George RR Martin: Game of Thrones characters die because ‘it has to be done’ – The Song of Ice and Fire writer has told an interviewer it’s dishonest not to show how war kills heroes as easily as minor characters
George RR Martin: Game of Thrones characters die because ‘it has to be done’ – The Song of Ice and Fire writer has told an interviewer it’s dishonest not to show how war kills heroes as easily as minor characters
I wonder what was the reason for the whole Quentyn Martell plot, though.
SorryAboutThePants on
He also said Game of Thrones characters get nude because ‘it has to be done.’ It’s dishonest not to show how war has so many boobs.
Edit: guys, I was just trying to make a joke about bewbs. They’re pretty cool.
[deleted] on
This is the same reason The Walking Dead visual novel is so amazing and the show is so mediocre.
[deleted] on
[removed]
micmea1 on
And here I thought all the deaths of heroes in the book was an ongoing theme to show how humanity wastes itself over petty goals (the Iron Throne) while the real fight is ignored by everyone (white walkers). Wars in real life are not won by master sword fighters.
[deleted] on
[removed]
Privatdozent on
Don’t get me wrong, I love how in these books any character can die. I love what it does for this story to know that the protagonist will not necessarily get an out. It’s a crucial element to ASOIAF, for sure.
But I’ve always taken issue with GRRM’s apparent sense of superiority for this decision. This in response to things like his “quibble” with Tolkien for not showing us Aragorn’s tax policy, and his claim that not showing that heroes die in war is “dishonest”.
I’m pretty sure that Tolkien himself knows all too well that heroes die in war. It’s just that it isn’t necessary to explore this in every piece of fiction we create and consume. I understand feeling a sense of improvement to a story for making the death more real, but portraying the randomness of death is just one end among countless other ends to improve a story, which all have historical places in a genre literally called Fantasy.
GRRM is mistaking what he loves to write with what people should be writing. And he believes he arrived at it to subvert traditional’ fantasy that’s way to concerned with fantasy.
Someone else said it better than me. [Here’s Tolkien rapping against Martin about the anarchy of death.](https://youtu.be/XAAp_luluo0?t=61)
**edit: Disclaimer, I’m passionate about both LOTR AND ASOIAF. I don’t take issue with GRRM’s style, just with his sentiments. There’s no reason to call the other side of the coin “dishonest” or to have a “quibble” with Tolkien.**
[deleted] on
[deleted]
[deleted] on
Well look at Harry Potter, a lot of people love those books (including me) and still SPOILERS!!!!, the 3 main characters live. Tension is still created because we wonder what other characters will die along the way. It was clear that Harry would win and have a happy ending and I think everyone expected that but Dumbledore, Snape etc. died
Lightbrand on
Until the hero resurrects
nedyken on
All the main characters are still alive. GRR Martin is telling a pretty typical fantasy story with pretty typical story arcs… The difference is that his style obscures who is essential. Ned and Robb were never essential. You could make this entire series into a 2 hour movie telling Jon’s unlikely hero journey from unknown bastard to “Prince who was Promised”, but it would be less interesting. In-fact, I believe movie studios pitched that exact idea to GRR Martin before HBO came along. What makes Game of Thrones compelling is that it allows time to magnify secondary characters like Robb Stark that gives more context to Jons typical hero journey. People mostly get confused by the method of telling the story. For instance, I don’t think Dany is essential to the conclusion of this story. I would not at all be shocked if she was the last great “shocking” death. She’s served her purpose of re-introducing Dragons to the world – and if she died it would not impact Jon’s end game. Ultimately in a condensed movie versions, you’d have to quickly explain how Jon acquires Dragons for his final showdown with the white walkers, but it could be done without Dany.
With this season on the verge of confirming the longstanding R+L=J theory, and that theory essentially forming the backbone of this entire series (there’s no other reason for us to be peaking into this specific pocket of time), I’m not going to be surprised unless Jon snow is officially killed off. He’s the Luke Skywalker of this story. What makes Game of Thrones unique is that they give several secondary characters the same treatment. People misinterpret GRR Martin as being “random”, but that’s precisely what makes it so original – that he has razzledazzled the audience so thoroughly that they can’t distinguish the main character from an extra. It would be like if Star Wars had been a 7 season TV show where you spent the first few seasons thinking Luke Skywalker was just some random recruit to the rebellion and the main character was one of the random imperial officers who was force-choked to death by Vader midway through the third season.
**TL;DR: Game of Thrones is unique, because GRR Martin gives secondary characters the same attention as those core to the story. It would be like if the original Star Wars movies were a 7 season HBO Show where you spent the first 3 seasons thinking [Biggs Darklighter](http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Biggs_Darklighter) was the key hero on the show. His death at the Battle of Yavin would break alt-universe Twitter.**
UniquelyBadIdea on
Is it also dishonest to claim realism when your actions generally appeal slanted towards your desired plot goals?
Most of the character deaths seem to occur because they aren’t changing themselves and they are a threat to other character’s capability to continue to change or grow.
BishWenis on
I look at it in reverse of the story, the reason someone is a main character is **because** all of the crazy stuff happen to them and they live through it.
People lived through the entirety of WW1 on the front lines for the whole war. They would have had a thousand extremely close calls and lucky as hell moments, but we don’t accuse them of having plot armor. And in the end telling that persons story is a lot more interesting than the guy who died at the first shell.
So I have never had a problem with main characters living- that’s why we are reading about them.
Steve_the_Stevedore on
> then maybe you should quit right now and learn computer science. I hear there’s a real future in these computer things
So that’s how it feels to be on the other side of those liberal arts jokes.
[deleted] on
Unless your Jon, Tyrion, or Dany. Then you can literally survive anything.
[deleted] on
[deleted]
chainmailtank on
I took a writing class with a famous author several years ago. Among the many insights I took away regarding writing, one was this:
> A story is about someone extraordinary. It’s alright if they survive unimaginable odds. It’s okay if they survive that one in a million chance, because the other 999,999 times would not have been worth writing about.
This isn’t true in every instance, and GRRM might be a good example of that statement’s subversion. But, in many (possibly most) cases, I disagree with Martin that letting heroes survive would be ‘dishonest.’ Had they not survived, would their tale have been worth the telling?
17 Comments
I wonder what was the reason for the whole Quentyn Martell plot, though.
He also said Game of Thrones characters get nude because ‘it has to be done.’ It’s dishonest not to show how war has so many boobs.
Edit: guys, I was just trying to make a joke about bewbs. They’re pretty cool.
This is the same reason The Walking Dead visual novel is so amazing and the show is so mediocre.
[removed]
And here I thought all the deaths of heroes in the book was an ongoing theme to show how humanity wastes itself over petty goals (the Iron Throne) while the real fight is ignored by everyone (white walkers). Wars in real life are not won by master sword fighters.
[removed]
Don’t get me wrong, I love how in these books any character can die. I love what it does for this story to know that the protagonist will not necessarily get an out. It’s a crucial element to ASOIAF, for sure.
But I’ve always taken issue with GRRM’s apparent sense of superiority for this decision. This in response to things like his “quibble” with Tolkien for not showing us Aragorn’s tax policy, and his claim that not showing that heroes die in war is “dishonest”.
I’m pretty sure that Tolkien himself knows all too well that heroes die in war. It’s just that it isn’t necessary to explore this in every piece of fiction we create and consume. I understand feeling a sense of improvement to a story for making the death more real, but portraying the randomness of death is just one end among countless other ends to improve a story, which all have historical places in a genre literally called Fantasy.
GRRM is mistaking what he loves to write with what people should be writing. And he believes he arrived at it to subvert traditional’ fantasy that’s way to concerned with fantasy.
Someone else said it better than me. [Here’s Tolkien rapping against Martin about the anarchy of death.](https://youtu.be/XAAp_luluo0?t=61)
**edit: Disclaimer, I’m passionate about both LOTR AND ASOIAF. I don’t take issue with GRRM’s style, just with his sentiments. There’s no reason to call the other side of the coin “dishonest” or to have a “quibble” with Tolkien.**
[deleted]
Well look at Harry Potter, a lot of people love those books (including me) and still SPOILERS!!!!, the 3 main characters live. Tension is still created because we wonder what other characters will die along the way. It was clear that Harry would win and have a happy ending and I think everyone expected that but Dumbledore, Snape etc. died
Until the hero resurrects
All the main characters are still alive. GRR Martin is telling a pretty typical fantasy story with pretty typical story arcs… The difference is that his style obscures who is essential. Ned and Robb were never essential. You could make this entire series into a 2 hour movie telling Jon’s unlikely hero journey from unknown bastard to “Prince who was Promised”, but it would be less interesting. In-fact, I believe movie studios pitched that exact idea to GRR Martin before HBO came along. What makes Game of Thrones compelling is that it allows time to magnify secondary characters like Robb Stark that gives more context to Jons typical hero journey. People mostly get confused by the method of telling the story. For instance, I don’t think Dany is essential to the conclusion of this story. I would not at all be shocked if she was the last great “shocking” death. She’s served her purpose of re-introducing Dragons to the world – and if she died it would not impact Jon’s end game. Ultimately in a condensed movie versions, you’d have to quickly explain how Jon acquires Dragons for his final showdown with the white walkers, but it could be done without Dany.
With this season on the verge of confirming the longstanding R+L=J theory, and that theory essentially forming the backbone of this entire series (there’s no other reason for us to be peaking into this specific pocket of time), I’m not going to be surprised unless Jon snow is officially killed off. He’s the Luke Skywalker of this story. What makes Game of Thrones unique is that they give several secondary characters the same treatment. People misinterpret GRR Martin as being “random”, but that’s precisely what makes it so original – that he has razzledazzled the audience so thoroughly that they can’t distinguish the main character from an extra. It would be like if Star Wars had been a 7 season TV show where you spent the first few seasons thinking Luke Skywalker was just some random recruit to the rebellion and the main character was one of the random imperial officers who was force-choked to death by Vader midway through the third season.
**TL;DR: Game of Thrones is unique, because GRR Martin gives secondary characters the same attention as those core to the story. It would be like if the original Star Wars movies were a 7 season HBO Show where you spent the first 3 seasons thinking [Biggs Darklighter](http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Biggs_Darklighter) was the key hero on the show. His death at the Battle of Yavin would break alt-universe Twitter.**
Is it also dishonest to claim realism when your actions generally appeal slanted towards your desired plot goals?
Most of the character deaths seem to occur because they aren’t changing themselves and they are a threat to other character’s capability to continue to change or grow.
I look at it in reverse of the story, the reason someone is a main character is **because** all of the crazy stuff happen to them and they live through it.
People lived through the entirety of WW1 on the front lines for the whole war. They would have had a thousand extremely close calls and lucky as hell moments, but we don’t accuse them of having plot armor. And in the end telling that persons story is a lot more interesting than the guy who died at the first shell.
So I have never had a problem with main characters living- that’s why we are reading about them.
> then maybe you should quit right now and learn computer science. I hear there’s a real future in these computer things
So that’s how it feels to be on the other side of those liberal arts jokes.
Unless your Jon, Tyrion, or Dany. Then you can literally survive anything.
[deleted]
I took a writing class with a famous author several years ago. Among the many insights I took away regarding writing, one was this:
> A story is about someone extraordinary. It’s alright if they survive unimaginable odds. It’s okay if they survive that one in a million chance, because the other 999,999 times would not have been worth writing about.
This isn’t true in every instance, and GRRM might be a good example of that statement’s subversion. But, in many (possibly most) cases, I disagree with Martin that letting heroes survive would be ‘dishonest.’ Had they not survived, would their tale have been worth the telling?