Kill Your Darlings
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Before reading an explanation under the picture I was pretty sure that this was a retro comic about Transformers G1 Movie.
Rastrelly said:
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.
kinda reminds me of the people who stopped watching Gurren Laggen cause Kamina died, >.> he kinda wasn't the main character ya know ....
Lunar Templar said:
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.
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:
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
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"Silvanus said:
(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)
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 battlefieldRastrelly said:
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.A-D. said:
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.
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).A-D. said:
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)
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.lucky_sharm said:
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 said:
LaoJim 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.
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.
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.
Dude your avatar is freaking awesomeCaramel Frappe said:
OT: I think people who give up on series after events like the Red Wedding are petty and childish.
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.Fox12 said:
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.
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.
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).Grey Carter said:
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.
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 stuntgyrobot said:
Hit the nail on the head. Thats people all right!
'This show effected me emotionally, therefore its shit. I shall never watch it again.'
'This show effected me emotionally, therefore its shit. I shall never watch it again.'