Do you believe Preston Jacobs' explanation for dragon riding?

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

52 minutes ago, Lord Lyman said:

Bran also mentions being at the King's Feast in Winterfell, despite the fact that he never mentioned as being there in Jon's POV. Mistakes by the author can happen.

Absolutely, he makes mistakes. But I for one find it hard to believe he wouldn't check his notes about the pie before writing dialogue about that pie. Bran not being at the feast was a weird brain fart, but it doesn't pertain to important dialogue. It's just the observations of Jon. Bran is unimportant in that context. The pie on the other hand, is directly relevant to the conversation.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

2 hours ago, Gertrude said:

And Baelor wasn't an extreme zealot?

And I forget, why wouldn't Baelor want dragon genes to be passed on. And are they even aware of the specifics of the supposed Dragon X gene and how it works?

Baelor was an extreme zealot, which I think is exactly how GRRM is obfuscating the significant detail that is the maiden vault. We don't question it because he gives us an OK explanation for it, but it isn't a particularly satisfying explanation. Why not send your sisters away or marry them to other people for political gain? Trying to prevent them from having children period is a much better explanation. It's not called the "No Baelors Allowed" vault, it's called the "maiden" vault, aka, the "no sex allowed" vault.

And the PJ theory iirc is that he was being influenced by Septon Barth, who probably figured out the genetics stuff.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

1 minute ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

Absolutely, he makes mistakes. But I for one find it hard to believe he wouldn't check his notes about the pie before writing dialogue about that pie. Bran not being at the feast was a weird brain fart, but it doesn't pertain to important dialogue. It's just the observations of Jon. Bran is unimportant in that context. The pie on the other hand, is directly relevant to the conversation.

Nope, it isn't. What is important, is the name of Winterfell's chief cook and the fact that "Arya" answered correctly. That, I bet, George did look up in his notes. But - kidney pie? Venison pie? Lamprey pie? Dove pie? Pizza pie? Or even no pie at all? Makes no matter. Makes no difference to any character present at the scene. If anybody should, for some reason, check the sample Theon chapter (which, possibly, hasn't had the benefit of being proofread and fact-checked by the editing staff) against the relevant ACOK chapters, and catch that discrepancy, he will most likely chalk it up on character's error, or possibly author's error. Hell, we here do that even though you point at its direction and repeatedly announce very loudly.

[Gertrude]

51 minutes ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

But it makes so much more sense to make a mistake with horse sex or eye color than with the pie. The horse and the eyes, from GRRM's point of view, are just part of the standard "time to describe the things the character can see in this scene" type of context. The pie is part of the dialogue. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that George wouldn't take 2 seconds to check his notes on the pie before writing a line of dialogue talking about the pie.

I don't see a difference at all. Honestly, I don't.

[WSmith84]

I'm sorry, but why would Umber lie about a pie? It just doesn't make any sense. If George wants to draw our attention to the fact that the Umbers may have Rickon, you seriously think the best he can do is have Umber tell a pointless lie that he has no motivation to even tell?! Seriously?

Also, I've got to say I love your responses to challenges.

'George is writing a sci-fi story and dragonhatching is based on a complex genetic thing that could never be adequately explained in the books.'

'But genetics don't actually work that way...'

'Well, George wouldn't go that complex, no no no. He'd stop at the complexity level that happens to support my own conclusions, obviously. Even though that level is already needlessly complex as it is'

[BlueNightzx]

This preston jacobs speaks a lot of non sense, and a lot of his older videos came out to be wrong.
so i would not take him as an authority in anything, best to him to came to forums like this and then explains his position point by point, and be exposed to the scrutiny of the members. 

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

The pie is just one of many clues of the Mance-Umber-Manderly alliance. Manderly doesn't bring a singer so Mance can get into WF as a singer. The Umbers dig pits outside the gate for the Freys to fall into, and the Manderly men conveniently go out a different gate with no trap outside. Manderly tell Davos to get Osha and Rickon and then Umber verifies the identity of fake Arya with the names of the the cook, who Osha was having sex with, and the name of the smith. He claims Mikken did good work, so it would make sense if he knew this because he had a sword made by Mikken, say the one Osha took from the crypt. And the motherfucker lied about the pie as an excuse for knowing the name of the cook! And then Theon is delivered to Stannis who is clearly in on the whole plan to break Theon out of WF and trade him as a hostage. Stannis sent counter intelligence in a letter to Jon that Roose Bolton catches wind of, and before that he sent his "wrong way rangers" to gather intel on northern geography. Then the maester he knew was working against him sent a map to Roose Bolton, and now at the beginning of TWOW, Stannis the Mannis and Manderly are likely going to seriously fuck up the Freys after at least part of the Frey force falls through the ice into a near-frozen lake because Stannis kept drilling "fishing holes". Seriously I don't want to have to spell out the entire northern conspiracy here, but if you guys want to ignore the pie, I think we are just on totally different wavelengths and I don't know how to respond.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

3 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

I'm sorry, but why would Umber lie about a pie? It just doesn't make any sense. If George wants to draw our attention to the fact that the Umbers may have Rickon, you seriously think the best he can do is have Umber tell a pointless lie that he has no motivation to even tell?! Seriously?

Also, I've got to say I love your responses to challenges.

'George is writing a sci-fi story and dragonhatching is based on a complex genetic thing that could never be adequately explained in the books.'

'But genetics don't actually work that way...'

'Well, George wouldn't go that complex, no no no. He'd stop at the complexity level that happens to support my own conclusions, obviously. Even though that level is already needlessly complex as it is'

I have to admit, that's a pretty funny characterization of my responses.

[myhalfgroat]

9 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

But if you want to take evidence from the text and say "that's not evidence, it's probably author error" 

there are several reasons he could have have said steak instead of venison:

1. GRRM put this here as a clue of some sort

2. GRRM made a mistake as he has with other small details (which a one word discrepancy of a pie certainly is)

3. Mors is not correctly remembering this meal

4. Mors had more than one meal at WF

5. Mors just says that type of pie because it came to mind and it has no bearing question being asked

 

any of these is possible and while some are more likely than others, it is a big leap to look at a small discrepancy such as this and pretend that it is ironclad evidence. as has been said elsewhere, it's not the fact that Preston takes such large leaps it's the sheer amount of them necessary for his theories to work. then, because so much is invested in the theory working, the conjecture grows. and it grows not out of textual evidence but instead from the theory itself.

it's my opinion that a person is too in love with their own theories to see the glaring flaws when they decide, "GRRM must have lied to us about Jeyne Westerling because we discovered the clue he hid"

another example, the Maiden Vault. everything we know about Baelor is 100% in line with him creating the Maiden Vault. it seems implausible to think that it exists not because it's an action befitting the character but because he was preventing them from passing on a magic gene that only complies with the laws of science that do not disprove it.

again, I really enjoy the videos and kudos for the attention to detail but are there any proven theories that have rested on such little evidence as the type of pie a character recalls from a meal they had years ago? I'm not being a dick, I seriously don't know. GRRM is an amazing writer and has done a tremendous job of creating mysteries but I think he puts in more evidence and clues than what most of PJ's theories rely upon.

 

 

[Trigger Warning]

Piegate?

Seriously though what's more likely, that GRRM didn't specifically remember the nature of a pie in a book from 1998 at an event where many kinds of pie were probably served over many courses or that it secretly holds a deeper meaning that basically no one would notice if they didn't pore over the books obsessively to find clues for a theory they've already formulated in their mind, maybe he had a pie the morning after the feast, GRRM really isn't a writer that plans out his work to the minutest detail. The character doesn't even have a reasonable reason to lie about it, what was important was the cook. Maybe he just named a random pie to make his point. 

If that is the case it's pretty shitty writing from GRRM to hide clues in places where clues don't make sense. Sure, clues should be hard to spot in the writing, they shouldn't be needles in a haystack or pointless from a character perspective.

I think it's quite telling that the early books didn't have anywhere near the level of intricacy unravelling in the later books we received compared to the layers of intricacy people are finding in the books we have now that can only be revealed in future books we've been waiting 5 years for. 

Obviously you'll disagree, GRRM's brilliant at depth and foreshadowing, I just don't think it's as intricate as PJ would have us believe with huge theories hinging on lots of little leaps from what often appears to be squares he's hammered into circle holes.  To be honest it's quite patronising to imply that such large leaps are concrete and everyone else is just ignorant of the connections.

It usually seems like PJ is trying to find secrets and mysteries for theories he's already concocted, rather than things that fit the narrative, themes or characterisations, I don't think GRRM is trying to write a series of mysteries on top of mysteries held together by mysteries, basically PJ doesn't analyse in the context of the books being a piece of literature. He'll connect dots regardless of them not making literary sense. 
 
If it turns out stuff like this is accurate, great. 

I simply have my doubts. 

[Westerosi Coast Gangster]

I really like his dorne videos. really want deeper dorne 10 to be released. in a lot of his other videos, he uses assumptions as fact in explaining important parts of his theories. like he says, hes wrong about half of what he says. but he is interesting

[Gertrude]

5 hours ago, 40 Thousand Skeletons said:

... but if you guys want to ignore the pie, I think we are just on totally different wavelengths and I don't know how to respond.

I think this pretty much sums up everything nicely. I have no idea how to respond to you, either.

[The Dragons Hand]

Does posting this constitute masochism?

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

8 hours ago, myhalfgroat said:

there are several reasons he could have have said steak instead of venison:

1. GRRM put this here as a clue of some sort

2. GRRM made a mistake as he has with other small details (which a one word discrepancy of a pie certainly is)

3. Mors is not correctly remembering this meal

4. Mors had more than one meal at WF

5. Mors just says that type of pie because it came to mind and it has no bearing question being asked

 

any of these is possible and while some are more likely than others, it is a big leap to look at a small discrepancy such as this and pretend that it is ironclad evidence. as has been said elsewhere, it's not the fact that Preston takes such large leaps it's the sheer amount of them necessary for his theories to work. then, because so much is invested in the theory working, the conjecture grows. and it grows not out of textual evidence but instead from the theory itself.

it's my opinion that a person is too in love with their own theories to see the glaring flaws when they decide, "GRRM must have lied to us about Jeyne Westerling because we discovered the clue he hid"

another example, the Maiden Vault. everything we know about Baelor is 100% in line with him creating the Maiden Vault. it seems implausible to think that it exists not because it's an action befitting the character but because he was preventing them from passing on a magic gene that only complies with the laws of science that do not disprove it.

again, I really enjoy the videos and kudos for the attention to detail but are there any proven theories that have rested on such little evidence as the type of pie a character recalls from a meal they had years ago? I'm not being a dick, I seriously don't know. GRRM is an amazing writer and has done a tremendous job of creating mysteries but I think he puts in more evidence and clues than what most of PJ's theories rely upon.

 

 

I would argue the only proven theories are the ones already wrapped up, like who poisoned Jon Arryn. And there were not a ton of clues for it. But they were there.

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

5 hours ago, The Dragons Hand said:

Does posting this constitute masochism?

Absolutely lol

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

8 hours ago, Trigger Warning said:

Piegate?

Seriously though what's more likely, that GRRM didn't specifically remember the nature of a pie in a book from 1998 at an event where many kinds of pie were probably served over many courses or that it secretly holds a deeper meaning that basically no one would notice if they didn't pore over the books obsessively to find clues for a theory they've already formulated in their mind, maybe he had a pie the morning after the feast, GRRM really isn't a writer that plans out his work to the minutest detail. The character doesn't even have a reasonable reason to lie about it, what was important was the cook. Maybe he just named a random pie to make his point. 

If that is the case it's pretty shitty writing from GRRM to hide clues in places where clues don't make sense. Sure, clues should be hard to spot in the writing, they shouldn't be needles in a haystack or pointless from a character perspective.

I think it's quite telling that the early books didn't have anywhere near the level of intricacy unravelling in the later books we received compared to the layers of intricacy people are finding in the books we have now that can only be revealed in future books we've been waiting 5 years for. 

Obviously you'll disagree, GRRM's brilliant at depth and foreshadowing, I just don't think it's as intricate as PJ would have us believe with huge theories hinging on lots of little leaps from what often appears to be squares he's hammered into circle holes.  To be honest it's quite patronising to imply that such large leaps are concrete and everyone else is just ignorant of the connections.

It usually seems like PJ is trying to find secrets and mysteries for theories he's already concocted, rather than things that fit the narrative, themes or characterisations, I don't think GRRM is trying to write a series of mysteries on top of mysteries held together by mysteries, basically PJ doesn't analyse in the context of the books being a piece of literature. He'll connect dots regardless of them not making literary sense. 
 
If it turns out stuff like this is accurate, great. 

I simply have my doubts. 

That's pretty fair, but I would still argue that PJ theories rely on way fewer leaps and speculation than people are saying. That's my opinion though. And I don't think you can really say the early books don't have those intricate mysteries since there could be, according to my theory for example, clues for time travel existing. But we don't know yet. And I hate the "it would be shitty writing argument". That's your opinion.

Seriously what's more likely? I think in a story where a king was possibly killed by a pie, people ate Frey pie, and there is a character named Hot Pie, GRRM is paying attention to the motherfucking pies. So yes, pie gate!

[40 Thousand Skeletons]

5 hours ago, Gertrude said:

I think this pretty much sums up everything nicely. I have no idea how to respond to you, either.

Haha OK, well we are on the same page finally in a sense.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Here's how literary clues (done right) work, and here's how they do not work.

If you point out a passage in the text and say "Would you look at this", and everyone's reaction is "Oh, hey, how didn't I notice that before? This is really neat, good catch!" - such passage we will from now on call Probably A Clue.

But if you point out a passage in the text, say "Would you look and this", and everyone says "Nope, I don't see anything", you reiterate and explain, what, according to you, it means and how it works, and everyone is still like "Meh", and you explain again, and argue, many, many times, yet people still answer with "Nah, it's probably nothing" - such passage will be known as Almost Certainly Not A Clue.

There really is little point in putting in the text clues that look completely meaningless not only at the first sight, but even after their fervent champion had gone twelve rounds in defense of their good name.

[Trigger Warning]

37 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

There really is little point in putting in the text clues that look completely meaningless not only at the first sight, but even after their fervent champion had gone twelve rounds in defense of their good name.

Basically this, as a piece of literature such clues shouldn't need such convoluted connections to give hints that 0.001% of readers will notice and probably only do so when they're looking for clues to a theory they already have. It may be my opinion but I think that is cut and dry bad writing. 

My point about the earlier hints and foreshadowing is as Ferocious said, it's hidden in the text but makes sense in the context of the characters, themes and narrative and doesn't need a 100 re-reads and arguments to back it up as being relevant because ultimately it's there for the reader to find and when it's pointed out it's usually quite clear, it adds depth to the story. GRRM isn't writing stuff with the intention of barely anyone noticing what's going on in the background, I think this is a strange hyper charged view that has developed from the depth and mysteries that GRRM does weave into his work quite well. 

" And I don't think you can really say the early books don't have those intricate mysteries since there could be, according to my theory for example, clues for time travel existing. But we don't know yet. "

That's entirely my point. We don't have any ridiculously convoluted and hidden plot points that are revealed from AGOT to ASOS for example, sure there's foreshadowing and depth and hidden hints but nothing so convoluted as the theories that are being drawn from the books we have that can only be disproven with books that aren't available yet. Doesn't it seem strange that almost all of the most intricate and stretched out theories are like this? If that's how GRRM writes why aren't there such convoluted plot points being unravelled in the earlier books.

[myhalfgroat]

3 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Here's how literary clues (done right) work, and here's how they do not work.

If you point out a passage in the text and say "Would you look at this", and everyone's reaction is "Oh, hey, how didn't I notice that before? This is really neat, good catch!" - such passage we will from now on call Probably A Clue.

But if you point out a passage in the text, say "Would you look and this", and everyone says "Nope, I don't see anything", you reiterate and explain, what, according to you, it means and how it works, and everyone is still like "Meh", and you explain again, and argue, many, many times, yet people still answer with "Nah, it's probably nothing" - such passage will be known as Almost Certainly Not A Clue.

There really is little point in putting in the text clues that look completely meaningless not only at the first sight, but even after their fervent champion had gone twelve rounds in defense of their good name.

basically this.

the Hound as Gravedigger is a good example. there's not a mountain of evidence for this theory but when the clues are pointed out they are clearly identified and it makes sense. the evidence on its own makes the argument for the theory and it doesn't need someone to browbeat people into accepting it.