Giovanna Neve Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Just because something incredible happens to you, that doesn't mean you've now made Fate your bitch. Doing something that can only be done once doesn't make Dany inherently wonderful, or superhuman, or basically give her GRRM's equivalent of divine protection. It simply means that there's no do-over if those dragons die. And dragons, as we all know, can be killed.I don't like Dany, but I can't really blame her for thinking she's fated after the pyre event. This doesn't mean I think she is, but since in westros is normal for a noble person thinking "I'm a wolf!! I'm a dragon!!...I'm xxx cool-beast!!!" I can't really dislike her for thinking "I'm the blood of dragon!!". She's a young girl after all.btw : she thinks/says "I'm the blood of the dragon" 10 times in adwd(there are 9 Dany's chapter if I'm not wrong...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBull Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I think the reason D&D decided to have that scene where Dany does not get burned by the eggs is so that the finale wouldn't have felt like it came out of nowhere. In the show we aren't in Dany's head so for her to have walked into that fire positive that she would not die, would have made no sense without that egg scene.Either way, the show and the books are two different machines so I don't get why people get upset about this. Dany appears to be immune to fire on the show so what is wrong with people saying so? It wasn't like that in the books? So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 I don't like Dany, but I can't really blame her for thinking she's fated after the pyre event. This doesn't mean I think she is, but since in westros is normal for a noble person thinking "I'm a wolf!! I'm a dragon!!...I'm xxx cool-beast!!!" I can't really dislike her for thinking "I'm the blood of dragon!!". She's a young girl after all.btw : she thinks/says "I'm the blood of the dragon" 10 times in adwd(there are 9 Dany's chapter if I'm not wrong...).And this is where Illyrio's contempt to Tyrion makes sense. Tyrion says he's a lion and Illyrio says, "O rly?" Any asshat with a sigil can say that he is that sigil but that doesn't make it so. To my mind only the Starks come close -- when they say, "I'm a wolf," in the wargs' cases, they literally ARE wolves.I've noticed that Dany has gone from using "I'm the blood of the dragon" as a way to keep strength to using it as an excuse to lord it over people (obviously she's superior to them) to using it as justification for her own super-powered divine awesomeness. There's a clear pattern when it comes to Targaryens claiming that they're actual dragons -- not just in terms of insanity and downfall but also cruelty. Aerion Brightflame bullied puppeteers and intentionally killed an opponent's horse and lied. Viserys psychologically and physically abused his sister. Aerys II got his rocks off on burning people alive. All of them thought that they were or would become "dragons." Now obviously I can only speculate, but I don't see Jaehaerys I constantly saying he was the blood of the dragon, or Viserys I, or Aegon III, or Aegon V. The best Targ kings appear to be those who weren't up their own asses in terms of their genetic lottery. And three of the guys I mentioned lived when there were still dragons.ETA: If you notice, the Targaryen kings with the closest identification to the dragon mythology seem to have been the worst ones. Aegon IV handed his eggs out as gifts and fashioned a gaudy dragon-headed crown. The Young Dragon is remembered for losing 40,000 in Dorne. Baelor Batshit prayed over eggs so they would hatch and they never did. Aerys I preferred to read books about "lore" over actually ruling (dragonlore, perhaps?). ETA 2: And yes I'm perfectly aware that Aegon V died apparently trying to hatch an egg. But I suspect that attempt had some "push" behind it (possibly the Ghost of High Heart?) and wouldn't have been attempted otherwise.Either way, the show and the books are two different machines so I don't get why people get upset about this. Dany appears to be immune to fire on the show so what is wrong with people saying so? It wasn't like that in the books? So?If the show implies that Dany is immune to fire -- outside of the pyre -- and then later on she isn't, that could be rightly construed as a continuity or logic error within the show and could very well confuse people. There have been many people on here who became fans because of the show, saying that "Jon can't be a Targ because he burned his hands" or even "Could Viserys be a fake because he was burned?" It's an issue because 1. the show's digression has caused spillover confusion where the books are concerned and 2. the show might have to sidestep the rules it appeared to have laid out, which can only confuse people further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. E Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I think the reason D&D decided to have that scene where Dany does not get burned by the eggs is so that the finale wouldn't have felt like it came out of nowhere. In the show we aren't in Dany's head so for her to have walked into that fire positive that she would not die, would have made no sense without that egg scene.Either way, the show and the books are two different machines so I don't get why people get upset about this. Dany appears to be immune to fire on the show so what is wrong with people saying so? It wasn't like that in the books? So? You can go even further back to the first episode, where Dany gets into a scalding hot bath as her handmaid warns her, but she's entirely unaffected by it.I too think the TV show producers were at the very least trying to show that Dany is the "real dragon" by making her--not immune to fire, per se, but at the very least possessing a unique relationship with heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 <snip>I agree with your interpretation. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giovanna Neve Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I've noticed that Dany has gone from using "I'm the blood of the dragon" as a way to keep strength to using it as an excuse to lord it over people (obviously she's superior to them) to using it as justification for her own super-powered divine awesomeness. There's a clear pattern when it comes to Targaryens claiming that they're actual dragons -- not just in terms of insanity and downfall but also cruelty. Aerion Brightflame bullied puppeteers and intentionally killed an opponent's horse and lied. Viserys psychologically and physically abused his sister. Aerys II got his rocks off on burning people alive. All of them thought that they were or would become "dragons." Now obviously I can only speculate, but I don't see Jaehaerys I constantly saying he was the blood of the dragon, or Viserys I, or Aegon III, or Aegon V. The best Targ kings appear to be those who weren't up their own asses in terms of their genetic lottery. And three of the guys I mentioned lived when there were still dragons.Well,speaking about nobleman/noblewoman, I think Dany's arrogance is more common than Aegon V's wiseness. Plus, her luck (the pyre, mereen...) made her even more arrogant. I just said that would be strange if she thought herself as an humble mortal like other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickStormborn Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I'm a bit late, but...It seems to me the how and why is actually not up to them in your example either: they are going by train, on that specific track, with those specific stops and they are going because they are aboard the destiny train (and you are arguing that everyone is on the destiny train). They didn't choose to board that train, and they cannot get out of the train. So what's left? Only mediocrity. Grand acts or choices with consequence that would not come from "destiny" don't exist and cannot exist, because it would mean going off track.It's the character's choice to stay on the track that makes it destiny. Or that's how I see it. The characters are still the ones making the choice -- it's just part of a much larger destiny. But here's the thing: characters choose their own destiny. This is why we have yet to see a subversion of prophecy in asoiaf. It's also why Bran is able to communicate through weirwoods without changing the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire_Kiss Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I've made my claim here that I don't think anyone on this series is fireproof. However, I want to play devils advocate for a moment, (just ignore me if you wish) and say that while Egg may have been fireproof, he still wouldn't be explosion proof. In my experience, the only guy who's been explosion-proof was Captain Jack Harkness. And we all know he didn't have a dragon. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 Well,speaking about nobleman/noblewoman, I think Dany's arrogance is more common than Aegon V's wiseness. Plus, her luck (the pyre, mereen...) made her even more arrogant. I just said that would be strange if she thought herself as an humble mortal like other people.I can see this, yes. But arrogance doesn't necessarily make you a good ruler and, as you've said, her belief in her own specialness does not mean that it's true. The "best" Targaryen kings seem to have reputations for wisdom (Jaehaerys I), reconciliation (Jaehaerys I, Daeron II), congeniality (Viserys I), pragmatism (Aegon III) and/or earthiness (Aegon V). The arrogant, overly idealistic or overly self-involved ones -- Daeron I, Baelor I, Aegon IV, Aerys I -- and/or those known for cruelty -- Maegor I, Aegon IV, Aerys II -- are remembered less kindly. So an arrogant Targaryen who has proved to have a capacity for torture and cruel punishment seems to fit in the latter group, not the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickStormborn Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I've made my claim here that I don't think anyone on this series is fireproof.However, I want to play devils advocate for a moment, (just ignore me if you wish) and say that while Egg may have been fireproof, he still wouldn't be explosion proof. In my experience, the only guy who's been explosion-proof was Captain Jack Harkness. And we all know he didn't have a dragon. ;)I'm not going to say that any Targaryen (past or present) is fireproof, but I want to add that we don't know enough of what happened at Summerhall to really use that as an example. For all we know, it was the smoke that killed Egg, and not the flames. Or perhaps something fell on him during the blaze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire_Kiss Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Patrick, when you say it like that, fireproofness doesn't seem like that great of a superpower anyways.... I'd rather be "accident" proof. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fearsome Fred Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I'm not going to say that any Targaryen (past or present) is fireproof, but I want to add that we don't know enough of what happened at Summerhall to really use that as an example. For all we know, it was the smoke that killed Egg, and not the flames. Or perhaps something fell on him during the blaze.Or perhaps he warged into a dragon egg, hatched, and is now chilling in the crypts of Winterfell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickStormborn Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I can see this, yes. But arrogance doesn't necessarily make you a good ruler and, as you've said, her belief in her own specialness does not mean that it's true.The "best" Targaryen kings seem to have reputations for wisdom (Jaehaerys I), reconciliation (Jaehaerys I, Daeron II), congeniality (Viserys I), pragmatism (Aegon III) and/or earthiness (Aegon V). The arrogant, overly idealistic or overly self-involved ones -- Daeron I, Baelor I, Aegon IV, Aerys I -- and/or those known for cruelty -- Maegor I, Aegon IV, Aerys II -- are remembered less kindly. So an arrogant Targaryen who has proved to have a capacity for torture and cruel punishment seems to fit in the latter group, not the former. 1) She's less arrogant than quite a few other rulers in the series (even though she genuinely has every reason to be arrogant).2) She also "crushed" the slave trade. So she's clearly not all bad.3) You didn't mention Aegon the Conqueror, whom she quite clearly parallels ("ruling needs an Aegon I, not an Egg").You can't deny that she was a popular queen in Meereen; the ex-slaves loved her and the non-slaves were beginning to like her following her marriage to Hizdahr. Even the Astapori still loved her, despite her not giving up Meereen to go and help them. She was also quite popular when she was Drogo's khaleesi, if I recall correctly. The only ruler from the War of the Five Kings who, in my opinion, seemed to inspire more loyalty from his people than her was Renly. She's about on par with Robb Stark, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire_Kiss Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 The only ruler from the War of the Five Kings who, in my opinion, seemed to inspire more loyalty from his people than her was Renly. She's about on par with Robb Stark, I think.Good in battle, bad at politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickStormborn Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Good in battle, bad at politics?Well, yes, so far. But what I meant was that they're similar in terms of how much loyalty they seem to inspire in their subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 1) She's less arrogant than quite a few other rulers in the series (even though she genuinely has every reason to be arrogant).I'd find it more admirable if she had a reason to be arrogant and remained humble. Being arrogant with good reason is nothing worth admiring.2) She also "crushed" the slave trade. So she's clearly not all bad.She's allowing people to sell themselves back into slavery and has set up the system to make money on each sale. Surely if she was that against it, she'd ban it outright. Astapor reverted back to slavery pretty much as soon as she left and I see no reason to doubt that the rest of Slaver's Bay wouldn't do the same thing.3) You didn't mention Aegon the Conqueror, whom she quite clearly parallels ("ruling needs an Aegon I, not an Egg").It's "An Aegon, not an Egg." If you're going to quote something, please at least do it accurately.ETA: She's not Aegon the Conqueror until she lands, wins Westeros and keeps it. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.You can't deny that she was a popular queen in Meereen; the ex-slaves loved her and the non-slaves were beginning to like her following her marriage to Hizdahr. Even the Astapori still loved her, despite her not giving up Meereen to go and help them. She was also quite popular when she was Drogo's khaleesi, if I recall correctly.I don't deny that she's popular to ex-slaves, no. The problem, as I've said before, is that the Westerosi aren't slaves and she can't "free" them to gain loyalty. They'll require more than that. Other than freeing the slaves, what has she brought them? Not food, not peace, not security, not good health, not a way to safely earn a living. She had to bite the bullet and make common cause with the enemy faction by marrying Hizdahr and putting him in power -- she was unable to make peace on her own.The only ruler from the War of the Five Kings who, in my opinion, seemed to inspire more loyalty from his people than her was Renly. She's about on par with Robb Stark, I think.Renly's main allies went right to his enemy very soon after he died. So how loyal were they, really? Robb Stark's bannermen are, for the most part, still trying to defeat his enemies and honor his will and legacy and avenge him even after he's dead. The Starks have inspired loyalty and dedication unlike any other family in this series, including the Targaryens. When the Targaryens hit bottom, who was willing to go on a limb for them? The Starks have hit bottom and their bannermen are still loyal and working to bring them back.Please take the time to reply to Tze's post on the page before this one. I don't know if you haven't seen it or haven't replied yet, but I for one would like to see what you have to say on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevengeOfTheStarks Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 <snip...stuff about hair burning...snip>First of all, I'm a woman, very long hair, don't use any product other than shampoo and conditioner. Idk what kind of hair you have but mine burned incredibly quickly. Someone posted that youtube vid of some guy lighting his head on fire and his seemed to burn more slowly considering that it sustained a flame for a while, but his hair was also incredibly curly, so maybe that makes a difference?I want to make clear that I don't think the pit event was in any way an example of Dany being more fire resistant that anyone else. She has never been shown to be definitely fire resistant at any point after the dragon hatching, just very heat tolerant, which is nothing magical or special. As someone earlier said, she has about the same level of heat tolerance as your average Rhoynar (sp?) Dornish person, which makes perfect sense considering her um..Valyrian ethnicity. People keep talking about how regardless of the hair issue, she was exposed to an inferno of dragon fire and that must cause any normal person severe burns, but not Dany, so she's special. Can someone please explain to me in that case, WHY her silk tokar didn't burn off of her??? Please? Many people including myself have brought this up repeatedly and no fire-resistance advocate has bothered to explain it. Because the heat she was exposed to couldn't have been that bad if her clothes remained intact, so I see nothing in this argument that she was exposed to scorching temperatures when she ducked under the fire. This ain't chemistry, it's common sense, something I believe GRRM possesses even if he doesn't have a chem degree :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giovanna Neve Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 1) She's less arrogant than quite a few other rulers in the series (even though she genuinely has every reason to be arrogant).2) She also "crushed" the slave trade. So she's clearly not all bad.Arrogance is to think she could help those slaves. Slaver cities were easy preys so she smashed them. But if her intention was to keep those slave free she could have thought HOW TO KEEP THEM FREE. But no long term plans in her brain, just "fire and blood!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire_Kiss Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 . Can someone please explain to me in that case, WHY her silk tokar didn't burn off of her??? She took it off before entering the pit. I believe her thoughts were, "fuck this guy, fuck this bloody fighting, and fuck these floppy ears" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 She took it off before entering the pit. I believe her thoughts were, "fuck this guy, fuck this bloody fighting, and fuck these floppy ears"Yes that she took off. But her underclothes weren't burned either, only stained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.