Conservative or Conspiracy Theorist?

[Orphalesion]

I just find the creativity behind some of the theories rather astonishing. Some are incredibly tedious, like those people who insist that every. single. word. in the books is foreshadowing something or has a triple meaning. 

But other theories are quite fun in their sheer absurdity or creativity like the Varys is a merman or Khal Ned theories.

[idio]

I'd say that most of us have limited tolerance for double identities, secret parentage, and Secret Master Plans. I accept few of those (yeah, R+L=J, let's not kid ourselves), but most of those are garbage. Conceived not out of the desire to make the story simple and logical, but the opposite, out of craving for something extra weird and twisted. So no to HR=HS, no to Daario = Euron, no to "they tried to poison Tyrion", no to "Littlefinger was behind everything and Bloodraven warged everyone", no to anything Preston Jacobs thought of, no to Dany being a secret bastard... Sheit, Mr. Martin, can you see what happens when people have too much time between the books?
 
Yeah, regarding fan theories, I'm definitely in the conservative camp, and I think we're the majority.

I agree with this. We all love pouring over the source material and I appreciate the creativity people bring to their hypothesis. That said, I don't get the adamance of some posters when they have 5 points of conjecture to support something that doesn't make plot sense. That gets a little strange to me.

[Doorlocks]

Essentially a conspiracy theorist because of GRRM's style of writing.  He likes to set up people and facts so that we think we know them, then make us see them in a whole new light.  He presents us with unusual things as if they're absolutely normal.  He keeps things and people completely away from the story so that our first meeting of them will result in a shift.  

 

That's not to say that I believe everything, of course.  Most theories I dismiss entirely, and I'm willing to believe that any theory (even R+L=J) could be wrong.  But I'm also willing to keep an open mind to theories based more on narrative intuition than fact-gathering.  One of my favorites in that regard is A Dragonfly Among the Reeds.  There's almost nothing textual backing it up, which the creator admits, but I'm about 90% sure it's true.  Similarly, I also believe the separate theory that Howland Reed and Ashara Dayne fell in love at Harrenhal, in part because it relies on understanding the author's tricky use of information.  Because the story of The Knight of the Laughing Tree was presented as a fairy tale, we were lulled into thinking of it as one.  But it's not a fairy tale, not a text with a narrative and plot agreed upon by cultural consensus.  It's information from one man to his children.  While in a fairy tale it might not seem strange to devote a chunk to an unrelated character and her dancing card... when it's just Howland's story, you've gotta wonder why he spent so much time staring at Ashara that night AND why he felt it important enough to keep in the telling to his children. 

 

One of the central themes of GRRM's series is that perspective and bias affect everything.  He compounded this by drowning the reader in one perspective throughout the first book.  Our only protagonists are the Stark/Snow Clan, Tyrion, and Dany.  This begins to slowly change with the second book, but it's not until FeastDance that the reader gets an explosion of non-Stark perspective.  In the first book, we have 8 POVs and only two aren't Stark/Snow; in the fifth book, we have 16 POVs and only three are Stark/Snow.  Not coincidentally, also during FeastDance we got an influx of information that threw many of the things we thought we knew into uncertainty.  My guess is that this trend will continue with future books and the introduction of characters/information so perspective-shattering that he had to hold them back for the entire series.

[ViniciusMJ]

Ultimately, most ASOIAF theories are akin to religious fundamentalism. Every word in the books that support one's conceptions is taken as part of the Holy Scriptures and the rest then needs to be reinterpreted to fit those conceptions. And then you get Preston Jacobs, who is probably a L.Ron Hubbard in this analogy.

 

The reason most people treat fAegon as a given is that this possibility is clearly stated in the text by several characters. Therefore, I am less convinced. In the case of R + L = J, everything that matters plotwise points to this.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

And then you get Preston Jacobs, who is probably a L.Ron Hubbard in this analogy.

 

:lol:

[DaenerysWinsEverything]

I do believe that Aegon is fake and R+L=J, but that doesn't make one conservative. I think that some need to understand that "thinking outside the box" doesn't equal with "I will believe whatever nonsense I want". That said, this board has examined every single option for Martin. There are no curve-balls left to surprise us.

Ummm, believing in only well-established theories is pretty well the definition of conservative. Getting ahead of the curve or being totally wrong by making possibly unwarranted inferences is progressive. Pretty near by definition. 

[DaenerysWinsEverything]

double post. 

[Rippounet]

I'm not conservative. I expect some major reveals and plot twists in the next two books.

I disagree with the often repeated assertion that George isn't one to pull lots of "M. Night Shyamalan" tricks. I guess I hadn't been paying too much attention to details, but I remember the last couple hundred pages of Storm of Swords blowing my mind with all the reveals and plot twists. It was an epic conclusion to what I consider to be the "original trilogy."
I expect that the conclusion to the whole series will be far more surprising than SoS. I believe that the books have been written for the reader to make some -logical- assumptions and take some elements at face value, when in fact there are many many plot points which are far more complex than they seem.

Of course, it all depends on what constitutes a "surprise" or a "curveball." People on this forum are hardly going to be surprised if we learn that there is a link between the Starks and the Others, that there is a hidden Targaryen or two, a Northern/Maester/FM conspiracy... etc. It all depends on what you expect in the first place.
As far as I'm concerned, the standard expectations for the reader would be a "return of the king" scenario for Jon and a grand battle for the Dawn in which Dany saves the day with her dragons. I think neither is likely, so I'm expecting a first surprise as far as the "overall story" goes.
Then, there are the bazillion small mysteries within the novels... At least four very major characters present parentage issues. Tons of small details and minor mysteries could prove important in the long run. There is no way to predict how the dozen (or so) factions will interact in the next books: the Others, team Dany, the Night's Watch, team Aegon, Stannis, the Maesters, the FM, the Northerners, LF & Sansa in the Vale, the Tyrells, the Dornish, the IB, the Braavosi, the three daughters, the Faith... etc.

And yet I think many things are foreshadowed here and there, and that there are small clues and hints which allow us to try to guess what might happen. I'm open to most well supported theories out there, because that's pretty much how the series is written imho.

[DaenerysWinsEverything]

One of the central themes of GRRM's series is that perspective and bias affect everything.  He compounded this by drowning the reader in one perspective throughout the first book.  Our only protagonists are the Stark/Snow Clan, Tyrion, and Dany.  This begins to slowly change with the second book, but it's not until FeastDance that the reader gets an explosion of non-Stark perspective.  In the first book, we have 8 POVs and only two aren't Stark/Snow; in the fifth book, we have 16 POVs and only three are Stark/Snow.  Not coincidentally, also during FeastDance we got an influx of information that threw many of the things we thought we knew into uncertainty.  My guess is that this trend will continue with future books and the introduction of characters/information so perspective-shattering that he had to hold them back for the entire series.

YES. This is my belief, and it's what makes someone a Conspiracist vs. a Conservative. We're convinced that there is a hidden truth, or a recasting of perspective which will totally change everything. I really have hope that this is going to happen; it's just a question of how much and how. Largely I think this will be unpredictable because of the way GRRM writes, but we should still try by guessing wildly . . . lol . .. 

[ViniciusMJ]

I'm not conservative. I expect some major reveals and plot twists in the next two books.

I disagree with the often repeated assertion that George isn't one to pull lots of "M. Night Shyamalan" tricks. I guess I hadn't been paying too much attention to details, but I remember the last couple hundred pages of Storm of Swords blowing my mind with all the reveals and plot twists. It was an epic conclusion to what I consider to be the "original trilogy."
I expect that the conclusion to the whole series will be far more surprising than SoS. I believe that the books have been written for the reader to make some -logical- assumptions and take some elements at face value, when in fact there are many many plot points which are far more complex than they seem.

Of course, it all depends on what constitutes a "surprise" or a "curveball." People on this forum are hardly going to be surprised if we learn that there is a link between the Starks and the Others, that there is a hidden Targaryen or two, a Northern/Maester/FM conspiracy... etc. It all depends on what you expect in the first place.
As far as I'm concerned, the standard expectations for the reader would be a "return of the king" scenario for Jon and a grand battle for the Dawn in which Dany saves the day with her dragons. I think neither is likely, so I'm expecting a first surprise as far as the "overall story" goes.
Then, there are the bazillion small mysteries within the novels... At least four very major characters present parentage issues. Tons of small details and minor mysteries could prove important in the long run. There is no way to predict how the dozen (or so) factions will interact in the next books: the Others, team Dany, the Night's Watch, team Aegon, Stannis, the Maesters, the FM, the Northerners, LF & Sansa in the Vale, the Tyrells, the Dornish, the IB, the Braavosi, the three daughters, the Faith... etc.

And yet I think many things are foreshadowed here and there, and that there are small clues and hints which allow us to try to guess what might happen. I'm open to most well supported theories out there, because that's pretty much how the series is written imho.

 

I too think GRRM is going to pull many twists in the last books. I just don't feel convinced by almost any theory I've read so far.

 

And there are twists that are not major reveals of conspiracies. Examples: Jaime's maiming, Renly's death, Arya's blindness.

[Mladen]

Ummm, believing in only well-established theories is pretty well the definition of conservative. Getting ahead of the curve or being totally wrong by making possibly unwarranted inferences is progressive. Pretty near by definition. 

 

Ummm, no... Believing in a theory because you have read books, analyzed the clues and came to the same conclusion others came is not conservative. Just as speaking nonsense for the sake of being "unique", "anti-establishment" whatever is not progressive. 

 

Also, what is the number of well-established theories? 5-10? In the pool of thousands. I imagine that each reader has at least 20, 30 theories they believe in.

 

For example, Howland Reed being High Septon is not sign of progressive thinking. It is just lack of reading comprehension. Ashara being married to Howland, now that is thinking outside the box. There is a huge difference between I thought of this crazy theory and I thought of this crazy theory that goes against established facts of the series. 

[DaenerysWinsEverything]

Ultimately, most ASOIAF theories are akin to religious fundamentalism. Every word in the books that support one's conceptions is taken as part of the Holy Scriptures and the rest then needs to be reinterpreted to fit those conceptions. And then you get Preston Jacobs, who is probably a L.Ron Hubbard in this analogy.

 

The reason most people treat fAegon as a given is that this possibility is clearly stated in the text by several characters. Therefore, I am less convinced. In the case of R + L = J, everything that matters plotwise points to this.

 

Very true. That's why there is a difference between "gnostic" and "agnostic" conspiracists. The devout gnostic conspiracists believe in one specific theory. The agnostic conspiracists just believe that some theory will be correct, and the whole series turned on its head perhaps multiple times. 

[ViserionsFire]

I like to entertain theory's like:

Wanda = Lemore

HR knows the Elder Brother

GNC: Manderly knows for fact that Bolton's Arya is a fake. Arya's been to White Harbor with Ned, 2X

Robb's Will names Jon. 

Northern Clans checking Jon out: Jon sending Stannis to ask for their help.

Unknown to Jon = leader of the Wildlings: Took their valuables before they could go through the Wall. 

Possibility that I haven't trashed: HR=HS

 

Total speculation:  

Marwyn was Maester for Lyanna's birth

Summerhall was murder and not an accident gone bad.

 

So yeah, I'm reading between the story lines.  It makes the years between books more interesting.

[DaenerysWinsEverything]

 

Ummm, no... Believing in a theory because you have read books, analyzed the clues and came to the same conclusion others came is not conservative. Just as speaking nonsense for the sake of being "unique", "anti-establishment" whatever is not progressive. 

 

Also, what is the number of well-established theories? 5-10? In the pool of thousands. I imagine that each reader has at least 20, 30 theories they believe in.

 

For example, Howland Reed being High Septon is not sign of progressive thinking. It is just lack of reading comprehension. Ashara being married to Howland, now that is thinking outside the box. There is a huge difference between I thought of this crazy theory and I thought of this crazy theory that goes against established facts of the series. 

 

If the theories you believe in are well-established, then they aren't cutting edge or progressive. And they are conservative. Period. 

 

Not conservative in a pejorative sense, just in the technical sense.

 

Your first paragraph compares your rejection of the label of conservative for the definition "Believing in a theory because you have read books, analyzed the clues and came to the same conclusion others came" to your rejection of the label of progressive for the definition "believing nonsense for the sake of being unique". 

 

You're comparing apples and oranges because the definition of conservative is a reasonable one, whereas the definition of progressive you provide is a caricature. 

 

Progressive or cutting edge is jumping on board before most others with a new theory that isn't yet well-supported, but which you feel is going in the right direction. If you turn out to be right, then that's the good part of being more progressive minded. If you turn out to be wrong, more often than not, then that's the bad part.

 

You're more likely to be a progressive minded reader if you believe that there are new revelations to be found in the series which have somehow escaped the scouring of the general readership. If you believe that we've pretty much found all we can until new books come out, then you're more likely to be a conservative reader.

[Mladen]

You're more likely to be a progressive minded reader if you believe that there are new revelations to be found in the series which have somehow escaped the scouring of the general readership. If you believe that we've pretty much found all we can until new books come out, then you're more likely to be a conservative reader.

 

Semantics has never been my forte, especially when we talk about language that is not my native. Now, you have to understand that cumulative effect of this board, plus the reddit and other sites covered everything. For example, Aegon is real of false. No third. There are people who believe in one or the other option. Jon is Lyanna's child or not. Same thing. Some people believe in it, some don't. There is no some unanimous opinion where GRRM can shock entire readership. 

 

But, the thing is that we don't know all the elements of the story, and that is why there are some things that, as you said, "escaped the scouring". Undoubtedly, there are questions we have no answers, blank spaces where we try to figure something out. But, fates of Big 6, some questions raised since first book, with all known elements, those are covered. I personally can't think of any future for Big 6 that has not been at some point discussed around here. 

[DaenerysWinsEverything]

 

Semantics has never been my forte, especially when we talk about language that is not my native. Now, you have to understand that cumulative effect of this board, plus the reddit and other sites covered everything. For example, Aegon is real of false. No third. There are people who believe in one or the other option. Jon is Lyanna's child or not. Same thing. Some people believe in it, some don't. There is no some unanimous opinion where GRRM can shock entire readership. 

 

But, the thing is that we don't know all the elements of the story, and that is why there are some things that, as you said, "escaped the scouring". Undoubtedly, there are questions we have no answers, blank spaces where we try to figure something out. But, fates of Big 6, some questions raised since first book, with all known elements, those are covered. I personally can't think of any future for Big 6 that has not been at some point discussed around here. 

Well, we basically agree, then. Just different ways of phrasing it.

[ViniciusMJ]

Perhaps the best approach is that analogous to politics.

 

Conservatives care about tradition. They are skeptical of "new ways" because they consider the established tradition to be the result of decades, centuries, even millennia of possibilities that were tested and then accepted and received throughout the time. They are usually associated with the rear-guard - cautious, viewing from behind and ready to get out if things go bad.

 

Progressives care about progress, for lack of a better word. They think the status quo is flawed in some way or another, and therefore it is in everyone's best interest to try something new in order to get rid of these flaws. Therefore, they are usually associated with the vanguard - first to take the blow, but nevertheless necessary to breakthroughs.

 

Considering ASOIAF in a full conservative way probably means to take the books (and only the books) as the source for any considerations regarding the plot. And by that I mean taking only what is clearly in the books, directly stated in them. Purple Wedding did happen; Littlefinger was involved; Olenna's involvement is highly probable. R + L = J, in this vision, would be just a "highly likely theory".

 

To think about ASOIAF in a full progressive way is more difficult, because nobody making theories think ASOIAF is a fundamentally flawed book in everything. But progressives here could be viewed like people pretty skeptical about many things that are a given in the books. For example, in his last videos Preston Jacobs suggests that the Others may not be the "pure evil" most people think they are. This goes against practically all that the books have established, but for some reason he thinks the idea of the Others being evil does not reflect accurately what he believes ASOIAF is about.

 

The thing about conservative vs progressive thinking is, when something new becomes widely accepted, it ceases to be "progressive", because the progress has already been made. That's why believing R + L = J could be considered conservative in this discussion; few persons believe otherwise. The theory became mainstream, although the books till now only directly state that Jon is indeed Ned's bastard. Nobody confirmed nothing; the hints and clues are not 100% definite. But they appear to be so for most people.

 

Of course, keeping the politics analogy, some crackpot theories sound like someone proposing USA and ISIS to form an alliance because both of them are treated by acronyms. In this case they are insane. Probably as much insane as most people here would think of someone that proposes that Jon is indeed Ned's bastard with Wylla, which would be the extreme opposite (taking the books only by what is explicitly said in them).

[JonCon's Red Beard]

The phrase "thinking outside the box" is something we use (not exclusively) to refer to the fact we have to step out from the established limits in the area of solving problems. The Gordian Knot legend, for instance, is an example of thinking about the box. Or how Kirk defeated the K. Maru scenario. Or the scene in Men in Black when Will Smith pulls the coffee table to solve his test.

 

But there is a pattern: THESE ARE TESTS.

 

The books are not meant to be SOLVED. They are meant to be INTERPRETED. And this interpretations are not limitless.

 

If you work in the area of design as I do, and you try to beat expectations by introducing something round when it's meant to be squared, then you are progressive. Because you're stepping aside from the established limits. You are saying: "see? you thought it was only one possible solution but I found a different way to see it".

 

With the books, there are no different ways to solve a problem: we HAVE TO FIGURE OUT Martin's views, where he is leading us. We are not WRITING the story. We are not allowed to have the progressive creative thinking. He is. We are meant to simply try to figure it out. If Martin had told us: "these are my characters, do as will", then, yes. We can step out of the box and do with them whatever we fancy. But we were not allowed.

 

We know Martin's style. We know he doesn't go for the "omg, shocking!". He is also a very obvious writer when he presents "fake identities". That's why most of the "X was in fact Y all along!" theories come as shocking. Because Martin doesn't write like that. His own editor has told us he has a way to present things (three steps way or whatever). That's what we HAVE to use to figure out the clues of his story.

[ViniciusMJ]

The phrase "thinking outside the box" is something we use (not exclusively) to refer to the fact we have to step out from the established limits in the area of solving problems. The Gordian Knot legend, for instance, is an example of thinking about the box. Or how Kirk defeated the K. Maru scenario. Or the scene in Men in Black when Will Smith pulls the coffee table to solve his test.

 

But there is a pattern: THESE ARE TESTS.

 

The books are not meant to be SOLVED. They are meant to be INTERPRETED. And this interpretations are not limitless.

 

If you work in the area of design as I do, and you try to beat expectations by introducing something round when it's meant to be squared, then you are progressive. Because you're stepping aside from the established limits. You are saying: "see? you thought it was only one possible solution but I found a different way to see it".

 

With the books, there are no different ways to solve a problem: we HAVE TO FIGURE OUT Martin's views, where he is leading us. We are not WRITING the story. We are not allowed to have the progressive creative thinking. He is. We are meant to simply try to figure it out. If Martin had told us: "these are my characters, do as will", then, yes. We can step out of the box and do with them whatever we fancy. But we were not allowed.

 

We know Martin's style. We know he doesn't go for the "omg, shocking!". He is also a very obvious writer when he presents "fake identities". That's why most of the "X was in fact Y all along!" theories come as shocking. Because Martin doesn't write like that. His own editor has told us he has a way to present things (three steps way or whatever). That's what we HAVE to use to figure out the clues of his story.

 

I agree, but I also might add that in this case we are working toward figuring out what Martin intends to do in the rest of the series. That is, we are trying to determine what are the established limits for our interpretations. And "progressives" will tend to accept broader limits, although there will still be limits for even the most progressive of them (like "Ser Pounce is Azor Ahai"). "Conservatives", on the other hand, tend to accept a narrower range of possibilities.

[VenezuelanLord]

i guess im fairly conservative, the only theories i subscribe 100% are R+L=J , TGNC and Stanni's plan to face the freys at the crofter village, i like to read theories and crackpots, but some theories are cringe worthy...