How controversial is the Quentyn being alive theory on here?

[Gilbert Green]

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

There's an obvious category difference between a set-up and reveal within the same chapter and a set-up/reveal between different books.

Who cares?  He's fooled you before with the same trick, now he's escalating.

Fool Alester Florent once, shame on GRRM.  Fool Alester Florent twice, shame on Alester Florent.

Same clue even.  Only one person had the stomach to spend time with BBR-man.  Only one person had the stomach to take a closer look at Bran/Rickon's heads.  And he has piled a whole bunch more clues on top of that, none of which are good enough for Mr. Picky.

And it is not as though he even necessarily planned the reveal to be between books.  He apparently intended to finish the battle of Meereen in DANCE, by which point, I guess, there would have been a reveal.

Only one thing can possibly convince you at this point, and that is the reveal. 

That's fine.  It's only a theory.  Let's wait until the next book comes out, and see if the theory is correct.

[Alester Florent]

6 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Who cares?  He's fooled you before with the same trick, now he's escalating.

It's not the same trick. It would be a very different trick.

I'm not the only person who isn't seeing clues here. I'm just one of the few people who's bothered to engage with why I don't think they are clues. I could call you names too, but I won't.

[Gilbert Green]

1 minute ago, Alester Florent said:

I'm not the only person who isn't seeing clues here. I'm just one of the few people who's bothered to engage with why I don't think they are clues.

People see what they want to see.  Let's just wait till the books come out.

[Gilbert Green]

@Alester Florent,

A final question, just to check if I understand where we stand.

I obviously have no problem with you being unconvinced by the theory.  It is only a theory, after all.

But your stance as I understand it is roughly as follows:
-- None of the points or clues I have raised have any weight or value whatsoever.  Not an iota.  Zip.  Zero.  None.   In effect, they are not clues or points at all.  I have, for all practical purposes, said nothing.

-- Since the theory has no textual support whatsoever, it is, in effect, not even a theory.

-- My hypothesis, that Frog remains alive, has zero percent chance of being proven correct in the next volume.

Is that your stance?  Or have I exaggerated ever so slightly?

,

Edited July 28, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Alester Florent]

4 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

@Alester Florent,

A final question, just to check if I understand where we stand.

I obviously have no problem with you being unconvinced by the theory.  It is only a theory, after all.

But your stance as I understand it is roughly as follows:
-- None of the points or clues I have raised have any weight or value whatsoever.  Not an iota.  Zip.  Zero.  None.   In effect, they are not clues or points at all.  I have, for all practical purposes, said nothing.

-- Since the theory has no textual support whatsoever, it is, in effect, not even a theory.

-- My hypothesis, that Frog remains alive, has zero percent chance of being proven correct in the next volume.

Is that your stance?  Or have I exaggerated ever so slightly?

,

There's obviously an element of subjectivity. But inasmuch as the evidence and argument in this thread has affected my view, it hasn't moved the needle at all in terms of how likely I believe the theory to be. In fact if anything I am now less convinced than I was at the outset, because at that point I assumed there would be more to it than there has turned out to be. 

Likewise, the relevant chances are never strictly zero because GRRM can do whatever he wants, but I do think the chances are negligible. 

I acknowledge that it is a theory, but I think it deserves filing in the "crackpot" folder along with "Ned Stark is alive", most Daario theories, the more extreme versions of Lemongate, etc.

But, you know, could be worse. It could be in the "troll" folder along with "Jon Snow is likely to go insane", "Arya Stark is likely to go insane", "Ned Stark is alive (and likely to go insane)", "Gregor is a double agent", etc. 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Alester Florent

[Gilbert Green]

7 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

There's obviously an element of subjectivity. But inasmuch as the evidence and argument in this thread has affected my view, it hasn't moved the needle at all in terms of how likely I believe the theory to be. In fact if anything I am now less convinced than I was at the outset, because at that point I assumed there would be more to it than there has turned out to be.

I guess my points have NEGATIVE value, then. 

7 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Likewise, the relevant chances are never strictly zero because GRRM can do whatever he wants, but I do think the chances are negligible

I might get lucky then.    But of course it will be pure luck, there being no value to any points I raised. 

7 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I acknowledge that it is a theory, but I think it deserves filing in the "crackpot" folder along with "Ned Stark is alive", most Daario theories, the more extreme versions of Lemongate, etc.

No-one has been able to come up with a popular Daario theory.

GRRM:  There is more to Daario than meets the eye.

FANS:  Shut up, George.

You said "most" Daario theories.  Can you think of one that you don't consider "crackpot"?

 

7 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Sandy Clegg]

12 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

GRRM:  There is more to Daario than meets the eye.

FANS:  Shut up, George.

I need to find that quote. Reddit seems to think it was misattributed to George, and someone did some digging on it here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/2k1vim/spoilers_all_what_is_the_best_nontinfoil_theory/

Maybe it's elsewhere. I know that his post-AFFC podcast episodes are on YouTube, but not available on SSM, which is a bit weird. Thats why I've copied and edited the transcripts from the YouTube versions  - but only for the two I was interested in.  I'm not going to do a trawl through the others, as Daario isn't in AFFC anyway. A lot of the other episodes are about how he got started in writing, etc. Possibly it would be useful for someone to provide a transcript of his DVD commentaries, as he does mention the books sometimes.

Even without the quote, I would tend to agree, though. Something is up with Daario - either that, or he is a walking, talking red herring.

The thing is, George threw the kitchen sink at Daario, appearance-wise. He is what I would call 'information-rich' in terms of all the things about him you could pick up on and analyse. So the common consensus among readers is a collective shrug: 'George likes to create weird-looking characters. It's world-building. Move on.'

And then you have the tinfoil brigade whose idea of a theory is to pick a name out of a hat and say 'that's Daario'. You don't want to get associated with that shit - you can never get the stink off.

So from what I've seen, people gravitate to the theories that cleave to the book's realism, even though the general trend of the books, ever since book one, has been a slow and steady increase in the magical aspects. We've been 'lobster in the pot'-ed by George so well that we still think the books are 'historical realism with only 3% fantasy'. But dragons, shadow babies and skinchangers didn't crop up in the War of the Roses, as far as I know. At some point, George has to rip off the band-aid.

Anyway, that  idea of not wanting to be 'tarred with the tinfoil brush' makes people extremely wary of stepping out of their comfort zones. But George is playing a game with the reader - and the difficulty settings are more Dark Souls than Animal Crossing. You need to use all the tools at your disposal. So if you disengage your imagination because  'Daario is a horse' keeps popping up on reddit, then George is more than happy. It's one less 'smart-ass' for him to worry about.

 

 

 

[Gilbert Green]

1 hour ago, Sandy Clegg said:

I need to find that quote. Reddit seems to think it was misattributed to George

IIRC, it was post ADWD, and fairly early post-ADWD.  I recall it from a specific report.

It does not now come up in a quick search.  I can only find third-hand references.  I'm not sure it is worth the effort to search further.  It is not as though anyone will believe any Daario theories even if I do find it.

2 hours ago, Sandy Clegg said:

Maybe it's elsewhere. I know that his post-AFFC podcast episodes are on YouTube, but not available on SSM, which is a bit weird.

His virtual confirmation of Lemongate never made it into an SSM either.  But the fandom did trumpet his non-confirmation of "Brienne is Dunk's descendant", which is confirmation bias on steroids (I don't recall if it made an SSM).

2 hours ago, Sandy Clegg said:

Even without the quote, I would tend to agree, though. Something is up with Daario - either that, or he is a walking, talking red herring.

You can probably get away with saying that much.  But to endorse an actual theory ....

2 hours ago, Sandy Clegg said:

And then you have the tinfoil brigade whose idea of a theory is to pick a name out of a hat and say 'that's Daario'. You don't want to get associated with that shit - you can never get the stink off.

Each theory has its own merits, or lack thereof, and that might include identity theories.  If you are worried about what folks online will think of you, you are not really thinking rationally.

2 hours ago, Sandy Clegg said:

Anyway, that  idea of not wanting to be 'tarred with the tinfoil brush' makes people extremely wary of stepping out of their comfort zones.

Yes.  But again, these are not rational considerations.

Remember, boys and girls, just because it is unpopular, does not mean it is not true.

[Sandy Clegg]

18 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Yes.  But again, these are not rational considerations.

I often feel that fandom is rational when being a little nutty would help, and nutty when a bit of rationality would be beneficial. That sweet spot rarely gets struck.

[Gilbert Green]

On 7/29/2023 at 11:12 AM, Sandy Clegg said:

I often feel that fandom is rational when being a little nutty would help, and nutty when a bit of rationality would be beneficial. That sweet spot rarely gets struck.

Nuttiness can help with brainstorming.

No particular need to strike any sweet spot.  We are all guessing, and in the end, some of us will be right and some of us (maybe most of us) will be wrong about whatever theories we endorse.

Hard to define "rationality" in this context.  Trying to guess where an author is going is a very fuzzy "art".    Some level of literary sense, and perceptiveness of an author's priorities, together with what might be loosely called "intuition" (but which might be hard to distinguish be bias) will inevitably play a role.  But, assuming GRRM has played fair with his readers at all, some ability to follow "evidence" (however defined) ought to play some role in one's chances of success.

But I really don't think the popularity of any theory is determined, to any significant extent, by the number and quality of the points or "clues" raised in support of a theory.  It is determined by what certain fans want, as well as their willingness or ability to create or join online pressure groups.  Gatekeeping can play a role as well.

[Sandy Clegg]

52 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

It is determined by what certain fans want, as well as their willingness or ability to create or join online pressure groups.  Gatekeeping can play a role as well.

This is true, and I’m as guilty as anyone I guess. I have the odd theory I’m married to but mainly I hope my mind is open. I’m more concerned with finding new tools for analysing the text these days. Sometimes it works but often I end up in the weeds, but hopefully you can realise when that happens and change tack.

[Gilbert Green]

Elio and Linda once mentioned the theory in a Reddit interview promoting the World Book, in response to a question about what theories annoy them the most.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Sandy Clegg]

1 hour ago, Gilbert Green said:

Elio and Linda once mentioned the theory in a Reddit interview promoting the World Book, in response to a question about what theories annoy them the most.

which theory?

[Gilbert Green]

23 minutes ago, Sandy Clegg said:

which theory?

Quentyn being alive.  They weren't more specific than that.

[Sandy Clegg]

32 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Quentyn being alive.  They weren't more specific than that.

Ah, ok. Everyone is entitled to their opinions I guess. Is it the theory itself they hate, though, or the idea that George may be employing misleading tactics? If people are just really satisfied with how Quentyn's arc was concluded, that's one thing. I liked his story well enough, too. But was it sooo satisfying that its alteration would make me angry? No. Because it's just a book, whose author is playing a complex game with the readers. I'd be more annoyed if everything in ADWD turned out to be exactly as was purported to be on the page, because - then where's the mystery? Where's the challenge? George will never please everyone.

Well, I've gone on a journey on since I started this thread. Your points were all very well made, probably hard to find anything more to add in the theory's defence really. I went back and watched the Preston Jacobs video by the way -there's a lot of hyperbole in the way he he examines the points about dragon fire, etc. He also really overstates how 'suspicious' Arch and Gerris are being  (I think if they are, then it's very subtle - the most 'open to interpretation' part of theory).

A living Quentyn does offer some intriguing plot developments, so it's not an emotive topic for me either way.  But I feel that I've moved on from his survival question now,  just because his story has already served a narrative and symbolic purpose (I made a new thread for that). Which doesn't mean he can't come back, but there's a lot of thematic ideas that revolve around him being dead (or absorbed) which make the imagery less resonant if he survives. And I guess I place the symbolism on a higher pedestal than some, although it's still below the main narrative - just.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Sandy Clegg

[Gilbert Green]

On 7/30/2023 at 5:00 PM, Sandy Clegg said:

Ah, ok. Everyone is entitled to their opinions I guess.

Here's a link.  See response to Question #2

The reference to the Quentyn is Alive theory was hidden in the "ADWD spoilers" link.  This is now a broken link.  But the text behind the link is preserved in one of the comments below.

No, Quentyn Martell is not alive. No, Howland Reed is not the High Septon. No, Roose Bolton is not a skinchanger who has ruled his House for generations by leaping from body to body. No, the Boltons are not descended of or allied with the Others. No, there is no secret code, corn-related or otherwise, embedded in the novels. No, there is no Grand Northern Conspiracy.  No, Tywin Lannister was not poisoned.  No, the Cleganebowl theory -- specifically, the version that has the gravedigger formerly known as the Hound fighting a trial by combat against the necromantic experiment formerly known as Ser Gregor Clegane -- is not really going anywhere though the two may well meet under other circumstances.

On 7/30/2023 at 5:00 PM, Sandy Clegg said:

Is it the theory itself they hate, though, or the idea that George may be employing misleading tactics?

 

Well, the only clue is the immediately preceding remark:

 

Any "theory" that is simply a claim that can't be 100% disproved but otherwise has no support but the basest conjecture.

 

Which I don't think is a fair assessment at all.  But it seems that the "Quentyn is Alive" theory is driven by clues that some find hard to see.

 

It is sometimes claimed that the theory requires some complex body-swapping scheme.  But this is not true at all.  The theory merely requires readers to question what certain characters merely ASSUME on inadequate evidence.   Since we never really knew who the burnt man was to begin with, there was never any need to swap his body.  Such scenarios don't arise naturally, but must be very carefully set up by the author.  We have a careful setup with 9 people present all similarly dressed, a gap in the action where we don't know what happened and where we don't know who left and who remained, and suddenly a burnt man which only one single 11 year old girl has the stomach to spend time with and who says nothing except to gasp out a few tortured words.

 

This careful setup is invisible to some readers, it seems.  But when you see the smoke and mirrors, it seems logical to guess the author is faking you out.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Alester Florent]

8 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

We have a careful setup with 9 people present all similarly dressed, a gap in the action where we don't know what happened and where we don't know who left and who remained

But - and to come back to this - we are told this! In the very conversation between Barristan, Gerris and Archibald - Quentyn burned, Archibald beat the flame out with his hands (sustaining injuries in the process); the Windblown all ran away apart from the dead crossbowman.

Saying "ah, but it might all be lies!" because we don't have a direct POV on all the events (I would argue we have one for the critical event, i.e. Quentyn catching fire) may not be falsifiable but if we're going down that route there's an awful lot of stuff in the books we can't trust, and events we only hear about off-page are proven accurate more often than not, especially when relative perspective is accounted for. We heard Davos was dead from someone who read it from a raven who got it from a random Frey who got it from Wyman Manderly, with nothing more reliable to go on. When we were later shown it up close, we realised that wasn't true. By contrast, the version of events we're given for Quentyn are from direct witnesses, which match all the details we know from Quentyn's POV and the evidence Barristan has in the form of a burned body. There is no reason to believe that Gerris and Arch are lying, and if we don't make the assumption that they are, there are no gaps in the narrative or inconsistencies of evidence at all.

[Craving Peaches]

16 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

There is no reason to believe that Gerris and Arch are lying

They don't really seem like independent plotters (or people to involve in a plot) to me. I got the impression Arch wasn't the brightest (he seems to think all issues can be solved by bashing them with his hammer) and both seem rather rash...

While it is true they (especially Gerris) showed they can be deceptive with the Windblown scheme, that seemed to be an idea made very much in conjunction with Quentyn. If Quentyn is not dead but is riding/bonded with a dragon, why would they not tell Barristan? Surely he would be pleased to have a friendly dragon rider to fight the Slavers or to find Daenerys. Even if he doesn't approve, what can he do about it? And it would be hard to hide a dragon for long. One would also think that Barristan, who is observant, would note if they were lying. He seems to think Gerris is not trustworthy but never notes he is lying. Gerris' bitterness over Quentyn's death appears genuine to me. Wiki also says he dropped his sword in shock over Quentyn's death when the guards came. If he's not dead then why would Gerris' drop his sword? Because Quentyn was on a dragon? If Quentyn was riding a dragon rather than having his soul go into it, how did he get out the pyramid without someone noticing?

Edited July 31, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[Gilbert Green]

26 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

But - and to come back to this - we are told this! In the very conversation between Barristan, Gerris and Archibald - Quentyn burned,

No-one denies that Frog burned, just as no-one denies that Dany burned.

26 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Archibald beat the flame out with his hands (sustaining injuries in the process);

No-one doubts this.  And as if often true of hair fires, it is the hands that sustain the most serious injures.  Yes we know that Frog burned (to some extent).  But it does not follow that the fatally burnt man was Frog.

26 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

the Windblown all ran away apart from the dead crossbowman.

According to Gerris the liar, sure.  And he says this after honest Archie falters and stops in his narrative.  And he already knows that the burnt man is already dead and cannot contradict him.. 

26 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Saying "ah, but it might all be lies!" because we don't have a direct POV on all the events

But nobody is saying that it is "all lies".  That's a straw man.   There is only a lie or two here and there, by a known liar, when he would plausibly be expected to lie.

26 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

we're going down that route there's an awful lot of stuff in the books we can't trust,

I'm sorry about that.  But it does not prove that Frog is dead, when logically he might be alive.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Gilbert Green

[Gilbert Green]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

If Quentyn is not dead but is riding/bonded with a dragon, why would they not tell Barristan?

Surely I already answered that question.

For starters, the theory does not assume an instant bond.  

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

Surely he would be pleased to have a friendly dragon rider to fight the Slavers or to find Daenerys.

If he knew that was what he was getting, sure.  But Frog conspired with Dany's enemies to steal the dragons and take them away, and murdered Dany's guards in the process.  Barristan has no reason to trust Frog.  Barristan has every reason to regard Frog as an enemy.

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

Even if he doesn't approve, what can he do about it?

Arrest him.  Viserion is being left alone on Barristan's orders, but If Barristan knew Frog was with him he could intervene.  And if he refuses to come quietly, Barristan can shoot him full of crossbow bolts.

And if he suspects Frog is in the process bonding with Viserion all the more reason to act quickly while the process is as yet incomplete. 

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

And it would be hard to hide a dragon for long.

Barristan knows exactly where Viserion is, and has ordered Viserion be left alone.

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

One would also think that Barristan, who is observant, would note if they were lying. He seems to think Gerris is not trustworthy but never notes he is lying.

"Do you take me for a doting grandfather?"  Barristan knows that Gerris is full of shit, and says so. 

You are merely objecting that Barristan cannot read minds, and therefore does not know exactly HOW or WHY Gerris is being false.

Right.  Barristan cannot read minds.  He assumes the burnt man is Frog, he therefore assumes that Frog is dead, and it never occurs to him to question this assumption.  GRRM is using Barristan's POV to pull the wool over our eyes.

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

Gerris' bitterness over Quentyn's death appears genuine to me.

Barristan thinks he's full of shit, as do multltiple clues.  If Gerris' grief SEEMS genuine, it is because Gerris is a mummer, exactly as the text warns us.
 

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

Wiki also says he dropped his sword in shock over Quentyn's death when the guards came.

The Wiki is not a source.  Argue from the text.   The text says nothing about "shock".

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

If he's not dead then why would Gerris' drop his sword?

Are you serious?

Same reason you drop your gun when the cops show up.  Because you don't want the cops/guards to kill you.  So you throw away your weapon as a gesture of surrender.

The only question is: why was he still holding it in the first place?  Who was he planning to stab with it? 

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

If Quentyn was riding a dragon rather than having his soul go into it, how did he get out the pyramid without someone noticing?

Nobody ever said he has left the pyramid.  It is stocked with all kinds of goodies.  He can stay there as long as he likes.  And since Barristan has ordered that Viserion be left alone, Frog will be left alone as well.

Sure, if he rides the dragon in daytime (rather than nighttime, as he may have done for all I know) someone is likely to notice.  I imagine that this will happen at some point before the battle of Meereeen ends.  But the battle is not over yet.  And the rider has yet to appear.

As already indicated, I suspect it happened while Tyrion was in the tent, and Tyrion missed it, in a certain WINDS sample chapter.  Before entering the tent Tyrion noticed that Viserion had disappeared from the sky.  Viserion had probably returned to his pyramid.  While Tyrion was in his tent, Viserion may have returned to the skies, but this time with a rider.  One streaming a tattered cloak.

But it is not as though nobody noticed.  Lots of people DID notice.  Which is why the Yunkai are so angry at the Tattered Prince.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Gilbert Green