Jump to content

"Dracarys," or, "Be careful with that word ..."


Recommended Posts

It's just occurred to me that the only way Jon could outright PROVE he has Targ blood - is if only Targs can bond with dragons and he is able to do so.

But that's ultimately just as meaningless as an artifact would be, given that dragons have refused known Targaryen-descended riders and accepted ones whose Targ ancestry is, shall we say, extremely suspect. It doesn't seem to prove anything one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See that wasn't his word, that was your word, he said miracle. And miracle and freak are not synonyms of each other and nobody has every really argued the semantics of freak and miracle because they really are not the same thing.

Miracle, an amazing and wonderful event.

Miracle, an even that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of god.

Freak generally has a negative connotation and does not involve the supernatural or violate the laws of nature. Abnormal and abnormality are synonyms of freak.

You can freak out but can you miracle out?

Now you picked freak for a reason, I know you know the quote because you have used it many times before.

In truth I on't think Martin will give the in depth explanation people want. He skipped over it a lot in his latest book even mentioning it's not really known how it works exactly. Bond, blood, training, and if you pay attention different ways were used for people to get there Dragons, and it was the dragons that picked the rider. You had reason like blood, food, because they had been ridden before and were more accustomed to a rider but that was not always the case, blood was not always the case, etc...

So if there is no repetitive pattern for the bonds, then either all the answers are right, or none of the answers are right and it's something else. Personality also seems to play a part, as the dragons either adopt some the riders personality being some sort of magical bond, and if that is at least part of the case then perhaps dragons bond with people with similar traits to themselves. Martin has made it clear the dragons have personality, and their personalities are all different.

What we have not seen is a non Targ blooded rider, everyone so far was suppose to have Targ blood. I would not be surprised if Martin leaves the answer to your question somewhat ambiguous.

Ill even agree to the "magical bond" thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just occurred to me that the only way Jon could outright PROVE he has Targ blood - is if only Targs can bond with dragons and he is able to do so.

But isn't it very likely all the Starks have a little drop of Targ blood?

I didn't read all of the recent "You had the better claim, Your Grace" thread, so maybe that was proven not so though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you so dead-set on the dragonblood thing? Even the maester writing the novella doesn't claim to know everything about dragons and their riders. Don't you think that this family has a vested interest in spreading the myth that only they can ride dragons, lest someone else try to take one? It reeks of propaganda and especially after reading TPatQ I'm amazed people aren't more skeptical about it.

Honestly not dead set on it, but thus far still leaning that way. I like the propaganda comment, of course Targ's would suggest only THEY can ride.

After reading tPatQ, what surprised me was how truly vulnerable Dani's 3 truly are. I just assumed they would be a much greater threat than they really are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But "bonding" HAS to suggest something...gotta be Dragonblood.

You wouldent say the Hound bonded his mount???

Sure, why not? Stranger is a mean mother f***er, yet Sandor can ride him. It's not a magic bond, but it's a bond. We still do not understand what "bonds" a dragon and his rider. This isn't Eragon where dragons are these super smart creatures who pick their rider while in egg form. They're dumb wild beasts. For all we know all it takes to ride a dragon is to convince that dragon to let you, and bribery works well for that. We keep being lead to believe it's this magical bond, but we have no proof, not really. And as Apple said, it makes sense that the Targs would spread propaganda that only those with magic Valyrian blood can ride dragons, these are a group of people who do not want/ cannot afford for their rulership to be questioned.

There is a strong probability that the bond us truly magic, maybe similar to the warg bond, but until we get some parameters on which to understand the bonds, we should question it. Dany is pretty undeniably bonded to Drogo, yet she clearly does not have the same bond as the Starks and their wolves do. Maybe it's not a true bond, but I doubt it. Too much knowledge is lost within the series to make definite statements at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that you don't need dragonblood or valyrian spells in order ride a dragon, that's mainly because I subscribe to the Bran = 3rd head (ice) theory, but to assume that a grown and already bonded dragon will unleash fire whenever someone randomly says "dracarys" is completely :bs:. Maybe the two unbonded ones would respond to this command if it comes from a familiar person or if it benefits them, but I have doubts that they'll do it randomly (which is, if I'm correct, what this thread suggests).


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the two unbounded ones would respond to this command if it comes from a familiar person or if it benefits them, but I have doubts that they'll do it randomly (which is, if I'm correct, what this thread suggests).

You.. You know it already happened, right? As in, the very idea that this might happen in future is directly tied to an ACTUAL textual occurrence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You.. You know it already happened, right? As in, the very idea that this might happen in future is directly tied to an ACTUAL textual occurrence.

I'm talking about grown dragons. Obviously the young ones are more flexible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danys dragons are, and always will be, young. The series won't last long enough for them to be "grown".

It depends on your definition for grown, but I consider them so as long as they are able to carry a rider. And I'm pretty sure that we'll see as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on your definition for grown, but I consider them so as long as they are able to carry a rider. And I'm pretty sure that we'll see as much.

Go ahead and consider them that, the Targaryens in TPATQ provide a good insight into what they (and ergo GRRM) considers "grown". Also, there's no reason to think that being "grown" suddenly undoes the connection the dragons already have with the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is difference between riding a dragon and maybe, conversing. I think the OP's premise is pretty shaky.

"Drogon," Dany said softly, "dracarys." And she tossed the pork in the air. Drogon moved quicker than a striking cobra. Flame roared from his mouth, orange and scarlet and black, searing the meat before it began to fall. As his sharp black teeth snapped shut around it, Rhaegal's head darted close, as if to steal the prize from his brother's jaws, but Drogon swallowed and screamed, and the smaller green dragon could only hiss in frustration.

Daenerys hear clearly gives a command to Drogon, and he responds. As simple as that. Rhaegal or Viserion do not breathe fire as the command was for Drogon alone. Rhaegal only jumps up to snatch the pork.


"So I see. Dracarys?"
All three dragons turned their heads at the sound of that word ' and Viserion let loose with a blast of pale gold flame that made Ser Jorah take a hasty step backward.

All three dragons turn to look up as to who is bellowing the command. This simply because they've been trained to do something at that command. They don't leap up for Jorah and put up a show of dragonfire, One of them shoots flame to him as a warning that you don't command us. It is not them obeying a order but them telling jorah to back off, as simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of them shoots flame to him as a warning that you don't command us. It is not them obeying a order but them telling jorah to back off, as simple as that.

Absolute conjecture that you literally just typed up because you believe it to be true even though there is absolutely no way to prove this assertion (and likewise, no way to disprove it). Viserion responded to "Dracarys" by shooting fire. That's a fact. That the fire was a warning (and specifically to tell Jorah not to try command them) is absolutely unsupported by the text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolute conjecture that you literally just typed up because you believe it to be true even though there is absolutely no way to prove this assertion (and likewise, no way to disprove it). Viserion responded to "Dracarys" by shooting fire. That's a fact. That the fire was a warning (and specifically to tell Jorah not to try command them) is absolutely unsupported by the text.

Well the same holds true for the OP. That's why I said it was shaky. Is it then supported by the text that Viserion obeyed Jorah? And seeing that Dany has bonded with Drogon only, what about Rhaegal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it then supported by the text that Viserion obeyed Jorah?

Yes. Viserion turned to the person who said "dracarys" and enacted the action he has been trained to take when he hears "dracarys". He implicitly, in text, absolutely 100% obeyed Jorah the same way Drogon obeys Dany (read: by responding to external audio stimuli). Whereas AM has drawn conclusions based on textual evidence, the assertion that Viserion was 'warning' Jorah has no supporting textual evidence and is, realistically, directly countered by the scene itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Viserion turned to the person who said "dracarys" and enacted the action he has been trained to take when he hears "dracarys". He implicitly, in text, absolutely 100% obeyed Jorah the same way Drogon obeys Dany (read: by responding to external audio stimuli).

If I train my dog to bark when I say "bark" he'll do so. If an unknown person tries that, and the dog barks at him in disdain, would you say he obeyed the person? That argument is way off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I train my dog to bark when I say "bark" he'll do so. If an unknown person tries that, and the dog barks at him in disdain, would you say he obeyed the person? That argument is way off.

I'd say the argument of comparing a command to "bark" with a command to "breath fire" is way off, particularly when all you have is a hypothetical anecdote to back yourself with. Nevermind that dogs =/= dragons and barking =/= breathing fire.

Viserion knows that "dracarys" means breath fire. Viserion breaths fire when Jorah says "dracarys". I fail to see how the argument is "off" when it is a literal direct reflection of the text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go ahead and consider them that, the Targaryens in TPATQ provide a good insight into what they (and ergo GRRM) considers "grown". Also, there's no reason to think that being "grown" suddenly undoes the connection the dragons already have with the word.

There is no such thing as dragons having full growth, because they're constantly growing. Which means that the term dosen't refer to something exact (as you make it look like) and you can use it freely. And I consider that the best time you can say they reached maturity is when they're albe to ride into a fight. But don't turn this discussion into arguing semantics.

I never said that they're undoing the connections they already have with the word, merely changing some of them (as any being does).

It's fair to assume that they're no longer interested in games and being cute around people. The lash worked for Dany but it did not for Quentyn, why should 'dracarys' be any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...