I think I need volunteers to discuss this Top Secret Theory and determine if I should release it publicly

[Unacosamedarisa]

18 minutes ago, Megorova said:

Probably, it's something Terminator-style, with time traveling.

Given the OP's previous "theories", I think that's the wrong Arnie movie/franchise to be looking at. It's either 1988's Twins, and the theory is that the Mountain and Tyrion are actually twin brothers, separated at birth. Or it's 1994's Junior, and the Mountain is actually Jon Snow's mother. 

[Corvo the Crow]

6 minutes ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

Given the OP's previous "theories", I think that's the wrong Arnie movie/franchise to be looking at. It's either 1988's Twins, and the theory is that the Mountain and Tyrion are actually twin brothers, separated at birth. Or it's 1994's Junior, and the Mountain is actually Jon Snow's mother. 

Best post by far! This made my evening.

[Ser Jozz of House Hozz]

4 minutes ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

Given the OP's previous "theories", I think that's the wrong Arnie movie/franchise to be looking at. It's either 1988's Twins, and the theory is that the Mountain and Tyrion are actually twin brothers, separated at birth. Or it's 1994's Junior, and the Mountain is actually Jon Snow's mother. 

Gotta be the Mountain and Tyrion seperated at birth! Also that Sandor Clegane is actually Ser Duncan the Tall and got his burned face at Summerhall.

[The Map Guy]

1 hour ago, Pebble said:

I'll give you a tidbit.  It has some connection to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

 

OATHBREAKER!!!!

[The Map Guy]

Anyways, the new thread is up. I hope it was worth the hype.

And I needed the Theoryguard. They told me to edit my theory. It was originally more M-rated, now its R-rated.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

Really?  It's just more of the Star Wars twinnage stuff?  I gave up reading those a few iterations ago. 

[Corvo the Crow]

It's a decent enough read but wrong from the start. Apparently OP, who didn't want any biased show fans, is one of them himself/herself and a Targaryen fanboi that puts Targaryens in the center of everything. (S)He may even be among the people that think Targaryens were the only Valyrians.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

26 minutes ago, The Map Guy said:

OATHBREAKER!!!!

I never gave my oath.   also promises where given long before you accepted people into your council.   your oath contradicted an earlier promise. 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

5 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

It's a decent enough read but wrong from the start. Apparently OP, who didn't want any biased show fans, is one of them himself/herself and a Targaryen fanboi that puts Targaryens in the center of everything. (S)He may even be among the people that think Targaryens were the only Valyrians.

I know enough to know I don't want to read it.  still the FB running commentary was funny.

[kissdbyfire]

48 minutes ago, Ser Jozz of House Hozz said:

Gotta be the Mountain and Tyrion seperated at birth! Also that Sandor Clegane is actually Ser Duncan the Tall and got his burned face at Summerhall.

Does that mean the Mountain is a secret Targ too?

[GloubieBoulga]

52 minutes ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

Given the OP's previous "theories", I think that's the wrong Arnie movie/franchise to be looking at. It's either 1988's Twins, and the theory is that the Mountain and Tyrion are actually twin brothers, separated at birth. Or it's 1994's Junior, and the Mountain is actually Jon Snow's mother.  

And here's the proof :

"The mountain is your mother," Stonesnake had told him during an easier climb a few days past. "Cling to her, press your face up against her teats, and she won't drop you." Jon had made a joke of it, saying how he'd always wondered who his mother was, but never thought to find her in the Frostfangs. (ACOK, Jon VI)

[The Sleeper]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Does that mean the Mountain is a secret Targ too?

A bunch of them actually. 

[Corvo the Crow]

1 minute ago, GloubieBoulga said:

And here's the proof :

"The mountain is your mother," Stonesnake had told him during an easier climb a few days past. "Cling to her, press your face up against her teats, and she won't drop you." Jon had made a joke of it, saying how he'd always wondered who his mother was, but never thought to find her in the Frostfangs. (ACOK, Jon VI)

You knew it and hid it from us unwashed masses? Why?

[Lady Fevre Dream]

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Does that mean the Mountain is a secret Targ too?

 

4 minutes ago, GloubieBoulga said:

And here's the proof :

"The mountain is your mother," Stonesnake had told him during an easier climb a few days past. "Cling to her, press your face up against her teats, and she won't drop you." Jon had made a joke of it, saying how he'd always wondered who his mother was, but never thought to find her in the Frostfangs. (ACOK, Jon VI)

 

3 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

A bunch of them actually. 

 

2 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

You knew it and hid it from us unwashed masses? Why?

 

Y'All are just trying to tempt me to that new thread, aren't you? 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

1 hour ago, Lady Fevre Dream said:

 

 

 

 

Y'All are just trying to tempt me to that new thread, aren't you? 

don't do it.  its really not worth it.  save your brain cells and brain bleach.

 

[Lord Lannister]

Having read more of this thread than I probably should've, I'm certain we're being trolled. Just how much and by whom is the only question.

[the trees have eyes]

On 11/25/2018 at 4:25 AM, rustythesmith said:

He seems to be claiming that he has found something, not that he has placed it there.

Oh, I understand that.  There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of threads by people claiming to have found some great secret or unveiled some hidden mystery and I honestly can't think of more than a couple that hold up (and only one of those is a big deal).  The OP's hints that this is a hidden meta design that has potential real world consequences definitely leans me towards this being a reader's projection of something that isn't there rather than the author's intent.

On 11/25/2018 at 4:25 AM, rustythesmith said:

You have already decided that what he has found has no valid substance before you have seen it. I don't need to point out the flaws in that reasoning. I think you're well aware of the intellectually dishonest tactics you're trying to use to discredit him at all costs. 

Whether you forgive my skepticism or not doesn't really bother me but you should understand the grounds for skepticism at least.  Intellectual dishonesty?  Sweet of you but false. 

On 11/25/2018 at 4:25 AM, rustythesmith said:

All because you can't tolerate the idea that maybe, just maybe, somebody might know something you don't about a silly story and is being cautious about sharing it for fear of causing more harm than good. 

Ehhhhh.  I would be all ears for the theory if the OP had just shared it, lord knows I've read enough crackpot on this forum along with the few nuggets of gold.  Claiming absolute certainty while maintaining absolute secrecy and cloaking that with a concern for real world consequences because of the "hidden message" warrants a degree of skepticism and questioning.  If you feel differently that's your decision.

On 11/25/2018 at 4:25 AM, rustythesmith said:

Some random fan on a forum is going to tarnish GRRM and you're going to protect GRRM? Wait, isn't this the same thing you are criticizing him for? Make up your mind. Is it a worthwhile pursuit or not?

You seem a bit incoherent.  What is hard for you to understand here?  We live in a world where Salman Rushdie went into hiding under a fatwa.  I do not believe there is any hidden message with real world consequences in ASOIAF and I would rather some "code breaker" not post a load of bunk that GRRM might find hard to escape.  It's obviously hard to understand what any potential downside might be without knowing what the OP has dreamed up as the message and who might be offended by it, hence a natural tension between curiosity (and skepticism) over what the theory is and a desire that GRRM not get any grief from it.  It's pretty simple really, I hope you get it now.

On 11/25/2018 at 4:25 AM, rustythesmith said:

There you go misrepresenting again. I didn't say it makes him right. I said I tend to believe people who say they have found something solid. Those are two very different things. There's a longer explanation of my reasoning for it earlier, but in short it is because I believe it is a better strategy.

Ok, you were merely saying you believe he is not trolling us? 

Because you said and I quote "Considering Martin's diligence regarding fair play and the resulting "the truth will out" phenomenon, when somebody says they have solved something with absolute certainty I tend to believe them. It is very rare that people express certainty about any remotely complex or long standing mystery."

I hope you understand why your inclusion of GRRM's diligence regarding fair play and "the truth will out" lends to an interpretation of your statement as you believing that person had uncovered that "truth".  If you just wanted to say you believed they were sincere in their belief you could have cut that whole leading clause and started your sentence with "when somebody".

On 11/25/2018 at 4:25 AM, rustythesmith said:

The book is the cipher. ASOIAF can be analyzed in many different ways. On the surface is a narrative layer constrained by the POV's perceptions, biases, and misunderstandings. Below that is maybe a secondary narrative layer that requires us to read what isn't written. That would involve breaking free of the POV's perceptions by questioning character motivations, cross referencing chapters to find faulty perceptions, and synthesizing POVs to gain a higher resolution picture of the narrative. Below that somewhere is a meta layer that can only be accessed through faith, or rather by presupposing that there is value in metaphor. That's where narrative events transform into precedents that map how to approach the puzzles. All the layers are meant to be intelligible.

Bible Code #2 confirmed.  It may surprise you but not everyone believes there is a meta puzzle to be solved or that GRRM is really a cryptographer.  There are puzzles in the story that are meant to be revealed in story (parentage and responsibility for certain murders being the obvious ones) for which there are clues that can be pieced together or picked up on in advance (but usually much of this only snaps into focus on  re-reads, hindsight being a wonderful thing) but the story itself is not meant to be something that needs a cipher to understand with a majority of the readership not even scratching the surface.  The meta argument is a comforting argument for anyone who has a whacky theory about how everything fits together or for those who like puns and wordplay: like shapes in the clouds or the bible code if you look hard enough you'll always find what you want to. 

ETA: now that the theory is out there, does it stand out from any other theory over the years or justify the hype or was it just one guy getting a bit too carried away with his own line of thought?

[Lady Fevre Dream]

3 hours ago, Pebble said:

don't do it.  its really not worth it.  save your brain cells and brain bleach.

 

Fear not, I'm not that bored.........not yet, anyway.  Besides, I'm much too disappointed that all the new hubbub was just an extension of the Map Guy's belief in the War of The Georges, or their fans, or........some such thing. 

[rustythesmith]

5 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Oh, I understand that.  There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of threads by people claiming to have found some great secret or unveiled some hidden mystery and I honestly can't think of more than a couple that hold up (and only one of those is a big deal).  The OP's hints that this is a hidden meta design that has potential real world consequences definitely leans me towards this being a reader's projection of something that isn't there rather than the author's intent.

I lean the same way, so I understand where you're coming from. However attempting to discredit the theory and attack the theorist before you have even seen the theory is a bad strategy if you want to be exposed to new ideas, make friends or facilitate the sharing of ideas. It also impedes the discovery of truth, which is why societies take measures to curb against these emotional biases in everything from engineering to justice.

Quote

Whether you forgive my skepticism or not doesn't really bother me but you should understand the grounds for skepticism at least.  Intellectual dishonesty?  Sweet of you but false. 

I share the same skepticism. What bothers me isn't your skepticism but your lack of control over it at the expense of others. You've laid emotionally driven criticisms against an idea, the person sharing it, and mocked his concerns with sharing it. You purposely misrepresented him with phrases like "riots in the streets" and "fall of governments." You criticized his political opinions without any knowledge of his political opinions. You accused him of projecting his political opinions onto the story, and you did it all based on nothing but your own skepticism.

The community dog piled him with the same treatments and for the same pathetic reasons.

Quote

Ehhhhh.  I would be all ears for the theory if the OP had just shared it, lord knows I've read enough crackpot on this forum along with the few nuggets of gold.  Claiming absolute certainty while maintaining absolute secrecy and cloaking that with a concern for real world consequences because of the "hidden message" warrants a degree of skepticism and questioning.  If you feel differently that's your decision.

I feel the same way as you. What gets under my skin is the emotionally driven reasoning that contaminates the sharing of ideas.

Quote

You seem a bit incoherent.  What is hard for you to understand here?  We live in a world where Salman Rushdie went into hiding under a fatwa.  I do not believe there is any hidden message with real world consequences in ASOIAF and I would rather some "code breaker" not post a load of bunk that GRRM might find hard to escape.  It's obviously hard to understand what any potential downside might be without knowing what the OP has dreamed up as the message and who might be offended by it, hence a natural tension between curiosity (and skepticism) over what the theory is and a desire that GRRM not get any grief from it.  It's pretty simple really, I hope you get it now.

I understand you well. You've already resorted to a multitude of bad faith argumentation tactics. Let's not add gaslighting to the list.

Quote

You seem a bit incoherent.

Since you don't seem to understand me, let me use your terms. We live in a world where people kill each other over their interpretations of books. You've criticized the OP for merely seeking out guidance on whether or not his interpretation would cause real world problems for Martin, because it is laughable that Martin would need protection from an idea. Then you went on to suggest that we ought to censor his idea because it is worthwhile to protect Martin from the interpretation of the interpretation.

Quote

but I don't want you to wrongly tarnish GRRM with troublesome allegations that you've read in the tea leaves.  That would be beyond wrong on general principles and doubly so given this is a fan site for his work.

Does that highlight the hypocrisy?

Quote

Ok, you were merely saying you believe he is not trolling us? 

No, I'm merely saying that I believe it is due courtesy and a better strategy to behave as if he is neither mistaken nor trolling us.

Quote

Because you said and I quote "Considering Martin's diligence regarding fair play and the resulting "the truth will out" phenomenon, when somebody says they have solved something with absolute certainty I tend to believe them. It is very rare that people express certainty about any remotely complex or long standing mystery."

I hope you understand why your inclusion of GRRM's diligence regarding fair play and "the truth will out" lends to an interpretation of your statement as you believing that person had uncovered that "truth".  If you just wanted to say you believed they were sincere in their belief you could have cut that whole leading clause and started your sentence with "when somebody".

I understand how what I said can be misinterpreted that way. There may have been a better way to formulate it, but that was the best I could manage at the time. The fair play nature of the mysteries is strongly related to the reason I tend to believe that people are sincere in their belief. Those two statements can't be separated while conveying the same point, but maybe they can be reformulated. One clue tends to lead to another because Martin is diligent in providing clues, as obscured as they are sometimes.

Quote

Bible Code #2 confirmed.  It may surprise you but not everyone believes there is a meta puzzle to be solved or that GRRM is really a cryptographer.

I've been doing this for a few years now and that doesn't surprise me. I'm well aware that many people do not believe that the author is intending to provide metatextual sign posts to facilitate the solving of his mysteries. The use of metaphor isn't equivalent to cryptography.

I have a bad habit of attributing to malevolence what can be explained by ignorance, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not purposely trying to discredit me using a false equivalence. If you would like to discuss metatext more I think it could be an interesting topic for another thread. This one will have run its course soon and the topic of metatext I expect will be a long one.

Quote

There are puzzles in the story that are meant to be revealed in story (parentage and responsibility for certain murders being the obvious ones) for which there are clues that can be pieced together or picked up on in advance (but usually much of this only snaps into focus on  re-reads, hindsight being a wonderful thing)

Some of the clues to those puzzles or mysteries exist on the two surface layers. Perhaps a good example of that would be Roose Bolton's military movements that signal his shifting allegiance. At the same time, some of the clues exist on the meta layer where Martin is communicating the tricks the reader needs to watch out for by demonstrating the characters using those tricks against each other.

Those clues are often more difficult to find, which is why we sometimes don't find them until after we already know the answer and find it during a reread. But they're absolutely meant to be discoverable before we know the answer. Though not without great effort.

Quote

but the story itself is not meant to be something that needs a cipher to understand with a majority of the readership not even scratching the surface.  The meta argument is a comforting argument for anyone who has a whacky theory about how everything fits together or for those who like puns and wordplay: like shapes in the clouds or the bible code if you look hard enough you'll always find what you want to.

The majority of the readership is not interested enough in these meticulous games to devote the time necessary to play them to completion. But I think most readers do sense the meta layer, appreciate it, and engage with it to varying degrees. Much of the time I think it manifests in the form of "GRRM is a genius" which is a sentiment that I think we all share, that has deeper meaning more difficult to articulate, but that we all sense.

Quote

ETA: now that the theory is out there, does it stand out from any other theory over the years or justify the hype or was it just one guy getting a bit too carried away with his own line of thought?

The latter for sure. He has damaged his credibility in future claims of concern for Martin and I'll probably be less likely to read his theories because of it. However the ends do not justify the means.

[Reekazoid]

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 5:16 AM, Cymorococh said:

Map Guy was so preoccupied with whether they could form #theoryguard, they didn't stop to think if they should.

The Map Guy, uh, finds a way.

 

@Bael's Bastard beat me to this by a mile and a half!