#a dignified and eloquent speaker who talks of philosophy and morality

[calliecopper]

I feel like it's pretty clear that in RDR Arthur was more Hosea's son than Dutch's, and John was more Dutch's son than Hosea's.

John, especially in RDR1, has a very eloquent way of speaking without saying much at all. He uses his language to convince others hes more than what he is, that hes an educated respectable man rather than an ex-outlaw who can barely draw a duck. He uses frilly and grandiose language as a way of confusing and distracting others enough that they don't think twice about a gunslinger asking them to help him track down notorious outlaws. I feel like he definitely gets that from Dutch; talking big words and acting like you know everything when really you're just a clueless fool.

Meanwhile Arthur, he's conning everybody. He plays the big dumb heartless bastard who can't think an original thought, because he looks like a big dumb heartless bastard who can't think original thoughts. He acts a fool who's better for being a work horse than a prize pony because that's exactly what's expected of him, and he can catch people off guard by being surprisingly cunning and quick-witted. Nobody expects the dull yankee to have the foresight to stack the deck and give himself a pair of aces. He definitely gets that from Hosea; play a role, and take advantage when people let their guards down.

I don't think one is necessarily smarter than the other, but I think John definitely tries to flash a sense of knowledge and education that isn't there, while Arthur tries to hide the knowledge and education that is there. Both are to catch people off guard.