GRRM ruined a song of ice and fire by killing too many good characters

[joaomadeira1000]

Obviously, there are MAJOR SPOILERS ahead! Be careful if you haven't read book 3!

I just finished book 3. Disappointment took me over.

Here is my view on the big picture: GRRM is a gifted writer, no doubt... problem is, he is simply incapable of keeping up with the fantastic world he gave us in the first two books. And I think he knows that, given the sudden shift in focus the series took.

From the first page, I loved A Song of Ice and Fire. I was fooled into imagining it would be about Ned Stark and his fight to mend the broken kingdom. Then he died. I was sad, pissed off, but I understood it had to happen, so the central plot could move on to the Starks heirs and their strugle to find some justice.

Again, I was wrong. GRRM managed to kill Jory, Ser Rodrick, Maester Luwin, destroyed Winterfell, killed too many of the direwolves, killed Robb, Grey Wind and Catelyn, pulverized what remained of the northmen army and any chance the north had with it. Now, we are left with the Stark children and Jon for the rest of the series, if we still want to root for the Starks. And honestly, even if they win in the end, what of it? What will be left for them?

So there you have it. No reason to keep reading.

I think it is obvious that science fiction series depend on regular dramatic events to remain interisting. One way to go is unexpectedly killing an important character. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as it serves the story. Boromir's death in LOTR is a good example. Ned's death too.

But that is just one card. And it is one GRRM has abused over and over, to the point where a Song of Ice and Fire just... lost its appeal. He killed too many of the good guys for me to care about what is going to happen next.

Of course that may just be me. But it got me thinking...

Imagine it is 1977. You just watched Star Wars - A New Hope. You loved it. Come Empire Strikes Back, George Lucas kills Luke, Leia, Chewbacca, Han Solo and R2D2, and the Death Star has destroyed every world populated with a likeable race, and the Rebel Alliance is over. Would you still care? Would Star Wars still be so great?

Or let's say you just read LORTR - Fellowship of the Ring. You loved it. On the second book, Frodo dies, Aragorn dies, Legolas dies, Gimly dies, the shrine is destroyed and invaded by orcs. You're left to root for Sam and those other two hobbits. Would you keep reading? Would LOTR still be so great?

But i digress. My point: GRRM has strayed from the path that made a Song of Ice and Fire so appealing: the Starks hard fight to find revenge and justice. They have been too damaged to have any kind of satisfaction from any sort of victory they eventually have from this point forward.

Well, this is just my opinion. It is funny, I think that creating a wonderful saga and botching its ending seems to be a doom of modern writers. "Harry Potter" was a huge let down (also plagued by pointless deaths of major characters, by the way). The tv series "Lost" had a tremendous disappoing twist in its final seasons. And the videogame "Mass Effect" had a plot that made millions of people buy the games and read the books, and its ending has immensely displeased 99% of the audience.

Oh well.

 

[Warren_Paul]

I'm pretty sure you missed what the whole point of the books was about - maybe reading the forums here will put you back on track with some enlightenment about the overall plot and what's really going on - but oh well, you didn't like the direction the story took... bye

The books have always been Jon and Dany's story - although I wonder if GRRM forgot that writing AFFC?

Personally, I never thought much of Robb. Ned was a shock, but not an unwelcome one. And the Stark's plight isn't as grim as you make it out to be. Yes, they got screwed over, but only two of them are actually dead - technically.

The others will be back for revenge in time. They'll eventually take back Winterfell and rebuild, that I'm sure of.

If there was one death I wish he would take back, it's Renly, but if Renly didn't die, he would have won. His victory would have been far too easy, so GRRM had to do something with him otherwise it would have been a dull ending.

anyway, have fun reading whatever author you move onto, and be nice to that post count - I'm sure it's feeling a bit lonely.

 

[viZion]

Those are good points, joao, but that's really only way to look at it. Another way Warren Paul's way where Jon and Dany are the central characters. Another way is the way I prefer which is that are really no characters who are completely central to the story because the story, like real life, is too big for that. For me, the characters are all shades of grey and different readers may end up rooting for completely different characters.

You like the Starks. Why? Are they the good guys? Another person may like the Lannisters. Why? Are they really the bad guys? But there's nothing wrong with that because the book isn't really about "good" vs. "evil"* but rather that "good" and "evil" are entirely dependent on your viewpoint. Jaime's entire story arc is a great example of this. At first we're lead to believe he's an "evil" character but later on we find out that he's done more to save the Kingdom than just about anyone. So is he good or evil? How about Sandor Clegane? Not a very nice guy yet he mentored two of your Stark children. How about Arya? Is she "good'? In most series, she'd be considered a complete sociopath. Seriously, the girl is insane. Yet most readers consider her to be "good". Again, depends on how look at it and that, for me, is what makes the series great.

*However, GRRM's nod to the traditional good vs. evil structure is the Kingdom vs. the Others which has so far been a relatively minor part of the story.

 

[southron sword]

Surely after reading the first Daenarys chapter you knew this wasnt going to be your everyday fantasy series. If your going to write a world with believable characters your going to need to throw some deaths in there. And this series isnt Starks good, the rest of the world Bad. No one is safe in this world and I read this series knowing that. And like WP said, this is a story of Jon and Dany. This series has been massively refreshing BECAUSE he kills off main characters. It bugs me to no end when the good guy manages to get out of EVERY situation. Im sure most people realise your entitled to your opinion but dont expect to find much love in here....

 

[The Procrastinator]

I kinda agree with you, Joao, or at least see your point. There is a lot to be said for reading something that satisfies the reader on that visceral level of "it's all going to be all right in the end". And most fantasies follow this rule unashamedly. If the reader is going to invest time and energy into reading a story, they want to be able to trust that the writer is going to deliver something really satisfying in the end. A string of satisfactions, even better.

Warren is right that the main focus of the story is not necessarily the fortunes of the Starks, but Martin puts a lot of thought and effort into making the Starks "the goodies", meaning that people will naturally be cheering for them and be devastated by their rather major setbacks. I have to say this is one of the things I don't like about Martin's writing - he's manipulative of his readers in a cigarette burn kind of way. (The Starks are only one example of this carry-on.)

I could forgive him that, in fact I have so far (with reservations), if I could believe that he will bring the story to some kind of satisfactory resolution. My idea of a satisfactory resolution is rather broad, I'm not talking happy endings, revenge for all, everything goes back to how it was. More along the lines of poetic justice, resolutions that don't leave loose ends, and something that means a moving forward is possible - for individuals and for the society he has created (and is busy destroying). I'm not entirely convinced that this is going to happen with this series, though. The story just seems to get bigger and bigger. Whereas the first book in particular was "tightly" written, the later books have a definite "loose" feel. I love LOTR so I know it is possible to write epics that are not faff-heavy. ASOIAF is accumulating an alarming amount of faff, which to me reads like a writer who is not fully in control of the beast he has created. I'm still reading this series - but I'm not loving it like I was. When the last book was released I was looking for a firm hand on the reins. Well, at least it showed there's a hand on the reins - but the firmness is leaving something to be desired in my opinion. So I won't give up on the series yet - Martin has surprised me before - but will these books be classics in fifty years? Seems to me like Martin is flagging...

 

[Grunkins]

If ASoIaF were the standard book or story Robb would have won the war and been king. This obviously isn't your standard story. It has more depth than anything else I can name. The dead Starks didn't have the brains or the guile to win the game of thrones. But never fear, there are more Starks alive and well, and four more books to the series you haven't yet read. One thing we learn early in on these books: anything can happen.

 

[Boaz]

Warning! Spoiler Alerts for ASOIAF, Mass Effect 3, and the life O.J. Simpson.

joaomadiera, Welcome! Thanks for your thoughts regarding ASOIAF so far. Obviously, you're a passionate person. You've also put in your time comparing GRRM's opus to other hugely successful and popular works. If you'll bear with me, I'd like to make a couple of points.

First, don't let the opposite views from your own scare you off. I'm telling you now, most of the posts in this thread will contradict yours. I am one of those posters, but let me encourage you (before I give you reasons why I like how GRRM has dealt with his characters)... let me encourage you to post regarding ASOIAF and to explore the rest of the Chronicles Network forums. You'll find threads on The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, LOST, Mass Effect (btw, I'm ready to assault the Illusive Man's base... or at least I think I'm ready), writing, world development for writers and role-players, and who knows what all...

Second, I commend you for the foresight and consideration to put a spoiler warning at the beginning of your post. Even if you are done with ASOIAF, you're still considerate to those just starting. Thank you.

Third, literature is art. Painting, music, poetry, and dance are also art. Why do they have multiple judges on Dancing with the Stars and American Idol? Why do they have judges for diving and gymnastics? Because these are arts and people will have different interpretations. We don't have panels of judges for basketball, firefighting, or mowing the lawn. Why not? Because these are not art. Oh, we may appreciate the artistry involved in a jump shot, but these are not judged by quality, but by quantity... points scored, buildings and lives saved, and sidewalks edged. So, everyone will have a different opinion on ASOIAF... and that is as it should be.

Fourth, I've been reading heroic literature for forty years. I'd read fantasy, Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, Persian mythology, Norse mythology, Hawaiian mythology, the story of David and Goliath, Samson, various tales of King Arthur, Johnny Tremain, Tolkien, Lewis, Dahl, Burroughs, Howard, Alexander, and biographies of George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, Paul Revere, Dick "Night Train" Lane, Gayle Sayers, Sergeant York, George Washington Carver, O.J. Simpson (SPOILER ALERT! O.J. turns out to be a villain), and I saw Star Wars (no Episode Four crapola), I saw Star Wars in the theater... by the age of ten. While I like many styles of storytelling, and while I remember many styles fondly, my tastes have changed over the last thirty-five years.

I now understand how Lancelot fell from purity to treason. I empathize with Robert E. Lee's decision to join the Confederacy. I comprehend the anguish of David after Bathsheba's miscarriage and after Absalom's death. I resonate with Jonah's reluctance to confess that he was the reason the ship was sinking. I cheer for Jean Valjean's atonement.

At my age, I know they'll never write, "And Boaz lived happily ever after." The mistakes and sins I've committed come back to haunt me at times. I know I'm in need of redemption... I cannot find it on my own. But I think that is the dream, the hope of heroic stories... that a man can save himself and others. Frodo saved Middle-earth. Odysseus saved Agamemnon's honor and he also saved his family. Robb restored the Stark's honor by riding to war.

At my age, I know people die. I know people fail morally. I know people betray loved ones. I know people are lonely, afraid, and without hope. So, I enjoy ASOIAF because it reflects life. It's not pretty, but it is authentic.

So there you have it. No reason to keep reading.

Fifth, just because the story has shifted from the Starks to others does not mean the story is over. I confess my favorite characters are Jaime and Tyrion. Yes, I know that's heresy... especially from me. (My Mass Effect character, Delray Shepard, has been a paragon of virtue in all three games. He has honor. He always keeps his honor. He's a one-woman man. When everyone else sells out, Delray stands firm.... except when he shot his best friend in the back! Aaaarrrrgggghhhhh!!!! It still bothers me.)

The Lannister boys are in serious need of redemption. Many characters seem to be broken and icorrigible recidivists. But the Kingslayer, of all people, knows he needs redemption. Will he find it? I don't know... he may back off his plans to atone for his sins and do whatever it takes to keep Tommen on the throne. Regardless, he's fun to follow.

Tyrion has this soft side for undeveloped and broken people. Even when wielding great power, Tyrion always spots and supports the helpless. So, I tend to forgive his sins.

Sixth, so Lady, Robert, Jory, Eddard, Drogo, Jeor, Renly, Robb, and Catelyn are dead. It's a shame. But then again, Tywin, Balon, Joffrey, the Mountain, Chiswyck, Rorge, Biter, the Titan's *******, Lysa, Craster, Weese, and the Lord o' Bones are dead, too. The old adage, "The only certain things in life are death and taxes" seems to apply. Why should only the evil die? Everyone dies and to pretend differently is to live in Sansa's songs and fairy tales. Baelish told her, "Life is not a song, sweetling. You may learn that one day to your sorrow."

Seventh, when death is not a real threat, I am not convinced that the author is serious about the story. Bran's defenestration, Lady's death, and Eddard's execution told me that GRRM was serious about his story. The amount of time and effort that GRRM poured into Eddard is staggering considering that Eddard did not survive the first book of a seven book series. He was THE protagonist... at least he seemed to be. From that point on, I've taken nothing for granted in this story.

I enjoy the new characters. Life goes on. The story goes on. Eddard, Tywin, and Drogo are gone. But Jaime, Griff, Victarion, and Barristan Freaking Selmy are now the commanders in the field... and I like them all. Jaime might finally cross swords with his idol, BFS, and be slaughtered.

So mayhaps they were not points, but just opinions and feelings.

Just my two cents.

 

[Grunkins]

and the life O.J. Simpson.

I came here for O.J. spoilers.

 

[HareBrain]

I mostly agree with Procrastinator. I'll keep reading, but the grinding cruelty and bad news have made me stop caring. In the end, whoever "wins" will just inherit a social and physical wasteland, and will be too traumatised to enjoy it. And I might have bought into the idea that Jon and Dany were the ones to root for if they hadn't spent the last book mucking about and being idiots.

 

[The Procrastinator]

"It's not pretty, but it is authentic." Boaz
"I don't think that word means what you think it means." Inigo Montoya

A seven book series - so he's got two books to wrap it all up? I don't know. I admire what he's achieved on the whole so far - but I smell a whiff of Wheel of Time. I hope I'm wrong.

(I like the Lannister boys too btw)

 

[Warren_Paul]

I think things are going to fall nicely into place over Winds of Winter. We know already through the chapter reading of Winds of Winter recently that Victarion arrives looking for Dany early in the book - he is taking Slavers Bay by surprise. I think he is quite capable of crushing any resistance he comes across, which means it won't be long before she is on her way back to Westeros with the Dothraki at her side. Going by her final scene in ADWD I imagine she wins back their loyalty - which could possibly be done between books; the ironborn arrive to find her already in command.

GRRM has already said he isn't adding any more characters to the story, so it's just wrapping up the stories that are already going on.

My guess is that Jon and Dany will make peace, she will have the South, he will have the North, and considering that, I see it being quite possible for two books to deal with it.

Who uses the horn is the question. If it has to be Dany then maybe that might throw a spanner in the works, because then she would have to be involved in the battle with the white walkers, but will see...

GRRM has said the books are going to be huge, so expect 1-1.2k pages each.

 

[Ursa major]

Welcome to the Chrons, joaomadeira1000.

I mostly agree with Procrastinator. I'll keep reading, but the grinding cruelty and bad news have made me stop caring. In the end, whoever "wins" will just inherit a social and physical wasteland, and will be too traumatised to enjoy it. And I might have bought into the idea that Jon and Dany were the ones to root for if they hadn't spent the last book mucking about and being idiots.

The facing up to bad news is one of the things that makes this SF reader read GRRM's fantasy, because I'm too old to read fiction whose moral stance and character survivability is derived from the poorer Westerns, i.e. those where the bad guys wear black hats, are irredeemable and who die at the hand(gun) of the white-hatted hero (who gets the girl in the last scene.)

Great heroic tales are, in my opinion, morally bankrupt if they only focus on the hero winning against the villain. They are the worse than tales based on "the ends justify the means", because they omit most of the (inevitable) means.

Any story which has armies, as opposed to small bands of (usually) men, amassing to fight each other should be set in reality, where the country will be devastated. The soldiers will be a mixture of mercenaries (who will empty the exchequers), the psychopathic (who just like fighting and killing and worse) and the dragooned folk (who would be working the land or plying a trade, keeping the economy going). All those soldiers need to eat something and a good many of them will expect other services from the land, and people, over which they're marching (and more soldiers than just the psychopaths will not be taking no for an answer). Some may think the Brave Companions are there merely to provide almost-pantomime-like hate figures, but I see them as another part of the truth, the Westerosi version of the armed bands that have devastated - and are still devastating - large swathes of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for instance.

So for me, what characterises ASoIaF is honesty; honesty about what going to war really means. This is why I really like AFfC; without giving spoilers, it emphasises that ordinary folk - not just the families and entourages of the great players, not only the wretches from the cells heading for a (short) life in the Night's Watch - are bearing the cost of the wars in which they never had a stake (unless they were impaled on it).

From the moment Robb raised his banners - I'm not saying he should not have done - the Westeros we see in the later books was inevitable. The only decision GRRM had to make was whether to show it. I truly believe he made the correct decision in doing so.

 

[HareBrain]

Ursa, I understand all that. But honesty about war, though previously under-represented in fantasy, is hardly unique to GRRM. And it wouldn't be a problem for me if it wasn't so long and grinding and (almost) unrelieved by anything more positive.

I loved the first three books, quite liked FFC, never felt very engaged with DWD, and now feel tired of the whole thing. I want to find out how the story ends, but only as the solution to a puzzle. But I might be wowed by the next book, who knows.

 

[Mesanna]

Joaomadeira1000, firstly, welcome!

I feel that you've approached the books with the mindset that this was a story about the Starks, and, yes, it certainly started off that way. But the books have expanded massively in scope and that's not the case any more. I doubt the Starks were ever meant to be the main focus for the story. GRRM merely led us to believe that for a while, just as we believed Eddard Stark was the main protagonist. For me, the books aren't even about Jon or Dany's stories. They are about the struggle for power in Westeros. About the things some people will do to attain and keep power, and how people react to turmoil in their lives and what they will do to survive. In your Lord of the Rings example, the focus wouldn't be about the individual characters; it would be about the war and the sacrifices that were made to overthrow Sauron.

Every character in the books is on a metaphorical journey. Some, like Jaime, move from what we perceive as 'bad' to 'good'. And Arya, on the other hand, is going in the other direction. Sometimes the journey is more fun than the destination, but I suppose if you're not enjoying it any more, maybe it's time to get off.

I personally love how an author can make me feel disbelief and devastation that a much-loved character has died, as so many books are bland and instantly forgettable. Any story that provokes strong emotion is surely worth the time it takes to read?

 

[joaomadeira1000]

I kinda agree with you, Joao, or at least see your point. There is a lot to be said for reading something that satisfies the reader on that visceral level of "it's all going to be all right in the end". And most fantasies follow this rule unashamedly. If the reader is going to invest time and energy into reading a story, they want to be able to trust that the writer is going to deliver something really satisfying in the end. A string of satisfactions, even better.

Warren is right that the main focus of the story is not necessarily the fortunes of the Starks, but Martin puts a lot of thought and effort into making the Starks "the goodies", meaning that people will naturally be cheering for them and be devastated by their rather major setbacks. I have to say this is one of the things I don't like about Martin's writing - he's manipulative of his readers in a cigarette burn kind of way. (The Starks are only one example of this carry-on.)

I could forgive him that, in fact I have so far (with reservations), if I could believe that he will bring the story to some kind of satisfactory resolution. My idea of a satisfactory resolution is rather broad, I'm not talking happy endings, revenge for all, everything goes back to how it was. More along the lines of poetic justice, resolutions that don't leave loose ends, and something that means a moving forward is possible - for individuals and for the society he has created (and is busy destroying). I'm not entirely convinced that this is going to happen with this series, though. The story just seems to get bigger and bigger. Whereas the first book in particular was "tightly" written, the later books have a definite "loose" feel. I love LOTR so I know it is possible to write epics that are not faff-heavy. ASOIAF is accumulating an alarming amount of faff, which to me reads like a writer who is not fully in control of the beast he has created. I'm still reading this series - but I'm not loving it like I was. When the last book was released I was looking for a firm hand on the reins. Well, at least it showed there's a hand on the reins - but the firmness is leaving something to be desired in my opinion. So I won't give up on the series yet - Martin has surprised me before - but will these books be classics in fifty years? Seems to me like Martin is flagging...

Procrastinator, you made the point I tried to. Reading my own post, I think it may have looked like I was just sad that the Starks died, or that I expected a happy ending. That's not it at all.

Like I said, I fully understand the necessity of the death of a main character... WHEN it serves the story. My point was, I don't think that is the case here. In my opinion, it doesn't matter if the starks are the protagonists, or Dany, or Jon. GRRM tried really hard to make me root for the Starks, he presented them as honorable people in a screwed up reality, left with a lot of scores to settle. And, in my opinion, he is killing them for no reason other than to shock us, to make us say "wow, GRRM is a genius, no one is safe, he is keeping it real". I think (and it is just MY opinion) that is very cheap here, and therefore I agree with procrastinator: "I have to say this is one of the things I don't like about Martin's writing - he's manipulative of his readers in a cigarette burn kind of way. (The Starks are only one example of this carry-on.)"

I know my comparisons may be boring, but I can't help myself: I read the "walking dead" comics. There are central characters there, and I love them, but anyone may die at anytime. Does that upset me? No, because the main plot is the struggle of the survivors, it is a vision of how life would be for a group of people in case of Apocalypse, and not the story of Rick Grimmes. From the first issue, you know that.

In ASoIaF, GRRM manipulates us into thinking the story will be about the Starks. Then he kills Ned. That is sad, but ok. And then he cheaply kills Cat, Robb, Lady and Grey Wind, and destroys Winterfell and the northern army. And now the story is about Jon and Dany. I understand some of you think that it has always been about them, but we will never agree on that. I think we had two great storylines for the first three books (Starks Vs. Lannisters, The Realm and Jon Vs. The Others), and now we are left with only one because GRRM wanted to shock us and prove that he is realistic.

Personally, I was a lot more interested in the Stark Vs. Lannister thing. That is over for me. Like I said before, I can no longer cheer for Boring Bran, Rickon, sociopath Arya and dumb Sansa. Even if they win, it will be a hollow victory.

P.s. Even if the story has always been about Jon and Dany, GRRM could still keep the Stark Vs. Lannister interisting. he didn't have to ruin it. And, to me, even though Jon's path is great, Dany is one of the worst characters ever created.

 

[Mouse]

Ursa, I understand all that. But honesty about war, though previously under-represented in fantasy, is hardly unique to GRRM. And it wouldn't be a problem for me if it wasn't so long and grinding and (almost) unrelieved by anything more positive.

I loved the first three books, quite liked FFC, never felt very engaged with DWD, and now feel tired of the whole thing. I want to find out how the story ends, but only as the solution to a puzzle. But I might be wowed by the next book, who knows.

Seconded.

I'm not fussed about characters dying. I love when Ned lost his head and I loved the wedding.

What I don't like is characters dying just because that's what people do. I know that, thanks, I know people who've died. I don't want to read about it all the time.

I've not read ADWD. I'm not reading anything at the moment because ADWD is the only unread book left on my shelf (I have a huge to-read pile, but unfortunately everything else is packed up in boxes for the house move and I don't know where my books are). I keep putting off picking it up, one, because it's huuuuuuuge, and two, because I think most of the characters I liked have already pegged it.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm with HB, I liked the first couple, kept going to the end of the third pair, and then flash read the last one, for the Jon bits, if I'm honest, because I was finding it repetitive, had stopped enjoying it, and it was one of the few times when reading something was a chore.

My hubby got to the end of the second, put it down and just asked me what happened from then on. I wish I'd done the same.

But, horses for courses, he's created a fabulous world with some great characters and stand out scenes, but for me, no, it left me cold, overall.
Now ducking and ignoring the responses.

 

[allmywires]

But, horses for courses, he's created a fabulous world with some great characters and stand out scenes, but for me, no, it left me cold, overall.
Now ducking and ignoring the responses.

That is exactly how I feel about this, springs, are you in my mind?

(I should state before I go any further that I ADORE the TV series, and I never managed to get past the first book. I read...well, almost read the book before I watched the series).

Oh, yeah, and RANT AHEAD...

I HATED Game of Thrones. I came into it thinking I would love it, fascinated by the hype, intrigued by the Others beyond the wall and this spooky premise GRRM had created. I liked the idea of Daenerys, the exiled princess, and Ned Stark (who is, let's face it, the only 'good guy' - I use the term relatively - in the series) basically coming to sort those ruffian Lannisters out. And then ... I read on, and I began to despise it. OK, GoT is revered for bringing the nastiness into fantasy - sex, blood, the horror of war - and I like that it's not the pure-white fantasy of LotR, it's a change for the better. But it just seemed relentless to me, and although you're not supposed to like any characters, I just felt a dull apathy towards them. Why bother reading on when I don't give a s**t what happens to them, live or die, raped or pillage, King or not King? In general, I also found his female characters lacking - Dany and Arya were my favourites, Sansa and Catelyn vapid, Cersei a pantomime villain, the endless reams of prostitutes for filler (quite literally) tedious. So I gave up. And what annoyed me most was that the world GRRM had created was fabulous, but I really disagreed with the way he put it to use.

So, er, sorry about that... had to get it off my chest!

 

[Tywin]

... how can I avoid this heated discussion?

The absolute uniqueness of ASOIAF is the realism of actions in a universe that don't fit an established plot, but that have critical effects on it. This is a characteristic that I find lacking even from non-fiction historical pieces - authors have a habit of writing "stories" instead of relating what happens, especially given that the world does not organize events into plotlines.

I had a nice story all written out about some of my own experiences with reality not living up to plot expectations, but I deleted it because it's probably not appropriate here.

GRRM illustrates it better through his fiction, anyway. He sets you up through your expectations about what should happen in a story, and then brings you back down to reality with the use of some common sense and the laws of physics & anatomy. We are conditioned to believe that 'heroes' are impervious to harm except in the most dramatic and plot-fulfilling circumstances. Instead we are left in shock asking questions like "What? How could Ned die?"... while actual reality doesn't delineate between main characters and 'extras'. A sword through the neck tends to kill a man, regardless of his perceived importance. That is GRRM's uniqueness.

 

[HareBrain]

But GRRM has clearly written a story, with plotlines, just very convoluted ones. And Ned didn't die randomly of typhus, nor did Robb die from a sword-stroke in a skirmish: both deaths were precisely, as you put it, "in the most dramatic and plot-fulfilling circumstances". (Though I agree, refreshingly untraditional ones.)

GRRM hasn't written reality -- thankfully, because it would be unreadable. What he has written is a story much more realistic than most, but maybe he, like some of his fans, has forgotten that's what it is, and all it is. (Though clearly huge numbers of readers are still gripped and entertained by it, so this is just my opinion.)