Are People Taking Secret Identities Too Far?

[LongRider]

35 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

And how is he below the deck?

Below the deck?  Well, we don't talk about that.   

[Corvo the Crow]

21 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Below the deck?  Well, we don't talk about that.   

I heard his ship lacks a mast, bust be why he is rowing.

Quote

"Then why do I have this bitter taste in my mouth?" He pressed his fingers into his temples. "I told them to throw Allar Deem into the sea. I am sorely tempted to do the same with you."

"You might be disappointed by the result," Varys replied. "The storms come and go, the waves crash overhead, the big fish eat the little fish, and I keep on paddling. Might I trouble you for a taste of the wine that Lord Slynt enjoyed so much?"

 

[John Suburbs]

23 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yes but there are hints that we should suspect her in the first place. Whereas some of the other people suggested to be someone's secret ID have a perfectly reasonable backstory own their own and just don't have the same hints that we should doubt them. Lemore tells Aegon 'You are not the only one who needs to hide.'

Obviously it's possible but I would expect it to have at least some clues that the average person could decipher if they put in the effort.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. There are some crazy theories out there without a shred of support. But the fact that there are so many secret IDs at this time of war should tip us off that there were probably just as many during previous wars.

Let's imagine that we are seeing the current story through a different set of POVs -- Brusco, for example. This young girl shows up and starts working for him, and he might know she is an acolyte at the HoBaW. But he could not possibly suspect that she is Arya Stark, who he might have heard had been killed in King's Landing more than a year ago. So there would be no reason for the reader to conclude this either, even though it's the truth.

So the absence of evidence that so-and-so might be someone else does not rule it out. It just means we haven't had the PoV to inform us, yet.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

39 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

I heard his ship lacks a mast, bust be why he is rowing.

Quote

If he's the PSM, you mean a cheese doodle.

[LongRider]

3 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

If he's the PSM, you mean a cheese doodle.

PSM?  What's that?   

[Phylum of Alexandria]

2 minutes ago, LongRider said:

PSM?  What's that?   

The Pear Shaped Man. I'm lazy.

[LongRider]

13 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The Pear Shaped Man. I'm lazy.

       Ah, I get it now, thanks!

[Aebram]

On 3/1/2023 at 3:01 PM, Craving Peaches said:

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy them, but people seem absolutely convinced that all sorts of characters are secretly other characters that we've been told are dead or somewhere else and so on. I think we need to take a step back and look at how secret identities are actually presented to us in the book. They are usually made fairly obvious.

1. Being able to spell a character's real name from their false name:

• Alleras -> Sarella
• 'Arstan Whitebeard' -> Barristan

2. Clear hints as to their appearance being similar:

• The Description of Jaqen's changed face lines up almost perfectly with 'The Alchemist' who kills Pate.
• Ser Gregor and 'Robert Strong'.
• The Man in the Cave with Bran -> Bloodraven.

3. It can be reasonably inferred that X is Y because we know for a fact X cannot be X as X is dead and Y is behind it and stands to gain from impersonating X: 

• The Situation with 'The Alchemist' and 'Pate' - note Samwell even thinks there is something he mistrusts about 'Pate' giving us a hint.

4. We know X is Y because we are straight up told or shown it:

• Sansa -> Alayne
• Tyrion -> Hugor Hill
• Arya -> Cat, Beth, Mercy etc.
• Varys -> Rugen
• Young Griff -> F/Aegon
• Etc.

5. Hints in the Text strongly imply X is Y (for remaining secret identities that don't fit into the above categories):

• Bloodraven -> Maynard Plumm

So as we can see from the above, every time a 'secret identity' is presented to us, it is made quite obvious who it really is. So I don't think we should be expecting anything massively out of the left field. We should be checking anagrams and such. And when considering how they would benefit from a secret identity it shouldn't require a massive convoluted plot. It should be fairly obvious if someone is benefiting, and why they are using a secret identity, otherwise I find it unlikely. All in all I think if there are any secret identities in play it should be fairly obvious (by the standards of this forum). It shouldn't need a big convoluted explanation, it should be something the average reader willing to do a bit of close reading and pay close attention to detail can reasonably figure out, most importantly there should be hints here and there that we are meant to think it is a secret identity!

Thank you for reading.

Another theory about theories? That's two in one week, an interesting development.

Now I may need to start working on a theory about theories about theories.

[Nevets]

9 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Yeah, I get what you're saying. There are some crazy theories out there without a shred of support. But the fact that there are so many secret IDs at this time of war should tip us off that there were probably just as many during previous wars.

Let's imagine that we are seeing the current story through a different set of POVs -- Brusco, for example. This young girl shows up and starts working for him, and he might know she is an acolyte at the HoBaW. But he could not possibly suspect that she is Arya Stark, who he might have heard had been killed in King's Landing more than a year ago. So there would be no reason for the reader to conclude this either, even though it's the truth.

So the absence of evidence that so-and-so might be someone else does not rule it out. It just means we haven't had the PoV to inform us, yet.

Except that we are dealing with a work of pure fiction, so if a writer introduces a character who isn't who they say they are, it behooves the writer to give some indication that things aren't as they seem.  Otherwise, it will merely look like he's pulling stuff out of his ass.

There are two cases I can think of where a character was introduced in one book with their identity revealed in a subsequent one: Arstan Whitebeard and FArya.  Both were obviously fake with identities that could be figured out.

There are four introduced in Feast that are widely regarded as secret identities: Alleras, gravedigger, Robert Strong, and Pate.  And if Lem Lemoncloak, Septa Lemore, Elder Brother, or Sailor's Wife have secret identities, nobody will be too surprised.  There is something a bit off about them.  Everyone else is, I think, who they say they are.

 

 

[John Suburbs]

On 3/3/2023 at 9:09 PM, Nevets said:

Except that we are dealing with a work of pure fiction, so if a writer introduces a character who isn't who they say they are, it behooves the writer to give some indication that things aren't as they seem.  Otherwise, it will merely look like he's pulling stuff out of his ass.

There are two cases I can think of where a character was introduced in one book with their identity revealed in a subsequent one: Arstan Whitebeard and FArya.  Both were obviously fake with identities that could be figured out.

There are four introduced in Feast that are widely regarded as secret identities: Alleras, gravedigger, Robert Strong, and Pate.  And if Lem Lemoncloak, Septa Lemore, Elder Brother, or Sailor's Wife have secret identities, nobody will be too surprised.  There is something a bit off about them.  Everyone else is, I think, who they say they are.

 

 

Yeah, probably. I'm not sure if a lot of people predicted Faegon, though, and many readers think that's a retcon.

But personally, I don't think we can cage Martin within the same rules that we expect from other writers. That's what makes him different, and interesting. And this is why the PoV narrative style works so well: it only reveals the story according to what the characters see or know, not what an otherwordly narrator knows or wants the reader to know. But, c'est la . . . 

[Gilbert Green]

On 3/1/2023 at 4:01 PM, Craving Peaches said:

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy them, but people seem absolutely convinced that all sorts of characters are secretly other characters that we've been told are dead or somewhere else and so on.

Most of these theories must be wrong (because, after all, there are so many of them, and they contradict each other).   But some of them could be right.

Nobody is under any obligation to try to refute a theory they have no time for, or interest in.

But if a specific identity theory is presented, then "I don't have time for this and I have already settled on R+L=J, and I want everyone else to shut up", is not a rational counter-argument. 

[Craving Peaches]

8 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

But if a specific identity theory is presented, then "I don't have time for this and I have already settled on R+L=J, and I want everyone else to shut up", is not a rational counter-argument. 

It's not. I certainly don't want people to stop theorising because they are interesting to read. I just think it can get excessive if people don't put in the time to actually write a proper theory and say that X = Y because glamour magic even though it would undermine the story if it were true.

8 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Nobody is under any obligation to try to refute a theory they have no time for, or interest in.

Yes.

[Corvo the Crow]

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

It's not. I certainly don't want people to stop theorising because they are interesting to read. I just think it can get excessive if people don't put in the time to actually write a proper theory and say that X = Y because glamour magic even though it would undermine the story if it were true.

14 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Ummm... already happened several times over and really got to agree it undermines the story.

[Gilbert Green]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

It's not. I certainly don't want people to stop theorising because they are interesting to read. I just think it can get excessive if people don't put in the time to actually write a proper theory and say that X = Y because glamour magic even though it would undermine the story if it were true.

Nobody owes you a well-written theory either.  They can just say "I think Lemore is really Mellario", and if that is proven correct in the next book, they win bragging rights.  Of course, you can always politely ask them to explain and defend their position, if you're curious.

Hopefully, when the books are finally written, they will indeed be "well written".  But a theory, if it can be reduced to a verifiable/falsifiable proposition, will in the end be either right or wrong.

I don't necessarily share your opinion that too many secret identities will undermine the story.  I say, bring 'em on, George, and if your readers groan, it is their own fault for taking it all too seriously, or maybe not seriously enough.

[kissdbyfire]

X is really Y is not a theory, it’s a claim based on nothing other than “I wanna be the special snowflake who figured this out”. 

[Craving Peaches]

5 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Nobody owes you a well-written theory either. 

Nobody owes anyone on this board anything but I would think people would want to have good discussion and not spam claims that have no evidence to back them up...

[Gilbert Green]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

X is really Y is not a theory, it’s a claim based on nothing other than “I wanna be the special snowflake who figured this out”. 

X is really Y is (once x and y are defined) a proposition which is either true or false. 

[Gilbert Green]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

Nobody owes anyone on this board anything but I would think people would want to have good discussion and not spam claims that have no evidence to back them up...

A claim may be supported by evidence regardless of whether time is taken to present it in a particular context (such as a hostile demand).   But "some evidence" =/= "absolute proof", and many and maybe even most theories supported by "some evidence" will surely turn out to be wrong.  But if you like, you can just wait until the books come out, check to see who guessed correctly, and then ask "Gosh, how did you guess?"  This will save time for those frustrated and angered by the "too many theories" problem.

But of course, if you really want a discussion on the evidence supporting an unpopular theory, you are always free to ask.

[Gilbert Green]

On 3/3/2023 at 9:09 PM, Nevets said:

There are two cases I can think of where a character was introduced in one book with their identity revealed in a subsequent one: Arstan Whitebeard and FArya.

Davos was executed in Feast, and revealed to have been a fake in Dance.

[Sandy Clegg]

14 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

not spam claims that have no evidence to back them up...

“Claim Spamming” - theorising so without evidence that is laughable - has become so prevalent since the shows came out that I’ve begun to shorten the name to Clamming.