Jump to content

What exactly is the point of Quentyn?


grimBlue

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Dunno.  If Rhaegar thought being conceived under a comet is good enough, maybe GRRM agrees with him.  

Or maybe Aegon has yet to be (re)born amid salt and smoke while the red star bleeds.  Don't the warrior's sons carve stars on their chests? 

I won't dismiss the idea that Rhaegar took steps to hide his son since he does think he is TPWIP.  Cersei thinks of doing the same thing with Thommen. There is a certain logic to hiding him with Doran Martell, his kin and someone with the resources to provide that protection.  Or it could be that young Griff is Rhaegar's son after all.  Time will tell and so you have added another layer of mystery.

How dependent is your theory on Quentin being TPWIP?  Is it a prerequisite for what you propose to work? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

I won't dismiss the idea that Rhaegar took steps to hide his son since he does think he is TPWIP.  Cersei thinks of doing the same thing with Thommen. There is a certain logic to hiding him with Doran Martell, his kin and someone with the resources to provide that protection. 

That logic applies even if Rhaegar was not involved.  Varys and Illyrio are also plausibly in league with Doran.

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

Or it could be that young Griff is Rhaegar's son after all. 

Well sure.  That's the surface truth of the moment.  But I don't believe it for a minute.  It does not explain the Blackfyre connection.  Among other things.

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

How dependent is your theory on Quentin being TPWIP?  Is it a prerequisite for what you propose to work? 

Not sure how to answer.  I became convinced Frog was still alive, long before I became convinced Frog was the real Aegon and Young Griff was the real Quentyn.  But now that I've thought of it, it fits so well I find it impossible to ignore.

Once, people objecting to the "Quentyn is alive" theory would ask "what is the point of Quentyn being alive?"  I could not say much more than "Dany needs dragon-riders" and "The theory can be right even if I don't what the point is" or "What is the point of Quentyn if he is dead?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Well sure.  That's the surface truth of the moment.  But I don't believe it for a minute.  It does not explain the Blackfyre connection.  Among other things.

OK, well I'm going to load up your theory with some bias of my own.  :D

Here's what Selmy says:

Quote

A Dance with Dragons - Daenerys IV

"Why did they wed if they did not love each other?"

"Your grandsire commanded it. A woods witch had told him that the prince was promised would be born of their line."

"A woods witch?" Dany was astonished.

 

The grammar here drives me a little batty.  I think something is missing and it should look like this to make any sense:

....that the prince was promised ,,,,, would be born of their line. 

What was the prince  promised from the line of Aerys and Rhaella?  A dragon?   A marriage to a dragon? The offspring of a dragon? Prince Doran has more promises in marriage to dragons than anyone in the realm.  In fact he has all the bases covered.

So yes, this is going into the corners but I've sometimes wondered if the prince who was promised (something) is Prince Doran.

Prophesy is a slippery slope.  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understanding Rhaegar becomes very easy when you contrast him with Ned.

Rhaegar understood TPTWP is a sacrifice to wake dragons. Thus he's writing songs about the deaths of kings and Aegon's birth is bitter sweet. First he thought it was him. Then his child. Then three children and so we have the situation of Rhaegar having a third child, out of wedlock so as to not kill his wife - Jon, for the purpose of sacrificing.

Play that against Ned who sacrificed everything, including life and honour, to save innocent children from death. A mantra reinforced many a time even though he only got a single smaller book, no matter what do not be responsible for the death of children.

Fast forward to Jon, real father Rhaegar Targaryen (fire), foster father Ned Stark (ice), completely contrasting examples to follow when it comes to the sacrifice of children and so ripe to be thrown the central question of the series, what is one child's life against the survival of the realm? Does he follow Targ or Stark, Rhaegar or Ned, ice or fire?

Quentyn second lifed one of these dragons, and Arianne is going to as well.

Quote

Arianne left them to their banter. Drey and Spotted Sylva were her dearest friends, aside from her cousin Tyene, and Garin had been teasing her since both of them were drinking from his mother's teats, but just now she was in no mood for japery. The sun was gone, and the sky was full of stars. So many. She leaned her back against a fluted pillar and wondered if her brother was looking at the same stars tonight, wherever he might be. Do you see the white one, Quentyn? That is Nymeria's star, burning bright, and that milky band behind her, those are ten thousand ships. She burned as bright as any man, and so shall I. You will not rob me of my birthright!

I just don't know if they're second lifing the same dragon and so fighting within it for control (like Thistle and Varamyr for control of Thistle's body) or if they're second lifing different dragons and the dragons will fight each other (in a battle for the throne).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, LynnS said:

The grammar here drives me a little batty.  I think something is missing and it should look like this to make any sense:

....that the prince was promised ,,,,, would be born of their line. 

What was the prince  promised from the line of Aerys and Rhaella?  A dragon?   A marriage to a dragon? The offspring of a dragon? Prince Doran has more promises in marriage to dragons than anyone in the realm.  In fact he has all the bases covered.

So yes, this is going into the corners but I've sometimes wondered if the prince who was promised (something) is Prince Doran.

Prophesy is a slippery slope.  :D

Here's where my ideas become a little elaborate.  Maybe too elaborate.

Yes, GRRM has made the point of telling us that prophesy is treacherous.  And of course, this is an old idea.  It has been around since the HISTORIES of Heroditus, and the Sophocles play OEDIPUS REX (or maybe earlier, if I could think of examples).  Whenever a king or prince acts on a prophesy, he almost always gets it wrong.  He always fails in some way or another.  Sometimes he even causes what he seeks to prevent.  For example Oedipus would never have killed his father and married his mother, if had his parents not set him out to die of exposure in an attempt to foil the prophesy.  And Oedipus would not have triggered the prophesy, had he not, on hearing the prophesy, left home to avoid endangering those he thought were his real parents.

So I think that, when Jahaerys forced Aerys and Rhaella to marry, to fulfill the woods witch prophesy, he was not helping.  TPTWP will be born in spite of this, and not because of this.

But how could this be?

Maybe 'born of their line" does not mean born of their direct union.  Maybe it would be up to their grandchildren to unite their line.

What other lover has Rhaella ever had?  The only one is Bonifer Hasty; and her first-born, Rhaegar, might plausibly be the result of their union.  And Aerys plausibly has many unknown royal bastards, though his fondness for fooling around with the married wives of nobles at court.

So to unite the lines of Aerys and Rhaella, Rhaegar must unite with a daughter of Aerys.  Elia?  Ashara?  Lyanna?  All 3? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

So I think that, when Jahaerys forced Aerys and Rhaella to marry, to fulfill the woods witch prophesy, he was not helping.  TPTWP will be born in spite of this, and not because of this.

I agree 100%.  There really are several examples of the manx cat at play.  Melisandre is certainly trying to make the prophecy come true and to some extent I think Rhaegar and Aerys before him,  did the same with the TWIP.  I'm not even sure that Dany is the TWIP or AA for that matter.  She could be a separate but important piece as the bride of fire and mother of dragons.

So at this point, I think Martin can go in any direction he pleases to pay off his narrative debt.  So yes, I'm open to unconventional ideas.  I think we're peeling an onion with a lot of layers and prophecies that are interconnected in various ways.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2021 at 3:19 AM, Mister Smikes said:

I was never, to the extent that I was conscious of it, a fan of Quentyn or his chapters.  As far as I am conscious of my reasons, I am merely following the evidence.  The evidence that you say does not exist.

I'm fine with people being unconvinced by my reasons.  But when they say I don't have any, it really feels like they are just sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "LA LA LA I CAN"T HEAR YOU."

Well, that's the problem here. You haven't shown any evidence. Just your own conjectures (but on such fan forums it is quite common that people don't distinguish between these things). And that you don't believe a POV character, which is something of the shakiest thing possible. Some parts of your conjectures also lack logic. A fake Aegon doesn't need a real Aegon to be still alive, it's even better for any pretender when he isn't.

 

But of course, I enjoy to read theories, also theories of Princes that were promised or "hidden identity". I just don't buy most of it. And of course I don't want to convince you. I just find all these musings a bit far fetched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

Well, that's the problem here. You haven't shown any evidence.

I listed 20 or 21 points on page 2 of this thread.  You have not addressed or considered any of it.

And you have no obligation to be interested.  But why pretend you are?  Why tell me I have presented no evidence, when in fact you neither know nor care whether I have presented evidence or not?

What is your definition of "evidence"?  My definition is merely a fact that tends to increase or decrease the likelihood of something being true.    My 20 points, together or in combination, all do this.  Or do you really mean to say that (for instance) a burnt beyond recognition body (for instance, Bran & Rickon's heads on spikes) does not have even the slightest tiny tendency to increase the likelihood of a fake-out.

6 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

Just your own conjectures (but on such fan forums it is quite common that people don't distinguish between these things).

None of the 20 points I raised were conjectures.  All of them were facts drawn more or less straight from the books.  I paraphrased and condensed them for brevity, and it is conceivable that you might disagree with the accuracy of some of them, and we could discuss that.  But you are not engaging at all.  You are merely, in effect, denying that I ever said anything.

6 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

And that you don't believe a POV character, which is something of the shakiest thing possible.

That was not one of the 20 points I raised.  This sounds more like you trying to raise a point of evidence AGAINST the theory.  And it might be a valid point for all I know.  A valid theory might have points of evidence pro-and-con, which we could discuss (if you were interested, which I guess you are not)

But just in case you are interested, which POV character do you accuse me of not believing?   Barristan?  Barristan tells us what he believes and thinks he knows, like all POV characters.  GRRM is on record that he never writes 3rd-person omniscient.  Everything he writes is filtered through the POV of a particular character.

6 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

Some parts of your conjectures also lack logic. A fake Aegon doesn't need a real Aegon to be still alive, it's even better for any pretender when he isn't.

Well, that was not one of my 20 points.  But, such as it was, you have misconstrued it.  I said nothing about the "need" of the Fake Aegon.  I was discussing the literary logic, for the reader, of a satisfying story.  Which is maybe a bit subjective, but whatever.  I was saying that, if it turns out there is a real Aegon, the potential revelation that Young Griff is fake, may end up seeming like something that actually matters (to the reader and maybe the author too).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right. 20 or 100 points without any real evidence from the text (which means - from the books we got, mostly ADWD) - this isn't anything anybody could ever care about. But if you can cite a text from ADWD or somewhere else, that shows that Quentyn survived and he is ...whatever he is supposed to be... - please do so. In your last post you just cited me. But I didn't write anything on the story, alas.

But this isn't what I am actually talking about. These things are not needed to make Quentyn an "interesting" character. He is already.  And remember - he released the dragons. If ever the novels will be completed , this will be an important twist of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

You are right. 20 or 100 points without any real evidence from the text (which means - from the books we got, mostly ADWD) - this isn't anything anybody could ever care about.

Which of my 20 points do you claim is not from the text?  Let me know what you are disputing before you send me searching for citation.

3 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

But if you can cite a text from ADWD or somewhere else, that shows that Quentyn survived and he is ...whatever he is supposed to be... - please do so.

Is that the standard?  Where does it say, in ADWD or anywhere else, that R+L+J?  It doesn't.  In fact, the text directly contradicts it by saying that Jon is Ned's bastard son.  But it is still a valid theory with arguable clues supporting it.  

3 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

In your last post you just cited me. But I didn't write anything on the story, alas.

Are you too lazy to look upthread?  I even told you the page.  It takes two to have a conversation, and if you don't want one, why should I waste my time?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

I have only seen your "overall connect the dots" thing. Or did I miss something? If you think this is "evidence", it's indeed a waste of time discussing this and we should stop doing so.

Yes, I'm referring to the "connect the dots" thing.  And no, you are not required to discuss it, or be interested in it.  And yes, I think it is evidence (not proof) as I define "evidence".  And I already explained my definition of evidence.  

9 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

But again: this isn't what the thread is about anyway. We are talking about Quentyn Martell as he appears in ADWD.

Quentyn, as he appears in ADWD, never provides any direct explanation for what his point is.   The OP was asking for theories, and I gave mine.

Feel free to present your own theory.  And feel free to support your theory with as little or as much proof, or evidence, or baseless speculation as you see fit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LynnS said:

Recap on the events at Meereen, starting with Quentin:

The Winds of Winter primer, pt.9 - Meereen - YouTube

I listened to this, since I was curious on their take on certain mysteries.  Here's one that they touch on, but ultimately dodge.

Barristan regards it is critical to success that the Windblown switch sides.  He sends Archie and Gerris as envoys to the Tattered Prince.  Ultimately, in a WINDS sample chapter, it does indeed seem that the Windblown have switched sides.  Which suggests that Archie and Gerris have succeeded in their mission.  All of this is acknowledged in the above Radio Westeros broadcast.

But there are mysteries here which RADIO WESTEROS does not even notice or hint at.  When the Windblown seemingly switch sides, Tyrion is in his tent, and hears that something has happened only after emerging from his tent.  Evidently, whatever happened was something GRRM does not want us to see or know about (yet).  Also, when Barristan sends Archie and Gerris on a mission to Tatters, Gerris has an objection that he is unwilling to talk about in front of Barristan (and which GRRM seems to want to keep from the reader).  Archie, however, has an answer to Gerris' objection, that he too does not want to talk about in front of Barristan.

So what is going on?  Any theories?  Might it have something to do with "the point of Quentyn" seeing that his two buddies are involved?

The only theory offered by RADIO WESTEROS is that Barristan was right in relying on the greed of sellswords.  Which does not seem to sufficiently explain the mystery.

(I know what my theory is.   And it is not popular.  But I have not seen alternate explanations.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

So what is going on?  Any theories?  Might it have something to do with "the point of Quentyn" seeing that his two buddies are involved?

I really don't know what's going on off the page.  Sorry I have no explanations that might fit.

I was struck with the fact that Dany recognizes Quentin's claim on her even though she is not mentioned by name.  So I wonder what this agreement actually says and why Doran Martell is covering all the bases on marriage contracts unless it has something to do with TPWIP prophecy. 

Dany does seem to give him a pass when it comes to testing a potential bond with one of the other dragons since she says she can only ride Drogon and not the others.  She also gets straight to the point about the contract and the real purpose to acquire a dragon.  She says it's for fire and blood, meaning vengeance. Of course Quentin later admits that Dany was only a means to that end.

So I have to wonder what Doran Martell is keeping close to his chest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

I was struck with the fact that Dany recognizes Quentin's claim on her even though she is not mentioned by name.  So I wonder what this agreement actually says and why Doran Martell is covering all the bases on marriage contracts unless it has something to do with TPWIP prophecy. 

I think the explicit terms of the marriage pact are merely about Viserys marrying Aryanne.  Implicitly, however, it is about House Martell allying with House Targaryen against the Iron Throne.  Dany understands this, and also understands that she will need an alliance with Dorne if she is to take Westeros.

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

Dany does seem to give him a pass when it comes to testing a potential bond with one of the other dragons since she says she can only ride Drogon and not the others.  She also gets straight to the point about the contract and the real purpose to acquire a dragon.  She says it's for fire and blood, meaning vengeance. Of course Quentin later admits that Dany was only a means to that end.

Dany understands that she needs to control her dragons before she can use them take Westeros.   But she can directly control only one.  The other dragons will need other dragon-riders.   What Dany is suggesting is that they can be allies against the iron Throne, but that Quentyn will be a far more valuable ally as a dragon-rider than as a husband.   She all-but offers him a dragon, if only he can learn to ride it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I simply said that I don't believe all these theories, and that Quentyn's point is somewhere else then you popped up out of nowhere vigorously defending it. When I ask for evidence, you tell me, you brought it up already and reproach me for ignoring it. But I see only associative references (to put it more mildly) , in the line of  "Quentyn's nickname is "Frog" and Dany jokes about him being a Frog who will turn into a Prince".  How compelling.

You could have simply accepted me not believing any of it. I didn't ask to be missionized.

Ah yes, "Three heads has the dragon". That's what always comes in with every theory I have ever seen here. It sounds  important, but is in fact meaningless, since we don't know what role the dragons will play in the future.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

Well, I simply said that I don't believe all these theories,

If you have no interest in speculating or theorizing on otherwise opining on what the point of Quentyn is, why are you even in this thread?

2 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

and that Quentyn's point is somewhere else

Do you have an opinion?  What, according to you, is the point of Quentyn?  I'll listen.  And I might not agree, but I'll probably not pretend you said nothing.

2 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

then you popped up out of nowhere vigorously defending it.

I merely objected to you saying I had said nothing, when what you really meant is that you were not interested in what I said.  

2 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

When I ask for evidence, you tell me, you brought it up already and reproach me for ignoring it.

I told you I had stated my reasons, told you where to find them, and said you had no obligation to be convinced by them

2 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

But I see only associative references (to put it more mildly) , in the line of  "Quentyn's nickname is "Frog" and Dany jokes about him being a Frog who will turn into a Prince".  How compelling.

I said more than that.  Not sure what you mean by "associative references".  Do you mean "subtle clues"?  What kind of clues would you expect there to be?  And, again, I'm not trying to "compel" you.   I'm happy to agree to disagree and wait until WINDS comes out to see who is right.

2 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

You could have simply accepted me not believing any of it. I didn't ask to be missionized.

I do accept it.  I never tried to missionize you.  You're the one who seems determined to mock my theory.  But that's a bee in your bonnet.

2 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

Ah yes, "Three heads has the dragon". That's what always comes in with every theory I have ever seen here. It sounds  important, but is in fact meaningless, since we don't know what role the dragons will play in the future.

If it is in the text, and it sounds important, then it might plausibly be a clue.  It could be a red herring too.  I'm not ruling that out at all.  Or maybe everything GRRM writes is meaningless, and "words are wind" after all.  I can't necessarily disprove that either.

If you only want to discuss what we know for sure, then maybe you should come back when WINDS and DREAM are both released.  Then we will know what roll the dragons played.  

So, again, what is you're opinion on the point of Quentyn?  I promise I won't mock.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have answered already, what my opinion about Quentyn is. First, he fits the trope of the prince that goes on adventure to meet his princess. He tries himself as a dragonrider. Both these things fail miserably. The theory (somebody brought up in this thread before me) that GRRM is ironizing (or "deconstructing" as others may prefer) a literary trope of the whole genre cannot so easily be dismissed.

Second, the result of his actions is that he released the dragons - without doubt an important plot twist, that does justify a few POVs. And Quentyn's POVs gives us some insights about the sellsword companies he travels with.

 

We can surely discuss, if there aren't too many POVs  of Quentyn's or if a POV by e.g. Drinkwater wouldn't have been better. But in my opinion this is already enough for Quentyn to "have a point" as the thread title questions.

 

If this doesn't sound convincing or impressing - I can live with that.

 

Edit: Quentyn shows that you can have Targaryen blood and still not be a dragonrider. This may or may not be important for the further plot, but it is something that should be noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...