What are some popular theories in the fandom that you can't see happening?

[Lollygag]

17 hours ago, Miss_Saffron said:

@Lollygag

True, but there is marked difference between revealing that Reek was Theon (or that first Reek was Ramsay Bolton) or that Lady Stoneheart is Catelyn Tully or that Gravedigger is Sandor and revealling that Cersei/Jaime/Tyrion are secretly Targaryens or that Rhaegar was hiding all this time as Mance Rayder.

Notice that in most of those examples there's the true identity established first - Theon, Sansa, Jaime, Sandor, Rodrick, Barristan, Bran, Rickon, Tyrion, Arya, Varys - and then plot causes that character to disappear and then reappear under the new identity. Even in case of Jon Connington, Aegon Targaryen and arguably Bloodraven, who first appear on page under the new identities, are previously established to exist as their true identities (the fact that Rhaegar and Elia had a son is established way before Young Griff's first scene).

There isn't previously well-established fact that Aerys and Joanna had a bastard child, who can then be introduced to the readers as one of Lannister siblings. That whole theory is based on a speculation that Aerys raped Joanna on her wedding night and extrapolating from that, that it must've happened again - since neither the twins nor Tyrion can be result of that supposed wedding night rape. And also - unlike in the case of Jon Snow - the secret identity of one parent isn't a fundament of Lannister siblings' identity from the moment of their introduction. 

But more importantly the secret identities you've mentioned are relatievely short-lived before the truth is revealed and the reveal doesn't retroactively detract from the character's portrayal. Not so in case of Cersei/Jaime/Tyrion=Targs or Mance=Rhaegar. If Cersei and Jaime are secret Targs then their incestous relationship immediatelly becomes 'inborn incest inclination' and that massively cheapens their character dynamic. If Tyrion is a Targ, then Tywin is vindicated in his refusal to accept him as his trueborn son and that cheapens all the drama between the two of them. That's stuff from a silly soap opera and I just can't see Martin going for this kind of trick. 

In case of Mance, the amount of hoops you need to jump through to justify why Rhaegar would survive the Trident and then decide to go north instead of following his siblings across the Narrow Sea is just to much for me. Also, Mance Rayder the ex-crow and self-made King Beyond The Wall is IMHO way more interesting character than Mance-Rhaegar, a wash-out prince, who caused a civil war, miraculously survived his defeat and ran to the wilderness to plot his come-back through another war - this time with a with a wilding invasion twist.

 TL;DR: I'm not saying there won't be anymore secret identities revealed, but the places fandom seems to be looking for them for the most part isn't in line with Martin's modus operandi for making those reveals. Septa Lemore, however, makes a perfect candidate for a secret identity. 

Joff, Myrcella and Tommen are all secret Lannisters. Or Hills. Whatever. They're certainly not Baratheons. He likes the device in general and uses various forms of it.

My statement wasn't to make the case for any of the usual x=y theories that are popular on here, just that dislike of the usual x=y theories doesn't mean GRRM won't use them in upcoming books which seems to be a popular fan position around here lately. Past behavior as a predictor of future behavior and all that. As for the fandom, I think a lot feeding the x=y thing has to do with mistaking literary parallels for being the same person. Mance =/= Rhaegar, but they're definitely strong parallels for whatever reason.

The only popular one that I buy (sorta) is that Tyrion is a chimera of both Aerys' and Tywin's sons. Twins run in the family. As for Tyrion being a Targ, where ever you land on that one, it can't be said that it's baseless and TWOIAF's timeline opened the door to the possibility of Tryion being Aerys' son when it could have put it completely to rest. Whether he is or isn't, GRRM definitely wants us (Tywin?) to wonder if he is. There's a thread with several versions of Tyrion being a Targ on this forum. I'd link it but the search is being super weird.

[Miss_Saffron]

4 hours ago, Lollygag said:

My statement wasn't to make the case for any of the usual x=y theories that are popular on here, just that dislike of the usual x=y theories doesn't mean GRRM won't use them in upcoming books which seems to be a popular fan position around here lately

I fully agree here. 

4 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Joff, Myrcella and Tommen are all secret Lannisters. Or Hills. Whatever. They're certainly not Baratheons

4 hours ago, Lollygag said:

 

 

True. But then discovering their secret parentage and the ongoing consequences of that fact are major factors in driving the plot from the very first book. It's not something that comes out of the left field in the middle of the story and contradicts fundamental aspect of the character. 

4 hours ago, Lollygag said:

TWOIAF's timeline opened the door to the possibility of Tryion being Aerys' son when it could have put it completely to rest. Whether he is or isn't, GRRM definitely wants us (Tywin?) to wonder if he is.

That's for sure. But the reason why Tywin is wondering is precisely the reason I'm not buying Tyrion Targ theory. Tywin is grasping at straws to absolve himself of the indignity of fathering a dwarf, because it mars the his image of himself and House Lannister. And Tyrion seeks acknowledgement he's a 'legit' Lannister. Even after his falling out with Jaime and arguably breaking off his last bond with his family, he's not all 'screw it, I don't want anything to do with anything Lannister ever again' - he styles himself Lord of Casterly Rock when he signs in with the Second Sons. Revealing him as secret Targ and giving him a dragon to ride - which I think is the only reason for such reveal at this point - would be saying 'forget about that thing you've wanted all your life and have this consolation prize - dragons are way cooler than lions and gold'. I just don't like that direction for Tyrion's character. 

[BalerionTheCat]

On 6/24/2020 at 3:28 PM, Moiraine Sedai said:

Robert's Rebellion killed a lot of people.  Has our author given us the numbers of those who died in these conflicts? 

I mean after he was king. But I don't think the rebelion killed more than Maegor. Or the conqueror. Or the Dance. Anyway Aerys was asking his head. What was he to do? But yes, his incompetence and the mess after his death, the coming of Dany and the Others will kill much more than anything else.

[Son of Man]

@BalerionTheCat

Robert and Ned could have gone into exile.  War was very avoidable. 

The worst kind of war is where the two sides are evenly matched.  It will last longer and consume more resources.  A war in which one side can quickly win saves a lot of lives and resources.  So Dany coming over with her dragons will mean less bloodshed because only a few families will be willing to fight.  She has the right attitude and aptitude for leadership.  Those lords who meet her will be impressed.  I do not expect every lord will accept her but most of them will after that first meeting.  The Starks have put all of their eggs on the Baratheon basket.  They will be one of the trouble makers but they can be dealt with. 

[BalerionTheCat]

18 hours ago, Son of Man said:

Robert and Ned could have gone into exile

Do you remember Duskendale? Aerys was mad. Robert and Ned were not guilty of anything. If they fled, it would have been Stannis and Benjen heads. Then all their houses. Maybe the Arryns and  the Tullys too. What is insane is this crazy unfit man was sitting the IT. At some point the madness had to end. What is insane is so many people died for it.

18 hours ago, Son of Man said:

The worst kind of war is where the two sides are evenly matched.

Would you think giving dragons or the nuclear power to Aerys, Viserys, Brightflame or the Young Dragon is a good idea? Read Tuf Voyaging if you don't know what GRRM thinks of war and absolute power as a problem solver.

18 hours ago, Son of Man said:

Those lords who meet her will be impressed.

For sure

Dany is a pawn. She is played by everyone in Meereen who know she will not stay and seek to occupy the vacuum of power she will left. She will be played by the Red Priests in their war against the Ice. She was played by Illrio. Like Cersei, queens of the chess board. But pawn in players hand nonetheless. This story is a game with players and pawns. LF, ASoS Sansa VI:

Quote

Every man’s a piece to start with, and every maid as well. Even some who think they are players ... Cersei, for one. She thinks herself sly, but in truth she is utterly predictable

[Miss_Saffron]

15 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

19 hours ago, Son of Man said:

Those lords who meet her will be impressed.

For sure

I see this idea of everyone bowing in awe to Dany and her dragons as soon as she lands in Westeros quite popular on this forum. I guess paper dragons are cool and paper people burning isn't that reprehensible either. But in reality, people of Westeros did live at the dragon-enforced whimsical mercy of Targaryens long enough to realize that dragons are horrifying. And then they did live long enough without dragons to develop strong preference for their absence. What they will be, when re-introduced to dragons as the tool for enforcing will of the ruler, is terrified. Some of them will bend the knee to her out of fear and self-preservation for sure, but that's not the same as them supporting her claim. And as Dany's adventures in Slavers Bay indicate, it's hard to rule, when the people you're supposed to rule actually want nothing to do with you.

She'd have little goodwill with the people. And if she would go the route of turning to progressively more brutal means of squashing the opposition (as would be inevitable, if her only plan would be 'impressing Westerosi people with dragons'), she would have another Son's of the Harpy shadow warfare to deal with. Perhaps this time it will be Children of the Weirwoods employing hit and run tactics and covert assassinations against her regime. (Actually, I would low-key want to see that. Not that I wish - or think - that Dany will turn that much of a tyrant, but Arya and Bran leading covert rebellion against the dragon queen, and Sansa as Lady of Winterfell plays docile pawn while secretly supplying the rebels with intel and provisions, would be fun  ).

TL;DR Dany would need - and probably would have - a better plan for taking over Westeros than 'impressing people with her dragons' into immediate awe and submission. 

22 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Read Tuf Voyaging if you don't know what GRRM thinks of war and absolute power as a problem solver.

Actually, reading ASOIAF with any sort of attention should suffice. Ruling by fear and brute force doesn't actually work long-term for anybody in the story. 

[Pontius Pilate]

1 hour ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Do you remember Duskendale? Aerys was mad. Robert and Ned were not guilty of anything. If they fled, it would have been Stannis and Benjen heads. Then all their houses. Maybe the Arryns and  the Tullys too. What is insane is this crazy unfit man was sitting the IT. At some point the madness had to end. What is insane is so many people died for it.

 

Dany is a pawn. She is played by everyone in Meereen who know she will not stay and seek to occupy the vacuum of power she will left. She will be played by the Red Priests in their war against the Ice. She was played by Illrio. Like Cersei, queens of the chess board. But pawn in players hand nonetheless. This story is a game with players and pawns. LF, ASoS Sansa VI:

Whether Robert and Ned were guilty of anything is up for debate.  A lot of the readers think their families were plotting against Aerys.  I am one of them.  Aerys spared the lives of Dontos and Brandon's squire.  So I do not think he would have done anything against the younger members of those families if Robert and Eddard had done into exile.  And no, it is not insane for Aerys to be the ruler.  This is their system, not ours.  If Brandon had been half-crazed, yes, he would still have become the Lord of Winterfell.  Sweet Robin is not exactly right upstairs but it does not change the fact that he is the heir of Jon Arryn and entitled according to their laws to govern the Vale.  Robert was bankrupting the realm and nobody told him to step down.  The fact is, Aerys had the right to rule the Seven Kingdoms.  And for the most part the kingdom prospered under his reign.  The reason does not matter.  Maybe he got lucky and appointed the right people in his council.  Luck might have also played a part in having an awesome Kingsguard.   It doesn't matter.  The realm prospered under his rule.  The realm suffered under the Baratheons, Starks, and Lannisters.  The realm was better off under Aerys.  

Daenerys is not a pawn.  She took advantage of her time with the Dothraki to advance herself.  She chose her own way instead of following their custom.  Daenerys chooses her own way.  I like that about her.  Westeros would be lucky to have her on the throne.  

20 hours ago, Son of Man said:

@BalerionTheCat

Robert and Ned could have gone into exile.  War was very avoidable. 

The worst kind of war is where the two sides are evenly matched.  It will last longer and consume more resources.  A war in which one side can quickly win saves a lot of lives and resources.  So Dany coming over with her dragons will mean less bloodshed because only a few families will be willing to fight.  She has the right attitude and aptitude for leadership.  Those lords who meet her will be impressed.  I do not expect every lord will accept her but most of them will after that first meeting.  The Starks have put all of their eggs on the Baratheon basket.  They will be one of the trouble makers but they can be dealt with. 

Perhaps.  That is the reason why the War of the Five Kings is so devastating.  None of the parties can win outright and so it continued.  The red wedding finally put the nail in the coffin of the Starks and that at least took care of one problem.  The Iron Born continues to be a problem though.  Doran and the Martells are itching for a fight.  Etc.

[frenin]

30 minutes ago, Pontius Pilate said:

Whether Robert and Ned were guilty of anything is up for debate

It really isn't.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Pontius Pilate said:

A lot of the readers think their families were plotting against Aerys.  I am one of them

Even if their families were plotting, they were not, Ned and Robert hadn't done anything.  Guilt shouldn't be collective.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Pontius Pilate said:

And no, it is not insane for Aerys to be the ruler.  This is their system, not ours. 

It's insane that a crazy tyrant remains in power.

 

 

33 minutes ago, Pontius Pilate said:

So I do not think he would have done anything against the younger members of those families if Robert and Eddard had done into exile. 

Why not, he was already targetting innocent people.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Pontius Pilate said:

The fact is, Aerys had the right to rule the Seven Kingdoms.

And lost it.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Pontius Pilate said:

Robert was bankrupting the realm and nobody told him to step down. 

You're confusing mismanagement with tyranny.

 

 

[BalerionTheCat]

4 hours ago, Miss_Saffron said:

Actually, reading ASOIAF with any sort of attention should suffice. Ruling by fear and brute force doesn't actually work long-term for anybody in the story. 

Yes, but 300 years of ruling by fire and blood don't seem to have caught the attention of some. They enjoy and ask for more.

[Roswell]

57 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Yes, but 300 years of ruling by fire and blood don't seem to have caught the attention of some. They enjoy and ask for more.

House Targaryen had dragons for only  fraction of the 300 years of their glorious reign.  The people evidently recognized them as their legitimate rulers. 

4 hours ago, Pontius Pilate said:

Perhaps.  That is the reason why the War of the Five Kings is so devastating.  None of the parties can win outright and so it continued.  The red wedding finally put the nail in the coffin of the Starks and that at least took care of one problem.  The Iron Born continues to be a problem though.  Doran and the Martells are itching for a fight.  Etc.

The reason the war started in the first place is b/c of the lack of a strong central power.  There was a power vacuum after Robert died.  Tywin tried to pick up the pieces but he was not a king.  Many of our friends here admire Tywin Lannister.  I grant them this.  He was a capable man on the whole.  But his lack of ethics would have made sure the bitter feelings lasted for many decades to come.  Forcing the marriage of his son to an heir of the North will not quell the resentment from the northern people. Balon and the Greyjoys should have been removed from power.  Robert left that thread loose.  I do not support killing a person just because they are a possible threat in the future.  It is different with Balon.  He has already been shown rebelling.  I would have taken him off the Seastone chair and sent to the wall. 

[Hodor the Articulate]

Here's a controversial one: Westeros splitting back into petty kingdoms.

I think the message of the series has been unity, and having Westeros divided is antithetical to that.

[BalerionTheCat]

9 hours ago, Roswell said:

their glorious reign

Bloody glorious. War at nearly each generation. Their own feuds, madness, insanity as often as not.

9 hours ago, Roswell said:

The people evidently recognized them as their legitimate rulers.

No.  The conqueror was a burglar and murderer. He came into their houses and said: "gimme all you have or I'll kill you all". Houses some had built maybe 10 millennia ago. It was not a choice. Then he pretend the people were his, to do as he wanted. As much as the slavers his fathers were.

[BalerionTheCat]

1 hour ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I think the message of the series has been unity, and having Westeros divided is antithetical to that.

As Ned's "the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives". Or Mance uniting the Free Folk to cross the Wall. But it must be a choice coming from people needing to stick together to face a problem. Not something forced on them by war and conquest. The 7K is a failure.

I believe the message would rather be: "absolute power leads to wars each time the center of power moves". And the bigger the power, the bigger the casualties.

[Big P]

4 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Here's a controversial one: Westeros splitting back into petty kingdoms.

I think the message of the series has been unity, and having Westeros divided is antithetical to that.

I have to agree.   Those who would break that unity (Balon, Robb Stark, Mance, and Jon) have done more harm than good.

[Big P]

3 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

As Ned's "the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives". Or Mance uniting the Free Folk to cross the Wall. But it must be a choice coming from people needing to stick together to face a problem. Not something forced on them by war and conquest. The 7K is a failure.

I believe the message would rather be: "absolute power leads to wars each time the center of power moves". And the bigger the power, the bigger the casualties.

And I think the majority would choose to unite and be one kingdom.  Don't forget, the majority are non-nobles.  The common people.  They cheered for Aegon the Conqueror and they will cheer for his descendant, the young Queen Daenerys too.   The Great Lords may not want unity because it demotes them to lord status but their voices should not drown out the majority, which are the common people. 

[frenin]

1 minute ago, Big P said:

And I think the majority would choose to unite and be one kingdom.  Don't forget, the majority are non-nobles.  The common people.  They cheered for Aegon the Conqueror and they will cheer for his descendant, the young Queen Daenerys too.   The Great Lords may not want unity because it demotes them to lord status but their voices should not drown out the majority, which are the common people. 

Lmao, the common were even cheering for Robb Stark who was seceding. Commoners cheer at practically everything but they love whoever give them peace, bread and a bit of fun. 

[Big P]

8 minutes ago, frenin said:

Lmao, the common were even cheering for Robb Stark who was seceding. Commoners cheer at practically everything but they love whoever give them peace, bread and a bit of fun. 

Only the northmen and the rivermen were cheering for Robb Stark.  And most of that company were angry at the Lannisters.  That is not a good example.  They do not even come close to majority. 

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Big P said:

Only the northmen and the rivermen were cheering for Robb Stark.  And most of that company were angry at the Lannisters.  That is not a good example.  They do not even come close to majority. 

No?? Right before the riot, people were cheering for "King Robb, King Stannis" etc, then they began cheering for King Bread.

A tumult of sound drowned his last words, a rolling thunder of rage and fear and hatred that engulfed them from all sides. "Bastard!" someone screamed at Joffrey, "bastard monster." Other voices flung calls of "Whore" and "Brotherfucker" at the queen, while Tyrion was pelted with shouts of "Freak" and "Halfman." Mixed in with the abuse, he heard a few cries of "Justice" and "Robb, King Robb, the Young Wolf," of "Stannis!" and even "Renly!" From both sides of the street, the crowd surged against the spear shafts while the gold cloaks struggled to hold the line. Stones and dung and fouler things whistled overhead. "Feed us!" a woman shrieked. "Bread!" boomed a man behind her. "We want bread, bastard!" In a heartbeat, a thousand voices took up the chant. King Joffrey and King Robb and King Stannis were forgotten, and King Bread ruled alone. "Bread," they clamored. "Bread, bread!"

 

Just because a bunch of fishermen cheer for Aegon doesn't mean that the country love him. Hell It doesn't even mean that they know what they are cheering at.

Cersei Lannister also got cheered too in her wedding and the kingslanders hate the Lannisters.

[Rose of Red Lake]

Unity for unity's sake is pretty stupid. People don't try to resolve wars between countries by saying, oh my gosh we need one single world government to end it! Ever heard of alliances?

You can still have separate countries - what matters is that they aren't going to war with each other and work together to achieve common objectives. And as the Targaryen dynasty illustrates, just uniting them didn't end the fighting.

 Diplomacy and respect for other people's sovereignty is important.

[Rose of Red Lake]

7 hours ago, Big P said:

I have to agree.   Those who would break that unity (Balon, Robb Stark, Mance, and Jon) have done more harm than good.

What if they all unite to kick Dany out of Westeros. Surely you're prepared for the cognitive dissonance?