Let's talk about "plot armour" and GRRM's usage or breakage of it

[Thuckey]

I've heard the term several times and while being self explaining in its name I'll remind those who need it that it basically means that no matter how dire a situation any given character finds him or herself in, "plot armour" will always ensure that said character will make it out alive of any given situation just based on the fact that that characters arc is incomplete and still has some plot left to get through. After a characters arc, the plot armour disintegrates and anything is then possible, but it is usually foreshadowed so continuity makes sense.

 

Here are the "Big 5" characters that seemingly are protected by plot armour and all of its benefits. We'll talk more about Jon later, though. You could also add Jamie to the mix currently I believe but that's entirely subjective as is most of the content of this post - keep that in mind at all times although don't fear to challenge the views expressed here, healthy debate is always welcomed.

 

Popular examples of plot armour are the countless dire situations Arya finds herself in during her travels, as well as Dany, Jon, Bran, and Tyrion. There are many points where one could have just been killed by something random and realistic but did not, as the plot would have been dull and unfulfilling and ultimately would make for a lame story. (Again, subjective)

 

Since this is ASOIAF, many characters die anyways, and there are some instances where a characters arc has indeed been reached but the reader is misguided to believe otherwise therefore making it seem like plot armour has in fact been BROKEN, and making the deaths much more shocking but ultimately makes for a much deeper, rich experience. The deaths in this series stick with you, and it is one of the strong points of GRRM's writing as he makes you care for these characters so much that when they do die you're left utterly shocked and almost unwilling to continue on. In retrospect though shocking as it occurs, it is absolutely brilliant and makes this series one of the most immersive experiences in the history of the genre, in fact literature itself.

 

Examples of when plot armour seemingly "breaks" is of course Ned's execution, and the Red Wedding. Let's take a minute to talk about Ned.

Eddard "Ned" Stark in both the book and season 1 of the series is immediately introduced as the "main" character - In a story as massive as this one if there ever WAS a main character at one point, it was Ned in book1/season1. Most of the action revolves around him and his family, and at the start everybody is together mainly with Ned being the glue that binds them. As the story progresses, much more dominos are set up for events that eventually play out after book/season1 such as The War of the Five Kings. This makes it so the story can progress and become much grander, and in fact it can and does so without Ned. Many people did not see his death coming. It seemed like Eddard Stark would survive the entire series, eventually to battle the WhiteWalkers or whatever. But instead, we got a shocking beheading at the hands of the bastard Joffrey Baratheon. This makes you (at least me) absolutely HATE Joffrey and the Lannisters and strongly sets up the action for season/book 2. However GRRM is known for "breaking tropes" so the ultimate demise of the Lannisters does not happen in a cinematic way - in fact he manages to SWITCH their roles as antagonists to protagonists! This is absolutely brilliant.

 

So, plot armour wasn't technically broken, Ned played his part, and the plot continues on even moreso as a result of his death. His arc is, in fact his death. 

Then there was the Red Wedding - I won't get into the details of it but again, Robb and Cat's arcs were in fact over despite the reader/viewer thinking that their stories still had much left to it. Instead we were left with one of the most shocking moments in the history of storytelling - and once again, it sets thing up and pushes the action even further. But how much is too much? How often can GRRM keep doing this to our beloved characters while still producing an interesting and relevant plot? Hence, Jon's "demise".

 

Most people think that Jon's "death" was NOT in fact his death. Because - his arc is incomplete. There is foreshadowing that does not get fulfilled (R+L=J etc.) and it DOES NOT push the plot forward in any way. HE was the POV for the Wall and main protagonist in the White Walker plotline - which ultimately will merge with the other 2 major plotlines in the endgame of the series. How could this possibly be done without Jon? It just doesn't make sense, that's a HUGE violation of the rules of "Plot Armour".

 

Again, this is entirely subjective and if you feel differently, please, don't hesitate to explain your views.

 

As for the topic of "Plot Armour", any opinions or examples or insights- whatever related to "Plot Armour" are welcome to be discussed in this thread. I'm sure there are dozens of theories that rely on Plot Armour being in effect, or logic that arcs have been potentially completed leaving characters free of "Plot Armour". Either way I'd love to hear your views!

 

The potential outcome of "Jon Targaryn" , Lord of the Seven Kingdoms due to "Plot Armour". 

[RobOsevens]

Plot armour is not an actual literary term its just slang for the safety of main characters due to their importance in the story.

That being said you can make a plot armour argument for almost anyone still alive in the series never mind the big 5 as you put it. It is very subjective and sometimes used on the forums as a negative or the reason people don't like certain characters because they think the character survives a situation only because they will be important down the road. 

I don't like the idea of plot armour as it seems to me that people think GRRM has basically written himself into a corner and the only reason a character survived is because of plot importance rather than because of GRRM's reasoning to get them out of a difficult situation

[Good Guy Garlan]

In all honesty, I don't think there's such a thing as plot armour. Or rather, there is, but it's something intrinsically obvious and natural in storytelling since time immemorial that it's almost pointless to bring it up. Like, check the plot armor on that Hercules! Who does he think he is, getting the Twelve Labors done and surviving, the gall! I mean, there's only plot, and characters that are meant to survive until a certain moment for the sake of the story. 

To paraphrase Red Letter Media, "Why didn't Thalia Al Ghoul kill Batman when they hooked up...and leave viewers with a very disappointing 30 minutes long movie?"

As to like instances of near brushes with death and narrow escapes, to paraphrase RLM again: "What's with all the theatrics? What is this, a novel or something?"

Let's be real, if we strive for realism and accurate portrayals in asoiaf then half the characters would've died of a bacterial infection before the beginning of the first book. 

 

 

[RobOsevens]

Great post Garlan, you explained it much more succinctly than I did

[Lord Ravenstark]

Dany has the thickest, and Bran the thinnest of the Big Five.

Dany does uncanny things that are simply dangerous and gets out unscathed. Bran is usually very passive on his chapters, and he travels with certain les danger than the others, so I can't really say "thin" because his plot armor was never scratched to begin with (even when in life situation, it wasn't for his own sake, it was always someone else's plot -to show Theon mindset, the bastardy of Joffrey, setting cat and Ned plot…) so he is more of a pawn protected by other people's plot -or in a meta observation, Bran was the character with the least amount of changes in his plot ever since the books were set to be a trilogy , so you can count that his armor derives from the fact his own plot was spread thin, while other ms were filled with more stuff).

The three in the middle have roughly similar levels. But I guess Tyrion, Arya and Jon. It might change if Jon happens to die for real.

[Ruhail]

Honestly I dont think Grrm is too bad on this stuff thr biggest one is probably Dany but everything else is usually reasonable its never on the level of show Ramsay who breaks the logic and consistency of the characters

[Good Guy Garlan]

Just now, Ruhail said:

Honestly I dont think Grrm is too bad on this stuff thr biggest one is probably Dany but everything else is usually reasonable its never on the level of show Ramsay who breaks the logic and consistency of the characters

Yeah, like at least Tyrion lost his nose, Brienne got half her face mauled, Jon got his face raked by an eagle, etc. I've read/seen dozens of stories where characters don't get so much as a scratch. And Dany got explosive diarrhea! I've had explosive diarrhea and I can tell you, it ain't fun. I just remembered Davos got the runs too after Blackwater and he had to dangle his ass over the railing of a ship. Plot armour wasn't enough, they needed plot diapers. 

[purple-eyes]

Dany is almost a definition of plot armour. 

There are only three dragons in the planet and all hers. 

And I can not understand why xaro can not just just simply capture her or kill her and get the dragons. 

And I can not understand why nobody knew they can simply use bolts and arrows to kill the three little hatchlings. 

 

 

 

[Grimbart]

Retrospectively, you can always say "well, that storyline started because of this guy's death, so this was his real plot, therefore a plot armor never existed!".

If there is only one protagonist, we have a plot armor. You always knew that Harry Potter would not die till the very last battle. You always knew Bruce WIllis would live to see the end of every "die hard"-move. The main protagonist doesn't change midway through a book. He will always find a way out of every threatening situation.

GRRM has avoided this from the very beginning by using several Point-of-view-characters. Additionally, there are several hundred characters known by name. Almost everybody could become a major character. Or claim the throne for himself.

Bran seems safe for the moment. There are view characters around, and he offers the chance to see everything that happens oder happened from his view. So if GRRM wants us to know something he can't tell via a POV, he can use Bran. Plot: Becoming a tree that sees everything. Flying.

Arya is alone in her environement, too. If she dies, we don't learn anything new about the faceless men. Plot: Becoming no one. Working on her deathlist.

Jon is schrödingers crow at the moment. If there is a character that has been introduced to several ways of being several degrees of undead, it's him. That makes him a likely candidate for warging/surviving by Melisandre-magic/becoming something like coldhands/...Plot: Knowing who is mother is.

Dany has not made it to Westeros yet. She doesn't controll her dragons anymore. Several know characters are near her position. She has brought war to Mereen. After all that happened it's not unthinkable that she will never reach Westeros. Plot: Riding a dragon. Claiming the Iron Throne.

Tyrion has had his "great" tasks. Right now it's just about surviving. Plot: Finding the place whores go to.

Tyrion has the "weakest" plot. His motivation, goal and the things expected from him are very small. He doesn't have a plot armour right now, because he has no real plot. Giant awesomeness armour, though.

[Cas Stark]

1 hour ago, Good Guy Garlan said:

In all honesty, I don't think there's such a thing as plot armour. Or rather, there is, but it's something intrinsically obvious and natural in storytelling since time immemorial that it's almost pointless to bring it up. Like, check the plot armor on that Hercules! Who does he think he is, getting the Twelve Labors done and surviving, the gall! I mean, there's only plot, and characters that are meant to survive until a certain moment for the sake of the story. 

To paraphrase Red Letter Media, "Why didn't Thalia Al Ghoul kill Batman when they hooked up...and leave viewers with a very disappointing 30 minutes long movie?"

As to like instances of near brushes with death and narrow escapes, to paraphrase RLM again: "What's with all the theatrics? What is this, a novel or something?"

Let's be real, if we strive for realism and accurate portrayals in asoiaf then half the characters would've died of a bacterial infection before the beginning of the first book. 

 

 

Yes, but you can make the plot armor more or less obvious.

Sansa is still alive, okay.  But her being alive is totally reasonable, she's been a high born, high value hostage.  She was at the Red Keep and now she's at the Eyrie.  No visible plot armor.

Her sister meanwhile, despite being my favorite character, was kidnapped and captured I can't even count the times, and often by some of the worst degenerates in Westeros and all she got was a few beatings, and it's very very clear that she isn't going to die before she gets back to Westeros, that is much more obvious plot armor because she's been put in so many deadly situations and always gets away unscathed and the reader is 99% certain she is going to make it back to her own country. 

[Good Guy Garlan]

3 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Yes, but you can make the plot armor more or less obvious.

Sansa is still alive, okay.  But her being alive is totally reasonable, she's been a high born, high value hostage.  She was at the Red Keep and now she's at the Eyrie.  No visible plot armor.

Her sister meanwhile, despite being my favorite character, was kidnapped and captured I can't even count the times, and often by some of the worst degenerates in Westeros and all she got was a few beatings, and it's very very clear that she isn't going to die before she gets back to Westeros, that is much more obvious plot armor because she's been put in so many deadly situations and always gets away unscathed and the reader is 99% certain she is going to make it back to her own country. 

Agreed, it's all in the form. I, for one, don't know why it was necessary to end the Red Wedding sequence with Arya getting hit in the head with an axe. It was not only a cheap cliffhanger (which is another topic but one that I think goes hand in hand with this one) and it makes Arya look even more invincible, like thing after thing happens to her and she just keeps surviving with little more than a scratch. To add insult to injury, she gets blind and immediately recovers her sight, in a stark contrast to other characters suffering injuries or disabilities. So yeah, Arya is perhaps a case of too much (and obvious) plot armor. Another one, I guess, is Tyrion in Dance. 

But by and large, I think the thing of "oh noes, X character is totally dead! Jk, they're not. Gotcha!" is a bigger issue than plot armor. 

[mankytoes]

17 minutes ago, Good Guy Garlan said:

Agreed, it's all in the form. I, for one, don't know why it was necessary to end the Red Wedding sequence with Arya getting hit in the head with an axe. It was not only a cheap cliffhanger (which is another topic but one that I think goes hand in hand with this one) and it makes Arya look even more invincible, like thing after thing happens to her and she just keeps surviving with little more than a scratch. To add insult to injury, she gets blind and immediately recovers her sight, in a stark contrast to other characters suffering injuries or disabilities. So yeah, Arya is perhaps a case of too much (and obvious) plot armor. Another one, I guess, is Tyrion in Dance.

I guess it depends on how you read those chapters. I never really thought Arya was dead. And going blind, I thought from the start was temporary. I'd say her mental trauma is a big enough injury.

The whole concept kind of annoys me, because people just use it with hindsight.

[ravenous reader]

1 hour ago, purple-eyes said:

Dany is almost a definition of plot armour

The dragons are her armor, plot and otherwise. Whenever she's in trouble, those fickle, yet uncannily reliable bodyguards always arrive on time, to oblige with burning a few folks, or huffing and puffing, and threatening to wreak havoc. With this cushy security, her character is not challenged to undergo any significant development, learning other means of exercising diplomacy, for example. In terms of plot, I suspect Dany exists to showcase the dragons, not vice versa. In fact, together, the dragons are the main character, not Dany. Her purpose is to be Mother to Dragons, and to bring them to Westeros, so that they can complete their arc, in the final encounter, the big denouement. She is like the stage manager for the dragons, but they are the main action divas. She is irrelevant without them. In comparison, the direwolves are not essential to the overarching plot of the clash of civilizations. Sansa did not cease to be relevant with Lady's passing, nor will Jon lose his relevance, when Ghost dies. However, once the dragons' arc ends, hers will end too. Or-- maybe not: I suspect she is GRRM's crush, his infatuation, his wetdream, his blindspot--- so, if she survives the demise of her dragons, THAT will be the definition of plot armor.

[LadyoftheNorth72]

I'm a bit surprised by the posts claiming that plot armor doesn't exist or isn't an actual literary device, because it does and most certainly is. We're just using modern terminology or misnomers. See:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina

Its use has been documented for millennia, ranging from the absolutely absurd (which was intentional in comedies) to the deftly effective (IMO, Ned Stark) to the ridiculously inept (too many examples to list). 

[Neolaina]

2 hours ago, Good Guy Garlan said:

Yeah, like at least Tyrion lost his nose, Brienne got half her face mauled, Jon got his face raked by an eagle, etc. I've read/seen dozens of stories where characters don't get so much as a scratch. And Dany got explosive diarrhea! I've had explosive diarrhea and I can tell you, it ain't fun. I just remembered Davos got the runs too after Blackwater and he had to dangle his ass over the railing of a ship. Plot armour wasn't enough, they needed plot diapers. 

I always wondered whether or not Dany was infected with the Planetosi variant of the Norwalk virus.

Which, dear god.

[ChillyPolly]

"Plot Armor" is just a reader's expectation that a character will probably survive, no matter how much danger he appears to be in, based on the reader's sense of how important that character is to the ongoing story. 

"Plot Armor" is not unrealistic, because in the real world, people generally do not tell stories, unless they survive long enough to tell them.  

[RoamingRonin]

Plot armor is just a subcategory of bad plotting. It's one way people describe how the writer has broken their suspension of disbelief.

Jon getting his face raked by a eagle is one thing. Jon being given chance after chance by Mance, being saved by Summer and Stannis, fighting from the Wall on top of the Wall out of any and all danger... Tyrion - who can't even walk up a flight of stairs without cramping - surviving multiple conflicts, traveling across Westeros without being murdered... Ayra traveling through the scorched Riverlands escaping all of the harsher consequences of being a young girl all alone in a grim-dark fantasy series... No one stealing Dany's dragons and killing her in her sleep while she stayed in Qarth?

Plot armor. All of it.

[ChillyPolly]

1 minute ago, RoamingRonin said:

Plot armor is just a subcategory of bad plotting. It's one way people describe how the writer has broken their suspension of disbelief.

Not at all.  Plot armor has nothing to do with suspension of disbelief.  It is merely the expectation - often reasonable - that a character will not die.  

I recall a story, I forget by whom, about a man telling a bunch of children about an adventure he had, where he is being stalked lazily by a tiger.  The tiger, assured that he cannot escape, is in no hurry and keeps walking steadily and lazily after him.  He tries to take refuge in a cave, in the hopes of retreating to a space the tiger cannot reach.  Instead, he finds himself trapped in a dead end, with the tiger coming steadily toward him in the dark.

"How did you ever escape?" ask the children.

"I didn't.  I died.  The tiger ate me."

And that is, perhaps, where suspension of disbelief gets shattered.

[RoamingRonin]

3 minutes ago, ChillyPolly said:

Not at all.  Plot armor has nothing to do with suspension of disbelief.  It is merely the expectation - often reasonable - that a character will not die.  

I recall a story, I forget by whom, about a man telling a bunch of children about an adventure he had, where he is being stalked lazily by a tiger.  The tiger, assured that he cannot escape, is in no hurry and keeps walking steadily and lazily after him.  He tries to take refuge in a cave, in the hopes of retreating to a space the tiger cannot reach.  Instead, he finds himself trapped in a dead end, with the tiger coming steadily toward him in the dark.

"How did you ever escape?" ask the children.

"I didn't.  I died.  The tiger ate me."

And that is, perhaps, where suspension of disbelief gets shattered.

This is something akin to a shaggydog story and has nothing to do with any of the storytelling elements at hand.

[ChillyPolly]

1 minute ago, RoamingRonin said:

This is something akin to a shaggydog story and has nothing to do with any of the storytelling elements at hand.

It has everything to do with it.  It is precisely your objection.  You think it unreasonable for the main characters to (usually) survive, and forget that it is not only usual, but perfectly reasonable, to focus on survivors as main characters.  Absent an apocalypse annihilating humanity completely, someone will survive.  Those survivors will typically be your main characters, not only in fiction, but also in true stories taken from real life.