Opinions on the dragons?

[Mithras]

How about GRRM's opinions on the dragons?

Quote

AC: What are the dangers of using magic? What can go wrong?

GM: Magic should never be the solution to the problem. My credo as a writer has always been Faulkner’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech where he said, “The only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself.” That transcends genre. That’s what good fiction, good drama is about: human beings in trouble. You have to make a decision, you have to do something, your life is in danger or your honor is in danger, or you're facing some crisis of the heart. To make a satisfying story, the protagonist has to solve the problem, or fail to solve the problem – but has to grapple with the problem in some kind of rational way, and the reader has to see that. And if the hero does win in the end, he has to feel that that victory is earned. The danger with magic is that the victory could be unearned. Suddenly you're in the last chapter and you wind up with a deus ex machina. The hero suddenly remembers that if he can just get some of this particular magical plant, then he can brew a potion and solve his problem. And that's a cheat. That feels very unsatisfying. It cheapens the work. Well-done fantasy – something like Tolkien – he sets Lord of the Rings up perfectly, right at the beginning. The only way to get rid of the ring, the only way, is to take it to Mount Doom and throw it in the fires from which it comes. You know that right from the first. And if we'd gone through all that, and then at the end of the book suddenly Gandalf had said, wait a minute, I just remembered, here's this other spell, oh, I can get rid of the ring easily! You would have hated that. That would have been all wrong. Magic can ruin things. Magic should never be the solution. Magic can be part of the problem.

...

Q: That seems to apply as well to your fantasy or magic elements: If there’s a God of Light, he seems awful. Are the walking dead out of the north beyond any reclaim? And then there’s Daenerys’s dragons: They seem kind of promising, like they could be a force of justice or good.

GRRM: Yes, that’s the way they seem. I hope. [Laughs] I don’t necessarily want to tell you what I’m thinking but to return to what I pointed at earlier, I like people that ask these questions, not necessarily provide them with the answers. So as the books unfold, there will be more and more to think about in these regards.

As a bonus, below is not necessarily about the dragons but for readers who read certain characters (such as Dany) as wish fulfillment fantasy:

Quote

 

Q: The Red Wedding, upon broadcast, became the most infamously shocking scene in TV history. It angered a lot of the people who watched it.

GRRM: It did so in the books too. In 2000, when the book came out, I got tons of letters from people: “I’m so angry with you – I’m never going to read your work again. I threw the book into the fire, then a week later I had to know what happens, so I went out and bought another copy.” Some people were so horrified that they said they will not read any more of my work. I understand that.

Q: Those characters mattered – the readers took them seriously, couldn’t bear those fates.

GRRM: One letter I got was from a woman, a waitress. She wrote me: “I work hard all day, I’m divorced, I have a couple of children. My life is very hard, and my one pleasure is I come home and I read fantasy, and I escape to other worlds. Then I read your book, and God, it was fucking horrifying. I don’t read for this. This is a nightmare. Why would you do this to me?” That letter actually reached me. I wrote her back and basically said, “I’m sorry; I do understand where you’re coming from.” Some people do read . . . I don’t like to use the word escape, because escapism has such a pejorative aspect, but it takes you to another world. Maybe it is escape. Reading fiction has helped me through some bad times in my own life. The night my father died, I was in Michigan and I got word from my mother. I couldn’t get to a plane until the next day, so I sat around thinking about my father, the good and the bad in our relationship. I remember I opened whatever book I was reading, and for a few hours, I was able to stop thinking about my father’s death. It was a relief.

GRRM: There are some people who read and want to believe in a world where the good guys win and the bad guys lose, and at the end they live happily ever after. That’s not the kind of fiction that I write. Tolkien was not that. The scouring of the Shire proved that. Frodo’s sadness – that was a bittersweet ending, which to my mind was far more powerful than the ending of Star Wars, where all the happy Ewoks are jumping around, and the ghosts of all the dead people appear, waving happily. [Laughs] But I understand where the other people are coming from. There are a lot of books out there. Let everyone find the kind of book that speaks to them, and speaks to what they need emotionally.

GRRM: You hate to lose any reader, but it is going to happen, regardless. In a long series, readers who loved the early books may envision the story going in certain directions. Often those directions are wildly divergent. When the later books actually come out, some of those readers are inevitably going to be upset, because the story on the page does not correspond with the one in their heads. Others may be delighted. I have lost readers with every book, I am sure… but I’ve gained a lot more. The fifth volume, A Dance with Dragons, was far and away the most popular in the series. In any case, no, it’s not something I worry about. When this question came up on my Not A Blog a few years ago, I embedded a clip from Rick Nelson singing “Garden Party. “You can’t please everyone, so you’ve got to please yourself. Truer words were seldom sung.

 

 

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, Mithras said:

How about GRRM's opinions on the dragons?

As a bonus, below is not necessarily about the dragons but for readers who read certain characters (such as Dany) as wish fulfillment fantasy:

 

Actually, that’s quite right.  Magic solving a problem on its own removes most of the drama from a tale.  I think that the use of magic must always come at a cost to the user, otherwise it becomes a cheap plot device.

As to the next, well the “shipping “ threads certainly show that Martin will be disappointing some fans.  I doubt if Sansa will be spending the rest of her  life living happily with Tyrion, or Margaery, or Baelish, for example.

[Dracul's Daughter]

@Daeron the Daring I can't imagine how would anyone think that every male slaver older than 12 would be dead.The Unsullied have no way in figuring out everyone's age so it's clear that the age gave by Dany was an estimation ment to protect the children of the slaves.Like I said : children are children.You can clearly tell them appart from adults.Who can tell precisely any age just by looking at the person?It's obvious that anyone close to 12 did not die.And as I said before,Dany got pregnant at the age of 14.Girls in Westeros at that age,are considered women as they can procreate.Why Dany would not consider a 14 year boy old enough since she has the same age,or 15?Also,isn't Jon or Robb 15???

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

4 hours ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

I always saw her command as avoiding to kill children but you still keep hammering about those poor 12 years boys killed.Between 11 and 12 is not much difference.Those Unsullied I'm sure they weren't asking ID's and birth dates.Children are childred.They can be distinguished from those who are adults.The order was clear : spare the children.

It's bad not to choose sides between two evils because you miss the opportunity of something a little better.Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty if you want to make something good.If Dany has to kill a lot more masters to make a free Slaver's Bay so be it.And just so you understand me : I do not aprove of killing children.I am arguing that with Dany's order not all of them were spared.

Btw,we didn't stick with the OP's question.

My point is that even 12 years old are children and by Westerosi standards up to the age of 16 are children. 12 years old was a random age limit and by chance, or not, it’s the same age limit with the other death orders against children in the series. If you make excuses for Dany then you must make excuses about Robert and Cersei too. There is the possibility that the author use the same limit to show that even likable characters, Dany, can do what unlikable characters, Cersei, do. I am with Davos in that one even one life is too much.

I did, I do and I will always do stick to my answer at the beginning, while dragons are not evil themselves they are weapons of evil and even if it comes to a huge evil and a tiny evil degree doesn’t matter evil is evil and I chose neither, I don’t want blood on my hands. Does it mean that I turning my sight away from that may result to a bad thing? Maybe. At least I wouldn’t be the one that give the order to kill children for something that will hypothetically happen because I cannot first think and plan and then act. No one has to pay for my inability to plan before hand.

[Dracul's Daughter]

3 hours ago, Mithras said:

How about GRRM's opinions on the dragons?

As a bonus, below is not necessarily about the dragons but for readers who read certain characters (such as Dany) as wish fulfillment fantasy:

 

Of course Martin won't give away plot lines.He won't deny or admit anything.As for Dany I just hope a logic progression not : "I crucify 163 masters for 163 children that they crucified then I go to Westeros and then BOOM!! I kill them because so."

[Dracul's Daughter]

1 minute ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

My point is that even 12 years old are children and by Westerosi standards up to the age of 16 are children. 12 years old was a random age limit and by chance, or not, it’s the same age limit with the other death orders against children in the series. If you make excuses for Dany then you must make excuses about Robert and Cersei too. There is the possibility that the author use the same limit to show that even likable characters, Dany, can do what unlikable characters, Cersei, do. I am with Davos in that one even one life is too much.

I did, I do and I will always do stick to my answer at the beginning, while dragons are not evil themselves they are weapons of evil and even if it comes to a huge evil and a tiny evil degree doesn’t matter evil is evil and I chose neither, I don’t want blood on my hands. Does it mean that I turning my sight away from that may result to a bad thing? Maybe. At least I wouldn’t be the one that give the order to kill children for something that will hypothetically happen because I cannot first think and plan and then act. No one has to pay for my inability to plan before hand.

How the Unsullied figured out everyone's age?

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

2 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

How the Unsullied figured out everyone's age?

That is another reason of how silly this solution is. Even younger than 12 years old but robust boys who look older than their age will die.

[Dracul's Daughter]

1 minute ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

That is another reason of how silly this solution is. Even younger than 12 years old but robust boys who look older than their age will die.

So how would they determin people's age?

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

2 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

So how would they determin people's age?

Your point is what? Is too difficult who are the adults so let’s kill the children and pray that no one will be robust enough to look older?

[Dracul's Daughter]

9 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Your point is what? Is too difficult who are the adults so let’s kill the children and pray that no one will be robust enough to look older?

My point is since they have no ID and the Unsullied won't just stop by and ask the age,it's very likely that Dany's age command wasn't set in stone.That it was an estimation.There must have been 12 and 13 years boys who were spared,since there is not such huge difference between those ages.Also,isn't Jon or Robb 15 and isn't she 14?

[SeanF]

3 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

My point is since they have no ID and the Unsullied won't just stop by and ask the age,it's very likely that Dany's age command wasn't set in stone.That is was an estimation.There must have been 12 and 13 years boys who were spared,since there is not such huge difference between those ages.Also,isn't Jon or Robb 15?

Robb, Jon, Pod would all be considered fair game, in a conflict situation.

[Dracul's Daughter]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Robb, Jon, Pod would all be considered fair game, in a conflict situation.

I really can't see how she would think that the Usullied figured out everyone's age thus every male of 12 years or old is dead.Is that evident a 11 year boy from a 12 or a 13 years old one??

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

41 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

My point is since they have no ID and the Unsullied won't just stop by and ask the age,it's very likely that Dany's age command wasn't set in stone.That is was an estimation.There must have been 12 and 13 years boys who were spared,since there is not such huge difference between those ages.Also,isn't Jon or Robb 15?

How about no more children dying for Dany’s catastrophic campaign? Or we should celebrate because a child wasn’t looking old enough. I really cannot see how not killing children is such an outlandish or radical notion. The children of that area knew nothing else, no other way of life. Can you really sentence them to death because of that? Can you sentence to death children who know no better to die because of what their family was doing? I know that I cannot and I do believe that it’s a better thing if a guilty person walks free than an innocent person being imprisoned, let alone killed.

And yes Robb and Jon are about this age so? They have to lead and what? Does it make the killing of children any better?

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

My point is that even 12 years old are children and by Westerosi standards up to the age of 16 are children. 12 years old was a random age limit and by chance, or not, it’s the same age limit with the other death orders against children in the series. If you make excuses for Dany then you must make excuses about Robert and Cersei too. There is the possibility that the author use the same limit to show that even likable characters, Dany, can do what unlikable characters, Cersei, do. I am with Davos in that one even one life is too much.

I did, I do and I will always do stick to my answer at the beginning, while dragons are not evil themselves they are weapons of evil and even if it comes to a huge evil and a tiny evil degree doesn’t matter evil is evil and I chose neither, I don’t want blood on my hands. Does it mean that I turning my sight away from that may result to a bad thing? Maybe. At least I wouldn’t be the one that give the order to kill children for something that will hypothetically happen because I cannot first think and plan and then act. No one has to pay for my inability to plan before hand.

I don’t think the issue so much is age as circumstance.  Trystane has done nothing to merit being killed by Cersei.  Killing wives and daughters of enemies is typically frowned on in this world, in the case of Daenerys. Edric has done nothing to justify his death.  But that would be so, whether each one was 14, 16, or 20. 

To take another example, what makes the murder of Robb Stark wrong is not that he is 15, but that it is done by his vassal, in his own home.

But if someone is seizing a stronghold, almost certainly there will be boys aged 12+ holding weapons, and almost certainly, they will get killed.  

[Dracul's Daughter]

13 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

How about no more children dying for Dany’s catastrophic campaign? Or we should celebrate because a child wasn’t looking old enough. I really cannot see how not killing children is such an outlandish or radical notion. The children of that area knew nothing else, no other way of life. Can you really sentence them to death because of that? Can you sentence to death children who know no better to die because of what their family was doing? I know that I cannot and I do believe that it’s a better thing if a guilty person walks free than an innocent person being imprisoned, let alone killed.

And yes Robb and Jon are about this age so? They have to lead and what? Does it make the killing of children any better?

I still stand by my argument that she did not murdered children as is not a precise way to guess a boy's age.Thus 12 and 13 years old were also spared since I repeat : IT'S NOT SUCH A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 11,12 AND 13 YEARS BOYS. And if Robb,Jon and her are more or less the same age and rule,they are not kids anymore,are they? Thus only ones from 16 years old and above are adults is false.It would be a huge difference between a boy who has 15 years,15 and 10 months or a 16 years old one?I guess not really.In a Mediaval world,the adulthood comes earlier no?

[Dracul's Daughter]

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I don’t think the issue so much is age as circumstance.  Trystane has done nothing to merit being killed by Cersei.  Killing wives and daughters of enemies is typically frowned on in this world, in the case of Daenerys. Edric has done nothing to justify his death.  But that would be so, whether each one was 14, 16, or 20. 

To take another example, what makes the murder of Robb Stark wrong is not that he is 15, but that it is done by his vassal, in his own home.

But if someone is seizing a stronghold, almost certainly there will be boys aged 12+ holding weapons, and almost certainly, they will get killed.

Exactly.Dant for instance didn't threaten Robert in any way,only by just being alive.

[CamiloRP]

7 hours ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Maybe so. Still personally I would have chosen the third choice, give the people the means for them to take the power and create their rulers. Seeing what her actions led to, havok and famine, I would still chose neither.

But there's no such thing as chosing neither, chosing neither is chosing things to remain the same, so in this situation you would be chosing between slavery and no slavery and you would chose slavery.

[CamiloRP]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

“The pacifism of the privileged.”  It establishes a false moral equivalence between violence that is used to reinforce oppression, and violence used in resistance.

For most of its inhabitants, Slavers Bay is Mordor.  For a privileged minority, it is paradise.  Dany made plenty of mistakes, but her war is just, and she should not be condemned for the savagery the slavers employ to try to reinstate their peculiar institution.

This mirrors servile wars in real life, which are absolutely brutal (and where typically slavers are treated with far more brutality than anything Dany meted out).

There's a phrase in my country 'hunger is violence' it became popular after some riots which the media tried to install as uncalled for and unmeasured violence. The manifestations involved burning cop cars, wrecking banks and throwing rocks to the police, the thing is, those same people were starving to death and we're being constantly attacked by the cops, and truth be told, the riots did improve things, however ugly, violence is often necessary, and more so when there's institutionalized violence targeting you, like there was for the majority of the slaver's bay population.

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

Exactly.Dant for instance didn't threaten Robert in any way,only by just being alive.

There’s an argument for assassination, based upon realpolitik, but the correct targets would be Viserys and Drogo.  Dothraki khals generally are not noted for forgiving people who threaten their wives. A murder, or attempted murder, that was traced back to Westeros would provoke what Robert was trying to avoid.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

21 minutes ago, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Or we should celebrate because a child wasn’t looking old enough. I really cannot see how not killing children is such an outlandish or radical notion.

Yeah, exactly. We're here debating semantics of how many children were actually killed, and how they were recognized, but the fact of the matter remains that Dany ordered the deaths of all children over the age of 12. Whether that was carried out or not doesn't matter, she did order it regardless.