Poll: Should details from other GRRM stories be used as evidence for ASOIAF theories?

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

I am curious what everyone thinks. I have discussed this with a couple random people and was surprised to find so much disagreement.

Personally, my answer is a strong yes, we should absolutely look to other GRRM stories to find clues about ASOIAF. For example, And Seven Times Never Kill Man has many elements analogous to ASOAIF, particularly that the primitive, nature-loving race of people called the Jaenshi are extremely similar to the COTF, the Jaenshi pyramids are similar to the weirwoods, and the religious cult of the Steel Angels are similar to the followers of the Red God. The deity worshiped by the Steel Angels, Bakkalon the Pale Child, is even present in the House of Black and White. Because the stories share so many aspects and have similar plots (at least so far), I think it is reasonable to say that the ending of And Seven Times Never Kill Man may provide us with insight into the ending of ASOIAF. But I know that at least some people disagree with me on that point.

As for the Others, they seem to be similar to the race of humans that lives underground in In the House of the Worm. They both live underground because they can't withstand sunlight, they both seem to be genetically mutated humans, and they are both at war with the humans who live on the surface. So in the same way that And Seven Times Never Kill Man offers great insight into the COTF, the weirnet, and the followers of R'hllor, In the House of the Worm may be giving us insight into the nature and origin of the Others, and what role they will play in the ending to ASOIAF.

The mechanics of skinchanging and "green dreams" and telepathy in general have been explored at some length over the course of the many stories included in GRRM's Thousand Worlds universe. Because GRRM has spent so much time writing in that universe, and because the mechanics of telepathy in ASOIAF appear to be compatible with that universe, I think it is reasonable to assume that telepathy in ASOIAF could work in exactly the same way, which would give us a ton of insight into things like green dreams, and warging, and glass candles, etc. And just to clarify, GRRM has explicitly stated: "Westeros is not one of the Thousand Worlds", but that doesn't mean he hasn't applied the same "rules" for telepathy to ASOIAF.

And those are just a couple quick examples of potential clues to ASOIAF found in GRRM's older works. So what say you guys? Is it reasonable that I look to these other GRRM stories for clues about what is happening in ASOIAF?

CURRENT POLL RESULT:

YES:     13

NO:       4 

* I am including responses that amount to "Yes, but with caution" in the YES category

[The Bard of Banefort]

I would say yes. I have not read any of George's non-ASOIAF work yet, but authors often use a lot of the same general themes in their work, if not always the same formula.

[Amris]

Yes

[Lord Vance II]

It's irritating sometimes to someone who hasn't read a lot of his other stuff, but I mean I guess so. When someone's been writing as long and extensively as GRRM it's hard not to reuse a few elements. I think the limit is when it's used to try to predict story, which isn't super common, but I have seen it. 

[sweetsunray]

I think reading his other stories can be insightful thematically on a meta-level, but with caution. GRRM uses all sorts of sources, and it's logical that he would use and re-use themes again. But I disagree with the way PJ uses it as evidence, and let it have more weight than the book evidence. Such evidence ought to be supportive of aSoIaF evidence, not the other way around.

BTW I disagree that the grounds = Others in The House of the Worm. It's a story about two races (grounds and humans) warring each other on a dying world. Sometime in the past bio-engineers made worms to kill the grounds, but the protagonist in the story of the race that descends of that bio-engineering race realizes that one day those worms will also turn on them. So, if you want to make a parallel between The House of the Worm and aSoIaF, I'd say the wars between the grounds and human bio-engineers is similar to CotF versus First Men, except that in aSoIaF the CotF are the "bio-engineers", with the Others having the same function as the worms. The meatbringer and NK seem to take a similar "bad solution" role. Both seem to try and make a 3rd race or some racial union, but turn against both races, hunting both, eating both. The meatbringer is just another "worm" s to speak, albeit a smarter, far more destructive one, and thus more dangerous. And thematically the House of the Worm events should be compared to the times of the Pact and the NK and the first Long Night.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

2 hours ago, Lord Vance II said:

It's irritating sometimes to someone who hasn't read a lot of his other stuff, but I mean I guess so. When someone's been writing as long and extensively as GRRM it's hard not to reuse a few elements. I think the limit is when it's used to try to predict story, which isn't super common, but I have seen it. 

Oh, I am definitely talking about using it to try to predict story. I will tentatively count your response in the NO category  

[Castellan]

Yes, but not to the same extent as the satellite stories to ASOIF, where we know he has hidden clues.

Its much less reliable. For example, in The Dying Light there is a character who reminds me a lot of Varys and who is revealed to be plotting and causing trouble - but his motives are puzzling - the reader is misdirected to think there must be some commercial or political strategic reason for his actions - but it turns out his motive is an emotional one, and the background to the emotions hasn't been revealed to us so we don't guess it. This makes me more inclined to accept the Blackfyre theory, rather than one that's based on he and Illyrio wanting to run Westeros for their own profit. or that he has an abstract desire to create a perfect King.

But you might as well find ideas that influence your interpretation in the many sources he has said have influenced him. e.g. Jack Vance, Gene Wolf.

[sweetsunray]

7 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Oh, I am definitely talking about using it to try to predict story. I will tentatively count your response in the NO category  

Only in support of aSoIaF evidence, not the other way around. Especially because people try to push a one-on-one relation that doesn't work, and there is plenty of evidence that with every non-aSoIaF source George may us for his inspiration he's not copy-pasting plot.

[Lord Vance II]

3 minutes ago, Castellan said:

But you might as well find ideas that influence your interpretation in the many sources he has said have influenced him. e.g. Jack Vance, Gene Wolf.

The houses Vance are named for him and their sigils are all direct references to his books. I should know haha. I don't think the link goes past there though. 

[Lord Vance II]

1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

Only in support of aSoIaF evidence, not the other way around. Especially because people try to push a one-on-one relation that doesn't work, and there is plenty of evidence that with every non-aSoIaF source George may us for his inspiration he's not copy-pasting plot.

That's what I meant to say haha. 

[sweetsunray]

7 minutes ago, Castellan said:

Its much less reliable. For example, in The Dying Light there is a character who reminds me a lot of Varys and who is revealed to be plotting and causing trouble - but his motives are puzzling - the reader is misdirected to think there must be some commercial or political strategic reason for his actions - but it turns out his motive is an emotional one, and the background to the emotions hasn't been revealed to us so we don't guess it. This makes me more inclined to accept the Blackfyre theory, rather than one that's based on he and Illyrio wanting to run Westeros for their own profit. or that he has an abstract desire to create a perfect King.

I'm pretty sure that Varys's motive is an emotional one, yes, but people can have personal life experiences that make them emotional about an ideal. Regardless, Varys is an incredibly fascinating and ambiugous character - writing a benevolent trickster is very hard to do. Making sure that he never becomes an outright villain, nor an outhright hero is the hardest part.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

10 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

I think reading his other stories can be insightful thematically on a meta-level, but with caution. GRRM uses all sorts of sources, and it's logical that he would use and re-use themes again. But I disagree with the way PJ uses it as evidence, and let it have more weight than the book evidence. Such evidence ought to be supportive of aSoIaF evidence, not the other way around.

BTW I disagree that the grounds = Others in The House of the Worm. It's a story about two races (grounds and humans) warring each other on a dying world. Sometime in the past bio-engineers made worms to kill the grounds, but the protagonist in the story of the race that descends of that bio-engineering race realizes that one day those worms will also turn on them. So, if you want to make a parallel between The House of the Worm and aSoIaF, I'd say the wars between the grounds and human bio-engineers is similar to CotF versus First Men, except that in aSoIaF the CotF are the "bio-engineers", with the Others having the same function as the worms. The meatbringer and NK seem to take a similar "bad solution" role. Both seem to try and make a 3rd race or some racial union, but turn against both races, hunting both, eating both. The meatbringer is just another "worm" s to speak, albeit a smarter, far more destructive one, and thus more dangerous. And thematically the House of the Worm events should be compared to the times of the Pact and the NK and the first Long Night.

I disagree with your characterization of PJ's arguments.  

I'm not sure that it was the surface people who created the worms. It may have been the grounds who created them. I have to go back and read it again, but I'm pretty sure it was ambiguous, but hinting toward the grounds having done it.

That said, your analogy may be a better one, the COTF being analogous to the grounds. I think we can at least safely say that both the COTF and the Others are genetically mutated humans who live underground and whose interests appear to be in conflict with humans, at least historically speaking.

Just now, sweetsunray said:

Only in support of aSoIaF evidence, not the other way around. Especially because people try to push a one-on-one relation that doesn't work, and there is plenty of evidence that with every non-aSoIaF source George may us for his inspiration he's not copy-pasting plot.

Oh yes, agreed! GRRM does not copy-paste. He is a gardener. If anything, he takes the fruits from one garden and plants the seeds in his asoiaf garden .

But I really do think stuff like this gives us great insight. For example, you just made an apt comparison between the meatbringer and the NK, something I have thought about before. This obviously gives us the idea that perhaps the NK was trying to do the same thing, simply combine human + Other genes for some purpose. And sure, we might have thought of this without that story existing, but the fact that GRRM has already written a story with that basic premise lends a fair amount of credibility to the theory that the NK was just trying to produce human-Other children and wasn't necessarily up to super evil things. And it also lends credence to the theory that humans and Others need to procreate in order to adapt the human race for an upcoming long and brutal winter/ice age. After all, Winter is Coming.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

21 minutes ago, Lord Vance II said:

The houses Vance are named for him and their sigils are all direct references to his books. I should know haha. I don't think the link goes past there though. 

Yes, generally it seems that most of his homages to other authors are just that, somewhat meaningless homage. However, I do think we should investigate particularly suspicious things like the Church of Starry Wisdom (from Lovecraft). Since Lovecraft's Church of Starry Wisdom used the Shining Trapezohedron to summon the Haunter of the Dark, I think GRRM may be purposely giving us a hint that the Bloodstone Emperor was doing something similar with his big fancy black stone. So then the question is: what is GRRM's asoiaf analogue to the Haunter of the Dark?

[sweetsunray]

37 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I'm not sure that it was the surface people who created the worms. It may have been the grounds who created them. I have to go back and read it again, but I'm pretty sure it was ambiguous, but hinting toward the grounds having done it.

It were humans who created them against the grounds. The meatbringer relates this bit to the protagonist and guard, as well as the fact that the old bio-engineering lore was lost to the present surface people, who misconstrued the bio-engineering worm making into the man-worm with some "surgeons" amputating limbs from the chosen human to make him into a "worm" that is by then revered by them. Later the protagonist finds a lab with dead worms and dead grounds (with holes in them) behind glass, like an exhibition, and a helmet that helps him see in the darkness underground with a theta symbol that his own peopel wear. The grounds have dwindled in numbers and going deeper and deeper because of the worms. And because he saves a ground and kills a worm, the ground takes him to their community, meet and greet in sign language, and guides him back the way up, while his friends are food for the grounds. He ends up believing that maybe the grounds and people should fight the worm together instead. But everybody else still continues their dance, and man-worm making, and believe he's a weirdo. 

So, definitely the ancestors of the surface people who were the engineers who created the worms to kill grounds.

[White Ravens]

11 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

 

And those are just a couple quick examples of potential clues to ASOIAF found in GRRM's older works. So what say you guys? Is it reasonable that I look to these other GRRM stories for clues about what is happening in ASOIAF?

CURRENT POLL RESULT:

YES:     3

NO:      0 

Strong no. 

To discuss ASOIAF we must look to sources that are canon.  GRRM has published many books and short stories that are not part of ASOIAF but they have nothing to do with the events and characters we are discussing here even if there are similarities.

 

[The Fattest Leech]

I don't know that it is that easy- yes or no.

I have read many of George's old stories and many of several times over because even though they are much shorter than ASOIAF, they are still packed with details and character development that is amazing.

Do I think they should be required reading in order to analyze and help predict the future of ASOIAF, No. ASOIAF is written as a stand-alone series that can be examined on its own. As much as I love, love the Dunk & Egg, TPATQ, Rogue Prince, and the dubiously written World book, those are still just companions to the main story. There if you want them, but not required. Only the nerdiest of nerds read and quote from those stories (guilty!)

Do I think they help enormously for those readers who do like to dig deep into the body of the ASOIAF to get to the marrow, yes. I think this because after reading 20 or so of those stories, you can definitely see a pattern that the author has created for himself, spawned from his own admitted influential sources, that he has reworked in to something that is his own. He likes to use his own themes over and over- but never ripping himself off in the process. We will never get a full one-to-one replay from start to finish from either his own theme, or his influences.

I have watched the PJ videos for his book reviews of 1,000 worlds. I think they are just ok. He doesn't really get in to the meat of the matter on most of the books. However, that is probably what he was hoping to do in the comments section with other book fans, but it is YouTube and filled with trolls as most other forums are. I do not follow PJ and his theories. I know of a few and have watched maybe 2 or 3 of his videos. He is clever, I'll give you that, but I think he swings too wide and goes out of the book realm to make his point, which is something other theorists are guilty of at times as well. Now Preston in person is nice as can be. I met him about a year ago and we hung out for a few hours and had some beers together. Of course we talked theories! Duh! But when he shared a few of his with me then, and to those I said "no way", he was very gracious and not rude at all and we chatted more about them. Despite his theories being all sorts of whackadoodleness, I think he is an intelligent guy.

Do I think ASOIAF is set in 1k Worlds? Nope. Not at all. There are just as many differences than there are similarities. Bakkalon is a carryover theme he is reusing.

Do I think he has made Daenerys as his new Simon Kress, Saagael, Pale Child Bakkalon and Dany's followers/R'hollorist's will be the new Steel Angels? Yes.

Does incest ever mean anything cool, or shocking, or anything other than failure and elitism that is the downfall of a society or is outright rejected? Nope. Incest (or any near version of it) is always a failure and is never rewarded.

Do I see loads of similarities to Arya and Shawn "Carin child" and Trager? Yes. Yes I do.

Do I think it is crazy of people to disregard Val just because she was brought in halfway through the story for important reasons? YES! Nightflyers is the best example of a pretext to her development. Not kidding at all. I have read that book many times and it is another one, as short as it is, that just keeps giving more hints each time.

Do I think George has Skrakky and the other planet Trager goes to in mind when he writes about Asshai/ and by the shadow? Yes.

Do I think Melisandre is another one of his classic charlatan magicians? Yes. Morgan full of magic it seems is Mel's prototype.

Do I see the Jaenshi as the CotF? Mostly, and that does include the fact that the Jaenshi were sacrificing manipulators the whole time. The difference here is that George has introduced many more elements to this concept that means they are probably not a direct one-to-one comparison. The CotF are trickier in this story.

Do I think it is not even a question that the history of Westeros and Planetos as written by the maetser's is purposely adulterated and false, and this includes the ancient knowledge and anything to do with the north and the wall especially? Yes, and Dying of the Light explains this best, but this concept is in many of his stories.

Do I see the same repeating theme of bells associated with religion and the bells call you to your death? Yes.

Do I see the same theme of religion extremism as being dangerous and all consuming. Yes.

• Do I think that means the Weirwoods are evil? Not necessarily. It may seem so on the surface, but if you think about it, the weirwoods are the only thing that tells/shows the actual history, unlike with the maesters and their group think hive mindedness.
• Besides, when you read about Gendel and Gorne and the new Arianne TWOW chapters, you will see evidence that rock was possibly used like the weirwoods are in the current story.

[zandru]

Then there's the proto-Sandor Clegane character in Dying of the Light. But his arc appears to play out really differently than the Hound's. FWIW, note that GRRM came up with the character name "R'hllor" when he was still writing for the fan-published comics.

[bent branch]

No. All authors use elements in their stories that that been used before by someone at some time. Even themselves. There are some authors who give all of their characters a change of clothes and scenery and tell the same story all over again. At first I wrote that these were bad writers, but I changed my mind. To me the most important thing is that the author tell a good story. After having read over fifty years and over most genre's, I find it comforting that I can pull out some authors and know exactly what type of story I'm going to get. Sometimes the story doesn't need to be original, just well told. Anyhow, ASOIAF isn't one of those stories. I think even the D&E tales have only limited value to the analysis of this story. GRRM wants all readers to be able to enjoy and make sense of ASOIAF, even if they never read another book of his.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

17 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Do I think they should be required reading in order to analyze and help predict the future of ASOIAF, No. ASOIAF is written as a stand-alone series that can be examined on its own. As much as I love, love the Dunk & Egg, TPATQ, Rogue Prince, and the dubiously written World book, those are still just companions to the main story. There if you want them, but not required. Only the nerdiest of nerds read and quote from those stories (guilty!)

Interesting... I actually think he has hidden foreshadowing and super important information in the ASOIAF companion books, especially TWOIAF. For example - and I'm not super confident this particular piece of foreshadowing will actually pan out - at the end of the first day of jousting in The Hedge Knight, the 5 champions are a Baratheon, Tyrell, Lannister, Hardyng, and Targaryen. And Sansa so far is 4 for 4 in her betrothals matching one of those families (Joffrey, Willas, Tyrion, Harry), so unless that is just a silly coincidence, it seems that GRRM is hinting that Sansa will end up marrying a Targaryen, and the obvious candidate is Aegon, who happens to have just landed in Westeros and is looking for a politically advantageous (and ideally young and attractive) wife to replace Dany. Frankly, he couldn't possibly do any better than Sansa.

I will proudly share the label of "nerdiest of nerds" with you

17 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I have watched the PJ videos for his book reviews of 1,000 worlds. I think they are just ok. He doesn't really get in to the meat of the matter on most of the books. However, that is probably what he was hoping to do in the comments section with other book fans, but it is YouTube and filled with trolls as most other forums are. I do not follow PJ and his theories. I know of a few and have watched maybe 2 or 3 of his videos. He is clever, I'll give you that, but I think he swings too wide and goes out of the book realm to make his point, which is something other theorists are guilty of at times as well. Now Preston in person is nice as can be. I met him about a year ago and we hung out for a few hours and had some beers together. Of course we talked theories! Duh! But when he shared a few of his with me then, and to those I said "no way", he was very gracious and not rude at all and we chatted more about them. Despite his theories being all sorts of whackadoodleness, I think he is an intelligent guy.

Do I think ASOIAF is set in 1k Worlds? Nope. Not at all. There are just as many differences than there are similarities. Bakkalon is a carryover theme he is reusing.

While I generally love (yeah, I'll admit to PJ love, sue me ) PJ's asoiaf vids, I actually agree that his 1,000 worlds vids are just OK. If I were to guess at the inner workings of his mind, which I feel rather qualified to do, I think PJ probably makes those videos mostly because he wants people to think his theories are less crazy than they would otherwise believe, and his entire take on asoiaf is heavily influenced by his impressions of those stories.

Regardless, yeah PJ definitely has some conclusions about asoiaf that are a bit silly (like Storm's End originally being a tidal power plant). I don't think anyone has told him yet that GRRM confirmed asoiaf is not part of the 1,000 worlds. He thinks Planetos survived nuclear war and that the Red Comet is a volcryn (the volcryn thing actually would make sense if it was in the 1,000 worlds). But I will defend him all day and say I think his theories about many things are spot on.

A few random spot on PJ theories: Qyburn works for Doran. Manderly, Umber, Stannis, and Mance are working together and planned on breaking Theon out of WF the whole time. Strong Belwas was poisoned on purpose by House Pahl. The House of Black and White has been paid with Blackfyre gold. Telepathy genes are X chromosome-linked.

A less spot on PJ theory: LF meant to kill Tyrion at the PW and deduced that Joffrey had died instead based on sound of the bells tolling. Technically possible but a bit of a stretch.

17 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Do I think it is crazy of people to disregard Val just because she was brought in halfway through the story for important reasons? YES! Nightflyers is the best example of a pretext to her development. Not kidding at all. I have read that book many times and it is another one, as short as it is, that just keeps giving more hints each time.

Oooo, could you elaborate about the Val-Nightflyers connection? I am curious what you mean . But I agree it is crazy to disregard a character just because they appear on stage late in the game. I mean, take JonCon for example. He is definitely going to be important in TWOW. 

17 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Do I think Melisandre is another one of his classic charlatan magicians? Yes. Morgan full of magic it seems is Mel's prototype.

I basically agree with everything you said, but I ultra-agree with this statement!  Bitterblooms is so creepy. Morgan full of magic walking inside with snow on her boots was one of the most awesome moments I have ever read.

17 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Do I see the same theme of religion extremism as being dangerous and all consuming. Yes.

• Do I think that means the Weirwoods are evil? Not necessarily. It may seem so on the surface, but if you think about it, the weirwoods are the only thing that tells/shows the actual history, unlike with the maesters and their group think hive mindedness.

• Besides, when you read about Gendel and Gorne and the new Arianne TWOW chapters, you will see evidence that rock was possibly used like the weirwoods are in the current story.

I recently reread that chapter, and I have been thinking a good deal about it. I would certainly believe that limestone could act as some sort of storage vessel for souls, especially considering that Nightflyers involves a computer storing souls.

But I also wonder if the characters weren't mistaken in their description. Were the stone columns originally stone columns? Or are they petrified weirwoods? Now you might say, trees don't grow in caves. Well sure, normal trees don't grow in caves, they require sunlight for photosynthesis. But if my personal grand theory is correct, then weirwoods don't need sunlight at all, because they are really tree-people and have blood for sap and survive off of oxygen like some sort of giant sci-fi tree-lung. This would allow weirwoods to survive a Long Night type scenario, when the sun hides for a generation. And it also means that weirwoods could potentially be grown underground. After all, why does Bloodraven have a "spray of dark red leaves" growing out of his skull? BR is underground, so those leaves are not helping with photosynthesis.

The strange detail however - which makes me think that the COTF did indeed utilize limestone for soul storage - is that there are also faces on the walls. I certainly need to give it some more thought...

[Traverys]

I couldn't think of a non-offensive way of saying "hey! nice thread @40 Thousand Skeletons! Finally we can discuss something  without vehemently disagreeing with one another!" Everything I write seems like sarcasm but it's actually not... Anyways, to the topic!

I honestly don't have a strong opinion either, but I'm inclined to agree with you. I think that authors/writers do have themes, tropes, methods, etc. they tend to write about. It's a passion that drives them. It becomes more apparent in authors with a ridiculous number of publications because you start to realize all the stories are using the same basic formula or twists on character/plot (::cough:: Dean Koontz ::cough::).

But now I have to point out how this particular area of the forum forbids any mention of the HBO show and its plot points within any topic (spoiler tags or no). The reasoning is that we don't know in what ways the show and book series will overlap, so lets not base the foundation of any argument on the HBO show. That's fair, except the rule is that you can't mention anything about the show at all (i.e., typical American zero-tolerance policy), whether it's as a passing joke, a link to a meme, etc.

So returning back to citing GRRM's other stories... it seems really backwards to me that people are able to cite not only the author's other bodies of work (which also have no established relation to ASoIaF) but also things like European mythology, New Age interpretation of the occult, and other obscure sources... but not the show at all. Especially when we know that the show itself has a general outline that will match up with the stories in some way or another... and those of us that partake know how choppy the translation from book to TV has been past season one. But, let's also remember that GRRM has written some episodes himself (i.e., making them other bodies of his work...). ::shrug::

This is not to say the show should be used as a foundation to any book theory, but to forbid it's mention entirely, pretending it's insignificant or unimportant entirely... and then citing other things that are actually insignificant or unimportant entirely (e.g., etymology of the word "others" as a basis for an argument for their existence or some other tinfoil) starts really shaking things up for me. I could get into specific examples but I can't mention the show here at risk of being suspended. ::shrug again::

Anyways, reading the original post, this was my immediate thoughts concerning the primary question. I guess my answer is yes and no. Yes, I personally think that GRRM's other works could provide us some valuable insights, but then no I don't think it's philosophically/ideologically consistent with the rules established for this forum.

People will pop up and argue that they don't watch the show, they don't like the show, and they don't want to hear about the show or it's "spoilers" (while also saying the show is not the books... so how is it "spoilers"?). But I would say then we shouldn't hear about European mythology and folklore, the Occult, sample chapters from Winds of Winter (they aren't finalized until published), the author's other works, works by other authors, etc.

I'm not trying to be terribly radical... but it's a major inconsistency I've seen throughout the general discussion forum that has always bothered me.