Jump to content

The Case of Quentyn Martell...


Angel Eyes

Recommended Posts

On 10/16/2017 at 1:40 AM, falcotron said:

No, Jacaerys opened the tests up to anyone. TPatQ explicitly says "Not all those who came forward in answer to the prince’s call were seeds, nor even the sons or grandsons of seeds." There's nothing to indicate that Nettles was a dragonlord's bastard, and everything to indicate that she wasn't. She either proves that you don't need Targaryen blood to ride a dragon, or that Targaryen blood is a lot more widely dispersed than is commonly believed.

We don't know nearly enough to be sure of anything, but if I had to guess, here's my guess:

Having dragonlord blood actually means nothing. However, being closely related to the person who hatched a dragon means a lot. It's neither necessary nor sufficient, but smelling* right makes it a whole lot easier. For most or all of the actual Targs and "proper" dragonseeds we know about, either their dragon's eggs were in their cribs, or they inherited their dragon from a close relative like an aunt or a grandfather, so they all smelled right, which made it relatively easy.

Of course there are lots of other factors—how well socialized the dragon is, and its individual temperament; the attitude you take in trying to tame it; how patient you are; etc. No matter how right you smell, an ancient and unsociable wild dragon like Cannibal is going to be hard to tame. And if you act like an arrogant but cowardly jackass, any dragon will be difficult, even one that was bonded to your identical twin. But if you have enough patience, the right attitude, and a bit of luck, anyone can tame any dragon.

So, Quentyn is Dany's… Dany's second cousin twice removed? I forget the exact relationship, but it's far enough away that they're not going to smell similar. And he tries the direct approach, while quaking in his boots, with an angry and unhappy wild dragon—so of course he gets roasted.

But again, this is just a guess. I think it's a better guess than the X-linked gene, or needing some magic minimum percentage, or any of the other guesses I've seen, but there's really no conclusive evidence for or against any of them.

---

* Whether the dragons literally smell pheromones, or figuratively smell magic, or whatever, doesn't really matter.

I agree with 95% of this but I've been of the opinion that if those dragons are "caged" separately Q flies outta there on Viserion, his taming attempt really wasn't that bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/10/2017 at 10:12 PM, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Not a question of percentage. You need to have the dragon gene, which is an X chromosome-bonded gene. You either have it or you don't. Quentyn doesn't have the gene (if this theory is correct) but Arianne and the Sand Snakes might have it. And it may be possible to get a dragon to let you ride it without the gene, but you wouldn't have a telepathic bond with the dragon like Dany with Drogon or wargs with their wolves.

 

I really love Preston's theories, but I thought this one really was a non-starter. There is so much assumption to force things to fit his theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I disagree. I actually think it is his best theory. I'm curious what specific assumptions shaped your opinion. :D 

It's a while since I watched it, but doesn't he say things like "Nettles must have had the X chromosome from somewhere", even though there's no evidence in the text for that? I think that she is described as a brown girl to emphasise how un-Targ she is, though she succeeded while many confirmed Targ bastards failed. It's circular reasoning- You need the dragon gene to control a dragon, therefore Nettles must have had the dragon gene. None of that is based in the text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

It's a while since I watched it, but doesn't he say things like "Nettles must have had the X chromosome from somewhere", even though there's no evidence in the text for that? I think that she is described as a brown girl to emphasise how un-Targ she is, though she succeeded while many confirmed Targ bastards failed. It's circular reasoning- You need the dragon gene to control a dragon, therefore Nettles must have had the dragon gene. None of that is based in the text.

 

 As far as I recall, he says the exact opposite. He refers to 'Nettling' a lot, which is to say, snaring a dragon by feeding it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Regular John Umber said:

 

 As far as I recall, he says the exact opposite. He refers to 'Nettling' a lot, which is to say, snaring a dragon by feeding it.

But that would run counter to his entire theory. Instead of needing magic blood, you just need enough sheep and patience.

He uses the same circular logic in other parts. Dany hatched the eggs, so she has the double dragon gene, so her parents both had the gene. But the gene is purely Preston's invention, it isn't mentioned, or really even hinted at, in the books.

I'm not going to watch the full videos again, but I just started the first one and he states "we are going to start with the assumption- dragon abilities are an x-chromosome linked gene". Surely a starting assumption has to be something we have evidence for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

But that would run counter to his entire theory. Instead of needing magic blood, you just need enough sheep and patience.

He uses the same circular logic in other parts. Dany hatched the eggs, so she has the double dragon gene, so her parents both had the gene. But the gene is purely Preston's invention, it isn't mentioned, or really even hinted at, in the books.

I'm not going to watch the full videos again, but I just started the first one and he states "we are going to start with the assumption- dragon abilities are an x-chromosome linked gene". Surely a starting assumption has to be something we have evidence for?

 

 Ah, it's the chromosome theory you are talking about (I can't see Youtube links on my network). Yes, the genetics is a huge assumption, but a) no one in the story would really have much to say on it as it's not the most genetically aware society but besides that, b )  genetics does play a huge role in the story already (See the Jon Arryn / 'Black of hair' investigation). Also, given the fact that Targaryens are big on inbreeding, it doesn't take much to assume that genetics must have something to do with it.

 

 On Nettles - his idea is that you can ride a dragon without the right genes - you just can't bond with it. A dragon lured by meat can just as easily be lured away. This doesn't bode well for Viserion and Rhaegal, who don't seem bonded to Dany like Drogon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

I disagree. I actually think it is his best theory. I'm curious what specific assumptions shaped your opinion. :D 

Preston's my favourite youtuber. There's no other commentator who sees things as similarly to me as he does. But the dragon genetics is his weakest video. It's one of the oldest and I think he's said he doesn't exactly hold to it these days. I believe in more recent videos he's contradicted it. It's his least evidence based scenario as mankytoes says it starts with a massive assumption and has a few more assumptions thrown in along the way. Regardless it is an interesting thought exercise that provides a possible explanation. Remember he thinks Quentyn is alive and has succeeded in stealing a dragon and I really hope he's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Regular John Umber said:

On Nettles - his idea is that you can ride a dragon without the right genes - you just can't bond with it. A dragon lured by meat can just as easily be lured away. This doesn't bode well for Viserion and Rhaegal, who don't seem bonded to Dany like Drogon.

Nettles seems pretty well bonded with her dragon to me, it's pretty well indicated in the world book she stayed with it for years and was the "witch" for the Burned Men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Nettles seems pretty well bonded with her dragon to me, it's pretty well indicated in the world book she stayed with it for years and was the "witch" for the Burned Men.

Well, it's not 100% certain she's the fire witch. But agreed that she seems to be as bonded with her dragon as any Targaryen dragonrider. People are looking to explain away a distinction, but I don't know what distinction they see to be explained in the first place.*

---

* Except maybe between the ancient dragonlords, with those spells and horns Dany laments not having, and modern dragonriders, but in that case, Nettles and Rhaenyra are both on the same page as Dany, so it's not interesting here—although that could conceivably change with Euron's horn early in TWoW, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

Well, it's not 100% certain she's the fire witch. But agreed that she seems to be as bonded with her dragon as any Targaryen dragonrider. People are looking to explain away a distinction, but I don't know what distinction they see to be explained in the first place.*

---

* Except maybe between the ancient dragonlords, with those spells and horns Dany laments not having, and modern dragonriders, but in that case, Nettles and Rhaenyra are both on the same page as Dany, so it's not interesting here—although that could conceivably change with Euron's horn early in TWoW, of course.

I think it's pretty simple, the ancient dragonlords possibly had horns, maybe they just pretended to have them to boost their power, the way trappings of power are important, like crowns and that, as Melisandre once pointed out.

But I just think people who have strength and bond with the dragons are able to ride them. The Targaryens just had a monopoly on dragons, they were the ones bonding with dragon eggs at the start of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Banner Without Brothers said:

Preston's my favourite youtuber. There's no other commentator who sees things as similarly to me as he does. But the dragon genetics is his weakest video. It's one of the oldest and I think he's said he doesn't exactly hold to it these days. I believe in more recent videos he's contradicted it. It's his least evidence based scenario as mankytoes says it starts with a massive assumption and has a few more assumptions thrown in along the way. Regardless it is an interesting thought exercise that provides a possible explanation. Remember he thinks Quentyn is alive and has succeeded in stealing a dragon and I really hope he's right.

It's not that old. Pink letter, Dornish master plan, LF debt scheme, ToJ, the Dany videos, cold conspiracies, riverlands, maester conspiracy, minds of wolves and robins, vow for myrcella, and ironborn are all older. And saying it starts off with a giant assumption I think is just wrong. It starts out with a hypothesis and then proceeds to outline the evidence supporting it, like every other asoiaf theory. Yeah, PJ used the word assumption, but it was kind of a misnomer.

I don't recall him ever saying he doesn't hold to it, and I don't know of what contradictions you speak. And I think he provided more evidence for the theory than like half of his other ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mankytoes said:

It's a while since I watched it, but doesn't he say things like "Nettles must have had the X chromosome from somewhere", even though there's no evidence in the text for that? I think that she is described as a brown girl to emphasise how un-Targ she is, though she succeeded while many confirmed Targ bastards failed. It's circular reasoning- You need the dragon gene to control a dragon, therefore Nettles must have had the dragon gene. None of that is based in the text.

No he specifically theorized that Nettles managed to ride a dragon without having a telepathic bond with it, and he later used this same logic to theorize how Quentyn may have rode a dragon out of the pyramid (because he effectively fed the dragon a bunch of tasty humans). He specifically said in the Quentyn video that he thinks "Quentyn 'Nettled' the dragon". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I think it's pretty simple, the ancient dragonlords possibly had horns, maybe they just pretended to have them to boost their power, the way trappings of power are important, like crowns and that, as Melisandre once pointed out.

But I just think people who have strength and bond with the dragons are able to ride them. The Targaryens just had a monopoly on dragons, they were the ones bonding with dragon eggs at the start of the story.

For your second paragraph, I agree. I don't think there are two different levels of "just taming/riding" vs. "true bonding"; I think every dragonrider from Aegon to Nettles to Dany is bonded in the same sense. But many people seem to disagree, and I'm wondering why they disagree, and what their evidence is.

As for the rest—I can tell you my own personal headcanon. I'm not going to push it as a theory, because there's basically no evidence for it that can't be used just as well for dozen different stories, but if you're interested:

Dany's thoughts were literally right, but not in the way she actually meant. The horns were real, and possibly magical, and they were useful tools in training a dragon that you'd tamed, especially if you'd learned the millennia-old traditions for that training, but there wasn't any "blow the horn and now you're bonded and it's easy" going on. Whether the horns' importance was bigged up for propaganda reasons as you suggest, or whether Dany just doesn't know very much about ancient history, I don't know. (I do think the notion that you need "dragon blood" to ride a dragon is pure propaganda, although maybe propaganda that they started to believe over the millennia.) But anyway, again, that's all just headcanon because we all need to pick some story to believe when we don't know; it's not a theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

No he specifically theorized that Nettles managed to ride a dragon without having a telepathic bond with it, and he later used this same logic to theorize how Quentyn may have rode a dragon out of the pyramid (because he effectively fed the dragon a bunch of tasty humans). He specifically said in the Quentyn video that he thinks "Quentyn 'Nettled' the dragon". 

I've already addressed the Nettles thing, but that Quentyn idea seems pretty weak too. I liked his basic "Quentyn's alive" idea, though I don't think it's true, I wouldn't be massively shocked if it was. But bonding with a dragon based on one "feeding"? It was made clear Nettles had to do this over a period of time. Dragon bonding seems pretty easy if Quentyn can do it like this.

One person who interests me with regards to dragon riding is Ulf the White/Sot. Because all the dragon riders seem to either have the early bond advantage, or be quite impressive people- Hugh is a cunt of the highest order, but a powerful man. Ulf just seems like a bit of a joke, yet he managed to ride not just a dragon, but Silverwing.

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

For your second paragraph, I agree. I don't think there are two different levels of "just taming/riding" vs. "true bonding"; I think every dragonrider from Aegon to Nettles to Dany is bonded in the same sense. But many people seem to disagree, and I'm wondering why they disagree, and what their evidence is.

As for the rest—I can tell you my own personal headcanon. I'm not going to push it as a theory, because there's basically no evidence for it that can't be used just as well for dozen different stories, but if you're interested:

Dany's thoughts were literally right, but not in the way she actually meant. The horns were real, and possibly magical, and they were useful tools in training a dragon that you'd tamed, especially if you'd learned the millennia-old traditions for that training, but there wasn't any "blow the horn and now you're bonded and it's easy" going on. Whether the horns' importance was bigged up for propaganda reasons as you suggest, or whether Dany just doesn't know very much about ancient history, I don't know. (I do think the notion that you need "dragon blood" to ride a dragon is pure propaganda, although maybe propaganda that they started to believe over the millennia.) But anyway, again, that's all just headcanon because we all need to pick some story to believe when we don't know; it's not a theory.

Mine is pretty much head canon as well, I just think it fits the themes of the book. Though even that is a little problematic, as there is quite a bit of evidence that Targ blood is "special" (Dany miraculously surviving Drogo's pyre, for example), which I think would kind of suck given the theme of "monarchy is stupid". The main reason monarchy is so stupid in reality is that kings are just men, the same as all others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I've already addressed the Nettles thing, but that Quentyn idea seems pretty weak too. I liked his basic "Quentyn's alive" idea, though I don't think it's true, I wouldn't be massively shocked if it was. But bonding with a dragon based on one "feeding"? It was made clear Nettles had to do this over a period of time. Dragon bonding seems pretty easy if Quentyn can do it like this.

One person who interests me with regards to dragon riding is Ulf the White/Sot. Because all the dragon riders seem to either have the early bond advantage, or be quite impressive people- Hugh is a cunt of the highest order, but a powerful man. Ulf just seems like a bit of a joke, yet he managed to ride not just a dragon, but Silverwing.

LOL you didn't really address the Nettles thing, no offense. You just claimed PJ used circular reasoning and/or disjointed logic when he did not. Yeah, the Nettles example (her having brown skin and seemingly not being a dragonseed) would contradict the rest of his theory. And that is why he specifically addressed this by theorizing that Nettles' act of feeding the dragon sheep and gaining its trust effectively substituted for her having the dragon gene. After all, no one else bothered to feed their dragons a bunch of sheep before riding them. Only Nettles had to do that for some reason. The point is that Nettles and Quentyn weren't really "bonded" to the dragons at all, at least not in the same sense that wargs are bonded to their wolves or Dany is bonded to Drogon. The dragons simply allowed Quentyn and Nettles to ride them because they were fed tasty food and therefore made relatively docile.

13 hours ago, mankytoes said:

But that would run counter to his entire theory. Instead of needing magic blood, you just need enough sheep and patience.

He uses the same circular logic in other parts. Dany hatched the eggs, so she has the double dragon gene, so her parents both had the gene. But the gene is purely Preston's invention, it isn't mentioned, or really even hinted at, in the books.

I'm not going to watch the full videos again, but I just started the first one and he states "we are going to start with the assumption- dragon abilities are an x-chromosome linked gene". Surely a starting assumption has to be something we have evidence for?

As I have said to other people, PJ's use of the word "assumption" is kind of a misnomer there. He is starting with that as a hypothesis and then the hour-long series of videos is him supporting that hypothesis with evidence. You know, like how every single asoiaf theory is constructed ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

It's not that old. Pink letter, Dornish master plan, LF debt scheme, ToJ, the Dany videos, cold conspiracies, riverlands, maester conspiracy, minds of wolves and robins, vow for myrcella, and ironborn are all older. And saying it starts off with a giant assumption I think is just wrong. It starts out with a hypothesis and then proceeds to outline the evidence supporting it, like every other asoiaf theory. Yeah, PJ used the word assumption, but it was kind of a misnomer.

I don't recall him ever saying he doesn't hold to it, and I don't know of what contradictions you speak. And I think he provided more evidence for the theory than like half of his other ones.

I'll take your word for it regarding the videos age. Please do me the same courtesy.

Well the whole thing is assuming people's real parentage for a start

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maester Yandel writes that there are three theories for the origins of dragons and their mastery by Valyrians. First, that they sprang forth from the Fourteen Flames. Second, that Doreah was right. And third, that dragons originated in the Shadow Lands, an ancient people mastered them, and then taught the Valyrians. 

I think Doreah's tale was a foreshadowing of Daenerys's arc in game, and "Yandel" included it in The World of Ice and Fire. 

I think there is truth in the other two legends. I supposed dragons originated in the Shadow Lands beyond Asshai, possibly by some supernatural event or magical process, and spread around the world, concentrating in volcanic centers, especially Valyria. When the Valyrians decided to get busy, perhaps they sought the dark arts to master the dragons in Asshai, binding the dragons to the blood of the 40 dragonlord families? 

This is from the forward to The Sworn Sword originally published in Legends II...

The lords freeholder of Valyria ruled the greater part of the known world; they were sorcerers, great in lore, and alone of all the races of man they had learned to breed dragons and bend them to their will.

Presumably that was written by "Gyldayn." 

So, I think Valyrian dragonlord blood is required, and Targaryens are the only ones left. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Banner Without Brothers said:

I'll take your word for it regarding the videos age. Please do me the same courtesy.

Well the whole thing is assuming people's real parentage for a start

Sorry if I offended you. LOL you don't have to take my word for it, it takes 2 seconds to look up on YouTube. PJ started his channel in April 2014 and the first genetics of dragons and war video came out in October 2015. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by showing you the same courtesy. I assume you mean that I should take your word that PJ said he doesn't hold to the theory anymore and has since contradicted it? Well... no, I am not going to take your word on those things at all. I have seen all his videos and don't recall him ever saying that or contradicting his own theory. I could be wrong, but I'm not going to believe you unless you can point to the specific videos where those things happened.

I don't understand your point about assuming people's real parentage. GRRM gave us the Targaryen family tree and that is what PJ is basing his theory on. What else is he supposed to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm enjoying all the different opinions here from PJ's theory to the amount of Targ blood Quentyn actually had.    If I may interject a small opinion of my own here...Jon Snow and Arya Stark are the only Stark kids who look like Starks.  Jon isn't even Ned's son.   As we know, he is half silver/golden haired violet eyed Targ!   I always thought that was the point behind Nettles.    She sure doesn't look like a Targ.    Perhaps that isn't the point as she teaches us that dragons can be bonded with something other than eggs in a cradle.  Still this didn't escape me.    I wonder how much kismet is involved with dragon riding or possessing Valyrian Steel or warging.  

I've got 3 reptiles, all a year or younger.   They are not cuddly creatures with more attitude than cats.   Still, 1 of these almost seems fond of me and allows me to carry her (who knows what gender it is) around.  1 whip tails me faster than I can pull my hand away and the other runs as fast as she can to get away.    No reason dragons wouldn't be able to make up their own minds about the people they are around regardless of feeding or blood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...