How controversial is the Quentyn being alive theory on here?

[Alester Florent]

35 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

True.  But what's the secret?

 

Distance is irrelevant.  The main proof that BBRM is Frog is that Barristan & Co. (guards, missandei) assume that BBRM is Frog.  I'm questioning that assumption.

Just like Dany being on fire and not screaming.  The screams might be misdirection.  Those might be screams of panic, and not pain.

He is not engulfed in dragon fire.  He is just ... on fire.  Like Dany was, when Drogon took her.

Dude.  At least 4 such people were present.  Frog is an ordinary guy.  The world is full of ordinary guys.  Tatters is one.

And when exactly did Archie, or Gerris, confirm that the burnt man was Frog?  I missed that part.  The best that can be said is that they did not go out of their way to deny it.

We don't see on page the bit where the bodies are recovered which is when any confirmation would have happened. But I think we can safely assume that Gerris and Arch confirmed that the body was Quentyn's at that point. There's also the question of Archibald's hands: he was found cradling the body having put the flames out with his bare hands. Would he have done that for anyone but his close companions? It seems unlikely. Or are we to suppose that having put out Quentyn's fires and the badly burned Quentyn's having run off somewhere, the traumatised Arch grabbed another conveniently scorched nearby body and started crying over that to throw any new arrivals off the scent?

During their whole conversation with Barristan, Archibald and Gerris talk about Quentyn in the past tense. Arch says "He's dead," explicitly, in a context where "he" can only refer to Quentyn. After Barristan says he intends to send the bones back to Dorne, Arch says "yes, someone needs to take Quent home". Gerris also says: "Quent was screaming, covered in flames and they (the Windblown) were gone... all but the dead one".

They are certainly nowhere near ambiguous enough even in the conversation that we see that it gives them any wriggle room if it turns out Quentyn was alive and the body is actually the Tattered Prince or whoever. Either the body is Quentyn's, or they are lying. I don't think there is room for a Varys-esque "true from a certain point of view" weaselling out here.

But if they are lying... they're just lying. We can't draw any conclusions from any ambiguity in what they're saying, because what they're saying isn't the truth anyway.

Quote

Well, he could have cut out these mystery lines.  Or just allow the conversation to continue in front of Barristan.  Why make a mystery of it?

What exactly are these "mystery lines"? I've just re-read the scene and I'm guessing it's the "might we have time to discuss this amongst ourselves?" That's not a "mystery line", that's a perfectly reasonable response to someone who until recently treated you as an enemy offering you a risky commission to get out of jail.

When you're in a negotiation with someone and they make you an offer, it's usual to request a minute to confer with other interested parties (and/or lawyers) in private before giving your response. There's nothing suspicious, sinister or mysterious about it.

[Evolett]

On 7/22/2023 at 12:17 PM, Sandy Clegg said:

I can't quite make up my mind on Quentyn being alive. His body seems to have been 100% burnt to a crispy Dorneburger, but we have these pesky 'second-life in the dragon' possibilities. We don't quite have enough information on how this works - is Quentyn the first human Rhaegal has killed with fire? That might go some way to answering if it's even possible.

Quentyn still being alive is rather improbable. I don't see the point because he's served his narrative purpose imo. On the one hand, the reader gains insights into Volantis and Yunkai. He serves as a bridge between Daenerys' story and the Tattered Prince / Windblown - there seems to be more in store for us here. His unintended release of the dragons serves to escalate matters in Meereen and drive the plot toward all out war at a time when Dany is absent, leaving decisions to Barristan Selmy. And of course failing to secure Daenerys' hand or a dragon means Dorne is more likely to end up in opposition to Dany and in bed with fAegon.

Most of all, his short arc serves to remind us of the damage caused to the psyche of children who become hostages to ensure their father's good behaviour or in Quentyn's case, sent off to pay the "blood price" for a crime committed by some member of their family. Like Theon, Quentyn grows up away from his family and comes to see Anders Yronwood as a father and Cletus as a best friend and brother. He lost the latter too on this damned journey. He was also an accomplished young man, speaking several languages, knighted, well behaved and dutiful. Enchanted in his own way, a real Prince, even if Daenerys didn't think so. And because of his isolation from his trueborn family he was hardly known in Dorne.

Again, like Theon, Quentyn wanted to prove himself to his father. This is the one thought that overrides all others. 

Quote

Crawl back to Sunspear defeated, with my tail between my legs? His father’s disappointment would be more than Quentyn could bear, and the scorn of the Sand Snakes would be withering. Doran Martell had put the fate of Dorne into his hands, he could not fail him, not whilst life remained.

 

What a waste. Quentyn's end was tragic but sadly, I think he was simply a means to an end from the author's point of view. I can't see how he could not have suffered severe burns from Rhaegal's blast of fire. And perhaps his failure and death also serve to tell us that a few drops of dragon blood far removed may not be enough to claim a dragon. Brown Ben should watch out. 

Edited July 25, 2023 by Evolett

[Tradecraft]

"burned bones mean nothing". 

 

He's fucking tell you bro. 

[Gilbert Green]

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

We don't see on page the bit where the bodies are recovered which is when any confirmation would have happened.

Right.  So all possibilities are open.

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

But I think we can safely assume that Gerris and Arch confirmed that the body was Quentyn's at that point.

All kinds of possibilities.

Guards assume - Archie and Gerris keep mouths shut.

Guards assume - Gerris confirms - Archie keeps his mouth shut

Guards assume - Archie confirms - Gerris keeps his mouth shut

Guards assume - Archie and Gerris confirm.

Guards ask - Gerris lies - Archie keeps his mouth shut.

And more ...

They might have confirmed.  And they might have been lying when they did.  The alternative is to let them know that Frog is still at large.

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

There's also the question of Archibald's hands: he was found cradling the body having put the flames out with his bare hands. Would he have done that for anyone but his close companions?

Archie beat out the flames on Frog.  He did not beat out the flames on the BBRM.  The only thing he did for the BBRM is to stop Gerris from slitting his throat.  That's what the guards observed when they arrived.

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

Or are we to suppose that having put out Quentyn's fires and the badly burned Quentyn's having run off somewhere, the traumatised Arch grabbed another conveniently scorched nearby body and started crying over that to throw any new arrivals off the scent?

The theory does not assume Frog was badly burned.  The BBRM was badly injured, but Frog not so much.  Even in the real world, when people beat out hair fires, it is often the hands that suffer the most serious injury.  And then there is the possibility that Frog had a mystical fire-resistant dragon-bonding experience, because he is the blood of the dragon.

The guards did not report any crying.

Gerris was standing over the BBRM with sword in hand.  Probably because he wanted to use it on the BBRM.  Who else was he going to use the sword on?  He throws the sword away the instant the guards arrived.  Who else was he planning to fight?  Archie?  A dragon?

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

During their whole conversation with Barristan, Archibald and Gerris talk about Quentyn in the past tense. Arch says "He's dead," explicitly, in a context where "he" can only refer to Quentyn. After Barristan says he intends to send the bones back to Dorne, Arch says "yes, someone needs to take Quent home". Gerris also says: "Quent was screaming, covered in flames and they (the Windblown) were gone... all but the dead one".

Fair enough.  But by this point, they could just be playing along.  And they are also hiding something.  The objection to the theory was that it was implausible they could just come up with this on the spot.  By now, they have had plenty of time to consider their position.

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

They are certainly nowhere near ambiguous enough even in the conversation that we see that it gives them any wriggle room if it turns out Quentyn was alive and the body is actually the Tattered Prince or whoever. Either the body is Quentyn's, or they are lying. I don't think there is room for a Varys-esque "true from a certain point of view" weaselling out here.

I'm not sure there's no room for "certain pov" weaseling.  But it is not worth arguing about, because lying works perfectly well under the theory.  Especially now that they have had ample time to discuss the situation among themselves

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

What exactly are these "mystery lines"? I've just re-read the scene and I'm guessing it's the "might we have time to discuss this amongst ourselves?" That's not a "mystery line", that's a perfectly reasonable response to someone who until recently treated you as an enemy offering you a risky commission to get out of jail.

When you're in a negotiation with someone and they make you an offer, it's usual to request a minute to confer with other interested parties (and/or lawyers) in private before giving your response. There's nothing suspicious, sinister or mysterious about it.

Nobody, however, has suggested a single thing that Gerris and Archie would need to discuss privately.  They just hide behind generalizations like the one's you make above.   GRRM took the time to write these lines.  I think they could be significant.  You think they are completely meaningless.  Words are wind, after all.   Not saying you are necessarily wrong.

In real life I would tend to agree with you more.  But this is a work of literature, and GRRM took the trouble to write this down.  It could be a clue.  Not all words are wind after all.  And if GRRM took the trouble to write these words, it could be because there was indeed something that they needed to say to each other privatesly.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Sandy Clegg]

 

13 hours ago, Nathan Stark said:

I don't think Quentyn's story is a multi-chapter pean to nihilistic despair. I think it is a melancholy rumination on how in over his head Quentyn is.

8 hours ago, Evolett said:

What a waste. Quentyn's end was tragic but sadly, I think he was simply a means to an end from the author's point of view.

I'd like to address these, as I do agree that getting to the heart of GRRM's purpose is a worthwhile discussion. It's that old problem of identifying whether or not an arc has concluded  - which is no easy feat in an unfinished book series on this scale.

I don’t dislike Quentin’s arc as written necessarily. In fact, his ADWD story wouldn’t have worked as well if it had shown him succeeding, flying off just as Dany did, for reasons I mentioned above. I just wouldn’t be confident enough to say that that was the end of his overall arc, even if it has a resolution in this book.

8 hours ago, Evolett said:

I don't see the point because he's served his narrative purpose imo.

We could say more or less the same for Theon’s arc in ACOK. His personal arc is over - he dies in an act of hubris, after bringing ruin and tragedy to the place he called home for a good part of his life. So too was his narrative purpose fulfilled - ensuring that Bran sets off on his journey to the 3EC and that Sansa and Arya will need to seek greener pastures for their stories to continue. Just as Quentyn unleashes the dragons, Theon ‘unleashes’ the Stark children. Furthermore, he does so in order to win favour with a father who is more obsessed with his own ambitions than his children’s welfare. Which also sounds like Quentyn, no? Both arcs could happily have ended in their respective moments of ‘death’.

13 hours ago, Nathan Stark said:

 it is a melancholy rumination on how in over his head Quentyn is.

I can't disagree with any of the thoughts on Quentin's arc as stated, honestly. They all feel satisfying - for this book (ADWD). They all tend to overlook another theme of George’s writing, though: in death we are transformed. Theon returns several books later as a broken, empty shell of the man he was. His fate was, in a very real sense, worse than death - yet he takes up a new arc. Catelyn Stark is not allowed to rest in death - her corpse is pulled back into the world to wreak vengeance. Beric Dondarrion bemoans the gradual loss of his identity with every resurrection. Mance Rayder is burnt yet unburnt. The Hound lives on in death as a man split into two: - a false Hound, raiding the Riverlands. Whereas the actual Hound, on the Quiet Isle, may eventually see some of his humanity restored, his 'Hound' persona having been passed on.  Gregor Clegane is reborn as Robert Strong - stripped even of what little humanity he may have had in life. Jon Snow will no doubt undergo his own transformative journey. Jon Connington is destined to inhabit a half-life between life and death as a Stone Man. Daenerys emerges like a phoenix from Drogo’s pyre, to conquer Slaver’s Bay. 

In ASOIAF,  the permanence of any given death is often negotiable, either due to mystical forces or narrative misdirection. Yet regardless of what kind of death our characters experience, it never leaves them unchanged. That is a rule our author adheres to very strongly. So yes, poor Frog has undergone a death  - at the very least a symbolic one. And possibly an actual one. The arc of that Quentyn might well be concluded, therefore. But as for the Quentyn we could potentially see in TWOW, he would begin a new arc, transformed. It won’t take away from that other Quentyn’s arc, just as Reek’s arc doesn’t ‘detract’ from Theon’s in ACOK. I really don’t see how it’s possible to reject outright an idea that essentially just reinforces one of George’s central themes.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Sandy Clegg

[Springwatch]

17 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Okay.  But what was Gerris secret objection to Barry's scheme?  And what was Archie's secret solution to Gerris' objection?

There's an open objection that the Windblown would kill them in revenge for their losses. There's an unspoken objection that they'd be better off refusing go, because Barristan would be a fool to hang sons of the lords of Dorne and Quentyn's friends. He needs allies.

14 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Again, no faking is involved, other than playing along with a mistake.

There is certainly a point to not telling Barristan that Frog is at large or what he is trying to do.  If people knew what Frog was trying to do, all sorts of people would want to stop him.

If Quentyn leaves without his friends (and why wouldn't they follow?) - they don't know if he has been seen or not. He probably has, because there's no direct access to the outdoors; he has to climb a staircase. If he leaves with a dragon, he will definitely be seen, because everyone will be looking at the dragons.

So there's no point in pretending Quent is dead.

14 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Tatters already wants the dragons dead.  And nobody has even tamed them yet.  If someone were to actually try to tame one, and make progress, the situation would become critical.

I'm not familiar with this angle; I thought Tatters was genuine. He sent his best men. He does want Pentos. Have I missed an explanation somewhere?

14 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

At what point did Dany tame Drogon?  When they take off together, Dany is not completely in control.  But she is certainly made a significant step.

Frog seemed to be making progress with Viserion when Rhaegal attached Frog.

Viserion looked at him. That's not much progress. Rhaegal looked at him too.

14 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I'm just guessing, but I would imagine the next thing that happened is that Viserion defended Frog by attacking Rhaegal.

I see no reason to suppose that Frog succeeded in taming two dragons. 

He's between two angry dragons - he doesn't need both of them tamed, but he definitely needs them subdued, or calmed.

He's facing the wrong dragon anyway, and not likely to turn his back on the dragon that set him on fire.

Oh yes, and Quent is on fire. He doesn't have Targ fire affinity. He tested himself on a candle flame - he didn't find it beautiful as Targs do; he was afraid and the pain was unbearable.

Which leaves the remote (but fun) possibility that Viserion fell in love with Quent at first sight, and was tamed at once and more completely than even Dany could manage. No sign of that though.

14 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Not interested in that topic.

There is alot more than that.  And no, it's not explicit.  It's implicit. 

And yes, at the end of the passage, she gives up hope in Frog and tells him to go home.  She does not think he has it in him.

But he remembers.

It's not an invitation to pick a dragon and walk away with it. Dany is very aware of the value of her dragons, as per negotiations in Astapor and Qarth.

13 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Yes, Dany does hint to Frog that he could become a dragon rider, though she eventually decides he does not have it in him.  Frog even remembers the hint, when deciding on his course of action.  Is there another interpretation of the following?

(Context - Dany SECRETLY escorts Frog to see her dragons, after telling her handmaids that she is answering a call of nature.  4 guards come only because Barristan insists.) 

(While descending).

DANY:  The dragon has three heads,  My marriage need not be the end of all your hopes. I know why you are here.

FROG:  For you.

DANY:  No.  For fire and blood.

(At the pit, she leads Frog ALONE into the Pit.  She orders the guards to remain behind.  Frog turns white the instant he enters).

DANY: They frighten me as well. There is no shame in that. My children have grown wild and angry in the dark.

FROG:  You … you mean to ride them?

DANY:  One of them.[....] Balerion had other riders after Aegon died … but no rider ever flew two dragons.

FROG: They are ... they are fearsome creatures.

DANY: They are dragons, Quentyn.  (kisses Frog on both cheeks)   And so am I.

FROG:  I … I have the blood of the dragon in me as well, Your Grace. I can trace my lineage back to the first Daenerys, [....]

(Unfortunately, this leads to a discussion of Water Gardens, which is not what Dany wants to hear.  She leads him away from the pit, thinking, he does not belong here, he never should have come).

Later, Frog takes the hint.

FROG (to Archie): “The dragon has three heads,” she said to me. “My marriage need not be the end of all your hopes,” she said. “I know why you are here. For fire and blood.” I have Targaryen blood in me, you know that. I can trace my lineage back—

GERRIS:  Fuck your lineage.

See, quotes are fun. Thank you.

[Gilbert Green]

4 hours ago, Springwatch said:

There's an open objection that the Windblown would kill them in revenge for their losses. There's an unspoken objection that they'd be better off refusing go, because Barristan would be a fool to hang sons of the lords of Dorne and Quentyn's friends. He needs allies.

I think the exchange can fairly be taken as a clue that Archie and Gerris know something that they don't want to say in front of Barristan.

If your angle is "yes, but it does not prove that absolutely", then fair enough.  But that's true of any clue supporting any theory, including "Sandor is alive" and "R+L=J"

But I find you explanations a poor fit for the clue.  There is no reason not to state the "Tatters will kill us" angle openly; and in fact it has already been stated openly.  Your other angle makes no sense; their city is under siege and they are all likely to die if the city falls; Doran is too far away to help; and Doran does not give a rat's whisker about Archie & Gerris anyhow.  Also, Archie's words implies he can guess what Gerris is thinking, and how can he possibly guess something that makes so little sense? 

There is no absolute proof, only subtle clues.  There will always be plausible deniability.

[Gilbert Green]

6 hours ago, Springwatch said:

If Quentyn leaves without his friends (and why wouldn't they follow?) - they don't know if he has been seen or not. He probably has, because there's no direct access to the outdoors; he has to climb a staircase. If he leaves with a dragon, he will definitely be seen, because everyone will be looking at the dragons.

 

Who exactly will "definitely see him"? 

The Windblown?  They ran away, and they have not appeared since to report what they did or did not see.

Guards at the pyramid?  We have no indication that Viserion met any guards on his way out.  And if they did, the first thing they would have seen was his snaky head rounding some corner and/or his dazzling flames.  And they likely would have fled before getting the chance to notice some dark shadow nestled behind his wings (or wherever Frog was). 

Do you mean after he leaves the pyramid?  Yes, the dragons were "definitely seen".   As flames in the distance.  At night time.  That was directly reported in the text IIRC.

Rhaegal was definitely seen.  Because people actually tried to fight him when he entered a pyramid.  But Rhaegal killed most of them, if not all of them.  And then destroyed the pyramid.  Anyway, my guess is that Frog would be with Viserion and not with Rhaegal.

Viserion was also noticed breaking into a pyramid.  And again, the first part of him that would have been seen entering the pyramid was his fire-breathing head and snaky neck.  But the inhabitants of that pyramid simply fled, and did not stick around for a closer look.  They certainly did not search the top of the pyramid to see if anyone was hanging out on the steps in the general vicinity of the dragon's entry point.

Why didn't Archie and Gerris follow?  I don't know.  I was not there.  It is only a theory, and GRRM will fill in the details, not me.  Maybe Frog said "don't follow me".   Maybe Viserion left first (with Frog) and Rhaegal blocked the way, fried the BBRM, then left by the same route.  There was all sorts of chaotic stuff going on, involving 2 dangerous dragons and several hostile Windblown.  And it is not as though there are unlimited escape routes to choose from.  And maybe they would have tried to follow had not the guards not found them.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

 

7 hours ago, Springwatch said:

So there's no point in pretending Quent is dead.

I already explained the point.  You ignored it an are now talking past me.  That's a hater game.  Please don't play hater games.   If you're not interested in discussion, find a theory that interests you more.  It's only a theory.  If you are so sure the theory is wrong, then you've got nothing to worry about.  And if you are so sure the theory is ultimately wrong, then there is surely no harm in acknowledging points raised by your adversaries.

I'll try to be patient and restate and rephrase and elaborate.  Frog & Co. just tried to steal two dragons in a conspiracy involving the Windblown, who are enemies of the besieged city.  They conspired with Dany's enemies to put two dragons on a ship, and take them away from the city.  Uncontrolled dragons are not much use.  But still, they are Dany's dragons.  Dany, at least, thinks they are important, and Barristan is loyal to Dany.   

Barristan has every reason to try to stop Frog if he knows Frog is still at large.  No way does he want to let his enemies get a dragon.  As it stands, his orders are to leave Viserion alone, in his abandoned pyramid.  But that's only because Barristan does not know that Frog is with Viserion.

Oh, and what's more, Frog & Co. murdered some guards.  Guards loyal to Dany.

Archie and Gerris are under arrest, and so is the BBRM (despite the gentle treatment occasioned by his supposed rank and medical condition).  If A&G are loyal to Frog, no way do they want to let Barristan know that BBRM is not Frog, and that Frog is still at large.  And even if you think "no way" is too strong, it is at least plausible that (rightly or wrongly) they do not want Barristan to know.

Additionally, besides Barristan, there are a whole bunch of other people who will not be too happy about Frog taming and controlling a dragon.  The Queen's enemies, inside and outside the City, have no reason to trust Frog either.  Almost anyone who suspects Frog is making progress with a dragon is going to want to stop him before he succeeds.

Seriously, is that not a fair answer to your objection?   I'm not asking you to concede the theory is true.  Just give an inch.  Just so I know you're not a hater.  Because there is little point in fighting with haters.  Waste of their time.  Waste of mine.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

7 hours ago, Springwatch said:

I'm not familiar with this angle; I thought Tatters was genuine. He sent his best men. He does want Pentos. Have I missed an explanation somewhere?

Well, you can't have missed the part where people remark that Tatters is more likely to take heads than make deals.  Because you keep bringing that up yourself.

Moreover.

One of Tatters' men shot at a dragon, enraging it.    And he did it while Frog and Co. were with the dragons and trying to interact with them.

Archie to Barristan:  "Then one of the crossbowmen let fly. Maybe they meant to kill the dragons all along and were only using us to get to them.  You never know with Tatters."

 

[Alester Florent]

19 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Nobody, however, has suggested a single thing that Gerris and Archie would need to discuss privately.  They just hide behind generalizations like the one's you make above.   GRRM took the time to write these lines.  I think they could be significant.  You think they are completely meaningless.  Words are wind, after all.   Not saying you are necessarily wrong.

In real life I would tend to agree with you more.  But this is a work of literature, and GRRM took the trouble to write this down.  It could be a clue.  Not all words are wind after all.  And if GRRM took the trouble to write these words, it could be because there was indeed something that they needed to say to each other privatesly.

I think the response by Arch and Gerris is such a normal thing to say in such a situation that there is just as much merit as discussing what secrets a character is hiding when they say "hello" in a given scene. Not every line is imbued with hidden meaning. Some of it is just moving the scene forwards in a believable way.

It's this kind of thing that bothers me about the full-on crackpot theories (i.e. those that flatly contradict the text as generally understood as opposed to those that try to build around it). Too often they seem to be a theory in search of a mystery to solve. I know that Ockham's razor doesn't always apply in storytelling but I think the "orthodox" version of events fits together perfectly neatly without any need for extrapolation or additional explanation, whereas Quentyn's being alive requires all sorts of suppositions about what has or hasn't been said or done that we're not told as well as applying an undue level of suspicion to perfectly unsuspicious lines.

Because really the theory has no actual basis in the text beyond "these guys wanted to talk in private before accepting a possible death mission, so they obviously have something to hide" and then spinning out a whole theory about what they could be hiding, relying on the possibility of unreliable narration to assume that pretty much everything we're told in the chapter is inaccurate and what we see in the previous one isn't what we thought we saw, in service of an outcome of which there is no evidence at all. Seriously, there is no evidence that Quentyn is actually alive. If we assume that Gerris and Arch have something to hide from Barristan - which is a big if in itself - it could be any number of things of which Quentyn's being alive is only one and I haven't seen anything put forward that supports that idea more than any other possibility.

That's without actually getting into the storytelling or characterisation implications.

I actually find Lemongate less of a stretch because that is at least based on an identifiable inconsistency in the text. I think some of the theories that have been spun out of Lemongate are more far-fetched and more narratively damaging (if Quentyn comes back I think that would be bad from a storytelling perspective; if some of the Lemongate theories are correct I'll be throwing the book away in disgust) but they at least have a foundation of something beyond "what if?"

 

 

Anyway, and on the question of Quentyn apparently taming Viserion and then hiding: why? Surely the whole point of his claiming Viserion was to make a point of doing so, to impress his credentials upon Dany and her supporters, and attempt to enforce his terms. Why on earth would he want to keep that a secret?

[Gilbert Green]

BARRISTAN POINTS OUT A CLUE

(Barry questioning Arch & Gerris, in their cell.  Archie and Gerris have been fairly forthcoming so far)

BARRY:  What did Prince Quentyn promise the Tattered Prince in return for all this help?

GERRIS:  ----- (looks at Archie).

ARCHIE: ----- (looks at his hands).

BARRY:  Pentos.  He promised him Pentos. Say it. No words of yours can help or harm Prince Quentyn now.

ARCHIE (unhappily):  Aye,  It was Pentos. They made marks on a paper, the two of them.

(In case you missed it, Barry is arguing that their silence makes no sense, because Frog is dead.  The converse of this, of course, is that if Frog were alive, their silence would make more sense).

But yes, like all subtle clues, it has plausible deniability.  "That does not necessarily mean ...." etc. etc. etc.

[Gilbert Green]

9 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Viserion looked at him. That's not much progress. Rhaegal looked at him too.

It's not just that.  It's that Frog faced down Viserion, and struck Viserion full in the face with a whip, and yelled at Viserion, and Viserion did not instantly kill Frog.

No, Viserion's response was not unambiguously friendly.  Not quite the reaction of a timid whipped puppy.  But it was better than the response Dany got when she struck Drogon full in the face with a whip.  You want me to draw up the quotes so we can compare Viserion's reaction to Drogon's reaction?

I'm not the only one who got the impression that Frog was making progress with Viserion.  Many people who believe Frog is dead have reached the same conclusion.  Even those who believe that Frog is dead believe that it was Rhaegal, and not Viserion, who fatally injured him.

9 hours ago, Springwatch said:

He's between two angry dragons - he doesn't need both of them tamed, but he definitely needs them subdued, or calmed.

He's facing the wrong dragon anyway, and not likely to turn his back on the dragon that set him on fire.

He DID turn his back on the dragon he hit in the face with a whip.  And we actually don't know which dragon set him on fire.  Rhaegal only hit him with "furnace wind".  I tend to agree that it was probably Rhaegal who set Frog on fire, but that's only because I had the impression that Frog was making progress with Viserion.  Which you just denied.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.  Yes, obviously things are going according to the original plan. 

But the scene ends at this point, and we don't actually know what happened next.  GRRM has deliberately created a gap in the action.  And he can fill in that gap when the future-reveal occurs.

9 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Oh yes, and Quent is on fire. He doesn't have Targ fire affinity. He tested himself on a candle flame - he didn't find it beautiful as Targs do; he was afraid and the pain was unbearable.

Frog does not seem to be a mad pyromaniac.  And maybe that's a good thing.  On the other hand, when he sleeps, he does dream of fire and blood.  See text.

And I thought it was clearly established that Targs are not fire-immune in a general sense.  They just have one-off mystical experience(s).

On the Dothraki sea, when Dany muses on her idea that she has had 2 such experiences, there is no indication she thinks she has some kind of constant fire immunity.

9 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Which leaves the remote (but fun) possibility that Viserion fell in love with Quent at first sight, and was tamed at once and more completely than even Dany could manage. No sign of that though.

Dany hit Drogon full in the face with a whip.  Drogon roared back.  Within a minute or less they were leaving the scene together.  Nothing about the scenario suggests that Dany is completely in control.  Obviously, she is not.

Frog hit Viserion full in the face with a whip.  Viserion hissed back.  Theory holds that within a minute or two or three or four or ten they were leaving the scene together.  Nothing about the scenario suggests that Frog is completely in control.

Viserion has met Frog before.  Dany brought Frog to the pit specifically for the purpose of introducing Frog to the dragons.  And Viserion saw Dany kiss Frog on the cheeks, which she probably did just to show the dragons she was friendly.  And now Dany is far away, and in the process of bonding with Drogon, and is unavailable to Viserion (because no rider ever flew two dragons)

Rhaegal and Viserion fight all the time.  What's so implausible about Viserion attacking Rhaegal after Rhaegal attacks Frog?   For all we know Viserion would have done the same for Brown Ben Plumm.  It need not imply a complete and instant dragon bond. 

Edited July 25, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

9 hours ago, Springwatch said:

It's not an invitation to pick a dragon and walk away with it. Dany is very aware of the value of her dragons, as per negotiations in Astapor and Qarth.

See, quotes are fun. Thank you.

You're welcome.

However, there's some goalpost moving here.

Yes, Dany did hint to Frog that he could become a dragonrider.  That's what you challenged me to prove and that's what I have proven.

No, Dany did not invite Frog to conspire with her enemies to put the dragons on a ship and sail away with them.  So Barristan is perfectly within his rights to place them all under arrest and treat them as enemies of his queen.  And Archie and Gerris know this.

Which is exactly why Archie and Gerris would not be too quick to tell Barristan that Frog is still at large.  But you seem to forget that when convenient.  But now you are shoving it in my face as if it were inconsistent with my position.  Which it is not.

[Craving Peaches]

Viserion is sweet-natured as far as dragons go, so had Rhaegal not intervened, Quentyn could have made real progress with him in my opinion.

[Gilbert Green]

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I think the response by Arch and Gerris is such a normal thing to say in such a situation that there is just as much merit as discussing what secrets a character is hiding when they say "hello" in a given scene.

That goes too far, surely.  Yes, words are wind.  But the more words GRRM writes, the more likely they are supposed to mean something.  And this was more than a single word.

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Not every line is imbued with hidden meaning. Some of it is just moving the scene forwards in a believable way.

I agree completely.  When GRRM plants subtle clues, he intends them to have plausible deniability.  He plants them like needles in the haystack, and surrounds them with hay.  Smoke, mirrors, misdirection.

So yes, this clue has plausible deniability.  Either because GRRM planned it that way, or because  it is not a clue at all.  It could just be some hay.

The same of course goes for the subtle clues that cited in support of popular theories.

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

It's this kind of thing that bothers me about the full-on crackpot theories (i.e. those that flatly contradict the text as generally understood as opposed to those that try to build around it). Too often they seem to be a theory in search of a mystery to solve. I know that Ockham's razor doesn't always apply in storytelling but I think the "orthodox" version of events fits together perfectly neatly without any need for extrapolation or additional explanation, whereas Quentyn's being alive requires all sorts of suppositions about what has or hasn't been said or done that we're not told as well as applying an undue level of suspicion to perfectly unsuspicious lines.

The above is a cut-and-paste objection to any theory you don't like. 

Substitute a word here and there and it could be applied to R+L=J or the Gravedigger theory.  Except those are popular and site-endorsed theories, and hence considered "orthodox" and not "crackpot".

No attempt has been made to actually engage with the theory.  Presumably because it does not interest you.  Which is fine. 

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Because really the theory has no actual basis in the text beyond "these guys wanted to talk in private before accepting a possible death mission, so they obviously have something to hide" and then spinning out a whole theory ....

Did you really just say that?  Is that really the only point that has been raised in support of the theory?

This goes beyond being "merely unconvinced", IMHO.

@Craving Peaches, I offer you Exhibit C.

[Gilbert Green]

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I actually find Lemongate less of a stretch because that is at least based on an identifiable inconsistency in the text. I think some of the theories that have been spun out of Lemongate are more far-fetched and more narratively damaging (if Quentyn comes back I think that would be bad from a storytelling perspective; if some of the Lemongate theories are correct I'll be throwing the book away in disgust) but they at least have a foundation of something beyond "what if?"

Nice of you to concede that there might be something to Lemongate now that GRRM has confirmed Lemongate.  But there was a time when the haters were in complete denial, and employed precisely the same sorts of rhetoric against it.  Some will still do that.

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Anyway, and on the question of Quentyn apparently taming Viserion and then hiding: why? Surely the whole point of his claiming Viserion was to make a point of doing so, to impress his credentials upon Dany and her supporters, and attempt to enforce his terms. Why on earth would he want to keep that a secret?

This has been asked and answered many times.  But ignoring your opponents and talking past them is a standard hater tactic.  It was done with Lemongate.  It is being done now.

Of course, this does not mean that the theory is necessarily true.  If you were "merely unconvinced", there would be no harm in acknowledging the points that have failed to convince you.

[Alester Florent]

47 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

The above is a cut-and-paste objection to any theory you don't like.

Substitute a word here and there and it could be applied to R+L=J or the Gravedigger theory.  Except those are popular and site-endorsed theories, and hence considered "orthodox" and not "crackpot".

No.

R+L=J is a different species of theory. The question "who is Jon Snow's mother?" is one that the books have explicitly invited us to ask, a mystery that exists within the scope of the novels themselves. Other examples of such mysteries (some solved, some not) include:

• Why was Jon Arryn killed?
• Who hired the catspaw?
• Who is Varys working for?
• Is Aegon the real deal?
• Who poisoned the locusts?

Some theories that address these questions are obviously crazy ("Joffrey poisoned the locusts!") but they are seeking to answer questions that the books are explicitly asking.

Then there are theories which address questions which we might consider the text is implicitly asking: "Why does Dany remember a lemon tree when lemons don't grow in Braavos?" "Why do Renly's eyes change colour?" "Who is the gravedigger and why is Stranger there?" and so on. Again, some of the theories might be crazy ("Renly is a Faceless Man") and some of the answers in actuality might be quite prosaic ("GRRM made a continuity error") but again there is at least some meat for the theory to hook onto.

There are other theories which seek to do a kind of meta-textual critical analysis not of the plot but of themes and structure and so forth. The importance of colour (whether black/white or RBG), linguistic connections and clues, easter eggs, real-life references, etc. And, again, there's room for craziness here ("If you take every third mention of a colour and then spell it backwards and remove only 1000 letters it's an anagram of 'ELVIS LIVES' - GRRM is trying to tell us something!").

But craziness, or crackpot-ness, as it were, is determined by the quality of the theory itself, the evidence that can be produced in its favour, and how reasonable the theory seems based on the known facts. The Gravedigger theory, for instance, is straightforward and requires no particularly creative interpretation of the text itself. It's just an explanation that makes a lot of sense.

This theory, though, is in my view answering a question that hasn't been asked, which is different from all the above. At best, it is the second type of theory (answering the implicit question of what Gerris and Arch are hiding from Barry) but I dispute that the question is even there. But even from that point, it still has to be judged on its inherent quality and I am unpersuaded that there is any evidence in the books themselves to indicate that Quentyn is alive even if we assume that Gerris and Arch are hiding something.

Quote

No attempt has been made to actually engage with the theory.  Presumably because it does not interest you.  Which is fine. 

I've said a fair amount engaging with the theory. Maybe not in that post, but I would hope I'm not required to repeat myself every post, or, worse, come up with a fresh counterpoint every time I want to continue the conversation.

Quote

 

 

Did you really just say that?  Is that really the only point that has been raised in support of the theory?

 

It's the only actually substantive point I've seen raised that suggests there is any kind of mystery here to be solved. Everything else is in service of answering the question the ambiguity here supposedly presents.

A number of supposed gaps in the narrative have been pointed out but they're only gaps in the narrative if you think there's a reason to look for gaps in the first place. Otherwise they're just sensible narrative decisions to cut fat from the book (which lord knows ADwD needed more of), a consequence of the structure the books use (the limited POVs meaning we never get and never would have got Arch or Gerris's view of things) or fading to black to avoid writing something extremely difficult and unpleasant, like the internal thoughts of someone being burned alive (again, some might say GRRM should do this more often, especially with his sex scenes).

If there is some other big flashing question-mark for us to investigate then by all means point it out but I haven't seen one mentioned.
 

Quote

 

This goes beyond being "merely unconvinced", IMHO.

@Craving Peaches, I offer you Exhibit C.

 

Well, "unconvinced" may imply that there is scope for me to be convinced, which in the absence of more or better evidence I do not think is possible. But in its literal sense of "I am not convinced by this theory" it is accurate. And you may safely assume I am applying some British understatement.

I do not hate the theory. I have no particularly strong feelings about it and when I am not looking at the forum and therefore seeing it in front of me I devote no thought to it. The more aggressive its proponents become and the more they try to write off reasonable objections as "just hating" though, the more annoying I find it, or rather, them. But the same goes for any theory, even those I actually like.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Alester Florent

[Alester Florent]

15 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Nice of you to concede that there might be something to Lemongate now that GRRM has confirmed Lemongate.  But there was a time when the haters were in complete denial, and employed precisely the same sorts of rhetoric against it.  Some will still do that.

You say "now GRRM has confirmed Lemongate" as if this is a recent development. I don't know when he said that, but it was certainly no later than 2015, and so far as I can tell you joined the forum last year.

To be clear, I accept (and always have done) that there is an inconsistency there regarding the lemons. I am as yet unconvinced that there is anything more to this than another continuity error (with subsequent mentions of lemon provenance being effectively easter eggs for those alert enough to have noticed), or that if it is an intentional discrepancy, that the answer is not relatively prosaic (they lived in the Sealord's palace; it was a present from Oberyn when he came to broker the alliance; etc.). I tend to prefer straightforward explanations that make minimal assumptions not in the text than great convoluted ones with a lot of speculative moving parts.

Quote

Of course, this does not mean that the theory is necessarily true.  If you were "merely unconvinced", there would be no harm in acknowledging the points that have failed to convince you.

All of them. I am not convinced by any of the points that have been raised in support of the theory. I think I have made that clear.

[Gilbert Green]

23 hours ago, Evolett said:

Quentyn still being alive is rather improbable. I don't see the point because he's served his narrative purpose imo.

Well, that depends on what his narrative purpose is.  Which is for GRRM to know and us to find out.

I do have ideas on what Frog's ultimate narrative purpose might be.  But I hesitate to mention for fear of opening new cans of worms.  The fact is, I became convinced that Frog was alive long before I guessed these new ideas.  Which (if you like) could mean that I am building a house of cards still higher, or diving deeper down a rabbit hole.

My only point being that a theory can be true or false, regardless of whether a theorist can guess its ultimate narrative purpose.

23 hours ago, Evolett said:

Most of all, his short arc serves to remind us of the damage caused to the psyche of children who become hostages to ensure their father's good behaviour or in Quentyn's case, sent off to pay the "blood price" for a crime committed by some member of their family. Like Theon, Quentyn grows up away from his family and comes to see Anders Yronwood as a father and Cletus as a best friend and brother.

I do tend to guess these details are highly significant.  But not necessarily for the reasons you suppose.