Chris Tian said:
That makes very little sense, since the predictability of the overarching narrative was never one of my points, mainly because there is none. I did not say I could see the Red Wedding or Oberyns fate and the like comming seasons before, just too soon.
Which is my point. Whether you can predict the outcome of a duel says nothing about the predictability of the show. As you've just admitted, you can't predict these elements coming, you can't predict arcs. They're UNpredictable.
That's a falsification of your claim in it's entirety. So what, you can predict the outcome of one event. That's predicting the outcome of one match in a sports season, not even the overall winner, let alone the fates of the players, with injuries and trades etc.
I'm pretty sure Martin himself doesn't even have a clue what is going to happen in his comming books and what "the end game" is supposed to be, thats the problem.
He may, he may not. Judging it to be a problem with no knowledge of what Martin has outlined is silly (And we've got more than good reason to think he has a plan and an outline, particularly as he's let the showrunners in on details).
How is this not just pointless mud slinging at something you don't like, which as we've seen, you also don't get?
Loonyyy said:
That's why they can't predict anything of substance. They're guessing at coin flips, knowing a little about Martin's style to give them a better chance(And ignoring the fact that Martin actually makes things a coin flip rather than plot armoured contrivances). Consider me unimpressed.
First of, nobody tried to impress you so calm down.
Let's start by poisoning the well.
Of course you didn't try to impress me. If this is your reading comprehension we won't get far, and I'm seeing why you don't get the topic.
All these tropes and cliches exist for a reason, because they have a function within a narrative.
And continues with bullshit.
The reason tropes and cliches exist is because certain things are repeated, and particularly in some media, utilising known elements like tropes and cliches is a matter of efficiency, where less important characters can be replaced by caricatures.
That's not to say that tropes individually, or cliches have any good reason, or why utilising them or subverting or ignoring them is any better.
The protagonist always survives because if he dies there not much left to do with that particular storyline.
Who is the protagonist in Game of Thrones or ASOIAF? See, you don't even get that bare minimum understanding of the story's structure, and you're attempting to judge it using a completely irrelevant framework and TVTropes.
And don't even bother answering that the narrator is the protagonist. You should be aware that narrators who aren't the protagonist exist, and that having POVs of characters who die is not uncommon.
When you get rid of that cliche and kill the protagonist you create a void and you have to fill that void with something.
Actually, you don't. GoT is about drama, it's about politics. It's not about any particular plotline, it's about characters, and how they interact. There's a reason there's so many connivers and manipulators. It's because that's what the show's about.
Never mind that there are always several characters with different goals doing something at any one time, so complaining that they "killed the protagonist" (Which is just embarrassingly wrong. This isn't LOTR. Stop it). One character dying a tragic or brutal end
is the payoff for that character's story, because their goals don't really matter. It's their character, and how they interact with other characters that are important. Oberyn's death, Ned Stark's death, Robb Stark's death, all have lasting effects on the history of Westoros, but also on the other characters. And, most of these deaths (Ned Stark, Robb Stark, and Oberyn) all were a result of their actions, beliefs and choices. They were conclusions to their arcs, particularly in the tragic sense.
Again, this is just people picking a hero (Whoever they think is the most noble or charming usually) and then getting mad when we don't lope off for Joseph Campbell. It's fine to not like this sort of story, but please, don't like it because you don't like that sort of story, not because it fails as a different kind of story. You're judging a car on how well it flies.
Every time the fan's new favourite dies, they flip their shit and say they're not watching it anymore. Good. Screw those people. They don't get it, and the show servicing them means more blandness and avoiding of the things which make it special. When these events happen, there's so much else going on. It's not the end of the narrative, it's the end of a character, and their arc. Hell, while Oberyn dies, we have Arya and the Hound discovering that Lysa is dead (And maybe there's no-one to recognise and pay for Arya), Brienne looking for Arya and Sansa, Danerys banishing Jorah and still unable to control her conquest, a filler romantic plot between Grey Worm and Missandei, the Wildlings advancing on Castle Black and the Wall. There's no void, there's so much still happening(And the climax happens on Monday). Hell, look at it from the POV of someone who's more interested in the Hound and Jon Snow, and couldn't be arsed about Tyrion and Oberyn. Would you seriously tell them that the show is now an empty void?
Just subverting the plot armored hero trope is not enough
If subversion was the point, this would matter. While Martin does subvert tropes and memes, that's not his overall goal, it's a tool. This isn't Terry Pratchet, this isn't Douglas Adams.
and when you killing the hero is even predicatble
And we're back to the start. There is one important thing to note in the subversion.
There is no hero. All men must die.(And spare us a rant about that phrase, I can just sense it coming as a bit about how Martin kills all his characters [Jon, Arya, Sansa, Bran, Rickon, Tyrion, Tywin, Cersei, Jaime, Brienne, Pod, Sandor, Dany, Jorah, fuck we could do this all day] And yes, you can predict Stark's death when he's on the block. Can you predict it at Winterfell at the start? Can you predict that Arya will be on the path to becoming a master assassin?
It's guessing the outcome of a coin flip. Which, as I said, isn't particularly impressive. To rephrase that so you parse my meaning: It's not only not impressive, it's missing the point and crowing about what everyone else is able to do as if it's some insight.
it looses the little effect it had to begin with and is a
As has been pointed out: You suck at math.
Gee, I hated it when Drogo's blood rider killed Jorah Mormont and gutted Dany.
Gee, I hated it when the White Walker killed Sam and Gilly.
Gee, I hated it when the mountain men attacked and killed Bronn and Tyrion.
Gee, I hated it when Tyrion was assassinated during the Battle of the Blackwater.
You're complaining about nonsense, something which never was, and never will be. Martin has not replaced "Heroes always live" with "Heroes always die". And again, that's still thinking in terms of heroes. Which for all your talk of subversion, you've managed to miss the one insight on stories Ned Stark's death had to offer.
completely useless narrative device.
It's not a narrative device. That doesn't mean what you think it does. And considering you've defended the hero always surviving, why shouldn't we dismiss that as a useless "narrative device" as you have this (Made up) "narrative device" of Martin's?
