Are People Taking Secret Identities Too Far?

[Sandy Clegg]

13 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

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

This is a great example of George keeping us readers on our toes. Which GRRM is in control of the narrative in future, we wonder. The heartless god who kills Robb and Ned in their prime? Or the tricksy god who makes you believe your beloved character is dead  only to have it turn out to be a ruse?

He’s doing what all good writers do. Making it hard for us to predict the story by breaking patterns. It’s a deliberate narrative ploy.

[Nevets]

13 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

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

To me, this is a slightly different category: people believed to be dead that aren't.  Secret identity is when a character on page is really someone we're familiar with. 

For example, I suspect both Benjen Stark and Tyrek Lannister are still alive.  I do not think we have seen them yet, so they aren't a secret identity.  If they reappear as someone else, then they are a secret identity.  If they show up as themselves, they are merely believed dead but not.  

This can get tricky, especially for someone like Ashara Dayne, who is widely believed to still be alive, but there are multiple candidates for who she is now, assuming we've actually seen her.

[Alester Florent]

In respect to the OP, do I think the fandom as a whole is too hung up on secret identities? Yes. You can't move without tripping over a theory that some character is actually secretly some other character (whether one we know about or not) based on evidence that looks speculative at best.

But I suspect that the vast majority of individual readers subscribe to only one or two such theories, and probably just the most common ones. There aren't many, if any people around, who belive all the secret identity theories, and there can't be many who even believe most of them. So even the people who come up with secret identity theories probably think most such theories are rubbish. There may be a couple of crazies who believe all of them but they're a negligible number and you can usually identify them by the way that their  approach to theorising is to introduce their posts with an essay's worth of fanfiction history/cosmology for the setting - or even better, assume you have read all their previous such essays and agreed with all of them - before they get stuck into analysis of the actual characters.

So, to answer the question, are "people" taking the concept too far? Yes. Is any person doing so? Not so much.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

I agree with Alester that it's likely the effect of aggregation that makes it harder to process any one hypothesis.

As for me, there was a time when I was disheartened by a prominence of theories that I thought of as crazy, but honestly, these days I'm more likely to be disheartened by a bad faith post, a counter-trolling satire post, or someone trashing another person's take than by any given take I find to be kooky.

Such behavior comes from frustrations that are totally relatable, and we've all felt similar ones at some point. The forum makes it possible to find likeminded souls and counter-balancing arguments...but it also brings together a lot of people from all over  the world, different personalities, of different ages and points in their lives, and different reasons why they want to dig into ASOIAF content. There's going to be plenty of stuff that we dismiss as noise that comes with what we register as a signal worth tuning into. 

Maybe what's more frustrating are not the people we dismiss outright as trolls or kooks, but the in-between cases, where we want to point something out to others, but the other person just doesn't see what we see, or they insist something is there when we see nothing. But the differences depend not just on our various assumptions we all make, but what we've spent time investing in as a result of those assumptions. Given how GRRM loves mysteries, ambiguity, and rewarding re-reads, it's natural that we would each cling to different details as possible patterns, while dismissing other bits as less essential.

If you really want to convince others of any given take, do your best to make a case for it. But it's not like there's a formal institution here that is structured to incentivize rivals to accept a theory given the evidence available. This ain't a scientific community, and if people want to cling to their own pet theory, they will do so, no matter the case that's presented.

I agree with gilbert green: ultimately, on any given plot point, there will be a right answer and many wrong answers, but until those books are published, we should all accept that most of what we're pushing is speculation bordering on fan fiction. And if a discussion is not fun or gratifying to have, don't have it! 

Tl:dr: Hardly any new content since 2011 + forum = crazy forum. Try to roll with it, or maybe take a break if the rolling isn't fun!

 

[Corvo the Crow]

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

In respect to the OP, do I think the fandom as a whole is too hung up on secret identities? Yes. You can't move without tripping over a theory that some character is actually secretly some other character (whether one we know about or not) based on evidence that looks speculative at best.

 

You can't move without tripping over a character who is actually secretly some other, or at least claimed to be some other, in the books. Theories are the result of this overuse.

[Sandy Clegg]

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

but it also brings together a lot of people from all over  the world, different personalities, of different ages and points in their lives, and different reasons why they want to dig into ASOIAF content.

This is so true. And I think people forget how they started their journey into ASOIAF theorising. We’ve all at one point been convinced of things that, a year or two later, we may look back on with a tinge of regret. I’ve personally come to terms with the fact  that Dolorous Edd is not Azor Ahai after all and I’m fine with that. My approach to book analysis now is a world away from where it began.
 

But we have to allow for the fact that nobody starts out as an expert. People get an idea, they’re enthusiastic. It may be drivel. Fine. But a few years later that enthusiasm may find more productive avenues for analysis. I agree that it’s the bad faith posts and ‘anti trolls’ that can sometimes do more harm. You gotta nurture people. After all, we’re all likeminded fans deep down.

[kissdbyfire]

@Phylum of Alexandria & @Sandy Clegg, I think you make very good and valid points. But there are other points I disagree with. I think even the crackpot nutty ideas aren’t all the same. Some are interesting and well thought and researched, and I can enjoy them even if I don’t agree w/ it. Then there are other ideas that are just silly and nonsensical, poorly developed, w/ not textual support. Some of those are less fun to read, but not a major issue.Others are fun to engage with…  I’ve had some great and fun discussions w/ posters I like but disagree w/ on basically everything; I’m talking really out there ideas imo. 
But the clear and obvious trolling that at times infects almost every thread are a different thing. They suck the fun out of the whole experience and only disseminate hatred and, many times, blatant lies. And those should be called out for what they are imo. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

10 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

But we have to allow for the fact that nobody starts out as an expert. People get an idea, they’re enthusiastic. It may be drivel. Fine. But a few years later that enthusiasm may find more productive avenues for analysis. I agree that it’s the bad faith posts and ‘anti trolls’ that can sometimes do more harm. You gotta nurture people. After all, we’re all likeminded fans deep down.

I agree, but would push it even further, to all of us. I agree that wrestling with the content over time helps us get to more solid theories, but I also think we overstate the notion of expertise. 

I mean, heck, even in the actual world of science, a given pioneer tends to be right about certain things, and dead wrong on others. B. F. Skinner laid out a beautiful theory of behavioral learning, but he overextended it to language generation and utopian public policies. Jean Piaget noted how cognitive development occurred in distinct stages, but failed to account for the social and cultural scaffolds that guide such development. And so on.

Among the more famous content producers, it can be said that they have their special focus, as well as their blind spots. I would love to consult Steven Attewell for questions about historical parallels--not so much mythology. LML loves to dig into mythological parallels, but usually doesn't bother tying his various threads together into a larger theory. History of Westeros and Radio Westeros are fantastic at organized summaries of content based on given themes, but they both tend to minimize the weirder aspects of the story in favor of more conventional/naturalistic stuff. That's their prerogative, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's just that their expertise will sometimes serve, and sometimes not.

Plus, come on, we're shootin' the shit about a fantasy series, let's not get too inflated a sense of what our expertise means here! I've not immune from what I'm talking about. I've certainly had moments of exasperation, prickled pride, and outright grouchiness. That's why it's important to pull back sometimes and reinvigorate a sense of humility, and especially a sense of humor! I love all of youse guyz, even the trolls, the kooks, and the people who are dead wrong about the RGB color code theory! 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

But the clear and obvious trolling that at times infects almost every thread are a different thing. They suck the fun out of the whole experience and only disseminate hatred and, many times, blatant lies. And those should be called out for what they are imo. 

Well, I have mixed feeling about the trolling. I think that some extent of actual trolling may be a thing, but I don't think calling it out (or especially counter-trolling) is an effective way of combating it. The name "trolling" itself points to its nature of a tactic that seeks attention from others in order to thrive. My intuition is to ignore it altogether.

Another possible tactic is to try to formally engage as if they were not a troll.  That's my tactic for countering real world political trolling. Even if they are trolling, you can at least point out to other commenters what's true and false about what they're saying. I don't know how relevant that is for ASOIAF content though, because it's less about what's a confirmable fact and more about one's perception of GRRM being literal/symbolic/figurative/devious/copying the sins of D&D/etc. I'd rather give someone at least the formal grace of assuming that they're just seeing something very different from what I see than feeding the animus and bad faith that often festers as a result of such dynamics.

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Well, I have mixed feeling about the trolling. I think that some extent of actual trolling may be a thing, but I don't think calling it out (or especially counter-trolling) is an effective way of combating it. The name "trolling" itself points to its nature of a tactic that seeks attention from others in order to thrive. My intuition is to ignore it altogether.

Another possible tactic is to try to formally engage as if they were not a troll.  That's my tactic for countering real world political trolling. Even if they are trolling, you can at least point out to other commenters what's true and false about what they're saying. I don't know how relevant that is for ASOIAF content though, because it's less about what's a confirmable fact and more about one's perception of GRRM being literal/symbolic/figurative/devious/copying the sins of D&D/etc. I'd rather give someone at least the formal grace of assuming that they're just seeing something very different from what I see than feeding the animus and bad faith that often festers as a result of such dynamics.

I had a long reply… but realised this is probably derailing the thread so I’ll let it go.

 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I had a long reply… but realised this is probably derailing the thread so I’ll let it go.

 

Touche...I was hoping to troll for a while! 

[Sandy Clegg]

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

let's not get too inflated a sense of what our expertise means here! I've not immune from what I'm talking about. I've certainly had moments of exasperation, prickled pride, and outright grouchiness. That's why it's important to pull back sometimes and reinvigorate a sense of humility, and especially a sense of humor!

Gotta keep your sense of humour, above all. This thread has inspired me to post something I've been mulling over for a while now. It is utterly bonkers and will probably be laughed off this forum, but I'm just too invested now to not post it. Incoming soon  

[LynnS]

1 hour ago, Sandy Clegg said:

Gotta keep your sense of humour, above all. This thread has inspired me to post something I've been mulling over for a while now. It is utterly bonkers and will probably be laughed off this forum, but I'm just too invested now to not post it. Incoming soon  

Sounds great.  It's not easy to come up with something that might be new to some ears.  Trying to find something that isn't too complicated or won't cause conflict is walking a fine line these days.  It doesn't seem worth it sometimes.  

[Sandy Clegg]

8 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Sounds great.  It's not easy to come up with something that might be new to some ears.  Trying to find something that isn't too complicated or won't cause conflict is walking a fine line these days.  It doesn't seem worth it sometimes.  

Yeah it's a shame. Give me an ambitious, complex rambling post over a What if Ned had been born a Lannister? thread any day. As for mine, I am going to preface it with an appropriate "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Read This" warning. So there's that. 

[LynnS]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

Yeah it's a shame. Give me an ambitious, complex rambling post over a What if Ned had been born a Lannister? thread any day. As for mine, I am going to preface it with an appropriate "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Read This" warning. So there's that. 

You're talking my language.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

Sounds great.  It's not easy to come up with something that might be new to some ears.  Trying to find something that isn't too complicated or won't cause conflict is walking a fine line these days.  It doesn't seem worth it sometimes.  

Coming up with new stuff is not the hard part…here, let’s do one on the fly. 
 

Okay, let’s pay our respects to LynnS (the name and initial of my 2nd ~ gf/1st ~ love btw, not remotely flirting, just it hits me every so often when I see your name) and go Stark. 
 

What do we do with Stark? Anagram, please, what’s any good theory without an anagram. So…Skrat. Is that a word? Let’s find out. (Btw, don’t include this part when actually presenting your theory, you have to make it sound like one thought flows naturally from the next, use words like ‘of course’ and ‘therefore’ to subtly achieve this effect in the reader’s mind.) 

Okay, interesting. Wiki:

“In folklore, a Skrat is a mischievous creature often possessing gold and other riches. Stories about Skrats often revolve around the Skrat being tricked out of its treasure or else the Skrat fooling the treasure seeker by unexpectedly making the treasure disappear. Skrats can aid farmers with whom they are living, although this is usually at the expense of the farmer's neighbours from whom they steal.^[1]

In Scandinavian mythology the Skrat is a form of Myling.^[2] Estonian stories have the Skrat in the form of a dragon. Skrats can change form and appear as cats, chickens, or even humans.^[3] The Skrat is also found in German and Slovenian folklore.”

 

Skrats can appear as animals and DRAGONS? Their stories involve being tricked out of their Winterf…sorry, Valyrian grea…wait, treasure it says here. Or they can make it appear as though their holdfast/treasure has disappeared to fool their enemies?

Okay, new working theory; Winterfell did not fall, just a bit of the superstructure was damaged, but the 99/100 parts below ground are still fully functioning, as will be revealed when the enemies are tired of being fooled, and leave. Meantime the Starks are all taking other forms, Balerion, the Hound’s chicken, and of course DRAGONS. 
 

But it also says they help farmers by stealing from other farmers. Hmmm…farmers, you say? This could mean many things, and it’s an “obvious” rfer nice to the lyrics of the old song Me And The Farmer, by the Housmartins: 

 

Me and the Farmer get on fine
Through stormy weather and bottles of wine
If I pull my weight he?ll treat me well
But if I?m late he?ll give me hell
And though it?s all hard work no play
Farmer is a happy crook
Jesus hates him everyday
?cause jesus gave and farmer took

{won?t he let you go? } probably no
{won?t he let you go? } probably no
{why does he treat you so? } I just don?t know
{why does he treat you so? } I just don?t know
Me and the farmer like brother, like sister
Getting on like hand and blister
Me and the farmer

He?s chopped down sheep, planted trees
And helped the countryside to breathe
Ripped up fields, bullied flocks
And worked his workers right around the clock

It may seem strange but he?d admit
Intentions aren?t exactly true
And through God loves his wife a bit
He hates the farmer through and through

{won?t he let you go? } probably no
{won?t he let you go? } probably no
{why does he treat you so? } I just don?t know
{why does he treat you so? } I just don?t know
Me and the farmer like brother, like sister
Getting on like hand and blister
Me and the farmer

All things bright and beautiful
All creatures great and small
All we?ve got is London zoo
?cause farmer owns them all

Repeat Chorus ? ad lib to fade

 

I think the implications are clear: WF is sandbagging, it’s power to soon reveal itself. Starks meantime are pretending to be Lannisters/Grandisons/Reynes/Myatts/Santagars/Volantene jingoists and Herstons, Swyfts or possibly Gargalens. Oh, and Targaryens or Blackfyres or Vances or possibly Vyrwells. And they are going to steal from the Manderlys/Errols/Selmys/Meadows, Merritt…the Reach, basically, with the odd Butterwell here and Hogg there. Getting on like brother and sister/Hand and…blister? So, yeah, twincest plays a role, we’ll come back to that. Which Hand’s nemesis could be called a blister? Blister…in the Sun? Ah, okay, either a reference to Oberyn’s stalking Tywin, or foreshadowing a future Sand Snake and Cersei?
 

Now WF being almost entirely beneath sight is a clear allusion to icebergs, meaning therefore this fantastic section of the Sandburg poem The People, Yes:

 

"Isn't that an iceberg on the horizon, Captain?"

 

"Yes, Madam."

 

"What if we get in a collision with it?" 

 

"The iceberg, Madam, will move right along as though nothing had happened."

 

Carl Sandburg, The People, Yes
 

So, IOW, words aren’t the only things that are wind, come winter. People may all die, but Winterfell will remain, as will Westeros. We will greatly notice our own passing; those types of true existences will barely bat an eye. We’re like a fraction of a fraction’s blink to a planet. That’s the true meaning. George Carlin/Agent Smith were both right, we are a plague, and the sooner we de-infect ourselves from the beings we leech off and destroy, the better for everyone. Winter may be coming, but it’s taking it’s own sweet fucking time. 
 

So, like I said, it’s not coming up with new stuff, it’s coming up with new stuff that isn’t so far out of the box it’s forgotten what boxes look like or just recycled shyte. Happily for me even recycled theories can be fun reads, plus just enjoying the fellowship of other out-of-our-minds fans. And I guess I’m lucky because I got my membership before they added that ‘must read every word of every thread no matter how unappealing the header seems to you’ condition. 

[LynnS]

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Coming up with new stuff is not the hard part…here, let’s do one on the fly. 

That was like reading something out of Discworld.  I was hearing Nigel Planer's voice. 

Also, I was reminded of this:

 

[Gilbert Green]

On 3/7/2023 at 6:32 AM, Nevets said:

To me, this is a slightly different category: people believed to be dead that aren't.  Secret identity is when a character on page is really someone we're familiar with. 

For example, I suspect both Benjen Stark and Tyrek Lannister are still alive.  I do not think we have seen them yet, so they aren't a secret identity.  If they reappear as someone else, then they are a secret identity.  If they show up as themselves, they are merely believed dead but not. 

A man, believed or supposed to be Davos, actually was executed.  "Davos", someone we are familiar with right down to his stumpy fingers, really was executed.   Except the executed man wasn't really Davos.

I get that the entire subplot was more or less "off screen".  But it is still a identity-swap subplot, no matter how we hear of it.

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I get that the entire subplot was more or less "off screen".  But it is still an identity-swap subplot, no matter how we hear of it.

Thinking a POV character wasn’t actually killed off screen is pretty different from saying that character X is actually random character Y from the backstory. I don’t really care to argue technicalities but I don’t think those are substantively the same storytelling device or, absent very strong evidence that X = Y (like Alleras = Sarella), remotely close in probability of being true.

[Gilbert Green]

On 3/8/2023 at 4:05 PM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Thinking a POV character wasn’t actually killed off screen is pretty different from saying that character X is actually random character Y from the backstory. I don’t really care to argue technicalities but I don’t think those are substantively the same storytelling device or, absent very strong evidence that X = Y (like Alleras = Sarella), remotely close in probability of being true.

Yeah, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.  I agree that not all identity swaps are the same.  Identity-swap A is different from identity swap B.  Nonetheless, there was an identity swap involved in the execution of fake-Davos.

If you defined what you are looking for, I might agree that the execution of fake-Davos does not count.  All I am saying is that he counts as an identity swap.