People that apply the rules of other fantasy worlds into separate universes are the worst.
I could write a Book and have my Dragons be 4 headed Catdogs and they would be Dragons in my universe.
Last edited by Super Kami Dende; 2017-08-21 at 03:02 PM.
1; George didn't go with 4 legs and 2 wings because no animal IRL has that sort of physique. But then again, no animal IRL breathes fire either, or can fly at that size. So I personally just see it as an excuse. I see the reasoning, but it's poor. And Martin of all people could've made something up that could work with it.
2; "All wyverns are dragons, not all dragons are wyverns." While this is true, it's very close to being "all dragons are now wyverns" because they're lazy and don't want to animate a traditional dragon. Same with Smaug in LoTR. "Oh he looks more evil because snake-like". Yeah well dragons aren't snakes. If you can't get a towering monstrosity that breathes power and can tear you appart with next to no effort to look intimidating and evil enough, then it's on you for being bad.
Last edited by Halyon; 2017-08-21 at 03:04 PM.
They aren't though. They have small stubby-forelegs, and they're classed as proto-drakes, which is fine. They're their own things, and that thing isn't a wyvern.
- - - Updated - - -
They aren't the most popular kind either. No, there's technically no hard line for what 'dragon' means, but the word has expectations, and those expectations are very rarely getting met these days, as most dragons nowadays are exactly like the sub-set of dragons (not 'true' dragons) called Wyverns. Because they're easier to animate.
A wyvern is a dragon.
A dragon is a dragon.
Getting close to the no true scottsman fallacy, I know, my point is just that words mean something, and they're being misused when the standard definition for a 'dragon' is becoming a wyvern, basically. Wyvern is the word for a dragon with that specific physique (2 legs, 2 wings that act as walking aid, like a bat), so goddamned call it a wyvern. But you know why they don't? Because that doesn't at all invoke the same awe and respect as dragon. It's basically sheep-in-wolf-clothing syndrome, or whatever you wanna call it. Classing up a wyvern to be a 'true' dragon, when it isn't, and the word for it already exists. There's no problem making a wyvern smart or intimidating. But wyverns are lesser dragons because of it. 4-legged+wings dragons are more intimidating, and it makes them more extraordinary because nothing else like them exists. Nothing else with that biology or capability as them. Some creatures could get close (like wyverns), but they still have the edge.
Same reason why we don't call a chihuahua a wolf. Chi's are descended from wolves, many of the same basic things, but I'd get fucking laughed out by everyone if I called it a wolf.
Last edited by Halyon; 2017-08-21 at 03:14 PM.
Because nobody cares about pedantic nerd bs like this. Dragons were also wyverns in Skyrim, nobody cares.
You also have to keep in mind that the language the people of Westeros speak is not English: it's the "common tongue"; it isn't outside the realm of possibility that they call certain things by different names.
Except that a tiny minuscule sub-set of people buy into this. It's about as much of a thing as Fetch.
For most people a dragon is just a big fucking lizard/snake that can fly. With or without wings depending on source of the myth used. That might depending on source be able to breath fire either through magic or some quirk of physiology (seen both in different fantasy).
The rest is modern bullshit made up by people who want some stupid sort of purity for ... reasons? I hadn't heard of any "real" definitions of dragon until three years ago at 27. If we take Tolkein and dragons the "early" dragons in his mythos didn't have wings and couldn't fly as they didn't have wings.
Last edited by Muzjhath; 2017-08-21 at 04:37 PM.
- Lars
I think the real problem is that one of the dragons died and is now with the army of the dead.
Because the primary distinguishing characteristics for Dragons are 1) Breathes Fire 2) Has wings.
Most folks don't care about whether they've got an extra set of legs as well.
GRRM doesn't know the difference. The fat yankee even explained that he doesn't care. He wanted for his "dragons" to be more "realistic" so he drew inspiration from dinosaurs. The fact that we already had a name for flying mythological reptiles with only one set of legs and a pair of wings never bothered him.
That's because the etymological root of the word that originally meant snake.
What needs to be stated is that while descriptions of dragons can vary from wingless snakes in asia, to 12 headed Hydras in Greece, to Smaug from Tolkien, the description of wyverns are uniform across history, time, and space.A wyvern (/ˈwaɪvərn/ weye-vərn, sometimes spelled wivern), known as Viverna in Italian, is a legendary creature with a dragon's head and wings; a reptilian body; two legs; and a tail. A sea-dwelling variant, dubbed the sea-wyvern, has a fish tail in place of a barbed dragon's tail.
source
Last edited by Astalnar; 2017-08-21 at 05:27 PM.
Who cares? Dragons aren't real, the distinction with wyverns is one of pure semantics.
The dragons in the asoiaf world are two-legged, and while wyverns do exist they tend to be smaller, don't breathe fire, and have beaks.
"How many eyes does Lord Bloodraven have? A thousand eyes, and one."