Did Quentyn Succeed? [Spoilers]

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

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?

If he had meant "one time so far" he would have said "one time so far". "one time thing" means that that particular thing, will happen only one time. as of now everyone, even dany, is not immune or resistant to fire.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

If he had meant "one time so far" he would have said "one time so far". "one time thing" means that that particular thing, will happen only one time. as of now everyone, even dany, is not immune or resistant to fire.

That's how I took it — one-time thing that happened and isn't going to happen again.

[Fearsome Fred]

If he had meant "one time so far" he would have said "one time so far".

Interesting premise. Problem is, it is just something you made up, and cannot prove.

"one time thing" means that that particular thing, will happen only one time.

Particular unique events always happen only once. That does not mean that similar events cannot happen in future.

as of now everyone, even dany, is not immune or resistant to fire.

Until and unless some mystical force intervenes once again.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Interesting premise. Problem is, it is just something you made up, and cannot prove.

Pot, kettle, black?

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

Interesting premise. Problem is, it is just something you made up, and cannot prove.

Particular unique events always happen only once. That does not mean that similar events cannot happen in future.

Until and unless some mystical force intervenes once again.

Oh. Em. Gee.

[Fearsome Fred]

Pot, kettle, black?

So let me get this straight, Apple Martini. You have a PROBLEM with the idea that the burden of proof is on the one claiming certainty?

I am getting SICK of whiners who want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to claim certainty, but not be held to their words.

ME: X and Y are both possible.

ILLOGICAL PERSON: No X is impossible and Y is certain. [supports theory with argument based on pure speculation].

ME: Your argument is based on speculation and therefore does not support your claims of certainty.

ILLOGICAL PERSON: WAAH. WAAH. You are a hypocrite. You say I cannot speculate, but that's exactly what you are doing. You are saying that both X and Y might be true.

This happens all the time. Why?

[Fearsome Fred]

It wasn't like a lot of time passed between dragons-Quentinburningtoacrisp-guards. It was a matter of seconds.

It was a matter of seconds? Where do you get that from?

He's standing there holding his sword, because he's in shock.

Gerris did not go into shock when his other friends died. Nor is he particularly close to Quentyn.

I doubt Gerris was in the frame of mind to think "hey, I drew my sword because dragons were setting my best friend on fire, but the dragons have flown off and Quentin looks pretty cooked. I can carefully re-insert my sword into it's scabbard."

He kept his head after their first 3 companions died. He was the one who glibly told a pack of lies while reciting their funeral oration. That's his character. He is the glib cool-headed "mummer" of the party.

Sure, the detail can be explained. But it is incongruous and out of place. If I were GRRM's editor, I would remove it. Maybe the problem is that GRRM has become bloated and inefficient and needs a good editor:

---------------------

"And the other Dornish?" asked Tal Taraq.

"Prisoners, for the nonce." Neither of the Dornishment had offered any resistance. Archibald Yronwood had been cradling his prince's scorched and smoking body when the Brazen Beasts had hound him, as his burned hands could testify. He had used them to beat out the flames that had engulfed Quentyn Martell. Gerris Drinkwater was standin over them with sword in hand, but he had dropped the blade the moment the locusts appeared. "They share a cell."

"Let them share a gibbet," said Symon Stripeback. "They unleased two dragons on a city."

----------------------------------------

This is a ridiculously long aside inserted into the middle of a conversation, and interrupting the flow of that conversation. If I were GRRM's editor, I would suggest, at the very least, that he take out the last sentence of the aside: "Gerris Drinkwater was standing over them with sword in hand, but he had dropped the blade the moment the locusts appeared." Then I might change "him" to "them" in the previous sentence to make clear both were present.

We already know Gerris was armed earlier, and we have just been told he surrendered without resistance. The sentence does not need to be there UNLESS ITS A CLUE.

But yes, it could just be GRRM's increasingly bloated and inefficient writing style.

[Fearsome Fred]

"And the other Dornish?" asked Tal Taraq.

"Prisoners, for the nonce." Neither of the Dornishmen had offered any resistance. Archibald Yronwood had been cradling his prince's scorched and smoking body when the Brazen Beasts had hound him, as his burned hands could testify. He had used them to beat out the flames that had engulfed Quentyn Martell. Gerris Drinkwater was standing over them with sword in hand, but he had dropped the blade the moment the locusts appeared. "They share a cell."

"Let them share a gibbet," said Symon Stripeback. "They unleashed two dragons on a city."

Here's how I might edit the foregoing:

"And the other Dornish?" asked Tal Taraq.

"Prisoners, for the nonce." Neither of the Dornishmen had offered any resistance, when the locusts had found them with the prince's scorched and smoking body. "They share a cell."

"Let them share a gibbet," said Symon Stripeback. "They unleashed two dragons on a city."

A big improvement, yes? Even Archie's burnt hands don't need to be mentioned until it becomes relevant. And yet, GRRM has gone out of his way to mention them. It is either bad writing, or a clue.

[Raventhal]

I was under the impression that Dany didn't burn and her hands were "burned" from the friction of riding the dragon bare back. More like a carpet burn.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

So let me get this straight, Apple Martini. You have a PROBLEM with the idea that the burden of proof is on the one claiming certainty?

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. 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?). 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.

[corbon]

Here's how I might edit the foregoing:

"And the other Dornish?" asked Tal Taraq.

"Prisoners, for the nonce." Neither of the Dornishmen had offered any resistance, when the locusts had found them with the prince's scorched and smoking body. "They share a cell."

"Let them share a gibbet," said Symon Stripeback. "They unleashed two dragons on a city."

A big improvement, yes? Even Archie's burnt hands don't need to be mentioned until it becomes relevant. And yet, GRRM has gone out of his way to mention them. It is either bad writing, or a clue.

All I can say is I'm glad I'm reading GRRMs books, not yours.

[iamthedave]

So let me get this straight, Apple Martini. You have a PROBLEM with the idea that the burden of proof is on the one claiming certainty?

I am getting SICK of whiners who want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to claim certainty, but not be held to their words.

ME: X and Y are both possible.

ILLOGICAL PERSON: No X is impossible and Y is certain. [supports theory with argument based on pure speculation].

ME: Your argument is based on speculation and therefore does not support your claims of certainty.

ILLOGICAL PERSON: WAAH. WAAH. You are a hypocrite. You say I cannot speculate, but that's exactly what you are doing. You are saying that both X and Y might be true.

This happens all the time. Why?

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

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, but the amount of proof they need to bring depends upon the claim they are making. The claim 'the sky is blue' requires very little proof because it is easily verifable. The claim 'Quentyn Martell is dead' likewise requires very little proof because it's explicitly stated by half a dozen characters and we see him get a blast of dragonfire full on in the face in his own POV.

The claim that Quentyn Martell is not dead is an extraordinary claim and so requires extraordinary evidence which is mysteriously absent from your theory.

You are correct in saying it is possible. It is likewise possible that Ned Stark is alive, Arya Stark has been killed and replaced with a Faceless Man who is perfectly impersonating her in her own POV (hence why her last one in Dance ends with her saying she is 'no one'), and that the Others great plan is to bring reruns of The Magic Roundabout to Westeros and thus begin a cultural revolution.

These are not, however, very likely.

The argument that Quentyn Martell is dead is not based on 'speculation', it's based on reading a book called 'A Dance with Dragons' wherein the aforementioned character dies one of the most explicit deaths in the series to date. In fact, in a top ten list of the deadest characters in ASOIF, Quentyn Martell has to be top three and may well be number one, given the number of verifying characters who find his death worthy of discussion, the fact we're there in his POV when he gets set on fire, and the resulting events.

[FanTasy]

Sure, the detail can be explained. But it is incongruous and out of place. If I were GRRM's editor, I would remove it. Maybe the problem is that GRRM has become bloated and inefficient and needs a good editor:

(snip)

But yes, it could just be GRRM's increasingly bloated and inefficient writing style.

Just to be curious, can you refer me to some novel, essay, poem you have written yourself? Which could be used as a possible example for what you consider a non-bloated and efficient writing style?

ETA Fearsome Fred, I'm sorry. We are all cloaked and anonymous here. So it was wrong of me to ask you to refer to something you've written which would 'uncloak' your identity as Fearsome Fred. My apologies, I didn't think about this. Please neglectignore my request.

[Ran]

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.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

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.

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.

[Lummel]

I have nothing against crackpot theories but having seen Quentyn is gay, Quentyn never was Quentyn and now Quentyn was Quentyn but swapped places with someone else underlines the strength of the story as it is written which I think is a great example of "the best laid plans of mice and men so readily go awry" (a day late but never mind).

There we have Dorne in the background built up as this hostile presence then we have Oberyn's death and the reaction to it then eventually Doran reveals his plan for revenge so long in the making. Quentyn in contrast to his sister and cousins is built up as an earnest sensible sort but we see in ADWD that he has a basic flaw and wants, needs to prove himself rather than to settle for what can be achieved for the good of Doran's plan in an earnest and sensible kind of way. And for that he dies.

It's a nice warning to the reader as well because we know we've got great plotters and schemers like Littlefinger and Varys apparently successfully manipulating things from behind the scenes yet here we see a simple plan (ally with Dany) go totally wrong in a very believable (well apparently not for all readers but there you go) and straightforward manner.

ETA spelling.

[Blizzard]

No I think Quentyn is dead, if he was immune to fire he would not have been screaming in pain, Dany was able to take it as it didn't bother her but Quentyn was like a marshmallow being thrown into a campfire.

[FanTasy]

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.

Well, I can imagine that readers are intrigued by this character.

I can understand that when questioning each word suspicions can arise that things may not be as they seem.

Personally I don't embrace this theory: I think Quentin is dead.

I can understand though that mentionings of dead princes will be met with some suspicion.

Could be that what triggers suspicions is what some readers see as a sudden dumping in the story of another prince that has been described as dead.

There is a reason of course for these chapters being included in ADWD. GRRM clearly found it important that this story was kept in the book.

To enhance the feeling that the dragons are getting a bit out of hand, for instance.

And I think Quentin's death could be important in the further development of the story in Dorne.

ETA spelling

[boojam]

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.)

[mediterraneo]

With full respect for others' opinions, I feel not convinced by the OP.

I stand in the camp that take what Martin wrote and Fantasy quoted at its value.

Back on topic. ADWD The dragontamer:

<Quentin let his whip uncoil.>

(...)

<Quentin turned and threw his left arm across his face to shield his eyes from the furnace wind. Rhaegal, he reminded himself, the green one is Rhaegal.

When he raised his whip,he saw that the lash was burning. His hand as well. All of him, all of him was burning.

Oh, he thought. Then be began to scream.>

ADWD The Queens Hand

<The Dornish Prince was three days dying.>

<Quentin Martell had been laid out in the queen's own bed. He had been a knight, and a prince of Dorne besides.

It seemed only right to let him die in the bed he had crossed half a world to reach.>

Martin can still make what he wants with his fiction, and he took what I judge a bad habit of reviving appearently dead characters.

But until now, we have less chances of Quentyn being alive than Raegar Targaryen, Viserys, and Syrio Forel.

Martin did not make us see the dead body of the three, and we saw a dying Quentyn for three days, surrounded by people who had saw him before in relaxed circumstances - as in "not under stress". The proposed substitute for him was also known in the pyramid where "the dornish prince" is described dying.

Well then, based on that quibble, perhaps Quentyn was not "burned by Dragonfire" either. Perhaps he only "caught breath", which was hot enough to burn his hair and clothing and blister many parts of him.

Well, perhaps Quentyn did not catch fire "himself" either, other than his hair and clothes. If "I saw her burning" does not mean that Dany "herself" was burning, then similar references need not mean that for Quentyn either.

Well, that works great for my theory. Because Quentyn never notices himself being enveloped in dragonfire.

As as long as we are telling eachother what not to say, perhaps you should not say things not directly established by the text. It is established that Quentyn (perhaps meaning his clothes and hair?) caught fire, not that he was "completely eveloped in Dragonfire", whatever that means.

...

Nor is it my burden to prove that Quentyn was necessarily injured no worse than Dany was. I only aim to show that he might have survived. Unchanged? Probably not. I'm sure Loras is the worse for wear, and Quentyn may be as well.

I judge this three points (the "burden", Quentyn never enveloped by dragonfire, Loras Tyrrel comparation) as wrong.

About the burden.

We are not debating in a court: what we do here is speculation, trying to understand what happened in the books. It's not a competition, it is similar to academic research. At the very best we have people which make greater than average contribution to human understanding. A well thought mistake can lead to a lot of good questions. In this game we play we are not trying to "best" nobody. It would be quite pointless. This said: the burden of demonstrating that Quentyn is alive, and did not suffer worse wounds than Daenerys - which didn't note in her POV to be "all on fire" as he did - must be taken by the people who supports the idea of Quentyn to be alive. It can be "proved". But it "must" still be "proven" if we has to take Quentyn for alive. Proved is too big of a word, in incomplete fiction works. To easen the burden, it would be more than enough to find it suggested somewhere, not even strongly suggested.

About Quentyn being enveloped by dragonfire.

Sorry to repeat Martin's word again, in Quentyn's point of view:

<Quentin turned and threw his left arm across his face to shield his eyes from the furnace wind. Rhaegal, he reminded himself, the green one is Rhaegal.

When he raised his whip,he saw that the lash was burning. His hand as well. All of him, all of him was burning.

Oh, he thought. Then be began to scream.>

Quentyn notes himself completely envolved by the fire. Martin did not explicitely write that the fire spourted by the dragon's breath: it could be autocombustion. But I assume it was the fire breathed by the dragon that completely envolved "all of him" before him noticing being on fire.

And regarding Loras Tyrrell.

The main difference between the above and his situation is that we discovered his terrible burns in the same IIRC or a similar situation in which we discovered that Davos was executed. People lie at King's Landing, in particular they lie to Cersei. We were told of his wounds, while we saw Quentyn completely envolved by the fire got out of the mouth of a dragon. Which I do not know if qualifies or not as being dragonfire in your or anybody else book.

Here's how I might edit the foregoing:

"And the other Dornish?" asked Tal Taraq.

"Prisoners, for the nonce." Neither of the Dornishmen had offered any resistance, when the locusts had found them with the prince's scorched and smoking body. "They share a cell."

"Let them share a gibbet," said Symon Stripeback. "They unleashed two dragons on a city."

A big improvement, yes? Even Archie's burnt hands don't need to be mentioned until it becomes relevant. And yet, GRRM has gone out of his way to mention them. It is either bad writing, or a clue.

I agree that the mention of the Archie's burnt hands must be relevant.

The simpliest reason to tell the reader of them is showing us the courage and desperation of the dornish knights: they tryed to save their prince. The guards found them still touching the burnt but still alive body.

That tells us that Barristan has another reason (apart from his own eyes) to believe that the dying man is the "dornish prince".

It could be anything else, but to take things as different from they seem to be, i myself judge (with no pretense to be the final voice) that we need more imput.

That is: I'm still not convinced - as I still see no reasons or not reasons enough to be convinced.

And.

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?