The Most Laughable and Worst ASOIAF Theories and Takes

[The Bard of Banefort]

Anything that requires GRRM to have the sensibilities of a modern 20-something. No, the Unkiss is not a coping mechanism for trauma. If it was, then why doesn’t Sansa fantasize about Littlefinger and Joffrey too? A lot of people just can’t accept that a book series they love contains a lot of material that is now considered problematic. Don’t expect him to write Rhaegar and Lyanna as anything short of a straightforward love story either.

[GZ Bloodraven]

People who get frustrated with some people being uncomfortable with the absurd amount of incest, pedophilia and sexual violence. These are all very taboo topics, and if GRRM was less savvy (and some people think he is less savvy), they would not work. As is, I personally think he navigates them all with an appreciation for the fundamental absurdity of the human condition that I really really appreciate, but people who get mad at those that do not think GRRM is savvy in his discussion of these topics is laughable. 

[The Bard of Banefort]

On 3/21/2023 at 2:31 AM, GZ Bloodraven said:

People who get frustrated with some people being uncomfortable with the absurd amount of incest, pedophilia and sexual violence. These are all very taboo topics, and if GRRM was less savvy (and some people think he is less savvy), they would not work. As is, I personally think he navigates them all with an appreciation for the fundamental absurdity of the human condition that I really really appreciate, but people who get mad at those that do not think GRRM is savvy in his discussion of these topics is laughable. 

In this respect, George is very much an old-school liberal: he writes about taboos for the hell of it, which used to be normal for writers/artists, and not as a moral critique. I really don’t think he’s trying to teach us a lesson about the perils of incest; it’s not exactly a pressing issue. (If anything, the real-world commentary he provides is usually about issues he was passionate about growing up, like the military draft). The consensus used to be that George was purposefully “challenging the audience,” like he was an ethics professor or something, but as more people are coming around to the idea that he’s an entertainer, not a teacher, it’s only natural that there’s going to be more debate about whether you find the taboos fun or excessive.

In George’s defense, I think one of the reasons why people don’t see him as a Quentin Tarantino-esque nihilist is because of a) his empathy, and b) his romanticism. I think the fact that most of his main characters aren’t lechers is more of an unconscious draw for this series than it’s credited for. For a series that talks so much about bastards, almost all of the heroes are lifelong monogamists. There’s surprisingly little womanizing. And if the person you’re in love with just so happens to be your sister, well, so be it.

[SeanF]

On this, I agree with Oscar Wilde that books aren’t moral or immoral.  They’re well written or badly written.

[csuszka1948]

On 3/26/2023 at 4:35 AM, The Bard of Banefort said:

The consensus used to be that George was purposefully “challenging the audience,” like he was an ethics professor or something, but as more people are coming around to the idea that he’s an entertainer, not a teacher, it’s only natural that there’s going to be more debate about whether you find the taboos fun or excessive.
In George’s defense, I think one of the reasons why people don’t see him as a Quentin Tarantino-esque nihilist is because of a) his empathy, and b) his romanticism.

 

Yes, I feel a large portion of the fandom thought (and still thinks to a degree), that GRRM is a 'moralizer' who wants to impart hidden lessons in his writing, when he is much more of a Romanticist.

He said that he admired Gatsby and in Fevre Dream one of his protagonists Joshua York sacrifices countless humans in his pursuit of the cure of red thirst and to unite the vampire race under his reign, he eventually succeeds and the story presents him as a hero.
 

[Tyrosh Lannister]

Someone on Reddit was confident that Aegon the conqueror had a direwolf. When someone asked him to provide proof he said there's no mention of him not having any direwolves. 

[Craving Peaches]

There was a reddit post on how if R + L = J, Jon would still be called Aegon in the books as well as in the other medium, which just makes no sense to me. Why would Rhaegar name Jon 'Aegon', when his other son, still alive when he last leaves the Tower, is already called Aegon, and he is possibly expecting a 'Visenya' to complete the trio? If Lyanna named Jon, why would she chose Aegon? Also, there is another 'secret Targaryen' already called Aegon, why would GRRM call Jon 'Aegon'?

Edited August 14, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[Alester Florent]

10 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

There was a reddit post on how if R + L = J, Jon would still be called Aegon in the books as well as in the other medium, which just makes no sense to me. Why would Rhaegar name Jon 'Aegon', when his other son, still alive when he last leaves the Tower, is already called Aegon, and he is possibly expecting a 'Visenya' to complete the trio? If Lyanna named Jon, why would she chose Aegon? Also, there is another 'secret Targaryen' already called Aegon, why would GRRM call Jon 'Aegon'?

Yeah, it doesn't make much sense to me either. I suppose Lyanna could have called him Aegon knowing that his brother was dead and trying to transfer the prophecy effect to him?

My guess would be that he would be called Viserys if Rhaegar chose the name, but he probably didn't if he was expecting a girl. Lyanna could have called him anything, even Rhaegar (but including Jonaerys, which would be hilarious).

We can probably assume she gave him a Targ name rather than a Stark one at least (no Brandon, Rickard, etc.) as otherwise Ned would have no reason to conceal the name, and Jon is pretty obviously Ned's choice.

[SeanF]

12 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

Yes, I feel a large portion of the fandom thought (and still thinks to a degree), that GRRM is a 'moralizer' who wants to impart hidden lessons in his writing, when he is much more of a Romanticist.

He said that he admired Gatsby and in Fevre Dream one of his protagonists Joshua York sacrifices countless humans in his pursuit of the cure of red thirst and to unite the vampire race under his reign, he eventually succeeds and the story presents him as a hero.
 

I don’t doubt that Martin hugely sympathises with Robb Stark, and expects the readers to, notwithstanding the harm that his soldiers caused to the smallfolk.

While I think he carefully presents both sides of the argument, as between Dany and Mirri Maz Duur, I don’t have the impression that he considers Khal Drogo to be in any way a villain, but instead a loving husband who respected his wife.

I’d dismiss the fan theories that Dany’s anti-slavery campaign is a deliberate bait and switch by the author, with the big reveal being that the slavers are heroes in their own stories, and Dany a villain all along.

And if people have to die, for the Starks to regain the North, I doubt if that will diminish his fondness for them.

[Ser Arthurs Dawn]

On 2/16/2023 at 2:02 PM, Lady Stonehearts Simp said:

I got another bad one!

That Bran will warg into Hodor and SA Meera. 

I was about to add this one, but then I went back and read through the first page's thread and saw your comment, so thank you!! This is one that I absolutely hate with all of my heart.

[csuszka1948]

37 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I don’t doubt that Martin hugely sympathises with Robb Stark, and expects the readers to, notwithstanding the harm that his soldiers caused to the smallfolk.

 

Yes, I agree. He puts a bit of 'realism' and "war is bad for the smallfolk, whether Starks and Lannisters" into it, but he doesn't place a moral judgement on Robb.

37 minutes ago, SeanF said:

While I think he carefully presents both sides of the argument, as between Dany and Mirri Maz Duur, I don’t have the impression that he considers Khal Drogo to be in any way a villain, but instead a loving husband who respected his wife.

 

Honestly, GRRM's portrayal of the Dothraki was always baffling to me. They are presented as 2-dimensional raping pillaging slaving hordes, and at the same time we are supposed to see Khal Drogo as a positive example.

They would have definitely needed more depth - maybe not as much as the wildlings in Jon's story, but close to it, because they were going to be important in Dany's story.

37 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I’d dismiss the fan theories that Dany’s anti-slavery campaign is a deliberate bait and switch by the author, with the big reveal being that the slavers are heroes in their own stories, and Dany a villain all along.

 

 

Well, "Dany has been a villain all along just we didn't see because POV bias" is a popular take in Quora.

 

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

Yes, I agree. He puts a bit of 'realism' and "war is bad for the smallfolk, whether Starks and Lannisters" into it, but he doesn't place a moral judgement on Robb.

Honestly, GRRM's portrayal of the Dothraki was always baffling to me. They are presented as 2-dimensional raping pillaging slaving hordes, and at the same time we are supposed to see Khal Drogo as a positive example.

They would have definitely needed more depth - maybe not as much as the wildlings in Jon's story, but close to it, because they were going to be important in Dany's story.

Well, "Dany has been a villain all along just we didn't see because POV bias" is a popular take in Quora.

 

After all, he loves Tyrion.

[Craving Peaches]

12 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

in Quora

Quora is, in my experience, mostly a cesspit. It is full of all these pseudointellectuals claiming to be CEOs or whatnot and sharing their 'special' political views with everyone, including in unrelated questions.

[kissdbyfire]

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

There was a reddit post on how if R + L = J, Jon would still be called Aegon in the books as well as in the other medium, which just makes no sense to me. Why would Rhaegar name Jon 'Aegon', when his other son, still alive when he last leaves the Tower, is already called Aegon, and he is possibly expecting a 'Visenya' to complete the trio? If Lyanna named Jon, why would she chose Aegon? Also, there is another 'secret Targaryen' already called Aegon, why would GRRM call Jon 'Aegon'?

That one is or was popular around here too. Never made much sense to me for the reason you’ve given plus the fact that we have Martin saying that Ned named Jon. The mental gymnastics then is that Ned named him Jon not knowing he’d been named Aegon or to deliberately hide his Targness. I know the abomination used it, and at the time thought that it was something they’d read here. Same as coming up w/ the correct answer to Martin’s question about Jon’s parentage, something that, IMO, they learned here. The only difference is that Lyanna being Jon’s mother has lots of textual support whereas the Aegon VI.B hasn’t but probably looked “cool” or something. 

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

That all of the Dornish are evil because the actions of a few individuals. 

Any other "theory" that likewise to impart large brackets of negativity toward a group of people, or honestly just paints in to large of strokes. GRRM is a talented writer and he doesn't write like a children's books authors like these kind of theories seem to suggest. 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Lord of Raventree Hall

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

On 8/14/2023 at 9:41 AM, csuszka1948 said:

Yes, I feel a large portion of the fandom thought (and still thinks to a degree), that GRRM is a 'moralizer' who wants to impart hidden lessons in his writing, when he is much more of a Romanticist.

He said that he admired Gatsby and in Fevre Dream one of his protagonists Joshua York sacrifices countless humans in his pursuit of the cure of red thirst and to unite the vampire race under his reign, he eventually succeeds and the story presents him as a hero.
 

Don't you dare come after my beloved Joshua York like that.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Lord of Raventree Hall

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

On 8/14/2023 at 10:06 PM, Craving Peaches said:

There was a reddit post on how if R + L = J, Jon would still be called Aegon in the books as well as in the other medium, which just makes no sense to me. Why would Rhaegar name Jon 'Aegon', when his other son, still alive when he last leaves the Tower, is already called Aegon, and he is possibly expecting a 'Visenya' to complete the trio? If Lyanna named Jon, why would she chose Aegon? Also, there is another 'secret Targaryen' already called Aegon, why would GRRM call Jon 'Aegon'?

Shouldn't Jon's name be Visen-ion? lol. Visengar. Visenon. Visenyaeon. Visenyar. Visenyes

[Tyrosh Lannister]

1 hour ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

That all of the Dornish are evil because the actions of a few individuals. 

Any other "theory" that likewise to impart large brackets of negativity toward a group of people, or honestly just paints in to large of strokes. GRRM is a talented writer and he doesn't write like a children's books authors like these kind of theories seem to suggest. 

Who is saying all dornish are evil ? 

[KingAerys_II]

Triggered by my thread, yeah?
The wedding of Alys Oakheart.
The raids made by the Second Vulture King in the surrounding kingdoms to rape women.
The fourth dornish war when Prince Morion promised to burn one hundred villages in the Stormlands with his fleet of myrish pirates.
Aemon Targaryen captured, stripped naked in a crow cage and exposed on a pit of vipers.
The raids encourage by Aliandra Martell.
Myrcella mutilated, the plan of the Sand Snakes to kill the Lannister children, Theon was a hostage of the Starks, never suffered mutilations.
You can tell whatever you want but there are not similar accounts in the Reach, Riverlands, Crownlands, Stormlands and the Vale, comparable heinous acts were made by worst scum of Westeros.

My thread never stated that "all dornish are evil", but the point was that Dorne is as brutal as the North, in some aspects it's even worse

[Ser Arthurs Dawn]

31 minutes ago, KingAerys_II said:

You can tell whatever you want but there are not similar accounts in the Reach, Riverlands, Crownlands, Stormlands and the Vale, comparable heinous acts were made by worst scum of Westeros.

My thread never stated that "all dornish are evil", but the point was that Dorne is as brutal as the North, in some aspects it's even worse

None of us got that though. Your original complaint was that fans are biased towards Dorne (at least, that's what you insinuated the thread would be about in your title), but then you just kept comparing Dorne to the Targaryens, Aegon I to Nymeria. I'm not aware of any Dornish/Martell fans erasing any wrongs the Dornish have committed. I haven't noticed them being whitewashed by readers. Maybe you've seen it, but it must be pretty rare. People like Dorne because they're unique. They have an intriguing history, a somewhat different culture and lifestyle than the rest of Westeros, they're passionate and strong, resilient and hard, and they managed to do the one thing the rest of Westeros failed or declined to do. They survived Aegon's conquest and remained an independent kingdom. That's an admirable feat. 

We all know and are aware that Dorne is willing to get dirty when it comes to the defense of their kingdom. And, yes, like many other regions, some houses went too far and committed atrocious acts. But you only seem irked when such atrocious acts were aimed at Targaryen forces specifically. So it was evident to all of us that you were complaining about Dorne because you're mad that Aegon I and his successors failed to conquer Dorne by burning them all to a crisp. Stop acting like you weren't being biased and unfair.

All you did was a reverse of what you accused Dorne fans of doing. You whitewashed Targs and defended their "noble reasons" bullcrap and shit on the Dornish for aggressively retaliating to an aggressive conquest.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Ser Arthurs Dawn