Do you believe Preston Jacobs' explanation for dragon riding?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

15 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

PJ has another theory on the book in Old Town that I think is legit, but I don't want to derail the topic. Summarized: Jaqen killed Pate and took the master key to read the book to impress Marwyn with his knowledge about dragons to get into Marwyn's inner circle in order to gain access to the glass candle. So there is at least one reasonable explanation for the book that is totally compatible with this theory.

Because gaining someone's trust to get near a glass candle is essential for an assassin who can change his face.

[AdesteFideles]

oops

[YOVMO]

18 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I disagree that that is a hole. If dragon riding is X-chromosome link, those genes could be in a lot of people, including for instance any random Lyseni commoner with their Valyrian origins. PJ does talk specifically about Alicent Hightower and points out that the Hightower plan of changing the heir to Aegon would be unlikely to succeed unless Alicent could birth a male dragon rider. Additionally we know the Hightowers have Valyrian features, which is pretty telling.

I haven't watched it in a white but I too liked it. I don't think it is a hole because, and correct me if I am wrong, it leads to the fact that only women can be dragon hatchers and dragon riders with the double chromosome but not a problem that a male could be a rider. I go pretty far down the preston Jacobs worm hole as well (Robb naming Catelyn queen in the north in the letter he writes being the only example I can think of where I flatly said NFW). Some I like more than others but in general I am incredibly impressed with his level of detail an often convinced by his arguments.

16 hours ago, AdesteFideles said:

Yes, it's about made-up fantasy-land genetics that have little resemblance to the real thing.

 

Right...just like the book is made up of fantasy land feudalism that has little resemblance to the real thing....but hmmm...ya know, if you dig there is actually a lot of resemblance.

17 hours ago, Ser Scott Malkinson said:

She was from a former Valyrian colony after all...

I see nothing about your excellent comment that is contradictory. I will remind you, however, that having Valyrian genes and having Dragon riding / hatching genes are not necessarily the same. Not all Valyrian's were dragon lords...in fact, the vast minority of them were and all but the Targaryen's were wiped out in the Doom. It is a stretch to suggest that people with non Targ Valyrian ancestry would have any connection to Dragonriders....not impossible, but you would need some kind of explanation.

[Goldhands]

I love and enjoy most of Preston's videos (especially The Minds of Wolves and Robins, The Deeper Dorne and Prepping for Winter) but no, I do not believe this stuff. For me there is just zero evidence evidence in the text to support it. Yes, it's possible and yes, it's weird that so many dragons were born before the DoD but there are simply 100000000 other possibilities out there.

[GyantSpyder]

I definitely believe that through the Dance of the Dragons and other actions over a long period of time, an Oldtown-oriented bloc of some kind (some combination of the Hightowers, the Maesters, the Faith, or segments thereof) influenced which Targaryan descendants would inherit power, live, die, or have children based on observed heredity around the ability hatch or ride dragons.

We certainly have precedent in the books for families secretly manipulating the bloodlines of royal children in their own interests, and of the Maesters having very thorough records of the inheritance of what we would call phenotypical characteristics. It's the center of the main plot of A Game of Thrones. It wouldn't be that surprising for other similar efforts to have happened before or be happening now.

I'm not quite as convinced that the X chromosome explanation is 100% on the nose (like how the "black of hair" doesn't quite behave like a real inherited phenotype, but it's close), but I don't think I need to be. You don't need to believe that specifically to think that somebody is identifying specific people in the Targaryan dynasties or other Valyrian lines had dragons and which didn't, tracked that, and planned wars, provocations, marriages or whatever around it with the goal of, over the course of generations, eventually stripping the Targaryans of their dragons.

[WalkinDude]

I re-watched all 4 parts last night, and while it's intriguing, it just doesn't seem likely.  Brown Ben Plum is liked by Dany's dragons and Tyrion and Ben comment it's because of his Valyrian heritage.  Preston goes on to show that Brown Ben couldn't have the Dragon-X gene because his mother was Dothraki, and simply chalks it up to Brown Ben secretly feeding the dragons bacon.  A convenient excuse without any book material to justify his claim.  It also requires an unlikely probability of Martell or Hightower genes to be re-introduced during the time of Aegon V to give the gene back to the Targaryen's.

 

When you add in his theory requires you to completely dismiss any Stark blood to involve warging, it just doesn't follow with the story.  Wargs are north of the wall.  Warging is tied to the First Men and Children of the Forrest, and Preston discounts all of that.  If the warg gene and dragon-X gene are interchangeable, you might as well just call them the same thing.  And we have no evidence of Targaryen, Dayne or Hightower's warging.  That seems to be a trait unique to the North and First Men.  We also don't have any evidence of some Stark, Blackwood or Bracken ever riding a dragon.  That seems to be a trait unique to those of old Valyria.

 

I give him props for working out the flow chart and it's great people look at it this way.  But Preston based most of his radical theories on Sci-Fi and Martin specifically dismissed this last year and said ASOIAF is fantasy, not Sci-Fi.  

 

It ignores that as the dragons died off, so did some sorts of magic (The Wall still stands and the Weirwood net wasn't impacted, nor were The Others).  Are we supposed to accept that magic in this world is limited and due to a few Valyrians having a mutant X gene?  Magic of some kind is at work here, and Martins has said once you explain magic, it ceases to be magic.  There's not going to be any flashback where we see Aliens landing on Planetos and altering proto-Valyrians.  That's the direction PJ is going, and he's been proven wrong about this by the Author.

[YOVMO]

Not sure if this question should be a new topic but I will put it here because it is, I believe, relevant.

The Freehold was ruled by 40 families of dragonlords (of which the Targaryen's were a minor one). I am assuming that the hierarchy in the Valyrian society goes

Dragonlords (from strongest to weakest)

Typical Valyrian Citizens (from richest to poorest)

Slaves

 

Assuming this is correct: what did the common Valyrian's do? I assume some were smiths who made Valyrian steel but it is unclear if those would have been considered wizards. Do the Wizards who keep the 14 flames stabilized come from the dragon lord families? Also, do we suppose the non dragonlord family Valyrian citizens would have had recessive dragon genes and, if so, through breeding and time, could they have become a 41st dragonlord family?

This is to say, is it possible that through centuries of selective breeding some powerful organization has been effectively creating a new family of dragon lords?

[AdesteFideles]

2 hours ago, YOVMO said:

Right...just like the book is made up of fantasy land feudalism that has little resemblance to the real thing....but hmmm...ya know, if you dig there is actually a lot of resemblance.

This statement is nonsensical.

All the reasons for ASoIaF genetics being fantasy inspired have been stated already so I won't bother repeating them.

Also, having finally had a look at a few Preston Jacobs videos I.... Well, let's just say they seem more based on whimsy and wishful thinking than any actual writings of GRRM, if not straight up delusions. 

[YOVMO]

1 minute ago, AdesteFideles said:

This statement is nonsensical.

All the reasons for ASoIaF genetics being fantasy inspired have been stated already so I won't bother repeating them.

Also, having finally had a look at a few Preston Jacobs videos I.... Well, let's just say they seem more based on whimsy and wishful thinking than any actual writings of GRRM, if not straight up delusions. 

I don't think anyone doubts that they are fantasy inspired...just like no one doubts that everything in the book is to some extent or another fantasy expired. To dismiss out of hand that absolutely no knowledge of the real world play a role in the universe building or the genetics is totally bling thought. I actually like how you put it in the post I originally responded to....you said it "has little resemblance to the real thing" I think that is spot on. I agree with you. It has little resemblance to the real thing....not NO resemblance. Thinking that there is no anchor at all in the real world is the real fantasy thinking.

[AdesteFideles]

2 minutes ago, YOVMO said:

Things.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear enough.

I was alluding to the fact that the genetics and feudalism of the books are entirely disparate things. They may both appear in the same books, but that doesn't mean that they are both bound to their real-world counterparts to a similar degree. 

[YOVMO]

2 minutes ago, AdesteFideles said:

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear enough.

I was alluding to the fact that the genetics and feudalism of the books are entirely disparate things. They may both appear in the same books, but that doesn't mean that they are both bound to their real-world counterparts to a similar degree. 

agreed....not to a similar degree. The Feudalism certainly takes on more of the real world aspect. That said, I still think that to dismiss any connection to real world genetics is short sighted when we are talking about the genetics. Is the relationship going to be as close as Valyrian steel to, say, Damascus steel only with a little fantasy magic sword lore thrown in for flavor? Of course no. But is it total devoid of any kind of common knowledge genetics from RL? that would also be a mistake.

[AdesteFideles]

I guess to bring it back 'round to the original thread title, and having spent part of the day watching his videos, my answer would be: I don't believe Preston Jacobs' explanation for pretty much anything. There's just too many mental gymnastics, too many if's and maybe's needed to believe in any of the theories I watched today. That being said, there sure is a lot of them, and I watched a pretty random selection.

However, a lot of his videos are based on more recent books so have yet to be conclusively disproved.

Well, apart from his Tower of Joy stuff. That he might as well delete.

[Zoo_Dane]

Well the theory sounds cool but doesn't hold up genetically, at least not entirely. 

X linked genes are recessive or dominant. A female with two X dragon genes wouldn't express anything different (aka egg hatching ability) than a male with his lone X dragon gene. 

Of course if there were an X linked dragon riding gene and a separate X linked dragon hatching gene then it would work -- but that serves only to complicate things still... And males would be just as likely, if not more likely (depending on recessive vs dominant), to hatch eggs than females in that case. So the argument that males can't hatch eggs doesn't make any sense on a genetic basis. 

If the argument is based on Mendelian genetics it shouldn't bend it or add in some non existent pieces to fit a theory better. 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

On the other hand, if we are willing to overlook the poor evidence, the theory is simply... unaesthetic. Let's not mince words, ugly. It requires introducing and processing lots of stuff just to reach a very dissatisfying outcome. "X-chromosome linked genetic disorder"?

Midichlorians were less daft a plot device. Midichlorians.

 

1 hour ago, AdesteFideles said:

I guess to bring it back 'round to the original thread title, and having spent part of the day watching his videos, my answer would be: I don't believe Preston Jacobs' explanation for pretty much anything. There's just too many mental gymnastics, too many if's and maybe's needed to believe in any of the theories I watched today. That being said, there sure is a lot of them, and I watched a pretty random selection.

However, a lot of his videos are based on more recent books so have yet to be conclusively disproved.

Well, apart from his Tower of Joy stuff. That he might as well delete.

Ah, right, I think I remember something about twins, baby swaps, absurd parentage, all in all yet another theory just for the sake of inventing something unnecessarily convoluted.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

4 hours ago, WalkinDude said:

It ignores that as the dragons died off, so did some sorts of magic (The Wall still stands and the Weirwood net wasn't impacted, nor were The Others).  Are we supposed to accept that magic in this world is limited and due to a few Valyrians having a mutant X gene?  Magic of some kind is at work here, and Martins has said once you explain magic, it ceases to be magic.  There's not going to be any flashback where we see Aliens landing on Planetos and altering proto-Valyrians.  That's the direction PJ is going, and he's been proven wrong about this by the Author.

He has not been "proven wrong" by GRRM. That is an overstatement. I recommend PJ's vid on why ASOIAF could be sci-fi:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8kwZ_7M3o0

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

4 hours ago, YOVMO said:

This is to say, is it possible that through centuries of selective breeding some powerful organization has been effectively creating a new family of dragon lords?

Sort of yeah, my personal theory is the the COTF are basically genetic engineers, manipulating history to produce people with the right genes for some ultimate nefarious purpose, which I have several guesses on what that could be (but that's slightly less important). I think the COTF sent dreams to Dany the Dreamer to get the Targs out of harms way before causing the Doom, which seems like a very similar event to Hardhome, also caused by the COTF (in my personal theory). I think they lured Howland Reed to the God's Eye to basically give him a mission, that mission being to go to the Harrenhal tourney and make sure that 2 Ice + Fire couples get together, R+L and B+A. I think the existence of Jon and Dany themselves (the children of these 2 parallel unions) with their special genes are essentially the main goal of the COTF (other than the stuff involving Bran). Yes, there is clearly a difference between Warging and dragon riding. I think the COTF are trying to combine these genetic abilities. Not that I desire to defend my own theory when it's hard enough to defend PJ

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

1 hour ago, Zoo_Dane said:

Well the theory sounds cool but doesn't hold up genetically, at least not entirely. 

X linked genes are recessive or dominant. A female with two X dragon genes wouldn't express anything different (aka egg hatching ability) than a male with his lone X dragon gene. 

Of course if there were an X linked dragon riding gene and a separate X linked dragon hatching gene then it would work -- but that serves only to complicate things still... And males would be just as likely, if not more likely (depending on recessive vs dominant), to hatch eggs than females in that case. So the argument that males can't hatch eggs doesn't make any sense on a genetic basis. 

If the argument is based on Mendelian genetics it shouldn't bend it or add in some non existent pieces to fit a theory better. 

I think this is a classic example of people misunderstanding PJ (no offense). He doesn't create wild theories out of thin air and then bend and twist the text to fit (which certainly happens in A LOT of theories out there). He has theories that sound ridiculous at first, because they go against everything we think we know about the story, but if you actually listen to him it is 100% based on the text. Yes he can over-complicate sometimes, or read too much into particular lines of dialogue, but overall his theories are well-grounded in the text. That being said, there are videos of his that I watched several times and still didn't believe him. I think people get the impression they have to do mental gymnastics, which is the original impression I got from his vids, but if you really REALLY analyze his arguments, they are very well put together. I don't agree with him on everything, but I agree with him on most things.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

1 hour ago, AdesteFideles said:

I guess to bring it back 'round to the original thread title, and having spent part of the day watching his videos, my answer would be: I don't believe Preston Jacobs' explanation for pretty much anything. There's just too many mental gymnastics, too many if's and maybe's needed to believe in any of the theories I watched today. That being said, there sure is a lot of them, and I watched a pretty random selection.

However, a lot of his videos are based on more recent books so have yet to be conclusively disproved.

Well, apart from his Tower of Joy stuff. That he might as well delete.

Again I'll admit when I first watched his ToJ vids I was like NFW. But then I thought about it and realized it is the most likely explanation (in my mind). I have never heard another theory that reasonably explains the fate of Ashara, or the reason why Ned went to Starfall, or the reason why Edric Dayne is named after Ned. I think there had to be a baby swap. Additionally it explains why Dany thinks she grew up in Braavos, a place with no lemon trees.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

34 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

On the other hand, if we are willing to overlook the poor evidence, the theory is simply... unaesthetic. Let's not mince words, ugly. It requires introducing and processing lots of stuff just to reach a very dissatisfying outcome. "X-chromosome linked genetic disorder"?

Midichlorians were less daft a plot device. Midichlorians.

 

Ah, right, I think I remember something about twins, baby swaps, absurd parentage, all in all yet another theory just for the sake of inventing something unnecessarily convoluted.

I simply disagree that the theory is ugly. I think it is well put together and articulated. I think it makes sense from beginning to end. It explains so many little things too, like why Baelor the Blessed locked up his sisters in the maiden vault.

And I don't think that is at all a fair characterization of his ToJ theory. Unnecessarily convoluted? It is no more convoluted than R+L=J. It is a theory totally based on the text and supported by the text. I think it is fair to think the theory is wrong, but calling it absurd is absurd.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

5 hours ago, WalkinDude said:

It ignores that as the dragons died off, so did some sorts of magic (The Wall still stands and the Weirwood net wasn't impacted, nor were The Others).  Are we supposed to accept that magic in this world is limited and due to a few Valyrians having a mutant X gene?  Magic of some kind is at work here, and Martins has said once you explain magic, it ceases to be magic.  There's not going to be any flashback where we see Aliens landing on Planetos and altering proto-Valyrians.  That's the direction PJ is going, and he's been proven wrong about this by the Author.

Exactly, GRRM said once you explain magic it ceases to be magic. GRRM is trying to trick the reader so that you, like some book characters, root for war against evil Others, religious zealotry, feudalism, and having the "right" person be on the IT. But the whole point of the books is that religious zealots are evil, war is evil, feudalism and slavery are evil. If GRRM is trying to trick us into thinking a sci-fi book is a fantasy where magic is real, it would really destroy all his efforts to come out publicly and be like "Yeah, PJ is right. It's actually sci-fi. And I never lie to fans." That seems to be what some people want in order for this theory to even be considered. Don't get fooled by GRRM everybody, he is a sneaky bastard.