The Targ fire RESISTANCE debate...

[TheTowerOfJoy]

who is granny?

That was simply an internet handle of a person asking GRRM a question in a chat.

[Roadside Rose]

Without the interview of Martin saying the funeral pyre was a one time event, how is a reader supposed to know that? If you use purely the text, where Dany thinks she's immune/highly resistant to fire, and then she actually walks into the fire and comes out unscathed with some baby dragons, what else are you supposed to think?

Many people that are newer to the series didn't even realize these SSM's existed until recently, and certainly haven't had time to read them all, and the text gives a very different impression, which appears to at minimum muddle the issue, and at other times flat out state it as if it's fact. It's hard to disregard the funeral pyre scene which we actually see the results of it on page.

I agree. I believed she had fire immunity too when I read AGOT, until I read that SSM quote. When you name a novel A Song of Ice & Fire, and have a main character call herself the unburnt, I'm not surprised that an average reader would believe she was immune to fire.

[TheTowerOfJoy]

If Barristan and co are saying Dany was on fire, we should check out what happened in the pit (she ducked) and what the aftermath of the pit was (body not touched by fire, hands burnt, sporting the Sinead O'Connor style). To go further, we should see what the text outside of Dany's flawed education has to say about Targ relationship with fire (they burn).

Ok, but we also have direct and indirect evidence of her walking into a funeral pyre and coming out with only her hair burnt.

I also don't know where this idea came from that for Dany to be fire proof/fire resistant that all Targs have to be fire proof/fire resistant? Dany even makes a distinction between herself "a true Dragon", and Viserys, even though they are brother and sister from the same mother.

Just as all Starks are not Greenseers, but Bran is, I don't know why all Targs have to be fire resistant/fireproof for Dany to be fire resistant/fire proof?

And yes I know what the SSM says now, but I'm just trying to comprehend why people think Viserys's "crown" is evidence that Dany is not fire resistant.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

Dany has burns in ADWD but they aren't as bad as they should be really. Take that however.

[Survivor of Hathsin]

These are my 2 cents:

There is 1 case of actual fire resistance with the variables of danys being a targ at a bloodmagic ritual. In all other cases of contact with heat or fire, just the targ variable isn't enough to convincingly reproduce the same results (vague indirect assumptions at best). Now, that isn't direct proof that bloodmagic is the source of Danys resistance to fire or that it was a miracle or magic of another kind (and we wll never be sure untill those results are reproduced in the same fashion or another explanation is given), but it has more merit than the targ angle based on known results.

Apart from all this...GRRM said it aint so

[The Bastard of Summer]

This is all I have to add to this discussion....

Furnace Wind is not actual fire...it is what it sounds like it is: a blast of very hot air

Furnace Wind is a precursor to the actual fire/flame

So first the dragon releases a hot wind: hey look out I'm getting ready to blast dat ass

Second the dragon releases the actual flame: at this point if you are on fire if you did not duck when you felt the blast of hot air "Oh"

[Ygrain]

To say Dany isnt at least resistant to fire is a bit of a stretch, considering we have almost identical descriptions of what happened to Quentyn and what happened to Dany in the pits. Also i think the Green Grace used the word "engulfed" when arguing if Dany was alive. You don't think Barristan a seasoned knight and avid member of the Dany-is-alive camp would be like "Wait a minute, I'm a trusted witness and she totally ducked that shit" if she wasn't engulfed by flames or didn't get hit? My point being she got hit in the fighting pits. We have it from 3 POVs and multiple reliable and unreliable witnesses. She got hit with enough fire for a multitude of people to come to the conclusion that she died so she didn't just "dive" under it.

Yes, the descriptions of the two events are identical - NEITHER person starts burning when they are blasted with furnace wind, or rather, their clothes do not start to burn, as human flesh is not particularly flammable. Quentyn feels the furnace wind and hears his friends yell "behind you, behind you, behind you" and he turns, shielding his eyes - that is awfully long not to realize that he is supposedly on fire.

I actually came to the forums believing the "fire resistance theory" and was convinced after reading the threads about it - because there's simply too much good evidence to ignore :bang:

Bless you for your common sense.

And if you read Arya's description of Harrenhal, there is a courtyard surrounded by five towers. All the towers were melted. So Aegon sat on Balerion's back in the courtyard while Balerion's breath literally melted all the stone in a 360 radius around them. The result was that the stone "melted and flowed like candlewax down the steps and in the windows, glowing a sullen searing red as it sought out Harren where he hid."

And what is the diameter of that courtyard? Balerion himself was huge.

As for the "furnace wind," I'll just point out again that Balerion's "furnace breath" melted the Iron Throne (note: it does not say "furnace breath followed by fire"); Rhaegal's "furnace wind" roasted Quentyn (there is no mention of anyone breathing fire after Quentyn felt the furnace wind; Quentyn felt the furnace wind and he caught on fire); but Drogon's "furnace wind engulfed her [Daenerys]" but it did not burn her.

See above - there is quite a lot of time between the furnace wind comes and Quentyn starts burning, and, as has been pointed out REPEATEDLY, Quentyn is shielding his eyes as he turns, so he DOESN'T SEE what is going on.

It has also been pointed out REPEATEDLY that Dany's dragons do not produce such hot flame as Balerion did.

The reason Daenerys' clothes were in tatters but not completely burned away is that her body provided partial protection. Right before the furnace wind engulfs her, it says "She stumbled over the pitmaster's corpse and fell on her backside." If you fall over backwards like that, your legs (and probably your arms) are going to be in front of you, partially shielding you from whatever is approaching you from the front.

Fanfiction much? She falls on her backside, stares at Drogon who roars into her face, and then she scrabbles with her hands in the sand and pushes against the pitmaster's body, so, no, her arms are definitely not shielding anything, not to mention that even if she was shielding herself, the clothes would, you know, keep burning

Finally, as I have pointed out before, there is a reason Rhaegal's furnace wind burned Quentyn's whip but Drogon's furnace wind did not burn Daenerys' whip: Quentyn was holding his whip out between himself and Rhaegal when Rhaegal blasted him; Daenerys did not pick up her whip until well after Drogon stopped breathing fire on her.

At the moment when the air got hot from dragon breath, Quentyn was NOT holding the whip between himself and Rhaegal, the dragon was behind him. Dany's whip is WARM from Drogon's breath when she picks it up, i.e. it was lying right in the area which got hit, yet it didn't start to burn.

[WhiteWalder]

It seems to me that everyone defending the position of Targaryens not having fire resistance are taking what they want out of the text and leaving the rest. I do not like taking things out of context. They are being shown solid evidence from SSMs - not just the text, and totally dismissing the other side of the textually and SSM supported argument. I am playing devils's advocate. because I can see where both sides can be supported.

1)The stance is that Targs are fire resistant, not totally immune to fire or heat resistant: It would be like wearing a fire suit that racing drivers wear. A fire suit will keep someone from getting burned from an open flame for a period of time. The fire suit, however, will eventually burn. It is not totally immune to fire. It is designed to allow the driver time to escape the car before being killed by the fire (there will be still be some 1st and second degree burning and blistering if you are in the fire for more than a few seconds), but it keeps you from getting killed. The suit is not totally heat resistant - If a pot of molten gold is poured on the fire suit, the person inside will be cooked from the heat transfer through the suit.

A great example of this is Dale Earnhardt Junior's 2004 crash in Sonoma, where he only received very minor 1st degree burns - akin to a sunburn.

Dale Jr. would have been seriously injured or killed in the fire if not for the fire suit. He still felt the heat, and was not totally immune to the fire.

2)We all know GRRM is very careful with his words. The SSM (see below) does not say Dany's fire resistance was a one time magical event. He says the birth of the dragons was a unique, wonderous, and a miracle. He didn't in any way say that Dany's fire resistance was not repeatable. Even if I am taking this too literal, he does not say unrepeatable - he says unique. Unique is not one time. It is something special. Targs may have a trait, combined with something else, that produces a unique resistance to fire.

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.

Again, from my first point, I am not trying to prove that Dany is immune to fire - only that the SSM, in my opinion is not a good defense to say that she has no fire resistance.

Also, the SSM is from 1999. Could GGRM have changes his view or mind slightly since then? (in the 12 years from this interview and ADwD-where we do have textual support that Dany is again fire resistant) - textual support, not a definitive answer to the argument. ADwD can be argued either way, although I think the evidence supports that she had another magical event.

3)I agree that all Targs are not even fire resistant, but some are. (None are immune to fire, but some may be resistant) Going strictly from SSM.

Lastly, some fans are reading too much into the scene in GAME OF THRONES where the dragons are born -- which is to say, it was never the case that all Targaryens are immune to all fire at all times.

First of all - it is backing up my last point by saying people are reading too much into this scence. Where does this say that all Targs are not immune all the time? I can't argue against GRRM. He says that not all Targs are immune to fire. This suggests some are. He also says at all times, suggesting that some Targs are immune some of the time. How can you argue against that?

[WildBlood]

If Dany had been burned in the pit, wouldn't the pitmaster's corpse also be burned? The text says she was lying against it. Hair is brittle, it will catch with a lighter within a foot, let alone dragon flame. There is no evidence she or the pitmaster were burned by direct flame in the pit.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

I can't argue against GRRM. He says that not all Targs are immune to fire. This suggests some are. [...] How can you argue against that?

Q: Are all the Targaryans immune to fire?

Martin: No, no Targaryans are immune to fire.

How indeed.

[Stannis Lives]

I posted this question looking for real answers to real questions. I enjoy the series tremendously and I'm always trying to learn more and see if my perspectives and interpretations can be proven or disproven. I don't have the background that some of you have, knowing all of GRRM's quotes and having intimate knowledge of the text. However, I did think this issue would be open and shut one way or the other. It is simply not black and white. The facts remain:

1. GRRM has never stated that Targs are not fire resistant. The quote in my OP that is constantly referenced in fact accomplishes the opposite. It makes it more ambiguous, not less. I thought there would be a definitive quote from GRRM but nobody has been able to provide it. I do realize they aren't immune to fire.

2. The unreliable narrator is an interesting concept that is obviously quote often utilized by GRRM. However, it is used quite frequently to defend, prove, or disprove arguments. The end result of a theory relying on an unreliable narrator is by definition, an unreliable theory. Now we can't trust what Barristan says he saw because he's unreliable? Why? Because it doesn't support your argument? He clearly states that he sees her on fire. Maybe it's unreliable but maybe it's reliable.

3. Dany walked into a burning funeral pyre and came out unscathed. Her hair was burnt away in the pit, yet she had minor blisters. Whatever you want to argue, she was clearly resistant to fire at least once for whatever reason.

4. GRRM himself has stated that Targs have a higher tolerance for heat than most people. AKA HEAT RESISTANCE

5. I don't believe that, based on the realism displayed by GRRM and based on his other descriptions of mythical beasts, that anyone and everyone can simply jump on the back of a dragon and fly around the world while it's breathing stone-melting dragonfire from its mouth in all directions without magical abilities. It just doesn't seem plausible or realistic IMO. I realize there is a fantasy element to the novels but this is just too much for me, to believe Joffrey could just get on a dragon and fly around and burn down harrenhall without falling to his death, or being toasted.

[danm_999]

1. GRRM has never stated that Targs are not fire resistant. The quote in my OP that is constantly referenced in fact accomplishes the opposite.

How?

[Stannis Lives]

Q: Are all the Targaryans immune to fire?

Martin: No, no Targaryans are immune to fire.

How indeed.

This debate isn't about Targs being immune to fire. It's about fire resistance greater than other humans.

[WildBlood]

Just for shits & giggles...

fire·proof (frprf)

adj.

Impervious or

resistant

to damage by fire.

tr.v. fire·proofed, fire·proof·ing, fire·proofs

To make fireproof.

So to say Dany is not fire PROOF, which we all agreed on yesterday is equal to saying Dany is not fire resistant, right?

[Stannis Lives]

How?

This is what he stated and the logical inference.

GRRM: it was never the case that all Targaryens are immune to all fire at all times.. Translation: Some Targs are immune to some fire sometimes.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

5. I don't believe that, based on the realism displayed by GRRM and based on his other descriptions of mythical beasts, that anyone and everyone can simply jump on the back of a dragon and fly around the world while it's breathing stone-melting dragonfire from its mouth in all directions without magical abilities. It just doesn't seem plausible or realistic IMO. I realize there is a fantasy element to the novels but this is just too much for me, to believe Joffrey could just get on a dragon and fly around and burn down harrenhall without falling to his death, or being toasted.

Do you have any reason to claim that when dragons in ASoIaF breathe fire, that the fire goes in 'all directions'? Because I'm fairly certain we have never seen this happen and the examples of fire-breathing we have seen have been of fire projecting unidirectionally from the dragon's mouth. Or are you imagining the dragons flailing their heads wildly and rapidly to achieve this 'all direction' effect?- another thing that we have never seen occur.

[danm_999]

This is what he stated and the logical inference.

That isn't the sole logical inference of that statement though, it's the one you've chosen to make.

[WhiteWalder]

Just for shits & giggles...

fire·proof(fhttp://img.tfd.com/h...lprime.gif[/img])

adj.

Impervious or

resistant

to damage by fire.

tr.v. fire·proofed, fire·proof·ing, fire·proofs

To make fireproof.

So to say Dany is not fire PROOF, which we all agreed on yesterday is equal to saying Dany is not fire resistant, right?

Yes, fireproof does not mean immune to fire. A fireproof safe is not immune to fire. They are rated in minutes by how long they will resist the fire from damaging the contents of the safe.

Edit: spelling

[WhiteWalder]

Edit: Post goof - double post

[ab aeterno]

4. GRRM himself has stated that Targs have a higher tolerance for heat than most people. AKA HEAT RESISTANCE

I think there is a need for caution and precision with these terms. Heat tolerance isn't the same thing as heat resistance. If I can spend long periods relatively comfortably in 100F heat and humidity while many people wilt when the temperatures get about 80F, it suggests I'm more tolerant to the heat than they are, and the same is true of hot baths. Heat resistance is something more, it implies not that you're comfortable with higher levels of heat but that your body actively resists or reflects heat.

5. I don't believe that, based on the realism displayed by GRRM and based on his other descriptions of mythical beasts, that anyone and everyone can simply jump on the back of a dragon and fly around the world while it's breathing stone-melting dragonfire from its mouth in all directions without magical abilities. It just doesn't seem plausible or realistic IMO. I realize there is a fantasy element to the novels but this is just too much for me, to believe Joffrey could just get on a dragon and fly around and burn down harrenhall without falling to his death, or being toasted.

Here is where it gets tricky though. Joffrey couldn't fly around on a dragon. That's now because he's not heat resistant however (and he isn't,) it's because he's a whiny, spoiled idiot who lacks the skills or relationship to tame a dragon. Quentyn suffers from a similar problem. His problem wasn't that he wasn't fireproof, that only became an issue after he failed to control the dragons.

Also, where realism is concerned, things get tricky. ASOAIF is more gritty than it is realistic. This is true not only of magic, but also genetics, such as the extreme dominance of Baratheon traits, and warfare, such as the incredible range of weaponry demonstrated during the Battle of Castle Black. Realism isn't the strongest argument to learn on here, I would say.