Did Quentyn Succeed? [Spoilers]

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Was not the problem for GRRM, "how do I get those damn dragons loose."

Ah! Quentyn!

Presto!

(Geroge IS more a gardner than an architect as a writer.)

This is true at face value, but anyone could have released the dragons. There's a reason Martin had it be Quentyn — I think because his death will have political implications involved Dorne and Dany.

[Lady Octarina]

I'm wondering the same thing myself. I don't know which theory is crackpottier — this one or the notion that Doran sent a fake Quentyn to the Yronwoods to, uh, punk them, and that's the "Quentyn" who died in Slaver's Bay.

To add to your list of narrative angles that support the fact that the real Quentyn is deader than effing disco, I'll also say that his death is bound to have repercussions in Dorne, namely when Doran decides with whom to side. Where he might have once sided with Dany, Quentyn's death and news of how Dany declined the proposal is, in my opinion, sure to turn Doran to "Aegon's" side. Barring some possible help in the Reach — which is only speculation and not proved — Dorne was really the only major kingdom that Dany would have been able to count on, and that support is now likely gone. And even if there's some hidden Targaryen support in the Reach (like Tarly), they too will probably side with Aegon over Dany, given the superiority of "Aegon's" claim and the fact that he's already in Westeros and not thousands of miles away in Slaver's Bay/the Dothraki Sea.

That's exactly what I was going to say; besides Ran's point, Quentyn's death is important for the consequences it will have in Dornish politics. Only I disagree they will be behind "Aegon". I mean, as long as he is fighting for his own right to sit on the throne, they might support him, but "Aegon" intends to marry Daenerys and use her dragons eventually, doesn't he? If he sides with her (assuming she would accept he is who he claims), I can't see Dorne supporting them, even if he "is" Elia's son.

And with these thought I leave this topic - pointless discussion is pointless.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

That's exactly what I was going to say; besides Ran's point, Quentyn's death is important for the consequences it will have in Dornish politics. Only I disagree they will be behind "Aegon". I mean, as long as he is fighting for his own right to sit on the throne, they might support him, but "Aegon" intends to marry Daenerys and use her dragons eventually, doesn't he? If he sides with her (assuming she would accept he is who he claims), I can't see Dorne supporting them, even if he "is" Elia's son.

And with these thought I leave this topic - pointless discussion is pointless, trolls will be trolls, and so on.

I think it makes much more sense for Doran/Dorne to support "Aegon" than for them to support Dany, at this point.

1. "Aegon" is already there and, if you go by the Arianne preview, has already made pretty impressive military progress. If the Dornish want results soon, Aegon is a more attractive option. Dany is still way the hell on the other side of the world with no sign — still — of having a plan to get to Westeros.

2. "Aegon" is Doran's own nephew and Arianne's first cousin. While they are also distantly related to Dany, it makes more intuitive sense for them to side with their closer kin.

3. I don't see Doran getting over Dany's treatment of Quentyn and Quentyn's death that easily. If he's turned off from her, "Aegon" is another option.

4. "Aegon" mainly wants to marry Dany, as I understand it, to shore up his own legitimacy and "prove" that he's real. If he says he's Aegon VI and Dany believes him and marries him (there's no question about her identity), then that supports his claim. But if he lands in Westeros and wins the support of Dorne and some of the other houses easily — and even if his rivals resist him but admit that he's "real" (I don't think he is) — then the need to prove his "legitimacy" becomes less urgent, and in that case, I don't see why he'd need Dany at all. In that scenario, it'd make more sense for him to marry the daughter of a major family to get a foothold in the Westerosi power structure. I think this is the point that's most pertinent to your argument, now that I reread it.

Dany's liable to land in Westeros expecting to face the Usurper's heirs only to find that her "nephew" has beaten her to the punch.

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

Seems clear to me that Gerris held his sword throughout, from the fight on. It was noted by Caggo right after they killed the guards that anyone could hear the fight who was nearby -- they're hurrying Quentyn on repeatedly because of it, because they think at any moment more guards are going to show to investigate. Why would he put away his sword, then?

Hence, he never let his sword go. Until guards do arrive, and, well, things seem rather moot with Quentyn fried to a crisp, Archie overcome, the dragons fled, and the Windblown taken off. Dropping the sword is simply sensible, but what it reveals is that the fight's gone out of Gerris. I don't quite get the notion that he and Quentyn aren't friends -- Quentyn knew his twin sisters quite well, so I'm guessing Drink's been someone he's known for most of his life.

What is it with Quentyn that's attracting so many crack pot theories, anyways? The tragedy of his story, the way it inverts the cliche of the handsome, heroic prince on a quest, actually ties very nicely to themes established in the previous novel (which is the most thematically-unified of all the novels in the series), the way it seems to fulfill prophecy, and the very real consequences (smoking, ruined pyramids, the last causus belli for the besieging slavers, dragons on the loose) are, surely, plenty of material to hang four chapters on.

Thank you.

[SelaBela]

It means whatever he means it to mean.

One time only in Dany's life so far?

One time only for anyone at all in the entire history of all possible Universes?

Is he referring only to fire-PROOF events? Are fire-RESISTANT events more common?

Looks like I'm going to have to find the SSM, but he was answering a question about all Targaryens being fire proof, and he said it was a one time only thing, which *I* take to mean that Dany's entrance into the funeral pyre and NOT burning to a crisp is a one-time-only-nothing-like-this-will-ever-happen-again.

If Quentyn escaped on Viserion, he will certainly survive long enough to make a difference to the story. That's story logic. There are plenty of Red Priests running around, and they don't seem to have any trouble with the problem of infection.

You're assuming here that Quentyn WON'T be out of his mind with pain, trying to either hold on to a dragon, or being held in a dragon's grasp, and somehow steer Viserion toward red priests. If he somehow manages to guide Viserion somewhere that he could receive medical attention (or magical red priest attention) then MAYBE he would survive long enough to impact the story further. Dany didn't have a whole lot of luck guiding Drogon anywhere though, and she has a stronger bond by far with all of the dragons than Quentyn has with Viserion. I could see him possibly passing Viserion off to someone else, on the verge of death.

[FanTasy]

In the first part of the "the Queen's Hand" chapter we have, in the third pargraphe, Barristan's thoughts underlined in italics. The opening phrase, "The Dornish prince was three days dying." is not textually underlined.

I did not make extensive text analysis on this, but it seems to suggest that "The Dornish prince was three days dying." does not come from Barristan's perception.

Can somebody help me understand if this specific point is true? That there is a difference between what Martin plainly puts in the chapters as a "fact" and what the characters are shown to think?

From the wiki: The novels are narrated from a very strict third person limited omniscient perspective,

The third-person omniscient is a narrative mode in which a story is presented by a narrator with an overarching point of view, seeing and knowing everything that happens within the world of the story, including what each of the characters is thinking and feeling.[1] It is the most common narrative mode found in sprawling, epic stories such as J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings or George Eliot's Middlemarch.

The godlike all-knowing perspective of the third-person omniscient allows the narrator to tell the reader things that none of the characters know, or indeed things that no human being could ever know (e.g., what the first conscious creature felt like as it climbed out of the primordial ooze, in Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy). Hence the third-person omniscient is most often associated with sweeping, epic stories, in contrast to third-person limited narratives, which do not stray beyond the characters' knowledge and experiences, and are most often associated with more intimate stories. Nevertheless, Jane Austen's novels are third-person omniscient, sometimes giving us information that the character of focus (as opposed to the point of view character) could not be aware of, but Austen's novels typically focus on a small number of characters and their milieu.

The third-person omniscient point of view maintains the omniscient narrator's viewpoint throughout the piece, in contrast to the third-person limited point of view, which restricts narration to what can be known, seen, thought, or judged from a single character's perspective (the point of view character), but may change that point of view many times during the piece ("third person multiple" is the term sometimes used to describe this variation of "third-person limited").

An interesting question here is why GRRM chose for naming a chapter 'The dragontamer', in stead of 'Quentin x' and another chapter 'The Queens Hand' in stead of 'Barristan x'. Is this just to limit ETA the number of his p.o.v. characters?

Or is it a form issue, to state that these chapters are to be read as the narrator's viewpoint? I suspect the latter is the case. If so, what is narrated in these chapters can be seen as fact.

[Ran]

From the SSM

Lastly, some fans are reading too much into the scene in GAME OF THRONES where the dragons are born -- which is to say, it was never the case that all Targaryens are immune to all fire at all times.

[iamthedave]

This is true at face value, but anyone could have released the dragons. There's a reason Martin had it be Quentyn — I think because his death will have political implications involved Dorne and Dany.

No no no, haven't you been around the boards lately, AM? The Dornish won't care about Quentyn's death! He wasn't even that popular!

Ugh. To be honest, I think the reason all of these theories are abounding is that many people came out of his plotline and thought immediately 'well that was a waste of time' and so are flailing around and clinging to the most random, insane ideas to make it into more than it is. Or, queerly, are trying to dismiss his death as being of any relevance whatsoever, and that when Dany goes to Doran the fact that one of her dragons toasted his son will somehow result in no negative responses from Westeros' Most Vengeful Family .

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

No no no, haven't you been around the boards lately, AM? The Dornish won't care about Quentyn's death! He wasn't even that popular!

Ugh. To be honest, I think the reason all of these theories are abounding is that many people came out of his plotline and thought immediately 'well that was a waste of time' and so are flailing around and clinging to the most random, insane ideas to make it into more than it is. Or, queerly, are trying to dismiss his death as being of any relevance whatsoever, and that when Dany goes to Doran the fact that one of her dragons toasted his son will somehow result in no negative responses from Westeros' Most Vengeful Family ™.

I think that's exactly it. His importance as a character has yet to fully manifest — even though it has at least two more books to do so — so people are clinging to wacky theories so that, to them, his character won't have been "pointless."

And yes it's freaking ridiculous to assume that Doran and Arianne would have no problem with Dany laughing at Quentyn, rejecting his proposal and then Quentyn getting killed by a dragon, even if it was his fault.

[Fearsome Fred]

Looks like I'm going to have to find the SSM, but he was answering a question about all Targaryens being fire proof, and he said it was a one time only thing, which *I* take to mean that Dany's entrance into the funeral pyre and NOT burning to a crisp is a one-time-only-nothing-like-this-will-ever-happen-again.

From the quote provided by Ran, it appears you are reading too much into it. I cannot see that he said anything of the sort, nor do I remember him saying such in any other quote.

You're assuming here that Quentyn WON'T be out of his mind with pain, trying to either hold on to a dragon, or being held in a dragon's grasp, and somehow steer Viserion toward red priests. If he somehow manages to guide Viserion somewhere that he could receive medical attention (or magical red priest attention) then MAYBE he would survive long enough to impact the story further.

I am not assuming any of those things. I have merely concluded that IF GRRM has pulled a switch on us, and has had Quentyn ride off on Viserion, he will make sure it has some relevance to the story, because I don't think he would waste time on it otherwise. HOW he achieves that is his business.

[Fearsome Fred]

My point is that you're dismissing and/or trying to find some hidden meaning in Martin's statement that what happened to Dany was a unique and one-time thing, accusing the person who brought it up of coming up with something out of nothing, without proof, when it's based on what the author actually said. He said it was a "one-time thing," not a "one-time thing so far." In that case, it's Chickenly who's taking what the author said at face value and presenting it as acceptable proof — assuming that Martin was being straightforward and not lying — and you who's speculating and drawing conclusions by applying some extra meaning to Martin's words that isn't evidenced.

This is complete garbage from beginning to end. GRRM's exact words do NOT support your position. Nor have I tried to read into his words. My position I took was that his precise meaning is unclear, and one should NOT read too much into his words.

Meanwhile, you seem convinced that Quentyn and the Tattered Prince switched places and the real Quentyn is alive and chilling with Viserion in his pyramid (or something?).

No. I am not convinced at all. I have said that many times already. I put the odds at about 40% alive to 60% dead - until and unless I come up with more evidence.

Edit: Please note that I do not think Viserion is in the pyramid. He seems to have left the city.

That, in my opinion, is something out of nothing, much more so than Chickenly pointing out what Martin has said about Dany. If you want to hang onto that theory, go ahead. But it's just kind of rich that you dismissed what Chickenly said as having "no proof" when you're trying to peddle this.

Chickenly leaped from a speculative premise to a certain conclusion. I objected to this leap of logic, and I was right to do so.

Going from speculative premises to speculative conclusions is perfectly fine.

[Bran Vras]

At least, Fearsome Fred has an interesting reading of Quentyn's story. Even if he did not manage to convince many people (and not me), I thank him for giving me a reason to reread critically the final Quentyn chapter.

The incident with the sword might not mean anything, but Fearsome Fred is not wrong to question Drink's trustworthiness. First, Barristan himself expresses his suspicions. Then, Gerris proved to be a gifted liar at the funeral. Finally, one wonders whether Drink hasn't been manipulative in Volantis. He was the one in charge of finding a ship, couldn't find any and suggested to join the Windblown, who pratically delivered Quentyn to Dany.

Just for the record, I want to say that the fake Quentyn theory, that several people have mentioned in passing, is misrepresented here. It's vexing to see good thinking trashed like this.

[Fearsome Fred]

In your case, wasn't your name attached to another incredibly ridiculous theory a few months ago?

Off topic personal attack.

I can't remember which one, because there's been so many since Dance came out, but your name is familiar and I don't have good tingly feelings associated. More feelings like smashing my head into a brick wall repeatedly.

Thank you for letting me know that you dislike me personally, and bear grudges. Please feel free to stick around and polute this thread further with your personal animosity. Further off topic posts containing vague allegations regarding my misconduct in other threads will be very helpful to the discussion.

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

This is complete garbage from beginning to end. GRRM's exact words do NOT support your position. Nor have I tried to read into his words. My position I took was that his precise meaning is unclear, and one should NOT read too much into his words.

No. I am not convinced at all. I have said that many times already. I put the odds at about 40% alive to 60% dead - until and unless I come up with more evidence.

Edit: Please note that I do not think Viserion is in the pyramid. He seems to have left the city.

Chickenly leaped from a speculative premise to a certain conclusion. I objected to this leap of logic, and I was right to do so.

Going from speculative premises to speculative conclusions is perfectly fine.

I am in awe of you, I really am. Your ability to do exactly what you are accusing others of doing, without the slightest self awareness of yourself doing the same thing, is fascinating. Truly. How old are you?

[kephv]

I think Quentyn is dead, if only for the fact that I can see no purpose in what faking his death would serve - other than to make the other characters look like complete and utter fools, not to mention taking credibility away from the story where we have to question everything that seems obvious, only to turn out later that it's not.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I am in awe of you, I really am. Your ability to do exactly what you are accusing others of doing, without the slightest self awareness of yourself doing the same thing, is fascinating. Truly. How old are you?

Right? Apparently iamdave calling his theory "ridiculous" is a "personal attack" but when I point out his inconsistencies when it comes to providing proof, it's "garbage." He can dish it out but he can't take it.

[Fearsome Fred]

I am in awe of you, I really am. Your ability to do exactly what you are accusing others of doing, without the slightest self awareness of yourself doing the same thing, is fascinating. Truly. How old are you?

Let's get this back on topic, shall we? Please provide the precise quote from GRRM that supports your interpretation of his words.

[Fearsome Fred]

Right? Apparently iamdave calling his theory "ridiculous" is a "personal attack" but when I point out his inconsistencies when it comes to providing proof, it's "garbage." He can dish it out but he can't take it.

I can take it fine. By all means, keep slinging mud. Show us the kind of person you are.

Alternatively, you can get back on topic, and prove that your paragraph was NOT 100% garbage, by providing the quote that shows that GRRM's precise words support your interpretation.

[Fearsome Fred]

I think Quentyn is dead, if only for the fact that I can see no purpose in what faking his death would serve - other than to make the other characters look like complete and utter fools, not to mention taking credibility away from the story where we have to question everything that seems obvious, only to turn out later that it's not.

I don't know what purpose the DECEPTION itself will serve. My theory does not address that.

However, I may point out that it also is unclear what purpose Quentyn's failure and death have served or will serve, despite the fact that at least 8 chapters have been devoted to developing his story. I don't mean to rule out competing theories, of course.

However, it is easy to see what purpose Quentyn being alive will serve. It has been foreshadowed that each dragon will get its own rider. We are now at the end of book 5, and the only mount-rider pairing we see any hint of is Drogon and Dany.

If my theory is correct, then TWO dragons already have their riders; and we are now only waiting (perhaps) for Rhaegal and Tyrion to hitch up.

Many of GRRM's readers are already starting to lose patience. He needs to get these dragons to Westeros, and for that, they need riders to control them. When is he going to finally get around to it? Book 7? My theory at least allows for the possibility that he has made some progress towards these goals.

BTW, thanks for providing an actual on-topic post.

[Lord of Cheese]

I can take it fine. By all means, keep slinging mud. Show us the kind of person you are.

Alternatively, you can get back on topic, and prove that your paragraph was NOT 100% garbage, by providing the quote that shows that GRRM's precise words support your interpretation.

GRRMs words in the SSM do imply that Dany's survival in the pyre was a special event, and any other episode of fire immunity, whatever that may be, will also have to be a special event. I'm sure many ppl have adjusted their views, like me, after reading it. Ther is no shame in it.