Are People Taking Secret Identities Too Far?

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

10 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

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.

When people debate secret identity theories, they’re generally talking about situations where we are introduced to a seemingly new character in the text and the theory is either a) it’s another character we’ve met before in disguise (e.g. Arstan Whitebeard) or b) it’s a character who’s been mentioned in the story or backstory but never appeared in the main series (e.g. JonCon). Your example is one where the reader is told a character (in this case a random dead guy) is actually someone we know, in this instance a POV character who was alive the last we saw.

Technically an identity swap or no, it’s not really relevant to analyzing the likelihood of scenarios covered by a) or b) above.

[Alester Florent]

I think ATaleofSaltandOnions has it right. While there are a lot of things in the text we could call "secret identities" in fact there are a number of discrete scenarios going on:

1) One named character assumes a false name and identity for whatever reason. The reader is aware that they're doing this throughout.

2) One named character is actually another named character, and the reader is not aware of this until it is revealed.

3) One named character is not who they say they are, and this is made sufficiently obvious to any reader paying attention that they are expected to be aware of this, even if they don't know for sure who the character really is.

4) A character is honestly presenting in who they say they are, but they have a secret origin story unknown even to themselves. The reader may or may not be aware, but is usually aware that there are unanswered questions.

5) is the "fakeout death" scenario, which I am loath to include because I think it's really a different literary device altogether (unreliable narration). But technically I suppose what we have here is an offpage substitution of an unnamed character for a named one.

Type 1: Sansa/Alayne, Arya/Arry etc, Tyrion/Hugor Hill, Mance/Abel, Cat/Lady Stoneheart, Jeyne Poole/Arya (Aegon/Egg)

Type 2: Ramsay/Reek, Mance/Rattleshirt, Barristan/Arstan

Type 3: Ser Robert Strong, Pate, Alleras, Rugen, Rorge impersonating the Hound, the Shy Maid crew

Type 4 : Jon Snow, Cersei's children, Mya Stone, Gendry, Bella

Type 5: Davos at White Harbour, Bran and Rickon at Winterfell

 

We could try to lump some of these together, but I think the key distinction is one where the trick is on the reader, and ones where the trick is on the characters. Type 2 and some of 4 are the former, types 1, 3 and most of 4 are the latter. As I say I would really rather leave Type 5 out of it altogether, but they are also of the former type.

Now, most secret identity theories are of Type 2, with some pure Type 4s, but all the 4s are of the former (i.e. deceiving the reader) type. Type 1s are out for obvious reasons; we see the occasional attempt at a 3, but generally the obtuseness of the evidence is an obstacle in this classification and it's actually a 2 or a 4 masquerading as a 3.. Where there are Type 5s, they are almost always combined with a Type 2 (e.g. Qhorin Halfhand is Arthur Dayne; Daario is Ned Stark).

But of the various secret identities we see confirmed within the books to date, these types are rather less common than those of Type 1, 3, and the latter type of 4. In fact, at least of the Type 2s I can remember, they occur only at an average of about once per book, and sometimes don't last very long, with only Barristan retaining his secret identity beyond the first book in which his alter ego appeared.

There's a reason for this, and it's that while the occasional twist is a good way to keep readers engaged, too many pure surprises are alienating. In film school, they say suspense is more effective than surprise. Pulling the rug from under the reader and revealing that everything they thought they knew is wrong is a high-risk strategy and only really works when it's been sufficiently seeded, generally in some kind of mystery story where the reader/watcher is expecting to be misled and misdirected (e.g. The Usual Suspects, the good films of M. Night Shyamalan, etc.)

Even Ramsay's reveal, the most significant and most dramatic of the "out of nowhere" secret identity uncoverings, was more of a rug-pull on Theon than it was on the reader.

People may criticise GRRM's writing in some respects, but I would hope we can all agree he is a generally good writer who understands his craft and the basic principles of storytelling, and that will inform his general approach to the use of this kind of device.

Overall, the Type 2s are used pretty sparingly in the series, for good reason, and that leads me to scepticism about the fan theories that rely heavily on them. It could happen again, but I think it's unlikely to happen with regard to well-established chracters, and probably no more than once or twice in all throughout the remainder of the series.

This is another reason why I'm sceptical of the Blackfyre theorising around Aegon: we've already had one secret identity reveal on that character, so another seems like it would be over-egging it.

[Gilbert Green]

2 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

When people debate secret identity theories, they’re generally talking about situations where we are introduced to a seemingly new character in the text and the theory is either a) it’s another character we’ve met before in disguise (e.g. Arstan Whitebeard) or b) it’s a character who’s been mentioned in the story or backstory but never appeared in the main series (e.g. JonCon). Your example is one where the reader is told a character (in this case a random dead guy) is actually someone we know, in this instance a POV character who was alive the last we saw.

Technically an identity swap or no, it’s not really relevant to analyzing the likelihood of scenarios covered by a) or b) above.

When people debate secret identity theories, they generally don't debate theories that have already been proven true.  That's why no-one (any more) debates whether Davos is really dead, or whether those fingerbones were really his.

You are saying that Davos does not count, as this swap was done casually and without a lot of buildup.  We were never introduced in advance to the random criminal who would be used as his doppleganger (logically, why should we need this?).  I say it is still relevant.  If it is sometimes done casually, and it with little buildup, then it is even more likely when there is more buildup.

Obviously, it is still an example that shows that fake-identity and fake-death scenarios move easily in GRRM's mind.

Take, for example, the burnt-beyond recognition man dying on Dany's bed.   Was he really Quentyn?  Dunno.  Maybe he is really no-one we have really met -- one of the random non-descript Windblown dressed just like Quentyn known to be present in the Pit.  That's very little buildup, but is still more than we got for Davos when we were told he was dead.  Alternatively, the dying man could be the Tattered Prince, someone who has actually appeared "onscreen" with speaking lines, and even went out of his way to say that he likes to take off his distinctive cloak and maneuver incognito because he is so ordinary looking.  That would be FAR more buildup than what Davos' anonymous criminal doppleganger got.

 

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

When people debate secret identity theories, they generally don't debate theories that have already been proven true.  That's why no-one (any more) debates whether Davos is really dead, or whether those fingerbones were really his.

I don’t think anyone conceived of the Davos death fakeout as a “secret identity.” I’m actually glad you brought up Quentyn because that’s a similar argument to the Davos one that’s still ongoing - I’ve never heard anyone debate that as a “secret identity.” A death fakeout isn’t really the same thing unless it involves the living character adopting a secret identity to stay hidden like e.g. Mance did. 
 

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

You are saying that Davos does not count, as this swap was done casually and without a lot of buildup.  We were never introduced in advance to the random criminal who would be used as his doppleganger (logically, why should we need this?).

I’m not saying we needed it, I’m saying it’s a different scenario from a character we met secretly being a different character we’ve met or heard of. 

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Obviously, it is still an example that shows that fake-identity and fake-death scenarios move easily in GRRM's mind.

If you want to argue precedent for secret identities in the form of “character X is actually character Y,” Davos is an odd example. There’s much more similar examples in the story like Arstan Whitebeard or Griff.

 

[Gilbert Green]

On 3/10/2023 at 4:09 PM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I don’t think anyone conceived of the Davos death fakeout as a “secret identity.”

The corpse has a secret identity.  It is supposed to be Davos.  Secretly, it is someone else.  Manderly knows the truth, but he keeps it secret.  It is an identity and it is a secret.

Similar with Bran and Rickon heads on pikes.  It's supposed to be Bran and Rickon.  Secretly it is two common boys.  Theon knows the truth but he keeps it a secret.  It is an identity and it is a secret.

Does it matter who is keeping the secret?  Either way, identity confusion is a theme. 

On 3/10/2023 at 4:09 PM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I’m actually glad you brought up Quentyn because that’s a similar argument to the Davos one that’s still ongoing - I’ve never heard anyone debate that as a “secret identity.”

The burnt-beyond-recognition man is supposed to be Prince Frog.  Archie and Gerris know it is actually Prince Tatters.  They keep this true identity a secret from Barristan.  It is secret, and it's an identity.

On 3/10/2023 at 4:09 PM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

A death fakeout isn’t really the same thing unless it involves the living character adopting a secret identity to stay hidden like e.g. Mance did. 

The flip side of this is Rattleshirt.  His fake identity was adopted for him - he did not do it himself.  His true identity was kept a secret.  Nonetheless, Dead Mance was actually Rattleshirt.  Melisandre knew the truth, and did not tell most people.  It was an identity, and it was a secret.

On 3/10/2023 at 4:09 PM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I’m not saying we needed it, I’m saying it’s a different scenario from a character we met secretly being a different character we’ve met or heard of. 

If you want to argue precedent for secret identities in the form of “character X is actually character Y,” Davos is an odd example. There’s much more similar examples in the story like Arstan Whitebeard or Griff.

Dead Davos is an example of character X actually being character Y.  It is true that this differs from other examples where we learned about character Y in advance rather than after the fact.  It is still an example of character X actually being character Y.

[Alester Florent]

58 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

The corpse has a secret identity.  It is supposed to be Davos.  Secretly, it is someone else.  Manderly knows the truth, but he keeps it secret.  It is an identity and it is a secret.

Similar with Bran and Rickon heads on pikes.  It's supposed to be Bran and Rickon.  Secretly it is two common boys.  Theon knows the truth but he keeps it a secret.  It is an identity and it is a secret.

Does it matter who is keeping the secret?  Either way, identity confusion is a theme. 

The burnt-beyond-recognition man is supposed to be Prince Frog.  Archie and Gerris know it is actually Prince Tatters.  They keep this true identity a secret from Barristan.  It is secret, and it's an identity.

The flip side of this is Rattleshirt.  His fake identity was adopted for him - he did not do it himself.  His true identity was kept a secret.  Nonetheless, Dead Mance was actually Rattleshirt.  Melisandre knew the truth, and did not tell most people.  It was an identity, and it was a secret.

Dead Davos is an example of character X actually being character Y.  It is true that this differs from other examples where we learned about character Y in advance rather than after the fact.  It is still an example of character X actually being character Y.

 

But I would argue that the Davos fakeout is not a secret identity, because the identity switch is not and never was the point. With Davos in particular, we are told, in-character, that Davos is dead and his head has been put on a spike. But the point is that that report is unreliable. The fact that what actually happened was a body-swap  is simply a matter of explaining away how the fakeout death was pulled off. The swappee was of no relevance to the plot, might as well not have existed (indeed, from our perspective, didn't, until he was dead), and wouldn't have gone on to do anything relevant had he survived. Davos does not adopt a secret identity; there was just confusion about identification of his body. For the purposes of the plot point, the message to King's Landing could just have been a mistake, or a lie, or Manderly could have mounted a turnip with a smiley face on it and said "that's Davos" and the Freys believed him because they're idiots. The plot effect would be absolutely identical.

To give another example, we are told at the present point in time that Loras has been horribly burned and near death. We don't see Loras's body, we're just told about this. There are various theories out there that he hasn't been and is fine. For the purposes of those theories, it doesn't matter whether Loras has just been slightly singed, whether another body was mistaken for his, or whether Aurane is just lying. It is not a case of secret identity, but of unreliable information: the point is that the characters (and most readers) have been fooled into thinking Loras is dead when he's not.

The miller's boys are lightly less clear-cut than this because we do "see" the bodies and are clearly supposed to believe, for a moment at least, that they are Bran and Rickon. But again, it's whether Bran and Rickon are actually dead that matters, not whether the bodies mounted are actually theirs. And the millers' boys are no more important to the plot than the fake Davos, albeit they affect more pathos because of the circumstances.

In none of the examples does the substituted character do anything in the name of the established character that would affect the plot, other than die (something really done to them in all instances, rather than by them).

In all three instances, I think the plot device in question is a different species to the secret identity trope that GRRM is accused of overusing.

Now, the fake burned Quentyn would be a secret identity, of Type 2 mentioned above. A character with established importance in the plot who is expected to retain importance adopts the identity of another character (of established and ongoing importance) to misdirect both the readers and characters. Of course at this point it remains only a theory (and not one I think has much credibility) so it's not evidence of use of the theme by GRRM.

[Sandy Clegg]

10 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Does it matter who is keeping the secret?  Either way, identity confusion is a theme. 

I think this hits the nail on the head.

Instead of gnashing our teeth about the many identity switches/changes whatever, we need to look at them thematically and ask: what manner of identity is being played with here, and how does it compare with all the others times? What is George getting at with all this?

Assigning arbitrary ‘quotas’ to these things is reductive and just leads to stifling useful analysis. It’s a weird hill to die on.

 

[Sandy Clegg]

9 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

But I would argue that the Davos fakeout is not a secret identity, because the identity switch is not and never was the point. With Davos in particular, we are told, in-character, that Davos is dead and his head has been put on a spike. But the point is that that report is unreliable. The fact that what actually happened was a body-swap  is simply a matter of explaining away how the fakeout death was pulled off.

But this is still a ‘useful thing’ in determining the parameters of hidden identity plots, whether we view it as one or not. The fact of its inclusion in the books is deliberate. It suggests a method of fake-out. And we store it away in our readers brains as a useful bit of information that may be relevant when trying to solve other potential identity swaps, past and future. 

It doesn’t matter what we define it as. It’s a relevant clue on the pinboard and deserves its place there, that’s all.

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

23 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Dead Davos is an example of character X actually being character Y.  It is true that this differs from other examples where we learned about character Y in advance rather than after the fact.  It is still an example of character X actually being character Y.

This discussion is growing tedious because you seem insistent on missing the substantive point in her favor of  “Well ackshually …” semantic games. The poster Alester Florent more or less elaborated on the point I’m making. The guy who was passed off as Davos was never an actual character, before or after he died. Who he was is completely irrelevant, the point is a fakeout death for Davos. In my example “character X is actually character Y” I’m referring to theories where “character X” is the established face value identity of the character that is presented to the reader. That never exists in this example, and I think you understand perfectly well that’s what im referring to but insist on word games that are beside the point.

13 hours ago, Sandy Clegg said:

It’s a relevant clue

If you want to consider it evidence that George could employ fakeout deaths elsewhere that’s fine, but rather obvious and not especially necessary to establish such a possibility. Setting aside the debate about what exactly qualifies as a secret identity theory, I think it’s fair to say that most of them entail not just a general claim like “Character X is still alive” but a more specific claim that “Character Y who we were introduced to is really character X.” Something like the Davos fakeout could support the idea that a character’s not really dead absent firm confirmation of their death, but it doesn’t do anything to support any specific identity theory where a character we’re told about is really someone else. There’s a big gap between “George could do this” and “George is doing this”

[Gilbert Green]

On 3/14/2023 at 8:03 PM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

This discussion is growing tedious because you seem insistent on missing the substantive point in her favor of  “Well ackshually …” semantic games.

I agree that the discussion is growing tedious.  But I don't see the need for your rudeness or the accusation of "semantic games".  I merely defined my own terms by mentioning that in my mind a "secret identity" is merely an identity that is a secret.   

On 3/14/2023 at 8:03 PM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

The poster Alester Florent more or less elaborated on the point I’m making. The guy who was passed off as Davos was never an actual character, before or after he died.

Surely I have already acknowledged that point.  And it does not explain why you are getting angry at me and accusing me of things.

On 3/14/2023 at 8:03 PM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Who he was is completely irrelevant, the point is a fakeout death for Davos.

Right.  And the only thing I intended to do was to list Davos as an example of a fake-out death; and as an example of an identity that is secret.

If it is not the kind of "identity that is secret" that you and others are looking for, that is fine.  You are not required to be interested in this example.  Why not just move on?  Instead you want to argue with me about it ad nauseam. 

But yes.  I get that when you say "secret identity" you are thinking of something more closely analogous to Superman or the Scarlet Pimpernel.  I'm not sure what further you want from me at this point; other than trying to convince me that I'm a bad person.

On 3/14/2023 at 8:03 PM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

In my example “character X is actually character Y” I’m referring to theories where “character X” is the established face value identity of the character that is presented to the reader.

I acknowledge that you have a special meaning in mind.

On 3/14/2023 at 8:03 PM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

That never exists in this example, and I think you understand perfectly well that’s what im referring to but insist on word games that are beside the point.

I don't even understand the accusation.  The only thing I understand is that you are mad at me because I read your words rather than your mind.

On 3/14/2023 at 8:03 PM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

If you want to consider it evidence that George could employ fakeout deaths elsewhere that’s fine, but rather obvious and not especially necessary to establish such a possibility.

It is an example.  It is not the only example, sure.  We also had Bran & Rickon's heads on spikes.  And I don't recall that the Miller's boys were especially well-established characters either.  The miller's boys may possibly have received a prior mention, though, such that we knew a bit more about them than about Fake Dead Davos.  It seems that you regard that distinction as hyper-important for some purpose.

On 3/14/2023 at 8:03 PM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Setting aside the debate about what exactly qualifies as a secret identity theory, I think it’s fair to say that most of them entail not just a general claim like “Character X is still alive” but a more specific claim that “Character Y who we were introduced to is really character X.”

I acknowledge that the random criminal who was used as Dead Fake Davos did not receive a prior mention.  And I acknowledge that you regard this distinction as critical for some purpose.  I'm not sure what you want from me at this point.

On 3/14/2023 at 8:03 PM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Something like the Davos fakeout could support the idea that a character’s not really dead absent firm confirmation of their death, but it doesn’t do anything to support any specific identity theory where a character we’re told about is really someone else. There’s a big gap between “George could do this” and “George is doing this”

But I agree that none of us know what GRRM is doing.  Secret identity theories and Fake Death theories cannot be ruled out, but I agree that does not mean they are proven.   

And I don't know that he is going to do exactly the same thing every time.  So narrow distinctions and narrow specialized definitions of phrases like "secret identity" don't seem especially important to me.  GRRM is not bound by them, so who cares?

Some people want to rule out death fake outs and secret identities.  My position is that they cannot be ruled out.  I never argued that Fake Dead Davos proves that the dying man on Dany's bed is really the Tattered Prince nor (alternatively) a random non-descript person we have never met before.  Such theories must be considered according to their own merits or lack thereof.  Mentioning Davis is merely a response to the "GRRM would never do such things" argument.  And it also (at least to my mind) seemed to relate to the topic of this thread.

[Gilbert Green]

On 3/13/2023 at 9:42 PM, Alester Florent said:

But I would argue that the Davos fakeout is not a secret identity, because the identity switch is not and never was the point. With Davos in particular, we are told, in-character, that Davos is dead and his head has been put on a spike. But the point is that that report is unreliable. The fact that what actually happened was a body-swap  is simply a matter of explaining away how the fakeout death was pulled off. The swappee was of no relevance to the plot, might as well not have existed (indeed, from our perspective, didn't, until he was dead), and wouldn't have gone on to do anything relevant had he survived.

An identity swap occurs analogous to Rattleshirt's, occurs, but without the use of magic.

Davos shifted uncomfortably. It was a queer feeling, being dead. "If it please my lord, who died in my place?"

"Does it matter? You have a common face, Lord Davos. I hope my saying so does not offend you. The man had your coloring, a nose of the same shape, two ears that were not dissimilar, a long beard that could be trimmed and shaped like yours. You can be sure we tarred him well, and the onion shoved between his teeth served to twist the features. Ser Bartimus saw that the fingers of his left hand were shortened, the same as yours. The man was a criminal, if that gives you any solace.

 

On 3/13/2023 at 9:42 PM, Alester Florent said:

Davos does not adopt a secret identity; there was just confusion about identification of his body.

Random Criminal is given Davos' identity, while still alive, shortly before being executed.  Random criminal does not willingly "adopt" the identity assigned to him, but neither does Rattleshirt.  But I guess you can say that Rattleshirt does not count either.

On 3/13/2023 at 9:42 PM, Alester Florent said:

For the purposes of the plot point, the message to King's Landing could just have been a mistake, or a lie, or Manderly could have mounted a turnip with a smiley face on it and said "that's Davos" and the Freys believed him because they're idiots. The plot effect would be absolutely identical.

As shown above, Manderly goes to considerably more trouble to make the ruse plausible. 

On 3/13/2023 at 9:42 PM, Alester Florent said:

To give another example, we are told at the present point in time that Loras has been horribly burned and near death. We don't see Loras's body, we're just told about this. There are various theories out there that he hasn't been and is fine. For the purposes of those theories, it doesn't matter whether Loras has just been slightly singed, whether another body was mistaken for his, or whether Aurane is just lying. It is not a case of secret identity, but of unreliable information: the point is that the characters (and most readers) have been fooled into thinking Loras is dead when he's not.

I agree that the point, in many cases, is to misdirect, confuse and ultimately surprise the reader.

GRRM is not going to use exactly the same tricks in exactly the same way each time.  So I don't see the point of fine distinctions.

The main distinction I see in Davos' case is that GRRM did not put a whole lot of effort into fooling us. 

On 3/13/2023 at 9:42 PM, Alester Florent said:

The miller's boys are lightly less clear-cut than this because we do "see" the bodies and are clearly supposed to believe, for a moment at least, that they are Bran and Rickon.

I have no comment on what we are "meant" to believe.  We find out in FEAST, through a letter received by Cersei, that someone in White Harbor saw Davos die.  Later, we have a chapter in DANCE where we find out Davos is alive, and Manderly explains the ruse to Davos. 

Did GRRM mean us to believe that Davos was dead?  I don't know.  My guess is he did, more or less, but just did not think it important enough to create a Frey POV in King's Landing for that sole purpose, when he could simply have someone send Cersei a letter.

On 3/13/2023 at 9:42 PM, Alester Florent said:

But again, it's whether Bran and Rickon are actually dead that matters, not whether the bodies mounted are actually theirs. And the millers' boys are no more important to the plot than the fake Davos, albeit they affect more pathos because of the circumstances.

In none of the examples does the substituted character do anything in the name of the established character that would affect the plot, other than die (something really done to them in all instances, rather than by them).

Okay.  Random Whiteharbor Criminal is not a central character.  Neither are the miller's boys.  Neither is Rattleshirt.

The Tattered Prince may not be such an important character either.  Nor Cregan Karstark.  But there are theories about them both that involve identity games with better-established characters.  

On 3/13/2023 at 9:42 PM, Alester Florent said:

In all three instances, I think the plot device in question is a different species to the secret identity trope that GRRM is accused of overusing.

Well, I have not accused GRRM of overusing anything at all.  And he does vary his tricks.

On 3/13/2023 at 9:42 PM, Alester Florent said:

Now, the fake burned Quentyn would be a secret identity, of Type 2 mentioned above.

Would it?  The burnt-beyond recognition man does not do anything to adopt Frog's identity or participate in any deception.  He just lies on a bed and moans, and fails to make any strenuous objection when addressed as "Prince".  This is analogous to Rattleshirt failing to howl "Wait, I'm not Mance"; or random Whiteharbor criminal failing to spit out the onion and howl "Wait, I'm not Davos".

On 3/13/2023 at 9:42 PM, Alester Florent said:

A character with established importance in the plot who is expected to retain importance adopts the identity of another character (of established and ongoing importance) to misdirect both the readers and characters.

If you don't like the Tatters variation of the theory, you are free to replace him with a random non-descript Windblown.   I don't see the importance of either distinction.  The random non-descript windblown variant is simpler, but the Tatters variant is supported by specific clues.  And I don't see it as a point against a theorized death fake-out that, if true, it is better developed than the Davos death fake-out.

On 3/13/2023 at 9:42 PM, Alester Florent said:

Of course at this point it remains only a theory (and not one I think has much credibility) so it's not evidence of use of the theme by GRRM.

It was not offered as evidence. 

But it is usually with such theories in mind that people hostile so such theories (or different theories - I offered Frog merely as an example) say "GRRM would never do such things".  And when you point out that he has done "such things", this changes to "Ok he has done such things, but now he has done it too many times, and he will never do it again."  Alternatively, it changes to "He has not done such things, if I narrowly define 'such things'." 

These don't seem to me to be compelling arguments against such theories.  And if you want to actually argue against the theory, you would have to actually address the theory.

But no-one has to be interested in any theory.  We can all just wait 11 years for WINDS to come out, and see if anyone guessed right.

[Alester Florent]

59 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

But it is usually with such theories in mind that people hostile so such theories (or different theories - I offered Frog merely as an example) say "GRRM would never do such things".  And when you point out that he has done "such things", this changes to "Ok he has done such things, but now he has done it too many times, and he will never do it again."  Alternatively, it changes to "He has not done such things, if I narrowly define 'such things'." 

These don't seem to me to be compelling arguments against such theories.  And if you want to actually argue against the theory, you would have to actually address the theory.

But no-one has to be interested in any theory.  We can all just wait 11 years for WINDS to come out, and see if anyone guessed right.

Well the title of the thread is "Are people taking secret identities too far?" The two sides of the debate, inasmuch as there are sides, are "yes, fan theories make much more use of secret identities than GRRM tends to do" versus "no, GRRM has used secret identities a lot so there's no reason he won't continue to do so".

So the question of how much GRRM actually uses secret identities in his work, and how he uses them, is I think of critical importance to the subject under discussion, and rather more relevant than the plausibility of any given secret identity theory. Yes, each theory stands to be judged on its merits. But this thread isn't for doing that: it's about the prevalence of secret identity theories and whether they have merit in general.

[Gilbert Green]

3 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Well the title of the thread is "Are people taking secret identities too far?" The two sides of the debate, inasmuch as there are sides, are "yes, fan theories make much more use of secret identities than GRRM tends to do" versus "no, GRRM has used secret identities a lot so there's no reason he won't continue to do so".

He has used all kinds of secret identities.  That includes ID-swap executions like Rattleshirt as Mance, and the Miller's boys as Rickon, and random White Harbor criminal as Davos.   So if you define "secret identities" narrowly (to exclude such examples) he uses them, and if you define the phrase broadly (to include such examples), he still uses them.

As to the title question, no, I do not think "people" (generally) are taking secret identities too far.   Yes, there are alot of theories, and most individual theories are wrong.  But small number of them are probably right.

3 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

So the question of how much GRRM actually uses secret identities in his work, and how he uses them, is I think of critical importance to the subject under discussion, and rather more relevant than the plausibility of any given secret identity theory. Yes, each theory stands to be judged on its merits. But this thread isn't for doing that: it's about the prevalence of secret identity theories and whether they have merit in general.

"How he uses them" is of dubious relevance, because GRRM, in attempt to surprise us, will not do anything twice in exactly the same way.

I merely mentioned Fake Dead Davos as an example of a "secret identity", which I, in my humble simplicity, define as an "identity that is secret".

His identity was given as "Davos".  He was selected for a vague resemblance to Davos.  His hair and beard were cut to look like Davos.  His fingers were shortened to look like Davos.  An onion was stuffed in his mouth to symbolize Davos, and also to distort his features so it would be less obvious that he was not really Davos (and also, maybe, to prevent him from speaking).  Davos was revealed to be dead in one book, and found out to be alive in a next book.

That he was not actually Davos, was a secret known only to a few.  His true identity was a secret.

A minor example?  Sure.  But I figured it would be worth a mention in a thread devoted to the topic.  For some reason the example seems to make people angry, and I don't get it

[Gilbert Green]

@Alester Florent

It seems to me that narrow definitions, and the precise details of the identity theory, do not matter.  If the theory is that a dead person is really alive, because someone else died in his place and has been misidentified, the objection will be "This can't be true because GRRM never does this and anyway he does this too often."  If the theory is that a known character has taken affirmative measures to adopt an alternate persona, the objection will be exactly the same.

We could further distinguish those cases where a character impersonates another known character (Mance as Rattleshirt) from cases where a character merely adopts an alias (Arstan).  In any event, GRRM has done it before; and I don't see how quibbling about such distinctions much changes the underlying nature of the blunderbus all-purpose argument against all identity theories.

Agree that there is no need to discuss particular theories.  Unless you want to.  All I am saying is that the blunderbus all-purpose argument against all identity theories does not impress me.  Regardless of what terms you use, or whether "secret identity" is defined broadly or narrowly.

[GZ Bloodraven]

People are taking secret identitites way too far, especially regarding Aegon/Faegon. He isn't a Blackfyre, he isn't Illyrio's son: he is who he says he is. George wouldn't do that to JonCon. 

[Gilbert Green]

3 hours ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

People are taking secret identitites way too far, especially regarding Aegon/Faegon. He isn't a Blackfyre, he isn't Illyrio's son: he is who he says he is. George wouldn't do that to JonCon. 

I don't quite understand the Jon Con reference.  It's not as though JonCon got Rhaegar pregnant, and Baby Aegon was the result.

Out of curiosity, who do you think Lemore is?

My position on the Aegon/Faegon issues you raise:  yes, he is a Blackfyre descendant; no he is not Illyrio's son (more likely grandson).  Lemore is his mom.  But who is Lemore?

[Sandy Clegg]

Judging by this thread, it seems that if George’s purpose was to use all these various secret identity plot points to cast doubt in readers’ minds as to the very nature of identity , then he has succeeded.

[BalerionTheCat]

5 hours ago, Sandy Clegg said:

Judging by this thread, it seems that if George’s purpose was to use all these various secret identity plot points to cast doubt in readers’ minds as to the very nature of identity , then he has succeeded.

Not really. Each case given here has solid hints. Meaning there are probably no very far-fetched secret identities.
BTW, you should probably count also the Gravedigger.

[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. 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.

Well, the obvious ones are obvious.  The less obvious ones people argue about, and perhaps will turn out not to be true.

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

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

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

• "Lemore" = Mellario?  Not an exact match, but then again, neither is Arstan.

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

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.

• Euron and Daario.  But people hate the theory anyway, because other reasons.

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

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.

We are also told "straight up" that 16 years earlier, Baby Aegon was really the Pisswater Prince.  Of course, fans sometimes find room to doubt things told "straight up".

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

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.

Popular things are popular.  Proven things are proven.  But it does not follow that unpopular theories are not true, nor that unproven theories are false.  That is the fallacious lemming argument, combined with the fallacious argument from ignorance.

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

We should be checking anagrams and such.

We can certainly look for this and all kinds of other clues.  But no rule of logic requires a person to use an alias that is an anagram of his real name.  "Rattleshirt" is not an anagram of "Mance Rayder".  "Arya Stark" is not an anagram of "Jeyne Poole".  "Mercy" is not an anagram of "Arya Stark".  "The Gravedigger" is not an anagram of "Sandor Clegane".  "Rugen" is not an anagram of "Varys".  "Arstan Whitebeard" is not even a precise anagram of "Barristan Selmy".

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

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.

It is fairly obvious why Doran and Mellario would want to send another boy to the Yronwoods in place of their real son.  Or is that too convoluted?

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

All in all I think if there are any secret identities in play it should be fairly obvious (by the standards of this forum).

Who speaks for "the forum"?

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

\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!

I think what you are saying is that it would be WRONG WRONG WRONG for GRRM were to try to fool or surprise his readers, especially if one of those readers were yourself.

[kissdbyfire]

Holy smokes… you keep banging on and on and on about people not being able to let go, but you sure as shit seem totally incapable of letting go.