First Names as Clues

[TheLastWolf]

On 4/21/2024 at 6:00 PM, Darth Sidious said:

Names in some instances could be correlated to the blood family.

Tyrion = little Ty, for being the son of Tywin.

Craster = Starc = Stark. Supports the belief that Craster is a Stark. There are clues to point the reader to this conclusion.

Karstark = Stark

Then the most important. Drogon = little Drogo. 

Mind blowing stuff, you should do this more often when not bashing your favorite-

Just saw it. Never mind.

[Sandy Clegg]

56 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

All the rest is really about him dropping seeds, each one of them being one he may or may not in future choose to water.

I may be wrong, but isn't George's gardening style a little more varied than this?

Some seeds get watered and bloom in the editing process all in one book, some blossom one book later and others are long-term seeds which he may return to in book seven. He does say that he goes back and 'weeds out' a lot of stuff in a given book before that book goes to the publisher (i.e. seeds that seemed interesting at the time of writing, but which turn out to be dead ends or he can't work out how to use them, etc). So the gardening process is sometimes over with by the time we get a book. But others seeds may be part of further reveals, which seems to be the common belief.

Essentially, aren't there short-term, medium-term and long-term yields, just like with actual gardens? I think we could use a separate thread on this as even I'm confused on it at times.

[Lissasalayaya]

3 hours ago, Hippocras said:

@Lissasalayaya I did respond to a couple of posts here and elsewhere that were trite and dismissive, while also being unreflective. But that is not what yours is. I will respond to your points as best I can.

1. Length. I actually try hard to be brief. But this type of analysis does not lend itself to brevity. There is a lot of history, and there are usually several examples of every name.

2. Proof. I agree it would be really very nice to have some. But insisting on it misses my central point really, because what I am trying to show is that GRRM is using first names to draw associative and historical links between families without having to create detailed family trees for every single family. He is writing novels, ultimately. Wasting his time on excessive family trees just to meet fans' needs for "proof" is not actually what any of us want from him. What we want is the actual books to be finished. I am trying to show that first names in fact replace in key ways the need to create an overwhelmingly abundance of family trees. Furthermore we know perfectly well that GRRM is not an "architect" but a "gardener" which is precisely WHY the proof is going to come later, and only where it is needed for him to tell his story. All the rest is really about him dropping seeds, each one of them being one he may or may not in future choose to water. There can be no proof where the author himself has not yet fully worked out the details.

3. The central premise. It is indeed a theory that the links between various families are going to come more and more to the fore in the next book, as each character and family adapts to the new politics and circumstances. Before the Wo5K there was a certain structure of power. However a large number of deaths and political shifts have now happened that dramatically changed where each character stands in lines of inheritance. The Frey family is openly discussing this fact. Littlefinger is manipulating this fact for his own ends in the Vale. So even if we do not have overt proof yet that other characters elsewhere are thinking along these same lines, I really don't think readers should be surprised if that turns out to be the case.

4. Tytos Blackwood is not a descendant of Tywin Lannister's father. Nor was he named out of respect for Tywin's father because Tywin's father was simply not respected. This embarrassment is one of the fundamental drivers of Tywin's character. This means that there must be another Tytos further back in history, whom Tytos Lannister, Tytos Brax and Tytos Blackwood were all named after. And as the Ty_ pattern exists almost exclusively in the Lannister family, and goes very very far back in time, it is very unlikely that this first Tytos was anything other than a Lannister. In my analysis above I showed the likely route.

 

1. Length. I was only pointing out length to say that I put in enough work to hear you to be entitled to give a response that can't fairly be invalidated, because I saw that you had invalidated other peoples' responses on the grounds that they didn't read enough. When it comes to analysis, length is a virtue by my lights. At least on first impression. I like rigorousness, but it requires a high word count even of the most succinct writers, especially for this story. So, long length indicates to me that there's an above average likelihood that the writer is committed to quality, and because of that I'm less likely to regret spending the time to read it. 

2. Proof. I think I understand your thesis. Based on this response it seems like you misunderstand what I mean by proof. When I say you haven't given proof, I'm not suggesting that you should build a more fleshed out family tree to correct for the family tree dismemberments that happen every time a woman marries. What I'm saying is that the act, itself, of discovering or giving greater attention to the dismemberments needs to yield, enable or imply predictions about the story that has dramatic implications, either for the characters or for the readers. Preferably for questions that the readers are actually asking. To trash my own example, nobody is asking how many children Ambrose Butterwell's daughters had, so discovering that information is unimpressive, regardless that I had to travel through a Butterwell-Risley wormhole to do it. (That information is not established in the story, but that's beside the point.) On the other hand, a question readers are asking is Where is the Butterwell dragon egg? If traveling through the Butterwell-Risley wormhole somehow helped me find the fate or location of the egg, that would do a lot of work to prove the usefulness of this kind of analysis. 

3. The central premise. In any case, I agree that lines of inheritance are important for readers to keep track of, especially at this climactic stage of the story. The characters are very dilligent about keeping track of lines of succession, while the readers are very lazy about it. GRRM is taking advantage of this predictable disparity in interest to great effect. 

4. 

Quote

Tytos Blackwood is not a descendant of Tywin Lannister's father. Nor was he named out of respect for Tywin's father because Tywin's father was simply not respected. This embarrassment is one of the fundamental drivers of Tywin's character. This means that there must be another Tytos further back in history, whom Tytos Lannister, Tytos Brax and Tytos Blackwood were all named after. 

That may or may not be what that means. It's a possibility, but not the only one. Daeron I the Young Dragon's conquest of Dorne was a colossal failure that wasted an inordinate amount of gold, time, energy, and killed thousands of people for nothing, but that didn't stop Aegon IV from naming his son after him. 

If I may press my own notions about what GRRM might be doing with reused character names...

A defining characteristic of Story with a capital S is that it needs to be interpreted foremost in its own context. That means a story is a dictionary unto itself. In other words, if I ever want to know what the name Ned means, for instance, the most important place for me to reference in search of an answer is not a book of baby names, classic literature, or pop culture, it's the very first use of the name Ned in the story.

The reason that's the primary place to look is because arbitrary is the last thing we should assume about any one of the author's decisions with the story. And the reason for that is because a story is a complex and difficult thing to write, certainly compared to doing nothing at all, and there is no explanation for why the author went to the effort to write it that's weaker than Just because. 

So, my starting point for developing my understanding of the name Ned or any one of the characters named Ned is to refer to the original Ned, Ned Stark. Whatever the storytelling essence of "Ned" is in the mind or heart of GRRM, that essence must also be present in the characters Ned Dayne, Ned the ferryman, Ned Bean and Ned Woods. So the challenge is to think about what all of those characters have in common, particularly with regard to their narrative role in the story. 

If you're familiar with some of these Neds, similarities might already jump out at you. Ned Stark is rumored to have fathered Jon Snow on the daughter of a ferryman, and Ned the ferryman is a ferryman. Ned Dayne has been raised to highly esteem Ned Stark, and Ned Stark slew Arthur Dayne. The reason those similarities jumped out at us is because they relate to questions we're already asking: Who is Jon Snow's mother and how did Ned kill Arthur Dayne? 

Edited May 7 by Lissasalayaya

[Hippocras]

1 hour ago, Sandy Clegg said:

I may be wrong, but isn't George's gardening style a little more varied than this?

Some seeds get watered and bloom in the editing process all in one book, some blossom one book later and others are long-term seeds which he may return to in book seven. He does say that he goes back and 'weeds out' a lot of stuff in a given book before that book goes to the publisher (i.e. seeds that seemed interesting at the time of writing, but which turn out to be dead ends or he can't work out how to use them, etc). So the gardening process is sometimes over with by the time we get a book. But others seeds may be part of further reveals, which seems to be the common belief.

Essentially, aren't there short-term, medium-term and long-term yields, just like with actual gardens? I think we could use a separate thread on this as even I'm confused on it at times.

I think it is all of those things. The man is non-committal, and his books are character driven. Which means that he needs to work out the actual twists and turns of his story before deciding which "seeds" to flesh out. It is a case of history being constructed to match the story as he writes it, but with enough elements planted ahead of time that it doesn't feel arbitrary and unearned.

[Sandy Clegg]

24 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

I think it is all of those things. The man is non-committal, and his books are character driven. Which means that he needs to work out the actual twists and turns of his story before deciding which "seeds" to flesh out. It is a case of history being constructed to match the story as he writes it, but with enough elements planted ahead of time that it doesn't feel arbitrary and unearned.

Yeah I scratch my head over this a lot. He's definitely got the end of the series half-formed in his head - he's said that he knows all the major 'set-pieces' for example, so he is working to a plan for sure, he just delights in creating side characters I think. The new characters all bring in different ways to foreshadow the main story, probably - to me it seems as though he is invested in this style of storytelling over 'getting to the end' because the journey to him is more interesting the destination, especially when he knows what that end is. I mean, it'll be worth it I'm sure, if he can get it all written. 

[Hippocras]

4 hours ago, Lissasalayaya said:

2. Proof. I think I understand your thesis. Based on this response it seems like you misunderstand what I mean by proof. When I say you haven't given proof, I'm not suggesting that you should build a more fleshed out family tree to correct for the family tree dismemberments that happen every time a woman marries. What I'm saying is that the act, itself, of discovering or giving greater attention to the dismemberments needs to yield, enable or imply predictions about the story that has dramatic implications, either for the characters or for the readers. ...

Well I do agree, it is just that I would then be making predictions about what will happen, and there remain a wide range of options available. As I said, the most likely place where this question of lineages is going to become extremely significant is in the Vale. The current known line of succession is very very short. But LF knows things he is not telling Sansa, and it basically never ever happens that a line of succession simply doesn't exist: rather it is a mater of more distant family connections needing to be dug up. Even King Robert Baratheon, who won his Kingdom by conquest, needed to use his grandmother to underpin his claim. Littlefinger wants everything. All the power. And somehow he thinks Sansa is the key to that. People should really be wondering why that is. And IMO it is because of lineages - a wife who is beautiful and has some diplomatic finesse alone is simply not enough to get someone as lowborn as Littlefinger all the way to the top.

I think the true Vale line of succession is as follows:

Sweet Robin -> Harry Hardyng -> descendant of Jasper Arryn's sibling who was the mother of Minissa Whent -> Edmure Tully (his infant heir would be passed over) -> Bran and Rickon (assumed dead) -> Sansa

Meaning that LF sees Sansa's claim to the North, but also to the Riverlands, and also to the Vale. Meanwhile her Tully line may even include a claim to the Iron Throne itself (via Daella, Aegon V's sister or even possibly Duncan and Jenny).

 

4 hours ago, Lissasalayaya said:

4. That may or may not be what that means. It's a possibility, but not the only one. Daeron I the Young Dragon's conquest of Dorne was a colossal failure that wasted an inordinate amount of gold, time, energy, and killed thousands of people for nothing, but that didn't stop Aegon IV from naming his son after him. 

That may be how we see it, but Daeron I was very much admired. As we know that Aegon IV set out to invade Dorne all over again, sending a huge fleet (which was destroyed in a storm) it is clear that Aegon IV was one of his admirers. 

The only was I could see Tytos Blackwood being named after Tywin's father is if it was done as a provocation: as in, KNOWING that Tywin was so embarrassed by him, a family that hated Tywin set out to rub the name in Tywin's face - Tywin by then being Hand of the King to Aerys.

4 hours ago, Lissasalayaya said:

If I may press my own notions about what GRRM might be doing with reused character names...

A defining characteristic of Story with a capital S is that it needs to be interpreted foremost in its own context. That means a story is a dictionary unto itself. In other words, if I ever want to know what the name Ned means, for instance, the most important place for me to reference in search of an answer is not a book of baby names, classic literature, or pop culture, it's the very first use of the name Ned in the story.

The reason that's the primary place to look is because arbitrary is the last thing we should assume about any one of the author's decisions with the story. And the reason for that is because a story is a complex and difficult thing to write, certainly compared to doing nothing at all, and there is no explanation for why the author went to the effort to write it that's weaker than Just because. 

So, my starting point for developing my understanding of the name Ned or any one of the characters named Ned is to refer to the original Ned, Ned Stark. Whatever the storytelling essence of "Ned" is in the mind or heart of GRRM, that essence must also be present in the characters Ned Dayne, Ned the ferryman, Ned Bean and Ned Woods. So the challenge is to think about what all of those characters have in common, particularly with regard to their narrative role in the story. 

I generally agree, but I also have concluded, from looking at a large number of names, that there often is nothing in common between many of them in terms of themes or story roles etc. Sometimes a name is literally the only information we have, which begs the question of why a name was needed at all. Meanwhile we have an author who wrote a great many interesting female characters, paying great attention to some at certain points of history. Patriarchal family trees can not possibly be the only tool he is using to consider the path of history via lines of descent because that would imply that ultimately all these women of the past are utterly irrelevant to the main series. IMO we need to be asking ourselves WHY did he bother ever telling us about Jeyne Nutt? Shiera Blackwood? Lysara Karstark? Yes, he gets his kicks out of this kind of thing certainly, but these names, precisely BECAUSE they trigger associations (Jeyne Westerling, Shiera Seastar, Lysara Rogare) and open up questions, imply that he has a reason why he makes the choices he makes.

 

 

Edited May 7 by Hippocras

[Lissasalayaya]

1 hour ago, Hippocras said:

Well I do agree, it is just that I would then be making predictions about what will happen, and there remain a wide range of options available.

Not at all. The currently published story is all we need to make predictions and test theories, because on any timeline the past and the future are relative to where on the timeline you define the present. For instance, if a person who has never read ASOIAF before were to read the first six chapters of AGOT and no further (Catelyn II), he might be able to predict quite reasonably that Lysa Arryn murdered Jon Arryn, based on the simple idea that storytellers like to surprise their audiences, and that the character who clandestinely sent the news of the murder is perhaps the most surprising answer to the question Who murdered Jon Arryn? 

We don't need to erase our memories in order to simulate that experience. We're probably all capable of constraining our thinking to only the information provided in the first six chapters and seeing what the situation looks like from that perspective, as though chapter six is the present. From there, everything after chapter six is the future and everything before it is the past. If an idea can be generated from a knowledge set constrained to chapters 0 through 6 and it's predictive of things after chapter 6, then the idea predicts the story. 

This actually works in reverse chronological order, too, strangely enough. If an idea that can be generated from a knowledge set that encompasses all five of the main books is predictive of things that happened anywhere in them, that you already read but didn't notice or don't remember, then the idea predicts the story. You can build out extremely powerful tools this way for analyzing the story, and it doesn't require any waiting for new books. 

Quote

That may be how we see it, but Daeron I was very much admired. As we know that Aegon IV set out to invade Dorne all over again, sending a huge fleet (which was destroyed in a storm) it is clear that Aegon IV was one of his admirers. 

Then it may surprise you to learn that the first mention in the series of Daeron I The Young Dragon involved Jon speaking of Daeron with admiration, and his uncle Benjen setting him straight. Benjen taught Jon that Daeron is not someone to admire, and he flipped the script of the official narrative of Daeron "the Young Dragon" by highlighting how his most famous deed was in reality a shameful blunder. Daeron and more than sixty thousand of his own people died for it, and only made the situation worse between the Six Kingdoms and Dorne.

Quote

AGOT Jon I

"Daeren Targaryen was only fourteen when he conquered Dorne," Jon said. The Young Dragon was one of his heroes.

 

"A conquest that lasted a summer," his uncle pointed out. "Your Boy King lost ten thousand men taking the place, and another fifty trying to hold it. Someone should have told him that war isn't a game." He took another sip of wine. "Also," he said, wiping his mouth, "Daeren Targaryen was only eighteen when he died. Or have you forgotten that part?"

As with Ned and every other word in the story, its first appearance is its first definition. Here, Daeron is defined as a historical figure who's admired by people who don't know the real history, and condemned by people who do know the real history. It's no storytelling coincidence that Jon's reaction, to shout and stomp away in a drunken tantrum, is symbolic of how you're feeling now in this discussion.  By arguing for Daeron's admirability you sided with Jon in an argument that he lost.

On his way out, Jon bumps into a serving woman, knocks her drinks to the floor and runs out of the building. Like in Daeron's conquest of Dorne, the smallfolk are the casualties of the foolhardy, and they must be neglected so he can save face. Don't take it too hard. It's just a story, and I'm just showing off. 

Aegon IV's attempted conquest of Dorne shows me that, like Benjen and unlike Daeron I, he has studied Dornish history very closely. 

Quote

I generally agree, but I also have concluded, from looking at a large number of names, that there often is nothing in common between many of them in terms of themes or story roles etc. Sometimes a name is literally the only information we have, which begs the question of why a name was needed at all. Meanwhile we have an author who wrote a great many interesting female characters, paying great attention to some at certain points of history. Patriarchal family trees can not possibly be the only tool he is using to consider the path of history via lines of descent because that would imply that ultimately all these women of the past are utterly irrelevant to the main series. IMO we need to be asking ourselves WHY did he bother ever telling us about Jeyne Nutt? Shiera Blackwood? Lysara Karstark? Yes, he gets his kicks out of this kind of thing certainly, but these names, precisely BECAUSE they trigger associations (Jeyne Westerling, Shiera Seastar, Lysara Rogare) and open up questions, imply that he has a reason why he makes the choices he makes.

There are things in common between reused names, particularly the names that were introduced in the first two books like Ned, Robb, Arya or Bran. But their unifying characteristics sometimes demand a great amount of self-awareness from us, in order to see how our interpretations and behaviors while discussing the story are being symbolized within the story, often in the very same scene we were discussing. 

Edited May 7 by Lissasalayaya

[Hippocras]

10 hours ago, Lissasalayaya said:

Not at all. The currently published story is all we need to make predictions and test theories, because on any timeline the past and the future are relative to where on the timeline you define the present. For instance, if a person who has never read ASOIAF before were to read the first six chapters of AGOT and no further (Catelyn II), he might be able to predict quite reasonably that Lysa Arryn murdered Jon Arryn, based on the simple idea that storytellers like to surprise their audiences, and that the character who clandestinely sent the news of the murder is perhaps the most surprising answer to the question Who murdered Jon Arryn? 

I completely disagree that GRRM is entirely predictable.

He does set things up so they feel earned, yes. But he also drops red herrings everywhere, and creates a sense of spatial disconnection that makes his clues difficult to interpret, much like prophesy. I can indeed construct a number of lineage-based predictions but as I said in response to @Sandy Clegg above, he is only deciding which seeds he is going to bring to flower AS HE GOES. So a great number of the lineage hints he has dropped are in fact likely to lead to not much. In the meantime, I really don't see the point in arguing endlessly about a specific prediction of mine when I myself know that it is only one of several possibilities which have text basis.

 

10 hours ago, Lissasalayaya said:

things that happened anywhere in them, that you already read but didn't notice or don't remember, then the idea predicts the story.

Yes, which is exactly what lineage hints are: things that people don't really notice, because they are trapped in patriarchal thinking, and so don't retain. Yet they are there for us to interpret. That is all I am asking people to do.

 

10 hours ago, Lissasalayaya said:

Then it may surprise you to learn that the first mention in the series of Daeron I The Young Dragon involved Jon speaking of Daeron with admiration, and his uncle Benjen setting him straight. 

No, I am well aware of that, so not "learning" it here. And I have never once said that everyone in the 7 kingdoms admired Daeron I. You misunderstood.

But that is what BENJEN thought of Daeron I. It says nothing at all of what Aegon IV thought of Daeron I and Aegon IV is the only one who matters when it comes to the name he chose for his son. All the evidence says that Aegon IV admired and wanted to emulate Daeron I by invading Dorne again. You can not take what a single character thinks of another and apply it to every other character as if they all think the same way. GRRM is VERY aware that different character feel differently about other people, past and present and his stories are character driven, not meta-reference driven.

 

10 hours ago, Lissasalayaya said:

On his way out, Jon bumps into a serving woman, knocks her drinks to the floor and runs out of the building. Like in Daeron's conquest of Dorne, the smallfolk are the casualties of the foolhardy, and they must be neglected so he can save face. Don't take it too hard. It's just a story, and I'm just showing off. 

Mostly you are just sticking to your own bias, here. Seriously, GRRM writes by thinking of what his characters are thinking, and symbolism is not his driving principle. Not to say he is against using it, where it fits.

 

10 hours ago, Lissasalayaya said:

There are things in common between reused names, particularly the names that were introduced in the first two books like Ned, Robb, Arya or Bran. But their unifying characteristics sometimes demand a great amount of self-awareness from us, in order to see how our interpretations and behaviors while discussing the story are being symbolized within the story, often in the very same scene we were discussing. 

Yes, and all I am asking from you is some self-awareness and acceptance of the evidence that there is. Your bias is so strongly in favour of the names being entirely symbolic that you refuse to see the clues he has dropped. But there is EVIDENCE of characters being named after other ones, including other characters from the mother's family. There is evidence of naming patterns within families. There is evidence that certain families are more linked by marriage than others. And there is evidence that GRRM considers women characters just as important as male ones even though they cannot pass on their family name. So assuming female characters have no influence on naming patterns is really just a bias.

GRRM is a voracious reader of history. He is creating an epic that has the feel of how real history works. And in real European history, it is impossible to understate the importance of lineage. 

 

Edited May 8 by Hippocras

[Sandy Clegg]

13 hours ago, Lissasalayaya said:

For instance, if a person who has never read ASOIAF before were to read the first six chapters of AGOT and no further (Catelyn II), he might be able to predict quite reasonably that Lysa Arryn murdered Jon Arryn, based on the simple idea that storytellers like to surprise their audiences, and that the character who clandestinely sent the news of the murder is perhaps the most surprising answer to the question Who murdered Jon Arryn? 

This should really get its own thread. The idea of 'reasonable predictions and assumptions' of new readers is an interesting one, because the books don't really come with a difficulty setting. However, George is writing in the fantasy genre, traditionally not the realm of Agatha Christie-type mysteries and complex whodunnits, etc. So the average reader is much less prepared for the need to bring those analytical tools which are required for mystery fiction. Which ASOIAF, in part, most decidedly is. 

It's really hard for me to cast my mind back to my thought processes on reading the first book because there were four other books waiting for me and I just wanted to plough on and get through them all. Did I imagine that Jon's mother might be Lyanna? I genuinely can't recall. That wasn't where my mind was at. But was I shocked at Lysa's reveals at the end of ASOS? You bet. Didn't see that coming at all.

I think you either need a re-read, or some foreknowledge (from a friend perhaps) of the idea that 'hey, you gotta pay attention to the clues  in these books' to really be able to predict much. But like Gared says in the prologue: 'We should start back'. George factors in the re-readability of these books when constructing mysteries. 

 

Edited May 8 by Sandy Clegg
typos

[Lissasalayaya]

7 hours ago, Hippocras said:

I completely disagree that GRRM is entirely predictable.

I'm not suggesting GRRM or ASOIAF is entirely predictable. I don't know if you didn't understand me or if you're misrepresenting what I meant to make it easier to rebutt. But in case it's the former I'll explain it another way. 

In math class you probably learned something called Pythagorean's theorem. It's a formula (a2 + b2 = c2) that calculates the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle. Pythagorean's theorem has been proven demonstrably true in hundreds of different ways. When something in math is proven that well they stop calling it a theory and start calling it a theorem, which means rule, while theory's meaning is closer to working proposition. 

But, the theorem doesn't work on an equilateral triangle, an isosceles triangle, a scalene triangle, an acute triangle, or an obtuse triangle. If you try it, the formula will return the wrong answer to the question What is the length of the hypotenuse? So the theorem is so true that it's considered a rule, but that doesn't mean it's the right tool for every job.  It's only the right tool for one-sixth of triangle types, and it's never the right tool for shapes that aren't triangles. 

Useful ideas for understanding ASOIAF are the same way. For example, the idea that a death we don't see is a death that didn't heppen is useful for a lot of situations. It can accurately predict that Jon Connington, Sandor Clegane and Davos Seaworth are still alive, and that Renly Baratheon and Ned Stark are really dead. But there are situations where it predicts innacurately, like Catelyn Stark. It's technically accurate in the sense that Catelyn really did die, but practically inaccurate because death implies that we won't see that character animated and doing things again, but of course that is what happens when Catelyn becomes Lady Stoneheart. 

Whatever situation you're handling, you have to try different tools to find what works for that situation. Few tools work for every situation, but that doesn't mean the tool itself is useless or that there must be a good tool. The ones that do work for every situation make up the core tenants of literary analysis, and are taught early in a literature class. Those are things like a text is its own dictionary, what I described earlier. 

Quote

He does set things up so they feel earned, yes. But he also drops red herrings everywhere, and creates a sense of spatial disconnection that makes his clues difficult to interpret, much like prophesy. 

We can probably agree that GRRM does a good job of setting things up to make things feel earned. Inasmuch as GRRM has done that, it's safe to assume he has already done that, even before what will be earned has been written, published or imagined by him. To reuse the triangle example, we can calculate the length of the hypotenuse even before the person holding the pen has finished drawing the triangle, because we already have the two sides we need to do the calculation. Granted, there is the risk that he will draw more than one more side, making it not a triangle, but the person who does the calculation anyway and submits it as a prediction has a higher chance of success than a person who doesn't do the calculation and submits a guess. 

For fear that the point got lost in the example, I feel the need to emphasize that ideas, tools, formulas, whatever name you prefer, can predict things that are already published and that happened in the story's past, no matter where you define the present. In that application of the tool, it's predicting things you either didn't notice or don't remember. Successfully predicting things you didn't notice or don't remember in a story of such great length as ASOIAF is a powerful demonstration of the idea/tool's efficacy, especially if they're things readers are dying to know, like who murdered so-and-so, where is Blackfyre, or how did Ned kill Arhur Dayne? You haven't given an actual demonstration of your idea doing anything like that. When asked for one, you dodge the challenge by deferring to the unknowable future as if the demonstration is impossible because we don't have more books:

Quote

I can indeed construct a number of lineage-based predictions but as I said in response to @Sandy Clegg above, he is only deciding which seeds he is going to bring to flower AS HE GOES.

Then I point out that you don't need more books because predicting things we didn't notice or don't remember is plenty good enough. We agree that GRRM puts in the setup, so I'm just asking you to show me how the setup triangulates the payoff. If the idea is useful and you've done the work you should be able to describe a payoff in terms more specific than Inheritance Stuff Everywhere Is Gonna Matter All At Once Really Fast. 

I don't mean to discourage you. I think your idea that there are interesting and important things to find by following female lineages through their changes of last name is undoubtedly true, because it happens so often in a story where about half of the characters are women and about all of the women marry and have their last names changed by it. 

Edited May 8 by Lissasalayaya

[Lissasalayaya]

On 5/8/2024 at 2:42 AM, Hippocras said:

Yes, which is exactly what lineage hints are: things that people don't really notice, because they are trapped in patriarchal thinking, and so don't retain. Yet they are there for us to interpret. That is all I am asking people to do.

Well, if you want people to accept or use what you're offering you have to demonstrate that it has value to them. That means doing the work to apply the idea to find and give them something they want to know. 

It seems like you already have an idea about the sort of things that are waiting to be found behind female lineages. Perhaps a few powerful men are conspiring to keep women out of powerful positions. 

There might be another way of keeping track of families that doesn't necessitate trimming branches off the tree to keep it from getting too cumbersome. Like maybe they should cut male and female branches in equal proportion to make things fair. Rhaenyra and Aegon could have settled the Dance with a coin toss. If Rhaenyra suggested a coin toss we found your first demo.

Quote

No, I am well aware of that, so not "learning" it here. And I have never once said that everyone in the 7 kingdoms admired Daeron I. You misunderstood.

Then we agree that "must" was too strong a word when you said there must be another Tytos from history besides Tytos Lannister that inspired Tytos Blackwood's parents because Tytos Lannister was widely considered embarrassing. 
Not everyone in the Seven Kingdoms admired Daeron, like probably not everyone in the Seven Kingdoms considered Tytos Lannister embarrassing. That may be just what Tywin thinks. 

Quote

But that is what BENJEN thought of Daeron I. It says nothing at all of what Aegon IV thought of Daeron I and Aegon IV is the only one who matters when it comes to the name he chose for his son. All the evidence says that Aegon IV admired and wanted to emulate Daeron I by invading Dorne again. 

The only name Aegon IV chose for his son was Blackfyre, but of course we aren't talking about the same name... or the same son. I'm being glib, but for now if you want to know what I mean I invite you to take another long careful look at the evidence. 

Daeron was named by his mother (Correction: Naerys).

Quote

GRRM is VERY aware that different character feel differently about other people, past and present and his stories are character driven, not meta-reference driven.

Then it's entirely a coincidence that Jon's emotional outburst after admiring Daeron is symbolic of your increasing emotionality after defending the admirability of Daeron. Likewise, that the smallfolk serving girl had to suffer Jon's externalities like sixty thousand soldiers had to suffer Daeron's and like I'm having to suffer yours.

Quote

Yes, and all I am asking from you is some self-awareness and acceptance of the evidence that there is.

I can relate. 

Edited May 10 by Lissasalayaya

[Hippocras]

1 hour ago, Lissasalayaya said:

 

Then I point out that you don't need more books because predicting things we didn't notice or don't remember is plenty good enough. We agree that GRRM puts in the setup, so I'm just asking you to show me how the setup triangulates the payoff. If the idea is useful and you've done the work you should be able to describe a payoff in terms more specific than Inheritance Stuff Everywhere Is Gonna Matter All At Once Really Fast. 

 

I feel like I have. But ultimately asking a single person to go through all of the history and all of the names alone, before anyone will even discuss it is messed up. It is a big job, and if anyone else were actually looking at lineages and helping me speculate I would be getting farther faster. So instead of the spectator/judge stance, why don't you dig in? It is not like Winds is out....

As already stated, exhaustively, all signs strongly point to Littlefinger being highly aware of lineage in his manipulations. We do not have Tully or Arryn family trees but if we did we would see what he is up to very clearly. Furthermore, we would see that he has been at it for a long time, "pruning" the trees to match his interests. I will consider my point proven when Harry the Heir dies, probably at the tournament in a way not so different from Ser Hugh back in the first book (part of the long game set-up). As soon as that happens, every single Lord and Lady in the Vale will need to adapt to new circumstances, namely, a new Heir for Sweet Robin. Who is.... shucks, Edmure is a Lannister prisoner, can't have that, and Bran and Rickon are dead. So, better be Sansa who is conveniently right here.

As for the Riverlands, the Frey family bloodbath is fully established. Some Freys at this point in the story are living in fear of their kin, who they justifiably believe to be trying to kill them for advancement. But the Frey family is not a sealed system: Each Frey is connected by marriage to a number of other families, many of which are in the Vale. This makes the Frey family bloodbath not just about who runs the Twins, but part of something much bigger, including, but not limited to the Vale line of succession issue. The Frey disintegration is nothing less than the disintegration of the strings keeping the tenuous peace throughout Westeros and once they break, old resentments will bubble up. Why? Because the matches Walder has made for himself and for his family over the years were born of old and buried political circumstances. When heirs die, the new ones are found farther back in the tree.

Have you not ever wondered why GRRM gave us such a detailed Frey family tree, but never a Tully tree? 

[Lissasalayaya]

1 hour ago, Hippocras said:

I feel like I have. But ultimately asking a single person to go through all of the history and all of the names alone, before anyone will even discuss it is messed up. It is a big job, and if anyone else were actually looking at lineages and helping me speculate I would be getting farther faster. So instead of the spectator/judge stance, why don't you dig in? It is not like Winds is out....

You've come up with places to look and hypotheses about what might be there to find that readers want to know, you just haven't shown that you've found one yet. I've spent several hours discussing it with you already. I don't regret it and it has been enjoyable overall, so don't take me wrong. 

Frankly I've done enough ASOIAF research privately to know that you're contaminating your investigation with ideology and because of it you're not likely to find answers readers are asking for. In your mind you have already found it, and the investigation is a pesky formality as opposed to a genuine inquiry. Some of your frustration with enlisting help comes from your contempt for the work because the work is impeding the advancement of the ideology. Please don't take this too harshly because I began in the same situation and I still struggle with it sometimes. If you're like me then behind the contempt is genuine love for the story and audience, which I think is just as apparent in your posts.  

Quote

As already stated, exhaustively, all signs strongly point to Littlefinger being highly aware of lineage in his manipulations. We do not have Tully or Arryn family trees but if we did we would see what he is up to very clearly.

Littlefinger's machinations with Sansa seems like a great place to dig in. You've even come up with a good plan for how to begin. You should build the Tully and Arryn family trees to help you see more clearly what Littlefinger might be up to. 

It looks like the patriarchal version of those trees are already built on the wiki, so that's an awesome starting template. 

Tully: https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/House_Tully

Arryn: https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/House_Arryn

Quote

Have you not ever wondered why GRRM gave us such a detailed Frey family tree, but never a Tully tree? 

He might be hiding something, or he might have not gotten around to it yet, or he might have decided it isn't necessary to tell the story he's telling. Though this may not necessarily be a good enough reason to think the Tully tree is important, it's certainly a good enough reason to think the Frey tree is important. My advice is to begin with the assumption that the things the author hasn't written or made yet are not vital to solving whatever related mystery you're trying to solve. Assume the vital organs are already available, and you'll go far. When your investigation leads you to empty space and you can't think of a meaningful interpretation of the absence, assume you took a wrong turn and back up to a fork in the road and take a different path this time. 

Edited May 8 by Lissasalayaya

[Hippocras]

@Lissasalayaya what ideology?

I am really not sure what you are accusing me of as your posts feel much more weighed down by ideology than mine. You seem to be entirely married to symbolic interpretations of names to the point where you dismiss lineage without even looking into it, but I have never once heard the author of these books describe them in terms of symbolism. People who think symbolically and create their stories around it also TALK symbolically. GRRM does not. This is not ideology, it is observation.

GRRM has deep knowledge of many books, series, myths and histories to draw on and he has loads of fun peppering this series with such references. But ultimately when he is writing, his characters decide how to get where they are going. He cares about their motives, and ensures they are all individuals, and that is how he talks about them - people, with histories, beliefs and motives. He has directly talked about some of his initial plans for a character needing to be re-worked because the character did not want to do things the way he had intended. So clearly the symbolism, where it exists, is worked in to support the character's choices and add depth and cross-connection after their story is defined and not the other way around.

As for where my lineage investigations have taken me so far:

1. I can give a picture of how far a certain degree of royal-associated lineage spread in Westeros beginning at or shortly before the conquest, bringing into question the general fan belief that dragon blood is extremely rare. Tracking which families had these early marriage links and where any descendants went from there complements and is reinforced by the historical events that are more directly described. This helps answer fan questions in the sense that magic is tied to bloodlines, and bloodlines are not exclusively male. Magic, where it comes into the series, and why, is very much influenced by matters of heredity. Fans do have many questions about who can bond with dragons, and part of the confusion comes from confounding dragon blood (male AND female) with Targaryen blood (exclusively patriarchal).

2. I can show how one phase of history morphs into the next in a way that affects lineage, some allies marrying each other, others entering peace-making marriages with the opposing side. Several examples of this are in the Vale, where marriages around the conquest created the circumstances that led to Jonos's coup attempt, and shortly after that Maegor's coup, and then a few years later Maegor's death and Jaehaerys's successful bid for the crown. Echoes of the internal Vale struggles after the conquest, because they were factors in subsequence marriage alliances, came back again when Robert's Rebellion began and Jon Arryn had to fight his own bannermen at Gulltown. 

Robert's Rebellion is not so far back in time from the main series, which means that many of the characters that Sansa is now interacting with in the Vale were alive and fought against each other briefly less than 20 years ago. Who they entered into marriage alliances with in the time since can not be separated from this fact. The shape of their family as it currently stands is going to affect how each character reacts; to finding out who Sansa is, to the arrival of Aegon, to news of Daenerys and to the Lannister take-over of the Riverlands where everyone in the Vale seems to have kin, etc. Looking at who has a mother or a cousin or a sister in/from which Riverlands and Northern family is essential because that is what will determine who follows a particular leader, and who rebels against them. The Vale, North, Riverlands, Stormlands, NONE of them will be making choices as uniform and united regional blocks. The family networks create factions WITHIN regions.

 

[Lissasalayaya]

13 hours ago, Hippocras said:

what ideology?

I am really not sure what you are accusing me of as your posts feel much more weighed down by ideology than mine.

There are some things people can't learn any way except the hard way. You'll find out what ideology at the same time everybody else does when either GRRM completes the story or somebody like me publishes the answers to how the puzzle pieces fit together. And if I'm the only reader who has worked out GRRM's ending then god help us because I'm a borderline schizophrenic idiot. 

That is the trouble with the word ideology, isn't it? Yes, I also operate both in the world and in my approach to the story by mode of ideology. A battle of ideas always ultimately comes down to a question of whether an ideology is healthy or sick, functional or dysfunctional. With ASOIAF theories and ideologies alike, the only real answer to its health and functionality is contained in a measurement of how it performed at predicting the future, or in other words, who did a better job of predicting the future of the story.

While predicting the present and past of the story is good enough to build out robust analytical tools, predicting the future of the story - the unpublished stuff - remains the ultimate test. Because while I may sometimes fool others or myself into believing that the thing my model of the story predicted was something I didn't notice or remember when I really did notice or remember it, no such foolery or self-foolery is possible regarding what gets published next, because neither myself nor anybody had any amount of access to those parts of the story until they were published. The only possible explanations for a prediction's accuracy at that point are that the person who made the prediction was astronomically lucky or that she had a greater understanding of the story and author than everybody else did. 

Quote

You seem to be entirely married to symbolic interpretations of names to the point where you dismiss lineage without even looking into it,

Well, I've spent hundreds of hours poring over lineages in this story to research my own questions and writing. I'm not dismissing lineage, I'm just not doing your work for you. I'm well aware that lineage is critical to ASOIAF analysis.

This is a world where children younger than ten keep track of lines of succession and for completely selfish reasons. To us that sounds like watching paint dry, but to them it's everything because their whole world revolves around matters of inheritance. Yet out in the audience hardly anybody raises an eyebrow when you say, look at this family tree, there's a succession crisis looming. Or hey, the ruler you're cheering for is a woman and I think it's going to matter to the people of Westeros rich and poor alike that that categorically places her outside the rightful line of succession no matter what her last name and bloodline is. The tendency in the readers is to shrug it off as if ASOIAF has thus far demonstrated a greater commitment to gratifying its audience's wishes than to cause-effect integrity. Some of the things readers say in this spirit are so astonishing that one can't help but become skeptical that they read the books at all.

So, I have to disagree that we disagree about the importance of lineage. We're on the same page in that regard, at the least. I do recall saying that two or three times now.

Quote

but I have never once heard the author of these books describe them in terms of symbolism. People who think symbolically and create their stories around it also TALK symbolically. GRRM does not. This is not ideology, it is observation.

The author explained why you've never heard him do that. Here:

Quote

Question: Regarding the dead direwolf and her pups: was this a sign from the gods, or from the three eyed crow? Some also see some symbolism in the way the direwolf died, with a stag's antler in her throat presaging a Stark-Baratheon conflict.

Answer: Man, that's something that's for the readers to figure out. If it's a symbol that I've carefully worked in there in a subtle way, it's because I'm trying to be suggestive, to make people think. If you see it and start wondering about it, that's on purpose. But I'm not going to start singing out, "It's a symbol! It's a symbol!" Each reader has to read it and decide for themselves what the symbols are and what they mean. That's part of what you do in a complex work of art, one that's deliberately structured and is relatively ambiguous, so that each reader can drawn their own conclusions. (SSM July 2012 Asshai.com interview in Barcelona)

If the things and events in ASOIAF aren't meant to be symbolic, GRRM's answer makes no sense. Yes, obviously a fantasy story is massively symbolic. An a-symbolic fantasy story is a contradiction of terms. The meaning of the word fantasy is practically I Took Literal Stuff And Made Symbols Of Them. Direwolves are symbols of nature attunement, dragons are symbols of physical power, children of the forest are symbols of nature... these are basic core ASOIAF symbols all established in the first five chapters. Granted, they should be dealt with as literal in-story things to begin with, but to stop the interpretation at literal and never delve into the symbolic meanings of all the wonderful things, events and images being so artfully conveyed seems almost pointless to me. At that point the story is being consumed purely as whimsical entertainment that's interchangeable with anything else that can hold my attention and burn some time. There's no attempt to relate it to yourself and your world. Dragons may not be real, but they represent power and power is certainly real.

Edited May 10 by Lissasalayaya

[Hippocras]

I see. This is all just about you thinking you are better than everyone. Ok, well I have nothing to say to that.

GRRM very much values the journey of his story. So figuring out the broadest strokes or the ending is hardly the point. I actually agree he uses symbolism in key places for setting up broad strokes, it is just that the real life of the story does not come from that. It comes from his characters.

So no, he is not just avoiding talking about symbolism to avoid giving away the ending: He is talking about the parts that give him joy in writing, which is his characters. if the symbolism was more of what motivated him, his discussions of the books would have a much more philosophical feel. The books themselves would also be shorter and more concise.

Edited May 10 by Hippocras

[Sandy Clegg]

@Hippocras @Lissasalayaya I think it's a shame this convo has gotten a bit sour, because it seems as though you both have a lot of common ground from which to work on. Personally I would shy away from either extreme. Symbolism is important to George. The characters are important to George. There's no need for an either/or situation here. The fact that he doesn't talk about the symbolism, but rather plot and characters, may indeed be along the lines of what Lissalayaya says - George doesn't want to tip his hand and deny us the pleasure of working things out for ourselves. As to having foreknowledge of the ending, @Lissasalayaya ? Well, we've all been there at some point or another. I've had the ending figured out three or four times only to realise a few months later that I was probably completely wrong.  

[Hippocras]

23 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

@Hippocras @Lissasalayaya I think it's a shame this convo has gotten a bit sour, because it seems as though you both have a lot of common ground from which to work on. Personally I would shy away from either extreme. Symbolism is important to George. The characters are important to George. There's no need for an either/or situation here. The fact that he doesn't talk about the symbolism, but rather plot and characters, may indeed be along the lines of what Lissalayaya says - George doesn't want to tip his hand and deny us the pleasure of working things out for ourselves. As to having foreknowledge of the ending, @Lissasalayaya ? Well, we've all been there at some point or another. I've had the ending figured out three or four times only to realise a few months later that I was probably completely wrong.  

I can not do all of the lineage research for everyone alone. I am a mom with small kids and other responsibilities. It is a fruitful path for theories, but only if I have collaboration. And collaboration is what I come to forums for, not to argue "my" fully formed exhaustively argued and footnoted academic treatise.

Lissalayaya is saying she will not do "my work for me". While coming back over and over again just to pooh pooh my efforts thus far. She has not brough up a single point that actually helps with drawing out the meaningful parts of lineage hints.

So all I am saying is, I am done with this discussion because it is clear she has no intention of respecting the efforts made so far or actually collaborating.

[Sandy Clegg]

Fair point. Maybe a separate thread for each 'main lineage' would help focus people's efforts? It's quite a daunting task.

[Hippocras]

2 hours ago, Sandy Clegg said:

Fair point. Maybe a separate thread for each 'main lineage' would help focus people's efforts? It's quite a daunting task.

The sense I am getting, though it is early stages still, it that this lineage research is really about a set of webs that often span nearly every region of Westeros but that are somewhat distinct from each other within the same regions. These webs will IMO form the basis for surprising choices by some families to not follow the general path of their regional leader in the coming conflicts. For example, while some links exist between Houses Blackwood and Bracken, their general history is of each having their own distinct group of associated families. For the Blackwoods we can name Houses Durrandon, maybe Baratheon, Caron, Penrose, Stark, Royce, with a few other suspects in the Vale and Westerlands. With the exception perhaps of the Lannisters, this web may well have been Robert Baratheon's core support. For the Brackens we can name Houses Wylde, Mooton, Ryswell, possibly Corbray, Swann, and several suspects in the Westerlands and Reach. The Bracken web links together families that often had reasons to support the Blackfyre rebellions, though after the first one only cautiously. These families may well have re-absorbed descendants of Daemon Blackfyre (via a daughter) and maybe even Aemond Targaryen (Alys Rivers's child).

I mentioned the Frey family a few times. Their family tree is intriguing because, as Walder Frey likes to avoid taking sides and hedges his bets, the Frey tree from Walder onward can be seen as a point of intersection between otherwise relatively independent webs. If a Frey web exists to any meaningful degree, then I rather suspect that it it a network of families that has a similar history of hedging bets and avoiding side-taking. Certainly we have some evidence of this sort of behaviour from House Swann and House Royce, two families that provided brides for Walder. We know a lot less about most of the other families.

All that to say that while I do support eventually making individual threads for these webs, the broad shape of them needs to be clarified (hopefully collaboratively) first, to be able to separate them. I did start one thread a while back that was trying to investigate the financial network of Samantha Tarly in the reign of Aegon III and I still think that is a promising starting point for one of the main webs we are discussing.

Edited May 10 by Hippocras