Jump to content

Is Val Important


Recommended Posts

On 6/20/2016 at 10:56 AM, Hammer of the Gods said:

I have read many threads regarding the importance of Val in the story. People think she is some sort of priestess or is possibly a future lover of a resurrected Jon. On all these threads however many people commented that the fact that Val is not in the show means she has no important role to play. These threads are somewhat outdated now as the most recent ones came before season 5 before. Now that season 6 is almost over and its become clear how many major characters and plots are getting cut (JonCon, Young Griff, Arianne, Victarion, quentyn, Lady Stoneheart, good dornish plot, real bloodraven) has anyone changed their minds. 

 I know we really haven't seen a lot of her and grrm hasn't given her any depth or backstory yet, but I really love Val and I would love for her and Jon hook up. All these characters are so depressed. It would cool to see two awesome people get together and find some happiness together. I would like to see more conversation between them before they start of course. I know they do a bit a flirting but I feel like they still don't really know each other well enough for their relationship to be believable.

 

I generally assume she only exists to allow for Gilly's baby swap story, which I believe is extremely important. She doesn't seem to have any other role to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Coolbeard the Exile said:

Why won't you call it a theory?

A hypothesis which has been tested, and after sufficient academic rigor, is called a theory. The line is blurry, but it does require research, testing, and consensus. It is a hypothesis, not a theory, until that point.

"Theories" are probably what you think of as "fact". Gravity is a theory, for example, because its been well tested and there isn't much academic dissent over how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damon_Tor said:

A hypothesis which has been tested, and after sufficient academic rigor, is called a theory. The line is blurry, but it does require research, testing, and consensus. It is a hypothesis, not a theory, until that point.

"Theories" are probably what you think of as "fact". Gravity is a theory, for example, because its been well tested and there isn't much academic dissent over how it works.

Is this based on that Order of the Greenhands video? If so, I did watch that video and I can say that they got some basic text wrong. I can't say that their particular theory is accurately portrayed as being plausible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Damon_Tor said:

A hypothesis which has been tested, and after sufficient academic rigor, is called a theory. The line is blurry, but it does require research, testing, and consensus. It is a hypothesis, not a theory, until that point.

"Theories" are probably what you think of as "fact". Gravity is a theory, for example, because its been well tested and there isn't much academic dissent over how it works.

Who cares about definition of theory everyone knows what people mean. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Is this based on that Order of the Greenhands video? If so, I did watch that video and I can say that they got some basic text wrong. I can't say that their particular theory is accurately portrayed as being plausible. 

Please show what they got wrong and why is it innacurate and inplausible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Fattest Leech said:

Is this based on that Order of the Greenhands video? If so, I did watch that video and I can say that they got some basic text wrong. I can't say that their particular theory is accurately portrayed as being plausible. 

I didn't watch it. It's simply a pet peeve of mine people calling a random idea they have a "theory" without knowing the meaning of the word. The proper word is "hypothesis".

Whether the video has a valid point or not is immaterial. Almost no speculation about the books can be considered a theory because none of it is falsifiable. You can have a hypothesis that is very well supported by data and a hypothesis that is wild speculation, but they don't become theories without testing and academic consensus.

And to be clear, even things widely believed and largely uncontroversial like R+L=J still do not qualify as theories because testing isn't possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Coolbeard the Exile said:

Please show what they got wrong and why is it innacurate and inplausible?

I'm on my phone at work at the moment so I can't quote fully, but I talked about this with someone else in a thread a few days ago in the reread section. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Damon_Tor said:

I didn't watch it. It's simply a pet peeve of mine people calling a random idea they have a "theory" without knowing the meaning of the word. The proper word is "hypothesis".

Whether the video has a valid point or not is immaterial. Almost no speculation about the books can be considered a theory because none of it is falsifiable. You can have a hypothesis that is very well supported by data and a hypothesis that is wild speculation, but they don't become theories without testing and academic consensus.

And to be clear, even things widely believed and largely uncontroversial like R+L=J still do not qualify as theories because testing isn't possible.

Word knight grammar nazi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Coolbeard the Exile said:

It has evidence buit as with many theories they arent a red line straight from clue to soloution. 

Not it hasn't. It has absolutely nothing more than wishful thinking. It's a fan fiction based on nothing and most importantly it doesn’t make sense.

 

17 hours ago, Coolbeard the Exile said:

Word knight grammar nazi

It's a book series, words matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

Not it hasn't. It has absolutely nothing more than wishful thinking. It's a fan fiction based on nothing and most importantly it doesn’t make sense.

 

It's a book series, words matter.

Then you havent watched the video.

It is not necessary and serves no purpose to point out that "excuse me mr, it is not a "theory" it is a "hypothesis"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...