Dragons are NOT nukes

THE TITLE IS CLICKBAIT. Yes, I will discuss  the “dragons are nukes” talking point, but I will not tell you when I’m going  to do it, so that you give me watch time. What I want to analyze in this video is  dragons as a whole. Dragons in fantasy, dragons in myth, dragons as a cultural phenomenon and especially dragons in “A Song of Ice  and Fire”, because for whatever reason, in spite of being cool as fuck, this fandom  harbors some irrational hatred towards them. *music* Before we start, rememb

er that if you like  my content, like, subscribe and share, so that more people can see it. Make sure to click  the notification button, so that you never miss a new video. Also, you can listen to this episode  on Spotify. Check the link in the description. What is even a dragon and how come  they are present in so many different cultures that never interacted  with one another? Draconica.com, which is a page solely dedicated to various  aspects of dragons, defines them as such: “Dragons are myt

hical creatures that appear  in many different cultures and time periods. Dragons have been described as monsters,  serpents, reptiles, or beasts. There is something magical about dragons that has  kept our intrigue over many centuries. Dragons are usually thought to have wings  and breathe fire. They also are said to have scales and claws. Some also have horns.  Almost always they are said to be venomous. Some dragons may have two or more heads. They may  also have more than one tail. They may

have two, four or even more legs; however,  most are known to have four legs.” Dragons have been present in so many different  cultures that it’s almost surprising, especially since a lot of them appeared  in myths from places so far away from each other that it’s strange that they’ve  all thought of the same thing. Dragon myths were featured in some of the oldest recorded  civilizations, for instance in Mesopotamia, whose mythology mentions a primordial goddess  Tiamat that took the form of a d

raconic-like creature. Dragon-related myths were present in  many European and East Asian cultures as well, though they were much different from one  another; we will elaborate on it later. The most likely reason as to why so many cultures  around the world believed in dragons was probably that they all encountered dinosaur skeletons  at some point, especially the flying ones, like the pterosaur. Dragons are usually  reptiles, just like dinosaurs, which also explains their reptilian anatomy, sca

les,  sharp teeth and whatnot. The associations of European dragons with fire probably  came from volcanoes and other such places, because dragons were often believed to live  in mountains and guard some treasures there. In various myths and stories, dragons  are presented as intelligent creatures, with human-like intelligence and personality. In  spite of now being associated mostly with fire, at first dragons were associated with water  creatures, perhaps due to the existence of serpentine cre

atures often encountered  by the sailors and some cultures still conceptualize them as connected to water  rather than fire. The connection with sea serpents that a lot of dragons seem to have  also points in the direction of dinosaurs, since some of them, like plesiosaurs,  were sea creatures with elongated bodies. This distinction between fire dragons and water  dragons is especially visible when we look at how different cultures conceptualized dragons,  particularly in the distinction between

the West and the East. Chinese culture especially values  dragons, seeing them as a symbol of wisdom, power and luck and unlike Western dragons, they are  usually kind and benevolent and most crucially, they control the waters and not fires. Chinese  dragons are rather serpentine in appearance, they usually have four legs and  usually lack wings, though not always. Western cultures, on the other hand, associate  dragons with evil and almost universally present them in a negative light. Think of

the stories  where dragons guard a princess hidden in the tower and a gallant hero has to slay the beast  to get her hand in marriage. In those myths, dragons are always positioned as adversaries  and antagonists. This is also the case in Western fantasy, where dragons tend  to be antagonists. Look no further than at “The Hobbit”, where Smaug is a  talking dragon that guards a treasure. Also, this is more of a piece of trivia than  anything related to what I’m talking about, but in Slavic langu

ages, “dragon” has a completely  different etymology; from proto-Slavic smokъ, which by itself has unclear origins, with some  relating it to “smykati sę”, which would mean “to slither” or “to creep”, or a Germanic  influence from “snako”, snake. As a child, one of the most popular children’s fairy tales  that I’ve heard is that of a smok wawelski, a fella that took residence in Kraków  and in order to not disturb the people, had to be fed a very hefty diet of livestock.  Smok wawelski was event

ually defeated when he ate a slaughtered sheep filled with  sulfur, resulting with the poor beast getting suffocated from the inside. If you’re  ever in Kraków, be sure to pay him a visit. *music* Given the precedents in Western folklore and  Western fantasy, it’s not that surprising that Western fans tend to assume “A Song of  Ice and Fire” dragons as evil. But the thing that is rarely noticed is that the story  itself does not really present them as evil, in spite of what is usually claimed. O

r rather,  the dragons themselves are given nuance. Let’s start with the fact that “Song’s” dragons do not  have a role that would be typical of fantasy, because they do not shield treasures. I  think that our dragons, by themselves, are actually neutral and this is best  exemplified by the three wild dragons that lived on Dragonstone during the Dance of the  Dragons: Cannibal, Gray Ghost and Sheepstealer. These dragons legit just kept to themselves  and weren’t bothering anyone, which makes the

m no different than other wild animals. Then you  look at the horrors the Valyrians inflicted on everyone else using dragons and you see that  yes, the dragons are also capable of causing unimaginable destruction, which… really isn’t a  groundbreaking observation if I’m being honest. But the crucial thing is, dragons were  only tools for the Valyrians. It was them who chose to use them as weapons of  enslavement and colonialism. The Volantene, the Ghiscari and everyone else happily followed  in

their steps even without dragons. Most notably, though, presently, dragons are  associated with the very opposite. Dany’s dragons are very explicitly linked  to liberation: her own and that of others. Dany’s second dragon dream is  what gives her strength to go forward when life in the khalasar  proves very difficult for her: “Day followed day, and night followed night, until  Dany knew she could not endure a moment longer. She would kill herself rather than go on, she  decided one night . . . Y

et when she slept that night, she dreamt the dragon dream again. Viserys  was not in it this time. There was only her and the dragon. Its scales were black as night, wet  and slick with blood. Her blood, Dany sensed. Its eyes were pools of molten magma, and when it  opened its mouth, the flame came roaring out in a hot jet. She could hear it singing to her,  She opened her arms to the fire, embraced it, let it swallow her whole, let it cleanse her and  temper her and scour her clean. She could f

eel her flesh sear and blacken and slough away,  could feel her blood boil and turn to steam, and yet there was no pain. She felt strong and  new and fierce. And the next day, strangely, she did not seem to hurt quite so much. It was  as if the gods had heard her and taken pity. Even her handmaids noticed the change. "Khaleesi,  " Jhiqui said, "what is wrong? Are you sick?" "I was," she answered, standing over the dragon's  eggs that Illyrio had given her when she wed. She touched one, the large

st of the three, running her  hand lightly over the shelf. Black-and-scarlet, she thought, like the dragon in my dream.  The stone felt strangely warm beneath her fingers . . . or was she still dreaming?  She pulled her hand back nervously. From that hour onward, each day was easier than  the one before it. Her legs grew stronger; her blisters burst and her hands grew callused;  her soft thighs toughened, supple as leather.” Dany’s dragon dream is what saves her from  suicide caused by being rap

ed nightly by her husband and helps her adapt to the difficulties  of life in the khalasar; and that’s just her eggs and a dream. Her true liberation comes from  when she walks into the flames and survives, bringing dragons back from extinction - this  is when she becomes queen in her own right. “When the fire died at last and the  ground became cool enough to walk upon, Ser Jorah Mormont found her amidst the ashes,  surrounded by blackened logs and bits of glowing ember and the burnt bones of m

an and woman and  stallion. She was naked, covered with soot, her clothes turned to ash, her beautiful hair  all crisped away . . . yet she was unhurt. The cream-and-gold dragon was suckling at her  left breast, the green-and-bronze at the right. Her arms cradled them close. The black-and-scarlet  beast was draped across her shoulders, its long sinuous neck coiled under her chin. When it saw  Jorah, it raised its head and looked at him with eyes as red as coals. Wordless, the knight fell to  his

knees. The men of her khas came up behind him. Jhogo was the first to lay his arakh at her feet.  "Blood of my blood," he murmured, pushing his face to the smoking earth. "Blood of my blood," she  heard Aggo echo. "Blood of my blood," Rakharo shouted. And after them came her handmaids, and  then the others, all the Dothraki, men and women and children, and Dany had only to look at their  eyes to know that they were hers now, today and tomorrow and forever, hers as they had never been  Drogo's.

As Daenerys Targaryen rose to her feet, her black hissed, pale smoke venting from its  mouth and nostrils. The other two pulled away from her breasts and added their voices to the call,  translucent wings unfolding and stirring the air, and for the first time in hundreds of years,  the night came alive with the music of dragons.” This last scene is shown as  exceedingly hopeful and magical; the revival of dragons is clearly  something positive. If they were these nukes that everyone believes the

m to  be, why make this scene clearly positive? Dragons are also linked to the revival of magic: “A fine trick,” announced Jhogo with admiration. “No trick,” a woman said in the Common Tongue. Dany had not noticed Quaithe in the crowd,  yet there she stood, eyes wet and shiny behind the implacable red lacquer  mask. “What mean you, my lady?” “Half a year gone, that man could scarcely  wake fire from dragonglass. He had some small skill with powders and wildfire, sufficient  to entrance a crowd w

hile his cutpurses did their work. He could walk across hot coals and  make burning roses bloom in the air, but he could no more aspire to climb the  fiery ladder than a common fisherman could hope to catch a kraken in his nets.” Dany looked uneasily at where the ladder had stood. Even the smoke was gone now, and the crowd was breaking up, each man going about his business. In a moment more  than a few would find their purses flat and empty. “And now?” “And now his powers grow, Khaleesi. And you

are the cause of it.” “Me?” She laughed. “How could that be?” The woman stepped closer and lay two fingers  on Dany’s wrist. “You are the Mother of Dragons, are you not?” Alright, I just remembered that this fandom also hates magic, so it  probably is only proof that they are evil. But the most important connection Dany’s  dragons have is still that of liberation. “It is time to cross the Trident, Dany thought,  as she wheeled and rode her silver back. Her bloodriders moved in close around he

r.  “You are in difficulty,” she observed. “He will not come,” Kraznys said. “There is a reason. A dragon is no slave.” And Dany swept the lash down as  hard as she could across the slaver’s face. Kraznys screamed and staggered back, the  blood running red down his cheeks into his perfumed beard. The harpy’s fingers had tom  his features half to pieces with one slash, but she did not pause to contemplate  the ruin. “Drogon,” she sang out loudly, sweetly, all her fear forgotten. “Dracarys.” The b

lack dragon spread his wings and roared. A lance of swirling dark flame took Kraznys full  in the face. His eyes melted and ran down his cheeks, and the oil in his hair and beard burst so  fiercely into fire that for an instant the slaver wore a burning crown twice as tall as his  head. The sudden stench of charred meat overwhelmed even his perfume, and his  wail seemed to drown all other sound. Then the Plaza of Punishment blew apart  into blood and chaos. The Good Masters were shrieking, stumb

ling, shoving one another aside  and tripping over the fringes of their tokars in their haste. Drogon flew almost lazily at Kraznys,  black wings beating. As he gave the slaver another taste of fire, Irri and Jhiqui unchained  Viserion and Rhaegal, and suddenly there were three dragons in the air. When Dany turned to  look, a third of Astapor’s proud demon-homed warriors were fighting to stay  atop their terrified mounts, and another third were fleeing in a bright blaze of shiny copper. One man

kept his saddle long enough to draw a sword, but Jhogo’s  whip coiled about his neck and cut off his shout. Another lost a hand to Rakharo’s arakh and rode  off reeling and spurting blood. Aggo sat calmly notching arrows to his bowstring and sending  them at tokars. Silver, gold, or plain, he cared nothing for the fringe. Strong Belwas had his  arakh out as well, and he spun it as he charged. “Spears!” Dany heard one Astapori shout. It  was Grazdan, old Grazdan in his tokar heavy with pearls.” U

nsullied! Defend us, stop  them, defend your masters! Spears! Swords!” When Rakharo put an arrow through his mouth,  the slaves holding his sedan chair broke and ran, dumping him unceremoniously on the ground.  The old man crawled to the first rank of eunuchs, his blood pooling on the bricks.  The Unsullied did not so much as look down to watch him die. Rank on rank on rank, they stood. And did not move. The gods have heard my prayer. “Unsullied!” Dany galloped before them, her  silver-gold brai

d flying behind her, her bell chiming with every stride. “Slay the Good Masters,  slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under  twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see.” She raised the harpy’s fingers in the  air... and then she flung the scourge aside. “Freedom!” she sang out. “Dracarys! Dracarys!” “Dracarys!” they shouted back, the sweetest word she’d ever heard. “Dracarys! Dracarys!” And all around them slavers ran and sobbed and b

egged and died, and the dusty air  was filled with spears and fire.” The word that liberates the Unsullied means  “dragon fire” in Valyrian. In this scene, a dragon becomes something that it’s never  previously been - something that liberates and not enslaves. This once again reinforces the idea  that dragons by themselves are neutral. It is the person who commands them that defines what they  shall become - tools of oppression and enslavement or tools of liberation and freedom. It is Dany who 

makes her dragons tools of freedom, of liberation. This theme continues well into  “A Dance with Dragons.” After Drogon’s rampage on Daznak’s Pit,  one of the Yunkish slaves says: “I know what I saw,” an old slave  in a rusted iron collar was saying, as Tyrion and Penny shuffled along in the queue,  “and I saw that dragon ripping off arms and legs, tearing men in half, burning them down  to ash and bones. People started running, trying to get out of that pit, but I come  to see a show, and by al

l the gods of Ghis, I saw one. I was up in the purple, so I didn’t  think the dragon was like to trouble me.” Because the best spots in Daznak’s were at  the very bottom of the pit, it was the most influential of the slaving elites that fell  victim to Drogon’s rampage. It was also Drogon who reversed the cultural script - previously,  the Ghiscari were more than happy to see their subjects tear each other apart, but it was not  so great when they are the ones being torn apart. One of the people

in the pit, Harghaz, tried  to be a hero and slay the dragon. He did not succeed and how he is being perceived  depends on who is speaking about him: “And when a man in a blue-and-gold tokar began to  speak of Harghaz the Hero, a freedman behind him shoved him to the floor. It took six Brazen Beasts  to pull them apart and drag them from the hall.” When Harghaz is called “the hero”, a freedman  physically attacks the tokar-wearing man. So, dragons - especially Drogon, because he tends to  take

the center stage - are continuously linked not to destruction, not to imperialism, not to  weapons of mass destruction, but to freedom. That freedom will sometimes be messy and violent, but  every campaign of liberation is. It is Daenerys who chooses to employ her dragons in her campaign  and I believe she will only continue to do so. I know what the response is gonna be because yall  are too predictable. “But Drogon killed a child and Dany forgot her name, mad kween incoming,  dragons are nukes

.” Some Dany fans have been questioning whether it was really a child’s  body or if it was Drogon who was responsible, but I don’t necessarily buy into it. I believe  Hazzea’s dad was telling the truth and that Drogon really killed her. Thing is, the death of  Hazzea thematically serves a completely different purpose than it is claimed; many believe that  because of Hazzea, Dany is destined to nuke a city to realize that her dragons are capable of  bringing destruction, but the thing is… Hazzea’

s death is precisely here to remind her of that.  Yes, her dragons have their own free will and yes, she will not control them fully, because  they’re not sports cars, but intelligent creatures. Daenerys already understands that  her dragons are destructive; she would be very stupid if she didn’t and it is after the death of  just one child that Dany locks her dragons away, aside from Drogon, who manages to escape.  That Daenerys decides to be less restrictive with her use of dragons does not me

an she will  forget the lesson of dragons being destructive. I would also go a step further and say that  Hazzea serves to hold Dany back in Meereen. On the Dothraki Sea, Dany re-embraces fire  and blood - and in my very unpopular opinion, this means no longer walking on eggshells  around the slavers, not razing everything to the ground wherever she goes. Her embracing  fire and blood means not her forgetting that her dragons can wreak havoc, nor her choosing to  wreak havoc wherever she goes -

but her embracing the liberation her dragons are linked to fully,  with all the possible setbacks it includes. Yes, some innocents will die in the campaign,  but many of those innocents are willing to do so. And once again, these innocents do see  Dany and the dragons as liberatory figures: “The priest is calling on the Volantenes  to go to war,” the Halfmaester told him, “but on the side of right, as  soldiers of the Lord of Light, R’hllor who made the sun and stars and fights  eternally agains

t the darkness. Nyessos and Malaquo have turned away from the light, he  says, their hearts darkened by the yellow harpies from the east. He says …” “Dragons. I understood that word. He said dragons.” “Aye. The dragons have come to carry her to glory.” “Her. Daenerys?” Haldon nodded. “Benerro has sent forth the word  from Volantis. Her coming is the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy. From smoke and salt was  she born to make the world anew. She is Azor Ahai returned … and her triumph over darkn

ess  will bring a summer that will never end … death itself will bend its knee, and all those who  die fighting in her cause shall be reborn …” “But George said that dragons are nukes!!!” Now  we are going to finally address that talking point. This issue came out in two separate  George interviews, and during one of them that I personally saw used more often, George does  not compare them to nukes. Quite the opposite. One could argue that more can be  learned about everyday politics from your n

ovels than from the newspaper. I did indeed intend to make politics one of the main themes of these novels. I hope to make my  readers reflect on political issues. For example, when Daenerys Targaryen conquers a city  of slave traders and tries to rule it, she realizes that good intentions alone do not  make a government program. There is a series of very difficult decisions to make and, no  matter what you do, people will hate you. Even if one has three dragons. Exactly. The dragons are metapho

rs. Virtually the nuclear weapons of your world. The most terrible weapon! However, they don't put you in a position to abolish  poverty, make everyone love you, or lead a happy life. You can very well use them to burn  things down, to destroy your enemies, cities, and entire cultures, but that doesn't  solve the problem of good governance. It’s not George who says “dragons are nukes.”  It’s the interviewer who makes a lighthearted comment. George does not elaborate on this point  by saying “yes

, dragons are terrible beats, nuclear disarmament is the only possible  way forward” to hint something about the nature of dragons in his books. He follows it  by saying that even if you have the strongest, most terrible weapon at your disposal, it will  not make ruling any easier for you. Let’s repeat: For example, when Daenerys Targaryen conquers  a city of slave traders and tries to rule it, she realizes that good intentions alone do not  make a government program. There is a series of very d

ifficult decisions to make and, no matter  what you do, people will hate you. Even if one has three dragons.(...) [The dragons] don't put you  in a position to abolish poverty, make everyone love you, or lead a happy life. You can very well  use them to burn things down, to destroy your enemies, cities, and entire cultures, but that  doesn't solve the problem of good governance. This would actually be a good rebuttal to the  arguments about how Dany has it easier than everyone because she has dr

agons. This quote -  and the story proper, but they don’t read it, so they don’t know - shows that it’s precisely  the opposite. Just by having dragons, Dany is not automatically a better ruler,  nor does she have an easier time ruling. Dragons will not help you plan the economy,  make trade deals and all that. But they saw “dragons” and “nuclear weapons” in close  proximity and jumped into the air with joy. The second time this issue came out  was in an interview with Le Mouv: “I mean battles a

nd wars interest me too  - and medieval feasts interest me. And you know I’m creating a whole world here  and every facet of it. As I get to it I try to approach it as realistically as  I can, but ultimately as I said before, it’s the human heart in conflict with itself.  It’s what makes Cersei Lannister the way she is, and is she capable of learning and changing?  What drives Dany? With Dany I’m particularly looking at the… what effect great power has  upon a person. She’s the mother of dragons

, and she controls what is in effect the only  three nuclear weapons in the entire world that I’ve created. What does it do to you when  you control the only three nuclear weapons in the world and you can destroy entire cities or  cultures if you choose to? Should you choose to, should you not choose to? These are  the issues that fascinate me. I don’t necessarily claim to have answers to these.  I think exploring the questions is far more interesting than just me giving an answer  and saying to

the reader, here’s the answer, here’s the truth. Now think about it for yourself,  look at the dilemmas, look at the contradictions, look at the problems, and the unintended  consequences. That’s what fascinates me.” This honestly just reinforces what he had  said in a previous interview, even the wording seems similar at times. At no point does he  say: dragons are dangerous just like nukes, nuclear disarmament is the only way forward.  He says that dragons have a way to reveal Dany’s characte

r, and they thus far revealed  her as incredibly selfless and compromising, because she continuously refused to use dragons  as “nukes.” And you can cry about the scene at the Dothraki Sea all you want, fact for the matter  is, all you have is speculations and until we have “Winds”. The power the dragons give  her and the capability of destruction is something that weighs heavily on her mind  all throughout “A Dance with Dragons.” “Mother of dragons, Daenerys thought.  Mother of monsters. What h

ave I unleashed upon the world? A queen I am, but  my throne is made of burned bones, and it rests on quicksand. Without dragons, how  could she hope to hold Meereen, much less win back Westeros? I am the blood of the dragon,  she thought. If they are monsters, so am I.” One “dracarys” and all of Dany’s problems in  Meereen melt away. Instead, she chooses to compromise, until the slavers make a fool out  of her. Even if dragons are nukes - and I’m honestly not convinced still and this seems  to

me like a comparison to better illustrate a point rather than a genuine intention on  George’s point - the great power that she And overall, George does not write allegories,  he has been very clear about that and it’s what leads me to believe that, yes, the  comparison to nukes in this specific instance was there solely to illustrate the  point and not make a big thing out of it: “Finally, in a stunning revelation, when an  audience member put the ridiculous question, “JRR Tolkien strenuously d

enied that his books  were in any way an allegory for World War II, have you ever been accused of writing  about climate change by proxy? You know, it being a bit of a thing in your works,  the long Winter?” George replied, “No, I haven’t, not until now,” and continued, “Like  Tolkien I do not write allegory, at least not intentionally. Obviously you live in the world  and you’re affected by the world around you, so some things sink in on some level, but,  if I really wanted to write about clima

te change in the 21st century I’d write a novel  about climate change in the 21st century.” So, if he wanted to write a story about the  dangers of nuclear warfare, he would do that. The third thing that disproves this  ridiculous argument are the comments George made after Russian invasion in Ukraine: "Suddenly nuclear war seems more and more  feasible again. It's back there. We may have a nuclear war. And we have new pandemic  diseases that are wiping us out. Can we be optimistic about climate

change? What are  we going to do if Putin actually does use nuclear bombs? What do we want to do? I wish  I had a dragon I could fly to the Kremlin.” Somehow, George did not say: “I would  hire a Faceless Man to kill Putin”; he did not say “I’d warg into Putin’s dog  and kill him.” He said: I want a dragon to fly to the Kremlin. So, he would fly on his  nuke to kill Putin… to prevent nuclear war? The fourth and last thing that  disproves this talking point is that, George simply believes that d

ragons are cool: “The dragons were one aspect that I did  consider not including very early in the process. I was debating “should I do this just as  historical fiction about fake history and have no actually overt magic or magical elements?”  but my friend Phyllis Eisenstein said “Nah, you have to have dragons! It’s a fantasy!”.  So, I dedicated A Storm Of Swords to Phyllis who made me put the dragons in. That  was the right thing to do. Of course, the dragons work on all sorts of symbolic  and

metaphorical levels but they're also just kind of cool and it’s nice just  to have cool elements in your fantasy!” *music* There is truly nothing subversive in Western  fantasy presenting dragons as mindless, evil beasts in need to be slaughtered by  noble heroes. That’s every traditional fantasy in existence basically.  I’m told left and right that “A Song of Ice and Fire” is all about  subversion - what’s subversive about “dragons are nothing but nukes that have to  be destroyed for everyone

to live at peace”? No - our dragons are neutral and it is those who  wield them that give them meaning - destruction or liberation; liberation from slavery and liberation  from the darkness that awaits in the North. I honestly think that it may be the link  to liberation that makes the fandom hate dragons so much. Given how many people  believe that slavery is actually fine and should never be touched with fire  and blood, I would not be surprised. Thanks for watching. Special thanks  for Dracon

ica.com, from where I took most of the information about dragons and their  mysticism. Remember that if you like my content, like, subscribe and share, so that  more people can see it. Make sure to click the notification button,  so that you never miss a new video. *music*