WeaselPie Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Tyrion.... Arya.... Samwell... Thoros... and I think Mel are all said to understand/read High Valyrian. Did I miss anyone? Missandei. Hmm. Probably other nobles learned it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoIaF Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I tend to believe GRRM at his word, that it was a freak incident.Well, not quite a freak accident:"Q: Do Targaryens become immune to fire once they "bond" to their dragons?A: Granny, thanks for asking that. It gives me a chance to clear up a common misconception. TARGARYENS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FIRE! The birth of Dany's dragons was unique, magical, wonderous, a miracle. She is called The Unburnt because she walked into the flames and lived. But her brother sure as hell wasn't immune to that molten gold."He called it a miracle which does have some mysticism to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 Well, not quite a freak accident:"Q: Do Targaryens become immune to fire once they "bond" to their dragons?A: Granny, thanks for asking that. It gives me a chance to clear up a common misconception. TARGARYENS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FIRE! The birth of Dany's dragons was unique, magical, wonderous, a miracle. She is called The Unburnt because she walked into the flames and lived. But her brother sure as hell wasn't immune to that molten gold."He called it a miracle which does have some mysticism to it. And the use of the world "miracle" implies that it was unique (a word he also uses) and completely out of human control. But hey, semantics are fun, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Alysanne™ Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 And Drogon was the only dragon in the vicinity at the time, yes? And by your own estimation, Drogon would only obey Dany anyway because of their bond. But yeah, the command itself is pretty widespread knowledge. Yea Viserion and Rhaegal weren't there. Irri unchained them later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 Yea Viserion and Rhaegal weren't there. Irri unchained them later on. I just want to make sure this distinction is made before someone tries the "Hurr people said 'dracarys' and nothing happened hurr" line of argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeaselPie Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 OP what do you think the implications of this are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Alysanne™ Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 And the use of the world "miracle" implies that it was unique (a word he also uses) and completely out of human control. But hey, semantics are fun, right? I don't think it was a freak of nature, Dany's dreams foreshadowed it, meaning it was meant to happen, a miracle specific to her. Viserys was hitting her, hurting her. She was naked, clumsy with fear. She ran from him, but her body seemed thick and ungainly. He struck her again. She stumbled and fell. He struck her again. She stumbled and fell. “You woke the dragon,” he screamed as he kicked her. “You woke the dragon, you woke the dragon.” Her thighs were slick with blood. She closed her eyes and whimpered. As if in answer, there was a hideous ripping sound and the crackling of some great fire. When she looked again Viserys was gone, great columns of flame rose all around, and in the midst of them was the dragon. It turned its great head slowly. When its molten eyes found hers, she woke, shaking and covered with a fine sweat. Thick and ungainly represent her pregnancy and her thighs slick with blood represent her miscarriage and after those events a dragon appeared representing the birth of the dragons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yolkboy Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 And the use of the world "miracle" implies that it was unique (a word he also uses) and completely out of human control. Dany called herself 'mother of dragons' before even walking into the fire, so i'm not sure I can agree (with the human control part). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Rahvin Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 You make a good point...I really thought "bonding" dragons was going to be more complex, along the lines of Jon/Ghost, after reading about Nette, and how she "bonded" her dragon, seems primitive, kinda like feeding steak to a mean pitbull until he warms up to ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 OP what do you think the implications of this are? Depends on what it means. 1. Alysanne is right and Drogon will only obey Dany, but that means the other two riderless dragons are "open." 2. They were responding to Jorah as a familiar figure they trusted, which could imply that Valyrian blood isn't necessary to tame a dragon. 3. Someone will try to "steal" the nuclear code and attempt to use it to get one of the dragons to work for them, or accidentally say the word and cause unintended harm. 4. Dany made kind of a dumbass choice to 1. pick a command that's in a language that's fairly well known in that part of the world and 2. make that command public on multiple occasions. Take your pick. I don't think it was a freak of nature, Dany's dreams foreshadowed it, meaning it was meant to happen, a miracle specific to her. Getting off-topic to the point at hand, but a "miracle specific to her" doesn't make it any less of a freak occurrence. Miracles by their definition are always specific to the people for which they occur, that's kind of what makes them miracles. ETA: Because it's not pertinent to the thread, this is the last I'll say on this subject. Anyone who wants to debate the dragon-hatching miracle or lack thereof can do it somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Beyond the Wall Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 As an example, I have a highly intelligent beast of my own. A really fluffy beast the size of a small direwolf (ok, she is a German shepard). Smartest dog I ever met. Understands German and English commands. If I say "Has the post arrived?" She goes absolutely mental because she heard the word "post" and then assumes that that evil man who drops mail in our slot each day is at that moment arriving. The word, even used in normal conversation ignites a reaction that is completely insane. Now, if anyone throws ball, she will wait to be told "raste" before running off to catch it. If the ball lands in water she will not move, and would rather be scolded for not listening. Why, well she hates water. Completely afraid. The only person that can get her to willing enter water is my adult son whom she believes is her alpha. My point? Even a really well trained beast, is 1. Still a beast. 2. Uses its brain. And 3. Will obey its master regardless of its own fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeirwoodTreeHugger Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 My cat is named Dracarys so I say that word a lot. Hopefully no dragons come around my building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Rahvin Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 2. They were responding to Jorah as a familiar figure they trusted, which could imply that Valyrian blood isn't necessary to tame a dragon. I don't agree with this, i'm of the belief that you do infact need to be blood of the dragon to bond one Getting off-topic to the point at hand, but a "miracle specific to her" doesn't make it any less of a freak occurrence. Miracles by their definition are always specific to the people for which they occur, that's kind of what makes them miracles. ETA: Because it's not pertinent to the thread, this is the last I'll say on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 2. They were responding to Jorah as a familiar figure they trusted, which could imply that Valyrian blood isn't necessary to tame a dragon. I don't agree with this, i'm of the belief that you do infact need to be blood of the dragon to bond one And I think the Nettles anecdote is meant to imply the exact opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 If a dog is trained by the word sit would it not respond to others it's sort of familiar with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickStormborn Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I really don't understand the point of this thread? The Unsullied literally shouted "Dracarys" back at Dany the first time it was used in warfare, so the fact that other people can say the word should not be news to anyone, lol. One thing I will comment on: Daenerys is fluent in High Valyrian. We're not. If she thinks no one is going to say "dracarys" in a sentence, I think she's probably right. I don't think her logic is "No one is going to be talking about dragonfire", but more that the word "dracarys" would not necessarily be used. But really, if "dracarys" is coming back into the plot anytime soon (and I don't really think it will), I think it'll probably be used by Daenerys against someone who is riding one of her dragons; the fact that Dany has some sort of bond with all three dragons will surely be a plot point if any of them fall into the hands of her enemies. How can someone using "dracarys" against Daenerys effectively advance the plot in any way, when Rhaegal and Viserion are already looking likely to fall into enemy hands? And Drogon was the only dragon in the vicinity at the time, yes? And by your own estimation, Drogon would only obey Dany anyway because of their bond. But yeah, the command itself is pretty widespread knowledge. Erm, nope. All three dragons were in the air by this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Rahvin Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Well she was a dragonseed, afterall...I just think her method of "Bonding" was too simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoamingRonin Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 If a dog is trained by the word sit would it not respond to others it's sort of familiar with? I think the issue is that someone besides Dany might say it and a bunch of innocent people will die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yolkboy Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Back on topic, a really interesting OP, something I'd not thought of. Chekhov's Dracarys? The fact Grrm gives us Jorah setting things off, makes a future catastrophe a distinct possibility. Regarding Nettles, i don't think we can be sure what is being implied. A false sense of doubt - or an exception? Both stances are equally valid with what we know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 If a dog is trained by the word sit would it not respond to others it's sort of familiar with? Hey, I'm not opposed to them responding to Jorah for that reason. But in that case, the Valyrian blood thing gets shaky; if Jorah doesn't have Valyrian blood, then they shouldn't obey him. And if they obey him because he's familiar to them, then that implies that other factors are at play besides Valyrian blood. Well she was a dragonseed, afterall...I just think her method of "Bonding" was too simple. Was she? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.