Character Immortality

[Ashandarei]

So has this topic has basically devolved into "I wish RJ had written this type of way?"

 

There was no good reason to post that, it is needlessly insulting to the others posting in this thread. You can easily answer that question yourself if you read even a few posts. In answer to your question: The thread hasn't "devolved" into anything, it's still what I started it out as- a genuine literary critique of RJ's work and some (debatable) flaws, particularly the plot armor/character shielding that he provides the vast majority of the Light characters and the repeated rebirths of the Forsaken.

[RembrandtQ.Einstein]

It's why RJ is inferior to Tolkien. At least Tolkien killed off main characters. The Silmarillion is as a result a fairly interesting read once you can force yourself past the first 50-70 boring pages.

Seriously? In Lord of the Rings, Gandalf dies, comes back and ol, Boringamir oh i mean Boramir dies. Wow look at the carnage! The Simarillion was a complimentary history to the LOTR. Anyway it's not a moving arguement. I feel the story is masterfully done in WOT, and that matters more than killing characters for no reason. {love both series but RJ's world would make Tolkien's head explode}

 

 

Hence I listed Silmarillion and Children of Hurin. Albeit Tolkien perhaps takes it a bit overboard in terms of darkness in the Children of Hurin considering the protagonist in anguish ends up brutally committing suicide by taking his sword, turning it upright and falling on top of it.

[Elan Tedronai]

Robert Jordan's own words were 'this is a struggle between the light and the shadow'

 

So far after 13 books it has been anything but a struggle.

[idiostock]

Characters who could have died, and when, for plot/drive home evil purposes:

 

1. Morgase - Shoulda jumped out the window in the Fortress of Light.

2. Gawyn - Sheathe the Sword while defending Egwene

3. Gareth or Siuan - One of them when Gareth kills the Bloodknife

4. Moiraine - Lanfear

5. Egwene - Elaida ends up executing her in secret and is deposed for it, heals the Tower because they realize this can't be happening (Out of the Emond's Fielders, Egwene is the one who could die the easiest without swinging the plot too far)

6. Faile - When captured. Perrin goes crazy, goes on fanatic rampage during aMoL, charging into Trollocs and all

7, Rhuarc - Any time, amplifies suspense

8. Amys/Bair/Melaine - See above

 

 

So, yeah, around 8 major characters COULD have died, and it definitely would have amplified the suspense and story, but after a while, with all these people dying the story would just get too bleak and depressing. How many people would have to die to satisfy ya? Morgase, Gawyn, Moiraine and Egwene would seem more than enough for me, they look like the most possible deaths and would do the job well.

 

Mat, Perrin, Rand, Lan, Egwene and Moiraine: Could have died on Winternight, would have been a mindblowing twist.

[Elan Tedronai]

Characters who could have died, and when, for plot/drive home evil purposes:

 

1. Morgase - Shoulda jumped out the window in the Fortress of Light.

2. Gawyn - Sheathe the Sword while defending Egwene

3. Gareth or Siuan - One of them when Gareth kills the Bloodknife

4. Moiraine - Lanfear

5. Egwene - Elaida ends up executing her in secret and is deposed for it, heals the Tower because they realize this can't be happening (Out of the Emond's Fielders, Egwene is the one who could die the easiest without swinging the plot too far)

6. Faile - When captured. Perrin goes crazy, goes on fanatic rampage during aMoL, charging into Trollocs and all

7, Rhuarc - Any time, amplifies suspense

8. Amys/Bair/Melaine - See above

 

 

So, yeah, around 8 major characters COULD have died, and it definitely would have amplified the suspense and story, but after a while, with all these people dying the story would just get too bleak and depressing. How many people would have to die to satisfy ya? Morgase, Gawyn, Moiraine and Egwene would seem more than enough for me, they look like the most possible deaths and would do the job well.

 

Mat, Perrin, Rand, Lan, Egwene and Moiraine: Could have died on Winternight, would have been a mindblowing twist.

 

 

i think you have completely missed the point here.

[rsahae]

but the fact is that the role of "young man entering his warrior-leader prime a little early, central character not only to the book but to all the characters around him, their fates all depend on him, etc.", well that has to be Robb Stark.

Jon Snow sends his regards.

 

I guess in fencing that's called a "touch." I should have included that bastard (). I guess that the reason I forgot is, as you say, his storyline has not been the most prominent so far. Boy, if GRRM would just write another damn book we might get to see him come into his Randness, finally!

 

Anyone who avoids SoIaF because of too much character death, or avoids WoT because of too little, is really missing out. The most important thing about a book is the *quality* of writing (yes, as much as the *subject matter*, in my opinion) and both series are extremely well written.

 

P.S. Now that I think about it...Jon and Rand: both moms died on a mountain, both dads brought the baby back to home from war. Plagiarism! (j/k)

[idiostock]

Characters who could have died, and when, for plot/drive home evil purposes:

 

1. Morgase - Shoulda jumped out the window in the Fortress of Light.

2. Gawyn - Sheathe the Sword while defending Egwene

3. Gareth or Siuan - One of them when Gareth kills the Bloodknife

4. Moiraine - Lanfear

5. Egwene - Elaida ends up executing her in secret and is deposed for it, heals the Tower because they realize this can't be happening (Out of the Emond's Fielders, Egwene is the one who could die the easiest without swinging the plot too far)

6. Faile - When captured. Perrin goes crazy, goes on fanatic rampage during aMoL, charging into Trollocs and all

7, Rhuarc - Any time, amplifies suspense

8. Amys/Bair/Melaine - See above

 

 

So, yeah, around 8 major characters COULD have died, and it definitely would have amplified the suspense and story, but after a while, with all these people dying the story would just get too bleak and depressing. How many people would have to die to satisfy ya? Morgase, Gawyn, Moiraine and Egwene would seem more than enough for me, they look like the most possible deaths and would do the job well.

 

Mat, Perrin, Rand, Lan, Egwene and Moiraine: Could have died on Winternight, would have been a mindblowing twist.

 

 

i think you have completely missed the point here.

 

Most, if not quite, all of the characters mentioned have big events tied to them. A handful of the suggested deaths would be changes simply for the sake of death and would therefore add absolutely nothing to the story. Is that not the criticism that's been thrown around for 5 pages?

 

Plot armour exists because it isn't real life. Once Rand was declared DR, did anyone expect him to drop until the Last Battle? And yet he still has heavy involvement in many violent scenes. In contrast, any person in the world could die any time of any number of coincidences or be specifically killed.

[Muad Cheade]

Jon Snow sends his regards. It is important to note that the conflict with the Others has, to date, only been a side story, yet looks set to take greater prominence in the future. One thing Martin has said on his choice of POVs is that he makes someone a POV in order to tell that person's story. Robb was never a POV - he was never telling Robb's story. So I disagree that he killed off the "Rand" of the series. That's a role that belongs either to Jon or Dany, given what we know, and how you define it. He has undoubtedly killed off major characters, I don't deny that. I just think his reputation in this regard is inflated, and I think that's a bad thing. How many people are going to read comments along the lines of "never get attached to anyone" and so never read the books? Or read them and be disappointed at the lack of the promised bloodbath? Martin uses plot armour, just as RJ does. He's telling a story. There's death, but it happens for a reason.

Only two POV characters from aSoIaF has actually been killed, Eddard and Ser Arys. Three if you count Catelyn but she's very much alive. Brienne and Davos are maybes, put I have my fingers crossed. He's a great author, and I don't think it's he number of deaths he writes, but in the manner he uses them to get to the reader. He doesn't kill for the sake of killing. It is to advance the story and make it richer. If RJ can do that without killing characters, so be it.

 

So has this topic has basically devolved into "I wish RJ had written this type of way?"

 

There was no good reason to post that, it is needlessly insulting to the others posting in this thread. You can easily answer that question yourself if you read even a few posts. In answer to your question: The thread hasn't "devolved" into anything, it's still what I started it out as- a genuine literary critique of RJ's work and some (debatable) flaws, particularly the plot armor/character shielding that he provides the vast majority of the Light characters and the repeated rebirths of the Forsaken.

It's not a "literary critique." The amount of deaths in the narrative does not reflect Jordan's prowess as a great writer. I did not pick A Game of Thrones because characters die in that book. I picked it because I was told the story was incredible and he was a great author.

 

"Repeated rebirths?!" It is part of the story! The Dark One has the power to transmigrate souls. Do you expect him not to use that power? This is why I made my comment. "I wish more people had died." "I wish the Forsaken did not come back from death."

 

 

It's why RJ is inferior to Tolkien. At least Tolkien killed off main characters. The Silmarillion is as a result a fairly interesting read once you can force yourself past the first 50-70 boring pages.

Seriously? In Lord of the Rings, Gandalf dies, comes back and ol, Boringamir oh i mean Boramir dies. Wow look at the carnage! The Simarillion was a complimentary history to the LOTR. Anyway it's not a moving arguement. I feel the story is masterfully done in WOT, and that matters more than killing characters for no reason. {love both series but RJ's world would make Tolkien's head explode}

 

 

Hence I listed Silmarillion and Children of Hurin. Albeit Tolkien perhaps takes it a bit overboard in terms of darkness in the Children of Hurin considering the protagonist in anguish ends up brutally committing suicide by taking his sword, turning it upright and falling on top of it.

So RJ is an inferior writer solely because he didn't kill off his characters? Illogical at it's core. You're right about The Silmarillion, although I do not think it is accurate to compare to aSoIaF. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is significantly more successful and more known. It'd be like saying sure G.R.R.M. kills characters in aSoIaF, but the Tales of Dunk and EGG series he wrote are not as good because only a few characters die.

 

 

Robert Jordan's own words were 'this is a struggle between the light and the shadow'

 

So far after 13 books it has been anything but a struggle.

It has not? Are we reading the same book?

 

What of the Conan the Barbarian series and Robert E. Howard? RJ also wrote some of those stories as well. We go into any Conan story knowing no matter odds, the Cimmerian will walk out of it alive. Albeit usually by himself. Does that detract from the captivating novels or Howard's skill as a writer? An emphatic no. He was one of the key influences on the majority of current fantasy writers. Character mortality rates is irrelevant.

[Morsker]

Those sorts of changes present problems to the author. Killing off some characters will not necessarily result in any improvement in the narrative, it takes away from the story RJ wanted to tell, and roles that he had to fulfill now have to be carried by others. What with all the foreshadowing, it might make some changes essentially impossible without making a nonsense of his story. The story he told works. That is the story he planned. I see no reason to make such arbitrary changes. While it is lamentable that he didn't have better foresight for how big his series would be, how much story he had to tell, I have to say that this is not a major problem. The bloat and poor pacing of the later books, these are bigger problems that we would have been better able to deal with.

I agree with you that killing characters just to meet an arbitrary death quota is silly, but I'm tempted to play Devil's Advocate here: you mention bloat and poor pacing as problems, and killing characters could've solved those problems. For example, let Perrin die in TSR, and Elayne die to the gholam in ACoS, and retcon any prophecies to be fallible the more influence the Dark One has, and many of the series' less entertaining pages would have been avoided.

[Mats Spare Hat]

no moral high ground here, but I think the earlier person's post is just communicating a very human reaction. It's a reaction to the way some other posts were worded: It'd be so awesome if mat died. How awesome if egwene died. How awesome if Perrin died.

 

I mean, that just strikes me as pretty bloodthirsty. I'm not claiming any high ground. It's just concerning in its zeal for death, that's all. I'm not saying it was intended that way. That's just how it rings in the ear.

 

And I don't think it would be awesome if mat died at all. If the price for continuing to spend time with and get to know better these great characters, these old friends of ours, is less intimidating Forsaken, that's ok by me.

 

 

*tip of the hat

 

For me the disgust comes more from the idea that say a plot-line drags for awhile, and people complain, which is completely fine (my eyes whack out whenever I approach an Elayne gaining the throne chapter) - that's not what irks me. What twirks me out is that for whatever reason it appears that a whole lot of folks' go-to plot device is killing & death. You see it all the time, across all mediums: film, tv, print, literature... and I find it pretty gross? - The craving of death/destruction/maiming etc. for the sake of excitement, or in this case perhaps some may feel it lends support to how good an author may be compared to others? Or even whatever case strikes folks' fancy.

 

Don't like someone? Man, wish they would die. Can't figure out how to solve a personality clash? Annie get your gun! Somebody fumbles the ball? Drag them out behind the woodshed! Plot-line moves to slow for you? They should kill that person so I don't have to read about tea-sipping and dresses. Shoot shoot shoot, stab, kill, bludgeon, murder that's how we can solve all problems! It'll be more exciting, and think of how nicely the plot moves along that way!

 

I mean, really? Death's a part of life but nobody should ever be so eager to deal it out whatever the reasoning, in literature, and for me, life too. I'm not looking for any sympathy, support, commentary or otherwise, but for some added context with regards to my opinion on the subject, I will tell you all that I'm a Hokie Alum, and you can gather from that what you want.

 

"Many that live deserve death. Many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death in judgment..."

[Elan Tedronai]

muad cheade,

 

I don't know if you're simply pulling a fast one on me or simply read the wrong books. Honestly hand on heart can you say with a straight face after reading the prologue of TEOTW to TOM that there has been a struggle between the light and the shadow.

 

In any struggle you expect casualties. You expect a sense of dread. A sense of the unknown around the corner. A sense of pain and suffering. A sense of people lost to reach the goal.

 

The wheel of time has no sense of struggle about it. The villains are cartoonish. The characters are all plot armoured. The shadow is a laughing stock that inspires derision more than fear.

 

When Mesaana put the adam on egwene i wasn't even bothered. I knew Egwene was going to escape. The only question was how. There is no longer a fear of consequences. And that's where RJ has failed to live up to his own words. No struggle. If there is any side that is struggling it's the useless baddies who seem to get picked off one after the other with their plans going up in smoke everywhere. And we are not even at Tarmon Gaidon yet

[Agelmar]

I think it was symptomatic of a larger problem Jordan had in the Wheel of Time--he only started plots, he didn't end them. Killing off characters would have forced some plot points to be tied up. Tying up plot points would much more likely result in the death of characters.

 

Of course, given how many plot threads and characters the series wound up with, overkill would have been easy. It's obvious that Jordan takes death very, very seriously, as he should. By limiting the number of deaths (among minor chacters), he has been able to maintain the appropriate impact.

[AquilaInfernus]

Possibly the biggest thing missing from the debate, that has only been touched on is the infallible nature of prophecy.

 

The only thing that stops us from having 100% conviction that all is good is that the DO will remake the pattern in his own image, nullifying all previous prophecies. However, should any major character die, the nature of the known prophecies means that evil victory is certain should they fail. Therefore, any prophecy concerning a major character must either come true, or be so vague as to ensure doubt. It's a nice piece of plot armour RJ has constructed, but limits the availability of death somewhat.

 

Recall Min's concern that Moiraine's apparent death meant certain failure. For us however it just gave a certain level of confidence proclaiming her continued existence or resurrection.

 

It is also why everyone likely doubts Moridin and Graendal's interpretation of the Shadow prophecies we see in ToM. If Perrin dies before time, the Shadow wins. This can't be the case because of above.

 

All of the characters mentioned as being suitable candidates for death seem to have a role to play in aiding the prophecised characters survival. I for one would have been very disappointed if Rand was forever blamed for Morgase's death because she later died in the Fortress of Light. Just about every character can be viewed this way (especially all those seen by Min in Baerlon).

[Ashandarei]

For me the disgust comes more from the idea that say a plot-line drags for awhile, and people complain, which is completely fine (my eyes whack out whenever I approach an Elayne gaining the throne chapter) - that's not what irks me. What twirks me out is that for whatever reason it appears that a whole lot of folks' go-to plot device is killing & death. You see it all the time, across all mediums: film, tv, print, literature...¹ and I find it pretty gross? - The craving of death/destruction/maiming etc. for the sake of excitement, or in this case perhaps some may feel it lends support to how good an author may be compared to others? Or even whatever case strikes folks' fancy.

 

I mean, really? Death's a part of life but nobody should ever be so eager to deal it out whatever the reasoning, in literature, and for me, life too.² I'm not looking for any sympathy, support, commentary or otherwise, but for some added context with regards to my opinion on the subject, I will tell you all that I'm a Hokie Alum, and you can gather from that what you want.

 

¹ The very way you think about this theme of death in fiction, as some kind of "go-to plot device," shows why you are so strongly against it. I am absolutely not trying to be confrontational here, so please hear me out. In fantasy fiction, even more so than other types of fiction, authors have to walk the razor's-edge between making the story realistic and letting their imagination of the clearly unrealisitic universe take the reins. This is because as readers, we read fantasy precisely because it's so different from "mundane reality" because of the magical elements in it. At the same time, for a story to be truly great and immersive it is imperative for it to have many elements of reality so we can imagine ourselves in that time and place. If it's too radically different from the world we live in it becomes near impossible for a reader to "lose themselves" in the story precisely because there's nothing that connects it to our world.

 

Life and death are two of the things that pertain extremely strongly to that balance between reality and fantasy and so there the line an author must walk is the most delicate. The point I was making and that so many others have stated in this thread is that if only the bad guys die, that balance is lost. While it is true that some minor Light characters die, they're always treated as a side-note in the story, and Death itself is made impotent when the major characters enter unquestionably life-threatening situations time after time after time without true consequence.One example that has been mentioned above are how nobody was even slightly worried that Mat might die in the ridiculously dangerous Tower of Ghenjei. In his case, at least the story itself provides reasons such as his unwavering luck. But this example is only one of many where the story doesn't provide any good reason for the character's survival.

 

I, and the others, aren't advocating a bloodbath where anytime anybody faces even the slightest danger, they die since as I said, it's all about balance. But balance means that sometimes, a character should in fact die when he/she faces a life or death situation. In the end, what it comes down to is, do you want a fairy-tale where everything always and forever will be perfect and good or would you like something a little deeper and more meaningful because it includes themes like death and allows us to experience them and deal with them in a "safe zone"- that of fiction, since after all, it is a story.

 

 

 

² Emu made a similar argument in reply to your previous post that explains why death is important to have in stories:

But to omit death from the world of the imagination, and claim "disgust" when somebody advocates for such a story, isn't acceptable. We're mortals, after all. If we can connect with a story like Wheel of Time, it must be that we can somehow relate to the conflicts and aspirations of the characters in it. Many of us dream of a great epic adventure, and confront death in our thoughts. Indeed, thinking about death can help to make the reality of it easier to accept. Thinking about death can improve our appreciation for life. Reading stories filled with death are an opportunity for us to relate to the human experience. What I have argued in this thread is that Jordan was incongruent in keeping the main protagonists alive despite constantly putting them in situations of grave danger. I never said that WoT is boring because of that, nor do I think such a thing. I'm not advocating bloodsport, bread and circuses. What I said is that it isn't realistic for such an inconsistency to dominate the storyline, and that this inconsistency detracts from the story.

[Mats Spare Hat]

@Ashendari

 

Don't worry about it, we're cool

 

When I meant by go-to plot device, I was thinking in the context of a given reader as opposed to the viewpoint of an author. As to say if asked what they felt could have been written differently to have the story suit their tastes or whatnot, a reader might say well nobody important dies, it'd be awesome if so and so was killed...

 

...Granted it's a fantasy novel, and people can have drastically different experiences with death, and life et al. I do not have a problem with death being used in literature - I'm bummed that people can go through life thinking that people being killed is something great or exciting, or really is what would positively round out a story.

 

For example some people hate on Egwene to no end on this site; To the point where people wish she were killed off or died or hope she dies, because for whatever reason they don't like her. That stuff makes my eyebrows furl, because that's somebody's mindset? Kill somebody because you don't like them? I feel like the realization of how messed up that sort of reaction is, in my opinion, gets muddled in the realms of entertainment.

 

I wouldn't argue for censorship - heck I'm totally into Red Dead Redemption - or against anybody not being able to experience all the facets of life in whatever form. I do however think that it's jacked up, and pretty sad, that people can reach the point where dealing out death is their preference or solution to something as simple as some girl being a snot - even if it's within the safe-zone of a fictional story.

 

I think people rationalize their thoughts on the subject because we are in the bounds of fantastical fiction, it isn't real. Whereas you noted people may want to experience those thematic elements in that safe-zone, how does that not trivialize or cause a disconnect with reality when those fictional experiences, or lack thereof, leads folks to the conclusion that things would have been better/more exciting/awesome/they would have liked it more, if somebody were killed or had died?

 

I dunno, the whole topic reminds me of a Band of Brothers scene. It makes me think about how people can be so blithe about the want or feeling that having somebody somebody killed off is something they'd enjoy experiencing, in fiction or reality.

 

[O' Keefe is humming "She'll Be Coming Around the Mountain"]

Perconte: Hey, O'Brien. Shut up!

O' Keefe: I told you, it's O'Keefe.

Perconte: Do you know why no one remembers your name? It's because no one wants to remember your name. There's too many Smiths, DiMattos and O'Keefes and O'Briens, who show up here, replacing Toccoa men that you dumb replacements got killed in the first place! And they're all like you. They're all piss and vinegar. "Where're the Krauts at? Let me at 'em! When do I get to jump into Berlin?" Two days later, there they are with their blood and guts hanging out and they're screaming for a medic, begging for their goddamn mother. You dumb f**ks don't even know they're dead yet. Hey, you listening to me? Do you understand this is the best part of the f**king war I've seen? I've got hot chow, hot showers, warm bed. Germany is almost as good as being home. I even got to wipe my own ass with real toilet paper today. So, quit asking about when you're gonna see real action, will you?! And stop with the f**king love songs!

[both are silent for a while]

Perconte: When did you ship out? A few weeks ago?

O' Keefe: Yeah.

Perconte: It's been two years since I've been home. Two years. This f**king war.

 

[Ashandarei]

@Ashendari

 

Don't worry about it, we're cool

 

Cool.

 

Glad we could hash that out.

[Kalm]

I, and the others, aren't advocating a bloodbath where anytime anybody faces even the slightest danger, they die since as I said, it's all about balance. But balance means that sometimes, a character should in fact die when he/she faces a life or death situation. In the end, what it comes down to is, do you want a fairy-tale where everything always and forever will be perfect and good or would you like something a little deeper and more meaningful because it includes themes like death and allows us to experience them and deal with them in a "safe zone"- that of fiction, since after all, it is a story.

 

Is there truly balance though? The problem with the series may not be this unrealistic lack of death (and I do very well understand it's the realism you're commenting on, not the death dearth) but that the balance that RJ wanted to maintain is not possible in a series that is supposed to be a perpetual cycle. IIRC, the AoL and similar/surrounding ages did not know the DO's touch at all. Then, their peace and prosperity was disturbed by this event, the advent of the Bore. The world spiraled into chaos, but it was never lost to it. If the series were truly balanced, shouldn't DO have won at some point? Shouldn't his nature as antithesis to the Creator allow him to actually have destroyed the Wheel? But the DO has never won. At least not in this world, because the Wheel continues to turn. For that reason alone, this world's imbalance in terms of good and evil likely must exist as it does, just for the sake of the story. We cannot see the instances which establish this balance, because they do not exist. The DO destroyed them.

 

To that end, it would be very interesting to see the DO and the Creator tallying results on a chalkboard.

 

Creator: "Ah, ya got me there Darky old buddy. That world is lost."

DO: "The score is almost even. Shall we go again?"

Creator: " Huzzah!"

 

Anyway, I posted somewhere about the Shadow just...not seeming as threatening as it was in earlier books. The Light are on course to win. Not without casualties of course, but the tallies of channelers vs. the dreadlords is one telling statistic that I believe to be heavily in the Light's favour. Maybe it's because the series is so long. It must be damn hard to construct a scenario where the heroes can't get their act together enough to seem like they have a chance at winning, and still pull off a victory over the course of 20 years.

 

I'm just hoping the last book blindsides us all. Every, single person in the fandom. Maybe the ______ in the Blight will help out. Or the totally unforeseen Cyndane-dream. Or the Moridin-Rand link. Or Fain. What I'm saying is, though it has its predictability with regards it not being so much a "what" as a "how" in terms of occurrences, I believe there are sufficient "whats" to keep us enthralled. After all, I still don't know if Rand will live or die. Or how the heck Fain comes into play with his zombie powers. What is that bastard up to I wonder...

[Suttree]

muad cheade,

 

I don't know if you're simply pulling a fast one on me or simply read the wrong books. Honestly hand on heart can you say with a straight face after reading the prologue of TEOTW to TOM that there has been a struggle between the light and the shadow.

 

In any struggle you expect casualties. You expect a sense of dread. A sense of the unknown around the corner. A sense of pain and suffering. A sense of people lost to reach the goal.

 

The wheel of time has no sense of struggle about it. The villains are cartoonish. The characters are all plot armoured. The shadow is a laughing stock that inspires derision more than fear.

 

When Mesaana put the adam on egwene i wasn't even bothered. I knew Egwene was going to escape. The only question was how. There is no longer a fear of consequences. And that's where RJ has failed to live up to his own words. No struggle. If there is any side that is struggling it's the useless baddies who seem to get picked off one after the other with their plans going up in smoke everywhere. And we are not even at Tarmon Gaidon yet

 

Not sure if everyone has a clear understanding of how this battle with the DO is actually being fought. Know the situation has changed slightly since TGS but in RJ's own words

 

The world and the forces of the Light are in bad shape. At this point, boys and girls, the Shadow is winning. There are glimmers of hope, but only glimmers, and they MUST pay off for the Light to win. All the Shadow needs for victory is for matters to keep on as they have been going thus far and one or two of those glimmers to fade or be extinguished. The forces of the Light are on the ropes, and they don't even know everything the Dark One has up his sleeve.

Think of it this way. The bell is about to ring for the fifteenth round, and the Light is so far behind on points the only way to win is a knockout. Our boy is game, but he's wobbly on his legs and bleeding from cuts over his eyes. Now he has three minutes to pull out his best stuff and deliver the punch of his life. The Dark One has taken a few shots, but nothing that has really damaged him. He's still dancing on his toes and talking trash. His head shots can fracture a skull, and his body punches can break ribs. And now he's ready to unveil his surprises. You didn't think all it would take is for Rand to show up at the Last Battle, did you? According to the Prophecies, the Light has no chance without him, but his presence doesn't ensure victory, just that the Light has a chance. Gotta stiffen your legs and blink the blood out of your eyes. Gotta suck it up and find that punch. Three minutes to go, and you gotta find that knockout. That's your only chance.

[Morsker]

In any struggle you expect casualties. You expect a sense of dread. A sense of the unknown around the corner. A sense of pain and suffering. A sense of people lost to reach the goal.

 

The wheel of time has no sense of struggle about it. The villains are cartoonish. The characters are all plot armoured. The shadow is a laughing stock that inspires derision more than fear.

Dark Lords are always cartoon villains, and are never threatening. Authors use the trope because it's entertaining, not because it makes a lot of sense. If you were hoping for more threatening antagonists, that's why the series has the Seanchen and the Aes Sedai. They often succeed and do horrible things, and no foreshadowing promises their defeat.

[Mr Ares]

but the fact is that the role of "young man entering his warrior-leader prime a little early, central character not only to the book but to all the characters around him, their fates all depend on him, etc.", well that has to be Robb Stark.

Jon Snow sends his regards.

 

I guess in fencing that's called a "touch." I should have included that bastard (). I guess that the reason I forgot is, as you say, his storyline has not been the most prominent so far. Boy, if GRRM would just write another damn book we might get to see him come into his Randness, finally!

 

Anyone who avoids SoIaF because of too much character death, or avoids WoT because of too little, is really missing out. The most important thing about a book is the *quality* of writing (yes, as much as the *subject matter*, in my opinion) and both series are extremely well written.

Oh, I quite agree. But the way people talk about the series, I think it might dissuade people from trying it. ASoIaF has a higher bodycount than WoT, but both are quality series.

 

 

Jon Snow sends his regards. It is important to note that the conflict with the Others has, to date, only been a side story, yet looks set to take greater prominence in the future. One thing Martin has said on his choice of POVs is that he makes someone a POV in order to tell that person's story. Robb was never a POV - he was never telling Robb's story. So I disagree that he killed off the "Rand" of the series. That's a role that belongs either to Jon or Dany, given what we know, and how you define it. He has undoubtedly killed off major characters, I don't deny that. I just think his reputation in this regard is inflated, and I think that's a bad thing. How many people are going to read comments along the lines of "never get attached to anyone" and so never read the books? Or read them and be disappointed at the lack of the promised bloodbath? Martin uses plot armour, just as RJ does. He's telling a story. There's death, but it happens for a reason.

Only two POV characters from aSoIaF has actually been killed, Eddard and Ser Arys. Three if you count Catelyn but she's very much alive.

I would prefer to say undead.

Brienne and Davos are maybes, put I have my fingers crossed.

Given the way her story ended in AFFC, I think it very likely Brienne is still alive (otherwise why end on that "she screamed a word" line?). As for Davos, it could go either way, but he's a PoV in ADWD anyway, so we'll see when that's released. But I'm a fan of Davos, so I'm hoping he survives.

 

Those sorts of changes present problems to the author. Killing off some characters will not necessarily result in any improvement in the narrative, it takes away from the story RJ wanted to tell, and roles that he had to fulfill now have to be carried by others. What with all the foreshadowing, it might make some changes essentially impossible without making a nonsense of his story. The story he told works. That is the story he planned. I see no reason to make such arbitrary changes. While it is lamentable that he didn't have better foresight for how big his series would be, how much story he had to tell, I have to say that this is not a major problem. The bloat and poor pacing of the later books, these are bigger problems that we would have been better able to deal with.

I agree with you that killing characters just to meet an arbitrary death quota is silly, but I'm tempted to play Devil's Advocate here: you mention bloat and poor pacing as problems, and killing characters could've solved those problems. For example, let Perrin die in TSR, and Elayne die to the gholam in ACoS, and retcon any prophecies to be fallible the more influence the Dark One has, and many of the series' less entertaining pages would have been avoided.

Perhaps, but I contend that the problems with bloat were due in a large part to excess description and exposition, and could be there regardless of who lives and dies, and the poor pacing could be fixed by writing fewer (and shorter) chapters that cover greater periods of time. We don't need Faile's thoughts on cleaning silk, we don't need to see Elayne having a bath for half a chapter, we don't need to see Perrin going off to buy grain or spend time winnowing it, and if we did have to see these things it could be done with fewer words. I think the problems came from RJ's own writing habits and indulgences, and he could have removed them. Killing off characters could just lead to other sections becoming bloated. Of course, one should note that RJ was still capable of introducing a plotline, setting it up and getting it moving fairly quickly even in the later books - witness Ituralde in the CoT prologue, then the KoD prologue, then a few mentions in the rest of the book, then taking a greater role in TGS. It worked very well, and was quite efficient. Perrin and Aram was dealt with awfully quickly in KoD as well. I'd say it wasn't anything in the nature of the Faile capture or throne of Andor plotlines that meant they had to be bloated, it was how they were handled. Of course, I wouldn't omit those storylines because while I have problems with how they were handled, I did, on the whole, enjoy them - while Faile's capture did Perrin few favours, I did like reading about Faile, I think her character benefited from being away from the Perrin/Berelain/her triangle and the ensuing jealousy. It showed her in a positive light, and I think she has stayed that way.

 

I think it was symptomatic of a larger problem Jordan had in the Wheel of Time--he only started plots, he didn't end them. Killing off characters would have forced some plot points to be tied up. Tying up plot points would much more likely result in the death of characters.

I disagree with the notion that RJ didn't end plots - in KoD, for example, Elayne secured the throne and Perrin rescued Faile. Maybe these should have happened earlier, but they are examples of RJ finishing plotlines, however belatedly. Killing off characters might not force plotlines to be tied off - rather, they might simply be abandoned, possibly in an unsatisfying way.

[Elan Tedronai]

@Ashendari

 

Don't worry about it, we're cool

 

When I meant by go-to plot device, I was thinking in the context of a given reader as opposed to the viewpoint of an author. As to say if asked what they felt could have been written differently to have the story suit their tastes or whatnot, a reader might say well nobody important dies, it'd be awesome if so and so was killed...

 

...Granted it's a fantasy novel, and people can have drastically different experiences with death, and life et al. I do not have a problem with death being used in literature - I'm bummed that people can go through life thinking that people being killed is something great or exciting, or really is what would positively round out a story.

 

For example some people hate on Egwene to no end on this site; To the point where people wish she were killed off or died or hope she dies, because for whatever reason they don't like her. That stuff makes my eyebrows furl, because that's somebody's mindset? Kill somebody because you don't like them? I feel like the realization of how messed up that sort of reaction is, in my opinion, gets muddled in the realms of entertainment.

 

I wouldn't argue for censorship - heck I'm totally into Red Dead Redemption - or against anybody not being able to experience all the facets of life in whatever form. I do however think that it's jacked up, and pretty sad, that people can reach the point where dealing out death is their preference or solution to something as simple as some girl being a snot - even if it's within the safe-zone of a fictional story.

 

I think people rationalize their thoughts on the subject because we are in the bounds of fantastical fiction, it isn't real. Whereas you noted people may want to experience those thematic elements in that safe-zone, how does that not trivialize or cause a disconnect with reality when those fictional experiences, or lack thereof, leads folks to the conclusion that things would have been better/more exciting/awesome/they would have liked it more, if somebody were killed or had died?

 

I dunno, the whole topic reminds me of a Band of Brothers scene. It makes me think about how people can be so blithe about the want or feeling that having somebody somebody killed off is something they'd enjoy experiencing, in fiction or reality.

 

[O' Keefe is humming "She'll Be Coming Around the Mountain"]

Perconte: Hey, O'Brien. Shut up!

O' Keefe: I told you, it's O'Keefe.

Perconte: Do you know why no one remembers your name? It's because no one wants to remember your name. There's too many Smiths, DiMattos and O'Keefes and O'Briens, who show up here, replacing Toccoa men that you dumb replacements got killed in the first place! And they're all like you. They're all piss and vinegar. "Where're the Krauts at? Let me at 'em! When do I get to jump into Berlin?" Two days later, there they are with their blood and guts hanging out and they're screaming for a medic, begging for their goddamn mother. You dumb f**ks don't even know they're dead yet. Hey, you listening to me? Do you understand this is the best part of the f**king war I've seen? I've got hot chow, hot showers, warm bed. Germany is almost as good as being home. I even got to wipe my own ass with real toilet paper today. So, quit asking about when you're gonna see real action, will you?! And stop with the f**king love songs!

[both are silent for a while]

Perconte: When did you ship out? A few weeks ago?

O' Keefe: Yeah.

Perconte: It's been two years since I've been home. Two years. This f**king war.

 

 

 

it's not about wanting characters to be killed off in some blood thirsty need for death. It's about creating realism and showing struggle. RJ's own words. Everything our plot armoured characters do, it turns to gold. Everytime a baddy corners our frightened little light characters, they somehow dodge through and when one wonders how, you get the usual Tavern response BS or luck. How is then any reader supposed to feel any sort of tension that RJ wanted to convey? I am not criticisng RJ's writing. I mean i love the books with its rich story telling. But RJ overshot himself in trying to convince readers that it's a bleak desperate world out there where the light is underattack and on the ropes.

[Didgya]

It can be used well, to add to a work, or badly, to subtract from it, but is itself neither good nor bad.

 

As usual, Mr. Ares wrote better than I, but this seems to be what I was trying to say. It doesn't matter so much whether an author chooses a story type which kills off main characters or doesn't,; what matters is how well the author executes the type of story they're trying to tell.

 

I have to disagree with the eloquent constellation on the "reputation" of GRRM. You can go all "numbers-y" and say, well only 3 out of 20 viewpoints were killed. That doesn't adequately describe what GRR decided to do. I don't see there's any question that GRRM killed off the Rand of that series. Of course, he can't be the Rand now that he's dead, so let's say that he killed off what was, at that time, clearly the Rand of the series. That's a little more momentous than just killing off "1 out of 20."

 

If you're going to tell me that someone like Arya or Daenerys is the Rand of the series, there's a point there, but the fact is that the role of "young man entering his warrior-leader prime a little early, central character not only to the book but to all the characters around him, their fates all depend on him, etc.", well that has to be Robb Stark.

Jon Snow sends his regards. It is important to note that the conflict with the Others has, to date, only been a side story, yet looks set to take greater prominence in the future. One thing Martin has said on his choice of POVs is that he makes someone a POV in order to tell that person's story. Robb was never a POV - he was never telling Robb's story. So I disagree that he killed off the "Rand" of the series. That's a role that belongs either to Jon or Dany, given what we know, and how you define it. He has undoubtedly killed off major characters, I don't deny that. I just think his reputation in this regard is inflated, and I think that's a bad thing. How many people are going to read comments along the lines of "never get attached to anyone" and so never read the books? Or read them and be disappointed at the lack of the promised bloodbath? Martin uses plot armour, just as RJ does. He's telling a story. There's death, but it happens for a reason.

 

I think it was touched on in several earlier posts, but the fact of the matter, is that while several of the main characters have to live to keep the story from ending on "The Dark Lord ripped the pattern to shreds and all life everywhere was extinguished", to have so many books go by without any of the main characters dying does rob the series of a bit of the suspense.

To be honest, I'm not hugely convinced by this line of reasoning. On first read of a book, you don't necessarily know what is to happen (or how). A death is always possible, even if no-one major has died to date. On re-reads, of course, you'll probably remember a few of the deaths from before. True, Egwene hasn't died yet, Gawyn hasn't died yet, Nynaeve hasn't died yet, but I don't read the books and think "well, none of them are ever going to die" because of that. If there are prophecies, visions of the future, foreshadowing, things of that nature that have yet to be fulfilled, then it is reasonable to expect them to stay alive in order to fulfill them, but that's different. Reading ToM, I didn't think "well, Gawyn will survive this because RJ didn't kill people off". I thought he might die. He still might, in AMoL. I thought Mat and Thom would survive the ToG, and Noal was the disposable one, but that was because I knew Mat had outriggers planned, he was still needed for TG, and there had been foreshadowing of Thom and Moiraine together. It was hints of the future, not memories of the past that had me suspect they would live while he died. You might be sure that everyone will survive AMoL, I see no reason for such confidence.

 

how awesome would it have been that instead of tarna, it was egwene who gets turned? how awesome it would have been if mat cauthon did not make it alive out the tower of ghenjei and that he gave his life so that moraine was to be freed? How awesome would it have been if graendal took perrin and galad out simultaneously and was crowned the enw naeblis? How awesome it would have been nynaeve got ambushed by taim and his cronies when she went to visit myrelle? You see where i am going with this?

Not very. I don't see any of those scenarios as inherently "awesome" (that word gets thrown around far too liberally these days - the youth of today would benefit from a thesaurus). Furthermore, death serves a function in the narrative. This is true of ASoIaF, WoT, Silmarillion, MBotF, and so on. Death for its own sake is pointless. It is bad storytelling. And it isn't all that interesting. Just think of all the interesting things you can do with a character. Death destroys all those possibilities (unless you're a character in an Erikson novel, in which case death isn't the handicap it used to be in the olden days). Of course, death isn't always boring, of course I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that in the list of interesting things you can do, killing a character does not rank at the top of the list. I've really enjoyed Rand's character arc over the series - if he had died mid-way through, how would that be interesting? If Nynaeve had died in an ambush in ToM, as you suggest, then why were we follwing her story? What purpose did it serve, and what purpose does her death serve? The good guys always winning isn't hugely interesting either, but their victories at least serve a purpose. They are there for a reason. What would the story gain from a bloodbath? The bad guys constantly losing might be a problem, but this isn't much of a solution, not by itself.

 

And the sad thing is none of the major light characters are going to die come tarmon gaidon. Mat aint going to die. we know from the outtrigger books. Perrin will assume the leadership of the borderlands. Rand is going to retire and live his final days in the countryside alongside min. Egwene is going to be the amyrlin to logain's tamyrlin. Nynaeve and lan will rule over a new malkier.

You don't know any of that, save Mat's survival. Rand will die and live again, but that leaves a lot of room for possibilities. Perrin might be King of Saldaea. He might die. So could Faile. Or Egwene, Gawyn, any of the others. Logain will not be Tamyrlin, I'm damn sure of that (M'Hael, perhaps, but there's no reason at all he would be called Tamyrlin). I'm pretty bloody sure Malkier is not coming back, and there's no reason Lan couldn't die. If we want to know what will happen, we should not look to the past, but to what we know of the future. Piece things together from that.

Wow! I agree and appreciate your comments.

They were awsome! haha

Seriously thoughtful. My thanks.

[Alternate34]

 

it's not about wanting characters to be killed off in some blood thirsty need for death. It's about creating realism and showing struggle. RJ's own words. Everything our plot armoured characters do, it turns to gold. Everytime a baddy corners our frightened little light characters, they somehow dodge through and when one wonders how, you get the usual Tavern response BS or luck. How is then any reader supposed to feel any sort of tension that RJ wanted to convey? I am not criticisng RJ's writing. I mean i love the books with its rich story telling. But RJ overshot himself in trying to convince readers that it's a bleak desperate world out there where the light is underattack and on the ropes.

 

 

This is at the heart of what people complaining about characters not dying gets at, that RJ has not done an adequate job portraying the struggle between Light and Dark. I think complaining about the lack of death to main characters is merely a proxy for this argument and not a good one.

 

I think there are large things that people miss that create the illusion of Light invincibility and focusing on the lack of death to main characters is one thing that fosters this illusion. Focusing on the lack of death ignores a lot of horrible consequences aside from death that the series constantly harps on and I think presents better the theme of Light struggling against Dark.

 

Actually, to jump off that thought, I believe those that are looking for the deaths of main characters for suspense are missing one of the major themes of the story, that death is NOT that terrible in the WoT universe. The world initially is constructed to present that theme forcefully. Ages repeat themselves. Reincarnation is the rule. Dead heroes exist in a parallel (mirror?) world until they are weaved out again. Prophecies assure that the path of history and the fate of many important people is set. A common saying in the Borderlands is "Duty is heavier than a mountain, death is light as a feather." Rand accepts death fairly easily. Oftentimes, his struggle isn't with his impending death, but his impending doom.

 

There is a larger list of frightening ends that do not involve death. The world may be forced to accept enslavement of a large portion of the population just to fight the Dark One. The Black Tower is filled with people whose personalities have been twisted forcefully. The truth causes cultures to become desultory (see the slow decay of the Aiel). The evil of men absent the Dark One ala Shadar Logoth.

 

This is somewhat inflammatory and confronational, but I'll say it anyway. If you think that the death of a major character would create suspense and pull at your emotions, you haven't been reading very carefully. You could fault the author. You could argue that he wasn't as obvious about as he could be. To me, the evidence above should have been a strong indication indication that the author was clearly creating a world where death was not the worst consequence. With that being the case, the absence of major characters dying should not be a problem.

 

Those that assert that fantasy is designed to walk the razor thin margin of realism and fantasy to some degree are projecting what their idea of fantasy is. In the WoT, there are clearly aspects of realism, but there are also clearly demarcated areas where the RJ departed from realism. The significance of death is clearly one of those areas. The cosmology of the WoT world is that when you die, you eventually come back. Your actions are often predetermined to some degree by fate. The border between what happens and how it happens is blurred and accented with prophecy. When characters try to use there knowledge of what happens, disastrous results often follow. Elayne gets stabbed and gets several of her retainers killed. Rand nearly destroys the world because he can't deal with the fact that his actions are predetermined.

 

A few more notes. One problem with the argument that no main characters have died, and this has kind of been mentioned, is that if a character died early on, they would cease to be a main character. If Perrin dies in Book 4 in the defense of the Two Rivers, we have no real character development. At the time, it might have caused us pause. He was t'averen! He can't die! However, 9 books later, we would have been like, "Oh, no biggie, he wasn't really a main character. He only existed for like 2 and a half books. Also, isn't RJ a crappy writer? He puts so much insistence on prophecy and yet the Light can still win without the blacksmith." Maybe RJ skirts around this by spinnning out another t'averen, and then we complain that there is no struggle because the Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills. RJ skirts around it by retconning or noting vagueness in the prophecies, which still causes the problem of predestination preventing suspense.

 

There are clear examples of this. Ingtar dies and he wasn't significant enough because he was only around for one book. Aram dies, but he is just a side character. Tylin dies, but she was introduced too late and dies too early to count. It is unclear how much characterization is necessary to provide a meaningful death and so we get problematic arguments that have no resolution. We have complaints of plot armor. We have complaints of no suspense.

 

These complaints are myopic. Those who make them look for what they consider suspenseful rather than what world the author has created. Character death isn't that big a deal. Their personality twisting and becoming darker is. That they could obsess over prophecy and lose is.

[Ashandarei]

This is at the heart of what people complaining about characters not dying gets at, that RJ has not done an adequate job portraying the struggle between Light and Dark. I think complaining about the lack of death to main characters is merely a proxy for this argument and not a good one.

 

I think there are large things that people miss that create the illusion of Light invincibility and focusing on the lack of death to main characters is one thing that fosters this illusion. Focusing on the lack of death ignores a lot of horrible consequences aside from death that the series constantly harps on and I think presents better the theme of Light struggling against Dark.

 

Actually, to jump off that thought, I believe those that are looking for the deaths of main characters for suspense are missing one of the major themes of the story, that death is NOT that terrible in the WoT universe. The world initially is constructed to present that theme forcefully. Ages repeat themselves. Reincarnation is the rule. Dead heroes exist in a parallel (mirror?) world until they are weaved out again. Prophecies assure that the path of history and the fate of many important people is set. A common saying in the Borderlands is "Duty is heavier than a mountain, death is light as a feather." Rand accepts death fairly easily.¹ Oftentimes, his struggle isn't with his impending death, but his impending doom.

 

There is a larger list of frightening ends that do not involve death. The world may be forced to accept enslavement of a large portion of the population just to fight the Dark One. The Black Tower is filled with people whose personalities have been twisted forcefully. The truth causes cultures to become desultory (see the slow decay of the Aiel). The evil of men absent the Dark One ala Shadar Logoth.

 

This is somewhat inflammatory and confronational, but I'll say it anyway. If you think that the death of a major character would create suspense and pull at your emotions, you haven't been reading very carefully.² You could fault the author. You could argue that he wasn't as obvious about as he could be. To me, the evidence above should have been a strong indication indication that the author was clearly creating a world where death was not the worst consequence. With that being the case, the absence of major characters dying should not be a problem.

 

Those that assert that fantasy is designed to walk the razor thin margin of realism and fantasy to some degree are projecting what their idea of fantasy is. In the WoT, there are clearly aspects of realism, but there are also clearly demarcated areas where the RJ departed from realism. The significance of death is clearly one of those areas. The cosmology of the WoT world is that when you die, you eventually come back. Your actions are often predetermined to some degree by fate. The border between what happens and how it happens is blurred and accented with prophecy. When characters try to use there knowledge of what happens, disastrous results often follow. Elayne gets stabbed and gets several of her retainers killed. Rand nearly destroys the world because he can't deal with the fact that his actions are predetermined.

 

A few more notes. One problem with the argument that no main characters have died, and this has kind of been mentioned, is that if a character died early on, they would cease to be a main character.³ If Perrin dies in Book 4 in the defense of the Two Rivers, we have no real character development. At the time, it might have caused us pause. He was t'averen! He can't die! However, 9 books later, we would have been like, "Oh, no biggie, he wasn't really a main character. He only existed for like 2 and a half books. Also, isn't RJ a crappy writer? He puts so much insistence on prophecy and yet the Light can still win without the blacksmith." Maybe RJ skirts around this by spinnning out another t'averen, and then we complain that there is no struggle because the Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills. RJ skirts around it by retconning or noting vagueness in the prophecies, which still causes the problem of predestination preventing suspense.

 

There are clear examples of this. Ingtar dies and he wasn't significant enough because he was only around for one book.⁴ Aram dies, but he is just a side character. Tylin dies, but she was introduced too late and dies too early to count. It is unclear how much characterization is necessary to provide a meaningful death and so we get problematic arguments that have no resolution.⁵ We have complaints of plot armor. We have complaints of no suspense.

 

These complaints are myopic. Those who make them look for what they consider suspenseful rather than what world the author has created. Character death isn't that big a deal. Their personality twisting and becoming darker is. That they could obsess over prophecy and lose is.

 

¹ The entire reason that that saying is so memorable and so poignant is precisely because death IS a big deal. The saying is emphasizing that duty is even more of a weight than death itself- that death's got nothing on the mountainous weight of duty. Saying mountains are huge compared to anthills doesn't mean anything, it's obvious. Similarly, if death wasn't terrible, comparing it to duty would serve no purpose.

 

² The death of Ingtar, when he sacrifices himself in an attempt at redemption pulled my heartstrings. When Verin takes poison so that she can deliver the killing blow to the Black Ajah by revealing their names was heart-wrenching. Are you honestly saying those deaths meant nothing to you? They didn't "pull at your emotions"? (Quick note: it's not the death itself that creates suspense, but the possibility of it.)

 

³ I, and most of the others, aren't asking for any of the ta'veren or Egwene or Nynaeve to get offed in The Eye of the World. But when we reach book thirteen of a 14 book series, each book being around 6-700 pages... well that's not early now is it?

 

⁴ He very much was a significant death because we as readers had come to know him and his personality and his quirks up to that point. Additionally, when you say "there are clear examples of this," your post seems to refer to "this" being that if a character dies early on, they won't be a main character. Ingtar, Aram, and Tylin are not main characters. You can't be a main character in a book/series without a point-of-view. So providing examples of them as characters that could have been main characters if they lived longer does not support your argument in the least.

 

⁵ Let me clarify it for you. One extremely easy way to provide enough chracterization for a character death to mean anything is to provide that character a point-of-view. As I mentioned above with Ingtar, it is possible to do so with a character who doesn't have a PoV but it's harder. Another easy way to provide more gravity to the character death is to at least show some part of it. This is why Ingtar's death meant something, we see him going off to die and Rand even says "Let the last embrace of the mother welcome you home." This is why Verin's death meant something, we see her drinking the poison and we see her expire. This is why even Mangin's death meant something, the Aiel man that barely shows up in the series- once to teach Rand the Aiel way of fighting, and next to be hanged in LoC for killing a Carhienin for impersonating Rand; Mangin's death was shown on screen. A writer is supposed to show, not tell.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

EDIT:

After seeing the amount of debate and discussion on this issue in this thread, I figured it'd be nice to see at a glance what people think, so I added a poll. I kept the question and answers very simple so it wouldn't be hard to decide which side you're on, to minimize the "gray area".

[idiostock]

A writer is supposed to show, not tell.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I just wanted to second this part. If anyone read the last Harry Potter installment, you should remember the bloodbath that was the Battle of Hogwarts. It felt less like important characters dying and more like Rowling just wanted to kill a list of people.