(Aug-17-2010, 04:28 PM (UTC))thul Wrote: The last part about adaption... That can really be summed up in survival of the fittest... those who didnt adapt to it, died off...

Quote:The attitude of Tintaglia is common for dragons... The cassarick dragons were malformed, and thus inferior. Inferiors are ignored.

(Aug-17-2010, 11:49 PM (UTC))redchild Wrote: [In a normal situation, yes. But this was an entirely new situation for the dragons to deal with. If there were only a handful of individuals left of your entire species, one would take whatever steps necessary to be sure that that handful would survive and reproduce, even if they are deemed inferior. Tintaglia's choice must have been a difficult one.

(Aug-19-2010, 08:46 AM (UTC))Chrischa Wrote: .. I always felt that this was the largest flaw the dragons have; they are so absorbed in their ancestor's memories, that they have great difficulty dealing with new situations. This while the biggest strenght of humans seems to lie in their adaptability, and their ability to carve out a life for themselves wherever they are (this is even pointed out in the books at one point). The dragons seem sluggish in their thinking by comparison, unable to wrap their heads around things they haven't encountered before.

(Aug-19-2010, 10:51 AM (UTC))maulkin Wrote: I think that the above points demonstrate the strength of the dragon-elderling-human symbiosis. Dragons have long memories and are able to think long-term but tend to be rigid and inflexible. Humans are adaptable and innovative but incline to short-term thinking. Elderlings represent a mid-point, combining and integrating these perspectives.

With regard to Tintaglia's abandonment of the hatchlings, I wonder whether this was as much due to their lack of ancestral memories as to their physical malformation. Even the other hatchlings did not regard Spit and Sedric's bronze (her name escapes me) as "dragons" until they were able to communicate and showed some evidence of memory/sentience.

(Aug-19-2010, 08:46 AM (UTC))Chrischa Wrote: Now that you mention this... I always felt that this was the largest flaw the dragons have; they are so absorbed in their ancestor's memories, that they have great difficulty dealing with new situations.
This while the biggest strenght of humans seems to lie in their adaptability, and their ability to carve out a life for themselves wherever they are (this is even pointed out in the books at one point). The dragons seem sluggish in their thinking by comparison, unable to wrap their heads around things they haven't encountered before.

(Aug-19-2010, 10:51 AM (UTC))maulkin Wrote: I think that the above points demonstrate the strength of the dragon-elderling-human symbiosis. Dragons have long memories and are able to think long-term but tend to be rigid and inflexible. Humans are adaptable and innovative but incline to short-term thinking. Elderlings represent a mid-point, combining and integrating these perspectives.

Quote:While nature otherwise seems to have gifted them with an unnumerable amount of tools for survival (big teeth, acid, inpenetrable hide, flight, Skill, ect.), this seems like a big lack in a species' evolution. Only by adapting to one's changing surroundings can a species survive and evolve, not by clinging on to what was before. But what do the dragons have to do to survive in this changed world? They have to return to Kelsingra, their old domain, which has changed very little.

Quote:With regard to Tintaglia's abandonment of the hatchlings, I wonder whether this was as much due to their lack of ancestral memories as to their physical malformation. Even the other hatchlings did not regard Spit and Sedric's bronze (her name escapes me) as "dragons" until they were able to communicate and showed some evidence of memory/sentience.

Quote:Hmm I never thought of it that way. Yes, that does ring true, she maybe sees those without ancestral memories as less intelligent, even as non-sentient beings .... she may be treating them more like 'we' would treat 'animals' than as fellow members of her species.

(Aug-19-2010, 10:51 AM (UTC))maulkin Wrote: Farseer - I think that the discussion that you are searching for was posted in the "Human Diversity" thread.

WARNING! CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF ELFBARK

Verity's visit to the Skill river in AQ. As you'd all remember, via a Skill-link with Verity, Fitz was also there and therefore saw/experienced all that Verity had.

Fitz says of Verity as he places his hands and arms into the river, 'So I screamed with him as the hot current ate the flesh and muscle from his arms. I swear I felt the acid lick of it across the bared bones of his fingers and wrist and forearm.... "

Later Fitz tells us of Verity, 'He carried his forearms stretched out before him, palms up, the fingers curled into cups as if he begged something. In shape they had not changed. But now arms and fingers gleamed silver with the power that had penetrated and fused with his flesh..'

I wonder if this can't shed light on the topic of regeneration and the Skill? Firstly Fitz clearly told us that Verity's flesh and muscle had been stripped from the flesh, and only bare bone had been left behind. Then they were whole again, and unchanged in shape. In effect, they underwent a process of loss and then regeneration, and were healed by the Skill itself?

Even further, could this passage not only shed light on regeneration but on how a Skill-healing actually works? The Skill penetrates the body and by its power, fuses with the flesh, thus allowing it to heal? I haven't thought this latter idea through but possibly it could work? It may also further strengthen the link between the Skill with memory in that a Skill-heal, in a complete form, seems to revert an injury etc back to its original pre-injury state eg Fitz's face and all scars etc were erased once the process was begun by the coterie?