LordParas Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Maybe he would become the next Ser Robert Strong, the burned undead body.I blame Robo Cop for this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 This.I already responded to this. I asked what the obvious difference between a 18 year old man and a 60 year old man would necessarily be, if he was burnt beyond recognition, and if his only nurse were an 11 year old girl. No-one has even tried to answer that question. If there is an answer, surely, it can have nothing to do with the hair or skin.To be quite honest this is getting tiresome. Stubbornly denying the text does not.make for good discussion.You don't have to continue to participate if you have grown tired of the discussion. But throwing petulant accusations at your adversaries, does not make for good discussion either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorian Martell Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I already responded to this. I asked what the obvious difference between a 18 year old man and a 60 year old man would necessarily be, if he was burnt beyond recognition, and if his only nurse were an 11 year old girl. No-one has even tried to answer that question. If there is an answer, surely, it can have nothing to do with the hair or skin.You don't have to continue to participate if you have grown tired of the discussion. But throwing petulant accusations at your adversaries, does not make for good discussion either.They were talking about the windblown troops, who would recognize the difference between a 60 year old Pentoshi commander and an 18 year old dornish prince Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 They were talking about the windblown troops, who would recognize the difference between a 60 year old Pentoshi commander and an 18 year old dornish prince Were they? In that case, they cannot say this until they discuss the circumstances in which the Windblown will see him. Which are unknown. Most of the Windblown, like everyone else, recognize him at a distance, by his tattered cloak. There is no indication that his face will be clearly visible to anyone. Nor would Caggo and Merris necessarily expect Tatters face to be clearly visible - when they last saw Tatters, he was (per the theory) probably on fire. In any event, you are no longer arguing with the "Quentyn is Alive" part of the theory (which I thought was what people were focused on), but rather on the circumstances in which he may make his reappearance, if he is alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I guess I'm baffled as to why anyone would even care enough about Quentyn to come up with elaborate 'he's not dead!' theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I guess I'm baffled as to why anyone would even care enough about Quentyn to come up with elaborate 'he's not dead!' theories. Personally, I don't care about Quentyn, as a character, and think he is doomed in the long run. I just think he is alive (at present), and willing to discuss and defend my reasons for accepting the theory. You don't have to be interested, if you don't want to be. I've heard that some posters DO like Quentyn. I don't find this particularly mysterious, myself. But whether or not it helped motivate anyone to formulate the theory seems beside the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Suburbs Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 IF Quentyn is still alive -- and you can sill count me in the BIG IF crowd -- that doesn't necessarily mean he is the one posing as the TP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinchanging Sweetrobin Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 IF Quentyn is still alive -- and you can sill count me in the BIG IF crowd -- that doesn't necessarily mean he is the one posing as the TP. I agree, I think it would probably be Gerris posing at the Tatters. He's the mummer. Quentyn would find it chafing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I agree, I think it would probably be Gerris posing at the Tatters. He's the mummer. If impersonating Tatters involves riding a dragon, Gerris might find that beyond his abilities. And it is from that vantage-point that "Tatters" can avoid being closely inspected. Also, wrong build. Gerris is tall. Tatters is an unremarkable-looking man who seems reasonably impressive when riding a horse, which probably means he has short legs and average height... like Quentyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I guess I'm baffled as to why anyone would even care enough about Quentyn to come up with elaborate 'he's not dead!' theories. :agree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinchanging Sweetrobin Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 If impersonating Tatters involves riding a dragon, Gerris might find that beyond his abilities. And it is from that vantage-point that "Tatters" can avoid being closely inspected. Also, wrong build. Gerris is tall. Tatters is an unremarkable-looking man who seems reasonably impressive when riding a horse, which probably means he has short legs ... like Quentyn. Good point about the height. Wait, are we expecting "Tatters" on a dragon? That would be a incredible scene: Quentyn, dressed as Tatters entering the battle on a dragon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainGhost Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Like with Dany ... except Dany is less panicky, and did not scream when she caught fire. No. That was Tatters. Or could have been, for all you or Barristan know. I'm trying to tell you. OK, I see your point. Quentyn saw that he was burning and screamed because it's horrifying, not necessarily because he was in pain? He could be 'unburnt' like Dany and then they switched the bodies and who Barristan saw dying wasn't really Quentyn because how would he know because he was burnt and could barely talk? OK, I admit, there's a possibility, which I didn't consider before. However, I still think it very unlikely - Dany herself said the dragons didn't take to him and I think his Targ blood was too diluted to prevent him being burned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryanfury Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 For the love of Bloodraven, there is no Targ fire immunity anyway. This is a joke, right? This hread is a sad attempt at a joke surely. It hurts to think some people actually believe this Q = TP stuff using BLATANTLY incorrect information that directly defies the text and the authors own statements re: fire immunity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Suburbs Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Once again, Bryan, we have you expressing an opinion as an unimpeachable, unassailable fact without providing any evidence to support it. How do you know there is no targ immunity to fire? Some targs have dragon dreams, some don't. Some are crazy, some are not. If they are literally "Blood of the Dragon" and dragons themselves are immune to fire as seen in tPatQ, then why is it so far outside the realm of possibility that there could be a recessive gene for fire immunity? Aerys thought he was immune. That's why he was ready to douse all of KL in wildfire: he figured he'd be the only one standing. Aerion Brightflame thought he was too, that's why a drank the wildfire. They must have had some reason to think they were immune, otherwise they never would have done what they did. If fire immunity uses "BLATANTLY incorrect information that directly defies the text and the authors (sic) own statements" please tell us why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 How do you know there is no targ immunity to fire? Some targs have dragon dreams, some don't. Some are crazy, some are not. If they are literally "Blood of the Dragon" and dragons themselves are immune to fire as seen in tPatQ, then why is it so far outside the realm of possibility that there could be a recessive gene for fire immunity? Aerys thought he was immune. That's why he was ready to douse all of KL in wildfire: he figured he'd be the only one standing. Aerion Brightflame thought he was too, that's why a drank the wildfire. They must have had some reason to think they were immune, otherwise they never would have done what they did.GRRM has stated that Targaryens are not immune to fire. Aerion didn't think he was immune, he believed himself to be a dragon in human form. He was wrong.Aerys hoped the fire would transform him into a dragon, but was only willing to test that in his most desperate moment, where his other choice would be death.TPATQ doesn't show that dragons are immune to fire at all. Baela's dragon is wounded by fire, for instance. A dragon's scales can withstand fire better the older they get, but a dragon's fire breath also grows hotter the older they get. This is one of the reasons why Vhagar survives so many battles against much younger dragons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryanfury Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 #wrektETA: I know Targs aren't fire immune because there is an SSM in which GRRM refutes the idea that Dany has fire immunity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HexMachina Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 GRRM has stated that Targaryens are not immune to fire. Aerion didn't think he was immune, he believed himself to be a dragon in human form. He was wrong.Aerys hoped the fire would transform him into a dragon, but was only willing to test that in his most desperate moment, where his other choice would be death.TPATQ doesn't show that dragons are immune to fire at all. Baela's dragon is wounded by fire, for instance. A dragon's scales can withstand fire better the older they get, but a dragon's fire breath also grows hotter the older they get. This is one of the reasons why Vhagar survives so many battles against much younger dragons.Aegon II will attest that Targaryens are not fireproof.*ouchie* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Aegon II will attest that Targaryens are not fireproof.*ouchie*As will Rhaenys, the Queen who Never Was.And Aegon V. And Duncan Targaryen.And, you know, all those Targaryens who were cremated. That would have been really difficult if they had been fireproof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Bryanfury statements are based on a quote from GRRM where GRRM says (a) that Targaryens are not immune to fire; and (2) that Dany's bonfire experience was a unique event. Many fans have deduced from this that no Targaryen or dragonrider of any kind (except Dany, and her only once) has ever demonstrated ANY small level of fire resistance whatsoever in the entire history of the universe. However, GRRM did not specify that this was exactly what he meant. If the bonfire was a "unique" event, this probably only means that you cannot generalize from it; not that nothing remotely LIKE it has ever happened before and will ever happen again Firstly, this extreme interpretation of GRRM's words has already been disproven. Dany has already had a second fire-resistant event. Secondly, the "Quentyn is Alive" theory does not require constant fire immunity, nor even occasional fire immunity, nor even constant fire resistance, nor perhaps even occasional fire resistance. It does not assume that Quentyn is completely uninjured (as would be the case if he were "immune") but merely that he survived. Perhaps some level of fire RESISTANCE (which is not quite the same thing as fire immunity), or the occurrence of another mystical fire-resistent event, is vaguely implied by the theory, but even this is not absolutely essential. Other people in the series, before Quentyn, have already survived being burned by dragons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryanfury Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I mean, Targs get cremated after death. What, does their fire immunity just cease working when they die? Hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.