Lies and Arbor Gold: Well Look What We Found

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Yes. I see it, and I accept it. But it seems Stormkith does not.

Well pack it up everyone, without Stormkith's blessing we're doomed.

[Stormkith]

So you're saying that before any Southern noble prepares to deceive someone, they first make sure they have a cask of Arbor Gold ready?

That isn't remotely what corbon said. He said that nobles often practice deceit, and Arbor gold is the choice of drink for nobles, so it makes sense for Arbor gold to be frequently present when nobles are engaging in deceit.

[Stormkith]

Well pack it up everyone, without Stormkith's blessing we're doomed.

You know, if you don't allow people to question your theories, what's the point of posting them? Just so you can go through a lot of self-congratulatory back-slapping?

[UVA]

Excellent point. Not every word written has to have some hidden meaning; some of it could just be the author relaying detail about the lives of his characters

No one is arguing that every word and phrase harbors some hidden meaning, that's not logical. But why the resistance to this idea about the usage and symbolism of Arbor Gold as a leitmotif? Other than dismissing the theory on the grounds that the frequency of usage calculus isn't sufficient to prove authorial intent (again illogical), detractors offer no alternative explanation other than to say that deceit is a major theme and wine drinking is a frequent occurance, and therefore there's no reason to pin it on a recurring symbol.

[nirolo]

Well pack it up everyone, without Stormkith's blessing we're doomed.

Tsk Tsk. Where is that magical crayon of yours? I hope you didn't waste it all on me. :blushing:

[A Crow Come Over]

That isn't remotely what corbon said. He said that nobles often practice deceit, and Arbor gold is the choice of drink for nobles, so it makes sense for Arbor gold to be frequently present when nobles are engaging in deceit.

But youre discounting all the other interactions in which no Arbor Gold was served and no manipulation/deceit is happening.

The essence is "Dont trust someone serving you Arbor Gold" we can argue all day the ratio of deceit to arbor gold and noble meetings but the author has conveyed a pretty clear message that lies and arbor gold are served together, if your main argument is "Its not really 18/20" then you're missing the entire point.

[Ser Leftwich]

You know, if you don't allow people to question your theories, what's the point of posting them? Just so you can go through a lot of self-congratulatory back-slapping?

It is one thing to question, it is another to give specific reasons for each of the case of the instances of "Arbor Gold" that have come up, which was done by the other side. The referenced post with the outlined 20 entries is there, just deconstruct each one, instead of cherry-picking one or two and discussing only those. Say 'how' each one is wrong, not just that 'they are wrong.'

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

You know, if you don't allow people to question your theories, what's the point of posting them? Just so you can go through a lot of self-congratulatory back-slapping?

I'm fine with people questioning my theories, because in 95% of cases I present my ideas to a smaller group of posters whom I highly respect before I post them, so that by the time it comes to a thread, we've hashed out most of the questions people could ask and filled in any gaps. If the theory falls apart in the group, it never sees the board. I'm willing to accept valid criticism but we've bent over backward to show that we're looking at an actual motif — no different from lemons/innocence, boars/regime changes and peaches/death — that is very much intentional. For pete's sake people have literally gone through the entire series to find anecdotes backing up this position, which you're happy to write off like they don't matter or aren't valid. And you wonder why we're exasperated.

[Stormkith]

If the theory falls apart in the group, it never sees the board. I'm willing to accept valid criticism but I'd we've bent over backward to show that we're looking at an actual motif — no different from lemons/innocence, boars/regime changes and peaches/death — that is very much intentional.

So, because your group vetted it, there's no possible way the theory could be wrong? No one outside of your group could possibly bring anything to the discussion? I don't see why bothered to post it outside of your group at all, if that's the case. Clearly, any conversation worth having has already been had.

[A Crow Come Over]

I'm fine with people questioning my theories, because in 95% of cases I present my ideas to a smaller group of posters whom I highly respect before I post them, so that by the time it comes to a thread, we've hashed out most of the questions people could ask and filled in any gaps. If the theory falls apart in the group, it never sees the board. I'm willing to accept valid criticism but we've bent over backward to show that we're looking at an actual motif — no different from lemons/innocence, boars/regime changes and peaches/death — that is very much intentional.

Moving on.... theres a definite "food code" going on here, would be nice to get them all put together in one post. I thought i read something about Pomegranates as well meaning temptation.

[Dr. Pepper]

So far I see a lot of self congratulation, and flagellation of any questioning, and not a lot of introspective examination of this rather clever thesis.

corbon, the thesis presented in the OP has been expanded and refined as this thread has moved forward. There have been questions raised (even by the four of us who helped create this thread) to try to discover inconsistencies in this particular symbolic analysis. We found that Arbor red was also an allusion to deceit and thus expanded it from the more specific Arbor Gold. There have been posts about other types of drink being served during instances of deceit, including self-deception. We separated tongue-in-cheek moments of deception from more serious deceptions. We have even attempted to look at who is doing the serving and who is doing the drinking when we come across these Arbor wine mentions.

What you call 'self-congratulations' and 'flagellation' is actually the OPs of this thread defending, arguing and refining a theory we have spent time researching and creating. I'm not sure if you expect us to roll over and just ignore all of the input, positive or negative, and allow the thread to just disappear into forum purgatory. There would have been no point to posting this to a public forum if we weren't interested in discussing it with a wider audience or open to possible scrutiny. If someone comes up with a valid argument for to demolish this particular symbolic analysis, well good for them.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

So, because your group vetted it, there's no possible way the theory could be wrong? No one outside of your group could possibly bring anything to the discussion? I don't see why bothered to post it outside of your group at all, if that's the case. Clearly, any conversation worth having has already been had.

Nope, it's just that the group is where the challenges are anticipated — if it can be challenged in the group and still hold up, it can come to the board. And when we have an entire collection of Arbor Gold references in the story that deal strongly with deceit, it's pretty hard to argue that there's nothing here. Some of the best threads on this forum — which others, not just myself, have cited — originated in this group. So you'll forgive me if I let it go that you take issue with it.

[KOM]

2 suggestions:

1) can you add that list of 20 examples to the OP? Last I saw it it was on page 4 or something, and maybe hard for people to find.

2) maybe also in OP (bc entire thread may get tl;dr syndrome), limit it to a "type" of deceit, or a subset of deceit? Given that the entire series is based on layers and layers of deceit, many people are going to overread what I think you're saying.

Part of the problem is that this leitmotif so imbalanced:

Arbor Gold implies deceit

but

deceit does not imply Arbor Gold.

Other associations, "ravens as ominous messengers," "crows with death" probably have closer to a 1:1 association; they're more balanced. Blue roses = Lyanna, etc.

All your Arbor Gold examples, esp LF, and the honeyed words trope are good, but "deceit" is such an ever-present them in the books that saying "Arbor Gold -> deceit" may sound like a theory of everything. Which, I don't think you all are trying to make this sound like.

[corbon]

corbon, the thesis presented in the OP has been expanded and refined as this thread has moved forward. There have been questions raised (even by the four of us who helped create this thread) to try to discover inconsistencies in this particular symbolic analysis. We found that Arbor red was also an allusion to deceit and thus expanded it from the more specific Arbor Gold. There have been posts about other types of drink being served during instances of deceit, including self-deception. We separated tongue-in-cheek moments of deception from more serious deceptions. We have even attempted to look at who is doing the serving and who is doing the drinking when we come across these Arbor wine mentions.

All good stuff, but it all has assumed the basis is solid first, and expanded out from that.

What you call 'self-congratulations' and 'flagellation' is actually the OPs of this thread defending, arguing and refining a theory we have spent time researching and creating.

There's plenty of that too. And the self congratulations part is probably entirely unfair, said congratulations coming from new converts.

But the flagellation has been there. There has been some fair questions, and the questioners have several time not been answered, but instead attacked, merely for daring to not automatically agree. Thats not healthy. For the thesis, let alone the board.

I'm not sure if you expect us to roll over and just ignore all of the input, positive or negative, and allow the thread to just disappear into forum purgatory. There would have been no point to posting this to a public forum if we weren't interested in discussing it with a wider audience or open to possible scrutiny. If someone comes up with a valid argument for to demolish this particular symbolic analysis, well good for them.

Of course I don't expect a roll over and disappear. Its a brilliant piece of analysis and extremely interesting (as someone said, far more interesting than another 'whose sword is bigger debate).

But I, and some others, have asked what I think are some fair questions. I was a bit more diplomatic, so I didn't get savagely attacked like some others did. Some didn't even ask questions, just corrected a mistaken response to a question, but even that was enough for a savage attack that resulted in immediate protestations of agreement.

But nor have my questions had any response, except some weak attacks by converts and some handwaving.

I do also get that the questions I've asked involve even more extensive data analysis than that already done, so I'm not expecting fast replies with data or anything. But the points remain, and have not been addressed at all (beyond some irrelevant handwaving by supporters).

Solid world building is still a valid explanation for the presence of Arbor gold in deceitful dealings among the rich and powerful. Or it may be symbolism, I don't know, or even have a firm opinion yet.

I'm also yet to see anything but handwaving on the question (which for me is not 'fact' but the base assumption of truth) of what proportion of dealings with the rich and powerful, at least in the decadent south, do not contain deceit in one form or another.

18/20 is only a reliable pointer if its different from the norm. If 90/100 dealings involving the rich and famous outside the north involve deceit anyway, then its a meaningless statistic. In which case, this is still a briliant bit of literary analysis, but flawed, no?

Part of the problem is that this leitmotif so imbalanced:

Arbor Gold implies deceit

but

deceit does not imply Arbor Gold.

Other associations, "ravens as ominous messengers," "crows with death" probably have closer to a 1:1 association; they're more balanced. Blue roses = Lyanna, etc.

All your Arbor Gold examples, esp LF, and the honeyed words trope are good, but "deceit" is such an ever-present them in the books that saying "Arbor Gold -> deceit" may sound like a theory of everything. Which, I don't think you all are trying to make this sound like.

This.

[Leto]

corbon, the thesis presented in the OP has been expanded and refined as this thread has moved forward. There have been questions raised (even by the four of us who helped create this thread) to try to discover inconsistencies in this particular symbolic analysis. We found that Arbor red was also an allusion to deceit and thus expanded it from the more specific Arbor Gold. There have been posts about other types of drink being served during instances of deceit, including self-deception. We separated tongue-in-cheek moments of deception from more serious deceptions. We have even attempted to look at who is doing the serving and who is doing the drinking when we come across these Arbor wine mentions.

What you call 'self-congratulations' and 'flagellation' is actually the OPs of this thread defending, arguing and refining a theory we have spent time researching and creating. I'm not sure if you expect us to roll over and just ignore all of the input, positive or negative, and allow the thread to just disappear into forum purgatory. There would have been no point to posting this to a public forum if we weren't interested in discussing it with a wider audience or open to possible scrutiny. If someone comes up with a valid argument for to demolish this particular symbolic analysis, well good for them.

Well with responses like this

And maybe if you ever come up with an original idea on your own I can shred it too. It's easier to tear someone else down than it is to come up with your own ideas, even if they're not correct. I'd rather come up with my own theories that are nuanced but wrong than spend most of my time pissing in other people's chips.

to a non-rude counterpoint does give the generally interested thread follower the sense that this thread is indeed meant for self-congratulation and flagellation of those who see it differently.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

2 suggestions:

1) can you add that list of 20 examples to the OP? Last I saw it it was on page 4 or something, and maybe hard for people to find.

Done.

All your Arbor Gold examples, esp LF, and the honeyed words trope are good, but "deceit" is such an ever-present them in the books that saying "Arbor Gold -> deceit" may sound like a theory of everything. Which, I don't think you all are trying to make this sound like.

Some of these are doozies, like Aegon and Littlefinger's plot. This isn't garden-variety court intrigue, you know?

Well with responses like this

And maybe if you ever come up with an original idea on your own I can shred it too. It's easier to tear someone else down than it is to come up with your own ideas, even if they're not correct. I'd rather come up with my own theories that are nuanced but wrong than spend most of my time pissing in other people's chips.

to a non-rude counterpoint does give the generally interested thread follower the sense that this thread is indeed meant for self-congratulation and flagellation of those who see it differently.

The operative portion is highlighted and emphasized, thanks.

[Ser Leftwich]

There are various meaning for the word 'arbor.' Are there any double-meanings or hints there?

[lady m]

Moving on.... theres a definite "food code" going on here, would be nice to get them all put together in one post. I thought i read something about Pomegranates as well meaning temptation.

That's actually one of long standing, going back to Greek mythology and Persephone.

[A Crow Come Over]

That's actually one of long standing, going back to Greek mythology and Persephone.

Bowen Marsh is called the 'Old Pomegranate' I can't recall if he ever "tempted" Jon with anything but I'll have to read again.

[Leto]

The operative portion is highlighted and emphasized, thanks.

Fine and dandy. However, the message that comes across to me as I was reading what I thought was an interesting thread was: don't bother posting if you don't agree.