Your Most Hated ASOIAF theory

[SaffronLady]

Right, a rather specific one:

Jon Snow is not only the Prince Promised to the Others, but his life would also run full course and fulfill it.

That is really not a fate any teenager should go through, TBH.

[Gilbert Green]

3 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

Well, not for the first time.

But you know, if someone insists that "Cersei is a loving mother", makes comparisons to other characters of entirely different scope and magnitude of evil just to prove she is a loving mother, and posts over a dozen threads to that end, even jokes could run the full course of funny to annoying to hated.

I don't count that as a theory, but merely as an opinion.  If it can never be proven right or wrong in coming volumes, then I don't count it as a theory.

Also, that sounds like a beef with a particular poster that you hate.

Also, I never said "Nobody hates a joke."  Be careful with that selective quoting.  People do hate jokes, sometimes.

[sifth]

5 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

this does not happen

this isn't a new idea

I mean it does, but I’m too lazy to find the quote and to be honest feel I wasted too much time and brain cells, on a theory I’ve mentioned hating. 
 

So to each their own.

[SaffronLady]

45 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

If it can never be proven right or wrong in coming volumes, then I don't count it as a theory.

Define "can never be proven right or wrong in coming volumes".

 

[SaffronLady]

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

this does not happen

 

Quote

 

One day I will be like him. The thought filled Bran with dread. Bad enough that he was broken, with his useless legs. Was he doomed to lose the rest too, to spend all of his years with a weirwood growing in him and through him? Lord Brynden drew his life from the tree, Leaf told them. He did not eat, he did not drink. He slept, he dreamed, he watched. I was going to be a knight, Bran remembered. I used to run and climb and fight. It seemed a thousand years ago.

What was he now? Only Bran the broken boy, Brandon of House Stark, prince of a lost kingdom, lord of a burned castle, heir to ruins. He had thought the three-eyed crow would be a sorcerer, a wise old wizard who could fix his legs, but that was some stupid child's dream, he realized now. I am too old for such fancies, he told himself. A thousand eyes, a hundred skins, wisdom deep as the roots of ancient trees. That was as good as being a knight. Almost as good, anyway.

 

Bran III, ADWD.

At least, Bran thinks BR is 3EC. POV style writing conveniently gives GRRM wiggle room that Bran is wrong.

[Gilbert Green]

4 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

Define "can never be proven right or wrong in coming volumes".

Hardly seems worth the effort.  But the opinion you quoted seems a perfect example.  Even if Cersei murders both her children in future, it will not be proven wrong.  Because the opinion was only ever about what we have seen so far.

[SaffronLady]

3 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Hardly seems worth the effort.  But the opinion you quoted seems a perfect example.  Even if Cersei murders both her children in future, it will not be proven wrong.  Because the opinion was only ever about what we have seen so far.

Very well, let me move on to the theory-question most relevant to the opinion:

"Did or did not Cersei kill Melara Heatherspoon?"

In the scenario that GRRM believes no further clarification is needed, and the question is never directly answered in TWOW and ADOS, would it remain a theory that was never proven right or wrong in later volumes?

[Gilbert Green]

9 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

Very well, let me move on to the theory-question most relevant to the opinion:

"Did or did not Cersei kill Melara Heatherspoon?"

In the scenario that GRRM believes no further clarification is needed, and the question is never directly answered in TWOW and ADOS, would it remain a theory that was never proven right or wrong in later volumes?

Ok, I can clarify that.

The criteria is that it is capable of being verified or falsified.  Not that it necessarily will be.

[Alma11]

On 1/11/2024 at 5:45 PM, Raven Princling said:

 

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

On 1/11/2024 at 7:08 PM, sifth said:

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. 

 

I actually like those theories 

Or rather the concepts behind them. But I agree that there are no proofs and that they'd cheap the actual story. I mean, there is not enough build up and if they turned up to be true at this point of the story, the ending would not be good.

Edited January 14 by Alma11

[sifth]

2 hours ago, Alma11 said:

I actually like those theories 

Or rather the concepts behind them. But I agree that there are no proofs and that they'd cheap the actual story. I mean, there is not enough build up and if they turned up to be true at this point of the story, the ending would not be good.

To be fair, Faegon was introduced, with almost no build up, lol

Heck now that we have George's original notes, we know he wasn't even part of his original outline for AFFC/ADWD.

[PrettyLittlePsycho]

5 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Define "can never be proven right or wrong in coming volumes".

 

It´s just a matter of perspective. Unless GRRM writes a Cersei POV with a line like "Oh, my f***ing children, I hate all of them.", which he won´t, it will always be up to the reader to decide if she´s a good mother or not.

[Gilbert Green]

44 minutes ago, sifth said:

To be fair, Faegon was introduced, with almost no build up, lol

Heck now that we have George's original notes, we know he wasn't even part of his original outline for AFFC/ADWD.

Well, no specific mention.  But it is such a very bare bones outline that I think the argument from silence is maybe not-so-strong.  It has Tyrion traveling to Volantis, to the Sea and on to Dany, but does not say who he is traveling with.  The "witness to incest" line may reference Tyrion's value to some rival claimant.  But possibly GRRM just had Dany in mind.

No mention of Frog either, IIRC.  Which might make sense as I think Frog and Young Griff are connected.  Maybe both are late additions.

And what has been the secret scheme of Varys and Illyrio all this time?  Could GRRM be making it up as he goes along?  Not sure.

Aegon (the real one) has been prophesied as TPTWP ever since the HOTU visions of Book 2.   GRRM, through Jorah, immediately told Dany and the reader that the prophesy must be wrong because Aegon was dead.  But the seed was planted.

 

 

[sifth]

13 minutes ago, PrettyLittlePsycho said:

It´s just a matter of perspective. Unless GRRM writes a Cersei POV with a line like "Oh, my f***ing children, I hate all of them.", which he won´t, it will always be up to the reader to decide if she´s a good mother or not.

I mean she was blind to Joff being openly cruel to people, Sansa in particular. That alone makes her a pretty horrible mother in my book. My mother would literally wash my mouth with soap if I ever did that.

[sifth]

1 minute ago, Gilbert Green said:

Aegon (the real one) has been prophesied as TPTWP ever since the HOTU visions of Book 2.   GRRM, through Jorah, immediately told Dany and the reader that the prophesy must be wrong because Aegon was dead.  But the seed was planted.

 

 

I mean all we really get in that second book is Dany seeing a "mummers dragon". That could mean literally anything, heck it could mean Dany herself or even her brother, if it ever got mentioned at all, after that chapter.

I think what we get from all these notes, is how George's writing process works. He sometimes leaves clues on events that might happen and if they don't logically make sense, he just abandons them in the next book. A great example of this is Joff telling Sansa he's going to take the city watch and form his own army and fight Robb in the field. Then once the next book happens, Tyrion becomes hand of the king and pretty much makes sure Joff never does that. Now we know from GRRM's notes, Joff was suppose to form his own army and fight Robb in the field and lose very badly.

[Gilbert Green]

1 hour ago, sifth said:

I mean all we really get in that second book is Dany seeing a "mummers dragon". That could mean literally anything, heck it could mean Dany herself or even her brother, if it ever got mentioned at all, after that chapter.

I actually forgot about the "mummers dragon" reference.

But the HOTU visions also told us: (1) that Aegon is TPTWP and his is the SOIAF; (2) that "there must be one more" (seemingly referencing Dany because vision Rhaegar seems to look at her as he says this): (3) that Dany is a "child of three" because "three heads have the dragon" (implying, at least arguably, that Dany and Aegon are two of a set of three prophesied children); and some other things that might be relevant that I won't go into.

Throw in the "mummer's dragon" reference, and there is at least a possibility that GRRM had in mind both a real Aegon and a fake Aegon since Book 2.  If not earlier. 

The Three Headed Dragon thing has been a motif since book 1; and Rhaegar's motives have been a mystery since Book 1.  Varys and Illyrio's schemes have been a hanging thread since book 1.  It could be that these Book 1 mysteries were fake mysteries, which even the author did not know the answers to, in the tradition of the LOST TV show which I am now glad I never watched.  That would certainly explain why GRRM has trouble finishing.  But I really don't think GRRM can be convicted of that just yet.  I think it more likely he had some idea of the mysteries he was hinting at, which more or less match what he eventually revealed.

1 hour ago, sifth said:

I think what we get from all these notes, is how George's writing process works. He sometimes leaves clues on events that might happen and if they don't logically make sense, he just abandons them in the next book. A great example of this is Joff telling Sansa he's going to take the city watch and form his own army and fight Robb in the field. Then once the next book happens, Tyrion becomes hand of the king and pretty much makes sure Joff never does that. Now we know from GRRM's notes, Joff was suppose to form his own army and fight Robb in the field and lose very badly.

I don't think one can tell much from these notes.  They are notes to self; not notes to us.  Attempts to reconstruct an author's creative process on limited evidence is fraught with perils.  The published texts are canon.  Notes and superceded drafts not so much.

Edited January 14 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

1 hour ago, sifth said:

I mean she was blind to Joff being openly cruel to people, Sansa in particular. That alone makes her a pretty horrible mother in my book. My mother would literally wash my mouth with soap if I ever did that.

From a religious perspective, one might say that Cersei is a bad mother, because she is on the road to Hell, and trying to lead Joffrey (at least) after her.  Tommen and Myrcella still seem relatively innocent, in part because they are so young; and also (perhaps) because Cersei does not expect them to rule.  But Joffrey's cruelty could also be just a matter of personal temperament and/or personal choice.

From a non-religious perspective, who can say?  Such questions are above my pay grade.  It is a cruel and wicked world.  Might makes right.  You can't make an omelet without breaking heads.  The ends justify the means.  Etc., etc.  In a cruel and wicked world, righteous behavior is no guarantee of survival either.   Ned tried to spare children, and got his head chopped off as reward.

I suspect, though, that it dehumanizes Cersei a bit much to say she has no love for her children.  I think she does, and when she loses her children, I think GRRM will try to tug at our heartstrings just a little bit.

 

[PrettyLittlePsycho]

1 hour ago, sifth said:

I mean she was blind to Joff being openly cruel to people, Sansa in particular. That alone makes her a pretty horrible mother in my book. My mother would literally wash my mouth with soap if I ever did that.

And even that can not be called bad parenting. Some people would argue that letting your son do what he feels like is good for "developing his personality" or stuff...

[Gilbert Green]

On 1/11/2024 at 11:09 AM, SeanF said:

The 163 slave children were actually crucified by Daario.

But is that not just the sort of thing Euron would do?

Oh wait.  Daario = Euron is another hated theory.

There are no popular Daario theories.  All of them are hated.  Maybe because fans want him to just go away.  Or maybe a few want him to continue to be Dany's slightly-edgy-but-harmless (to Dany) boy-toy-in-a-clown-suit.

Except, maybe ... it seems there is one popular Daario theory.  It holds that during Daario's first months-long-absence from Dany, he actually took the treasure Dany gave him, actually took it to the Lamb Men, actually gave it to the Lamb Men, and successfully forged a trade deal.   Those Lhazareen traders are sure to show up at any time now.  After the blockade gets lifted.  Thanks, Daario. 

This popular theory is, admittedly, popular for a reason.  It has real textual support.  In the form of Daario saying it happened.  You gotta trust the text.  And I guess as long as he stays out of sight most of the time, fans are happy to let him make all the trade deals he wants.

No way would Daario take that treasure somewhere else and do something else with it.  That's just tinfoil.  He's just not that kind of guy.

Edited January 15 by Gilbert Green

[Aejohn the Conqueroo]

On 1/12/2024 at 2:42 PM, kissdbyfire said:

Ice wights VS fire wights

I'm cheering for the good ones.

[kissdbyfire]

46 minutes ago, Aejohn the Conqueroo said:

I'm cheering for the good ones.

Well, you need both, don’t you? The fire wights to light your bbq - exclusively vegan, of course - and the ice wights for the vodka! 

Edited January 15 by kissdbyfire