Ser Creighton Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 I mean when you look at it in context having so much evidence towards it. Too much evidence is almost the same as too little evidence. I mean, there are people who don't believe R+L=J simply because of the mountain of evidence. But, I think you're right on the fact that it is more the 5-10% of readers who read WAY too much into things, and then share what they have realised with others, then the others begin to believe it.Well and that's true Martin often dictates to the reader what he wants them to think. And many fans do read to much into it, but that is more of the effect of waiting through very long periods for a book. Evidence is evidence but what's more important to most of theories is that nasty little bit of missing evidence. Or in many case the massive amount of evidence or with Aegon and R+L it's not a lack of evidence it's motive, fans tend to create there own motives to make the story the way they hope it will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Angels' Prophet Posted June 8, 2013 Author Share Posted June 8, 2013 "When you look at it in context." Meaning, when you compile a bunch of clues that are spread across multiple books and hundreds of pages, the evidence appears obvious. AFTER you put it all together and analyze the crap out of it. That is not the same as it being "obvious" to a normal reader who's not reading any sort of extra analysis."Too much evidence" in GRRM terms is, "Something said outright." "Aegon is real." "Dany is AA." "Tyrion is the valonqar." etc.True. Another reason is why would any of the subtle clues to the contrary of what was said outright even exist if it wasn't true? Just as red herrings? GRRM doesn't seem to use subtle clues as red herrings, as he hasn't before, and I don't think he will start now...ETA: Wow. That was a really badly structured sentence. Basically, I'm saying that why would GRRM just lay it all on table, and then give subtle clues to the contrary? The conclusions that are reached because of subtle clues are more likely than what is said outright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 True. Another reason is why would any of the subtle clues to the contrary of what was said outright even exist if it wasn't true? Just as red herrings? GRRM doesn't seem to use subtle clues as red herrings, as he hasn't before, and I don't think he will start now...Nope. The red herrings are the stuff said outright. The truth is conveyed in a much more subtle fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlefingers In The Air Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 True. Another reason is why would any of the subtle clues to the contrary of what was said outright even exist if it wasn't true? Just as red herrings? GRRM doesn't seem to use subtle clues as red herrings, as he hasn't before, and I don't think he will start now... Makes me wonder how I managed to enjoy the series on the first read. Most of the stuff I know from browsing these forums wasn't really obvious when I read on my own. But reread threads help a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Angels' Prophet Posted June 8, 2013 Author Share Posted June 8, 2013 Makes me wonder how I managed to enjoy the series on the first read. Most of the stuff I know from browsing these forums wasn't really obvious when I read on my own. But reread threads help a lot.Yeah. When I came to these forums and Tower of the Hand, I was like "DAMN I missed a lot." The beauty of ASOIAF lies in the little hints that GRRM gives. I semi-enjoyed the series on the first read;didn't like AFFC or ADwD at all until coming here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevumar Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Makes me wonder how I managed to enjoy the series on the first read. Most of the stuff I know from browsing these forums wasn't really obvious when I read on my own. But reread threads help a lot.People tend to take for granted that what they've learned from posting in a fan community is common knowledge, when often times, it's not.The prevailing theory about Jon's parentage seems obvious to those of us who have read the books several times and scoured the forums for years, but to someone reading the series for the first time, there's a big chance it's not going to occur to them.Martin has a real level of skill when it comes to handling details and releasing information that many other authors simply can't match. I can't think of another series that has truly inspired as much speculation and analysis as this in the last few decades. Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen can give Martin a run for his money, but they're two very different types of series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Creighton Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 "When you look at it in context." Meaning, when you compile a bunch of clues that are spread across multiple books and hundreds of pages, the evidence appears obvious. AFTER you put it all together and analyze the crap out of it. That is not the same as it being "obvious" to a normal reader who's not reading any sort of extra analysis."Too much evidence" in GRRM terms is, "Something said outright." "Aegon is real." "Dany is AA." "Tyrion is the valonqar." etc.That's not evidence, that's simple fact. There is no assertion if Martin tells it to you, it's proof end of story. Evidence supports an assertion. That's not what looking at something in context is, two forms of context exist in the analysis, the first is surrounding a passage itself how is this being said and used. The second is how is it all related, what connects the clues. You don't put it in context after you analyze it, you put it in contect before hand and then analyze it. If it does not fit within the context then it is not a clue.You don't really need to analyze the crap out of the evidence as you point out it's multiple books on hundreds of pages, Rhaegar is mentioned over 650 times and is a character from the past who is not a POV and has never really existed within the context of reading. One flashback I think. The theory as I know it has been around since before 2005, but talk of it began as early as 1996-97.In Aegons case I mean come on, this stank the day people red it, and people have talked about it since the books came out.I don't see any need to kill yourself by analyzing the crap out of anything like this. Martin will confirm something when he confirms and until he does it's just speculation, assertions, and theory and nothing will change that. Analyzing every little detail isn't going to confirm anything. None of these can be proven, martin has left gaps just for that very reason, the only way to prove it is to have those gaps filled in and he is the only one who can do that. They are bread crumbs that lead to an area but not a specific place. People are into trying to prove something, that can only proven by the Author. He isn't going to reveal the whole story until it's time. It can be fun to talk about and speculate, but it's not zero dark 30, this isn't changing the world, nobody is saving anyone. You already know the theory, you have been over the books how many times? Are the books going to change and suddenly reveal new evidence that the millions and millions missed? Oh my god a secret chapter that connects everything.When your at the point of analyzing every little word be cause that is the secret reveal your pretty much wasting time on unessacary research. You already know the theory, what more is there? My budy is not even done with Thrones and is like Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents. He is not really intrested in the hoof markings of the horse Brandon road to KL and how many props of mud were on the left flank or how many mph the horse was going at exactly 12:15 pm on the second day of his ride before Lyanna was abducted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Creighton Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Pretty much other nerds paved the way so nerds like me could come and read well thought out theories without having to analyze too much. That's pretty much my perception of this community.Most of this stuff was figured out by the old school posters who you never even see posting anymore, everyone else is just on there coat tails or desperate to try and prove something way out there. It's pretty much been covered 100 times over. I actually think most of the older theories are better and cleaner, now days everyone is trying to add something to those theories to make them there own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisdaw Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 The title doesn't really match the questions raised in the first post. To answer the title, the reason Aegon and the Blackfyre question exists is to force Dany to assess her moral justification and motivations for claiming the IT.She'll destroy Aegon because she believes him a fraud and herself the true head of House Targ. This is important, because she'll then learn she's really not the head of House Targ, that Jon is, and if she's true to her own beliefs she'll have to set aside her own claim in support of Jon, otherwise she becomes just another usurper and a hypocrite. That's the importance of Aegon and the Blackfyre situation to the narrative, to set up Dany's dilemma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GREYJOY4LYFE Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 When your at the point of analyzing every little word be cause that is the secret reveal your pretty much wasting time on unessacary research. You already know the theory, what more is there? My budy is not even done with Thrones and is like Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents. He is not really intrested in the hoof markings of the horse Brandon road to KL and how many props of mud were on the left flank or how many mph the horse was going at exactly 12:15 pm on the second day of his ride before Lyanna was abducted.I feel like people say this stuff but really are discounting the very strong possibility that their friend has read internet spoilers/speculations beforehand. My buddy has never read any of the books but watches the show and has read all the plot spoilers for the books and knows all about Jon's parents and stuff. I mean, maybe some people are just really good at picking up on stuff but I have a hard time seeing how someone can casually read half the first book and be like "Ned's bastard is totally actually the son of that dead prince dude and ned's dead sister he went off and raped". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisdaw Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 There's plenty of unspoiled TV threads out there that had R+L=J pegged early in season 1. The TWoP completely unspoiled speculation thread for example. The main ingredients are all that is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tagganaro Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 I'd say beyond all the great textual examples, there should be enough to disprove it (or at least look at it skeptically) just on your own independent free-standing logic. I mean, GRRM is gonna introduce this important of a character this late in the series out of nowhere. And he's gonna do it through the paragons of trustworthiness Illyrio and Varys? That should immediately make you question it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errant Bard Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 "Too much evidence" in GRRM terms is, "Something said outright." "Aegon is real." "Dany is AA." "Tyrion is the valonqar." etc.Dany being AA is never said outright, though, but is what is puzzled from the "clues". Jon being AA is what is said outright through Melisandre's visions.Nope. The red herrings are the stuff said outright. The truth is conveyed in a much more subtle fashion.Not always. Sometimes the obvious is the truth. Most of the time actually. And a lot of the time the "clues" and their implications only exist exist in the mind of the one constructing the theory (see: Varys is a Merling, Grand United Conspiracy Theory, Syrio is alive, Robb is alive, Ned is alive, Aegon was switched (prior to ADWD), Jeyne was switched, Arya did not kill Daeron, Nymeria was in braavos (before ADWD), Brienne did NOT scream "sword", Jeyne is pregnant, and so on...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Dany being AA is never said outright, though, but is what is puzzled from the "clues". Jon being AA is what is said outright through Melisandre's visions.Not always. Sometimes the obvious is the truth. Most of the time actually. And a lot of the time the "clues" and their implications only exist exist in the mind of the one constructing the theory (see: Varys is a Merling, Grand United Conspiracy Theory, Syrio is alive, Robb is alive, Ned is alive, Aegon was switched (prior to ADWD), Jeyne was switched, Arya did not kill Daeron, Nymeria was in braavos (before ADWD), Brienne did NOT scream "sword", Jeyne is pregnant, and so on...)Dany being the Prince who was Promised is said outright by Aemon in AFfC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errant Bard Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Dany being the Prince who was Promised is said outright by Aemon in AFfC.Sure, but PWWP doesn't rhyme with AA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Sure, but PWWP doesn't rhyme with AA.Change what Apple said to PtwP instead of AA then, and we're back to the original discussion ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lummel Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Oh the whole Aegon story is just taking the Pisswater Bend in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sleeper Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Aegon, being real or not bears little significance to the story as far as I'm concerned. As for for the story presented for his survival, it just stinks like something someone pulled out of his ass. It is not impossible, but it stretches plausibility in many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCasualObserver Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Varys as a Blackfyre makes some kind of sense I guess - his friendship with Illyrio is also more understandable if they're brothers-in-law. But why would Varys council Aerys to keep the gates closed against Tywin? Unless he knew Aerys would just ignore him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarl the climber Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Varys as a Blackfyre makes some kind of sense I guess - his friendship with Illyrio is also more understandable if they're brothers-in-law. But why would Varys council Aerys to keep the gates closed against Tywin? Unless he knew Aerys would just ignore him...Beause he probaly knew about the wildfire that Aerys stashed around the city and because he probaly did not trust Tywins intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.