A Word on Theories

[Lopsang]

During my time here, I've been overwhelmed by all the theorists. Honestly, I was hoping to find a place more concerned with discussing the real-world importance of the books than what is demonstrated here, but that is besides the point. I want to lay out rules I think theories should have to abide by, other than just "does this make sense from a plot/detail perspective?)

When people theorize, I think they not only overlook narrative/literary techniques (both in general and the author's own), but they overlook the things you are supposed to draw from the books themselves.

For instance, I heard a theory about how Hazzea was never really killed by Drogon, and was simply framed by the Sons of the Harpy who want to diminish Dany's power. The details can be put in place sufficiently to justify the plausibility of Drogon being framed by the Harpy, or whatever other theory may be at hand, but that is not enough. ASoIaF is more than a plot; events that happen within the book have literary and applicable importance beyond that of just progressing a story. Dany's reaction, external and internal, is important; it shows the reader of her ability as a leader, compassion for human life, decision-making process, differences from that of other characters in the book in positions of power (Cersei, Balon, etc). Critically analyzing her reaction can yield the reader certain insights into Daenerys herself, her contemporaries, Westerosi/Planetos society as a whole, and most importantly, relevance to our own world.

Context must be considered. Why did the reader learn of this from Dany's POV? Why is that important? What was she struggling with and thinking about internally? What can the reader extrapolate from a close reading of the passages and what can the reader get from a critical analysis of the works overall in considering this particular event? Would this internal dialogue of the character as well as the hidden message GRRM may be trying to send to the reader become irrelevant were the event to be false or a certain theory about the event turned out to be true? Does the theory have importance of its own to not only the plot itself but also the critical analysis to which the reader may subject it to? These are all questions which theorists and their adherents seem to overlook. I use this new theory about Drogon just as an example; these questions are general and should be applied to any other theories.

Tl;dr: When making theories, Why is it important to the story?

[Kienn]

Sounds like English class.

Guys, what did Holden Caulfield really mean when he said the f word?

[Lopsang]

Yes; it kind of does. But why, because your perception of English class is boring because you had a bad experience there, do you not allow yourself to make close readings of the text? Doesn't this series have more importance than just the story? Isn't GRRM trying to say certain things and use certain motifs, even if it's just about fuedal Europe or history or whatever? Don't bar yourself from making intellectual exactions of the text. Be open-minded and try to delve into the deeper meaning of the novels. It doesn't have to be boring English class; that's the beauty of reading for fun! You can critically analyze a novel without being pedantic, boring, or superficial.

[CrannogXninja]

but your making it sound exactly like a boring english class

[Lopsang]

but your making it sound exactly like a boring english class

The irony!

[Mladen]

While I am all for discussion of how to make a decent theory, the fact is that this is a bit dry way to do it...

Basically, where I think most people make mistakes is that they believe that anything is possible. And while certainly the logic dictates that some things are indeed possible, the level of plausibility differs from theory to theory. For example, is it possible that X=Y if we have insufficient info? Yes. But, then when you look at the context, what we know of said characters etc makes some of these theories completely out of picture.

Second and most common mistake is that people switch the process. They first come up with the theory and then look for the "proofs". The fact is that it basically should go other way around. If you create a theory and start looking for proofs (I call this process Adobe Search tool exercising practice), you will be able to find something that will apparently fit. Like, if Tyrion ate, IDK, lamb in Book 1, he is destined to lead Lhazareens. This is most common with "foreshadowing" theories.

I generally discovered I don't like theorizing much. I like analyzing characters and thus knowing them better instead of trying to decipher what comes next... And, I find some of the latest popular theories complete BS and am completely dumbfounded how anyone actually buy that.

[Lopsang]

I think you make another good point. There is a incredible amount of confirmation bias on these forums.

(P.S, I like your Sansa post.)

[JonSnow4President]

Honestly, I read this series to wind down and escape, however temporarily, from the stress I'm going through at work right now (posting this on my dinner break). I couldn't care less about the literary significance of this or that, or how this relates to the real world.

You just have to remember there are both types of people out there, and this forum is used by both.

[Lopsang]

I respect your decision, but why not? You can draw such interesting parallels between Westeros and today's world, and it can enrich both your understanding of the series and your appreciation for it. It doesn't/shouldn't require all that much work and it can be fun!

[RoamingRonin]

but your making it sound exactly like a boring english class

He's right and you should listen to him.

[dread pirate davos]

A thing you have to remember is that a lot of people have been waiting on the next.book for a long time and have probably discussed a lot of the more reasonable theories ( who's to say what's reasonable) to death and then some. But they still want to come on the boards and discuss for a way to unwind and have fun. Besides sometimes these wild theories can also lead to understanding the world better and building better theories by hashing them out so to say. And last but not least, imagine the bragging rights if your wild crackpot theory comes true.

[JNR]

Tl;dr: When making theories, Why is it important to the story?

It's a good question, but how can you really answer it without having read the entire story?

Imagine that someone had theorized, when GoT was the only available book, that Jaime Lannister only killed Aerys because Aerys was going to annihilate King's Landing with piles of stashed wildfire.

What would your reaction to such a theory have been? What is it now that you've read five books? And what will it be when you turn the last page of the series?

[Good Guy Garlan]

Reminds me of the old joke:

"Oh, you're a terrorist? Thank God, I thought you said you were a theorist!"

I hear what the OP is saying, but theorizing is still a valid way to analyze literary works. Like, if I say that Holden Caulfield is gay and I offer up examples from the text to prove it, what I'm doing is theorizing, but it also involves an in-depth character analysis, including themes, symbols, etc.

[Lopsang]

Reminds me of the old joke:

"Oh, you're a terrorist? Thank God, I thought you said you were a theorist!"

I hear what the OP is saying, but theorizing is still a valid way to analyze literary works. Like, if I say that Holden Caulfield is gay and I offer up examples from the text to prove it, what I'm doing is theorizing, but it also involves an in-depth character analysis, including themes, symbols, etc.

Right; that's a good way to theorize. It pays attention to the questions I posed on my first post, which is what I am saying people should pay attention to in the grand scheme of making theories. I just don't think enough people do that; they theorize for no good reason other than to just theorize. I suppose I understand coming here to unwind though, didn't really look at it that way so much, but I still think people should keep those questions in mind.

[JonSnow4President]

I respect your decision, but why not? You can draw such interesting parallels between Westeros and today's world, and it can enrich both your understanding of the series and your appreciation for it. It doesn't/shouldn't require all that much work and it can be fun!

My entire day is looking at files and trying to draw the connections and the reasoning for them, and how the representations on the page.relate to reality. (I do it predominantly with numbers, but end of the day, that's my job). And I swear, my clients seem determined to make that as difficult as possible at times, even though it costs them money (my job is legally mandated). The last thing I want to do is do that for fun after a long day at work (13 hours from time I parked today until I left. 14 hours from home to home).

Instead, in my free time, I'd rather try and piece the much less intense foreshadowing together into what I think will happen, which is something I've always enjoyed. At the end of the day (and by that, I mean end of the series), I'll have concrete results to judge myself off of. It'll be obvious if R+L=J. It'll be obvious if Howland Reed really is the High Septon, who the king became, and the high level results for each character. Your way is more open ended, which just isn't something I'm particularly fond of for me.

[Universal Sword Donor]

Sounds like English class.

Guys, what did Holden Caulfield really mean when he said the f word?

Nothing. Possibly the worst literary character of all time. Rare to get a protagonist who takes away from the story.

[Victarion Chainbreaker]

Feel free to analyze the series from a literary perspective, but there are those of us who view it as a puzzle. When I play scrabble, I don't keep my letters hidden, I put them on the table and constantly rearrange them. Putting crackpot theories on the boards is like arranging the letters in some fashion that looks like it could be a word, and then asking if anyone else sees something there too. The fact that some people get offended by this is rather silly, but to each his own.

[Lopsang]

Nothing. Possibly the worst literary character of all time. Rare to get a protagonist who takes away from the story.

Yes. I hated Catcher in the Rye with fiery rage.

My entire day is looking at files and trying to draw the connections and the reasoning for them, and how the representations on the page.relate to reality. (I do it predominantly with numbers, but end of the day, that's my job). And I swear, my clients seem determined to make that as difficult as possible at times, even though it costs them money (my job is legally mandated). The last thing I want to do is do that for fun after a long day at work (13 hours from time I parked today until I left. 14 hours from home to home).

Instead, in my free time, I'd rather try and piece the much less intense foreshadowing together into what I think will happen, which is something I've always enjoyed. At the end of the day (and by that, I mean end of the series), I'll have concrete results to judge myself off of. It'll be obvious if R+L=J. It'll be obvious if Howland Reed really is the High Septon, who the king became, and the high level results for each character. Your way is more open ended, which just isn't something I'm particularly fond of for me.

Well in your case I can understand, hah. What do you do, are you a lawyer?

Feel free to analyze the series from a literary perspective, but there are those of us who view it as a puzzle. When I play scrabble, I don't keep my letters hidden, I put them on the table and constantly rearrange them. Putting crackpot theories on the boards is like arranging the letters in some fashion that looks like it could be a word, and then asking if anyone else sees something there too. The fact that some people get offended by this is rather silly, but to each his own.

I'm not 'offended' by it, I'm just putting out there what I think theorists should pay more attention to when they theorize. It's fine to try and rearrange letters, but when you ask everybody if "nkwodnokonoooaaaowdd" looks like a word, you're not putting a lot of effort into it and making yourself look rather silly.

[Mithras]

For me, trying to guess what comes next is the most exciting and important thing to do merely because the series is not finished yet. George said that he wants to tell an unpredictable story yet at the same time he inserts subtle clues into the text to point that "the butler did it". If you want to guess what comes next in ASOIAF, you should pay more attention to foreshadowing than analysis IMO. As I discussed in this thread, the foreshadowing of George is sometimes completely unrelated to the context. The story in its entirety is in George's mind and he may well foreshadow a future event when writing something which is unrelated to the foreshadowed event within the text.

You can make a good prediction or a bad prediction. Likewise, you can make a good analysis or a bad analysis. When your good prediction becomes wasted with the newly published material, you might say that you raised false alarm and considered "proofs" which were actually not proofs. What happens when you make a good analysis and the next book destroys it? Will you blame George for ruining the story?

And what about the intellectual validity of analyzing an unfinished text, especially a text which has some really shocking twists despite the pre-warning subtle clues?

[RedShirt47]

My main issue with a lot of these theories is that there is no narrative reasoning behind them. Such as "Dario = Benjen" or other X = Y theories.

I may be compartmentalising the world slightly but Benjen fits into the story of the Wall and Beyond. He does not fit into the Meereen story very well at all.

Reasons could be made up like "Dany has a grudge against House Stark and he is there to prevent her harming them". But such flimsy excuses just don't fit the story as it's being told.

If Benjen is to play a further part in the story then it will be in the North. This just makes logical sense.

As mentioned above doing an Adobe search will find connections. Tenuous ones but this is all a theory needs to spread. If you pick any two characters in the whole of Earthos past or present and you'll be able to find similar descriptions or hair style or clothes or phrasing. But there are no specific details anchoring the theory to any facts.

When you look at the "Aegon is a Blackfyre" theory there are many tenuous hints like a black dragon sign rusting red or the cherry trees being black cherries.
But there are also some very specific quotes like Blackfyres being extinct only in the male line or "Red or Black a dragon is still a dragon". Whilst these are not proof they do stand out and are more indicitive of something than similar hair styles or metaphors.