# George Martin and Killing off characters



## Miskatonic (Nov 26, 2015)

I haven't finished the series so please *no spoilers*. 

I've read that Martin isn't shy about killing his characters off. I've also read that ASoIaF has a boatload of characters, side-characters, and lots of plots.

To me it seems like it may not necessarily be merely a lack of fear of audience backlash due to their favorite characters dying that motivates him to kill off whomever he wishes and more the fact that if he kept all these characters alive he would be buried by having to deal with all their individual plots; especially given how he tells the story with each chapter focused on a specific character. Adding 100's of thousands of words to deal with all this would mean release dates being pushed back even further and perhaps establishing a breaking point where audience patience is concerned; both from waiting for releases and being overwhelmed with that much more material. 

Tolkien killed off relatively few MC's in comparison and I haven't seen him being overly criticized for doing so. 

I don't find it all that interesting if every character is pretty much immune from dying; however maybe it would be best to realize that your characters are going to have to have a certain order of priority so that you know ahead of time who needs to be killed if you have a whole heck of a lot of them. 

I've watched the first Game of Thrones season and the big character death at the end really pissed me off; but on the other hand it proved just how high the stakes are and how determined certain characters are where maintaining their power is concerned.


----------



## ThinkerX (Nov 26, 2015)

Regarding the books and series both: you have read/seen nothing yet major character death wise compared to what's coming.

Part of it is: this is war.  nobody is safe.  And sometimes the deaths appear random/pointless.

Another part is: this advances the plot.  This is why subsequent characters do certain things.


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 26, 2015)

I've heard about the Red Wedding, I just don't know who dies in it. 

I've read some critiques that point out that in the latter books there are certain shall we say, far less important characters that are fleshed out with information that isn't necessarily doing anything other than filling in some of the history in a rather "who really cares?" sort of way. 

Do you think it's accurate to say that one source of motivation might be the overwhelming amount of prose needed to keep up with all the characters if they were still alive later on in the story?


----------



## FifthView (Nov 26, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> Do you think it's accurate to say that one source of motivation might be the overwhelming amount of prose needed to keep up with all the characters if they were still alive later on in the story?



I think that's a side benefit more than a rationale for killing off main characters.  

A large part of his motivation is probably the fact that he wants to challenge the idea of "main character," because in war of the type he's building, who will turn out to be _primes_ is in question.

It does make sense, in a Shakespeare-Mercutio sort of way, to not have certain characters overstay their welcome because they'd take focus away from those he wants to highlight.  So I think he himself has some primes in mind; he just doesn't want the reader to have certainty about who they are.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 26, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> I've heard about the Red Wedding, I just don't know who dies in it.



Spoiler alert. Literally everyone. After the Red Wedding he starts over with a completely different cast.


----------



## ThinkerX (Nov 26, 2015)

> I've heard about the Red Wedding, I just don't know who dies in it.



Hmmm...Argh...Sigh...The Red Wedding is pretty much the tip of the iceberg.



> I've read some critiques that point out that in the latter books there are certain shall we say, far less important characters that are fleshed out with information that isn't necessarily doing anything other than filling in some of the history in a rather "who really cares?" sort of way.
> 
> Do you think it's accurate to say that one source of motivation might be the overwhelming amount of prose needed to keep up with all the characters if they were still alive later on in the story?



Answering your question directly tells you things you do not wish to know at this point.  However, in my view, what the various digressions, myths, and stories do is give Martins world DEPTH.  The reader comes to understand the things going on didn't just happen, but rather there are long, multiple chains of events behind them, making those things happen.  This is one of the things that sets the truly great fantasy worlds apart from the hack jobs, and because of this the whole story is better.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 26, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> Do you think it's accurate to say that one source of motivation might be the overwhelming amount of prose needed to keep up with all the characters if they were still alive later on in the story?



I think each death has meaning and is used to drive home certain points, the main one I think is to survive the game of thrones you can't be naive, a fool, or even refuse to play. If you have a name of some sort, you're in the game whether you like it or not. Learn to play, latch on to someone who knows how to play for protection, or die.

I can't remember all the deaths, but I think the major ones fall into what I'm describing. The Red Wedding definitely falls into what I'm saying and so does the very first big death in the first book.


----------



## X Equestris (Nov 26, 2015)

Let's just say that most of the characters who die have themselves to blame.  Their deaths are a product of their character flaws.


----------



## ChasingSuns (Nov 30, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> Let's just say that most of the characters who die have themselves to blame.  Their deaths are a product of their character flaws.



I'm really glad that other people have picked up on this as well. Also, each death does contribute to the plot in some way. Killing more people in LOTR wouldn't have served Tolkien's plot as it is. That's (to me) why we don't see Tolkien being criticized for minimal character deaths.


----------



## goldhawk (Nov 30, 2015)

ChasingSuns said:


> I'm really glad that other people have picked up on this as well. Also, each death does contribute to the plot in some way. Killing more people in LOTR wouldn't have served Tolkien's plot as it is. That's (to me) why we don't see Tolkien being criticized for minimal character deaths.



And the deaths he put in had lots of meaning.


----------



## Daughter of Hell (Nov 30, 2015)

Honestly, I think the OP just isn't suited for adult fantasy. There was a problem with fantasy, it plagued the genre, really, that most of it was for kids. I watched Game of Thrones S01E09 before I read the books. Ned's execution was the most shocking thing I had ever seen in TV, movies, whatever. After the episode finished, I sat staring at the blank screen for about 5 minutes, trying to let it sink in. I couldn't believe Ned was truly dead, in fact. That was when I started reading the books. I had read the entire first book before S01E10 came on. That's 1 week. About 150 pages per day. And that was true motivation. And that's why Martin is writing mature fantasy: because there's an audience like me who wouldn't touch his books with a pole unless they were written for adults.

To be honest, though, I don't think Martin is that brutal a writer. Ned's death was for dramatic effect to make it clear that goodness does not equal invincibility. The Red Wedding was masterful, but again, quite staged. It was planned from the beginning, see. Those who died were always on death row. Whilst the planning is good, I do believe certain characters are quite invincible. Id est, Tyrion, Jon, Dany, and Arya. At least, none of them will die until the scene a faire.

Anyway, death is a fact of life, especially in war-times. If a book doesn't kill off main characters at realistic times, then it isn't a realistic book. It's a baby-sitting books. It's not adult. I'm writing a series. It's multi-generational, so there is a Hell of a lot of deaths over the years. Yes, all the main characters die at some point. In my eyes, a short life is no less worth reading about. I cannot fathom how soft people are if they don't agree. It's beyond me. Stick with Harry Potter, if you're like that, guys.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 1, 2015)

Be thankful I'm in the mood to be civil tonight. Because you don't have the first clue what you are talking about.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 1, 2015)

Daughter of Hell said:


> Honestly, I think the OP just isn't suited for adult fantasy. There was a problem with fantasy, it plagued the genre, really, that most of it was for kids. I watched Game of Thrones S01E09 before I read the books. Ned's execution was the most shocking thing I had ever seen in TV, movies, whatever. After the episode finished, I sat staring at the blank screen for about 5 minutes, trying to let it sink in. I couldn't believe Ned was truly dead, in fact. That was when I started reading the books. I had read the entire first book before S01E10 came on. That's 1 week. About 150 pages per day. And that was true motivation. And that's why Martin is writing mature fantasy: because there's an audience like me who wouldn't touch his books with a pole unless they were written for adults.
> 
> To be honest, though, I don't think Martin is that brutal a writer. Ned's death was for dramatic effect to make it clear that goodness does not equal invincibility. The Red Wedding was masterful, but again, quite staged. It was planned from the beginning, see. Those who died were always on death row. Whilst the planning is good, I do believe certain characters are quite invincible. Id est, Tyrion, Jon, Dany, and Arya. At least, none of them will die until the scene a faire.
> 
> Anyway, death is a fact of life, especially in war-times. If a book doesn't kill off main characters at realistic times, then it isn't a realistic book. It's a baby-sitting books. It's not adult. I'm writing a series. It's multi-generational, so there is a Hell of a lot of deaths over the years. Yes, all the main characters die at some point. In my eyes, a short life is no less worth reading about. I cannot fathom how soft people are if they don't agree. It's beyond me. Stick with Harry Potter, if you're like that, guys.



Are you this incredibly stupid all the time or does this only occur every once and awhile?

I'm in absolute awe of how poorly you understood my original post. I mean this quite literally.


----------



## ascanius (Dec 1, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> Are you this incredibly stupid all the time or does this only occur every once and awhile?
> 
> I'm in absolute awe of how poorly you understood my original post. I mean this quite literally.



Um don't you think your over reacting.  There are better ways to get your point across without insulting people.  While I think I understand why you feel insulted , daughter of hell should probably reread the original post again.  It seems stupid to get another thread potentailly locked due to a missunderstanding/ overreaction.  I'm enjoying this thread so far.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 1, 2015)

ascanius said:


> Um don't you think your over reacting.  There are better ways to get your point across without insulting people.  While I think I understand why you feel insulted , daughter of hell should probably reread the original post again.  It seems stupid to get another thread potentailly locked due to a missunderstanding/ overreaction.  I'm enjoying this thread so far.



Not at all. Making an incredibly ignorant statement and then proceeding to address everyone posting in this thread as if we were children is deserving of far worse. 

You think? 

My opinions still stand. DOH pretty much opened up a very big mouth and stuck an equally big foot in it.


----------



## Russ (Dec 1, 2015)

Daughter of Hell said:


> Honestly, I think the OP just isn't suited for adult fantasy. There was a problem with fantasy, it plagued the genre, really, that most of it was for kids.
> 
> 
> Anyway, death is a fact of life, especially in war-times. If a book doesn't kill off main characters at realistic times, then it isn't a realistic book. It's a baby-sitting books. It's not adult. I'm writing a series. It's multi-generational, so there is a Hell of a lot of deaths over the years. Yes, all the main characters die at some point. In my eyes, a short life is no less worth reading about.* I cannot fathom how soft people are if they don't agree. It's beyond me. Stick with Harry Potter, if you're like that, guys.*



I am willing to bet I have been reading fantasy seriously for longer than  you have been alive.  There has been plenty of death in fantasy and adult topics very well dealt with for generations in the field.  I would be curious to know when  you think this problem "plagued" the genre.  You might have a point when it comes to TV and movies at various periods but if you read the genre with any width or depth you would know there never has been a problem with fantasy dealing with either violence or other adult subjects.

GRRM write the way he does because he has developed a philosophy of worldbuilding and story telling over more than 40 years of professional writing.  The way he treats death has virtually nothing to do with "audience" or you in particular.  In fact if you following the gentleman's success with GOT you would know that many fans loudly complain about character deaths but GRRM continues to write to his philosophy despite them.  I respect him for that.

Death during medieval wartime is actually a tricky subject, even in civil wars you might well be surprised to see how the low the death rate was among nobility.  That is why Agincourt is such a big f'n deal, because so many nobles died in that battle.  But it is well studied because it is the exception rather than the rule.

Lastly, let me suggest a piece of advice for you on having a civil discussion when disagreeing with someone.  If you disagree with someone's idea it is considered common courtesy to do two things.  One to properly understand their idea and frame it in a fair and reasonable way rather than twist it all out of shape.  And secondly if you want to critique something critique the idea not the person.  You  have failed to do either in this post and it is not going to lead to productive discussion.

The bolded part of your post comes across as particularly churlish, childish and insulting.


----------



## teacup (Dec 1, 2015)

> Spoiler alert. Literally everyone. After the Red Wedding he starts over with a completely different cast.





Spoiler:  slight spoiler of how many deaths and also larger spoiler of one pov character



Am I remembering this wrong? Many people died but only a few were mains. One wasn't even very main at all, actually I might be pushing it to call them a main. Only one was a pov character. After this there's still 9+ pov characters I think, and many important characters who aren't povs still alive ._. The only pov who dies in the red wedding actually comes back to life, too, so you could even say that only 1 main character was killed off and he wasn't even a pov.
The red wedding was very well done and it certainly made it seem like so many big characters were killed off, leaving very few, but really that isn't the case at all. It was just written in such a way that it made people feel this was the case.
...Or was this a joke about there not actually being that many main deaths? lol





> I don't find it all that interesting if every character is pretty much immune from dying; however maybe it would be best to realize that your characters are going to have to have a certain order of priority so that you know ahead of time who needs to be killed if you have a whole heck of a lot of them.


I think GRRM might have done this - it seems to me that some of his characters are safe from death at least up until the end of the series, which is the usual case for main characters. So if this is true then it seems like he has what would usually be called the "main characters" but also with many other povs around them who are given just as much importance, disguising the actual main characters as on the same level as every other pov. 

But then next book he could always kill off these "safe" characters and show that I'm completely wrong lol.

(Not saying that only those who survive to the end are actual main characters, just that the way the story is going and if some of the theories are right, it looks like some of these "safe" characters are much more important to the plot and main than others.)


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 1, 2015)

Some of the more common complaints I've read in regards to the last two books published were that there were too many characters, and the plot is sort of meandering about. 

So far I like AGOT, I'm about halfway through it.

The dialogue in general is pretty solid, the descriptions ranged from good to silly at times, and his handling of erotic material is a bit awkward.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 1, 2015)

Daughter of Hell said:


> Honestly, I think the OP just isn't suited for adult fantasy. There was a problem with fantasy, it plagued the genre, really, that most of it was for kids. I watched Game of Thrones S01E09 before I read the books. Ned's execution was the most shocking thing I had ever seen in TV, movies, whatever. After the episode finished, I sat staring at the blank screen for about 5 minutes, trying to let it sink in. I couldn't believe Ned was truly dead, in fact. That was when I started reading the books. I had read the entire first book before S01E10 came on. That's 1 week. About 150 pages per day. And that was true motivation. And that's why Martin is writing mature fantasy: because there's an audience like me who wouldn't touch his books with a pole unless they were written for adults.
> 
> To be honest, though, I don't think Martin is that brutal a writer. Ned's death was for dramatic effect to make it clear that goodness does not equal invincibility. The Red Wedding was masterful, but again, quite staged. It was planned from the beginning, see. Those who died were always on death row. Whilst the planning is good, I do believe certain characters are quite invincible. Id est, Tyrion, Jon, Dany, and Arya. At least, none of them will die until the scene a faire.
> 
> Anyway, death is a fact of life, especially in war-times. If a book doesn't kill off main characters at realistic times, then it isn't a realistic book. It's a baby-sitting books. It's not adult. I'm writing a series. It's multi-generational, so there is a Hell of a lot of deaths over the years. Yes, all the main characters die at some point. In my eyes, a short life is no less worth reading about. I cannot fathom how soft people are if they don't agree. It's beyond me. Stick with Harry Potter, if you're like that, guys.



Not sure if trolling or just ignorant... 



teacup said:


> Spoiler:  slight spoiler of how many deaths and also larger spoiler of one pov character
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I, on the other hand, was definitely just joking.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 1, 2015)

Just a general point.   It shouldn't be odd that an MC will survive throughout a story.  In the first case, stories are about exceptional people and exceptional events.  The exception doesn't mean that MC's must be a type of mythical Greek hero or a modern mythical superhero; but, only that they are in many ways the exception.

Particularly in a book with a smaller cast of characters, the MC POV character is somewhat defined by being the one that must survive throughout the story, or at least until very near the end.

In a book with a large cast of characters, choice of an MC may often be informed by survival rate.  To put this in another way, if I have two or three characters in mind who I _know_ will survive, it makes more sense for me to choose at least one of them to be my MC than to choose someone I know will die in Chapter Two of twenty chapters or even in Chapter Ten.  Of course, with a very large cast and a lengthy, meandering story, one can choose multiple MCs and kill a handful of them off in the first 2/3 of the story.

If I have a story to tell, picking the exceptional characters (exceptional to the rule of "All men must die") to be my MCs is not at all unrealistic.   After all, unless we are talking about some sort of absolute Armageddon, there _are_ individuals who will survive from beginning to end.  Why not choose one of those to be my MC?


----------



## FifthView (Dec 1, 2015)

Well I'll put my post above in another light.  In GoT, a huge host of nobles, about whom we know almost nothing, die.  Any one of them, or all of them, might have had life histories that could inform a whole story.  Many of them could have had very specific reasons for being where they are on the battlefield—more interesting reasons than merely being a redshirt.  Now, if GRRM had picked just one of those and followed him for forty chapters until his death, we might say, "OH he's killed off another MC!"

And, that dead character might have many relatives still alive, still fighting somewhere, still growing and developing and having meaningful lives.

Yet, that character and so many others died without that development, with all their associations undefined.  But this goes for pretty much every fantasy book written.  This doesn't mean that those books focusing on a cast of MCs that all survive are unrealistic books, but only that the author didn't focus as much on characters who would later die.  Heck, in Harry Potter, many people died.  Remember Cedric Diggory from _Goblet of Fire_?  Rowling hadn't focused on him for multiple books, true, but could have.  But then, Rowling _did_ focus on Dumbledore quite a bit, and there are other character deaths in the final battle, like Remus Lupin.  What difference does making these characters a POV MC have in the realism of a book?


----------



## valiant12 (Dec 1, 2015)

> Death during medieval wartime is actually a tricky subject, even in civil wars you might well be surprised to see how the low the death rate was among nobility. That is why Agincourt is such a big f'n deal, because so many nobles died in that battle. But it is well studied because it is the exception rather than the rule.



Is there some particular reason for this.
Is it because they were more valuable as hostages.
I remember reading in several places that nobles had higher survivability  due to using silver utensils. Supposedly silver have some antibacterial properties. Considering that during sieges disease was a major cause of death maybe there is some truth to that theory.


----------



## X Equestris (Dec 1, 2015)

valiant12 said:


> Is there some particular reason for this.
> Is it because they were more valuable as hostages.
> I remember reading in several places that nobles had higher survivability  due to using silver utensils. Supposedly silver have some antibacterial properties. Considering that during sieges disease was a major cause of death maybe there is some truth to that theory.



For one thing, they would have had access to better armor, and the best medical care (not that that was saying much).  For another they were typically cavalry, and could more easily extricate themselves from combat.  And then there's their ransom value, which encouraged taking them prisoner instead of just killing them.


----------



## Russ (Dec 2, 2015)

valiant12 said:


> Is there some particular reason for this.
> Is it because they were more valuable as hostages.
> I remember reading in several places that nobles had higher survivability  due to using silver utensils. Supposedly silver have some antibacterial properties. Considering that during sieges disease was a major cause of death maybe there is some truth to that theory.



X Equestris pretty much covers it.  In addition to the ransom issue killing nobles would create blood feuds and prolong wars.  They usually had relatives who could and would seek revenge.  It also made achieving an advantageous peace more difficult.

Also in the middle ages the way combat units were formed helped nobles survive.  They would go into battle with a handful of sargeants or retainers so it they got knocked down they had a group of trained fighting men whose job it was to remove them from harm's way.

They were  not stupid those chaps.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 2, 2015)

Don't forget that it wasn't like there were tons of battles taking place, as far as the ones taking place on an actual battlefield. 

Siege warfare was far more common. 

No reason to send your soldiers out to be killed in the thousands if you have a decent chance of thwarting the enemy from the safety of your fortress.


----------



## Daughter of Hell (Dec 5, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> Are you this incredibly stupid all the time or does this only occur every once and awhile?
> 
> I'm in absolute awe of how poorly you understood my original post. I mean this quite literally.



To be honest, when the reader fails to understand, it's the author who should be blamed for lack of clarity, no? Your OP was unclear. My response was an intelligent product of your poor writing, nothing more.

The OP:



Miskatonic said:


> To me it seems like it may not necessarily be merely



Do you have any idea how pathetic this string is? Seriously. Hopeless.



Miskatonic said:


> To me it seems like it may not necessarily be merely a lack of fear of audience backlash due to their favorite characters dying that motivates him to kill off whomever he wishes and more the fact that if he kept all these characters alive he would be buried by having to deal with all their individual plots;



I count 58 words before I hit a punctuation mark. Is that a world record? The entire sentence, however, is undermined by the opening contradictory-sort of words.



Miskatonic said:


> I don't find it all that interesting if every character is pretty much immune from dying; however maybe it would be best to realize that your characters are going to have to have a certain order of priority so that you know ahead of time who needs to be killed if you have a whole heck of a lot of them.



The "however" here is confusing, too. It appears you're saying, "However," but you're not. At least, not if you read the following 45 words without getting confused, which is difficult, because you opened with a negative. You ought to cut out "however," just put a full-stop there, and start the sentence with a capital _m_.

Also, "are going to have to have," seriously? I mean, damn. Gods. This should be, "will need to have."



Miskatonic said:


> I've watched the first Game of Thrones season and the big character death at the end really pissed me off; but on the other hand it proved just how high the stakes are and how determined certain characters are where maintaining their power is concerned.



You do it again here. Profess Ned's death annoyed you, then say it was awesome. So which is it? I suppose I guessed wrong. I'm sorry. Your post is a guessing game, made even more confusing by lengthy and nonsensical sentences. Don't shoot your readers for guessing the wrong answer out of the multiples you provided.

Learn how to write.


----------



## Daughter of Hell (Dec 5, 2015)

Russ said:


> Lastly, let me suggest a piece of advice for you on having a civil discussion when disagreeing with someone.  If you disagree with someone's idea it is considered common courtesy to do two things.  One to properly understand their idea and frame it in a fair and reasonable way rather than twist it all out of shape.  And secondly if you want to critique something critique the idea not the person.  You  have failed to do either in this post and it is not going to lead to productive discussion.
> 
> The bolded part of your post comes across as particularly churlish, childish and insulting.



I found myself standing in the same room with an idiot, and people entered that room after me, and they assumed I was an idiot too. It's not my fault. At least, with my post, it was coherent and well-written, even if entirely off-topic. In fact, it's plainly the best-written post so far.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 5, 2015)

I guess it makes sense that, along with elves, orcs and dragons, one might find trolls on a fantasy forum.


----------



## Daughter of Hell (Dec 5, 2015)

teacup said:


> (Not saying that only those who survive to the end are actual main characters, just that the way the story is going and if some of the theories are right, it looks like some of these "safe" characters are much more important to the plot and main than others.)



You know, this might be a card up his sleeve for the next book. Yeah, people think Tyrion, Dany, Jon, and Arya are all safe until the end. It'd be good to see a couple of them skewered before the final book. Sansa dying would also be a shock. Unless he kills one of those, as in a proper death (not zombie-comeback), it'll be bland. Killing Cersei won't be the same. Also, Jaime dying wouldn't be a surprise. Martin needs to keep up the mortality-rate.


----------



## Daughter of Hell (Dec 5, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> I guess it makes sense that, along with elves, orcs and dragons, one might find trolls on a fantasy forum.



And really dense stone walls too.


----------



## Daughter of Hell (Dec 5, 2015)

FifthView said:


> If I have a story to tell, picking the exceptional characters (exceptional to the rule of "All men must die") to be my MCs is not at all unrealistic.   After all, unless we are talking about some sort of absolute Armageddon, there _are_ individuals who will survive from beginning to end.  Why not choose one of those to be my MC?



I guess it's a matter of opinion, really. Preference. But in lengthier mature epics, the writer needs to get creative. Really, there needs to be surprises. I'm writing a huge epic right now. There's a definite main character in it who I think needs to be there at the end. I'm going to surprise the reader by having her elaborately fake her death. The reader will believe she's dead, because all the other point of view characters do too. Her death allows other characters to emerge as "main," but she's still there, pulling strings, right under the reader's nose. She comes back at the end, only to die again on the final page, for real this time.

This is relevant to Martin's work because it's so long. He has a large cast. He needs to keep things surprising. The surprising scenes are always the best to read, like the Red Wedding. He needs to be creative, too. I guess, having one character die at the end of one book, only to become a zombie in the next book, is also creative, but it's a bit dumb. I'm waiting to see if he can do better than that. I hope so. It's been good so far. There's a real risk of it becoming bland, though, if we get through so many pages and we're not surprised again like that.


----------



## psychotick (Dec 5, 2015)

Hi,

To bring this thread back away from the personal and back to the OP, I would say the OP'er has it backwards. In my view GRRM doesn't kill off characters out of a lack of fear about a reader backlash - he courts that backlash. And he doesn't kill them off to save himself writing copious amounts of prose, he wrote copious amounts of prose so that he could have characters to kill off.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Daughter of Hell (Dec 5, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> For one thing, they would have had access to better armor, and the best medical care (not that that was saying much).  For another they were typically cavalry, and could more easily extricate themselves from combat.  And then there's their ransom value, which encouraged taking them prisoner instead of just killing them.



Yeah. When you hit a noble with a sword, he didn't die. It had something to do with wearing clothes made of metal. Peasant clothing was made of softer material. LOL. But nobles were captured for ransom. Peasants had no ransom value, so they were oft slaughtered, even when they didn't need to be.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Dec 5, 2015)

Hello everyone.

Daughter of Hell has received two Infractions as a result of her personal attacks in this thread. Any person that attempts to fight back by posting any type of hostile reply to her, will be sanctioned as well.

Sheilawisz


----------



## bgmyhan (Dec 8, 2015)

The only thing to realize here is George Martin started game of thrones with the intention of writing something that can never be produced by hollywood. (they did and that's another story) but originally he was pissed off at the studios for butchering his work and he wanted to write something for him and something that he thought could never be made into a movie. Killing the main characters was one of those F-yous that actually caught on. I don't recommend it for writers who want to sell their books. Game of thrones is an exception to the rule along with any other book that made good money. At the end, story and characters sell books and GOT has those and some.


----------



## Russ (Dec 9, 2015)

bgmyhan said:


> The only thing to realize here is George Martin started game of thrones with the intention of writing something that can never be produced by hollywood. (they did and that's another story) *but originally he was pissed off at the studios for butchering his work and he wanted to write something for him and something that he thought could never be made into a movie.* Killing the main characters was one of those F-yous that actually caught on. I don't recommend it for writers who want to sell their books. Game of thrones is an exception to the rule along with any other book that made good money. At the end, story and characters sell books and GOT has those and some.



Has GRRM actually said that somewhere?  I would be interested in reading more about that.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 9, 2015)

Russ said:


> Has GRRM actually said that somewhere?  I would be interested in reading more about that.



I think that's a rough extrapolation from things Martin has said.


----------

