Stanerys Snow Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 The final twist is sometimes unpredictable.I concur, but the final twist does not need to go against R+L=J. The final twist can be what R+L=J means for the story.And though there is evidence for R+L= J, it's not a smooth theory either. Ignoring the inconsistencies is not making the argument stronger.Ignoring inconsistencies is quite different from ignoring weak alternative theories.There are plenty of things we don't know, so at this point, it is still possible that the theory proves untrue. I don't believe so myself, but for all we know, all these subtle clues generations of forum dwellers have painstakingly put together and interpreted to fit R+L=J, might at the end of the day - with more pieces of the puzzle available - fit another theory altogether.Not one that had been presented here, which was my point.Doesn't mean that GRRM has to throw it all and that the foreshadowing and hints are for nothing. Just that these same hints could possibly, hint towards something we have not yet considered.These hints that are already well-hidden within the story? These hints that lead to other hints and also provide explanations to other issues within the story? I don't see it happening. GRRM himself is secretive when it comes to the subject of Jon's parentage. Why would he be secretive if the answer had already been laid out in the story? Why would he be so secretive if it's hinting towards something else that hasn't been considered?If every incomplete puzzle could be solved with sense, reason, logic why is history re-written generation after generation? There's not always new findings, but key elements are often re-interpreted along the changing trends of social sciences. Granted, putting clues together from a fantasy book, is a different matter altogether than trying to understand the relationship between Henry the Lion and Frederick Barbarossa or deconstructing the conflicts between House Welf and Staufer...but, all the same, clues can be misleading.As you stated yourself, putting the clues together in the books is not as complicated as interpreting history.That said, I believe R+L=J, though I do not think it wrong to question it.It's wrong to laugh at its plausibility simply because it's not explicitly stated, and it's wrong to combat it with theories not as well supported in the text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.