IS Dany still the Unburnt?

[Lord Liam DarkStark]

sorry if someone forumed about this previously I'm sure there have been....So, we know she didn't burn in the funeral pyre comets, magic, and waking dragons. But was it a one time thing? Or is she still resilient to the flames?

I think she is. Cause reading what happened after Daznak's pit: she said the fire burned away my hair, eleswise it didn't touch me in refrence to the funeral pyre. And then she continues with it had been the same in Daznak's Pit

[Cryler]

One time thing George said so.

[Lord Liam DarkStark]

Yeah I've heard that. But that statement is super old and now dance is fairly new. So I've changed my mind

[Lord Liam DarkStark]

And the show has more insight than we do to the whole picture. And they are going full fledged with it. If the episode valar morghulis sn2 finale has any indication

[DaveRoid]

She is resistant to dragon fire, still immune to normal fire.

People like to qoute George from 15 YEARS AGO when he said Danny would "probably not" do the same thing she did in the pyre again. Folks fail to understand that he was being ambigous and giving himselve leavay rather than saying NO DANNY WILL NEVER BE IMMUNE TO FIRE AGAIN. Also he mentions that not all tygarians are fire resistance.That can mean only truly special dragons have it then. A similar analogy is just like wrags where 1 in 1000 first men is a wrag and 1 in 1000 wrags are greenseers.

Also the HBO show is setting Danny up to be fire immune (with holding the smouldering egg scene) and since George is involved he might have oked them to do it. I would imagine if she was not and was just deluding herself as the unburnt in the books (why though? she can test her skin against fire anytime she wants) and later she burns & dies from it, it would be pretty awkward and very confusing to fans not into weeds of things.

Now I know there is alot of Danny hate from DWD --where she does absolutely nothing--so lots of folks wish she would die and is not an AA or a dragon rider ( I mean comon, can you get more irrational than that? she is already riding Drogon!). The same folks like to point to a passage in DWD where "Danny's fingers are cracked and pink and her burns (from dragonfire) are healing". That passage is ambiguous in light of another--much more direct-- passage in the same chapter and fits the George's narrative on hinting on something and yet beign ambiguous at the same time.

The other, more direct passage:

"The fire burned her hair but otherwise did not touch her, just as before"

[Cynthia Snow]

Danny's fingers are cracked and pink and her burns (from dragonfire) are healing

Dany also says in that chapter,

The fire burned away my hair, but elsewise it did not tough me. It had been the same in Daznak's Pit.

I'm confused. She says the fire didn't burn her, but her fingers were cracked from burns... Why would only her hands be injured? And how why did she burn in the first place?

[ab aeterno]

If it helps, a lot of this ground has been covered over and over again, most recently here:

[The Dornishman's Wife]

I'm confused. She says the fire didn't burn her, but her fingers were cracked from burns... Why would only her hands be injured? And how why did she burn in the first place?

She says the fire didn't touch her. As she ducked under the sodding thing, she might even be literal... but in any case, the fire that burned her hands is probably not the same fire, but either the heat from the hot spear she touches or heat from Drogon as she rides him (he is wounded, so it's possible that some fire / intense heat can escape).

I would imagine if she was not and was just deluding herself as the unburnt in the books

Come on, it's not as if she styles herself "Daenerys Stormborn, the Fireimmune", she calls hersef the unburnt and she wasn't burned on Drogon's pyre (duh). And it's not as if she's reckless with fire, quite the opposite, she does fear it can hurt her. (And considering she does get burned, it would be a bit hard to argue that it couldn't.)

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Unless Dany burns another mage casting spells on a pyre with a dead husband, a dead dragonspawn in the literal sense, a dead horse and some dragon eggs, she is as human and burns as easily as everybody else. She is just deluding herself, Targs have a history for that. She gets burned in Daznak's pit, just dodges the worst part.

[Mattchoo]

Yeah she isn't fireproof at all, she dodged the worst part of the flame in the fighting pit.

It is odd though because from a solely TV series standpoint it would seem as if she is. Watch back to the first episode where she goes in to the bath that is supposedly far too hot for a normal person or something. She just sits in there as if nothing is wrong, then she survives the pyre with Drogo. It would be easy to mistake it, they might even go down that route.

[ab aeterno]

Yeah she isn't fireproof at all, she dodged the worst part of the flame in the fighting pit.

It is odd though because from a solely TV series standpoint it would seem as if she is. Watch back to the first episode where she goes in to the bath that is supposedly far too hot for a normal person or something. She just sits in there as if nothing is wrong, then she survives the pyre with Drogo. It would be easy to mistake it, they might even go down that route.

The difference is between being tolerant of high temperatures and being fireproof. From the books and the series we know that she was very tolerant of "scalding" water and that in fact she liked it, and I'm not sure that has changed, but the unburnt thing seems to be a one time show.

[Lord Liam DarkStark]

She is definitely still resistant to fire. I'm set on that now (: idc about her blistered hands she never said theywere burns. Drogons scales could of blistered her hands. Cause the way she says that line at the end of dance there is no point for that line unless she is still resistant.

[Lord Liam DarkStark]

I dontt usually compare the show and books but the show is making her completely resistant. I mean her dragons shot fire through her to get at pyat pree. Her clothes had scorch marks. And pyat pree caught fire and burned away very fast. If she wasn't resistant to those flames than why didn't she catch fire?

[ab aeterno]

I dontt usually compare the show and books but the show is making her completely resistant. I mean her dragons shot fire through her to get at pyat pree. Her clothes had scorch marks. And pyat pree caught fire and burned away very fast. If she wasn't resistant to those flames than why didn't she catch fire?

She spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder Uh, I mean, fire.

In all likelihood, it's just because it plays better to/for a tv audience who would probably complain if she was only fire-proof temporarily. It's just easier for them to be consistent on the show because they have less time to build up characters and give viewers information.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

She is definitely still resistant to fire. I'm set on that now (: idc about her blistered hands she never said theywere burns.

Yes, she did. I'm sorry, but she did.

I dontt usually compare the show and books but the show is making her completely resistant.

That seems likely. The Dany plot seems the most changed part of the books into the TV show (look at Meereen, look at all the people killed off that didn't die in the books, look at the changed mission of Jorah's). And many of those changes are perfectly ok, the storyline could very well work both ways. (GRRM did mention that he warned them that some changes would mean big troubles down the road but they decided to go ahead anyways - the fire immunity change was not explicitely addressed though my personal expectation is that it probably won't matter.)

[Lord Liam DarkStark]

Yes I thought that before. But I don't buy it. Not after daznak's pit.

She talks about her magic in the pyre. How her hair burned.

Then she speaks of drogon's fire and how her hair burned. Only her hair. So is she mad for fire. I don't think so. I think she is special. Blood of the dragon

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Yes I thought that before. But I don't buy it. Not after daznak's pit.

She talks about her magic in the pyre. How her hair burned.

Then she speaks of drogon's fire and how her hair burned. Only her hair. So is she mad for fire. I don't think so. I think she is special. Blood of the dragon

How her hair burned because she ducked under the fire.

[Lord Liam DarkStark]

How her hair burned because she ducked under the fire.

We all know she ducked. But you can't change my mind. Taking the HBO show into account and that last chapter. I think she is still resiliant to flame. Not invincible to flame. Everyone goes off a statement made fifteen years ago when george himself thought it was the magic of a one time thing. But his story has grown.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

We all know she ducked. But you can't change my mind. Taking the HBO show into account and that last chapter. I think she is still resiliant to flame. Not invincible to flame. Everyone goes off a statement made fifteen years ago when george himself thought it was the magic of a one time thing. But his story has grown.

Can't argue about taste - or opinions.

[Meddler]

How her hair burned because she ducked under the fire.

This discussion came up elsewhere, but I still don't understand how her whole head of hair would have burned off and her scalp would have been completely uninjured. When you "duck" under fire, but your hair still catches on fire, that's going to burn you pretty badly. That's at least as inconsistent the argument that she's fully fireproof and her hands still burned (I'm not saying either one is the case, I'm saying both arguments are inconsistent).