A Game of Thrones (contains spoilers)

[Csfan1984]

Wrong way to look at it. IMO. Tyrion is pretty clearly the closest thing to a narrative compass the story has, but I don't think he's the main character in the traditional sense of the story. The world would turn without him, and he's fairly ancillary to the central conflict.

Well I do agree he is not in a traditional terms of a story and I also agree the world would move on without him. Yet the story isn't a traditional type and that world would be very dull without him. Who else would bring all the things he does to the table?

[D.o.s.]

Wrong way to look at it. IMO. Tyrion is pretty clearly the closest thing to a narrative compass the story has, but I don't think he's the main character in the traditional sense of the story. The world would turn without him, and he's fairly ancillary to the central conflict.

Well I do agree he is not in a traditional terms of a story and I also agree the world would move on without him. Yet the story isn't a traditional type and that world would be very dull without him. Who else would bring all the things he does to the table?

The Song of Fire and Ice story is very conventional in scope: You have The World, and you have THE BIG SCARY THING THREATENING THE WORLD (that'd be the White Walkers), which need to be stopped. And along the way you have all the things that make the world interesting.  This is as basic a story telling premise as you'll find anywhere, fantasy or otherwise.

Tyrion is, so far, one of those things that makes the world interesting. He's far and away the most intelligent observer of the world around him (at least compared to his fellow narrators), and he's also put into a position where he can directly experience every strata of the society that GRRM needs him too, since he's obscenely wealthy, belongs to a powerful family, but is a dwarf, i.e. persona non grata in the 'polite' society that the world adheres to -- This is, obviously, by design.

Martin has, in Tyrion, the freedom to go anywhere and do pretty much anything as a narrative device: and he's been very liberal with that throughout the series so far, and it's part of the reason he hasn't been killed off while someone like Ned Stark, who is dreadfully boring as a character in terms of how he'll react to future situations and the like, was.

All that said: Tyrion could wake up tomorrow, say screw it, and sail off into the distance to drink and **** for the rest of his days without directly effecting the central conflict of the story in a way that, say, Dany, cannot. That won't happen (obviously), but I hope it explains what I'm trying to say.

[Csfan1984]

Wrong way to look at it. IMO. Tyrion is pretty clearly the closest thing to a narrative compass the story has, but I don't think he's the main character in the traditional sense of the story. The world would turn without him, and he's fairly ancillary to the central conflict.

Well I do agree he is not in a traditional terms of a story and I also agree the world would move on without him. Yet the story isn't a traditional type and that world would be very dull without him. Who else would bring all the things he does to the table?

The Song of Fire and Ice story is very conventional in scope: You have The World, and you have THE BIG SCARY THING THREATENING THE WORLD (that'd be the White Walkers), which need to be stopped. And along the way you have all the things that make the world interesting.  This is as basic a story telling premise as you'll find anywhere, fantasy or otherwise.

Tyrion is, so far, one of those things that makes the world interesting. He's far and away the most intelligent observer of the world around him (at least compared to his fellow narrators), and he's also put into a position where he can directly experience every strata of the society that GRRM needs him too, since he's obscenely wealthy, belongs to a powerful family, but is a dwarf, i.e. persona non grata in the 'polite' society that the world is created -- This is, obviously, by design.

Martin has, in Tyrion, the freedom to go anywhere and do pretty much anything as a narrative device: and he's been very liberal with that throughout the series so far, and it's part of the reason he hasn't been killed off while someone like Ned Stark, who is dreadfully boring as a character in terms of how he'll react to future situations and the like, was.

All that said: Tyrion could wake up tomorrow, say screw it, and sail off into the distance to drink and **** for the rest of his days without directly effecting the central conflict of the story in a way that, say, Dany, cannot. That won't happen (obviously), but I hope it explains what I'm trying to say.

All those possibilties is what Im talking about. Tryion is awesome.  And as a story that is told from multiple perspectives it is not traditional. It never lays down a main character you singly follow. You have to see the person who does more and experiences more as the main character.

[D.o.s.]

I don't want to bore you with the details of what denotes traditional storytelling but multiple narrators is not particularly atypical, even in the genre of fantasy.

Not that I disagree with you about the radness of T. Lannister, just pointing it out.

[Csfan1984]

I don't want to bore you with the details of what denotes traditional storytelling but multiple narrators is not particularly atypical, even in the genre of fantasy.

Not that I disagree with you about the radness of T. Lannister, just pointing it out.

Well I can easily point out in cataclysm stories defeating the great evil doesn't always happen or is it always accomplished by the main character. Sometimes the story is about the main character dealing with the circumstances.

[D.o.s.]

...which has nothing to do with the metrics of traditional storytelling in the slightest. Nor does it refute (or affirm) anything that I've said in this thread, and I'm not sure it even connects to the conversation in any fashion save a very generous and tenuous interpretation in which because you've said something it is part of the discussion at hand.

In the spirit of your post: My favorite shade of yellow is Chartreuse. What's yours?

Edit: this could be ruder than I intended -- I'm not disagreeing with you in practice, just in premise + definition.

[Csfan1984]

...which has nothing to do with the metrics of traditional storytelling in the slightest. Nor does it refute (or affirm) anything that I've said in this thread, and I'm not sure it even connects to the conversation in any fashion save a very generous and tenuous interpretation in which because you've said something it is part of the discussion at hand.

In the spirit of your post: My favorite shade of yellow is Chartreuse. What's yours?

Edit: this could be ruder than I intended -- I'm not disagreeing with you in practice, just in premise + definition.

I wasnt talking about traditional. I am speaking untraditional which was my counter point when you said Tryrion can't be the main character. I was saying the story isn't traditional therefore he can be. Then in the course of your posted stuff you claimed it was and one reason was due to big bad evil. I went on to counter to that and by saying look at the structure. You gave a vague counter point to which I followed suit with my own vague counter.

I don't find your post rude just wrong. Which is why we can happily disagree.

[Celtics4ever]

I don't know...being wrongly accused and tried for murder of your nephew by your own father , who then uses the love of your life as his personal prostitute, while almost everyone turns their back on you and leaves you for dead waiting for execution, that's got to be at least pretty darn close to what Jon Snow endured.

\

Guessing you have never faced the stress of combat with your comments.  Getting knifed by six guys is worse, in my book.

I love Tyrion as a character, and so does Martin.   But he has got worse as the series went on, in terms of heroism not better.

[D.o.s.]

...which has nothing to do with the metrics of traditional storytelling in the slightest. Nor does it refute (or affirm) anything that I've said in this thread, and I'm not sure it even connects to the conversation in any fashion save a very generous and tenuous interpretation in which because you've said something it is part of the discussion at hand.

In the spirit of your post: My favorite shade of yellow is Chartreuse. What's yours?

Edit: this could be ruder than I intended -- I'm not disagreeing with you in practice, just in premise + definition.

I wasnt talking about traditional. I am speaking untraditional which was my counter point when you said Tryrion can't be the main character. I was saying the story isn't traditional therefore he can be. Then in the course of your posted stuff you claimed it was and one reason was due to big bad evil. I went on to counter to that and by saying look at the structure. You gave a vague counter point to which I followed suit with my own vague counter.

I don't find your post rude just wrong. Which is why we can happily disagree.

The story is traditional. The storytelling is traditional. The arcs of the characters are, you guessed it, traditional. There is nothing avante garde or postmodern about GoT or ASOFAI.

The fact that you don't understand what that means is not the same as happily disagreeing.

[Csfan1984]

...which has nothing to do with the metrics of traditional storytelling in the slightest. Nor does it refute (or affirm) anything that I've said in this thread, and I'm not sure it even connects to the conversation in any fashion save a very generous and tenuous interpretation in which because you've said something it is part of the discussion at hand.

In the spirit of your post: My favorite shade of yellow is Chartreuse. What's yours?

Edit: this could be ruder than I intended -- I'm not disagreeing with you in practice, just in premise + definition.

I wasnt talking about traditional. I am speaking untraditional which was my counter point when you said Tryrion can't be the main character. I was saying the story isn't traditional therefore he can be. Then in the course of your posted stuff you claimed it was and one reason was due to big bad evil. I went on to counter to that and by saying look at the structure. You gave a vague counter point to which I followed suit with my own vague counter.

I don't find your post rude just wrong. Which is why we can happily disagree.

The story is traditional. The storytelling is traditional. The arcs of the characters are, you guessed it, traditional. There is nothing avante garde or postmodern about GoT or ASOFAI.

The fact that you don't understand what that means is not the same as happily disagreeing.

Story telling from ASOFAI is not traditional. That is flat out wrong.

Edit: Traditional story telling is done from a single point of view as the main character or via omnipotent narration. Which is not the case here.

[D.o.s.]

I don't want to bore you with the details of what denotes traditional storytelling but multiple narrators is not particularly atypical, even in the genre of fantasy.

The fact that you don't understand what that means is not the same as happily disagreeing.

[Csfan1984]

I don't want to bore you with the details of what denotes traditional storytelling but multiple narrators is not particularly atypical, even in the genre of fantasy.

The fact that you don't understand what that means is not the same as happily disagreeing.

No go ahead please continue to bore me...

[LarBrd33]

In the books Momma Stark makes kind of a creepy return too.  Wonder if that'll happen this year.

I`m pretty sure i`ve read/heard the producers say that they won`t follow Katlyn`s story

The point at which she came back in the books and how she effected the story has passed. They could reintroduce her later in the story but I think they just ignore "lady stoneheart"

There's speculation that Sansa is going to take on a lot of Lady Stoneheart's plot (minus the death and resurrection bit).  That would make some sense story-wise, and would help explain the reason for some of the controversial changes to her plot (like having her raped and abused by Ramsay).  I'd be cool with seeing her cleaning house on some Freys and Boltons, since she really hasn't done much but have a series of awful things happen to her so far.

I think I'll be disappointed if they decide the way to redeem / grow Sansa's character is to have her turn into a vindictive bad-ass. 

We've seen that she's not a conniving court mistress like Cersei or Margaery.  She's not cunning.  But she's also not bloodthirsty.  I want her character to have agency, but I don't think the only way to make a female character strong is to have her become a killer.

It would also be entirely redundant at this point in the story.

Re: J. Snow's "death:" I think a lot of people get mixed up when they fixate on Martin's apparent need to kill off 'important characters', when in actuality they're relatively minor characters in the grand scheme of the story --they were just portrayed as important through the way he played with the tropes of the genre when ASOFAI was getting underway. Vast difference.

Yep.  There are 5 main characters.  Jon, Dany, Tyrion, Sansa, and Arya.  Entirely possible that some others not thought as main, may ultimately end up that way (Bran, Jamie, and Cersei are the 3 that spring to mind), but after reading the books and watching the show, this is really a story about those 5 people (and that doesn't mean all 5 live to see the end, but all 5 will be there to close to the end).

Yeah and by "main characters" you mean the Han, Leia, Chewie, C3PO, and R2D2 of the story....  But Jon snow is the Luke Skywalker.  The entire story revolves around him. Everything happening is to provide additional context to his story.  His arc is central to the entire series.  The thing that makes George R R Martin's writing (and the TV show) unique is that this isn't obvious. This could have been a traditional hero's journey story about a bassturd's wild journey to the throne, but they tell the story in such a way that you make characters like Admiral Ackbarr, Lando, Boba Fett, and Tarkin seem just as important and have as much depth as the central characters.  And when you watch the first 13 episodes thinking Obi Wan is the main character, it makes his death all the more shocking.


Edit:  fwiw, I'd label Tyron the Han Solo of the series.  He's not the central character but he's obviously a crucial viewpoint.  I could see him dying before the end of the series (they gave thought to killing off Han before the end of the original trilogy), but I'd be shocked to see this series end without Jon Snow's arc reaching its royal conclusion. 

[Csfan1984]

In the books Momma Stark makes kind of a creepy return too.  Wonder if that'll happen this year.

I`m pretty sure i`ve read/heard the producers say that they won`t follow Katlyn`s story

The point at which she came back in the books and how she effected the story has passed. They could reintroduce her later in the story but I think they just ignore "lady stoneheart"

There's speculation that Sansa is going to take on a lot of Lady Stoneheart's plot (minus the death and resurrection bit).  That would make some sense story-wise, and would help explain the reason for some of the controversial changes to her plot (like having her raped and abused by Ramsay).  I'd be cool with seeing her cleaning house on some Freys and Boltons, since she really hasn't done much but have a series of awful things happen to her so far.

I think I'll be disappointed if they decide the way to redeem / grow Sansa's character is to have her turn into a vindictive bad-ass. 

We've seen that she's not a conniving court mistress like Cersei or Margaery.  She's not cunning.  But she's also not bloodthirsty.  I want her character to have agency, but I don't think the only way to make a female character strong is to have her become a killer.

It would also be entirely redundant at this point in the story.

Re: J. Snow's "death:" I think a lot of people get mixed up when they fixate on Martin's apparent need to kill off 'important characters', when in actuality they're relatively minor characters in the grand scheme of the story --they were just portrayed as important through the way he played with the tropes of the genre when ASOFAI was getting underway. Vast difference.

Yep.  There are 5 main characters.  Jon, Dany, Tyrion, Sansa, and Arya.  Entirely possible that some others not thought as main, may ultimately end up that way (Bran, Jamie, and Cersei are the 3 that spring to mind), but after reading the books and watching the show, this is really a story about those 5 people (and that doesn't mean all 5 live to see the end, but all 5 will be there to close to the end).

Yeah and by "main characters" you mean the Han, Leia, Chewie, C3PO, and R2D2 of the story....  But Jon snow is the Luke Skywalker.  The entire story revolves around him. Everything happening is to provide additional context to his story.  His arc is central to the entire series.  The thing that makes George R R Martin's writing (and the TV show) unique is that this isn't obvious. This could have been a traditional hero's journey story about a bassturd's wild journey to the throne, but they tell the story in such a way that you make characters like Admiral Ackbarr, Lando, Boba Fett, and Tarkin seem just as important and have as much depth as the central characters.  And when you watch the first 13 episodes thinking Obi Wan is the main character, it makes his death all the more shocking.


Edit:  fwiw, I'd label Tyron the Han Solo of the series.  He's not the central character but he's obviously a crucial viewpoint.  I could see him dying before the end of the series (they gave thought to killing off Han before the end of the original trilogy), but I'd be shocked to see this series end without Jon Snow's arc reaching its royal conclusion.

Off topic but wasn't Han's death contemplation more related to contract negotiations?

[Celtics4ever]

In Martin's original draft, Dany and the Dothraki were the first threat to Westeros after the Civil Wars that follow Robert's death.   The Others will be the main threat though.

http://watchersonthewall.com/george-r-r-martins-original-plan-game-thrones/

Daenerys invaded Westeros a lot sooner — after killing her husband. Khal Drogo does dispatch Dany’s brother, Viserys, but in Martin’s original plan, she resents him for it, and bides her time until she can kill Drogo in vengeance. Then she flees into the wilderness, where she discovers three dragon eggs that will allow her to invade the Seven Kingdoms. Her return to Westeros was intended to be the focus of the second volume in Martin’s trilogy, “A Dance with Dragons,” while the war against the Others and a climactic final battle at the Wall would’ve form the basis for Martin’s last novel, “The Winds of Winter.”

Five characters were designed to survive all three books. It should come as no surprise given these breakdowns and the perspectives of Martin’s published books, but Daenerys, Arya, Jon, Bran and Tyrion are the five POV characters that Martin initially intended to follow all the way through the story, “growing from children to adults and changing themselves and the world in the process. In a sense, my trilogy is almost a generational saga, telling the life stories of these five characters,” he writes in his 1993 letter. Whether “A Song of Ice and Fire” will follow this original outline remains to be seen (and could be called into question by the events of what became Martin’s fifth book, “A Dance with Dragons.”) Ultimately, the only way to find out is to keep reading — or watching.

https://variety.com/2015/tv/news/game-of-thrones-george-r-r-martin-book-ending-which-characters-survive-1201424268/

Now he has deviated from this quite a bit.  But Jon, Tyrion, Arya and Dany are of upmost import to the story.