The Targ fire RESISTANCE debate...

[TheTowerOfJoy]

Nonsense. The tunic is thin linen, and she moves in it in rough, rocky terrain, even climbs a spire of rock in it. Plus, you have there a detailed description of the damage done to the tunic, and there is no mention of burn. At. All.

What if it was her Tokar that was on fire, and it burned away, or fell off her when Drogon took flight, thus the reason that people thought Dany was on fire, and thus the reason some thought they saw her fall from his back, when what they actually saw fall was her burning tokar?

[Lala]

The same reason he says stuff like "You think he's dead do you" about Jon Snow. I'm not GRRM, all I can do is quote his books, and his books have numerous passages that could infer, and be used to argue, that Dany has some sort of fire resistance. He also has plenty of evidence in the books that Dany is in point of fact no way resistant to fire. Maybe I mispoke when I said he wants us to think she's resistant / immune to fire. What he's trying to do is make the situation murky and unclear, which is all I'm really arguing.

That makes much more sense and I agree~ Martin makes the situation deliberately ambiguous to the characters because it is an integral part of Dany's character development and analysis that she believes that she is fire resistant - which makes the critical reader wonder, "why? what is the subconscious desire that Dany is expressing?"

Well, I'm not sure what Martin is trying to convey in the books then, when Dany THINKS she's resistant to fire, and then she walks into a burning Pyre and emerges unscathed... What in the heck were we supposed to believe?

When he's talking about it being a one time event, maybe he's referring to the birthing of dragons? Who knows.

He's quite clearly referring to the entire event: the hatching of dragons, Dany being unburnt. I think readers are supposed to believe exactly what Martin says in the SSM: that if Dany were to attempt to replicate the feat, she would probably be burned alive.

[RumHam]

When he's talking about it being a one time event, maybe he's referring to the birthing of dragons? Who knows.

Martin: No, no Targaryans are immune to fire. The thing with Dany and the dragons, that was just a one-time magical event, very special and unique.

The Targaryans can tolerate a bit more heat than most ordinary people, they like really hot baths and things like that, but that doesn't mean they're totally immune to fire, no. Dragons, on the other hand, are pretty much immune to fire.

He starts off talking about fire immunity, ends still talking about fire immunity. I think it's pretty clear.

[TheTowerOfJoy]

I wasn't insulting you. I apologize if it came across that way. I was being serious in that I recognize that many of the people here read through the text with a fine tooth comb and so I need to be more specific when making an argument. The fact that you thought I was insulting you is an example of me not being clear. As for the leap, I simply believe that Dany being a Targ and being the one to birth the dragons in a magical event involving fire, shows that there is a connection between Targs and dragons. They spend an entire book talking about "blood of the dragon" and then the so called "blood of the dragon" happens to be the one to bring dragons back into the world.

I agree with you about the "Blood of the Dragon". There's a deeper connection between Targaryens (and perhaps several other or all other Valyrian families as well, we just haven't heard about others) and Dragons.

The first men came from Essos originally across the Arm of Dorne, so maybe the "blood of the first men" and the "blood of the dragon" aren't even disimilar. Perhaps dragon riding is akin to low level warging, and the Targaryens prophetic visions are nothing more than green dreams.

[Dr. Pepper]

Well, I'm not sure what Martin is trying to convey in the books then, when Dany THINKS she's resistant to fire, and then she walks into a burning Pyre and emerges unscathed... What in the heck were we supposed to believe?

When he's talking about it being a one time event, maybe he's referring to the birthing of dragons? Who knows.

Yes, GRRM is talking about the fire protection Dany has being a one time event due to the hatching of the dragons.

The pyre scene was awesome. You were supposed to be awed. But being awed doesn't mean we shouldn't question it all. Dany walked into the pyre unscathed yet her brother died from a heat related event. Her brother is the one who taught her Targs are heat and/or fire resistant. Why did her brother tell her that? Where did he learn it from? When did Targs start blowing themselves up to test the theory?

These questions naturally come up while reading it all. A reread of the pyre scene will show some small things that were likely unnoticed the first time around. Like, Dany was unable to step into the pyre because it was too hot until the eggs started hatching. The hatching eggs enabled Dany to step in the flames. All of her companions are far away from the circle of the pyre so it's unknown if they could have stepped in too if they had been there.

The pit scene is also awesome and crazy. It seems like Dany is walking into fire again. It's easy to miss the clues that she isn't and it requires three more chapters to see exaclty how it all played out (Quentyn's, Barristan's, and Dany's last chapter). It's the first time since the pyre that Dany has intentionally placed herself in a position to be burned. And yet she jumped away from the flames and burned her hands pulling out a spear.

I think a good way to read the books is to follow Syrio's advice: Look with your eyes. If a character tells us something, ask questions, reread scenes and verify information with other characters to see if what they say is actually true. If it isn't true, try to look for causes for why X character believes it to be true.

[Dr. Pepper]

What if it was her Tokar that was on fire, and it burned away, or fell off her when Drogon took flight, thus the reason that people thought Dany was on fire, and thus the reason some thought they saw her fall from his back, when what they actually saw fall was her burning tokar?

She threw her tokar off before she left her VIP booth.

[butterbumps!]

As for the leap, I simply believe that Dany being a Targ and being the one to birth the dragons in a magical event involving fire, shows that there is a connection between Targs and dragons. They spend an entire book talking about "blood of the dragon" and then the so called "blood of the dragon" happens to be the one to bring dragons back into the world.

If you believe this, ok, but it's a highly inductive form of reasoning, which makes any sort of discussion on the matter shut down, since you're basing the belief on a leap of faith rather than deduction.

Dany's knowledge of the Targs is highly circumscribed and suspect. What comes to us from Dany is extremely skewed and propagandistic because everything she knows she learned from Viserys, who was basically the Targ equivalent of the KKK. We have extremely good reason to view this "blood of the dragon" you speak of extremely suspiciously, because the source (Viserys) is wildly untrustworthy.

The truth is, we don't know exactly what brought the dragons back, but we do know that magic had already been growing (the return of the Others predates the birth of the dragons). There was a (perhaps unintentional) sacrifice by Dany of her baby in utereo, which seems to have quickened the eggs. Then there was the pyre scene, which has a multitude of variables. To conclude that "dragon blood" is what made this happen is extremely fallacious logic.

We also never see anyone who is not a Targ try to hatch eggs, and certainly not with the same variables Dany did. If blood sacrifice is the key to getting dragons, for example, it may well be the case that someone other than a Targ could do it (and we do know that other families in Valyria had dragons as well).

[Stannis Lives]

If you believe this, ok, but it's a highly inductive form of reasoning, which makes any sort of discussion on the matter shut down, since you're basing the belief on a leap of faith rather than deduction.

Dany's knowledge of the Targs is highly circumscribed and suspect. What comes to us from Dany is extremely skewed and propagandistic because everything she knows she learned from Viserys, who was basically the Targ equivalent of the KKK. We have extremely good reason to view this "blood of the dragon" you speak of extremely suspiciously, because the source (Viserys) is wildly untrustworthy.

The truth is, we don't know exactly what brought the dragons back, but we do know that magic had already been growing (the return of the Others predates the birth of the dragons). There was a (perhaps unintentional) sacrifice by Dany of her baby in utereo, which seems to have quickened the eggs. Then there was the pyre scene, which has a multitude of variables. To conclude that "dragon blood" is what made this happen is extremely fallacious logic.

We also never see anyone who is not a Targ try to hatch eggs, and certainly not with the same variables Dany did. If blood sacrifice is the key to getting dragons, for example, it may well be the case that someone other than a Targ could do it (and we do know that other families in Valyria had dragons as well).

My reasoning is based on overwhelming coincidence. There are how many people in the world yet she is the one to bring back dragons? I understand the argument of the POV corrupting the reader, and the reality being completely different. I find it amusing however that some people find any and every reason to eliminate magic throughout (tricks, glamors, horns) but they are perfectly comfortable with dragons, direwolves, others, giants etc. I think it's interesting when readers start to act like they are listening to Old Nan and her crazy stories again in the face of such overwhelming evidence of the reemergence of magic and mythical creatures.

[TheTowerOfJoy]

He's quite clearly referring to the entire event: the hatching of dragons, Dany being unburnt. I think readers are supposed to believe exactly what Martin says in the SSM: that if Dany were to attempt to replicate the feat, she would probably be burned alive.

See and this is the problem, because that is NOT what Martin said in the SSM. He was asked if she could replicate it, and Martin replied "probably not". He didn't say anything about her being burnt alive.

Here's the actual questions and answers, and NOWHERE does he say that DANY would be roasted alive, or would be burnt in any way shape or form.

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 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_RR_Martin Probably not.

So he says a few things there...

1) TARGARYENS are not immune to fire (Note: he doesn't say Dany is not immune to fire)

2) Dany walked into the flames and lived, but her brother wasn't immune to molten gold (again, no reference to Dany herself not being fire resistant and/or immune to fire, only that Viserys clearly wasn't).

3) The birth of her dragons was a miracle, and she probably won't be able to do it again. (note, the connection to her walking into the fire is not necessarily the miracle here, you could interpret that only as the birthing of the dragons being the miracle).

There is no evidence there that Dany isn't immune/resistant to normal fire.

Now personally, I consider dragon's breath and wildfyre to be different/magical versions of fire so resistance/immunity to normal fire wouldn't necessarily apply to magical fire.

[jarl the climber]

Yes, Rhaenyra was eaten by a dragon, but dragons don't eat uncooked meat. She was burned before ingested.

Others have interacted with the dragons. In GRRMs series, one does not need magical protection to sit on or touch a dragon. Dragonflame also does not appear to whip around and scorch the rider.

I'm forced to agree with the dragonflame as far as we see in the book but it really doesn't make sense unless dragonflame is like napalm or something like that.(a liquid composition).

[Stannis Lives]

I'm forced to agree with the dragonflame as far as we see in the book but it really doesn't make sense unless dragonflame is like napalm or something like that.(a liquid composition).

People want to argue that GRRM can make physics work however he wants and so it really can't be debated. However, dragons are described as being mostly neck and tail. I would imagine a dragon spewing dragonflame would work a lot like a hose where someone is holding it 10 feet from the end while on full blast. Unless the Dragon has Annie Oakley accuracy and control, or it has safety harnesses like a disneyworld ride, I have to believe the rider is getting fried.

[RumHam]

See and this is the problem, because that is NOT what Martin said in the SSM. He was asked if she could replicate it, and Martin replied "probably not". He didn't say anything about her being burnt alive.

Here's the actual questions and answers, and NOWHERE does he say that DANY would be roasted alive, or would be burnt in any way shape or form.

So he says a few things there...

1) TARGARYENS are not immune to fire (Note: he doesn't say Dany is not immune to fire)

2) Dany walked into the flames and lived, but her brother wasn't immune to molten gold (again, no reference to Dany herself not being fire resistant and/or immune to fire, only that Viserys clearly wasn't).

3) The birth of her dragons was a miracle, and she probably won't be able to do it again. (note, the connection to her walking into the fire is not necessarily the miracle here, you could interpret that only as the birthing of the dragons being the miracle).

There is no evidence there that Dany isn't immune/resistant to normal fire.

Now personally, I consider dragon's breath and wildfyre to be different/magical versions of fire so resistance/immunity to normal fire wouldn't necessarily apply to magical fire.

you're ignoring the third quote on the issue that has been posted here.

Martin: No, no Targaryans are immune to fire. The thing with Dany and the dragons, that was just a one-time magical event, very special and unique.

The Targaryans can tolerate a bit more heat than most ordinary people, they like really hot baths and things like that, but that doesn't mean they're totally immune to fire, no. Dragons, on the other hand, are pretty much immune to fire.

[butterbumps!]

My reasoning is based on overwhelming coincidence. There are how many people in the world yet she is the one to bring back dragons?

And how many have tried lately?

I understand the argument of the POV corrupting the reader, and the reality being completely different. I find it amusing however that some people find any and every reason to eliminate magic throughout (tricks, glamors, horns) but they are perfectly comfortable with dragons, direwolves, others, giants etc.

What? Has anyone declared the pyre to be something other than a magical event? The magic we see in the story does have a logic to it broadly speaking. There's a way to talk about the magical aspects logically, looking for variables, causes and effects to try to figure out what's going on with it. We're given clues about the magic that appears in the series. Blood sacrifice in particular seems to be repeated as a major source of magic. It seems to permeate everything from Azor Ahai, to the Others, to Mel's magic, to dragon hatching, to Maggy's prophesies, to mastering a dragon horn. It seems that blood magic is the constant in all these magical events we've seen.

There's no "amusing contradiction" here.

I think it's interesting when readers start to act like they are listening to Old Nan and her crazy stories again in the face of such overwhelming evidence of the reemergence of magic and mythical creatures.

Out of interest, how long have you been interacting on the forums to develop these broad statements about the forum users?

You're the one who is basing your belief in super special Targ abilities based on inductive reasoning. There isn't "evidence" in the way you're trying to say there is. Dany's Valyrian blood is one of the variables that needs to be considered in the Pyre scene. One variable. It's specious reasoning to conclude that the "dragon blood" is the factor that caused the dragons to hatch. But if this reasoning is sound to you, then I'd like to sell you this rock that keeps lions away.

[FaHaZe]

At least TVshow Dany seems to be immune to heat/fire. I mean, that's what I understood when I first watched the series.

I think that's pretty cool and they should stick to it.

[Horza]

GRRM is wrong, or at least, he's forgetting the long passage in ADWD where Roose Bolton explains to Theon that the Dreadfort Fire Department prize Targaryen hide for its natural flame-retardant qualities, enabling Bolton fire crews to operate in conditions and temperatures unknown to Westerosi Emergency Response Management.

[TheTowerOfJoy]

She threw her tokar off before she left her VIP booth.

Yeah, I posted that at work, where I didn't have access to the book to re-read.

[Stannis Lives]

And how many have tried lately?

What? Has anyone declared the pyre to be something other than a magical event? The magic we see in the story does have a logic to it broadly speaking. There's a way to talk about the magical aspects logically, looking for variables, causes and effects to try to figure out what's going on with it. We're given clues about the magic that appears in the series. Blood sacrifice in particular seems to be repeated as a major source of magic. It seems to permeate everything from Azor Ahai, to the Others, to Mel's magic, to dragon hatching, to Maggy's prophesies, to mastering a dragon horn. It seems that blood magic is the constant in all these magical events we've seen.

There's no "amusing contradiction" here.

Out of interest, how long have you been interacting on the forums to develop these broad statements about the forum users?

You're the one who is basing your belief in super special Targ abilities based on inductive reasoning. There isn't "evidence" in the way you're trying to say there is. Dany's Valyrian blood is one of the variables that needs to be considered in the Pyre scene. One variable. It's specious reasoning to conclude that the "dragon blood" is the factor that caused the dragons to hatch. But if this reasoning is sound to you, then I'd like to sell you this rock that keeps lions away.

"Some people" is a vast generalization? I've seen one or more people argue against magic at every turn. That is their opinion and their interpretation. You don't "own" the right to interpret because you have seniority on the forum. I have read the series twice. Not once and not ten times. I have my own beliefs and perspective which clearly differs from yours but I was not making any generalizations of any kind.

[RumHam]

At least TVshow Dany seems to be immune to heat/fire. I mean, that's what I understood when I first watched the series.

I think that's pretty cool and they should stick to it.

The show adds that scene where the handmaiden is burned by the hot dragon eggs and Dany is not. It's totally possible that the producers or whoever wrote that episode really believe Dany is fire-proof/resistant. It's an easy enough mistake to make.

[TheTowerOfJoy]

you're ignoring the third quote on the issue that has been posted here.

Martin: No, no Targaryans are immune to fire. The thing with Dany and the dragons, that was just a one-time magical event, very special and unique.

The Targaryans can tolerate a bit more heat than most ordinary people, they like really hot baths and things like that, but that doesn't mean they're totally immune to fire, no. Dragons, on the other hand, are pretty much immune to fire.

Are we absolutely sure Martin said that, that it wasn't someone paraphrasing from the SSM I posted above and getting it wrong? Because I can not find an original quote that says this.

[RumHam]

Are we absolutely sure Martin said that, that it wasn't someone paraphrasing from the SSM I posted above and getting it wrong? Because I can not find an original quote that says this.

It's from a web chat that was an SSM entry. I remember reading it a while ago but today I just reposted it from this thread. Finding the link would probably take a while, but if no one posts it by tomorrow I'll look for it.