Jump to content

A Thread for Small Questions XVII


Angalin

Recommended Posts

Has GRRM ever spoken about the chronology of the Iron Islands chapters in aFfC? In the first chapter 'The Prophet', Damphair is only just learning of Balon's death, something we learn in the first half of aSoS. So is this much earlier, then there is a jump back to current events? So is the kingsmoot much later than this first chapter?

I have a memory of a SSM in which Martin states that, on top of the concurrent chronology of Feast/Dance, any further messing around of the timeline would be too confusing and so the chapters were chronological, which rules out the possibility that all the kingsmoot stuff is earlier as well (assuming I've remembered correctly).

Most of the Iron Islands stuff occurs simultaneously with the latter half of ASOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there timezones in Westeros? Like, when it's night at Winterfell, is it night at Sunspear? Or has that not been addressed yet?

This will come up in TWoW when Littlefinger's dreams of a Vale-Oldtown railway service come to fruition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Timezones matter if you're communicating simultaneously or travelling at modern speeds. There probably are timezones but they're unlikely to be relevant to the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably irrelevant to the overall story, but there's a point in ACOK where Bronn is reciting a list of petitioners seeking Tyrion, and he mentions a riverlands lordling who came seeking "new peasants" as Bronn puts it, or redress for his losses during the war. Tyrion muses that it might be advantageous to have this guy in their pocket, and orders he be given lodging and new boots. Anyone have an idea who this lordling might be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which must mean that the chapters aren't chronological because they're interspersed with Cersei chapters?

Well, they occur in chronological order, but they aren't happening at the same time as Cersei's chapters, at least not until they start reaving along the coast of the Reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone on the forums referenced G.R.R. Martin as having said that Danny not being consumed by the fire that hatched her dragons was a "one time thing" - Does anyone know the source of this reference?

It comes from this internet chat:

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

George: 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 The Unburnt because she walked into the flames and lived. But her brother sure as hell wasn't immune to that molten gold.

Revanshe: So she won't be able to do it again?

George: Probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, he definitely does not state that Danny lacks "fireproofedness" definitively. Just that the specific events that happened have the distinct possibility of not happening again if repeated in the future. But yes, he does seem like hes making it out to be a distinct "magical" moment, or such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, he definitely does not state that Danny lacks "fireproofedness" definitively. Just that the specific events that happened have the distinct possibility of not happening again if repeated in the future. But yes, he does seem like hes making it out to be a distinct "magical" moment, or such.

It seems pretty clear to me that by saying "TARGARYENS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FIRE" he's including Dany in there as well. Aerion Brightflame died drinking wildfire, Viserys had molten gold poured over him, Rhaenyra Targaryen was eaten by a dragon (and so most likely burned beforehand), Aegon IV Aegon V and his son Duncan the Small died in the fire at Summerhall. And Dany herself had burns on her hands in ADwD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone on the forums referenced G.R.R. Martin as having said that Danny not being consumed by the fire that hatched her dragons was a "one time thing" - Does anyone know the source of this reference?

It comes from this internet chat:

Interesting, he definitely does not state that Danny lacks "fireproofedness" definitively. Just that the specific events that happened have the distinct possibility of not happening again if repeated in the future. But yes, he does seem like hes making it out to be a distinct "magical" moment, or such.

It seems pretty clear to me that by saying "TARGARYENS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FIRE" he's including Dany in there as well. Aerion Brightflame died drinking wildfire, Viserys had molten gold poured over him, Rhaenyra Targaryen was eaten by a dragon (and so most likely burned beforehand), Aegon IV and his son Duncan the Small died in the fire at Summerhall. And Dany herself had burns on her hands in ADwD.

Dany burned her hands minimally (1st or 2nd degree) by GRABBING A RED HOT METAL SPEAR. so I think GRRM has changed his mind. I took from Viserys dying of the molten gold, Dany said he wasnt blood of the dragon bc blood of the dragon wouldnt let a little thing like a cap of molten gold stop him.

Marie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That suggests that Daenerys may be resistant to fire to some degree (it really depends on how long she touched the metal), but at the same time it also implies that she definitely isn't immune to fire. Fireproof people don't get burns from touching red hot metal, do they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dany burned her hands minimally (1st or 2nd degree) by GRABBING A RED HOT METAL SPEAR. so I think GRRM has changed his mind. I took from Viserys dying of the molten gold, Dany said he wasnt blood of the dragon bc blood of the dragon wouldnt let a little something like a cap of molten gold stop him.

Marie

For pete's sake.

The metal part of the spear that was the hottest — the melted, iron-red hot part — is what was embedded in the dragon. Meaning, that's not the part she touched when she "ripped it out," because it would have been inside the damn dragon. More likely, she grabbed onto the wooden shaft of the spear to rip it out. Meaning, she would not have, as you suggest, been "GRABBING A RED HOT METAL SPEAR." Meaning, she would have been burned by wood and not metal. Much less impressive, innit?

Why — seriously, why — do people put so much emphasis on Dany saying that fire can't kill a dragon, as if it's fact? "Well Dany said that fire can't kill a dragon, so it must be true, and Viserys just wasn't dragon enough, but she is!" It's not just Viserys. As Evamitchelle points out, Targ history is full of idiots who died because of fire or extreme heat. Do you think that Targs can't get sick, either, because Dany says so? How do you reconcile that with knowing how Daeron II and his grandchildren died (hint: Great Spring Sickness). Dany is not a reliable narrator, at all, and it baffles and frustrates me when gullible people think she has any real idea at all of what she's talking about. The only information she has about her family's history came from Viserys, and he's obviously crazy and passing down rumors and innuendo as if it's fact.

Say that Sansa Stark said that Starks could fly, and then a few pages later, we learned about a Stark who jumped off of Winterfell to his death, thinking he could fly. Then a few chapters later, we learned about another Stark who fell to his death, and eventually, another. Would you believe that Starks could fly, having read that? If you say no, then why do you believe the Targ fire-immune nonsense?

I get that a lot of people don't know any better or get confused by the show. What I don't understand is how people can persist in this inaccuracy, faced with proof that it isn't real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For pete's sake.

The metal part of the spear that was the hottest — the melted, iron-red hot part — is what was embedded in the dragon. Meaning, that's not the part she touched when she "ripped it out," because it would have been inside the damn dragon. More likely, she grabbed onto the wooden shaft of the spear to rip it out. Meaning, she would not have, as you suggest, been "GRABBING A RED HOT METAL SPEAR." Meaning, she would have been burned by wood and not metal. Much less impressive, innit?

Why — seriously, why — do people put so much emphasis on Dany saying that fire can't kill a dragon, as if it's fact? "Well Dany said that fire can't kill a dragon, so it must be true, and Viserys just wasn't dragon enough, but she is!" It's not just Viserys. As Evamitchelle points out, Targ history is full of idiots who died because of fire or extreme heat. Do you think that Targs can't get sick, either, because Dany says so? How do you reconcile that with knowing how Daeron II and his grandchildren died (hint: Great Spring Sickness). Dany is not a reliable narrator, at all, and it baffles and frustrates me when gullible people think she has any real idea at all of what she's talking about. The only information she has about her family's history came from Viserys, and he's obviously crazy and passing down rumors and innuendo as if it's fact.

Say that Sansa Stark said that Starks could fly, and then a few pages later, we learned about a Stark who jumped off of Winterfell to his death, thinking he could fly. Then a few chapters later, we learned about another Stark who fell to his death, and eventually, another. Would you believe that Starks could fly, having read that? If you say no, then why do you believe the Targ fire-immune nonsense?

I get that a lot of people don't know any better or get confused by the show. What I don't understand is how people can persist in this inaccuracy, faced with proof that it isn't real.

I'll have to look that over again. But to turn it over, she woulnt have been burned by a wooden shaft and a redhot metal point would have set the wooden shaft on fire. If you are right, the burns on her hand must have come form hanging onto the dragon, raising the question why her other parts didnt burn at least as badly.

The failures of past Targaryens is not proof that Dany is fire resistant. After all if all you have seen are black crows that doesnt mean there arent white crows. Second and perhaps more importantly, things are happening that never happened before the dragons came back. Perhaps when there WERE dragons there were fire-resistant Targs. The subsequent Targs may not have understood the connection between the existence of dragons and this fire-resistance. Similarly but not related (that I know of) does the cold come first or the Others?

Also Bran is the winged wolf. Arya wants to be, but so far no indication that she is.

Marie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to look that over again. But to turn it over, she woulnt have been burned by a wooden shaft and a redhot metal point would have set the wooden shaft on fire. If you are right, the burns on her hand must have come form hanging onto the dragon, raising the question why her other parts didnt burn at least as badly.

No, she probably did burn her hands on the shaft of the spear when she pulled it out. I'm just saying, you act like she touched an obscenely hot metal spear tip, and I'm saying that no, she wouldn't have. She burned herself on the shaft, which would not have been as hot. Her last chapter in the desert takes place some time after the pit incident, meaning that her burns would have had time to heal somewhat.

The failures of past Targaryens is not proof that Dany is fire resistant. After all if all you have seen are black crows that doesnt mean there arent white crows. Second and perhaps more importantly, things are happening that never happened before the dragons came back. Perhaps when there WERE dragons there were fire-resistant Targs. The subsequent Targs may not have understood the connection between the existence of dragons and this fire-resistance. Similarly but not related (that I know of) does the cold come first or the Others?

When Martin himself has said that no, Targs are not fireproof or fire-resistant or however people want to put it, and that Dany's thing on the pyre was a one-time thing that she most likely would not repeat, what else is there to discuss?

I don't know how you can say that Targ fire-resistance might be something that existed with dragons, when the person who asked Martin the question framed it in the context of dragons and GRRM still said no, they're not fireproof. Rhaenyra Targaryen was eaten and no doubt burned by a dragon, when the dragons were still alive. And we know many other Targ family members died in the Dance of the Dragon, many of whom were probably killed by dragonfire. So the idea that fire-resistance at one time existed when the dragons did falls flat on its face, because we know of Targs who were killed by dragonfire when the dragons still existed.

I don't know why people can't just accept that GRRM was telling the truth and that the stupid Targs are. not. immune. to. fire. Including Dany, other than that one time. That one time, which is referred to as a miracle, meaning it was not an ordinary event and will not be repeated.

Also Bran is the winged wolf. Arya wants to be, but so far no indication that she is.

Marie

My example was meant to illustrate the literal ability to fly, in human form. Bran himself, in his human body, obviously can't fly, and the "winged wolf" is symbolism. Perhaps I should have chosen another example, but I didn't think anyone could mistake the "winged wolf" symbolism for "a Stark who would literally be able to fly in human form."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is how people can persist in this inaccuracy, faced with proof that it isn't real.

Well I see what you mean. There isnt a great description of the boar spear and of course it is the point that is half melted and red hot. Perhaps there is a description of a boar spear in other books - have to look.

I cant tell if she grabbed wood or metal.

So now we have no explanation at all as to how her hands burned.

She did say that Drogon's breath was enough to blister skin (but did not out and out say her face WAS blistered)

If she had been burned just by riding the dragon, other parts would have been burned and she would have had a painful ride out and a painful ride at the end.

Another puzzle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...