A+J=T v.9

[Weirdo]

Shame we can't discuss the new show trailer on this forum. Particularly at the 47 second mark. We've seen that cellar before.

[UnmaskedLurker]

11 hours ago, Weirdo said:

Shame we can't discuss the new show trailer on this forum. Particularly at the 47 second mark. We've seen that cellar before.

No comment (I don't want to risk getting in trouble from the mods).

[Jô Maltese]

On 9 March 2016 at 7:19 AM, Weirdo said:

Shame we can't discuss the new show trailer on this forum. Particularly at the 47 second mark. We've seen that cellar before.

You mean 47 second mark next to 51 second mark? 

[Weirdo]

17 hours ago, Jo Maltese said:

You mean 47 second mark next to 51 second mark? 

 I have nothing to say on the subject.

[Lord Varys]

Not sure if this has been brought up already at one point, but there is a hint that the mismatched eyes may actually be 'a sign' indicating Tyrion's royalty or greatness.

I'm not sure if George is aware of this but in the Alexander romances Alexander the Great is described as having mis-matched eyes, too. One light and the other one dark. That is usually interpreted as a sign for Alexander's specialness, and might indicate something similar for Tyrion.

Not to mention that Alexander's own heritage isn't clear, either. At least not in those stories. He is often described as the illegitimate son of either a god, a Persian king, or even the last Egyptian pharaoh prior to the Persian conquest of Egypt.

That would fit in quite nicely with the Targaryen story here.

[Jô Maltese]

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not sure if this has been brought up already at one point, but there is a hint that the mismatched eyes may actually be 'a sign' indicating Tyrion's royalty or greatness.

I'm not sure if George is aware of this but in the Alexander romances Alexander the Great is described as having mis-matched eyes, too. One light and the other one dark. That is usually interpreted as a sign for Alexander's specialness, and might indicate something similar for Tyrion.

Not to mention that Alexander's own heritage isn't clear, either. At least not in those stories. He is often described as the illegitimate son of either a god, a Persian king, or even the last Egyptian pharaoh prior to the Persian conquest of Egypt.

That would fit in quite nicely with the Targaryen story here.

The scientific consensus is that inbreeding is the primary reason behind heterochromia. And which House is known for their inbreeding in Westeros?

[Lord Varys]

Just now, Jo Maltese said:

The scientific consensus is that inbreeding is the primary reason behind heterochromia. And which House is known for their inbreeding in Westeros?

Really? Considering that I actually have met a guy who actually has mismatched eyes I'm not sure how to respond to that. As far as I know neither his parents nor grandparents were siblings.

But I don't know if only heterochromia can cause mismatched eye colors.

George knowing this certainly could explain why introduced mismatched eyes in the first place, and also added Shiera Seastar as another person with Targaryen ancestry (who also was a bastard) who suffered from this condition (although in her case it made her more attractive).

[ravenous reader]

7 hours ago, Jo Maltese said:

The scientific consensus is that inbreeding is the primary reason behind heterochromia. And which House is known for their inbreeding in Westeros?

Real-life genetics is not equivalent to GRRM's genetics; there's a lot of artistic license going on.  Assuming, however, that inbreeding is behind Tyrion's heterochromia, then that would be better explained by a Tywin-Joanna parentage, rather than Aerys-Joanna, because Tywin and Joanna were first cousins-- introducing the inbreeding element -- whereas Aerys with Joanna (unrelated) would have assured greater genetic diversity, implying healthier progeny, with therefore less chance of anomalies like heterochromia (or perhaps even the dwarfism!)

[Jô Maltese]

5 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

Real-life genetics is not equivalent to GRRM's genetics; there's a lot of artistic license going on.  Assuming, however, that inbreeding is behind Tyrion's heterochromia, then that would be better explained by a Tywin-Joanna parentage, rather than Aerys-Joanna, because Tywin and Joanna were first cousins-- introducing the interbreeding element -- whereas Aerys with Joanna (unrelated) would have assured greater genetic diversity, implying healthier progeny, with therefore less chance of anomalies like heterochromia (or perhaps even the dwarfism!)

Fair enough.

[Wouter]

Do we have a solution yet for the show+book discussion? Attempt to create a thread in the show forum (in general?)? Work with spoiler markings here - but I'm not sure if that would be allowed and everything would be in spoiler boxes? Move to another forum, such as  http://forums.previously.tv/forum/196-game-of-thrones/  ?

[UnmaskedLurker]

17 minutes ago, Wouter said:

Do we have a solution yet for the show+book discussion? Attempt to create a thread in the show forum (in general?)? Work with spoiler markings here - but I'm not sure if that would be allowed and everything would be in spoiler boxes? Move to another forum, such as  http://forums.previously.tv/forum/196-game-of-thrones/  ?

As far as I know, option 2 (use show forum) is the only one really permitted if we stay on this site. Moving to another site seems like a bad idea. I have been waiting to see if any new announcements on the issue are posted, but if any have been, I missed them. It is frustrating to me that the powers-that-be seem to want to ignore the issue as if it will just take care of itself (or maybe they are just waiting until the cusp of the new season to announce). But if they are just planning to do nothing and then either ignore the violations or police them as they happen, it is going to be a bad scene.

[Wouter]

The powers-that-be have stated they will not watch the show after S5 and they will not want book discussions "polluted" by show knowledge. I doubt there will be an announcement of a clear policy on book+show discussion, I fear it will be ignored unless and until it becomes a major problem.

It may be a bit early still, but I would not wait until right before the season to attempt to create a A+J=T thread on the general subforum for showdiscussion. If it ends up being rejected or deleted for some reason, we know we have to move to keep discussing it once new developments happen.

[UnmaskedLurker]

15 hours ago, Wouter said:

The powers-that-be have stated they will not watch the show after S5 and they will not want book discussions "polluted" by show knowledge. I doubt there will be an announcement of a clear policy on book+show discussion, I fear it will be ignored unless and until it becomes a major problem.

It may be a bit early still, but I would not wait until right before the season to attempt to create a A+J=T thread on the general subforum for showdiscussion. If it ends up being rejected or deleted for some reason, we know we have to move to keep discussing it once new developments happen.

Good point. I am not sure I want to set it up quite yet, but I will set something up in early April over on the show subforum and see what happens. I really wonder why "the powers-that-be" are not interested in setting up a space -- separate from this forum discussing the books and separate from the show subforum -- for those who want to use show information as part of their analysis for what may happen in the books. Why would setting up such a new subforum hurt anyone? -- and it would be a clear space for people to go who want that form of analysis. And the refusal to even discuss the issue head on and acknowledge that the issue exists also seems strange. But their house -- their rules -- and I respect that even if I don't understand it.

Nevertheless, the notion that everyone should stick to talking only about the shows or only about the books -- as if there is no reasonable basis to conclude that information from one can reasonably (even if cautiously) inform analysis of the other -- is simply describing the world as they might want it to be rather than how it really is (or at least how many others see it). But if those who have a different view truly are unwelcome here now, then maybe you are right that we need to find a new home -- although I would HATE to resort to that alternative. 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

17 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Good point. I am not sure I want to set it up quite yet, but I will set something up in early April over on the show subforum and see what happens. I really wonder why "the powers-that-be" are not interested in setting up a space -- separate from this forum discussing the books and separate from the show subforum -- for those who want to use show information as part of their analysis for what may happen in the books. Why would setting up such a new subforum hurt anyone? -- and it would be a clear space for people to go who want that form of analysis. And the refusal to even discuss the issue head on and acknowledge that the issue exists also seems strange. But their house -- their rules -- and I respect that even if I don't understand it.

Nevertheless, the notion that everyone should stick to talking only about the shows or only about the books -- as if there is no reasonable basis to conclude that information from one can reasonably (even if cautiously) inform analysis of the other -- is simply describing the world as they might want it to be rather than how it really is (or at least how many others see it). But if those who have a different view truly are unwelcome here now, then maybe you are right that we need to find a new home -- although I would HATE to resort to that alternative. 

Hasn't it always been the case that you are allowed to discuss book info in the show section f the thread is clearly marked with [Book Spoilers] in the title? I see no reason for that to change now.

 

It is a unique situation that the show now goes beyond the point where the books have currently ended, for some storylines.  And by no means can the two mediums be compared anymore, at least not so clear-cut. But the danger that now, for the first time, is present, is that people will use show-info to make arguments in the book-discussions, and that is not allowed, to avoid spoilers of any kind.

 

Discussing how the show portrays something in the show-subforum, and analyse what parts of the books do and do not fit with what happened on screen, should be fine, I think, and has been allowed previously, as far as I am aware, as long as the title of the thread makes it clear beyond question that the books will be discussed in there.

[UnmaskedLurker]

17 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Hasn't it always been the case that you are allowed to discuss book info in the show section f the thread is clearly marked with [Book Spoilers] in the title? I see no reason for that to change now.

 

It is a unique situation that the show now goes beyond the point where the books have currently ended, for some storylines.  And by no means can the two mediums be compared anymore, at least not so clear-cut. But the danger that now, for the first time, is present, is that people will use show-info to make arguments in the book-discussions, and that is not allowed, to avoid spoilers of any kind.

 

Discussing how the show portrays something in the show-subforum, and analyse what parts of the books do and do not fit with what happened on screen, should be fine, I think, and has been allowed previously, as far as I am aware, as long as the title of the thread makes it clear beyond question that the books will be discussed in there.

I think you are missing the point of what Wouter and I are discussing. We know that a discussion on the show forum of the shows that happens to bring in some element from the books is allowed (or at least I have assumed that to be the case -- don't want to talk for Wouter). Although I always thought it to be somewhat of an illogical double standard that books can be discussed in show subform but not show in books subforum, I understand the rule and have tried for the most part to adhere to the rule. But I am getting at what I think is a completely different situation.

The issue is that we want to be able to evaluate the books using show information. We want to focus principally on analyzing the book -- specifically, is Tyrion the biological son of Aerys IN THE BOOKS (i.e,. is AJT accurate) -- but use information from the show to evaluate the likelihood of AJT -- and of course, sub-issues related to AJT.

Let me give you an example. Assume merely for purposes of this hypothetical, that on the show Varys reveals to Tyrion -- after Tyrion bonds with Viseron -- that everyone long suspected that Tyrion was the son of Aerys because Varys was there the night that Aerys had Joanna brought to his room approximately nine moons before Tyrion was born. Now that Tyrion has bonded with a dragon, it confirms that Tyrion really is the son of Aerys.

I want to be able to say that this information from the show makes it highly likely that AJT is correct because it would be to big a divergence -- given the intent for basically the same ending -- for AJT to be correct on the show but not correct in the books. But I also might argue that the nature of the reveal will be different in the books because Varys is playing a different role on the show than in the books. Then others could disagree with me for whatever reasons they think justify arguing that AJT could be true on the show but not in the books. Or give their their own theories on how the reveal might differ in the books.

Such a discussion really would be principally about the books and not he show. But the discussion would not be permitted in this thread -- probably even with spoiler tags. And even if spoiler tags were permitted, no one really want to have a discussion entirely in hidden text -- and eventually someone screws up and fails to hide text that should be hidden.

But would such a discussion be allowed in the show subforum? It uses information from the show but is not really a discussion of the show, It is a discussion of the books using information from the show. And if such a discussion is not allowed on the show subforum, then "management" is saying we simply are not allowed to have that discussion on this board at all -- that it is not what this board is for. As I said -- their house -- their rules -- I respect that. But I don't have to like it, and it might force some of us to go elsewhere, despite preferring to stay here if they just gave us a space to engage in such a discussion.

[ravenous reader]

6 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

But would such a discussion be allowed in the show subforum? It uses information from the show but is not really a discussion of the show, It is a discussion of the books using information from the show.

That whole intersection -- namely show-book cross-talk, which is, as you point out, bi-directional -- is fascinating!  It would be a pity were that discussion to be entirely prohibited.  Although, at the same time, I can understand concerns that it is kind of 'cheating,' using the show's editing choices to shortcircuit a purely book-based theory construction (e.g. the absence of certain 'key' characters on the show makes one think, doesn't it..?!).  Going down that path has the potential to become tricky (and annoying) if the editing choices are used to 'prove' that certain theories are 'right,' and most importantly that one person has the 'righter' right of it than the other, and therefore the 'right' to gloat about it!  For the first time, we now have the very interesting situation whereby the 'unsullied' in future will refer instead of show purists to book readers, who have actively chosen to suspend making certain conclusions pending GRRM's slowmotion reveal instead of going along with D&D's whirlwind direction.  Given this discrepancy, it's only polite to somehow protect these 'new unsullied' on a forum platform (However, to be honest, I think I'll still be hating/on some level doubting A+J=T, even after should Tyrion ride a dragon in book or show, so maybe it doesn't really matter what is said!)  Maybe there could be the creation of some kind of 'cross-talk' subforum, so those preferring not to go there would be forewarned.

[UnmaskedLurker]

4 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

That whole intersection -- namely show-book cross-talk, which is, as you point out, bi-directional -- is fascinating!  It would be a pity were that discussion to be entirely prohibited.  Although, at the same time, I can understand concerns that it is kind of 'cheating,' using the show's editing choices to shortcircuit a purely book-based theory construction (e.g. the absence of certain 'key' characters on the show makes one think, doesn't it..?!).  Going down that path has the potential to become tricky (and annoying) if the editing choices are used to 'prove' that certain theories are 'right,' and most importantly that one person has the 'righter' right of it than the other, and therefore the 'right' to gloat about it!  For the first time, we now have the very interesting situation whereby the 'unsullied' in future will refer instead of show purists to book readers, who have actively chosen to suspend making certain conclusions pending GRRM's slowmotion reveal instead of going along with D&D's whirlwind direction.  Given this discrepancy, it's only polite to somehow protect these 'new unsullied' on a forum platform (However, to be honest, I think I'll still be hating/on some level doubting A+J=T, even after should Tyrion ride a dragon in book or show, so maybe it doesn't really matter what is said!)  Maybe there could be the creation of some kind of 'cross-talk' subforum, so those preferring not to go there would be forewarned.

I have never really understood the logic behind a rule that stated that discussion of the books are fine in the show forums but discussion of the show must be avoided in the book forums. But whatever logic there might have been completely breaks down now that the show is moving beyond the books. Recognizing, however, that many book readers don't want to be "infected" with the show, as I have mentioned in this thread before, I sent a message a while back to Ran requesting that such a "cross-talk" (did not use that term, but basically that concept) subforum be created. The silence from him has been deafening. 

[Wouter]

7 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Good point. I am not sure I want to set it up quite yet, but I will set something up in early April over on the show subforum and see what happens. I really wonder why "the powers-that-be" are not interested in setting up a space -- separate from this forum discussing the books and separate from the show subforum -- for those who want to use show information as part of their analysis for what may happen in the books. Why would setting up such a new subforum hurt anyone? -- and it would be a clear space for people to go who want that form of analysis. And the refusal to even discuss the issue head on and acknowledge that the issue exists also seems strange. But their house -- their rules -- and I respect that even if I don't understand it.

Sounds like a plan. I would also like to stay here, so hopefully it can work like this.

 

[Wouter]

7 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

The issue is that we want to be able to evaluate the books using show information. We want to focus principally on analyzing the book -- specifically, is Tyrion the biological son of Aerys IN THE BOOKS (i.e,. is AJT accurate) -- but use information from the show to evaluate the likelihood of AJT -- and of course, sub-issues related to AJT.

Let me give you an example. Assume merely for purposes of this hypothetical, that on the show Varys reveals to Tyrion -- after Tyrion bonds with Viseron -- that everyone long suspected that Tyrion was the son of Aerys because Varys was there the night that Aerys had Joanna brought to his room approximately nine moons before Tyrion was born. Now that Tyrion has bonded with a dragon, it confirms that Tyrion really is the son of Aerys.

I want to be able to say that this information from the show makes it highly likely that AJT is correct because it would be to big a divergence -- given the intent for basically the same ending -- for AJT to be correct on the show but not correct in the books. But I also might argue that the nature of the reveal will be different in the books because Varys is playing a different role on the show than in the books. Then others could disagree with me for whatever reasons they think justify arguing that AJT could be true on the show but not in the books. Or give their their own theories on how the reveal might differ in the books.

Such a discussion really would be principally about the books and not he show. But the discussion would not be permitted in this thread -- probably even with spoiler tags. And even if spoiler tags were permitted, no one really want to have a discussion entirely in hidden text -- and eventually someone screws up and fails to hide text that should be hidden.

 

Exactly. It's a pity that show-fans and book-fans tend to be at odds (sometimes to rather extreme degrees, like it's a political or even religious discussion) and many discussions that could be interesting are not pursued because fans of one medium often like to dish the other one. I consider myself fan of both show and books. I would prefer the books if I had to choose, but I'm glad the show is moving forward as Martin's pace grows ever slower and new material is such a breathe of fresh air to stale theories. It's also nice, that after years of undecided discussions, finally there may be elements which allow to say if a certain theory is right or wrong.

38 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

That whole intersection -- namely show-book cross-talk, which is, as you point out, bi-directional -- is fascinating!  It would be a pity were that discussion to be entirely prohibited.  Although, at the same time, I can understand concerns that it is kind of 'cheating,' using the show's editing choices to shortcircuit a purely book-based theory construction (e.g. the absence of certain 'key' characters on the show makes one think, doesn't it..?!).  Going down that path has the potential to become tricky (and annoying) if the editing choices are used to 'prove' that certain theories are 'right,' and most importantly that one person has the 'righter' right of it than the other, and therefore the 'right' to gloat about it! 

The problem is, the choices of the show are already influencing book-only discussions. People are careful not to mention where they get extra "inspiration", but if a character goes a certain way in the show (that may differ from where the books appear to be going or even have gone already) you will start to see "book" theories that assume what happens in the show will happen in the book. Because they cannot admit to this, the interpretation of show events (and the likelihood of similar things happening in the books at a later date) is not discussed, and rather gets treated as a given. But I do believe that S5 in particular has been shaping some book discussions, unnoticed.

[ravenous reader]

24 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

book readers don't want to be "infected" with the show

No matter how hard one resists this, it is probably unavoidable.  For example, I can no longer separate Tywin Lannister from the Charles Dance I see in my mind's eye -- and this lends a false sympathy to Tywin, which book-Tywin alone has never deserved!  Likewise, I find it difficult to reconcile book-Tyrion, who is an antisocial git, with show-Tyrion, who is infused with Peter Dinklage's deeper and nuanced understanding and compassion for the suffering of humanity (e.g. in his interactions with Sophie Turner). 

Most of all, and this is probably 'blasphemous,' we don't want to entertain the possibility, however remote, that GRRM has been influenced in any way by the show and by extension its creators, which would necessarily complicate the authority of the author.  I think most of the resistance to engaging in 'cross-talk' lies in that direction -- namely that GRRM himself may be infected by the show!