A Thread for Small Questions XVII

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

For the third time, I think it's pretty clear that it was the spear that burned her hands. It's just not as "impressive" as you suggest, as in, she didn't grab onto the hot, melted, super-hot tip, but rather the shaft.

The fact is, the girl's wandering around the Dothraki Sea with burn blisters on her hands, telling herself that she had another fireproof moment in the pit when clearly she did not. Again, why people take what she says at face value, I'll never know.

[rmholt]

For the third time, I think it's pretty clear that it was the spear that burned her hands. It's just not as "impressive" as you suggest, as in, she didn't grab onto the hot, melted, super-hot tip, but rather the shaft.

The fact is, the girl's wandering around the Dothraki Sea with burn blisters on her hands, telling herself that she had another fireproof moment in the pit when clearly she did not. Again, why people take what she says at face value, I'll never know.

That's what confounded me. Wood combusts at 450F. Red hot iron is over 900F. MELTING iron is 2800F and the tip of the spear was strtsing to melt putting it right at 2800F. Iron is extremely conductive so at least the wood of the spear at the wood-iron junction would have been aflame. If by some miracle any wood within her reach was not aflame it would have been close to 450F which can give 3rd degree burns. However, the survival of the wood seems unlikely. That spear had been in there awhile. She also had the hot breath sufficient to "blister the skin" which didnt apparently give her face 2nd degree burns and danced underneath flames.

So I remain suspicious that she remains fire-resistant if not fire-proof and I explain everything else away by reminding myself that dragons used to live and now they live again, so the Targs may have once been fire resistant, or some of them, lost it when the dragons died, and now at least one has regained it. They had to do it from the egg though or else she had some basic heat-resistance before they were hatched.

She was there in the fighting pit so I believe her <G.

Marie

[King Doug]

Do we know for certain it was a normal spear that is wielded by a soldier? Or could it be a bolt from a ballista? I don't have my book with me, otherwise I'd check.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

So I remain suspicious that she remains fire-resistant if not fire-proof and I explain everything else away by reminding myself that dragons used to live and now they live again, so the Targs may have once been fire resistant, or some of them, lost it when the dragons died, and now at least one has regained it. They had to do it from the egg though or else she had some basic heat-resistance before they were hatched.

Why do you think that dragons have anything to do with Targs being heat-resistant or fireproof when I've explained already, using historical examples, that this isn't the case, and Martin's own words show that he never intended it to be the case? It completely baffles me that you're still hanging onto this idea when it's not the case. They're not fireproof. Period.

She was there in the fighting pit so I believe her <G.

Marie

Unreliable. Narrator. Unreliable. Narrator. Unreliable. Narrator ...

Do you also think that Sandor kissed Sansa during the Battle of the Blackwater? I mean, never mind that we know that he didn't, but she swears she remembers it. So does that mean she's right, and it did happen? If she misremembers, why can't Dany have misremembered? Memory is an extremely malleable thing and I think it's crazy to take anyone's memory, especially during a stressful, chaotic situation, as fact.

[rmholt]

Why do you think that dragons have anything to do with Targs being heat-resistant or fireproof when I've explained already, using historical examples, that this isn't the case, and Martin's own words show that he never intended it to be the case? It completely baffles me that you're still hanging onto this idea when it's not the case. They're not fireproof. Period.

Unreliable. Narrator. Unreliable. Narrator. Unreliable. Narrator ...

Do you also think that Sandor kissed Sansa during the Battle of the Blackwater? I mean, never mind that we know that he didn't, but she swears she remembers it. So does that mean she's right, and it did happen? If she misremembers, why can't Dany have misremembered? Memory is an extremely malleable thing and I think it's crazy to take anyone's memory, especially during a stressful, chaotic situation, as fact.

I happen to think she or GRRM mistook Dontos' kiss wth Sandor's or had him kiss her then penciled it out for a better scene, but your interp is fine too.

A lot of things to do with fire have gained strength with the dragons. Wildfire and the firemage's power. for instance. Burning obsidian candles that wouldnt light without great difficulty previously (no one at the citadel had lit one but the firemage apparently could barely do it before the dragons. Also some crazy sh*t is happening beyond the wall. Why did Mance dig up graves? Shouldnt the bodies have been burned? Maybe the Others were a bit dormant while the dragons were gone.

The dead Targs either did not have "blood of the dragon" as Viserys didnt or they were around after the dragons died - I'd have to research when they lived.

GRRM does have mistakes of such small size in there, tho very few.

All in all I dont think the answer is available. We both pick and choose the facts we like to support our interpretation. Perhaps the next book will provide answers.

The spears were described as boar spears. Perhaps they are more thoroughly described earlier but they were used in that scene to drive back the boar that killed the woman fighter in the fighting pit. One of the boar wranglers lost his mind and stabbed the dragon.

Marie

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The Others were back before the dragons had even hatched. You can't assume a causal relationship there.

The dead Targs either did not have "blood of the dragon" as Viserys didnt or they were around after the dragons died - I'd have to research when they lived.

This makes ... absolutely no sense. Nowhere does GRRM differentiate between Targaryens and their "blood." When he says they're not fire-immune, he doesn't say, "Well, some were at one time, a few Good Ones, before the dragons died." No, he says, blanket statement, "Targaryens are not immune to fire." So again, why are you so bloody determined to disregard this and see a "power" that isn't there? And by taking Dany's word at face value as fact — again, WHY? — you're assuming that she has a knowledge and understanding of her family that she just plain doesn't.

[Dragonfish]

I happen to think she or GRRM mistook Dontos' kiss wth Sandor's or had him kiss her then penciled it out for a better scene, but your interp is fine too.

George has confirmed that Sansa's misremembering of Sandor's kiss was meant to be a touch of unreliable narrator.

The dead Targs either did not have "blood of the dragon" as Viserys didnt or they were around after the dragons died - I'd have to research when they lived.

I think people misread the scene where Dany says to herself that Viserys couldn't be a dragon because he burned. I don't think she meant it in any literal sense; I just think that was the moment where she finally realized Viserys was not the great man he claimed to be, but was really just a scared little boy. It was the moment where Viserys finally fell from his pedastal, in her own mind. The TV show played it differently, however, which is why I think so many people are mistaken about this passage.

All in all I dont think the answer is available. We both pick and choose the facts we like to support our interpretation. Perhaps the next book will provide answers.

Except that Apple Martini is "picking and choosing" statements that come directly from the author himself. It's a bit laughable to claim the answer isn't available when the author himself provided the answer.

[LuisDantas]

Do we know for certain it was a normal spear that is wielded by a soldier? Or could it be a bolt from a ballista? I don't have my book with me, otherwise I'd check.

Page 697. It was definitely a boar spear, hand-yielded.

It isn't established that its tip was made of iron, however. All we know is that Daenerys perceived its tip as being red-hot and starting to melt. But it is not a sure thing; people's perceptions can easily be distorted in such a stressful moment.

The spear was whole enough for Daenerys to hold it, so it was not quite molten nor consumed by fire. The simplest explanation is that it simply wasn't quite so hot as Daenerys believe it to be.

We also know from page 929 (the first one of her last chapter in ADWD) that her hands have been burned, enough so that they are oozing white fluid.

That alone ought to be enough to make her realize that she is vulnerable to fire, and can definitely be killed by Drogon if he puts his mind to it. Her fire resistance, if she has any, is definitely limited.

[rmholt]

The Others were back before the dragons had even hatched. You can't assume a causal relationship there.

This makes ... absolutely no sense. Nowhere does GRRM differentiate between Targaryens and their "blood." When he says they're not fire-immune, he doesn't say, "Well, some were at one time, a few Good Ones, before the dragons died." No, he says, blanket statement, "Targaryens are not immune to fire." So again, why are you so bloody determined to disregard this and see a "power" that isn't there? And by taking Dany's word at face value as fact — again, WHY? — you're assuming that she has a knowledge and understanding of her family that she just plain doesn't.

Not true. Dany clearly thinks a little thing like a crown of molten gold wouldnt have bothered someone with the blood of the dragon. It is common in families that some have a familial trait and some do not.

Well continuing to debate this makes even less sense. It could go to its own thread or be dropped right now I think

Marie

[rmholt]

Except that Apple Martini is "picking and choosing" statements that come directly from the author himself. It's a bit laughable to claim the answer isn't available when the author himself provided the answer.

I refuse to believe that GRRM isnt allowed to change his mind (outside the actual books) or that it is possible the fire scene may not be repeated but other examples of fire resistance can be present. Or that he is messing with us for now.

It is good to know the source of the mistaken memory for Sansa.

The events in the fighting pit would be hard to misremember since once outside the pit she could see if a spear was in Drogon or not, if her hair was burned off or not, or if her hands were burned or not.

Dany;s hair did burn away again - the temp required to do that isnt too impressive compared to melting iron but hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns if it touches skin. Presuming nothing touched JUST her hair, she was in the kind of heat that would give 3rd degree burns, espec her hands, and she did not have these. At most she had 2nd degree

Unlike some people (present company excepted) I can keep an open mind. I am just spouting my interp. Which I am entitled to do. I can change my mind when presented with evidence that I cant explain away.

So we shall see.

[King Doug]

Page 697. It was definitely a boar spear, hand-yielded.

Only reason I asked was if it was a ballista bolt or something like that, it could have possibly been all metal or more metal than a traditional spear. Thus, making it more resistant to catching aflame and also making it more conductive of heat.

Not true. Dany clearly thinks a little thing like a crown of molten gold wouldnt have bothered someone with the blood of the dragon. It is common in families that some have a familial trait and some do not.

Well continuing to debate this makes even less sense. It could go to its own thread or be dropped right now I think

Marie

Ok, it is not inconceivable to think that a family could have some magical traits passed on in their genes. The Starks being known for warging is a good example. But not all of them are wargs, obviously. But I really don't get your argument with the Targaryens. The author has explicitly said Targaryens are not immune to fire.

Sure Dany thinks a true dragon wouldn't have been killed by molten gold. Sure she thinks a dragon can not be killed by fire. But her naivety has been proven countless times throughout the books. When would Dany have been given her family history? A true, non-biased history from someone other than her crazy, self-entitled brother? Dany's naivete has been proven time and time again throughout the books. Her ignorance is not her own fault. She just hasn't had the type of education most highborns receive in Westeros. Maybe Tyrion will help teach her, with the aid of Barristan/Jorah.

But seriously, these forums are full of theories and whatnot because lets face it, we love our world of Westeros and need to fill the void in between books. But no theories go on once the author shoots it down. The Targs are not fire proof, not fire resistant.

ETA: we are all entitled to our opinions, congrats to you for sticking with yours.

[LuisDantas]

The events in the fighting pit would be hard to misremember since once outside the pit she could see if a spear was in Drogon or not, if her hair was burned off or not, or if her hands were burned or not.

Dany;s hair did burn away again - the temp required to do that isnt too impressive compared to melting iron but hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns if it touches skin.

Uh? An ordinary match's flame will burn hair almost instantly. It takes far more heat to cause even second degree burns.

Is there anything that you want to tell us about your own hair? What about your family? :)

On a more serious note, page 699 tells us that she flung the spear aside, so she presumably never had a chance to look at it more closely. It also reveals that she still has a leather lash in her hands as she rides Drogon - which means that it wasn't burnt away either.

As for the burnt hair reference, I fear I failed to find it, although it makes complete sense that it would have burned.

[Dragonfish]

Dany;s hair did burn away again - the temp required to do that isnt too impressive compared to melting iron but hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns if it touches skin. Presuming nothing touched JUST her hair, she was in the kind of heat that would give 3rd degree burns, espec her hands, and she did not have these. At most she had 2nd degree

Actually, we know it was only her hair that was touched, because her clothes didn't burn away (which is exactly the opposite of what happened on Drogo's pyre).

[rmholt]

Page 697. It was definitely a boar spear, hand-yielded.

It isn't established that its tip was made of iron, however. All we know is that Daenerys perceived its tip as being red-hot and starting to melt. But it is not a sure thing; people's perceptions can easily be distorted in such a stressful moment.

The spear was whole enough for Daenerys to hold it, so it was not quite molten nor consumed by fire. The simplest explanation is that it simply wasn't quite so hot as Daenerys believe it to be.

We also know from page 929 (the first one of her last chapter in ADWD) that her hands have been burned, enough so that they are oozing white fluid.

That alone ought to be enough to make her realize that she is vulnerable to fire, and can definitely be killed by Drogon if he puts his mind to it. Her fire resistance, if she has any, is definitely limited.

The book does say the tip of the boar spear is iron. i think she is vulnerable to dragon fire, or at least thinks she is. 3rd degree burns or even deep 2nd degree burns would do more than cause cracking and oozing and would cause severe permanent scarring. A second degree burn can have oozing and cracking espec if blisters are broken and infection ensues.

As I said the wooden shaft could have gotten up to 450F while the iron had to be at least 2800 at the tip. Perhaps the wood wasnt hotter than 140F yet - then she wouldnt have had 3rd degree burns. Still doenst explain where her hair went or why the heat sufficient to blister skin did not blister her skin (face).

Of course GRRM may not have meant this as a scientific materials study or he made errors - as when Santagar turned into Preston Greenfield with the pulped head. Or was that just an artifact of poor memory by the POV? Perhaps Sam was rescued by a real person on a horse. but was so deranged he thought it was a walking dead of some kind on an elk. He was under a lot of stress. Bran and the Reeds also thought it was an elk and an undead bc they were also under stress.

[LuisDantas]

Are you kidding? Daenerys spent no more than a few seconds with the spear, while Samwell, Bran and the Reeds spent at least a few days with Coldhands.

How do you explain a wooden spear failing to catch flame yet having a melting iron point?

As for the heat being enough to blister skin yet failing to do that to her, the only reasonable interpretation is that she was giving her subjective account. She wasn't claiming that a normal person would have been burnt while she resisted; she was saying that her own skin was that close to blistering (odds are that she stepped back or aside while thinking so).

Still, what puzzles me most is that you are somehow admitting that she was burnt, yet also claiming that she is fireproof. Don't you see a contradiction in that? Are you perhaps guessing that dragonfire is in a category of its own and affects otherwise fireproof Targaryens?

[rmholt]

Uh? An ordinary match's flame will burn hair almost instantly. It takes far more heat to cause even second degree burns.

Is there anything that you want to tell us about your own hair? What about your family? :)

On a more serious note, page 699 tells us that she flung the spear aside, so she presumably never had a chance to look at it more closely. It also reveals that she still has a leather lash in her hands as she rides Drogon - which means that it wasn't burnt away either.

As for the burnt hair reference, I fear I failed to find it, although it makes complete sense that it would have burned.

Page 932. Also other events including a bolt inside the dragon bursting into flames

SOmeone mentioned leather - it was on the skin of the dragon not the interior so it wouldnt burn away.

The quote from GRRM mentioned on P4 was from 1999. One of the difficulties of ADWD was said to be the Dany character. Also in the quote he said Targs are not immune to fire. He used the Viserys example so perhaps Dany only thought his death proved he wasnt a real blood of the dragon tho he is targ. If I were to be picky I would say his statement that targs are not immune to fire could be correct if only SOME targs are immune to fire. After all, Jon got a pretty good burn. Dont know as I want to be that picky. He also leaves the door open by saying PROBABLY not as to whether something like that would happen again.

I think he wove a spell on his brick structure to bend it between 1999 and 2011

[rmholt]

Are you kidding? Daenerys spent no more than a few seconds with the spear, while Samwell, Bran and the Reeds spent at least a few days with Coldhands. How do you explain a wooden spear failing to catch flame yet having a melting iron point?

I dont explain that. In fact it is something that needs explaining. Perhaps it all happened too fast.

As for the heat being enough to blister skin yet failing to do that to her, the only reasonable interpretation is that she was giving her subjective account.

Not the only one but a reasonable one

Still, what puzzles me most is that you are somehow admitting that she was burnt, yet also claiming that she is fireproof. Don't you see a contradiction in that? Are you perhaps guessing that dragonfire is in a category of its own and affects otherwise fireproof Targaryens?

Fire RESISTANT not proof.

[rmholt]

Uh? An ordinary match's flame will burn hair almost instantly. It takes far more heat to cause even second degree burns. Is there anything that you want to tell us about your own hair? What about your family? :) On a more serious note, page 699 tells us that she flung the spear aside, so she presumably never had a chance to look at it more closely. It also reveals that she still has a leather lash in her hands as she rides Drogon - which means that it wasn't burnt away either. As for the burnt hair reference, I fear I failed to find it, although it makes complete sense that it would have burned.

Matches ar freaking hot. There are photos out there of ppl with third degree burns from burning hair falling on skin.

As for clothes she took off the tokar and veils before confronting Drogon. From p 687 I dont see any other clothing she put on. However she kept her sandals and undertunic apparently from her next chapter. They did not burn. if the undertunic was silk it should have burned if exposed to the same heat as the hair. So there is a contradiction.

[Dragonfish]

As for clothes she took off the tokar and veils before confronting Drogon. From p 687 I dont see any other clothing she put on. However she kept her sandals and undertunic apparently from her next chapter. They did not burn. if the undertunic was silk it should have burned if exposed to the same heat as the hair. So there is a contradiction.

It's not a contradiction, it's proof that only her hair was exposed to the fire that cause it to burn.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

We're wasting our time. Let her keep her incorrect assessment and then be just shocked when Dany winds up getting incinerated. The author's own words won't shake her out of it and she seems bent on believing something that isn't true. Which ultimately is her problem, not ours.