Jump to content
D2procon

Confusion about Character Arcs

Recommended Posts

To the people who say, "Jon's arc is about killing the NK and Arya'a arc is about her revenge list":

You don't understand character arcs.

Character arcs are about an INNER transformation -- "Often leading from one personality trait to a diametrically opposite trait"  They're not about achieving something externally.

Jon's arc is about accepting himself as Aegon VI, the greatest leader in the world, instead of a bastard who knows nothing.

Arya's arc is about learning that love and "the pack" are more important than revenge and isolation.

Jon's arc isn't about killing the NK. Leading people together who would have never been together was another step in his character arc. (My guess his arc ends when he takes the crown) 

Arya's arc isn't about her list. Abandoning her list to rejoin her pack and risk her life for those she loves (thanks to Jon) was another step in her character arc (previously just a sword, now a sword tempered by her heart) (My guess is her arc will end when she DOESN'T kill Cersei in order to save someone she loves instead) 

The people who are abandoning all hope seem to be doing so because they don't understand character arcs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of this, but why does Jon's arc have to be about him excepting himself as Aegon VI?

First of all if that is his name in books then Rheagar was a bigger idiot than I thought! Why name both sons the same name?! (Seriously I have 5 boys and still managed to find different names for them that I love- it's not that hard Rheagar!!)

Second I think Jon's arc is about discovering who he is and accepting that, but that may mean he accepts who his parents are, but still sees himself as a Stark, how a lot of adopted kids feel, because they are who raised him, loved him and made him who he is. I think if Jon takes the IT/ any crown (and if he does that, then that is his "bittersweet" ending because it would make him miserable but fans can rejoice and say "I told you so") then he will do so reluctantly. He shouldn't  have the Targ power lust, he should still stay true to his "father" Ned and see it as his duty, but hate it all the same.

100% agree with Arya's arc though! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people posting long screeds about how they disagree with the show's direction and the people posting long screeds about how they disagree with the people who disagree with the show's direction should get a room...or a reddit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anthony Pirtle said:

The people posting long screeds about how they disagree with the show's direction and the people posting long screeds about how they disagree with the people who disagree with the show's direction should get a room...or a reddit.

Or a forum where they can discuss such views? Oh wait, here we are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, north of the wall said:

I agree with most of this, but why does Jon's arc have to be about him excepting himself as Aegon VI?

First of all if that is his name in books then Rheagar was a bigger idiot than I thought! Why name both sons the same name?! (Seriously I have 5 boys and still managed to find different names for them that I love- it's not that hard Rheagar!!)

Second I think Jon's arc is about discovering who he is and accepting that, but that may mean he accepts who his parents are, but still sees himself as a Stark, how a lot of adopted kids feel, because they are who raised him, loved him and made him who he is. I think if Jon takes the IT/ any crown (and if he does that, then that is his "bittersweet" ending because it would make him miserable but fans can rejoice and say "I told you so") then he will do so reluctantly. He shouldn't  have the Targ power lust, he should still stay true to his "father" Ned and see it as his duty, but hate it all the same.

100% agree with Arya's arc though! 

It does seem silly that Rheagar would name his kids the same name but maybe he thought the name was important. Also people do do stupid things like name their kids the same name. I know a guy who's father named him and his half brother after himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and disagree.  What the OP describes is true for arcs in the books, but a television show is more about payoff, shock value, and entertainment value.

Also, George Foreman named all his sons George, so having 2 Aegons is nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, D2procon said:

To the people who say, "Jon's arc is about killing the NK and Arya'a arc is about her revenge list":

You don't understand character arcs.

Character arcs are about an INNER transformation -- "Often leading from one personality trait to a diametrically opposite trait"  They're not about achieving something externally.

Jon's arc is about accepting himself as Aegon VI, the greatest leader in the world, instead of a bastard who knows nothing.

Arya's arc is about learning that love and "the pack" are more important than revenge and isolation.

Jon's arc isn't about killing the NK. Leading people together who would have never been together was another step in his character arc. (My guess his arc ends when he takes the crown) 

Arya's arc isn't about her list. Abandoning her list to rejoin her pack and risk her life for those she loves (thanks to Jon) was another step in her character arc (previously just a sword, now a sword tempered by her heart) (My guess is her arc will end when she DOESN'T kill Cersei in order to save someone she loves instead) 

The people who are abandoning all hope seem to be doing so because they don't understand character arcs.

Great way to start a discussion. By insulting people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arrogance in your post is a bit off putting but I'd like to quote this article, it essentially sums up how I feel about it. Btw I disagree with your entire post and I hope this post will give a better explanation of why. 

Quote

When asked to define character arc, most people think it has something to do with how the Main Character changes within a story. While in some respect this is correct, it is inaccurate to assume that this means every Main Character needs to undergo some major transformation. Understanding the difference between growth and change is essential to the proper implementation of character arc in a story.

Without a doubt, Main Characters need to grow. A story cannot develop organically if the principal characters within it do not grow and adapt to the shifting dramatic tides. When an act progresses from one area of exploration to the next, the Main Character needs to progress as well. That’s how stories work. Therefore, it is easy to see how growth, and in particular the Main Character’s growth, is inherent in the mechanisms that run story.

But when you talk about change and how the Main Character “has” to change, you’re making an assumption about the nature of that growth. Not all growth is transformative. Sometimes a person can grow by maintaining their position, shoring up their resolve against whatever is thrown at them. This is no less meaningful than the kind of growth where someone changes who they are or how they see the world.

When the Main Character reaches the crisis point or climax of a story they are faced with a very important question: are they on the right path or the wrong path? Some stories are about characters who realize they have been doing things wrong the whole time. These characters change and adopt a new way of seeing the world. Other stories are about characters who realize that the way they have been doing things is in fact the right way to approach their problems. These characters remain steadfast. In both cases, this realization that they arrive at is an extension of, or better yet, result of their growth.

Now whether or not their decision turns out to be a good thing or a bad thing is a completely different area of discussion. The takeaway here is that in assuming that every Main Character has to change, you are effectively ignoring or discounting fifty percent of the stories out there. Non-transformative growth can be a powerful means of expressing an author’s point-of-view.

Again, understanding the difference between growth and change is the key. Not all growth requires a different mindset. There is great meaning to be found in stories where a character’s “arc” requires them to stand their ground.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with him not being the one to actually kill the Night King. After all, you could still argue that Jon is the Prince that was Promised/Azor Ahai, since he was the one that brought everyone together to bring the dawn. What I don't like is that during this episode, the final great battle, Jon didn't battle the Night King or a White Walker. Hell, no-one fought a White Walker. Literally all they did this episode was sit on their horses, follow the Night King into the Godswood, and then explode. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bran Snow said:

It does seem silly that Rheagar would name his kids the same name but maybe he thought the name was important. Also people do do stupid things like name their kids the same name. I know a guy who's father named him and his half brother after himself.

 

4 hours ago, Vuron said:

 

Also, George Foreman named all his sons George, so having 2 Aegons is nothing.

I can't believe there are people silly enough to do that! (Well I can, but it defies logic to me) my point still stands though Jon may have been named Aegon, but that doesn't mean he is Aegon. I feel like he will remain Jon because he didn't know Rheagar or Lyanna. He knew and loved Ned as his father and I hope he can recognise his true parents without changing who he is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Euron III Greyjoy said:

I'm fine with him not being the one to actually kill the Night King. After all, you could still argue that Jon is the Prince that was Promised/Azor Ahai, since he was the one that brought everyone together to bring the dawn. What I don't like is that during this episode, the final great battle, Jon didn't battle the Night King or a White Walker. Hell, no-one fought a White Walker. Literally all they did this episode was sit on their horses, follow the Night King into the Godswood, and then explode. 

That was one of my main issues with having Arya kill the Night King. If their whole goal (and I'm hoping that we get some a better explanation about the Night King's real motivation) was to wipe out the Three-Eyed Raven and the rest of humanity, why would the Night King (who up to that point, hadn't shown any moments of sheer stupidity) take it on himself to kill Bran? Why not throw another few thousand wights into the Godswood and let them do the dirty work, especially when you have this incredibly massive Achilles heel that if you die, your entire army goes with you? 

It's the James Bond villain saying, "I'm not going to kill you. No, instead I'm going to explain my entire plan to you, and then have you stand here next to me when I put my plan into action. There's no way this could possibly backfire." That was essentially the NK slow-walking toward Bran, while the WWs stood around and watched it all go down. 

Edited by Ser Sinister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bran Snow said:

Or a forum where they can discuss such views? Oh wait, here we are

Yes, here we are, with Ep. 4 not even aired yet, and already a thread under it's heading for bitching about the show and for bitching about bitching about the show. Of course now I'm bitching about bitching about bitching about the show, so whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ser Sinister said:

That was one of my main issues with having Arya kill the Night King. If their whole goal (and I'm hoping that we get some a better explanation about the Night King's real motivation) was to wipe out the Three-Eyed Raven and the rest of humanity, why would the Night King (who up to that point, hadn't shown any moments of sheer stupidity) take it on himself to kill Bran? Why not throw another few thousand wights into the Godswood and let them do the dirty work, especially when you have this incredibly massive Achilles heel that if you die, your entire army goes with you? 

It's the James Bond villain saying, "I'm not going to kill you. No, instead I'm going to explain my entire plan to you, and then have you stand here next to me when I put my plan into action. There's no way this could possibly backfire." That was essentially the NK slow-walking toward Bran, while the WWs stood around and watched it all go down. 

 

Because the NK, for some reason has a personal animosity for the 3ER.  He took it on himself to kill the previous 3ER, if one recalls.  This seems to be about the only time that he willingly exposes himself to danger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Euron III Greyjoy said:

I'm fine with him not being the one to actually kill the Night King. After all, you could still argue that Jon is the Prince that was Promised/Azor Ahai, since he was the one that brought everyone together to bring the dawn. What I don't like is that during this episode, the final great battle, Jon didn't battle the Night King or a White Walker. Hell, no-one fought a White Walker. Literally all they did this episode was sit on their horses, follow the Night King into the Godswood, and then explode. 

I'm fine with the episode, but I had been hoping for some for some 1-on-1's with some WW.  I can see why not though - just just like the NK, the WW didn't knowingly expose themselves and take undue risks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

 

Because the NK, for some reason has a personal animosity for the 3ER.  He took it on himself to kill the previous 3ER, if one recalls.  This seems to be about the only time that he willingly exposes himself to danger.

That's true...at least there's some consistency there. I guess I'm expecting too much for there to be some actual reason for the animosity, other than just killing everyone. I'm sure there's millennia of anger, so that's probably what we'll have to go with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ser Sinister said:

That's true...at least there's some consistency there. I guess I'm expecting too much for there to be some actual reason for the animosity, other than just killing everyone. I'm sure there's millennia of anger, so that's probably what we'll have to go with.

Hmm...the 3ER is a human in league with the COTF. (Presumably a first man). The 3ER knows what the NK'S origin and weaknesses are. 

The COTF are the ones who turned him into the monster he is.  The First Men are  descended fron his own kin who built the wall that keeps him shut up North for Millenia. 

Probably why he takes it so personally.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think Arya will stay at Winterfell. The kiss in the trailer makes me think Gendry leaves and she stays behind to protect Sansa.

Edited by NonoNono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NonoNono said:

I think Arya will stay at Winterfell. The kiss in the trailer makes me think Gendry leaves and she stays behind to protect Sansa.

I see almost no way Arya doesn’t go south. If she’s just going to hang out in the north protecting Sansa than her arc was finished when she killed the NK. If that’s the case she should have just suffered a fatal wound saving mankind 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, north of the wall said:

I agree with most of this, but why does Jon's arc have to be about him excepting himself as Aegon VI?

First of all if that is his name in books then Rheagar was a bigger idiot than I thought! Why name both sons the same name?! (Seriously I have 5 boys and still managed to find different names for them that I love- it's not that hard Rheagar!!)

Second I think Jon's arc is about discovering who he is and accepting that, but that may mean he accepts who his parents are, but still sees himself as a Stark, how a lot of adopted kids feel, because they are who raised him, loved him and made him who he is. I think if Jon takes the IT/ any crown (and if he does that, then that is his "bittersweet" ending because it would make him miserable but fans can rejoice and say "I told you so") then he will do so reluctantly. He shouldn't  have the Targ power lust, he should still stay true to his "father" Ned and see it as his duty, but hate it all the same.

100% agree with Arya's arc though! 

Pretty sure that Rhaegar was expecting to have a daughter (who he would have named Visenya), and he probably didn't choose any boy name. When he died, and his first son Aegon died as well, it makes perfect sense that Lyanna would choose the name Aegon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LadyOlenna said:

Pretty sure that Rhaegar was expecting to have a daughter (who he would have named Visenya), and he probably didn't choose any boy name. When he died, and his first son Aegon died as well, it makes perfect sense that Lyanna would choose the name Aegon.

Maybe. I guess we don't know Lyanna well enough to make that call. For some reason O assumed she would only him Aegon if it were for Rhaegar. Otherwise I had assumed she would prefer a northern name. Either way Aegon or Jon or some completely different name I still think Jon would rather be known as Jon, the name he has had his entire life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×