Killing your characters & The George R.R. Martin method (Spoiler Alert)

Outlander.

Damn that Diana Gabaldon!

Hooked me smooth in the first book... carried me through the second... then the not-so-subtle shift to the daughter, Brianna, and her main squeeze, Roger. She still writes about Jamie and Claire, but they aren't the focus of the plot.

I'll never forgive her... and I've never finished the series. But I still love and recommend the first couple of books.

I've never had a problem with a portion of the main characters being killed in epic fantasy. For that matter, I have a bigger problem with fantasies that center around a dangerous hero's journey where no one gets killed. However, Martin's penchant for killing characters is (IMO) what got his series in trouble. There is a great deal of loyalty between the reader and the characters--something I never would have suspected until I started getting emails from readers of my books telling me "You'd better not kill off Brial--" or Anner or *insert favorite Asphodel character of choice.* Thing of it is, as writers that's what we're trying to create--that emotional bond between the characters and the readers, so why it should end up as a surprise I'm not certain.

As a reader, I'm usually not going to get that pissed off if a character dies as long as it forwards the plot. However, if it's a gratuitous death, just like if it's a gratuitous sex scene or curse word, then I'll get knocked out of the story entirely. Death is a part of the hero's journey but there has to be a legitimate reason behind it or it won't work.

I can take character deaths so long as I never get the feeling that the author is just trying to score an emotional 'goal' against the reader (hah, that'll make them cry), or just feeding characters into a mincing machine to justify their emo angsty main's constant bleating.

Shifting focus, though - that would piss me off big time. Under the circumstances I'd suspect he was going to off the original characters alltogether and carry on with the new lot. Annoying.

Personally, that's why I love GRRM so much. His stories feel real. Nobody has this magical aura protecting them. Granted, AFFC was the weakest of the bunch, but to my mind, that's mostly because he had to split it up (which is why, say, Jon and Dany didn't make an appearance at all... IIRC.)

I'm very much looking forward to Dance, and I, for one, commend Martin on writing fantasy his way, and telling the story he wants to tell.

The killing of Ned utterly astounded me. It took me a few minutes to get over it.

As Mr. Anonymous said, the killing of the main characters truly makes the book feel real. The point is, good guys die in real life too.

I do admit that it got very stressful when many of my faves were being chopped off left right and centre but I got over it. Fortunately, at least some survived. I must say that I would definitely be much more enthusiastic if some of the main guys had gotten through but I'm happy with the books the way they are.

AFFC was quite bad. As an avid reader of ASOIAF, I was sorely disappointed with the apparent 'filler' content in that book. If ADWD (which I am VERY much looking forward to) turns out to be like AFFC then I will mostly definitely give up.

Let's hope I'm alive when ADWD comes out.

Put me in the 'Think about it very carefully' category.

Yeah, people die in real life. Yeah, it's a good way to draw the reader in. Yeah, it's a good source of character angst.

But if an author kills too many characters they make the reader a survivor. Like a member of a WWI infantry company they've been in the line for six months and of the people they knew only a handful are left. They're not going to care about the replacements because, "They're just gonna die and I haven't the emotion to give a crap anymore."

I forgive the Martin character massacres because I know Martin is just going to hook me on a new set of characters. He serves up fantastic new characters and in exchange I invest in them emotionally. Sweet, delicious A Song of Ice and Fire.

I just started reading this series a few months ago. It's addictive.

I'm not sure if he's done too much wrong. Sure, he's killed off some (okay, a lot of) characters, but some of them almost had to go because it felt like their story had progressed as far as it could. They really couldn't contribute to the plot anymore without putting the stakes for the rest of the characters at risk (ie. if those characters succeeded in their goals, the good guys won, and where's the tension in that?). And, of course, people die in war and treachery.

Then again, dead isn't always dead in this series, as has been described north of the Wall. I'm interested to see where this goes.

As for shifting focus, yes, I don't care as much for some of the newcomers as I did the old. But I do like many, like the Onion Knight, and the Greyjoy family (Asha, Aeron, and Victarion) because they have interesting characters and their plights are both personal and linked to the larger game of thrones.

As for killing characters in a story with such widespread cast of characters, culling the herd can be a good thing to keep the bulk of herd healthy.

Finally, I can't wait for ADWD. My only worry is that he's going to pull a Robert Jordan and not finish the series before he dies.

dgiharris said:

A Feast For Crows reads like a book of 'left overs'. I'm about 1/2 through it and I have to force myself to get through it and I seriously doubt I will finish.

Click to expand...

That's because it is a book of left overs, partly. He wrote so much for the next book in the series, that he had to split it in two. The first split to come out was A Feast For Crows, the next one is A Dance With Dragons. The very last chapter in A Feast For Crows is only two pages long and says how the regulars will be back in the next installment.

As the series title suggests, the story is about Jon and Dany. Everyone else is expendable. I think that's the main reason AFFC felt like a tangent...it was.

Personally, I think the Red Wedding was one of the greatest scenes in fantasy fiction, followed closely by "The things I do for love," and...push. I'll certainly keep reading, but I hope he finds his story again.

I see no reason why main characters should be protected. If the story required it, bump 'em off.

Hey Mel,

AFFC is incredibly weak (when compared to the first three volumes) for the first 3/4's of the novel. However, imo, the last 1/4 makes up for it in a huge way. AFFC did suffer from being split up, as this is the novel that is mostly "filler". The original plan, according to GRRM, was to move to focus on events with Dany, Arya and Jon, leaving Westeros to basically stew for five years or so, then jump back into it. However, he felt he'd have to sprinkle in too much backstory for Westeros when he picked the story back up there, so decided to write the intermittent five years.

This is the reason AFFC feels like a lot of backstory and exposition and, basically, set up. That said, the ending to it is incredibly strong and while I felt the same way as you do on first reading, I've enjoyed it much more on subsequent readings.

As for killing off characters, I think Tywin is the only one I really miss. Sandor as well, but I'm pretty sure he isn't dead.

I think in a discussion like this, it is best to compare to extremes of the spectrum in fantasy writing. On one side, GRRM, who is willing to off any character at any time. On the other side is Raymond E. Feist, who seems extremely adverse to having any characters die of anything but old age.

On GRRM's side, the writing feels much more real and urgent, and you are never really sure which side will come out on top. But, it is tough to form a good bond with a character only to have that character end up in an alley with a knife in his back for no real reason other than he looked at the wrong bar patron the wrong way.

On Feist's side, the writing feels much more "feel good" and you never really have a doubt the good guys will prevail, no matter how dire their situation. You know injuries will be healed, characters will escape the assassination plots and in the end, save the day. Its easier to get invested in the characters because you know they'll be around for a good amount of time. At the same time, you never feel as close to the character because you know they'll get out of the danger just fine.

I think its a fine balancing act. Of course, GRRM has always been accused of being far too bleak in his writing, going all the way back to Dying of the Light.

For my tastes, I like that no one is safe. The revolving cast looks to me to be a page from the history that Martin used as inspiration - in a protracted and brutal war of succession, allegiances and leaders will change, fronts will shift, and new hand must pick up the banners.

No character in a book should ever be safe. In a violent medieval world, even less so. In a violent world rocked by revolution, civil war and betrayals galore, I think the body count is just right. In the same world about to face the worst winter in centuries...I think you know where I'm leading.



AFFC does suffer from being split. I see it as the interludes that would have created the pacing and tension between chapters of Jon, Dany and others. Since the book was split, it was tell one set of plot lines to completion with simultaneous lines to follow in the next volume, or tell parts of both and leave both without much of an ending.

I agree, certainly no character in the middle of violent upheaval should ever seem safe and I'd err on the side of a high body count in such a yarn as well (in fact I do, one of my WIP's has a major slaughter of characters).

However, I'm going to echo Romantic Heretic's views - you can only traumatise the reader so much before they will refuse to form emotional attachments to your characters. I'd be concerned about that if I was planning on bringing in a fresh herd to replace the fallen.

It's possible to keep the reader afraid without always proving their fears correct, I reckon - and death is not the only cruel cut characters can suffer. Plenty of other ways to make them miserable and fearful where necessary =)

IMO there needs to be a balance. A fiction book that doesn't kill off any characters is unrealistic, but killing off all the characters in a series is just wrong. The most prominent example for me is the t.v show sliders. Looking back between the first season and the last, none of the original characters survived (okay, maybe one, but he wasn't doing too well in the cliffhanger when the show was canceled). That really ticked me off, especially since the point of the show was for the main characters to return home.

Killing off main characters can easily turn readers away. For example, who would read the Harry Potter series if Harry Potter was killed in the third book out of six? And, even though I have never read twilight, I assume most readers won't be happy if Edward got staked mid-way through the first book.

Just my two cents.

As far as I can tell, most of this complaining comes from people who didn't know anything about Martin before this epic fantasy series.

If his past work is any clue, he'll wrap it up well in the end. May not be the ending you hoped for, but it'll be the only way the story could have ended.

I could never get into his books. I tried to read the first one twice and while I did like the Starks, I never liked his style of writing well enough to bother to complete the book.

Personally, I think there are two separate issues here: one is the killing of characters and the other is the shifting of focus to less interesting characters.

Now I admit I haven't read the books - I am trying to wait until he is finished. Speaking in general though, I'm really not sure if it's so much that the new characters are less interesting in and of themselves or simply the comparison between newly introduced and well-developed characters.

A new character may not be as interesting as one that you've seen develop over a few books and several hundred pages of face time because you the reader doesn't know as much about them - the author hasn't had the time to reveal the really cool stuff that makes this character tick. Unfortunately this first negative impression can be hard to get over.

Just my two cents.

Ol' Fashioned Girl said:

Outlander.

Damn that Diana Gabaldon!

Hooked me smooth in the first book... carried me through the second... then the not-so-subtle shift to the daughter, Brianna, and her main squeeze, Roger. She still writes about Jamie and Claire, but they aren't the focus of the plot.

I'll never forgive her... and I've never finished the series. But I still love and recommend the first couple of books.

Click to expand...

I did exactly the same thing! Actually, I had trouble getting past all those lost years while she raised Brianna and thought Jamie was dead, but moving on to Brianna and the American Revolution when I had fallen in love with Jamie and Gabaldon's view of Scotland finished me off.

I've never known how to balance that with the fact that Outlander is one of the best books I've ever read and the ones I didn't like were still incredibly well-written.

Hmm. I actually didn't mind the indiscriminate character killing that GRRM did. Like a previous poster said, the culmination of the plot will be about Jon Snow and Daenerys Targaryen, so as long as they're okay...(my theory is that the the last dragon is for Tyrion, but that's mostly wild speculation on my part). Also Arya needs to kill like a zillion people.

The thing that GRRM did that drove me CRAZY was this: in the first few books, there were all the main families and their armies. Then they all mostly killed each other. I think GRRM realized he had run out of main players, so then suddenly all these minor, smaller houses appeared OUT OF NOWHERE and suddenly we are supposed to consider them to be key political players. It was like the conflict went from powerful houses engaged in all out war across the island for total supremacy, to like 3 guys and a horse invading the neighbor's swamp shack to steal his raincoat. i guess it messed up my suspension of disbelief.