What is with Martin and killing of characters? *spoilers*

[ChasenFate]

Martin killing off Ned and Rob is what sets him apart. He can get rid of a main character and still keep you reading, the way he makes you chage your opinion(at least me) of someone like Jamie as you read more about them, is just great.

[genisis2]

Originally Posted by Adasunshine

Eddard had a POV all the way through AGOT! Robb has never had a POV.

Just pointing this out as it sounds like you think Eddard didn't have a POV, sorry if misunderstood!

xx

Thankyou Adasunshine I stand corrected. I did not check my facts as I am at work.Gawd I hate being wrong

[Boaz]

Originally Posted by ChasenFate

Martin killing off Ned and Rob is what sets him apart.

Now if he'd only kill off Jon, then he'd be in a league of his own.

[I, Brian]

I'm not really convinced that GRRM has done anything different or pioneering with the use of character death in his works - essentially, he's created a wide theatre of secondary characters, so their life and death isn't so huge and issue - the fact that he's created such a huge cast means that it's inevitable that he's going to kill some of them during a story involving protracted civil war.

The main protagonists in ASoFaI are characters such as Jon, Bran, Daenerys, Arya, Sansa, and Tyrion. If GRRM were to kill these then that would be more daring.

Ned was obviously marked for death in the very first scene in Game of Thrones after the prologue - we saw the symbolism - it was no surprise to see him killed.

The *only* major character death IMO is Catelyn - but frankly, she was already spent as a character by book 2 and there seemed little she could do to impact the major plot arcs - she was a bystander. From a writing point of view, it made sense to kill her.

As for other deaths, such as Robb, Renley, and others - these were not Point of View characters - ie, they were not protagonists, so they were always expendable anyway.

Overall, I don;t see GRRM's use of character death particularly different to any other novel - it's simply that he has such a huge cast that you see more names killed.

Now, if he started killing off Bran, Jon, Arya, etc, then that would be more pioneering, though I suspect disappointing for many readers.

[genisis2]

[quote=I, Brian]I'm not really convinced that GRRM has done anything different or pioneering with the use of character death in his works - essentially, he's created a wide theatre of secondary characters, so their life and death isn't so huge and issue - the fact that he's created such a huge cast means that it's inevitable that he's going to kill some of them during a story involving protracted civil war.





When reading the first book I dont believe that most of us would have come to a reasonable conclusion that Eddard Stark was a secondary character. I know I didnt . You may be correct in the fact that he hasnt done anything different in the use of character death in his work perhaps he just does it better. At this moment I cant think of any secondary characters death that have affected me in the way Martin's has. I cant think of any writer who has set up a character to meet a tragic ending that has left me reeling and a little stunned.

[JohnSnow]

Originally Posted by Boaz

Now if he'd only kill off Jon, then he'd be in a league of his own.

Boaz, as always, when I read your posts I need to remember my rubber undies!!

If he kills of Jonny boy that would put me over the edge!!

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by genisis2

When reading the first book I dont believe that most of us would have come to a reasonable conclusion that Eddard Stark was a secondary character. I know I didnt . You may be correct in the fact that he hasnt done anything different in the use of character death in his work perhaps he just does it better. At this moment I cant think of any secondary characters death that have affected me in the way Martin's has. I cant think of any writer who has set up a character to meet a tragic ending that has left me reeling and a little stunned.

It's not so much that Ned is a secondary character - but as before, GRRM makes it plain in the first scene of Game of Thrones that the death of the direwolf and the stag, relate directly to Ned and Robert. He emphasises this by associating each of the children with a direwolf in symbolic way. So the death of Ned wasn't really surprising.

I'm not saying that GRRM's character deaths are not going to affect the reader - and the fact that he's tried to spread the Point of View use across a number of characters means he's trying to blur the distinction of who is and is not a protagonist, IMO.

However, the point I was making is that GRRM is not killing characters who are essential to the story, so he's not really doing anything particularly different with regards to character death.

Simply my 2 cents.

[Winters_Sorrow]

A good point Brian, but how can you tell which characters are integral to the plot until the story gets into full swing?
I agree that if he truly wants to shock he should kill someone like Sansa or Dany who, though peripheral are currently considered "safe".

It takes a brave author to do though, as this has the potential to alienate the readers. I know people who still haven't forgiven him for Ned, nevermind Cat/Robb!

[AryaUnderfoot]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

However, the point I was making is that GRRM is not killing characters who are essential to the story, so he's not really doing anything particularly different with regards to character death.

This is true. The deaths of the characters, and not the characters themselves, are essential to the story. The difference with Martin's writing is that he allows us to get very comfortable with the characters before offing them. And I've found that when I come across any sort of foreshadowing in his books, I don't see it as such until I've come to the event that has been foreshadowed. The dead direwolf with the stag's antler in her throat meant nothing to me until Ned died.

[Boaz]

The trick is to see the importance and relevance of the foreshadowing at the moment it occurs. In a long and convoluted story such as this, I find it nearly impossible to discern foreshadowing. Yet when I reread passages, I often find them full of obvious clues! Of course, I admit I did not figure out that Bruce Willis' character was a ghost in The Sixth Sense until his own character figured it out. I'm not the most observant person in the world.

I, Brian, I agree that the use of the POVs has blurred the lines between protagonist and antagonist. I find that he started with good POVs and slipped into the blurred area and then finally went to the antagonistic POVs. Imo, Ned, Jon, Bran, Sansa, Brienne, Sam, Davos, Areoh, and Dany are all protagonist's POVs... Tyrion, Jaime, Arya, Victarion, Euron, Asha, Arys, and Aeron are blurred, showing good and bad... while Cersei and Theon are the only truly antagonistic POVs.

Not all of these POVs started and ended in the same category. Cat, Arya, Jaime, and Tyrion have all shifted between our definitions. I also think that Dany, Euron, Sansa, and Arya all have potential to change categories as well. For instance, Arya started out as a protagonist, then she switched to just a storyteller, now she seems almost amoral... is she still one of the good guys or will she become a cruel avenging killer?

[JohnSnow]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'm not saying that GRRM's character deaths are not going to affect the reader - and the fact that he's tried to spread the Point of View use across a number of characters means he's trying to blur the distinction of who is and is not a protagonist, IMO.

I believe the scecret is simpler than that. I think Martin is, either intentionally or not, creating a work that flows my like reality than like most works we read. Take most other works, LOTR for example. You have all of the critical parts set out. The antagonist, protagonist, rising, falling, climax, etc..
So in a way I am agreeing with you, her has blurred the lines between the two, but I would love to ask him if that was a goal he set out with when he began writing.

I will disagree with you on this point:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

However, the point I was making is that GRRM is not killing characters who are essential to the story, so he's not really doing anything particularly different with regards to character death.

Eddard was not imposrtant to the story because he bit it in the beginning of the series. Robb grew into a character we started to cheer for, even with his realistic mistakes, and I do not know of many people who thought he was really going to get killed off. Granted we knew that SOB Frey was up to something. Robb was extremely critical to the story.
Look at it from this view, if Martin had killed off Arya at KL she would'nt have been an important character either.
Eddard and Catelyn were POV characters.but I don't believe that POV characters are the only important ones in the series either. Renly, Robert, Tywin, Lysa; all of these chracters could have been POV characters before the kicked it and we would never have missed a beat. Personally I am glad we do not have 40 POV.

Just 2 more cents from me

*snow*

[genisis2]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

It's not so much that Ned is a secondary character - but as before, GRRM makes it plain in the first scene of Game of Thrones that the death of the direwolf and the stag, relate directly to Ned and Robert. He emphasises this by associating each of the children with a direwolf in symbolic way. So the death of Ned wasn't really surprising.


However, the point I was making is that GRRM is not killing characters who are essential to the story, so he's not really doing anything particularly different with regards to character death.

Simply my 2 cents.

I hope I didnt come across as arguementitive. Fully respect and understand your point and in agreement with you. As much as GRRM forshadowed using the symbolism of the stag and direwolf I was still surprised or rather I was surprised by the way it happened it was deftly done. Nope I lied I was totally surprised now that I think about it. It was so long ago when I read the first book Im pretty sure I thought he was going to bite at the Wall.

[genisis2]

Originally Posted by genisis2

I hope I didnt come across as arguementitive. Fully respect and understand your point and in agreement with you. As much as GRRM forshadowed using the symbolism of the stag and direwolf I was still surprised or rather I was surprised by the way it happened it was deftly done. Nope I lied I was totally surprised now that I think about it. It was so long ago when I read the first book Im pretty sure I thought he was going to bite at the Wall.

There was a whole bunch I wanted to add But I buggered it up I cant edit it the damn thing - sheesh.

[gill]

im confused is cat really dead i just read the eppilogue from a storm of swords
SPOILER
and she was nodding her head at some person who was there at the time of the red wedding so whats going on. dont go into to much detail but is she a weight(sp) thing dont spoil much of feast for crows getting that soon.
SPOILER OVER

[Raven]

Interesting subject. Side issue first of all:

Robert, Joffrey, Viserys, Drogo, Renly and Balon are all monarchs and thus central to the themes of the titles of A Game of Thrones and A Clash of Kings, yet we never got their POVs.

GRRM has said that he doesn't like to write POVs for monarchs and rulers as a general rule, he finds it more interesting to write the 'little people'. IIRC, this was why he created Davos, because he didn't want a Stannis POV.

(The obvious exception is Dany, but c'mon, no way to avoid that one.)

There is a quote about this somewhere, I'll try to find it.

ON the subject of killing characters in general, GRRM has commented a couple of times to this effect:

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1436/

GRRM said a couple of interesting things about killing off his main characters. First, he mentioned killing them early so that his reader knows that his story is very real, and that his heroes are not immortal and can easily slay 150 orcs single-handedly. He said this lets the reader know that no one is safe, and that it helps build up the tension in a novel. Secondly, when asked if he regretted killing anyone off or if he wished he hadn't because he could use them later on, he basically said no.

The quote GRRM usually deploys is 'playing for keeps'. Ned's death was very much in this vein. Meant to show readers, not so much that no-one is safe (it's impossible to do that: you can't doubt, for example, that Dany will make it to the end), but that very few people are, and they are not necessarily the ones you assume.

In a sense there is a bit of sleight of hand here - we assume Ned is a main character in the series because he is a main character in AGOT. But we're wrong in that assumption. Even Cat and Robb's deaths in ASOS aren't 'main character' deaths, to be strictly honest. At this stage, the main characters are clearly Jon, Bran and Dany: it's no longer possible to disguise the fact that they are safe at least until the last book. Their plotlines are too obviously going to form the spine of the series.

But the Ned, Cat and Robb deaths do make us restrict that list of 'safe' characters. Can we really say he wouldn't kill Arya, Sansa, Jaime, or even Tyrion? Let alone Sam, Stannis, Sandor, Varys, Jorah, Melisandre, or LF? He probably wouldn't: but definitely?

As well as the main characters, of course, there's a healthy attrition of 'secondary' characters such as Tywin, Joff, Viserys, Drogo, and Jeor, which makes us wonder about the fate of people like Margaery and the other Tyrells, Asha, the Reeds, or Barristan. And the same for 'minor' characters too. Just enough attrition to make things uncertain. Not a bloodbath, by any means: no killing for the sake of it, either. But just enough to make us realise he's playing for keeps.