A Word on Theories

[ChillyPolly]

Ok, and I really hate the defense of theories on the sole basis that they support character hate.

I don't see that Drogon's disturbing eating habits necessarily have anything to do with character hate one way or the other.

Drogon is a monster born of black magic. He also, I suppose, embodies a certain fierce, vengeful, and ultimately destructive aspect of Dany's own personality. There are many disturbing hints of this, including but by no means limited to the death of poor Hazzea.

There is another side to Dany, of course, and If Dany has any hope of a happy ending, it will be after she and Drogon have parted ways. And this too has been directly hinted. Three mounts will she ride, one to bed, one to dread, and one to love. Drogon, of course, is the mount she will ride to dread ... hinting that things will get worse before they get better.

That's my take on it. At some point Miss "If I look back I am lost" is going to have to look back, find that house with the red door, and remember who she is.

[MoIaF]

I don't see that Drogon's disturbing eating habits necessarily have anything to do with character hate one way or the other.

Drogon is a monster born of black magic. He also, I suppose, embodies a certain fierce, vengeful, and ultimately destructive aspect of Dany's own personality. There are many disturbing hints of this, including but by no means limited to the death of poor Hazzea.

There is another side to Dany, of course, and If Dany has any hope of a happy ending, it will be after she and Drogon have parted ways. And this too has been directly hinted. Three mounts will she ride, one to bed, one to dread, and one to love. Drogon, of course, is the mount she will ride to dread ... hinting that things will get worse before they get better.

That's my take on it. At some point Miss "If I look back I am lost" is going to have to look back, find that house with the red door, and remember who she is.

The last words Dany utters in her last chapter of ADWD is "To go forward, I must go back". I think that change is already on it's way.

[ChillyPolly]

The last words Dany utters in her last chapter of ADWD is "To go forward, I must go back". I think that change is already on it's way.

She remembers the words, but does not necessarily know what they mean. There's often a twist, with the "correct" interpretation of prophesies rarely fitting the characters initial guesses.

But at this point, I'll be happy if she gets to Westeros soon.

[butterbumps!]

I don't see that Drogon's disturbing eating habits necessarily have anything to do with character hate one way or the other.

Drogon is a monster born of black magic. He also, I suppose, embodies a certain fierce, vengeful, and ultimately destructive aspect of Dany's own personality. There are many disturbing hints of this, including but by no means limited to the death of poor Hazzea.

There is another side to Dany, of course, and If Dany has any hope of a happy ending, it will be after she and Drogon have parted ways. And this too has been directly hinted. Three mounts will she ride, one to bed, one to dread, and one to love. Drogon, of course, is the mount she will ride to dread ... hinting that things will get worse before they get better.

That's my take on it. At some point Miss "If I look back I am lost" is going to have to look back, find that house with the red door, and remember who she is. In the meantime, she is on a dark path to "dread".

Look at the specific posts I was responding to. The poster was arguing for this theory for no other reason than to portray Dany as unilaterally incompetent. My response wasn't speaking to the theory generally. It was very specifically addressed to the way a single poster was advocating for it.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

I think this is really important to keep in mind. I've seen many theories that completely ignore a character's development and story structure in favor of creating a "wow" moment that could be a game changer. Without considering or acknowledging that most of these "wow" moments have been heavily telegraphed by the author. He doesn't just create these moments, he leaves breadcrumbs all along the way.

The problem is that sometimes story interpretation can become very subjective if you are expecting a certain resolution to it. Therefore, you theories may become geared toward reaching that resolution you already envision.

As for the forum itself, I think anyone can write any theory they choose, but they shouldn't be expecting people to take them seriously if they can't provide textual evidence that shows their theory is keeping within the general themes of the story or within the general themes of a character's arc.

Totally agree.

I'm not against making theories, but when one makes theories they shouldn't ignore the themes. character development, character's virtues etc within the arc.

I've seen many theories that completely ignore previous decisions the character has made, or themes in the character's arc and the theory ends up going in a complete left lane.

[ChillyPolly]

Look at the specific posts I was responding to. The poster was arguing for this theory for no other reason than to portray Dany as unilaterally incompetent. My response wasn't speaking to the theory generally. It was very specifically addressed to the way a single poster was advocating for it.

Okay, whatever. Bad Paper Waver! Bad Paper Waver!

In all seriousness, I don't agree with Paper Waver's analysis either. But it doesn't look like it is motivated by Dany hate. It appears to be motivated by dislike of Dany's arc in ADWD. Generally speaking, I do not think that the proponents of the "Drogon Was Framed" theory are Dany Haters. Quite the reverse. Some of them, however, want her to stop twiddling her thumbs and go back to being a fierce proud ruthless victorious conqueror without doubt or regret. I suspect they may, in the long run, be disappointed. That's my theory, anyway.

[butterbumps!]

Okay, whatever. Bad Paper Waver! Bad Paper Waver!

In all seriousness, I don't agree with Paper Waver's analysis either. But it doesn't look like it is motivated by Dany hate. It appears to be motivated by dislike of Dany's arc in ADWD. Generally speaking, I do not think that the proponents of the "Drogon Was Framed" theory are Dany Haters. Quite the reverse. Some of them, however, want her to stop twiddling her thumbs and go back to being a fierce proud ruthless victorious conqueror without doubt or regret. I suspect they may, in the long run, be disappointed. That's my theory, anyway.

The theory in general probably isn't propagated this way, but the posts I was responding to are nothing short of yet another chapter in the "let's see how I can twist this to proselytize about how much of a loser Dany is" game. As someone who doesn't like Dany, I'm even tired of it. Please drop it though, since discussing other posters is a really bad idea.

ETA: "dislike" was a bit too extreme in this case

[ChillyPolly]

As for the forum itself, I think anyone can write any theory they choose, but they shouldn't be expecting people to take them seriously if they can't provide textual evidence that shows their theory is keeping within the general themes of the story or within the general themes of a character's arc.

Obviously it helps to be able to explain your position (though no-one is obliged to do so). But the ultimate test of a theory or prediction is whether it turns out to be correct when future books are released. Until then, don't expect many posters to take you seriously no matter how well argued your position is.

[MoIaF]

Obviously it helps to be able to explain your position (though no-one is obliged to do so). But the ultimate test of a theory or prediction is whether it turns out to be correct when future books are released. Until then, don't expect many posters to take you seriously no matter how well argued your position is.

That's true, especially those theories trying to guest at what will happen late into the story, however, if your theory is sources and touches the general themes of the story or story arc other poster will respect the effort.

What bothers me sometimes is when we see theories that can easily be disproved by the text or they use too many outside resources in order to explain they're theory. GRRM might be inspire by history (War of the Roses) and literature but he has created a world wholly onto itself that won't follow the story structure of other literary works.

Like I said people are entitled to come up with their own theories, whatever they may be. But if they are truly serious about them and want them to seriously be discuss they should really take the time to make sure that their theory is not only possible but plausible.

[Mithras]

My dear good analysts. Please convince me that it was possible to come up with an analysis to correctly guess that Lysa was the poisoner of Jon Arryn.

[ChillyPolly]

That's true, especially those theories especially those trying to guest at what will happen late into the story, however, if your theory is sources and touches the general themes of the story or story arc other poster will respect the effort.

Either that or they will get increasingly angry and hostile. People believe what they want to believe. And the truth is not a popularity contest. Hopefully there will indeed someday be a moment of truth, when all our guesses will be confirmed or denied.

[ChillyPolly]

My dear good analysts. Please convince me that it was possible to come up with an analysis to correctly guess that Lysa was the poisoner of Jon Arryn.

Based on what volumes?

[butterbumps!]

My dear good analysts. Please convince me that it was possible to come up with an analysis to correctly guess that Lysa was the poisoner of Jon Arryn.

Well, there's a lot of hullabaloo made about who was supposed to foster SR in the first 2 books. We see Lysa freak about the prospect of fostering him on page. That kind of hints at a motive.

We also have the really bizarre issue of how Lysa supposedly sends this secret message to Cat blaming Cersei for it, then proceeds to do everything against this. Particularly she goes on to accuse Tyrion of doing it, and subsequently behaves not at all like someone who was earnestly concerned enough about Jon's death to go to the lengths of sending Cat that letter. It's not really "foreshadowings" that hint at all this; it's really that her actions don't line up, and once Cersei as a suspect is taken off the table at the beginning of Clash, she's one of the few left who'd have motive.

[MoIaF]

Well, there's a lot of hullabaloo made about who was supposed to foster SR in the first 2 books. We see Lysa freak about the prospect of fostering him on page. That kind of hints at a motive.

We also have the really bizarre issue of how Lysa supposedly sends this secret message to Cat blaming Cersei for it, then proceeds to do everything against this. Particularly she goes on to accuse Tyrion of doing it, and subsequently behaves not at all like someone who was earnestly concerned enough about Jon's death to go to the lengths of sending Cat that letter. It's not really "foreshadowings" that hint at all this; it's really that her actions don't line up, and once Cersei as a suspect is taken off the table at the beginning of Clash, she's one of the few left who'd have motive.

He was also poisoned by Tears of Lys[a].

[dbunting]

Oh for heavens sake, just reading this is tedius. Leave people alone to thoerize as they wish. If you are so intelligent that this bothers you, don't read it! You can generally tell after the first few lines whether the theory is worth reading or not. Typing a page long list of why YOU think everyone else should do what YOU want makes no sense.

Some of us like to see some in depth and really well written items, others of us just like to have a laugh and unwind.

[Mladen]

My dear good analysts. Please convince me that it was possible to come up with an analysis to correctly guess that Lysa was the poisoner of Jon Arryn.

I am not sure you have basic knowledge of literary analysis and as such, you try to push your own interpretation of "right way" to predict any outcome. Which wonderfully is pointed out by butterbumps' analysis of the things we already know that have indicated at Lysa as a murderer. The thing about analyzing things as tool to predict something, is, in my opinion, attempt of understanding the past and present to know the future. Like the use of comparative analysis of several cases to show us where certain character might end up based on the similar case you have had in the past. This type of analysis is based on several things, making sure things do fit, that the cases you compare are really comparable, the checking the motives, character's train of thoughts, opinions, side they took etc. Analysis based for the sole purpose of getting to know a certain character, or the analysis of any motif as to that matter is important too, because not only that the more we know about character, the wider is the net we discuss a certain character. For example, if PtP analyses never happened, the discussions of the ways Sansa will become player will be significantly poorer, same with discussion about her relationship with several individuals. These sort of analyses, directed at discussing the character such as it is have deepened the several discussions and brought whole new level of discussing where Sansa will end up with. The same can be said about analysis of Dany's leadership skills. Or whether the alarms in our head will lit when someone serves Arbor gold. That is why analysis is important and on simple case you tried to make point (and bumps actually proved you wrong) we have seen that analysis is indeed important and useful in order to find out certain outcome.

He was also poisoned by Tears of Lys[a].

This is actually line of theorizing PW advocates for. And, TBH, it is quite flawed.

[Lopsang]

Some of the above posters have rephrased my meaning rather well. All my post was trying to say basically is "if you want to make a serious theory, consider the implications it has on the whole story". Another good to to consider is what ChillPolly said: how does your theory bring all of the different plotlines/characters together? The storylines in asoiaf are not in seperate vaccums, as so many theories would have it.

Dbunting, have you read the rest of the thread? I am not saying "everybody should do what I want them to! Hahahaha!" I am saying "If you want to be taken seriously while theorizing, you should consider X, Y, and Z." Why is that so bad? I am offering constructive criticism to those who would like to theorize things.

Anyways, the insights of above posters are very interesting. I think ChillyPOlly and Butterbumps have expounded on my thesis in the thread quite well.

[Lopsang]

My dear good analysts. Please convince me that it was possible to come up with an analysis to correctly guess that Lysa was the poisoner of Jon Arryn.

Did you correctly guess it? You put into question the validity of analyzing asoiaf as a whole and analyzing past events and characters and such to make theories. But did you ever guess Lysa really poisoned Arryn? If not, what is your point? We are in the same boat.

I don't think that's something GRRM necessarily wanted the reader to theorize. He wanted it hidden in the woodworks to come at you and surprise you.

[MoIaF]

This is actually line of theorizing PW advocates for. And, TBH, it is quite flawed.

It's an interesting tidbit that GRRM could have included purposely (or not). It's one of those things you would probably pickup after the fact. I'm not of course discounting analytical thinking or deductive reasoning base on the information we are given. That is the best way to form theories of future events. Most of these tidbits are fun in retrospect. You can hardly form a theory around them unless you have substantial textual evidence that the story is leading a certain way.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Well, I would not name "Daario = Benjen" or "Mance = Rhaegar" as theories.

Agree with this.

The problem is what many people consider a "theory". For example, if character "A" says "X", and also character "B" says "X", then "A" = "B". That's pretty much the base for Howland = Sparrow and Mance = Rhaegar.

To have a theory you need to have a premise and STRONG evidence to back it up.