SeanF Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Well, we know the last sentence in AGOT is strictly incorrect. Dragons certainly hatched after 98 AC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanna Stormborn Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 Well, I stand corrected. but it is still Danaerys' point of view. :) You disagree that the POV switches to omnipotent on a few occasions? Well, we know the last sentence in AGOT is strictly incorrect. Dragons certainly hatched after 98 AC. We established that hundreds = anything over 100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archmaester Drew Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 If other dragons exist it complete ruins Dany's whole story arc. Why would GRRM write a miracle into the last pages of the first book only to have it cheapened by a hibernating dragon or one just kicking around Westeros unnoticed. A few other wild dragons do not ruin Daenerys' whole story arc. Her dragons are not wild. This is why the Valyrians dominated Essos; because they had dragons that they could control. Wild dragons are wild fauna that are unpredictable and very dangerous. Valyrian dragons are like magic -- a sword without a hilt -- although useful to those who can control it. So Daenerys' dragons are still unique and significant. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archmaester Drew Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 You disagree that the POV switches to omnipotent on a few occasions? Yes, I think it is more like the narrative is receding back -- like a camera shot at the end of a scene, to a broader view -- but not necessarily omniscient. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanna Stormborn Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 A few other wild dragons do not ruin Daenerys' whole story arc. Her dragons are not wild. This is why the Valyrians dominated Essos; because they had dragons that they could control. Wild dragons are wild fauna that are unpredictable and very dangerous. Valyrian dragons are like magic -- a sword without a hilt -- although useful to those who can control it. So Daenerys' dragons are still unique and significant. :) Even if they don't 'ruin her arc' they make many many statements throughout all 5 books solid lies, what would be the point to go back on everything we have established thus far? Also why would the dragons only die out on one continent? Why does the winter last up to 20 years sometimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallTyrion Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Even if they don't 'ruin her arc' they make many many statements throughout all 5 books solid lies, what would be the point to go back on everything we have established thus far? Also why would the dragons only die out on one continent? Why does the winter last up to 20 years sometimes? Agree 100% GRRM has stated several times that he does not lie to the reader. Other dragons existing, when we have five books telling us otherwise, would absolutely count as a lie to the reader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanna Stormborn Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 Yes, I think it is more like the narrative is receding back -- like a camera shot at the end of a scene, to a broader view -- but not necessarily omniscient. :) Well I disagree, the Victarion and the Dany example have no proven falsehoods. I see no reason to distrust them. Does anyone know, are there more of these POV examples in other chapters? I can't think of any off-hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archmaester Drew Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Even if they don't 'ruin her arc' they make many many statements throughout all 5 books solid lies, what would be the point to go back on everything we have established thus far? Also why would the dragons only die out on one continent? Why does the winter last up to 20 years sometimes? Unreliable narrators. The characters are not lying, people just have incomplete or incorrect information (and there are plenty of examples of that!). Dragons only died out in Westeros because the ones we know about are all Valyrian dragons (or from Valyrian stock), and they were killed (and possibly poisoned by maesters or the septons). The seasons are likely from a magical imbalance that has been in effect since the Long Night. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 I don't see why this should a big issue. An omnipotent point of view can still be wrong. Martin started to write AGOT in 1991. The tale has grown in the telling since then, and so has the back story, and the wider story. Magic obviously didn't die out in the 130s AC. Bloodraven was a potent sorcerer. So is Melisandre. So, probably, are Qyburn and Marwyn. The Citadel's official line that magic once worked, but has mow disappeared is wrong. Magic waned, but is now waxing again. I doubt if we'll see any other dragons take part in the series. The world's a much bigger place than first envisaged. The mighty empires of the East would probably have no interest in the doings of the West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallTyrion Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Also if Dragons exist in the east why are Dany's Dragons in Qarth such a wonder? Why does Euron, who has sailed all over the world, say the only dragons are in Meereen with Dany? There's a difference between unreliable narrator and purposely misleading the reader. When every character says the same thing about a topic that's not unreliable narration it's purposely dishonest which GRRM has publicly stated he is opposed to. Anyone have the quote from Martin about lying to the reader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanna Stormborn Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 I don't see why this should a big issue. An omnipotent point of view can still be wrong. Martin started to write AGOT in 1991. The tale has grown in the telling since then, and so has the back story, and the wider story. Magic obviously didn't die out in the 130s AC. Bloodraven was a potent sorcerer. So is Melisandre. So, probably, are Qyburn and Marwyn. The Citadel's official line that magic once worked, but has mow disappeared is wrong. Magic waned, but is now waxing again.I doubt if we'll see any other dragons take part in the series. The world's a much bigger place than first envisaged. The mighty empires of the East would probably have no interest in the doings of the West.I think the point of an omniscient POV is that it cannot be wrong...... That's how I always understood it to work since I learned the word in 6th grade. I agree about magic waxing and waning, that's exactly what I meant, sorry if I didnt word it correctly. So you think there are other dragons, despite the last sentence of GOT, but that we will never see them because the empires of the East (where Dany is, and where everyone is in serious awe of her 'only dragons in the world') are keeping them a secret? I don't understand this argument at all. If we never see or hear from any other dragons, and never hear of anyone who has seen one, as far as this story goes, they don't exist, and the writing has not been one long lie for 5 books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archmaester Drew Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Also if Dragons exist in the east why are Dany's Dragons in Qarth such a wonder? Why does Euron, who has sailed all over the world, say the only dragons are in Meereen with Dany? There's a difference between unreliable narrator and purposely misleading the reader. When every character says the same thing about a topic that's not unreliable narration it's purposely dishonest which GRRM has publicly stated he is opposed to. Anyone have the quote from Martin about lying to the reader? Daenerys has the only known dragons, which is why they are so significant. This, however, does not preclude the existence of other dragons in the world that are unknown. The characters are saying that no one has seen a dragon for 150 years, not that they are extinct. :) Edit: There may even be known dragons in parts of the world we don't have information on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanna Stormborn Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 Also if Dragons exist in the east why are Dany's Dragons in Qarth such a wonder? Why does Euron, who has sailed all over the world, say the only dragons are in Meereen with Dany? There's a difference between unreliable narrator and purposely misleading the reader. When every character says the same thing about a topic that's not unreliable narration it's purposely dishonest which GRRM has publicly stated he is opposed to. Anyone have the quote from Martin about lying to the reader? :cheers: We keep saying the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kienn Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Funny."This statement" helps my point so it's literal."This statement" hurts my point so it's figurative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archmaester Drew Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 I think the point of an omniscient POV is that it cannot be wrong...... That's how I always understood it to work since I learned the word in 6th grade. I agree about magic waxing and waning, that's exactly what I meant, sorry if I didnt word it correctly. So you think there are other dragons, despite the last sentence of GOT, but that we will never see them because the empires of the East (where Dany is, and where everyone is in serious awe of her 'only dragons in the world') are keeping them a secret? I don't understand this argument at all. If we never see or hear from any other dragons, and never hear of anyone who has seen one, as far as this story goes, they don't exist, and the writing has not been one long lie for 5 books. No one is debating the meaning of omniscient, that is a red herring. Just because there are no recent dragon sightings in the known world does not mean they no longer exist. There are plenty of places for them to live away from human populations. That is my point -- not that Daenerys' dragons are insignificant, but just not necessarily the only dragons in the world. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallTyrion Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 No one is debating the meaning of omniscient, that is a red herring. Just because there are no recent dragon sightings in the known world does not mean they no longer exist. There are plenty of places for them to live away from human populations. That is my point -- not that Daenerys' dragons are insignificant, but just not necessarily the only dragons in the world. :) It's not a lack of sightings that makes us think they no longer exist. It's the author of the universe saying multiple times that they don't in the story. Danny's Dragons are significant because they are the only ones in the world. If they already exist why write a miracle into the story to bring them back? That makes zero sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archmaester Drew Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 It's not a lack of sightings that makes us think they no longer exist. It's the author of the universe saying multiple times that they don't in the story. Danny's Dragons are significant because they are the only ones in the world. If they already exist why write a miracle into the story to bring them back? That makes zero sense. Who says it's a miracle? It might just seem that way to those present. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoIaF Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Who says it's a miracle? It might just seem that way to those present. :) GRRM himself said it was a miracle: George_RR_Martin: 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallTyrion Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Who says it's a miracle? It might just seem that way to those present. :) George RR Marin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Damian Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Me thinks there is a possibility of dragons existing other than Dany's which includes the possiblity of ice dragons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.