Honestly, why does George R.R. Martin hate his readers so?

[APurpleCow]

Spoiler alert.



He gave us just enough time with the Red Viper that we could begin to love him, and then he was fighting the Mountain and winning by a good amount - but then, oh wait, the author just remembered that he hated his readers, so the Red Viper's dead. This happens in his books so often that if I begin to like a character, I can expect something terrible to happen to them within the next chapter...and I'm usually right.

I can't wait for Arya to become an awesome ninja that assassinates everybody, but I can't help but think that she's going to die very soon. Why does the author hate us so?

 

[Orion]

Lets just hope that with all these good characters dying off that the end will be that much better and the bad ones will get what they got comin'. And I hope its painful as hell.

 

[viZion]

Yeah, and he keeps Bran alive so that he and his green friends can keep boring us to death with their dreams and dry stories. He truly does hate us .



Hey, it's been at least a few months since I got a shot in at Bran...I was due

 

[Boaz]

I beg to differ.

I feel that the author kills off characters because he respects our capacity for critical thinking. I've read many heroic stories where the protagonists and other interesting characters were never in doubt. Seriously, if the bad guys are really that evil and if they are such a menace, then why - oh why - do the good guys never suffer?

My first primer was On Cherry Street. It featured Tom and Betty and their dog, Flip. See Tom. See Betty. See Tom run. See Betty Run. Run Tom. Run Betty. Run Flip. They lived happy lives. The author never really put them in danger of dying or suffering.

Of course, we don't teach five year old children to begin reading about suffering and death.

I remember the first fantasy stories I received for my eighth birthday... The Chronicles of Narnia. Except for Edmund in the first book and Eustace and Jill in the last book, I never really felt that the children's lives were in danger. I knew Aslan would save them.

C.S. Lewis eases his tender readers into the fact that there is death and suffering and bad guys who want to do us harm. But he provides a benevolent comforter and giver of life to offset this.

Fast forward to A Song of Ice and Fire. Martin not only puts the protagonists and interesting characters in harm's way, he kills them off. He does not do this because he hates us. He does this because it adds credibility to the story. It makes the story believable. The story is for more mature readers... people who've experienced pain, suffering, deaths of loved ones, tragedies, and betrayals.

If Martin did not kill off Eddard, Drogo, Robb, and Oberyn, then ASOIAF would read something like this... See Jon. See Ghost. See Jon fight. Run Ghost, run. Or we would know that no matter what bad stuff may happen even a never ending winter (just like in The Chronicles of Narnia), R'hllor will save the day and let nothing bad happen to the heroes and their friends.

I suggest that authors who give intellectual credit to their readers will depict their fantasy in very real terms, i.e. life and death, while readers who need to be spoon feed will continue to gravitate to stories that sound like... See Rand. See Egwene. Pout Rand. Comb Egwene.

And what about Viserys? Tywin? Jaime? Theon? Lysa? Pyat Pree? Biter? Rorge? Gregor? Janos? Joffrey? They've all died, been executed, been crippled, been murdered, been brought to justice, or imprisoned, i.e. gotten what's coming to them. Martin has not just killed off the good guys. Like the good book says, the rain falls both on the just and the unjust. If you want Martin to give back Oberyn (who really was a nasty piece of work), Eddard, Robb and Drogo, then he'd have to give back Viserys, Joffrey, The Tickler, The Mountain and Lord Tywin.

 

[Bazza]

Yeah I was a little disappointed to see Catelyn come back to life. And Theon. Will any of the POV characters stay dead? I hope Brienne does at least...

 

[The Ace]

Errr Boaz, I'd say you had a point, except he only kills off the good characters, how credible is that ?

I feel that he destroys any character with whom the reader feels empathy purely for the h*ll of it and is taking so long to finish because he has no-one left to carry the plot.

I read 3 volumes of this junk for the simple reason that you never abandon a book, but this would sicken a pig.

 

[Bazza]

Errr Boaz, I'd say you had a point, except he only kills off the good characters, how credible is that ?

I feel that he destroys any character with whom the reader feels empathy purely for the h*ll of it and is taking so long to finish because he has no-one left to carry the plot.

I read 3 volumes of this junk for the simple reason that you never abandon a book, but this would sicken a pig.

Actually the list of bad characters killed outweighs the good, as Boaz writes. The beauty of GRRM's work is that he has a good 8 or so main POV characters that you can root for. On top of that, he's created all sorts of non POV characters to turn to, Varys, Littlefinger, the Hound, Doran Martell etc. I myself love Jaime, Tyrion, Arya, Bran and Jon. But I know some out there love Catelyn, Dany, and Sansa. Well, not Sansa. Even if one or two of your favorites die, there are still plenty to carry the torch.

I'm guessing you didn't like Robb dieing, but in a way he is like a martyr, sacrificing his life for pursuing the path of honor and dignity. Eddard too. Pursuing that path is hard and arduous. To me only 3 characters in this book stick to it. Eddard, Robb, and Jon. In all honesty how far do you think a politician would get in trusting to duty and honor? That's reality and that's how GRRM wants his books to be.

But to be honest, if you look hard, he kills characters with great difficulty. Bran comes back to life after a what 10 story fall? Catelyn gets ressurected from the dead, the Hound and Theon are likely to still be around. Bran and Rickon survive again after a small scare of heads and pikes. Jon probably should have been killed by the wildlings but he's clever. Don't even get me started on Dany.

He just wants an even playing field for both the good guys and the bad guys. Like I said in my last post, he hardly ever kills off anyone who was a POV.

 

[The Procrastinator]

I like ASOIAF but I really get the feeling GRRM is toying with the readers sometimes. Not that he hates us - but I think he really gets an ebil cackle on sometimes, knowing how we will react. I was really getting into the series until too many of these little manipulations popped up. I'm still enjoying it but I'm no longer swept away by the story.

 

[The Curious Orange]

See, this is exactly the point about GRRM. I love that scene, you are so cheering for Oberyn, even though you've only just met him.

This is why GRRM loves his fans - he does stuff like this. Ned's death, the Red Wedding - these are the unexpected plot twists that keep us reading and keep us salivating for the next book after so many long years...

 

[Hilarious Joke]

The most important thing is that it's all very real, and given the attention to detail and epic scope of the series, this is enough for me to trust GRRM's reasons for doing things.

Also, there is a truly gigantic mass of characters, and a society (or societies) that are at war, and that are filled with corruption, betrayal and all sorts of dangers (the Others for example). Death is to be expected, it would be unrealistic if characters didn't die just because they were main characters or because they were virtuous.

 

[APurpleCow]

I thought about that Boaz. I thought about how maybe George R.R. Martin is telling it as if it was a history instead of a fantasy, as if it actually happened...but the problem with that is that it happens much too often. When you can begin to expect that everybody you begin to like will die within the next chapter and be right most of the time, there's a problem.

Instead of, See Tom. See Betty. See Tom run. See Betty Run. Run Tom. Run Betty. Run Flip, it's See Tom. See Betty. See Tom get hit by a bus. See Betty get hit by a train. Die Tom. Die Betty. Die Flip.

 

[Boaz]

APurpleCow, First of all welcome to the Chronicles network. My apologies for not doing so last night. We do want and we do welcome all opinions. Second, thanks for thanks for taking my post in the right spirit. I'd had too much to drink when I posted last night. And I'd just gotten home after coming from a planning meeting for a fund raiser for a friend who has been in a horrible accident. She's the sweetest, most charitable, most empathetic, most fun loving person in that circle of friends... everyone just adores her. My emotions are a bit raw from the actuality of bad things happening to good people. And rereading my post this morning, I confess that I vastly oversimiplified the issue. Thanks for being a mature poster and not responding with flames.

That being said, we all have taste preferences. At previous points in my life, ASOIAF would not have appealed to me like it does now. It was Eddard's death that convinced me that GRRM was a serious writer telling a serious story. Eddard is comparable to Duke Leto in Dune or Agammemnon in Aeschylus' ancient Greek tragedy Oresteia. All three men are the obvious protagonists at their stories openings, yet all three are murdered fairly quickly. It's left for Orestes, Paul, and Robb to avenge their fathers and take up the mantle of leadership for the nation. Only Paul was successful in both of these undertakings. Robb's death meant a total departure from Aeschylus' and Herbert's storytelling... it told me that GRRM was going beyond them, that he was writing a new third layer to this father/son tale of justice.

I fully expected Robb, after Eddard's death, to become the heroic fulfillment of House Stark. This is what Paul Atreides did, this is what Lyam did in Feist's Riftwar Saga, it's what happens countless times in mythology and fantasy. I singled out Jordan in my previous post, but I could have selected Feist or Eddings or McKiernan or others. But after Rand and company were chased three thousand miles by orcs, wraiths, ancient terrors, wolves, crows, bandits, armies, and spies only to face off with the Dark Lord himself and no one died, I felt betrayed. I felt the fantasy was too fantastic to be believed. At least Tolkien killed off Boromir and Gandalf (for a little while). At least Brooks provided enough menace from the Dark Lord to kill Allanon and Keltset. At least Alexander's Dark Lord was evil enough to kill Coll. Even though Martin had the good sense to kill off Eddard, I was shocked when Robb died without becoming the hero of the age.

Happy endings are hard to come by. If you view a list of Roman Emperors, you'll see that most died of unnatural causes. Most were murdered, executed or killed in battle. Harold Godwinson, Leonidas, Richard the Lion Heart, William Wallace, Horatio Nelson, Martin Luther King, the Maccabees, St. Paul, St. Peter, Joan of Arc, Manfred von Richtofen, Athahualpa, Abraham Lingcoln, and Crispus Attucks all died violent and tragic deaths. Mozart, Aaliyah, Buddy Holly, Pocahontas, Otis Redding, Bobby Sands, Bruce Lee, Keith Green, Hank Williams, and Drazen Petrovic all died untimely deaths at young ages. When we're dealing with people out to change the world or at least trying to be the best in their fields, I think that fairy tale endings are not so realistic.

ASOIAF is the most realistic fantasy I've read. Knowing that Westeros is a dangerously violent place keeps me from being able to predict the story... and I find this enjoyable. The greater the danger, the greater the hero. When the menace is real, the triumph is sweeter.

Again, I realize we are discussing preferences in storytelling. My comparison to Tom and Betty was condescending, I apologize. It may be like discussing the foul odor/pungent aroma of Limburger cheese and durian... Malaysians and Belgians will never agree that their own favorite is stinky or that the other tastes good.

Thanks for letting me set forth my views.

Thanks also for posting here. Any dissenting view usually get shouted down by fanboys like me... so hang in there.

 

[Eulalia]

Boaz put that well.

Perhaps, purple cow, it's not your fault, but you do not prefer tragedies. In my opinion that is what raises GRRM from good to great.

Let's see. Die King Lear, die Cordelia, die Reagan, die Goneril, die Edmund, die Glouster, die fool, etc. Die Hamlet, die Laertes, die Gertrude, die Claudius, die Polonius, die Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, die Ophelia. Die Mercutio, die Romeo, die Juliette (not R& J get married, their families reconcile and they live happily ever after). Does Shakespeare hate his audience?

Also, the times that inspired the story had real wicked queen regents, noble victims, female dynasty pawns, oathbreakers, weak kings, strong kingmakers, betrayals, executions, murders (even royal ones) and constant side switching.

It would be a boring story, if Eddard did not die. The Stark children would not have to adapt and grow, and there would be no family feud. It would be "Father Knows Best", dear Father, the Kings Hand and how he was the new regent, all was well.

Personally, I dislike the formula, where the single good guy (the rightful whatever) has his troubles, then defeats the villain. His third in command kills the wicked villains third, his second in command kills the villains second, and our hero wins because the wicked one lunges at him and falls off a cliff or dies on his own sword, leaving our hero's hands clean, free to rule, happily ever after with the adoring fair maid. (Snore, anyone?)

 

[Wiggum]

I'm confused, which I'm used to.

The position you stated in your first post APC, is exactly why I love these books.

Now if he kills Jon and Tyrion and might begin to see your side of things. But it's the tension of knowing that there is a possibility of death for any and all characters that heightens the enjoyment of the books for me.

Now if he'd just kill Sansa.

Kidding, kidding.

Sort of.

 

[APurpleCow]

Thanks for the welcome Boaz.

I agree with you that too many fantasies are way too easy and the good guys always win, but like I said in my previous post, it happens too often. If "See Spot run" is one extreme and most fantasies land on that side of the fence, ASoIaF is the other extreme. It seems to me that George R.R. Martin kills so many of his characters that he kills them for the sake of killing them. It's as if he realizes that many fantasies are too happy so he tries to make his books darker, but I think he overcompensates.

I love his books, but nobody is perfect and in my opinion I think this is his main flaw.

 

[Tansy]

In all fairness how long would Robb have lasted in the real world, barely out of childhood and thrust in command of an outnumbered force. It was his hormones and childish notions of love and glory that got him killed. If was more experienced around women he might have been able to resist Jeyne Westerling and avioded death at the Red Wedding. He was an inexperienced boy raised to command far too early and dropped in a horrendous situation.

Ned's Death I think was needed to show the true twisted nature of Joffers, if he'd let Ned take the black he wouldn't have been half as despicable, but no he made sure Ned was destroyed out of revenge for humiliation at the hands of his daughter. A child with too much power not realising the consequences of his whims or maybe not caring.

So I don't really think GRRM kills off characters for shock value I think he drops them in difficult situations and knows them so well he knows how they would act, he also knows how they underestimate and play each other. I don;t think he hates his readers, he just knows how his characters tick and respects their personalities.

 

[Eulalia]

I think it looks good on you, Purple Cow, to be distressed at the darkness of the books. And it is a great question.

For all I know, GRRM rolls a pair of dice!

But like Tansy said about deep knowledge of character and situation...that seems more likely.

Also, the deaths can also be explained, I think, by imagining what it would mean to the story and the themes, if the character survived. Then there is the the function of the character to the storyline. (Why are they there in the first place?) It accounts for Eddard, and even the Red Viper (sigh). I don't think the choices are arbitrary at all!

I love the fact that I don't know who will make it, and who will go for sure.
It would be a big surprise if Tyrion, Jon and Dany died any time soon, but who else? It seems anyone is fair game. It's exciting not to know!

I'd say Cersei, and Pan thought Littlefinger, is be on the doom list, but not sure about that either!

 

[Hilarious Joke]

Hee hee, nice Eulalia, I like the pair of dice idea.

And don't forget, as Boaz mentioned earlier, they might be hideously maimed instead!

 

[TK-421]

Well, a couple think killing off main characters its a flaw, most think it's an asset of this series. Good thing for democracy.

The main point is that no other fantasy author has made all his characters vulnerable the way GRRM has. And, there is no principle and invincible hero in this series either. His use of the POV-style chapters means there will be extremely diverging opinions among readers as to whom they most associate with and when that favourite dies, well, don't say that Ned's death in AGOT wasn't fair warning.

Sure, I would be upset if by favs kicked the bucket but I would applaud GRRM for having the guts to do it and keep reading the series. For all her warts, JK Rowling came close to doing the same.

For those who prefer some more resistence to dying in their characters, there is lots of dress-smoothing, hand-wringing or S&M in other series. This is the one for me.

 

[Hilarious Joke]

S&M?! What series is that, please TK?