How controversial is the Quentyn being alive theory on here?

[Gilbert Green]

@Sandy Clegg, I do like that GRRM says he will not change course if people guess his surprises.

One thing he does not explicitly say is that he will not change course if people guess his surprises, and those theories are hugely unpopular.  Hope so.

I have little doubt that "Frog is Alive" is hugely unpopular.  Far less popular even than "The House with the Red Door is Not in Braavos", or any theory that involves Daario.

Quentyn generally is probably pretty unpopular.  He was cut from the show.  I guess HBO had its reasons.  Young Griff was also cut, IIRC.

[Sandy Clegg]

7 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Yes, in such comments, I don't think we should try to guess what theories he has in mind. 

Good point - although there I was actually l just referring to my own insertion of that quote as not being my defence of said theory. Sorry - was a bit ambiguous.

 

7 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

And obviously he DOES want to surprise us.

It appears so. And there’s naturally resistance to this idea because of the delay. Twelve years since ADWD means popular interpretations and theories become as much ‘canon’ as the books. Red herrings become golden idols. We are invested in the narrative we’ve collectively created on the internet and it does seem that it’s kind of calcified the desire to think anew. 

 

[Springwatch]

18 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

That's very strategic of you.   You talk as though you are at war.  Which you are, I guess.

Take a few deep breaths and repeat after me.

IT IS ONLY A THEORY

IT IS ONLY A THEORY

IT IS ONLY A THEORY

IT IS ONLY A THEORY

You could have given an inch, and acknowledged my point.  And still raised these objections.  But a hater will never give an inch, or acknowledge anything an opponent says.  It is war to them.

@Craving Peaches, I offer you Exhibit D.

 

15 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Otherwise, pretending that Dany did not have this in mind when she led him to the dragonpit is a strange denialism.  But I get it.  This is war for you, and you will not give an inch.

Why are you still banging on about haters and war? All I'm saying is that the probable event happened, the wildly improbable event didn't happen. That's not war, that's more of a null hypothesis.

The boot is on the other foot, I think.

[Alester Florent]

For all the talk about unpopular vs popular theories, and how unpopular theories are damned as bad for being unpopular, it's worth remembering that theories don't spring into life as either "popular" or "unpopular" from the outset. While some theories are independently developed by a number of people having identified textual clues (and I think "Lyanna is Jon's mother" is one such), most of them are put forward by one person or a small group of people and then become either popular or unpopular.

The theories which fail to gain popularity are in general those which have minimal textual evidence, are poorly reasoned, seem to run counter to the apparent themes of the story, or all of the above. Or the ones which are just totally batshit ("all the characters are actually fish, because it never says they aren't"). In other words, theories that have been around for a few years and are unpopular are generally unpopular because they are bad.

Even Sandy Clegg, who is one of the more imaginative and creative thinkers on the forum at the moment and seems to enjoy chasing gossamer-thin strands of evidence and reasoning in search of wild theories (I do not mean this in a derogatory way!) is a professed sceptic on this theory. That should tell us something about how much there actually is to it. I'm of the mind that calling the evidence on this theory "gossamer-thin" is flattering, because the evidence is actually nonexistent, but at best, the basis for the theory is insubstantial. That is the main reason why people call it bad.

This thread wasn't originally to discuss the Quentyn-is-alive theory in detail, as I understand it (although that has happened), but to determine how controversial the theory is and why it's controversial. I think we've done that. We've got here a bunch of people who have in some cases talked at some length about why they don't agree with the theory, and, by my count, one poster who has been extremely vociferous in support of it, calling those who disagree with it "haters". The actual discussion of the theory seems now to become repetitious: no new arguments in favour of the theory are being cited and those which have been have apparently failed to convince the sceptics. I think the question in the OP has been answered.

[Gilbert Green]

50 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Why are you still banging on about haters and war?

Because you talked as if you were at war.  You said if you gave an inch I would take a mile.  As if there were anything actually at stake.  And you said this in justification of never acknowledging any points.

[Springwatch]

9 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Because you talked as if you were at war. 

I disagreed with you. I asked you to back up your ideas from the text. That is all normal. Stop making out I'm doing something abnormal.

9 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

You said if you gave an inch I would take a mile.  As if there were anything actually at stake.  And you said this in justification of never acknowledging any points.

You twisted my words before (the gaslighting exchange, remember?). You called me a hater, lots of times. So I'm not going to flatter your arguments. You'll have to do that yourself.

[Gilbert Green]

35 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

For all the talk about unpopular vs popular theories, and how unpopular theories are damned as bad for being unpopular, it's worth remembering that theories don't spring into life as either "popular" or "unpopular" from the outset.

I never said it was damned for being unpopular.  I merely said it was unpopular.  Which it is.

40 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

The theories which fail to gain popularity are in general those which have minimal textual evidence, are poorly reasoned, seem to run counter to the apparent themes of the story, or all of the above. Or the ones which are just totally batshit ("all the characters are actually fish, because it never says they aren't"). In other words, theories that have been around for a few years and are unpopular are generally unpopular because they are bad.

No-one hates a theory because it is bad, though.  They merely smile at it bemusedly. 

No-one worries that if they give an inch to a bad theory, it will take a mile.

41 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Even Sandy Clegg, who is one of the more imaginative and creative thinkers on the forum at the moment and seems to enjoy chasing gossamer-thin strands of evidence and reasoning in search of wild theories (I do not mean this in a derogatory way!) is a professed sceptic on this theory.

It's only a theory.  Why shouldn't he be a skeptic?

45 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

This thread wasn't originally to discuss the Quentyn-is-alive theory in detail, as I understand it (although that has happened), but to determine how controversial the theory is and why it's controversial. I think we've done that. We've got here a bunch of people who have in some cases talked at some length about why they don't agree with the theory, and, by my count, one poster who has been extremely vociferous in support of it, calling those who disagree with it "haters".

So according to you we're not here to actually discuss the theory.  Only how controversial it is.  But if I answer the OP's question and say that people hate the theory (they do) this somehow makes me a bad person.

[Gilbert Green]

2 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

I disagreed with you. I asked you to back up your ideas from the text. That is all normal. Stop making out I'm doing something abnormal.

I never called you abnormal. 

[Gilbert Green]

FROG LIVES: A version of “Quentyn is Alive” theory.

This is my attempt write up a variant of a theory begun by Fearsome Fred (“Did Quentyn Succeed?” and “The ‘Dragon-Rider’”); and developed by Preston Jacobs (“Quentyn is Alive”).  It is one of the most unpopular theories out there.  I think even Preston Jacobs has distanced himself from it.

SUMMARY OF THE THEORY

Tatters and Frog, both princes, have similar builds - ordinary looking, average height, short of leg. Tatters, incognito, is part of the 9-man team that invades the Pit to steal the dragons. Frog confronts Viserion, but is attacked by Rhaegal, and catches fire. Frog survives with minor injuries. Archie is more seriously injured, trying to put out the flames on Frog’s hair and clothes.

Frog starts to bond with Viserion, and (as happened to Dany) is carried off, leaving burnt bodies of the dragons’ victims (Tatters and the crossbowman).

Gerris is furious that Tatters and his men attacked and angered the dragons.  Guards find him is standing over Tatters with a drawn sword. He drops his sword he sees the guards.

Viserion takes a pyramid as his lair, and Frog joins him there.  Tatters spends 3 days dying, on Dany’s bed, with Missandei as his nurse. He utters only a few occasional words, and says nothing that causes Missandei to suspect he is not Frog.

After Barristan sends Archie and Gerris to Tatters, Frog will assume the identity of the missing Tatters.  He will ride Viserion over Meereen streaming a tattered cloak, and cause the Windblown to switch sides.

A LIST OF POINTS/CLUES IN FAVOR OF THE THEORY

1.  GRRM spent multiple chapters developing Frog’s story and backstory, when he is supposed to be trying push his story forwards.  Was it really just for a good sob?

2.  HOTU tells Dany, directly and through Rhaegar, that the dragon has 3 heads.

3.  The “three heads of the dragon” of prophesy are associated historically with three dragonriders.

4.  Dany invites Frog to the dragonpit, tells him that he has come for fire and blood; that the dragon has 3 heads; and that no rider ever flew 2 dragons, blatantly hinting that she needs a dragonrider more than she needs a husband.

5.  GRRM has hinted that the story is gearing up for a “second dance of the dragons”.  The first Dance of the Dragons, as we know from F&B, was a destructive Westerosi civil war involving multiple dragonriders on each side.

6.  Tatters tells Frog, regarding his cloak, for no particular reason, “And if I want to move unseen, I need only slip it off to become plain and unremarkable.”  Either words are wind, or this foreshadows something.

7.  Before the raid, most of the Windblown are masked, and only Caggo and Meris are recognizable.  Frog asks Meris where Tatters is, and she says he is at the ship for transporting the dragons.  Archie later suspects that the Windblown’s plan was to kill the dragons all along.  If so, Meris would be lying; as the plan would not involve any ship.

8. Frog’s last POV chapter is called THE DRAGONTAMER.

9. Gerris is set up early on as the “mummer” of the party –  capable of false grief, but not genuine grief; and unaffected by the deaths of friends; “This is still a game to him”.  He glibly tells lies about dead friends while giving a funeral oration.

10. Barristan, sensing Gerris’ deceptive nature, labels hims a “False coin”.

11.  When Barristan visits Archie & Gerris in their cells, to tell them of Frog’s death, Gerris makes a display of grief.  Archie does not.

12.  Barristan is not entirely fooled by Gerris’ emotional theatrics:  “Do you take me for a doting grandfather?” he asks.

13.  When Barristan asks Archie and Gerris what happened in the pit they “exchanged a look” before answering.

14.  Archie gives an accurate summary of Frog’s last POV chapter. But as he approaches the end of what we already know, falters and becomes vague.  Then Gerris, the liar, takes over, saying “And the Windblown blew away.  Quent was screaming, covered in flames, and they were gone. Caggo, Pretty Meris, all but the dead one.”

15.  When Barristan asks what Frog offered Tatters, Archie and Gerris are silent.  Barristan points out that, since Frog is dead, there is no point to their silence.  The converse of this is that if Frog were alive, their silence might make sense.

16.  When  Barristan tries to send Archie & Gerris on a mission to  Tatters, Gerris asks. “Might we have some time to discuss this amongst ourselves.”  Barristan refuses.  Archie says “I’ll do it .... Drink will do it too.   He don’t know it yet, but he will.”  What is Archie referring to?  Both Gerris and Archie have ideas about the mission that they do not want to discuss in front of Barristan.

17.  At the beginning of Frog’s final chapter he “lay abed, staring at his ceiling, dreaming without sleeping, remembering, imagining, twisting beneath his linen coverlet, his mind feverish with thoughts of blood and fire.”

18.  Frog’s final POV moments are surreal, as he watches himself catch fire. A normal person does not get engulfed in a “furnace wind” hot enough to ignite cloth and leather, belatedly realize he is on fire, think “oh”,  and then get scared and belatedly start screaming. The pain would be instant; reflexive; and the heat should instantly blind him.

19. The “Prince” who dies on Dany’s bed, three days later, has an aspect so horrible that only Missandei had the courage to tend him: no lips; pools of pus where his eyes used to be; skull visible in spots burnt flesh had sloughed off.  These injuries are severe enough to make render anyone unrecognizable.

20.  Quentyn is short of leg. He is shorter than Pretty Meris, who stands a thumb under six feet tall. He is described as “ordinary” looking, and less “impressive” than his two Dornish companions, both of whom are described as tall.  A careless reader could get the impression that he is short – but he is merely short of leg.

21.  Tatters seems impressive when he is riding a huge stallion, mounted on a “high saddle”, with his cloak blowing around him. But is perfectly capable of seeming ordinary under other circumstances. This is consistent with a man with short legs and ordinary height.  A careless reader could get the impression that he is tall, but he merely “rides tall” in his “high saddle”.

22. We are early told of Frog “Smiles had never come easy to Quentyn Martell,” but Missandei later says, when he dies “His Dornish gods have taken him home. See? He smiles.”  This clue admittedly, does not make much literal sense (Barristan thinks, how can you tell, he has no lips?).  Still, it is there.

23.  We are later told that when Viserion claimed a pyramid as his lair, the inhabitants fled without opposition.  Hence, Frog may have a fully-stocked, abandoned pyramid, in which to rest and recuperate, and spend quality time with Viserion.

24.  Rhaegal has burnt other people before Frog, but all were non-fatal to that point.

25.  “Burnt bones prove nothing” (about Hazzea) has been cited as a clue of this theory.

26.  Frog struck Viserion full in the face with a whip and yelled at him; and Viserion did not kill Frog instantly.  Viserion’s response is, if anything, far less hostile than Drogon’s was to Dany.

27.  Viserion seemed to like  Brown Ben; which Brown Ben explained by citing distant Targ ancestry.  This could foreshadow that Frog could bond with Viserion.

28.  When Dany faced off against Drogon, she was also hit by “furnace wind” and “was burning”, mirroring the language of Frog’s final POV chapter, and undercutting the assumption that such language necessarily implies death.

29.  When Dany was on the Dothraki sea, she reflects on her belief that her first dragonriding encounter with Drogon was a fire-resistant experience, comparing it to the bonfire.   “The fire burned away my hair, but elsewise it did not touch me. It had been the same in Daznak's Pit.”  This suggests the possibilities that other dragonriders might have similar fire-resistant mystical experiences.

30.  Frog is the “blood of the dragon” through his distant ancestor Dany.

31.  Frog is mockingly called “Prince Frog”, and Dany jokingly asks if he will turn into an enchanted prince, like in the tales.  Perhaps this foreshadows that he will indeed become a Prince ... That Was Promised.

32.  Additionally, Frog’s mother Mellario is a bit of a mystery character.  She is a Norvosi Noblewoman.  According the the World Book, Norvosi Noblewomen shave their heads and wear wigs.  This custom is potentially useful for hiding Valyrian/Blackfyre heritage – meaning Frog might have more “blood of the dragon” than even he suspects.

33.  Alternatively, there are clues (too many to list, but including an argument overheard by Arianne when Quentyn was 3 and still young enough for a baby swap) suggesting that Doran has swapped his Blackfyre son for his Targaryen nephew at a very young age, sent his Targaryen nephew to the Yronwoods in place of his son, and now plots to put his Blackfyre son on the Iron Throne, with co-conspirators Mellario, Varys and Illyrio.  Under this scenario, Frog also has more “blood of the dragon” than he suspects, not through his Blackfyre mother Mellario, but through his Targaryen father Rhaegar.  HOTU, of course, directly told us that Baby Aegon was TPTWP, though Jorah dismissed this because of Aegon's supposed death.

34.  In a WINDS sample chapter, a mysterious event occurs that seems to involve the Windblown switching sides.  Tyrion misses it, as he was in a tent at the time.

35.  Frog is vaguely similar to GRRM in many ways.  Perhaps GRRM likes him just a little more than some fans do.

36.  In the 3 days that burnt-man spends dying, no-one can bear to look at him or be with him, except Missandei who tends him.  So, other than an 11-year old girl, no-one has any particularly good opportunity to notice anything that might be amiss about their assumptions.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Sandy Clegg]

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

seems to enjoy chasing gossamer-thin strands of evidence and reasoning in search of wild theories

I mean, thanks (I think?) but also - hold my beer, because I'm going to wrap up my thoughts on this very soon. I'll probably start a new post because it does go in kind of a new direction. 

Thanks @Gilbert Green @Alester Florent @Springwatch @Nevets et al. I kind of kicked over a hornet's nest with my question, sorry, but hopefully we've all become pretty immune to hornets after all these years on ASOIAF forums. And while this got a little heated, it's nothing compared to some of the exchanges I've seen. I think everyone came out of it with their dignity intact, despite all the talk of haters. You know, there are worse things to be called - in fact I expect to hear a few of them directed towards me in my next post (gulp). 

Time to shake hands and move on I think. See you soon!

Edited July 27, 2023 by Sandy Clegg

[Gilbert Green]

5 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

The theories which fail to gain popularity are in general those which have minimal textual evidence, are poorly reasoned, seem to run counter to the apparent themes of the story, or all of the above.

This could be true in some cases.  But it is all very fuzzy.  And none of it distinguishes the popular theory from the unpopular one.

"Minimal textual evidence" is generous language.  "No textual evidence" is the usual line taken against hated theories.  Either assessment can easily be arrived at by ignoring any evidence cited, and/or claiming it does not count.  As to the more generous "minimal" charge, it only begs the question of how much evidence is enough?  GRRM, after all, DOES want to surprise his readers.  If Missandei had actually come to Ser Barry and said, "Ser B, I'm not 100% sure that burnt man is Ser Q", would that have been subtle enough to surprise anyone?  I think you (or someone) argued that this is the sort of thing he ought to have done.  But he has said, in one of @Sandy Clegg's quotes, that he often aims so that most readers do not even realize there even is a question.

"poorly reasoned" too often means "that does not necessarily prove" or "I can find ways around that" or "I don't want to believe that and you can't force me", a standard that no "subtle" clue, or combination thereof, is likely to meet, even for popular theories. 

"apparent themes of the story" is very fuzzy, and too often indistinguishable from "I don't want that".  The story has all kinds of themes.  For instance, one theme we have seen is a "meek shall inherit" theme, which was presented, at least in outline, in the tale of Egg the Unlikely; or with Jon, who rose to Commander after he stopped acting like he was better than other people.  A similar theme could play out with the humble, dutiful Frog.

 

[Alester Florent]

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

This could be true in some cases.  But it is all very fuzzy.  And none of it distinguishes the popular theory from the unpopular one.

"Minimal textual evidence" is generous language.  "No textual evidence" is the usual line taken against hated theories.  Either assessment can easily be arrived at by ignoring any evidence cited, and/or claiming it does not count.  As to the more generous "minimal" charge, it only begs the question of how much evidence is enough?  GRRM, after all, DOES want to surprise his readers.  If Missandei had actually come to Ser Barry and said, "Ser B, I'm not 100% sure that burnt man is Ser Q", would that have been subtle enough to surprise anyone?  I think you (or someone) argued that this is the sort of thing he ought to have done.  But he has said, in one of @Sandy Clegg's quotes, that he often aims so that most readers do not even realize there even is a question.

Well, that would be very obvious. There are more subtle ways of doing these things though. Have Missandei report to Barry that he said a certain word and she wasn't sure why. Have Barry momentarily entertain curiosity about why a Dornish prince would say/do something that the BBRM does. Maybe after the bit where it's mentioned that Gerris threw his sword away, have Barry wonder why he was even holding it.

They don't have to go anywhere beyond that. The characters don't follow the threads. In most theory situations, the characters don't. But give some clue that there is actually something here to figure out even if that figuring out is trivial.

I know you think that there are such clues. I don't, I really don't. I don't think anything in that chapter is said or done which prompts any kind of question about the identity of BBRM or the version of events we are told. That's without getting into the specifics of the theory itself, which I find highly speculative in and of themselves and don't think add up to anything either. If those clues have been planted, they're subtle in the sense that the Vetinari coat of arms is subtle: even if you are told what you're supposed to be looking at, you still can't actually see it because the details are indistinguishable from the background, so that even if they are technically there they might as well not be.

That's why I said early on that this feels to me like a theory in search of a mystery. It seems to me like it's been reasoned backwards, that someone thought "wouldn't it be cool if Quentyn were alive?" or maybe got excited about fake deaths and started looking at other characters who could conceivably be fake-dead on a technicality, and then went looking for evidence to fit... rather than something which has been worked out by looking at the clues and drawing conclusions.

Quote

"poorly reasoned" too often means "that does not necessarily prove" or "I can find ways around that" or "I don't want to believe that and you can't force me", a standard that no "subtle" clue, or combination thereof, is likely to meet, even for popular theories. 

So I work in law, and that's probably one of the reasons why I place such value on things like the burden and standard of proof and reasoning and evidence when looking at these theories. With that context, let's use an analogy I can understand.

The general standard of proof in criminal matters is "beyond reasonable doubt". That is, on the evidence and associated argument, there are no reasonable grounds for believing otherwise. That's the level of proof you need to convict someone in a criminal court. This standard of proof would be unreasonable to apply to any theories on this forum.

The general standard of proof in civil matters is "on the balance of probabilities", i.e. (on the evidence etc.) it's more likely than not. That's what you need to prove in order to, say, win a claim for breach of contract. I feel like even this is quite a high bar for fan theories, to be honest. While some of the best and best-evidenced ones might clear it, most of them are going to fall short.

There's a third standard, which is applied when the court is considering whether to even allow a case to go to trial: "no reasonable basis" or "no arguable case". This is used to stop the courts getting clogged up with rubbish from vexatious or frivolous litigants who don't stand a chance of winning and are just going to waste everyone's time and money. This is the kind of standard I normally tend to apply to theories on this foru. Clearing this low bar doesn't necessarily mean I think they're right, rather that they're sufficiently serious that they deserve to be allowed to "proceed to trial": that is, they merit a place in the conversation at least until a new book or SSM emerges.

This theory, for me, fails to clear that bar. Were I instructed to bring this as a case in law, I would advise against doing so. Were I tasked to defend this as a case, I would apply to have it struck out at the earliest opportunity. Were I a judge to whom this case were presented, I would throw it out.

Perhaps in some cases where I talk about "reasonable" or "unreasonable" I actually mean "rational". (There is a distinction, but it's a fine one). The main reason I don't is that "irrational" to me sounds ruder and more dismissive.

What I'm usually talking about here is how one point doesn't follow from another, or how a point presented as supporting the case doesn't actually do anything of the sort. To look at that list of 35-odd points above (and no, I'm not going to address all of them) I'll give some examples:

Quote

23.  We are later told that when Viserion claimed a pyramid as his lair, the inhabitants fled without opposition.  Hence, Frog may have a fully-stocked, abandoned pyramid, in which to rest and recuperate, and spend quality time with Viserion.

This is not evidence of anything. Even if we assume that someone is in that pyramid with Viserion, it could be anyone. It could be the Shavepate. It could be the Green Grace. It could be Ned Stark. This is a point which assumes that the theory is correct, and is then cited in support of the same theory. It's entirely circular reasoning. Ditto this one:

Quote

34.  In a WINDS sample chapter, a mysterious event occurs that seems to involve the Windblown switching sides.  Tyrion misses it, as he was in a tent at the time.

Much of this thread has focussed on analysing a conversation in which two characters were tasked with effecting this, by going to the Tattered Prince and requesting that he switch sides. That the Windblown switch sides does not imply anything other than that this mission was successful. Now, if Quentyn were alive and did some magic switcheroo trick or what have you this might have the same effect, but once again that is only necessary if we already assume that the theory is correct and that the explanation we are actually given in the relevant chapter is wrong. The event we're told about makes just as much sense (arguably more sense) in a scenario where Quentyn is dead and events proceed as we've been told than it does in a scenario where he's alive and the Tattered Prince is dead.

And this is the other thing about this kind of theory. They are predicated on the basis that we will effectively throw out everything we already know, including what the text explicitly tells us, in favour of looking for gaps in the text and speculating on them. Then when opponents of the theory are challenged to present evidence, all the evidence they produce (i.e. the actual text) is pre-invalidated in the minds of the theorists because they've already abandoned it in favour of their own theories. The only evidence anyone is allowed to present is that which already supports the theory, thereby making it unfalsifiable.

IRL, we might look at flat-earthers. They demand that we prove the world is round in order to invalidate their "flat-earth" theory but we're not allowed to use the mountains of scientific evidence, or heaven forbid the actual photos, because that's all part of the cover-up or whatever: we need to be looking at what they're not telling us.

(I mean, this theory is still more sensible than flat-earth theories, because at least here it doesn't immediately fail the cui bono test. No flat-earther has ever been able to explain why anyone would bother with the cover-up in their case, even if we assume such a cover-up is even possible. At least here there we can see what the motive for the deception might be, even if the evidence doesn't support it).

Edited July 27, 2023 by Alester Florent

[Nevets]

3 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

  If Missandei had actually come to Ser Barry and said, "Ser B, I'm not 100% sure that burnt man is Ser Q", would that have been subtle enough to surprise anyone?  I think you (or someone) argued that this is the sort of thing he ought to have done.

 

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

Well, that would be very obvious. There are more subtle ways of doing these things though. Have Missandei report to Barry that he said a certain word and she wasn't sure why. Have Barry momentarily entertain curiosity about why a Dornish prince would say/do something that the BBRM does. Maybe after the bit where it's mentioned that Gerris threw his sword away, have Barry wonder why he was even holding it.

Heck, I'd be happy if Barristan merely thinks in his own thoughts that the face is so badly burned he can't really tell it was the prince's face, or something like that.  He could bury it as a kind of throwaway line.  But we don't even get that.  I'm not even convinced that the face is in fact unrecognizable.  And even if you accept that the face is unrecognizable the only other hard fact you have is that his two friends act suspiciously.  Given their actions, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are things they would rather not discuss with Barristan, even if Quentyn is dead.  And even if we get past that, we have to find a way for Quentyn to survive being roasted by a dragon at close range.  Essentially, he has to be immune to dragonfire, for which we have no evidence, only wild speculation.  Definitely a heavy lift; too heavy for me.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Nevets

[Gilbert Green]

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

Well, that would be very obvious. There are more subtle ways of doing these things though. Have Missandei report to Barry that he said a certain word and she wasn't sure why. Have Barry momentarily entertain curiosity about why a Dornish prince would say/do something that the BBRM does. Maybe after the bit where it's mentioned that Gerris threw his sword away, have Barry wonder why he was even holding it.

23 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Heck, I'd be happy if Barristan merely thinks in his own thoughts that the face is so badly burned he can't really tell it was the prince's face, or something like that.  He could bury it as a kind of throwaway line.  But we don't even get that.  I'm not even convinced that the face is in fact unrecognizable.  And even if you accept that the face is unrecognizable the only other hard fact you have is that his two friends act suspiciously. 

You guys don't know your author very well.  This is the author who presented us with Bran & Rickon's heads on spikes, and then blessed us with the following "clues".

• "They're dead, dead, I saw them killed, he tried to shout, I saw their heads dipped in tar, ...". . .(Theon, dreaming of child-headed direwolves).
• "Only Maester Luwin had the stomach to come near. Stone-faced, the small grey man had begged leave to sew the boys' heads back onto their shoulders, so they might be laid in the crypts below with the other Stark dead."

Why are these "clues"?  Because one reveals that the heads were dipped in tar; and the other reveals that only one person had the stomach to come near for a close look.  Looks like GRRM expects the astute reader to ask his own questions.

Turns out Luwin did have doubts about the boys' identities, but we don't find this out until after the reveal.

[Alester Florent]

20 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

You guys don't know your author very well.  This is the author who presented us with Bran & Rickon's heads on spikes, and then blessed us with the following "clues".

• "They're dead, dead, I saw them killed, he tried to shout, I saw their heads dipped in tar, ...". . .(Theon, dreaming of child-headed direwolves).
• "Only Maester Luwin had the stomach to come near. Stone-faced, the small grey man had begged leave to sew the boys' heads back onto their shoulders, so they might be laid in the crypts below with the other Stark dead."

Why are these "clues"?  Because one reveals that the heads were dipped in tar; and the other reveals that only one person had the stomach to come near for a close look.  Looks like GRRM expects the astute reader to ask his own questions.

Turns out Luwin did have doubts about the boys' identities, but we don't find this out until after the reveal.

The biggest clue - a giveaway in fact - is right there in plain sight at the end of the Theon chapter where he displays the heads:

Quote

Theon gazed at them silently while the wind tugged on his cheek with small ghostly hands. The miller's boys had been of an age with Bran and Rickon, alike in size and coloring, and once Reek had flayed the skin from their features and dipped their heads in tar, it was easy to se familiar features in those misshapen lumps of rotting flesh. People were such fools. If we'd said they were ram's heads, they would have seen horns.

 

[Gilbert Green]

As Theon points out "People were such fools. If we'd said they were rams' heads, they would have seen horns." 

I should probably add that line to my list of clues, because really, you ought to know by now what sort of author you are dealing with.

True story.  A young woman, "Laura", is lying in a hospital bed with a head injury after a bus accident.  Staff bring parents to see her, warning them she will look different due to facial swelling.  When she regains consciousness she is asked her name, and says "Whitney".  Don't worry, say all the staff, she's confused, that's normal after a head injury.  When asked her parents' names she gives 2 names her parents don't recognize.  Don't worry, that's normal after a head injury.   "Laura" starts muttering about "fake parents".  Don't worry, etc.  And this nonsense does not go on for a mere 3 days.  It goes on for a month.  Eventually it sinks in that Laura is not Laura.  She really is Whitney, just like she says.  Her real parents think she is dead, and buried her a month ago.

People accept what they are told, and see what they expect to see.  GRRM knows this, and he uses it in his fiction.

I can imagine the BBRM saying to Missandei "I am the tattered prince", and Missandei responding "Yes you are, you poor thing".

But even that does not happen.  Because GRRM reports that no-one but Missandei can bear to be with the BBRM, and he utters only a few words only to make simple requests.  That's clue enough.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

1 minute ago, Alester Florent said:

The biggest clue - a giveaway in fact - is right there in plain sight at the end of the Theon chapter where he displays the heads:

Quote

Theon gazed at them silently while the wind tugged on his cheek with small ghostly hands. The miller's boys had been of an age with Bran and Rickon, alike in size and coloring, and once Reek had flayed the skin from their features and dipped their heads in tar, it was easy to se familiar features in those misshapen lumps of rotting flesh. People were such fools. If we'd said they were ram's heads, they would have seen horns.

Dude.  That's not a clue.  That's THE REVEAL.

[Alester Florent]

1 minute ago, Gilbert Green said:

Dude.  That's not a clue.  That's THE REVEAL.

Right, and it's in the same chapter, a couple of pages on. It's a poor precedent for a fake-death mystery which spans multiple chapters, let alone, as in this case, books.

[Gilbert Green]

29 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Right, and it's in the same chapter, a couple of pages on. It's a poor precedent for a fake-death mystery which spans multiple chapters, let alone, as in this case, books.

I don't see what the timing has to do with the game of fooling the reader, for however long.  Except the longer the wait, the longer the fans have to think, and the tricksier you have to be.

So where's the clue where Brienne looks at the gravedigger, scratches her head, and wonders if he could be anybody significant?  Or the clue where Brienne listens to the Elder Brother tell her Sandor is dead, scratches her head, and wonders out loud if he could be lying or using "certain point of view" tricksy language?''  Or the clue where the novice warns her to watch out for the Elder Brother's metaphorical language.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Alester Florent]

28 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

I don't see what the timing has to do with the game of fooling the reader, for however long.  Except the longer the wait, the longer the fans have to think, and the tricksier you have to be.

There's an obvious category difference between a set-up and reveal within the same chapter and a set-up/reveal between different books. The latter invites (and permits) speculation; the former resolves the issue before the reader has really had time to process it or its significance.

Extending the principle of "fooling the reader" to any occasion the reader is left hanging for even short amounts of time/text, every word in the books is a mystery waiting to be solved and inviting any degree of speculation because you don't know what the next word is going to be until you read it.