The latter, as told last week by the distrustful queen-mother Circe Lannister to queen-to-be Margaery Tyrell recalls in horrid detail the awful strategems and brutal vengeance of her father Tywin Lannister over the rebellious house Reyne. Circe asks young Margaery if she knows what happened to House Reyne. The educated young queen-to-be replies that they are no more; they were exterminated by House Lannister. And the queen smugly leaves her with that thought.
And last night on HBO, unexpected despite being forewarned, came the long-anticipated and long-dreaded (by those who have read the books) and shockingly traumatizing (to those who have not) red rain that ends the justice-seeking northern rebellion by House Stark: with the betrayals and murders of, yet again, noble and good Stark characters and their servants whom George R.R. Martin's readers and now his televison audience have come to love.
As I believe I wrote on this Forum two years ago when I read all five puplished volumes to date of GRRM's magnus opus, when I got to the Red Wedding of book 3, I threw the book (despite it being a 1st edition) across the room in anger and frustration at the great miscarriage of justice--not only that which occurred in the story, but also that purveyed by the author!
I, and many others, read epic fantasy to escape from such cruelties that are too readily present in "the real world", both in the present day and in history. If the unjust beheading of Ned Stark, ruler of Winterfell, in book 1 was a distasteful appetizer of such cruel "realistic" fantasy, the Red Wedding of book 3 is a gluttonous feast!
And, in subsequent reflection: genius (if not original).*
Today, the television fans of HBO's Game of Thrones are rioting, writing nastygrams to the network in their anger and threatening not to watch another episode (sounds familiar, no?)...and yet, I predict, most will. They cannot, will not, believe the evil Lannisters will triumph unscathed and that all that is good and noble in Westeros is dead. I suspect there will be some measure, albeit comparatively small, "just deserts" that will follow the gory feast at the Red Wedding in next week's season finale; and this will be enough for the show's viewers to draw them back to watch Season 4, particularly as they inescapably recall the shock of these events throughout the coming year.
I'm holding off on watching last night's episode until next week in order that I may see the last two episodes of Season 3 back-to-back--my hope being that this will somewhat ameliorate the emotional trauma I know last night's vividly depicted show will again call forth from my memories of reading the scene in the book.
I meet my brother for dinner tomorrow evening. He is a fan of the television show but has never read the books. Is it sadism that I actually look forward to hearing (and seeing) his reaction? Or, hopefully, do I merely look forward to having someone to commiserate with?
As a would-be writer, I do not think I have the fortitude, professional detachment, nor mastership of the writing craft (or it is merely my inherent inescapable, often irrational and unexplainable, Jewish optimism) to ever write such a scene and ignobably and violently end the lives of characters I make (and love as) symbolic of good and justice as GRRM has done. What does it take for an author to do so?
And yet, it is such "real world" drama that has made his A Game of Thrones ("Songs of Ice and Fire") memorable and create its broad appeal far beyond the fantasy audience.
Respectfully, Dr. Bob
* The first fantasy book I read that infuriated me by ending with the murder of the protagonist and having evil triumph--(at least until the final book in the trilogy)--was Katherine Kurtz' King Javan's Year (1992) published a full four years before GRRM did similarly within A Game of Thrones(1996). But GRRM then upped the ante many notches with the Red Wedding in A Storm of Swords (2000).
Posts: 1475 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have you read his short story Meathouse Man? It's one of my favorite short stories, but man, is it bleak. He's not a rainbows and sunshine guy, thats for sure.
I've watched the series, but haven't read past the first book. I've been debating on whether I should read them or not, and after last night's episode, I'm glad I didn't. I could not emotionally invest in a series that is so emotionally unrewarding. But, as you say, it was so unexpected, that there was a greatness to it.
I don't mind watching stuff like that on t.v., because watching a show isn't as much an investment of time and energy. Reading is a labor of love. I don't always need a happy ending, but I do want to go to sleep thinking life is worth living because the good will someday triumph. This was asking a lot from his readers, I think. But again, how could you stop here?
Posts: 118 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stopped with the first book, and from what I've heard, I'm very glad I did.
There are enough other stories (and even other books--nonfiction from which I can learn, for example) that I don't need to let someone torture me with such stuff.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but Kathleen, his characters are so well done, so real, so intriguing, and their personal stories and challenges so captivating, and the dramatic irony of knowing that all their "games" for power are so petty when "Winter is coming!" and a deadly near unkillable foe forgotten in the mists of time is coming for them all...well, as much as I got angry with the author, the story is too complex and addicting to stop reading it.
And, of course, there are the lessons to be learned from his success.
posted
I heard---well, I don't want to put up a bunch of spoilers that I've heard elsewhere. I see George Railroad Martin as a practitioner in the category of commercial fantasy writing, rather than what Tolkien created in The Lord of the Rings.
As I've said before, I've got a policy (these days) of not starting to read single books in endless series, and I won't read Game of Thrones until it's complete---which, frankly, doesn't look like it will ever happen. It's too bad, 'cause I enjoyed a lot of Martin's earlier mostly-SF work, though his cynicism and rotten-to-the-core characters tend to shine through after a point.
The aforementioned "Meathouse Man" is a major influence on my work to this day---my current thing takes the basic idea through long and formless changes and situations while I press on and see if a story emerges along the way---though I'm having a blast writing it out. (I suppress things I've written that seem too much like plagiarism---this looks like a good candidate for that file.)
Here's a link to something discussing Martin as the American Tolkien, though I honestly don't think so:
By the way, I saw in the bookstore the other day that a lot of Martin's earlier work has been reissued in editions uniform to the current Game of Thrones format. Check some of them out, too.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I agree that Martin can write compelling characters, but when the only good guy does something stupid enough to get himself killed in the first book, and there is political intrigue piled upon political intrigue besides, I just couldn't take it.
I loved the BEAUTY AND THE BEAST television show he helped produce, and I've read and enjoyed many of his other works.
But I could see the torture coming, and I decided it just wasn't worth it. <shrug> I'm not masochistic enough, I guess.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
In my opinion, people today are way too soft and gentle. It seems modern stories are created for adult children because even children are not as squeamish as that. Come to think of it, children are not squeamish at all; they routinely brutalize one another, take dishonorable revenge on a daily basis, right before going for some ice-cream with mommy and daddy. That's why people are so rattled when a realistic story comes along.
Game of Thrones is not a fairytale; you should have understood that from the moment Ned Stark chops the head off that poor Night's Watch guy who survived against all odds and ran to warn people down south. His reward: "Die, traitor!" Why didn't anyone condemn Ned Stark for killing a noble character like that?
If you're too soft for real-life possibilities, go watch Twilight. There's a fairytale where 'good' wins just because it should.
My apologies for being honest.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about "soft and gentle," but the notion of setting up a bunch of characters for the purpose of killing them all off doesn't seem interesting to me either as a reader or a writer.
Tolkien may have been softhearted about his "good guy" characters (only one major and a few couple-of-sceners die), while being well aware of what happened in the world (there's his famous statement that, at the end of World War I, all but one of his closest friends were dead.) But "death" is also "losing it all," and when you've come to care about characters, do you want to see them do both?
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Game of Thrones, every character dies for a very good reason. He doesn't kill them off because he's bored but because their death means something. These characters tend to die the same way they lived, so their death is a continuation of their life. It's a natural thing to do when someone's interests come in conflict with someone else's.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find killing off most of ones characters getting trite and overused. JK Rawling became boring to read as with each new book I wondered who's she's killing off this time. Same with the Game of T. Having read sci fi since the 50's I have seen it go from giving readers good charaters that we like to root for, and, God forbid, happy endings, or at least positive ones, to "we have to be real" and no character has any redeeming qualities what-so-ever. I give you the remake of Battlestar Galactica, Star Gate Universe, and most video games. Why then do Star Wars and Star Trek hold such powerful sway with the public as they are pretty cheesy in their plots of hope for the future --- and our protagonists? I believe that many kids need, and want, some escape into "happy endings". That said, an author can kill off a character(s) if it advances the story, but if he/she is just killing off everyone to-be-real or shock-and-awe, then it gets trite. Okay, getting off soap box now. KT
Posts: 96 | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it all essentially boils down to a matter of taste. GRRM is not my taste. I quit the first book when he crippled the little kid. That was a bridge too far for me.
Yes, it happens in real life. That, and a lot of other things I read about in the news. I don't want to read about it for relaxation.
Now, on the other hand, I happen to be re-reading Lois McMaster Bujold's THE CURSE OF CHALION right now. Talk about torturing a character! At the very beginning, you know Caz has once been much more than he is now and that he is profoundly broken by whatever has happened to him. During the first part of the book she gives you little peeks into what happened to make him the way he is now, while at the same time he's gradually mending. Just as soon as she heals him, however, she breaks him again--worse this time. The only way to break the curse is for Caz to die three times. But it's never bloody just to be bloody. And I love this book.
Like I said, it's all a matter of taste. I'll take LMB over GRRM every time.
Posts: 4633 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like what George is doing and I'm actively trying to create stories in the same way. That does not mean copying, of course.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny how I'm perceived as the irrational one just because my opinion differs from the opinion of the majority. But I refuse to conform to the majority because it's not in my nature. I have an opinion and unless I get a reasonable argument against it, I will keep it. So far, you're not blowing my skirt up.
Most of us read (and write) adventure books and we all know you can't have adventure without at least some kind of suspense. But suspense means putting someone into possible danger or discomfort. After all, how else could make your reader care for any character?
I've read stories people on this forum have written and most of them include some sort of danger, sequences of violence and even killing of those imaginary people. Which is why I find it so strange that those same people would rather avoid getting to know well-formed characters for the threat of seeing those characters ending up getting killed.
Why I like Game of Thrones is because the danger is authentic. Other stories try to convince the reader that the characters are in danger when in fact they are really not. Most modern fantasy includes battle sequences but I wouldn't dare call them battles. Battles are (and in fact were) gambling moves of immense risk, looking to gain something by risking one's life in the process. Call it greed, call it stupidity. I call it human nature.
Modern fantasy has devaluated threat and risk for the price of comfort and possible eye-candy. The shining example of this are the battles in the Narnia stories: children charging onto the battlefield against various monsters, naturally ending up unscathed. This is not putting your characters in danger. This is not even showing your characters have courage.
Same stupidity comes from fantasy armour, worn into battle by female characters. That's not armour, it's a metal bikini. Do these female characters even know they are going into a battle? Then why are they dressed up for a beach party?
Why put a character in a risky situation if there's never any risk? Why put a sword into someone's hand if you shy away from what the sword was forged for? Why put armour on someone if that armour doesn't perform the primary function of armour? Some people would call this the modern trend. I call it a lie.
What people seem to be saying in this thread is that they are afraid to get attached to characters because they are afraid some of them might die. First of all: they are characters, not living people. The whole idea of characters experiencing bad things is that so living people don't have to and yet we can still relive the experience. It's called fiction, remember? If writers and would-be writers do not have the ability to emotionally and rationally differ between real people and fictional characters, I'm not really sure you've chosen the right profession (or hobby).
Second, If you get attached to imaginary characters so much that you get emotional scars when they get killed, I'm surprised you allow yourself to get attached to any real person. You know, eventually we will all die. Why would you want to attach yourself to anyone if they'll end up dead anyway? This, in a nutshell, is the problem of modern society, incapable of deep emotional attachments to anyone for threat of losing those people. I've always wanted to be involved in an intense friendship or an intense romantic relationship and I keep noticing that today people are incapable of such intense bonds anymore.
I crave for authenticity, in fiction as well as in real life. Game of Thrones has given me that at least in fiction. Yes, I mourned those same characters as most people and even some of those the public ignored (Viserys, for one). But at least I got to meet them and live with them for a while.
It's called life, even if it was only a fictional one.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember a 1930s pulp SF story where (among other things) a character was developed and formed relationships with the other characters, and, about two thirds of the way in, somebody dropped him with a single shot, without a word said about him by any other character in the rest of the story.
My reaction was: this pisses me off. I don't see the need to build a character up, just to kill him off. We invest ourselves emotionally in characters when we read---if the writer has done his job right---and we are annoyed when the characters are killed off for what strikes us as no good reason---which means the writer isn't doing his job right.
As I said, I haven't read "Game of Thrones," but this sure doesn't inspire me to do so. Killing characters for the sake of killing them doesn't strike me as realistic, or authentic, or whatever. It strikes me as dishonest, actually.
(There's a parallel thread on one of the other fora, discussing the notion bringing characters back from the dead, of some relevance here...)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see people don't read my posts or if they do, they don't do it very thoroughly. Every time the discussion on this forum reach GoT, I say it over and over again and it still doesn't catch.
Robert, this time I will use your own words:
quote:Killing characters for the sake of killing them doesn't strike me as realistic, or authentic, or whatever. It strikes me as dishonest, actually.
Exactly. I couldn't agree more, because George doesn't kill off characters for the sake of killing. It does it because it makes sense. It's never random. It's always completely personal.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MartinV: It's funny how I'm perceived as the irrational one just because my opinion differs from the opinion of the majority.
That may qualify as "real life" as well, MartinV--human nature and all that. But I don't think you are perceived that way here. You are allowed to express your opinion as well as your preferences, just as everyone else here is allowed to express them.
What is not allowed are personal attacks, and I don't see any here, thank you all very much.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't worry, Kathleen, I'm not writing any of this in anger and I'm not offended or trying to offend anyone. I stopped worrying about being 'different' and 'strange' a long time ago.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm, now I'm trying to think of which characters did he kill because he was bored. Are you talking about any major characters, IRWhite?
Posts: 1271 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I respectfully disagree, IRWhite. Most of those characters were driven by very specific motives (Old Bear: old-fashioned chivalry, not useful for cutthroats he was commanding; Red Viper - blind revenge that made him arrogant; gave a good glimpse of the past) and they were too hard-headed to change until it was too late.
Their demise usually has interesting consequences (Old Bear's death creates chaos and creates terrific suspense for when the wildings attack the Wall; Red Viper's daughters go for revenge, Dorne is now tied firmly in the war, activity in Dorne leads back to Targaryens).
As for Qhorin, he showed Jon what it means to be a man of the Night's Watch - expendable. His sacrifice also gives Jon the chance to convince the wildings he wants to join them.
Renly's death defines Stannis' character. As the more popular of the two, Renly was obviously meant to be the usurper since book one. Stannis left King's Landing which enabled Renly to move in on the crown first. This creates the Baratheon vs Baratheon situation, showing why Robert held Ned so close - no Baratheon likes his brothers. By killing his own brother, we see Stannis as someone who is willing to do everything to get what he wants, he's eaten by guilt of it and is a good way to show the magic element.
If you want to talk about bored with his characters, go read book four and five. Posts: 1271 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Second, If you get attached to imaginary characters so much that you get emotional scars when they get killed, I'm surprised you allow yourself to get attached to any real person. You know, eventually we will all die. Why would you want to attach yourself to anyone if they'll end up dead anyway? This, in a nutshell, is the problem of modern society, incapable of deep emotional attachments to anyone for threat of losing those people. I've always wanted to be involved in an intense friendship or an intense romantic relationship and I keep noticing that today people are incapable of such intense bonds anymore.
I'm not really sure anyone is emotionally scared from characters' deaths, but I do think a lot of readers (not all) like the safety net that some stories come with. You know the boy will get the girl and that the hero will save the day and that good will defeat evil. Sometimes people need that because the real world is so full of uncertainties. People in real life die all the time, randomly and for no reason at all. That is reality, and a lot of people read to escape that.
There is a little girl who lives down my street who has an agressive and rare form of cancer. She is in a fight for her life this summer that she very well might lose. I wish I could write her story for her. I wish I had the power and that safety net of fiction to know she will somehow survive, but all I can do is hope and pray that she will get through this. It is tragic and heartbreaking and real.
And a lot of times we just need stories that show us how we wish the real world was. Where everything makes sense and has a purpose, and where our heroes and heroines are wrapped up safely in bubblewrap.
Personally, I like both kinds of stories. Sometimes I need the hero saves the day story, where I know all the main characters will survive, but it is still fun watching them. But I have no problem with darker stories where good doesn't always win because those stories can be powerful too in showing us the darker truths of our world.
I haven't gotten very far in the Song of Fire and Ice, but I liked first one. Ned's death was shocking and frustrating at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized it was the right ending for his story.
Different stories appeal to different people, and depending on where we are in our lives, we sometimes need certain types of stories.
Finally, I'm not sure why you think people are incapable of forming deep, emotional attatchments. Most people I know are very attached to their families. I know I am. I'd do anything for them. And yeah, my greatest fear is losing them, especially my children. It's been hard for me not to try to protect them from everything, to let go of that bike and watch them fall as they learn to ride it, to trust them to look both ways before they cross the street like I've taught them. But just like any fear, I can't let it control me and keep me from letting my kids grow up.
posted
A footnote to all this...I once read somewhere that when Herman Melville was writing Moby-Dick, he created a character, but as time wore on, he found he had created this character and he had no idea what to do with him in the rest of the story. So he just whipped up a wave and washed him overboard.
I suppose George Railroad Martin had some plot reason for killing off so many characters...but I can't say that he didn't do it for this reason.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back in the 1970s, when George R. R. Martin was a struggling SF writer, somebody referred to him as "George Railroad Martin" and it's stuck in my mind ever since. I suppose it's no more derogatory than referring to him as "GRRM," which seems a blatant imitation of those who refer to Tolkien as "JRRT."
I do not know how Martin himself feels about this. Certainly it's no more insulting than, say, sticking a plastic head-on-a-spike made to resemble the head of President George W. Bush in one episode of "Game of Thrones."
Naturally I am free to comment on anything I choose to. Along with my freely expressed opinion on the existence of interminable endless series that I do not chose to invest my limited and valuable time in, I have enough information to comment on a number of facets of the work in question that I am aware of.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
