George R.R. Martin Has A Twist For Someone HBO's Game of Thrones Killed Off

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

George R.R. Martin Has A Twist For Someone HBO's Game of Thrones Killed Off

George Martin

When The Winds of Winter finally launches, it will have a plot twist for a character HBO's Game of Thrones - not George R.R. Martin - killed off.

It's no secret HBO's Game of Thrones made several changes to George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, a trend which will absolutely continue in Season 6. Yet it seems the latest novel - The Winds of Winter - will widen that gap farther than we expected. While Martin couldn't share spoilers, he did confirm The Winds of Winter has a major plot twist involving a character HBO killed in a previous season.

"I have decided to do that, yes," Martin said, referencing last year's vague statements that this twist was a possibility. "Will you know it? I don't know. It's fairly obvious, because it's something that involves a couple of characters, one of whom is dead on the show, but not dead in the books. So, the show can't do this, unfortunately, because they've killed a character that I have not killed.

"But that doesn't narrow it down much," he continues, "because at this point, there are like, fifteen characters who are dead in the show who are still alive in the books."

Naturally, this will get the internet speculation machine running in no time, and raises the question of whether HBO will have its own version of the twist. Depending on what exactly happens, another figure could possibly fill the deceased character's role. Either way, it's just another reason to look forward to both versions of the critically-acclaimed fantasy series.

The really interesting part to me is these lore changes aren't uncommon historically. There are countless variations on, say, the King Arthur myths which developed over the course of generations. With Game of Thrones, we actually have the chance to watch them grow in real-time, and it's going to be fascinating to watch where all these characters end up.

Source: IGN, via GamesRadar

Permalink

Unfortunately I have no interest in the books unless he manages to finish the series, simply because he looks like he'll die long before then.

Part of me feels like GRRM is doing this in retaliation to the books being outpaced by the series. I can understand the sentiment, to a certain extent. Wasn't he supposed to have given the show-writers the "Cliff's Notes" version of the story and finale? Just seems odd to me...

Meh, I'm sure if the plot is that interesting, they'll just assign it to another character. They've already done plenty of that.

(I assume. Never watched the show.)

The title of this article actually gave me an aneurysm. I think the title needs to be rethought.

OT: Eh, I feel like he did that just for the hell of it. I don't think the guys is a good writer, personally. I don't think he would be nearly as popular as he is if not for that show, and I think he kind of resents that a bit.

That said, I don't think this will be much of an issue with the show. It's so far removed from the source material as it is, that they can work the twist in a different way.

Baresark:
The title of this article actually gave me an aneurysm. I think the title needs to be rethought.

right?? I never wanted to physically fight a title so badly. I wanna punch it in it's face.

I know the purpose here is to get clicks, but it would be kind of nice if news sites wouldn't publish quasi-spoilers in the title. Revealing that there is going to be some major twist connected specifically to a character that has been killed off in the show, but not the book, just means people have a decent chance now to see it coming since you've now narrowed it down.

Oh well, I've already resigned myself to the fact that the hype around this show is going to be absolutely insipid, to the point that I'll probably have to watch each episode immediately or have it spoiled by the internet.

Baresark:
The title of this article actually gave me an aneurysm. I think the title needs to be rethought.

OT: Eh, I feel like he did that just for the hell of it. I don't think the guys is a good writer, personally. I don't think he would be nearly as popular as he is if not for that show, and I think he kind of resents that a bit.

That said, I don't think this will be much of an issue with the show. It's so far removed from the source material as it is, that they can work the twist in a different way.

Show us your novels, otherwise you might need to sit down and shut up. For your information, the show exists based on his good writing and not the other way around. His books existed well before the series and it was the directors of the HBO series that approached Martin to do the show after they'd read his books back in 2006.

He's done some very good award winning work in the past 40+ years that has been adapted by The Outer Limits (SandKings) and work with Stephen King (The Skin Trade, turned into a graphic novel series).

Dominic Crossman:
Unfortunately I have no interest in the books unless he manages to finish the series, simply because he looks like he'll die long before then.

This has been my feeling for a while now. Not so much on the not caring, per se, but that he'll probably die first, leaving HBO to be the ones soley capable of the crowning glory. His own fault, really.

My money would be on

Well, it was pretty much five minutes after the last episode of the previous season aired that fans began saying stuff like Jon Snow will be brought back, Stannis isn't dead, and of course the 'Syrio Forel is the faceless man' theory that goes back several seasons already.

Chances are HBO saw the writing on the wall and is actually changing to plot to accomodate fans in such a way. At the end of the day they still need to please their viewers after all.

Even if I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to kill off half the cast coming season. ^_^

The only way in which I'm finding GoT becoming predictable is the way that if a character or faction is having a good time for 2-3 episodes, after that disaster needs to strike. They also did that in HBO's Rome. Every character who had luck, was then immediatly killed or ruined. So much so that you could pretty much see it coming.

In that tradition, I predict disaster for the Boltons and Tyrells coming season.

Baresark:

OT: Eh, I feel like he did that just for the hell of it. I don't think the guys is a good writer, personally. I don't think he would be nearly as popular as he is if not for that show, and I think he kind of resents that a bit.

That said, I don't think this will be much of an issue with the show. It's so far removed from the source material as it is, that they can work the twist in a different way.

\
He has won numerous awards before he even started A Song of Ice and Fire. And truth be told... his works are far beyond the scope of the show (and to be fair the entire mediums of Cinema and Gaming, just to rub it in) ... quality wise that is.

It is just the unfortunate reality that books are not as popular as TV. That is all really.

Deathfish15:

Baresark:
The title of this article actually gave me an aneurysm. I think the title needs to be rethought.

OT: Eh, I feel like he did that just for the hell of it. I don't think the guys is a good writer, personally. I don't think he would be nearly as popular as he is if not for that show, and I think he kind of resents that a bit.

That said, I don't think this will be much of an issue with the show. It's so far removed from the source material as it is, that they can work the twist in a different way.

Show us your novels, otherwise you might need to sit down and shut up. For your information, the show exists based on his good writing and not the other way around. His books existed well before the series and it was the directors of the HBO series that approached Martin to do the show after they'd read his books back in 2006.

He's done some very good award winning work in the past 40+ years that has been adapted by The Outer Limits (SandKings) and work with Stephen King (The Skin Trade, turned into a graphic novel series).

The first three were good. They have gotten increasingly padded and incoherent since.

It's Shireen. Calling it now.

the.chad:
My money would be on

I knowwwwww that character was one of my favorites.

Fanghawk:
The really interesting part to me is these lore changes aren't uncommon historically. There are countless variations on, say, the King Arthur myths which developed over the course of generations. With Game of Thrones, we actually have the chance to watch them grow in real-time, and it's going to be fascinating to watch where all these characters end up.

That's really not unusual though. Lord of the Rings, Hitch-hiker's Guide, Star Wars, Star Trek, Dragonlance, most of the rest of D&D for that matter, the entire history of comics, pretty much any franchise that has had more than one writer or appeared in more than one medium. There's nothing at all special about A Song of Ice and Fire having different people think different things should happen, and there's not even anything particularly uncommon about seeing multiple versions happen at the same time - comics in particular frequently share characters and story arcs between different authors and different series at the same time. Watching lore change in real time is the only reason people are able to have arguments about what should be considered "canon", and anyone writing on a site like this can't fail to be aware just how much that happens.

Feels like a desperate attempt to stay relevant.

Does anyone even care anymore about the books? It's not like he's ever going to finish them.

Seracen:
Part of me feels like GRRM is doing this in retaliation to the books being outpaced by the series. I can understand the sentiment, to a certain extent. Wasn't he supposed to have given the show-writers the "Cliff's Notes" version of the story and finale? Just seems odd to me...

He did, and since a few of the books are crammed with content that was cut, such as

we can assume that the show-dead but book-alive person will have minimal if any impact on the overall story.

Deathfish15:

Baresark:
snip

Show us your novels, otherwise you might need to sit down and shut up. For your information, the show exists based on his good writing and not the other way around. His books existed well before the series and it was the directors of the HBO series that approached Martin to do the show after they'd read his books back in 2006.

He's done some very good award winning work in the past 40+ years that has been adapted by The Outer Limits (SandKings) and work with Stephen King (The Skin Trade, turned into a graphic novel series).

"Show us your novels" is hardly a valid point. I am allowed to harbor an opinion about someone's writing that does not match your own. No one tells an art critic to paint a picture when he says he doesn't like a piece. I never claimed to have read all of his work, so I'm sure that are things out there that are quite good. But I haven't read them because the things I have tried to read have been, in my opinion, abysmal and boring with terrible characterization, even if the overall material was creative and interesting.

Charcharo:

Baresark:

snip

\
He has won numerous awards before he even started A Song of Ice and Fire. And truth be told... his works are far beyond the scope of the show (and to be fair the entire mediums of Cinema and Gaming, just to rub it in) ... quality wise that is.

It is just the unfortunate reality that books are not as popular as TV. That is all really.

I'm just giving my opinion. Lots of authors win awards who I don't think are very good writers. Lots of authors win awards who are, objectively, bad writers. That doesn't mean that everyone is going to dislike them though, clearly. I just have tried reading many of his novels and could never get through a single one. That is me. My opinion of him an author is not damning of anyone who likes his work by any stretch.

Baresark:

I'm just giving my opinion. Lots of authors win awards who I don't think are very good writers. Lots of authors win awards who are, objectively, bad writers. That doesn't mean that everyone is going to dislike them though, clearly. I just have tried reading many of his novels and could never get through a single one. That is me. My opinion of him an author is not damning of anyone who likes his work by any stretch.

And I strongly disagree with your opinion.
Objectively bad writers? That is a real funny thing. To some extent it exists I guess, but it is not that clear cut.
For "objectively bad writing", turn to Cinema/TV/Video Games. The inferior art forms/mediums (for now).

I do agree with your final parts though mate :) !

ravenshrike:

Deathfish15:

Baresark:
The title of this article actually gave me an aneurysm. I think the title needs to be rethought.

OT: Eh, I feel like he did that just for the hell of it. I don't think the guys is a good writer, personally. I don't think he would be nearly as popular as he is if not for that show, and I think he kind of resents that a bit.

That said, I don't think this will be much of an issue with the show. It's so far removed from the source material as it is, that they can work the twist in a different way.

Show us your novels, otherwise you might need to sit down and shut up. For your information, the show exists based on his good writing and not the other way around. His books existed well before the series and it was the directors of the HBO series that approached Martin to do the show after they'd read his books back in 2006.

He's done some very good award winning work in the past 40+ years that has been adapted by The Outer Limits (SandKings) and work with Stephen King (The Skin Trade, turned into a graphic novel series).

The first three were good. They have gotten increasingly padded and incoherent since.

Yeah, this. I feel like he's lost track of what the plot was supposed to be, and has now settled on just writing whatever nonsense comes to his head with no intention of actually completing any of the random subplots, except maybe by killing off everyone involved. Another series that I liked when I was a kid, A Series of Unfortunate Events, met a similarly disappointing end.

Also, judging even by his first three books, I'd say he's an excellent writer at the "tactical" level (i.e., individual scenes and dialogue) but pretty mediocre at the strategic level (i.e., narrative structure). In hindsight, many chapters in his books were irrelevant in the long-term, both to the central narratives and to the development of major characters. It'd be like if in The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien randomly branched off for one hundred pages to talk about the barmaid at The Prancing Pony, going into needless detail about her relationship problems before killing her off in a freak accident involving a horse-cart and a barrel of rum. Even before the series turned into a TV show, I remember thinking "these books read like a TV show." Which isn't a compliment.

So candidates:

Barristan: Maybe, the show really didn't do him justice and seem to be focusing far more on Jorah. He seems unlikely to be hiding anything though since he's a bit too noble and lacking guile so I can't think what the twist would be.

Stannis: I can't imagine him living much longer in the books if he isn't dead already. His character seems to have served it's purpose by now. Unlikely.

Myrcella: Possibly, I was kind of expecting her to do something important and then the show killed her so I wouldn't be surprised.

Talisa/Jeyne Westerling: Maybe she's pregnant with Robb's baby? Can't really see the point of this apart from driving a wedge between the Boltons and Freys (assuming the Freys have her at the moment). I'm going no.

Mance Rayder: Some secret plan with Melisandre? He's got to be alive for a reason. I think this is a good bet plus there's a major "what now?" question mark hanging over the wall at the moment.

Hizdahr Zo Loraq: could be that he's the Harpy or something like that. I doubt it and hope not. My guess for the harpy (if there is one) is Galazzar Galare (not in the show presumably to limit the number of characters with really complicated names). Another no.

Mago/ Rakharo/ Irri/ another Dothraki character: I was annoyed at how keen the show is to kill of the various dothraki characters and given Daenerys ending this is reasonable likely.

Xaro Xhoan Daxos: I can't imagine what the "twist" would be here. He's likely to play a small part in the books now but I'd be surprised if he gets much more. Probably not.

Catelyn Stark: I bloody hope she does something! You don't bring a character back from the dead and then just have her do fuck all for two books! Ahem, I hope this isn't the one he meant because this should really be obvious already. Plus the show could easily bring her back the same the books did if it's worth it.

Gren and Pyp: Unlikely, they are loyal friends of Jon Snow and I can't imagine any "twist" that would change that. They might do more or might perish in the fallout of the most recent mutiny.

Shireen: I doubt it greatly. She barely features in the books and her murder in the TV show was annoying and didn't gel with my understanding of Stannis as a character. Maybe something to do with Moon boy?

Jojen Reed: Probably dead in the books anyway. He seems like he's served any purpose in the story that he was intended to. I hope Howland Reed's disappearance means something at some point though. Probably not.

I probably missed some people but from these my guess would be Mance Rayder.

I disagree with the people here saying that he's changed something purely to spite the series or make people continue to be interested in his books. If he was willing to let those kind of shallow considerations take him away from the story he wants to write then I'd expect him to be writing a fair bit faster.

Seems to me like it's Lady Stoneheart.

...Which is a shame, because Lady Stoneheart has to be one of my least favourite parts of the books.

Charcharo:
Cinema/TV/Video Games. The inferior art forms/mediums (for now).

No, they aren't inferior. Not even close. What a stupid thing to say.

Damian Porter:

Charcharo:
Cinema/TV/Video Games. The inferior art forms/mediums (for now).

No, they aren't inferior. Not even close. What a stupid thing to say.

Well I have been a gamer ALL my life.
Sometimes though, for any progress to be made, one must acknowledge certain things. Such is life. It is how it is.

Charcharo:

Damian Porter:

Charcharo:
Cinema/TV/Video Games. The inferior art forms/mediums (for now).

No, they aren't inferior. Not even close. What a stupid thing to say.

Well I have been a gamer ALL my life.
Sometimes though, for any progress to be made, one must acknowledge certain things. Such is life. It is how it is.

Yeah, like acknowledging the fact that your opinion is not fact. Saying one medium is somehow superior displays complete ignorance.

I too have been gaming all my life. I've also read books and watched TV shows and movies, and I've found only pathetic elite pricks would claim books are somehow superior. I've heard all the excuses, and they are just that, excuses.

Damian Porter:

Charcharo:

Damian Porter:

No, they aren't inferior. Not even close. What a stupid thing to say.

Well I have been a gamer ALL my life.
Sometimes though, for any progress to be made, one must acknowledge certain things. Such is life. It is how it is.

Yeah, like acknowledging the fact that your opinion is not fact. Saying one medium is somehow superior displays complete ignorance.

I too have been gaming all my life. I've also read books and watched TV shows and movies, and I've found only pathetic elite pricks would claim books are somehow superior. I've heard all the excuses, and they are just that, excuses.

1) You would do well to reread my comment and actually understand it. Judging by your comment, you seem to have not done so.

2) That is fine mate. Hell, more power to you! Unfortunately, I VERY STRONGLY disagree. It is the opposite, what your average gamer says is a stupid excuse usually.

Charcharo:

Damian Porter:

Charcharo:

Well I have been a gamer ALL my life.
Sometimes though, for any progress to be made, one must acknowledge certain things. Such is life. It is how it is.

Yeah, like acknowledging the fact that your opinion is not fact. Saying one medium is somehow superior displays complete ignorance.

I too have been gaming all my life. I've also read books and watched TV shows and movies, and I've found only pathetic elite pricks would claim books are somehow superior. I've heard all the excuses, and they are just that, excuses.

1) You would do well to reread my comment and actually understand it. Judging by your comment, you seem to have not done so.

2) That is fine mate. Hell, more power to you! Unfortunately, I VERY STRONGLY disagree. It is the opposite, what your average gamer says is a stupid excuse usually.

I did read your comment and I STRONGLY disagree with YOU. Nothing you said was a fact and I'm calling you out on it. No, it isn't the opposite because book lovers ARE making excuses.

Damian Porter:

Charcharo:

Damian Porter:

Yeah, like acknowledging the fact that your opinion is not fact. Saying one medium is somehow superior displays complete ignorance.

I too have been gaming all my life. I've also read books and watched TV shows and movies, and I've found only pathetic elite pricks would claim books are somehow superior. I've heard all the excuses, and they are just that, excuses.

1) You would do well to reread my comment and actually understand it. Judging by your comment, you seem to have not done so.

2) That is fine mate. Hell, more power to you! Unfortunately, I VERY STRONGLY disagree. It is the opposite, what your average gamer says is a stupid excuse usually.

I did read your comment and I STRONGLY disagree with YOU. Nothing you said was a fact and I'm calling you out on it. No, it isn't the opposite because book lovers ARE making excuses.

So... you do not classify yourself as a book lover?
You think that literature is in a position where it has to make excuses... to video games and gamers? The hell? It was (wrongly) the opposite till a few years ago.

And no, you may have read the comment, but that does not mean you understood it.

Charcharo:
So... you do not classify yourself as a book lover?
You think that literature is in a position where it has to make excuses... to video games and gamers? The hell? It was (wrongly) the opposite till a few years ago.

And no, you may have read the comment, but that does not mean you understood it.

I understood your post just fine. It wasn't as factual or insightful as you think it was. And yes, you are making excuses. Literature itself doesn't need to make excuses, it's people like you making the excuses based on the age of the medium. Books aren't superior. They are just another medium to tell stories. And like the other mediums, there are tons of crap along with good stuff.

Damian Porter:

Charcharo:
So... you do not classify yourself as a book lover?
You think that literature is in a position where it has to make excuses... to video games and gamers? The hell? It was (wrongly) the opposite till a few years ago.

And no, you may have read the comment, but that does not mean you understood it.

I understood your post just fine. It wasn't as factual or insightful as you think it was. And yes, you are making excuses. Literature itself doesn't need to make excuses, it's people like you making the excuses based on the age of the medium. Books aren't superior. They are just another medium to tell stories. And like the other mediums, there are tons of crap along with good stuff.

Good. Rothfuss agrees on your last point. But ... not what I was talking about :(

Something NOT being insightful does not mean it is always understood. I understand what you are writing, it is gung ho in nature and irrelevant to what I was saying.

Have been in these discussions with gamers before. It will not progress. It is a waste of time.

Charcharo:
Good. Rothfuss agrees on your last point. But ... not what I was talking about :(

Something NOT being insightful does not mean it is always understood. I understand what you are writing, it is gung ho in nature and irrelevant to what I was saying.

Have been in these discussions with gamers before. It will not progress. It is a waste of time.

What does this have to do with being a gamer? I'm not arguing your point as a gamer. Once again, it is you who seems to be missing the point.

Literature DOES have its share of bad writing and bad authors. Deal with it. Defending it by saying games/movies/tv are the ones with bad writing just proves you are being ignorant on this topic. Once again, you brought no facts here, yet you are trying to argue your point as if it were fact but not providing a proper reason.

Damian Porter:

Charcharo:
Good. Rothfuss agrees on your last point. But ... not what I was talking about :(

Something NOT being insightful does not mean it is always understood. I understand what you are writing, it is gung ho in nature and irrelevant to what I was saying.

Have been in these discussions with gamers before. It will not progress. It is a waste of time.

What does this have to do with being a gamer? I'm not arguing your point as a gamer. Once again, it is you who seems to be missing the point.

Literature DOES have its share of bad writing and bad authors. Deal with it. Defending it by saying games/movies/tv are the ones with bad writing just proves you are being ignorant on this topic. Once again, you brought no facts here, yet you are trying to argue your point as if it were fact but not providing a proper reason.

Will make it simpler for you.
The ABSOLUTE BEST video games have is not EVEN COME CLOSE to (not even in the same dimension) the best of literature. The difference is enormous and I probably will not live long enough to see it on a comparable plane. I will die before that.
The worst of video games is also generally worse than most publishable drivel.

And still, this is not what I said...this is pointless.

Charcharo:

Damian Porter:

Charcharo:
Good. Rothfuss agrees on your last point. But ... not what I was talking about :(

Something NOT being insightful does not mean it is always understood. I understand what you are writing, it is gung ho in nature and irrelevant to what I was saying.

Have been in these discussions with gamers before. It will not progress. It is a waste of time.

What does this have to do with being a gamer? I'm not arguing your point as a gamer. Once again, it is you who seems to be missing the point.

Literature DOES have its share of bad writing and bad authors. Deal with it. Defending it by saying games/movies/tv are the ones with bad writing just proves you are being ignorant on this topic. Once again, you brought no facts here, yet you are trying to argue your point as if it were fact but not providing a proper reason.

Will make it simpler for you.
The ABSOLUTE BEST video games have is not EVEN COME CLOSE to (not even in the same dimension) the best of literature. The difference is enormous and I probably will not live long enough to see it on a comparable plane. I will die before that.
The worst of video games is also generally worse than most publishable drivel.

And still, this is not what I said...this is pointless.

I don't completely disagree with you, and I would actually say you have a point that the best of literature is better written than the best of video game stories. One thing you really have to consider, though, is that it has only been about 25 years since video games have really been capable of having a story without sacrificing gameplay. Not only has literature been around a far longer time, but story is literally all there is about a book. If a book has a terrible story, nothing can make up for it, whereas it is possible for a game to have a terrible story, and still be a great game (Super Mario Bros. 3, for example). The comparison doesn't quite work on a 1-1 basis.

thebobmaster:

Charcharo:

Damian Porter:

What does this have to do with being a gamer? I'm not arguing your point as a gamer. Once again, it is you who seems to be missing the point.

Literature DOES have its share of bad writing and bad authors. Deal with it. Defending it by saying games/movies/tv are the ones with bad writing just proves you are being ignorant on this topic. Once again, you brought no facts here, yet you are trying to argue your point as if it were fact but not providing a proper reason.

Will make it simpler for you.
The ABSOLUTE BEST video games have is not EVEN COME CLOSE to (not even in the same dimension) the best of literature. The difference is enormous and I probably will not live long enough to see it on a comparable plane. I will die before that.
The worst of video games is also generally worse than most publishable drivel.

And still, this is not what I said...this is pointless.

I don't completely disagree with you, and I would actually say you have a point that the best of literature is better written than the best of video game stories. One thing you really have to consider, though, is that it has only been about 25 years since video games have really been capable of having a story without sacrificing gameplay. Not only has literature been around a far longer time, but story is literally all there is about a book. If a book has a terrible story, nothing can make up for it, whereas it is possible for a game to have a terrible story, and still be a great game (Super Mario Bros. 3, for example). The comparison doesn't quite work on a 1-1 basis.

I know mate. That is why I said that "(for now)" in my original post. Also why I accentuate on a the "I will die before that" part.

I realize that it is not a fair comparison. ANd it is not one, but it is how it is. I do see gaming as a great art form, because it is one.
But equal? Not yet.

*That YET is important.

Thank you for getting me though :) !

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here