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

[PatrickStormborn]

In GOT at the end of the chapter from Dany's POV , last two lines:

(She is thinking.)

"Hes was no dragon, Dany thought, curiously calm.

Fire cannot kill a dragon."

I thought that phrase was not in the novel, but in the show.

I was wrong, well I don't know what that means.

By the by I take 'dragon' not to mean literally to have dragon's blood (whatever the hell that would mean) , but that there were Valyrians who were metaphorical 'dragons' and those who were not.

Or maybe had the right genes? Or were touched by some kind of magic of dragons?

After all the Valyrians dealt with dragons for thousands of years.

I think it's as simple as this: Viserys was calling himself a dragon, and Dany was noting that -- if he really was a dragon -- then he would not burn. It was the moment when Dany realised that her brother was a weak man, and not the "dragon"/god that he thought himself to be.

[Carey Snow]

In fact, she is making a crucial msitake here: in the pyre, EVERYTHING that was not her living flesh burnt down - her hair, her clothes. After the Pit, her clothes are untouched by fire, meaning, it was not exposed to fire.

(1) is speculation. Dany is not aware when and how her hair caught fire, no-one else described it, and the fact that it burned down to the scalp does not mean that Drogon's fire was that close to the scalp - and this has been explained SEVERAL time. Hair burns well; if tips catch fire, it will gradually burn all, unless put out.

(2) is a typical unreliable narrator. From "her hair was afire" he goes to "she was burning", which is nonsense, because flesh, unless under very high temperatures, does not burn, and her clothes didn't burn, either.

So, what we know is that Dany's resistance to fire is still inconclusive based on the events and observations of the characters in the story.

By the way, I did not realize how exciting that scene was with Drogon and Dany in the pit till I was researching it last night. I read it out loud for my friend who has not read the books, and she took the first book home with her. Dany putting Drogon in his place was very well written and scary. Drogon rips the would be "Hero's" arms out like it was nothing. He snaps at Dany within an inch of her face. She sees her small and scared reflection in Drogon's eyes, and flesh and bones in his teeth. She promptly stands up, and beats that Dragon to submission with a whip.

Queen Dany is pretty dang amazing when she gets off her throne and gets down to business. Let's hope she is moving away from Meereen soon and gets her army on the move somewhere.

[Carey Snow]

In GOT at the end of the chapter where Viserys gets his 'crown', from Dany's POV , last two lines:

(She is thinking.)

"He was no dragon, Dany thought, curiously calm.

Fire cannot kill a dragon."

I thought that phrase was not in the novel, but in the show.

I was wrong, well I don't know what that means.

By the by I take 'dragon' not to mean literally to have dragon's blood (whatever the hell that would mean) , but that there were Valyrians who were metaphorical 'dragons' and those who were not.

Or maybe had the right genes? Or were touched by some kind of magic of dragons?

After all the Valyrians dealt with dragons for thousands of years.

The interesting thing here is that Viserys was not killed by fire but by molten melted gold. So Dany is making an incorrect correlation between fire and heat as the source of death. Similarly Dany's hands are burned, possibly from pulling out the red hot spear shaft from Drogon's back. So she can be hurt from heat as Viserys also was.

As "Apple Martini" has pointed out many times, there have been documented cases of Targareyns being killed in fires. So not every single one of them, if any, are fire proof. So far, both of Dany's encounters with fire involved her dragons. The first was their birth, the second being when Drogon breathed fire at her. So far, she survived both of those fiery encounters largely unscathed. It might just be because they are her dragons. It might just be that she was quick enough to evade Drogon's flame.

We shall have to see what the next book holds in store for Dany.

[boojam]

The interesting thing here is that Viserys was not killed by fire but by molten melted gold. So Dany is making an incorrect correlation between fire and heat as the source of death. Similarly Dany's hands are burned, possibly from pulling out the red hot spear shaft from Drogon's back. So she can be hurt from heat as Viserys also was.

If molten gold cannot burn one then that's news to me.

Burning you hand in a flame or a hot stove is what I call getting burned.

'Fire' , In this context ..... burned by hot metal or an open flame is a distinction without a difference.

[Carey Snow]

If molten gold cannot burn one then that's news to me.

Burning you hand in a flame or a hot stove is what I call getting burned.

'Fire' , In this context ..... burned by hot metal or an open flame is a distinction without a difference.

In our world with out magic I agree. Though a medic could probably tell a difference between a burn from touching something hot, and a burn from an open flame. We know that both Viserys and Dany can be burned by something hot. Dany so far was unhurt in a funeral pyre and had her hair (we assume) caught on fire by Drogon and was unhurt.

I think it has more to do with the presense of the dragons keeping Dany unharmed then a natural physical makeup of being fire proof.

[Lord of Cheese]

C'mon guys, she "IS NOT" immune to fire. Stop wasting your energy on this.

Martin has said it himself.

I do agree that her fire immunity, or the extent of it, is a little vague if you only looked at the books and didnt come to this site. But i wonder if that is the way Martin intended it. Perhaps he wants Dany to have her doubts about it too and perhaps show us her decent into madness by thinking she is immune and then one day she gets cooked. Just like she thinks she is immune to disease and then we see her having gastric problems in the end.

Heck, i would like it if she was immune to fire. Its my hollywood-ised fantasy thinking thats taking over her, but she did do what nobody else did in bringing back the dragons, so its reasonable to think that she is the exception to all the other Targs and that she is really blood of the dragon from long long ago (we know little about the Targs and old Valyria, and know nothing about magic other than its mysterious and treacherous). The time had come for her blood to have power and thats why the other Targs failed. </fantasy mode>

But its clear from ADwD that she isnt immune. Its how you read it. Martin is being deliberately vague or he is not being precise enough for the likes of one who wants to see her be immune to fire.

[boojam]

I think it's as simple as this: Viserys was calling himself a dragon, and Dany was noting that -- if he really was a dragon -- then he would not burn. It was the moment when Dany realised that her brother was a weak man, and not the "dragon"/god that he thought himself to be.

I think GRRM was implying that Viserys , was a Targ, but not a 'dragon' Targ in the fashion of Aegon the Conqueror or any of the other successful Targs or Valyrians. So it's kind of metaphorical.

By the by I seem to catch a thread that all the Targs go crackers , from inbreeding?, eventually.

Apparently Aegon I did not, or many of his descendents.

I see no reason Dany should go 'mad' even having a fool for a brother.

Seemed to me Viserys' stupidity sprang from his Megalomania , which is kind of psychosis,but not necessarily a genetic one.

I happens in this world that way.

[Fire_Kiss]

I think GRRM was implying that Viserys , was a Targ, but not a 'dragon' Targ in the fashion of Aegon the Conqueror or any of the other successful Targs or Valyrians. So it's kind of metaphorical.

By the by I seem to catch a thread that all the Targs go crackers , from inbreeding?, eventually.

Apparently Aegon I did not, or many of his descendents.

I see no reason Dany should go 'mad' even having a fool for a brother.

Seemed to me Viserys' stupidity sprang from his Megalomania , which is kind of psychosis,but not necessarily a genetic one.

I happens in this world that way.

Who was it who said that every time a Targaryen is born, the gods flip a coin as to wether they will be mad or not?

It was Barriston? Or maybe Jorah? I don't remember, but I did take that to mean that most had a little bit of the madness, even if they didn't act on it all the time.

[Lord Damian]

I will support Apple Martini in saying that Targs are not immune to fire, that is just an arrogant myth past down through the generations that did not live with the real and fly with the real Dragons. Dragons are the house signet but it is even noted that all of the riders in the Targ past could only ride one dragon, not more than one. Why? because if they tried to mount another dragon, they would be burned and eaten. Aegon the Conqueror rode Ballerion, not Veagar nor Meraxes, just Ballerion. It is even noted by Dany, passed down from Viserys that Aegon the Conqueror would not have dared to try and ride his sister's dragons. It is magic and proven training and conditioning that dragons are mounted and riden and somewhat controlled. Nothing more. Magic though is why Dany is still alive. Blood magic.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I think GRRM was implying that Viserys , was a Targ, but not a 'dragon' Targ in the fashion of Aegon the Conqueror or any of the other successful Targs or Valyrians. So it's kind of metaphorical.

Yep. And as I said in my original post (did anyone even read it?), Aegon V was also a "dragon" (the one "hatched" at Whitewalls) and still died in a fire.

Who was it who said that every time a Targaryen is born, the gods flip a coin as to wether they will be mad or not?

It was Barriston? Or maybe Jorah? I don't remember, but I did take that to mean that most had a little bit of the madness, even if they didn't act on it all the time.

It was Jaehaerys II.

[boojam]

Who was it who said that every time a Targaryen is born, the gods flip a coin as to wether they will be mad or not?

It was Barriston? Or maybe Jorah? I don't remember, but I did take that to mean that most had a little bit of the madness, even if they didn't act on it all the time.

I don't remember that, but sounds like something that would be said.

Sure was a good analogy with the ancient Egyptian rulers and the Ptolemaic monarchy.

Alexander the Great is thought of as a megalomaniac , yet did not keep him from being military genius and , as far as I can tell, he never become a loon.

Reckless maybe , but not a nut case.

[Fire_Kiss]

Yep. And as I said in my original post (did anyone even read it?), Aegon V was also a "dragon" (the one "hatched" at Whitewalls) and still died in a fire.

It was Jaehaerys II.

Thanks..

Wait, the Targs were "hatching" their children? Can you give me a chapter or reference to read about that? I've read about the mysteries concerning Summerhall...but only online. I completely missed that in the books.

I'm not arguing that the Targs are fireproof...in fact I never thought that. I always assumed it was the magic of hatching the dragons that kept her alive in the pyre.

[Lord Damian]

I don't remember that, but sounds like something that would be said.

Sure was a good analogy with the ancient Egyptian rulers and the Ptolemaic monarchy.

Alexander the Great is thought of as a megalomaniac , yet did not keep him from being military genius and , as far as I can tell, he never become a loon.

Reckless maybe , but not a nut case.

Had Alexander lived through his brush with and succumbing to death, the world would be very different today. He was a war addict, like Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, Hitler etc. they would never ever stop until they died or someone stopped them. They could not help themselves.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Thanks..

Wait, the Targs were "hatching" their children? Can you give me a chapter or reference to read about that? I've read about the mysteries concerning Summerhall...but only online. I completely missed that in the books.

It's from The Mystery Knight, a Dunk and Egg story. Daemon Blackfyre's son has a vision of a "dragon" hatching at Whitewalls. I won't spoil the story, but it's suggested by the end that the "dragon" who "hatched" was metaphorical, and was Egg, aka Aegon V, the guy who died in a fire at Summerhall. The idea being that even "dragons" -- that is to say, exceptional Targaryens -- are not fireproof.

[Fire_Kiss]

It's from The Mystery Knight, a Dunk and Egg story.

Ah. I have got to read those!

[PatrickStormborn]

But its clear from ADwD that she isnt immune. Its how you read it. Martin is being deliberately vague or he is not being precise enough for the likes of one who wants to see her be immune to fire.

My point is that I don't find it to be particularly clear. Up until I read this thread I firmly believed that Dany was normal when it came to fire. But now I'm not so sure. I certainly think that the flames which burned the tips of her hair would have soon burned her scalp and spread to the rest of her head -- but the writing isn't specific enough.

Martin's quote: "Not all Targaryens are immune to fire at all times." This is pretty ambiguous, I'm sure you'd all agree, and it seems to suggest that there are times when certain Targaryens are somewhat immune to flames.

Either way, I'm taking Dany's word on it. She remembers being burned by the flames, but she doesn't report any burns besides the ones on her palms -- which weren't caused by fire.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

This is pretty ambiguous, I'm sure you'd all agree, and it seems to suggest that there are times when certain Targaryens are somewhat immune to flames.

Like, say, on a funeral pyre, perhaps?

Memory is easily manipulated and not always accurate. Sansa thinks she remembers being kissed by Sandor, Ned's memories of the Tower of Joy weren't 100% accurate and Martin has made use of unreliable narrators before.

Ever take a psych course at all? Memory is malleable.

[PatrickStormborn]

Like, say, on a funeral pyre, perhaps?

Memory is easily manipulated and not always accurate. Sansa thinks she remembers being kissed by Sandor, Ned's memories of the Tower of Joy weren't 100% accurate and Martin has made use of unreliable narrators before.

Ever take a psych course at all? Memory is malleable.

Yes, I have taken a Psychology course -- particularly in application of memory (eyewitness testimoney, for instance). The results are glaringly obvious: someone who watched Dany from far away (like Barristan) will have much more inaccurate memory recall of the event than Daenerys herself.

I don't think Sansa is the best example, seeing as a much larger amount of time had passed. In addition, she's already shown to misremember some events.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Yes, I have taken a Psychology course -- particularly in application of memory (eyewitness testimoney, for instance).

Good, then you'll know that memory is extremely unreliable and can't really be taken as proof of anything, particularly when the event was chaotic, stressful and adrenalin-fueled. :)

I think what we have here is two different things -- blood magic shielding her from fire, and Drogon's fire simply not touching her other than her hair -- and she mistakes the latter for a repeat of the lformer. Pretty straightfroward.

Like I said, if she wants to prove it once and for all, let her swig wildfire. Surely it won't do anything bad to her, right?

[PatrickStormborn]

Good, then you'll know that memory is extremely unreliable and can't really be taken as proof of anything, particularly when the event was chaotic, stressful and adrenalin-fueled. :)

As I've pointed out, eyewitness testimony can be incredibly reliable -- particularly when it caused anxiety and some form of stress, as it did with Daenerys.

I think what we have here is two different things -- blood magic shielding her from fire, and Drogon's fire simply not touching her other than her hair -- and she mistakes the latter for a repeat of the lformer. Pretty straightfroward.

Like I said, if she wants to prove it once and for all, let her swig wildfire. Surely it won't do anything bad to her, right?

Drogon's fire reached her hair, which burned away. But the rest of her head did not get burned. My question is simple: why?

I think it's clear that Dany didn't once consider herself to be immune to fire (which is why she thought that, if she ran away, Drogon would burn her). So I don't know why you think she believes herself to be fire-proof.