Do you believe Preston Jacobs' explanation for dragon riding?

[thehandwipes]

I loved Genetics of Dragons and War and Minds of Wolves and Robins.  Also, a lot of Alliances of Iron and the one about the Faceless Men.  His videos benefited greatly from reading GRRM's other works and help from Cantuse (hope he's doing well) at wordpress.  Them he doubled down on his Dornish nonsense.

I don't have a firm opinion on magic vs science.  GRRM may simply be using his background in sci-fi to add some rules to his fantasy, or it may be a sci-fi story between the lines in a subtle way we can argue about for decades after the series ends.  But I doubt it will end with a big ray gun battle in KL.

As far as Dany is concerned, there is something wrong with her backstory.  We just don't have enough info to determine what it is without speculation.  The Blackfyre theory is interesting, it just depends on how it works its way into the narrative if its true.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

2 minutes ago, thehandwipes said:

But I doubt it will end with a big ray gun battle in KL.

Lol I agree

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

On 10/15/2016 at 0:21 PM, kimim said:

Targs might not have access to our genetic science, but "only females can hatch dragons," is simple, obvious, crucial to survival--ie., it's something Valyrians, then Targs, would know and pass on to their children.

Yet they don't. You might be able to argue that the knowledge was forgotten, if there had been a change in dynasty thousands of years ago, but that's not the situation.

I doubt they ever knew. If you didn't know about genetics, would you be able to figure it out? It seems that they just had a vague knowledge that inbreeding helped a lot, that keeping blood "pure" was their best bet.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

13 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

You're making some assumptions about time lines here. We don't know when exactly Cat traveled to WF after the war and saw Jon for the first time. It could have been an 18 month Jon being passed off as 15 months for all we know. Same thing with Dany, we don't know at all what the situation was with her and Viserys, if this theory is correct.

For a mother of 5 seeing a 18 months old as even a 15 months old mother would had recognised who was older because of their developmend and Cat wouldn't had done a mistake like that.

13 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

And it is logic that Robb would pick cat. Yeah, you made 2 good points why he maybe shouldn't, but I presented evidence that he actually did. So your argument on that one is pretty weak.

You presented nothing because there is nothing in the text. Just like what PJ does, believe that the text proves what he wants to prove ignoring what the text is about.

[Ser Scott Malkinson]

4 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

For a mother of 5 seeing a 18 months old as even a 15 months old mother would had recognised who was older because of their developmend and Cat wouldn't had done a mistake like that.

Cat wasn't a mother of 5 at the time though, but I agree that a 3-month difference at that age would have been noticeable, especially since she had Robb to compare him to, unless there was something wrong with Jon's development at the time (I wouldn't know about my own baby-time, but during my childhood I was usually considered to be one or two years younger than I actually was due to my size and babyface).

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

10 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

For a mother of 5 seeing a 18 months old as even a 15 months old mother would had recognised who was older because of their developmend and Cat wouldn't had done a mistake like that.

You presented nothing because there is nothing in the text. Just like what PJ does, believe that the text proves what he wants to prove ignoring what the text is about.

Seriously WTF are you talking about? How can you say the text that I quoted from the book is "nothing"? You sound super biased against PJ for no reason. If you want to try to actually pick apart my argument, like you are doing with the R+L stuff, I would appreciate it, but you are literally just saying my evidence doesn't count and I must be wrong about Robb's heir.

And the author may have a different opinion on Cat noticing Jon's age difference, you can't really know for sure.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

10 hours ago, Ser Scott Malkinson said:

Cat wasn't a mother of 5 at the time though, but I agree that a 3-month difference at that age would have been noticeable, especially since she had Robb to compare him to, unless there was something wrong with Jon's development at the time (I wouldn't know about my own baby-time, but during my childhood I was usually considered to be one or two years younger than I actually was due to my size and babyface).

Yeah, probably would have been noticeable but maybe not, especially if you don't have a good reason to suspect Ned lied about his age. I don't think that point is strong enough to throw out the entire theory.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

13 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Seriously WTF are you talking about? How can you say the text that I quoted from the book is "nothing"? You sound super biased against PJ for no reason. If you want to try to actually pick apart my argument, like you are doing with the R+L stuff, I would appreciate it, but you are literally just saying my evidence doesn't count and I must be wrong about Robb's heir.

Your evidence doesn't count because there is no evidence, what you think that you prove it's actually a distorted view about what the text say. In order to believe what PJ said you have to abridge this particular quote out of the context of the discussion and the logic in order to distort it enough to fit to your fan fiction. I was kind and I didn't wanted to say that all of these are utter 

13 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

And the author may have a different opinion on Cat noticing Jon's age difference, you can't really know for sure.

Until the author say that a mother of 5 children couldn't distinguish a baby 1 years old from an 18 months old there is no reason why we shouldn't believe what he has already told.

Cat wasn't a mother of 5 at the time though, but I agree that a 3-month difference at that age would have been noticeable, especially since she had Robb to compare him to, unless there was something wrong with Jon's development at the time (I wouldn't know about my own baby-time, but during my childhood I was usually considered to be one or two years younger than I actually was due to my size and babyface).

True however Cat during AGOT would had understood that Jon was older than Robb. 

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

6 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Your evidence doesn't count because there is no evidence, what you think that you prove it's actually a distorted view about what the text say. In order to believe what PJ said you have to abridge this particular quote out of the context of the discussion and the logic in order to distort it enough to fit to your fan fiction. I was kind and I didn't wanted to say that all of these are utter 

Until the author say that a mother of 5 children couldn't distinguish a baby 1 years old from an 18 months old there is no reason why we shouldn't believe what he has already told.

True however Cat during AGOT would had understood that Jon was older than Robb. 

I really like how you are having a lot of trouble coming up with good points to make, so you just keep calling my points bullshit. I don't really care if you are nice, I care about having an actual discussion where people make points and counterpoints. 

[Ser Scott Malkinson]

4 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I really like how you are having a lot of trouble coming up with good points to make, so you just keep calling my points bullshit. I don't really care if you are nice, I care about having an actual discussion where people make points and counterpoints. 

Let me give it a try then. There is just NO WAY the North would be okay with a Southerner ruling it. PJ even says Jon wouldn't make sense because the Riverlords wouldn't follow someone without Tully blood, but somehow he thinks Cat makes sense without having Stark blood?

Besides this, PJ gives two aspects the heir of the North should have: being a Stark and knowing Winterfell. Cat doesn't fit this, since she isn't a Stark. Sure, she was married to a Stark, and that gives her the name 'Stark', but that doesn't make her a Stark. She still has no claim to Winterfell and the North. She also claims that after all these years she still feels like a stranger, so you might say she doesn't even really 'know' Winterfell (this is really stretching it though, and I don't think Robb would be aware of this, so it's more of a fun thought). 

Jon does have a claim if legitimized though. I'm not sure if the North would follow him, being bound to the NW and all, but I can see Robb wanting to make him his heir. He is also the only option for Robb who fits the criteria of PJ (once legitimized).

The way he comes to the possibility of Cat (her feeling tricked without there being a trick) is also pretty weak IMO, and I think this is also what Jon's Queen Consort is saying: that the evidence PJ brings forth is pretty weak and requires a lot of twisting of the words in the text itself.

I could still see a role for Cat in the will though, if Robb would keep Sansa as his heir and have Cat named Regent until she's saved. This does make more logical sense to me than naming a sworn brother of the Night's Watch your heir. There is just no evidence for it, so narratively Jon still makes the most sense to me.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

12 hours ago, Ser Scott Malkinson said:

Let me give it a try then. There is just NO WAY the North would be okay with a Southerner ruling it. PJ even says Jon wouldn't make sense because the Riverlords wouldn't follow someone without Tully blood, but somehow he thinks Cat makes sense without having Stark blood?

Besides this, PJ gives two aspects the heir of the North should have: being a Stark and knowing Winterfell. Cat doesn't fit this, since she isn't a Stark. Sure, she was married to a Stark, and that gives her the name 'Stark', but that doesn't make her a Stark. She still has no claim to Winterfell and the North. She also claims that after all these years she still feels like a stranger, so you might say she doesn't even really 'know' Winterfell (this is really stretching it though, and I don't think Robb would be aware of this, so it's more of a fun thought). 

Jon does have a claim if legitimized though. I'm not sure if the North would follow him, being bound to the NW and all, but I can see Robb wanting to make him his heir. He is also the only option for Robb who fits the criteria of PJ (once legitimized).

The way he comes to the possibility of Cat (her feeling tricked without there being a trick) is also pretty weak IMO, and I think this is also what Jon's Queen Consort is saying: that the evidence PJ brings forth is pretty weak and requires a lot of twisting of the words in the text itself.

I could still see a role for Cat in the will though, if Robb would keep Sansa as his heir and have Cat named Regent until she's saved. This does make more logical sense to me than naming a sworn brother of the Night's Watch your heir. There is just no evidence for it, so narratively Jon still makes the most sense to me.

Exactly! There is no way of Robb naming Cat his heir when Cat has no blood connection with the North. No one would had accepted Cat who had committed High Treason as the Queen of her own right. However I don't think that the bolded part can happen either, Sansa was married to Tyrion and by naming her as the heir Robb would had given the North to Tyrion.

16 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I really like how you are having a lot of trouble coming up with good points to make, so you just keep calling my points bullshit. I don't really care if you are nice, I care about having an actual discussion where people make points and counterpoints. 

You misunderstood me. There is no reason to argue with someone's fan fiction which has no logical or textual proofs. One distorting quote isn't a proof. 

[Ser Scott Malkinson]

9 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Exactly! There is no way of Robb naming Cat his heir when Cat has no blood connection with the North. No one would had accepted Cat who had committed High Treason as the Queen of her own right. However I don't think that the bolded part can happen either, Sansa was married to Tyrion and by naming her as the heir Robb would had given the North to Tyrion.

Both Sansa and Jon are problematic for numerous reasons IMO, but that is why Robb would have to name an heir in his will: since the situation is so problematic. I think Sansa could work IF freed from Tyrion. Her marriage was done by force and wasn't done in front of a Heart Tree, so the Northeners would have reasons to deny its validity. However, having his heir in captivity of the enemy was the reason for Robb to make the will in the first place. Jon is also problematic though, due to both the in-universe stain of his bastardy and due to him renouncing all claims when joining the Night's Watch. Still, he is by far the most likely choice.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scott Malkinson said:

Both Sansa and Jon are problematic for numerous reasons IMO, but that is why Robb would have to name an heir in his will: since the situation is so problematic. I think Sansa could work IF freed from Tyrion. Her marriage was done by force and wasn't done in front of a Heart Tree, so the Northeners would have reasons to deny its validity. However, having his heir in captivity of the enemy was the reason for Robb to make the will in the first place.

I understand what you mean but I am not sure that I agree 100%. What I mean is that the Lannisters were not needing Sansa for ever. As Tywin said 

Quote

 

When you bring Eddard Stark's grandson home to claim his birthright, lords and little folk alike will rise as one to place him on the high seat of his ancestors.

 

they would had used her to have a child and then they would had killed her. Also the Northmen would had been sure how the marriage had happened, I mean if it had happened by force or not. Additionally I am not sure if the North considers only the wedding in front of a weirwood as legal.

11 minutes ago, Ser Scott Malkinson said:

Jon is also problematic though, due to both the in-universe stain of his bastardy and due to him renouncing all claims when joining the Night's Watch. Still, he is by far the most likely choice.

I agree. Jon has also many obstacles but I think that the NW would had chosen to turn the blind eye if Robb could had sent them hundreds of new recruits. As for the Northmen I don't think that anyone would had cared if the Ned's son was their last hope.

[Ser Scott Malkinson]

3 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I understand what you mean but I am not sure that I agree 100%. What I mean is that the Lannisters were not needing Sansa for ever. As Tywin said 

they would had used her to have a child and then they would had killed her. Also the Northmen would had been sure how the marriage had happened, I mean if it had happened by force or not. Additionally I am not sure if the North considers only the wedding in front of a weirwood as legal.

 

I agree. Jon has also many obstacles but I think that the NW would had chosen to turn the blind eye if Robb could had sent them hundreds of new recruits. As for the Northmen I don't think that anyone would had cared if the Ned's son was their last hope.

 

I don't want to keep arguing about a theory I don't really believe in, but I have to say that I don't think the Lannisters would have killed Sansa after she had a son. At the very least the Lannisters would have needed an heir and a spare in case something happened to the heir, and even then: by the point Tyrion would be able to use his son to claim the North the Starks wouldn't be a threat anymore, so there is no reason to kill Sansa. We never hear about this happening with Orys Baratheon and Argella Durrandon either, or with the MANY, MANY Andal lords who married First Men ladies during the Andal invasion.

[WilliamDhalgren]

Do we even know of any real-life examples of a genetic trait that does something both recessively and dominantly? Or are these supposed to be two different traits, perhaps close on the chromosome, so that they're often inherited together?

IMHO, if a writer was to hide an interesting secret in considerations of mendelian genetics, he'd better use one of the actual classic mendelian combinations, where traits are recessive XOR dominant, else even those readers on the right track would dismiss the correct insight as convoluted and arbitrary.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

To me this would be as stupid as the midichlorians pseudo-science in the Phantom Menace. In a fantasy there are some things that should simply be explained by “because magic". Adding some half-baked scientific explanation is just bad story telling.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Honestly, if you think Preston Jacobs is right about "95%" of the time there is not much to discuss. 

I'd say he right about 5% of time.  

[WSmith84]

3 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

To me this would be as stupid as the midichlorians pseudo-science in the Phantom Menace. In a fantasy there are some things that should simply be explained by “because magic". Adding some half-baked scientific explanation is just bad story telling.

I agree. Honestly, who was like 'Finally, the Force is explained! Thanks for taking all the mystery out of it George!'? Nobody, that's who. Also, unless GRRM is going to have some character sit down and explain all this to us, how will all this ever be revealed?

[Venus414]

Yes.  I am just amazed that most huge groups on Facebook won't even allow discussion of PJ- it's like they want everyone to stay in the dark.  Thanks for sharing this! 

And how about those sweet Robin vids? :  D

[WalkinDude]

1 minute ago, Venus414 said:

Yes.  I am just amazed that most huge groups on Facebook won't even allow discussion of PJ- it's like they want everyone to stay in the dark.  Thanks for sharing this! 

And how about those sweet Robin vids? :  D

I find PJ's way of trying to understand the text much more intriguing than the 99% of posts that revolve around "What would have happened if Ned stubbed his toe before...."  The guy is making an informed attempt to solve the alleged puzzles put before us.  Granted, I'll be the first to say I think most fans overestimate the level of hidden motives in this story, and Preston takes this to the extreme.  But his opinions are a lot more interesting than the complete nonsense some fans post about Mance being Rhaegar or Tyrion being a secret Targaryen.  Not a shred of evidence to support either of those (BUT TYRION HAS DIFFERENT COLORED EYES!  HE MUST BE A TARGARYEN), yet how many people waste time discussing those.