#if you disagree please keep scrolling unless you respond with a respectful rebuttal

[duskcowboy]

Let’s talk about the lightsinger theory…

[If this theory isn’t your cup of tea, I recommend you keep scrolling. You’ve been warned.]

Per my last post, I recently dug deep into the Lightsinger Theory tag which can be dangerous territory. I suppose for many Gw*nriel shippers, this theory feels equivalent to how many Elriel shippers feel about the Evil Elain Theory. So I get it, it’s not fun or easy to hear theories that somewhat paint a character you like in a bad light (especially when the people doing so use said theory as reasoning for why your desired ship won’t happen). However, after reading many “debunking” posts about the Lightsinger Theory, I want to address something:

Many anti posts use the “definition” of a lightsinger provided in acosf to prove the theory wrong because it doesn’t outright provide details used in the LS theory such as “glowing” or “singing”. Let’s review what was said in acosf…

Now, idk about you, but this isn’t really a “definition”; it sounds to me more like a story—some may say even a myth, or a legend. It basically sounds like something you’d tell your kids to discourage them from going near the deep end (a “boogeyman” of sorts). And the thing with myths and legends is that they are based on truth, but they evolve and change over time through the process of word of mouth.

Take these excerpts from the article, “How Great Myths and Legends Were Created”:

“It began with a real or imagined incident…It was passed along by word of mouth from person to person and from generation to generation until it had been told and retold millions of times and existed in a hundred different versions around the world.”

“There is also a tendency to exaggerate or minimize, to glorify or ennoble, to idealize or vilify. Beyond that, there’s a natural, unconscious tendency to analyze things, to take them apart and put them back together in different combinations and a natural tendency to simplify or edit.”

Therefore, what Cassian provided as information on a lightsinger could potentially not be wholly correct. So, we have to decipher what we anticipate to be truth and what could be embellishments added over time (or what’s been left out). This is why I believe that Gwyn possibly being a lightsinger doesn’t necessarily imply that she’s evil or manipulating anyone on purpose. The story of what a lightsinger is can very easily be based on a truth that has transformed into a “mythical creature”, and has a high chance of not being entirely accurate anymore. Additionally, the absence of seemingly “key words” such as “singing” or “visions” could have easily been lost in the process of retellings.

But if you disagree that what Cass said is a myth or legend, I’ll reel it back a bit and continue calling it the description of a lightsinger. Now, with descriptions, they typically highlight characteristics to create a basic overview. With this, you are not going to get every last detail. For example, a suspect’s description usually entails the following:

Gender, race, age/height/weight (estimated), and maybe some other vague descriptions of eye & hair color, clothing, etc.

So if a suspect description says, “white male, mid 30’s, average height, sandy blonde hair, and wearing black overalls,” and I see someone matching that exact description (down to the color of his overalls) driving a red car, NO ONE would argue I can’t call it in “because the description never said he was driving a red car”.

My point being that: the absence of certain details does not automatically mean they are a falsehood.

“It doesn’t say lightsingers sing”

True. But let’s draw an educated guess from surrounding evidence: “singer” is in the literal title, just like “shadowsinger”; the only shadowsinger we know of confirmed he sings.

“It never says lightsingers glow”

Again, educated guess. Power is consistently described as “glowing”. When Gwyn sings, she glows. It’s not a large leap in thinking to conclude she may be using some sort of power. If it’s not as a lightsinger, what is it?

“It doesn’t say they can induce visions”

It does say that “they appear as friendly faces” when in fact, they’re not. That seems to me like a manipulation of sight. Not a far leap to guess they could maybe induce other manipulations of sight such as visions.

An easy answer to all of these is also, “it also doesn’t say they don’t” but I suspect that’s not a good enough response. All I know is that this argument is teetering on argumentum ad ingorantiam…the “appeal to ignorance” fallacy of “it can’t be true because it doesn’t explicitly say it’s true”.

Just because the description didn’t lay out every detail, doesn’t mean it can’t be true. If SJM literally wrote “lightsingers are ethereal beings who lure you by enchanting songs” wouldn’t it have been too obvious? She might as well have just said “Gwyn is a lightsinger”. What we’re doing with this theory is piecing a puzzle together using legitimate excerpts from the text, and in this process, we acknowledge that we could potentially be wrong.

The description of a lightsinger may not explicitly say a lot to outright link Gwyn, but you know what it does say? That they lure people. And what does it say in acosf?

That Gwyn’s grandmother “seduced” an autumn male. What’s a synonym for “seduce”? LURE.

That Gwyn’s singing “beckons” and “draws Nesta in”. What’re synonyms for “beckon” and to “draw in someone/something”? LURE.

I think you get my point.

Look, I’ll acknowledge that all these “conclusions” and theories are unconfirmed. We’re well aware of that. But to insinuate that our logic is implausible when we use text from the book to build it is what’s nonsensical.

Whew! Two long posts in one day 🥴 sorry about that haha as always, lmk what you think!

[all credit to @silverlinedeyes for the OG lightsinger theory! Check them out for more detailed evidence!]