"ret conning" in ASOIAF

[Ser Uncle P]

A friend of mine who prefers to read "traditional" sub Tolkien high fantasy (Eddings, Brooks, Paolini) insists ret conning on earlier material is unavoidable in any saga.

Was trying to rack me brains to find an example of a single "ret con" in the series.

I don't think there's a single blatant ret con, which is testimony to Martin's attention to detail.

The two closest things to ret conning are more like details being added as the writer develops the series.

Specifically Twyin's plan to hitch Cersei to Rhaegar was only included in Book 3, but it doesn't contradict earlier material.

Likewise in D&E Maekar and Baelor defeating the Blackfyres wasn't mentioned in THK, but it doesn't say anything to the contrary either, so its not ret conning

50 silver stags to anyone who can prove a blatant ret con by Martin!

[Mithras]

Maggy's prophecy is either a bad retcon or the product of Cersei's messed up subconscious.

[Table8]

Maggy's prophecy is either a bad retcon or the product of Cersei's messed up subconscious.

Not really a recon IMO. We never heard of Maggie before AFFC, but then we never had a Cercei POV.

[Ser Uncle P]

In fairness, we didn't have a Cersei POV before AFFC, so it doesn't contradict prior stuff the way ret conning in the likes of Star Trek or Buffy did.

Likewise the Aerys/Joanna hints dropped in ADWD and WOIAF. Builds on, rather than contradicting earlier books

[Mithras]

We do not need Cersei's POV to explain her animosity towards Tyrion and later Marg. We do not need Maggy's prophecy.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

In "Dance", Ned Stark apparently "never trusted" Roose Bolton. Yet somehow it never came up between Robb and Catelyn (and in Catelyn's thoughts), when it came to picking a commander for the entire Northern infantry.

In AGOT, Sansa's the one who had to remind her siblings that Jon Snow is a bastard. Seems like there's really no love between those two. But in later books - Sansa gave Jon dating tips? And instead Robb was a dick about Jon's bastardy, reminding him of it during their make-believe games? It does feel as if the author regretted the aloof first impression Sansa had made in Book 1.

[Dofs]

Lannisters being First Men is a retcon. Before they were Andals with GRRM specifically claiming that a surname "Lannister" is an example of how Andal surnames usually are.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

In fairness, we didn't have a Cersei POV before AFFC, so it doesn't contradict prior stuff the way ret conning in the likes of Star Trek or Buffy did.

Likewise the Aerys/Joanna hints dropped in ADWD and WOIAF. Builds on, rather than contradicting earlier books

Retconning does not have to contradict previous material - in fact usually it doesn't. A retcon is just information (often character background) that the creators decided to add later on, that they didn't think of from the start.

One retcon in Star Trek DS9 was making Dr. Bashir into a special genetic super human, rather than just a regular intelligent guy. It was not necessary, but it was technically consistent with his character - it didn't contradict any important facts about his background.

However, I felt that it undermined his character because it turns everything he did in the past into a new light, and makes him less human (I think that his actor Alex Siddig said the same thing in interviews, he wasn't happy about where it put the character).

In the same way, IMO Maggy the Frog undermines Cersei's character. Yes, while technically it works and doesn't contradict previous fact, it makes Cersei's character needlessly simplistic. It's way too pat, IMO, for Cersei to have this additional reason to hate Tyrion. We were given plenty of background about why they hated each other without this garbage being thrown in.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

I personally think that fAegon might have been a retcon, possibly hatched sometime while he was writing asos, or perhaps during the gap after sos, though I know that's not a popular opinion.

1) The Varys + Illyrio + Dany and Viserys thing just doesn't quite work with fAegon added to the mix (yes I'm aware of various ways fans talk their way out of it, like saying that Illyrio just wanted Dany to die but I don't find these explanations satisfactory).

2) The details of the Blackfyre rebellion was something that GRRM came up with after he wrote clash - he fleshes it out mostly in his second two tales of D&E. Before that the Blackfyres don't come up very much. So, I think he got the idea to include a prominent Blackfyre pretender as well.

3) fAegon provides a way for a Targaryen claimant to begin invading Westeros while Dany does what she needs to do in Essos (stuff that might have originally be intended to happen during the 5-year gap). In other words I think that fAegon's plot is important mostly to give the Westerosi characters something to do during affc and adwd and the start of twow.

[sifth]

Retconning does not have to contradict previous material - in fact usually it doesn't. A retcon is just information (often character background) that the creators decided to add later on, that they didn't think of from the start.

One retcon in Star Trek DS9 was making Dr. Bashir into a special genetic super human, rather than just a regular intelligent guy. It was not necessary, but it was technically consistent with his character - it didn't contradict any important facts about his background.

However, I felt that it undermined his character because it turns everything he did in the past into a new light, and makes him less human (I think that his actor Alex Siddig said the same thing in interviews, he wasn't happy about where it put the character).

In the same way, IMO Maggy the Frog undermines Cersei's character. Yes, while technically it works and doesn't contradict previous fact, it makes Cersei's character needlessly simplistic. It's way too pat, IMO, for Cersei to have this additional reason to hate Tyrion. We were given plenty of background about why they hated each other without this garbage being thrown in.

I thought it worked brilliantly with Bashir. The guy always seemed ten times smarter than the average Starfleet officer in the early seasons. He was getting nominated for awards in his late 20's that were considered life time achievements and even reconstructed a persons brain simply using machines.

edit: The Mummers Dragon is mentioned for the very first time at the end of A Clash for Kings. So I'd say George came up with the idea while writing that book.

[Ser Uncle P]

One retcon in Star Trek DS9 was making Dr. Bashir into a special genetic super human, rather than just a regular intelligent guy. It was not necessary, but it was technically consistent with his character - it didn't contradict any important facts about his background.

However, I felt that it undermined his character because it turns everything he did in the past into a new light, and makes him less human (I think that his actor Alex Siddig said the same thing in interviews, he wasn't happy about where it put the character).

IMO the Bashir detail was too much of a whopper of a detail to introduce so late. In contrast the Cersei/Rhaegar detail does build on Book 1 details about Tywin turning on Aerys.

Maggy is a bit cheesy, but I agree, making Lannisters First Men is blatant ret conning, hadn't noticed that. Maybe we can pin that one on Elio ;)

[A spoon of knife and fork]

I thought it worked brilliantly with Bashir. The guy always seemed ten times smarter than the average Starfleet officer in the early seasons. He was getting nominated for awards in his late 20's that were considered life time achievements and even reconstructed a persons brain simply using machines.

Ok but I think we can all agree it was a retcon, right?

Similarly, whether you like it or not, Maggy the Frog was a retcon.

[sifth]

Ok but I think we can all agree it was a retcon, right?

Similarly, whether you like it or not, Maggy the Frog was a retcon.

Well yea, though I always took it as the writers coming up with a way to explain why Bashir was so dam smart.

[Mithras]

I personally think that fAegon might have been a retcon, possibly hatched sometime while he was writing asos, or perhaps during the gap after sos, though I know that's not a popular opinion.

1) The Varys + Illyrio + Dany and Viserys thing just doesn't quite work with fAegon added to the mix (yes I'm aware of various ways fans talk their way out of it, like saying that Illyrio just wanted Dany to die but I don't find these explanations satisfactory).

2) The details of the Blackfyre rebellion was something that GRRM came up with after he wrote clash - he fleshes it out mostly in his second two tales of D&E. Before that the Blackfyres don't come up very much. So, I think he got the idea to include a prominent Blackfyre pretender as well.

3) fAegon provides a way for a Targaryen claimant to begin invading Westeros while Dany does what she needs to do in Essos (stuff that might have originally be intended to happen during the 5-year gap). In other words I think that fAegon's plot is important mostly to give the Westerosi characters something to do during affc and adwd and the start of twow.

But the HotU scene happened in ACoK and we know that before publishing AGoT, George wrote a lot of ACoK material too.

[Pliskin]

Lannisters being First Men is a retcon. Before they were Andals with GRRM specifically claiming that a surname "Lannister" is an example of how Andal surnames usually are.

Lannisters are Andals. The Andals took over all the kingdoms save the North.

Maybe you meant that Lann the Clever being a First Man is a retcon?

[A spoon of knife and fork]

But the HotU scene happened in ACoK and we know that before publishing AGoT, George wrote a lot of ACoK material too.

Hm yeah I suppose that I'd have to explain the mummer's dragon.

I guess I'm thinking that he only had a vague idea who the mummer's dragon would be, and may not have known how/where s/he would interact with Dany.

[Mithras]

Lannisters are Andals. The Andals took over all the kingdoms save the North.

Maybe you meant that Lann the Clever being a First Man is a retcon?

No, the first Lannisters were First Men for a long time and it took many years for them to embrace the Faith and marry Andal nobility.

[Julia Martell]

Lannisters are Andals. The Andals took over all the kingdoms save the North.

Maybe you meant that Lann the Clever being a First Man is a retcon?

Yeah, there are ways around this, like an Andal king marrying a female First Man decedent of Lann the Clever and adopting an Andalized form of her name so that they can have their cake and eat it too, like how Orys Baratheon basically co-opted all of Durrandon history.

I guess it’s still a retcon.

I suspect Ellaria wasn’t Harmen Uller’s daughter until aFfC. They’re both there in King’s Landing with Oberyn but their relationship isn’t mentioned, not even in the appendix. Is there a difference between a retcon and a detail that just wasn’t worked out because it was unnecessary?

[A spoon of knife and fork]

Oh, here's another one, I think that Stannis, Renly and Robert being 1/4 Targ was a retcon. The way Ned refers to Robert's Targ heritage during AGOT is almost dimissive, and makes it seem much more distant - at the very least one generation more.

[LordStoneheart]

In "Dance", Ned Stark apparently "never trusted" Roose Bolton. Yet somehow it never came up between Robb and Catelyn (and in Catelyn's thoughts), when it came to picking a commander for the entire Northern infantry.

In AGOT, Sansa's the one who had to remind her siblings that Jon Snow is a bastard. Seems like there's really no love between those two. But in later books - Sansa gave Jon dating tips? And instead Robb was a dick about Jon's bastardy, reminding him of it during their make-believe games? It does feel as if the author regretted the aloof first impression Sansa had made in Book 1.

He isn't given entire control. And he did respond to Robb's banners. He may have always had the treachery in mind, but if the Stark cause was more successful with a good foreseeable outcome he never would have betrayed.

Oh, here's another one, I think that Stannis, Renly and Robert being 1/4 Targ was a retcon. The way Ned refers to Robert's Targ heritage during AGOT is almost dimissive, and makes it seem much more distant - at the very least one generation more.

I'd say that's because their line come from a grandmother who was last in line for the throne, giving them no real claim.