424 replies to this topic

[Axon]

Agree that Targs are not immune to fire.  However, I think we will see Dany do something implicating such an immunity again before the series is over.

[Apple Martini]

PatrickStormborn, on 22 February 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

"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.

He explained it first, you apparently missed what he meant and I further elaborated. So in that sense, yes, I think it's fair to say that I explained it or at least added to the explanation.

When liking a character makes you disregard pretty decent evidence, then yes, I see that as undermining an opinion or at least necessitating that it be taken with a grain of salt. If you don't see it that, then that's great.

ETA: I'm sure that at least some people on here don't take some of what I say about Jon seriously because I like him. Same possibly with Davos, Asha, Sansa, etc. I'm OK with that and I understand it. I know that my like of Jon can make me biased in some ways and that, usually, I might choose to present things about him (or Davos, Sansa, etc.) in a more positive light. There's nothing wrong with that as long as you admit it. But saying that someone is your favorite character but you're not biased at all toward them or willing to skew things in their favor is ... very hard to believe.

Edited by Apple Martini, 22 February 2012 - 11:50 AM.

[redriver]

The phrase "Flame War" was invented for this,no?

Was it foreseen in the fires?

[Ran]

Onion,

Quote

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 thin, 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's not subversion. It's no different than the Horned Lord's remark on sorcery being a sword without a hilt -- the point is that prophecy is very dangerous. After all, you think you have it figured out, you think you know that it means great things for you or it means you've got a way out of some danger... and then you realize that no, you've misunderstood, your hopes turn to ashes, etc.

It does not mean that prophecy isn't true. It just means that you can never trust you know its meaning, and in essence, you might be better off simply not knowing what's to come. But it's still coming, either way.

[Cap Ou Pas Cap]

Ran, on 22 February 2012 - 05:34 AM, said:

Don't they exist? ...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.

That is one thing I hate in the books. Even if Martin decided to use prophecies only because he preffered such narrative manner (flashforwards), readers view books not as a techincal effort of a writer, but as a story with views and ideas. So what is only a tool for Martin, for readers becomes the promoted idea that everything is pre-destined. And I have problems with such an idea.

Ran, on 22 February 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

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.

Your explanation still very much denies the idea of the free will. And it can be proved. Stops in a train shedule are defined by place and time.
Let's assume, I am in one place now, but later am destined to be in another on a specific time. No matter what I do, there comes the point in time, when I absoluteluly must leave for that another place to physically get there on time. I have no other choice.

[Apple Martini]

redriver, on 22 February 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

The phrase "Flame War" was invented for this,no?

Was it foreseen in the fires?

They should just lock it. The little pill is immune or she isn't and no one's going to change their minds until she takes a face-full of flame and either lives or gets roasted. So it's pointless to keep arguing.

Edited by Apple Martini, 22 February 2012 - 11:53 AM.

[PatrickStormborn]

Apple Martini, on 22 February 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

He explained it first, you apparently missed what he meant and I further elaborated. So in that sense, yes, I think it's fair to say that I explained it or at least added to the explanation.

When liking a character makes you disregard pretty decent evidence, then yes, I see that as undermining an opinion or at least necessitating that it be taken with a grain of salt. If you don't see it that, then that's great.

Liking Daenerys has nothing to do with me disregarding "pretty decent" (but NOT CONCLUSIVE) evidence. I would never undermine an opinion simply because someone likes a character. If I was making posts saying "omg Dany is fireproof haha she's the best h8ers suck it", then you'd have every right to take my response less seriously. But I have not even disregarded the evidence. I'm just stating that the writing is ambiguous as far as I'm concerned -- particularly as Martin (and most of his readers) don't have Chemistry degrees. I'm NOT saying Dany is fireproof -- and liking Daenerys has NOTHING to do with my point.

Apple Martini, on 22 February 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

They should just lock it. The brat princess is immune or she isn't and no one's going to change their minds until she takes a face-full of flame and either lives or gets roasted. So it's pointless to keep arguing.

Ah, such an eloquent term! I really don't see the need to insult fictional characters. But whatever.

Edited by PatrickStormborn, 22 February 2012 - 11:54 AM.

[Ygrain]

/cough/ I don't have a Chemistry degree, and it definitely does not require one to grasp the notion that things burn at various temperatures and that the temperature of the igniter does not necessarily equal the temperature of the burning matter. - And I have said this in this thread at least twice.

[Apple Martini]

PatrickStormborn, on 22 February 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Ah, such an eloquent term! I really don't see the need to insult fictional characters. But whatever.

Right, because no one ever calls any other fictional character in this series boring, an idiot, a slut, cliched, evil, a moron, incompetent, a tightass, a psychopath, etc. This is the first time someone has ever expressed dislike of a character in the history of the Internet.

Quote

Liking Daenerys has nothing to do with me disregarding "pretty decent" (but NOT CONCLUSIVE) evidence. I would never undermine an opinion simply because someone likes a character. If I was making posts saying "omg Dany is fireproof haha she's the best h8ers suck it", then you'd have every right to take my response less seriously. But I have not even disregarded the evidence. I'm just stating that the writing is ambiguous as far as I'm concerned -- particularly as Martin (and most of his readers) don't have Chemistry degrees. I'm NOT saying Dany is fireproof -- and liking Daenerys has NOTHING to do with my point.

My point is, I think that it's because you like Dany that you're willing to see this evidence as NOT CONCLUSIVE. You want to believe that she's immune, and read the evidence in a way that supports that. And hey, I might be in the opposite position: I dislike her and might want her not to be immune. The point is, acting like someone's like or dislike of a character has no bearing on how they read this argument is disingenuous to the extreme.

[PatrickStormborn]

Ygrain, on 22 February 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

/cough/ I don't have a Chemistry degree, and it definitely does not require one to grasp the notion that things burn at various temperatures and that the temperature of the igniter does not necessarily equal the temperature of the burning matter. - And I have said this in this thread at least twice.

I was referring to the fact that hair can be burned without being hit by flames, and yet despite the temperature of the flames it will not burn the scalp. I don't think this is familiar with most people (or even Martin), but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Ran, on 22 February 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

Onion,



That's not subversion. It's no different than the Horned Lord's remark on sorcery being a sword without a hilt -- the point is that prophecy is very dangerous. After all, you think you have it figured out, you think you know that it means great things for you or it means you've got a way out of some danger... and then you realize that no, you've misunderstood, your hopes turn to ashes, etc.

It does not mean that prophecy isn't true. It just means that you can never trust you know its meaning, and in essence, you might be better off simply not knowing what's to come. But it's still coming, either way.

I don't take Gorghon's quote to mean that prophecy definitely will not come true, and I apologize if it seemed that way. I was trying to say that we have hints as to whether or not GRRM thinks prophecy can be subverted, not that Gorgon explicitly told us that it can be. I don't think Gorghon's quote contains any specific comment on whether prophecy comes true or does not come true- it is simply a  comment on what happens when you become obsessed or enamored with prophecy. And given that it is GRRM put these words in this character's mouth, I think it gives us a sense of what GRRM's thoughts are on prophecy- they are tricky beasts. We've never seen GRRM say prophecy is immutable, but we have seen him call into question the idea of predestination with Meera's quote, and the neatness of 'songs' and prophecies with LF's and Gorghon's quotes. Taken together, I begin to see a pattern in GRRM's thinking on the subject of predestination.

Edited by OnionAhaiReborn, 22 February 2012 - 12:04 PM.

[PatrickStormborn]

Apple Martini, on 22 February 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

Right, because no one ever calls any other fictional character in this series boring, an idiot, a slut, cliched, evil, a moron, incompetent, a tightass, a psychopath, etc. This is the first time someone has ever expressed dislike of a character in the history of the Internet.

Cliched, boring and idiot aren't exactly the same as calling a character a "brat princess" or a "slut" or "incompetent". I'm glad you changed your post anyway (before I made my post), so you must somewhat agree with me that it wasn't necessary to the discussion.

Quote

My point is, I think that it's because you like Dany that you're willing to see this evidence as NOT CONCLUSIVE. You want to believe that she's immune, and read the evidence in a way that supports that. And hey, I might be in the opposite position: I dislike her and might want her not to be immune. The point is, acting like someone's like or dislike of a character has no bearing on how they read this argument is disingenuous to the extreme.

1) Find a post where I've said "I hope and think that Dany's immune to fire because she's my fav!" I don't think you'll find one.
2) I find the evidence inconclusive because the writing isn't particularly specific. Again, it's nothing to do with liking Daenerys.
3) I'm trying to suggest that there might be times when Dany has an increased resistance to fire. I'm not trying to argue that it's impossible to burn her.

[PatrickStormborn]

OnionAhaiReborn, on 22 February 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

I don't take Gorghon's quote to mean that prophecy definitely will not come true, and I apologize if it seemed that way. I was trying to say that we have hints as to whether or not GRRM thinks prophecy can be subverted, not that Gorgon explicitly told us that it can be. I don't think Gorghon's quote contains any specific comment on whether prophecy comes true or does not come true- it is simply a  comment on what happens when you become obsessed or enamored with prophecy. And given that it is GRRM put these words in this character's mouth, I think it gives us a sense of what GRRM's thoughts are on prophecy- they are tricky beasts. We've never seen GRRM say prophecy is immutable, but we have seen him call into question the idea of predestination with Meera's quote, and the neatness of 'songs' and prophecies with LF's and Gorghon's quotes. Taken together, I begin to see a pattern in GRRM's thinking on the subject of predestination.

I don't think Martin has shown that prophecy can be subverted. He's just showing us that they get fulfilled in ways that the characters are not expecting (Dany as the stallion who mounts the world instead of Rhaego, Jaime as the valonqar, etc.)

[Ygrain]

PatrickStormborn, on 22 February 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

I was referring to the fact that hair can be burned without being hit by flames, and yet despite the temperature of the flames it will not burn the scalp. I don't think this is familiar with most people (or even Martin), but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

I believe I mentioned that one previously, as well. A material starts burning when due to the temperature of its surroundings it reaches its temperature of, er, ignition? - You will excuse my poor grasp of English chemistry terminology.

- Just for the record: I like Dany.

[Apple Martini]

PatrickStormborn, on 22 February 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

1) Find a post where I've said "I hope and think that Dany's immune to fire because she's my fav!" I don't think you'll find one.
2) I find the evidence inconclusive because the writing isn't particularly specific. Again, it's nothing to do with liking Daenerys.
3) I'm trying to suggest that there might be times when Dany has an increased resistance to fire. I'm not trying to argue that it's impossible to burn her.

Dany is your favorite character and you keep finding new and interesting ways to dismiss evidence that shows that she's a mere mortal. It's not just the fire thing -- "If Dany tortures someone again, I'll be worried!" "Dany has allowed for torture on more than one occasion." "Well I see no evidence that she ordered it!"

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. You don't have to say, "I want Dany to be immune!" to show that that's your viewpoint.

ETA: To my knowledge, I have not called Dany a slut. I call her incompetent because in Meereen, she is.

Edited by Apple Martini, 22 February 2012 - 12:12 PM.

[Ran]

Quote

I have no other choice.

Free will is not about having choice in every single thing in life. The place you're going to be at some point may be one of those things you don't have a choice about, is all.

We are wrestling with quite a lot of philosophy, but basically I think for the purpose of the series, GRRM is presenting a compatibilist world where determinism and free will actually co-exist... but the definition of "free will" is a little different than what you (and incompatibilists) might use.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

PatrickStormborn, on 22 February 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

I don't think Martin has shown that prophecy can be subverted. He's just showing us that they get fulfilled in ways that the characters are not expecting (Dany as the stallion who mounts the world instead of Rhaego, Jaime as the valonqar, etc.)

Ok, take LF's quote "Life is not a song." Now, we read this and we know that the title of this series is A Song of Ice and Fire, and we later find out that the 'Song of Ice and Fire' is in some way related to the prophecy about the PTWP by way of Dany's vision of Rhaegar/Elia in the House of the Undying. So 'life is not a song' is directly connected in this way to probably the most major prophecy in the books. So why is GRRM doing this? Why is he telling us life is not a song, and spending such a large portion of the narrative upending the idea of songs and gallantry in the 'Iron Throne/War of Five Kings' plotline, just to have AA ride in on a dragon or with a flaming sword and kill some Others? Is the point he is trying to make that life actually is a song? I doubt it.

And then there is Jojen and the green dreams. What do you think, did the gods give Jojen green dreams so he could see but not change them? I don't know the answer, but I do know that GRRM is asking the reader to ask questions about this. Look, I believe the AA prophecy will probably be fulfilled in some way, but I don't know how. But I also think GRRM has something more in store for us than a tidy wrapping up of the prophecy and its meaning. I think it is within the realm of possibilty that it won't come true at all. I believe that 'prophecy' is another fantasy narrative trope that GRRM intends to subvert in some way. I do not believe he is writing a story of predetermination, all roads lead to prophesized Rome. I think the green dreams or visions in the flame, in particular, have the potential to not just be misread but also changed by character agency.

Edited by OnionAhaiReborn, 22 February 2012 - 12:18 PM.

[PatrickStormborn]

Apple Martini, on 22 February 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

Dany is your favorite character and you keep finding new and interesting ways to dismiss evidence that shows that she's a mere mortal. It's not just the fire thing -- "If Dany tortures someone again, I'll be worried!" "Dany has allowed for torture on more than one occasion." "Well I see no evidence that she ordered it!"

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. You don't have to say, "I want Dany to be immune!" to show that that's your viewpoint.

ETA: To my knowledge, I have not called Dany a slut. I call her incompetent because in Meereen, she is.

Jaime is also my favourite character, and yet I don't think you'd be able to tell that from my posts. It's the same with Arya and Tyrion. I don't allow my liking of characters to skew my judgement.

But that's not my viewpoint. So you are, in fact, wrong. Throwing a duck analogy in there won't make you right.

I never said you have called Dany a slut. I just chose the words I thought were most offensive on your list.

[Apple Martini]

OnionAhaiReborn, on 22 February 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

Ok, take LF's quote "Life is not a song." Now, we read this and we know that the title of this series is A Song of Ice and Fire, and we later find out that the 'Song of Ice and Fire' is in some way related to the prophecy about the PTWP by way of Dany's vision of Rhaegar/Elia in the House of the Undying. So 'life is not a song' is directly connected in this way to probably the most major prophecy in the books. So why is GRRM doing this? Why is he telling us life is not a song, and spending such a large portion of the narrative upending the idea of songs and gallantry in the 'Iron Throne/War of Five Kings' plotline, just to have AA ride in on a dragon or with a flaming sword and kill some Others? Is the point he is trying to make that life actually is a song? I doubt it.

And then there is Jojen and the green dreams. What do you think, did the gods give Jojen green dreams so he could see but not change them? I don't know the answer, but I do know that GRRM is asking the reader to ask questions about this. Look, I believe the AA prophecy will probably be fulfilled in some way, but I don't know how. But I also think GRRM has something more in store for us than a tidy wrapping up of the prophecy and its meaning. I think it is within the realm of possibilty that it won't come true at all. I believe that 'prophecy' is another fantasy narrative trope that GRRM intends to subvert in some way. I do not believe he is writing a story of predetermination, all roads lead to prophesized Rome. I think the green dreams or visions in the flame, in particular, have the potential to not just be misread but also changed by character agency.

I agree. And not just changed, but fulfilled. As in, what you do causes the vision in the flame to come to be.

[Fearsome Fred]

Apple Martini, on 22 February 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

What would it take to convince you that Dany is not immune to fire, when her burns from the pit, Martin's own say-so and a really decent explanation of the chemistry involved in burning hair (it actually came to that, which is kind of embarrassing) apparently haven't? Do you want to believe it that badly?

This is too much.  With all due respect to ROTS and his interesting story of hair burning, I don't think his story, or his chemistry expertise, come anywhere close to proving that happened to Dany was not abnormal.  To his credit, ROTS is not pushing this as hard as you are, or in as confrontational a manner.

It is very unlikely, if not impossible, that a person with a full head of hair could have it burn off entirely in a fire without suffering serious burns.  I see nothing in ROTS's anecdote, or his chemistry expertise, that proves otherwise.

Normal hair burns at about 450 degrees farenheit (or hotter if fanned by wind, as with all fires).  The temperature at which overheated skin suffers injury is at 113 degrees farenheit.  Obviously the flames are more than hot enough to injure skin.  Whether the skin actually does suffer injury depends on a number of complex factors having to do with heat transfer.  For instance, one factor that helps avoid injury in the case of many hair fires, is the fortunate fact that the heat of flames tends to travel upwards, and hopefully away from skin.

Another factor is circulation.  It is possible, for instance, for a person with good circulation to put his feet in 120 degree water, leave them there, and not suffer injury, since his blood circulation keeps the skin of the feet below 113 degrees.  Similarly, if one patch of your hair is on fire (and the heat of the flame is not being transferred to the scalp too directly or rapidly), it is possible that blood flowing in from surrounding areas of the scalp will keep that area relatively cool.  But obviously, if the ENTIRE head is on fire, the task of cooling the skin by circulation becomes more difficult:  the blood flowing into a patch of skin is likely to be just as hot as the blood flowing out, since it also comes from an area that is being simultaneously overheated.

But if you are outdoors, in a chaotic situation, and your entire head is on fire (long hair and all), it seems to me impossible that the wind would not at some point blow the flames directly against the skin, causing very rapid heating and very direct immediate burning.

I also should mention that normal clean natural hair burns slowly and steadily.  The experience described by ROTS is almost certainly related to the hair treatments ROTS was using.