Dragon metamorphosis and regeneration (spoilers for Liveship and Rain Wilds books)

[redchild]

The last part about adaption... That can really be summed up in survival of the fittest... those who didnt adapt to it, died off...

More accurate to say that only those who were born with traits to protect them from acidic waters survived.
But really I found it interesting that Hobb did not mention spontaneous generation or intelligent design as the dominant theory. I'm wondering whether this is only the case for Alise because she is a scientist, or if intelligent design is actually the majority belief.

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

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.

[Chrischa]

[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.

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.

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.

['thul]

That be symbolic. Dragons represent the unchanging, while humans represent the changing...

No doubt elderlings are intended to represent a mid-point between those two, and possibly take the dragons to that point as well...

[maulkin]

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.

With regard to the difference between growth and regeneration, even animals that grow throughout their lifetimes cannot usually replace missing limbs or other major structures. Also, birth defects do not usually correct themselves during growth, even when they do not have a genetic basis. For example, babies born with stunted limbs due to exposure to thalidomide do not develop normal limbs during subsequent growth. The limbs of the hatchling dragons were clearly described as stunted in proportion to their bodies. The correction of this developmental flaw must arise from a process of regeneration rather than simple growth.

Farseer - I think that the discussion that you are searching for was posted in the "Human Diversity" thread.

[Nuytsia]

.. 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.

This reminds me of something..... and I think it is a comparison made between Elves and Humans in Lord of the Rings ????? Not sure if it was explicit in the books or something I read as a comment on them. Elves are more static due to their long lifespans etc and humans are more flexible/adaptable.

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.

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.

I think it was 'Relpda' (Sedric's bronze)

[Chrischa]

Thul, Maulkin, you are correct! I'd never considered it in that light before, but that does indeed fit nicely. Thanks!

[redchild]

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.

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.

Great connection there! So I suppose that Elderlings are like the paragons in their ancient society, acting as a sort of liaison or ambassadorship between the two species?

If the Elderlings are the result of the best of both worlds combined, what about the other incarnations?

The man-made dragons/creatures are works of art by Elderlings or humans, just as dragons who anoint humans as their Elderlings. By giving themselves into their work, they can live forever as powerful creatures with their own collections of memories. However, they are trapped in their stone states until woken by someone with Wit, Skill, and spilt blood; and even then they are only awake for a limited time. They don't seem to have very distinct sense of self and they seem to do the bidding of the person who summons them without question. Much like herd mentality (as it takes many humans to put together a stone dragon.) Do you suppose that this can be considered on the extreme end of the different 'forms' humans and dragons can possess?

And how about the Others? I think I read that they are the result of dragons who have become too human, but it has not yet been elaborated as to how they are made/born. Interestingly enough, they are portrayed as degenerates (at least, according to the opinions of the Cassarick dragons.) This seems very biased as dragon influence on humans is considered good but human influence on dragons is bad?
They show their human traits in their obsessive, yet unsentimental hoarding of objects and trinkets, especially of Elderling-make, thus emphasizing their focus on material goods. Furthermore they barter for goods by predicting the future for human clients and they kept She Who Remembers imprisoned to keep her from leading the serpents. It seems to me that they have deeply ingrained hatred for both dragons and humans. How else does an Other show their dragon and human influences? Do they have any positive qualities, at all?

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.

It was very important for the dragons to ground themselves in something familiar. Just as humans are. We have yet to see how the dragons will adapt to the new world after they have found Kelsingra.

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.

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.

I remember Kettricken's shock and horror when she encountered Thick for the first time, where in her culture, any infant born with deformities would have been exposed immediately. Following that, I thought of similar situations irl in euthanasia, autism, HIV, abortion, etc, where it's more difficult to tell what conditions must be met for a person to be 'whole' or 'human' and not pathologized as 'wrong.' For example, even the Cassarick dragons, considered inferior by Tintaglia, found a liveship like Tarman to be 'wrong,' even though Tarman has the same dragon memories as they do. But in a liveship's case, even having dragon memories does not make them dragons.

[Farseer]

Farseer - I think that the discussion that you are searching for was posted in the "Human Diversity" thread.

Thanks maulkin but I thought I'd posted something in here as a response to your first post, though sometimes I post directly to the web page and other times I write a word doc first and then cut and paste. Possibly I never ended up cutting and pasting (or saving!) my post.

In the meantime though, I thought of this thread when I was re-reading about ** Spoilers for Farseer and Tawny Man trilogies**

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?

My apologies that this is off-topic to the current discussion, and is instead going back to the maulkin's original thought on regeneration, but I have not long come across it again in AQ.

Something else I have to add is one of Sa's precepts, mentioned by Wintrow at the very beginning of The Ship of Magic. Berandol was retelling Wintrow of the stunted arm he'd had as a youth and how the priests had cured him of it. I think that this precept of Sa fits well with all that the dragons have experienced and, indeed, everything that has been experienced by ALL of those in the RotE who have mistakenly been considered 'weaker'. The precept goes, 'For the weaker has but to try his strength to find it, and then he shall be strong.'