Syrio Forel

[cybroleach]

One more thing: Martin seems somewhat exasperated by the persistence of Syrio inquiries. He's made clear by example that he is never going to give away the ending of that scene. Stating that he's "surprised at the furor" wouldn't be dishonest if he found it hard to believe that fans keep trying to pin him down because they are too dumb to get the hint that he isn't going to answer.

Your theory that Martin is evasive because he desires the conversation to continue to enhance the popularity of the series seems backward. Martin seems disgruntled by these continued fan inquiries, whereas were your theory correct the inquiries should gruntle him - the more inquiries, the better to stir the conversation and spread the interest.

I need to ask how well you know Martin?

Your assertions about him lead me to beleive that either you incredibly wrong or I've fundamentally misjudged him since my knowledge of him isn't massive.

I for instance have met him twice and had breff coversations with him. My other knowledge of him is all 2nd hand the SSM section, his interviews, speaking with Ran and other board members who know him personally, and ofcouse reading all his work.

None of these experences have led me to make assertions on things I heard him say second hand. Let alone use that as a point to argue with.

BTW:

Q: What was Ned's mother's name?

A: Lady Stark, she died.

Q: Did Syrio live?

A: I'm suprised ppl ask about him, the details are their to make your conclusion

In both cases he doesn't answer the qustion. Your comments are silly that he should be vague about her name yet flat out with Syrio. And in allmost all respects this is his MO in fan corrispondence to not answer question unless their very general.

[AvengingAryaFan]

I need to ask how well you know Martin?

As you report this example, Martin seems neither gruntled nor disgruntled by the question of whether Syrio lived, but merely surprised. I've met him but claim no special source other than those you've mentioned; so if my impression of his mild exasperation with the question is incorrect, I'm happy to correct it.

Perhaps this is a good time to go back and review Martin's reported responses to the question of whether Syrio lived. Do you have one or more cites? His precise words are crucial; consistent reports on his demeanor might also be useful. Your extensive editing lapses disincline me to trust the accuracy of your report of this particular response by Martin.

[Mad Monkey]

What does "gruntle" mean?

[Roi Woodt]

I don't think he'd intentionally do such a stupid, amateurish thing as write a cliffhanger and then leave his readers hanging for three and a half published books. Seems to me that the notion that this is what he's done only provides another argument in favor of the possibility that he really didn't realize the reaction Syrio's fate would generate. He is much too good a writer to keep his readers on the rope he purposefully tied us to for this long.

Responding to an old post, but I just wanted to say that we have still no idea who was intended with the giant shadow looming over the smaller shadows (with the armour made of stone and all that) from Bran's vision. We neither heard something about that and we still don't know who/what he intended. Thus the argument about being too good a writer isn't, imo, a strong one.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

Responding to an old post, but I just wanted to say that we have still no idea who was intended with the giant shadow looming over the smaller shadows (with the armour made of stone and all that) from Bran's vision.

Well, we know it wasn't Joff. :P

[Roi Woodt]

Thanks Errant Bard and AvengingAryaFan, every bit of help is welcome (even when you don't agree with the theory)!

You have an excellent point, Errant Bard. Perhaps one will come to me later, but at the moment I can think of no way to refute it. Given that, I'm inclined to say you're right. In a game of logic, my argument's premises are likely no stronger than Roi's, which is why the two of us have reached our impasse.

Thank you. Just wondering, did this change something about how you think about Jaqen=Syrio, or not at all?

[Roi Woodt]

Well, we know it wasn't Joff. :P

hahaha, sssssht, you are devaluating my arguments! :unsure:

[Guest Other-in-Law]

hahaha, sssssht, you are devaluating my arguments! :unsure:

So why do you have a custom title but no sig anymore, hmmm? :ninja:

[mormont]

ETA: This is probably over-reaction - contrary to opinions below, I doubt Mormont and jjames really meant to categorically exclude "absence" as evidence. However, this still stands as a defense of the principle that absence can often be evidence.

I think you misunderstand, yes. Take your example of Grey Wolf growling. This happens. It's in the text. Therefore it's evidence: not an 'absence'. What explanation you put on it is another question. Nor is your hypothetical stone-thrower an example of 'absence' - he's there, or else there would be nothing to explain. So his presence is evidence.

There's a huge difference between that, and what we were discussing above - a theory made up entirely of supposed 'absences' from the text. Why is there no explanation of why Syrio is teaching Arya? Why do we not get an explanation of why Jaqen is in the Black Cells? And so on. And the objection to such evidence is specific to the context of considering theories in respect of the books: because it is based on the fact that there's a limit to the amount of background we can possibly access, or that the author can possibly present. In other words, it's a recognition of the limits of the discussion, which are placed on us by the fact that we're talking about a book and not the real world.

It would be bad writing for an author to have a crucial twist based entirely on things that he omitted due to these boundaries: things the reader could not possibly know and whose omission would seem to be part of the normal limits of the form. This, as I said earlier, is what Hal Duncan called 'hiding the story behind your back'. And none of the twists that we know about in GRRM's writing - not just the series, but his entire body of work - fit that model. All have some definite, positive hint included in the text: some particular thing that a character says, does, or thinks.

Now, if you have such a hint - a stone-thrower, if you like - absences and omissions can potentially act as support, for sure. But there's none in this case. So there's nothing to support.

[Roi Woodt]

So why do you have a custom title but no sig anymore, hmmm? :ninja:

Sig? What sig? :huh:

<I think you have the wrong person before you>

Mormont,

And none of the twists that we know about in GRRM's writing - not just the series, but his entire body of work - fit that model.

Isn't it somewhat the same with Sandor Clegane?

[mormont]

Isn't it somewhat the same with Sandor Clegane?

No: in fact that's a very bad comparison if you're trying to say it's like your theory about Jaqen and Syrio. There's a ton of evidence for Sandor's survival. We see his horse in the stable. We have the parallel of the Elder Brother's description of Sandor and of his 'old self'. We even see Sandor himself, and though he's not identified directly, Dog's fondness for him and the physical description are pretty clear (and clearly deliberate) indications. We have more evidence in that one chapter than we have for most theories in three books. None of them consist of information that might reasonably have been omitted as unnecessary backstory.

[Roi Woodt]

No: in fact that's a very bad comparison if you're trying to say it's like your theory about Jaqen and Syrio. There's a ton of evidence for Sandor's survival. We see his horse in the stable. We have the parallel of the Elder Brother's description of Sandor and of his 'old self'. We even see Sandor himself, and though he's not identified directly, Dog's fondness for him and the physical description are pretty clear (and clearly deliberate) indications. We have more evidence in that one chapter than we have for most theories in three books. None of them consist of information that might reasonably have been omitted as unnecessary backstory.

However, I meant Sandor's situation before that specific chapter.

[cybroleach]

Perhaps this is a good time to go back and review Martin's reported responses to the question of whether Syrio lived. Do you have one or more cites? His precise words are crucial; consistent reports on his demeanor might also be useful. Your extensive editing lapses disincline me to trust the accuracy of your report of this particular response by Martin.

I don't remember anyone commenting on his demeanor other than how great he is with fans. But you can find sources here for exact wording http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/

[jjames36]

Thanks Errant Bard and AvengingAryaFan, every bit of help is welcome (even when you don't agree with the theory)!

Thank you. Just wondering, did this change something about how you think about Jaqen=Syrio, or not at all?

Sorry it's taken so long to respond. Once again, I've been away from this site the last couple days for a variety of reasons.

Now to answer the question with a word: no.

Like Errant Bard said, lacking logical premises leading to logical conclusions means we're both arguing based on different impressions of what is "rational." I'm not going to convince you without the silver bullet, so to speak. And you're not going to convince me by pointing at something that is "out of character" and something else that is missing. Errant Bard either intentionally or unintentionally illustrated why we've reached an impasse, not so much why anyone should accept Syrio equals Jaqen.

j

[jjames36]

There's a huge difference between that, and what we were discussing above - a theory made up entirely of supposed 'absences' from the text.

It would be bad writing for an author to have a crucial twist based entirely on things that he omitted due to these boundaries: things the reader could not possibly know and whose omission would seem to be part of the normal limits of the form. This, as I said earlier, is what Hal Duncan called 'hiding the story behind your back'. And none of the twists that we know about in GRRM's writing - not just the series, but his entire body of work - fit that model. All have some definite, positive hint included in the text: some particular thing that a character says, does, or thinks.

Now, if you have such a hint - a stone-thrower, if you like - absences and omissions can potentially act as support, for sure. But there's none in this case. So there's nothing to support.

Quoting this so that I don't have to say the same thing, AvengingArya. In complete agreement with Mormont here.

The actual implication of saying something having been omitted is reason enough to formulate a theory, like Mormont said earlier, means you can create literally any theory you want and then say you have evidence supporting it.

j

[AvengingAryaFan]

I think you misunderstand, yes. Take your example of Grey Wolf growling. This happens. It's in the text. Therefore it's evidence: not an 'absence'. What explanation you put on it is another question. Nor is your hypothetical stone-thrower an example of 'absence' - he's there, or else there would be nothing to explain. So his presence is evidence.

There's a huge difference between that, and what we were discussing above - a theory made up entirely of supposed 'absences' from the text. Why is there no explanation of why Syrio is teaching Arya? Why do we not get an explanation of why Jaqen is in the Black Cells? And so on. And the objection to such evidence is specific to the context of considering theories in respect of the books: because it is based on the fact that there's a limit to the amount of background we can possibly access, or that the author can possibly present. In other words, it's a recognition of the limits of the discussion, which are placed on us by the fact that we're talking about a book and not the real world.

It would be bad writing for an author to have a crucial twist based entirely on things that he omitted due to these boundaries: things the reader could not possibly know and whose omission would seem to be part of the normal limits of the form. This, as I said earlier, is what Hal Duncan called 'hiding the story behind your back'. And none of the twists that we know about in GRRM's writing - not just the series, but his entire body of work - fit that model. All have some definite, positive hint included in the text: some particular thing that a character says, does, or thinks.

Now, if you have such a hint - a stone-thrower, if you like - absences and omissions can potentially act as support, for sure. But there's none in this case. So there's nothing to support.

Right. In the context, Roi's reliance almost exclusively on omissions makes for a very weakly - almost unsupported - theory.

That's why I said bad cases make bad law: the fact that Roi's Syrio=Jaqen argument is so weakly supported, and that he uses absences for the only evidence he has, creates an impression that absences simply aren't evidence.

And, of course, omissions or absences are generally limited in what they can tell you. Things like unexplained fear - or, my favorite, unexplained practicing to tell a tale - tell you to look for an explanation, but they generally can't tell you what the nature of that explanation is.

I just wouldn't want Roi's reliance on absences for more than they can support to cause a general denial of the value of absences as evidence. Like all evidence, an absence is worth the inferences that can reasonably be drawn from it, not more or less.

[Errant Bard]

ETA: This is probably over-reaction - contrary to opinions below, I doubt Mormont and jjames really meant to categorically exclude "absence" as evidence. However, this still stands as a defense of the principle that absence can often be evidence.

Not in the cases used, though. There's writing style and story flow to consider, but in our case it's just that there is absolutely zero PoV who would know what is deemed "an absence" to tell us. Yes there are holes in what information is given to us, but no it doesn't mean there's a conspiracy by the author to keep us in the dark; it can be part of it, but more often than not it can just be that it's not important, and maybe not even existing in GRRM's head (see his remarks about Lady Stark, wife of Rickard)

Like Errant Bard said, lacking logical premises leading to logical conclusions means we're both arguing based on different impressions of what is "rational." I'm not going to convince you without the silver bullet, so to speak. And you're not going to convince me by pointing at something that is "out of character" and something else that is missing. Errant Bard either intentionally or unintentionally illustrated why we've reached an impasse, not so much why anyone should accept Syrio equals Jaqen.

I just pointed the usual confusion between "all" and "some" in logical analysis.

But anyway, everyone knows that there is no absolutely bulletproof logical demonstration for these theories, or there would not be threads upon threads on it, right? It's all down to inferences and interpretation, and finding the sequence of events fitting your favoured choice that will make more sense to your interlocutor than the alternative (or inversely). As an example, I believe that it is AAF who was talked into stopping thinking Syrio was Jaqen when it was mentioned that if Syrio was jaqen, by a logical process, then Syrio was a bastard who would leave Arya to be killed, maimed or captured by Amory Lorch even when he had the means to get out of his manacles and help (natural implication of being put willingly in irons/replacing a guy in chains is being able to break out)

Now this being said, your point about the cells may not be logically provable, but it is the most reasonable conclusion, because when we see three of those cells and they are all solitary, we only need a little extrapolation to say that it's likely all the cells are like that, whereas to say that at least one of the cells is communal is pulled out of thin air, and curiously not counted as an "absence" evidence, this time (probably because it goes against the desired conclusion).

My take on any "Syrio is alive" theory is that: Yes it is possible Syrio lives/is Jaqen/is superman, about as much as it is that pigs fly in Westeros; it's a work of fiction and we have a suspicious dearth of information concerning the airborne skills of the porcine race, but that's the only thing we have, there's no supporting evidence, just points against it that needs to be dismissed (for example the absence of flying pigs sighting for four books)

[AvengingAryaFan]

I don't remember anyone commenting on his demeanor other than how great he is with fans. But you can find sources here for exact wording http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/

That cite takes me to the top of SSM. I went there last night and was unable to find anything like the quote you reported; so a little closer cite would be helpful.

Actually, I looked long enough, and unsuccessfully enough, that unless somebody provides clear information I'm simply going to concede this aspect of argument. I'll insist only that Martin has never answered the question of Syrio's survival. Whether I'm wrong or right to think he has seemed somewhat disgruntled about the questions, you're correct that I cannot cite support for my impression. That should gruntle you.

[Roi Woodt]

My take on any "Syrio is alive" theory is that: Yes it is possible Syrio lives/is Jaqen/is superman, about as much as it is that pigs fly in Westeros

Well, Sam is about halfway to the dragons... ;-)

Now this being said, your point about the cells may not be logically provable, but it is the most reasonable conclusion, because when we see three of those cells and they are all solitary, we only need a little extrapolation to say that it's likely all the cells are like that, whereas to say that at least one of the cells is communal is pulled out of thin air, and curiously not counted as an "absence" evidence, this time (probably because it goes against the desired conclusion).

I want to point out that I am not the one that is using this as evidence.

It was stated that there was no communcal cell and that statement was used as evidence that Jaqen cannot be Syrio, I am only saying that that evidence isn't as solid as was stated.

James,

Sorry it's taken so long to respond. Once again, I've been away from this site the last couple days for a variety of reasons.

No problem at all.

Now to answer the question with a word: no.

I thought so, but one can try.

[AvengingAryaFan]

But anyway, everyone knows that there is no absolutely bulletproof logical demonstration for these theories, or there would not be threads upon threads on it, right? It's all down to inferences and interpretation, and finding the sequence of events fitting your favoured choice that will make more sense to your interlocutor than the alternative (or inversely). As an example, I believe that it is AAF who was talked into stopping thinking Syrio was Jaqen when it was mentioned that if Syrio was jaqen, by a logical process, then Syrio was a bastard who would leave Arya to be killed, maimed or captured by Amory Lorch even when he had the means to get out of his manacles and help (natural implication of being put willingly in irons/replacing a guy in chains is being able to break out)

Just so. My own theory to enable Syrio the FM to replace Jaqen the black cell prisoner required that he put himself in chains and assume the dead Jaqen's identity; and that led to logical inconsistencies that EB questioned. I've reviewed other theories, such as Roi's, and have never found one that doesn't fail by creating such a logical inconsistency, or by requiring wildly unsupported flight of fancy conjecture. Much as I love theories that things are not as they seem, this is one I've completely relinquished.

My take on any "Syrio is alive" theory is that: Yes it is possible Syrio lives/is Jaqen/is superman, about as much as it is that pigs fly in Westeros; it's a work of fiction and we have a suspicious dearth of information concerning the airborne skills of the porcine race, but that's the only thing we have, there's no supporting evidence, just points against it that needs to be dismissed (for example the absence of flying pigs sighting for four books)

Hmm. "Syrio is alive" is supported by a number of mutually incompatible theories. Discrediting the Syrio=Jaqen theory certainly doesn't discredit the others. But it's good to know that when it comes to Syrio being alive, you maintain an admirably open mind.