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

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

I'd give a cautious "yes, unless the stuff from other books is used to support some crazy, prestonish theory going against the actual logic of A Song Of Ice And Fire". However, this is exactly how the stuff from other books (and not only other books by GRRM - there was a fellow using "The Wheel Of Time" for the same purpose) is usually used.

Therefore, count me in the "Nay" column.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

@Traverys
That first bit made me laugh  

I mostly agree with what you said, but I actually think the show should be effectively disqualified as a theory reference purely because I think D&D are total hacks who don't understand asoiaf, and I don't trust them not to change core details of the plot.

Without spoiling anything or saying which character it was, I will just point out that D&D literally decided it was a good idea to write the line: You want a good girl, but you need a bad pussy. And then they put that shit on HBO, as if it was worth money or something. And they have done a million other things that make me hate them that I won't mention here, as per the spoiler policy.

I definitely agree that some people read too much into the symbolism and relate different story elements or imagery to every real world religion and folklore under the sun. GRRM definitely does that a fair amount, but he doesn't have the entire internet contained inside his head. I think people overestimate his level of knowledge sometimes. But really, I'm not inside his head, so IDK.  

[sweetsunray]

22 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

GRRM definitely does that a fair amount, but he doesn't have the entire internet contained inside his head.

It doesn't have to be on the internet nor inside his head. Just a large library and a love to read since the time he could read.

Besides he uses it only as an inspiration to set up his own symbol schemes, and meaning and visuals.

But an abducted girl wearing a crown of flowers that she received during a false spring that coincides with her first public appearance, and then gets a statue in an underground crypt like the kings before her, and someone shouting how many times she was "raped"... voila you have definite allusions to "The rape of Persephone" and her becoming the Queen of the Underworld. Anyone with a love for fairytales and myth would come up with that without needing to look stuff up.

The occult: Take Tyrion who he puts in makeshift motley on the Shy Maid and have him do cartwheels for the heck of it... aka George's association to court jesters and fools. The one field that has expanded and philosophized on the "fool" the most is Tarot. Best known decks are Rider-Waite and the Crowley-Toth deck. No need to read tarot books - just look at the picture. Crowley's fool: a giant childlike figure reaching for all the corners of the cards with hands and feet. He gazes straight at you, but you can't actually meet his stare (a painter trick, the eyes are offset, dong the opposite of Mona Lisa). The sun shines in his crotch. In his left hand he holds a torch with a flame of fire going wild (wildfire), and in the other a downturned giant chalice spilling its content. The vine of large wine grapes wrapped around his throat and there's a large bag of coins. On his head he has 2 little demon horns and a crystal crown reflecting a rainbow of colors. Hmmm, Tyrion is often called a demon, an alcoholic, a fool for whores and always tends to throw in money to buy his freedom. Tyrion pouring the purple leftover wine from Joffrey's huge chalice is an iconic moment. He's called a "giant", despite his height. He used wildfire to win a battle. And in aDwD to the crew of the Shy Maid he calls himself Hugor Hill (after the founder of the Andal Faith). He even recites the tidbit of the 7 stars being put on Hugor's head like a crystal crown, and how he once dreamed of becoming a septon, before he fell in love with a "whore". Tyrion's definitely Crowley's Tarot Fool. You can see that either as "cool inspiration" for his visuals to identiy Tyrion as a "fool". Or you can ask yourself how does George use it? You can only answer the latter by analysing Tyrion's arc and story itself, and the corroborating imagery used in relation to it, while consistent with the Crowley fool, is simply there for the reader to pick up on, regardless of their knowledge of the fool.

If I were to say that Tyrion's a character who wanders from one adventure into another beyond his control, but instead because of pure chance, dumb luck or misfortune and what other characters decide around him, I wouldn't be saying something that nobody else can figure out. Sure, other characters end up in all sorts of adventures, but they're often given a choice, nor do they forget their self-avowed goals and commitments. Tyrion basically gets plucked by fate from one plot into another. And he has no life goal, no commitment. It's almost entirely dictated by the circumstances and plot he's in at that moment. He starts stuff, but is not around to see it finished, let alone get credit. And each scene were his path is crucially altered by the decisions of others time and time again we either see one of these things: Tyrion throwing or flipping coins, spilling wine, or having just fucked a whore. Often those three things happen together. His vices, his short-term in the now easy pleasure seeking, get him from one place to another. Do we the readers need to know about Crowley's fool or anything about the fool archetype as used in Tarot to figure that out? Absolutely not. The only thing that me showing you the Crowley fool card and point out all the glaring visuals of it does  is add the source of inspiration, the seed of the idea of George's writing proces. As "evidence" it only shows that George put thought in Tyrion's archetypal characterization and what the consequences are for him, in whichever garden George plants him along the way. As "evidence" it can only help in adding weight to predicting the general options for Tyrion:  

• If George decides to make Tyrion grow up, have his ego mature, then we will see Tyrion sticking to a side, sticking to a group and something he starts with them he will then see through to its full completion and he will get credit for it.
• If George has no intention to have Tyrion basically "grow up" then Tyrion will continue to be tossed around by fate over and over. If Tyrion falls of the wagon, follows his cock around, or tries to solve a problem with a flippant coin toss or offer of money, no matter how much he believes he's with a great team, then he will be dragged into another plotline against his will by someone else.

What we cannot predict is whether George will have Tyrion grow up or not. And obviously with the speculation done by readers about Tyrion's future arc we can see how much the reader hopes George will have Tyrion grow up and stick to an ideal, a goal and commit himself to it once and for all. The in-world fool pattern already written by George and how it has its seeds in Crowley's fool though makes me fairly confident in saying that anything that Tyrion started in the previous books while giving in to his vices and mucking up his own physical presence in that arc is something he will not see personally finished: he won't be there to see any conquering of the Mountain Clans of the Vale, he won't see LF undone, he won't be there to see Cersei kicked out of KL.

Acknowledging this archetypal pattern for Tyrion gives a whole other spin to Moqorro's words to Tyrion about being surrounded by dragons, and him in the midst of it... He has the potential to destroy or help one of the dragons surrounding him. But which dragon will he commit to, if at all: Jon, Dany, Stannis, Aegon? Will he look back in the end and mourn all the lost opportunities? Or will he look back in satisfaction that he landed himself in the right arc at the right moment and actually changed history for the better?

Quote

"Dragons," Moqorro said in the Common Tongue of Westeros... "Dragons old and young, true and false, bright and dark. And you. A small man with a big shadow, snarling in the midst of all."

 

[Humble Maester]

 I'd mostly echo FVR at the top of the page. I'd be alright with using his previous works as guidance as long as you do not draw any too sophisticated conclusions.

As for the context of this topic my answer would be nay,  you should be capable of analyzing the work only within the universe and taking out of universe works too seriously is probably not going to lead you to a decent conclusion.

[GyantSpyder]

Yes, definitely.

Especially for questions like theme and style.

His unreliable POV third-person narrator style has some pretty firm expectations associated with it in a lot of his other stories, and those expectations have huge implications for this story. Yeah, you could find examples from ASOIAF to point out how that works, but that runs into the problem of us not knowing the ending of the story yet, which casts a lot of additional doubt on it. It can be simpler to look at a much more basic sort of story like This Tower of Ashes, which illustrates a concept very clearly that is easy to dismiss, but probably not worth dismissing.

And also to answer concerns along the lines of "This is too crazy for GRRM" or "This is too complex an explanation and there's no way a writer would hide all that in a story" -- because it's really clear that virtually nothing is too crazy or complex or hidden for GRRM once you read his other work.

So yeah, it's especially useful when the conversation is looking at ASOAIF, and then using it to make inferences about GRRM, his intentions, his goals, and then using those inferences to predict the story. If you're doing that anyway, if you're that focused on authorial intent, then it makes sense to bring in things like his other work, his biography, etc.

[The Fattest Leech]

 

Quote

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...

This can get a little out of control, I agree, but it is George's fault!  I am joking just a little because George has said in his interviews and in his anthologies that he does use other sources to build the base of his story or characters. This does include European history (he was a history professor), and Norse myth (which he studied in college), and even different religions including more obscure ones like Zoroastrianism.

Take for instance how in one of his anthologies he describes going with some friends over to his college professors house to discuss Scandinavian history, lore, food and drink. George even describes the drink they had down to the spices and raisins... which connects to this scene in the story. Here we have a student in a learning situation making glug for his teacher:

A Clash of Kings - Jon IV

He found Mormont talking with Thoren Smallwood and half a dozen other officers. "There you are," the old man said gruffly. "Bring us some hot wine, if you would. The night is chilly."

"Yes, my lord." Jon built a cookfire, claimed a small cask of Mormont's favorite robust red from stores, and poured it into a kettle. He hung the kettle above the flames while he gathered the rest of his ingredients. The Old Bear was particular about his hot spiced wine. So much cinnamon and so much nutmeg and so much honey, not a drop more. Raisins and nuts and dried berries, but no lemon, that was the rankest sort of southron heresy—which was queer, since he always took lemon in his morning beer. The drink must be hot to warm a man properly, the Lord Commander insisted, but the wine must never be allowed to come to a boil. Jon kept a careful eye on the kettle.

He wrote three stories about Sweden and Sveaborg because it interested him. And they are all different from each other. And then that connects to where he got the idea for Skagos.

I do agree that sometimes the analysis goes too far (of which I may be guilty of at times myself), but I do find it frustrating that when George warns readers not to do that, and you show these quotes to others, they laugh it off.

But the same can be said when people claim, "George wouldn't kill his favorite character!!!!" And then I am like, "have you read any of his other books? He has no problem killing his "favorite" characters."

One thing George does not do is trickery. I have never seen him pulls a card from his sleeve when he writes and exclaim Gotcha! If you ever feel tricked, when you go back and reread you see that the clues were there the whole time, it was the interpretation that was wrong. We are all Mel

• “I’ve been planting all these clues that the butler did it, then you’re halfway through a series and suddenly thousands of people have figured out that the butler did it, and then you say the chambermaid did it? No, you can’t do that,” Martin reportedly said while addressing whether fan theories and online speculation influence his writing process for the “Song of Ice and Fire” series source

 

Quote

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.

George and the showrunners have both said how the two stories have drastically separated from each other, and George has said he considers the show story as its own universe. So, yeah, there is not overlap anymore since after season 3. And George has not written anything for the show since S4, or is allowed in the writer's room since then as well. He reviews things or gives input, but as was mentioned by George's people in the past, the show can add aliens and there is nothing George can do about it.

 

[The Fattest Leech]

 

 

6 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

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.

Why is that? Now I am curious.

 

6 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

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. 

I would love to expand more on Nightflyers, but I am pressed for time at the moment. Maybe later.

6 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

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.

Seriously! My jaw dropped all sorts of low when that happened. And then the clarity washed over me like a warm Calgon bath and it made so much sense.

6 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

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.

Yeah, the stone thing I want to re-reread again before I really dig into it with any theories. I hadn't considered souls. But yeah, this is a common idea across many of his stories. Stored knowledge. The Nightflyer thing is similar, yet different <<<---- hey, that is another "theme"

 

[The Commentator]

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

 

His written stories?  Yes, with caution.  George knows people are reading his previous work to mine for clues.  He wants to surprise the book readers so expect ASOIAF to have similar elements but the plot will differ.

HBO's show?  No

[BalerionTheCat]

The stories in the same universe, the Dunk and Egg, the WoIaF? Certainly.
Other stories in other universe? They could be hints of the ideas, values GRRM wants to expose. But to expect he will repeat the same events with the same conclusion? I don't think so.

[Kienn]

Yes.

You know that part in one of his other books that's vaguely similar to a theory I have? That supports my theory because he's done it before so he'll do it again.

And you know that part in another one of his books that's vaguely similar to a theory I disagree with? That disproves the theory I disagree with because he's done it before so he'll do it differently this time.

[John Courage]

Count me in the yes, with caution, column. I personally don't see how you could willfully ignore GRRM's other work, or the history and mythology that he says influenced him, in developing opinions on mysteries that have yet to be revealed in universe. But as I said, and others on this thread have said, using work from outside the ASOIAF universe as evidence should be done with caution, and with the understanding this evidence could never be considered anything more than circumstantial at best.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

On 6/21/2017 at 11:55 AM, Widowmaker 811 said:

 

His written stories?  Yes, with caution.  George knows people are reading his previous work to mine for clues.  He wants to surprise the book readers so expect ASOIAF to have similar elements but the plot will differ.

HBO's show?  No

Yeah, just to clarify, this is exactly what I meant. The show should definitely never be used as a reference for theories except for like 2 things (which I won't mention) that have been officially confirmed by GRRM as something taken from TWOW, and the spoilers that the actors sometimes blurt out in interviews, because GRRM tells each main actor something about their character no one else knows yet. At least 2 actors have impolitely revealed these spoilers to the world.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

On 6/21/2017 at 9:32 AM, GyantSpyder said:

Yes, definitely.

Especially for questions like theme and style.

His unreliable POV third-person narrator style has some pretty firm expectations associated with it in a lot of his other stories, and those expectations have huge implications for this story. Yeah, you could find examples from ASOIAF to point out how that works, but that runs into the problem of us not knowing the ending of the story yet, which casts a lot of additional doubt on it. It can be simpler to look at a much more basic sort of story like This Tower of Ashes, which illustrates a concept very clearly that is easy to dismiss, but probably not worth dismissing.

And also to answer concerns along the lines of "This is too crazy for GRRM" or "This is too complex an explanation and there's no way a writer would hide all that in a story" -- because it's really clear that virtually nothing is too crazy or complex or hidden for GRRM once you read his other work.

So yeah, it's especially useful when the conversation is looking at ASOAIF, and then using it to make inferences about GRRM, his intentions, his goals, and then using those inferences to predict the story. If you're doing that anyway, if you're that focused on authorial intent, then it makes sense to bring in things like his other work, his biography, etc.

Well articulated  

I am personally guilty of, in the past, dismissing theories as "too crazy". But now that I have read like a dozen other GRRM stories, I never think a theory is too crazy. A decent example is Euron=Daario. Does that sound crazy? Yes. Is it possible? As far as I know, yes. So I won't be surprised if it turns out to be true.

[Dorian Martell's son]

Nope

[Weirwood Ghost]

In his discussions in interviews that I've viewed, Martin has expressed many times that he uses history to draw on for his ideas in ASOIAF. He most certainly uses his own ideas in other stories to shape into and develop in his other worlds. (Check his interview with Stephen King).

As an architect I draw on previous other people's design, and also my own previous ideas, but one does this as a source to evolve your design work. Writing can evolves in this way. Evolution of writing/design is one of the most creative expressions. We see similarities in his works because he's developing the the ideas in the context of their world and story.

My answer is yes.