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

[shizett]

Just now, ChillyPolly said:

Good Grief!  No!  Please!  I refuse for one moment to countenance the idea that Westeros, the rapey rapey rape capital of the known universe, is unrealistic because more people don't get raped.  

Well the same here, really!

I am saying her "almost getting raped" and "then not getting raped" seemed like a plot armor to me. I never said she should to make the story better. She can have different challenges.

[UnmaskedLurker]

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Jon and Dany might well die, but not until towards the end.

And not until the final battle either is won -- or the death is part of ensure victory in the final battle. PA does not mean survival to the last page -- just survival till the end game is complete or near complete.

Just now, ChillyPolly said:

Good Grief!  No!  Please!  I refuse for one moment to countenance the idea that Westeros, the rapey rapey rape capital of the known universe, is unrealistic because more people don't get raped.  

Come on - I don't think that is the point that was being made. I think the point is that for some reason Sansa continually gets herself into situations where people who clearly are willing to rape her -- and who appear to be in a position to be able to rape her -- and who are considering raping or about to rape her -- somehow get stopped from raping her.

[shizett]

24 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Come on - I don't think that is the point that was being made. I think the point is that for some reason Sansa continually gets herself into situations where people who clearly are willing to rape her -- and who appear to be in a position to be able to rape her -- and who are considering raping or about to rape her -- somehow get stopped from raping her.

Thank you. YES! exactly. I am not sure how I manage to screw it up more the more I explain.

[ChillyPolly]

32 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Come on - I don't think that is the point that was being made. I think the point is that for some reason Sansa continually gets herself into situations where people who clearly are willing to rape her -- and who appear to be in a position to be able to rape her -- and who are considering raping or about to rape her -- somehow get stopped from raping her.

And I still disagree.  You are conflating a number of different levels of sexual threat, to suggest an idea of inevitable success.  But I don't think that's how the world works.  There are other forces, in both the real world and Westeros, besides the ruthless unmitigated and uninhibited male id.   I do not agree that it is unrealistic that some men might choose not to commit rape, even when in some sense tempted to do so; or that other men should act to prevent rape, when they see or suspect a threat.

Nor do I think, in a world as full of rape fiends as Westeros seemingly is, that it is unrealistic that when rape attempts are made, it is often found that a protector is nearby to prevent such activities. Where rape is such a constant threat (perhaps even to unrealistic levels), women will tend to be guarded.  So no, it does not seem to me implausible at all that, when Marillon made his move on Sansa, Ser Lothor Brune "just happened" to be nearby to put a stop to it.  

If your complaint is that GRRM has (for whatever reason) devised too many pervy sexual-threat scenarios for Sansa ... sure.  But that she has (so far) made it through them (relatively) unscathed is not that implausible.   I refuse to call that "plot armor".

[Tonberry]

1 hour ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

IN DEFENSE OF PLOT ARMOR

Plot Armor is used in an epic series like ASOIAF because without PA, the story would be boring.

I think clarifying the meaning of what I think is PA is useful. PA is not avoiding dying in a plague or surviving a particular battle -- there were always some people in history who survived a plague or battle. And a story is not going to be told about the people who died at the beginning of the action -- the story generally is about the people who survived.

As other have eloquently argued, however, PA can be reasonably described as a character who repeatedly is placed in situations likely to lead to the character's death -- and somehow the character escapes death each and every time -- time after time -- over and over again. That sort of thing almost never happens in real life -- certainly not to multiple people who know each other and end up working with each other in the end (as GRRM has promised will happen - in that he says that all the story lines will converge in the end). So the Big 5 -- or really I think the Big 6, as I think Sansa is also destined to survive to the end as a main character and contributor to the end game victory (although one or more of these main characters could die in the end game battle).

But the important question is -- what is the alternative to PA? ASOIAF is an epic adverture story covering at least seven books (under the current plan -- who knows if there will end up being more). The alternative is not to have the main characters do very much that is interesting. In an adventure story so as to stay out of danger and make their survival more plausible.  But in an adventure story, the main characters have to do adventurous stuff to be interesting -- and those things tend to be dangerous and possibly leading to death. If they are not repeatedly put in such dangerous situations -- then they are not really going to be doing much interesting at all.

So the only choices in a series of this nature are Plot Armor -- or boring plots. I really think the choices are one or the other -- I don't think there is a third choice. And of those two choices -- PA is preferable to me.

Now as to the charge that PA lessens the tension -- sure to some extent I will acknowledge the legitimacy of this criticism. But the tension simply shifts to trying to see "how" the character will survive. Use Jon's stabbing as an example. Sure, to a lot of people, Jon being stabbed does not lead us to think he is dead (or at least not permanently dead). But some people think Jon really will stay dead -- although perhaps the minority. But as to those who agree that Jon will survive -- no one knows for sure how -- and that is the tension. Is he just in a coma? Will he be resurrected by Mel? If he is resurrected, will he be UnJon or the real and complete Jon? I don't think that anticipation that a character might die in a particular situation is necessarily the only or even most interesting form of literary tension.

So I say Hurrah for Plot Armor -- may it continue in all its implausible glory!!!!

I agree with everything in this post except that I'd like to present that elusive "third choice." You can (1) keep characters out of danger, and you can (2) put PA on your characters. However, you can also (3) just let your characters die. For example, Quentyn Martell died, and this was not part of some contrived scheme to advance the plot. He did not live long enough to accomplish his goal, grow as a character, or advance anyone else's plot in a major, meaningful way (at least in no way I can think of). He's a perfect example of a character who rightfully died because of and only because of surrounding danger. He's exactly what anti-PA people are looking for. But guess what?! Everyone complains about his addition to the storyline and how pointless it all seems!

So basically, I still agree with UnmaskedLurker. A writer will upset nearly all fans with boring, safe plot, few fans with well-disguised PA, and many fans with random, pointless dying. Of the three choices, wouldn't PA be the smartest choice? Or at least using PA the majority of the time, like GRRM does?

[ChillyPolly]

14 minutes ago, Tonberry said:

 For example, Quentyn Martell died, and this was not part of some contrived scheme to advance the plot. He did not live long enough to accomplish his goal, grow as a character, or advance anyone else's plot in a major, meaningful way (at least in no way I can think of). He's a perfect example of a character who rightfully died because of and only because of surrounding danger. He's exactly what anti-PA people are looking for. But guess what?! Everyone complains about his addition to the storyline and how pointless it all seems!

Those who say dead-Quentyn is pointless have a point.  Dead Quentyn is probably bad, incoherent, inefficient writing, unless a better purpose to his story arc becomes more apparent than has been shown so far.  It is not unrealistic that he died ignominiously and pointlessly, but it is unreasonable that the narrative chose to spend so much time on such an insignificant character.

But I personally believe that Quentyn is alive and well and hanging out with his new buddy Viserion in an abandoned, but comfortable and fully-stocked pyramid.  "Plot armor" plus "Look, a body burnt beyond recognition, it must be Quentyn" = Quentyn is alive.

[UnmaskedLurker]

2 minutes ago, Tonberry said:

I agree with everything in this post except that I'd like to present that elusive "third choice." You can (1) keep characters out of danger, and you can (2) put PA on your characters. However, you can also (3) just let your characters die. For example, Quentyn Martell died, and this was not part of some contrived scheme to advance the plot. He did not live long enough to accomplish his goal, grow as a character, or advance anyone else's plot in a major, meaningful way (at least in no way I can think of). He's a perfect example of a character who rightfully died because of and only because of surrounding danger. He's exactly what anti-PA people are looking for. But guess what?! Everyone complains about his addition to the storyline and how pointless it all seems!

So basically, I still agree with UnmaskedLurker. A writer will upset nearly all fans with boring, safe plot, few fans with well-disguised PA, and many fans with random, pointless dying. Of the three choices, wouldn't PA be the smartest choice? Or at least using PA the majority of the time, like GRRM does?

While I agree with your point, and I know in the end you basically are confirming your agreement with me, I want to be clear that I was not suggesting that GRRM cannot kill off characters like Quentyn. Of course he can and does. What I was trying to say is that there will be "main characters" who make it to the end and are instrumental in "winning" the battle or "defeating" the enemy. Usually a reader can tell who these characters are -- but sometime an author is tricky. GRRM leads everyone to believe Ned would be this "main" character of the series -- and he was not. So that was clever and "worked" at an emotional level.

So an author can build up the importance of a character and kill that character off long before the end of the story -- but by definition that character really cannot be a "main character" for the end game. But some character or characters must be -- and for the story to be interesting -- these characters MUST have Plot Armor. The other choice is for these "main" characters not to do much of anything for most of the story and perhaps for other characters to do most of the action for most of the story -- and die -- and then these "main" characters come in at the last minute and save the day -- but that makes for a horrible story. The readers are then not emotionally invested in the "heroes" of  the story.

So the only way to write an epic adventure story with some subset of characters to be the main characters who make it to the end game battle and are instrumental in winning the end game battle -- and are interesting characters who the readers become emotionally invested in -- is to have these characters have Plot Armor. These characters must have "amazing adventures" and "terrible challenges" along the way -- and survive them. Any other choice leads to a boring story or a story that ends up focusing on other characters -- neither choice really works -- so Plot Armor is the only choice.

[Tonberry]

8 minutes ago, ChillyPolly said:

Those who say dead-Quentyn is pointless have a point.  Dead Quentyn is probably bad, incoherent, inefficient writing, unless a better purpose to his story arc becomes more apparent than has been shown so far.  It is not unrealistic that he died ignominiously and pointlessly, but it is unreasonable that the narrative chose to spend so much time on such an insignificant character.

But I personally believe that Quentyn is alive and well and hanging out with his new buddy Viserion in an abandoned, but comfortable and fully-stocked pyramid.  "Plot armor" plus "Look, a body burnt beyond recognition, it must be Quentyn" = Quentyn is alive.

I'm hoping for the same thing. I'd be disappointed if poor little Quentyn is truly to be punished for that bravery he worked so hard to muster to do his duty.

 

And UnmaskedLurker, thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood you. And everything you said in your most recent post is spot-on!

[Cas Stark]

There's a difference between characters "not doing anything" and characters getting in a half dozen death defying situations and not dying.

Was there some reason why Tyrion falls in the river?  Based on what happened you would expect he would have gotten greyscale not Jon Connington.  That's plot armor.  Did we really need the pirate slavers attacking the ship?  That whole section could have been cut out and they could have just as easily been captured on land on the way to Meereen...less complicated, more direct, less need for plot armor.

[UnmaskedLurker]

12 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

There's a difference between characters "not doing anything" and characters getting in a half dozen death defying situations and not dying.

Was there some reason why Tyrion falls in the river?  Based on what happened you would expect he would have gotten greyscale not Jon Connington.  That's plot armor.  Did we really need the pirate slavers attacking the ship?  That whole section could have been cut out and they could have just as easily been captured on land on the way to Meereen...less complicated, more direct, less need for plot armor.

As to falling in the river -- I think that will come into play later. I think either Tyrion will get greyscale -- or he won't for a reason that may become relevant later.

As to the pirate slavers -- sure it could have been simpler -- but for most readers it would have been less exciting.

[ChillyPolly]

38 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

There's a difference between characters "not doing anything" and characters getting in a half dozen death defying situations and not dying.

There is nothing particularly incredible about people getting into a half-dozen death-defying situations and not dying.  It happens during military campaigns.  Let's say you start with 1000 men in a company, and end up with 100 survivors of the original crew.  It is the survivors who will live to tell of it.  And when they get home and tell their own stories, they will have lots of "plot armor".   As he sits in the bar telling you of all he went through, you know that, no matter how hairy things get, he's somehow going to make it. 

It's not unrealistic.  It is normal.  Main characters benefit from a sort of selection bias.  They tend to be lucky because, if it were not for their luck, they are much less likely to be chosen as main characters.  

It's only when a character survives death-defying episodes every week on a regular TV show that it starts to strain plausibility.

[chrisdaw]

Why Dany's dragons were not stolen in the East was well explained in the detail of how the balance of power is retained and cultural norms.

[chrisdaw]

.

[SeanF]

There's a difference between characters "not doing anything" and characters getting in a half dozen death defying situations and not dying.

There is nothing particularly incredible about people getting into a half-dozen death-defying situations and not dying. It happens during military campaigns. Let's say you start with 1000 men in a company, and end up with 100 survivors of the original crew. It is the survivors who will live to tell of it. And when they get home and tell their own stories, they will have lots of "plot armor". As he sits in the bar telling you of all he went through, you know that, no matter how hairy things get, he's somehow going to make it.

It's not unrealistic. It is normal. Main characters benefit from a sort of selection bias. They tend to be lucky because, if it were not for their luck, they are much less likely to be chosen as main characters.

It's only when a character survives death-defying episodes every week on a regular TV show that it starts to strain plausibility.

Sure. I mentioned Lord Cochran upthread. His naval career would be incredible, if it was made into a novel. But, it was all true.

[SeanF]

Jon and Dany might well die, but not until towards the end.

And not until the final battle either is won -- or the death is part of ensure victory in the final battle. PA does not mean survival to the last page -- just survival till the end game is complete or near complete.

Good Grief! No! Please! I refuse for one moment to countenance the idea that Westeros, the rapey rapey rape capital of the known universe, is unrealistic because more people don't get raped.

Come on - I don't think that is the point that was being made. I think the point is that for some reason Sansa continually gets herself into situations where people who clearly are willing to rape her -- and who appear to be in a position to be able to rape her -- and who are considering raping or about to rape her -- somehow get stopped from raping her.

Jon and Dany may finish as antagonists.

Without doubt, some characters we like will end up being killed by other characters we like.

[Myself656]

15 hours ago, ChillyPolly said:

There is nothing particularly incredible about people getting into a half-dozen death-defying situations and not dying.  It happens during military campaigns.  Let's say you start with 1000 men in a company, and end up with 100 survivors of the original crew.  It is the survivors who will live to tell of it.  And when they get home and tell their own stories, they will have lots of "plot armor".   As he sits in the bar telling you of all he went through, you know that, no matter how hairy things get, he's somehow going to make it. 

It's not unrealistic.  It is normal.  Main characters benefit from a sort of selection bias.  They tend to be lucky because, if it were not for their luck, they are much less likely to be chosen as main characters.  

It's only when a character survives death-defying episodes every week on a regular TV show that it starts to strain plausibility.

Basically this. Selection Bias is a MUCH better term than Plot Armor to describe the tendency of the main characters to survive when others do not. If your story follows ten people into a war and half of them die in the first battle then there's no sense in the story focusing on those guys as main characters because a better story is one where you can follow the same people through the entire war.

Take the series "Band of Brothers" about the real life Easy Company during WW2. The series follows a numbers of men in the unit who despite being in the heaviest fighting of the war managed to survive and go home. Yeah, lots of other members of the unit die, but they aren't the main characters in the series. You cannot credibly claim that the men focused on in "Band of Brothers" had plot armor because they were real people involved in real events and plot armor doesn't exist in the real world.

Selection Bias is why we follow Jon Snow and not Benjen Stark... because Jon makes it at least until book five (and 99.9% likely to make it to the end of the story) while Benjen Stark disappears and is presumed dead before the first book is even over. You can't follow the story of what's going on at and above The Wall if your viewpoint character croaks in book one.

The characters we think of as the main characters were selected by GRRM because they are the ones who survive long enough to provide a view of the events he wants to share with the readers. For example, if Sansa were going to be killed along with her father, we'd probably never have been given a PoV for her in the first place. The same likely goes for all the book one viewpoint characters with the exception of Ned (and to a lesser extent Cat; who was needed to convey the story of the doomed Robb Stark and is still, somewhat, alive-ish though without any further PoV's). They were selected as PoV characters over say, the Steward of Winterfell, Benjen and Jeyne Poole, because they were going to survive long enough and be in the right places to convey the story GRRM wanted to tell.

Note that Stannis' story is conveyed not by Stannis, but by Davos... and if the books follow the show one of them is still alive to witness further events and the other met his end in what would have been a Brienne chapter had those events been told in the novels. That's Selection Bias at work.

[Thuckey]

Just rewatched Season 1 and the start of Season 2 of GoT's and I got to say, Ned's execution gets to me every time.

 

The scenes were very dramatic, from Arya/Sansa witnessing their father die (at least Arya was spared the image), to Joffrey showing Sansa her fathers head, to Robb mindlessly bashing his sword against a tree and to the northman declarion Robb the new King in the North.. It all is so powerful and sets up the series for fantastic storytelling. Eddard's death is by far the single most powerful thing in the story and drives it to a war in which you actually TRULY care about. You want his death avenged so badly and the fucked up thing is that it never really is.. yet the series remains the best regardless. 

 

I actually felt tears in my eyes in each scene following his death. Never have I ever been so attached to a story and I applaud GRRM and the guys at HBO for nailing it. 

[UnmaskedLurker]

On 2/6/2016 at 8:24 AM, Myself656 said:

Basically this. Selection Bias is a MUCH better term than Plot Armor to describe the tendency of the main characters to survive when others do not. If your story follows ten people into a war and half of them die in the first battle then there's no sense in the story focusing on those guys as main characters because a better story is one where you can follow the same people through the entire war.

Take the series "Band of Brothers" about the real life Easy Company during WW2. The series follows a numbers of men in the unit who despite being in the heaviest fighting of the war managed to survive and go home. Yeah, lots of other members of the unit die, but they aren't the main characters in the series. You cannot credibly claim that the men focused on in "Band of Brothers" had plot armor because they were real people involved in real events and plot armor doesn't exist in the real world.

Selection Bias is why we follow Jon Snow and not Benjen Stark... because Jon makes it at least until book five (and 99.9% likely to make it to the end of the story) while Benjen Stark disappears and is presumed dead before the first book is even over. You can't follow the story of what's going on at and above The Wall if your viewpoint character croaks in book one.

The characters we think of as the main characters were selected by GRRM because they are the ones who survive long enough to provide a view of the events he wants to share with the readers. For example, if Sansa were going to be killed along with her father, we'd probably never have been given a PoV for her in the first place. The same likely goes for all the book one viewpoint characters with the exception of Ned (and to a lesser extent Cat; who was needed to convey the story of the doomed Robb Stark and is still, somewhat, alive-ish though without any further PoV's). They were selected as PoV characters over say, the Steward of Winterfell, Benjen and Jeyne Poole, because they were going to survive long enough and be in the right places to convey the story GRRM wanted to tell.

Note that Stannis' story is conveyed not by Stannis, but by Davos... and if the books follow the show one of them is still alive to witness further events and the other met his end in what would have been a Brienne chapter had those events been told in the novels. That's Selection Bias at work.

I agree that some people confuse Selection Bias for Plot Armor -- but that does not mean that certain situations do not constitute Plot Armor. If a character, for example, is repeatedly put in situations where 99.9% of people would die -- and continually survives over and over and over again -- that is Plot Armor.

In a one-book novel, typically Plot Armor is not needed because the story is short enough that main characters do not end up facing death-defying situations repeatedly -- so only Selection Bias likely needs to be at work. But the nature of this series -- taking place over multiple books -- starts to put certain main characters in death-defying situations so often and so extreme in nature that it seems to goes beyond Selection Bias and likely into the world of Plot Armor. But I am fine with that -- better that than restricting the main characters to less dangerous, and thus typically less interesting, situations.