Jump to content

Archived

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

FreyPiesForSkagos

Three observations: Is HS bluffing? What's going on with Aeron? Future of the dragons? (SPOILERS)

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, ummester said:

1) No, I think the HS believes he will always be replaced.

2) Again no - I think dragons can get out of hand. Think Godzilla. THe only difference is that a person can sympathise with a dragon.

1) So, since you believe he is sincere, do you also agree with him?

3) Well, I meant to say that nukes can get out of hand in a certain what that dragons can't. Of course they can get out of hand in their very own ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FreyPiesForSkagos said:

1) So, since you believe he is sincere, do you also agree with him?

No, because I don't have faith in the 7 :) But I do agree with his more socialistic ideals, however - that working majority of a society should band together and stand up against the elite minority. This never seems to happen until the shit hits the fan, however, as it happening in GoTs,

3) Well, I meant to say that nukes can get out of hand in a certain what that dragons can't. Of course they can get out of hand in their very own ways.

Nukes are a mindless weapon entirely controlled by humanity. Nukes can never get out of hand, only the humans that deploy them.

Dragons as depicted in ASoIaF are capable of deciding what they want to burn and eat and also capable of being trained - so they have a more complicated relationship with the humans that ally with them than a nuke, if that is what you mean? This I agree with entirely - and is probable exactly why GRRM used dragons and not nukes because it can lead to more complicated conflict for the characters.

Makes me wonder though, if a dragon is hungry enough, would it eat the person it bonded with? I have seen people that have had their faces licked off by their pet cats when they have been trapped in the house with the person after death and have also heard of dogs that have laid down and starved near their dead owner. Is a dragon more like a cat or a dog?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ummester said:

No, because I don't have faith in the 7 :) But I do agree with his more socialistic ideals, however - that working majority of a society should band together and stand up against the elite minority. This never seems to happen until the shit hits the fan, however, as it happening in GoTs,

Nukes are a mindless weapon entirely controlled by humanity. Nukes can never get out of hand, only the humans that deploy them.

Dragons as depicted in ASoIaF are capable of deciding what they want to burn and eat and also capable of being trained - so they have a more complicated relationship with the humans that ally with them than a nuke, if that is what you mean? This I agree with entirely - and is probable exactly why GRRM used dragons and not nukes because it can lead to more complicated conflict for the characters.

Makes me wonder though, if a dragon is hungry enough, would it eat the person it bonded with? I have seen people that have had their faces licked off by their pet cats when they have been trapped in the house with the person after death and have also heard of dogs that have laid down and starved near their dead owner. Is a dragon more like a cat or a dog?

1) Okay, so I guess we agree on the important things here.

3) Yeah, well, but that basically just confirms what I've said, I'd say. Yes, a dragon can get out of hand without a human being. A nuke probably needs a human being. (Ignoring nukes rotting for lack of maintenance which also can become dangerous.) My point is, however: You need one crazy motherfucker with a nuke and it spells apocalypse (or close enough). One crazy motherfucker with a dragon most likely spells only roasted motherfucker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FreyPiesForSkagos said:

My point is, however: You need one crazy motherfucker with a nuke and it spells apocalypse (or close enough). One crazy motherfucker with a dragon most likely spells only roasted motherfucker.

Depends how big the dragon is - but there is nothing more dangerous and destructive than a dragon in the ASoIaF universe, except perhaps the Others but we don't know enough about how they work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ummester said:

Depends how big the dragon is - but there is nothing more dangerous and destructive than a dragon in the ASoIaF universe, except perhaps the Others but we don't know enough about how they work.

The dragon can, of course, wreak havoc of its own accord. But that's something a nuke can't really do. That's exactly what I am talking about: There are huge differences. A dragon is not a metaphor for a nuke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FreyPiesForSkagos said:

The dragon can, of course, wreak havoc of its own accord. But that's something a nuke can't really do. That's exactly what I am talking about: There are huge differences. A dragon is not a metaphor for a nuke.

Then what is it a metaphor for, in modern terms?

It's a crocodile dog with nuclear capability, how about that ? :D

We don't have anything that it can be a direct metaphor for - our dangerous predators like sharks, big cats and polar bears can't really be trained and none of our destructive machines have instinct or emote in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ummester said:

Then what is it a metaphor for, in modern terms?

It's a crocodile dog with nuclear capability, how about that ? :D

We don't have anything that it can be a direct metaphor for - our dangerous predators like sharks, big cats and polar bears can't really be trained and none of our destructive machines have instinct or emote in any way.

Exactly. What's the problem here? Not everything has to be a metaphor. Why would it have to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FreyPiesForSkagos said:

Exactly. What's the problem here? Not everything has to be a metaphor. Why would it have to be?

Not everything has to be a metaphor but every major story element should have relevance to the tale's meaning - and all fiction, whether natural or unnatural, passes some kind of comment on humanity. All story's ask, 'who am i?' or 'what are we?' or depict the human heart in conflict with itself, as GRRM states - so ultimately, Dany's dragons must be synonymous with something related to those questions, just as mythological dragons represent greed, fear, heroism and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ummester said:

Not everything has to be a metaphor but every major story element should have relevance to the tale's meaning - and all fiction, whether natural or unnatural, passes some kind of comment on humanity. All story's ask, 'who am i?' or 'what are we?' or depict the human heart in conflict with itself, as GRRM states - so ultimately, Dany's dragons must be synonymous with something related to those questions, just as mythological dragons represent greed, fear, heroism and so on.

Of course there is some kind of relevance. But it doesn't have to be as simple as "Exactly X in Martin's world represents exactly Y in our world."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×