Poll: Did Summer See a Dragon?

[Platypus Rex]

15 minutes ago, zandru said:

The narration can be "unreliable" but we the readers never get any direct evidence that it isn't.

You can say the same about any evidence.  At some point you have to trust something, otherwise you have no evidence at all.

"But fine - go ahead and keep telling yourself that dragons are bursting out of Winterfell."

It is GRRM who told us there was a great winged snake whose roar was a river of flame, near Winterfell.  Unless he was being unreliable (through an unreliable narrator, or whatever).  Which is possible.  But without his words, there is no evidence to discuss.

The "unreliable narrator" technique is all the rage among literary academia.  Sometimes it is a real phenomenon.  At other times, it is an attempt by critics to impose on texts "interpretations" its dead authors did not intend, and is used as an excuse for ignoring the actual textual evidence.

[rustythesmith]

27 minutes ago, zandru said:

The narration can be "unreliable" but we the readers never get any direct evidence that it isn't.

Well I tend to think of unreliable narration similar to the way I think of symbolism or foreshadowing. It's a cool literary technique that serves the purpose of telling the story in an enjoyable way.

In order for symbolism to be recognizable as symbolism, it needs to exist in a way that the reader can be aware of its existence. The way that the dead direwolf and stag symbolism is recognizable as symbolism is that the rest of the book is characterized by a conflict between House Stark, whose sigil is a direwolf, and House Baratheon, whose sigil is a stag. Martin could certainly write about a duck that symbolizes something to him in his life, but unless he provides the story with a significant duck then the symbolism will not be identifiable as symbolism to the reader and the literary purpose of the strange duck comment will reside in the story having served no identifiable function to enrich the story other than to perplex readers for all time, which might do more to degrade the story with meaningless filler than to enrich it.

Similarly, with unreliable narration, it is only identifiable to the reader as unreliable narration when the reliable narration is provided. For example perhaps it is true that Ghost is actually a duck and our unreliable narrator Jon doesn't know that because Ghost, as a mute, has never made a wolf sound. Until some reliable narration gives me reason to believe it beyond all doubt, such as when Ghost quacks at Samwell, then it is reliable narration that Ghost is a direwolf.

So that's why I don't think it's appropriate to point to something we don't have the answer to and call it unreliable narrator. Unreliable narrator is a very specific thing.

Quote

But fine - go ahead and keep telling yourself that dragons are bursting out of Winterfell.

I only saw one dragon but If you've found more I'm listening.

Quote

Good luck with that. Believe whatever you like; it doesn't bother me.

Happy to have your permission.

[zandru]

2 hours ago, rustythesmith said:

Happy to have your permission.

Any time! ;-)

[Clegane'sPup]

On 12/4/2018 at 3:50 PM, rustythesmith said:

Well I tend to think of unreliable narration similar to the way I think of symbolism or foreshadowing. It's a cool literary technique that serves the purpose of telling the story in an enjoyable way.

I tend to think of unreliable narration as a human flaw. An author uses it to display the human ability to see and remember what they saw is not what actually took place.

Otherwise a character is merely lying.

Which brings me back to what is truth?

Like my dear darling step brother said because it wasn't in writing, mom is dead who knows what she told you.

In other words I knew what mom told me, but I was an unreliable source.

[rustythesmith]

29 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

I tend to think of unreliable narration as a human flaw. An author uses it to display the human ability to see and remember what they saw is not what actually took place.

Otherwise a character is merely lying.

Which brings me back to what is truth?

Like my dear darling step brother said because it wasn't in writing, mom is dead who knows what she told you.

In other words I knew what mom told me, but I was an unreliable source.

How can the reader know that a character is wrong unless the way in which the information is wrong is available to the reader? That doesn't even make sense.

Imagine if I said that Martin's purpose for writing the story in a feudal setting is to demonstrate why feudalism sucks, but then within the story itself feudalism works splendidly and everybody is happy all the time. How does that prove that feudalism sucks? It proves the opposite, that feudalism rocks.

This is the logical wall I think you guys are running into the with unreliable narrator claim. It isn't unreliable narrator unless the reliable narration exists somewhere else. If that were how unreliable narration worked, then every word in the series would qualify as unreliable narration.

"We can't trust this information because people are fallible and that's the point of writing it."

"Okay how is the information incorrect and the person failing?"

"I don't know but he could be."

Okay well that doesn't mean anything to me then. It doesn't prove what you're saying the author is trying to prove.

[Clegane'sPup]

9 minutes ago, rustythesmith said:

How can the reader know that a character is wrong unless the way in which the information is wrong is available to the reader? That doesn't even make sense.

Ack de luber.

My ignorant self is only aware of one instance in the book where unreliable is displayed.

The rest of the time the characters are lying.

[rustythesmith]

21 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Ack de luber.

My ignorant self is only aware of one instance in the book where unreliable is displayed.

The rest of the time the characters are lying.

The three instances I referenced before are good places to start if you want to see some unreliable narration in action. There's Alayne's false memory of when the Hound kissed Sansa, Cersei hears false information that Davos has been beheaded at White Harbor. In Arya's POV by God's Eye she mistakes east for west. That one is pretty cool because that mistake is working double duty to obscure the evidence that Arya is the girl from Mel's prophecy.

Another example off the top of my head is when Arya mis-remembers the name of Joffrey's sword. I think it was Lion's Tooth and Lion's Paw or something like that.

What they all have in common is that the mistaken information is falsifiable somewhere else in the books, which is how we're able to identify it as mistaken to begin with.

[Clegane'sPup]

19 minutes ago, rustythesmith said:

The three instances I referenced before are good places to start if you want to see some unreliable narration in action. There's Alayne's false memory of when the Hound kissed Sansa, Cersei hears false information that Davos has been beheaded at White Harbor. In Arya's POV by God's Eye she mistakes east for west. That one is pretty cool because that mistake is working double duty to obscure the evidence that Arya is the girl from Mel's prophecy.

Another example off the top of my head is when Arya mis-remembers the name of Joffrey's sword. I think it was Lion's Tooth and Lion's Paw or something like that.

What they all have in common is that the mistaken information is falsifiable somewhere else in the books, which is how we're able to identify it as mistaken to begin with.

Okay, Sansa and the kiss that didn't happen. A thirteen year's old fantasy--- unreliable.

The false information about Davos' head on a stick --- a lie -- yet Manderly said if necessary it would happen.

Arya mistaking east for west --- what can I say. Which side of a tree does moss grow when you are a nine year old child?

My thought is back to the topic what did Summer see?

Martin gives readers wolf speak via Bran.

What did the wolf pup via the mind of a nine year old Bran see?

Has nada to do with unreliable narrator.  It has to do with the mind of a child and martin's wolf speak. Language.

Then again if I want to twist and turn Summer's thoughts are unreliable since they are being channeled via a mind of a child.

BTW: I need to correct my Ack de Luber to Ach du Lieber.

 

 

 

[Weirwood Ghost]

Anyone that may have read The Ice Dragon will regard Summer's view of a serpent as literal. asoiaf appears to be based off this basic story...so wtf can't a wargy direwolf view what it sees as a dragon? It's completely possible 

[Weirwood Ghost]

4 minutes ago, Weirwood Ghost said:

Anyone that may have read The Ice Dragon will regard Summer's view of a serpent as literal. asoiaf appears to be based off this basic story...so wtf can't a wargy direwolf view what it sees as a dragon? It's completely possible 

It could be figurative, but wtf would a direwolf be having hallucinations? Being part of Bran's pov chapter means it's Bran seeing through Summer. But Summer doesn't edit it to eloquent man speech. It's direwolf view.

[skydance]

Before FaB I would have said no, after I'm less sure. The idea that dragon eggs were left at winterfell seems more credible after reading about 'the pact of ice and fire'. If it had gone ahead the next generation of starks would have been cousins to the targaryens and likely dragon riders. 

[Wolfkin]

Yes. I believe Summer saw a dragon.

Summer (our Author and we readers) are the only people in all the Seven Kingdom's that know there is now a fourth dragon in the series. Just my opinion.

[White Ravens]

Regarding the notion of Summer being an unreliable narrator I turned to a dictionary for a definition and got this definition:

Quote

(literary theory) A narrating character or storyteller in a literary or other artistic work - such as a novel, play, song, or film - who provides inaccurate, misleading, conflicting, or otherwise questionable information to the reader or audience. 

For me there is no doubt that Summer provides with us with questionable information, given that we experience what Summer saw, smelled and heard removed from his direct experience and told as a wolf dream from Bran's POV.  That Bran doesn't seem to have recognized it as a dragon (I would expect him to be excited about a dragon and wanting to mention it to his companions) makes me question further that what he saw was a literal dragon. 

[Platypus Rex]

18 hours ago, White Ravens said:

"For me there is no doubt that Summer provides with us with questionable information …"

Well, sure.  GRRM goes out of his way to make sure Summer's observation is "questionable".  The smoke that blurs Summer's eyes gives this "clue" (or whatever it is) "plausible deniability".   Anyone who wants to ignore the "clue" (or whatever it is) not has an excuse to ignore the "clue".

In the real world "my eyes were blurred so I cannot be sure what I saw" might be an adequate explanation for the event.  But in literature, unless words are really wind, an author is expected to focus on what is important to the story, and not waste the readers time.

So what then, is the literary purpose of the "Dragon of Winterfell"?

"That Bran doesn't seem to have recognized it as a dragon (I would expect him to be excited about a dragon and wanting to mention it to his companions) makes me question further that what he saw was a literal dragon." 

Seems to me that these 2 objections cancel each other out.  Bran does not need to be excited about something that Summer saw when Summer's eyes were blurred by smoke.  He, after all, need not be concerned with the "literary purpose" of a random misperception.  He need not concern himself whether it is a clue, or a red herring, or a symbolic metaphor.  But for certain, it is not much of a "red herring" if Bran pays no attention to it.

But, if we put that aside, it seems to me that Bran's policy tends to be NOT to necessarily tell people about all the things he sees in his nightly visions.

[White Ravens]

4 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Well, sure.  GRRM goes out of his way to make sure Summer's observation is "questionable".  The smoke that blurs Summer's eyes gives this "clue" (or whatever it is) "plausible deniability".   Anyone who wants to ignore the "clue" (or whatever it is) not has an excuse to ignore the "clue".

In the real world "my eyes were blurred so I cannot be sure what I saw" might be an adequate explanation for the event.  But in literature, unless words are really wind, an author is expected to focus on what is important to the story, and not waste the readers time.

So what then, is the literary purpose of the "Dragon of Winterfell"?

"That Bran doesn't seem to have recognized it as a dragon (I would expect him to be excited about a dragon and wanting to mention it to his companions) makes me question further that what he saw was a literal dragon." 

Seems to me that these 2 objections cancel each other out.  Bran does not need to be excited about something that Summer saw when Summer's eyes were blurred by smoke.  He, after all, need not be concerned with the "literary purpose" of a random misperception.  He need not concern himself whether it is a clue, or a red herring, or a symbolic metaphor.  But for certain, it is not much of a "red herring" if Bran pays no attention to it.

But, if we put that aside, it seems to me that Bran's policy tends to be NOT to necessarily tell people about all the things he sees in his nightly visions.

It looks like we are talking past each other and I don't have a lot invested in swaying your opinion but here I go making a small effort regardless. 

It may be that this one sentence that interests you so much might simply be a case of GRRM trying to give us a bit on insight into how the direwolves view the world.  The end.  It is just one sentence told second-hand through Bran's perspective during a wolfdream.  That would be enough of a literary purpose to include it from my perspective but I suspect that you don't feel the same way.

Bran experiences Summer's experiences through a special connection that is compelling enough that later in the story Jojen Reed feels the need to warn Bran that he gets no actual sustenance when Summer gorges on meat during the wolfdreams even though the experience is real enough to Bran that he gets lost in it.  If the shared experience of a wolfdream is so real to Bran that he overlooks his own need to eat when Summer is eating wouldn't Summer's observation of something resembling a dragon in the sky over Winterfell register in his mind as something important and compelling?  Why would Bran pay no attention to Summer witnessing a dragon springing into the sky over Winterfell?  Rather than paying no attention to it, I would think that Bran would be beside himself with excitement.

 

[Platypus Rex]

9 hours ago, White Ravens said:

It may be that this one sentence that interests you so much might simply be a case of GRRM trying to give us a bit on insight into how the direwolves view the world.  

It could be that.  It could be anything at all.  I cannot read the man's mind.

If so, then he failed to give us the insight you presume he intended.  In order to gain such an insight, we would have to know what Summer saw that Summer misperceived.  But we do not know that.  We can only guess at it wildly.

 

[White Ravens]

7 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

It could be that.  It could be anything at all.  I cannot read the man's mind.

If so, then he failed to give us the insight you presume he intended.  In order to gain such an insight, we would have to know what Summer saw that Summer misperceived.  But we do not know that.  We can only guess at it wildly.

 

I agree that we don't have enough information to know what summer saw.  Moving on.

[Platypus Rex]

5 hours ago, White Ravens said:

I agree that we don't have enough information to know what summer saw.

We are told he saw a great winged snake, in the sky, roaring flame.  Most would not hesitate to call this a dragon.  It is only after you say "That can't possibly be right", that we find we have inadequate information for alternate "interpretations".  I cannot read his mind, but if he did not mean a dragon, then he rather failed to communicate anything much.  That's all.

Of course, I feel no need to accuse GRRM of a failure to communicate, as the "That can't possibly be right" arguments strike me as extraordinarily weak.

[zandru]

3 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Of course, I feel no need to accuse GRRM of a failure to communicate ...

I'm a fairly modest reader. Under these circumstances, and having read so much of George RR's work and this series, I'm more inclined to assume it's a failure of myself to understand.  Clearly, you're not at all like me.

[Amris]

6 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

We are told he saw a great winged snake, in the sky, roaring flame.  Most would not hesitate to call this a dragon.  It is only after you say "That can't possibly be right", that we find we have inadequate information for alternate "interpretations".  I cannot read his mind, but if he did not mean a dragon, then he rather failed to communicate anything much.  That's all.

Of course, I feel no need to accuse GRRM of a failure to communicate, as the "That can't possibly be right" arguments strike me as extraordinarily weak.

There are different ways of interpreting text, Platypus.

What you are doing is interpreting the text according to its strict wording.

That's an accepted method of interpretation and often used. So no one can fault you for believing Summer saw a real winged snake.

However:

Realize that there are other means of interpreting text. Means that are as valid and as accepted as the interpretation by strict wording and are often used complementary to it.

 

An interpretation by context indicates no real live dragon was seen by Summer.

(The context being Bran not mentioning it or reacting to it in any way, other witnessess surely watching the fire but not reacting to a 'dragon' either nor even anyone mentioning having seen one there later on. Furthermore us having spent lots of chapters in Winterfell before the scene - and many chapters later too - and no dragon ever appearing then either. Also a dragon was not at all needed to start the fire since we know Ramsay started it.)

 

We can also apply a so-called teleological interpretation (that's an interpretation asking for the meaning of something).

What would be the meaning (for the story) of Summer seeing a real live dragon at the Winterfell fire?

None that we know of. 

In fact a real live dragon at the Burning of Winterfell scene would be counterproductive to the on-going story in the North at that point which is about the Stark-Bolton rivalry and Ramsay being a general asshole and burning down his rival's seat Winterfell in that context.

What would be the meaning (for the story) if Summer did not in fact see a live dragon at the Winterfell fire?

It would be foreshadowing and setup for a dragon-related later event.

Does that make sense? Absolutely! We know the story has a hidden Targ (Jon) who was raised at Winterfell, who likely will have more Winterfell scenes to come in the future and whose secret as a Targ will definitely at some point be exposed. Exposing a formerly hidden Targ (Jon) at Winterfell would be like a metaphorical dragon rising. Furthermore we also have reasons to suspect something dragon-related (or at least Targ-related) may be hidden in the crypts and my later be found (items belonging to Rhaegar for instance). If we don't like any of these possibilities we at the very least can expect a real live dragon (Dany's) at some point over Winterfell in the future.

 

So context and meaning indicate no real live dragon was seen but rather that Summer's vision was foreshadowing for a later dragon- (or Targ-) related event.

 

How do we decide which interpretation to stick to when - like here - interpretation by wording gives one result (live dragon) and interpretation by context as well as interpretation by meaning gives a contrary one (no live dragon).

We have to look if the wording is so unambigous that is leaves no room for context and meaning or if there are clues that the author did indeed setup 'wiggle room' in his wording for the reader to look deeper than the strict wording.

No surprise:

We all know GRRM did just that: Summer's vision was clouded. The wiggle room is not only there. It is clearly spelled out.