Jump to content

Poll: Did Summer See a Dragon?


Platypus Rex

Recommended Posts

On 11/20/2018 at 4:52 AM, Platypus Rex said:

You are evidently an epistemological nihilist. 

I don't know what this means but I sense an attempt to manipulate language to try and come off as clever in proposing a daft interpretation of one line in one of the novels and rather smugly disdaining the vast majority of intelligent readers who have told you exactly why they disagree.

On 11/20/2018 at 4:52 AM, Platypus Rex said:

If I told you I saw bear with my own eyes, you would still tell me that the burden was on me to prove that what I saw was real, and not a dream, vision, or hallucination (metaphorical or otherwise). 

No, I would not because the spotting of bears in so mundane and frequent as to be a commonplace and unremarkable occurrence and you are a (presumed) reliable witness who has seen bears before and could be reasonably expected to comprehend what you saw.

Had you for a moment glimpsed a bear standing on it's hind legs on the edge of a forest in poor visibility, had never set eyes on a bear before and came along and told me you had spotted something you did not recognize or comprehend but believed to be Bigfoot and the burden of proof was on me to disprove that Bigfoot existed then, yes, I would tell you that the burden of proof was on you.

Summer did not see what you think he saw.  Bran does not think he saw anything out of the ordinary.  It's literature with fire from a wolf's pov and dragon symbolism for the reader.  It's not a real dragon.

On 11/20/2018 at 4:52 AM, Platypus Rex said:

And if you saw the bear with your own eyes (which we all as readers effectively did, through Summer) you would still say that the burden is on me to prove that what YOU saw was real.  

Oh dear.  Attempt to manipulate language to try and come off as clever confirmed.  The whole point is that I did not see a bear, you think you saw a bear.  I saw a burning castle, the "burden of proof" in your scenario is on me to show there is a burning castle.  I think I can do that rather easily as I have the novel with a burning castle in it and am quite happy this amounts to sufficient proof.  You don't have to prove anything to me about what I saw, rather you have to about what you claim you saw.  I mean really....

On 11/20/2018 at 4:52 AM, Platypus Rex said:

I do not believe that GRRM was trolling his readers.  This is a theoretical possibility, but not worth considering. 

Ok, i see.  You are so convinced on the literal "truth" of Summer's vision that for you the dragon is as established in fact as Dany's dragons.  And the only way you can consider that the "Winterfell Dragon" is not real is for Summer's vision to have been a deliberate act by GRRM to "troll" the reader, i.e. to deliberately introduce a real dragon at Winterfell in this scene and then later laugh at us while revealing this was just a joke at our expense?

Or, as the poll, suggests, you could just be wrong.

On 11/20/2018 at 4:52 AM, Platypus Rex said:

Similarly, the idea that everything I see is a hallucination is also a theoretical possibility, but not worth considering. A willingness to adopt "first principles" and assume the reasonable reliability of sensory data, is the starting point for rational thought.

You are trying too hard here to make this some kind of deep philosophical debate about the nature of reality and perception.  It's about whether the single line of text from a wolf's perspective supports a whacky theory not about whether we can trust our senses.   Radically, I will suggest that we do trust our senses but we don't believe Summer (and Bran) actually saw a dragon, merely a burning castle.  Summer has never seen a burning castle before so is somewhat confused and frightened and for a moment sees a gout of flame from one of the towers and a column of smoke in the sky.  It's the wolf equivalent of seeing shapes in the clouds.

On 11/20/2018 at 4:52 AM, Platypus Rex said:

"I don't know" is a perfectly rational, and honest, answer to certain questions.  Your refusal to accept this is your problem, and not anyone else's.  We could discuss theories, and there is evidence from which theories could be discussed.  But there is no point in discussing such things with an epistemological nihilist.

It's not a very good answer though is it?  "There be dragons!"  Ok, where did it come from and where did it go? *Uncomfortable shrug* "I don't know do I?" 

How did it stay hidden for so long, where did it come from, how did it hatch and feed and thrive, why did no one else see it and why has no one else seen it since?  *Defensive posture adopted*  "It hid and now it's hiding again and there's no point even trying to convince someone like you".  Ok, then.  Bigfoot is back in the woods I guess.

If you had plausible answers or suggestions to the mystery of the "dragon" before and after Summer's front page "Loch Ness Monster Photo Scoop!!" it would help lend some weight to the idea that there was ever a dragon for Summer to catch a glimpse of rather than a column of smoke and a gout of flame from a burning building that subsided a moment later.

On 11/20/2018 at 4:52 AM, Platypus Rex said:

According to the text, the caverns beneath Winterfell are endless. 

Are you sure about this?  Or is this the belief of some small children to whom the caves seem endless.  They built crypts under the ground and the caves go on below but is this the same as saying the caves are genuinely endless or merely inaccessible due to lack of good potholing or caving equipment? 

On 11/20/2018 at 4:52 AM, Platypus Rex said:

Nobody know where they lead.  They are haunted by rats as big as dogs.  Curious details those.  But I don't want to necessarily commit myself to the theory that the dragon lived in the endless caverns beneath Winterfell and ate dog-sized rats.  That's just theory. 

Didn't Bran and Rickon hide in the crypts with Hodor and the Reeds anyway?  Maybe they bunked down with the dragon for warmth.  Maybe they showed him the exit so he could finally get above ground and fly on those wings he had never used before.

On 11/20/2018 at 4:52 AM, Platypus Rex said:

All I really KNOW is that Summer saw a dragon.

No.  You may BELIEVE he did but you don't KNOW he did.  People often believe things that aren't true.  And every Religion chooses to believe in things it cannot know, it's a fundamental human desire to believe in things that are reassuring or appealing.  In this case you have chosen to believe in a dragon under Winterfell because it fulfils something for you, I would hazzard a simple way to enjoy the story more.  People see statues of the virgin mary weeping because they want to and no one will ever convince them they didn't as they are trusting the evidence of their senses and working from first principles as you have championed.  In reality they just did not see way they think they saw and have misinterpreted it.  That's all that's happening here.

On 11/20/2018 at 4:52 AM, Platypus Rex said:

Other of your questions assume facts not in evidence.  You ask how the dragon grew to be giant without anyone knowing anything about it.  But you cannot prove that nobody knew about it.  Ned died with some of his secrets. 

So the dragon under Winterfell is a commonly known fact that is being kept secret from the reader until the right time?  What baloney.  You are just making stuff up, never a good sign when there is a far more obvious explanation being ignored because it doesn't appeal as much as "Nessie surfaces and has been fed by local family for generations!".

On 11/20/2018 at 4:52 AM, Platypus Rex said:

"... there are three books since the sack of Winterfell"

Yes, and GRRM obviously has gotten stuck in his middle story.  Probably, GRRM should have followed up on this by now,

Ah, the certainty of a true believer.  There is nothing to follow up on.  ADWD was largely about the North and the struggle between, the NW, Stannis, the Ironborn, the Boltons and the wildlings.  The"dragon" isn't in story because GRRM is behind and has not got to the reveal yet, it isn't in story because it doesn't exist.

On 11/20/2018 at 4:52 AM, Platypus Rex said:

"there is plenty of opportunity ... even if the claimant is passed off as an idiot or a liar"

So you admit, there could have been witnesses, and they could have been passed off as liars.  But your complaint is that GRRM did not go out of his way to tell you about it.  But why should he?  He gave you the direct evidence of your own (wolf) senses, and you rejected that.  He gave you the rumors of smallfolk at Winterfell, and you rejected that.  Surely, you would also reject the report of an idiot and a liar.

No, I don't admit that.  I very clearly said the author has shown no dragon and to your contention that Summer saw one, I postulated how unlikely it was that Summer saw something emerge from the ruins of Winterfell that the hundreds of men and surviving smallfolk did not.  I  further postulated that he has had three books since and plenty of chapters in the North involving Ramsey's men who were involved in the Sack of Winterfell in which to clue up the reader by introducing eyewitness accounts of "the dragon" if it were important (i.e. real) even if it was for the accounts to be ignored as incredible, as Ned ignored Gared's confused explanation about what was happening north of the wall in AGOT.   That he does not introduce this element is not a "complaint", but suggests there is no such element to introduce and that the radio silence since Summer's witnessing the sack is complete.  A dragon is a big talking point and I find it incredible that the people who witnessed it would not be talking about it and tales spreading the way they are of Dany's dragons.

Summer does not know what he saw.  Bran, seeing what Summer saw does not believe he saw a dragon.  Your interpretation of Summer's "vision" is merely an interpretation.  You are not dealing with a cast iron fact.

There are no rumours among the smallfolk at Winterfell or among the stark children of a dragon in series.

I would probably reject the report of an "idiot and liar" if I were a native of Westeros who was hearing from an unreliable soldier that he saw a dragon the night WF was sacked.  If he was reliable I wold probably be confused and troubled but discount it as too incredible - absent further sightings or corroborating witnesses.  As s a reader I would take a different view, as we would have a confirmed sighting by a person of questionable reliability but a person nonetheless not a wolf pup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 2:40 PM, the trees have eyes said:

"... the spotting of bears in so mundane and frequent as to be a commonplace and unremarkable occurrence …"

Not in my neck of the woods.  Nor is my neck of the woods in any way unique.  Here, the closest thing we have are raccoons.  Sure, I can look at lots of bear photos and bear videos on youtube, and I've been to the Bronx Zoo,   But that's because I live in a modern age, where the vast vast world has been made small by modern tech, and by an over-population of billions armed with personal cell phones and video equipment.  I can also watch videos about giant crocs haunting lakes and rivers near the sources of the Nile.  Westeros is a very very very different place, where technology has not yet made the world small, and the North is vast and sparsely inhabited.

This analogy is applicable to Westeros in the sense that the spotting of dragons has been established to be a commonplace and unremarkable occurrence to those in the vicinity of Dany.  In short, we know that dragons exist, even if they are believed not to inhabit certain regions.  That makes them roughly analogous to bears.

"...and you are a (presumed) reliable witness who has seen bears before and could be reasonably expected to comprehend what you saw."

This is nothing more than you quibbling about Summer's failure to use the word "dragon".  But it does not matter.  Summer has seen wings, seen snakes, heard roars, seen rivers, and seen flame.  He is competent to say he saw a great winged snake whose roar was a river of flame.   You don't believe he saw a great winged snake whose roar was a river of flame.  You reject direct evidence.

The author has given us direct access to Summer's sensory perceptions, by giving us his POV directly.  Nothing could be more reliable.

"Had you for a moment glimpsed a bear standing on it's hind legs on the edge of a forest in poor visibility, had never set eyes on a bear before and came along and told me you had spotted something you did not recognize or comprehend but believed to be Bigfoot and the burden of proof was on me to disprove that Bigfoot existed then, yes, I would tell you that the burden of proof was on you."

In that case were analogous to this one, I would at least be competent to say I saw a great hairy creature standing on its hind legs; and so would you, because you would have seen it too (ALL readers have direct access to Summer's POV).   But you don't believe that Summer saw a great winged snake whose roar was a river of flame.  For this analogy to be apt, you would also have to disbelieve that I saw a great hairy creature standing on its hind legs - even though you also saw it yourself.

You keep bringing up Bigfoot.  Based on the analogies you cite, you seem to understand that scientists disbelieve in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.  But you have no idea WHY scientists disbelieve in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.  You seem to imagine that they are, like yourself, irrational denialistic scoffers at direct evidence.

"Summer did not see what you think he saw." 

Yeah, well.  What I think he saw was a "great winged snake whose roar was a river of flame"

"Bran does not think he saw anything out of the ordinary." 

Because he doesn't tell everybody?  He did not tell everybody what he saw beyond the wall in the heart of winter, either.  Hell, he did not even tell the reader.   

"It's literature with fire from a wolf's pov and dragon symbolism for the reader.  It's not a real dragon."

According to you it is not a flying fire-wyrm or a fiery-breathing wyvern either.  It is not a real "great winged snake whose roar was a river of flame".  You use the words "literature" and "symbolism" as an excuse to reject the text.

"You are so convinced on the literal "truth" of Summer's vision that for you the dragon is as established in fact as Dany's dragons." 

I did not say that.  Obviously it is better to be seen many times than to be seen once.  But this is going to be a LONG series indeed, if GRRM has to say something 20 times before we begin to suspect it is true.

Meanwhile, your theory that it is an hallucination or "vision" is supported by nothing other than your desire to reject the text.  There is no dream transition.  There is not enough information in the alleged "vision" to allow us to attempt a meaningful interpretation of its symbolism.  It gives us nothing that the comet did not give us already … something in the sky which has something to do  with dragons. 

"And the only way you can consider that the "Winterfell Dragon" is not real is for Summer's vision to have been a deliberate act by GRRM to "troll" the reader, i.e. to deliberately introduce a real dragon at Winterfell in this scene and then later laugh at us while revealing this was just a joke at our expense?"

Not the way I would put it.  I simply prefer to trust the author.  I have simply chosen to trust the author here.  I cannot prove that the trust might not be misplaced.  It might be.  But for the time being, until further evidence comes forward, I am choosing to trust the author.

What his motives might be, if my trust is misplaced, I will not try to guess.

"Or, as the poll, suggests, you could just be wrong."

The poll results, by themselves, suggest nothing.  To imagine they do is lemming logic.

"Ok, where did it come from and where did it go? *Uncomfortable shrug* "I don't know do I?""

There is nothing uncomfortable about my "I don't know" stance.  If you understood anything about logic and reason, you would realize that.  Similarly, I might not know where the bear came from, where it went, or where its lair is.  Maybe somewhere in the forest?  I don't know.

I have already suggested possible answers to you, and you have ignored them. 

"How did it stay hidden for so long, …"

Maybe in the giant uninhabited forest, just next door?  Maybe in the endless caverns beneath the crypts that lead God-knows where?  Or maybe it was travelling from a deserted valley in the Mountains of the Moon, where no-one goes for fear of the deadly clans,  en route to Sea Dragon point for some reason

"... where did it come from..."

Where did the chicken come from?  Given that its a dragon, it probably came from an egg.  I'm sure the bear had a mother too.  And a father as well, most likely.

It's not as though we don't have at least 2 missing dragons left over from the first Dance of the Dragons, some Burnt Men in the Mountains of the Moon who serve a dragon-witch and her dragon, Mushroom's report that Vermax left eggs in the crypts at Winterfell; and a whole host of dragon-eggs that remain unaccounted for.

"... how did it hatch …"

How did the chicken hatch?  Probably by breaking out of its egg.  

"...and feed and thrive..."

How should I know?  Maybe it ate those giant rats as big as dogs, that we were told about, that haunt the endless caverns beneath Winterfell.  Or maybe it hunts giant boar, and an occasional unfortunate ranger, deep in the uninhabited forest of the Wolfswood.  Or maybe it hunts for seals, and an occasional local fisherman or raiding Ironborn, off Sea Dragon point.  Or maybe it hunts for mountain goats, and an occasional Burnt Men clansman, in the Mountains of the Moon.

".... why did no one else see it and why has no one else seen it since?""

Assumes facts not in evidence.  You do not know that no one else has seen it.  Westeros is not connected to the internet, and the smallfolk do not post their videos on youtube.  Hell, I bet they don't even sent ravens to the Citadel 99.9% of the time.

"Are you sure about this?  Or is this the belief of some small children to whom the caves seem endless." 

I'm only sure of what we have seen with our own (wolf) eyes.  I don't know how extensive the caverns are, and neither are you.  Which puts you in a poor position when you argue that what we saw with our own (wolf) eyes is an impossibility.  If we don't know how big they are, they might be big enough to hold a dragon.

I don't know if the dragon was in the caverns beneath the crypts.  But if it was, they must have been large enough to hold it, or led somewhere that was large enough to hold it.  But of course, there is also this giant uninhabited forest next door.

"You may BELIEVE he did but you don't KNOW he did.  People often believe things that aren't true."

In this case, I have simply chosen to believe what the text and the author tell me.  And I have not ruled out the possibility that the author may be lying or the text otherwise misleading.  I just see no evidence of that possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2018 at 9:03 PM, Platypus Rex said:

This analogy is applicable to Westeros in the sense that the spotting of dragons has been established to be a commonplace and unremarkable occurrence to those in the vicinity of Dany.  In short, we know that dragons exist, even if they are believed not to inhabit certain regions.  That makes them roughly analogous to bears.

It really doesn't.  Whether you commonly see a bear or have never seen a bear you are aware that bears exist in large numbers in throughout the world.  Everyone in Westeros knows (or believes if you prefer) there have been no dragons for 300 years and no one anywhere in the world believes dragons exist any more until 3 are miraculously (magically) hatched.  In no way can dragons and bears be seen as analogous.

On 11/24/2018 at 9:03 PM, Platypus Rex said:

The author has given us direct access to Summer's sensory perceptions, by giving us his POV directly.  Nothing could be more reliable.

You keep bringing up Bigfoot.  Based on the analogies you cite, you seem to understand that scientists disbelieve in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.  But you have no idea WHY scientists disbelieve in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.  You seem to imagine that they are, like yourself, irrational denialistic scoffers at direct evidence.

No, man.  The whole point is that Summer is not a reliable witness.  There is no credible direct evidence, merely a passage that you interpret as a wolf seeing a dragon and I interpret as a wolf seeing a burning building with a nod to Jon being a Targaryen "dragon" hidden in WF but now gone.  

There are a number of eye witness accounts of both Nessie and Bigfoot, even some grainy footage of both (Nessie footage confirmed to be a hoax, Bigfoot footage I am not sure).  Scientists dismiss these claims because they are not reliable, there is no credible direct evidence and they have alternative explanations that are more convincing.  That is EXACTLY why I bring these up as Summer's glimpse is a perfect parallel and we readers (the scientists) should have no trouble reaching the same conclusions.

On 11/24/2018 at 9:03 PM, Platypus Rex said:

The poll results, by themselves, suggest nothing.  To imagine they do is lemming logic.

Then why have a poll?  It's your poll, man.  Looks like you were after affirmation and in the absence of affirmation you are going to stick to your guns and brand the people who disagree (a large majority btw) "lemmings".  Good lord.....

On 11/24/2018 at 9:03 PM, Platypus Rex said:

I have already suggested possible answers to you, and you have ignored them. 

Yes, you have though I must say they seemed a bit half-hearted and, though this is not an invitation to you to flesh out a detailed theory behind the comings and goings in secrecy of the Winterfell dragon, I found them implausible.

On 11/24/2018 at 9:03 PM, Platypus Rex said:

In this case, I have simply chosen to believe what the text and the author tell me.  And I have not ruled out the possibility that the author may be lying or the text otherwise misleading.  I just see no evidence of that possibility.

The author does not lie and the text does not mislead but people can misinterpret what they read.  That's the possibility alright.  It's just metaphor like this:

A Clash of Kings - Davos III

Fifty feet high, a swirling demon of green flame danced upon the river. It had a dozen hands, in each a whip, and whatever they touched burst into fire. He saw Black Betha burning, and White Hart and Loyal Man to either side. Piety, Cat, Courageous, Sceptre, Red Raven, Harridan, Faithful, Fury, they had all gone up, Kingslander and Godsgrace as well, the demon was eating his own. Lord Velaryon's shining Pride of Driftmark was trying to turn, but the demon ran a lazy green finger across her silvery oars and they flared up like so many tapers. For an instant she seemed to be stroking the river with two banks of long bright torches.
 
It's some of GRRM's most evocative writing and one of his best scenes but there is no demon with hands and whips.  We know this because we see through Davos's eyes and understand clearly what we are seeing and that the description is metaphorical.  Same for Summer except it's through the double filter of a wolf's comprehension and Bran's ability to understand Summer's thoughts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2018 at 7:11 AM, rustythesmith said:

A. God does not exist.

B. God exists.

Both cannot be true at the same time. Therefore proof of A disproves B and proof of B disproves A. All you've done is select a question for which there is disagreement on the credibility of the evidence. There is evidence that god exists and there is evidence that god doesn't exist. Just like there is evidence that Summer saw a real dragon and there is evidence that Summer didn't see a real dragon.

I think you are missing the point.  You can't prove a negative with regard to existence.  You can establish a positive, that God or Bigfoot exists (B in your example but good luck), which disproves the negative (A) but you cannot prove a negative.  Why?  Because the only way to prove that A is true is to prove that B is not true which is simply to try and prove A is true in the first place.  It's logically impossible.

Same with the WF dragon.  If it never appears in story you can just argue that it continued existing happily ever after with no plot relevance or that GRRM decided to cut that element of the story so it does not "reappear", a fig leaf of an argument you go on to make.

The burden of proof is always on providing evidence of something concrete and real and it's no different here, the burden of proof is on those who claim Summer saw a real dragon to back that up with evidence and reasoning.  An attempt has been made (not for the first time incidentally) which amounts in it's entirety to literally interpreting Summer's smoke-clouded vision as proof positive.

Many remain unpersuaded.

On 11/20/2018 at 7:11 AM, rustythesmith said:

The evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the dragon being a real dragon. It's in the text in clearly defined terms using a literal interpretation.

I and others do not agree with this assertion at all and have explained why.

On 11/20/2018 at 7:11 AM, rustythesmith said:

The dragon is not real position does the opposite of all of that. It requires a non-literal interpretation that serves no discernible symbolic, thematic or prophetic purpose.

On the contrary there is a double metaphor, for the fire and for Jon.  You can read as much or as little thematic or prophetic purpose into that as you wish.

On 11/20/2018 at 7:11 AM, rustythesmith said:

Given the points I laid out, I think it is more credible that the dragon is real than fake. I don't mind that you disagree. I'm perfectly content to agree to disagree. I do mind when you try to discredit my perfectly sound line of reasoning by associating it with other theories that have no bearing on the topic and provide no comparison to the lines of reasoning I'm using to make my points.

I don't think it all credible that the dragon is real but I don't mind that you disagree.  Fair's fair.  You did however quote my response to another poster so over time my comments about Bigfoot / Nessie and God have been addressed to both of you.  Given the major bone of contention is simply what Summer saw I think the comparisons are actually pretty useful: sometimes people don't see what they think they saw because they misunderstand the "evidence of their senses".  It's not an attempt to discredit you (though as I don't agree with you my comparison is not going to work in your argument's favour), it's an explanation of why people believe something that is bizarre and quite frankly wrong.

On 11/20/2018 at 7:11 AM, rustythesmith said:

You keep implying that I'm refuting the plausibility that the dragon is not real when that's simply false. I've said many times that it's possible that it is not a real dragon regardless how unlikely I think that possibility is.

I estimated my degree of certainty with percentages simply to demonstrate my degree of certainty, which is not 100%, because you very irritatingly insist that my degree of certainty is 100% when I've made it clear multiple times that it isn't.

Dude, you argued that the dragon is real and the burden of proof on those who think that Summer did not see a real dragon to prove it.  You can hedge this round with qualifications on %s or the like but the whole reason we began this conversation is I objected to you putting the burden of proof in the wrong place.  And you find it irritating that it's your proposition rather than your disclaimers that are considered the substance of your argument?  Really?

On 11/20/2018 at 7:11 AM, rustythesmith said:

I don't dislike that interpretation and I think it's reasonable enough. However for me there are some problems with it. If this dragon is meant to be a symbolic representation of Jon leaving Winterfell, why is it happening long after Jon has left Winterfell?

Well for a metatextual guy like you this should be meat and drink.  The surface interpretation is simply the fire metaphor, the hidden message or clue to the reader is the dragon at Winterfell being there and now gone (Jon).  It happens when it does because that is when WF burns and Bran can warg Summer to see.  Arguably you could have it when the assassin burns the library tower in AGOT but Bran is in a coma and not yet a warg in any case so it would not work.

On 11/20/2018 at 7:11 AM, rustythesmith said:

Furthermore, the fact that word of the dragon has not reached our POV characters does not prove or convincingly evidence that nobody saw the dragon or that nobody is talking about it.

Oh, yes.  Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.  But in three books there has been plenty of opportunity to drop another reference and given what a large talking point the appearance of a dragon for the first time in 300 years would be it's implausible to believe it's not reached anyone's ears anywhere in the North or that if it has no one is talking about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

It really doesn't.  Whether you commonly see a bear or have never seen a bear you are aware that bears exist in large numbers in throughout the world. 

The comparison is inappropriate.  One does NOT expect to see bears on Long Island, but one DOES expect to see dragons in fantasy novels.   Dragons tend to be particularly common in fantasy novels where all kinds of prophesies talk about dragons returning and stone dragons awaking, etc., etc., etc. That YOU regard bears as "real" and dragons as "unreal" is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.

"Everyone in Westeros knows (or believes if you prefer) there have been no dragons for 300 years..."

False.  We the reader know there are at least 3 dragons currently in existence.  And even the stereotypically head-in-the-sand maesters (a sort of know-it-all who always turns out to be wrong, expecially in fantasy novels) acknowledge that dragons existed in Westeros at least as recently as 147 years ago.

Dragons have existed for at least the last 8,000 years, if not forever.  And we are supposed to believe they have all died out permanently 147 years ago just because some stuffy maester at the Citadel has not seen any recently?  Now that's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof!  Especially after we learn that long-dormant dragon eggs can hatch at any time, and the North is large and underpopulated enough to hide at least three dozen missing dragons.

Supposedly, Direwolves had not been seen south of the Wall for 200 years.  But somehow, that did not stop the Stark kids from finding 6 of them within a mile's walk of their home.  And who knows where the dad is?

"... and no one anywhere in the world believes dragons exist any more …"

No one anywhere?  Conducted a poll of the Westerosi smallfolk did you?  And of course what "everyone" believes must be true, because lemming logic, right?  

"... until 3 are miraculously (magically) hatched."

Dragons are fantastic creatures, in a fantasy novel.  If their life cycle is equally fantastic, then obviously we should not leap to conclusions about their supposed extinction, especially in the face of all kinds of prophesies about their imminent return.

"In no way can dragons and bears be seen as analogous."

Agreed. One DOES NOT expect to see bears on Long Island, but one DOES expect to see dragons in fantasy novels.  The former is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraoardinary proof.  The latter is not. 

"No, man.  The whole point is that Summer is not a reliable witness.  There is no credible direct evidence, …."

The only thing unreliable or uncreditable about Summer in this context is your refusal to accept his direct evidence.

"... merely a passage that you interpret as a wolf seeing a dragon …"

A passage that I interpret as a wolf seeing "a great winged snake whose roar was a river of flame".  Because that's what the text says; and because no context permits a metaphorical interpretation.

The purpose of language is meaningful communication.  I have merely assumed the author intended to communicate, and adopted the only meaningful interpretation available.  YOUR interpretation is merely an attempt to NEGATE meaning - to interpret it away.

"...and I interpret as a wolf seeing a burning building with a nod to Jon being a Targaryen "dragon" hidden in WF but now gone."  

This rather arbitrary and extraordinary "interpretation" is motivated by your refusal to accept what the text actually tells you, that Summer saw a "great winged snake whose roar was a river of flame".

"There are a number of eye witness accounts of both Nessie and Bigfoot …"

If I had seen Nessie and Bigfoot myself, I might believe in Nessie and Bigfoot.  Not being a lemming, I believe what I see for myself, and not what "everyone" believes or disbelieves.

I tend to disbelieve in Bigfoot.  This is because (1) The modern world is overpopulated, exhaustively explored, and awash in information from the communications age; (2) no Bigfoot specimens have ever been found, alive or dead; (3) a vast and overpopulated world will inevitably contain a lot of hoaxes or otherwise unreliable reports; (4) the scientific principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof should be applied to any new discoveries; and (5) I have not seen Bigfoot myself.  Ditto Nessie.

None of this applies to the dragon seen by Summer because:  (1) Westeros is underpopulated and poorly explored and nobody listens to the tales of travelers and smallfolk, who do not carry cameras or video equipment; (2) dragon specimens, both alive and dead, are clearly established to exist; (3) an underpopulated and unexplored world provides a lot of potential hiding places for unknown creatures; (4) one expects extraordinary things to happen in fantasy novels, even when those events are extraordinary in the context of that particular world; and (5) I saw the dragon with my own (wolf) eyes, when GRRM granted me access to Summer's POV.

"Then why have a poll?  It's your poll, man."

LOL!  Who cares?  The evidence is in the books.  Nowhere else!  The poll results are not relevant, and the identity of the author of the poll is certainly not relevant either.  

Even if I had some kind of inside information (which I don't) me conducting the poll is merely me asking a question.  Who cares what my motives were?  If I were a lemming, as you clearly think I OUGHT to be, I would have changed my mind as soon as I saw the results of the poll.  But I am not a lemming.  Sorry!

"Looks like you were after affirmation ….'

Nope.  I was conducting a sociological experiment.  I got more or less the result I expected.  It was just a little more lobsided than I would have believed.  

"...brand the people who disagree (a large majority btw) "lemmings".  Good lord....."

I never called the people who disagreed "lemmings".  THEY never claimed that the poll results were relevant.  It is YOU who are claiming that.  But I did not call you a lemming.  I merely accused you of using "lemming logic".  But you can be a "lemming" if you insist on being one.  If the shoe fits, wear it.

"It's some of GRRM's most evocative writing and one of his best scenes but there is no demon with hands and whips.  We know this because we see through Davos's eyes and understand clearly what we are seeing and that the description is metaphorical."

Language is an imprecise tool which requires awareness of context.  You have jokes, metaphor and figures of speech.   Yes I agree with you that the swirling green demon, in the Davos chapter, is a metaphor (though of course the wildfire is to some extent magical and perhaps even demonic). 
 
If you were to argue that the swirling green demon did NOT represent the wildfire, I would be able to provide plenty of counterarguments.  Because here, the context permits a meaningful (but metaphorical) interpretation.
 
In any event, the words in the swirling green demon paragraph have meaning, which, in context, can be deciphered with reasonable confidence, and actually tell us things that we don't already know,.   
 
The fact that language can be tricky at times does not make words meaningless.  The purpose of words is to communicate.  All I have done is accepted what they say.   I assumed they were intended to mean something, and adopted the only meaningful interpretation available. 
 
"Same for Summer …."
 
It is very different for Summer.  You can present no evidence that it is a dream; no good case for a metaphorical interpretation; no evidence that it is a lie or a joke or a figure of speech.  The only reason, that the words cannot be taken at face value, is that YOU DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT WHAT THE WORDS SAY!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Err - guys: No need to get all agitated about this.

The OP - correctly - asked what we believe. It did not ask what we know for a fact. And that's entirely right and proper since the truth (fact) has not yet been revealed by the author.

You have every right to believe Summer saw an actual dragon, Platypus. On the other hand I'm afraid you'll have to accept that most of us (16 to 1 at this point seemingly) do not believe that Summer saw a real dragon and that we have reasons for not believing it. Of course it is also your right to not be persuaded by our reasons. And we have to concede that our reasons (while I personally find them persuasive) really are not rock solid facts.

The question is open at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

The comparison is inappropriate.

I completely agree.  One cannot compare seeing a bear with seeing a dragon at all.

12 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

One does NOT expect to see bears on Long Island, but one DOES expect to see dragons in fantasy novels.   Dragons tend to be particularly common in fantasy novels where all kinds of prophesies talk about dragons returning and stone dragons awaking, etc., etc., etc.

If only the author had not established that dragons have been extinct for 300 years until the return of magic to the world and the blood magic induced hatching of Dany's three dragons.  You don't find dragons under every bush in this story and you need to follow the author's world building and storytelling not draw inferences from stereotypical fantasy elements in other stories.

13 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

No one anywhere?  Conducted a poll of the Westerosi smallfolk did you?  And of course what "everyone" believes must be true, because lemming logic, right?  

Oh, I would say the author has established fairly well that dragons were gone from the world before the return of magic and Dany's hatching of her eggs.  You won't find anyone in story believing in them (pre-hatching) and the rumours of dragons are discounted in King's Landing as late as ADWD as incredible and utterly unreliable.  From Luwin teaching Bran that dragons are gone to Irri telling Dany, it's a belief that is held throughout both Westeros and Essos.

I'd say that's a an enormous collective experience over multiple generations over Planetos not "lemming logic".  Heaven knows what you believe or disbelieve if you have to confirm everything for yourself before you accept it.

12 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Agreed. One DOES NOT expect to see bears on Long Island, but one DOES expect to see dragons in fantasy novels.  The former is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraoardinary proof.  The latter is not.

Well this is just plain wrong and a spurious argument to boot.   Long Island  is a distraction.  There are many areas of the world - N & S America, Asia, Europe and the Arctic - with large populations of bears and their sighting in the wilderness or in suburban areas adjoining wilderness or farmland is very common.  Their existence and presence is common knowledge not some claim requiring extraordinary proof.  And there are zoos, circuses or even individuals keeping a large number of exotic pets in urban areas.  Spotting a bear in "Long Island" would be surprising but not incredible.  Just call wildlife services or the local zoo.

I think you have this completely backwards and know it.

13 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

The only thing unreliable or uncreditable about Summer in this context is your refusal to accept his direct evidence.

Sigh.  It's metaphor not photographic evidence.  Since you are so convinced by Summer's "direct evidence" then apply that logic to the people who are certain they have seen Bigfoot or The Abominable Snowman or were abducted by aliens.  Do you accept their "direct evidence"?  If not, is it because you find it unreliable?  If you do find it unreliable, why might you be so uncritical of a wolf pup who sees what he sees as "smoke and ash clouded his eyes"?

13 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

A passage that I interpret as a wolf seeing "a great winged snake whose roar was a river of flame".  Because that's what the text says; and because no context permits a metaphorical interpretation.

The purpose of language is meaningful communication.  I have merely assumed the author intended to communicate, and adopted the only meaningful interpretation available.  YOUR interpretation is merely an attempt to NEGATE meaning - to interpret it away.

You leave out the smoke and ash clouding his eyes of course.  Much more convenient to pretend it's crystal clear rather than hazy and momentary incomprehension.  As I and others have said throughout this poll thread, it's not a real dragon though you are emotionally invested in interpreting it that way and refuse to countenance any other possible scenario (except GRRM trolling you). 

13 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

If I had seen Nessie and Bigfoot myself, I might believe in Nessie and Bigfoot.  Not being a lemming, I believe what I see for myself, and not what "everyone" believes or disbelieves.

I tend to disbelieve in Bigfoot. 

I saw the dragon with my own (wolf) eyes, when GRRM granted me access to Summer's POV.

Except, would you have seen Nessie / Bigfoot or a shape in the water / on the edge of the woods that you misinterpreted?  I am rather relieved that you "tend to disbelieve" in Bigfoot but rather concerned that a chance sighting of a bear in poor visibility might turn you into a true believer.  After all we have established that you are "not a lemming" and have full confidence in the evidence of your own senses, however unclear you might really be about what you saw with smoke and ash clouding your eyes.

13 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

If I were a lemming, as you clearly think I OUGHT to be, I would have changed my mind as soon as I saw the results of the poll.  But I am not a lemming.  Sorry!

No, I don't expect you to change your mind, you're too invested in your theory to want to entertain other ideas.  Losing your cast iron certainty and questioning whether you are right in your interpretation might be a possibility and it's kind of expected on a discussion forum but that kind of self reflection is apparently too lemming-like.

13 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Nope.  I was conducting a sociological experiment.  I got more or less the result I expected.  It was just a little more lobsided than I would have believed.  

Lol, sure you were.  If you take an implausible premise why are you surprised by a lopsided result?  It's exactly what you would expect.  And why are you, the good scientist, wading into the debate to try and skew the results in a way you want them to go?

14 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

THEY never claimed that the poll results were relevant.  It is YOU who are claiming that. 

Not really, I find it both amusing and flabbergasting that you conducted a poll and, despite the comments made by numerous posters, are incapable of allowing or imagining any other interpretation of what Summer saw than your own.  The whole point of communication is an exchange of ideas but you are completely close-minded about this so it is hugely ironic that you started the thread and made a poll only to ignore any other voice than your own or an echo of it.  I suppose we have now established that this is a sociological experiment so I guess you have your reasons and your objectives whatever they may be.

14 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Language is an imprecise tool which requires awareness of context.

Yes, now really think (and I mean really think not just reaffirm your position) which is more out of context: a metaphorical description of a burning castle with a nod to the reader about Jon, or a real dragon appearing at Winterfell.  Truly, which do you consider is out of context?

14 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

It is very different for Summer.  You can present no evidence that it is a dream; no good case for a metaphorical interpretation; no evidence that it is a lie or a joke or a figure of speech.  The only reason, that the words cannot be taken at face value, is that YOU DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT WHAT THE WORDS SAY!

Of course it's not a lie or a joke on GRRM's part or a figure of speech - wolves don't have speech.  The reason the words cannot be taken at face value is to do so is to take them completely out of the context of the story.  The Dragon vanished in a puff of smoke because it was a puff of smoke. /Thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

If only the author had not established that dragons have been extinct for 300 years ...

Why do you keep saying this?  Is it because you feel 300 years sounds better than 150 years?  Also, it is only the Targaryen dragons that are "said" to be extinct.  Anything beyond that, nobody knows anything with any competence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2018 at 8:35 AM, the trees have eyes said:

I think you are missing the point.  You can't prove a negative with regard to existence.  You can establish a positive, that God or Bigfoot exists (B in your example but good luck), which disproves the negative (A) but you cannot prove a negative.  Why?  Because the only way to prove that A is true is to prove that B is not true which is simply to try and prove A is true in the first place.  It's logically impossible.

Yeah fair enough. But it goes both ways. I don't think either of us want to open up the philosophical can of worms that is the nature of truth/reality/fact/proof but I don't see how else we can proceed if this is your stance.

I think we can agree that the world is such that a thing can be very credible while also being untrue. For example: All doves are white. Earth is flat. The Sun revolves around Earth. These are things we can evidence in many different ways and for a long time without ever encountering an error, or evidence that contradicts them. Intuitively we know that somewhere in the world there must exist a dove that isn't white. Perhaps it is a rare genetic mutation or the dove fell into a bucket of black paint. But finding him is another problem entirely.

That's the problem I think you're describing with existence. If I could manage to gather all the doves in the world in one place and examine them, I could prove the dove question one way or the other way and, in doing so, disprove the opposite. Surely those doves exist to be gathered if I had the means to gather them.

If I could manage to gather all the informations about the universe in one place and examine them, I could prove the god question one way or the other way and, in doing so, disprove the opposite. Surely those facts exist to be gathered if I had the means to gather them.

So it is possible to prove that something doesn't exist. It just isn't easy and it depends entirely on your standards of proof. Even after I gather all the doves in the world, examine them and proclaim that all doves are white, you could lay the valid criticism that perhaps somewhere there is a crow who has transformed into a dove, and so I can't be sure that I have accounted for all the doves.

To that I might say your standards of proof are unreasonable, to which you might respond that, in order to complete the proof that all doves are white, I first need to prove that it is not possible for a crow to transform into a dove. That of course is a proof I can never make to the satisfaction of the standards of proof you have established.

So unless we're going to throw our hands in the air and proclaim that all things are possible all the time, and all interpretations are equally true and valid, then we have to come to some kind of agreement about the standards of proof. The notion that we can never satisfactorily prove that something doesn't exist is completely untenable.

Because of that, I prefer to argue credibility rather than truth/real/fact/proof. Whichever claim can be evidenced across the highest number of dimensions, the most relevant dimensions or both is the stronger claim. We may get stuck believing something untrue for a long time such as geocentrism but the untruth will be useful in those dimensions where it appears to be true. Usefulness, as it turns out, is the only measure of truth available that isn't entirely demolished by relativism. Thank god for pragmatism.

From a pragmatic approach, the burden of proof for any claim lies on any person who wishes to convince another person. I have to evidence my points to you and you have to evidence your points to me, to the degree that we want to convince one another.

The imbalance arises when we introduce consensus. If the majority of people are in agreement that every individual is innocent until proven guilty, for example, then the burden of proof weighs more heavily on the accuser than the accused. Likewise, if the majority of people are in agreement that the Winterfell dragon was not a living dragon, then the burden of proof weighs more heavily on the people who think it is a real dragon.

I think earlier in this topic I listed evidence and my reasoning for why I think it's probably a real dragon. Or rather, what I consider credible evidence. I won't presume to know what your standards of proof are. The evidence that it is a real dragon seems more abundant and relevant than the evidence that it isn't a real dragon. That's not to say that there isn't good evidence against the dragon being real, because there is. I simply think the idea that it's a real dragon fits better with what I read and have experienced regarding stories and this story.

Quote

Same with the WF dragon.  If it never appears in story you can just argue that it continued existing happily ever after with no plot relevance or that GRRM decided to cut that element of the story so it does not "reappear", a fig leaf of an argument you go on to make.

And if it does appear in the story, which it did, you can just argue that it was smoke and mirrors again, which you did. It was a dream sequence. It was a metaphorical hypothetical dragon. It was an unreliable narrator. It was not a literal dragon but a Targaryen, a Velaryan, or a Blackfyre.

This unproductive back and forth is the reason we need to either define the parameters of what constitutes proof/evidence/truth/relevance or agree to disagree if we're not going to define them.

Quote

The burden of proof is always on providing evidence of something concrete and real and it's no different here,

Yes, that's agreeable. Now who defines concrete and real? That is the problem.

Quote

the burden of proof is on those who claim Summer saw a real dragon to back that up with evidence and reasoning.  An attempt has been made (not for the first time incidentally) which amounts in it's entirety to literally interpreting Summer's smoke-clouded vision as proof positive.

The burden of proof is on me to the degree that I care to convince you, which is not particularly high but not zero either. A blind man is as content to exchange gold for copper as a one-eyed man to exchange copper for gold. If I have the truth and you don't then the truth will serve me in ways that you won't be served. If it's the other way around then I won't be served. Whichever way it is, I'm not particularly bothered by it. I've had the opportunity to listen to ideas alternative to mine, considered them, and decided that I still prefer mine.

Quote

Many remain unpersuaded.

That's ok. I don't weigh consensus into my personal assessment of what the words in the books mean. When the discussion becomes tenable again I may find the energy to continue attempting persuasion.

Quote

On the contrary there is a double metaphor, for the fire and for Jon.  You can read as much or as little thematic or prophetic purpose into that as you wish.

Yes you can. Which is why it doesn't hold water for me. Something that can mean everything means nothing. Jon is not referenced anywhere in the scene. The scene is not referenced anywhere in Jon. ("North of the Wall he felt free like a dragon set loose from its icy prison." (Not in the book))

In order for something to qualify as a prophecy, it needs to predict a future event. What the smoke dragon does, if your interpretation is correct, is predict a past event. That is not a prediction, by definition, therefore the smoke dragon is not prophetic. At least not with regards to Jon.

Quote

I don't think it all credible that the dragon is real but I don't mind that you disagree.  Fair's fair.  You did however quote my response to another poster so over time my comments about Bigfoot / Nessie and God have been addressed to both of you.  Given the major bone of contention is simply what Summer saw I think the comparisons are actually pretty useful: sometimes people don't see what they think they saw because they misunderstand the "evidence of their senses".

 I've skimmed but haven't caught up on everything, but if you're referring to personification in smoke and mirrors descriptions such as at blackwater then I like those. I was hoping somebody would bring them to the table because they demonstrate a good point for team Not A Dragon. GRRM personifies the elements.

Now show me somebody growling at those elements or interacting with them as if they were living flesh, because that's what Summer did. 

Quote

  It's not an attempt to discredit you (though as I don't agree with you my comparison is not going to work in your argument's favour), it's an explanation of why people believe something that is bizarre and quite frankly wrong.

You attempted to discredit me by associating my reasoning with the reasoning used in unrelated theories. If you can't discredit my points by staying on point then don't resort to fallacious association tactics.

Quote

Dude, you argued that the dragon is real and the burden of proof on those who think that Summer did not see a real dragon to prove it.  You can hedge this round with qualifications on %s or the like but the whole reason we began this conversation is I objected to you putting the burden of proof in the wrong place.  And you find it irritating that it's your proposition rather than your disclaimers that are considered the substance of your argument?  Really?

I made my burden of proof comment with the assumption that your standards of proof were grounded at some reasonable level. They aren't, so I concede the burden of proof point. The burden is shared equally.

The percentages I gave were estimates of my personal assessment. They are not qualifications of any kind. You've incorrectly interpreted the percentages as some kind of truth claim. They reflect my opinion. I've corrected you on it and now you've misinterpreted them again as qualifications for god knows what. I can only conclude now that you're misrepresenting me intentionally. Intentional misrepresentation is what I find irritating.

Quote

Well for a metatextual guy like you this should be meat and drink.  The surface interpretation is simply the fire metaphor, the hidden message or clue to the reader is the dragon at Winterfell being there and now gone (Jon).  It happens when it does because that is when WF burns and Bran can warg Summer to see.  Arguably you could have it when the assassin burns the library tower in AGOT but Bran is in a coma and not yet a warg in any case so it would not work.

A smoke dragon that represents Jon Snow would be a metaphor. Metaphor is subtext. We can try to wield metaphor like metatext and see if it works. One of the heuristics I use to figure out if something is metatext is to test its usefulness as a rule applied to situations that look like the situation in which I found it.

Clues to the reader occur at every layer. They aren't confined to metatext. The best discoveries synthesize text, subtext and metatext.

I'll try to take the metaphorical Jon dragon interpretation and test its usefulness as a rule applied to situations that look like the situation in which I found it.

Metaphorical Jon: There's a personified element of nature (smoke and fire) who is performing an action (escaping Winterfell) that the character it represents (Jon) has acted out in the past.

Metaphorical Who?: There's a personified element of nature (wildfire) who is performing an action (Choose from: dancing upon the river, holding whips, touching things, eating his own, ran a finger, stroking the river with torches, destroying ships, winning sea battles, insert your own interpretation of what the wildfire monster is doing) that the character it represents (Who?) has acted out in the past.

If we can find a character who slots into the second situation well then I will feel comfortable calling Winterfell's personified elements a metatextual sign post that is meant to signal to the reader that personified elements often or always represent characters. I think that might exist. It seems plausible. Maybe not with the wildfire personification but perhaps with a different one somewhere.

Quote

Oh, yes.  Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.  But in three books there has been plenty of opportunity to drop another reference and given what a large talking point the appearance of a dragon for the first time in 300 years would be it's implausible to believe it's not reached anyone's ears anywhere in the North or that if it has no one is talking about it.

 

This is where I think you sabotage your credibility. I'm able to acknowledge the plausibility that the dragon isn't real but you aren't able to acknowledge the plausibility that the dragon is real. Both are plausible, and that's as objective a fact as we can hope to find. If we can't agree on that then we aren't arguing credibility anymore. We're arguing truth. Which is something I'm not at all interested in doing.

It demonstrates undue certainty which I think is something we both recognize is bothersome and counterproductive, judging from your previous false accusations that I've expressed certainty on my position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 10:31 AM, the trees have eyes said:

No, I don't expect you to change your mind, you're too invested in your theory to want to entertain other ideas.  Losing your cast iron certainty and questioning whether you are right in your interpretation might be a possibility and it's kind of expected on a discussion forum but that kind of self reflection is apparently too lemming-like.

[snip]

Not really, I find it both amusing and flabbergasting that you conducted a poll and, despite the comments made by numerous posters, are incapable of allowing or imagining any other interpretation of what Summer saw than your own.  The whole point of communication is an exchange of ideas but you are completely close-minded about this so it is hugely ironic that you started the thread and made a poll only to ignore any other voice than your own or an echo of it. 

Now you are just telling untruths.  I have repeatedly acknowledged the possibility that my interpretation may be incorrect.  

I have simply assumed that words have meaning that can reasonably be interpreted with some confidence, and chosen to trust what the author seems to be telling me.  Sure, it could be an obscure and undecipherable metaphor.  But if it is, it is a poor one, IMHO, opaque, arbitrary and pointless.  It could mean anything under the sun, including ANYTHING suggested by each and every poster here.  But I cannot read GRRM's mind.  So, until further evidence arises, I have simply chosen to trust his words.  But it is PERFECTLY possible that his words have misled me. 

It remains to be seen if future volumes will validate my assessment of the probabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 10:31 AM, the trees have eyes said:

And why are you, the good scientist, wading into the debate to try and skew the results in a way you want them to go?

I kept my opinion to myself.  Collected the answers, and announced the result of 16 to 1.  Only then did I venture my own opinion.

But sure.  The results obtained since then may have been skewed by my arguments.  But if that's some kind of personal attack, you must be pretty desperate for ammunition,.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The smoke and ash clouded his eyes, and in the sky he saw a great winged snake whose roar was a river of flame. He bared his teeth, but then the snake was gone. Behind the cliffs tall fires were eating up the stars.

Now this obviously is meant to give the idea of a dragon at Winterfell, but where would it have come from? There’s been speculation that it broke out of the crypts, but I’m sure Osha, Rickon, Jojen, or Meera would have seen or heard it. Bran had been warged into Summer 3 days straight, so everything he would have seen or heard would have been from Summer’s perspective. I’ve heard it said that the dragon broke out of the first keep, the abandoned tower that was extensively destroyed.

Quote

They stood in the shadow of the First Keep, or what remained of it. One whole side of the building had torn loose and fallen away. Stone and shattered gargoyles lay strewn across the yard.

Quote

The First Keep had not been used for many hundreds of years, but now it was more of a shell than ever. The floors had burned inside it, and all the beams

Now dragons are not some creatures that can go without food for hundreds of years, what would the dragon have been eating if it were in the keep? Somebody would have definitely heard it if it has been hiding up there.

Judging by the damage and destruction of Winterfell, it does seem quite possible that a dragon did attack it. The entire place seems to be a ruin, and I find it unlikely that Ramsay could even be capable of causing this much damage with just torches, let alone why he would do this if he were to just take over the castle immediately after, forcing him to repair a lot of this. So the dragon idea does make sense to me, judging by what Summer had seen, and the damage inflicted, it would of have to been a pretty large dragon.

Quote

Osha - “We made noise enough to wake a dragon,”

My idea on where this dragon could have come from is Skagos/Skane. When Dany was in the fighting pits, the sound of fighting and smells of blood attracted Drogon to the pits. It’s very possible that what happened in Winterfell was likely enough to attract a dragon from Skagos/Skane and when Wex pointed to Skagos he was leading them to where he seen the dragon fly off to, not Rickon. I find it highly doubtful Osha would take Rickon to Skagos, which is said to be inhabited by cannibals, and the Skagosi aren’t exactly fond of the Starks. Not only is it a dangerous place, it is extremely dangerous to get to. Ships are seen often crashed into the shores of Skagos, the waters are described as being rough and treacherous, especially in Autumn. So Osha wouldn’t be able to take some small raft and ferry Rickon, a Direwolf, and herself to this island, she’d have to hire a ship. Most ships aren’t going to take somebody to Skagos, let alone it’s doubtful Osha has the money to pay for the ferry. It would be extremely risky to expose Rickon, and travelling with a Direwolf is a sure fire way to do that, so they would either have to abandon Shaggydog or not go.

When Melisandre arrives at Eastwatch, she says her powers are stronger here than even Asshai. Well we know from Pyat Pree that his powers are stronger when he’s in the presence of dragons. If a large dragon is on Skane or Skagos it is likely Melisandre is drawing her strength from it. (I’m also opened to the idea that the dragon could be traversing Gorne & Gendel’s caverns, which I believe to be connected to Bloodraven’s cave) Skagosi means stone in the old tongue, this could be the stone dragon that Melisandre was talking about waking.

Quote

Osha - “We made noise enough to wake a dragon,”

Now I think this dragon would have to be an old one, since I’m expecting it is quite large, and I think it is a dragon we have been introduced to. I believe Skagos could have been where Cannibal disappeared to after the dance of dragons. This could be hinted at by the rumors of “cannibals” inhabiting Skagos. Skagos and Skane are very mountainous areas with good fishing grounds making it a very ideal location for a dragon. Now Cannibal was already considered a pretty old dragon, the oldest of the 3 wild dragons, so for him being alive now would make him at least around the same age as Balerion when he died, and possibly older. I think he could still be alive but I also think it possible that he may have hatched an egg on Skagos/Skane. Cannibal was called cannibal because he would attack and eat other dragons, as well as the hatcheries where he ate dragon eggs. After arriving at Skagos/Skane it’s possible he could have “passed” one of these eggs, where it later could have hatched.

I’ll agree some of this theory seems fan-fic, but there is a lot of foreshadowing and hints to this playing out. Regardless if this turns out to be true or not, I would like to hear more from Wex about what had played out at Winterfell and what summer actually saw. I’m also sure that Davos being on Skagos is going to yield some interesting information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I want to wade into proving why I believe what I believe, but I do think he saw a dragon.

I know it's probably not really a dragon, and it would be pretty illogical, but I can't dismiss it. My secret heart of heart just believes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Gertrude said:

Not that I want to wade into proving why I believe what I believe, but I do think he saw a dragon.

I know it's probably not really a dragon, and it would be pretty illogical, but I can't dismiss it. My secret heart of heart just believes.

For what it is worth, my secret heart of hearts believes that Summer did not see a literal dragon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 10:59 PM, kleevedge said:


"Now this obviously is meant to give the idea of a dragon at Winterfell, but where would it have come from? There’s been speculation that it broke out of the crypts, but I’m sure Osha, Rickon, Jojen, or Meera would have seen or heard it." 

Without necessarily committing to it, I think the idea that the dragon has some connection with the crypts is a defensible theory.  Hodor was scared by something he saw there, and Jon keeps dreaming of something scary in the crypts … other than a Stark ghost … which he is evidently fated to encounter.

Your objection, in my opinion, only proves that the dragon did not enter or leave the crypt via the same route as Osha, Rickon, Jojen or Meera.  There  could be (and under the theory presumably would be) another route.

"I’ve heard it said that the dragon broke out of the first keep, the abandoned tower that was extensively destroyed."

That could be where another exit was hidden.

"Somebody would have definitely heard it if it has been hiding up there."

Reasonable.  But this does not rule out another entrance to underground regions that ultimately connect also to the crypts.

"My idea on where this dragon could have come from is Skagos/Skane."

Yes, there is also a theory of the "Dragon of Skagos".   And I suppose it could be the same dragon somehow.  But those who are unconvinced by the dragon we have seen, are liable to be even more unconvinced by the dragon we have not seen.

"When Dany was in the fighting pits, the sound of fighting and smells of blood attracted Drogon to the pits. It’s very possible that what happened in Winterfell was likely enough to attract a dragon from Skagos/Skane and when Wex pointed to Skagos he was leading them to where he seen the dragon fly off to, not Rickon."

The map may look small on paper, but it in fact describes huge regions.  The dragon cannot hear what is happening at Winterfell, and Wex cannot see that the dragon was going to Skagos.  You need to tweak this part of your theory.

"... Skagosi means stone in the old tongue, this could be the stone dragon that Melisandre was talking about waking..."

Heh, yes.  But who is the kings blood who will wake the Skagos ("stone") dragon?  Does Rickon count, since he is brother to King Rob?  Is Osha secretly related to Mance Rayder?  Did Edric Storm's escape ship to Lys get blown north by Mel's magic wind, and shipwrecked on Skagos?

"I believe Skagos could have been where Cannibal disappeared to after the dance of dragons. This could be hinted at by the rumors of “cannibals” inhabiting Skagos." 

Yeah, that's an intriguing "joke".

"Skagos and Skane are very mountainous areas with good fishing grounds making it a very ideal location for a dragon."

You forgot all the "unicorns".  Plenty of dragon food running wild here.

"Now Cannibal was already considered a pretty old dragon, the oldest of the 3 wild dragons, so for him being alive now would make him at least around the same age as Balerion when he died, and possibly older."

Not a problem, IMHO.   According to Barristan, the Targaryen dragons dragons were bred for battle and died in battle; admitting, by implication, that he really has no idea as to how long they can live.  

Also, Aemon's "ice preserves" remark, suggesting the possibility that dragons (and not merely Targaryens) might live longer in colder regions.

"I’m also sure that Davos being on Skagos is going to yield some interesting information."

Presumably, something significant is going to happen on Skagos.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

The map may look small on paper, but it in fact describes huge regions.  The dragon cannot hear what is happening at Winterfell, and Wex cannot see that the dragon was going to Skagos.  You need to tweak this part of your theory. 

Considering how far drogon's lair, where he took Dany, it seems he took her rather far up the Skahazadhan, since the water is just a trickle. This could be near a similar distance from Winterfell to Skagos. As for Wex, he was up a tree in the Godswood, he could have seen the dragon go rather far off, towards Skagos. I find it less likely he would know that Osha and Rickon were headed to Skagos, since she didn't seem to know where she was going when talking to Maester Luwin.

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

Heh, yes.  But who is the kings blood who will wake the Skagos ("stone") dragon?  Does Rickon count, since he is brother to King Rob?  Is Osha secretly related to Mance Rayder?  Did Edric Storm's escape ship to Lys get blown north by Mel's magic wind, and shipwrecked on Skagos?

Considering Melisandres visions, I don't think the king's blood is necessarily needed. I don't think the dragon was sleeping this whole time, since dragons need to eat in order to live, I think the "waking" of the dragon was it leaving his island and coming to the mainland, but Renly had just died not to long before that as well.
 

 

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

Without necessarily committing to it, I think the idea that the dragon has some connection with the crypts is a defensible theory.  Hodor was scared by something he saw there, and Jon keeps dreaming of something scary in the crypts … other than a Stark ghost … which he is evidently fated to encounter.

Well Hodor was only scared after Bran's dream of Ned in the crypts at that moment, never before, GRRM stated in an interview. If a dragon was down there he would have always been scared, I think he was scared at that moment because the Three-eyed Crow had just been down there. The crypts are described as always being cold, and If a dragon was the secret down there, I don't think that the case. I feel the crypts and thing Kings of Winter are somewhat related to the Others, and that those Crypts extend into the tunnels of Gorne & Gendel, and into the same cave as bloodraven. Also GRRM made a point on how loud the echoes were coming from osha and them walking silently, a dragon moving would have made a lot of noise.

Quote

Not a problem, IMHO.   According to Barristan, the Targaryen dragons dragons were bred for battle and died in battle; admitting, by implication, that he really has no idea as to how long they can live.   

Also, Aemon's "ice preserves" remark, suggesting the possibility that dragons (and not merely Targaryens) might live longer in colder regions.

Balerion, according to all accounts, died of old age. Though I still think it possible for a dragon to live longer than Balerion, and Ice does preserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kleevedge said:

"Considering how far drogon's lair, where he took Dany, it seems he took her rather far up the Skahazadhan, since the water is just a trickle. This could be near a similar distance from Winterfell to Skagos."

The reason it is just a trickle is because it is not the river Skahazadhan.  It is just a tiny stream, of the sort that are far too numerous to depict on large-scale maps.  Dany hopes that if she follows it, it will connect with the river, as small streams tend to do.

"As for Wex, he was up a tree in the Godswood, he could have seen the dragon go rather far off, towards Skagos."

He might possibly have seen it for seven miles or so, if it flew high and kept breathing fire for no reason.  But no way could Wex know or guess that it was headed for Skagos, 750 miles away.  He can see its general direction, but not its ultimate destination.  

"I find it less likely he would know that Osha and Rickon were headed to Skagos, since she didn't seem to know where she was going when talking to Maester Luwin."

Osha had private words with Luwin which we did not overhear.  Wex might know something we don't.

"Considering Melisandres visions, I don't think the king's blood is necessarily needed."

We probably should not leave that aspect out entirely.  Prophesies usually mean something, even if they don't mean what we think, or Mel thinks.

"I don't think the dragon was sleeping this whole time, since dragons need to eat in order to live ….",

A dragon need not necessarily be sleeping for any particular length of time in order to be wakened.  But it's a prophesy, so there is no need to assume it's fulfilment will be narrowly literal.

"Well Hodor was only scared after Bran's dream of Ned in the crypts at that moment, never before, GRRM stated in an interview."

GRRM never drew any connection to Ned, IIRC.  But sure, that's another theory.

"If a dragon was down there he would have always been scared, I think he was scared at that moment because the Three-eyed Crow had just been down there."

Whatever was down there (dragon, or Ned's ghost, or 3-eyed crow), it was apparently not there the whole time, per GRRM.  But "there" in this context, could merely mean the parts of the crypt we know, rather than the entire underground realm.

"The crypts are described as always being cold, and If a dragon was the secret down there, I don't think that the case."

Maybe the dragon dislikes the cold, and keeps to the warmer parts of the underground.  Such warm regions presumably exist, else we would not have hot springs.  Whether such tunnels are ultimately accessible from the crypts is an open question.

"Also GRRM made a point on how loud the echoes were coming from osha and them walking silently, a dragon moving would have made a lot of noise."

And yet, no-one outside the crypts heard them.  And of course, she is only commenting on the acoustics in her particular part of the crypts.

"Balerion, according to all accounts, died of old age."

I think we are meant to take seriously Barristan's hint (as I read it) that we don't know how long dragons live, because the Targ dragons, bred for war (and size) might not be typical of dragons generally.  Balerion might have died of health problems specific to his excessive size.

Balerion, as I understand it, was AT LEAST 220 years old when he died … plus however old he was when Aenar took him to Dragonstone, 126 years before the Conquest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...