing every day, with his mother's coloring, the fair skin, red-brown hair, and blue eyes of the Tullys of Riverrun. "He had courage, at the least."
"No," Jon Snow said quietly. "It was not courage. This one was dead of fear. You could see it in his eyes, Stark." Jon's eyes were a grey so dark they seemed almost black, but there was little they did not see. He was of an age with Robb, but they did not look alike. Jon was slender where Robb was muscular, dark where Robb was fair, graceful and quick where his half brother was strong and fast.
"No," Jon Snow said quietly. "It was not courage. This one was dead of fear. You could see it in his eyes, Stark." Jon's eyes were a grey so dark they seemed almost black, but there was little they did not see. He was of an age with Robb, but they did not look alike. Jon was slender where Robb was muscular, dark where Robb was fair, graceful and quick where his half brother was strong and fast.
So, maybe the Starks, and therefore Jon's skin is not that dark after all (but still not 'fair', like the Tullys'). Does that fit with the above quote? Pretty much. It's never outright said that Jon's skin is dark. It's obviously not a strict checklist-comparison with Robb's earlier description either - Jon's hair isn't even mentioned separately. Moreover, the last sentence is more a stand-alone triplet of contrasts summing up their differences than part of a list of attributes to contrast with Robb's earlier description. And with 'fair' vs 'dark' being the only item referring to colouring it's entirely reasonable to think it means the combined effects of skin, hair and eyes. In which case, the skin doesn't need to be extra dark because the hair and eyes already are doing most of the job.