Your Most Hated ASOIAF theory

[Ser Arthurs Dawn]

Theories I hate that haven't necessarily been disproven, but are really just ridiculous:

Jojen paste

Bran is going to...r Meera via Hodor. This one is so disgusting, I don't even think George would go this far.

Daenerys is somehow going to rule both Essos and Westeros.

The Northerners are going to collectively banish Sansa.

Tyrion is a Targ.

Every Stark child with auburn hair is the offspring of Cat's and Edmure's incest.

[kissdbyfire]

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

• Mance = Rhaegar (dislike most x = y (where y is someone who is either obviously dead, or death is needed for narrative purposes and story becomes less compelling if they were alive; but this one irks me in particular for some reason)

• Daenerys = random girl

• Daenerys is a paedo

• Jon parentage theories where having them get together requires loads of plot convenience, including conflicting with the timeline, people not noticing they are gone, people with no hitherto hinted at connection being close friends etc.

• Targaryens are saviours of Westeros

• Westeros is Earth in the future

• Bloodraven mind control behind everything

I'll add Daario is Euron is Benjen and Qhorin Halfhand is Arthur Dayne -   I really like the poster who came up with it but I think they really lost the plot here. 

[LongRider]

33 minutes ago, Ser Arthurs Dawn said:

Every Stark child with auburn hair is the offspring of Cat's and Edmure's incest.

Never heard this one before, it did make me bang my head on the desk though.   

[SeanF]

The 163 slave children were actually crucified by Daario.

[Him of Many Faces]

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Daenerys is a paedo

Whoa, I have missed this theory.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

What I hate most is any variant of the "So-and-so Protagonist is Evil" theory.

Not to say that there can't be spirited critiques of the morality of any of our heroes, whether digging into a horrific deed or an ugly pattern of behavior. That's all fine. GRRM makes sure to complicate his heroes' narratives.

But trying to make the heroes of the story into the villains, that's another thing entirely. It flatly goes against the spirit of the story.

It's hard for me not to think of it as simple trolling, but the alternative is that the people pushing such theories simply do not understand the story GRRM has been telling. #sorrynotsorry

[Raven Princling]

Tyrion being a secret Targ.

Asoiaf being a post-apocalyptic, sci-fi story.

Catelyn was an evil mastermind and a sociopath.

Sansa will stay with Tyrion at the end (I just don't see it for Sansa's story arc).

[SeanF]

36 minutes ago, Him of Many Faces said:

Whoa, I have missed this theory.

The “evidence” is that she shares a bed sometimes, with Missandei, and kisses her.

it’s an epic failure of reading comprehension.

[Alester Florent]

I try not to give bad theories too much headspace, so "hate" is a strong word for them unless they're directly contaminating a thread I'm involved in.

But in essence, any theory that fails to apply the basics of critical, evidential reasoning to itself. Those that reject things we are plainly told on spurious grounds, and fill in the resultant gaps with conjecture and wishful thinking. Those that make wild leaps of logic based on flimsy premises. Those that daisy-chain from previous poorly-reasoned theories. 

Exhibit A would be some of the Lemongate theories. Lemongate itself I have no issue with: Dany remembers a lemon tree in Braavos, where lemons shouldn't grow. This is a discrepancy, and it may or may not be significant. The conclusion drawn by some theorists that Daenerys's whole life is a lie, that she's not the child of Aerys and Rhaella at all, and some of the other stuff built on that, is nonsense. 

I can accommodate the existence of such theories, but it annoys me when they are confidently presented as fact, or of equal credibility to the "orthodox" interpretation of the text, or when its proponents tell other people their own theories are wrong based on the faulty assumption. 

I have no time for theories about Jon's parentage that aren't R+L=J: I consider that confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, through metatextual sources, although "hate" is, again, a strong word. 

Anything that relies on Stark or Tully incest, etc, for obvious reasons. 

[SeanF]

28 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

I try not to give bad theories too much headspace, so "hate" is a strong word for them unless they're directly contaminating a thread I'm involved in.

But in essence, any theory that fails to apply the basics of critical, evidential reasoning to itself. Those that reject things we are plainly told on spurious grounds, and fill in the resultant gaps with conjecture and wishful thinking. Those that make wild leaps of logic based on flimsy premises. Those that daisy-chain from previous poorly-reasoned theories. 

Exhibit A would be some of the Lemongate theories. Lemongate itself I have no issue with: Dany remembers a lemon tree in Braavos, where lemons shouldn't grow. This is a discrepancy, and it may or may not be significant. The conclusion drawn by some theorists that Daenerys's whole life is a lie, that she's not the child of Aerys and Rhaella at all, and some of the other stuff built on that, is nonsense. 

I can accommodate the existence of such theories, but it annoys me when they are confidently presented as fact, or of equal credibility to the "orthodox" interpretation of the text, or when its proponents tell other people their own theories are wrong based on the faulty assumption. 

I have no time for theories about Jon's parentage that aren't R+L=J: I consider that confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, through metatextual sources, although "hate" is, again, a strong word. 

Anything that relies on Stark or Tully incest, etc, for obvious reasons. 

Hence, the past popularity of the theory that Dany was the offspring of Rhaegar and Rhaella.

[sifth]

The Bran time loop theory is my least favorite. 
 

A related one is that the Three Eyed Crow isn’t Blood Raven, but future Bran. 

[kissdbyfire]

3 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

What I hate most is any variant of the "So-and-so Protagonist is Evil" theory.

Not to say that there can't be spirited critiques of the morality of any of our heroes, whether digging into a horrific deed or an ugly pattern of behavior. That's all fine. GRRM makes sure to complicate his heroes' narratives.

But trying to make the heroes of the story into the villains, that's another thing entirely. It flatly goes against the spirit of the story.

It's hard for me not to think of it as simple trolling, but the alternative is that the people pushing such theories simply do not understand the story GRRM has been telling. #sorrynotsorry

I was going to give an example of someone who is a big fan and who is a real life proper alt-right white nationalist christofascist but I’m not gonna coz it may be frowned upon by the powers that be. But just the resume above is enough to maybe give you an idea of how people really can miss the point of the story thoroughly and spectacularly.

[SeanF]

30 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I was going to give an example of someone who is a big fan and who is a real life proper alt-right white nationalist christofascist but I’m not gonna coz it may be frowned upon by the powers that be. But just the resume above is enough to maybe give you an idea of how people really can miss the point of the story thoroughly and spectacularly.

I think I know who you mean.

I get sick of people trying to excuse/exonerate/justify chattel slavery, because it’s their culture/way of life/economy.

 

[kissdbyfire]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think I know who you mean.

You probably do. 

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I get sick of people trying to excuse/exonerate/justify chattel slavery, because it’s their culture/way of life/economy.

 

Tell me about it. It’s disgusting.

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

You probably do. 

Tell me about it. It’s disgusting.

A friend explained it to me.  They fly the Stars and Bars, and absolutely refuse to accept their ancestors were in the wrong, and it spills over into discussions about slavery in fiction.

[Him of Many Faces]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I was going to give an example of someone who is a big fan and who is a real life proper alt-right white nationalist christofascist but I’m not gonna coz it may be frowned upon by the powers that be. But just the resume above is enough to maybe give you an idea of how people really can miss the point of the story thoroughly and spectacularly.

One thing about what too many people don't get is that fiction is always written for the contemporary reader, not the people who are dead for centuries. If slavery is bad now then it was bad 2000 years ago as well, it doesn't matter if it was legal or socially acceptable then. When you read about the Slaver's Bay arc you should not think that enslaving people is okay in that made up fantasy world just like it's not in the real world. Same applies to a lot of other things like gender norms. George isn't writing about these things just for worldbuilding but also to make the reader reflect and compare them to real world counterparts just like every other work of history, fantasy or science fiction literature does.

[Gilbert Green]

This is morphing from a discussion about theories we hate into a discussion about people we hate.

[Aejohn the Conqueroo]

So, whaddaya think, should we start posting how many of the most hated theories we see in this list are theories that we subscribe to?  I'm not listing theories because I don't want to sidetrack, but I count  9 items that people absolutely hope won't happen, that I am rather expecting to happen/ hoping to see happen in  Winds and Dream.

[kissdbyfire]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

A friend explained it to me.  They fly the Stars and Bars, and absolutely refuse to accept their ancestors were in the wrong, and it spills over into discussions about slavery in fiction.

 

1 hour ago, Him of Many Faces said:

One thing about what too many people don't get is that fiction is always written for the contemporary reader, not the people who are dead for centuries. If slavery is bad now then it was bad 2000 years ago as well, it doesn't matter if it was legal or socially acceptable then. When you read about the Slaver's Bay arc you should not think that enslaving people is okay in that made up fantasy world just like it's not in the real world. Same applies to a lot of other things like gender norms. George isn't writing about these things just for worldbuilding but also to make the reader reflect and compare them to real world counterparts just like every other work of history, fantasy or science fiction literature does.

The thing here though is... not that simple. In the example I gave - and many others I have had casual interactions with over the years - the "misunderstandings" that are more aptly described as total reading comprehension fail are much broader than just Slaver's Bay or the issue of slavery and how abhorrent it is. So it's not just about the one thing, it's basically their [mis]understanding of the whole story. 

[kissdbyfire]

25 minutes ago, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

So, whaddaya think, should we start posting how many of the most hated theories we see in this list are theories that we subscribe to?  I'm not listing theories because I don't want to sidetrack, but I count  9 items that people absolutely hope won't happen, that I am rather expecting to happen/ hoping to see happen in  Winds and Dream.

Go for it. But be prepared!