Jump to content

There is a velociraptor in Braavos


slant

Recommended Posts

But if it were feathered, Syrio probably would have used bird-like language in the description.  I just don't think it's unreasonable to acknowledge that most people probably didn't hear about the velociraptor feather thing until much later.  It's not like they are feathered in pop culture representations, even now.

They aren't knee-high in popular culture either. Noth something I'd call "terrible".

 

Utahraptor is more likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, he says "terrible walking lizard".

 

That's "terrible walking lizard."

 

Terrible lizard --> deinos sauros --> dinosaur

 

I would say that is a pretty big hint.

 

Why didn't this post get more attention?

 

The word dinosaur can be directly translated to terrible lizard. It's right there in every encyclopedia entry on dinosaurs. Martin is known for choosing his words wisely, and in this case, they fit too well to be a coincidence. He could have said "terrifying lizards" or "horrible lizards" or just "huge lizards" or something like that. But the use of terrible is a very strong indicator that Martin had dinosaurs in mind when he wrote that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blue is... sublime

 

 

But there are unicorns in Westeros.

 

Hippo don't resemble mice and they aren't hairy at all, furthermore they are bigger than Cows!

 

The lizards walk however, so clearly Syrio is talking about a Targaryen rather than an actual dragon.  The scythes for claws is reminiscent of Aerys refusing to let his fingernails be trimmed, and we all know he was terrible.  But there was only one Aerys, and he was dead.  Obviously some R'hllorist secretly snatched Aerys' body, brought him back, cloned him, and sold him and his clones to the Sealord for his zoo.  Mystery = solved.

 

:rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are three possibilities:
  • It's a made-up fictional cool, scary, lizard-like dinosaur-like creature that's well within the range of historical plausibility despite not having actually existed in our world.
  • It's one of the many kinds of cool, scary, lizard-looking dinosaurs that actually existed.
  • It's a velociraptor, but one that doesn't actually look or act like a velociraptor but rather a cooler, scarier, more lizard-like dinosaur.
Why is anyone invested in the third possibility? The first one is the coolest, and it fits in best with the tradition of "lost world" stories from the late 19th and early 20th century that GRRM is a known fan of, which made up all kinds of cool dinosaurs just because they were cool. If you insist on more plausibility, the second one does that better than the third, and without giving up much of the coolness.

Nobody tries to associate dragons, wyverns, lizard-lions, manticores, unicorns, etc. with any particular real-world species; why is a creature that's mentioned once in a half-dozen words different?

In the Jurassic Park series, it makes sense to try to explain away the velociraptor thing because they actually used the word "velociraptor" in the first movie, and had it coming out of the mouth of someone who should know what he's talking about, so they're committed to their mistake. There is no such mistake in AGoT, so why force on one the story just to explain it away?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point nothing would shock me.

I believe there's a James Bond villain who says that right before he gets knocked into a pool with an electrical appliance. Also, Peter Parker while facing away from tomorrow morning's headline about Electro. You're tempting fate here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip


In the Jurassic Park series, it makes sense to try to explain away the velociraptor thing because they actually used the word "velociraptor" in the first movie, and had it coming out of the mouth of someone who should know what he's talking about, so they're committed to their mistake. There is no such mistake in AGoT, so why force on one the story just to explain it away?

 

Jurassic Park (first film) was based on a book written before velociraptors having feathers was considered fact.  Let's keep in mind that for the time the story was written, it was scientifically accurate to the best of the author's knowledge.

 

Haven't seen any of the subsequent movies so I don't really care how they've dealt with the new info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...