A Word on Theories

[ChillyPolly]

To have a theory you need to have a premise and STRONG evidence to back it up.

But only if four out of five dentists agree that the evidence is "strong".

[MoIaF]

Either that or they will get increasingly angry and hostile. People believe what they want to believe. And the truth is not a popularity contest. Hopefully there will indeed someday be a moment of truth, when all our guesses will be confirmed or denied.

I joined the board a little over a year ago so no new books have been released since I've been here. I am looking forward to the release of TWOW to see how well we all understood where the story is headed. See which theories were right, which were wrong and which were really wrong.

[George48]

Regarding theories: this has gotten out of control, crackpot seems the norm and they just operate on the "I love this character so he/she is AA and will save the world/sit on the IT"-logic and is just based on circumstancial or made up evidence that are called "foreshadowing" (also, not everything has to be foreshadowed). Many so called "theories" are pure crack and sound like fanfiction and many seem to hjust present ASOIAF like a sort of fairytail...

...Also many characters's stories sometimes (it's rare) seem to be distorted in order to demonize or white-wash them... not-saying-names...

[ChillyPolly]

But only if four out of five dentists agree that the evidence is "strong".

And, of course, the "evidence" must first be assessed a panel of judges to determine whether it is admissible.

Or you know, maybe, just maybe, instead of howling "you have no evidence" one can just say "I don't find your evidence convincing"; and in stead of howling "that's not even a theory", one can just say "I don't agree with that theory". It seems a little more respectful towards those people who actually support the theory, no matter how weak one thinks their reasons are.

[ChillyPolly]

Regarding theories: this has gotten out of control ...

Isn't that how it should be?

[Lord Martin]

My dear good analysts. Please convince me that it was possible to come up with an analysis to correctly guess that Lysa was the poisoner of Jon Arryn.

Here's how I see it:

Lysa is the one that first raises the suggestion that Jon Arryn was murdered by the Lannisters.

Her eyes moved over the words. At first they made no sense to her. Then she remembered. "Lysa took no chances. When we were girls together, we had a private language, she and I."

"Can you read it?"

"Yes," Catelyn admitted.

. . .

Ned crossed the room, took her by the arm, and pulled her to her feet. He held her there, his face inches from her. "My lady, tell me! What was this message?"

Catelyn stiffened in his grasp. "A warning," she said softly. "If we have the wits to hear."

His eyes searched her face. "Go on."

"Lysa says Jon Arryn was murdered."

His fingers tightened on her arm. "By whom?"

"The Lannisters," she told him. "The queen."

Ned released his hold on her arm. There were deep red marks on her skin. "Gods," he whispered. His voice was hoarse. "Your sister is sick with grief. She cannot know what she is saying."

"She knows," Catelyn said. "Lysa is impulsive, yes, but this message was carefully planned, cleverly hidden. She knew it meant death if her letter fell into the wrong hands. To risk so much, she must have had more than mere suspicion." Catelyn looked to her husband. "Now we truly have no choice. You must be Robert's Hand. You must go south with him and learn the truth."

She saw at once that Ned had reached a very different conclusion. "The only truths I know are here. The south is a nest of adders I would do better to avoid."

But when Lysa meets with Catelyn, she says somethign queer:

Her sister broke the embrace. "Tired. Yes. Oh, yes." She seemed to notice the others then; her maid, Maester Colemon, Ser Vardis. "Leave us," she told them. "I wish to speak to my sister alone." She held Catelyn's hand as they withdrew . . .

. . . and dropped it the instant the door closed. Catelyn saw her face change. It was as if the sun had gone behind a cloud. "Have you taken leave of your senses?" Lysa snapped at her. "To bring him here, without a word of permission, without so much as a warning, to drag us into your quarrels with the Lannisters . . . "

"My quarrels?" Catelyn could scarce believe what she was hearing. A great fire burned in the hearth, but there was no trace of warmth in Lysa's voice. "They were your quarrels first, sister. It was you who sent me that cursed letter, you who wrote that the Lannisters had murdered your husband."

"To warn you, so you could stay away from them! I never meant to fight them! Gods, Cat, do you know what you've done?"

We could take Lysa at face value that this was the meaning behind her warning. Or perhaps its a slip up... she makes another later on and Cately seems to notice:

"And I remind you, the dwarf murdered my lord husband!" Her voice rose. "He poisoned the Hand of the King and left my sweet baby fatherless, and now I mean to see him pay!" Whirling, her skirts swinging around her, Lysa stalked across the terrace. Ser Lyn and Ser Morton and the other suitors excused themselves with cool nods and trailed after her.

"Do you think he did?" Ser Rodrik asked her quietly when they were alone again. "Murder Lord Jon, that is? The Imp still denies it, and most fiercely . . . "

"I believe the Lannisters murdered Lord Arryn," Catelyn replied, "but whether it was Tyrion, or Ser Jaime, or the queen, or all of them together, I could not begin to say." Lysa had named Cersei in the letter she had sent to Winterfell, but now she seemed certain that Tyrion was the killer . . . perhaps because the dwarf was here, while the queen was safe behind the walls of the Red Keep, hundreds of leagues to the south. Catelyn almost wished she had burned her sister's letter before reading it.

Ser Rodrik tugged at his whiskers. "Poison, well . . . that could be the dwarf's work, true enough. Or Cersei's. It's said poison is a woman's weapon, begging your pardons, my lady. The Kingslayer, now . . . I have no great liking for the man, but he's not the sort. Too fond of the sight of blood on that golden sword of his. Was it poison, my lady?"

Catelyn frowned, vaguely uneasy. "How else could they make it look a natural death?" Behind her, Lord Robert shrieked with delight as one of the puppet knights sliced the other in half, spilling a flood of red sawdust onto the terrace. She glanced at her nephew and sighed. "The boy is utterly without discipline. He will never be strong enough to rule unless he is taken away from his mother for a time."

We overlook Cat's skepticism because we are eager to get to the trial and learn Tyrion's fate. But based on this, there is reason to believe that the letter from Lysa can be called into question.

Lysa's motivation is much much harder to discover and unfolds during AGOT, ACOK and ASOS. First, I'd go back to when we learned who Lysa and Sweetrobin are, in Eddard's 2nd chapter:

Robert's mouth gave a bitter twist. "Not well, in truth," he admitted. "I think losing Jon has driven the woman mad, Ned. She has taken the boy back to the Eyrie. Against my wishes. I had hoped to foster him with Tywin Lannister at Casterly Rock. Jon had no brothers, no other sons. Was I supposed to leave him to be raised by women?"

Ned would sooner entrust a child to a pit viper than to Lord Tywin, but he left his doubts unspoken. Some old wounds never truly heal, and bleed again at the slightest word. "The wife has lost the husband," he said carefully. "Perhaps the mother feared to lose the son. The boy is very young."

"Six, and sickly, and Lord of the Eyrie, gods have mercy," the king swore. "Lord Tywin had never taken a ward before. Lysa ought to have been honored. The Lannisters are a great and noble House. She refused to even hear of it. Then she left in the dead of night, without so much as a by-your-leave. Cersei was furious." He sighed deeply. "The boy is my namesake, did you know that? Robert Arryn. I am sworn to protect him. How can I do that if his mother steals him away?"

And then we learn briefly that Jon Arryn was plotting to send Sweetrobin away from Lysa to be fostered with Stannis:

Catelyn frowned, vaguely uneasy. "How else could they make it look a natural death?" Behind her, Lord Robert shrieked with delight as one of the puppet knights sliced the other in half, spilling a flood of red sawdust onto the terrace. She glanced at her nephew and sighed. "The boy is utterly without discipline. He will never be strong enough to rule unless he is taken away from his mother for a time."

"His lord father agreed with you," said a voice at her elbow. She turned to behold Maester Colemon, a cup of wine in his hand. "He was planning to send the boy to Dragonstone for fostering, you know . . . oh, but I'm speaking out of turn." The apple of his throat bobbed anxiously beneath the loose maester's chain. "I fear I've had too much of Lord Hunter's excellent wine. The prospect of bloodshed has my nerves all a-fray . . . "

"You are mistaken, Maester," Catelyn said. "It was Casterly Rock, not Dragonstone, and those arrangements were made after the Hand's death, without my sister's consent."

The maester's head jerked so vigorously at the end of his absurdly long neck that he looked half a puppet himself. "No, begging your forgiveness, my lady, but it was Lord Jon who—"

A bell tolled loudly below them. High lords and serving girls alike broke off what they were doing and moved to the balustrade. Below, two guardsmen in sky-blue cloaks led forth Tyrion Lannister. The Eyrie's plump septon escorted him to the statue in the center of the garden, a weeping woman carved in veined white marble, no doubt meant to be Alyssa.

Colemon gets cut off before he could tell the full timeline. But its clear that Jon had plans to foster SweetRobin with Stannis, likely because, as we learn later, Jon knew that Stannis was the true heir and that Robert's children were illegitimate.

We know that Lysa is not mentally stable and has had several miscarriages that have caused her to be more than a bit obsessive with SweetRobib:

"Near forty years I have been Grand Maester of the Seven Kingdoms," Pycelle replied. "Under our good King Robert, and Aerys Targaryen before him, and his father Jaehaerys the Second before him, and even for a few short months under Jaehaerys's father, Aegon the Fortunate, the Fifth of His Name. I have seen more of illness than I care to remember, my lord. I will tell you this: Every case is different, and every case is alike. Lord Jon's death was no stranger than any other."

"His wife thought otherwise."

The Grand Maester nodded. "I recall now, the widow is sister to your own noble wife. If an old man may be forgiven his blunt speech, let me say that grief can derange even the strongest and most disciplined of minds, and the Lady Lysa was never that. Since her last stillbirth, she has seen enemies in every shadow, and the death of her lord husband left her shattered and lost."

"So you are quite certain that Jon Arryn died of a sudden illness?"

"I am," Pycelle replied gravely. "If not illness, my good lord, what else could it be?"

"Poison," Ned suggested quietly.

So Lysa's mental instability combined with fear and anger with Jon Arryn for trying to send Robin away could be a motive for murder. Oh and of course in the same conversation Pycelle notes:

"I have heard it said that poison is a woman's weapon."

Hiding in plain sight this clue is...

We also get a few pieces as Ned and Littlefinger track down what was left of Jon Arryn's Household in King's Landing:

"Carrots and apples," Ned repeated. It sounded as if this boy would be even less use than the others. And he was the last of the four Littlefinger had turned up. Jory had spoken to each of them in turn. Ser Hugh had been brusque and uninformative, and arrogant as only a new-made knight can be. If the Hand wished to talk to him, he should be pleased to receive him, but he would not be questioned by a mere captain of guards . . . even if said captain was ten years older and a hundred times the swordsman. The serving girl had at least been pleasant. She said Lord Jon had been reading more than was good for him, that he was troubled and melancholy over his young son's frailty, and gruff with his lady wife. The potboy, now cordwainer, had never exchanged so much as a word with Lord Jon, but he was full of oddments of kitchen gossip: the lord had been quarreling with the king, the lord only picked at his food, the lord was sending his boy to be fostered on Dragonstone, the lord had taken a great interest in the breeding of hunting hounds, the lord had visited a master armorer to commission a new suit of plate, wrought all in pale silver with a blue jasper falcon and a mother-of-pearl moon on the breast. The king's own brother had gone with him to help choose the design, the potboy said. No, not Lord Renly, the other one, Lord Stannis.

So Jon and Lysa were quarreling and it seems that Colemon was right, Jon intended to send SweetRobin to foster with Stannis...

IMO, this would have been enough for there to be speculation that Lysa did the deed, certainly access to Jon or his food was never an issue. I fully admit, had this been suggested pre-ASOS, there'd be plenty of holes... but there were hints for it...

[Mladen]

It's an interesting tidbit that GRRM could have included purposely (or not). It's one of those things you would probably pickup after the fact. I'm not of course discounting analytical thinking or deductive reasoning base on the information we are given. That is the best way to form theories of future events. Most of these tidbits are fun in retrospect. You can hardly form a theory around them unless you have substantial textual evidence that the story is leading a certain way.

Oh, I agree with you. I just doubt that it was included purposely. The problem is that people do discount analytic thinking for the sake of pieces of foreshadowing they call evidence. More and more we have theories that are based either on what happened in external material or some parallels that are basically forced.

To have a theory you need to have a premise and STRONG evidence to back it up.

Oh you don't have to have anything to call some idea a theory. It is recommendable that you have something, but not necessary. Basically, we can all post whatever we want.

And, of course, the "evidence" must first be assessed a panel of judges to determine whether it is admissible.

Or you know, maybe, just maybe, instead of howling "you have no evidence" one can just say "I don't find your evidence convincing"; and in stead of howling "that's not even a theory", one can just say "I don't agree with that theory". It seems a little more respectful towards those people who actually support the theory, no matter how weak one thinks their reasons are.

I have walked into a landmine last month with this, so I perhaps am not the best one to advise you on this, but I sincerely believe that this forum allows all of us to actually post theory regardless whether the theory is good and bad, and I get frustrated when people play games by negating this. However, now back to OP's post and intention, thing is that we don't have to have just the well thought theories, but discussion about how to create a good theory essentially isn't harmful to anyone. That is how I see this thread, not as intellectual snobbish behavior of some people. Just a discussion with some opinions of what makes a good theory.

[MoIaF]

Oh, I agree with you. I just doubt that it was included purposely. The problem is that people do discount analytic thinking for the sake of pieces of foreshadowing they call evidence. More and more we have theories that are based either on what happened in external material or some parallels that are basically forced.

I would agree with you about the overuse of "foreshadowing". The problem with foreshadowing is that you can only really see it in hindsight. You might get lucky and pick up some foreshadowing but usually the best way would be to analyze all the text. Even then the only way to validate foreshadowing is after the fact.

Too many times things are taken out of context and used as a piece of foreshadowing from where an entire theory is spun with little or no consideration to the overall story or story arc. I think this is where the theories loose credibility because they don't take much else into consideration but a certain piece of "foreshadowing".

I have walked into a landmine last month with this, so I perhaps am not the best one to advise you on this, but I sincerely believe that this forum allows all of us to actually post theory regardless whether the theory is good and bad, and I get frustrated when people play games by negating this. However, now back to OP's post and intention, thing is that we don't have to have just the well thought theories, but discussion about how to create a good theory essentially isn't harmful to anyone. That is how I see this thread, not as intellectual snobbish behavior of some people. Just a discussion with some opinions of what makes a good theory.

Agreed. It's not like people can't write whatever they want, of course they can. I've written plenty of things that I'm sure will turn out to be wrong. It's just the nature of things, I don't know what GRRM has in mind I can only do my best guess base on the information he has given us.

This thread is a good blueprint on how to create a theory that can have some meat behind it. If you want to really create a theory about the future of a character's arc or the story in general there are a few things that you should really consider before you sit down to write it.

[Lopsang]

I have walked into a landmine last month with this, so I perhaps am not the best one to advise you on this, but I sincerely believe that this forum allows all of us to actually post theory regardless whether the theory is good and bad, and I get frustrated when people play games by negating this. However, now back to OP's post and intention, thing is that we don't have to have just the well thought theories, but discussion about how to create a good theory essentially isn't harmful to anyone. That is how I see this thread, not as intellectual snobbish behavior of some people. Just a discussion with some opinions of what makes a good theory.

Yes, that's all this thread is meant to be; a constructive discussion about how to make, and consider, good theories. Too many people are taking this too seriously/personally.

[butterbumps!]

This thread is a good blueprint on how to create a theory that can have some meat behind it.

Step 1: make sure you're basing this theory on no less than 3 characters being secret Targs and/ or Howland Reed

Step 2: Include the possibility that Syrio is one (or all 3) of those secret Targs and/ or Howland Reed

Step 3: Make sure you posit somewhere that Bloodraven's warging him (or the less popular, but more compelling possibility, that Bloodraven is being warged by Syrio, who's being warged by HR, who's been secretly running the kingdom from a Taco Bell parking lot)

[MoIaF]

Step 1: make sure you're basing this theory on no less than 3 characters being secret Targs and/ or Howland Reed

Step 2: Include the possibility that Syrio is one (or all 3) of those secret Targs and/ or Howland Reed

Step 3: Make sure you posit somewhere that Bloodraven's warging him (or the less popular, but more compelling possibility, that Bloodraven is being warged by Syrio, who's being warged by HR, who's been secretly running the kingdom from a Taco Bell parking lot)

:lmao:

Haha! Taco Bell parking lot.... Cuase you know all good theory started at a Taco Bell parking lot.

[UVA]

Step 1: make sure you're basing this theory on no less than 3 characters being secret Targs and/ or Howland Reed

Step 2: Include the possibility that Syrio is one (or all 3) of those secret Targs and/ or Howland Reed

Step 3: Make sure you posit somewhere that Bloodraven's warging him (or the less popular, but more compelling possibility, that Bloodraven is being warged by Syrio, who's being warged by HR, who's been secretly running the kingdom from a Taco Bell parking lot)

Adding to Step 3: Make sure you posit somewhere that Bloodraven's warging him (or the less popular, but more compelling possibility, that Bloodraven is being warged by Syrio, who's being warged by HR, whose real identity is Varys, who is actually female and Jon Snow's mother and has been secretly running the kingdom from a Taco Bell parking lot)

[*ghosti-]

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?)

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

Perhaps you could start a discussion thread about the "real -world" importance of the books? If it is well written it could lead to an interesting discussion.

While you raise some good points, you thoughts might be better received if they didn't come across as lecturing the forum posters.

Personally, I enjoy reading a well thought out crackpot. But, I agree the best quality theories take into account the effects on the overall narrative if the theory where true.

[Mithras]

Sorry for not being clear. I was talking about an analysis only from AGoT which no doubt convinces me of Lysa as the murderer. I can show you all the foreshadowing needed to suspect with a good reason that Lysa is the poisoner only using AGoT. Only then, the hullabaloo about SR's fostering and Lysa's actions start to make real sense.

Coming back to Lord Martin's analysis:

Lysa is the one that first raises the suggestion that Jon Arryn was murdered by the Lannisters.

But when Lysa meets with Catelyn, she says somethign queer:

We could take Lysa at face value that this was the meaning behind her warning. Or perhaps its a slip up... she makes another later on and Cately seems to notice:

We overlook Cat's skepticism because we are eager to get to the trial and learn Tyrion's fate. But based on this, there is reason to believe that the letter from Lysa can be called into question.

The quotes you provided are not enough to prove that Lysa is the murderer. The most trivial explanation of those quotes is that Lysa fears the Lannisters and they might really be the murderer of Jon. Note that we already know about the twincest and Ned is starting to follow the footsteps of Jon Arryn. We have every reason to suspect that the Lannisters silenced Jon Arryn by that time.

Lysa's motivation is much much harder to discover and unfolds during AGOT, ACOK and ASOS. First, I'd go back to when we learned who Lysa and Sweetrobin are, in Eddard's 2nd chapter:

And then we learn briefly that Jon Arryn was plotting to send Sweetrobin away from Lysa to be fostered with Stannis:

Colemon gets cut off before he could tell the full timeline. But its clear that Jon had plans to foster SweetRobin with Stannis, likely because, as we learn later, Jon knew that Stannis was the true heir and that Robert's children were illegitimate.

We know that Lysa is not mentally stable and has had several miscarriages that have caused her to be more than a bit obsessive with SweetRobib:

So Lysa's mental instability combined with fear and anger with Jon Arryn for trying to send Robin away could be a motive for murder. Oh and of course in the same conversation Pycelle notes:

Hiding in plain sight this clue is...

We also get a few pieces as Ned and Littlefinger track down what was left of Jon Arryn's Household in King's Landing:

So Jon and Lysa were quarreling and it seems that Colemon was right, Jon intended to send SweetRobin to foster with Stannis...

IMO, this would have been enough for there to be speculation that Lysa did the deed, certainly access to Jon or his food was never an issue. I fully admit, had this been suggested pre-ASOS, there'd be plenty of holes... but there were hints for it...

The hullabaloo about the fostering plans of SR does not necessarily point that Lysa acted to protect her son and that was her motivation for murder. No. The trivial explanation is that the Lannisters discovered the plans of Jon Arryn to foster SR with Stannis, then they acted at once to seal the deal with Robert about the fostering of SR with Tywin. Assuming that the Lannisters poisoned Jon Arryn, it makes perfect sense how Lysa was freaked about the possibility of the Lannisters getting their hands on SR. That is why she should have fled to Eyrie. And Cat arresting a Lannister and bringing him to Eyrie should pose a great danger to Lysa because the Lannisters are strong, they have Robert on their side and Lord Arryn is dead. The Vale cannot defy the Lannisters at that point.

You see, the trivial result of the analysis only strengthens the Red Herring of George. Only after you take notice of foreshadowings, you make a new guess, overlook the trivial result of the analysis and consider the case with a new perspective.

[Kyoshi]

*tagging it so I can find it later*

Like your original post by the way.