The Eternal Struggle: Trusting What The Author Writes

[Blazfemur]

I will complain again about how I lost a guide I used in high school to make good book analysis. It was a very complete guide. And I complain because, the first section was devoted to analyse the author: his life, his bibliography and last but not least, the Historical Context in which the book was written and published. I think it's important to know WHY an author writes what he writes. Does fantasy authors write and create a world because they want to write about elves and dwarves? Or because they want them to represent human values/flaws? GRRM doesn't have to be any different.

People often misunderstand GRRM's views of fantasy and his writing style. He's not a breaker of tropes as much as many say (and would like). He's not some kind of plot-twisting freak enthusiast many would claim him to be. He is not writing a big clue hunting book either. GRRM is, even though he doesn't look like, very old fashioned in the way he writes, specially in his views of romance. He's different in which he tries to add some realism to the most classical tropes of medieval-like sagas, because that's something he didn't like about the books he has read, like LotR. It's not like he doesn't like LotR: he felt that there was many things that Tolkien didn't specified or left open, like the infamous tax-policies or how Gandalf should have returned changed. He's not saying JRRT was wrong, simply that he, being a more modern author with different views, would have done differently, which he's doing now.

That's where the misunderstood of his work comes from. People expect GRRM to pull things and mysteries out of his ass and he doesn't do this. He is very obvious about the things he plans to do, even if we don't notice it at first time (which it's fine, because despite the obviousness, he still can't simply put everything under the light: it wouldn't be any mystery to solve at the end). And, the wishful thinking of GRRM doing SHOCKING UNEXPECTED revelations at the end is simply paving the way for many readers' disappointment, something we already see in the reactions about aFfC and aDwD when he's not moving the plot along but simply positioning his next pieces on the board (besides the pace of the writing or the delay in publishing).

So, this is not about "trusting" an author or not. This is about know and recognise his writing style. I think it has already been identified as a "three steps" method: 1. Mention the event, 2. Explain/develop the event 3. Reveal the event. Many crackpot theorists believe that the big revelations that will come are hiding under rocks that GRRM never put in first place, that's why they believe that because character A and character B both have, dunno, long noses (yeah, random example), they are secretly the same. Has he even done this before so far? Idem for the deaths, a resource Martin has, imo, overused. Yet, pretty much every other revelation about people being death has been hurriedly solved, even in the same book, and no one who has been dead for years has returned, unless there are specific circumstances.

About this:

I can't find the exact quote (sadly), but some fans will always cling to what they want. I will never forget how, when JKR said that yes, Ron and Hermione were meant to be a couple since the beginning, that she planned it this way, in one debate, someone argued that it was their duty to make JKR, THE AUTHOR, to notice she was wrong and how she has misunderstood the characters. Yes, THE AUTHOR MISUNDERSTOOD the characters she wrote. Some will come saying exactly that. Hey, so many already come here to say that GRRM has written Dorne, Doran, Arianne, Victarion, Tyrion, Cersei and other things "wrong", even though we don't yet get the full story for us to analyse objectively. Those same might come here at the end to pretend that their expectations not being fulfilled equals bad writing and characterization. That, or some implied and subtle arrogance of pretending "I could have done better".

Thank you for your ideas, first and foremost.

The problem that de-evolves that structure is, aegon's reveal, the mention of varys switching babies in the moment without having mentioned it before. i can accept beric's resurrection, even catelyns, as she it revived from the same life force. berics comebacks happened nearly on the spot, we saw them happen int he moment, so they werent such a big deal that oh, grrm can write this and it isnt coming out of left field. Jon Connington on first read, for me, came out of left field. because his intro to us, broke down the walls that solidified death in the series, it seemed to me. jon/aegon both, and surprisingly, not beric/catelyn.

but this is not to assume just anyone can come back, though. just because thoros can do it, doesnt mean all red priests/priestesses can.

i confess being a crackpottist/elitist/etc, again particularly in the north. i dont trust whats up there and it's too cut and dry for The Others to be the be-all-end-all no reason behind what theyre doing evil nazis; but should i, at this point, believe that? is it wrong that i dont, with what we've been given thus far? it's like the whole daenerys madness concept. should i believe she's the messiah savior she wants to be, because the author wants me to believe it? or should i rightfully take everything into consideration, including her blood's history, and hypothetically theorize she'll be mad? where are we "supposed" to be at this point, i guess is all im asking. is it worth, thinking alternatively, or should i think as he intends, and be surprised if it turns out the other way around.

[Blazfemur]

^ So much this.

Correct:

1. Recognize the author's writing style. I would acknowledge grrm has thrown twists in the past, and specifically does explain "word-of-mouth" of what characters perceive through their pov, even if their perception isnt accurate to whats going on

2. Recognize textual evidence. In accordance to what character's pov's may contrarily believe

3. Form a hypothesis based upon that.

Incorrect:

1. Form a hypothesis without basis. The borderline though (see above), how much is too much of going outside what POV characters think as their perceptions collide with your own hypothesis'

2. Find vague passages that might support it in some skewed fashion. Could it, though? If characters' perception can be flawed, could a skewed off-beat oneliner be the hint we could be looking for?

3. Complety disregard the author's writing style and basic storytelling mechanics. My gripe is GRRM has thrown in surprises. It's the surprises, that anticipate yet MORE twists and turns. Where could we, as the reader, draw the line?

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Thank you for your ideas, first and foremost.

You're welcome :)

The problem that de-evolves that structure is, aegon's reveal, the mention of varys switching babies in the moment without having mentioned it before. i can accept beric's resurrection, even catelyns, as she it revived from the same life force. berics comebacks happened nearly on the spot, we saw them happen int he moment, so they werent such a big deal that oh, grrm can write this and it isnt coming out of left field. Jon Connington on first read, for me, came out of left field. because his intro to us, broke down the walls that solidified death in the series, it seemed to me. jon/aegon both, and surprisingly, not beric/catelyn.

Well, Aegon and Jon aren't that much of a surprise. At least Jon wasn't. Jon was heavily foreshadowed as being alive, despite the text said he wasn't. That's a big difference on how Jon was presented before his own introduction than Ashara Dayne who is more likely to be dead. If you compare what we were told about Jon and what we are told now about Ashara, the difference is abysmal. I already had a thread about it, you can read here, even though is more about Ashara not being Lemore, it's also about GRRM's writing style.

Aegon is a different matter, as I suppose GRRM chose surprise element over readers knowing the character and have feelings for him. Personally, I think Aegon is not as important as Jon and Varys, and he's a plot device to move those along.

[CreativeName]

A thing I'd like to add: If unsure, you could simply not believe in it. Just be sceptic about it until the time comes and it's confirmed (or not). I mean, that would be the nature of a rational mind, wouldn't it? To not believe in something until it is proven.

And it's not as if there were only two options. Example:

(1) The number of blades of grass on the lawn is even.

(2) The number of blades of grass on the lawn is odd.

You don't have to believe in any of those two propositions. You can just say "I don't know."

And regarding my Correct / Incorrect 1,2,3 thingy... :) That includes of course the assumption that unreliable narrators can be wrong. It was just an example for the basic method of how one should go about compiling a literary hypothesis. Again, if you want to be scientific about it, here is the rule of thumb: Follow the evidence where it leads. Don't lead the evidence where you want it to go.

[Blazfemur]

You're welcome :)

Well, Aegon and Jon aren't that much of a surprise. At least Jon wasn't. Jon was heavily foreshadowed as being alive, despite the text said he wasn't. That's a big difference on how Jon was presented before his own introduction than Ashara Dayne who is more likely to be dead. If you compare what we were told about Jon and what we are told now about Ashara, the difference is abysmal. I already had a thread about it, you can read here, even though is more about Ashara not being Lemore, it's also about GRRM's writing style.

Aegon is a different matter, as I suppose GRRM chose surprise element over readers knowing the character and have feelings for him. Personally, I think Aegon is not as important as Jon and Varys, and he's a plot device to move those along.

In an attempt to give meaning and definition for that way and style of writing, do you think aegon/darkstar/etc were a solution to grrm not writing as he had intended == originally 5 years into the future?

As far as im concerned, i consider ashara dead. the method OF her death, i could debate (jump or pushed), but i do consider her dead. to NOT consider her dead would be just as equivelent of questioning lysa arryn's death -- we dont have her body either, do we?

I see aegon as just a face. the face that they need to represent leadership. whether he's a targ or not, a blackfyre or not, brightfyre, whatever. he's just a face. id even be satisfied if the faith ended up ruling kings landing and aegon was the puppet to their play, the face behind their rule. it's fine.

point being, should aegon rule at some point, being introduced so late and without any reader's overly sympathetic attention? i dont see it as so. which makes me believe if he really does end up as king at some point (and he might), it really is more of a nod from grrm himself, that the throne really doesnt and never did matter in the first place.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

I will complain again about how I lost a guide I used in high school to make good book analysis. It was a very complete guide. And I complain because, the first section was devoted to analyse the author: his life, his bibliography and last but not least, the Historical Context in which the book was written and published. I think it's important to know WHY an author writes what he writes. Does fantasy authors write and create a world because they want to write about elves and dwarves? Or because they want them to represent human values/flaws? GRRM doesn't have to be any different.

People often misunderstand GRRM's views of fantasy and his writing style. He's not a breaker of tropes as much as many say (and would like). He's not some kind of plot-twisting freak enthusiast many would claim him to be. He is not writing a big clue hunting book either. GRRM is, even though he doesn't look like, very old fashioned in the way he writes, specially in his views of romance. He's different in which he tries to add some realism to the most classical tropes of medieval-like sagas, because that's something he didn't like about the books he has read, like LotR. It's not like he doesn't like LotR: he felt that there was many things that Tolkien didn't specified or left open, like the infamous tax-policies or how Gandalf should have returned changed. He's not saying JRRT was wrong, simply that he, being a more modern author with different views, would have done differently, which he's doing now.

That's where the misunderstood of his work comes from. People expect GRRM to pull things and mysteries out of his ass and he doesn't do this. He is very obvious about the things he plans to do, even if we don't notice it at first time (which it's fine, because despite the obviousness, he still can't simply put everything under the light: it wouldn't be any mystery to solve at the end). And, the wishful thinking of GRRM doing SHOCKING UNEXPECTED revelations at the end is simply paving the way for many readers' disappointment, something we already see in the reactions about aFfC and aDwD when he's not moving the plot along but simply positioning his next pieces on the board (besides the pace of the writing or the delay in publishing).

So, this is not about "trusting" an author or not. This is about know and recognise his writing style. I think it has already been identified as a "three steps" method: 1. Mention the event, 2. Explain/develop the event 3. Reveal the event. Many crackpot theorists believe that the big revelations that will come are hiding under rocks that GRRM never put in first place, that's why they believe that because character A and character B both have, dunno, long noses (yeah, random example), they are secretly the same. Has he even done this before so far? Idem for the deaths, a resource Martin has, imo, overused. Yet, pretty much every other revelation about people being death has been hurriedly solved, even in the same book, and no one who has been dead for years has returned, unless there are specific circumstances.

Great post!

I can't find the exact quote (sadly), but some fans will always cling to what they want. I will never forget how, when JKR said that yes, Ron and Hermione were meant to be a couple since the beginning, that she planned it this way, in one debate, someone argued that it was their duty to make JKR, THE AUTHOR, to notice she was wrong and how she has misunderstood the characters. Yes, THE AUTHOR MISUNDERSTOOD the characters she wrote. Some will come saying exactly that.

Except that she later said this couple probably wasn't as good an idea after they'd been fleshed out and she was forcing it since it had been her original plan.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/feb/02/jk-rowling-hermione-harry-ron-married

But I agree, fans will cling to what they want, especially in this fandom.

[Blazfemur]

But I agree, fans will cling to what they want, especially in this fandom.

I agree, and i do try to step outside what i want in terms of whats realistic, i fully admit openly my flaws and holes when im into a theory or belief. what i want, and whats realistic, obviously arent always the same. it's whats apparently realistic and what i want, that i try to stick with, when they come together.

still, such so is the basis of a hypothesis that attempts to predict what hasnt happened as of yet. can one fairly make an assumption of step 7, if step 5 hasnt been released yet (just an example)?

[CreativeName]

still, such so is the basis of a hypothesis that attempts to predict what hasnt happened as of yet. can one fairly make an assumption of step 7, if step 5 hasnt been released yet (just an example)?

Can you give a specific example from the books? I can't think of any right now. Do you mean something like this?

(1) R+L=J is a solid theory, basically canon at this point.

(2) Therefore Jon cannot be dead / will be resurrected.

(3) Therefore Jon's character arc will play a vital role in future books.

In this example, it would obviously be fair and logical to make such an assumption, because the foundation of it goes back to the first book.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

^ So much this.

Correct:

1. Recognize the author's writing style.

2. Recognize textual evidence.

3. Form a hypothesis based upon that.

Incorrect:

1. Form a hypothesis without basis.

2. Find vague passages that might support it in some skewed fashion.

3. Complety disregard the author's writing style and basic storytelling mechanics.

I don't know if it's that easy. I've seen many fans here praising their favorite character and saying how wonderful they did something or reacted and it's left me stumped. Then something happens on the show (or doesn't happen) and they explain how that scene in the book meant "so and so". And then I understand why they see the character that way. Before they shared their feelings about how the book scene was adapted (be it praise or nitpicing) I assumed they'd formed their opinion with little regard for the actual text. But afterwards, I realize it's their perception. So I don't know if it's about trusting the author and then being smart about your interpretation. It's about a reader's interpretation and that it is based on personal experience and preference and that makes people reading the same text arrive at different conclusions. But it doesn't mean one is based on textual evidence and one is without. I've come to realize that that's why there's so many heated discussions, especially if the scene has so much as a hint of vagueness to it.

Having said that, what I do notice is once the reader has formed their opinion, they do tend to cling to that opinion regardless of what the text says later. And that's when they start to create hypothesis, theories or analysis that is not as firmly rooted in the text or author's writing style.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

In an attempt to give meaning and definition for that way and style of writing, do you think aegon/darkstar/etc were a solution to grrm not writing as he had intended == originally 5 years into the future?

No idea, tbh. I think Darkstar is a response to not being able to make Edric older, but I wouldn't know about Aegon who is already a man. The thing with Aegon is that he's not doing anything, things are been done in his name by more capable people, and they wanted to first prepare Westeros to accept Aegon more easily. Otherwise, Aegon would have had to face a more united front. They needed the chaos for Aegon to look as the uniting force.

As far as im concerned, i consider ashara dead. the method OF her death, i could debate (jump or pushed), but i do consider her dead. to NOT consider her dead would be just as equivelent of questioning lysa arryn's death -- we dont have her body either, do we?

Well, the difference is that we saw Lysa's death, even though we didn't see her "land". I doubt she survived the fall (and I really hope she didn't, because that would have been awful...).

I see aegon as just a face. the face that they need to represent leadership. whether he's a targ or not, a blackfyre or not, brightfyre, whatever. he's just a face. id even be satisfied if the faith ended up ruling kings landing and aegon was the puppet to their play, the face behind their rule. it's fine.

point being, should aegon rule at some point, being introduced so late and without any reader's overly sympathetic attention? i dont see it as so. which makes me believe if he really does end up as king at some point (and he might), it really is more of a nod from grrm himself, that the throne really doesnt and never did matter in the first place.

I agree that Aegon is a face for a plot and for an intention. Aegon represents the idea that Kings are made, not born, and, as Varys said, power is an illusion. They will see a Targaryen prince because they NEED a Targaryen prince to rescue them from the evil Lannisters.

Except that she later said this couple probably wasn't as good an idea after they'd been fleshed out and she was forcing it since it had been her original plan.

Well, we didn't know that back then.

[CreativeName]

snip

I agree, subjective perception is an important factor, of course. Always. Again, it was just an example for the basic method. We could talk all day long about the small details...

Having said that, I must also add that not every interpretation of the text is equally viable valid. A reader's interpretation can be wrong. I guess the trick is to find textual evidence that is more or less unambiguous. Or a succession of different textual evidence that supports each other. That is what makes a convincing and logically consistent argument / hypothesis.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

Well, we didn't know that back then.

True. I only included the comment because I was one of those readers really questioning this couple, especially after the epilogue. But I wouldn't have said I can't trust the author. Rather, the HP series really helped me to understand how author's intent and what actually comes across on the page can be very, very, very different and I think that statement's a huge understatement for ASOIAF.

I agree, subjective perception is an important factor, of course. Always. Again, it was just an example for the basic method. We could talk all day long about the small details...

Having said that, I must also add that not every interpretation of the text is equally viable. A reader's interpretation can be wrong. I guess the trick is to find textual evidence that is more or less unambiguous. Or a succession of different textual evidence that supports each other. That is what makes a convincing and logically consistent argument / hypothesis.

I totally agree.

[kimim]

Thank you for your ideas, first and foremost.

The problem that de-evolves that structure is, aegon's reveal, the mention of varys switching babies in the moment without having mentioned it before. i can accept beric's resurrection, even catelyns, as she it revived from the same life force. berics comebacks happened nearly on the spot, we saw them happen int he moment, so they werent such a big deal that oh, grrm can write this and it isnt coming out of left field. Jon Connington on first read, for me, came out of left field. because his intro to us, broke down the walls that solidified death in the series, it seemed to me. jon/aegon both, and surprisingly, not beric/catelyn.

but this is not to assume just anyone can come back, though. just because thoros can do it, doesnt mean all red priests/priestesses can.

i confess being a crackpottist/elitist/etc, again particularly in the north. i dont trust whats up there and it's too cut and dry for The Others to be the be-all-end-all no reason behind what theyre doing evil nazis; but should i, at this point, believe that? is it wrong that i dont, with what we've been given thus far? it's like the whole daenerys madness concept. should i believe she's the messiah savior she wants to be, because the author wants me to believe it? or should i rightfully take everything into consideration, including her blood's history, and hypothetically theorize she'll be mad? where are we "supposed" to be at this point, i guess is all im asking. is it worth, thinking alternatively, or should i think as he intends, and be surprised if it turns out the other way around.

I agree about Aegon. I'm rereading now, on book three, and failing to find much foreshadowing. There's the mummer's dragon in HotU but that's about it so far.

There is also the fact that we know some kinds of magic can resurrect. Cat and Beric are resurrected. They pay a price, but it doesn't change what happens to them. Victarion is magically healed. That there's a group able to resurrect the dead and heal gangrenous wounds makes determining who dies and who lives complicated. I'm assuming that the ice folk have a similar magic, which would complicate things farther.

People can change their faces, so is Syrio alive? People can be glamored to look like other people, which is how Mance survives. If Mance can make it, why not someone else?

I tend to look at what purpose various crackpot theories serve. Does it serve a purpose for Ned, or Syrio, or anyone, to come back from the dead? If the theory serves no function, then for me it's crackpot, until proved otherwise.

[Blazfemur]

I agree about Aegon. I'm rereading now, on book three, and failing to find much foreshadowing. There's the mummer's dragon in HotU but that's about it so far.

There is also the fact that we know some kinds of magic can resurrect. Cat and Beric are resurrected. They pay a price, but it doesn't change what happens to them. Victarion is magically healed. That there's a group able to resurrect the dead and heal gangrenous wounds makes determining who dies and who lives complicated. I'm assuming that the ice folk have a similar magic, which would complicate things farther.

People can change their faces, so is Syrio alive? People can be glamored to look like other people, which is how Mance survives. If Mance can make it, why not someone else?

I tend to look at what purpose various crackpot theories serve. Does it serve a purpose for Ned, or Syrio, or anyone, to come back from the dead? If the theory serves no function, then for me it's crackpot, until proved otherwise.

most of what i theorize doesnt even acknowledge people that once were, or their return. i typically gravitate for the reasons characters do what they do. their motivation. their histories that have led them to think "yeah, this is the right thing to do, i deserve for this to happen."

Take Rhaegar. Rhaegar risked it all by blatantly giving a taken woman blue roses, when he himself was also taken. Why? What could possibly have done that.

Well, in a Daenerys chapter, she asks Barristan what Rhaegar was like. Barristan explains he was a sad individual, always brought his harp wherever he went, frequently visited the Summerhall ruins, and returned singing of tears, blood, and dead kings. The very, next, chapter, is Arya's with the brotherhood, and they meet the ghost of high heart, who says she had her share of grief at Summerhall, then charges Tom-o-Sevens a song played on his harp, in exchange for her prophetic dreams. Do I really need to connect the dots here? But such is theorized and never stated. What did she tell him? Did she push him into giving those roses to Lyanna? Out of nowhere, Rhaegar, one day looks at a book and says, "Well, I guess that's that. I need to become a knight," as if verifying something The Ghost may have told him to validate his actions.

Again, all theorized until in text, but it could be The Ghost's visions, that led to Rhaegar taking Lyanna and starting this whole thing, and if youre a subscriber to RLJ, she could have been the one who instigated the whole meeting. Not a lot of people know that or make the connection, but it's there.

[Blazfemur]

Now if I said out of nowhere after reading what I just post, "The Ghost Of High Heart was single-handedly responsible for RLJ/What Happened At The Harrenhal Tournament," it'd be utterly insane, right?

[kimim]

...

Again, all theorized until in text, but it could be The Ghost's visions, that led to Rhaegar taking Lyanna and starting this whole thing, and if youre a subscriber to RLJ, she could have been the one who instigated the whole meeting. Not a lot of people know that or make the connection, but it's there.

Wow I hadn't noticed that, but it fits. Rhaegar had a habit of changing course quickly and unexpectedly. I always wanted to know who/what caused that. Did he have visions? Was someone feeding him prophecies? Did he find a scroll? Ghost would fit.

Now Ned's alive is crackpot :)

[ummester]

GRRM's writing style can't be trusted - that's the issue. A story can get to a point where it becomes too full of potential developments and twists, too full of characters that may have something to hide and too full of questions in need of answers. ASoIaF is dangerously close to crossing that line and moving into the point of no return, such as a series like Lost did.

[Blazfemur]

GRRM's writing style can't be trusted - that's the issue. A story can get to a point where it becomes too full of potential developments and twists, too full of characters that may have something to hide and too full of questions in need of answers. ASoIaF is dangerously close to crossing that line and moving into the point of no return, such as a series like Lost did.

as a reader, should we in fact think outside of what GRRM is trying to convey, then? I think thats the question i was eluding to this entire thread. And if we're meant to question, how far do we question, before it seems that everything just turns on itself and we dont recognize what we're reading for what it is, you know?

[Kienn]

Bam, you nailed it. this, is what makes it difficult for us to "trust the author," and it shouldnt be so, am i correct?

We should trust the author.

And the author has told us not to trust him.

[ummester]

as a reader, should we in fact think outside of what GRRM is trying to convey, then? I think thats the question i was eluding to this entire thread. And if we're meant to question, how far do we question, before it seems that everything just turns on itself and we dont recognize what we're reading for what it is, you know?

Well, ultimately only you can decide that.

Some readers like to make up their own answers and some like resolution in the text. Do you prefer abstraction or realism?

Personally, I lean towards realism and resolution. I appreciate if a narrative generates questions, or leaves things hanging, when it feels like 'part of the plan'. if it doesn't feel that way, if it feels like the narrative has lost it's way, then I do not enjoy it so much.