Kill Your Darlings

Teoes

Poof, poof, sparkles!
Jun 1, 2010
5,174
0
0
Calling it now: Erin dies at the end of the next series.
 

Giest4life

The Saucepan Man
Feb 13, 2010
1,554
0
0
I have never seen anyone kill off main characters with the casual indifference of George R. R. Martin. Although not my favorite author, I enjoy his visceral writing style. It's not surprising when one considers the fact that the Martin, a medieval historian, takes great inspiration from the English War of the Roses. Life was cheap in the middle ages--and still is--and lords and legends were killed off just as quickly as they emerged.

Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
 

knight steel

New member
Jul 6, 2009
1,794
0
0
OMG you killed that poor bowl of innocent popcorn he was my fav character-That it I'm never reading critical miss ever again >_<
 

The Wooster

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
Erin is so immature. You should only stop following a series if they do something truly unforgivable, like discussing racism in videogames.
Waited a LONG time to avoid spoilers Grey


Thanks.
 

Remus

Reprogrammed Spambot
Nov 24, 2012
1,698
0
0
DVS BSTrD said:
Waited a LONG time to avoid spoilers Grey


Thanks.
Ahh but the comic doesn't say what characters were killed off. So no spoilers.
 

The Wooster

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
Remus said:
DVS BSTrD said:
Waited a LONG time to avoid spoilers Grey


Thanks.
Ahh but the comic doesn't say what characters were killed off. So no spoilers.
Well I even though I actually missed the last half the episode thanks to shitty American internet service, I'd read all the books last fall. But otherwise I'm always spoiling things for myself.
 

Jandau

Smug Platypus
Dec 19, 2008
5,034
0
0
Giest4life said:
I have never seen anyone kill off main characters with the casual indifference of George R. R. Martin. Although not my favorite author, I enjoy his visceral writing style. It's not surprising when one considers the fact that the Martin, a medieval historian, takes great inspiration from the English War of the Roses. Life was cheap in the middle ages--and still is--and lords and legends were killed off just as quickly as they emerged.

Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
No, he doesn't. At least not for more than 5 minutes.
 

nyysjan

New member
Mar 12, 2010
231
0
0
Nothing immature about stopping watching a show or reading a book if you don't like the plot.
I stop reading books for lot of reasons, i don't like characters, plot twists seem stupid, jokes are horrible, why would death of the characters i was interested in be of the table?
 

The Wooster

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
I've never stopped watching a show just because they killed a character I like. Usually it's because there was a decline in quality after a character death, like in Misfits. The dynamic having been altered so thoroughly as to make it no longer interesting.

That said, I did stop giving a shit about The Walking Dead (My entire social circle is obsessed so I couldn't stop) after they prematurely and stupidly killed one of the most important characters from the comics. The Ron Weasley to Rick's Harry Potter, basically. I was fine with the other little diversions from the continuity, but there was no way the show could keep following the established story without this guy. That's totally fine, but I wanted to watch The Walking Dead, and it couldn't be that any more.

I guess it helped that the show turned to shit shortly after anyway, but that was still a huge deal-breaker for me.
 

Saltyk

Sane among the insane.
Sep 12, 2010
16,755
0
0
nyysjan said:
Nothing immature about stopping watching a show or reading a book if you don't like the plot.
I stop reading books for lot of reasons, i don't like characters, plot twists seem stupid, jokes are horrible, why would death of the characters i was interested in be of the table?
My rule of thumb for any book is that if it doesn't catch my interest within three chapters, I stop reading it. TV shows also tend to get three episodes unless the first one is really bad. I'll give a movie 30 minutes.
 

The Wooster

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
Mcoffey said:
I've never stopped watching a show just because they killed a character I like. Usually it's because there was a decline in quality after a character death, like in Misfits. The dynamic having been altered so thoroughly as to make it no longer interesting.

That said, I did stop giving a shit about The Walking Dead (My entire social circle is obsessed so I couldn't stop) after they prematurely and stupidly killed one of the most important characters from the comics. The Ron Weasley to Rick's Harry Potter, basically. I was fine with the other little diversions from the continuity, but there was no way the show could keep following the established story without this guy. That's totally fine, but I wanted to watch The Walking Dead, and it couldn't be that any more.

I guess it helped that the show turned to shit shortly after anyway, but that was still a huge deal-breaker for me.
Who did they kill off that ruined Walking Dead for you? I'm really racking my brain trying to think who hasn't out lived their comic counter part and I'm not coming up with a whole lot. Admittedly it's been a while since I've read the comics.

was it Dale?
 

The Wooster

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
Super Not Cosmo said:
Mcoffey said:
I've never stopped watching a show just because they killed a character I like. Usually it's because there was a decline in quality after a character death, like in Misfits. The dynamic having been altered so thoroughly as to make it no longer interesting.

That said, I did stop giving a shit about The Walking Dead (My entire social circle is obsessed so I couldn't stop) after they prematurely and stupidly killed one of the most important characters from the comics. The Ron Weasley to Rick's Harry Potter, basically. I was fine with the other little diversions from the continuity, but there was no way the show could keep following the established story without this guy. That's totally fine, but I wanted to watch The Walking Dead, and it couldn't be that any more.

I guess it helped that the show turned to shit shortly after anyway, but that was still a huge deal-breaker for me.
Who did they kill off that ruined Walking Dead for you? I'm really racking my brain trying to think who hasn't out lived their comic counter part and I'm not coming up with a whole lot. Admittedly it's been a while since I've read the comics.
Dale. He was pretty much the second most important character after Rick. Dealing with his death in the comics took almost two issues, and really messed with Rick and Andrea's head. In the show, he's pretty casually killed off on the farm with a "Sorry brother".
 

Ukomba

New member
Oct 14, 2010
1,528
0
0
The constant killing off of main characters in the book series made it really hard to get invested into. The books are good, but I really don't see why people put them at the top of best of lists, George R.R. Martin is barely in the top 10 authors.

Also, just wait till they get to the end of 'A Dance with Dragons'.
 

Arrogancy

New member
Jun 9, 2009
1,277
0
0
Giest4life said:
Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
I'd argue it's a bit vague, and, considering certain other things going on, I don't think we can say that's certainly the case until the next book.
 

Ukomba

New member
Oct 14, 2010
1,528
0
0
Arrogancy said:
Giest4life said:
Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
I'd argue it's a bit vague, and, considering certain other things going on, I don't think we can say that's certainly the case until the next book.
That's true, but it's set up to the point that it seems only magic can prevent it...

But there are after death options, undead and wolf possession. He can die and still be in the story ,like a certain female character.
 

Nielas

New member
Dec 5, 2011
253
0
0
Mcoffey said:
Super Not Cosmo said:
Who did they kill off that ruined Walking Dead for you? I'm really racking my brain trying to think who hasn't out lived their comic counter part and I'm not coming up with a whole lot. Admittedly it's been a while since I've read the comics.
Dale. He was pretty much the second most important character after Rick. Dealing with his death in the comics took almost two issues, and really messed with Rick and Andrea's head. In the show, he's pretty casually killed off on the farm with a "Sorry brother".
That decision was caused by the fact that the actor wanted out of the show so they killed him off early.
 

Sidmen

New member
Jul 3, 2012
180
0
0
Wait. People liked the King in the North? Why? He was pretty much a non-entity for me, he and his half-brother were pretty much the least interesting characters. Was it because he had a pretty wife and was trying to do things for less-dickish reasons?
 

Griffolion

New member
Aug 18, 2009
2,207
0
0
Giest4life said:
Actually, the last we see is Jon Snow being stabbed by his fellow Nights Watch members for the sake of the Nights Watch. There is no definitive proof he is dead yet until GRRM writes the next one. it may sound like wishful thinking, but with the way GRRM is in his writing, don't write the possibility out until more definitive stuff comes to be.
 

Azahul

New member
Apr 16, 2011
419
0
0
Ukomba said:
Arrogancy said:
Giest4life said:
Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
I'd argue it's a bit vague, and, considering certain other things going on, I don't think we can say that's certainly the case until the next book.
That's true, but it's set up to the point that it seems only magic can prevent it...

But there are after death options, undead and wolf possession. He can die and still be in the story ,like a certain female character.
If there's one terrible habit Martin got into since... well, basically since the end of the first book, it's setting up scenarios where it appears certain that a character is dead, and then revealing they're still alive. In contrary to the suspense supposedly created by his willingness to kill off any of the characters, it actually appears more like he's just teasing people with the threat of death and gets on my nerves. Unless a character is killed off explicitly in full view "on screen", so to speak, I'm going to be sitting and waiting for Martin to try and do yet another of his umpteen "gotcha" revelations where he reveals, to absolutely no surprise anymore, that the character he implied was dead was not actually dead.

What I'm saying is that there is so much precedence of Martin doing exactly this kind of thing and the characters surviving that it seems highly unlikely that he'll have killed off Snow.
 

Ukomba

New member
Oct 14, 2010
1,528
0
0
Sidney Buit said:
Wait. People liked the King in the North? Why? He was pretty much a non-entity for me, he and his half-brother were pretty much the least interesting characters. Was it because he had a pretty wife and was trying to do things for less-dickish reasons?
People don't have to like a character to be surprised by their death. Man characters tend not to die that often. Not that it should surprise anyone at this point. George Martin LOVES to kill of characters. I expect, by the last book in the series (if he ever finishes it), none of the original cast of characters will be left alive and we'll be following characters introduced in books 3+.
 

The Wooster

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
Nielas said:
Mcoffey said:
Super Not Cosmo said:
Who did they kill off that ruined Walking Dead for you? I'm really racking my brain trying to think who hasn't out lived their comic counter part and I'm not coming up with a whole lot. Admittedly it's been a while since I've read the comics.
Dale. He was pretty much the second most important character after Rick. Dealing with his death in the comics took almost two issues, and really messed with Rick and Andrea's head. In the show, he's pretty casually killed off on the farm with a "Sorry brother".
That decision was caused by the fact that the actor wanted out of the show so they killed him off early.
Was that it? I was under the impression there were budget cuts and they couldn't afford to keep him, which was also why they were on that damn farm the entire season.

EDIT: Ah, it looks like it was a bit of both. There was a budget cut around when they fired Frank Darabont, which lead to him wanting out of his contract.
 

Ryan Hughes

New member
Jul 10, 2012
557
0
0
Well, to be fair, people act like George RR Martin invented many things. . .

Do not get me wrong, I do like the novels, as a whole, but they are largely inspired by Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Water Margin, two great classics of Chinese literature. In short, he is not as surprising and original as some people make him out to be.
 

Ukomba

New member
Oct 14, 2010
1,528
0
0
Azahul said:
Ukomba said:
Arrogancy said:
Giest4life said:
Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
I'd argue it's a bit vague, and, considering certain other things going on, I don't think we can say that's certainly the case until the next book.
That's true, but it's set up to the point that it seems only magic can prevent it...

But there are after death options, undead and wolf possession. He can die and still be in the story ,like a certain female character.
If there's one terrible habit Martin got into since... well, basically since the end of the first book, it's setting up scenarios where it appears certain that a character is dead, and then revealing they're still alive. In contrary to the suspense supposedly created by his willingness to kill off any of the characters, it actually appears more like he's just teasing people with the threat of death and gets on my nerves. Unless a character is killed off explicitly in full view "on screen", so to speak, I'm going to be sitting and waiting for Martin to try and do yet another of his umpteen "gotcha" revelations where he reveals, to absolutely no surprise anymore, that the character he implied was dead was not actually dead.

What I'm saying is that there is so much precedence of Martin doing exactly this kind of thing and the characters surviving that it seems highly unlikely that he'll have killed off Snow.
Those 'oops, not really dead' reveals never got me because they never set up well enough that those characters were in danger. The deaths at that time would also have been a pointless waist of characters and the end of the story line would have been just too abrupt. Snow is different. He's taken a serious wound, he's unlikely to get assistance in time, even if he does get assistance there's no healing magic, and there's no looming story line only he can continue. Bran, on the other hand, wont die until Martin finishes enough of the Weirwood plot line that his death won't feel like a dangling plot thread.
 

Nuxxy

New member
Feb 3, 2011
160
0
0
If GRRM really want to shock me, have a 'good' character kill Littlefinger without him seeing it coming.
 

Saviordd1

New member
Jan 2, 2011
2,455
0
0
Giest4life said:
I have never seen anyone kill off main characters with the casual indifference of George R. R. Martin. Although not my favorite author, I enjoy his visceral writing style. It's not surprising when one considers the fact that the Martin, a medieval historian, takes great inspiration from the English War of the Roses. Life was cheap in the middle ages--and still is--and lords and legends were killed off just as quickly as they emerged.

Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
This is not a confirmed death. Just sayin.

OT: I don't know, the big part is a lot of shows just kill people because they like to kill people. There does come a time when audience apathy kicks in. (The red wedding is getting close for a lot of people. If Tyrion and Danerys die I don't think anyone would watch the show anymore)
 

Azahul

New member
Apr 16, 2011
419
0
0
Ukomba said:
Azahul said:
Ukomba said:
Arrogancy said:
Giest4life said:
Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
I'd argue it's a bit vague, and, considering certain other things going on, I don't think we can say that's certainly the case until the next book.
That's true, but it's set up to the point that it seems only magic can prevent it...

But there are after death options, undead and wolf possession. He can die and still be in the story ,like a certain female character.
If there's one terrible habit Martin got into since... well, basically since the end of the first book, it's setting up scenarios where it appears certain that a character is dead, and then revealing they're still alive. In contrary to the suspense supposedly created by his willingness to kill off any of the characters, it actually appears more like he's just teasing people with the threat of death and gets on my nerves. Unless a character is killed off explicitly in full view "on screen", so to speak, I'm going to be sitting and waiting for Martin to try and do yet another of his umpteen "gotcha" revelations where he reveals, to absolutely no surprise anymore, that the character he implied was dead was not actually dead.

What I'm saying is that there is so much precedence of Martin doing exactly this kind of thing and the characters surviving that it seems highly unlikely that he'll have killed off Snow.
Those 'oops, not really dead' reveals never got me because they never set up well enough that those characters were in danger. The deaths at that time would also have been a pointless waist of characters and the end of the story line would have been just too abrupt. Snow is different. He's taken a serious wound, he's unlikely to get assistance in time, even if he does get assistance there's no healing magic, and there's no looming story line only he can continue. Bran, on the other hand, wont die until Martin finishes enough of the Weirwood plot line that his death won't feel like a dangling plot thread.
The "oops, not really dead" reveals never got me either. Which is why it is now incredibly hard for me to take the threat to John Snow seriously. Besides, I disagree about the absence of a looming story line that only he can continue. There's a solid amount of evidence to support the theory that he is the son of Lyanna Stark and Rhaegar Targaryen, and thus he could even be a potential rider for one of Daenerys's dragons.

Regardless, I'll treat rumours of Jon Snow's death with great skepticism. If Martin didn't want me to do this, he shouldn't have had so many damned fake deaths before. Since the series has had repeated instances of fake skulls/corpses being presented as proof of death, when the characters are still living, it's going to be exceptionally hard to convince me that the man is dead without a chapter in which Jon dies from his own perspective (possibly remembering it after becoming part of Ghost?). All the fake deaths do serious harm to any emotional weight he wants to deliver by killing off a character, which is why I find his habit of doing them so distasteful.
 

Amaror

New member
Apr 15, 2011
1,509
0
0
Ukomba said:
Arrogancy said:
Giest4life said:
Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
I'd argue it's a bit vague, and, considering certain other things going on, I don't think we can say that's certainly the case until the next book.
That's true, but it's set up to the point that it seems only magic can prevent it...

But there are after death options, undead and wolf possession. He can die and still be in the story ,like a certain female character.
I didn't really get that impression
He's stabbed multiple times. It's not easy to survive but certainly managable. Considering one character came back after getting their throad slit.
Besides he sees his wound "boiling" and we know Melisandre is near and we know that red priests do know magic, so...
[/spoilers]
 

The Wooster

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
Giest4life said:
I have never seen anyone kill off main characters with the casual indifference of George R. R. Martin. Although not my favorite author, I enjoy his visceral writing style. It's not surprising when one considers the fact that the Martin, a medieval historian, takes great inspiration from the English War of the Roses. Life was cheap in the middle ages--and still is--and lords and legends were killed off just as quickly as they emerged.

Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
That's a development from the 5th book. Maybe you should edit your post.
 

Falseprophet

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,381
0
0
Giest4life said:
I have never seen anyone kill off main characters with the casual indifference of George R. R. Martin.
I don't really consider the man who had to write the Red Wedding chapter last because he was too emotionally distraught, then cried over the characters he'd just killed, "casually indifferent".
 

Mausthemighty

New member
Aug 3, 2011
163
0
0
Jandau said:
Giest4life said:
I have never seen anyone kill off main characters with the casual indifference of George R. R. Martin. Although not my favorite author, I enjoy his visceral writing style. It's not surprising when one considers the fact that the Martin, a medieval historian, takes great inspiration from the English War of the Roses. Life was cheap in the middle ages--and still is--and lords and legends were killed off just as quickly as they emerged.

Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
No, he doesn't. At least not for more than 5 minutes.
I don't think he died. Yes he got a few backstabs and get's a fade out(suggesting death) but that doesn't mean he really died. You can't live without a head, but getting stabbed doesn't mean insta-death
But you'll never know with Georgie!
 

Headsprouter

Monster Befriender
Legacy
Oct 14, 2020
8,662
3
13
Yeah, this annoyed me at one point in Deadman Wonderland, they go and introduce some really awesome, threatening villains, about to pulverise the protagonist and friends, so they close in, all threatening and formidable...

...only to be killed instantly. So much for the big introduction.
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
So you stop watching because of good writing?
That's what seems to be the case from what I've seen of the reaction to Game of Throne's red wedding or whatever it was.
 

Ishal

New member
Oct 30, 2012
1,177
0
0
He didn't invent death, he just uses it way more than other popular writers seem to. It's in the name of trope subversion. No main character with a +10 morality shield is going to survive in ASOIF if they screw up and do something stupid.
 

Random berk

New member
Sep 1, 2010
9,636
0
0
Giest4life said:
I have never seen anyone kill off main characters with the casual indifference of George R. R. Martin. Although not my favorite author, I enjoy his visceral writing style. It's not surprising when one considers the fact that the Martin, a medieval historian, takes great inspiration from the English War of the Roses. Life was cheap in the middle ages--and still is--and lords and legends were killed off just as quickly as they emerged.

Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
Crap! I had just one more book to go and thought I was ahead of you!
 

LaoJim

New member
Aug 24, 2013
555
0
0
Giest4life said:
I have never seen anyone kill off main characters with the casual indifference of George R. R. Martin. Although not my favorite author, I enjoy his visceral writing style. It's not surprising when one considers the fact that the Martin, a medieval historian, takes great inspiration from the English War of the Roses. Life was cheap in the middle ages--and still is--and lords and legends were killed off just as quickly as they emerged.

Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
Yes but
Death's not what it once was.
 

taciturnCandid

New member
Dec 1, 2010
363
0
0
This is pretty much what happens every few months in homestuck. That comic could be summed up as Everyone Dies: the comic.

Also I did actually quit a few books because a character I liked died. Song of Fire and Ice I just lost interest in.
 

Ulquiorra4sama

Saviour In the Clockwork
Feb 2, 2010
1,786
0
0
If anything the Red Wedding made me even more determined to follow the show just to see how the heck this is all going to resolve itself. Although that might be a bit too over-optimistic of me.

Funny how the Red Wedding and the end of Season 3 was what made me want to start reading the books. Haven't caught up with the show yet, but honestly that twist made me not want to wait to see what happens next.
 

Pyrian

Hat Man
Legacy
Apr 21, 2020
1,399
8
13
San Diego, CA
Country
US
Gender
Male
Giest4life said:
I have never seen anyone kill off main characters with the casual indifference of George R. R. Martin.
Haven't read much Black Company by Glen Cook, I imagine? Soldier's Live must've been titled ironically.
 

lucky_sharm

New member
Aug 27, 2009
846
0
0
I hate when people say that half of the cast was killed off when only two major characters were killed.

And to say nothing of the fact that Catelyn was brought back from the dead...
 

NinjaDeathSlap

Leaf on the wind
Feb 20, 2011
4,474
0
0
Griffolion said:
Giest4life said:
Actually, the last we see is Jon Snow being stabbed by his fellow Nights Watch members for the sake of the Nights Watch. There is no definitive proof he is dead yet until GRRM writes the next one. it may sound like wishful thinking, but with the way GRRM is in his writing, don't write the possibility out until more definitive stuff comes to be.
I'd actually say, looking at the way GRRM tends to write, that's it's far more likely Jon is still alive by some description. When an important character dies, GRRM tends not to fuck about. BAM! There, you just saw him/her get brutally murdered right in front of you. When he cuts away at a crucial moment, it's usually because something else happens that he doesn't want shown until later, like with Brienne. Her death was looking fairly certain in A Feast for Crows, but then she shows up again in A Dance With Dragons.
 

Kargathia

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,657
0
0
Ukomba said:
Azahul said:
Ukomba said:
Arrogancy said:
Giest4life said:
Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
I'd argue it's a bit vague, and, considering certain other things going on, I don't think we can say that's certainly the case until the next book.
That's true, but it's set up to the point that it seems only magic can prevent it...

But there are after death options, undead and wolf possession. He can die and still be in the story ,like a certain female character.
If there's one terrible habit Martin got into since... well, basically since the end of the first book, it's setting up scenarios where it appears certain that a character is dead, and then revealing they're still alive. In contrary to the suspense supposedly created by his willingness to kill off any of the characters, it actually appears more like he's just teasing people with the threat of death and gets on my nerves. Unless a character is killed off explicitly in full view "on screen", so to speak, I'm going to be sitting and waiting for Martin to try and do yet another of his umpteen "gotcha" revelations where he reveals, to absolutely no surprise anymore, that the character he implied was dead was not actually dead.

What I'm saying is that there is so much precedence of Martin doing exactly this kind of thing and the characters surviving that it seems highly unlikely that he'll have killed off Snow.
Those 'oops, not really dead' reveals never got me because they never set up well enough that those characters were in danger. The deaths at that time would also have been a pointless waist of characters and the end of the story line would have been just too abrupt. Snow is different. He's taken a serious wound, he's unlikely to get assistance in time, even if he does get assistance there's no healing magic, and there's no looming story line only he can continue. Bran, on the other hand, wont die until Martin finishes enough of the Weirwood plot line that his death won't feel like a dangling plot thread.
So far all of the main characters in GoT dying did so whenever their death was best placed to act as a catalyst for a whole new magnitude of clusterfuck.

Jon's death creates a character and power vacuum at the wall, just when he was pretty much the only one preventing an all-out clash between the wildlings, the watch, and Stannis' retinue - white walkers thrown in for additional southbound shit flavour.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised by a miraculous revive, but one thing is certain: a shitstorm is brewing up there, and it's gonna be big.
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
Given that last week was about FREE! I thought she was talking about Attack on Titan for a second there...

I swear if Sasha gets it i'm gonna kick off!

Still, I don't get as mad as I used to when characters die... is that maturity kicking in or is life just slowly beating down?...

I gotta go cry for abit, excuse me...
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
I'm not gonna lie, I don't see the attraction to Game of Thrones. I had to stop reading once I realized the story wasn't going anywhere and Martin basically admitted he just makes it up as he goes along. I don't know, it's alright, just not excellent.

The only thing I don't understand is why people celebrate him as gritty and realistic just because he kills off tons of people. Some of the things that happen feel random and decidedly unrealistic. Like when Dani sleeps with her hand maiden. Martin never suggested she was bisexual, it's almost never brought up again, and he doesn't use it to speculate on homosexuality in the middle ages, which actually would be interesting character development. It was just fanservice. Fanservice that involved a fourteen year old girl. I think my breaking point was following Brianne through two books on a wild goose chase, only to have her turn around and go back to the guy who sent her on her quest in the first place. He could cut out that entire section, and it wouldn't hurt the books at all.
 

cricket chirps

New member
Apr 15, 2009
467
0
0
._. so I see this joke come up a lot around the internet "I quit" after watching the season finale.
I don't get why everyone is joking about it.

The whole season they were ramping up excitement about attacking Casterly Rock to get at Tywin Lannister. I genuinely wanted to see that and was interested in what it would do for the plot for all the characters.

Then they did what they did, and basically just destroyed a perfect bell curve of excitement. I'm not quitting the show but I can completely understand why someone would. I am not going to care about anything that happens between those two families now :/ because to me, it won't be more interesting than seeing a strong villain role character get his home taken right from under his nose.

I felt that what happened actually was bad writing/story telling, because it easily stopped some of its audience from caring about a large portion of the story's plot.

Am I really in the minority there?
 

Requia

New member
Apr 4, 2013
703
0
0
Pyrian said:
Giest4life said:
I have never seen anyone kill off main characters with the casual indifference of George R. R. Martin.
Haven't read much Black Company by Glen Cook, I imagine? Soldier's Live must've been titled ironically.
Eh, I'm 4 books in and its not been too bad. The people who die are mostly people who are well established as important to the characters/political scene, but almost never characters with a lot of screen time,

I can only think of three that can be considered main characters, that one innkeeper from book 2 whose name escapes me, Raven, and Old Man Fish (who I'm stretching with).

It's actually pretty masterful at having a ton of death without alienating audiences.
 

shiajun

New member
Jun 12, 2008
578
0
0
Disclaimer: I have never read or watched any Game of Thrones material. My opinions are referenced to abstract concepts. I don't I will get ino GoT either, since people not shutting up about it have just made me distance myself out of spite. Just like that top-of-the-chart song that plays everywhere you go until it's carved ino your ears.

Anyway. I have never understand this argument that killing of characters is good writing by itself. Good writing doesn't actually have to have an deaths at all. If fact, if the deaths serve no allegorical or deep literary recourse the death is merely shock value, and it swings all the way opposite from good writing. Proper authors know that every single word, grammatical structure or event in the plot must carry weight, even if it's not apparent at first hand an only as a part of a unifying theme or purpose. For TV shows, Lost killed of a lot of main characters, but only the first few deaths had any meaning and greater relevance. All there rest seemed just for the LOLs and it's part of the ever diminishing quality that happened in that show.
 

SonicWaffle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,019
0
0
Giest4life said:
I have never seen anyone kill off main characters with the casual indifference of George R. R. Martin. Although not my favorite author, I enjoy his visceral writing style. It's not surprising when one considers the fact that the Martin, a medieval historian, takes great inspiration from the English War of the Roses. Life was cheap in the middle ages--and still is--and lords and legends were killed off just as quickly as they emerged.

Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
Eh, I'll believe it when I see it. The text never actually confirms the death.
 

Ukomba

New member
Oct 14, 2010
1,528
0
0
Kargathia said:
Ukomba said:
Azahul said:
Ukomba said:
Arrogancy said:
Giest4life said:
Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
I'd argue it's a bit vague, and, considering certain other things going on, I don't think we can say that's certainly the case until the next book.
That's true, but it's set up to the point that it seems only magic can prevent it...

But there are after death options, undead and wolf possession. He can die and still be in the story ,like a certain female character.
If there's one terrible habit Martin got into since... well, basically since the end of the first book, it's setting up scenarios where it appears certain that a character is dead, and then revealing they're still alive. In contrary to the suspense supposedly created by his willingness to kill off any of the characters, it actually appears more like he's just teasing people with the threat of death and gets on my nerves. Unless a character is killed off explicitly in full view "on screen", so to speak, I'm going to be sitting and waiting for Martin to try and do yet another of his umpteen "gotcha" revelations where he reveals, to absolutely no surprise anymore, that the character he implied was dead was not actually dead.

What I'm saying is that there is so much precedence of Martin doing exactly this kind of thing and the characters surviving that it seems highly unlikely that he'll have killed off Snow.
Those 'oops, not really dead' reveals never got me because they never set up well enough that those characters were in danger. The deaths at that time would also have been a pointless waist of characters and the end of the story line would have been just too abrupt. Snow is different. He's taken a serious wound, he's unlikely to get assistance in time, even if he does get assistance there's no healing magic, and there's no looming story line only he can continue. Bran, on the other hand, wont die until Martin finishes enough of the Weirwood plot line that his death won't feel like a dangling plot thread.
So far all of the main characters in GoT dying did so whenever their death was best placed to act as a catalyst for a whole new magnitude of clusterfuck.

Jon's death creates a character and power vacuum at the wall, just when he was pretty much the only one preventing an all-out clash between the wildlings, the watch, and Stannis' retinue - white walkers thrown in for additional southbound shit flavour.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised by a miraculous revive, but one thing is certain: a shitstorm is brewing up there, and it's gonna be big.
I thought that was going to be THE WHOLE POINT of the book series, but only now is anything happening there. It would be like if you follow Harry Potter to hogwarts, finding out he's a wizard, about the school, and about Voldemort then following Dudley, Serious, and Lucious around for the next three books, with only the occasional chapter for what Harry's up to. Martin's pacing is terrible. He keeps switching to characters I don't care about, doing things I don't care about.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
PunkRex said:
Given that last week was about FREE! I thought she was talking about Attack on Titan for a second there...

I swear if Sasha gets it i'm gonna kick off!

Still, I don't get as mad as I used to when characters die... is that maturity kicking in or is life just slowly beating down?...

I gotta go cry for abit, excuse me...
I see I'm not the only one who saw the ANIME tag underneath to day's strip, and not a GAME OF THRONES tag. I was wondering what show they were talking about, and Attack on Titan is a likely choice. As for Game of Thrones, all the talk I've read about it (that aren't hiding in the increasingly funny spoiler warnings) points out how there's no point in liking a character who has any morality at all if you just know they're going to eat it soon. I know just the trope for this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarknessInducedAudienceApathy

I apologize in advance if I now ruined your productivity today.
 

Robot Number V

New member
May 15, 2012
657
0
0
Giest4life said:
I have never seen anyone kill off main characters with the casual indifference of George R. R. Martin. Although not my favorite author, I enjoy his visceral writing style. It's not surprising when one considers the fact that the Martin, a medieval historian, takes great inspiration from the English War of the Roses. Life was cheap in the middle ages--and still is--and lords and legends were killed off just as quickly as they emerged.

Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
Well, speaking of the FIFTH BOOK WHICH CONTAINS PLOT DETAILS PROBABLY ABOUT 3 SEASONS AHEAD OF WHERE THE SHOW IS.....
*ahem*
I don't think he did. Well, maybe he did, but he'll still be back. I don't have any real evidence other then the fact that no character has ever (permanently) died in their own chapter. Personally, I think he'll either live through it, or Mellisandre (Millisandre?) will bring him back...Thus leaving him free to ignore his vows. This would fit with Jon's story running in parallel with Dany's, seeing as they would both leave their respective "kingdoms" behind.

Also, you only mentioned 4 books in your post, even though the spoiler is from the fifth one. So people who have actually read only the first 4 will be kind of screwed over. Please edit your post.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,504
1,255
118
Country
United Kingdom
Giest4life said:
Jon Snow bites the dust
That's very debatable! He's at the wall with both a Woods Witch (Morna White Mask) and a Red Priestess, after all. ;)
 

nyysjan

New member
Mar 12, 2010
231
0
0
shiajun said:
Disclaimer: I have never read or watched any Game of Thrones material. My opinions are referenced to abstract concepts. I don't I will get ino GoT either, since people not shutting up about it have just made me distance myself out of spite. Just like that top-of-the-chart song that plays everywhere you go until it's carved ino your ears.

Anyway. I have never understand this argument that killing of characters is good writing by itself. Good writing doesn't actually have to have an deaths at all. If fact, if the deaths serve no allegorical or deep literary recourse the death is merely shock value, and it swings all the way opposite from good writing. Proper authors know that every single word, grammatical structure or event in the plot must carry weight, even if it's not apparent at first hand an only as a part of a unifying theme or purpose. For TV shows, Lost killed of a lot of main characters, but only the first few deaths had any meaning and greater relevance. All there rest seemed just for the LOLs and it's part of the ever diminishing quality that happened in that show.
So with you, nothing wrong with dying characters, and i do love a good tragedy, but the death needs to serve a purpose.
I have tried to read one of the books, did not get far because i just could not get interested with the characters (might try again sometime during winter if i got time), so i can't say how well GRRM does character deaths, but if he uses lots of "fake" deaths, i can't say i'm going to be very optimistic about them when i start trying to read the series again.

Plus i tend to hate the several plotlines going on at same time thing, it almost never really works because you are constantly thrown of one way or the other and never get to really into the characters, or are forced to read about people you could not care less about, just so you have a clue what is going on while reading about those you do care (are interested) about.
 

gamegod25

New member
Jul 10, 2008
863
0
0
Death and killing off characters, especially main ones, in a story is one of those double edged swords. Used well it can make for gripping twists and shock the reader, but on the other hand its also killing off all that characters growth and potential for later. And when done en masse it's even more dangerous because unless the writer can give suitable replacements then readers are left with characters they have no investment in and may stop caring about the series entirely. If you want to see how to do it wrong just look at the comic book industry.
 

irmasterlol

New member
Apr 11, 2012
178
0
0
I just bothers me when an engaging character is killed before there's any meaningful conclusion to their arc. I get that it's "realistic" because real life doesn't wait for character arcs to finish either, but if I wanted real life I would go outside and/or talk to people, which frankly sounds like a nightmare.
 

Kargathia

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,657
0
0
Ukomba said:
Kargathia said:
Ukomba said:
Azahul said:
Ukomba said:
Arrogancy said:
Giest4life said:
Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
I'd argue it's a bit vague, and, considering certain other things going on, I don't think we can say that's certainly the case until the next book.
That's true, but it's set up to the point that it seems only magic can prevent it...

But there are after death options, undead and wolf possession. He can die and still be in the story ,like a certain female character.
If there's one terrible habit Martin got into since... well, basically since the end of the first book, it's setting up scenarios where it appears certain that a character is dead, and then revealing they're still alive. In contrary to the suspense supposedly created by his willingness to kill off any of the characters, it actually appears more like he's just teasing people with the threat of death and gets on my nerves. Unless a character is killed off explicitly in full view "on screen", so to speak, I'm going to be sitting and waiting for Martin to try and do yet another of his umpteen "gotcha" revelations where he reveals, to absolutely no surprise anymore, that the character he implied was dead was not actually dead.

What I'm saying is that there is so much precedence of Martin doing exactly this kind of thing and the characters surviving that it seems highly unlikely that he'll have killed off Snow.
Those 'oops, not really dead' reveals never got me because they never set up well enough that those characters were in danger. The deaths at that time would also have been a pointless waist of characters and the end of the story line would have been just too abrupt. Snow is different. He's taken a serious wound, he's unlikely to get assistance in time, even if he does get assistance there's no healing magic, and there's no looming story line only he can continue. Bran, on the other hand, wont die until Martin finishes enough of the Weirwood plot line that his death won't feel like a dangling plot thread.
So far all of the main characters in GoT dying did so whenever their death was best placed to act as a catalyst for a whole new magnitude of clusterfuck.

Jon's death creates a character and power vacuum at the wall, just when he was pretty much the only one preventing an all-out clash between the wildlings, the watch, and Stannis' retinue - white walkers thrown in for additional southbound shit flavour.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised by a miraculous revive, but one thing is certain: a shitstorm is brewing up there, and it's gonna be big.
I thought that was going to be THE WHOLE POINT of the book series, but only now is anything happening there. It would be like if you follow Harry Potter to hogwarts, finding out he's a wizard, about the school, and about Voldemort then following Dudley, Serious, and Lucious around for the next three books, with only the occasional chapter for what Harry's up to. Martin's pacing is terrible. He keeps switching to characters I don't care about, doing things I don't care about.
You might want to adjust your preconception about the books slightly. The Harry Potter books tell a contained story, and finish when the story is done. Writing additional books after the seventh would diminish the story, as everything is neatly tied up.

A better comparison would be a few of the more detailed chronicles of the Middle Ages. It has their roots in older civilisations (the Roman empire vs. the Targaryen dynasty), constant strife and conflict, and inevitably will evolve beyond swords and spears as primary methods of conflict resolution, without there ever being a shortage of conflicts in need of resolution.

Harry Potter has a protagonist. The closest thing Game of Thrones has to a protagonist is the Land of Westeros.

Of course, it's entirely conceivable you just want an ending, or even an happy ending. Personally I just love the sense of reading history in motion, as it continually flows from one conflict to another.

Come to think of it: it's like the MMO of books.
 

Ukomba

New member
Oct 14, 2010
1,528
0
0
Kargathia said:
Ukomba said:
Kargathia said:
Ukomba said:
Azahul said:
Ukomba said:
Arrogancy said:
Giest4life said:
Also, having read 4 of his books, I didn't really think that he could "shock" me anymore, boy was I wrong--those who have read the book know what I am talking about.

Jon Snow bites the dust
I'd argue it's a bit vague, and, considering certain other things going on, I don't think we can say that's certainly the case until the next book.
That's true, but it's set up to the point that it seems only magic can prevent it...

But there are after death options, undead and wolf possession. He can die and still be in the story ,like a certain female character.
If there's one terrible habit Martin got into since... well, basically since the end of the first book, it's setting up scenarios where it appears certain that a character is dead, and then revealing they're still alive. In contrary to the suspense supposedly created by his willingness to kill off any of the characters, it actually appears more like he's just teasing people with the threat of death and gets on my nerves. Unless a character is killed off explicitly in full view "on screen", so to speak, I'm going to be sitting and waiting for Martin to try and do yet another of his umpteen "gotcha" revelations where he reveals, to absolutely no surprise anymore, that the character he implied was dead was not actually dead.

What I'm saying is that there is so much precedence of Martin doing exactly this kind of thing and the characters surviving that it seems highly unlikely that he'll have killed off Snow.
Those 'oops, not really dead' reveals never got me because they never set up well enough that those characters were in danger. The deaths at that time would also have been a pointless waist of characters and the end of the story line would have been just too abrupt. Snow is different. He's taken a serious wound, he's unlikely to get assistance in time, even if he does get assistance there's no healing magic, and there's no looming story line only he can continue. Bran, on the other hand, wont die until Martin finishes enough of the Weirwood plot line that his death won't feel like a dangling plot thread.
So far all of the main characters in GoT dying did so whenever their death was best placed to act as a catalyst for a whole new magnitude of clusterfuck.

Jon's death creates a character and power vacuum at the wall, just when he was pretty much the only one preventing an all-out clash between the wildlings, the watch, and Stannis' retinue - white walkers thrown in for additional southbound shit flavour.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised by a miraculous revive, but one thing is certain: a shitstorm is brewing up there, and it's gonna be big.
I thought that was going to be THE WHOLE POINT of the book series, but only now is anything happening there. It would be like if you follow Harry Potter to hogwarts, finding out he's a wizard, about the school, and about Voldemort then following Dudley, Serious, and Lucious around for the next three books, with only the occasional chapter for what Harry's up to. Martin's pacing is terrible. He keeps switching to characters I don't care about, doing things I don't care about.
You might want to adjust your preconception about the books slightly. The Harry Potter books tell a contained story, and finish when the story is done. Writing additional books after the seventh would diminish the story, as everything is neatly tied up.

A better comparison would be a few of the more detailed chronicles of the Middle Ages. It has their roots in older civilisations (the Roman empire vs. the Targaryen dynasty), constant strife and conflict, and inevitably will evolve beyond swords and spears as primary methods of conflict resolution, without there ever being a shortage of conflicts in need of resolution.

Harry Potter has a protagonist. The closest thing Game of Thrones has to a protagonist is the Land of Westeros.

Of course, it's entirely conceivable you just want an ending, or even an happy ending. Personally I just love the sense of reading history in motion, as it continually flows from one conflict to another.

Come to think of it: it's like the MMO of books.
Not at all. I had no problem following and waiting on the Wheel of Time books. What I want, is a little more focus and better pacing. (Insert Wheel of Time Pacing comment here e_e) 'A Feast for Crows' could have been cut way back and fitted into A Storm of Swords and A Dance with Dragons. I chose Harry Potter as an example because it's well known, perhaps 'The Blade It's Self' would have been a better example, or 'Gardens of the Moon'.

The problem with Westeros being the protagonist is I just don't care about the land. It does feel a little like history in that the real story seems to be happening some time in the future and what we're going through is the back story for that. I know lots of people like it, but I don't hold it in any where near as high regards. I've read a lot of books, and it just seem a middling 'eh'. I really don't get the appeal, I've just read several more entertaining books.
 

WouldYouKindly

New member
Apr 17, 2011
1,431
0
0
It's all about subverting expectations. Fantasy genre, good guys always win. With Martin, there aren't "good" guys. The better people usually lose or do something that cocks things up more than the "evil" option would have.

Falseprophet said:
Giest4life said:
I have never seen anyone kill off main characters with the casual indifference of George R. R. Martin.
I don't really consider the man who had to write the Red Wedding chapter last because he was too emotionally distraught, then cried over the characters he'd just killed, "casually indifferent".
It might be painful personally but it certainly doesn't show through his writing. Most of the deaths are horrible, but there's just a certain somewhat casual tone about how he announces their fates.
 

Eldritch Warlord

New member
Jun 6, 2008
2,901
0
0
The artist needs to work on faces. The characters' eyes are as dead as Robb Stark and as empty as Stannis Baratheon's treasury.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
I wasn't really THAT surprised because the formula has been: "Someone's happy? Kill them off!"
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Irridium said:
canadamus_prime said:
So you stop watching because of good writing?
That's what seems to be the case from what I've seen of the reaction to Game of Throne's red wedding or whatever it was.
Ok I don't watch and/or read Game of Thrones, but that seems incredibly ridiculous.
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
Irridium said:
canadamus_prime said:
So you stop watching because of good writing?
That's what seems to be the case from what I've seen of the reaction to Game of Throne's red wedding or whatever it was.
Ok I don't watch and/or read Game of Thrones, but that seems incredibly ridiculous.
Yeah, it was. I don't read/watch it either, but people seemed to get pretty emotional. I wonder of the people who said it really did stop watching/reading.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Irridium said:
canadamus_prime said:
Irridium said:
canadamus_prime said:
So you stop watching because of good writing?
That's what seems to be the case from what I've seen of the reaction to Game of Throne's red wedding or whatever it was.
Ok I don't watch and/or read Game of Thrones, but that seems incredibly ridiculous.
Yeah, it was. I don't read/watch it either, but people seemed to get pretty emotional. I wonder of the people who said it really did stop watching/reading.
I have no idea, but it's still pretty sad.
 

gyrobot_v1legacy

New member
Apr 30, 2009
768
0
0
With GRRM we have Urobuchi at the side of Japan. Except even Urobuchi can at least give some sense of satisfaction to the heroes.
GRRM I am taking no chances and I can almost see the Boltons or Freys on the Throne laughing on top of the corpses of the Starks.
 

Quantum Glass

New member
Mar 19, 2013
109
0
0
Yeah, this is pretty much half the reason why I've chosen not to touch any of the popular shows right now with a ten foot pole.
 

A-D.

New member
Jan 23, 2008
637
0
0
Death of a maincharacter or several can be good for a story, if its done well. In fact death in general can be a useful plot-device in itself for the story, for example anything with zombies in it, you know as a reader that the moment anybody dies, especially someone close to the protagonist, or it being the protagonist (its a case of "false protagonist"), that this story might just get nasty, it also serves the characters itself, i.e. they take the problem very seriously.

The problem with GRRM and his ideal of "anyone can die" approach to use Game of Thrones, though plenty other authors do this, is that he actually can not kill all of them. Well he can but the problem is he has written himself into a corner as to what he can do from now on. Think about the Red Wedding, just in general, why does it happen now? Why not later? or earlier? Because the dead characters have fulfilled their role in the story GRRM wrote, he basicly has no further use for them being alive.

Every character serves a function, to explain the story and the world to the audience, once that function is fulfilled, you can write them out, usually this is done simply by "dropping them", they just disappear without any real closure to them, which in turn is useful in case you actually might need them again later. Character who are killed off, for real, in detail, "on screen" so to speak, are dead, finished. Their plots are over and their death is the only closure you get. They fulfilled their role and are no longer required or in some cases, their living would actually hamper the story.

Hell in my own story, all characters are this, they are vehicles to the story being told. Except i only have one POV character and even that one is not exempt from being killed, although exempt from actually staying dead. The first arc (30 A4 Pages) deals solely with explaining the whole concept of how the POV character, i.e. the main character is "immortal" and the rules for it, as well as setting up the world and future plot points. Death is rather integral to the resolution of that particular plotpoint though. The rest of the "cast" is either dropped when their part is over or killed when their function is fulfilled.

The only characters in Game of Thrones that are by this point essentially contractually immortal and cant be killed off are Daenerys Targaryen, Jon Snow, Tyrion Lannister and Victarion Greyjoy. The rest are still in a potential line for the chopping block, such as Euron Greyjoy, Stannis Baratheon and Cercei Lannister, which are only still alive because their part isnt done yet.
 

likalaruku

New member
Nov 29, 2008
4,291
0
0
I don't watch TV at all, so I have no idea what series this is referring to, but if a comic or game kills off half the cast, I usually stop at that point too, because I lose the will to give a shit about a cast where anyone could die at any time. That's probably why The Walking Dead game did nothing for me.
 

Rastrelly

%PCName
Mar 19, 2011
602
0
0
I didn't see any benefits in Red Wedding for the story. Deyeneris line gets more and more stupid, all the new characters introduced in Book IV are not interesting. I don't know where will it lead, but in the end of the saga, I'm afraid, I won't care.
 

Red Priest Rezo

New member
Feb 6, 2009
12
0
0
Before reading an explanation under the picture I was pretty sure that this was a retro comic about Transformers G1 Movie.
 

gyrobot_v1legacy

New member
Apr 30, 2009
768
0
0
Rastrelly said:
I didn't see any benefits in Red Wedding for the story. Deyeneris line gets more and more stupid, all the new characters introduced in Book IV are not interesting. I don't know where will it lead, but in the end of the saga, I'm afraid, I won't care.
It shows that any hope of the Starks coming back to power as completely and hopelessly crushed. It is hope dying at that very moment, it is justice dying at that very moment. It is like Serah's death in FFXIII-2, all hope in Westero has died with the Red Wedding and now the only ones left are the tyrants fighting for the iron throne.
 

Lunar Templar

New member
Sep 20, 2009
8,225
0
0
kinda reminds me of the people who stopped watching Gurren Laggen cause Kamina died, >.> he kinda wasn't the main character ya know ....
 

gyrobot_v1legacy

New member
Apr 30, 2009
768
0
0
Lunar Templar said:
kinda reminds me of the people who stopped watching Gurren Laggen cause Kamina died, >.> he kinda wasn't the main character ya know ....
Thing is with GoT, nothing good has happened to the only House in Westeros who aren't immoral dickheads. Red Wedding was a Giant Mallet in the already staked heart of those who want the "good guys" to win.

This isn't like Madoka or TGGL where there is some consolation of hope, the Red Wedding is Winston being walked into Room 101.

The Great JT said:
That's how you play the game of thrones: you win or you die.
Indeed, and if a Stark Wins, you can bet any hope and idealism they have in the world will be so shattered that it will change the code Starks abides by forever to prevent something like the Freys and Boltons from ever happening again
 

LaoJim

New member
Aug 24, 2013
555
0
0
Silvanus said:
That's very debatable! He's at the wall with both a Woods Witch (Morna White Mask) and a Red Priestess, after all.
Not to mention that the prologue tells us that Wargs can project their souls into animals at the point of their death, and Jon's last words are "Ghost"
(It also makes you wonder if sewing Grey Wind's head onto Robbs body was one of Frey's better ideas, though I'm not sure GRRM is going down that road)

Rastrelly said:
I didn't see any benefits in Red Wedding for the story. Deyeneris line gets more and more stupid, all the new characters introduced in Book IV are not interesting. I don't know where will it lead, but in the end of the saga, I'm afraid, I won't care.
It has the benefit of being unexpected. It takes Cat from being an ordinary mother to a vengeful monster. (It's a shame we haven't seen more of her in books 4&5 to move this forward) It makes the point that wars are not always won on the battlefield

A-D. said:
The only characters in Game of Thrones that are by this point essentially contractually immortal and cant be killed off are Daenerys Targaryen, Jon Snow, Tyrion Lannister and Victarion Greyjoy.
This is an interesting list, but I think it's too short. Thing is anyone, including Dany and Jon could die as the last book comes to a close, perhaps making the ultimate sacrifice to save Westeros. Similarly GRRM could kill a major character in a way that makes little narrative sense, just to maintain his reputation. But given that they've still got story arcs to play out I think the following characters should fairly safe.

Arya -> It wouldn't make sense to kill her before she has done at least one assassination that influences the plot.
Bran -> Is on his way to being not only contractually but actually immortal, he will have a role to play.
Theon -> Will be needed to overturn the Kingmoot and get rid of Euron, I don't see this happening until Victarion is back
Sam -> Has to study to be a maester in book 6 and then presumably put that knowledge to work in book 7.
Jamie -> Not in a great position to at the end of book 5, but Cat killing him would be too simple, he still needs a book or two to do something with his new found sense of moral purpose.

A-D. said:
Every character serves a function, to explain the story and the world to the audience, once that function is fulfilled, you can write them out
Yes, what's interesting about GRRM is the amount of time his spends with characters that will eventually be written out. People work on that basis that the more time an author spends on a character the less likely they are to die (at least until the final act). In retrospect it is obvious why Robb doesn't have his own POV chapters in the book and his story is told from other people's perspective. (It'll be interesting to see in GRRM goes back to a Cat point of view in the final books).

To the Escapist saying that Brienne's storyline in book 4 is pointless, (sorry can't seem to find your post to quote it). The Brienne chapters in that book aren't great, they drag on and are nowhere near as good as those in book 3. They are dramatically necessarily though. Brienne needs to have, not only delivered Jamie to KL, but have dedicated her life to finding Sansa. That way when she returns to Cat we can see Cat has become a monster more interested in vengence than the truth.
(There is also something very important revealed while she is at the abbey, which is subtly hidden but most hardcore fans (not me, I missed it all three times I read it) have picked up on, which will no doubt be shown clearly in the next book)

lucky_sharm said:
I hate when people say that half of the cast was killed off when only two major characters were killed.
Yes it's by no means half. In the book another major character dies at about the same time, but I don't think this has happened on the TV show. Since a large proportion of Robb's army and bannermen are killed it does feel like more than two.

Fox12 said:
I'm not gonna lie, I don't see the attraction to Game of Thrones. I had to stop reading once I realized the story wasn't going anywhere and Martin basically admitted he just makes it up as he goes along. I don't know, it's alright, just not excellent.
When did he say this? Of all the epic books and tv series over the years, Martin's seems to be the one that is planned out the most. He's probably added a whole bunch of detail about the War of Five Kings that wasn't in his original outline, but I don't think he's changed anything major about the main character's story arcs (There was supposed to be 5 year gap which he ditched). If anything, for me, the main reason why Books 4 and 5 were weaker than the first three was because of his sticking to his outline even when it wasn't working well dramatically.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
LaoJim said:
Fox12 said:
I'm not gonna lie, I don't see the attraction to Game of Thrones. I had to stop reading once I realized the story wasn't going anywhere and Martin basically admitted he just makes it up as he goes along. I don't know, it's alright, just not excellent.
When did he say this? Of all the epic books and tv series over the years, Martin's seems to be the one that is planned out the most. He's probably added a whole bunch of detail about the War of Five Kings that wasn't in his original outline, but I don't think he's changed anything major about the main character's story arcs (There was supposed to be 5 year gap which he ditched). If anything, for me, the main reason why Books 4 and 5 were weaker than the first three was because of his sticking to his outline even when it wasn't working well dramatically.
He's said this across multiple interviews. When he started writing, he said he had no idea where the story was going. He just wrote, and said he wanted to see where it was going.

On another occasion he said that there are two types of writers. The architects, who plan everything out before hand, and the people who figure it out as they go along. He then said he fell into the second camp. This seems pretty clear to me in the writing, where large sections of writing can pass with little to no plot advancement whatsoever. The aforementioned Brianne chapter are good examples.

Someone asked him in an interview whether he knew how the books were going to end. He said that even though he had a general idea of where he wanted the books to go, he had no idea how on earth he was going to get there. Compare this to J.K. Rowling, who plotted the entire story before hand, and spent seven years figuring out how she wanted to end the story before publishing her first book.

The evidence is in the books as well. It was supposed to be a trilogy, but the series grew and got too big for him, and now it's supposed to be atleast seven books. It takes him longer and longer to release books, and he can't make release goals, which tells me he's trying to figure out how he's actually going to bring the series to a satisfying conclusion. In all seriousness he should have finished two books ago. Tolkien wrote LotR, The Hobbit, thousands of years of history, all the appendices, and several languages in fewer pages than Martin has already written.

This all makes since when you realize it reads like a t.v. show... which is what Martin spent most of his career writing. Every book is like a season. This is why it adapts so well to t.v. Most television writers plan their shows out one season at a time, with few exception, and make the story up as they go along. Lost, The Sopranos, ect. This is what Martin is used to, which is why it carried over to his books.

He's not terrible, he's just not concise or good at planning out his work. There's a lot of filler and empty space. Fun empty space, but empty space none the less. His work is like McDonalds. It tastes good, but it's filled with empty calories.
 

Drummodino

Can't Stop the Bop
Jan 2, 2011
2,862
0
0
Caramel Frappe said:
Silly Erin, you are giving up to soon the series without giving it a chance to see how it turns out.

I mean, despite I haven't read the manga... so far in the Attack on Titan anime-
Half of the characters died. Not saying whom, but even important ones were just obliterated over the course of a second and there's no way of reviving them. That's why I love this anime because it's not like DBZ, or Naruto, or that sort of bullcrap.
Dude your avatar is freaking awesome :p

OT: I think people who give up on series after events like the Red Wedding are petty and childish.
 

LaoJim

New member
Aug 24, 2013
555
0
0
Fox12 said:
He's said this across multiple interviews. When he started writing, he said he had no idea where the story was going. He just wrote, and said he wanted to see where it was going.
I've read quite a few interviews from Martin and I've never had that feeling about him. He has said that he dreamed (or maybe day-dreamed) about a boy witnessing an execution and started to write from there. However before writing the first book he had a clear idea of what was going to happen. As he started to write, his story has grown and he realised he needed more books to tell the story properly, but there is no suggestion that he doesn't know exactly where the story is going to end up.

Its true that he is having problems delivering books on time. I think it is more to do with the fact that after the opening act, most stories have a more muted middle to set up another conclusion. He's found it difficult to make 4 and 5 interesting AND set up all the characters to where they need to be to tell 6 and 7 in the way he wants. Those books have too many characters (including too many new characters).

If you go back and read the books again it is amazing how much is foreshadowed in earlier books, suggesting that Martin knew exactly what he was doing.
In book 2, Dany sees a vision of a banquet involving a man with a wolves head, clearing showing the Red Wedding from book 3.
In book 1, Barristam Selmy is the only one who supports Ned in not wanting to assassinate Dany and is allowed to escape (If it was just for plot purposes he could have been killed to show how evil Joff was) Clearly Martin is planning his meet-up with Dany at the end of book 2.
In book 1, Ned sends Dondarrington to lead men against the Mountain. In book 2 it is clear that the Bloody Mummers are looking for Dondarrington but we still don't know who he is. It's only in book 3 that we we get the point of the Dondarrington storyline and its wider implications.

One of the things I loved about re-reading the books is the tournament in the middle of book 1. On the first reading when Martin list a whole series of endless of the combatants. When you re-read it, you know who everyone is and their relative strengths and weeknesses and it is really fun to see who beats who. There's so much attention to detail and rich background that I don't believe Martin is just winging it.
 

Doug

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,205
0
0
Grey Carter said:
Kill Your Darlings

Oh no! PLOT DEVELOPMENT!

Read Full Article
Erm, I think the problem people have with George R R Martin's books is that everyone even remotely likable dies, or has something bad happen to them (at least, from what I've seen/heard so far).

It invokes, well, this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarknessInducedAudienceApathy

I'm still watching Game Of Thrones when it returns, but I feel like I can't invest emotions in any of the characters incase they die. Or have bits hacked off them.
 

Lunar Templar

New member
Sep 20, 2009
8,225
0
0
gyrobot said:
Lunar Templar said:
kinda reminds me of the people who stopped watching Gurren Laggen cause Kamina died, >.> he kinda wasn't the main character ya know ....
Thing is with GoT, nothing good has happened to the only House in Westeros who aren't immoral dickheads. Red Wedding was a Giant Mallet in the already staked heart of those who want the "good guys" to win.

This isn't like Madoka or TGGL where there is some consolation of hope, the Red Wedding is Winston being walked into Room 101.
I was talking about Erin's reaction, not the books every ones been going back and forth about. Not read them, not going to, but from what I've heard this Red Wedding sound like little more then a cheap shock value stunt
 

Mr Companion

New member
Jul 27, 2009
1,534
0
0
Hit the nail on the head. Thats people all right!
'This show effected me emotionally, therefore its shit. I shall never watch it again.'
 

The Wooster

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
PunkRex said:
Given that last week was about FREE! I thought she was talking about Attack on Titan for a second there...

I swear if Sasha gets it i'm gonna kick off!

Still, I don't get as mad as I used to when characters die... is that maturity kicking in or is life just slowly beating down?...

I gotta go cry for abit, excuse me...
AoT rarely kills of important characters. Longest a character who dies has been around was
The Survey corps elites and Mike Zakarius who appeared all the way back in Chapter 19 before dying around chapter 36 I believe
everyone else who dies gets like 2 chapters (or 1 anime episode) before dying.

Still, there is gonna be 20 volumes of the manga, and there is currently 49 chapters, so there is still about 33 chapters left to kill Sasha off.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
LaoJim said:
Fox12 said:
He's said this across multiple interviews. When he started writing, he said he had no idea where the story was going. He just wrote, and said he wanted to see where it was going.
I've read quite a few interviews from Martin and I've never had that feeling about him. He has said that he dreamed (or maybe day-dreamed) about a boy witnessing an execution and started to write from there. However before writing the first book he had a clear idea of what was going to happen. As he started to write, his story has grown and he realised he needed more books to tell the story properly, but there is no suggestion that he doesn't know exactly where the story is going to end up.

Its true that he is having problems delivering books on time. I think it is more to do with the fact that after the opening act, most stories have a more muted middle to set up another conclusion. He's found it difficult to make 4 and 5 interesting AND set up all the characters to where they need to be to tell 6 and 7 in the way he wants. Those books have too many characters (including too many new characters).

If you go back and read the books again it is amazing how much is foreshadowed in earlier books, suggesting that Martin knew exactly what he was doing.
In book 2, Dany sees a vision of a banquet involving a man with a wolves head, clearing showing the Red Wedding from book 3.
In book 1, Barristam Selmy is the only one who supports Ned in not wanting to assassinate Dany and is allowed to escape (If it was just for plot purposes he could have been killed to show how evil Joff was) Clearly Martin is planning his meet-up with Dany at the end of book 2.
In book 1, Ned sends Dondarrington to lead men against the Mountain. In book 2 it is clear that the Bloody Mummers are looking for Dondarrington but we still don't know who he is. It's only in book 3 that we we get the point of the Dondarrington storyline and its wider implications.

One of the things I loved about re-reading the books is the tournament in the middle of book 1. On the first reading when Martin list a whole series of endless of the combatants. When you re-read it, you know who everyone is and their relative strengths and weeknesses and it is really fun to see who beats who. There's so much attention to detail and rich background that I don't believe Martin is just winging it.
I got the impression that he had a general ending in mind, but he's having trouble getting there. My primary concern is the amount of clutter in his works that could be trimmed down. I often feel like I read an entire novel, and yet very little happened. The exception would be the first one, which was actually quite good. But then... everyone jut felt horrible irrelevant. Arya is my favorite character, but she hasn't done much. I counted, and she was kidnapped no less than five times. It felt like a convoluted excuse to move her around the map. Brianne is also interesting, but like Arya, all she's done is travel from one end of the map to the other, and she hasn't really advanced the plot.

Martin does have his strengths though. He writes brilliant characters, even if he doesn't always do much with them, and he's quite consistent with his existing lore. I just feel like the whole plot could have been told in three or four large books if he had cut out all the fluff, and they would have been better for it.
 

LaoJim

New member
Aug 24, 2013
555
0
0
Fox12 said:
I got the impression that he had a general ending in mind, but he's having trouble getting there. My primary concern is the amount of clutter in his works that could be trimmed down. I often feel like I read an entire novel, and yet very little happened. The exception would be the first one, which was actually quite good. But then... everyone jut felt horrible irrelevant. Arya is my favorite character, but she hasn't done much. I counted, and she was kidnapped no less than five times. It felt like a convoluted excuse to move her around the map. Brianne is also interesting, but like Arya, all she's done is travel from one end of the map to the other, and she hasn't really advanced the plot.

Martin does have his strengths though. He writes brilliant characters, even if he doesn't always do much with them, and he's quite consistent with his existing lore. I just feel like the whole plot could have been told in three or four large books if he had cut out all the fluff, and they would have been better for it.
Yeah, that's all fair enough. I watched the first two seasons of GoT then went and read the books and so Arya seemed to spend a huge amount of time "on the road". Brienne's story is fairly tight in book 3, but very unfocused in book 4. The problem for Arya is that she is used to set up the story for other characters in the book (Dondarrington and the Hound especially) without advancing her own development, which is a shame as she's a great character in her own right.
 

BaronUberstein

New member
Jul 14, 2011
385
0
0
Ryan Hughes said:
Well, to be fair, people act like George RR Martin invented many things. . .

Do not get me wrong, I do like the novels, as a whole, but they are largely inspired by Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Water Margin, two great classics of Chinese literature. In short, he is not as surprising and original as some people make him out to be.
It's still well written and fun to read. Things don't need to be absolutely original to be good.
 

Skeleon

New member
Nov 2, 2007
5,410
0
0
Ah. Yes, everybody talks about this show. Should've guessed that was what it was a reference to. Either that or Game of Thrones, of course.