The Eternal Struggle: Trusting What The Author Writes

[Blazfemur]

Sometimes a character, is exactly who they say they are. And if there's a twist, then it's a pleasant surprise. It doesn't mean every character in the book is someone else.

Sometimes, when a character dies, they REALLY die. Dead. It doesn't mean they're hidden somewhere, under a secret identity. Sometimes when a character dies, we're supposed to accept that.

I guess my question is this:

Would readers rather debate against the author's legitimacy in writing and bet for something they want to happen, or is it better to accept what he's written and be pleasantly surprised if something else turns up? I'm victim of this, too, especially when dealing with the conspiracies in the north.

It goes against a lot of ways of thinking, and it'd take training of the mind to ignore dead-setting yourself on concepts and ideas that cant possibly happen. Shouldn't, happen.

Not sure if i made any sense at all haha. This isn't a complaint thread, but rather a question of perception of the final product, i guess you could say. You can predict the dissatisfaction, when TWoW comes out, and certain events play out, not like you had planned. Does that make it any less an intended masterpiece and everything youve been waiting for?

[Kienn]

Accept what he's written, obviously.

The interesting parts are when what he's written disagrees with itself due to the nature of PoVs.

Just making up random stuff is stupid though.

[Blazfemur]

Accept what he's written, obviously.

The interesting parts are when what he's written disagrees with itself due to the nature of PoVs.

Just making up random stuff is stupid though.

the degree of acceptace, though, would come when, and after the next book is published.

why is it so hard to accept what he's written and led up with thus far for readers (in general, myself included)? in regards to deceased characters, secret identities, etc.

why cant things be, as they are, I guess I should ask. Does the reveal of a hidden character or reveal of a character being alive, lessent he legitimacy, of everyone else int he book?

[CreativeName]

I'm not sure if I fully understand the OP, but this would be my answer:

Obviously, everyone perceives it differently. I, for one, don't really have this problem. I don't make up headcanons based on my personal feelings and opinions. I'm not particularly 'rooting' for certain characters to live through the events or to be revealed as this secret character or to make out with this or that hottie.

I trust the author to deliver a compelling, heartbreaking and satisfying story in the end. It's his baby. And he knows far better what he's doing with the series than anyone of us. Therefore, I have no trouble accepting the author's plot, twists and turns.

[Blazfemur]

I'm not sure if I fully understand the OP, but this would be my answer:

Obviously, everyone perceives it differently. I, for one, don't really have this problem. I don't make up headcanons based on my personal feelings and opinions. I'm not particularly 'rooting' for certain characters to live through the events or to be revealed as this secret character or to make out with this or that hottie.

I trust the author to deliver a compelling, heartbreaking and satisfying story in the end. It's his baby. And he knows far better what he's doing with the series than anyone of us. Therefore, I have no trouble accepting the author's plot, twists and turns.

semi understand haha, i think that was my latter point.

i mean, accepting that a character IS who he says he is, without thinking, "nope, hidden targ."

or, a character that has died, "nope, slipped away at the last second, ashara DIDNT fall off that tower."

why cant they be who they say they are? why cant people who die be dead? and is the introduction of 'resurrection' with thoros, cheapen and make death lose legitimacy?

[Kienn]

the degree of acceptace, though, would come when, and after the next book is published.

why is it so hard to accept what he's written and led up with thus far for readers (in general, myself included)? in regards to deceased characters, secret identities, etc.

why cant things be, as they are, I guess I should ask. Does the reveal of a hidden character or reveal of a character being alive, lessent he legitimacy, of everyone else int he book?

Not sure what you're asking... Are you saying theories about survivors shouldn't be made until after they're revealed alive despite textual evidence and themes?

With several dozen fake deaths in the series already, I think many "X is still alive" theories are quite valid. Not all of course, but with the door opened as it is, it's not surprising that people will try to push through basically every dead character as still being alive.

[Blazfemur]

its more of the question, if a character that is dead, is REALLY dead. i hate how this is so difficult for me to put into words lmao

[Blazfemur]

With several dozen fake deaths in the series already, I think many "X is still alive" theories are quite valid. Not all of course, but with the door opened as it is, it's not surprising that people will try to push through basically every dead character as still being alive.

Bam, you nailed it. this, is what makes it difficult for us to "trust the author," and it shouldnt be so, am i correct?

[ElizabethB.]

Trust the author. Sandor is dead.

[AlextheFly]

But if the author is the one who created this world when dead isn't necessarily *dead*, then aren't we duty-bound to take those principles that he wrote and apply them to what follows? Otherwise we're not really reading the story he wrote at all.

[Bironic]

Trust the author. Sandor is dead.

No, the Hound is dead...

[Prince of the North]

Trust the author. Sandor is dead.

Trust the author. The Hound is dead ;)

And, as has basically been said upthread, I trust that, no matter how things turn out, Martin will do them justice. I don't think he'll cheapen anything because I don't think he has thus far and I certainly don't think he's simply making up random stuff. It will all make sense in the end and, indeed, much of it already makes sense.

[Blazfemur]

Trust the author. Sandor is dead.

see? it's this kind of idea thats exactly qwhat im talking about. The author led us to believe he's dead. Do we want him to be the gravedigger? OF COURSE. but is that proper thinking, shouldnt it be concluded he's dead, let him be?

No, the Hound is dead...

point being, we should accept his character as dead. And? if he were to turn out to be the gravedigger, nice. a pleasant surprise. but we shouldnt by any means count on it, is all im saying, accept that hes dead, you know?

Trust the author. The Hound is dead ;)

And, as has basically been said upthread, I trust that, no matter how things turn out, Martin will do them justice. I don't think he'll cheapen anything because I don't think he has thus far and I certainly don't think he's simply making up random stuff. It will all make sense in the end and, indeed, much of it already makes sense.

precisely, not EVERY character will be resurrected. not EVERY character IS someone else.

example: Thoros resurrects people. Melisandre, does not. conclusion: Jon for all intents and purposes SHOULD, theoretically, stay dead, unless he warged at the last second, in which case he's imprisoned in whatever body he chooses to inhabit due to varamyr's second life logic.

[CreativeName]

Bam, you nailed it. this, is what makes it difficult for us to "trust the author," and it shouldnt be so, am i correct?

Well, the fact that we had a few fake deaths and identities throughout the series is definitely part of it.

However, with certain fan theories, which are frankly a bit ridiculous (Ned is still alive, Howland is High Sparrow, Syrio is still alive), there's also a certain degree of ignorance involved. (And I don't mean that in a condescending way.) These people don't seem to understand how narrative actually works. They lack critical thinking skills. They are leading the evidence where they want it to go instead of following it where it leads.

No, the Hound is dead...

Yep, and Sandor will live the rest of his on the Quiet Isle, hopefully enjoying some peaceful moments.

see? it's this kind of idea thats exactly qwhat im talking about. The author led us to believe he's dead. Do we want him to be the gravedigger? OF COURSE. but is that proper thinking, shouldnt it be concluded he's dead, let him be?

The Gravedigger theory is quite a solid one. We have good textual evidence for it which the author carefully planted in the books. Not so with certain other theories a.k.a. crackpots.

[Blazfemur]

Well, the fact that we had a few fake deaths and identities throughout the series is definitely part of it. My thoughts exactly, but attributing those few the every scenario is not a proper way to anticipate what's coming is all im saying

However, with certain fan theories, which are frankly a bit ridiculous (Ned is still alive, Howland is High Sparrow, Syrio is still alive), there's also a certain degree of ignorance involved. (And I don't mean that in a condescending way.) These people don't seem to understand how narrative actually works. They lack critical thinking skills. They are leading the evidence where they want it to go instead of following it where it leads.

Yep, and Sandor will live the rest of his on the Quiet Isle, hopefully enjoying some peaceful moments. I personally, would like an easter egg that kinda confirms that it is in fact him, but leave it at that. I want Sandor's role in this series OVER.

The Gravedigger theory is quite a solid one. We have good textual evidence for it which the author carefully planted in the books. Not so with certain other theories a.k.a. crackpots. It is, but is it textual evidence? Or is it a special nod to a great character and conclusion for him, that, "yes, he made it, he's going to make it," and leave it at that? I DONT want to see mysterious contender Sandor be the contender against Ser Robert Strong.

[ElizabethB.]

Really? Am I the only one who would rather see him dead than doing monkish stuff?

[CreativeName]

It is, but is it textual evidence? Or is it a special nod to a great character and conclusion for him, that, "yes, he made it, he's going to make it," and leave it at that? I DONT want to see mysterious contender Sandor be the contender against Ser Robert Strong.

I can only talk for myself. Yes, the quality of the textual evidence is the primary reason that I believe this theory. Additionally, it makes sense from a literary standpoint, i.e. it makes for a good story and doesn't feel cheap.

I agree with you - I personally would rather not have Sandor show up again, influencing future events. [ETA: And I don't believe he will.] I think he's in the perfect spot right now, from a literary standpoint. It's just beautifully written and a nod from the author to all the sharp readers who were able to find this gem of information.

[Clegane'sPup]

Sometimes a character, is exactly who they say they are. And if there's a twist, then it's a pleasant surprise. It doesn't mean every character in the book is someone else.

Sometimes, when a character dies, they REALLY die. Dead. It doesn't mean they're hidden somewhere, under a secret identity. Sometimes when a character dies, we're supposed to accept that.

I guess my question is this:

Would readers rather debate against the author's legitimacy in writing and bet for something they want to happen, or is it better to accept what he's written and be pleasantly surprised if something else turns up? I'm victim of this, too, especially when dealing with the conspiracies in the north.

It goes against a lot of ways of thinking, and it'd take training of the mind to ignore dead-setting yourself on concepts and ideas that cant possibly happen. Shouldn't, happen.

Not sure if i made any sense at all haha. This isn't a complaint thread, but rather a question of perception of the final product, i guess you could say. You can predict the dissatisfaction, when TWoW comes out, and certain events play out, not like you had planned. Does that make it any less an intended masterpiece and everything youve been waiting for?

Now matter how this series ends there are going to be dissatisfied readers. Personally I would like to see an end to the story. This is a fan site like any other fan site. Human beings are going to complain and make shit up. The story belongs to the author and he will tell it how he sees it. I don't have any preset ideas how it will end. As I read your post my thought was to keep an open mind" rather than leaning toward group think.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

I will complain again about how I lost a guide I used in high school to make good book analysis. It was a very complete guide. And I complain because, the first section was devoted to analyse the author: his life, his bibliography and last but not least, the Historical Context in which the book was written and published. I think it's important to know WHY an author writes what he writes. Does fantasy authors write and create a world because they want to write about elves and dwarves? Or because they want them to represent human values/flaws? GRRM doesn't have to be any different.

People often misunderstand GRRM's views of fantasy and his writing style. He's not a breaker of tropes as much as many say (and would like). He's not some kind of plot-twisting freak enthusiast many would claim him to be. He is not writing a big clue hunting book either. GRRM is, even though he doesn't look like, very old fashioned in the way he writes, specially in his views of romance. He's different in which he tries to add some realism to the most classical tropes of medieval-like sagas, because that's something he didn't like about the books he has read, like LotR. It's not like he doesn't like LotR: he felt that there was many things that Tolkien didn't specified or left open, like the infamous tax-policies or how Gandalf should have returned changed. He's not saying JRRT was wrong, simply that he, being a more modern author with different views, would have done differently, which he's doing now.

That's where the misunderstood of his work comes from. People expect GRRM to pull things and mysteries out of his ass and he doesn't do this. He is very obvious about the things he plans to do, even if we don't notice it at first time (which it's fine, because despite the obviousness, he still can't simply put everything under the light: it wouldn't be any mystery to solve at the end). And, the wishful thinking of GRRM doing SHOCKING UNEXPECTED revelations at the end is simply paving the way for many readers' disappointment, something we already see in the reactions about aFfC and aDwD when he's not moving the plot along but simply positioning his next pieces on the board (besides the pace of the writing or the delay in publishing).

So, this is not about "trusting" an author or not. This is about know and recognise his writing style. I think it has already been identified as a "three steps" method: 1. Mention the event, 2. Explain/develop the event 3. Reveal the event. Many crackpot theorists believe that the big revelations that will come are hiding under rocks that GRRM never put in first place, that's why they believe that because character A and character B both have, dunno, long noses (yeah, random example), they are secretly the same. Has he even done this before so far? Idem for the deaths, a resource Martin has, imo, overused. Yet, pretty much every other revelation about people being death has been hurriedly solved, even in the same book, and no one who has been dead for years has returned, unless there are specific circumstances.

About this:

Would readers rather debate against the author's legitimacy in writing and bet for something they want to happen, or is it better to accept what he's written and be pleasantly surprised if something else turns up? I'm victim of this, too, especially when dealing with the conspiracies in the north.

I can't find the exact quote (sadly), but some fans will always cling to what they want. I will never forget how, when JKR said that yes, Ron and Hermione were meant to be a couple since the beginning, that she planned it this way, in one debate, someone argued that it was their duty to make JKR, THE AUTHOR, to notice she was wrong and how she has misunderstood the characters. Yes, THE AUTHOR MISUNDERSTOOD the characters she wrote. Some will come saying exactly that. Hey, so many already come here to say that GRRM has written Dorne, Doran, Arianne, Victarion, Tyrion, Cersei and other things "wrong", even though we don't yet get the full story for us to analyse objectively. Those same might come here at the end to pretend that their expectations not being fulfilled equals bad writing and characterization. That, or some implied and subtle arrogance of pretending "I could have done better".

[CreativeName]

So, this is not about "trusting" an author or not. This is about know and recognise his writing style.

^ So much this.

Correct:

1. Recognize the author's writing style.

2. Recognize textual evidence.

3. Form a hypothesis based upon that.

Incorrect:

1. Form a hypothesis without basis.

2. Find vague passages that might support it in some skewed fashion.

3. Complety disregard the author's writing style and basic storytelling mechanics.