A Dance with Dragons
discussion
why are so many character killed off?
date
newest »
newest »
It's extremely hard to understand how anyone can possibly think that Ned Stark was killed for no reason (or 'Just to show what an ass the young king was'). If Ned hadn't been killed, this series would have ended with one book, or at most two. Ned's death is the crucial event that directly leads to nearly everything that happens in Westeros in the first three books, and indirectly to the later books. Just do a thought experiment: if Ned hadn't died, but had been sent to the Wall as planned, what would have happened? The Starks would have had no reason to rebel any more (at least, assuming that the Lannisters also released Sansa and Arya and properly negotiated the exchange of hostages). Robb would have become the Lord of the North, while Ned went off to the Wall. Jon's story would have changed considerably, if his father was beside him. By dealing with Ned without violence, the Lannisters would have shown themselves to be shrewd politicians, and Joffrey would be more popular with his people. Since the North and Riverlands would no long be rebelling, the Lannister forces would be free to concentrate on putting down Renly and Stannis' rebellions. It's possible that Stannis wouldn't go down so easily, but certainly, the battle of the Blackwater would have been over much faster if Tywin's forces were already at King's Landing rather than coming in at the end.
Ultimately, by not killing Ned, the Lannisters would have consolidated their hold on the throne much faster and more easily. Which is why it was such a wrongheaded move, and disastrous for all concerned. And if it hadn't happened, there wouldn't have been much story to tell.
Alex wrote: "The books obviously have a lot of violence that is considered "normal". But the series seems to have trumped the "let's kill this guy for no reason at all" card pretty much."I personally felt that each an every death in these books had a very specific purpose and characters are not just "killed off", in my opinion.
Martin is not afraid to sacrifice characters - not even very popular characters - for the sake of the story, and I think more Fantasy writers should do the same. That's exactly what makes the story so exciting and unpredictable.
And no offense, but if you really think that Eddard's death was "just to show what an ass the young king was", then you probably didn't pay much attention at all.
I have to admit I had to question some deaths. More for the fact that I just wanted to read more about them, especially Ned and the Red Viper. As far as whether or not the death is necessary to further the story, I dont think GRRM writes anything without intricately detailing the impact that the event has. As much as I would love to have read more of the Viper and Ned their deaths were necessary to move the story to its current point.
I think that the series needs so many deaths to make it realistic. Obviously, with so many sides in the war, there are going to be a lot of deaths. Ned Stark's death was the catalyst that started most of the events in the later books. There are so many people fighting for the throne that there are bound to be deaths of innocent people, and no one is going to be unaffected. Other authors try not to kill off characters unless it is absolutely necessary, but most books are not as violent as A Song of Ice and Fire.
Alex, you wrote: "What I am saying is - normally, in a book a character death is quite a rarity and when it does happen, it's usually for a good reason."No, it's usually not for good reason. It's usually a result of moving plot forward or creating a sequence of suspense.
What's done right in Martin's work that's done wrong in many novels is the portrayal of reality: Sometimes people have accidents, sometimes they have all the trappings of success before an unfortunate turn of events (ala Robb Stark). This is more realistic than those other books which aim to preserve the protagonists artificially - and by their necessity - because of having established the protagonist as the narrator. Martin has sidestepped this dilemma by telling the story from multiple vantage points, any of which can realistically be snuffed out.
Perhaps the odd thing about his work is the demi-omnipresence of the reader. What role does the reader have in shaping the story when each viewpoint character does not of themselves know the whole plot, nor are they aware of the thoughts of the other narrators? It's kind of interesting to consider that the "story" here is an artificially conglomerated collection of first person narratives. We as the reader are like ghosts jumping from character to character and eavesdropping on their thoughts. In a way, it's voyeuristic and unreal.
And yet, each individual character's portrayal and for many, their subsequent demise, is handled in a very realistic manner which is overlooked in many novels.
The story here is not about any particular character.
I have to completely disagree, Alex. I felt like this was one of the rare series where every death was integral to the plot.Without Ned's death there wouldn't be the sequel--or there would be a very boring one. Plus, it just makes sense. Frankly, as much as I loved him, Ned sucks at playing a game of thrones. He made a number of mistakes.
Same for Robb. If it happened any other way, it just wouldn't make sense.
"festive" butchering of the Stark family in the Frey towers? Come on, such an epic war is going on an it ends with this?!See: The Black Dinner. A very realistic thing.
With Ned alive and manning the Wall, Jon's fate wouldn't be hanging in the balance, there's a possibility LC Mormont would still be alive, which means Jon never would've been able to have the arc he's had from newbie to apt Lord Commander that spans the entirety of A Storm of Swords and A Dance with Dragons. They may not have ranged north and found the dragonglass either (which will be important at some point). Rob never would've went south to spring him free, which means he'd still be alive and Theon wouldn't have taken Winterfell and Ramsay Bolton wouldn't have razed it to the ground. Bran wouldn't be a tree. Stannis would still be at the Wall, directionless, after helping out with the wildling battle. Arya wouldn't be recieving training in Braavos, she'd be back in Winterfell, Sansa wouldn't be at the Eyrie, which means Lysa Arryn would still be alive. Rickon wouldn't be on Skagos, which means Davos would still be with Stannis, provided he survived the battle with the wildlings. Ned would've went to the Wall, Jamie Lannister would've gone home which means he'd still have his hand and his whole arc with Brienne never would've existed. He had to lose his hand to turn into the adept diplomat and somewhat decent human being that he's becoming. Lady Stoneheart wouldn't be hanging Freys left and right. Amidst all the chaos going on in the south with Renly and Stannis trying to take the Iron Throne, the North might've been relatively safe from it all. That means Balon Greyjoy never would've chosen that time to raid Deepwood Motte and other places and the Ironborn storyline, while still probably ambitious, would've changed slightly as well.
And that's just all domino effect based off Ned's death.
If The Red Viper won the trial by combat, Tyrion would be freed and I doubt Tywin or Shae the Funny Whore would be dead. Tyrion wouldn't be on his way to Mereen to help Dany, which will help shape all her future actions. With Tywin alive, the Tyrells wouldn't have amassed as much power as they have, and Kevan Lannister would still be alive. With Joffrey dead, Tywin would've been able to mold Thommen into an apt and capable king, which I think he's more than capable of with the right influences (ie: not Cersei). Baratheon rule with Lannister influence could've run a nice long course, instead of the Lannisters tenuously grasping onto their power. Aurane Waters probably wouldn't have run off with all of Cersei's ships, leaving them without a fleet. Westeros' standing with the Iron Bank of Braavos would also be infinitely better than what it is now.
All that stuff because only 2 people died. Nothing has been "let's kill this guy for no reason at all."
I'm not going to attempt to rationalize the multitude of deaths in the series (I don't have enough energy for that task), but I strongly disagree with your take on Ned's death, enough to comment on it.Martin had already done a pretty good job of showing Joff's true colors, so I didn't need to see the boy kill Ned in order to assess his character. It was pretty clear before that moment: Joff was an "ass". Martin was clear on this point too.
As so many people before me stated, Ned pretty much had to die in order to advance the story. His death started a rather large war, and it continues to influence some of the events in the story, even this far along.
Yah, I think the Ned thing is probably addressed enough, but that was a major story catalyst.So was the Red Wedding.
I think every death kinda has a different point to strike though in way of character development and plot drive. Like Ned's death didn't just add to Joffery's character, it added to Arya's, to Sansa's, to Cersei's, and most undoubtedly to Illyn Paynes.
The Red Wedding functioned similarly.
I think one of the more random deaths would be someone like Lysa Arryn, the story progression actually gets rougher after her death in my opinion, but we've yet to see where that will lead in way of story progression and it did give Sansa/Alayne a lot to contemplate. If Mance is dead, thats a bit random for me since I can't see where that would put anyone considering he's already believed dead.
Simple: Valar Morghulis.
Jonnathan wrote: "Simple: Valar Morghulis."Where's the like button when you need it?
Christina wrote: Where's the like button when you need it?"
I second.
Have you read all of the books written so far? Did the deaths of Ned and others make you angry? Did you cry at the unfairness when Bran found out he would never walk again or when Robb and co. were slaughtered and his mother thrown into a river to feed the fishes? Did you root for Arya and hold your breath thru her many narrow escapes? If the answer to any of these is yes then you have your answer. George R.R. Martin has written a book that makes you run the gamut of emotions. Those emotions are genuine because, unlike other 'bad things happen but in the end the boy gets the girl, the bad guy is brought to justice and good triumphs over evil" books, you truly do NOT know what is going to happen or what to expect - very much like real life.
Ned Stark was killed to continue the story. After all, if he had lived, what reason would Rob Stark and his banner men have to launch a war against the Lannisters for the throne, as him just being held in a prison cell is a weak excuse. With a multiple character book, the characters - although they have their own stories to tell - are mainly used to develop an overall plot so it is inevitable that their story come to an end at some point. Better that than things get ridiculous and meaningless when those characters have page time, I say. Besides, people rarely stay dead in the A Song Of Ice And Fire series anyway.
I believe the characters were killed for a reason. You, as a reader, are meant to say - oh no he didn't just do that. And everyone should know before beginning this series - don't get too attached to any one character.
GRRM's work is all based closely upon real life. Real situations. Real characters. None of us get out alive. None of our songs are sung forever, so in like fashion, those who live in the Seven Kingdoms and the world that surrounds them are subject to instant annihilation. Sometimes for the most mundane, stupid reasons, just like real life. It's one of the reasons I really enjoy GRRM's work. You just never know when he'll toss a grenade into the hole... or make it a dud. I'm still waiting to see what comes of Jon Snow's "smoking" knife wounds.
GRRM has said he wanted to create a more realistic fantasy world with his being heavily influenced by medieval England. Death was both common and often violent during this period and something he wanted his world to reflect.
Alex wrote: "Here is a thought that has been nagging me ever since the first book: why does it appear that some characters are simply killed off?The books obviously have a lot of violence that is considered "..."
I think Ned had to die so the war could begin in earnest. The red wedding is a sore point with me too, but I think that is what makes GRRM different. Practically no character is safe, not one! I read all five books back to back and at the end I felt forlorn. Page after page of nothing but pain, misery and disappointment. But it works though doesn't it? Why else would fans be urging him to get on with the rest of the books?
Seed wrote: ""festive" butchering of the Stark family in the Frey towers? Come on, such an epic war is going on an it ends with this?!See: The Black Dinner. A very realistic thing.
With Ned alive and mannin..."
Wow. Awesome summary!
Kimber wrote: "Have you read all of the books written so far? Did the deaths of Ned and others make you angry? Did you cry at the unfairness when Bran found out he would never walk again or when Robb and co. were..."A bit late to reply (sorry on that, have not been on the site for a while).
Your and most other replies seem to summarize one thing: that the author does it to move the story along and because it is realistic.
The thing is: the first big death in the book, that of Ned Stark, startled me. It was, for sure, quite new to me that the head of one of what seemed to be a main faction at the time got killed off.
However, with this tone set in, I actually had a "oh yeah, now you kill this guy, too" feeling everytime a new main character was killed off. For me, it's like there is this massive conflict between characters or factions building up and the culmination of that is the death of a character.
Take, for example, Tywin. I cringed so hard it when Tyrion killed him. It was such a wonderfully deep exploration of the father/son/siblings/next generation topic. I wanted to see how it will develop. What will be the next step? How will Tywin stick it to his dad? What will happen in the next step and how will his father react?
Instead, it ends up in Tyrion "simply" killing his father. Sure, that is one possible ending to this conflict. But I just had the feeling that it could have so much further than this. So much more could have been explored and written on their relationship.
And this is the feeling I get when a major character dies. Not grief, or shock, or lamentation, or surprise. But rather, why has this wonderfully interesting and complicated relationship been cut off by the author when he killed a character? Why did he not continue? Is that where his personal limits of knowledge of these relationship ended?
I read somewhere that GRRM himself answered the question of why he kills so many characters already. He doesn't do gratuitous killing. Every death has a purpose, particularly the deaths of major characters. The Red Wedding, Oberyn's death and Ned's beheading have been covered pretty well so far. About Tywin: he was one of the few people left in King's Landing with enough wits and responsibility to lead the kingdoms. Tyrion knew that, so when he decided to find and help Daenerys, he took out the only person in the Red Keep who could be a real obstruction to Dany. It's been a while since I read the books so I don't remember the latest whereabouts of every character, but I can't recall anyone in charge of the Kingdoms right now who is as powerful, influential or strategically intelligent as Tywin was. It's good that Tyrion took him out while he was still in Westeros.
Caroline wrote: "I read somewhere that GRRM himself answered the question of why he kills so many characters already. He doesn't do gratuitous killing. Every death has a purpose, particularly the deaths of major ch..."Very interesting interpretation. Allow me to propose my viewing of the events, as I remember them (it has been a couple of years since I read the books,too. So I might be rusty).
Tyrion is in jail, he faces imminent death. In the process of his escape, he meets his father. At this point, AFAIK, he does not know where he is going or what his next steps are.
He confronts his father, who dares him to pull the trigger, in the belief that Tywin does not have the guts to do it.
Tywin does indeed pull the trigger and kills his father. To me, it seems to have been a killing done in anger, frustration and a culmination of years of abuse and disbelief of his father in him.
Tywin then gets shipped off. Even at this point, I do not think he knows he wants to meet Danny. At some point comes his decision to go to her, as this is his only avenue of escape left after he killed his father.
IMHO, he goes to Danny because he has no other choice left and not because he purposefully killed his father to help Danny out. That, in my opinion, was not the motive of the killing.
While I don't think the majority of the deaths are pointless within the constraints of the story.. and Ned's was the only death I think Martin actually wrote well.. They are getting pretty boring at this point. But killing people and not ever finishing the books are the only things Martin is known for. So.. it is what it is. He writes for the 'ooohhh, no he didn't!?!' crowd. You either enjoy it or not.
I think he kills characters to shake things up, and because that's how life is - just because you're well-liked doesn't mean you won't get killed. It seems to me that he challenges the accepted tradition of the "good" guys living and the "bad" guys dying. (view spoiler)
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The books obviously have a lot of violence that is considered "normal". But the series seems to have trumped the "let's kill this guy for no reason at all" card pretty much.
What I am saying is - normally, in a book a character death is quite a rarity and when it does happen, it's usually for a good reason.
In GoT I rarely felt that there was a "need" for a character to die. A particularly "good" death was that of the Red Viper - I was internally okay with that death - it was for a reason.
But so many of the other ones? Ned Stark? Really? Just to show what an ass the young king was? A major, positive, character was killed just for this reason?
Or the "festive" butchering of the Stark family in the Frey towers? Come on, such an epic war is going on an it ends with this?!
What I would like to say is that to me it felt like characters were killed off simply because it was an easy way out to continue the story. No character, no story. Go on.
Of course, there is the message that people are like this - we do treacherous things. But then, if this is the grand message - then this is not a book I'd recommend reading to others.
This is all strictly my IMHO, please feel to discuss and criticize.