Howland Reed + Ashara Dayne = Meera & Jojen?

[Barristan the G.O.A.T]

Barristan the G.O.A.T, Ajer Dayne ;)

I beg your pardon?

[FuriousGeorge]

I can't say I subscribe to the theory. I'm not sure if it's correct, or will play out at all this way. But I like it very much, and not just because of the way the OP wrote it. The thing that's fantastic about this theory is that it's composed of gems that are woven throughout that would make this not merely plausible as some abstract search for proof, but a layered part of the story that could have really interesting implications. Not only that, it doesn't fall against any fact or contradiction we're been given (and I'm referring to the H+A segment of this only, I should add).

The thing is, I strongly disagree that this theory is "pointless" unless it's true. It could be proven false or never answered or proven true, and in any of those cases, I think it adds something for discussion. I think the analysis alone is interesting enough to be valuable, given that this is a really strong thesis.

I'm actually less interested at this point in trying to prove it either way (I can't find anything that could discount it yet), but rather, taking this premise and seeing what sort of implication it could have in the story. Not that I have to subscribe to the theory itself to do this, and of course with the understanding that it would be speculative to draw extensions from it. Even as a thought experiment it has value. I wouldn't speculate like this on just any topic; I think this one is built strongly enough to see where it could lead.

So where do you draw the line then? How speculative and threadbare does a theory need to be before you can say that discussing it is a pointless endeavor? IMO OP has started a good discussion based on how she has treated the text, not because she has suggested a theory that is plausible, and that is why people are discussing it. I meant it's pointless if its not true in terms of actually anticipating the plot not in terms of discussion. And like you imply it is probably not true, so it is ridiculous when people start to say stuff like 'you know you are getting somewhere when you are making people grasp at straws to disagree with you' as no one needs to grasp at straws to argue against this.

[Lykos]

I beg your pardon?

J A Y N A R E E D = A J E R D A Y N E not Ashara. Jokes one needs to explain are bad. I´m sorry.

[butterbumps!]

So where do you draw the line then? How speculative and threadbare does a theory need to be before you can say that discussing it is a pointless endeavor?

Well, this theory isn't threadbare. As I tried to say above, this theory has meat; it's both technically plausible in terms of timelines and facts (which I consider "Step 1" to finding merit in a theory). But more than that, this theory makes literary sense in terms of the language woven through, would carry themes, could answer the very obtuse mysteries of how Howland stopped Arthur, why Ashara turned to a Stark, and would potentially further connect the Dayne House (which Martin has even admitted that will become more important moving forward) with the issues of the North. This theory could potentially weave together a number of things beyond the already poignant language about "mud" and the like that the OP's pointed to.

IMO OP has started a good discussion based on how she has treated the text, not because she has suggested a theory that is plausible, and that is why people are discussing it. I meant it's pointless if its not true in terms of actually anticipating the plot not in terms of discussion. And like you imply it is probably not true, so it is ridiculous when people start to say stuff like 'you know you are getting somewhere when you are making people grasp at straws to disagree with you' as no one needs to grasp at straws to argue against this.

I didn't mean to imply I thought it wasn't true. I neither believe nor disbelieve. I'm willing to run with it though, because, like I said, I'm interested in seeing how it could weave some loose ends together. This theory, unlike "Asha the man" or "A+J" has the potential to connect a few things. To be clear, I don't think this should be taken as canon and used to extrapolate further conclusions all around the forum, but it's honestly worth the time to take this and see what could come of it.

[FuriousGeorge]

What am I on about?

I woke up this morning, it blew my mind, and I think it could be true... I could care less who else likes it. I add credibility when the geniuses here are making up bull shit to disprove it. If an educated poster does disprove it, so be it. But for not that's not the case.

I hope Maidenandwarrior is on to something.

Ok 6% chance that this theory is correct but you think people are grasping at straws to defend it - that is a really consistent position to adopt well done. If this actually blew your mind your mind must be pretty fucking fragile. I'd advise you stop reading literature or watching movies of all kinds given the propensity of your mind to be blown.

Well, this theory isn't threadbare. As I tried to say above, this theory has meat; it's both technically plausible in terms of timelines and facts (which I consider "Step 1" to finding merit in a theory). But more than that, this theory makes literary sense in terms of the language woven through, would carry themes, could answer the very obtuse mysteries of how Howland stopped Arthur, why Ashara turned to a Stark, and would potentially further connect the Dayne House (which Martin has even admitted that will become more important moving forward) with the issues of the North. This theory could potentially weave together a number of things beyond the already poignant language about "mud" and the like that the OP's pointed to.

I didn't mean to imply I thought it wasn't true. I neither believe nor disbelieve. I'm willing to run with it though, because, like I said, I'm interested in seeing how it could weave some loose ends together. This theory, unlike "Asha the man" or "A+J" has the potential to connect a few things. To be clear, I don't think this should be taken as canon and used to extrapolate further conclusions all around the forum, but it's honestly worth the time to take this and see what could come of it.

You did imply it even if you didn't mean to and I didn't say this theory was threadbare. I'm saying how nicely does someone need to dress up a theory in order for you to think it is worth discussing? In a series made up of 5 novels and thousands of pages, I am quite sure (based on other studies - not done by me) that people could come up with a huge huge range of ridiculous things that seem to be supported by the text. I'm not saying this theory is ridiculous, just saying that because something fits it doesn't necessarily make it worth pursuing. Also you seem to think I am against you discussing it; I'm not. I am against people finding out about the theory, immediately committing themselves to it based on other people who have taken it up, and then dismissing people arguing against it as 'grasping at straws', as if once you, Dr Pepper and Apple Martini say they like something that means it must be true and any other idea is ridiculous.

[Dr. Pepper]

... 'you know you are getting somewhere when you are making people grasp at straws to disagree with you' as no one needs to grasp at straws to argue against this.

While it's very possible I have missed specific posts in this thread, so far the only posts I've seen refuting the theory have been along the lines of "omgz a beautiful woman could never want a crannogman". That looks like grasping at straws to me.

I'm less concerned about a theory turning out to be correct than I am about a theory providing interesting thematic evidence and analysis. Not all theories are equal. There's a huge difference between this theory and "asha is a boy" theory. One pulls several pieces of evidence and connects it with the greater plot while the other relies on one piece of non-evidence that girls are not usually groomed as heirs.

For what it's worth, I'd eye-roll if someone liked a theory just because they saw a poster they respect like it.

[FuriousGeorge]

While it's very possible I have missed specific posts in this thread, so far the only posts I've seen refuting the theory have been along the lines of "omgz a beautiful woman could never want a crannogman". That looks like grasping at straws to me.

I'm less concerned about a theory turning out to be correct than I am about a theory providing interesting thematic evidence and analysis. Not all theories are equal. There's a huge difference between this theory and "asha is a boy" theory. One pulls several pieces of evidence and connects it with the greater plot while the other relies on one piece of non-evidence that girls are not usually groomed as heirs.

For what it's worth, I'd eye-roll if someone liked a theory just because they saw a poster they respect like it.

We can all characterise arguments like that if we want. Watch - 'OMGZ Howland Reed like totally notices Ashara all the time they must be like totally in love forever'

[butterbumps!]

You did imply it even if you didn't mean to and I didn't say this theory was threadbare. I'm saying how nicely does someone need to dress up a theory in order for you to think it is worth discussing? In a series made up of 5 novels and thousands of pages, I am quite sure (based on other studies - not done by me) that people could come up with a huge huge range of ridiculous things that seem to be supported by the text. I'm not saying this theory is ridiculous, just saying that because something fits it doesn't necessarily make it worth pursuing. Also you seem to think I am against you discussing it; I'm not. I am against people finding out about the theory, immediately committing themselves to it based on other people who have taken it up, and then dismissing people arguing against it as 'grasping at straws', as if once you, Dr Pepper and Apple Martini say they like something that means it must be true and any other idea is ridiculous.

The arguments against the theory have been rather weak, in all fairness. The last major criticisms were that the genetics wouldn't work out (not necessarily true) and that a beautiful woman like Ashara would never go for a crannogman.

I didn't mean to accuse you of finding this theory threadbare-- I was trying to explain why I hadn't found it so, but separately, I think it's unfair for you to allude to the OP "dressing up the theory" to make it more sellable. That's not the case here.

And I wish I had the sway you claim I do. I wrote an out of the box analytical OP not that long ago, and Sean Collins of Rolling Stone called me a tin foil hat crackpot or some such for my efforts. So I doubt my endorsement of anything really says all that much.

[Dr. Pepper]

We can all characterise arguments like that if we want. Watch - 'OMGZ Howland Reed like totally notices Ashara all the time they must be like totally in love forever'

I get the impression that your specific gripe is how some of us have chosen to discuss (or not discuss) the theory. You certainly haven't provided any specific points to refute the theory. Mayhaps you are bummed that you haven't reached the point of respected forumer? :dunno:

I'm still very attracted to this theory - the H+A part, specifically. I've been eager to see someone more skillful than myself provide legitimate evidence against it. I'm curious what you might come up with, if anything.

[The Answer]

Mate why don't you and read A Very Hungry Caterpillar it will probably blow your mind

Mate, tell it true. Does the 5th bullet by maidenandwarrior not intrigue the hell out of you..? ";We are told that Ned would have died at the TOJ but for Howland Reed. What does this mean? Was it crannog magic, or was Howland Arthur's brother-in-law?"

C'mon man. Pardon my underwhelming tolerance to excitement, but that alone excites the hell out of me.

[FuriousGeorge]

I get the impression that your specific gripe is how some of us have chosen to discuss (or not discuss) the theory. You certainly haven't provided any specific points to refute the theory. Mayhaps you are bummed that you haven't reached the point of respected forumer? :dunno:

I'm still very attracted to this theory - the H+A part, specifically. I've been eager to see someone more skillful than myself provide legitimate evidence against it. I'm curious what you might come up with, if anything.

Specific gripe is that some people are now acting like this actually has more chance of happening than not, and accusing people of grasping at straws in order to refute it. Specific points I provided that suggest the theory might be wrong can be found at the beginning of the thread. Yes I am gutted that FuriousGeorge does not have the same pull as harpies it is a burden on my soul. If you go back to look at my points at the start of the thread, please make sure you go to the very first page and look at the comments about how this is a crackpot theory, that is until you and Utterfrumps said you like it, and then suddenly every other person on the forum likes it. Maybe that is coincidence, personally I don't think it is.

ETA - You even have people saying stuff along the lines of 'wow you have some heavy hitters like Butterbumps and Mladen coming out in defence of your theory welll done' - even though Mladen was like the most critical person

[lady m]

While it's very possible I have missed specific posts in this thread, so far the only posts I've seen refuting the theory have been along the lines of "omgz a beautiful woman could never want a crannogman". That looks like grasping at straws to me.

I'm less concerned about a theory turning out to be correct than I am about a theory providing interesting thematic evidence and analysis. Not all theories are equal. There's a huge difference between this theory and "asha is a boy" theory. One pulls several pieces of evidence and connects it with the greater plot while the other relies on one piece of non-evidence that girls are not usually groomed as heirs.

For what it's worth, I'd eye-roll if someone liked a theory just because they saw a poster they respect like it.

I would point out that you, me, apple and bumps have all dismissed the Arthur part of this theory, because we think the thematic and textual evidence given by the OP is insufficient, and none of us have found the evidence while reading to confirm the evidence in the text ourselves. Further, I know all of us did a big eyeroll initially, since I know I can't stand Ashara alive theories and think they're usually stupid. The themes and evidence are what made me slow down, read and really end up liking the theory. I'm not sure completely it's real, but like bumps said, if it is it does tie a lot of stories together and answer a lot of dangling questions. I do know that the effort and care taken to construct the OP is very different from much of the theorizing done one this board at the moment, and to compare it to ones like 'Asha is a guy' is needlessly insulting to the OP.

Saying this is threadbare or grasping at straws is like saying Aegon being fake isn't supported in a lot of different ways in the text. You can choose to not see those thematic devices, threads and evidence, or not put as much weight on some evidence as other, which is why there are those that believe Aegon is real and those that believe he's fake. Everyone doesn't weight evidence the same. Also, I'd say as people familiarize themselves with the theory and reread with it in mind they will find more evidence to back it up or refute it, and that's a good thing.

[FuriousGeorge]

Saying this is threadbare or grasping at straws is like saying Aegon being fake isn't supported in a lot of different ways in the text. You can choose to not see those thematic devices, threads and evidence, or not put as much weight on some evidence as other, which is why there are those that believe Aegon is real and those that believe he's fake. Everyone doesn't weight evidence the same. Also, I'd say as people familiarize themselves with the theory and reread with it in mind they will find more evidence to back it up or refute it, and that's a good thing.

Feel like this bit was directed at me (sorry if not) so would just like to clear up I do not think this is threadbare, I just asked what is difference between a threadbare theory that most likely isn't true and a highly elaborate theory that most likely isn't true. In my opinion, whilst one can lead to a good discussion and the other probably can't, ultimately the difference is negligible. But that is just my opinion.

[Dr. Pepper]

Specific gripe is that some people are now acting like this actually has more chance of happening than not, and accusing people of grasping at straws in order to refute it. Specific points I provided that suggest the theory might be wrong can be found at the beginning of the thread. Yes I am gutted that FuriousGeorge does not have the same pull as harpies it is a burden on my soul. If you go back to look at my points at the start of the thread, please make sure you go to the very first page and look at the comments about how this is a crackpot theory, that is until you and Luciousbumps said you like it, and then suddenly every other person on the forum likes it. Maybe that is coincidence, personally I don't think it is.

ETA - You even have people saying stuff along the lines of 'wow you have some heavy hitters like Butterbumps and Mladen coming out in defence of your theory welll done' - even though Mladen was like the most critical person

Actually, on the first page, before I jumped in, nearly everyone was impressed with the OP. Only one person was negatively critical of it. It's also glaringly obvious that the person who called a couple posters heavy hitters had not read the OP or the responses or else he would have been aware that Mladen did not like this theory. I eye-rolled at that poster. He's a prime example of why it's foolish to just take someone's opinion as evidence a theory is good or not. Do you think certain posters should self-censor just because their opinions might be held in higher regard than other posters? That seems sort of foolish.

I've gone back to look at your first post. You said it was not crackpot. Your only contribution was that the story Meera told could not really be used to support the thesis. That's a bit grasping at straws, imo. Hell, I was grasping at straws pretty hardcore in my first post.

[FuriousGeorge]

Actually, on the first page, before I jumped in, nearly everyone was impressed with the OP. Only one person was negatively critical of it. It's also glaringly obvious that the person who called a couple posters heavy hitters had not read the OP or the responses or else he would have been aware that Mladen did not like this theory. I eye-rolled at that poster. He's a prime example of why it's foolish to just take someone's opinion as evidence a theory is good or not. Do you think certain posters should self-censor just because their opinions might be held in higher regard than other posters? That seems sort of foolish.

I've gone back to look at your first post. You said it was not crackpot. Your only contribution was that the story Meera told could not really be used to support the thesis. That's a bit grasping at straws, imo. Hell, I was grasping at straws pretty hardcore in my first post.

Well there are quite a few posts like that. I'm not sure how you had arrived at the idea that I think you should be censoring yourself at all? Key part of the theory is based on the attitude and observations of Meera when telling Bran the story about the TaH, I suggested that Meera in this passage might not be telling the story from her or Howland's perspective, but becomes a different narrator that GRRM uses to elaborate on that key part of the story. This is in line with most literary theory that accepts there are multiple narrators in a book, even with a single character, and this would certainly be one instance in which determining who is the narrator is difficult considering the nature of that passage (a story within a story). Therefore everything Meera says does not need to be explainable in terms of the desires, motives or interests of Howland or Meera. Obviously I never said this was crackpot because I don't think it is, that doesn't mean I am going to swallow it whole like some people are apparently willing to do. You were grasping at straws then - 4000 posts later, not much has changed.

[butterbumps!]

Specific gripe is that some people are now acting like this actually has more chance of happening than not, and accusing people of grasping at straws in order to refute it. Specific points I provided that suggest the theory might be wrong can be found at the beginning of the thread. Yes I am gutted that FuriousGeorge does not have the same pull as harpies it is a burden on my soul. If you go back to look at my points at the start of the thread, please make sure you go to the very first page and look at the comments about how this is a crackpot theory, that is until you and Utterfrumps said you like it, and then suddenly every other person on the forum likes it. Maybe that is coincidence, personally I don't think it is.

ETA - You even have people saying stuff along the lines of 'wow you have some heavy hitters like Butterbumps and Mladen coming out in defence of your theory welll done' - even though Mladen was like the most critical person

Can you refrain from insulting me? I'm not sure what I personally did to piss you off.

This is getting fucking ridiculous. I'm not running a racket to determine acceptable theories, or conspiring to get people to listen to me. I didn't write some endorsement of myself (and, most recently, admitted to being severely criticized by people). I gave praise and criticism to the theory. I subsequently tried to explain, very politely I might add, what I found valuable in response to your meta-critique questions. Don't take whatever this is out on me.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

@FuriousGeorge,

My apologies for butting in but from what I can see is that the people you're arguing with don't believe this theory, but they find it intriguing. However improbable it may be, it's not impossible. It makes for interesting reading which is why I presume many of us use the forum. Now I'm sorry if this isn't true and I haven't been paying enough attention, but you seem to be criticising those people for complimenting and encouraging the OP who thought of a theory you clearly don't like. It's fine that you disagree with the theory, but I don't see what your problem is with those who just wan to discuss the possibility.

ETA: the altering of usernames is killing me guys. :lol:

[bbstark]

@ George

Now I have seen an attack on a group of posters twice in a few days, and feel the need to tell you as clearly as possible, but also from the heart, why I think (not feel) that these attacks are unfounded, absurd, and sadly, very unproductive to the discussion.

You see, I have read the text in its entirety, and chronolically only once, and very rapidly, mostly reading for plot, rather than depth, but people like Mladen, butterbumps, Dr. Pepper and Lady M. have read it several times, in depth and on various occaions specifically looking for something. People like this have woven some very intricate and beautiful theories, speculations, and analyses of the story. For me personally this massive work makes the book itself more enjoyable. It's very well known in literature that the author tries to show, not tell, and with our collective eyes, all we are really trying to do is see it, whatever it might be. Some of us don't have the time to read at that kind of level, or are just on their first journey of the reread, and this kind of addition to the text is very welcome and enjoyable.

Now I'm not saying that I unquestioningly believe these people I listed (among many more), but I do enjoy arguing with them, and discussing the subject at hand in a massive amount of detail that I don't think I could really do on my own. I don't think they are asking to be believed without question either, but what everone on this forum truly appreciates is someone who is swayed by a convincing argument, that is backed up by evidence. Without question, ALL of us LOVE that. So please, consider that your accusation might just be very juvenile and unfair. You are welcome to argue with all of us, but open yourself up to being wrong as well, because it's very likely that if you don't, you won't get anywhere.

[FuriousGeorge]

Can you refrain from insulting me? I'm not sure what I personally did to piss you off.

This is getting fucking ridiculous. I'm not running a racket to determine acceptable theories, or conspiring to get people to listen to me. I didn't write some endorsement of myself (and, most recently, admitted to being severely criticized by people). I gave praise and criticism to the theory. I subsequently tried to explain, very politely I might add, what I found valuable in response to your meta-critique questions. Don't take whatever this is out on me.

Woah ok sorry didn't realise changing your name was a heinous crime I thought we were just mucking about, also nowhere did I say you endorse yourself or try and make people agree with you i just said they do thats obviously not your fault - will just leave it now fucking hell didn't realise you were so sensitive.

Also at the other guy - yes obviously I want to know what happened at ToJ I just don't see why you would privilege this explanation over any other

[Barristan the G.O.A.T]

The known Reeds during the timespan of the events described on A Song of Ice and Fire are:

• Lord Howland Reed, Lord of Greywater Watch.
  
  • Jyana, his wife. A crannogman.
    
    • Meera Reed, his daughter. A capable hunter.
      
    • Jojen Reed, his son. A young boy, gifted with the greensight.
      

Why does it list Howland's wife as a crannogman? Are you implying Jyana Reed is Ashara Dayne in hiding?