The Logic Chain of Theories

[Hippocras]

Somehow this thread got interpreted as the illogic chain of theories.

[Gilbert Green]

On 12/18/2023 at 9:03 AM, Hippocras said:

This topic could easily be retitled "the reasons fans have heated debates".

It has to do with the fact that no theory about these books can exist in a vacuum, and each depends on a chain of other theories that each reader holds to be true.

It certainly can be true that the higher a fan builds his house of cards, the angrier he/she gets when somebody pokes at the base. 

[Gilbert Green]

On 12/18/2023 at 9:03 AM, Hippocras said:

1. I believe that blood magic is tied to bloodlines, and so who is related to who and to what matters. I do NOT however believe that bloodlines and family names are the same thing.

      - Because of this, I do not believe that just anyone can ride or control dragons, though the Targaryen name is not the part that matters.
      - Because of this, I suspect that blood ties to Valyrian steel exist and that ownership of VS is not simply a matter of buying or finding it.
      - Because of this, I believe strongly in the importance of the female line. We need to know who the mothers are and where the daughters and sisters  and bastards went.
      - Because of this, I think it doesn't matter if Young Griff is really Aegon or if he is a Blackfyre. He is, by some route, a "dragon".

You lost me at the end of this chain.

Sure, Young Griff could be a "dragon" in some distant sense.  But that does mean it does not matter if he is False or True; Good or Evil; a Dragon that saves the World or a Dragon that destroys crops and devours maidens; a Blackfyre or a Son of Rhaegar.

Per the HOTU visions, Aegon is TPTWP and his is the SOIAF.  And I'm pretty sure Rhaegar was referring to his own son, and not someone else's son, when he gave us that prophesy in HOTU

[Hippocras]

I am realizing that one of my basic assumptions, one that it seems not very many people share, is that GRRM's family trees as they currently stand are placeholders and nowhere near complete.

In a story of wars and fighting, Lords and inheritance, the men are mentioned first. Their stories are given some details because GRRM needs to in order to outline key historical events. But I do not think that is all there is to it, and furthermore, I do not think that GRRM thinks that is all there is to it. 

His approach to writing involves a great deal of dropping details and hints here and there and working out other things much later when needed. He does not plan out everything in advance. So when he makes a family tree, he mentions characters that he has a clear idea of how to work in to the story, and leaves out other characters whose stories are equally important, but have longer term implications that he still needs to figure out.

When it comes to the women, their role in the society is largely restricted to being daughters and sisters who become mothers. GRRM adds a few colourful women here and there who manage to find different roles, but the general societal conditions make that the exception, not the rule. This does not, IMO, mean that GRRM is ignoring or devaluing the importance of the sisters and mothers. It is just that it is WORK, and has IMPLICATIONS to figure out which families he wants to be allied with which other ones at various points in time, and that is something that needs to tie in, through a long chain of history, to the main events of the series.

Which is why, when I try to trace lineages, I do not look only at the trees and who has already been given a name or other mention, but also at story details, such as who was chosen for which King's small council. Who served as a lady-in-waiting. Who was allied with who in which war, and whether that alliance remained true in the next war. These are the things that show GRRM has some ideas in the back of his mind that have not taken a clear enough form that they are set in stone in a published family tree.

Edited January 16 by Hippocras

[Lissasalayaya]

Quote

OP: no theory about these books can exist in a vacuum, and each depends on a chain of other theories that each reader holds to be true. It can be an interesting exercise to map out your own chains. What do you believe to be true even though it is not yet confirmed? Which other ideas do you therefore tend to rule out because of this belief?

Hmmm, yes and no, I think. 

For example, we're all in agreement that Bran lost the use of his legs rather than his arms. If there ever appears a reader who believes the reverse, and you want to convince him he's wrong, there are countless passages you can cite to show that Bran has the use of his arms, and doesn't have the use of his legs. But we should recognize that a person can be impervious to evidence, and for many reasons. Even ourselves. We've all found ourselves from time to time being "that guy/girl" who just can't listen to reason, only to learn later that we were wrong.

He may be stubbornly clinging to an idea, he may have bad reading comprehension, the wording in the evidence may be confusing for him, he may not understand the logical boundaries of the situation, the logical boundaries of unreliable narration, or logic as such.

This is an extreme example, because misunderstanding Bran's injury this way is absurd, but the end result is an impass identical to that found in moderate disagreements about what the text means. It's found everywhere in ASOIAF; in the disagreements about whether a teenage girl can be an accomplished jouster, whether a description of smoke above Winterfell can be a real dragon. ASOIAF even foregrounds this inescapable fact of disagreements when, for example, maesters credit and discredit one another.

At the end of the day, truth claims rest upon credibility judgements, and credibility judgements are to be made by each individual for himself. Everybody needs to be free to speak their own opinion about what they think is and isn't credible. It's up to each individual to sharpen his ability to assess situations for truth.

The best theories and analyses to me are ones that begin with as few theories or assumptions as possible, and build their logic from first principles like "legs are not arms", "smoke is not a dragon", and "he is not she." Those could all become true, but the analyist has to show me a part of the story that permits the translation, and how that part of the story is referring to the part in question.

Edited January 16 by Lissasalayaya

[Mourning Star]

On 12/18/2023 at 9:03 AM, Hippocras said:

I believe that the Lightbringer myth is not the distant past but rather a hint of something that will be part of the current story. Furthermore, I believe that Lightbringer is GRRM's version of Anduril from LOTR, and so it is actually a sword.
       - Because of this, I do NOT believe that Lightbringer is Dany, or dragons, or Jon etc. Azor Ahai was the Hero. Lightbringer was his sword. There is no point swapping the two.
       - Because of this, I believe that an undercurrent of the story that needs to be considered is how and why this magical flaming sword will re-occur; not just who might wield it.

I tend to think this is exactly the sort of story where the hero can become the villain, or where one man's hero can be another man's villain.

The Last Hero killing Nissa Nissa to forge Lightbringer and then becoming the Night's King (Nissa Nissa being his corpse bride), makes a lot of sense to me.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that...

Edited January 16 by Mourning Star

[Sandy Clegg]

On 1/16/2024 at 10:04 PM, Mourning Star said:

I tend to think this is exactly the sort of story where the hero can become the villain, or where one man's hero can be another man's villain.

This is one of the soundest assumptions here. I'd go one step further, and say that one man's hero can become another man's villain but then ultimately end up being everyone's happy compromise. I think Jon's arc, and probably Bran's too, will end in balance, not inhabiting either extreme.