#fantasy analysis

Tonight, we turn to the Red Waste. Fire and brimstone, Martian myths, and the origins of dragonfire collide in Episode 2 of Martian Queen: Dany’s Alien Legacy. We also look at the Martian myth that might have given GRRM the idea for the legend of Azor Ahai and Nissa.

Daenerys crosses a dead land shaped by ancient celestial violence — and the truth hidden in sulfur and ash may reshape how we understand her dragons forever.

Watch Episode 2: BRIMSTONE & DRAGONFIRE

You can also catch Episode 1: THE TARGARYEN SECRET here

I want to talk about the animal, mostly bird, symbolism of these books because although it’s obviously something we’re very aware of I also think it’s something that runs a lot deeper than we necessarily always realise/talk about. Even when people aren’t being directly involved in bird metaphors (crows, pigeons, peacocks) they are often described as “squawking”, “flapping”, or with other phrases that further this semantic field.

Now the crows is obviously the main source of the symbolism, and it’s openly talked about in the book with the speech on how the recognise human faces and how they support each other. I’ve also seen a few people online talking about the Crows in conjunction with a poem/nursery rhyme about crows (it’s one of those that has many different versions spun of it, some know it was counting magpies rather than crows) wherein 6 crows symbolises gold, of course greatly linked to the plot of the novels as well as their anti-extreme capitalism message. It’s also key to mention that crows are massively underestimated birds in the general public view; they’re far ‘smarter’ animals than we would typically expect. Crows have a very high brain to body mass ratio, I believe the highest of any birds but don’t quote me on that, and although we understand very little about the brain the size ratio is currently considered a very good indicator for the general intelligence level of the animal. Crows can make tools, hide their food, mate for life, and - VERY interestingly for this book analysis - have even been suspected to hold funerals. Now I want to be clear I’m working on a mix of random knowledge and the first helpful looking website that came up when I googled ‘fun facts about crows’ so I am by no means an expert here, but to my understanding the practice that was initially considered to be a ‘crow funeral’ is actually a process wherein crows will gather around a dead crow to look for potential danger. So I feel like the links I’m establishing here are relatively obvious, the point is that, like the birds themselves, the Crows are undervalued, underestimated, and unexpectedly successful. But the symbol of the crow in these books arguably goes even further.

The crow-headed handle of Kaz’s cane represents everything about the crow I’ve already mentioned on top of his own symbolic layering to the cane as a sign that no part of him has not been broken, and no part him is not better for having been broken. So in Chapter 27 of Crooked Kingdom, when Kaz returns to the Slat and fights the Dregs before leading a coup against Per Haskell, the cane with the fake crow’s head that Haskell has contrived to mock him effectively represents the failing of everything the Dregs represent. They’re last, the remnants, the people with nowhere else to go: they are the people who have been broken and have made something new for themselves. Except Haskell. So the sheer ridiculousness of him mocking Kaz’s cane, something he clearly thought would win him favour and success, in the end becomes one of the biggest aspects of his downfall. Inej describes the moment when the Dregs begin to support Kaz, the way the look at Per Haskell with discomfort - “the feathers in his hat, the canes in his hands” (and then she goes on to highlight how they’ve seen Kaz use his cane in fights, “wielded with such precision”, whereas Haskell is washed-up, pathetic, never could have taken the fight Kaz did and walked out the other side). Of course they realise, then, how completely and utterly wrong all of this was. Because when they’re confronted with both of those canes they realise something. They know what Kaz’s cane represents; it’s power and strength in spite of a world that has that has scorned him, it’s taking something that was broken and not fixing it but emphasising it and making it into a threat, into a symbol, into a strength. They know that, even though they don’t know what happens in Kaz’s head, because they see themselves in that. The Dregs; the literal bottom of the Barrel, who have been broken and who have clawed their way to survival. They cannot see themselves in Haskell’s mockery cane. Haskell is not a man who reflects what the Dregs are at their core, but Kaz is. The emphasis on the feathers is also really interesting, because I think it’s implying a sort of gaudy, colourful feathering that (despite fitting in with the style of the Barrel) does not represent the symbol of the crow; it is not something shadowed, something half hidden that could have an unexpected bite. It’s almost more akin to Heleen’s gaudy peacock feathers than it is to anything the Dregs understand, or represent through being Crows.

The pigeons I don’t really see anyone talking about, but I think it’s pretty interesting. The idea of ‘the pigeon’ is the same as ‘the mark’; they’re the victim, the fool who’s easy to swindle. I think the imagery of the fools being pigeons, ie being everywhere and massively populating big cities, is really clever to show a divide between the few, the Crows, and the many, the pigeons. However, it’s not only the Crows who remark on others being ‘pigeons’, but other gangs as well. When Kaz confronts Pekka about the scam he ran on him and Jordie, he says “you were just two pigeons, and I happened to be the one who plucked you”. I’m not gonna lie to you guys I’m losing my point slightly, but I just googled ‘crows and pigeons’ and the first thing that came up was about how crows sometimes eat pigeons so I reckon that’s pretty relevant.

First things first, I think it’s perfectly fine to make comparisons between authors and their works on a blog if that’s what you want to do.

Regarding ACOTAR’s worldbuilding, it’s detailed enough and immersive for romantasy or romance readers. That said, fantasy readers might notice certain gaps or inconsistencies that others may not. This is natural, given both the scope of a large series and the different ways readers from various genres approach and interpret fantasy elements.

As for references to fae lore, Feyre’s initial descriptions in Book 1 suggest that the fae are inspired by traditional folklore. Rhysand, in particular, seems constructed in a way that reflects these traits, which I’ve noted in my tags. Later in the series, however, the fae are portrayed more like the characters in Throne of Glass and Crescent City, which feels more elves-inspired than strictly aligned with fae folklore. I’m not the first to highlight this, and while I don’t mean to sound pedantic, these kinds of observations and deep dives into creature lore are common and entirely natural within fantasy-reading communities, where readers often enjoy comparing how creatures and magic align with folklore or established traditions. So, in terms of fantasy readers’ expectations, the lore carries its own weight.

That said, while it’s not necessary to know traditional folklore to enjoy the books, readers are free to make comparisons if they wish. This doesn’t change the fact that these characters are not human: they have their own mindset. Even within ACOTAR’s worldbuilding, where fae are more humanized, that distinction remains clear. Applying human standards to creatures who clearly operate under different rules feels superficial and, honestly, diminishes the complexity of the characters. This was, in fact, the main point of my previous post, which seems to have been overlooked.

Why? Genetics.

Ramble under cut. Keep in mind I am going off of bg3 races and probably have no clue what I'm talking about. Also, I am a teenager who simply has an interest in genetics. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or anything.

(TL;DR: When looking at stereotypical half-elf phenotypes (appearance), it can be inferred that the children of two half-elves have a possibility of expressing fully elven ears or fully human ears, despite still being half-elves.)

Hi, thanks for you question!

This is definitely an interesting one, I'm afraid I don't have the King of Scars duology on audiobook so it's a while since I read them (I usually do my rereads with audio rather than physical) however I do remember thinking about this at the time. I think that a big aspect of this is that Grisha found the need to rationalise and try to explain their power to otkazats'ya people to reduce persecution; look at the difference between Fjerda, where Grisha power is seen as demonic magic, and Ravka, where it's seen as a form progression. Our easy go-to inbetween is Kerch, a country caught between a strong cultural superstition and a very desperate desire to remain at the forefront of global development and cement its position in the global economy (I have lots of worldbuilding thoughts here but that's probably for another time); here, grisha power is not seen as magic or as evil, and they look on Fjerda as backwards for this view, but it isn't seen as something progressive either - it's seen as an exploitable resource, at the price of those how carry it. If this is the situation of the three most powerful countries in the world when Grisha power has been rationalised and presented in terms that otkazats'ya should be able to comprehend and accept, then Grisha would be even worse off in a world where there was no understanding whatsoever of their ability as anything other than magic.

I hope I'm making sense. I'm trying to say that ideally Grisha power would never have been labelled as 'small science', but embraced instead as what it was in ancient times. This concept didn't come from nowhere; early Grisha are rarely specified in orders and are described with many different capabilities (such as the Saints when Nina says some people in Ravka have stopped thinking of them as miracle workers and started thinking of them as acts of Grisha), and some characters (such as Jesper's mother Aditi) never have their order revealed to us. Although in Aditi's case we can assume she was an Alkemi from the descriptions of her power, she also makes "bread rise just by looking at it" which doesn't necessarily fit any order's typical description and only ever called herself "zowa". If it weren't for the need to define power as something scientific and palpable instead of an almost ineffable force is the only reason that Grisha power was ever called "the small science" instead of magic. If it were magic and Grisha weren't capable of channelling the kind of power that the Saints had or that Zoya learns, then they would be even weaker than they already are; because of the state of their world, it's only safe to have 'magic' when you can use it to protect yourself.