On Dragons and Bonds
Aug. 20th, 2008 08:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kippurbirdDragons of a Different Scale
The relationship between man and dragon is a popular subject in fantasy literature. From Dungeon and Dragons to Anne McCaffery's Dragon Rider's of Pern series, authors have explored what it would be like to have a dragon as a humans' companion. This is a desirable idea, after all, who wouldn't want a fire breathing, flying protector the size of a house? There are two kinds of dragons found in these human/dragon relationships. One where the dragon is merely a horse, not having any intelligence and the other where the dragon is as intelligent, if not more so, than a human. When the dragon is little more than a beast of burden then there is little problem with the human riding and using it as a mode of transportation. However if the dragon is intelligent the question then becomes: Why would an intelligent individual allow themselves to be made slaves and little more than a flying weapon or any other such use that the riders would have them?
This question is usually solved by having the dragon need a human rider as a "soul mate". The dragon imprints on a human and cannot live without them. The other solution is that the dragons and humans form an alliance that is mutual beneficial. However it is the former idea that I'm interested in.
The dragon, when matched up with their rider, is supposed to be their perfect companion. Someone who will always support their human no matter what. Someone that you can turn to for a shoulder to cry on, a sounding board for ideas, or for a bit of conversation. This seems to indicate that there will be very little disagreement going on between the two of them, even if they are supposed to be equals -as said in the Inheritance Trilogy for example.
In the Pern series the dragons are not supposed to be equal to their riders. They are genetically engineered creatures as a matter of necessity. The colonists needed them as weapons specially to protect their homes and crops from the Thread which devoured all organic matter. Native to the planet were small dragon like creatures "fire-lizards" who possessed the qualities needed to combat the thread. However they were too small. Hence the engineering of the larger dragons. The fire-lizards had the natural ability to imprint on the first person or creature they saw much like a duck. This isn't changed when the fire-lizards become dragons. Because of this, the dragons are, in this case, really only flying weapons rather like those of non-human intelligence.
They are given the ability to think and speak but often times it is mentioned that they have a very short memory [citation] and their desire to fight Thread is done on instinct rather than the realization that it's the best thing they need to do for survival. It is the humans who direct and guide them into an efficient flying force and it is the humans who take care of them, much like any domesticated beast. Perhaps the reason for why the dragon will commit suicide when their rider dies is because, not for the loss of their soul mate but instead a survival technique for the rest of the species living on the world. The fire-lizards do not seem to have planned obsolescence and can theoretically live for hundreds of years[citation]. In the White Dragon there are fire-lizards who remember the colonists arrival to the planet. [citation]To have dragons who have this long life span as well they would soon quickly over populate the planet and crush it's ability to survive. Thus it is necessary for the dragons to die when their riders do, thus clearing the way for the next generations and keeping the planet habitable.
On a complete and different story there are the dragons in the Inheritance Cycle. Here the dragons are supposed to be equal to their human/elven companions. The dragons were around long before humans and elves reached their land. Though the matter of their intelligence at the time when they first meet the elves is debatable as it seems to change depending on things unknown to the readers. After a war -which would indicate intelligence - though at other points it is said that they did not have it until they started bonding with the elves [citations of dragon intelligence] a treaty is made where the dragons would offer up some of their eggs to be bound to the elves and later to the humans. Dwarves are not included in this bargain because they are short and ugly. Also because they do not get along with the dragons. Reasons for this is unknown.
Though the point here then is why would the dragons, intelligent as they are supposed to be, depending on where you are in the books, give their children up to be slaves. There is no outside threat that they need to fight like in the Pern novels. There could be other ways to have created a treaty of peace and alliance, against what forces I am, once again, not sure as all dragons are good as are all elves. Trade and mutual communities could have been set up between the two races. There is no logical explanation for this bargain as the dragons do not appear to benefit at all. Indeed the only reason for this set up is for Eragon to have his egg and be bound to Saphira. It is this relationship that I am interested in.
Through out the books and by Paolini himself, it is asserted that Saphira and Eragon have a mutual and equal relationship. [Citations] But it is shown through Eragon's actions with Saphira this is hardly so. This situation is rather like when a murderer is saying that he is completely innocent while shooting people. The text can declare all it wants that their bond is equal but it is the actions of the characters that prove it otherwise. Eragon [*] never asks for her advice and the few times she does try and give it Eragon summarily ignores it.
This is not what an equal partnership is about. This is more like the Pern dragons' relationships with their riders or even the non-intelligent dragons. If they were equals then they would discuss their actions and plan together what they need to do to stop Galbitorix and help the Varden. But instead she never gets a say. We barely even hear her talk through out the books. At times it's like she doesn't even exist. She's just a neat thingy in Eragon's collection of Shiny Objects.
Unfortunately this is more the fault of the writer than the actual story and world concept. Paolini has his idea, which is theoretically workable (if he ever gets his history straight) and could be interesting if the impact of such a relationship is explored. To have someone who is as intelligent as you completely privy to every thought and emotion. I think it would make sex rather awkward, to say the least. In any case, the impact of such a thing would be monumental. After all how would you deal with someone you're constantly connected to in the most intimate of ways.
On a totally different way of doing things is in the Temeraire novels by Naomi Novik. Here in Western Europe, the dragons are considered by most of the general public to be nothing more than animals that can talk. Rather like parrots. They appear to imprint on a person when they hatch, but this isn't necessary, as seen with the Chinese dragons, but once they do, they refuse to let any other person handle them except perhaps family relations. However, as we read the series and interact with the main dragonic character, Temeraire, and later others, we see that these dragons are in fact intelligent as humans. They can understand and enjoy philosophy, literature and mathematics especially.
Temeraire constantly argues with his captain, Laurence, over what they should do, why they should do it. When he learns about slavery Temeraire comes to the conclusion that the way he and the other dragons are treated is also like slavery and decides to try and free the dragons from this. Laurence tries to explain to him difficulties that this would present and they often argue the point, not seeing eye to eye. Laurence actually is the one who loses in these conversations as he knows that Temeraire is right, but he can't find a way to tell him why it won't work.
Here, while Temeraire is a flying warship, he does it because he is trained to do it. Laurence teaches him he has to do it because it's his duty and because he wants to protect his friends. Often times Temeraire disagrees with it, he does so not having been raised as a "proper" dragon. Still the other dragons do discuss his new ideas often times agreeing with him or in other cases disagreeing with him as in the case with the Prussian dragons in the fourth book.
The thing I am trying to impress upon here is that Temeraire and Laurence have an equal relationship of sorts. From Temeraire's personality we know that nothing keeps him there except for his loyalty to Laurence. And Laurence would do anything in turn for Temeraire's happiness. This is the sort of relationship that Paolini says that Eragon and Saphira have. One where they discuss and have dialog. Temeraire often doesn't wish to do what he's told to do, but after talking with Laurence he agrees to do it. And Laurence is the same way.
On another side of their relationship is that Temeraire will not kill himself if Laurence dies. He will mourn his loss and likely not accept another captain, but he will continue to fight for dragon rights in Brittan.
Now, I won't say which type of bonding is better between the Pernese dragons and the Novak dragons, leaving out Paolini's dragons because they are rather confused in what they are supposed to be. It all depends on the circumstances. One isn't inherently better than the other. In the unfortunate case of the Inheritance cycle this does matter because of the author's intent is not what the author shows. If he truly wishes for their relationship to appear equal in action and not in words he would have to go back and rewrite it. Which is probably something he'll never do.
In the end it is ultimately up to the writer and what they wish to portray in their society and relations to other intelligent creatures that aren't human or humanoid.
----
The relationship between man and dragon is a popular subject in fantasy literature. From Dungeon and Dragons to Anne McCaffery's Dragon Rider's of Pern series, authors have explored what it would be like to have a dragon as a humans' companion. This is a desirable idea, after all, who wouldn't want a fire breathing, flying protector the size of a house? There are two kinds of dragons found in these human/dragon relationships. One where the dragon is merely a horse, not having any intelligence and the other where the dragon is as intelligent, if not more so, than a human. When the dragon is little more than a beast of burden then there is little problem with the human riding and using it as a mode of transportation. However if the dragon is intelligent the question then becomes: Why would an intelligent individual allow themselves to be made slaves and little more than a flying weapon or any other such use that the riders would have them?
This question is usually solved by having the dragon need a human rider as a "soul mate". The dragon imprints on a human and cannot live without them. The other solution is that the dragons and humans form an alliance that is mutual beneficial. However it is the former idea that I'm interested in.
The dragon, when matched up with their rider, is supposed to be their perfect companion. Someone who will always support their human no matter what. Someone that you can turn to for a shoulder to cry on, a sounding board for ideas, or for a bit of conversation. This seems to indicate that there will be very little disagreement going on between the two of them, even if they are supposed to be equals -as said in the Inheritance Trilogy for example.
In the Pern series the dragons are not supposed to be equal to their riders. They are genetically engineered creatures as a matter of necessity. The colonists needed them as weapons specially to protect their homes and crops from the Thread which devoured all organic matter. Native to the planet were small dragon like creatures "fire-lizards" who possessed the qualities needed to combat the thread. However they were too small. Hence the engineering of the larger dragons. The fire-lizards had the natural ability to imprint on the first person or creature they saw much like a duck. This isn't changed when the fire-lizards become dragons. Because of this, the dragons are, in this case, really only flying weapons rather like those of non-human intelligence.
They are given the ability to think and speak but often times it is mentioned that they have a very short memory [citation] and their desire to fight Thread is done on instinct rather than the realization that it's the best thing they need to do for survival. It is the humans who direct and guide them into an efficient flying force and it is the humans who take care of them, much like any domesticated beast. Perhaps the reason for why the dragon will commit suicide when their rider dies is because, not for the loss of their soul mate but instead a survival technique for the rest of the species living on the world. The fire-lizards do not seem to have planned obsolescence and can theoretically live for hundreds of years[citation]. In the White Dragon there are fire-lizards who remember the colonists arrival to the planet. [citation]To have dragons who have this long life span as well they would soon quickly over populate the planet and crush it's ability to survive. Thus it is necessary for the dragons to die when their riders do, thus clearing the way for the next generations and keeping the planet habitable.
On a complete and different story there are the dragons in the Inheritance Cycle. Here the dragons are supposed to be equal to their human/elven companions. The dragons were around long before humans and elves reached their land. Though the matter of their intelligence at the time when they first meet the elves is debatable as it seems to change depending on things unknown to the readers. After a war -which would indicate intelligence - though at other points it is said that they did not have it until they started bonding with the elves [citations of dragon intelligence] a treaty is made where the dragons would offer up some of their eggs to be bound to the elves and later to the humans. Dwarves are not included in this bargain because they are short and ugly. Also because they do not get along with the dragons. Reasons for this is unknown.
Though the point here then is why would the dragons, intelligent as they are supposed to be, depending on where you are in the books, give their children up to be slaves. There is no outside threat that they need to fight like in the Pern novels. There could be other ways to have created a treaty of peace and alliance, against what forces I am, once again, not sure as all dragons are good as are all elves. Trade and mutual communities could have been set up between the two races. There is no logical explanation for this bargain as the dragons do not appear to benefit at all. Indeed the only reason for this set up is for Eragon to have his egg and be bound to Saphira. It is this relationship that I am interested in.
Through out the books and by Paolini himself, it is asserted that Saphira and Eragon have a mutual and equal relationship. [Citations] But it is shown through Eragon's actions with Saphira this is hardly so. This situation is rather like when a murderer is saying that he is completely innocent while shooting people. The text can declare all it wants that their bond is equal but it is the actions of the characters that prove it otherwise. Eragon [*] never asks for her advice and the few times she does try and give it Eragon summarily ignores it.
This is not what an equal partnership is about. This is more like the Pern dragons' relationships with their riders or even the non-intelligent dragons. If they were equals then they would discuss their actions and plan together what they need to do to stop Galbitorix and help the Varden. But instead she never gets a say. We barely even hear her talk through out the books. At times it's like she doesn't even exist. She's just a neat thingy in Eragon's collection of Shiny Objects.
Unfortunately this is more the fault of the writer than the actual story and world concept. Paolini has his idea, which is theoretically workable (if he ever gets his history straight) and could be interesting if the impact of such a relationship is explored. To have someone who is as intelligent as you completely privy to every thought and emotion. I think it would make sex rather awkward, to say the least. In any case, the impact of such a thing would be monumental. After all how would you deal with someone you're constantly connected to in the most intimate of ways.
On a totally different way of doing things is in the Temeraire novels by Naomi Novik. Here in Western Europe, the dragons are considered by most of the general public to be nothing more than animals that can talk. Rather like parrots. They appear to imprint on a person when they hatch, but this isn't necessary, as seen with the Chinese dragons, but once they do, they refuse to let any other person handle them except perhaps family relations. However, as we read the series and interact with the main dragonic character, Temeraire, and later others, we see that these dragons are in fact intelligent as humans. They can understand and enjoy philosophy, literature and mathematics especially.
Temeraire constantly argues with his captain, Laurence, over what they should do, why they should do it. When he learns about slavery Temeraire comes to the conclusion that the way he and the other dragons are treated is also like slavery and decides to try and free the dragons from this. Laurence tries to explain to him difficulties that this would present and they often argue the point, not seeing eye to eye. Laurence actually is the one who loses in these conversations as he knows that Temeraire is right, but he can't find a way to tell him why it won't work.
Here, while Temeraire is a flying warship, he does it because he is trained to do it. Laurence teaches him he has to do it because it's his duty and because he wants to protect his friends. Often times Temeraire disagrees with it, he does so not having been raised as a "proper" dragon. Still the other dragons do discuss his new ideas often times agreeing with him or in other cases disagreeing with him as in the case with the Prussian dragons in the fourth book.
The thing I am trying to impress upon here is that Temeraire and Laurence have an equal relationship of sorts. From Temeraire's personality we know that nothing keeps him there except for his loyalty to Laurence. And Laurence would do anything in turn for Temeraire's happiness. This is the sort of relationship that Paolini says that Eragon and Saphira have. One where they discuss and have dialog. Temeraire often doesn't wish to do what he's told to do, but after talking with Laurence he agrees to do it. And Laurence is the same way.
On another side of their relationship is that Temeraire will not kill himself if Laurence dies. He will mourn his loss and likely not accept another captain, but he will continue to fight for dragon rights in Brittan.
Now, I won't say which type of bonding is better between the Pernese dragons and the Novak dragons, leaving out Paolini's dragons because they are rather confused in what they are supposed to be. It all depends on the circumstances. One isn't inherently better than the other. In the unfortunate case of the Inheritance cycle this does matter because of the author's intent is not what the author shows. If he truly wishes for their relationship to appear equal in action and not in words he would have to go back and rewrite it. Which is probably something he'll never do.
In the end it is ultimately up to the writer and what they wish to portray in their society and relations to other intelligent creatures that aren't human or humanoid.
----
[*] On an utter tangent, I am still highly amused at the idea that there could only be like three people named Eragon in the entire history of the world. Not only that but they know that there have only been three. I'm quite certain there's no way to know how many people in the entire history who have been named Heidi.
Also, I think I need a dragon icon.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-20 07:50 pm (UTC)I'm rather happy that I managed to reverse the usual situation in the series of short stories I wrote a few years back. I worked out a system where the dragon/human bond was reversed, so the humans who were working for the dragons, who needed an interface for the peasants they controlled. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-08-20 08:03 pm (UTC)That's a cool system.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-20 08:19 pm (UTC)By "Larry" I meant Laurence. Sorry about the confusion.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 01:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 08:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-22 04:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-22 05:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-23 04:07 am (UTC)Bob/Robert
Dick/Richard
Jim/James
And I'm trying to think of others....
Oh, Shameless Self-Promotion
Date: 2008-08-20 08:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-20 11:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-20 09:09 pm (UTC)It can be hard to get an 'equals' feel in stories sometimes...I think because the stories so often are centered around the human character, with little of the dragon character's thoughts, feelings, history, etc. being seen. Hmmm...this has given me a lot to think about! (I only have a handful of dragon-human bonds in my writing, but all of them are supposed to be mutual and equal...).
no subject
Date: 2008-08-22 05:05 pm (UTC)I think the reason for that is sometimes the writer forgets that the dragon is a character too.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 12:30 am (UTC)Specifically, Vlad's familiar is a jhereg, a small, winged, reptilian animal. However one thing unique about the jhereg is that they actually are intelligent (possibly on the level of a human), however they're still very much animals, and thus live wild without any particular social structure beyond what you'd typically find with carnivorous scavengers. So it's a kind of a peculiar in-between compared to the examples you've given, classifying either into "intelligent" or "unintelligent animal"- here we have an "intelligent animal".
Of course, to get his familiar in the first place, Vlad had to make a bargain with its mother- specifically asking for one of her eggs, saying that in exchange for its help and companionship, he'd offer it food and shelter and his own friendship. But again, we're dealing with an apparently intelligent being here, so it's willingly giving up one of its eggs to a stranger trusting to that bargain.
As for the actual relationship, Vlad and Loiosh (the familiar) DO act like equals, in that Loiosh helps Vlad and Vlad at least listens to Loiosh's suggestions or advice (as he says once, there's "no point" in having a familiar if you're just going to ignore it) although this doesn't mean Vlad always listens, of course, because he's not just being ordered around, either. It's also noted that there IS definitely some sort of distinct bond between witch and familiar, though no one's quite managed to figure out how it works, exactly. But on the other hand, for all his intelligence Loiosh still acts like a jhereg, albeit a wisecracking and sarcastic one, and not like a human. So quite the different spin on that sort of scenario.
Another entirely different example that came to mind as I was typing this though is Dinotopia- in which we have humans living alongside sentient and highly intelligent dinosaurs. In this, the dinosaurs typically do do most the heavy labor, and sometimes (or often) give humans rides, and so on, but it's made very clear that this is because it's what they're good at and capable of, where humans can do things that require opposable thumbs, for example. It's a simple matter of the two species dividing labor according to each species' own strengths... or sometimes outright whim, such as the illustration of a triceratops carrying a human about on its head captioned "the triceratops likes to wear a human like a human likes to wear a hat". But yet another way to approach the concept of partnering with another species.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-22 05:07 pm (UTC)I wonder if that's where Paolini got that idea from. >.>
I've read one of those books, later in the series and thus was highly confused at the social workings, but I do agree with you.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-22 10:20 pm (UTC)But yeah, it's an interesting example, I think, since it takes more into account how effectively alien the mind of another species is, even if they have the equivalent of human intelligence. It doesn't really anthropomorphize the jhereg the way a lot of fantasy tends to do with non-human species.
Though if you're interested in reading more of the series, I'd recommend either Jhereg (the first written and thus one of the most self-contained) or Taltos (the first chronologically) to start with.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 03:00 am (UTC)Interesting essay, some good points raised. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-08-22 05:07 pm (UTC)Thanks! My brain is far too weird sometimes.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-22 06:22 pm (UTC)On Pernese dragons:
The dragons, having been designed to bond with humans, will look for a mind-mate immediately upon hatching. (IIRC a hatchling who can't find such a mind-mate may suicide, but I can't be certain of that - if it happened, it would have been in one of the books on the early days of Pern.) The bond is not one that is lightly broken: more often than not, a rider who doesn't die with his dragon will suicide, and those who survive are almost always emotionally crippled for life, while only under extreme duress will a dragon not immediately suicide upon the loss of their rider. (The only cases I know of involve queens who are brooding eggs... and even they will suicide as soon as the eggs hatch.)
Since the fire-lizards are empathic, and the draconic telepathic abilities are based on an expanded version of that empathy, it's not surprising that dragons are much more focused on emotions than on logic. This is also, I suspect, because the original dragons were not created to be of full-human intelligence. They were quite frankly created to be self-repairing, self-reproducing weapons, and to be emotionally dependent on their riders. When the Oldtimers came to the "modern" Pern, it was noted several times throughout the original Dragonrider series that the modern dragons were larger, stronger, and smarter than their several-generations-earlier counterparts. It's not too hard to extrapolate from there that the original dragons were considerably closer to fire-lizards on the intellectual front. The only dragon I know of who seems to be at full-human-level intelligence is Ruth, who is a mutant. Add to that the fact that, having human partners who expect to be the "brains of the operation," most dragons don't need to focus on anything but eating, sleeping, reproducing and making their riders happy - because if the rider isn't happy, then the bond between dragon and rider ensures that the dragon can't be happy either. Plus, dragons just plain love their riders, who are the center of a dragon's emotional universe. They seem to see obeying their riders as a natural extension of that love, and of the daily care and nurturing that their riders provide to them, and since that obedience also makes them more likely to come home after Threadfall intact, it's a more equitable arrangement than it seems.
As for fire-lizards (and, by extension, dragons) not aging: it is mentioned several times that dragons and fire-lizards do age, with references to the skin around their muzzles graying, reflexes slowing, stiff joints, etc. The memories of the arrival of the settlers in The White Dragon were not first-hand memories, but racial memories, passed from one generation to the next via empathy. Transmission of strongly emotional memories is common among fire-lizards (which is why they have a reputation as terrible gossips) and are sometimes shared even with humans bonded to the lizards. Because the Landing was an important, unusual event, it was passed down, as it had a big emotional impact on the fire-lizards of the time. (This might also explain the "instinctive" hatred that fire-lizards and dragons have for Thread: if, as was presumed by the original settlers, the fire-lizards' teleportation and fire-breathing were an evolutionary response to the threat of Thread, then think about what would have happened to the proto-fire-lizards who didn't have teleportation, but who probably did have the empathic ability. With the transmission of memories from one generation to the next, even such an ancient memory would probably be enough to trigger a near-berserker rage. Add to that the generations of fire-lizards killed fighting Thread, and you can easily explain their hatred of the spores.)
no subject
Date: 2008-08-22 01:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-22 05:09 pm (UTC)