Your Most Hated ASOIAF theory

[PrettyLittlePsycho]

On 1/12/2024 at 3:33 AM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

What if Coldhands is secretly...stay with me here...

 

....Hothands?

You meant Hotpie, didn´t you ?

Seriously, I also hope he´s just some random guy/wight, no secret identity attached.

[PrettyLittlePsycho]

16 hours ago, Willam Stark said:

Most of the fandom did, especially after the end of the show.

It's only on this forum that I've seen people questioning Jon's parentage, on other forums it's recognized as an established fact.

And I blame the show for establishing R+L=J.

GRRM himself said many things in the books will be resolver differently than in the show.

I sincerely hope this is one of them.

[SeanF]

Sansa is actually the daughter of Catelyn and Baelish.

[Aldarion]

33 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Sansa is actually the daughter of Catelyn and Baelish.

I didn't know it was a theory, and now that I do, I'd really love to forget it!

[Gilbert Green]

On 1/10/2024 at 7:38 AM, Sandy Clegg said:

Not so much theories, but every 'What if' post.

• What if Robb had marched south?
• What if Renly had survived?
• What if Tyrion had been a cyborg?
• What if Ned had sideburns?

Cue 10,000 replies. Ugh.

The nice thing about most "what if" threads, is that most are clearly labeled.  They don't interest me so I avoid them.

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Sansa is actually the daughter of Catelyn and Baelish.

Terrible and dumb. But no alternative parentage beats “Dany is the daughter of Rhaegar & Rhaella”, this one absolutely takes the cake and the pie and the ice cream. FFS. And I have you to thank for leaning this evil insanity that I won’t ever be able to unlearn!

[SeanF]

34 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Terrible and dumb. But no alternative parentage beats “Dany is the daughter of Rhaegar & Rhaella”, this one absolutely takes the cake and the pie and the ice cream. FFS. And I have you to thank for leaning this evil insanity that I won’t ever be able to unlearn!

Some people are obsessed with incest, and take it to far greater lengths than the books do.

Baelish perving on his own daughter, Rhaella becoming the lover to her own son, are paraphiliac fantasies.

[StarkTullies]

Most of mine have already been stated, but I'll restate them anyway.

• Character A is secretly Character B.  Exceptions for characters we are supposed to question their identities, such as Coldhands, Lemore, Alleras.
• All the claims the Targaryens have made about themselves are true: only Targaryens can ride dragons (disproven by Nettles), Targaryens never get sick (disproven by many dead Targaryens), incest isn't disgusting when Targaryens do it because they are "god-like and better than lesser men".
• Related to the top two: person X, Y, Z is a secret Targaryen!
• Seemingly contradicting my previous point: any claim of Jon's parentage other than Rhaegar and Lyanna.
• "Jojen Paste".  Jojen foresaw his death and I don't think he willingly made that long journey only to be willingly cannibalized "for the greater good".
• There is one single protagonist.  There may be a single "prince that was promised" (there may not be), but the whole story isn't backdrop to hold up one single character as a hero.
• Cersei is tragic and sympathetic and she loves her children.
• Anything regarding time travel or people from the future controlling events of the past.
• Assuming events in the tv shows are canon to the books.  No elaboration since that topic is rightfully forbidden here, but it doesn't stop people from freely discussing those "theories" anyway.
• Fire and everything that represents it is pure good, and ice and anything that represents it is pure evil.
• Any "theory" from the small but vocal Stark-hating DanyFanatics regarding "all Starks are evil" and "Dany is descended from the gods and/or a goddess herself" that are too ludicrous to further elaborate on.

[Him of Many Faces]

3 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

There's a reason fans have never been able to come up with a coherent timeline of Robert's Rebellion.  

Because no coherent timeline is given in the novels. Robert's Rebellion is an incomplete narrative in the novels and so far each of the five books has given only a little more information. However what does exist in these novels is the literary motif of the blue winter rose imagery. And that's what makes the Jon Snow's parentage, and related to that, Ned's actions, so obvious.

3 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Again, I think R+L=J is a good theory.  I just don't think other theorists should be forced to shut up and go away.

I don't think people with more exotic interpretations should leave the conversation, but I do believe in the reminder that ASoIaF is a series of novels, literature. It should be analyzed as such. When making up assumptions and theories about the text, one should not forget how they would change the meaning of the story or character actions along the way. Ned Starks' relationship with Robert in AGoT is directly affected by Jon being his sister's and Rhaegar's child. They had a fallout over the murder of Rhaegar's children. They reconciliated over Lyanna's death. The old rift over killing children resurfaces when Dany gets pregnant and Robert wants to kill her child (and her). Ned was right to keep Lyanna's child's identity hidden because Robert didn't change, he was still okay with the murder of kids as seen by his furious reaction to the news about Dany. And when Ned finds out about Cersei's incest he will try to save the kids again because he correctly assumes Robert would kill them - why wouldn't he think that after Robert's reaction to previous child murders. Making Ned's flashbacks and dreams mean something different than R+L=J would change the entire narrative that we are given from Ned's POV. Like I said, R+L=J is the key to Ned Stark's behavior and relationship with Robert, it really isn't important to Jon as of yet in the story.

Edited January 13 by Him of Many Faces
Spelling

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, StarkTullies said:

Most of mine have already been stated, but I'll restate them anyway.

• Character A is secretly Character B.  Exceptions for characters we are supposed to question their identities, such as Coldhands, Lemore, Alleras.
• All the claims the Targaryens have made about themselves are true: only Targaryens can ride dragons (disproven by Nettles), Targaryens never get sick (disproven by many dead Targaryens), incest isn't disgusting when Targaryens do it because they are "god-like and better than lesser men".
• Related to the top two: person X, Y, Z is a secret Targaryen!
• Seemingly contradicting my previous point: any claim of Jon's parentage other than Rhaegar and Lyanna.
• "Jojen Paste".  Jojen foresaw his death and I don't think he willingly made that long journey only to be willingly cannibalized "for the greater good".
• There is one single protagonist.  There may be a single "prince that was promised" (there may not be), but the whole story isn't backdrop to hold up one single character as a hero.
• Cersei is tragic and sympathetic and she loves her children.
• Anything regarding time travel or people from the future controlling events of the past.
• Assuming events in the tv shows are canon to the books.  No elaboration since that topic is rightfully forbidden here, but it doesn't stop people from freely discussing those "theories" anyway.
• Fire and everything that represents it is pure good, and ice and anything that represents it is pure evil.
• Any "theory" from the small but vocal Stark-hating DanyFanatics regarding "all Starks are evil" and "Dany is descended from the gods and/or a goddess herself" that are too ludicrous to further elaborate on.

The last is combined with the Freys, Boltons, Slynt being the good guys.

[PrettyLittlePsycho]

58 minutes ago, Him of Many Faces said:

I don't think people with more exotic interpretations should leave the conversation, but I do believe in the reminder that ASoIaF is a series of novels, literature. It should be analyzed as such. When making up assumptions and theories about the text, one should not forget how they would change the meaning of the story or character actions along the way. Ned Starks' relationship with Robert in AGoT is directly affected by Jon being his sister's and Rhaegar's child. They had a fallout over the murder of Rhaegar's children. They reconciliated over Lyanna's death. The old rift over killing children resurfaces when Dany gets pregnant and Robert wants to kill her child (and her). Ned was right to keep Lyanna's child's identity hidden because Robert didn't change, he was still okay with the murder of kids as seen by his furious reaction to the news about Dany. And when Ned finds out about Cersei's incest he will try to save the kids again because he correctly assumes Robert would kill them - why wouldn't he think that after Robert's reaction to previous child murders. Making Ned's flashbacks and dreams mean something different than R+L=J would change the entire narrative that we are given from Ned's POV. Like I said, R+L=J is the key to Ned Stark's behavior and relationship with Robert, it really isn't important to Jon as of yet in the story.

I agree with most of what you say here, Ned is protective of children, but I don´t see any proof of the theory in here.

Ned would protect Lyannas son, true, but wouldn´t he do the same for his own ? Or for the son of anyone else he cares about ?

[Him of Many Faces]

11 minutes ago, PrettyLittlePsycho said:

I agree with most of what you say here, Ned is protective of children, but I don´t see any proof of the theory in here.

Blue winter roses are associated in text with Lyanna, Rhaegar, death, and a newborn child. Yes, that's it, that's the evidence. Also I don't think I should copy paste all of this https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Jon_Snow/Theories#Lyanna_Stark_and_Rhaegar_Targaryen here

 

11 minutes ago, PrettyLittlePsycho said:

Ned would protect Lyannas son, true, but wouldn´t he do the same for his own ? Or for the son of anyone else he cares about ?

He would and he does - he does lie again, for Sansa, in front of the sept of Baelor. That action mirrors him swallowing his honor and lying about Jon. He is also fiercly against murdering Dany or Cersei's bastards.

Edited January 13 by Him of Many Faces
Spelling

[Gilbert Green]

2 hours ago, Him of Many Faces said:

Because no coherent timeline is given in the novels.

That's not why.  A timeline has been created, on this very forum, that dispense with the requirement that Jon Snow be born at the time of the TOJ battle.

Long before that, timelines had been constructed for the events of the main series.

Timelines are inherently speculative, but that never stopped fans before.

2 hours ago, Him of Many Faces said:

I don't think people with more exotic interpretations should leave the conversation, but ...

Seems to me that you absolutely do believe that.

2 hours ago, Him of Many Faces said:

... but I do believe in the reminder that ASoIaF is a series of novels, literature. It should be analyzed as such. When making up assumptions and theories about the text, one should not forget how they would change the meaning of the story or character actions along the way. Ned Starks' relationship with Robert in AGoT is directly affected by Jon being his sister's and Rhaegar's child. They had a fallout of the murder of Rhaegar's children. They reconciliated over Lyanna's death. The old rift over killing children resurfaces when Dany gets pregnant and Robert wants to kill her child (and her). Ned was right to keep Lyanna's child identity hidden because Robert didn't change, he was still okay with the murder of kids as seen by his furious reaction to the news about Dany. And when Ned finds out about Cersei's incest he will try to save the kids again because he correctly assumes Robert would kill them - why wouldn't he think that after Robert's reaction to previous child murders. Making Ned's flashbacks and dreams mean something different than R+L=J would change the entire narrative that we are given from Ned's POV. Like I said, R+L=J is the key to Ned Stark's behavior and relationship with Robert, it really isn't important to Jon as of yet in the story.

All you are doing here is playing connect-the-dots, and filling in the blanks to create one intriguing and plausible scenario.

But GRRM has left us alot of dots.  We can connect the dots in different ways.  And come up with different scenarios.

Ned can be plagued by guilt and regret over his promise to Lyanna even if Lyanna's child is someone other than Jon.  In fact that could potentially make even more sense, since Jon is kinda safe, at least from King Robert.

 

 

[Gilbert Green]

2 hours ago, PrettyLittlePsycho said:

Ned would protect Lyannas son, true, but wouldn´t he do the same for his own ? Or for the son of anyone else he cares about ?

He would even protect Jaime and Cersei's children.

[Mourning Star]

21 hours ago, sifth said:

Bran literally tells us Bloodraven turns into a three eyed crow, when training him in his dreams, in the very next chapter. My guess is Bloodraven is unaware that he appears as a crow in Brans dream. Much like Bran was unaware that he appeared as a winged wolf, in Jojen's dream.

It really has been too long since the last book, if this is something people don't understand.

The crow and Bran discuss it having wings in the falling dream, this explanation has never made sense. It's a big reason why Bloodraven thinking Bran means a man of the Night's Watch is such proof he isn't the three eyed crow.

Bran is in error that Bloodraven is the three eyed crow and readers have clues to pick up on this. Like that it's only ever when the lights are put out and Bran is "in the dark" that he calls Bloodraven the three eyed crow.

Neither Coldhands nor Leaf call Bloodraven the three eyed crow.

That Bloodraven is still somehow passing as the three eyed crow for so many this long after the last book came out is shocking to me, hell they even changed it to the three eyed raven for the show.

[sifth]

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

The crow and Bran discuss it having wings in the falling dream, this explanation has never made sense. It's a big reason why Bloodraven thinking Bran means a man of the Night's Watch is such proof he isn't the three eyed crow.

Bran is in error that Bloodraven is the three eyed crow and readers have clues to pick up on this. Like that it's only ever when the lights are put out and Bran is "in the dark" that he calls Bloodraven the three eyed crow.

Neither Coldhands nor Leaf call Bloodraven the three eyed crow.

That Bloodraven is still somehow passing as the three eyed crow for so many this long after the last book came out is shocking to me, hell they even changed it to the three eyed raven for the show.

Again, Bran literally tells us Bloodraven takes the form of a three eyed crow, in the final Bran chapter published. Bran also tells us he's training him in this form, in that chapter. I don't know how more on the nose George can be with this.

Listen, I get it, it's been nearly 13 years since the last book. We're all looking for things we might have missed from these novels, but sometimes a spade is a spade.

Edited January 13 by sifth

[Willam Stark]

5 hours ago, PrettyLittlePsycho said:

And I blame the show for establishing R+L=J.

GRRM himself said many things in the books will be resolver differently than in the show.

I sincerely hope this is one of them.

I think GRRM is the one you should blame the most since he didn't finish his saga before the show ended.

 

[Him of Many Faces]

33 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

But GRRM has left us alot of dots.  We can connect the dots in different ways.  And come up with different scenarios.

Not all interpretations are valid and no text has unlimited ways of being interpreted. There comes a point where you are no longer interpreting text but writing fan fiction in your head. Like I said before, I do see L+R=J as a mystery that can be solved, not one of many possibilities to theorize, because a certain POV makes no sense without it. And this is why I do not like the parentage theories regarding Jon. I do not consider any other possibility than Lyanna and Rhaegar valid. I don't really know what else to say about this. I am not open to change my point of view unless someone can rethink the entire blue winter rose motif and symbolism. 

 

[SeanF]

Jon and Sansa will be lovers.

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Jon and Sansa will be lovers.