Jump to content

Archived

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

E.S. Dinah

Bran will not be able to warg a dragon!

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Valyrian sorcery is rooted in fire and blood, not fire and souls.

Blood means blood sacrifice, means death. You can have dragons free and glorious, and can control them, but it comes at a cost literally and symbolically, dead children, Hazzea and Rhaego. GRRM purposefully works the language so that Rhaego is shown as a cost Dany paid. Hazzea is why Dany condemned her dragons to an enclosure. He harps on it. Dragon's cost the live's of children and Dany willfully denies/accepts that. She pays the price. As Valyrian's accepted the sacrifice for the power.

Quote

"What, o' the queen's little pets?" Brown Ben's eyes crinkled in amusement. The grizzled captain of the Second Sons was a creature of the free companies, a mongrel with the blood of a dozen different peoples flowing through his veins, but he had always been fond of the dragons, and them of him.

"Pets?" screeched Reznak. "Monsters, rather. Monsters that feed on children. We cannot—" 

"Silence," said Daenerys. "We will not speak of that."

Quote

You warned me that only death could pay for life. I thought you meant the horse."

"No," Mirri Maz Duur said. "That was a lie you told yourself. You knew the price." 

Had she? Had she? If I look back I am lost.

That's the story. The pinnacle theme of the whole series, Dany on one side willing to pay the price and Jon on the other, unwilling. Rhaego is the price Dany paid, for Hazzea she paid a blood price. If I look back I am lost she says of both of them. No acknowledgement, no regrets.

The souls and blood do mingle, that's very important, it is half the language. Bloodraven, fire and blood, blood of the dragon, the blood of the dragon must stay pure, wolf's blood, kin to dragons. It is why blood is everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chrisdaw said:

Blood means blood sacrifice, means death. You can have dragons free and glorious, and can control them, but it comes at a cost literally and symbolically, dead children, Hazzea and Rhaego. GRRM purposefully works the language so that Rhaego is shown as a cost Dany paid. Hazzea is why Dany condemned her dragons to an enclosure. He harps on it. Dragon's cost the live's of children and Dany denies/accepts that. She pays the price. As Valyrian's accepted the sacrifice for the power.

That's the story. The pinnacle theme of the whole series, Dany on one side willing to pay the price and Jon on the other, unwilling. Rhaego is the price Dany paid, for Hazzea she paid a blood price. If I look back I am lost she says of both of them. No regrets.

The souls and blood do mingle, that's very important, it is half the language. Bloodraven, fire and blood, blood of the dragon, the blood of the dragon must stay pure, wolf's blood, kin to dragons. It is why blood is everywhere.

Blood means blood. Blood sacrifice means death. The entire point of adding a word is to change the meaning. This is how language works. Remember what Mel did to those poor leeches? No human babies were required for that. 

Rhaego and Hazzea were not given as sacrifices, nor were their deaths deliberately planned to give anyone control of a dragon.

There is ZERO evidence that the Valyrians sacrificed their children to gain control of the dragons. It's your idea.

There is no one pinnacle theme of the series. There are many themes, and several at the top. This is only one of them.

There is nothing in the language that says the souls and the blood mingle. Bloodraven is called that because people thought his birthmark looked like a bloody raven. Blood of the dragon is deliberately not written "soul of the dragon." 

Blood is everywhere because blood is part of life. Because it contains genetics and disorders, and if you lose too much of it you die. Blood is present in childbirth, and on battlefields, and at weddings in Westeros. Blood supports the life of the body. It does not support the soul. And that's why Drogo was not himself when MMD kept him from dying--what was missing was his soul, and no amount of blood sacrifice (even an unborn child, who was not swapped with a dragon) could change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Blood means blood. Blood sacrifice means death. The entire point of adding a word is to change the meaning. This is how language works. Remember what Mel did to those poor leeches? No human babies were required for that. 

Rhaego and Hazzea were not given as sacrifices, nor were their deaths deliberately planned to give anyone control of a dragon.

There is ZERO evidence that the Valyrians sacrificed their children to gain control of the dragons. It's your idea.

There is no one pinnacle theme of the series. There are many themes, and several at the top. This is only one of them.

There is nothing in the language that says the souls and the blood mingle. Bloodraven is called that because people thought his birthmark looked like a bloody raven. Blood of the dragon is deliberately not written "soul of the dragon." 

Blood is everywhere because blood is part of life. Because it contains genetics and disorders, and if you lose too much of it you die. Blood is present in childbirth, and on battlefields, and at weddings in Westeros. Blood supports the life of the body. It does not support the soul. And that's why Drogo was not himself when MMD kept him from dying--what was missing was his soul, and no amount of blood sacrifice (even an unborn child, who was not swapped with a dragon) could change it.

To say Rhaego was not given as a sacrifice would be to ignore what GRRM went out of his way to provide. He specifically had MMD accuse Dany of knowingly giving Rhaego and Dany does not deny it but rather questions it herself and closes up before giving an answer. It is a "rather deny a hard truth than face it, if I look back I'm lost" deal. Hazzea's death is symbolically the cost of Dany's dragons, no explanation beyond what I quoted is needed for that.

There is one pinnacle theme of the series and this is it. It is the four times Eddard refused to do harm to innocent children, Tywin and the Targ children, Cersei and the bastards, Jon running into Craster, then Stannis, then the baby swap, Hazzea, Dany's child prisoners and Rhaego. It is a child's life vs not just an individual's power, but the greater good, a peaceful realm or victory against the Others.

Blood is everywhere relating to skin changing and Valyrians riding dragons because skin changing and second lifing causes blood mingling, among other possible physical changes. Before he decided to give him a birthmark to explain it, the author decided Bloodraven would be Bloodraven because he wanted the association. The birthmark doesn't come before the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, chrisdaw said:

To say Rhaego was not given as a sacrifice would be to ignore what GRRM went out of his way to provide. He specifically had MMD accuse Dany of knowingly giving Rhaego and Dany does not deny it but rather questions it herself and closes up before giving an answer. It is a "rather deny a hard truth than face it, if I look back I'm lost" deal.

Hazzea's death is symbolically the cost of Dany's dragons, no explanation beyond what I quoted is needed for that.

Dany doesn't deny it because she's so mixed up she doesn't know what to think. The text is clear that she thought a horse was all that was necessary. MMD says Dany knew the price in the same way that she said Dany will never bear children. She's making it up as she goes. If Rhaego was the price, then why command them to bring a horse? That was a deliberate attempt to blind Dany to the true cost. And that cost was bringing Drogo back (minus his soul), not swapping Rhaego with a dragon. That particular death did not really pay for life, because Drogo was not really living.

Symbolically the cost. That's exactly what I'm saying. Your theory is that a child is literally the cost of dragonriding. But you have no evidence of such a literal cost. Dany's dragons supposedly came from Asshai, not Valyria, so no previous bonding would have any hold over them. But she is never called on to sacrifice anyone or anything in order to ride Drogon.

Quote

There is one pinnacle theme of the series and this is it. 

The author says there is not one pinnacle theme. If you'd like to argue with him, by all means go ahead.

Quote

skin changing and second lifing causes blood mingling

Nothing in the text supports that statement.

Quote

Before he decided to give him a birthmark to explain it, the author decided Bloodraven would be Bloodraven because he wanted the association. The birthmark doesn't come before the name.

Do you know this for a fact? Are you a writer? Never mind. If you were a writer you'd know that things don't always come in the order expected. Names and nicknames often come last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Dany doesn't deny it because she's so mixed up she doesn't know what to think. The text is clear that she thought a horse was all that was necessary. MMD says Dany knew the price in the same way that she said Dany will never bear children. She's making it up as she goes. If Rhaego was the price, then why command them to bring a horse? That was a deliberate attempt to blind Dany to the true cost. And that cost was bringing Drogo back (minus his soul), not swapping Rhaego with a dragon. That particular death did not really pay for life, because Drogo was not really living.

Symbolically the cost. That's exactly what I'm saying. Your theory is that a child is literally the cost of dragonriding. But you have no evidence of such a literal cost. Dany's dragons supposedly came from Asshai, not Valyria, so no previous bonding would have any hold over them. But she is never called on to sacrifice anyone or anything in order to ride Drogon.

The author says there is not one pinnacle theme. If you'd like to argue with him, by all means go ahead.

Nothing in the text supports that statement.

Do you know this for a fact? Are you a writer? Never mind. If you were a writer you'd know that things don't always come in the order expected. Names and nicknames often come last.

The text is not clear at all that Dany did not pay for life with Rhaego's death, rather it very deliberately goes out of its way to raise that question and have Dany leave it unresolved. GRRM isn't here to take it up with, but the series will have a climactic scene brought about by a climactic decision on Jon's part not to sacrifice a child against Dany's willingness to do so. Call it what you will, that's pinnacle theme to me. No I don't know for a fact that the author thought up a tattoo of a blood raven for a character and then thought hey let's call him Bloodraven. I suppose more stupid and random things have happened out there in the wide world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2018 at 5:55 AM, Lord Varys said:

We have no evidence that Bloodraven actually was aware of or used his skinchanger abilities back when he was Hand of the King.

Isn't calling Bloodraven a man with a thousand eyes and one a big indication that he was using his skinchanger abilities even back then? It's something the readers are supposed to pick up on after reading ADWD. Obvious to readers, but not to Bloodraven's peers. It's a natural trait that doesn't require much training, as we see with the Stark kids. Arya doesn't even know she's a skinchanger but she has "wolf dreams." So it's hard to believe that he went beyond the Wall and suddenly realised what he could do. 

On 3/18/2018 at 5:55 AM, Lord Varys said:

George doesn't have to give us details on Valyrian history to confirm or make it so that there were dragons fighting dragons back in Old Valyria. All he needed to do was to have a character mention this fact. And he had Prince Daemon do just that.

Yes he does. If it was a prominent thing, GRRM would have put that in the chapters about Valyria. Instead, there's a phrase of a line from a character that doesn't even appear in the main books. 

On 3/18/2018 at 5:55 AM, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra and Aegon II survive the deaths of their dragons, though. As do Jaehaera, Aegon III, Baela and Rhaena, and Viserys I.

Because their dragons due natural deaths. 

On 3/18/2018 at 5:55 AM, Lord Varys said:

Robert's Rebellion takes place nearly exactly 150 years after the Dance. And that war didn't really finish the Targaryens, did it?

In the passage of time, 150 years is not such a long time. Yes it did. Dany is the only surviving "full" Targ and she is barren. That house isn't coming back. Also, the dragons don't last 150 with the Targs. 

On 3/18/2018 at 5:55 AM, Lord Varys said:

Blood sacrifices are part of many magical rituals, often times in a rather arbitrary manner.

Exactly! But in the case of Dany, she's not burning a random animal like the Red Priests. 

On 3/18/2018 at 5:55 AM, Lord Varys said:

The Valyrian dragons were bred for war. And they died in war, just as the Targaryen dragons did. Killing and being killed was their purpose in life. There is no indication that dragons do not like to kill each other. In fact, Vermithor attacks two other dragons all by himself, and he, Tessarion, and Seasmoke rip each other to pieces without any rider influencing their actions. Have those dragons 'sinned', too? And what about Sunfyre and Grey Ghost? Sunfyre killed that dragon simply because he could, presumably.

Or the Cannibal. He fed on dragon eggs and hatchlings.

That dragon was enraged, and this is also something that happened during the Dance, when the dragonriders were fighting eachother. These dragons were enraged and incited by war and the action of their riders. In Sunfyres case, he refuses to eat after the king makes him eat the other Targ. What makes you think Vermithor actions were un-influenced? Someone tries to slay him while he's barely awake and his rider has been just murdered. Isn't this how Grey Wind acts after Rob is killed?

I have no idea what was wrong with Cannibal, the wild dragon. Maybe he was part crocodile. 

On 3/18/2018 at 5:55 AM, Lord Varys said:

LOL, most of the people up there had severe issues. Joff is an unruly young child who gets agitated when he cuts himself on the throne in ACoK. Aerys II was a well-known madman who was apparently simply not willing or capable to sit still on the throne, leading to the many cuts he suffered up there. Rhaenyra sat on the throne for hours and hours in full armor, after she had taken KL. There is no indication that she cut herself, simply talk about blood dripping down her legs - which most likely came from a delicate woman unaccustomed to armor wearing armor for a day and a night - first on dragonback during the day and then on the Iron Throne during the night. Viserys I was a fat and sick man when he ascended the Iron Throne and cut himself up there when delivering a judgment. Fat and sick men are more likely to cut themselves on a monstrosity like the Iron Throne than young and agile men, no? And Maegor was simply killed on the throne - either he killed himself, or he was murdered up there.

Uh huh. What are examples of people who were not murderous or have done other terrible things accidentally cutting themselves on the Throne? Why do these cuts and bruises follow a pattern? Also, Viserys I sits the Iron Throne for a long time until that judgement without cutting himself in any way. 

On 3/18/2018 at 5:55 AM, Lord Varys said:

Yet the Targaryens and their dragons thrived during the reigns of both Jaehaerys I and Viserys I, never mind the fact that the Targaryens and their dragons attacked and killed each other after the death of King Aenys

Jaehaerys I was a good king and smart enough not to go on dragon-dragon killing like his brother that's why his reign was a great time. Targs thrives during Viserys I largely due to the prosperity out forth during Jaehaerys I's rule. It was Viserys I's reign that results in Dance anyway. Before Dance, it was the individual Targs who attacked dragons, like Maegor, and meets horrible fates. But in Dance, entire families got dragged into it leading to  Targs losing their dragons and eventually their power. 

On 3/18/2018 at 5:55 AM, Lord Varys said:

There is no such legend, just the claim that the people of Asshai supposedly taught the Valyrians how to bond with the dragons. But there is no proof that this is true.

It's explicitly stated in TWOIAF that Septon Barth is recording various legends referring to the origin of the dragons. The Asshai story is one such tale he records, along with others from Qarth and from Valyrians themselves. The legends point to the truth in some way. Once more, the Shadow people are not the people of Asshai. Asshai is by the Shadow but it isn't  in the Shadow. The mystery group is from the Shadow, the place where all maesters' learning fails us. 

On 3/18/2018 at 5:55 AM, Lord Varys said:

She says she took care of Rhaego. But there is no talk about her cursing him.

“This was no god’s work,” Dany said coldly. If I look back I am lost. “You cheated me. You murdered my child within me.”

“The stallion who mounts the world will burn no cities now. His khalasar shall trample no nations into dust.”

On 3/18/2018 at 5:55 AM, Lord Varys said:

Dany saw an alternate reality. We have no way of what reality, just that it was one of many possible alternate realities. We cannot draw any conclusions about the 'real reality' from visions about alternate realities.

She saw things that were, things to come, and things that could have been. This isn't multiverse. 

On 3/18/2018 at 5:55 AM, Lord Varys said:

But their purpose was to be used as weapons. And weapons can break.

Just because the Valyrians rode dragons to war, that doesn't mean the reason for dragons' existence is to be a weapon of war. 

On 3/18/2018 at 5:55 AM, Lord Varys said:

Many of those dragonlords hated each other. And they fought against each other occasionally on dragonback, using their dragons to kill, you know, their dragons. And presumably each other along with them.

Only assuming from that line from Daemon. Maybe they had other ways to fight each other, like palace intrigue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×