Jump to content

[No Spoilers] Why some characters need to die


Red Wedding

Recommended Posts

(First of all, I'm no native speaker and thus there are going to be some mistakes which I couldn't figure out as such.I'm sorry.)

This is addressed to all non-readers who are watching Game of Thrones. If you still haven’t watched all nine episodes, don’t read this. It's addressed to all those non-readers who felt the way

, to those who think the only reason for the last scene was to shock you deeply.

I know you were more than shocked. Some of you were yelling, some were crying, some were threatening to not continue watching and many of you were blaming George Martin for his sadistic, evil soul. Honestly, I would agree with you. As a reader who loves, loves, LOVES Martin’s books, who adores him for his ruthlessness, I would agree to say that he is indeed sadistic, evil and cruel.

And that’s why I love him. I love him for getting me sucked into his world of Westeros, I love him for making me feel anxious, vulnerable and more than just insecure while reading a book. I love him for making me almost throwing up

after reading a certain event in the third novel,

for making me not reading further for weeks and then nonetheless picking it up again, being even more anxious, vulnerable and insecure than before.

Reading of your reaction after “Baelor” just makes me feel satisfied and somehow proud of HBO, Benioff and Weiss and all those others involved into it. They did it. They just did it. And they did it perfectly, just the way it was supposed to be and even more. To be honest, I thought they were going to screw it up. I thought they wouldn’t have the balls to make this last scene the way it needed to be. Unpredictable and as result of this shocking. But they did it. Kudos to all of you!

They have done something which at least I haven’t seen before. They casted a well-known actor for a role, who seemed to be something like a key role. They sold this character as the center of this show, putting him on book covers and on bill boards and on many other advertisings. And then they killed him off. They killed him off in an unpredictable, shocking and ruthless way. After just nine episodes. Right now it might be hard for you to believe that this scene wasn’t just there in order to shock you, in order to show you something on television you would have never been expecting. The game doesn’t end here, it starts here. Besides, you win or you die. It is known.

Lady, Viserys Targaryen, King Robert Baratheon, Eddard Stark. They are all dead by now. They didn’t just die to make you feel sad or angry or in one or two cases even satisfied. There isn’t one character involved who’s put into this world just to be killed off right away and piss off the reader/watcher. They all needed to die in order to carry on the story and the characters’ development.

Sansa’s dire wolf Lady was killed. Not only to make some animal lovers angry, not only to show how evil and wicked Queen Cersei can be (‘cause this is obviously something you should know right from the first episode). Lady’s death is Sansa’s first encounter with injustice, a foretaste of what is to come, a foretaste of the adult world and especially the world around King’s Landing. Moreover, it show’s Sansa that not even her father is able to stop such injustice and that such injustice can actually really happen. It’s the first indication for Sansa that the world she lives in isn’t the world she believes in. Lady’s death is about the decision Sansa made. She blames Prince Joffrey, Queen Cersei and King Robert for her death, but also her sister Arya and her father Ned. The decision she made was to forgive the Queen’s family but not her own. Lady’s death pushes her away from the Northern world and closer to the Southern world, which is going to be important for her own coming story.

Viserys Targaryen, the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. Hated in the books, hated in the show. His spectacular death isn’t too difficult to understand and wasn’t really mourned by non-readers. In fact, his death is one of those rarely satisfying moments. Still, his death isn’t just there to bring some justice into the dark world of Westeros. Sooner or later he needed to die to show the reader/watcher that the focus is on Dany and not on him. His death set her free, made her stronger and made it possible for her to grow into the role as a Khalesi. With Viserys’ death the last surviving member of her family died, the last connection to her background, which makes her able to fully accept and fall in love with her new family, the Dothraki.

Then of course Robert Baratheon’s passing away was necessary to get the game started, to get Ned and many more involved into it, leading to this incredible ending of “Baelor”. Eddard Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, former Hand of the King. There are several reasons why he needed to die, right there, right at the end of Season one and not later.

Of course it was supposed to take your breath away, the way the cliffhanger in episode one hopefully did. It’s an introduction to the world of Westeros, where no one is save and no one can see what is likely to happen next. These are the rules you need to be aware of while watching Game of Thrones, so always remember Cersei’s words “When you play the game of thrones you win or you die. There is no middle ground”. This isn’t just a threatening phrase, it is what Westeros is based on. It is what Ned couldn’t understand and what lead to his doom. Almost as naïve as his daughter Sansa he believed in honor, but honor doesn’t give you any advantages in Westeros.

Due to his naivety his kids had to watch him die, he robbed them their own precious naivety. His death has enormous influence on every single member of his family, on the war in Westeros and also on the reader/watcher.

You need to learn that Ned Stark hasn’t been the center of the story and for god’s sake, he hasn’t been a hero (or a prince who was promised *chuckle*). Game of Thrones is not a story about Ned Stark, the Lord of Winterfell, Warden of the North, titles, titles, titles,… There is no particular character who leads you through the events, there is no stereotypical hero. Instead there are lots of characters who lead through the story, so don’t pick just one single character whom you feel able to root for. Just think of the Stark kids or the Night’s Watch (which doesn’t mean that to me Jon Snow is a bastard instead of a Stark. I meant those other characters like Samwell Tarly for example), the Imp and of course also the Khalesi and her Dothraki tribe. And believe me when I say that there are still other characters to be seen in future who are going to draw your attention.

With Ned’s death the story didn’t end, the actual story just began. A story in which all seen characters are involved, whether they are aware of it or not, whether they like it or not. As Varys said “every man has a role to play”. I would even go so far as to say “every death has a role to play”.

Unfortunately we aren’t Syrio Forell, we cannot just say “Not today”. There are going to be even more shocking and unbelievable events in the future, when you’re going to say “okay, it’s enough, I can’t take it any longer.” But those moments have their reasons apart from making you feel outraged. It’s not completely dark in Westeros and sooner or later you will get your moments of satisfaction, otherwise the story would be as predictable as any other story you've known before. It’s still not a horror movie you’re watching, it’s a well- conceived world with its well-conceived story and its well-conceived horrifying moments. Just keep in mind they’re there for a good reason, so keep your inner Sansa back and stop believing in a world with stereotypical heroes. There are some heroes in Westeros, yes, but you have to figure them out all by yourself. There is no camera which points clearly at the ultimate and invulnerable hero. “Every villain is the hero of his own story”, as George Martin himself said once.

So I know it’s a tough scene in “Baelor”, but would you have been happier if he was killed three seasons later,when you wouldn't even see him dying and when his death wouldn't have any impact to the story at all? Don’t you think a beloved character like Ned deserves such an emotional ending as in “Baelor”?

I’d like to say that if you still don’t believe you can handle Ned’s death then go and rewatch Lord of the Rings for the fifth or sixth time. Unfortunately, I’m selfish and I want you to keep watching Game of Thrones, ‘cause otherwise I’m afraid we probably won’t get a third or fourth season. And otherwise you wouldn't see an incredible story happening in Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, first post here.

I just wanted to say that I think this is a great post and it captures perfectly what I think game of thrones is all about. I really hope Ned's death won't turn anyone away from the series. I would really like this series to continue through to its completion (if G.R.R.M could ever finish the books of course :P)

PS: English isn't my main language either so bare with me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In real life I think it's fair to say that tragedy adds context to happiness, and the same thing can be applied to literature- the loss of something loved is terrible and feels empty and without purpose at first. But it accentuates the good and if death had no cost then life would have no value, at least that is what I tell myself.'

I'm not really saying this is as good as Shakespeare (that is for you to decide) but tragedy has long been a treasured part of literature (long before Shakespeare, but he's an good marker to use) and even in happy books. If you reject it as a concept then I feel you have rejected a huge part of the potential of art to act as an attempt to mirror our "souls", and I think that's even sadder than Ned's fall

I know this sounds pretentious but I don't think that makes it less true, personally

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going to repeat something I posted in another thread. At some point a soap opera becomes so unbelievably sad that it becomes laughable. I was already amused by the time of the 'event in the third book' you mention.

You mention Lord of the Rings as if there were no characters who died in that novel. If you looked at the backstory of the novel, you'd find enough characters who died. I don't see any rule elsewhere that says the best characters must die. A tale doesn't become automatically 'realistic' by killing off favourites. Murphy's Law jars people out of the story just as a fairytale ending does. Fine, if you want to kill off characters, then replace them with some decent ones at least. For a character driven story, Martin has an incredible dearth of QUALITY characters. He has plenty of characters roaming around the world but only a handful are left after the 4th book that I give two hoots about.

I wasn't pissed about Ned's beheading because I'd just read the series the previous week, but there was no payoff for that grief due to the capture of Jaime Lannister not being shown. You need some positive things to balance out the negative events and the producers did not do that. So, do they want to turn this into Bold and Beautiful: Swords and Sandals?

Don't take me wrong, I was so impressed with the first season so far that I read through the series, but I acknowledge that characters are being killed off for shock value. At least that's my personal opinion, you're free to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P+A=W,

The future developments of the books and in particular the event referenced by the OP impacted me deeply. I certainly didn't find them "laughable" or "amusing". YMMV, I guess, but I don't think that's a reaction most people have.

As for quality characters dying, those are the only kind of characters whose death will cause any significant impact on the reader (or the watcher).

You mention Lord of the Rings as if there were no characters who died in that novel. If you looked at the backstory of the novel, you'd find enough characters who died.

I'm totally in the same boat as you in this one, though. LOTR is not a good example for a "death-safe" drama. Even in the movie version we have Boromir, Denethor, Gollum, Theoden, the elves at Helm's Deep... And the book is worse. (and don't get us started with the Silmarillion. No one survives this one!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mention Lord of the Rings as if there were no characters who died in that novel. If you looked at the backstory of the novel, you'd find enough characters who died.

No, you got me wrong. I didn't mention Lord of the Rings as if there were no characters who died.

I mentioned LotR because it is a good example for those movies/books where you know right from the beginning how it is going to end. You know that the story is about good vs evil and you also know that evil won't win in middle- earth. The only thing you do not know is what is going to happen and how it is going to happen until the ultimate fight of good vs evil actually takes place. Killing off characters in those types of stories is the only way to kepp the story attractive. I'm not that familiar with LotR so I can't judge whether Boromir's death had any relavant impact to the ongoings. But on the surface I would assume that it doesn't and that it's only there in order to keep you interested.

I mean, just look at Harry Potter and you should know what I mean.

I don't see any rule elsewhere that says the best characters must die.

Well okay...If you really think a writer of a novel needs to stick to some rules, than I see why you don't like the deaths in GoT. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm willing to accept that there are people who find this series too dark and are no longer interested. I'm willing to accept that there are people who watched because of Sean and are no longer interested. I'm even willing to accept that there are people so opposed to the disruption of stock literary conventions (good guy wins by the end of the book, bad guy starts some new scheme in book two but the good guy wins again by the end of that book) that they are no longer interested. I don't agree with any of these groups, but that's their opinion. Above all else, I admire Martin for challenging stock literary procedure.

That all said, I just don't buy the "well, it WAS shock value" argument. It was most certainly not just done for shock value. I think that accusation can and has been repeatedly debunked.

My biggest problem, however, is with the "well, HBO should have just changed it and kept Ned alive because this is TV" people. Excuse me? Holy entitlement Batman. That would have corrupted the spirit and the plot of the series in every way imaginable. It would no longer be the same story and would effectively become really expensive fanfic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, no one wants to bring Ned back to life. TV audiences aren't that stupid. To be sure, I started watching the first season because Boromir was playing the apparent 'lead' role. I was so impressed by the first few episodes that I read the series immediately. I was commenting on the books when I said characters are dying for shock value.

But I also find the whole

unCat

phenomenon very stupid. But that discussion is for another thread.

Why characters need to be brought back to life :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you got me wrong. I didn't mention Lord of the Rings as if there were no characters who died.

I mentioned LotR because it is a good example for those movies/books where you know right from the beginning how it is going to end. You know that the story is about good vs evil and you also know that evil won't win in middle- earth.

Well not quite. You don't know that evil won't win. (LOTR Spoilers) Especially in the books, at the Black Gate when Aragorn and co. confront the Mouth of Sauron. At this point, nobody knows where the ring is (characters, nor readers). Sauron thinks Aragorn has the Ring, the rest of the fellowship thinks Frodo is dead and Sauron has the Ring, and nobody knows that it's actually Sam who has the Ring at this point while he's rescuing Frodo.

That was a very chilling moment in the books. I know that I couldn't predict the outcome at that point in the books. Nor could the people that I've talked to about it.

And then the other thing to especially make note of, is that in LOTR there is no "Happily ever after." Many of the places in Middle Earth are left devastated. Especially the Shire. That was one scene I wish they had shown in the movies; the scouring of the Shire.

The only thing you do not know is what is going to happen and how it is going to happen until the ultimate fight of good vs evil actually takes place. Killing off characters in those types of stories is the only way to kepp the story attractive. I'm not that familiar with LotR so I can't judge whether Boromir's death had any relavant impact to the ongoings.

Boromir's death was especially important. It's what ultimately split up the Fellowship, resulting in Frodo and Sam finding Gollum, Aragorn and co. search for Merry and Pippin, and later help Rohan at the Hornburg. Without Boromir's death and the split up, Aragorn wouldn't have gone to the paths of the dead either. That would've resulted in the corsairs taking part in battle instead of the army of the dead destroying them, and defending Minas Tirith from the armies of Mordor. If the Fellowship was still together, it's likely that the ring would never have been cast into Mount Doom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...