George Martin and Killing off characters

[FifthView]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

To me it seems like it may not necessarily be merely

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

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.

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."

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]

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]

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

 

[Daughter of Hell]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.