424 replies to this topic

[Net-Viper X]

The problem with the dead horse beating is there is no evidence either way to fully back it up. So allow me to present said evidence and lay this topic to rest.

Kerza's cock is fireproof because it was forged in Vulcans flame. Dany is NOT Kerza's cock, therefore she CANNOT be fireproof.

There it is, case closed. Now everyone can go back to arguing about who's kid Jon is. No need to thank me.

[Apple Martini]

Net-Viper X, on 22 February 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

The problem with the dead horse beating is there is no evidence either way to fully back it up. So allow me to present said evidence and lay this topic to rest.

Kerza's cock is fireproof because it was forged in Vulcans flame. Dany is NOT Kerza's cock, therefore she CANNOT be fireproof.

There it is, case closed. Now everyone can go back to arguing about who's kid Jon is. No need to thank me.

/thread.

[mormont]

Apple Martini, on 22 February 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

I know!!

George R.R. Martin: TARGARYENS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FIRE.

Targaryens are not immune to fire. Dany is a Targaryen. Ergo, Dany — barring the acknowledged magical miracle in the funeral pyre — is not immune to fire.

This is the type of associative property you learn in a 4th grade math class.

Erm, except that it's not. What you learned in that class was actually slightly different. To say that 'class X does not have property A' is a broad and general statement about X as a class:  it is not, as formulated, a statement that's necessarily true for every single member of class X. It's true to say that, as a class, dogs don't have three legs: but some dogs nevertheless do have three legs. If GRRM had said 'no Targaryen is immune to fire', you'd have a logical syllogism there - 'no members of class X have property A, Y is a member of class X, therefore she does not have property A'. But since he didn't, you don't. It's a subtle difference but in terms of the logic, very significant.

But that's a side issue. The really relevant part of the statement is actually the bit about the pyre being a 'one-time thing', which does suggest pretty strongly that under normal circumstances Dany has no immunity to fire. But even that leaves room for manoeuvre should GRRM decide to allow her to be partially or wholly unharmed by fire under other circumstances. GRRM is too good a writer and too long in the tooth to box himself in if he can help it.

[PatrickStormborn]

mormont, on 22 February 2012 - 04:20 AM, said:

Erm, except that it's not. What you learned in that class was actually slightly different. To say that 'class X does not have property A' is a broad and general statement about X as a class:  it is not, as formulated, a statement that's necessarily true for every single member of class X. It's true to say that, as a class, dogs don't have three legs: but some dogs nevertheless do have three legs. If GRRM had said 'no Targaryen is immune to fire', you'd have a logical syllogism there - 'no members of class X have property A, Y is a member of class X, therefore she does not have property A'. But since he didn't, you don't. It's a subtle difference but in terms of the logic, very significant.

But that's a side issue. The really relevant part of the statement is actually the bit about the pyre being a 'one-time thing', which does suggest pretty strongly that under normal circumstances Dany has no immunity to fire. But even that leaves room for manoeuvre should GRRM decide to allow her to be partially or wholly unharmed by fire under other circumstances. GRRM is too good a writer and too long in the tooth to box himself in if he can help it.

In addition, he said she probably wouldn't survive walking into a funeral pyre again, and I agree that she wouldn't. But is it possible that she'd survive getting hit by dragonflame? I don't know. Martin hasn't said that. I think that, when it comes to someone known as the mother of dragons, we should clarify between normal flame and dragon flame.

The argument basically is this: if her hair didn't get hit by the flames, then there's no evidence that she's somewhat immune. However, if she ducked but the flames still managed to catch her hair (which seems fairly likely, seeing as Martin doesn't have a Chemistry degree), then she might well have a higher resistance than most people do.

[Ran]

Errant Bard,

Quote

So you hold the opinion that, beyond Martin's plan for his story, he actually injects the idea that fate and destiny do exist, in his world, that everything is preordained?

Don't they exist? When we're all spending time wondering about "the dragon has three heads" and "Azor Ahai reborn", when we've so far seen that Melisandre's visions are always correct in essence (but then misinterpreted!), then yes, things are set to happen that can't just "change" because someone decides, "Nah, I won't go that way." Indeed, efforts to subvert fate and destiny in the series generally leads to the very thing you think you're avoiding.

Does it diminish characters? No. The characters are characters who act in the present, who make choices good or bad... but prophecy and destiny does provide some sign posts for what's going to happen. The important point is not the events, after all -- it's the journey. That Daenerys or Jon or Tyrion may have destinies before them does not mean that Ramsay Bolton or Gregor Clegane or Tywin Lannister aren't/weren't monstrous. It doesn't mean that every choice Dany and Jon and Tyrion makes is "okay" because that's their destiny and they have "no choice" -- they have plenty of choice in how to conduct themselves, in what they do, but inevitably they're being pushed on a journey towards... something we can't really see. Their choices and actions are important because they define their characters, not necessarily because they define the end point of the story.

You and I all know that A Dream of Spring will be bittersweet -- the threat of the Others will, somehow, be defeated, that some of the characters are going to live and some of them are going to die. But the how and the why remains, and that's the human drama that draws readers on. It doesn't matter that Dany is a figure of prophecy, that her actions and decisions are in a very real sense predestined. It doesn't make her bulletproof -- her destiny may, in the end, be death, or it may be becoming queen, or it may be becoming a terrible destructive tyrant. But she has a destiny, unquestionably.

Here's George on prophecy:

Quote

There are prophecies in my Seven Kingdoms, but their meanings are often murky and misleading, and they seldom offer the characters much in the way of useful guidance.

Which is about right. He doesn't, you notice, actually say, "Prophecy can be wrong." ADwD seems to have further confirmed that prophecy is actually always right (at least, when prophecy comes from someone with clear and genuine magical abilities), but you're very unlikely to find it useful because you don't see what it means or what it leads to.

The existence of prophecy, of destiny, and of fate are a given. That destiny does not define characters is no different than my saying that I'm driving in to work defines my character.

[Errant Bard]

Ran, my problem with this is the concept of free will.

There is two levels here: of course we know, as readers, about the bittersweet ending and how of course the kids will save the world. It's a book, the plan is already set. That's as deterministic as you can get, however this shouldn't be confused with how the world is described to work, where the character are supposedly alive and thinking creatures, not mere projection of the reader's imagination guided by a few chosen words written on a page, and where Martin isn't even supposed to exist (ASOIAF is not about being meta like, say, Hard Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World might be)

Having destiny exist like you say on the second level does diminish characters: the characters do not make choices in that case, like you argue, they merely do what was preordained for them to do. The only way to have significant choices would be if they could take another path, if they wanted, but in our case they cannot even want to do something else: what they will choose is already written. It should be about the journey, but if destiny exists, that journey is as unmovable as any event is: everything is already written.

It can make for a good story, but why would I hold respect for Jon, for example, when he refuses Stannis? It's not like he was ever going to be able to do anything, it was already written. In fact why bother with any attempt at world consistency? The answer to any question does not lie with the character, or the setting anymore, it's just because destiny says so, as you brought forth with your dragon senses.

How can you argue about a beast sensing this destiny thing if you're arguing at the same time that destiny is inescapable? It's not like he was going to do anything else, what does sensing it accomplish, beside allowing you to gloss over your lack of explanation for him journeying in that specific direction?

You genuinely confuse me.

Quote

That destiny does not define characters is no different than my saying that I'm driving in to work defines my character.

Oh come on, this isn't even comparable.  If someone, before you were born, had written everything you would do, including, if you want, driving to work (or not) on that particular day, yeah, you would be totally defined even before existing.

[Giovanna Neve]

But who decide destinies? The gods? which one?
Who wrote Jon's destiny? The old gods who he thinks gave him his puppy direwolf, r'hllor (if he is AA reborn) or the faith of seven?

[mormont]

Errant Bard, on 22 February 2012 - 07:40 AM, said:

Ran, my problem with this is the concept of free will.

There is two levels here: of course we know, as readers, about the bittersweet ending and how of course the kids will save the world. It's a book, the plan is already set. That's as deterministic as you can get, however this shouldn't be confused with how the world is described to work, where the character are supposedly alive and thinking creatures, not mere projection of the reader's imagination guided by a few chosen words written on a page, and where Martin isn't even supposed to exist (ASOIAF is not about being meta like, say, Hard Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World might be)

Having destiny exist like you say on the second level does diminish characters: the characters do not make choices in that case, like you argue, they merely do what was preordained for them to do.

But how is this different from doing what the author determines they should do?

Characters in fiction are ultimately not moral actors. They're moral figures. Their free will is illusory, whether that be a fiction created by the gods or, y'know, a consequence of being an actual fiction. I can certainly see how one might prefer, aesthetically, that predetermination not be part of a created world, but to suggest that this actually affects your respect for the characters' moral choices seems to me to be slightly daft (no offence).

As for how GRRM uses prophecy, it seems to me to be wholly in line with his 'gardener' metaphor for writing. Just as GRRM knows where the story will go but not necessarily how it will get there, so, presumably, prophecy in ASOIAF can reveal where a character will end up but not how (or when, or why) they get there. Since 'prophecy' is in fact the hand of the author directing the plot, this surely makes perfect sense.

[Apple Martini]

mormont, on 22 February 2012 - 04:20 AM, said:

But that's a side issue. The really relevant part of the statement is actually the bit about the pyre being a 'one-time thing', which does suggest pretty strongly that under normal circumstances Dany has no immunity to fire. But even that leaves room for manoeuvre should GRRM decide to allow her to be partially or wholly unharmed by fire under other circumstances. GRRM is too good a writer and too long in the tooth to box himself in if he can help it.

I'm pretty sure we've already addressed why he would say "probably not" even if he really did mean "no." And if you're familiar with how cagey Martin (understandably) is in a lot of his answers, you'd realize that "probably not" is about as close to "no" as he gets. To use my earlier example, if someone asked him if Jon would be resurrected and he said, "Probably not," probably 95% of people would take that to mean "no." Including, I suspect *cough* a good number of people arguing in favor of Dany's fire immunity in this very thread. If he said "no," he would be giving away a plot point. Like we pointed out, if he flat-out says, "Dany will not be immune to fire again" it could actually be construed as a spoiler that she will at some point have a mishap (possibly fatal) involving fire. If he says, "Probably not," it's a way of saying that she isn't immune to fire without specifically telegraphing a possibly significant future plot point.

The funeral pyre question wasn't presented as an issue of whether Dany would pull off that same stunt again; it was posed (and I believe answered) specifically as it concerned her immunity to fire. So trying to split hairs and say, "She won't do the funeral pyre again but she could still be immune to fire" doesn't work, because the question was specifically framed around fire immunity, with the pyre as an example.

And after we took pretty great pains to explain -- repeatedly -- why burning hair doesn't necessarily equate to a burned scalp, I don't know why that would just be disregarded, unless a person simply just wants to believe that Dany's immune. If that's the case, better to just come out and say so, rather than act like you're "waiting for evidence" and then dart around when said evidence is presented. If no amount of evidence will sway you, why waste people's time by asking for it?

Edited by Apple Martini, 22 February 2012 - 11:01 AM.

[Ran]

Quote

Having destiny exist like you say on the second level does diminish characters: the characters do not make choices in that case, like you argue, they merely do what was preordained for them to do.

No. The destination is pre-ordained. They're on a train trip with several stops... and they will get to those stops. But will they have murdered their fellow travellers? Will they have written a poem or a song? Will they confess their crimes to a priest in the car next over?

Who knows. That's up to them and their free will. They're going to get to where they're going, inevitably, but how and why they do so is up to them.

My life and who I am isn't defined by the things I do -- they're defined by the why, by what motivates me. The same with any character in a novel -- the things the characters do are out of their hands, quite literally, but it's their motivations that are what centrally define them. Consider Coster-Waldau's analogizing Jaime's Kingslaying to Ned Stark beheading a frightened young man who's run from the Wall -- it's all about motive, right? The central turn of Jaime's character is learning his motives for why he did what he did.

And motive, such as it is, is up to the characters, even if they are being railroaded by destiny.

In any case, it seems quite clear that destiny and fate and prophecy exist and are real in this setting; I'd consider it undeniable, in fact. But as GRRM says, it's murky and it's difficult to interpret and little good comes out of trying to force it. So you live your life and you do what you do and let the cards fall as they may. You're an individual whether your path is truly "free" or if it's determined for you.

Edited by Ran, 22 February 2012 - 10:01 AM.

[Fearsome Fred]

I believe in Free Will.  Long ago, I used to be bothered by the idea of predestination, prophesy and fate as being somehow in conflict with this idea.   I no longer feel that way.  However, my reasons would take far too long to explain.  The short version is merely that I am happy to "accept the mystery."

Edited by Fearsome Fred, 22 February 2012 - 10:44 AM.

[Fearsome Fred]

Apple Martini, on 22 February 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure we've already addressed why he would say "probably not" even if he really did mean "no." And if you're familiar with how cagey Martin (understandably) is in a lot of his answers, you'd realize that "probably not" is about as close to "no" as he gets. To use my earlier example, if someone asked him if Jon would be resurrected and he said, "Probably not," probably 95% of people would take that to mean "no." Including, I suspect *cough* a good number of people arguing in favor of Dany's fire immunity in this very thread. If he said "no," he would be giving away a plot point. Like we pointed out, if he flat-out says, "Dany will not be immune to fire again" it could actually be construed as a spoiler that she will at some point have a mishap (possibly fatal) involving fire. If he says, "Probably not," it's a way of saying that she isn't immune to fire without specifically telegraphing a possibly significant future plot point.

The funeral pyre question wasn't presented as an issue of whether Dany would pull off that same stunt again; it was posed (and I believe answered) specifically as it concerned her immunity to fire. So trying to split hairs and say, "She won't do the funeral pyre again but she could still be immune to fire" doesn't work, because the question was specifically framed around fire immunity, with the pyre as an example.

Sounds, like you are saying (a) GRRM did not ACTUALLY say that Dany would never have another episode of fire immunity or fire resistance; and  ( b ) GRRM did not MEAN to say that Dany would never have another episode or fire immunity and fire resistance because he did not mean to give away spoilers; but ( c) nonetheless, you are too clever for GRRM, and have managed to figure this out anyway.

[shrug]

Edit:  Anyway, my interpretation of GRRM's "probably not" line is merely to say that if, on some random occasion, Dany were to attempt to walk into a raging bonfire, she would PROBABLY be forced back by the heat and flames and be unable to do so.  I see no need to infer an attempt to rule out any possibility of future fire-immune mystical occurrences on special occasions.

Edited by Fearsome Fred, 22 February 2012 - 11:27 AM.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Whoa it's getting seriously metaphysical up in here. Not to attack the philosophical issues or anything, I just want to say that it remains seriously up in the air within ASoIaF if prophecy and prediction will certainly come true, are destined to come true even if they are misread for a time.

I remember there is a part in Clash where Jojen is talking about his green dreams and telling Bran there is nothing he can do about them, and, Meera, I believe, responds 'why would the gods give you green dreams if you couldn't affect the things you see?' And I believe GRRM is asking the reader that question as much as Meera is asking Jojen that question.

Can prophecy be subverted? It hasn't been proven one way or another in the text yet, but I think GRRM has given us some clues as to where his mind is at on this subject. He's given us the Meera line above, that fantastic Gorghan of Old Ghis quote, "prophecy is like a treacherous woman. She takes your member in her mouth, and you moan with the pleasure and think, how sweet, how fine, how good it is...and then her teeth snap shut and your moans turn to screams. That is the nature of prophecy," and then there is the fact that he has subverted the very title of his entire series A Song of Ice and Fire with the very famous LF quote "Life is not a song, sweetling. Some day you may learn that to your sorrow."

Personally, I think the great question of how ASoIaF will conclude is how GRRM will square all the prophecies running around with his intentional subversion of the usual fantasy ideas of gallantry, heroism, and predestination. GRRM appears to be opposed to the neatness of prophecies and songs.

Edited by OnionAhaiReborn, 22 February 2012 - 11:36 AM.

[Apple Martini]

Fearsome Fred, on 22 February 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

Sounds, like you are saying (a) GRRM did not ACTUALLY say that Dany would never have another episode of fire immunity or fire resistance; and  ( b ) GRRM did not MEAN to say that Dany would never have another episode or fire immunity and fire resistance because he did not mean to give away spoilers; but ( c) nonetheless, you are too clever for GRRM, and have managed to figure this out anyway.

[shrug]

I said he came as close to saying "no" as he could have without giving away a spoiler. That doesn't mean that Dany is immune to fire, only that saying that she definitely isn't could be construed as giving away a plot point. Compared with other answers Martin has given, "Probably not" is actually one of his clearer ones. He was never going to say "Yes she will be again" or "No she won't be," but "probably not" is a way of saying "no" that doesn't automatically spill a later development. I'm not "too clever for GRRM," I'm just trying to explain how he seems to frame answers to questions.

If someone had asked Martin whether Jon would be resurrected, and Martin said, "Probably not," how would you interpret that answer?

Edited by Apple Martini, 22 February 2012 - 11:34 AM.

[redriver]

The "Why" of events is as difficult to answer in real life as it is in fiction.Why? isn't considered a scientific question,but more a philosophical one.If you ask why does the universe exist,you will get answers ranging from God decided so, to there was a slight imbalance between matter and anti-matter at the moment of the Big Bang,and everything in between.

The more scientific and provable questions are who?,what?,how?,where? and when? because you can measure and quantify them.You cannot definitively measure the why of anything.And if you do get an answer to a why question,you can immediately ask why to the answer,ad infinitum.

George reflects this flux situation in his writing.We,in reality don't know why we're here.We have theories and ideas,not to mention,some prophecies.Science v Religion is an ongoing feud,though at certain levels they appear to be converging.

The why of either can go infinitely deep,like a fractal.I started a thread recently based on a fart ,untimely issued by Baelor Leyton.He was then probably the second most eligible bachelor in Westeros,but due to Oberyn
lampooning him,Elia could not take him seriously and went on to wed Rhaegar.Tyrion wonders how many lives that fart cost.

But really,it wasn't the fart in itself,it was the reaction of the fart's audience,that lead to subsequent events.The Martells could have ignored it or at least pretended to and the Realm goes in a different direction.

An excellent reflection of real world serendipity but the crucial difference is that George plans the destinies,events and signposts of the characters in his story from the top down.Unlike the real world,unless you believe in a grand designer God.

GRRM has the luxury of never having to explain why.He just has to give us the who,where,what,how and when.And we can then make of it what we will.

If he gives us a why,I will be surprised and then ask why?

[Fearsome Fred]

Apple Martini, on 22 February 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

I said he came as close to saying "no" as he could have without giving away a spoiler.

Or as close to "yes" as he could without giving away a spoiler.  According to you, by saying "probably not" he gave away s spoiler.  Perhaps he anticipated you.  Perhaps you are not too smart for him after all.

Quote

If someone had asked Martin whether Jon would be resurrected, and Martin said, "Probably not," how would you interpret that answer?

That Martin is being cagey and that Jon may or may not be ressurected.

[PatrickStormborn]

Apple Martini, on 22 February 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

And after we took pretty great pains to explain -- repeatedly -- why burning hair doesn't necessarily equate to a burned scalp, I don't know why that would just be disregarded, unless a person simply just wants to believe that Dany's immune. If that's the case, better to just come out and say so, rather than act like you're "waiting for evidence" and then dart around when said evidence is presented. If no amount of evidence will sway you, why waste people's time by asking for it?

"We"? Well, ROTS was the one who explained it, not you. But anyway. The text says "she darted beneath the flames". I personally find this to be ambiguous. If you don't, then that's great, but don't undermine my opinion just because I like Daenerys. There is nowhere in the text that states that 1) her hair was hit by the fire, or 2) the flames missed her hair, but her hair caught fire anyway.

As Martin does not have a Chemistry degree, I'm doubtful that his knowledge of Chemistry is as strong at that of ROTS. So I think that it could go either way.

I don't know why you think you're an expert on Martin's quotes (from 1998/99), anyway. He said she probably wouldn't survive another funeral pyre, and I believe him. But he never says "she won't ever have a fire-proof moment again", and he never specifies if she could be somewhat resistant to flames from her dragons. Arguing over decade-old quotes is futile -- particularly when they can be interpreted either way.

One point I'd like to make about posters who oppose Daenerys is that they seem to almost completely write off her hatching of the dragons as "luck", or just seem to think it's not going anywhere. I think people should try to remember that walking into a funeral pyre and coming out with three dragons is not normal in the world of asoiaf. It was an extremely magical event that can never be replicated -- by anyone. There was a lot going on at that point: the long summer was nearly over, the red comet was in the sky, Dany had just lost her son and husband and was barren, the Others had risen, etc.

Just because an event is predetermined doesn't mean that free-will is undermined. Think of it this way: it's predetermined because they were always going to make these choices -- they're not going to make these choices because they were predetermined.

[Apple Martini]

Fearsome Fred, on 22 February 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Or as close to "yes" as he could without giving away a spoiler.  According to you, by saying "probably not" he gave away s spoiler.  Perhaps he anticipated you.  Perhaps you are not too smart for him after all.

"Probably not" isn't giving away a spoiler because it's not a definitive answer. All the same, if you read it as anything other than "Overwhelmingly likely, no," then, in my opinion, that reading is based on what you want to happen and not on what will probably happen. If Martin had said, "Maybe" or "Wait and see" or "Anything could happen," I would not be arguing that it meant "No."

I don't know why you keep bringing up my intelligence. Do you have a problem with it?

Quote

That Martin is being cagey and that Jon may or may not be ressurected.

I dare say that's different from how most other people would take it. If Martin said that Jon "probably wouldn't" be resurrected, the board would be flooded with people saying that he was definitely dead but Martin didn't want to confirm it, and that people who thought otherwise were doing wishful thinking.

[mormont]

Apple Martini, on 22 February 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

And if you're familiar with how cagey Martin (understandably) is in a lot of his answers, you'd realize that "probably not" is about as close to "no" as he gets.

Well, of course I am. That's sort of the point I was making: that GRRM tries to leave himself some wiggle room on most answers, so it's very hard to recruit them as definitive evidence either one way or the other.

[Fearsome Fred]

OnionAhaiReborn, on 22 February 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Can prophecy be subverted?

There are a number of supernatural forces at work.  Can all of them be trusted?  As Christians used to say, back in the old days when most of them still believed in the Devil,  "Remember, Satan is a liar."

Quote

It hasn't been proven one way or another in the text yet, but I think GRRM has given us some clues as to where his mind is at on this subject. He's given us the Meera line above, that fantastic Gorghan of Old Ghis quote, "prophecy is like a treacherous woman. She takes your member in her mouth, and you moan with the pleasure and think, how sweet, how fine, how good it is...and then her teeth snap shut and your moans turn to screams. That is the nature of prophecy,"

That is one of the most hilariously bad lines in the history of ASOIAF.  The basic idea is merely that "prophesy can be treacherous."  Comparing a prophesy to a treacherous WHORE adds nothing to the basic idea, except it gives GRRM an excuse to make yet more gratuitous references to whores and cocks.

Quote

and then there is the fact that he has subverted the very title of his entire series A Song of Ice and Fire with the very famous LF quote "Life is not a song, sweetling. Some day you may learn that to your sorrow."

Why are you quoting a deranged villain, as if he were wise?  Do you think GRRM is on his side?

Quote

Personally, I think the great question of how ASoIaF will conclude is how GRRM will square all the prophecies running around with his intentional subversion of the usual fantasy ideas of gallantry, heroism, and predestination. GRRM appears to be opposed to the neatness of prophecies and songs.

Perhaps it is YOUR expectations, and Littlefinger's, that GRRM means to subvert.

Edited by Fearsome Fred, 22 February 2012 - 12:01 PM.