424 replies to this topic

[redriver]

Fearsome Fred, on 22 February 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

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.

Well,you learn something new everyday.

[Fire_Kiss]

I like Danny too, but I agree with the assumption that she's going to die by fire.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Fearsome Fred, on 22 February 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

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."

This only makes the point that prophecy cannot be trusted because we don't know where it came from. Thanks for adding an additional point to my argument.

Fearsome Fred, on 22 February 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

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.

You're picking out the words 'whore' and 'cock' for specific criticism....yet they don't appear in the quote. I think GRRM can go a little overboard with his use of 'cocks' and 'whores'...but he certainly didn't do that with Gorghon, and if he did, how would it change the inferences I am making about GRRM's thinking on the subject of prophecy?

Fearsome Fred, on 22 February 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

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

I am quoting a villain, yes, but villainy certainly does not equal stupidity. But more than that, all characters are saying the lines that GRRM gave them. So I'm not saying, 'Littlefinger is a righteous man and infallible on this subject let's all listen to him,' I'm asking us to consider what GRRM intended for us to think when he gave that line to one of his characters.

Fearsome Fred, on 22 February 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

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

Maybe it is my expectation that GRRM means to subvert, I have no way of knowing. All I can do is try to glean what I might from his words. So saying 'perhaps' it is not the case is not really an argument.

Edited by OnionAhaiReborn, 22 February 2012 - 01:16 PM.

[Apple Martini]

OnionAhaiReborn, on 22 February 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

Maybe it is my expectation that GRRM means to subvert, I have no way of knowing. All I can do is try to glean what I might from his words. So saying 'maybe' it is not the case is not really an argument.

That's all anyone can do, really.

This business of "well maybe he's smarter than you and has led you on" can go on and on and on in circles.

Maybe Jon is Rhaegar's son. Ah, but what if Martin expects me to think that and it's not true? But wait! Maybe I expect him to expect me to think that, in which case, I'd figure out that it's not true. But wait! Maybe he expects me to expect him to make it not true based on him expecting me to believe it, in which case, he might make it true. You end up with a version of Phoebe saying, "But they don't know that we know they know we know!"

At some point, you have to hang your nuts (proverbial or otherwise) out there and say, "I think that this is the case, based on X, Y and Z." If you're wrong, you're wrong. And yes, I think it's valid to use the author's past writing and statements are supporting evidence, absolutely. That's all this thread really does. But if you try to imply too many mind games and drag it back and forth too much, it just ends up being a mess.

[Gala]

Hello there! I would like to say that it is very interesting to read this thread and your posts (I appeal to all).

Thank you, Apple Martini for starting it!
I would like to say something. First of all, what on Earth does Chemistry degree have to do with fictional ASoIaF world? I do not mean insult anyone, I just don't understand why bringing that to the topic.

Secondly, I was, as many people (I am sure) were, under the delusion that Dany is some sort of fireproof, but in ADWD I had a doubt. I started researching this question - the Targs immune to fire. It seems that it's not the way it looked in both books and show! For example, after reading Dunk and Egg stories (I read those after ADWD), I saw the resemblance to the Dany's fire resistance: Egg also liked extremely hot bath even during very-very-very-very hot summer without rains! He didn't even ever sweet! There were a lot of examples of his resistance to heat (the same as Dany's examples, except the fire pyre, of course). But unfortunately, he died in something very similar to explosion (sadly! he was a nice person and surely a great King).

Later, I read the stories of Targ family members in wiki, it was quite unexpected to find out how many Targs died of fire, which is against the main idea I had, when I was reading first books. Today, I started reading this thread and read the chat interview with GRRM! He put everything to their places. He specifically said that Targ are not immune to fire and the thing with fire  pyre is the a sorcery of some kind, which was, I presume, accident, as I don't recall Dany really understanding what she was doing. (If somebody remember, please, tell me! I'm really interested, but I can't look for it right now - no books with me.)
It was more like intuition, but I do not claim she is nothing special - she definitely did something extraordinary that day! I liked her during first book, but later on…I don't know why, probably, I don't like her messiah style and "blood of a dragon", "fire and blood"! Except for giving birth for dragons, she didn't really do anything good (the idea to free people is worth admiration, but she didn't do that right) - look what she did to those cities, they are all burned and fallen!

So, it is clear that Dany is highly resistant to fire (as well as many Targs before her were), but she is not fireproof and never was. What she did was extraordinary, but it really was an accident -  once again I do not recall her knowing what she exactly was doing, she just guessed the blood magic process and yes she was lucky! Just imagine what would be if she didn't put those eggs into the fire, she would, probably, still be alive and unburned!

Oh, and I would like to say that we can argue and speculate what is right and wrong, but eventually we will have to wait to know the truth, so, please, don't be offended, if what I wrote is not what you think. Thank you.

P.S: sorry for mistakes, I'm lying in my bed with high fever, so…I'm certainly not fireproof or fire resistant

Edited by Gala, 22 February 2012 - 01:23 PM.

[redriver]

Gala, on 22 February 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Hello there! I would like to say that it is very interesting to read this thread and your posts (I appeal to all).

Thank you, Apple Martini for starting it!
I would like to say something. First of all, what on Earth does Chemistry degree have to do with fictional ASoIaF world? I do not mean insult anyone, I just don't understand why bringing that to the topic.

Secondly, I was, as many people (I am sure) were, under the delusion that Dany is some sort of fireproof, but in ADWD I had a doubt. I started researching this question - the Targs immune to fire. It seems that it's not the way it looked in both books and show! For example, after reading Dunk and Egg stories (I read those after ADWD), I saw the resemblance to the Dany's fire resistance: Egg also liked extremely hot bath even during very-very-very-very hot summer without rains! He didn't even ever sweet! There were a lot of examples of his resistance to heat (the same as Dany's examples, except the fire pyre, of course). But unfortunately, he died in something very similar to explosion (sadly! he was a nice person and surely a great King).

Later, I read the stories of Targ family members in wiki, it was quite unexpected to find out how many Targs died of fire, which is against the main idea I had, when I was reading first books. Today, I started reading this thread and read the chat interview with GRRM! He put everything to their places. He specifically said that Targ are not immune to fire and the thing with fire  pyre is the a sorcery of some kind, which was, I presume, accident, as I don't recall Dany really understanding what she was doing. (If somebody remember, please, tell me! I'm really interested, but I can't look for it right now - no books with me.)
It was more like intuition, but I do not claim she is nothing special - she definitely did something extraordinary that day! I liked her during first book, but later on…I don't know why, probably, I don't like her messiah style and "blood of a dragon", "fire and blood"! Except for giving birth for dragons, she didn't really do anything good (the idea to free people is worth admiration, but she didn't do that right) - look what she did to those cities, they are all burned and fallen!

So, it is clear that Dany is highly resistant to fire (as well as many Targs before her were), but she is not fireproof and never was. What she did was extraordinary, but it really was an accident -  once again I do not recall her knowing what she exactly was doing, she just guessed the blood magic process and yes she was lucky! Just imagine what would be if she didn't put those eggs into the fire, she would, probably, still be alive and unburned!

Oh, and I would like to say that we can argue and speculate what is right and wrong, but eventually we will have to wait to know the truth, so, please, don't be offended, if what I wrote is not what you think. Thank you.

P.S: sorry for mistakes, I'm lying in my bed with high fever, so…I'm certainly not fireproof or fire resistant

Indian or Pakistani though?Doesn't matter to me.I love both

[Apple Martini]

Gala, on 22 February 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

I would like to say something. First of all, what on Earth does Chemistry degree have to do with fictional ASoIaF world? I do not mean insult anyone, I just don't understand why bringing that to the topic.

It was brought up because people erroneously believed that Dany's hair catching in fire meant that fire actually had to touch her hair. This is not true.

Quote

Secondly, I was, as many people (I am sure) were, under the delusion that Dany is some sort of fireproof, but in ADWD I had a doubt. I started researching this question - the Targs immune to fire. It seems that it's not the way it looked in both books and show! For example, after reading Dunk and Egg stories (I read those after ADWD), I saw the resemblance to the Dany's fire resistance: Egg also liked extremely hot bath even during very-very-very-very hot summer without rains! He didn't even ever sweet! There were a lot of examples of his resistance to heat (the same as Dany's examples, except the fire pyre, of course). But unfortunately, he died in something very similar to explosion (sadly! he was a nice person and surely a great King).

Aegon V also died in a fire. His love of hot baths didn't really do much good there, I'm afraid.

Quote

Later, I read the stories of Targ family members in wiki, it was quite unexpected to find out how many Targs died of fire, which is against the main idea I had, when I was reading first books. Today, I started reading this thread and read the chat interview with GRRM! He put everything to their places. He specifically said that Targ are not immune to fire and the thing with fire  pyre is the a sorcery of some kind, which was, I presume, accident, as I don't recall Dany really understanding what she was doing. (If somebody remember, please, tell me! I'm really interested, but I can't look for it right now - no books with me.)
It was more like intuition, but I do not claim she is nothing special - she definitely did something extraordinary that day! I liked her during first book, but later on…I don't know why, probably, I don't like her messiah style and "blood of a dragon", "fire and blood"! Except for giving birth for dragons, she didn't really do anything good (the idea to free people is worth admiration, but she didn't do that right) - look what she did to those cities, they are all burned and fallen!

No one is saying that what Dany did in the pyre doesn't constitute fire immunity. What we are saying is that it was a one-time thing and is not normal for her or anyone else.

Everything else, I agree with.

Quote

So, it is clear that Dany is highly resistant to fire (as well as many Targs before her were), but she is not fireproof and never was. What she did was extraordinary, but it really was an accident -  once again I do not recall her knowing what she exactly was doing, she just guessed the blood magic process and yes she was lucky! Just imagine what would be if she didn't put those eggs into the fire, she would, probably, still be alive and unburned!

I'm sorry but I still do not see any actual evidence of this. Liking hot baths does not mean that you can withstand fire better than other people.

If she'd walked into the fire without the eggs, or hadn't used a blood sacrifice, or any other combination of factors, she would have died. It was a perfect storm of "magic" (it's possible that her Targ blood had little or even nothing to do with it) and that's why she survived it.

[Ashkan Stark]

What are you people talking about???? 367 post come on!! maybe she is not immune from fire but certainly she is not like normal people either,period!

[Gala]

Apple Martini,
actually, your comments to my post are exactly what I was trying to say: Aegon V didn't bother heat the same way as Dany (hot bath, hot weather etc), but he died because of fire; Targs are very resistant to those kind of "fire", that's something in their blood that makes them, so because, for example, the heat of hot water in both cases (Dany and Aegon) didn't effect them, but the others a slavegirl in Illirio's house and Dunk were effected - it burnt their skin a little bit, it become red, but in general Targs are not immune to fire of any kind; Dany's case was a blood magic case, but not her fireproof ability. That what I thought. I think her ignorance on this matter will play a bad trick with her.

I made a mistake by saying resistant to fire, what I meant was she's highly resistant to extreme heat.

Edited by Gala, 22 February 2012 - 01:43 PM.

[Winter's Lady]

Hmmm let me just give my opinion once more.
I think that in no way is Dany or any other Targ immune to fire. The pyre was a one time deal where magic was involved.
I do however think that Targs might have a somewhat higher tolerance for heat - NOT fire. She can tolerate hot baths, and Egg never broke a sweat even in summer in Dorne, so it's possible.

That's even in line with the whole hair-burning-but-not-scalp issue somehow. I (unfortunately) learned from experience that hair burns rather quick. Now, by the time the flames would have reached the scalp, the hair would be as good as gone, the flames go out almost immediately because skin doesn't catch as easy as hair, and the remaining heat from the fire might have been within her tolerance frame. Again - this is heat - not flames.

So, say it with me: Targs Are Not Immune To Fire

Edit: I should add that I don't think it was even necessary to have a higher heat tolerance for Dany to not get her scalp burned, but the tolerance thingy might be within the realms of possibility.

Edited by Lady of Oldcastle, 22 February 2012 - 01:51 PM.

[tze]

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

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.

First, to the bolded part: yeah, he did. He was asked if bonding to a dragon made a Targaryen immune to fire, and he said this was an opportunity to clarify a misconception, Targaryens are not immune to fire, and Dany's pyre incident was a unique thing. There is no possible way to interpret that as "Dany could actually be somewhat resistant to flames from her dragons." Because that's what the person who asked the question in the first place was asking---about the relationship between fire, dragons, and the Targaryens.

And the notion of there being a principled difference between "immune" and "somewhat resistant" has always seemed rather absurd to me. How are you "somewhat resistant" to fire in this context? You get second-degree burns instead of third-degree burns? You're still burned! And if you don't get burned, that's "immune", not "resistant".

Second, he actually answered the question of Targaryen fire resistance---once after the publication of AGOT, again after the publication of ACOK. He didn't have to clarify the nature of this funeral pyre and the fact that Targaryens are not immune to fire. He could have just smiled and refused to answer, as he's done so many times elsewhere. He took the time to address what he called a "misconception", so ignoring what he said (or pretending he wasn't answering in the context of Dany, when both times he says he was specifically addressing Dany's pyre) seems disingenous. People haven't been asking him this question since then, from what I can see, so it's not like he's suddenly clammed up since then.

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

One point I'd like to make about posters who oppose Daenerys

Perhaps framing your arguments in terms of arguments, not posters, would be the constructive way to go about it.

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

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.

It was luck. (Just because it came from luck, not skill, doesn't mean it didn't happen, so I don't know where the idea that it's being "written off" comes from.) When you get a wacky idea and it works, that doesn't mean you have special abilities in that area, it doesn't mean you actually know why it worked in the first place, it simply means you did something once.

The Others had risen long before that pyre, magic already existed in plenty of places (and apparently had for quite a while---Qarth and beyond the Wall, for example), and plenty of people other than Dany were doing, and have still been doing, magical things. The difference is that those people (Bran, Bloodraven, etc.) keep doing magical things. Dany is hardly the great magic-user of this series. At best she might have had some prophetic dreams, but hell, so have half the characters we've seen thus far. Riding Drogon, as I've said before, has perfectly logical non-magical implications---Drogon responds to displays of fearlessness, he's known Dany since he was a baby, and we never see Dany making him go somewhere he doesn't (very clearly) already want to go. She hatched the eggs once, but there's plenty of evidence, and you apparently agree, that she couldn't replicate it. A "skill" that you can't exercise repeatedly isn't actually a skill. It's the definition of luck.

I'm also reminded of the incomparable Dolorous Edd and the fate of poor Watt:

Quote

"I never win anything," Dolorous Edd complained. "The gods always smiled on Watt, though. When the wildlings knocked him off the Bridge of Skulls, somehow he landed in a nice deep pool of water. How lucky was that, missing all those rocks?"
"Was it a long fall?" Grenn wanted to know. "Did landing in the pool of water save his life?"
"No," said Dolorous Edd. "He was dead already, from that axe in his head. Still, it was pretty lucky, missing the rocks."

Just because something incredible happens to you, that doesn't mean you've now made Fate your bitch. Doing something that can only be done once doesn't make Dany inherently wonderful, or superhuman, or basically give her GRRM's equivalent of divine protection. It simply means that there's no do-over if those dragons die. And dragons, as we all know, can be killed.

Dany can't just rely on being able to pull the pyre trick again, because she has no way of knowing why it worked in the first place, and because GRRM has specifically said it was a unique, wonderous, magical event. But her thoughts in her final chapter heavily imply that she associates the situation in the pit, where she suffered burns and the fire wasn't close enough to her body to even singe her clothes, to an event where she suffered no burns and the fire was strong enough and encompassing enough that her clothes were incinerated. That she could analogize the two events, given the very explicit differences between them, tells me that she's seeing what she wants to see.

And who's saying Dany and the dragons aren't going somewhere? If there's one thing we've seen in the past five books, it's that things around Dany seem to constantly get destroyed, yet she herself keeps plugging along, to brand new things . . . that then get destroyed. Wherever she goes, she brings ruin. Never intentionally, but tell that to Drogo and the people of his khalasar, the warlocks of Qarth, the people of Astapor. Put her in Westeros, and based on the thematic trajectory of her story arc, she's going to do some very impactful things. Some very destructive, but definitely impactful, things. (And rather than say "oh, she's going to destroy the Others"---Dany pretty consistently, yet inadvertently, destroys the things she tries to save. The only way I can see her actually destroying the Others is if she heads to Westeros and tries to rescue the dang Others.)

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

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.

Who said it was normal? But plenty of people in ASOIAF are doing non-normal things. She hatched three dragon's eggs---and dragons are forces of destruction. Fire and blood. It was miraculous, but it wasn't a sign of divine approval of Dany herself or her personal actions, or an indication that she's meant as a savior. Dragons destroy, they don't heal, they don't build, they don't bring peace. In mummers' shows, dragons are what the heroes fight, they're not the heroes themselves. Not to mention, Dany brought forces of terrible destruction back into the world, and the idea that she gained any kind of ability to "not be harmed" via this act---from hatching creatures whose raison d'etre is causing harm---seems thematically illogical to me.

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

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.

First, for the fifteenth time, you actually don't know she's barren. Mirri Maz Duur wasn't exactly an unimpeachable source here, and getting pregnant in a medieval-type world requires (heterosexual) sex, which Dany hadn't actually been having until ADWD.

Second, I guess I'm unclear on what you're arguing here. This was a unique event that can't be replicated, and she was only fireproof because of the ritual, as Targaryens are not immune to fire. So . . . how on earth could Dany have been immune to fire in the dang pit?

Edited by tze, 22 February 2012 - 01:55 PM.

[Gala]

As I explained I made a mistake! I wrote fire, when meant those kind of "fire", which is heat, not flames.

If you read carefully, you would be, probably, more forgiving towards me - I have a fever, I can hardly think in my own language! I just lie in my bed with my laptop and read this forum!

Edited by Gala, 22 February 2012 - 01:53 PM.

[Winter's Lady]

Gala, on 22 February 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

As I explained I made a mistake! I wrote fire, when meant those kind of "fire", which is heat, not flames.

If you read carefully, you would be, probably, more forgiving towards me - I have a fever, I can hardly think in my own language! I just lie in my bed with my macbook and read this forum!

Same for me *cough*
*hands Gala a hot cup of tea and a tissue*

Edited by Lady of Oldcastle, 22 February 2012 - 02:01 PM.

[Fearsome Fred]

OnionAhaiReborn, on 22 February 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

This only makes the point that prophecy cannot be trusted because we don't know where it came from. Thanks for adding an additional point to my argument.

You're welcome.

Quote

You're picking out the words 'whore' and 'cock' for specific criticism....yet they don't appear in the quote. I think GRRM can go a little overboard with his use of 'cocks' and 'whores'...but he certainly didn't do that with Gorghon, and if he did, how would it change the inferences I am making about GRRM's thinking on the subject of prophecy?

It doesn't.  I just think its a silly quote.  Except for the "prophesy is treacherous" part, it is entirely gratuitous, whatever the precise words used.

Edit:  As I understand it, the "prophesy is treacherous" idea is unrelated to the idea of false prophesy.  I think Gorghon is expressing the idea that TRUE prophesies are treacherous, and often do not mean what is supposed.

Quote

I am quoting a villain, yes, but villainy certainly does not equal stupidity.

Depends upon your philosophy, I suppose.

Quote

But more than that, all characters are saying the lines that GRRM gave them.

Saruman expressed the lines JRRT gave him, but I think JRRT was on Gandalf's side of the argument.

Quote

So I'm not saying, 'Littlefinger is a righteous man and infallible on this subject let's all listen to him,' I'm asking us to consider what GRRM intended for us to think when he gave that line to one of his characters.

I don' t necessarily think he is on Littlefinger's side, when Littlefinger expresses the cynical idea that all the old songs and stories are pure bunk.   This is a fantasy, in which many of the old songs and stories seem to be threatening to come true.

Edited by Fearsome Fred, 22 February 2012 - 02:03 PM.

[Apple Martini]

Gala, on 22 February 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

As I explained I made a mistake! I wrote fire, when meant those kind of "fire", which is heat, not flames.

If you read carefully, you would be, probably, more forgiving towards me - I have a fever, I can hardly think in my own language! I just lie in my bed with my laptop and read this forum!

You're fine, you're fine.

[Apple Martini]

tze, on 22 February 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

Just because something incredible happens to you, that doesn't mean you've now made Fate your bitch.

I want to make shadowbabies with you right now.

Quote

And who's saying Dany and the dragons aren't going somewhere? If there's one thing we've seen in the past five books, it's that things around Dany seem to constantly get destroyed, yet she herself keeps plugging along, to brand new things . . . that then get destroyed. Wherever she goes, she brings ruin. Never intentionally, but tell that to Drogo and the people of his khalasar, the warlocks of Qarth, the people of Astapor. Put her in Westeros, and based on the thematic trajectory of her story arc, she's going to do some very impactful things. Some very destructive, but definitely impactful, things. (And rather than say "oh, she's going to destroy the Others"---Dany pretty consistently, yet inadvertently, destroys the things she tries to save. The only way I can see her actually destroying the Others is if she heads to Westeros and tries to rescue the dang Others.)

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Fearsome Fred, on 22 February 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Edit:  As I understand it, the "prophesy is treacherous" idea is unrelated to the idea of false prophesy.  I think Gorghon is expressing the idea that TRUE prophesies are treacherous, and often do not mean what is supposed.

I addressed this a little earlier by saying that, you're right, Gorghon doesn't make a comment on prophecy being false, but neither does he make a comment on prophecy being true. I take this quote in tandem with other factors to glean some information about GRRM's feelings about prophecy in general.

Fearsome Fred, on 22 February 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Saruman expressed the lines JRRT gave him, but I think JRRT was on Gandalf's side of the argument.

I don' t necessarily think he is on Littlefinger's side, when Littlefinger expresses the cynical idea that all the old songs and stories are pure bunk.   This is a fantasy, in which many of the old songs and stories seem to be threatening to come true.

Well, as GRRM himself likes to point out, he is a very different writer from Tolkien. But more to the point, I wouldn't call it an issue of 'whose side' GRRM is on in the argument. Taken on its own the LF quote doesn't mean much. It's an important and well known line because it encapsulates so much of the story's narrative thrust. Reaching for the most apparent example, LF is saying this to Sansa- I think most would agree that Sansa has learned that life is not a song at this point.

I'm comfortable agreeing to disagree on this, because it's such a sprawling discussion to have in this thread, but my personal opinion is that 'life is not a song' is more or less ASoIaF's intentionally ironic thesis.

[Nev yn]

Quote

the same as Dany's examples, except the fire pyre

Which examples exist aside from the pyre from the book canon, though?  That's what people are trying to argue here, the TV show section is elsewhere.  She touched a hot egg without being burnt, except she was the only one that thought it was hot in the first place.  She didn't get killed when a dragon missed her with fire breath, but she did get burned during the encounter (and later used that encounter to support her belief that she was fire made flesh).

[Errant Bard]

I'm a bit late, but...

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

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.

It seems to me the how and why is actually not up to them in your example either: they are going by train, on that specific track, with those specific stops and they are going because they are aboard the destiny train (and you are arguing that everyone is on the destiny train). They didn't choose to board that train, and they cannot get out of the train. So what's left? Only mediocrity. Grand acts or choices with consequence that would not come from "destiny" don't exist and cannot exist, because it would mean going off track.

So again, it does diminish the characters in my eyes, for one does not save the world if he's a puppet of destiny (for example): it was destiny that saved the world, and the character was just a tool. A tool doesn't deserve respect, or contempt, or anything for what's done with it. Even if it's a well-crafted tool.

Going back to Westeros, this means I can loath nobody and like nobody. It wasn't Jaime that pushed Bran, it was destiny: if Bran had not been crippled, bam, no link with Bloodraven, no saving the world. It wasn't Robb that slept with Jeyne, it was destiny, without it, no Robb death. One cannot hate Sybel for what she did, she was obviously shaped to betray Robb by destiny, too. Jon no killing Ygritte? No act marking him as noble, just destiny allowing him a way to survive to become Lord Commander. Sam deciding to save Gilly? Good way to swap babies and be in place to lead Bran. In the end every act of those character has an impact on the direction of the story. What's left? Not even the speeches, not even the talks, for hey, if they thought something else and said something else at one point, it might have changed everything (see: Eddard and Cersei)

But speaking of that, what about Rhaego? Destiny obviously exist except for what we decide was not destiny because it didn't happen? Isn't that a bit, I don't know, backwards?

Quote

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

But this is the exact opposite of Compatibilism, as you linked it later, where motives or nature are actually forced by some higher force. You could do something else if you had not been made to choose exactly what was wanted for you to choose. If motives were yours you could choose to do something else than destiny dictates. What you're describing is history, not destiny, but this is usually written afterwards. Here we are about (erm) what comes before.

In the end if you do good or you do bad, under the compatibilist view, the glory goes to the one who made you good or bad... and that's god, apparently.

I find that pretty bleak, and more than a little nonsensical.

Edited by Errant Bard, 22 February 2012 - 02:43 PM.

[Fearsome Fred]

OnionAhaiReborn, on 22 February 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

I'm comfortable agreeing to disagree on this, because it's such a sprawling discussion to have in this thread, but my personal opinion is that 'life is not a song' is more or less ASoIaF's intentionally ironic thesis.

Fair enough.  I am sure I am also guilty of interpreting the tale in light of my own philosophy.  But it is particularly hard to judge a story when it is unfinished.