|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On April 25 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
The red wedding seemed pretty out of the blue at the time. I would also argue that it does happen for a bit of shock value and may be one of the weakest aspects of the books because of how saps the story of a lot of momentum. The show manages to keep it going, mostly by tamping down on a lot of GRRM's need to add more characters.
"Some" shock value is fine I think, and great, I think the point is more about the extreme. Doing something just for shock value is the big difference there.
I think of it like a "fall off a horse" test? At any point in time we could just have any character fall of a horse and die, and it'd be shocking especially in the middle of a chapter, but that's very different from the type of deaths we get in AGoT for major characters.
|
On April 25 2019 02:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 02:10 sharkie wrote:On April 25 2019 01:44 The_Red_Viper wrote:On April 25 2019 00:52 Velr wrote:
Imho Rob had it coming, I was still surprised but he hat it coming as soon as he dishonored his marriage proposal. Well yeah, but that is what i mean with a well written plot point, it doesn't just happen for shock value, out of the blue. GRRM sets his stuff up which makes it more satisfying when it happens, characters move the plot and not the other way around. Martin himself said that he killed Ned and Robb because they were the obvious choices of heroes. So he planned to kill them and then created the "plot" Yeah that is how writing works? I am not sure what your point is. As i said before, characters have narrative purpose and until they fulfill it they have to live. What matters is how it is executed, if it isn't just a totally random death which would be incredibly unsatisfying, if the death itself matters for future plotlines, if the decisions the characters make lead to these plotpoints.
The point is that Martin killed the characters to subvert expectations in a fantasy series. Which created some great moments early on in the series and was well written. The deaths on their own are not meritorious, but the narrative that surrounds them and how that reflects the overall work. But it isn’t sustainable over a long series, because the subversion of the expectation because its own expectation. At this point in the series, we sort of expect people to die and it isn’t that shocking when it happens.
Martin also this problem that he sets out to kill or damage characters that people like and want to cheer for. Which creates great narrative at times, but other times just feels abusive. Like Jon’s death or other things that happen in the books(Stares at Lady Stone Heart with pure contempt). He wants to keep people guessing, but because it took so long people sort of figured out where the plot was going. Which seems to be the reason he hasn’t buckled down an finished these books.
|
United States43533 Posts
On April 25 2019 02:19 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
The red wedding seemed pretty out of the blue at the time. I would also argue that it does happen for a bit of shock value and may be one of the weakest aspects of the books because of how saps the story of a lot of momentum. The show manages to keep it going, mostly by tamping down on a lot of GRRM's need to add more characters. "Some" shock value is fine I think, and great, I think the point is more about the extreme. Doing something just for shock value is the big difference there. I think of it like a "fall off a horse" test? At any point in time we could just have any character fall of a horse and die, and it'd be shocking especially in the middle of a chapter, but that's very different from the type of deaths we get in AGoT for major characters.
Not really. Carl Drogo cut himself at his wedding to prove what a badass he is and then it got infected and he died.
|
On April 25 2019 03:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 02:19 Logo wrote:On April 25 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
The red wedding seemed pretty out of the blue at the time. I would also argue that it does happen for a bit of shock value and may be one of the weakest aspects of the books because of how saps the story of a lot of momentum. The show manages to keep it going, mostly by tamping down on a lot of GRRM's need to add more characters. "Some" shock value is fine I think, and great, I think the point is more about the extreme. Doing something just for shock value is the big difference there. I think of it like a "fall off a horse" test? At any point in time we could just have any character fall of a horse and die, and it'd be shocking especially in the middle of a chapter, but that's very different from the type of deaths we get in AGoT for major characters. Not really. Carl Drogo cut himself at his wedding to prove what a badass he is and then it got infected and he died.
Khal Drogo dying literally defines and sets in motion 50% of the plot of the book while also dramatically shaping Dany's character. That's about as far from a random shock death as you can get?
|
On April 25 2019 02:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 02:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:On April 25 2019 02:10 sharkie wrote:On April 25 2019 01:44 The_Red_Viper wrote:On April 25 2019 00:52 Velr wrote:
Imho Rob had it coming, I was still surprised but he hat it coming as soon as he dishonored his marriage proposal. Well yeah, but that is what i mean with a well written plot point, it doesn't just happen for shock value, out of the blue. GRRM sets his stuff up which makes it more satisfying when it happens, characters move the plot and not the other way around. Martin himself said that he killed Ned and Robb because they were the obvious choices of heroes. So he planned to kill them and then created the "plot" Yeah that is how writing works? I am not sure what your point is. As i said before, characters have narrative purpose and until they fulfill it they have to live. What matters is how it is executed, if it isn't just a totally random death which would be incredibly unsatisfying, if the death itself matters for future plotlines, if the decisions the characters make lead to these plotpoints. The point is that Martin killed the characters to subvert expectations in a fantasy series. Which created some great moments early on in the series and was well written. The deaths on their own are not meritorious, but the narrative that surrounds them and how that reflects the overall work. But it isn’t sustainable over a long series, because the subversion of the expectation because its own expectation. At this point in the series, we sort of expect people to die and it isn’t that shocking when it happens. Martin also this problem that he sets out to kill or damage characters that people like and want to cheer for. Which creates great narrative at times, but other times just feels abusive. Like Jon’s death or other things that happen in the books(Stares at Lady Stone Heart with pure contempt). He wants to keep people guessing, but because it took so long people sort of figured out where the plot was going. Which seems to be the reason he hasn’t buckled down an finished these books.
Well ofc he wanted to subvert some of the tropes of classic fantasy, that doesn't mean that these deaths are only played for shock value though, they all were designed to enrich the plot for the most part, they all made sense in universe and weren't just cheap gotcha moments, they all were motivated by characters and not just "because plot".
You are definitely right that one expects deaths now in the series, but that isn't necessarily a problem as long as they lead to satisfying moments later on, be it plotwise or character development wise.
It isn't only about death either, it is about character decisions havign ramifications for the future, a nice example here is jaime losing his hand.
I disagree heavily with you on why he didn't finish the next books yet, martin never seemed like the guy who would stray away from his plans just because some of it is figured out already, he wouldn't even necessarily know either, he isn't the guy to read forums on the internet.
On April 25 2019 03:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 02:19 Logo wrote:On April 25 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
The red wedding seemed pretty out of the blue at the time. I would also argue that it does happen for a bit of shock value and may be one of the weakest aspects of the books because of how saps the story of a lot of momentum. The show manages to keep it going, mostly by tamping down on a lot of GRRM's need to add more characters. "Some" shock value is fine I think, and great, I think the point is more about the extreme. Doing something just for shock value is the big difference there. I think of it like a "fall off a horse" test? At any point in time we could just have any character fall of a horse and die, and it'd be shocking especially in the middle of a chapter, but that's very different from the type of deaths we get in AGoT for major characters. Not really. Carl Drogo cut himself at his wedding to prove what a badass he is and then it got infected and he died.
On April 25 2019 03:22 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 03:11 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 02:19 Logo wrote:On April 25 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
The red wedding seemed pretty out of the blue at the time. I would also argue that it does happen for a bit of shock value and may be one of the weakest aspects of the books because of how saps the story of a lot of momentum. The show manages to keep it going, mostly by tamping down on a lot of GRRM's need to add more characters. "Some" shock value is fine I think, and great, I think the point is more about the extreme. Doing something just for shock value is the big difference there. I think of it like a "fall off a horse" test? At any point in time we could just have any character fall of a horse and die, and it'd be shocking especially in the middle of a chapter, but that's very different from the type of deaths we get in AGoT for major characters. Not really. Carl Drogo cut himself at his wedding to prove what a badass he is and then it got infected and he died. Khal Drogo dying literally defines and sets in motion 50% of the plot of the book while also dramatically shaping Dany's character. That's about as far from a random shock death as you can get?
That is a show only depiction, in the books it's different, he simply gets wounded in a fight against another khal iirc.
The show is more prone to kill stuff off for shock value as well, or to simply get characters out of the way due to creative bankruptcy
|
Drogo more or less cut himself while fighting another khal (not at his wedding).
+ Show Spoiler +
But the important part of his death was, I think, that Dany was fooled by that witch, repeatedly did not listen to her advisors and therefore got him killed.
|
It is one of his bloodriders in the show and a 1vs1, in the books it's a rivaling khal drogo and his khalasar fight and he gets wounded in that battle.
I totally agree that both in the books and the show this death means a lot, especially because dany herself has to kill him again
|
On April 25 2019 04:18 Garbels wrote:Drogo more or less cut himself while fighting another khal (not at his wedding). + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HqdSjdtPAQ But the important part of his death was, I think, that Dany was fooled by that witch, repeatedly did not listen to her advisors and therefore got him killed.
I never noticed that as a segway to why she’s so intent on her advisor’s counsel from then and out. That’s cool.
|
Many of Danny’s worst decisions are ones where she could have listened to advisers, but decided not to. From executing people who refuse to kneel and so on. That trend follows a lot of characters, like Jon, Robb and Ed as well. It is a trend in the narrative that power is best used after consultation and advice. The series rejects the concept of the “strong ruler” that guides the kingdom through their will and strength alone.
|
On April 25 2019 04:37 Plansix wrote:
Many of Danny’s worst decisions are ones where she could have listened to advisers, but decided not to. From executing people who refuse to kneel and so on. That trend follows a lot of characters, like Jon, Robb and Ed as well. It is a trend in the narrative that power is best used after consultation and advice. The series rejects the concept of the “strong ruler” that guides the kingdom through their will and strength alone.
Is Tyrion an exception to that? I feel like his stint as Hand of the King went pretty well, but I also can't think of any cases of him being stubborn and ignoring council.
I mean yeah it eventually ends poorly, but that has more to do with prejudice against him than his fault.
|
I think the episode would be better if it had a short scene with some random Northerner trying to kill Jaime or Theon for what they did when they were still bad guys.
|
The red wedding was shocking because the heroes died unheroically, meaningless deaths. it was just a massacre. awful. emotionally gut wrenching. when i read the books, i already knew about the red wedding before hand, and i still had trouble getting through it. i struggled with the TV version just as much, as I did with the viper's death.
however, now the show has transitioned into standard fantasy fare, so anyone who dies in episode 3 i am 99% certain will die in a heroes fashion, probably doing a last stand protecting/sacrificing for someone else.
|
On April 25 2019 04:43 Sent. wrote:
I think the episode would be better if it had a short scene with some random Northerner trying to kill Jaime or Theon for what they did when they were still bad guys.
Everyone in Winterfel that would care about Theon is dead and Jaime has never really done anything other than typical war-time stuff.
Really there's just widespread northern-man death at this point. The northern commoners get hit *real* hard over the course of the show (Fighting vs Lannisters, Red Wedding, Sacking of Winterfel, Battle of the Bastards).
|
United States43533 Posts
On April 25 2019 03:22 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 03:11 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 02:19 Logo wrote:On April 25 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
The red wedding seemed pretty out of the blue at the time. I would also argue that it does happen for a bit of shock value and may be one of the weakest aspects of the books because of how saps the story of a lot of momentum. The show manages to keep it going, mostly by tamping down on a lot of GRRM's need to add more characters. "Some" shock value is fine I think, and great, I think the point is more about the extreme. Doing something just for shock value is the big difference there. I think of it like a "fall off a horse" test? At any point in time we could just have any character fall of a horse and die, and it'd be shocking especially in the middle of a chapter, but that's very different from the type of deaths we get in AGoT for major characters. Not really. Carl Drogo cut himself at his wedding to prove what a badass he is and then it got infected and he died. Khal Drogo dying literally defines and sets in motion 50% of the plot of the book while also dramatically shaping Dany's character. That's about as far from a random shock death as you can get?
It shapes her character, but so would the story that would happen if he didn’t die. The stuff that happened after happened after but that does not mean it could only have been preceded by Carl’s death.
His death wasn’t part of the overall political struggle like Robb’s. Carl fought, won, then got tetanus. Sure, Carl needed to die to have a funeral but you didn’t need a funeral for Dany to get dragons, another story could have been woven. The manner in which he died was super arbitrary.
|
Man some things "fans" think of martin or his books is just so funny to read. He literally says the stark deaths were for for shock but his followers claim to see one bigger picture that doesnt exist xD
That must be how the bible got such a cult following
|
On April 25 2019 04:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 03:22 Logo wrote:On April 25 2019 03:11 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 02:19 Logo wrote:On April 25 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
The red wedding seemed pretty out of the blue at the time. I would also argue that it does happen for a bit of shock value and may be one of the weakest aspects of the books because of how saps the story of a lot of momentum. The show manages to keep it going, mostly by tamping down on a lot of GRRM's need to add more characters. "Some" shock value is fine I think, and great, I think the point is more about the extreme. Doing something just for shock value is the big difference there. I think of it like a "fall off a horse" test? At any point in time we could just have any character fall of a horse and die, and it'd be shocking especially in the middle of a chapter, but that's very different from the type of deaths we get in AGoT for major characters. Not really. Carl Drogo cut himself at his wedding to prove what a badass he is and then it got infected and he died. Khal Drogo dying literally defines and sets in motion 50% of the plot of the book while also dramatically shaping Dany's character. That's about as far from a random shock death as you can get? It shapes her character, but so would the story that would happen if he didn’t die. The stuff that happened after happened after but that does not mean it could only have been preceded by Carl’s death.
I mean that's not... relevant? Like there's infinite stories being told so the fact that things could happen anyways isn't really like the target point here. It's about if the story being told does make importance out of it.
|
On April 25 2019 04:53 sharkie wrote:
Man some things "fans" think of martin or his books is just so funny to read. He literally says the stark deaths were for for shock but his followers claim to see one bigger picture that doesnt exist xD
That must be how the bible got such a cult following
A long time ago Joss Whedon said he wanted to kill off a main character in a TV series early on in the season, just to shock the audience. Feature the them in opening, set up some fun story lines with them, set up some potential matches. And then just rip that all away and let the story deal with the loss along with the audience. He thought it was very clever and neat.
Then he did it and the people watching the show hated it. He has done it a few more times and wasn’t always terrible, but you could feel him writing the script like a child getting away with something naughty. After the 4th book, I realized that Martin was self indulgent just like Joss Wheadon, but better at writing narrative and characters. That is when I punched out of the series, because I am not the author’s play thing.
|
United States43533 Posts
On April 25 2019 04:53 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 04:48 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 03:22 Logo wrote:On April 25 2019 03:11 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 02:19 Logo wrote:On April 25 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
The red wedding seemed pretty out of the blue at the time. I would also argue that it does happen for a bit of shock value and may be one of the weakest aspects of the books because of how saps the story of a lot of momentum. The show manages to keep it going, mostly by tamping down on a lot of GRRM's need to add more characters. "Some" shock value is fine I think, and great, I think the point is more about the extreme. Doing something just for shock value is the big difference there. I think of it like a "fall off a horse" test? At any point in time we could just have any character fall of a horse and die, and it'd be shocking especially in the middle of a chapter, but that's very different from the type of deaths we get in AGoT for major characters. Not really. Carl Drogo cut himself at his wedding to prove what a badass he is and then it got infected and he died. Khal Drogo dying literally defines and sets in motion 50% of the plot of the book while also dramatically shaping Dany's character. That's about as far from a random shock death as you can get? It shapes her character, but so would the story that would happen if he didn’t die. The stuff that happened after happened after but that does not mean it could only have been preceded by Carl’s death. I mean that's not... relevant? Like there's infinite stories being told so the fact that things could happen anyways isn't really like the target point here. It's about if the story being told does make importance out of it.
Your point was that his death there defines the book, I disagree. The story that was told required his death but you could do a pretty similar story with the army refusing to board his ships and cross the ocean due to superstition and scheming and subsequently burning the ships with Dany + Carl on them. Just an example. The manner and timing of Carl’s death have absolutely no bearing on the overall story being told. The details may change but the arcs wouldn’t.
Sudden tetanus is completely arbitrary. This idea that GRRM doesn’t randomly kill characters whose stories are incomplete is wrong. Carl did, essentially, fall off the horse and break his neck.
All you actually need for the story is a delay that stops Dany from showing up while Robert is still alive. Hell, the dragons could have been born earlier or later. Logistical difficulties would have served the needs of the story at that point with a completely separate dragon magic subplot in Qarth.
|
On April 25 2019 05:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 04:53 Logo wrote:On April 25 2019 04:48 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 03:22 Logo wrote:On April 25 2019 03:11 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 02:19 Logo wrote:On April 25 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
The red wedding seemed pretty out of the blue at the time. I would also argue that it does happen for a bit of shock value and may be one of the weakest aspects of the books because of how saps the story of a lot of momentum. The show manages to keep it going, mostly by tamping down on a lot of GRRM's need to add more characters. "Some" shock value is fine I think, and great, I think the point is more about the extreme. Doing something just for shock value is the big difference there. I think of it like a "fall off a horse" test? At any point in time we could just have any character fall of a horse and die, and it'd be shocking especially in the middle of a chapter, but that's very different from the type of deaths we get in AGoT for major characters. Not really. Carl Drogo cut himself at his wedding to prove what a badass he is and then it got infected and he died. Khal Drogo dying literally defines and sets in motion 50% of the plot of the book while also dramatically shaping Dany's character. That's about as far from a random shock death as you can get? It shapes her character, but so would the story that would happen if he didn’t die. The stuff that happened after happened after but that does not mean it could only have been preceded by Carl’s death. I mean that's not... relevant? Like there's infinite stories being told so the fact that things could happen anyways isn't really like the target point here. It's about if the story being told does make importance out of it. Your point was that his death there defines the book, I disagree. The story that was told required his death but you could do a pretty similar story with the army refusing to board his ships and cross the ocean due to superstition and scheming and subsequently burning the ships with Dany + Carl on them. Just an example. The manner and timing of Carl’s death have absolutely no bearing on the overall story being told. The details may change but the arcs wouldn’t. Sudden tetanus is completely arbitrary. This idea that GRRM doesn’t randomly kill characters whose stories are incomplete is wrong. Carl did, essentially, fall off the horse and break his neck. All you actually need for the story is a delay that stops Dany from showing up while Robert is still alive. Hell, the dragons could have been born earlier or later. Logistical difficulties would have served the needs of the story at that point with a completely separate dragon magic subplot in Qarth.
That's not the story told. This could also be a story about flying around space in a rocket ship and Dany wouldn't need to worry about Westeroes at all. Or she could have been given a high power artillery instead of dragons. So what? There's infinite stories to be told. We're talking about the merits of the story that was told, not the merits of the infinite stories that weren't.
The point is the story as written puts importance and meaning into the death of the characters, including Khal Drogo, that makes the death more than just inflicting pain on the audience. The show/book could, and many other shows do, just let the characters die without purpose to inflict pain, but that doesn't happen. (hi American Horror Story).
Notably shocking, and meaningless deaths aren't all the same things here, though meaningless and "random" are probably pretty similar. The deaths can be shocking, but important and impactful (Ned's execution?). Deaths can be meaningless but not shocking (say someone like Septa Mordane or Shireen could arguably be in this camp, but Septa is hardly a notable character and Shireen had some purpose but was otherwise a pretty terrible way to deal with the character).
Like I think a fair question is, "Was this character's death just for the purpose of inflicting pain?" and that's again true of some shows (hi again American Horror Story), but it's really not for Game of Thrones. The deaths are woven into the narrative so they're able to add to the other characters and stories and do more than just be a dramatic event.
|
On April 25 2019 05:12 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2019 05:02 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 04:53 Logo wrote:On April 25 2019 04:48 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 03:22 Logo wrote:On April 25 2019 03:11 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2019 02:19 Logo wrote:On April 25 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:
The red wedding seemed pretty out of the blue at the time. I would also argue that it does happen for a bit of shock value and may be one of the weakest aspects of the books because of how saps the story of a lot of momentum. The show manages to keep it going, mostly by tamping down on a lot of GRRM's need to add more characters. "Some" shock value is fine I think, and great, I think the point is more about the extreme. Doing something just for shock value is the big difference there. I think of it like a "fall off a horse" test? At any point in time we could just have any character fall of a horse and die, and it'd be shocking especially in the middle of a chapter, but that's very different from the type of deaths we get in AGoT for major characters. Not really. Carl Drogo cut himself at his wedding to prove what a badass he is and then it got infected and he died. Khal Drogo dying literally defines and sets in motion 50% of the plot of the book while also dramatically shaping Dany's character. That's about as far from a random shock death as you can get? It shapes her character, but so would the story that would happen if he didn’t die. The stuff that happened after happened after but that does not mean it could only have been preceded by Carl’s death. I mean that's not... relevant? Like there's infinite stories being told so the fact that things could happen anyways isn't really like the target point here. It's about if the story being told does make importance out of it. Your point was that his death there defines the book, I disagree. The story that was told required his death but you could do a pretty similar story with the army refusing to board his ships and cross the ocean due to superstition and scheming and subsequently burning the ships with Dany + Carl on them. Just an example. The manner and timing of Carl’s death have absolutely no bearing on the overall story being told. The details may change but the arcs wouldn’t. Sudden tetanus is completely arbitrary. This idea that GRRM doesn’t randomly kill characters whose stories are incomplete is wrong. Carl did, essentially, fall off the horse and break his neck. All you actually need for the story is a delay that stops Dany from showing up while Robert is still alive. Hell, the dragons could have been born earlier or later. Logistical difficulties would have served the needs of the story at that point with a completely separate dragon magic subplot in Qarth. That's not the story told. This could also be a story about flying around space in a rocket ship and Dany wouldn't need to worry about Westeroes at all. Or she could have been given a high power artillery instead of dragons. So what? There's infinite stories to be told. We're talking about the merits of the story that was told, not the merits of the infinite stories that weren't. The point is the story as written puts importance and meaning into the death of the characters, including Khal Drogo, that makes the death more than just inflicting pain on the audience. The show/book could, and many other shows do, just let the characters die without purpose to inflict pain, but that doesn't happen. (hi American Horror Story). Notably shocking, and meaningless deaths aren't all the same things here, though meaningless and "random" are probably pretty similar. The deaths can be shocking, but important and impactful (Ned's execution?). Deaths can be meaningless but not shocking (say someone like Septa Mordane or Shireen could arguably be in this camp, but Septa is hardly a notable character and Shireen had some purpose but was otherwise a pretty terrible way to deal with the character). Like I think a fair question is, "Was this character's death just for the purpose of inflicting pain?" and that's again true of some shows (hi again American Horror Story), but it's really not for Game of Thrones. The deaths are woven into the narrative so they're able to add to the other characters and stories and do more than just be a dramatic event.
When the creator himself says its for inflicting pain you dont believe it but rather want to imagine some higher purpose? You need some help dude
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
