A Game of Write Offs and A Storm of Anger

I'm angry. It's the only way I can justify anything I write during this post. My insults to the Game of Thrones television series, and subsequently the book series, A Song of Ice and Fire, may be more difficult to digest than the last episode I watched-- but I doubt it. If it's any consolation to the fans, my opinions may be emotionally compromised. Last night Game of Thrones aired the ninth episode of its third season, based heavily on the third book A Storm of Swords. Those who have read it knew what was coming. Those of us who came into the series without any knowledge of the books were blindsided. I'm told many fans of the books found it difficult to continue after this part. Likewise, television fans might be remiss of furthering the story. Are we out of line?

Major spoilers and divisive discussion after the jump.

The North Will Rememb-- Wait... Who's North?

After three seasons of the Starks established as pseudo-main characters, they are slain. Remnants of the youngest children and one bastard are scattered without any power to their name. Meanwhile, Robb, Catelyn and Talisa Stark have been brutally killed by Lord Frey and Roose Bolten. The former holds grudges against those who don't keep vows to marry his daughters, which is why he was delighted to see Bolten ram a dagger through Robb's heart. 

The massacre was brutal, horrific and burned into my mind. There is no arguing that it was well done. I'm sure fans of the book were pleased such attention to detail was given to this game changing episode. It was appropriately built with subtle hints of forshadowing and minor victories with Jon Snow, Bran Stark and Daenerys Targaryen easing the pain that follows.

On a preview to the follow-up episode, Tyrion Lannister claims, "The northerners will never forget." Who in the north is it that might be threatening? The eldest Starks are dead. Winterfell is practically destroyed and other groups or "kingdoms" are in disarray. More importantly, other than the young Stark remnants, is there anyone for the audience to care about up North?

Realism or Cynisism?

I've read fan post after fan post and argument after argument about how the stories in Game of Thrones should be told. The obvious answer is, "close to the books", so lets start there. George R.R. Martin is the author of A Song of Ice and Fire, and critics pointing at a love for cynicism in his work might be on the nose. He's been criticized heavily for killing off likable characters and it's even rumored he purposefully does this when a character becomes too likable. 

Proponents of these decisions claim it adds realism to the situation. One fan wrote, "It's not fairy tales and in [sic] that it's is [sic] a pretty factual representation of what feudal ascenscion [sic] and conduct was like (brutal, ruthless and dirty)." I can not speak for the poster's knowledge of feudal ascension, but I agree the show is very brutal, ruthless and dirty. But I find it hard to believe that the decisions to kill off major players like Robb and Catelyn are for the honor of realism. Game of Thrones feels fairly real, but no more than a story with dragons, witches and ice-zombies can afford.

Martin notes he, "want[s] you to be afraid to turn the page, (so) you need to show right from the beginning that you're playing for keeps." Which is why character after character tend to drop like flies. No one can argue it isn't effective, at least in the series. I fear for the remaining characters on the show, but isn't there a more skilled way to pull this off? I think so.

Lets look at an effective action story for a moment. Something from a completely different spectrum of fantasy storytelling. I'll pluck Jurassic Park from my mind. The story is also based on a book, but the movie takes major liberties with the source material. During the famous kitchen scene in which the cunning velociraptors stalk Lex and Tim we are on the edge of our seats for them to survive. The scene calls back memories of deep fear, suspense and plants the idea that these kids might not make it out alive. It's the kind of talent that suspends our disbelief and although we're fairly sure these characters won't be eaten, we care enough about their well-being that we fear their end. 

In one sense what George R.R. Martin is doing is ballsy and it works to achieve that same sense of dread. It can also be construed as lazy. After all, why spend time trying to effectively dramatize the saftey of your characters when you can prove to the audience and readers that no one is safe by simply killing them off? It almost seems to easy.

Perhaps that's unfair. There was plenty of suspense leading up to Robb's and Catelyn's death and I've read that the "Red Wedding", as it's infamously titled, was the last thing he wrote for A Storm of Swords. And yet he's made this point before with Ned Stark, Renly Baratheon and Jaime's hand. (Bad joke?) It's getting to the point where I'm becoming rather numb to the notion of his characters dying. At this point if my two favorites, Daenarys and Tyrion, bite the dust I would be mad, but not necessarily surprised. Meanwhile I fully expect Jon Snow to perish before the series finale. I'm sure Martin has an equally meaningless end for him in sight.

Which brings me to my biggest complaint about last night's episode. What was the point of Robb's story arc?

When you play the game of thrones you live or waste time.

Last night I recalled the end of Lost. Many of my friends and fans of the show felt cheated. They felt as if the enigmas weren't properly handled and the six years of following mysteries were wasted. Yet, with all the flaws Lost was plagued with, it at least tried to wrap-up the red herring and characters with a full arc.

The point of Robb Stark's story was to follow him, and much of the north, in a campaign against the Lannisters. They were to get revenge for Ned's death or die trying. Clearly, "die trying" was the fate George R.R. Martin chose for him, but as of right now the arc was meaningless. The Lannisters weren't even directly responsible for Robb's campaign cut short. With both Robb and Catelyn gone, the world sees the Stark's as an extinguished house. There is no one with power to take revenge for Ned and Robb and Catelyn. Bran and Arya are both rogue and presumed dead and Sansa is now a Lannister. Game of Thrones is said to be heading for eight seasons. That's five seasons of television that must be profoundly effected by the death of Robb Stark and his efforts, otherwise it was a meaningless arc.

I've been told their deaths were necessary to, "make us hate the Lannisters more" or "to show no one is safe" and so on. But if the entire point of destroying a prominent story arc was for emotional resonance, or to prove a point about Martin's fantasy world, then I can only chalk the ending of this story up to poor writing. Indeed, I may be speaking too soon over the Stark's annihilation. It's too early to tell how this twist will effect the overarching story. As it stands, however, I'm not sure what it truly provides for the Ice and Fire mythos except less drama. After all, that's one less obstacle for the Lannisters to worry about. The realm is a little more quiet.

In the 1990s era Godzilla series, Toho's screenwriters were painfully criticized for introducing intriguing ideas into their stories only to write them out halfway through the movie. The reason was because they had no idea where to go with it. It was sloppy screenwriting. Right now, Robb Stark's story feels like an aborted plot device in a 1990s Godzilla movie.

I'm fully aware that the decimation of the Stark House gives Bran and Arya a possible arc to rise up and take back everything they lost by the end of the series, but the sardonic George R.R. Martin probably won't allow that. It's something positive to root for and that's too much to hope for. While I don't look for stories of justice and good triumphing over evil in Game of Thrones, I do look for story and characters that have purpose.  As it stands, the television series based on Martin's fantasy is less of an exercise in existentialism and more of a quandary revolving around unfortunate circumstances. Robb's and Catelyn's death may have provided a truth about Martin's world, (it is brutal and no one is safe) but I see no thematic repercussion of their end. This is difficult for newcomers like myself who need a character to connect to during these fateful events. Whether they live or die, they have to matter.

A Feast for Crows

Moving forward I doubt Game of Thrones will lose much of an audience after last night's well done, but utterly infuriating episode. Many people are asking, "What now?" Indeed, that is the question that is keeping me motivated to watch the show. (Along with Daenarys.) I won't hold out hope that Martin's characters will face less bleak trials, but I do hope he can honor the idea that likable characters keep audiences. The connection we feel when rooting for characters, even if they fail, is stronger, and arguably more impressive, than the shock value of writing them off.

Game of Thrones will not lose its core audience, but the dwindling cast of characters we've spent so much time with may be a turnoff not only to simple TV goers, but those looking for a story that goes beyond pulp-like stock shock. Otherwise, it is the dramatic equivalent of a horror movie's cheap jump scare. Game of Thrones is better than that and I have faith it will rebound with something spectacular in the wake of death. On the other hand I may be too emotionally wounded to believe this episode was actually a good thing. Alas, this article wouldn't exist if I weren't angry. Death to Joffery.