Thursday, April 4, 2013

My stance on various ASOIAF conspiracy theories, Part 23

Thursday is theory day.
This is the twenty-third article of the series. Since there are a lot of theories floating out there and I'm asked often enough what I think of them, I thought I write it down. You can then laugh about me when I am totally proven wrong by "The Winds of Winter" or something like that. Rules are as follows: you put a question about any theory or plot element (really, let's stress "theory" a bit for the sake of interesting questions) either in the comments of any theory post or by mail (stefan_sasse@gmx.de) and I will answer them in an upcoming post. And if you now ask "Stefan, isn't this a shameless rip-off of Sean T. Collin's "Ask me anything"?", I would tell you to shut up, because you are right.
Prepare for part 23. Spoilers for "A Song of Ice and Fire", obviously.  

Are the Boltons a product of the Others?
I don't know how such theories are even created. Why should they be? Because they're evil? Whoeever comes up with such stuff seems not to be paying attention to what they're reading. One of the really prevelant themes of "A Song of Ice and Fire" is that people are evil, or at least capable of evil. You don't need an army of orcs or evil sorcerers who corrupt the good and honorable rulers to create someone you can fear. The human is the human's wolf, as Hobbes said. The Boltons are a product of a really cruel world and drove it just a bit farther. They are accountable to no one as long as they keep a lid on their activies, which is ridiculously easy. Just listen to the casual way in which Bolton describes past deeds to Theon in Reek III, ADWD. These guys never had anyone who taught them a proper morale. They learned that they rule supreme and can do what they want, as long as the Starks don't get wind of it. And that's what they do. You don't need an influence of the Others for that, said to day. Humans can do that on their own. As a narrative side note, it's interesting just how much more frightening and cruel and dangerous the Others need to be in order to pose a greater threat than a Bolton.

What is the craziest theory you believe is true, and which do you wish were true?I think the craziest theory I believe to be true is that Tyrion is really a Targaryen bastard. I'm still not really a fan of this theory, but I fear that it holds much water now that ADWD is out and let Barristan chatter about Joanna and Aerys. I don't like the theory very much because it seems to follow the old fantasy tropes of destiny and power of blood and such (three heads has the dragon, yadda yadda). It is consensus that Jon and Tyrion are the other two heads of the dragons, and if they both happen to be Targaryens by chance, it's too much chance for me. But perhaps Martin'll pull it off, I hated the Aegon-theory as well and he presented it likeable. What I wish were true? That the series ends with the downfall of the feudalist system and is replaced with something that gives more power to the people, setting Westeros on a path that slowly winds away from all the suffering it endured the past millenia. Just look how better people in the Free Cities fare, with their fairly authoritarian systems, and you know what I mean. 

Why didn't the Valyrians conquer Westeros?
Good question, isn't it? They ventured as far as Mantarys to create cities and defeated the old Ghiscari empire, and the Stepstones seem to have been fought over as well. But why never land in Westeros? The Targaryens only left Valyria on grounds of some crazy-ass prophecy and built their fires on Dragonstone, but never ventured beyond that until way after the fall of Valyria. And the Westerosi kings did intervene in conflicts on the other side of the Narrow Sea, especially the Storm kings. So, why not? I guess there are two main reasons for it. The first reason is the scarcety of people and wealth. Westeros is huge, but it didn't posess great cities that would yield rich taxes. You can't imagine them building the big imperial roads in Westeros, because where would they lead? You could of course replace the overlords in their system and put your own in place, but what would it yield? Westeros still doesn't produce anything you don't get cheaper anywhere else, and you need really many people to control the area, because it is populated so scarcely. And then there's another point, which is the long seasons. While Essos also experiences them, Westeros gets the full blunt because it lays farther north. Only the Reach and Dorne enjoy a milder climate in winter, the rest is covered in snow for years. And we see in "A Dance with Dragons" just how difficult to maintain control in winter is, and how easy a rebellion can be created. So, the cost of occupying Westeros is prohibitive, and there is almost no gain to make it worth the effort. For the Valyrians, the Westerosi could keep their inhospitable continent.

24 comments:

  1. the question should be what will be more dissapointing: the theory wich will come true or the one wich will not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. my thinking was ahead of my typing..
      I wondered if a theory of mine would be confirmed in TWOW, will I rejoice or will it be more like "Oh yeah that's what i thought from the start"?
      On the other hand if any of my more serious theories (and i am not talking about the Boltons being evil creatures from outer space) will be crushed to dust it will be obviously dissapointing in a way.
      I know this is a philosophical discussion and i do know it doesn't really matter, but hey...
      Sometimes I wonder what we will do when we all have read TWOW and ADOS and all our questions are answered?

      Sorry for the confusion

      Delete
    2. No fear on that count; Martin won't "answer" all questions^^

      Delete
  2. As a narrative side note, it's interesting just how much more frightening and cruel and dangerous the Others need to be in order to pose a greater threat than a Bolton.

    This might be the most insightful thing I have read and I've read it all :)
    Nice job Stefan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok... perhaps more explanation is needed as to why I found your comment so profound. Especially since you probably didn't mean it to be profound at all.

      The central theme of the story seems to be that spending energy and resources on your short term selfish interests like playing the game of thrones ensures that you might win a battle or two but you'll lose badly in the ultimate war which is against winter and the evil forces that come with it. In other words, the humans of Westeros should be standing together not fighting amongst themselves.

      Your, probably unintentional, point is even if there is some apocalypse to come, the story demonstrates that the human on human cruelty which is perpetrated often with no major end in mind.. often just an end in itself, is truly horrible. Perhaps we have slightly misinterpreted the theme. Perhaps these books are attempting to show us that human cruelty, often to no real purpose at all, is the true danger, not the reckoning to come show everyone that they are to be punished for wasting their time on selfish infighting.

      Made me think a lot anyway.

      Delete
    2. Ah, ok^^ I have stated repeatedly that the books are anti-war-books, and that's a major consensus I share with Sean T. Collins, one that brought us together, basically. These books made a strong case against human cruelty, and it shows just how far people can go when nothing holds them back.

      Delete
  3. K, so now you're coming with the crazy-ass theories. Nice!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, there are some really weird ones out there.

      Delete
  4. I think *all* Boltons being the product of Others is a bit spurious but I have read a semi-convincing theory on Westeros that Ramsey specifically is an Other "changeling" or a half-Other (with the precedent of female Others going back to the Night King).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok, and...why, exactly? And I don't talk about crazy-ass "textual evidence" or something, but I talk about - as I do most of the time - narrative reasons. As I stated above, the books time and time again emphasize human cruelty as despicable, show humans in all kind of positions commit cruel acts without spells or demons forcing them to. The one hook about the story is that the evil people are NOT a supernatural threat. To make Ramsay a changeling or some other stupid stuff connected to the Others would destroy a theme that (up to date) five books have taken real lengths and pain to build up.

      Delete
  5. Speaking of the Boltons, Stefan here is a theory for you to take up - That Roose, not the bastard Ramsay killed Domeric.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many reasons, such as Roose is a complete sociopath. Ramsay would never use poison. That Domeric is nothing like his father, that all other of Rooses' sons have died. That Domeric was also a Ryswell. Getting rid of Domeric strengthens House Bolton by removing the influence of the Ryswells. Marrying Ramsay to fake Arya strengthens house Bolton. That Domeric defied and pissed off his father by meeting with Ramsay. That Roose is always mentioning the fact Ramsay killed Domeric to deflect any blame away from himself. Ramsay is the perfect tool for Roose, making Domeric expendable.

      Delete
    2. Why would Ramsay never use poison? (Besides, we don't know it was poison.)
      You make a lot of goodpoints, though, but I think Roose's throwaway-line of "boy-lords are the bane of any house" strongly suggests that there is no reason to kill Domeric.

      Delete
  6. i have thought may its warg that scare the Valyrians from go all out war against westores. At that time it could bee possible. May be the first faceless man was warg and i think before the fist man took the old god they might worship ted old so the old feud and the other might be the children of forest that doesnot like the peace deal between the first man and their kin. and the ending might not be a great hero killing the villian but healing the old wound.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it has more to do with Westeros not offering anything of value to Valyria.

      Delete
    2. Similarly, some historians have suggested that Rome made little effort to extend the Empire into Germania for the same reason--it would be expensive both to conquer and maintain while generating next to nothing in tax revenue.

      Delete
  7. I also hope Tyrion isn't a Tagaryan because it would take away much of the dynamic and profundity of the inner-Lannister-conflicts. If Tywin only hated Tyrion because he truly wasn't his son, as he said, that would just be too simple, too flat.
    But sadly, i also interpreted Barristan's memories that way.

    By the way, how does it come so many people assume Tyrion to be the third head of the dragon? That Jon is Rhaegar's son seams also pretty clear to me. But I didn't have so many doubts that Aegon is really Aegon. Perhaps he could be the third head?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need to read Miles Schneiderman's essay in "A Flight of Sorrows", and you will be convinced Aegon is fake.

      Delete
    2. You need the book, which you can buy on Amazon. The essay is not available online.

      Delete