A Public Service Announcement: The Targaryens' (Lack of) Immunity to Fire

[tze]

I just want to see if anyone can find a reason for Dany to receive no burns from Drogon's flame. If the flames of a much smaller dragon can give Quentyn third degree burns, then surely Drogon's fire would have burned Dany? The fire licked the tips of her hair and spread; but, as I've said, if the flames were hot enough to give Quentyn third degree burns, they'd be hot enough for Dany to at least feel something.

. . . Seriously? Please look at Dany's final two chapters again. You're assuming she was actually hit by Drogon's fire. But Drogon didn't hit Dany with open flame, which is exactly what Rhaegal unambiguously did to Quentyn. Quentyn saw his body on fire. In the pit, Dany explicitly says she "darted underneath the flames". Not "she tried to dart underneath the flames, but realized she didn't go low enough when she started smelling burning hair and realized her hair was afire, heat radiating down on her head, flames rolling from the tips of her hair down her back and over her arms, fire spreading all across her body, as obviously if her hair had been set on literal fire that fire wouldn't just stay confined to said hair, but would spread down her body."

Notice how even her clothes weren't burned. Not even charred at the edges. No fire damage whatsoever. That must be one magical linen undertunic, right? Or maybe, just maybe, the blast of heat was hot enough to scorch her hair but wasn't hot enough to burn her scalp, and Dany never made any contact with Drogon's fire at all. It's certainly possible to burn hair without burning the actual scalp, you know. As you yourself pointed out, hair burns at a lower temperature than flesh.

The burns WEREN'T CAUSED BY FIRE. They were from the spear that was lodged in Drogon.

And why was that spear hot, again? Oh right. It was stuck in Drogon! You're trying to argue that Dany's somehow showing an immunity to dragonfire, (despite no actual evidence she was even hit by dragonfire and plenty of evidence she was not hit by dragonfire), while something that's stuck in a dragon's side can actually burn her? That's nonsensical. "She's immune to fire, just not a blast of heat, aka that thing that's weaker than actual fire! And she must be immune to that stuff that comes out of a dragon, despite definitely not being immune to . . . stuff that came out of a dragon!"

Martin's quote: "Not all Targaryens are immune to fire at all times."

Perhaps the key phrase is, " at all times"? This isn't a normal time period. Magic is growing in their land and unusual things are happening.

Martin's actual quote: ""Lastly, some fans are reading too much into the scene in GAME OF THRONES where the dragons are born -- which is to say, it was never the case that all Targaryens are immune to all fire at all times." He wasn't saying that Targs could be immune to fire if the season or magical level was correct. He specifically stated that he was trying to correct the misapprehension that Dany was fireproof at any point other than that single "unique, magical, wonderous, [miraculous]" instance.

[Fearsome Fred]

Martin's actual quote: ""Lastly, some fans are reading too much into the scene in GAME OF THRONES where the dragons are born -- which is to say, it was never the case that all Targaryens are immune to all fire at all times."

This quote, by itself is saying:

That there was never a time when ALL Targs were IMMUNE to fire at ALL times.

He is NOT, however, saying any of the following, at least not in THIS quote:

- That there was never a time when SOME targs were immune to fire at all times.

- That there was never a time when all targs were RESISTANT to fire at all times.

- That there was never a time when all targs were immune to fire at SOME times.

- That there was never a time when SOME targs were immune to fire at SOME times.

- That there was never a time when SOME targs were RESISTANT to fire at SOME times.

He wasn't saying that Targs could be immune to fire if the season or magical level was correct.

He's not ruling it out either, at least not in the passage just quoted.

He specifically stated that he was trying to correct the misapprehension that Dany was fireproof at any point other than that single "unique, magical, wonderous, [miraculous]" instance.

No. The only words specifically stated are the one's quoted. Everything else is your interpretation - of a 1999 quote - which you are trying to use to force your interpretation onto a passage that was published in 2011.

[tze]

This quote, by itself is saying:

That there was never a time when ALL Targs were IMMUNE to fire at ALL times.

He is NOT, however, saying any of the following, at least not in THIS quote:

- That there was never a time when SOME targs were immune to fire at all times.

- That there was never a time when all targs were RESISTANT to fire at all times.

- That there was never a time when all targs were immune to fire at SOME times.

- That there was never a time when SOME targs were immune to fire at SOME times.

- That there was never a time when SOME targs were RESISTANT to fire at SOME times.

Really? You expect him to enumerate all of these specific things? I mean, it's not like he came right out and said "TARGARYENS ARE NOT FIREPROOF". In big block letters. Except wait a minute, he absolutely did.

He's not ruling it out either, at least not in the passage just quoted.

Yeah, he is. He said fans are reading too much into the scene where the dragons are born. And you can't pretend he gave one interview but not the other, you know.

I suggest you check out the interviews GRRM has actually given on this subject, which have been repeated over and over and over again in this very thread.

No. The only words specifically stated are the one's quoted. Everything else is your interpretation - of a 1999 quote - which you are trying to use to force your interpretation onto a passage that was published in 2011.

Sigh. Seriously? Yes, he absolutely did.

Granny: Do Targaryens become immune to fire once they "bond" to their dragons?

George RR Martin: Granny, thanks for asking that. It gives me a chance to clear up a common misconception. TARGARYENS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FIRE! The birth of Dany's dragons was unique, magical, wonderous, a miracle. She is called Unburnt because she walked into the flames and lived. But her brother sure as hell wasn't immune to that molten gold.

This interview was quoted upthread. Multiple times. I'm sure you read it, since I've quoted it in multiple posts here.

He's made it very clear, on multple occasions, that the fan assumptions--that Targaryens in general, and Dany in particular, can be fireproof at times other than that one "unique" dragon-hatching instance----were incorrect. And we know these are the assumptions he was addressing because that's what he says. And he's said nothing at all in the meantime to contradict this. Moreover, he made these statements about a year and a half before the official publication of ASOS. He'd been through two books of Dany, and by the time the pit scene came out, we'd had a grand total of . . . two more books of Dany! The idea that this information is somehow practically paleolithic is patently absurd. And the idea that he'd go to all the trouble to refute the allegations that Dany and the Targs were fireproof, and then go and make Dany fireproof again, as if the plot really required her to be fireproof, when he clearly did not want people to go ahead believing that at all (as he wouldn't have taken the time to flat-out address it if he wanted us to speculate on it!), is just bizarre.

Honestly, I'm just amazed that Dany's belief that she's fireproof is given any credence whatsoever. She says this while she's talking to the grass and having drawn-out arguments with multiple hallucinations. Seriously?

[kephv]

Honestly, I'm just amazed that Dany's belief that she's fireproof is given any credence whatsoever. She says this while she's talking to the grass and having drawn-out arguments with multiple hallucinations. Seriously?

She says that before she gets lost in the grass and ends up in a state of delirium.

Also, she never says she is fireproof, just that she was unaffected by the flames (just her hair burned).

[tze]

She says that before she gets lost in the grass and ends up in a state of delirium.

She starts talking to the grass that very same day. The very next day she starts hallucinating. This is not a timeline that fills me with confidence for her clarity of mind or judgment here.

Also, she never says she is fireproof, just that she was unaffected by the flames (just her hair burned).

She thinks back on the fire that hatched the dragon's eggs: "The fire burned away my hair, but elsewise it did not touch me. It had been the same in Daznak’s Pit." She's clearly associating the former event with the latter event, and we all know the former event is why people call her "the Unburnt". But GRRM has shown us that the two events don't actually mirror each other in the way that Dany implies: for example, her skin was clearly able to be burned in the pit, while her skin was not burned at all in the fire on the Dothraki Sea. Her clothes were untouched by the forces she encountered in the pit, while her clothes were incinerated by the fire on the Dothraki Sea. She thinks fire "reacted" the same way in the pit as it did when the dragons hatched---i.e., that fire "did not touch" her in the same way during the two events. But that's not what GRRM actually showed us.

[Fearsome Fred]

Really? You expect him to enumerate all of these specific things?

No. I don't expect him to say anything at all. He had no need to help you win this argument, no matter how desperately you want him to.

I mean, it's not like he came right out and said "TARGARYENS ARE NOT FIREPROOF". In big block letters.

This is a different quote which can be discussed separately in its own context. And it obviously does not meant "No Targ is ever fireproof" because we already have one exception to disprove that rule. Nor does it mean "No targ is ever fire resistant".

Yeah, he is. He said fans are reading too much into the scene where the dragons are born.

You don't know which fans he's arguing against.

And you can't pretend he gave one interview but not the other, you know.

I'm not pretending anything. If you think the second quote helps you more than the first, then that's the quote you should rely upon. The first quote obviously does not help your position AT ALL.

I suggest you check out the interviews GRRM has actually given on this subject, which have been repeated over and over and over again in this very thread.

I am only familiar with the two quotes, both over 12 years old.

Honestly, I'm just amazed that Dany's belief that she's fireproof is given any credence whatsoever.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that Dany is ALWAYS fireproof. I am merely saying that GRRM's words in the two quotes provided (both of which are written over 12 years ago) do NOT prove that DANY will NEVER have more than one mystical fire-resistant experience.

[Fearsome Fred]

Her clothes were untouched by the forces she encountered in the pit, while her clothes were incinerated by the fire on the Dothraki Sea. She thinks fire "reacted" the same way in the pit as it did when the dragons hatched---i.e., that fire "did not touch" her in the same way during the two events. But that's not what GRRM actually showed us.

Dany never said, or implied, that the two situations were absolutely identical. She obviously knows full well to what extent her clothes were or were not burned. But she obviously feels the two events are related, and I trust her judgment more than yours.

You want to speculate that she is wrong? That is fine.

Maybe it's a red herring. Maybe GRRM is trying to mislead us. If so, he does not think it is critically important that you win this silly argument. Maybe he wants us to be surprised when Dany steps into a Volcano and accidentally incinerates herself.

But please stop trying to bully us all with 12-year old quotes that obviously never said what you want them to anyway.

[Fearsome Fred]

To reiterate: It is perfectly reasonable for readers to hold or suspect the following positions:

(1) Dany has constant (but limited) fire RESISTANCE, causing her to suffer less damage from exposure to fire than an ordinary mortal would in most circumstances.

(2) In addition to the above, it is possible for Dany to have (and have more than once) special surges of increased fire-resistance approaching or reaching total IMMUNITY to certain kinds of fire, in the context of specific mystical events.

I don't think it is reasonable to believe that Targs in general, or even Dany in particular, have constant and total fire immunity at all times.

[kephv]

She starts talking to the grass that very same day. The very next day she starts hallucinating. This is not a timeline that fills me with confidence for her clarity of mind or judgment here.

At that moment she was in a perfectly fine state of mind though.

two events don't actually mirror each other in the way that Dany implies: for example, her skin was clearly able to be burned in the pit, while her skin was not burned at all in the fire on the Dothraki Sea.

Dragon fire is hotter than normal fire. The only thing hotter is the sun and fire under the earth. Perhaps that's why she was burned.

Her clothes were untouched by the forces she encountered in the pit, while her clothes were incinerated by the fire on the Dothraki Sea. She thinks fire "reacted" the same way in the pit as it did when the dragons hatched---i.e., that fire "did not touch" her in the same way during the two events. But that's not what GRRM actually showed us.

Well, she didn't sit in a fire this time. Also, her clothes were little more than rags, and people said they saw her aflame, so I take it they weren't entirely unscathed either.

[RevengeOfTheStarks]

OH MY JEESUSSS!!! I just can't take it anymore. I read through the first ten pages of this thread and I'm here to post about one thing and one thing only. I don't know if it's been addressed in the three pages I haven't read yet but I don't care, I JUST NEED TO SAY THIS BEFORE MY HEAD EXPLODES!!

(1) But even if the flames only caught the tips and spread to the roots, they'd still burn her scalp, surely? The fire burnt away all of her hair, but it didn't burn her scalp.

NO! NO! The answer is NO, resoundingly, incontrovertibly, NO!

When things burn, aka combust, the external energy source, i.e dragon fire, provides the energy needed to kick start the chemical reaction of combustion, which is the reaction of some hydrocarbon with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water, okay? Stay with me...

After the thing, i.e. hair, has been ignited, the heat it gives off in the process of combustion is called the HEAT of COMBUSTION. This is independent from the temperature or whatever of the initial energy source (dragon fire). This heat of combustion, depends entirely on the material being burned, and the energy released from the breaking of its chemical bonds. ONCE AGAIN, HAS NOTHING THE HECK TO DO WITH THE THING THAT CAUSED THE COMBUSTION IN THE FIRST PLACE. Just a match, or dragon fire, doesn't matter, the hair will burn at the same temperature.

Still with me? I know this is boring shit but I need to say this so I don't tear my hair out...or burn it. As other poster have commented, hair burns easily, very quickly, and with very little heat given off. It's very unlikely that a whole head of hair burning off will provide enough heat to really blister or burn a scalp. Not only do I have a degree in chemistry, and may pursue another degree in chemistry if this whole med school shit doesn't work out, but I have also set my hair on fire before.

k,thnx,bye

ETA:

But feel free to argue that Dany's silver-gold Targaryen hair is extra energetic, made out of actual gold, or diamonds, with the heat of combustion of a thousand suns, as magical as it is beautiful, I don't care. Just don't try to say normal hair burning can blister a scalp to shreds

[House Martell]

This heat of combustion, depends entirely on the material being burned, and the energy released from the breaking of its chemical bonds. ONCE AGAIN, HAS NOTHING THE HECK TO DO WITH THE THING THAT CAUSED THE COMBUSTION IN THE FIRST PLACE. Just a match, or dragon fire, doesn't matter, the hair will burn at the same temperature.

Still with me? I know this is boring shit but I need to say this so I don't tear my hair out...or burn it. As other poster have commented, hair burns easily, very quickly, and with very little heat given off. It's very unlikely that a whole head of hair burning off will provide enough heat to really blister or burn a scalp.

Very good explanation and eliminates the possibility of burning hair causing blisters to the scalp. BUT I don't see how this disproves dragon fire is very very hot. OK it doesn't take a high temp to ignite hair, that doesn't mean a high temp wasn't there. As the wise old sage Ron White said:

"I don't know how many of them it would have taken to whip my ass, but I knew how many they were going to use"

so just because hair ignites at a relatively low temp and gives off a low amount of energy does not explicitly imply the dragon flame shot at most a few inches above her head was not very hot and wouldn't harm the average person. So if there is some information on how the heat from dragon flame radiates from its source then that would be helpful. Like: "if dragon fire is 1000 degrees in the flame, then the temp 3 inches from the flame will be X"

[Fearsome Fred]

Still with me? I know this is boring shit but I need to say this so I don't tear my hair out...or burn it. As other poster have commented, hair burns easily, very quickly, and with very little heat given off. It's very unlikely that a whole head of hair burning off will provide enough heat to really blister or burn a scalp. Not only do I have a degree in chemistry, and may pursue another degree in chemistry if this whole med school shit doesn't work out, but I have also set my hair on fire before.

I do not doubt that it is possible for a person to have their hair catch fire and then beat out the fire with their hands, without having their scalp or hands suffer serious injury.

I still do not think it is possible for a person with a full head of hair to let fire to burn their hair clean off, right down to the scalp, without suffering serious burns. At least, I would be very surprised if it were so. Are you really saying this has happened to you? And no, I do not suggest anyone try it, as an experiment.

[Ygrain]

One thing... even if Dany did beat the flames with her hands and didn't recall doing it, she wouldn't have been able to tell if fire hurt her hands or not because they had already been burnt by the touch of the spear.

Concerning Dany's tunic: it is described as stained and ragged but never as burnt.

Regarding the last two chapters, I think that GRRM did intentionally write them as vague, and that there is a contradiction between what really happened and what Dany thinks that happened. And while she is clearly delusional when talking to Viserys, there is a mention of her feeling as if building up a fever right at the beginning of that chapter; before that, she had been on scarce food and water for a couple of days. Not really the conditions for clear thinking.

[donalnig]

Targaryen's arent immune to anything !! baelor the blessed killed himself by fasting because it made him "closer" to the gods!! some targaryen girl was sickly her whole life cant remember which one though! aegon and duncan the small were killed in a fire! rhaegars chest was crushed by roberts warhammer and of course madness is a sickness which at least a quarter of the targaryens were mad!! viserys iii aerys ii maegor was cruel which could of been a result of possible madness aerion was a mad bastard too, he drank wildfire believing it would turn him into a dragon.

jaehaerys ii was sickly and died young as a result.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Concerning Dany's tunic: it is described as stained and ragged but never as burnt.

Yep, I noticed this too. The fire in the pyre didn't burn her but it did burn her clothes. But her tunic isn't burned from the pit, meaning the fire never reached it.

[Ygrain]

Finally, one more thought: GRRM may have made a mistake. I believe LadyOfTheNorth was right Viserys' spectacular golden crown wouldn't have happened, that you cannot melt gold on cooking fire. He also made a mistake describing Ser Illyn drawing a six-feet long greatsword over his shoulder. He could be wrong with this plot device of burnt hair, as well.

[Serie]

Finally, one more thought: GRRM may have made a mistake. I believe LadyOfTheNorth was right Viserys' spectacular golden crown wouldn't have happened, that you cannot melt gold on cooking fire. He also made a mistake describing Ser Illyn drawing a six-feet long greatsword over his shoulder. He could be wrong with this plot device of burnt hair, as well.

so true!!!! (or laws of physics don't apply in the "context of westeros") :dunno:

[Aneurin Frey]

This seems like a good place to post this, despite the thread getting dangerously close to a flame war (see what I did there?)

I'm making a ASOIAF mod for Skyrim, and I need to give the Targaryen's a natural resistance. A resistance to fire was what came to mind immediately, but after reading this thread, I'm not too sure. The idea that I had was this: If Targaryen's are hit by fire, the game tosses a coin, if it comes up heads, they resist the fire entirely. If it comes up tails, they take the floor force.

Thoughts?

[PatrickStormborn]

Thank you for that post, ROTS. It was very interesting to read. However, I wasn't trying to say that burnt hair means a burnt scalp; I was trying to say that, if the dragonfire was around the same temperature as the one that hit Quentyn (both are described as a "furnace wind"), then it is reasonable to assume that it should have burnt her scalp. Unless the temperature of flames is lowered as soon as it hits hair?

Also why are people throwing around the fact that her clothes weren't burnt? No one is saying that. The fire clearly never reached her clothes. But the fire burned all her hair and did not harm her head or her face.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Thank you for that post, ROTS. It was very interesting to read. However, I wasn't trying to say that burnt hair means a burnt scalp; I was trying to say that, if the dragonfire was around the same temperature as the one that hit Quentyn (both are described as a "furnace wind"), then it is reasonable to assume that it should have burnt her scalp. Unless the temperature of flames is lowered as soon as it hits hair?

Quentyn also sees himself literally engulfed in flames and notes that all of him is on fire.

Also why are people throwing around the fact that her clothes weren't burnt? No one is saying that. The fire clearly never reached her clothes. But the fire burned all her hair and did not harm her head or her face.

Someone with an honest-to-God chem degree has taken the time to answer this.