GRRM ruined a song of ice and fire by killing too many good characters

[Brian G Turner]

By the way, I had some trouble posting, that's why I'm replying to something this old, while the rest of you are discussing something else (perhaps a sign from above that my posts aren't welcome ).

Nothing from this end - what sort of problems were you having? You're welcome to post about it in the Feedback section so I can take a look.

 

[LightBringer]

Nothing from this end - what sort of problems were you having? You're welcome to post about it in the Feedback section so I can take a look.

It seems to be a problem with either my firewall or my connection. I posted from a different computer and it worked, so don't worry, I can post from there if I don't manage to fix it

 

[Allegra]

(Disclaimer: not my photo and I don't know whose)

 

[Ursa major]

Those death certificates are very small, aren't they? But also quite colourful....

 

[JoanDrake]

As for Daenerys, I honestly don't understand why so many people like her. It
must be her dragons. She's the most annoying character in the whole series as
far as I'm concerned. She's entitled, ignorant, she's so superficial it's
ridiculous and despite thinking herself wise she does the most obvious mistakes.
And still she lives! This does not fit with how he kills off the other
characters when they make mistakes. It seems he has decided that Daenerys will
be the hero, and no matter what obstacles she encounters, she will overcome
them. Realistic indeed.

Why do you think it's going to be easy to kill a woman who's fireproof? Whatever Gods are in Westeros/Valyria they are rather clearly on her side and I don't see why that protection wouldn't logically extend beyond her husband's funeral pyre. As for superficiality and wisdom she's what, 16, by the end of DoD? I was a certified idiot at that age and have the papers to prove it.

 

[Tywin]

Why do you think it's going to be easy to kill a woman who's fireproof? Whatever Gods are in Westeros/Valyria they are rather clearly on her side and I don't see why that protection wouldn't logically extend beyond her husband's funeral pyre. As for superficiality and wisdom she's what, 16, by the end of DoD? I was a certified idiot at that age and have the papers to prove it.

She's a lot prettier as a brunnette. I wonder if GRRM could swing it so that the plot requires her to switch to the actress's natural color.

Wait, what are we talking about again?

 

[JoanDrake]

She's a lot prettier as a brunnette. I wonder if GRRM could swing it so that the plot requires her to switch to the actress's natural color.

Wait, what are we talking about again?

Oh no, stick with the classics, fair skin means blonde. Now, I wouldn't mind seeing Arya as a blonde.

OTOH blonde does tend to darken with age.

I wonder if the end of the series won't see a triumvirate ruling both continents and the North. The Three Queens, Daenerys, Sansa and Arya. Daenerys being the hammer, Sansa handling diplomacy and Arya running the Secret Police.

As far as the tabbed deaths that is funny, but are those just main characters? If it includes the occasional unlucky peasant or stableboy that's really not a lot. If we include all the soldiers and bandits, hell, you wouldn't be able to see the book.

Which sort of brings us around to how Martin says he is trying to write fantasy with a realistic tone. OTOH it seems a lot of death. OTOOH it's a big epic story and in such there's Heinlein's famous quote;"....the death rate has never really varied, one person one death, sooner or later"

 

[Jonathan C]

I think its his fans that talk about realism more than Martin himself to be honest.

In the interviews I've seen and read with him he usually talks about writing about things that interest him.

 

[Allegra]

As far as the tabbed deaths that is funny, but are those just main characters? If it includes the occasional unlucky peasant or stableboy that's really not a lot. If we include all the soldiers and bandits, hell, you wouldn't be able to see the book.

That's exactly what I thought, not to count Martin's beloved wolves and all the horses! Since I read the five volumes back to back, afterwards I really felt that I needed a break and wash off those gory scenes from my head. Was it really like that in the history? May be, may be worse. Almost like a nature's way to keep the human population under control.

 

[Ursa major]

In history, the people who were killed, and/or tortured, were made of flesh and blood and suffered every moment of their torments. I've never been able to immerse myself in fiction so far as to forget this essential difference (which doesn't mean I'm not affected by the deaths of fictional characters in books; I am).

 

[Tywin]

In history, the people who were killed, and/or tortured, were made of flesh and blood and suffered every moment of their torments. I've never been able to immerse myself in fiction so far as to forget this essential difference (which doesn't mean I'm not affected by the deaths of fictional characters in books; I am).

As in real life, everyone dies. I've never felt that there was too much cause to get riled up over someone dying or even getting murdered for that matter.

All that being said, the ramifications from someone's death effect me a bit more. I had a friend who died in a motorcycle accident a couple months ago, and what tugs on my heart strings are things like the thought of his two little girls growing up without a father, or even the fact that I don't have a chance to get to know him better now.

Stepping back into the realm of fiction, do we get torn up about the death of Ned or Robb because of the ramifications for what want the storyline to be? I remember reading the Red Wedding and my first thought was along the lines of 'But what about Arya and Sansa! What's going to happen to them if Robb is really dying?'

 

[ArstenWhitebeard]

I shouldn't be getting back into this, but I'm going to.

when people talk about this series as being realistic, they aren't talking about the events specifically. it isn't supposed to be "Good things only happen to Good people", or even "Bad thing happen to Good people". it is simply, "Things happen, sometimes to people".

I don't think it is fair to say that Martin only wrote the Red Wedding to shock his readers, and play with their expectations. Yes, he has said that he wanted to write a story where, most of the time, you don't know what's going to happen. He has stated that he thinks stories where the good guys always get away in the nick of time are boring. (I think he referenced a Dukes of Hazard episode?). So yes, he probably expected his readers to be shocked by things that happen, but he wrote the red wedding to move the narrative along, not just to shock his readers and "Decapitate his plot". I think Martin has been very consistant.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

My two cents on the Robb thingy.

I think it was more because **** happens. (Pardon my French.) Rob was a great guy and he won every battle, but Rob was a terrible judge of character and was rather obstinate at times. I've been rereading Game of Thrones lately and it is really obvious when you look at it after you read it all. Combined with honour, it is normal that it had done him in. He was too trusting at times and he had put much stock in the honour of the wrong people.

I think Martin was trying to show that regardless of how repugnant we consider the methods Tywin, Freys, and Roose had taken there, it is really that such people are often the ones to succeed. Red Wedding is not really vile for what we saw, but rather most for the fact that the sacred laws of hospitality were violated. Martin is trying to show us that there are always people out there willing to go and do things most of us would never do just to get ahead. They are going to use whatever opening you leave them and Robb had left one.

 

[Darth Angelus]

I shouldn't be getting back into this, but I'm going to.

when people talk about this series as being realistic, they aren't talking about the events specifically. it isn't supposed to be "Good things only happen to Good people", or even "Bad thing happen to Good people". it is simply, "Things happen, sometimes to people".

I don't think it is fair to say that Martin only wrote the Red Wedding to shock his readers, and play with their expectations. Yes, he has said that he wanted to write a story where, most of the time, you don't know what's going to happen. He has stated that he thinks stories where the good guys always get away in the nick of time are boring. (I think he referenced a Dukes of Hazard episode?). So yes, he probably expected his readers to be shocked by things that happen, but he wrote the red wedding to move the narrative along, not just to shock his readers and "Decapitate his plot". I think Martin has been very consistant.

And I think the success of his story largely comes down to the fact that he has thrown aside tired old formulas like the one of the good guys always get away in the nick of time (or always succeed in what they have to do, but only just). And I agree with him that they are boring, because you can always see what is coming. In a realistic scenario, if things are in the balance, sometimes it will tip one way, sometimes the other.

We all know the standard formula in fiction. Things go bad (often very bad) for the heroes in the beginning and middle, and they are really struggling (sometimes good guys die, but it usually is not main characters). Then towards the end they work against the problem, and prevail, often barely.

George R.R. Martin is evidently not working after this formula, and I think it is a great thing. Since the reader can't figure out what is going to happen, things can be more exciting.
Sure, he might have killed off a few more characters than he should, for perfect balance, but he is trying another formula and doing a great job of writing a story low on tired old clichés. The story pattern and above all character arcs aren't following the usual patterns.

My two cents on the Robb thingy.

I think it was more because **** happens. (Pardon my French.) Rob was a great guy and he won every battle, but Rob was a terrible judge of character and was rather obstinate at times. I've been rereading Game of Thrones lately and it is really obvious when you look at it after you read it all. Combined with honour, it is normal that it had done him in. He was too trusting at times and he had put much stock in the honour of the wrong people.

I think Martin was trying to show that regardless of how repugnant we consider the methods Tywin, Freys, and Roose had taken there, it is really that such people are often the ones to succeed. Red Wedding is not really vile for what we saw, but rather most for the fact that the sacred laws of hospitality were violated. Martin is trying to show us that there are always people out there willing to go and do things most of us would never do just to get ahead. They are going to use whatever opening you leave them and Robb had left one.

The Starks were better warriors than judges of character (and players in the political game), all of them. Catelyn Stark evidently thought Littlefinger was a better person than Tyrion, which was far from the truth. Ned was not up for the politics in King's Landing.
But yes, such people are often the ones to win power struggles. There is an advantage to not playing fair. On the other hand, going too far may alienate others, so it is a balance.

 

[Eulalia]

If you like history a little, read a summary of the Wars of the Roses and see if anything rings a bell. Ethical merit does not translate into political or military success at all. Sanctuary is violated. The innocent Tower princes vanish forever. Mysteries are not solved. The best warriors can be psychopaths or thugs. Saintly kings are murdered (and are terrible kings). Women are vilified if they play the game, and ineffective if they do not. Just when all seems rosey, the "hero" gets decapitated or killed running away. The winner is a bit of a jerk. The Kingmaker switches sides. The sneakiest lord gets the greatest rewards. Thousands die for almost arbitrary or greedy reasons. Where does Martin get the idea to be cynical about heroes again?

 

[Darth Angelus]

If you like history a little, read a summary of the Wars of the Roses and see if anything rings a bell. Ethical merit does not translate into political or military success at all. Sanctuary is violated. The innocent Tower princes vanish forever. Mysteries are not solved. The best warriors can be psychopaths or thugs. Saintly kings are murdered (and are terrible kings). Women are vilified if they play the game, and ineffective if they do not. Just when all seems rosey, the "hero" gets decapitated or killed running away. The winner is a bit of a jerk. The Kingmaker switches sides. The sneakiest lord gets the greatest rewards. Thousands die for almost arbitrary or greedy reasons. Where does Martin get the idea to be cynical about heroes again?

And I can believe that, unfortunately. It makes sense, in a cynical kind of way.
There are situations where being ethical does not pay off as much as one could wish it would.

All I meant was that I think there are situations where going too far comes at a price, too. You could lose diplomatic credibility. Who would want to be a guest under Frey's roof after the Red Wedding? Or ally with the Boltons in a way that requires physical proximity to Roose? I am not saying this will always be a heavy price, nor that it will in this case. It is entirely situational.

 

[Darth Angelus]

For clarification, I guess what I am saying isn't that ethical merit translates to political or military success, but rather that not being evil in dumb ways does. That is another thing entirely, of course.

Yes, I believe that the Tywins in real history may very well often be successful, but the Joffreys are not, really.
And George R.R. Martin doesn't really portray Joffrey as successful on his own merits, really. The other Lannisters weren't impressed at all by him having Ned decapitated, because he wasted a very valuable bargaining chip. One doesn't have to be as stupid about being cruel as that for it to come back, though. I don't think so, anyway.

Tywin calculates the politcal and military pros and cons of doing cruel things before doing them (his treatment of Tyrion is the exception to his nature of being calculated about cruelty, and well...). That is why he is largely successful. So far, anyway.
Joffrey just does cruel things because it is in his nature. He is a teenage bully and prick who has cruel whims. He wouldn't be very successful at all if other Lannisters didn't play the game of thrones for him.
Those are two very different philosophies about being cruel to others.

Tywin even lectures Joffrey about this a couple of times, and it is not about making Joffrey a more ethical person, but rather when and to whom one should not be cruel.

But yes, in terms of military success, the pros of doing the Red Wedding almost definitely outweighed the cons, for the Lannisters.


In short, when comparing the Neds, Joffreys and Tywins of real history, I should think the Tywins would be the most successful in power struggles in general.

 

[Tywin]

Roose Bolton hits on this subject in one of his conversations with Ramsay, and I think it's important to bring up again.

Paraphrasing Roose here: "They have to respect you enough to be afraid to wrong you, but not so afraid that they feel like they need to get rid of you for their own safety."

We used the War of the Roses as an example before, but I'd like to jump up to more modern times and point to the example of Nazi Germany, which was ruthless, cruel, and incredibly threatening. It did not end well for them.

 

[Darth Angelus]

Great point, Tywin!

That was exactly where I was coming from.

WWII is an outstanding example of this, because the Nazis managed to make two major political blocs in the world, the Western Allies and the Soviets, who were pretty far from friends and did not trust one another at all* work together against them (if only until the Nazis were brought down), by making them both think the Nazis were the worst or at least most immediate threat to their safety. Making the capitalist west and communist east work toward a common goal (even for a time) really required an extraordinary menace.

It is not a great recipe for success to convince everyone else that you are the worst threat to their safety, moreso even than their old enemies.


* Everything I have ever read on the subject indicates little trust between the west and Soviet, before WWII, and after (the Cold War). They were just united in their fear of what a Nazi victory would mean for them.

 

[Ursa major]

I don't think it was the nastiness of the Nazis' behaviour and ideology that brought the Soviet Union into the war. (That nastiness didn't prevent the signing of, for instance, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as it didn't prevent bits of paper (for example) being signed by others who later fought Germany.)

It was, rather, Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union that did the trick. (Given the importance of the Red Army in defeating Germany, it was, perhaps, the Nazis' overconfidence that led to their ultimate downfall).