Are People Taking Secret Identities Too Far?

[Craving Peaches]

8 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

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.

No, what I'm saying is that some of these theories are so convoluted I doubt they are what the author has in mind, so I wouldn't go into the next book expecting them to be true. I don't care at all if I am surprised, and I don't know why you care so much either. Good day.

[Sandy Clegg]

It’s fascinating how a lot of the debates in this forum generally fall into these two camps: those who believe “if there was anything left hidden in the books, we would have found it by now. George wouldn’t create something so elaborate that average readers wouldn’t be able to work things out.” 

And then there are those who believe “George is an evil genius who has created a labyrinthine masterpiece that will be pondered over for generations, and we’re still just figuring this thing out”.

Ok that’s a gross generalisation sorry. But I do find the second option to be the more exciting one and we should stay curious. Even the tinfoiliest tinfoil can accidentally bounce light onto an idea that might be useful. We have to stay open-minded and not fall into the trap of assigning ‘quotas’ to things like identity switches. It kind of kills creative thinking.

[kissdbyfire]

23 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

It’s fascinating how a lot of the debates in this forum generally fall into these two camps: those who believe “if there was anything left hidden in the books, we would have found it by now. George wouldn’t create something so elaborate that average readers wouldn’t be able to work things out.” 
 

As someone who’d probably be lumped into this camp, I have to say I don’t think that’s an accurate description. There is some of that, yes, but on both camps. What I mean is, I think many of these mysteries have been figured out long ago. Such as Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon’s parents and Joffrey is responsible for the attempt on Bran’s life. And yet many readers, some who’ve found the books later on, seem to be hellbent on disproving the accepted answers, even against all the evidence. There’s a sub faction of this group who seem to be determined to be the one special snowflake who figured something out that everyone else missed in these 25+ years. And to find such a hidden treasure they go to insane lengths that at times are borderline ridiculous. 

23 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

And then there are those who believe “George is an evil genius who has created a labyrinthine masterpiece that will be pondered over for generations, and we’re still just figuring this thing out”.

Oh he is an evil genius, no doubt. And we love him for it… or despite it! 
But a mystery, to be satisfying, must be figured out or it’s as if it doesn’t exist. For it to be figured out, there must be clues and hints. And a lot, a whole lot, of what passes for clues at times are just insane extrapolations that don’t connect to the story and make no sense whatsoever, and their only “merit” is that it is so outlandish that the reveal would be a shock. And I really don’t think that’s Martin’s style. 

23 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

Ok that’s a gross generalisation sorry. But I do find the second option to be the more exciting one and we should stay curious. Even the tinfoiliest tinfoil can accidentally bounce light onto an idea that might be useful.
 

So, a shot in the dark while blindfolded can by mere chance hit something that will lead to something else that could maybe lead to a mystery being solved? I suppose it is possible, however unlikely. But if such the mystery in question exists, I’m sure the author would leave actual clues pointing to it instead of counting on a shot in the dark while blindfolded that could maybe lead to the answer. 

23 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

We have to stay open-minded and not fall into the trap of assigning ‘quotas’ to things like identity switches. It kind of kills creative thinking.

Remaining open-minded is important, I agree. But no one is assigning quotas as far as I can tell. On the other hand, because there have been a number of identity switches/mysteries, many use this premise as the foundation for a vast number of “theories” that have nothing going for them other than, at this point, they’re not impossible. 

[Sandy Clegg]

58 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I think many of these mysteries have been figured out long ago. Such as Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon’s parents and Joffrey is responsible for the attempt on Bran’s life. And yet many readers, some who’ve found the books later on, seem to be hellbent on disproving the accepted answers, even against all the evidence.

I agree, there are mysteries which have been solved and can be put to rest. I don't really seek to disprove much of this myself, and yes it's annoying when others take circuitous routes to suggest that, for example, it was Robert who sent the catspaw. Cycling through every possible character and finding ways to make them fit the 'suspect' role is kind of redundant thinking.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

There’s a sub faction of this group who seem to be determined to be the one special snowflake who figured something out that everyone else missed in these 25+ years. And to find such a hidden treasure they go to insane lengths that at times are borderline ridiculous. 

I wouldn't go so far as to use the S word, and that's a little unnecessary here. Yes there are enthusiastic fans who go too far, but these are books which breed this kind of thinking, and yes it's going to spill out into all sorts of wild ideas. It can often take years, or longer, before we settle into the rhythm of understanding these books. People go through phases, you have to let it happen. As to the hidden treasures comment, I think we may be selling George short if we claim to say we have uncovered everything there is to find in these books. He has two more books to go and the work he has put in so far has been frankly a Herculean effort of literature, not just fantasy literature. Some might say it's George who has gone to insane lengths himself, so who are we to do different?  Underestimating the possible complexities of the books is not something we should do lightly. 

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

But a mystery, to be satisfying, must be figured out or it’s as if it doesn’t exist. For it to be figured out, there must be clues and hints. And a lot, a whole lot, of what passes for clues at times are just insane extrapolations that don’t connect to the story and make no sense whatsoever, and their only “merit” is that it is so outlandish that the reveal would be a shock. And I really don’t think that’s Martin’s style. 

I have a post I've been working on to address this, but it's all over the place right now. I do think there are 'degrees' of mystery George has put into the books, with many of them solvable in the way you propose. But this does not mean he hasn't also constructed more elaborate puzzles for diehards to puzzle over. A lot of 'theories' are outlandish, true, but this is just a symptom of what I call 'the itch that needs scratching' which the books seem to generate in readers. As to what constitutes a fair 'clue' - well, that is something we could debate for centuries. My dad likes to do the quick crosswords, I like to do the cryptic ones. Whenever I show him one of mine, he just looks at me and says "Who has time for this rubbish?" And yet countless people around the world delight in them. The thing about cryptic clues is that they tend to be invisible unless you are actively looking for them. So yes, it would seem as if this is not George's 'style'. But he himself has admitted in interviews to putting these subtle clues in the text, and has described himself as a 'magician' who uses 'misdirection'. Whatever his 'style' is, it is at least strongly up for debate.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

But if such the mystery in question exists, I’m sure the author would leave actual clues pointing to it instead of counting on a shot in the dark while blindfolded that could maybe lead to the answer. 

Again, we may need, as a community, to redefine what we consider 'clues'. We've spent 25 years examining the surface plot for clues - but there are other avenues.

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

On the other hand, because there have been a number of identity switches/mysteries, many use this premise as the foundation for a vast number of “theories” that have nothing going for them other than, at this point, they’re not impossible. 

I agree on the silly number of theories along the lines of 'Daario is Euron' etc. But rather than dismiss them and throw our hands in the air about identity theories, maybe look at why they are so popular. George plays with the idea of identity constantly in the series. He uses symbolism of one character in one chapter to indicate events in entirely different chapters - and people mistake this for those identities being somehow switched 'in-world'. Whereas often it's just a literary device. So whenever we see people throwing out identity theories, maybe we need to look at the underlying parallels and see what George is trying to achieve once we discard the obvious.

[kissdbyfire]

8 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

I wouldn't go so far as to use the S word, and that's a little unnecessary here.
 

That’s just a semantics and temperament issue. And by temperament I mean my own.
More on this further down. 

 

8 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

Yes there are enthusiastic fans who go too far, but these are books which breed this kind of thinking, and yes it's going to spill out into all sorts of wild ideas. It can often take years, or longer, before we settle into the rhythm of understanding these books. People go through phases, you have to let it happen.

I agree, and I’m not trying to prevent it from happening. But even here there are different ways of trying to understand the books. And that’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying every unproven theory or idea is rubbish and should be dismissed, even if it seems outlandish, or even if I personally wholeheartedly disagree with it. 
For instance, let’s look at the Pink Letter. I’m convinced Ramsay wrote it and I’ll be shocked if it is revealed at some point that he didn’t. I think all alternatives make less sense and don’t fit as well. That said, there are readers w/ whom I agree with on a whole lot of issues and that I very much enjoy reading and engaging with that disagree with me on this. Both @sweetsunray and @three-eyed monkey believe the author is Mance and Stannis respectively, and both have written about it extensively, with lots of textual backing and well-reasoned arguments. No intellectual dishonesty, no fabricating “evidence”, no twisting the text into pretzels. I still disagree and think I’m right, but in this case it boils down to our different interpretations.

On the other hand, I’ve read “theories” that have no textual support and sometimes even go directly against something Martin has already confirmed, saying he was lying or even twisting his clear and unambiguous reply into something it was not. 
The examples above are nothing like each other; I welcome the former and roll my eyes at the latter. 

8 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

As to the hidden treasures comment, I think we may be selling George short if we claim to say we have uncovered everything there is to find in these books.

Sure, only I never said that. 

 

8 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

He has two more books to go and the work he has put in so far has been frankly a Herculean effort of literature, not just fantasy literature. Some might say it's George who has gone to insane lengths himself, so who are we to do different?  Underestimating the possible complexities of the books is not something we should do lightly. 

Agree, and again, I didn’t do that. 

8 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

I have a post I've been working on to address this, but it's all over the place right now. I do think there are 'degrees' of mystery George has put into the books, with many of them solvable in the way you propose.

I agree the mysteries have degrees, but I’m not sure what you mean by ‘the way I propose’ to solve them since I don’t think I’ve proposed any specific way of dealing w/ these mysteries. I don’t think there’s just the one way of solving these mysteries, but rather there are specific ways not to do it.

8 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

But this does not mean he hasn't also constructed more elaborate puzzles for diehards to puzzle over. A lot of 'theories' are outlandish, true, but this is just a symptom of what I call 'the itch that needs scratching' which the books seem to generate in readers.

Yeah, as I said above I agree there are different levels of difficulty in these puzzles. I also think a lot of the need to scratch the itch comes in no small way from knowing there are mysteries, how Martin has managed to give us a staggering minuscule amount of actual information so far, and having to wait decades to get a wee bit more info to sort things out. It’s like trying to do a 50,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and starting with 150 pieces, then getting another 83, years later another 300, etc. 

 

8 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

As to what constitutes a fair 'clue' - well, that is something we could debate for centuries. My dad likes to do the quick crosswords, I like to do the cryptic ones. Whenever I show him one of mine, he just looks at me and says "Who has time for this rubbish?" And yet countless people around the world delight in them. The thing about cryptic clues is that they tend to be invisible unless you are actively looking for them. So yes, it would seem as if this is not George's 'style'. But he himself has admitted in interviews to putting these subtle clues in the text, and has described himself as a 'magician' who uses 'misdirection'. Whatever his 'style' is, it is at least strongly up for debate.

8 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

Again, we may need, as a community, to redefine what we consider 'clues'. We've spent 25 years examining the surface plot for clues - but there are other avenues.

I agree on the silly number of theories along the lines of 'Daario is Euron' etc. But rather than dismiss them and throw our hands in the air about identity theories, maybe look at why they are so popular. George plays with the idea of identity constantly in the series. He uses symbolism of one character in one chapter to indicate events in entirely different chapters - and people mistake this for those identities being somehow switched 'in-world'. Whereas often it's just a literary device. So whenever we see people throwing out identity theories, maybe we need to look at the underlying parallels and see what George is trying to achieve once we discard the obvious.

Sorry, something went wonky in breaking up your post to reply. 
The point I’ve been trying to make is that cryptic clues are still clues. The issue is not w/ the clues being out in the open or cryptically hidden. The issue is the fabrication of clues that are anything but. The issue is thinking of a cool and shocking twist and then trying to find something in the text that might maybe serve as ‘support’ and then claiming it is a novel theory, something that was hidden until this very moment, ‘oh 7 Hells I am so freaking special!’. 

[Gilbert Green]

11 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

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.

I never said that you should stop posting, or that I should stop posting, or anyone should stop posting.  Maybe "shut up and go away" is what you are now trying to say to me, but I never said anything like that.

I made a reference in another thread about a certain person not adjusting his/her position in response to a statement by GRRM, and being unable to move on from a particular sticking point, but I never told that person to shut up and go away.

Edited April 3 by Gilbert Green

[kissdbyfire]

I’ve no idea what you’re on about now, @Gilbert Green. If you’d bothered to read my post you replied to you would have seen I was talking about being able to let go, and there’s nothing there about telling people to shut up and go away.

[Sandy Clegg]

56 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The point I’ve been trying to make is that cryptic clues are still clues. The issue is not w/ the clues being out in the open or cryptically hidden. The issue is the fabrication of clues that are anything but.

Ok I was probably making some general points that weren’t aimed at you, but this is a good healthy discussion so I wanted to put my overall thoughts in there.

I think where I broadly stand with a lot of theories is that they either rely on fabrications, as you say, or they go too far in the other direction: relying solely on plot details without considering more symbolic or cryptic authorial clues. Until we can establish what constitutes a ‘fair’ clue - which to me has a much broader definition than most are happy with - then there’ll always be this schism .

Edited April 3 by Sandy Clegg

[GZ Bloodraven]

On 4/1/2023 at 8:40 PM, Gilbert Green said:

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?

No, JonCon is dedicating his life to Aegon though, because of his love for Rhaegar, and to strip that from him, and Aegon was Illyrio's grandson the whole time hahaha, is just ickyicky for me. 

I think Lemore is Ashara Dayne, because I am basic and because Elia and Ashara were friends or whatever. 

 

[Alester Florent]

On 3/1/2023 at 9:01 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.

After the latest update in the Lemongate thread, I would like to revise my answer to the question in the thread title to "yes, absolutely".

[Mourning Star]

On 4/3/2023 at 4:58 AM, kissdbyfire said:

As someone who’d probably be lumped into this camp, I have to say I don’t think that’s an accurate description. There is some of that, yes, but on both camps. What I mean is, I think many of these mysteries have been figured out long ago. Such as Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon’s parents and Joffrey is responsible for the attempt on Bran’s life. And yet many readers, some who’ve found the books later on, seem to be hellbent on disproving the accepted answers, even against all the evidence. There’s a sub faction of this group who seem to be determined to be the one special snowflake who figured something out that everyone else missed in these 25+ years. And to find such a hidden treasure they go to insane lengths that at times are borderline ridiculous. 

This is such a disingenuous and untrue characterization.

People have been saying Joff didn't send the catspaw, Bloodraven isn't the three eyed crow, and Dany isn't the daughter of Rhaella for years. These aren't new, nor do I think anyone honestly believes they are the only special snowflake to see something that's actually there. This doesn't mean that people don't independently come to these conclusions.

Rather this is a dismissive characterization by people who have decided to accept one explanation and dismiss all others regardless of the text itself. It's a failure to engage with the story, or other readers in an honest way, once they've established their head cannon.

But, time will tell, one can only hope.

Edited April 12 by Mourning Star

[kissdbyfire]

10 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

This is such a disingenuous and untrue characterization.

Sorry, but the characterisation is neither disingenuous nor untrue. 

10 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

People have been saying Joff didn't send the catspaw, Bloodraven isn't the three eyed crow, and Dany isn't the daughter of Rhaella for years. These aren't new, nor do I think anyone honestly believes they are the only special snowflake to see something that's actually there.

Yes, people have been making all those claims for years, but that doesn’t make them right. For instance, many have accepted that Joffrey sent the catspaw after certain comments from Martin many years ago. Others still cling to different ideas b/c they believe Martin wasn’t clear enough in what he said or whatever. 
Also please note that I was very clear in separating the special snowflake wannabes from others who just don’t accept some of the conclusions others have reached and/or accepted. And because of that I very much resent your accusation that I was being disingenuous and lying. 

10 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Rather this is a dismissive characterization by people who have decided to accept one explanation and dismiss all others regardless of the text itself. It's a failure to engage with the story, or other readers in an honest way, once they've established their head cannon.

Again calling me dishonest because I don’t subscribe to “theory” A, B, or C. 
I have never had a problem discussing ideas w/ other posters that I don’t agree with, and I find some of these discussions can be incredibly valuable in shining a light in things that may have gone unnoticed.

One thing I absolutely do not enjoy in the least is being called disingenuous and a liar when I’ve not been either. 

[Mourning Star]

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Sorry, but the characterisation is neither disingenuous nor untrue. 

It really is though, it sounds like a dismissive old librarian irritated by the youths!

Any time someone tries to shit on you for being "special" you should just roll your eyes.

Also, its plainly a broad and dishonest way to dismiss an argument without engaging.

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yes, people have been making all those claims for years, but that doesn’t make them right.

No, it also doesn't make them wrong.

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

For instance, many have accepted that Joffrey sent the catspaw after certain comments from Martin many years ago.

Comments that are unclear and can be interpreted in multiple ways as many have pointed out, then and now.

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Others still cling to different ideas b/c they believe Martin wasn’t clear enough in what he said or whatever.

He said what he said, it just isn't clearly what you want to interpret it as.

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Also please note that I was very clear in separating the special snowflake wannabes from others who just don’t accept some of the conclusions others have reached and/or accepted. And because of that I very much resent your accusation that I was being disingenuous and lying. 

I think you painted with a big brush and should not be offended when someone pushes back on such dishonest rhetoric.

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Again calling me dishonest because I don’t subscribe to “theory” A, B, or C.

This is absolutly not what I did, and more dishonesty.

You painted a group of people with an over broad and dismissive characterization.

If you want to talk theories talk theories, but you decided to make it personal instead. If you are offended then look in the mirror.

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I have never had a problem discussing ideas w/ other posters that I don’t agree with, and I find some of these discussions can be incredibly valuable in shining a light in things that may have gone unnoticed.

That is not the way comments like the one above or this one come across.

10 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

One thing I absolutely do not enjoy in the least is being called disingenuous and a liar when I’ve not been either. 

I don't think I called you a liar, but disingenuous certainly.

Let's not bicker though, I know you can be a thoughtful and valuable contribution to threads on this forum, but I was offended by your comment and felt the need to point out why. I genuinely wish you well and my intention isn't to just piss you off.

Edited April 12 by Mourning Star

[Alester Florent]

28 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

It really is though, it sounds like a dismissive old librarian irritated by the youths!

Come on, this is the general forum. Take the flirting somewhere else.