Does GRRM overuse the 'fake death' tactic

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

The short answer? Yes, it's started to become a cliche.

[Prince of the North]

Martin's intent, for me, and he pretty much confirmed it for me in his latest interview, is to tell a standard fantasy story, but to explore what is usually told in three words. His example was "and he ruled wisely for 300 years" whereas he is aiming to show what the guys did while ruling. Seen that way nothing he did so far is surprising: the kid heroes have to lose family and power, but it is usually done offscreen before the prologue where we see them hidden or training in a farm or something like that... the rest, losing the mentors, growing up, learning to use one's mzgic and so on is really standard. What is less is the focus on what Dany or Jon actually do as rulers (nothing as it turns out) or the bits were Brienne looks for Sansa or the bit where Arya roams (the usual would be a flashback to some exam or test that the kid aces I suppose)

Agreed! Where I'm coming from (and you basically said this) is that in order for the kids or the "younger generation" to fully come to the fore and come into their own in ASoIaF several of the older characters whom could have helped them had to die. I mean, if Ned were still alive the question of why he wasn't doing something to bail out his kids would always be in the back of my mind. And, no, I don't buy that he would have simply gone to the Wall and minded his own business. Besides, if he were at the Wall then Jon's story wouldn't be what it is. Also, if guys like Robert and Jon Arryn didn't die then this entire story wouldn't be what it is.

[Leif]

I don't mind fake deaths as much as ressurections. Some of the fake deaths actually got me (like Davos') - so they're not that bad.

[Errant Bard]

Agreed! Where I'm coming from (and you basically said this) is that in order for the kids or the "younger generation" to fully come to the fore and come into their own in ASoIaF several of the older characters whom could have helped them had to die. I mean, if Ned were still alive the question of why he wasn't doing something to bail out his kids would always be in the back of my mind. And, no, I don't buy that he would have simply gone to the Wall and minded his own business. Besides, if he were at the Wall then Jon's story wouldn't be what it is. Also, if guys like Robert and Jon Arryn didn't die then this entire story wouldn't be what it is.

Indeed, it's a standard trick anyway, in any coming of age story, the main characters have to lose their parent/mentor figures. It's one of the reasons Syrio will stay dead, like Gandalf ought to have stayed, among other things. Most of the "fake deaths" are easily seen through when you consider the story structure; Martin has that reputation to kill characters, but he really does not do it that much: minor characters die in all Fantasy novels, major characters don't, and Martin is the exception only because he shows the parents/mentor/family of the heroes be murdered onscreen instead of before the prologue, beyond that of course the kids PoV will not be killed for good in the middle of their arc (nobody believes Jon to be gone for good for that very reason. If he was Slynt, nobody would believe that he would come back,) actually no PoV character will be killed in the middle of an arc, at an unsignificant point: Brienne was obviously not going to die at the end of that rope, it would have been obvious even without being told that she screamed "sword", Arya was not going to be murdered by Sandor, Bran was not going to be killed in Winterfell, and so on.

However, the overuse of ridiculous cliffhangers ("the axe took her in the back of the head", really?) actually makes it so when there is real doubt whether a minor character survived or not, it feels stale or annoying (looking at you Davos or Mance,) it's even worse with the various baby switches supposedly happening (Aegon should be the only example, even if it is a Varys lie.)

I don't really mind resurrection as Martin did it with Catelyn. Even if for me she stays the same, just like Jaime stays the same before and after his PoV, for the story itself her role changed, and that's all that matters: she lost her PoV, she changed dynamics, she is not the Stark mother influential in the story and possibly casting a shadow over her children as they do what they want to do, now she is a minor character, leader of a resistance group in the Riverlands, she does not matter much anymore, narratively she is not the same character anymore (even if she is the same Catelyn as before, but with a slit throat and grudge to the power of infinity.)

[chrisdaw]

Is it really a fake death if readers don't believe it? Does anyone think he was really trying to convince you Arya was dead? Davos was Dead? Tyrion? Jon? Ok he went pretty hard on the Bran and Rickon one but generally I just consider it playfulness. When someone important dies I think he makes sure we know it. Catelyn sort of died but didn't as she came back a two dimensional skeleton so that doesn't count. Jon, meh he's not really dead dead, we all know it, GRRM isn't even trying to pretend like Jon is staying dead, but it's still a useful cliffhanger as we all speculate how he's coming back.

[Lord Reaver]

The short answer? Yes, it's started to become a cliche.

:agree:

[Cyvasse Khal]

I think it comes to the point now where if GRRM doesn't specifically write the words "....and they died, never, ever, ever to return in any way, shape, or form, ever again." then we just have to presume they are not dead. Even something like "and his head was lopped off his shoulders, with a thousand knife wounds seeping from his torso, while dragon flame consumed him" would still have me questioning how they were going to return next book.The only relevant characters that comes to mind where it seemed definitive that they were dying and dead was Ygritte, Quentyn, and Arys.

[Lord Reaver]

Indeed. Apparently, GRRM never heard the story of the boy who cried wolf. That or he just didn't give a toss about it.

[Cruella]

Also that ending a third of your chapters with really contrived cliffhangers isn't adding tension, it's just annoying.

God yes. It's so cheap. I've been thinking it for ages.

Many TV shows even stay away from ending their seasons on cliffhanger.

ETA: I kinda think it's unworthy of him, to be honest. He doesn't need so many fake attempts at tension when he produces genuine ones with ease.

[Prince of the North]

Indeed, it's a standard trick anyway, in any coming of age story, the main characters have to lose their parent/mentor figures. It's one of the reasons Syrio will stay dead, like Gandalf ought to have stayed, among other things. (snipped a lot of good stuff...)

I agree with everything you wrote here except that the cliffhangers Martin uses are ridiculous or over-used. In my opinion, when the series is finished and people will be able to have their "cliffhanger" questions resolved relatively quickly the cliffhangers won't rankle nearly as much. Actually, I think after the series is finished the cliffhangers will make it more of a "rollicking good yarn", so to speak. Also, I believe if it weren't for Martin using cliffhangers, leaving questions unanswered, and making the audience work a bit to figure things out this board (and the series, in general, all over popular media) wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is ;)