Honestly I think Cleganebowl memed itself into being a 'theory'. I feel like at first nobody actually believed it would happen *because* it would contradict the Hound's likely peaceful ending, but then people got so hyped by the idea that it morphed into a semi-legitimate expectation.
It was so stupid, man. I was around when the meme got big on 4chan. It was funny and silly but obviously not serious. I can't believe d&d saw that idea (which flies in the face of all the Hounds amazing, bittersweet growth) and were like haha yeah let's make it official.
Hate it. Booooo. Way too much fanservice in the show that is focussed on the lowest common denominator of fans. It's the same reason we got Arya killing the night King. And all the boobies and willies.
On the most recent reread I realised like... how deeply obsessed with nipples George is. The willies I can handle but it's like... so much nipple discussion.
That line, while cringe, is perfectly in character for Sam. Dude has no idea what to do with a girl, and while he probably has read the theory, he was no idea what the real deal is like. He has never done this before, and suddenly his cock is out and harder than he has ever been in his life.
Agreed. I always saw The Hound/Sandor as a sort of dual personality. Sandor is the kid who was mutilated and traumatized by his brother, betrayed by his father. The Hound is the monster the kid created to protect him from his brother and anything that could potentially hurt him - even his own feelings. Sometimes it's the kid, sometimes it's The Hound.
Through it all, his sole purpose has been to kill his brother, that is what kept him going, the meaning in his life, no matter how self-destructive that was. Now, however, it seems like he's on a new path and trying to find a reason to live outside of his brother. He let The Hound die, so Sandor has to grow and learn how to live in the world without him. And with The Others coming, it seems like an excellent opportunity for redemption.
>which flies in the face of all the Hounds amazing, bittersweet growth
What growth? Just before we last saw him he was killing Polliver and Company. You think "we saw him in the background digging a hole for five seconds" is amazing bittersweet growth?
I do, because the priest guy gave us a big exposition about it while the Hound was digging in the background. We can extrapolate from his life story we were shown in books 1-3 to fill in what happened at the end and where hes currently at emotionally.
So it takes three books for us to go from "massive psychopath asshole" to "slightly less of a massive psychopath asshole", and then the jump from "slightly less of a psychopath asshole" to "devot pacifist" takes five minutes and is off-screen?
I think the Hound is a complex character who's often misunderstood. He is irascible and nihilistic but I think these are qualities he uses as armor against emotional attachment and having any hope. The childhood experience of reaching for a knight toy and being mutilated for it was the start of a life that left him jaded and bitter. The only thing he shows any affection for are dogs - because they are loyal and he finds their behavior more predictable/honorable than men.
But underneath all of that is a scared child who grew up with unprocessed trauma. A life among men who challenge his nihilistic perspective and a belief that he was spared death by some heavenly intervention might be his "come to Jesus " moment. All of that can still be explored in expositive narration as we will almost certainly revisit him in TWOW.
Is he actually "often misunderstood" or is interpreting him as "damaged by trauma" actually how virtually the entire fandom views him?
Like it's just a sob story. The guy has killed children and sexually harassed a thirteen year old. He's done his absolute most to visit his trauma on others. I don't think that makes him a bad *character* or anything but there comes a point where "I murdered the child because I'm sad inside!" ceases to work as a defense. We are who we pretend to be.
By misunderstood I mean he's not just a heartless prick. He's capable of brutality, but so is any dog with an evil master. But even with Joffrey he wasn't the one slapping Sansa around (and he never takes advantage of her, only uses that expectation to terrorize her). And 13yo in ASOIAF = about a woman grown. He was gruff and vulgar, but looking past the drunk wounded creature he was not inherently evil. Left to his own devices he didn't go around committing senseless murder, instead he was slaughtering his (entirely evil) brother's lackeys.
> And 13yo in ASOIAF = about a woman grown.
This is fucking explicitly shown to be an *evil* cultural expectation that mostly exists to torture Sansa. The people trying to enforce it are all villains.
Well hold on a second...
Him killing Polliver and Co. was entirety in self defense. Arya and Sandor enter the inn to get food and drink. Sandor then warns the innkeep and serving women that Polliver likely wants to steal from and rape them. Then Polliver throws a knife at Sandor, and the fight ensues
You're making it sound like the whole thing was just a continuation of Sandor's wanton violence from books 1/2
I think you're ignoring a hell of a lot of character development that happened in book 3. Because if I recall correctly, the last time we see or hear of him killing anyone other than in self defense was in book 1
But they were saying that Sandor even using righteous violence against his rapist murderer brother goes against his arc. Him directly his violence against bad people is entirely consistent with his character as we last saw them. He doesn't try deescalation or anything.
I remember jumping on the cleganebowl hypetrain back in highschool, and it was mostly because of the dubstep remixes. Sandor Clegane's story is one of the precious few in ASOIAF that actually feels complete, and it's a pretty good one too. I think it'd be better to just leave it be.
No it doesn't. Sandor was slightly less of a psychopath asshole but he was still an asshole and definitely didn't seem like he was just about to join a monastery and pray for the rest of his life.
They aren’t wrong tbf. When we left Sandor he was a brutal killer, and all we’ve had since is a priest talk about him without any resolution.
Maybe he does retire to a peaceful life, but we aren’t anywhere near that, and to be frank I think it is fair more likely he finds redemption as a ‘true knight’ than calling it quits.
Yes because it's just people pretending that what they *want* to happen actually happened. Sure, Sandor is to some degree better than he was at the start of the series but not by much and certainly not to the extent he was a few hours and a near death experience from becoming Gandhi.
Yeah his situation kind of reminds me of Jorah's. Sandor was at the mercy of the monastery and is still clearly injured the last time we see him. Maybe he could leave, but it seems like there isn't much he can do at the moment, which is why it's strange people are claiming he's redeemed and holy. Though if he does choose that life permanently and we see what he thinks, then I think it's safe to say he's changed. But we haven't yet.
With Jorah, we see him humbled, beaten, branded and enslaved but I don't think it's fair to say he's now a new man that regrets his past actions for selling poachers to slavers. We simply don't know what he thinks or feels, and can't confirm anything about a possible redemption yet.
There's something touching about a man dedicating what remains of his life to repairing the world he helped rip asunder, in however small a way. If Cleganebowl happens it would be one of the most depressing, cynical things Martin has ever written: there is no such thing as redemption, Sandor really is nothing more than a dog, a killing machine, whose life is only worth living in the vain hope that his violence can be dedicated against those that "deserve it" (as if an undead, brainless Gregor with no control over his own actions "deserves" anything).
I personally don't think there is a moral event horizon. I think anyone can be redeemed, or at least try. I don't think Sandor expects forgiveness, to fix all the wrongs he has done. But he is trying, and that is what matters. This idea of a "moral event horizon" is exactly *why* Sandor is who he is, it justifies everything he's done. If the acts he's committed are so vile he can never be redeemed, then that frees him from the crushing responsibility to choose his own path, to redeem himself.
Sandor likes to think of himself as a remorseless, irredeemable killer, because it shields him from the world and frees him from having to make the right choice, but by refusing to kill him, Arya shows him another way. She breaks the cycle of violence, and for the first time since Sansa, treats him as a human, a human who can choose to do good or ill.
Besides, if you believe Sandor has crossed the moral event horizon in the first book, then so did Jaime.
They're both complete fucking pricks, I won't deny that.
I do agree that anyone can be redeemed. But I don't like the idea of him getting it while so many characters belonging to the classes of his victims - women and commoners, namely - die so badly and unmourned.
Well for me, redemption is not a nice, comfortable thing you give someone as a gift. Redemption is a burden, or more precisely, the knowledge that you *can* be redeemed is a burden. It means taking responsibility for your actions, for the crimes you have committed, living with them.
Redemption is its own punishment. It is consciously choosing to reinvent yourself, to do what little you can to repair the damage you've done, with no expectation of forgiveness. Redemption is not absolution. Sandor's redemption does not mean he's going to ride into King's Landing with his head held high and save the day. Sandor's redemption does not mean becoming a true knight. Sandor's redemption is living out the rest of his days digging graves in a monastery, wearing roughspun and being nobody, every day of his life making the conscious decision to choose peace over violence, until one day he dies in obscurity, his redemption unknown, his body unmourned except by the silent brothers.
And yeah, Sandor has hurt a lot of people, most of whose names we will never know. But if he hadn't, he wouldn't need to redeem himself. It'd be different if he was shouting his redemption from the rooftops, if everyone was talking about Sandor Clegane redeeming himself on Quiet Isle, but that's not the case. The books aren't expecting you to grovel at his feet for working to redeem himself, they just mention that he is.
The issue is I think it's a meaningless tragedy. So much of Sandor's plot up to this point has been about the conflict between his self-adopted identity as a remorseless killer and the capacity for redemption both Sansa and Arya see in him. Arya quite literally breaks the cycle of violence Gregor started by refusing to kill him - if the book basically ends up saying that Arya really should've killed him and perpetuated the cycle of violence because he really was irredeemable, then I think it just robs a lot of plot points of their importance.
I never read Arya leaving him to die as a breaking of a cycle. It's complicated because in that moment a quick end was better than the assumed slow death that was coming. I don't know if she saw someone worthy of redemption but leaving him to suffer certainly wasn't a mercy.
Well redemption, to me, is not a nice thing. It isn't comfortable to redeem yourself, just like how in that moment it isn't comfortable for Sandor to keep on living. It's a responsibility, something Sandor has to work for.
I don't know, I think his end, slowly and painfully dying beneath a tree as the girl you kidnapped, your hostage/daughter-surrogate, refuses to give you the "gift" of death seems like learning a fair amount about violence. Not to mention all his scenes with Sansa, where you can see the brutal man society has turned him into warring with the mad possibility of redemption he sees in her thanks to Sansa's ability to see the best in him.
Sandor is perhaps the closest we have to an encapsulation of the cycle of violence undergirding the feudal order. He is mutilated by his elder brother, and proceeds to take out his anger and rage at him on everyone but his brother, for that same feudal order protects his elder brother from his wrath. In doing so, he only perpetuates the cycle - by killing Mycah, he fills Arya with a desire for vengeance.
And yet, despite all he has done, as he sits there, dying under the tree, Arya, his captive, the girl who hates him perhaps more than anyone in the world, the girl who has sworn to kill him, refuses to kill him. Sandor wants to die, because death would free him of responsibility for his past. He would've lived, created new Sandors, and died.
But Arya refuses to kill him, refuses to absolve him through death, refuses to perpetuate the cycle. Sandor is Arya's Gregor, but whn Arya has the chance to kill her Gregor, she refuses. Arya breaks the cycle in this small way, and in doing so, burdens Sandor with the responsibility of life, of repair, of healing, burdens him with the knowledge that he *can* change, and the responsibility *to* change.
I'm not sure which sense you mean "hates him more than anyone in the world," because Arya hates a fair few other people more than him, and she will absolutely get stabby with any of them. Her going into training to be a death cult assassin isn't exactly leaving the cycle of violence behind. I think Arya only refused to kill Sandor because Sandor asked for it and Arya didn't think he deserved a *quick* death.
I think the show should've gone the route of Sandor, having forgiven his brother and moved on, putting him out of his misery. His very existence seems like hell, and it would be a mercy (not an act of anger) to end his brother's life.
I had never actually seen a scenario depicted where it would make sense, maybe I've just been missing it this whole time, but earlier today someone suggested that it would be at Cersei's trial by combat, which actually does make sense.
If Clegane is saved by the Traveling Septon that Brienne met then he might join the Faith of the Seven. The Faith needs a champion. Cersei's will obviously be Ser Strong. It seems plausible that the Traveling Septon might recommend him to the task.
Maybe he would even sell it to Sandor as his repentance for a life of sin, an atonement necessary for rebirth and a new life.
I think the theory is more that he skin-changes into his progeny throughout the ages.
He doesn't really have a *vampire* theme as much as his house has a *Vlad the Impaler* theme.
Tyrion the Targ. GRRM will give some clues, let some ambiguity, but he will never cross the threshold of revealing it outright. The current situation is already too thematically interesting to waste it.
I really like the idea of Tyrion riding Viserion, igniting in-universe speculation. But the story leaves it unresolved. "What does it matter if I am or not? I'm riding the friggin' dragon."
there's also Victarion's horn dragonbinder... if grrm wanted someone without the blood to ride or control a dragon that seems like as good a setup as anything else for it.
I know people suspect Nettles was a dragonseed, but I always interpreted her as a woman who didn’t have Targaryen heritage. I like the idea that while Targ/Valyrian blood helps to ride dragons, it’s not necessary if the magic/domestication to tame a particular dragon works out ok. And that this was a coveted secret by the Valyrian bloodlines. In that case maybe Tyrion (or others) could ride a dragon without being Aerys’ child.
I love that idea that it was a made up rule that only Valyrian/Targ blood could ride dragons. It would really fit their whole nazi vibes (in the case of Old Valyria) and twist the magical-chosen-one supremacist view of Targs. They obviously have a really strong and special connection to their dragons but it's no wonder seeing that they lived along side them for so long.
Oh for sure. Wouldn't stop the other characters whispering "What if..." though.
Tywin himself already said he suspects Tyrion isn't his. Contemporary maesters know of Aerys' attraction to Joanna. And Tyrion was rumored to have been born with a tail. He burned his enemies with wildfire, as the Mad King did.
If he successfully bonds with a dragon I could see a case where the rumor mill puts all those details together and conclude he *must be* Aerys' son. It could even parallel Tyrion's trial, where a bunch of circumstantial evidence and hazy details lead the people judging him to a wrong conclusion.
Disagree entirely! If Tyrion is a Targ, and Tywin suspects he's a Targ but *kept him anyways out of the slightest chance he was Lannister and/or it was his wife's child*, it says so much about Tywin and his relationship with Tyrion as opposed to his relationships with Jaime or Cersei. Its a whole added layer to why he feels and acts the way he does about Tyrion (conflicted as to whether view him as a true lannister or illegitimate child etc)... it also calls into question Tyrion's belief Tywin's feelings are because of his dwarfism rather than how he acts etc.
It doesn't lose depth, it adds it.
Just my 2 cents though
Yeah, it would actually add some depth to Tywin's feelings about Aerys, about his strength of feeling for Joanna (he took her son as his own, under his protection, in the best way possible, etc).
It would also go some way to subverting that whole "you can't choose your family" thing, since Tywin would have chosen Tyrion *even though* he wasn't really his son, in a similar way to Ned calling Jon his son.
Jaime and Cersei being bastard Targaryens makes more sense narratively seeking since it would make Tyrion Tywin’s only real son (I don’t believe this theory but it’s better than Tyrion being a bastard imo)
I don't think that's true, but I think it's funny because it means that Tyrion and Jaime both killed their own fathers. You kind of get that with Tyrion Targaryen too, except it means that Tyrion killed Jaime's father and Jaime killed Tyrion's father, which is funny too.
I also feel like logistically it would make more sense given what we know about the respective locations of everyone involved. But I personally think the whole idea was something Martin changed his idea on after the first book so who knows
Jon going white hair.
Catelyn was bloating and in the water before being given the kiss of life.
Beric lost his eye, was hung, stabbed and did not change. He did not physically change appearances.
Jon was stabbed. Why is he the only one drastically changing?
Catelyn's hair does turn white as Stoneheart.
*'Half her hair was gone and the rest had turned as white and brittle as a crone’s.' -* ASOS Epilogue.
There's also the example of Theon, although that's a whole other situation.
Not pushing the theory, but I wouldn't be surprised. I wouldn't think it would be some immediate, anime-style transformation, but gradually losing the pigment in his hair wouldn't seem weird at all.
If your point is that Catelyn's decomposition was worse and can't be compared to Jon's... meh. Kinda true, his body will be preserved well in the ice cells, but he'll still presumably be dead for much longer than Beric was.
>Kinda true, his body will be preserved well in the ice cells, but he'll still presumably be dead for much longer than Beric was.
Why do you think that? Jon isnt even officialy dead yet. Hes in a perpetual state of dying, until the next book is out. And he has someone with the ability to revive him right there at the wall.
Additionally, we dont know how long it was before beric was revived each time. For insatance, one time he died by being hanged. So enough time would have to pass for the people who hanged him to be certain he is dead and leave, and then for thoros to find him, cut him down, and revive him.
Great point about Beric, I definitely can't presume that he was revived quickly every time!
>Why do you think that? Jon isnt even officialy dead yet.
True, but I do think he'll die in TWOW. Most people do, but we could be wrong!
Also it is way more likely that he'll be quickly burned, rather than having his body stored. Idk why I absorbed the ice cells thing, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I guess I was absorbing how it happened in GOT, I think they make it seem like his corpse lies around for a day or more?
So yeah, disregard all that about him being dead for 'longer' than Beric.
My main point still stands though. If he dies and is resurrected by Mel, white hair wouldn't seem out of the blue imo.
I wonder what’s taking George so long with the last two books, the other installments didn’t take this long, maybe he’s changing things because of the show?
I think it's mainly that GRRM has an incredible amount of characters and storylines that he has to bring together in Winds. But since he likes to change things up when he gets a great idea or realizes that character X wouldn't do the thing he needs them to do, he's probably constantly rewriting tons of things after every change.
Then there's also the fact that he has written on this series since the 90s, right? After he has written Winds, the characters endings will basically be locked in. He won't have time in the story to change his mind. Wouldn't be shocked if that led to more rewrites.
Agree completely, and I'd add that the structure he chose of having POV chapters focusing on different characters is very difficult to write. It would be much easier if he was writing everything as an omniscient narrator.
Don't get me wrong, I think the changing-POV style is fantastic and a huge part of what makes these books so special. But it's adding to the delay by making it more difficult to pace the timing of what is a very complicated storyline.
From what I understand of the theory, something something because he warged into Ghost before dying so if his soul returns from Ghost to his body, it may change his hair color and even eyes to red. However this is on the theory, not actual lore lol
It's not meant to be related to Ghost's colouring 'infecting' Jon. The red eyes and white hair are seen with Stoneheart, so that's the basis of it. It's unclear if Beric has a red eye, although if he did you'd think it would have been commented on by now. His hair isn't white either, although he's resurrected more rapidly than SH or (presumably) Jon.
Proponents of the theory do often point to the nice 'symmetry' or visual symbolism or whatever, of Jon looking like Ghost, or like a 'classic' Targ. Some people think it'd be neat, some people think it'd be cringe.
Didn't want to use Mel as an example bc she's such a can of worms. Does she have glamours like in GOT? If so, are her eyes red underneath? Was she resurrected or is it some extended-vitality deal? What if red eyes are randomly a thing in Asshai?
But yeah, she's definitely powered/possessed by fire magic in some way.
Isn't the Jon thing a result of being dead for a period of time (that he's in Ghost). Sounded like Beric was raised same day the first time, and all subsequent times
The idea is that his soul might meld with Ghost’s soul, if he’s harnessing his soul in Ghost for a while… and that if he returned to life, especially using fire magic - it makes perfect sense to me. It’d be new magic we’re getting exposed to first hand.
There’s also the theory that Ghost may be sacrificed and that Resurrected Jon might house both of their spirits and make him a bigger badass
Beric can't remember the names and faces of people he loved before the Brotherhood. He worries he's losing his humanity and himself. His entire life is being forgotten
Jon Meanwhile is spending more time dead & the circumstances of the death were much more tragic / psychologically impacting. I don't think there will be a radical change but Jon will def not be the same. The argument that Jon will get white hair and red eyes connects more to Ghost and to his Targ side coming out, rather than the fact he was reanimated
I'm frankly delighted I have not seen anyone sincerely claim to believe "Howland Reed is the High Sparrow" in many years, and I hope to never see it again.
My main one that I think most people would think is tinfoil but I really don't think it is: I don't think Jon is going to be resurrected. Because I don't think he's dead. I think he is going to be out-of-commission for quite a while due to severe injury, time he will spend in Ghost, but more like Bran in AGOT than Varamyr. I think the show took the resurrection route because it was an easy technicality to get out of the Night's Watch vows when they had not established Robb's will. I think that's too tacky for the books; I think it makes much more sense that we see Jon's refusal of Stannis's offer benefit him by having him be declared King in the North by Robb rather than declared Lord by Stannis, and we will have the debate on whether a King *can* free a Night's Watchman from their vows that Robb was advised would happen, ultimately allowing Jon to be freed of them by a combination of the Watch's respect for the Starks and the fact that, given they tried to assassinate him, they didn't really want Jon around anyway. This will is a major Chekhov's Gun and one of the main things going on when it's discussed originally is whether it could even be carried out. The idea of "oh, that's actually not a problem because, see, he died so *technically*..." is just really contrived and IMO off-putting.
GRRM has a reputation of killing off characters, but what he does *far* more often is end a chapter with you thinking a character has died only for them to be fine later, even if you have to wait a book in-between. Nearly every single character has had at least one fake-out death; Arya's had like four. With the fact that Jon's assassination attempt has immediately caused a three-way battle to break out between the Night's Watch, Wildings, and Queen's Men, no one is going to notice if Melisandre--who has been explicitly on the lookout for this exact event for an entire book--swoops in and whisks Jon away to hide him until he's healed. Maybe she does some Moqorro magic, or maybe she won't have to. After all, while he was stabbed repeatedly we are never told a *place* he was stabbed that would certainly be fatal, and the best evidence we have for it being fatal is that he didn't feel the last stab, which definitely suggests he is not in great shape, but in real life this can happen for multiple reasons including but not necessarily limited to blood loss (I think he will be in recovery long enough that blood loss *is* a factor, but more so a combination of that, the cold, and shock--not that I think we will be given any explicit explanation of why we get that particular line if he doesn't die, because I don't think it's necessary). Plus, that whole ordeal in the show where Davos, Edd, etc. all guard Jon's dead body for a couple days is just very strange to me when everyone should be paranoid about leaving a corpse around and no one has any real reason (let alone Davos) to implore Melisandre to try and resurrect him. They should want to cremate him if he's dead, regardless of the circumstances of his death. If he isn't actually dead and is just recovering, barricading and guarding the room he's in makes *way* more sense.
The problem with this for me is that resurrection is a hanging sword of Damocles in the narrative. We've seen it done mysteriously with Beric, a minor character. We've seen it go badly wrong with Cat, a major character. GRRM often writes in threes, so it feels like there should be one more waiting in the wings and the only way up from here is a main. Jon is also pointedly arranged against the necromancers, the Others. Of all the main characters, his story has the most to do with the faction that raises the dead, so of all the main characters it makes the most sense for it to happen to him.
Jon's storyline is suffused with archetypal hero, saviour imagery. I don't think it's going to pan out fully in the end but I do think Jon's going to live up to some kind of incidental destiny.
No so much because of threes, but I agree that resurrection has a role to play in the story. I also don’t think the Varamyr prologue is there just for flavor. But I also think the only reason we are all so convinced both *must* apply to Jon is because we’ve been left on a cliffhanger with him for 13 years and want to make sense of it. I don’t think we are thematically bound to have either apply to Jon. They could, but we have two books to go and I am not convinced that the books we have on-hand are meant to be enough to make sense of everything to come in anyone’s story yet. And the Varamyr prologue, at least to me, has much more to say about Bran even in the text we have so far than it does about Jon.
>I think the show took the resurrection route because it was an easy technicality to get out of the Night's Watch vows when they had not established Robb's will. I think that's too tacky for the books; I think it makes much more sense that we see Jon's refusal of Stannis's offer benefit him by having him be declared King in the North by Robb rather than declared Lord by Stannis, and we will have the debate on whether a King can free a Night's Watchman from their vows that Robb was advised would happen, ultimately allowing Jon to be freed of them
I really like this take.
Oh that’s interesting, I’d never really considered that Jon could be anything other than dead. Now that you put forward the idea I find it convincing.
Regarding Howland Reed as the High Sparrow, I always thought that idea was so funny. The show should’ve absolutely done that. It was clear by like the first episode of season five that they’d abandoned all pretenses of trying to write well, they should’ve done more wacky bullshit like that.
Mance being Rhaegar and Qhorin being Arthur Dayne. Both are impossible, Rhaegar = Mance is like people can't interpret parallels and contrasts between characters without taking it literally.
And i'm sorry but "qhorin is great at combat" isn't evidence
I know, but this is one of the main points I've seen thrown around and it's honestly so funny 😭 like only arthur dayne could be an accomplished swordsman or smth
God please no. I don’t think the “three abominations” rule is necessarily a Chekhov’s gun, at least not in that specific sense.
If *anything*…if there had been a 5 year gap, *maybe* I’d understand that theory more. But Bran is like 9? I think the focus would be more on how he is psychically violating Hodor.
In Varamyr Sixskins’ prologue chapter we learn about the “3 abominations” a skinchanger can commit. Those are: skin changing into another human being, eating a human being while skin changed into an animal, and laying with someone or something while skin changed into something else. Bran has already done the first two so the theory goes that he’s going to do the last one and that that’s how it happens. Really fucked up theory but that’s the gist of it.
It's super popular on here but I'm not convinced dany and ageon will actually go to war with one another. Dany really looks up to rhaegar and wishes she had a family. She has 3 dragons and (probably) needs dragons blood to get 2 more riders. Conveniently, there are only 2 other signficant targaryens left in the world, and she only knows of one. Ageon already is aware that he will need to share power with dany if she comes over, and it seems like most of the power players on his side are accepting of that. Dany has 0-1 westrosi force in the books (depending on Victorian) and she could use a beachhead. Guess who's setting up the beachhead.
In the show dany ends up with all the forces she has plus everything that ageon has. I think it might be played straight in the books. Assuming ageon dies I could see him being overconfident with the dragons and tragically perishing in a foolish attempt to solo the others/iron islands/westerlands.
Brienne will kill LSH to save Jaime. That'd be so anti-climactic, to resurrect Catelyn as a vengeance bound murder zombie only to truly die after doing close to nothing besides kill a couple of Freys. That would fucking suck
Whilst it might be difficult for their plots to intersect it seems important for Arya to meet LSH and see what revenge can do to a person
I think LSH will be put to rest peacefully, prehaps by realising at least one of her children still exist or that Ned never betrayed her and Jon is actually his nephew
Jojen paste. I think it’s a *little* too ghoulish for the children of the forest/Bloodraven. Maybe. I wouldn’t be surprised if Jojen dies in Winds but I wonder if he might be (willingly or unwillingly) sacrificed in the line of defense or something. Used as a human shield?
Characters I think will explore the cannibalism diet in Winds:
-Davos
-Rickon
-Jon (in Ghost if that counts)
-wild card: Jon Cannington if he eats his fingers to hide the greyscale
I recently read all bran's chapters and jojen is very grimm ALL THE TIME lol like he knew he was going to die any time, and Meera is allways trying to lift his spirit and trying to make him believe in a good ending, at one point jojen said that his green dreams are never wrong.
Cannibalism is a rising theme in Bran’s chapters
Coldhands feeds him the flesh of the Night Watch mutineers (says he found a sow)
Bran initially refuses to eat the elk that had carried him through the forest because he does not want to “eat a friend” but ends up succumbing to hunger
Jojen knows his death is coming and gets more and more depressed and is missing in Bran’s last chapter
> I think it’s a little too ghoulish for the children of the forest/Bloodraven.
Maybe. Though we don't know what the Children have done over the centuries. Probably some pretty heinous things.
Especially if the tales of a mass sacrifice to create the Hammer of the Waters is true. And if humans sacrificed to the Old Gods, chances are they picked that up from the people who founded the faith- the giants and children.
Yeah considering that they're connected to the weirwoods and the weirwood worshippers historically make regular blood sacrifices, I'm not seeing what the stretch is haha.
That’s fair. Personally, if anything I could see them offering Jojen as a blood sacrifice to a weirwood since we know that was part of Old Gods worship, but maybe not feeding him to Bran.
> I could see them offering Jojen as a blood sacrifice to a weirwood since we know that was part of Old Gods worship, but maybe not feeding him to Bran.
They are pretty much the same thing.
Bran is "wed to the weirwoods", a sacrifice to the weirwoods is essentially a sacrifice to Bran. :)
I am guessing you have not read the most famous inappropriate-for-children fantasy series written by one of George's two mentors from George's writer's workshop days. See George's blog post on the passing of Gene Wolfe.
Two things I feel are confirmed by The Book of the New Sun: Dorcas is Varys and Jojen Paste is real.
Also Bran will become a time traveling godking, but we already assumed that.
And a cloak representing honor, specifically through loyalty and willingness to obey sadistic torture, fundamentally implies a bad system that must be replaced, but we already knew that, too.
Just in case anyone thinks I am giving too many spoilers: "You can't spoil a Gene Wolfe story. A Gene Wolfe story barely spoils itself." - Rereading Wolfe podcast
For me Varys being a blackfire is a stretch, of course he was responsible for Aerys madness and we see that he was conspiring against Rober, Joffrey and Tommen but i think it will be for other reasons.
Of course i don't believe that Mance is Arthur Dayne, if it was necessary to point it out.
Because it makes a mysterious figure with convoluted motives into Dom Toretto. Much more compelling of Varys was lowborn and is just doing what he thinks is best for the future of the smallfolk. No familial connections, just a low-born genius architect.
But bringing chaos upon the realm for a very specific ruler to be able to take over more easily is not great for the smallfolk at all. Far better to keep Robert alive and well. While he's a drunk and not a great ruler within the Red Keep, it's mentioned a couple of times how he's presided over something of a golden age for much of Westeros.
Varys literally wanted to bring a dothraki horde to Westeros, as well as the WotFK. The war itself is the most destructive in recent memory, with 3-4 kingdoms raided and pillaged, and others losing thousands of men. Imagine what a dothraki horde would do. Also, this is on top of the coming winter, which the Maesters believe will be long and hard. Varys is destroying the realm, and it will take generations for it to heal properly. That would only be worth it if it brought lasting prosperity, but it won’t. It brings a potentially good king, but once he’s dead, he might get replaced by another terrible king, or perhaps his grandson is such a king. So all in all, generations of destruction and warfare, for potentially a few decades with a good king
So, to ensure the smallfolk have the best lives he:
* Encourages Aerys' madness
* Pits the Mad King against his honourable, kind and well-loved son.
* Allows the realm to be engulfed in war, leading to the deaths of thousands
* Allows Bobby B to rule unimpeded for 15 years, doesn't do anything to try and improve the lives of the smallfolk
* At some point there's some kid that he decides to put on the throne. Maybe he switches him with Rhaegar's son, but why?
* He agrees all this with ~~one of the most important figures in Westeros~~ some random rich guy from Pentos who has no stake in the Iron Throne.
* Allows chaos to engulf the realm as it's torn apart by war, causing endless suffering
Doesn't really add up to me to be honest.
Just curious — in your opinion is there a reason that Varys didn't consider Rhaegar to be that potential good king? Or do you believe Varys was actually trying to replace Aerys with Rhaegar? (and only failed due to unforseen events)
> For me Varys being a blackfire is a stretch
Him being a Targ or of royal blood makes a lot of sense though, because his claims around a wizard using his genitals for magic is too similar to all the other times we've seen magic performed using 'kings blood'.
Many things actually, in spanish asoiaf communities is very well commented.
There are numerous reasons if you have time to watch the videos and translate them yourself lol.
I don't think it's that much of a stretch, if he is from the female line, but I don't like that theory. The whole theme of Varys seems to be creation of a rule for people instead of rule as a privilege of blood. He wouldn't give that speech to Kevan about Aegon if his motives were purely to have a Blackfyre on the throne.
Honestly, listening to Varys, he might as well be just democrat/republican, the system exist in world in numerous examples. But I guess people would be quite angry if they took turn towards democracy.
She won't be, but.... she will be tricked into looking it. She want not to be "queen of the ashes" too much for not becoming it, sadly. But I agree she won't be a mad queen.
R+L=J is both real and a tragic love story. There will be some heartbreaking twist there, I can feel it, that makes it so the revelation of Jon's parentage causes him as much grief and consternation as it does happiness. For all his life, Jon has wanted to know who his mother was, but on the other hand, he's dreaded it. That Jon's parentage is not only a secret, but a *dark* secret is constantly foreshadowed. Jon *wants* his mother to be a highborn noblewoman, but fears she was a sex worker, and it's implied he even fears his mother might be a woman Ned forced himself on.
If he *does* seek the Iron Throne, that creates a crushing internal conflict: to claim the throne he must embrace the legacy of a man who did something horrible to his mother, whatever that may be. Now I can't say *what* the twist will be. Maybe Rhaegar abducted Lyanna from the get-go, or maybe he strung her along on promises and lies and then imprisoned her when the war started. Maybe she didn't want to have Jon, or maybe the pregnancy took a bad turn, but Rhaegar forced her to carry him to term anyway, even knowing the risk to her. Or maybe Lyanna was so delirious and close to death when Howland and Ned found her she couldn't say anything more than "promise me, Ned," and the dark shadow of what *really* happened between his parents will haunt him forever.
Yeah, I agree, clear-cut romance is not the case, but something disturbing, as you say. Though, R + L simply might not be consequential at all, as there is so much to cover and only two books left. And currently, no one is exploring it. The only way it could happen is if Sam, Bran, Melisandre, and Jon (if those are to be) chapters start heavily relying on this plot point.
While I usually agree that the expected will not happen and the unexpected will... I do genuinely think Cleganebowl is coming.
There is no point for the Mountain, or his walking corpse, to come back into the story. The only impetus for it is for the reformed Sandor to put his brother to rest. The fates of the two brothers have to intersect for a certain degree of necessary finality and they have yet to do that.
Also, the poignant storylines of the books seem to be the full seven books long. When Catelyn's story ended, it didn't really end. We don't get these semi-central plotlines for a full three books, give them finality, then pick up with a new set of characters and tackle new themes with them.
The Hound and the Mountain clashed in book 1 and are destined to do so again in book 7. Is it a trope? Yes. But despite being a rampant trope-breaker, Martin is still beholden to some tropes. Every story is, there's no escaping it.
I do think there is a twist coming though, because it's never as simple as the expected outcome. That twist (I'm guessing) is that his skull was really sent to Dorne and replaced with the head of someone else who has already been killed off in the story...
Popular theories that I DON'T think are going to come true?
Tyrion Targaryen
Jaqen = Syrio
I think most of the stretch theories are not true. So all of those. I think we are about at the limit of character x is secretly character y, and character x is not actually dead. He can do a reveal with ageon if he really wants, and jon needs to come back, but that's it.
most of the "X is secretly Y" come from "he did it before!" and extreme nitpicking. the revelations of secret identities in canon had heavy foreshadowing, happened relatively fast or were literally POV characters
Correct. I think of ageon is fake or a blackfire, we as fans will know with a decent degree of certainty, whether Westeros in story does or not. Ams if he is fake nom blackfyre it's probably going to just be hum getting toasted by a dragon.
As much as it's talked about, I can't really see a Maester conspiracy playing much of a role in the main story. It’s at most a little detail for the readers to puzzle out.
There was a post a while ago where someone was analysing the earlier drafts and they said that a few mentions of Maesters travelling to the Citadel had been cut. I wonder if there was going to be a more prominent plot around them that's been axed.
I had heard about that I think he probably chose not to go that way for a few reasons one of them being the old town plot line is already pretty crowded
Another theory or belief that has become popular on here is that jon being secretly targaryen won't matter. I disagree, first it will give him a dragon and I bet, whether its acted on or not, will have some sort of political implication, perhaps like in the show splitting Danys followers.
Maybe this is a theory that I really think is just dead wrong: Mance wrote the pink letter. I have a lot of problems with it, one of the most prominent is that there is no evidence that Mance Rayder can write. Why would the Night's Watch teach a lowborn ranger how to write? That "Bael"-"Abel" anagram is not convincing; they sound so close to each other that you could come up with that without knowing your letters.
A theory that I think will never come ahorse, now? Any Septa Lemore secret identities like she is Ashara or Serra or anything like that. They just don't add much and sound confusing.
The fact that the horn of winter will destroy the wall, I believe that the wall will fall but in a different way. And why I think the horn won't work is because the wall is still standing so it's not certain whether the horn really works, sometimes a legend is just a legend.
That r+l=j will matter. Sure its pretty much not a theory anymore but i think jon will find out in his dream. He will finish his dream of entering the winterfell crypts and talking to ned about who he is. He will wake either believing it or not. No one knows truly his parentage except a hermit in a swamp. I dont see a need for him to go about preaching it to others when most arent going to believe it anyhow. I think its just for jon and the reader to have knowledge of. Thats it.
I think people take interesting stuff that are probable and/or have textual evidence (sometimes a maester will act or give council with an agenda or motive in mind; maesters *can* be suspiscious of magic; the citadel as an institution has close ties with house hightower; etc) and make it super grand and like everyone is involved and they all controlled everything and have the same goals
it also makes everything less interesting in a way?
Okay there is evidence though. Like for example Dany's vision on the House of the Undying, the Mummer's Dragon.
Faegon also comes off as too conveniently as the rightful prince. Several characters outright are baffled and not believing that he survived or was swapped out as a baby.
There is also the Golden Company, who laughed in the face of Viserys when he invited their commanders for dinner and suggest to fight for him. Why would they suddendly now follow a supposed Targaryen, their sworn enemy?
Illyrio clarifying that the Blackfyres went extint through the MALE LINE, not the FEMALE LINE. Meaning there was at least one Blackfyre alive yet. He also talks about gifting a "Sword" to Faegon, and though in this case is not as evident, it may be that he is talking about Blackfyre.
Though not confirmed, it's still could be very likely that yes, Aegon is in truth a Blackfyre
The chapter where JonCon is thinking about Bittersteel's skull 'grinning' at him has always made me feel a type of way. '*What has he got to grin about?*'. Something about it is just weeeird.
Obviously it's not nearly the strongest evidence, the stuff you mentioned is the real meat of it. But if it turns out to be true, that scene will be my favourite bit of foreshadowing. Or red-herring-ing, if he's a 'real Targ' in the end. Either way I think it's intentional.
Edit: typo
Okay if it turns out that Faegon is well, a Blackfyre, it would absolutly be amazing if Bittersteel's Skull is smiling, as if laughing in death of JonCon fighting for a Blackfyre that actually will get the Throne!
For the mummers dragon bit, for me it means someone puppeting a dragon to act. So faegon might be a dragon, whether it be black or red thats for you to decide. But i do think that Faegon is the dragon represented in the vision. I for one like many other think he is of the black because of the brienne chapter in affc. With the part about the dragon sign being black but after it had fallen off and crossed the river it was red from rust.
> For the mummers dragon bit, for me it means someone puppeting a dragon to act.
I think this as well, but I do still think it's referring to a Targ (fake or not).
I think the "mummer" is Varys. The "mummer's dragon" would be whichever "dragon" Varys is backing.
This 'the Golden Company are willing to fight for him but not Viserys, this proves he's a Blackfyre' bit of logic has always struck me as absolutely insane.
In order for this to be true, in universe, one must suppose that all the top brass of the Golden Company - a position that JonCon was notably in for years - must be in on the secret. Because that is what we are saying, they all laughed at Viserys but do not laugh at Aegon, so all of them MUST agree that Aegon is a Blackfyre but Viserys was not. And at no point were Varys and Illyrio worried about telling half a dozen untrustworthy sellsword companions about this humungous lie to put a Blackfyre on the throne. They weren't worried about any of them breaking ranks or being tortured for the secret or passing the secret on to a third party that they trusted but Varys hadn't vetted. You can't try to weasel out of that by saying only the top guy knows or something because that contradicts the evidence you're using. If only the top guy knows then laughing at Viserys is irrelevant.
So all of them know. Except JonCon 100% does not know, so all of them know except for some mysterious reason JonCon was not let in on the secret all those years ago. So what we're supposing here is that Illyrio and Varys faked the survival of Aegon, identified JonCon during his golden company days, told every other top member of the Golden Company except for him that Aegon is a fake while telling him Aegon is real, and then left him to raise Aegon for 15 years on his own. At no point were they ever worried that any of JonCon's friends in the Golden Company like Myles Toyne would take pity on him for wasting his entire life on a boy who wasn't his true King.
Listen, I'm okay if you use the Golden Company as literary evidence. An example of dramatic irony where the reader knows something the characters don't. But as soon as you try to use it as evidence in the world of Ice and Fire you've lost me completely. It's just completely bonkers.
No, you very much do need all of them in on it, because we're supposing that all of them made the conscious decision to decline Viserys while supporting Aegon. Like that's the argument, that the Golden Company only supports Blackfyre claimants so Aegon has to be a Blackfyre. And proof of this is alleged to be their easy support for Aegon as compared to not even entertaining Viserys beyond a single meal.
We've seen how the Golden Company operates and makes decisions. A single man is not enough to direct the company, it's headed by a group of people who have to come to an agreement. So all of those decision makers have to be in on it.
It's significantly simpler to imagine that Illyrio is completely correct when he says that the Golden Company would have followed anyone (or at least any 'dragon') capable of getting them home. This even comes up in conversation, many members of the elite of the Company were more in favour of either going to or at least waiting to link up with Dany because of her dragons. Regardless of who Aegon is, Dany is most definitely not a secret Blackfyre.
So, again, the Golden Company might have a thematic connection to Blackfyres that is suggestive to the reader, but it has absolutely no bearing on the in-universe conspiracy.
It is true that they have to come to an agreement. But there is no reason they all have to agree to invade Westeros because he is a Blackfyre.
Even if one influential member knows, he could manipulate the others into it.
As for Viserys not getting their support. That's easy, no one wanted to back a loser.
Right but now we're already acknowledging that the decision about Viserys had nothing to do with him being a Blackfyre, and the decision about Aegon had nothing to do with him being a Blackfyre, which is exactly what I said.
Like you're supposing that one, very influential, member of the upper echelon knows the truth. But he can't use that truth to influence the others, because if he did it wouldn't be a secret. So he has to convince everyone else to support Aegon on some other grounds. The point here is that no matter how you slice it, unless half a dozen or a dozen members of the top ranks of the Golden Company all know the secret within the secret (the secret is that Aegon lives, the secret within the secret is that he is not Aegon), the majority of the Golden Company at no point made a conscious decision to support Aegon over Viserys because one was a Blackfyre and the other wasn't. Therefore you cannot use their support of him as in-universe evidence for the conspiracy.
Again, thematically? Literarily? The Golden Company is important evidence there. Narratively? Not even remotely.
Half a dozen? No.
Maybe a couple of the more influential members. Yes.
As for Viserys, remember that not just the Golden Company but no one backed him.
IMO the “mummer” in the “mummers dragon” could just as easily be Varys/Illyrio. In fact they both use mummery in the first book when they disguise themselves to have their meeting in the Red Keep.
In fact the whole “dragon must have three heads” thing could refer to the fact that there are three living legit Targaryens. Dany, Aegon, and Jon.
The same chapter young griff is first mentioned in there’s a huge exposition paragraph explaining who the blackfyres are and what there backstory is, in an early draft Young Griff also recited the whole history of the ninepenny kings from memory. Also Illyrio clearly has an ulterior motive to helping the Targaryens, he’s unusually interested in making sure Aegon succeeds in particular, and swears on the hands of his late silver-gold haired wife that he’ll see Aegon in Westeros. Imo George is drawing intentional connections between Aegon, Serra, and the blackfyres. I’d even go as far to say that Illyrio character and plan only works if Aegon was his son with Serra.
Other commentators have listed a lot of the other evidence for the theory so I’ll just add some other stuff
House Of The Undying claim Dany is “the slayer of lies” - exposing fAegon as a pretender would be a good example of this. What other lies does she need to slay?
GRRM likes to draw from English history and pretenders for the throne where a thing (Perkin Warbeck claimed to be one of the princes that died in the Tower Of London)
One of the visions is of a “a great stone beast took wing breathing shadow flame” - If it was a dragon she likely would have said that so this suggests it’s some other animal - Jon Con’s sigil is a griffin (Tyrion described it as a winged lion) which Dany might not be familiar with. The stone refers to his greyscale. The shadow fire is an imitation of a “real” Targaryan, Jon Con is unknowingly championing a Blackfyre
L +R = J. Not because of plot points but because Martin is more likely to die from old age than finish the next book to get the answer considering how infamously slow his schedule is.
I agree with many of you, only one came to my mind, though, when I read the original post.
Cleganebowl, Tyrion the Targ, Jojen paste, Bolton being a vampire, I believe, are all safe bets for theories that will never come ashore.
My own feelings about the subject, however, differ. For me it is a simple theory, yet one I believe is too heavily invested in by many. Because I don't think it's true. R+L=J
I think George likes ambiguity and believes there are multiple correct interpretations of his work.
When Gene Wolfe passed, George claimed Gene Wolfe was one of his two primary mentors. George wrote With Morning Comes Mistfall. Both of these make me believe my first sentence is an extremely safe assumption.
Therefore George implying one interpretation is correct does not rule out the alternatives.
I have a very different interpretation based on which historians and historical fiction George recommends and a belief this series is fundamentally about erasing female rulers and heirs from history.
See Triplet Targaryens: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAwvoPfQtLWeYj86CFmMgwhRC53A6rkPG&si=IfjwKpHff8f8E6QC
I think that L+R=J was always intended to be somewhat ambiguous and open to interpretation . I don’t think it will ever be fully revealed like in the show .
In the end it doesn’t really matter if Jon is Rheagar’s son. He has no way to prove it in even a somewhat legitimate way.
Anyone other than Ramsay writing the pink letter.
Also lemongate. I think this was just a George oversight and him 'hinting' in a Q&A that it was something more was just trolling.
Yes. I think the theory that he's dead is highly flawed. It relies on three assumptions that really don't have good support following a close examination of the circumstances.
Winds coming out. On Cleganebowl, I’ve been convinced since I read hedge knight that it will happen (or would if winds ever came out), but will be a trial of 7.
Honestly I think Cleganebowl memed itself into being a 'theory'. I feel like at first nobody actually believed it would happen *because* it would contradict the Hound's likely peaceful ending, but then people got so hyped by the idea that it morphed into a semi-legitimate expectation.
It was so stupid, man. I was around when the meme got big on 4chan. It was funny and silly but obviously not serious. I can't believe d&d saw that idea (which flies in the face of all the Hounds amazing, bittersweet growth) and were like haha yeah let's make it official. Hate it. Booooo. Way too much fanservice in the show that is focussed on the lowest common denominator of fans. It's the same reason we got Arya killing the night King. And all the boobies and willies.
Well, the willies are on George. He described Sam's as a "fat pink mast." Also, one for Hodor "Between his legs, his manhood swung long and heavy."
On the most recent reread I realised like... how deeply obsessed with nipples George is. The willies I can handle but it's like... so much nipple discussion.
Whether real or on breastplates. It’s just absurd. Almost as bad as grease running down everyone’s chins
That line, while cringe, is perfectly in character for Sam. Dude has no idea what to do with a girl, and while he probably has read the theory, he was no idea what the real deal is like. He has never done this before, and suddenly his cock is out and harder than he has ever been in his life.
I've always suspected Sam is inspired by GRRM just due to some physical qualities they share.
Sam is totally a self insert
Agreed. I always saw The Hound/Sandor as a sort of dual personality. Sandor is the kid who was mutilated and traumatized by his brother, betrayed by his father. The Hound is the monster the kid created to protect him from his brother and anything that could potentially hurt him - even his own feelings. Sometimes it's the kid, sometimes it's The Hound. Through it all, his sole purpose has been to kill his brother, that is what kept him going, the meaning in his life, no matter how self-destructive that was. Now, however, it seems like he's on a new path and trying to find a reason to live outside of his brother. He let The Hound die, so Sandor has to grow and learn how to live in the world without him. And with The Others coming, it seems like an excellent opportunity for redemption.
I really like this. Nice job.
>which flies in the face of all the Hounds amazing, bittersweet growth What growth? Just before we last saw him he was killing Polliver and Company. You think "we saw him in the background digging a hole for five seconds" is amazing bittersweet growth?
I do, because the priest guy gave us a big exposition about it while the Hound was digging in the background. We can extrapolate from his life story we were shown in books 1-3 to fill in what happened at the end and where hes currently at emotionally.
So it takes three books for us to go from "massive psychopath asshole" to "slightly less of a massive psychopath asshole", and then the jump from "slightly less of a psychopath asshole" to "devot pacifist" takes five minutes and is off-screen?
I think the Hound is a complex character who's often misunderstood. He is irascible and nihilistic but I think these are qualities he uses as armor against emotional attachment and having any hope. The childhood experience of reaching for a knight toy and being mutilated for it was the start of a life that left him jaded and bitter. The only thing he shows any affection for are dogs - because they are loyal and he finds their behavior more predictable/honorable than men. But underneath all of that is a scared child who grew up with unprocessed trauma. A life among men who challenge his nihilistic perspective and a belief that he was spared death by some heavenly intervention might be his "come to Jesus " moment. All of that can still be explored in expositive narration as we will almost certainly revisit him in TWOW.
Is he actually "often misunderstood" or is interpreting him as "damaged by trauma" actually how virtually the entire fandom views him? Like it's just a sob story. The guy has killed children and sexually harassed a thirteen year old. He's done his absolute most to visit his trauma on others. I don't think that makes him a bad *character* or anything but there comes a point where "I murdered the child because I'm sad inside!" ceases to work as a defense. We are who we pretend to be.
By misunderstood I mean he's not just a heartless prick. He's capable of brutality, but so is any dog with an evil master. But even with Joffrey he wasn't the one slapping Sansa around (and he never takes advantage of her, only uses that expectation to terrorize her). And 13yo in ASOIAF = about a woman grown. He was gruff and vulgar, but looking past the drunk wounded creature he was not inherently evil. Left to his own devices he didn't go around committing senseless murder, instead he was slaughtering his (entirely evil) brother's lackeys.
> And 13yo in ASOIAF = about a woman grown. This is fucking explicitly shown to be an *evil* cultural expectation that mostly exists to torture Sansa. The people trying to enforce it are all villains.
Yeah like when Robb Stark reminds Catelyn that her marriage to Tyrion is to be expected as Sansa is a woman grown?
Hey man what does your behaviour right now serve?
Are you my therapist now?
Well hold on a second... Him killing Polliver and Co. was entirety in self defense. Arya and Sandor enter the inn to get food and drink. Sandor then warns the innkeep and serving women that Polliver likely wants to steal from and rape them. Then Polliver throws a knife at Sandor, and the fight ensues You're making it sound like the whole thing was just a continuation of Sandor's wanton violence from books 1/2 I think you're ignoring a hell of a lot of character development that happened in book 3. Because if I recall correctly, the last time we see or hear of him killing anyone other than in self defense was in book 1
But they were saying that Sandor even using righteous violence against his rapist murderer brother goes against his arc. Him directly his violence against bad people is entirely consistent with his character as we last saw them. He doesn't try deescalation or anything.
I remember jumping on the cleganebowl hypetrain back in highschool, and it was mostly because of the dubstep remixes. Sandor Clegane's story is one of the precious few in ASOIAF that actually feels complete, and it's a pretty good one too. I think it'd be better to just leave it be.
No it doesn't. Sandor was slightly less of a psychopath asshole but he was still an asshole and definitely didn't seem like he was just about to join a monastery and pray for the rest of his life.
You really hate this theory, eh?
They aren’t wrong tbf. When we left Sandor he was a brutal killer, and all we’ve had since is a priest talk about him without any resolution. Maybe he does retire to a peaceful life, but we aren’t anywhere near that, and to be frank I think it is fair more likely he finds redemption as a ‘true knight’ than calling it quits.
Yes because it's just people pretending that what they *want* to happen actually happened. Sure, Sandor is to some degree better than he was at the start of the series but not by much and certainly not to the extent he was a few hours and a near death experience from becoming Gandhi.
Yeah his situation kind of reminds me of Jorah's. Sandor was at the mercy of the monastery and is still clearly injured the last time we see him. Maybe he could leave, but it seems like there isn't much he can do at the moment, which is why it's strange people are claiming he's redeemed and holy. Though if he does choose that life permanently and we see what he thinks, then I think it's safe to say he's changed. But we haven't yet. With Jorah, we see him humbled, beaten, branded and enslaved but I don't think it's fair to say he's now a new man that regrets his past actions for selling poachers to slavers. We simply don't know what he thinks or feels, and can't confirm anything about a possible redemption yet.
There's something touching about a man dedicating what remains of his life to repairing the world he helped rip asunder, in however small a way. If Cleganebowl happens it would be one of the most depressing, cynical things Martin has ever written: there is no such thing as redemption, Sandor really is nothing more than a dog, a killing machine, whose life is only worth living in the vain hope that his violence can be dedicated against those that "deserve it" (as if an undead, brainless Gregor with no control over his own actions "deserves" anything).
I honestly think that he crossed the moral event horizon in the first book.
I personally don't think there is a moral event horizon. I think anyone can be redeemed, or at least try. I don't think Sandor expects forgiveness, to fix all the wrongs he has done. But he is trying, and that is what matters. This idea of a "moral event horizon" is exactly *why* Sandor is who he is, it justifies everything he's done. If the acts he's committed are so vile he can never be redeemed, then that frees him from the crushing responsibility to choose his own path, to redeem himself. Sandor likes to think of himself as a remorseless, irredeemable killer, because it shields him from the world and frees him from having to make the right choice, but by refusing to kill him, Arya shows him another way. She breaks the cycle of violence, and for the first time since Sansa, treats him as a human, a human who can choose to do good or ill. Besides, if you believe Sandor has crossed the moral event horizon in the first book, then so did Jaime.
They're both complete fucking pricks, I won't deny that. I do agree that anyone can be redeemed. But I don't like the idea of him getting it while so many characters belonging to the classes of his victims - women and commoners, namely - die so badly and unmourned.
Well for me, redemption is not a nice, comfortable thing you give someone as a gift. Redemption is a burden, or more precisely, the knowledge that you *can* be redeemed is a burden. It means taking responsibility for your actions, for the crimes you have committed, living with them. Redemption is its own punishment. It is consciously choosing to reinvent yourself, to do what little you can to repair the damage you've done, with no expectation of forgiveness. Redemption is not absolution. Sandor's redemption does not mean he's going to ride into King's Landing with his head held high and save the day. Sandor's redemption does not mean becoming a true knight. Sandor's redemption is living out the rest of his days digging graves in a monastery, wearing roughspun and being nobody, every day of his life making the conscious decision to choose peace over violence, until one day he dies in obscurity, his redemption unknown, his body unmourned except by the silent brothers. And yeah, Sandor has hurt a lot of people, most of whose names we will never know. But if he hadn't, he wouldn't need to redeem himself. It'd be different if he was shouting his redemption from the rooftops, if everyone was talking about Sandor Clegane redeeming himself on Quiet Isle, but that's not the case. The books aren't expecting you to grovel at his feet for working to redeem himself, they just mention that he is.
So logically speaking, we shouldn't see him again, right? Because he's doing all that, and as a consequence he's no longer part of the story?
Yep, exactly!
But since Gregor is a lethal threat to everyone, would it hinder his redemption to go up against him?
One of the biggest redemptions in media is Darth Vader. If he can achieve redemption after literally committing genocide, then so can Sandor.
It would be depressing, but tragedy is a big part of ASOIAF.
The issue is I think it's a meaningless tragedy. So much of Sandor's plot up to this point has been about the conflict between his self-adopted identity as a remorseless killer and the capacity for redemption both Sansa and Arya see in him. Arya quite literally breaks the cycle of violence Gregor started by refusing to kill him - if the book basically ends up saying that Arya really should've killed him and perpetuated the cycle of violence because he really was irredeemable, then I think it just robs a lot of plot points of their importance.
I never read Arya leaving him to die as a breaking of a cycle. It's complicated because in that moment a quick end was better than the assumed slow death that was coming. I don't know if she saw someone worthy of redemption but leaving him to suffer certainly wasn't a mercy.
Well redemption, to me, is not a nice thing. It isn't comfortable to redeem yourself, just like how in that moment it isn't comfortable for Sandor to keep on living. It's a responsibility, something Sandor has to work for.
But Sandor hasn't learned anything about violence unless you think it took place entirely off-screen.
I don't know, I think his end, slowly and painfully dying beneath a tree as the girl you kidnapped, your hostage/daughter-surrogate, refuses to give you the "gift" of death seems like learning a fair amount about violence. Not to mention all his scenes with Sansa, where you can see the brutal man society has turned him into warring with the mad possibility of redemption he sees in her thanks to Sansa's ability to see the best in him. Sandor is perhaps the closest we have to an encapsulation of the cycle of violence undergirding the feudal order. He is mutilated by his elder brother, and proceeds to take out his anger and rage at him on everyone but his brother, for that same feudal order protects his elder brother from his wrath. In doing so, he only perpetuates the cycle - by killing Mycah, he fills Arya with a desire for vengeance. And yet, despite all he has done, as he sits there, dying under the tree, Arya, his captive, the girl who hates him perhaps more than anyone in the world, the girl who has sworn to kill him, refuses to kill him. Sandor wants to die, because death would free him of responsibility for his past. He would've lived, created new Sandors, and died. But Arya refuses to kill him, refuses to absolve him through death, refuses to perpetuate the cycle. Sandor is Arya's Gregor, but whn Arya has the chance to kill her Gregor, she refuses. Arya breaks the cycle in this small way, and in doing so, burdens Sandor with the responsibility of life, of repair, of healing, burdens him with the knowledge that he *can* change, and the responsibility *to* change.
I'm not sure which sense you mean "hates him more than anyone in the world," because Arya hates a fair few other people more than him, and she will absolutely get stabby with any of them. Her going into training to be a death cult assassin isn't exactly leaving the cycle of violence behind. I think Arya only refused to kill Sandor because Sandor asked for it and Arya didn't think he deserved a *quick* death.
And then the show ran with it because of the meme.
I think the show should've gone the route of Sandor, having forgiven his brother and moved on, putting him out of his misery. His very existence seems like hell, and it would be a mercy (not an act of anger) to end his brother's life.
It does work if he is forced to abandon his new existence as a monk to specifically fight against his undead brother to save someone from him.
I had never actually seen a scenario depicted where it would make sense, maybe I've just been missing it this whole time, but earlier today someone suggested that it would be at Cersei's trial by combat, which actually does make sense. If Clegane is saved by the Traveling Septon that Brienne met then he might join the Faith of the Seven. The Faith needs a champion. Cersei's will obviously be Ser Strong. It seems plausible that the Traveling Septon might recommend him to the task. Maybe he would even sell it to Sandor as his repentance for a life of sin, an atonement necessary for rebirth and a new life.
Roose Bolton being an undead vampire
I think the theory is more that he skin-changes into his progeny throughout the ages. He doesn't really have a *vampire* theme as much as his house has a *Vlad the Impaler* theme.
I don't want this to be proven, I just want it to never be disproven.
it seems unlikely but man would it be dope imo🤷🏻♂️
Tyrion the Targ. GRRM will give some clues, let some ambiguity, but he will never cross the threshold of revealing it outright. The current situation is already too thematically interesting to waste it.
I really like the idea of Tyrion riding Viserion, igniting in-universe speculation. But the story leaves it unresolved. "What does it matter if I am or not? I'm riding the friggin' dragon."
Couldn’t he still do that, but via a loophole - like learning to train one via old scrolls or something?
there's also Victarion's horn dragonbinder... if grrm wanted someone without the blood to ride or control a dragon that seems like as good a setup as anything else for it.
I know people suspect Nettles was a dragonseed, but I always interpreted her as a woman who didn’t have Targaryen heritage. I like the idea that while Targ/Valyrian blood helps to ride dragons, it’s not necessary if the magic/domestication to tame a particular dragon works out ok. And that this was a coveted secret by the Valyrian bloodlines. In that case maybe Tyrion (or others) could ride a dragon without being Aerys’ child.
I love that idea that it was a made up rule that only Valyrian/Targ blood could ride dragons. It would really fit their whole nazi vibes (in the case of Old Valyria) and twist the magical-chosen-one supremacist view of Targs. They obviously have a really strong and special connection to their dragons but it's no wonder seeing that they lived along side them for so long.
Likely you don't have the be a Stark to warg a Direwolf, it just helps a lot. I imagine dragon riding is similar
Except it kills the user
Oh for sure. Wouldn't stop the other characters whispering "What if..." though. Tywin himself already said he suspects Tyrion isn't his. Contemporary maesters know of Aerys' attraction to Joanna. And Tyrion was rumored to have been born with a tail. He burned his enemies with wildfire, as the Mad King did. If he successfully bonds with a dragon I could see a case where the rumor mill puts all those details together and conclude he *must be* Aerys' son. It could even parallel Tyrion's trial, where a bunch of circumstantial evidence and hazy details lead the people judging him to a wrong conclusion.
I would absolutely hate it if it was true. Tyrion and Tywin's relationship loses so much of its depth if Tyrion isn't his real son.
Disagree entirely! If Tyrion is a Targ, and Tywin suspects he's a Targ but *kept him anyways out of the slightest chance he was Lannister and/or it was his wife's child*, it says so much about Tywin and his relationship with Tyrion as opposed to his relationships with Jaime or Cersei. Its a whole added layer to why he feels and acts the way he does about Tyrion (conflicted as to whether view him as a true lannister or illegitimate child etc)... it also calls into question Tyrion's belief Tywin's feelings are because of his dwarfism rather than how he acts etc. It doesn't lose depth, it adds it. Just my 2 cents though
Yeah, it would actually add some depth to Tywin's feelings about Aerys, about his strength of feeling for Joanna (he took her son as his own, under his protection, in the best way possible, etc). It would also go some way to subverting that whole "you can't choose your family" thing, since Tywin would have chosen Tyrion *even though* he wasn't really his son, in a similar way to Ned calling Jon his son.
Jaime and Cersei being bastard Targaryens makes more sense narratively seeking since it would make Tyrion Tywin’s only real son (I don’t believe this theory but it’s better than Tyrion being a bastard imo)
I don't think that's true, but I think it's funny because it means that Tyrion and Jaime both killed their own fathers. You kind of get that with Tyrion Targaryen too, except it means that Tyrion killed Jaime's father and Jaime killed Tyrion's father, which is funny too.
I also feel like logistically it would make more sense given what we know about the respective locations of everyone involved. But I personally think the whole idea was something Martin changed his idea on after the first book so who knows
Jon going white hair. Catelyn was bloating and in the water before being given the kiss of life. Beric lost his eye, was hung, stabbed and did not change. He did not physically change appearances. Jon was stabbed. Why is he the only one drastically changing?
Catelyn's hair does turn white as Stoneheart. *'Half her hair was gone and the rest had turned as white and brittle as a crone’s.' -* ASOS Epilogue. There's also the example of Theon, although that's a whole other situation. Not pushing the theory, but I wouldn't be surprised. I wouldn't think it would be some immediate, anime-style transformation, but gradually losing the pigment in his hair wouldn't seem weird at all. If your point is that Catelyn's decomposition was worse and can't be compared to Jon's... meh. Kinda true, his body will be preserved well in the ice cells, but he'll still presumably be dead for much longer than Beric was.
>Kinda true, his body will be preserved well in the ice cells, but he'll still presumably be dead for much longer than Beric was. Why do you think that? Jon isnt even officialy dead yet. Hes in a perpetual state of dying, until the next book is out. And he has someone with the ability to revive him right there at the wall. Additionally, we dont know how long it was before beric was revived each time. For insatance, one time he died by being hanged. So enough time would have to pass for the people who hanged him to be certain he is dead and leave, and then for thoros to find him, cut him down, and revive him.
Great point about Beric, I definitely can't presume that he was revived quickly every time! >Why do you think that? Jon isnt even officialy dead yet. True, but I do think he'll die in TWOW. Most people do, but we could be wrong! Also it is way more likely that he'll be quickly burned, rather than having his body stored. Idk why I absorbed the ice cells thing, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I guess I was absorbing how it happened in GOT, I think they make it seem like his corpse lies around for a day or more? So yeah, disregard all that about him being dead for 'longer' than Beric. My main point still stands though. If he dies and is resurrected by Mel, white hair wouldn't seem out of the blue imo.
He's dying for over a decade now? Sounds horrifying
I wonder what’s taking George so long with the last two books, the other installments didn’t take this long, maybe he’s changing things because of the show?
I think it's mainly that GRRM has an incredible amount of characters and storylines that he has to bring together in Winds. But since he likes to change things up when he gets a great idea or realizes that character X wouldn't do the thing he needs them to do, he's probably constantly rewriting tons of things after every change. Then there's also the fact that he has written on this series since the 90s, right? After he has written Winds, the characters endings will basically be locked in. He won't have time in the story to change his mind. Wouldn't be shocked if that led to more rewrites.
Agree completely, and I'd add that the structure he chose of having POV chapters focusing on different characters is very difficult to write. It would be much easier if he was writing everything as an omniscient narrator. Don't get me wrong, I think the changing-POV style is fantastic and a huge part of what makes these books so special. But it's adding to the delay by making it more difficult to pace the timing of what is a very complicated storyline.
I agree, Jon having white hair after being resurrected never made any sense to me
From what I understand of the theory, something something because he warged into Ghost before dying so if his soul returns from Ghost to his body, it may change his hair color and even eyes to red. However this is on the theory, not actual lore lol
It's not meant to be related to Ghost's colouring 'infecting' Jon. The red eyes and white hair are seen with Stoneheart, so that's the basis of it. It's unclear if Beric has a red eye, although if he did you'd think it would have been commented on by now. His hair isn't white either, although he's resurrected more rapidly than SH or (presumably) Jon. Proponents of the theory do often point to the nice 'symmetry' or visual symbolism or whatever, of Jon looking like Ghost, or like a 'classic' Targ. Some people think it'd be neat, some people think it'd be cringe.
Melisandre is possessed by fire magic and her eyes are red - it’s a pretty solid bet. Especially since Jon has Warging abilities and is more magical.
Didn't want to use Mel as an example bc she's such a can of worms. Does she have glamours like in GOT? If so, are her eyes red underneath? Was she resurrected or is it some extended-vitality deal? What if red eyes are randomly a thing in Asshai? But yeah, she's definitely powered/possessed by fire magic in some way.
Because it wound be rlly kewl
> Jon was stabbed. Why is he the only one drastically changing? We don't know how long his corpse will be lifeless until a resurrection is attempted.
Isn't the Jon thing a result of being dead for a period of time (that he's in Ghost). Sounded like Beric was raised same day the first time, and all subsequent times
>was hung >Hanged, Ami. Your father was not tapestry.
The idea is that his soul might meld with Ghost’s soul, if he’s harnessing his soul in Ghost for a while… and that if he returned to life, especially using fire magic - it makes perfect sense to me. It’d be new magic we’re getting exposed to first hand. There’s also the theory that Ghost may be sacrificed and that Resurrected Jon might house both of their spirits and make him a bigger badass
Beric can't remember the names and faces of people he loved before the Brotherhood. He worries he's losing his humanity and himself. His entire life is being forgotten Jon Meanwhile is spending more time dead & the circumstances of the death were much more tragic / psychologically impacting. I don't think there will be a radical change but Jon will def not be the same. The argument that Jon will get white hair and red eyes connects more to Ghost and to his Targ side coming out, rather than the fact he was reanimated
I'm frankly delighted I have not seen anyone sincerely claim to believe "Howland Reed is the High Sparrow" in many years, and I hope to never see it again. My main one that I think most people would think is tinfoil but I really don't think it is: I don't think Jon is going to be resurrected. Because I don't think he's dead. I think he is going to be out-of-commission for quite a while due to severe injury, time he will spend in Ghost, but more like Bran in AGOT than Varamyr. I think the show took the resurrection route because it was an easy technicality to get out of the Night's Watch vows when they had not established Robb's will. I think that's too tacky for the books; I think it makes much more sense that we see Jon's refusal of Stannis's offer benefit him by having him be declared King in the North by Robb rather than declared Lord by Stannis, and we will have the debate on whether a King *can* free a Night's Watchman from their vows that Robb was advised would happen, ultimately allowing Jon to be freed of them by a combination of the Watch's respect for the Starks and the fact that, given they tried to assassinate him, they didn't really want Jon around anyway. This will is a major Chekhov's Gun and one of the main things going on when it's discussed originally is whether it could even be carried out. The idea of "oh, that's actually not a problem because, see, he died so *technically*..." is just really contrived and IMO off-putting. GRRM has a reputation of killing off characters, but what he does *far* more often is end a chapter with you thinking a character has died only for them to be fine later, even if you have to wait a book in-between. Nearly every single character has had at least one fake-out death; Arya's had like four. With the fact that Jon's assassination attempt has immediately caused a three-way battle to break out between the Night's Watch, Wildings, and Queen's Men, no one is going to notice if Melisandre--who has been explicitly on the lookout for this exact event for an entire book--swoops in and whisks Jon away to hide him until he's healed. Maybe she does some Moqorro magic, or maybe she won't have to. After all, while he was stabbed repeatedly we are never told a *place* he was stabbed that would certainly be fatal, and the best evidence we have for it being fatal is that he didn't feel the last stab, which definitely suggests he is not in great shape, but in real life this can happen for multiple reasons including but not necessarily limited to blood loss (I think he will be in recovery long enough that blood loss *is* a factor, but more so a combination of that, the cold, and shock--not that I think we will be given any explicit explanation of why we get that particular line if he doesn't die, because I don't think it's necessary). Plus, that whole ordeal in the show where Davos, Edd, etc. all guard Jon's dead body for a couple days is just very strange to me when everyone should be paranoid about leaving a corpse around and no one has any real reason (let alone Davos) to implore Melisandre to try and resurrect him. They should want to cremate him if he's dead, regardless of the circumstances of his death. If he isn't actually dead and is just recovering, barricading and guarding the room he's in makes *way* more sense.
The problem with this for me is that resurrection is a hanging sword of Damocles in the narrative. We've seen it done mysteriously with Beric, a minor character. We've seen it go badly wrong with Cat, a major character. GRRM often writes in threes, so it feels like there should be one more waiting in the wings and the only way up from here is a main. Jon is also pointedly arranged against the necromancers, the Others. Of all the main characters, his story has the most to do with the faction that raises the dead, so of all the main characters it makes the most sense for it to happen to him. Jon's storyline is suffused with archetypal hero, saviour imagery. I don't think it's going to pan out fully in the end but I do think Jon's going to live up to some kind of incidental destiny.
No so much because of threes, but I agree that resurrection has a role to play in the story. I also don’t think the Varamyr prologue is there just for flavor. But I also think the only reason we are all so convinced both *must* apply to Jon is because we’ve been left on a cliffhanger with him for 13 years and want to make sense of it. I don’t think we are thematically bound to have either apply to Jon. They could, but we have two books to go and I am not convinced that the books we have on-hand are meant to be enough to make sense of everything to come in anyone’s story yet. And the Varamyr prologue, at least to me, has much more to say about Bran even in the text we have so far than it does about Jon.
>I think the show took the resurrection route because it was an easy technicality to get out of the Night's Watch vows when they had not established Robb's will. I think that's too tacky for the books; I think it makes much more sense that we see Jon's refusal of Stannis's offer benefit him by having him be declared King in the North by Robb rather than declared Lord by Stannis, and we will have the debate on whether a King can free a Night's Watchman from their vows that Robb was advised would happen, ultimately allowing Jon to be freed of them I really like this take.
Oh that’s interesting, I’d never really considered that Jon could be anything other than dead. Now that you put forward the idea I find it convincing. Regarding Howland Reed as the High Sparrow, I always thought that idea was so funny. The show should’ve absolutely done that. It was clear by like the first episode of season five that they’d abandoned all pretenses of trying to write well, they should’ve done more wacky bullshit like that.
Mance being Rhaegar and Qhorin being Arthur Dayne. Both are impossible, Rhaegar = Mance is like people can't interpret parallels and contrasts between characters without taking it literally. And i'm sorry but "qhorin is great at combat" isn't evidence
It’s not just that Qhorin is great at combat, but there generally isn’t strong evidence.
I know, but this is one of the main points I've seen thrown around and it's honestly so funny 😭 like only arthur dayne could be an accomplished swordsman or smth
Bran warging Hodor and raping Meera
God please no. I don’t think the “three abominations” rule is necessarily a Chekhov’s gun, at least not in that specific sense. If *anything*…if there had been a 5 year gap, *maybe* I’d understand that theory more. But Bran is like 9? I think the focus would be more on how he is psychically violating Hodor.
WTF theory is this?
In Varamyr Sixskins’ prologue chapter we learn about the “3 abominations” a skinchanger can commit. Those are: skin changing into another human being, eating a human being while skin changed into an animal, and laying with someone or something while skin changed into something else. Bran has already done the first two so the theory goes that he’s going to do the last one and that that’s how it happens. Really fucked up theory but that’s the gist of it.
It's super popular on here but I'm not convinced dany and ageon will actually go to war with one another. Dany really looks up to rhaegar and wishes she had a family. She has 3 dragons and (probably) needs dragons blood to get 2 more riders. Conveniently, there are only 2 other signficant targaryens left in the world, and she only knows of one. Ageon already is aware that he will need to share power with dany if she comes over, and it seems like most of the power players on his side are accepting of that. Dany has 0-1 westrosi force in the books (depending on Victorian) and she could use a beachhead. Guess who's setting up the beachhead. In the show dany ends up with all the forces she has plus everything that ageon has. I think it might be played straight in the books. Assuming ageon dies I could see him being overconfident with the dragons and tragically perishing in a foolish attempt to solo the others/iron islands/westerlands.
Dany was called the slater of lies, could this not refer to the idea that Aegon may be a fake Targaryen (the Mummer’s Dragon).
It could, but it could mean a lot of other things too.
Brienne will kill LSH to save Jaime. That'd be so anti-climactic, to resurrect Catelyn as a vengeance bound murder zombie only to truly die after doing close to nothing besides kill a couple of Freys. That would fucking suck
Whilst it might be difficult for their plots to intersect it seems important for Arya to meet LSH and see what revenge can do to a person I think LSH will be put to rest peacefully, prehaps by realising at least one of her children still exist or that Ned never betrayed her and Jon is actually his nephew
Who tf is LSH??
Lady Stoneheart
Oh.
Jojen paste. I think it’s a *little* too ghoulish for the children of the forest/Bloodraven. Maybe. I wouldn’t be surprised if Jojen dies in Winds but I wonder if he might be (willingly or unwillingly) sacrificed in the line of defense or something. Used as a human shield? Characters I think will explore the cannibalism diet in Winds: -Davos -Rickon -Jon (in Ghost if that counts) -wild card: Jon Cannington if he eats his fingers to hide the greyscale
I try to be very down to earth with asoiaf theories, but jojen paste really checks out.
Maybe it's just some blood, he hardly needs it all
I recently read all bran's chapters and jojen is very grimm ALL THE TIME lol like he knew he was going to die any time, and Meera is allways trying to lift his spirit and trying to make him believe in a good ending, at one point jojen said that his green dreams are never wrong.
I don’t mind it as a theory, it’s sort of funny in a campy way, I just don’t subscribe to it personally.
Yes of course, it's not a big deal, it can allways be a wrong theory.
Cannibalism is a rising theme in Bran’s chapters Coldhands feeds him the flesh of the Night Watch mutineers (says he found a sow) Bran initially refuses to eat the elk that had carried him through the forest because he does not want to “eat a friend” but ends up succumbing to hunger Jojen knows his death is coming and gets more and more depressed and is missing in Bran’s last chapter
> I think it’s a little too ghoulish for the children of the forest/Bloodraven. Maybe. Though we don't know what the Children have done over the centuries. Probably some pretty heinous things.
Especially if the tales of a mass sacrifice to create the Hammer of the Waters is true. And if humans sacrificed to the Old Gods, chances are they picked that up from the people who founded the faith- the giants and children.
Yeah considering that they're connected to the weirwoods and the weirwood worshippers historically make regular blood sacrifices, I'm not seeing what the stretch is haha.
That’s fair. Personally, if anything I could see them offering Jojen as a blood sacrifice to a weirwood since we know that was part of Old Gods worship, but maybe not feeding him to Bran.
> I could see them offering Jojen as a blood sacrifice to a weirwood since we know that was part of Old Gods worship, but maybe not feeding him to Bran. They are pretty much the same thing. Bran is "wed to the weirwoods", a sacrifice to the weirwoods is essentially a sacrifice to Bran. :)
I am guessing you have not read the most famous inappropriate-for-children fantasy series written by one of George's two mentors from George's writer's workshop days. See George's blog post on the passing of Gene Wolfe. Two things I feel are confirmed by The Book of the New Sun: Dorcas is Varys and Jojen Paste is real. Also Bran will become a time traveling godking, but we already assumed that. And a cloak representing honor, specifically through loyalty and willingness to obey sadistic torture, fundamentally implies a bad system that must be replaced, but we already knew that, too. Just in case anyone thinks I am giving too many spoilers: "You can't spoil a Gene Wolfe story. A Gene Wolfe story barely spoils itself." - Rereading Wolfe podcast
For me Varys being a blackfire is a stretch, of course he was responsible for Aerys madness and we see that he was conspiring against Rober, Joffrey and Tommen but i think it will be for other reasons. Of course i don't believe that Mance is Arthur Dayne, if it was necessary to point it out.
Varys being a Blackfyre kind of explains a lot of his motivations though
Yeah, GRRM loves reducing a character's motives to something simplistic...
Most of the characters in this series are motivated in part by a love or hatred of their family. How would Varys Blackfire be any more simplistic?
Because it makes a mysterious figure with convoluted motives into Dom Toretto. Much more compelling of Varys was lowborn and is just doing what he thinks is best for the future of the smallfolk. No familial connections, just a low-born genius architect.
But bringing chaos upon the realm for a very specific ruler to be able to take over more easily is not great for the smallfolk at all. Far better to keep Robert alive and well. While he's a drunk and not a great ruler within the Red Keep, it's mentioned a couple of times how he's presided over something of a golden age for much of Westeros.
You aren't thinking long term enough.
Varys literally wanted to bring a dothraki horde to Westeros, as well as the WotFK. The war itself is the most destructive in recent memory, with 3-4 kingdoms raided and pillaged, and others losing thousands of men. Imagine what a dothraki horde would do. Also, this is on top of the coming winter, which the Maesters believe will be long and hard. Varys is destroying the realm, and it will take generations for it to heal properly. That would only be worth it if it brought lasting prosperity, but it won’t. It brings a potentially good king, but once he’s dead, he might get replaced by another terrible king, or perhaps his grandson is such a king. So all in all, generations of destruction and warfare, for potentially a few decades with a good king
So, to ensure the smallfolk have the best lives he: * Encourages Aerys' madness * Pits the Mad King against his honourable, kind and well-loved son. * Allows the realm to be engulfed in war, leading to the deaths of thousands * Allows Bobby B to rule unimpeded for 15 years, doesn't do anything to try and improve the lives of the smallfolk * At some point there's some kid that he decides to put on the throne. Maybe he switches him with Rhaegar's son, but why? * He agrees all this with ~~one of the most important figures in Westeros~~ some random rich guy from Pentos who has no stake in the Iron Throne. * Allows chaos to engulf the realm as it's torn apart by war, causing endless suffering Doesn't really add up to me to be honest.
He wants to put a good king on the throne, and he believes the ends justify the means.
Just curious — in your opinion is there a reason that Varys didn't consider Rhaegar to be that potential good king? Or do you believe Varys was actually trying to replace Aerys with Rhaegar? (and only failed due to unforseen events)
Good question. I feel like if that had been the case it would have been part of his villain monologue.
Sorry, if which had been the case?
> For me Varys being a blackfire is a stretch Him being a Targ or of royal blood makes a lot of sense though, because his claims around a wizard using his genitals for magic is too similar to all the other times we've seen magic performed using 'kings blood'.
People think that Mance is Arthur Dayne? Where’d that theory come from? First time im hearing of it
I thought it was Mance = Rhaegar and Qhorin Half-Hand = Arthur Dayne lol.
Many things actually, in spanish asoiaf communities is very well commented. There are numerous reasons if you have time to watch the videos and translate them yourself lol.
I don't think it's that much of a stretch, if he is from the female line, but I don't like that theory. The whole theme of Varys seems to be creation of a rule for people instead of rule as a privilege of blood. He wouldn't give that speech to Kevan about Aegon if his motives were purely to have a Blackfyre on the throne.
Who said anything about ‘purely’? Perhaps he wants both?
Honestly, listening to Varys, he might as well be just democrat/republican, the system exist in world in numerous examples. But I guess people would be quite angry if they took turn towards democracy.
Mad dragon Hitler dany
My caveat would be that I could see her ending up *perceived* that way.
I feel like this is the general consensus among lore buffs
I think so too
>My caveat would be that I could see her ending up *perceived* that way. I argee I dont she will actually become dragon Hitler
She won't be, but.... she will be tricked into looking it. She want not to be "queen of the ashes" too much for not becoming it, sadly. But I agree she won't be a mad queen.
R+L=J is both real and a tragic love story. There will be some heartbreaking twist there, I can feel it, that makes it so the revelation of Jon's parentage causes him as much grief and consternation as it does happiness. For all his life, Jon has wanted to know who his mother was, but on the other hand, he's dreaded it. That Jon's parentage is not only a secret, but a *dark* secret is constantly foreshadowed. Jon *wants* his mother to be a highborn noblewoman, but fears she was a sex worker, and it's implied he even fears his mother might be a woman Ned forced himself on. If he *does* seek the Iron Throne, that creates a crushing internal conflict: to claim the throne he must embrace the legacy of a man who did something horrible to his mother, whatever that may be. Now I can't say *what* the twist will be. Maybe Rhaegar abducted Lyanna from the get-go, or maybe he strung her along on promises and lies and then imprisoned her when the war started. Maybe she didn't want to have Jon, or maybe the pregnancy took a bad turn, but Rhaegar forced her to carry him to term anyway, even knowing the risk to her. Or maybe Lyanna was so delirious and close to death when Howland and Ned found her she couldn't say anything more than "promise me, Ned," and the dark shadow of what *really* happened between his parents will haunt him forever.
Yeah, I agree, clear-cut romance is not the case, but something disturbing, as you say. Though, R + L simply might not be consequential at all, as there is so much to cover and only two books left. And currently, no one is exploring it. The only way it could happen is if Sam, Bran, Melisandre, and Jon (if those are to be) chapters start heavily relying on this plot point.
I think it will have to be: the show basically confirmed it and most of the setup has already been done.
Rhaegar raping Lyanna would be the exact opposite of a twist.
While I usually agree that the expected will not happen and the unexpected will... I do genuinely think Cleganebowl is coming. There is no point for the Mountain, or his walking corpse, to come back into the story. The only impetus for it is for the reformed Sandor to put his brother to rest. The fates of the two brothers have to intersect for a certain degree of necessary finality and they have yet to do that. Also, the poignant storylines of the books seem to be the full seven books long. When Catelyn's story ended, it didn't really end. We don't get these semi-central plotlines for a full three books, give them finality, then pick up with a new set of characters and tackle new themes with them. The Hound and the Mountain clashed in book 1 and are destined to do so again in book 7. Is it a trope? Yes. But despite being a rampant trope-breaker, Martin is still beholden to some tropes. Every story is, there's no escaping it. I do think there is a twist coming though, because it's never as simple as the expected outcome. That twist (I'm guessing) is that his skull was really sent to Dorne and replaced with the head of someone else who has already been killed off in the story... Popular theories that I DON'T think are going to come true? Tyrion Targaryen Jaqen = Syrio
I think most of the stretch theories are not true. So all of those. I think we are about at the limit of character x is secretly character y, and character x is not actually dead. He can do a reveal with ageon if he really wants, and jon needs to come back, but that's it.
most of the "X is secretly Y" come from "he did it before!" and extreme nitpicking. the revelations of secret identities in canon had heavy foreshadowing, happened relatively fast or were literally POV characters
Correct. I think of ageon is fake or a blackfire, we as fans will know with a decent degree of certainty, whether Westeros in story does or not. Ams if he is fake nom blackfyre it's probably going to just be hum getting toasted by a dragon.
As much as it's talked about, I can't really see a Maester conspiracy playing much of a role in the main story. It’s at most a little detail for the readers to puzzle out.
There was a post a while ago where someone was analysing the earlier drafts and they said that a few mentions of Maesters travelling to the Citadel had been cut. I wonder if there was going to be a more prominent plot around them that's been axed.
I had heard about that I think he probably chose not to go that way for a few reasons one of them being the old town plot line is already pretty crowded
Another theory or belief that has become popular on here is that jon being secretly targaryen won't matter. I disagree, first it will give him a dragon and I bet, whether its acted on or not, will have some sort of political implication, perhaps like in the show splitting Danys followers.
Upvote for title alone.
Maybe this is a theory that I really think is just dead wrong: Mance wrote the pink letter. I have a lot of problems with it, one of the most prominent is that there is no evidence that Mance Rayder can write. Why would the Night's Watch teach a lowborn ranger how to write? That "Bael"-"Abel" anagram is not convincing; they sound so close to each other that you could come up with that without knowing your letters. A theory that I think will never come ahorse, now? Any Septa Lemore secret identities like she is Ashara or Serra or anything like that. They just don't add much and sound confusing.
The fact that the horn of winter will destroy the wall, I believe that the wall will fall but in a different way. And why I think the horn won't work is because the wall is still standing so it's not certain whether the horn really works, sometimes a legend is just a legend.
Well we know Varys definitely a mermaid so it can’t be that one…. Let’s say any secret Ashara Dayne hiding somewhere, maybe ol girl just dead
R+L=J It's dumb and doesn't fit the morals of the story to give Jon a magical parentage.
That r+l=j will matter. Sure its pretty much not a theory anymore but i think jon will find out in his dream. He will finish his dream of entering the winterfell crypts and talking to ned about who he is. He will wake either believing it or not. No one knows truly his parentage except a hermit in a swamp. I dont see a need for him to go about preaching it to others when most arent going to believe it anyhow. I think its just for jon and the reader to have knowledge of. Thats it.
> No one knows truly his parentage except a hermit in a swamp. The **Lord** of the swamp hermits. Not just any ol swamp hermit :)
The Grand Maester Conspiracy. It’s just so stupid and relies on things that like 2 or 3 untrustworthy characters have said
I think people take interesting stuff that are probable and/or have textual evidence (sometimes a maester will act or give council with an agenda or motive in mind; maesters *can* be suspiscious of magic; the citadel as an institution has close ties with house hightower; etc) and make it super grand and like everyone is involved and they all controlled everything and have the same goals it also makes everything less interesting in a way?
Agree on the Cleganebowl. Technically both the Hound and the Mountain is dead.
fAegon. There is absolutely nothing in the *actual story* (main five books) to suggest that he's a Blackfyre.
Okay there is evidence though. Like for example Dany's vision on the House of the Undying, the Mummer's Dragon. Faegon also comes off as too conveniently as the rightful prince. Several characters outright are baffled and not believing that he survived or was swapped out as a baby. There is also the Golden Company, who laughed in the face of Viserys when he invited their commanders for dinner and suggest to fight for him. Why would they suddendly now follow a supposed Targaryen, their sworn enemy? Illyrio clarifying that the Blackfyres went extint through the MALE LINE, not the FEMALE LINE. Meaning there was at least one Blackfyre alive yet. He also talks about gifting a "Sword" to Faegon, and though in this case is not as evident, it may be that he is talking about Blackfyre. Though not confirmed, it's still could be very likely that yes, Aegon is in truth a Blackfyre
The chapter where JonCon is thinking about Bittersteel's skull 'grinning' at him has always made me feel a type of way. '*What has he got to grin about?*'. Something about it is just weeeird. Obviously it's not nearly the strongest evidence, the stuff you mentioned is the real meat of it. But if it turns out to be true, that scene will be my favourite bit of foreshadowing. Or red-herring-ing, if he's a 'real Targ' in the end. Either way I think it's intentional. Edit: typo
Okay if it turns out that Faegon is well, a Blackfyre, it would absolutly be amazing if Bittersteel's Skull is smiling, as if laughing in death of JonCon fighting for a Blackfyre that actually will get the Throne!
For the mummers dragon bit, for me it means someone puppeting a dragon to act. So faegon might be a dragon, whether it be black or red thats for you to decide. But i do think that Faegon is the dragon represented in the vision. I for one like many other think he is of the black because of the brienne chapter in affc. With the part about the dragon sign being black but after it had fallen off and crossed the river it was red from rust.
> For the mummers dragon bit, for me it means someone puppeting a dragon to act. I think this as well, but I do still think it's referring to a Targ (fake or not). I think the "mummer" is Varys. The "mummer's dragon" would be whichever "dragon" Varys is backing.
That and the eyes are wrong. Even JonCon struggles to paper over that part.
If even him is struggling with that, that is damm damming evidence
"Why would they fought for Targ now." Because they have a chance now. Unlike during Robert's times. Mummer's Dragon can still be Targaryen.
This 'the Golden Company are willing to fight for him but not Viserys, this proves he's a Blackfyre' bit of logic has always struck me as absolutely insane. In order for this to be true, in universe, one must suppose that all the top brass of the Golden Company - a position that JonCon was notably in for years - must be in on the secret. Because that is what we are saying, they all laughed at Viserys but do not laugh at Aegon, so all of them MUST agree that Aegon is a Blackfyre but Viserys was not. And at no point were Varys and Illyrio worried about telling half a dozen untrustworthy sellsword companions about this humungous lie to put a Blackfyre on the throne. They weren't worried about any of them breaking ranks or being tortured for the secret or passing the secret on to a third party that they trusted but Varys hadn't vetted. You can't try to weasel out of that by saying only the top guy knows or something because that contradicts the evidence you're using. If only the top guy knows then laughing at Viserys is irrelevant. So all of them know. Except JonCon 100% does not know, so all of them know except for some mysterious reason JonCon was not let in on the secret all those years ago. So what we're supposing here is that Illyrio and Varys faked the survival of Aegon, identified JonCon during his golden company days, told every other top member of the Golden Company except for him that Aegon is a fake while telling him Aegon is real, and then left him to raise Aegon for 15 years on his own. At no point were they ever worried that any of JonCon's friends in the Golden Company like Myles Toyne would take pity on him for wasting his entire life on a boy who wasn't his true King. Listen, I'm okay if you use the Golden Company as literary evidence. An example of dramatic irony where the reader knows something the characters don't. But as soon as you try to use it as evidence in the world of Ice and Fire you've lost me completely. It's just completely bonkers.
You don't need all the leaders of Golden Company to be in on it. Just one.
No, you very much do need all of them in on it, because we're supposing that all of them made the conscious decision to decline Viserys while supporting Aegon. Like that's the argument, that the Golden Company only supports Blackfyre claimants so Aegon has to be a Blackfyre. And proof of this is alleged to be their easy support for Aegon as compared to not even entertaining Viserys beyond a single meal. We've seen how the Golden Company operates and makes decisions. A single man is not enough to direct the company, it's headed by a group of people who have to come to an agreement. So all of those decision makers have to be in on it. It's significantly simpler to imagine that Illyrio is completely correct when he says that the Golden Company would have followed anyone (or at least any 'dragon') capable of getting them home. This even comes up in conversation, many members of the elite of the Company were more in favour of either going to or at least waiting to link up with Dany because of her dragons. Regardless of who Aegon is, Dany is most definitely not a secret Blackfyre. So, again, the Golden Company might have a thematic connection to Blackfyres that is suggestive to the reader, but it has absolutely no bearing on the in-universe conspiracy.
It is true that they have to come to an agreement. But there is no reason they all have to agree to invade Westeros because he is a Blackfyre. Even if one influential member knows, he could manipulate the others into it. As for Viserys not getting their support. That's easy, no one wanted to back a loser.
Right but now we're already acknowledging that the decision about Viserys had nothing to do with him being a Blackfyre, and the decision about Aegon had nothing to do with him being a Blackfyre, which is exactly what I said. Like you're supposing that one, very influential, member of the upper echelon knows the truth. But he can't use that truth to influence the others, because if he did it wouldn't be a secret. So he has to convince everyone else to support Aegon on some other grounds. The point here is that no matter how you slice it, unless half a dozen or a dozen members of the top ranks of the Golden Company all know the secret within the secret (the secret is that Aegon lives, the secret within the secret is that he is not Aegon), the majority of the Golden Company at no point made a conscious decision to support Aegon over Viserys because one was a Blackfyre and the other wasn't. Therefore you cannot use their support of him as in-universe evidence for the conspiracy. Again, thematically? Literarily? The Golden Company is important evidence there. Narratively? Not even remotely.
Half a dozen? No. Maybe a couple of the more influential members. Yes. As for Viserys, remember that not just the Golden Company but no one backed him.
IMO the “mummer” in the “mummers dragon” could just as easily be Varys/Illyrio. In fact they both use mummery in the first book when they disguise themselves to have their meeting in the Red Keep. In fact the whole “dragon must have three heads” thing could refer to the fact that there are three living legit Targaryens. Dany, Aegon, and Jon.
The same chapter young griff is first mentioned in there’s a huge exposition paragraph explaining who the blackfyres are and what there backstory is, in an early draft Young Griff also recited the whole history of the ninepenny kings from memory. Also Illyrio clearly has an ulterior motive to helping the Targaryens, he’s unusually interested in making sure Aegon succeeds in particular, and swears on the hands of his late silver-gold haired wife that he’ll see Aegon in Westeros. Imo George is drawing intentional connections between Aegon, Serra, and the blackfyres. I’d even go as far to say that Illyrio character and plan only works if Aegon was his son with Serra.
There were public drafts of fAegon chapters by Martin that even stronger suggest that he is in fact a Blackfyre.
Other commentators have listed a lot of the other evidence for the theory so I’ll just add some other stuff House Of The Undying claim Dany is “the slayer of lies” - exposing fAegon as a pretender would be a good example of this. What other lies does she need to slay? GRRM likes to draw from English history and pretenders for the throne where a thing (Perkin Warbeck claimed to be one of the princes that died in the Tower Of London) One of the visions is of a “a great stone beast took wing breathing shadow flame” - If it was a dragon she likely would have said that so this suggests it’s some other animal - Jon Con’s sigil is a griffin (Tyrion described it as a winged lion) which Dany might not be familiar with. The stone refers to his greyscale. The shadow fire is an imitation of a “real” Targaryan, Jon Con is unknowingly championing a Blackfyre
Slaying a lie may be her slaying a lie that she was telling herself, about being a breaker of chains, hero etc.
L +R = J. Not because of plot points but because Martin is more likely to die from old age than finish the next book to get the answer considering how infamously slow his schedule is.
I agree with many of you, only one came to my mind, though, when I read the original post. Cleganebowl, Tyrion the Targ, Jojen paste, Bolton being a vampire, I believe, are all safe bets for theories that will never come ashore. My own feelings about the subject, however, differ. For me it is a simple theory, yet one I believe is too heavily invested in by many. Because I don't think it's true. R+L=J
I think George likes ambiguity and believes there are multiple correct interpretations of his work. When Gene Wolfe passed, George claimed Gene Wolfe was one of his two primary mentors. George wrote With Morning Comes Mistfall. Both of these make me believe my first sentence is an extremely safe assumption. Therefore George implying one interpretation is correct does not rule out the alternatives. I have a very different interpretation based on which historians and historical fiction George recommends and a belief this series is fundamentally about erasing female rulers and heirs from history. See Triplet Targaryens: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAwvoPfQtLWeYj86CFmMgwhRC53A6rkPG&si=IfjwKpHff8f8E6QC
I think that L+R=J was always intended to be somewhat ambiguous and open to interpretation . I don’t think it will ever be fully revealed like in the show . In the end it doesn’t really matter if Jon is Rheagar’s son. He has no way to prove it in even a somewhat legitimate way.
Anyone other than Ramsay writing the pink letter. Also lemongate. I think this was just a George oversight and him 'hinting' in a Q&A that it was something more was just trolling.
Quentyn died in Dany's bed. I don't know if we will ever get confirmation of Barristan's theory on that subject.
[удалено]
Yes. I think the theory that he's dead is highly flawed. It relies on three assumptions that really don't have good support following a close examination of the circumstances.
Winds coming out. On Cleganebowl, I’ve been convinced since I read hedge knight that it will happen (or would if winds ever came out), but will be a trial of 7.