IS George RR martian ghost writing here? (Game of Thrones spoiler inside)

[Killer Angel]

Maybe Shakespeare (who killed off a lot of characters in his tragedies) got reincarnated as Rich Burlew who got hired to ghostwrite for George R. R. Martin?

You are approaching the Truth. Better to stop, otherwise, we'll end displaying the proofs that the earth is flat.

that said...

IS George RR martian ghost writing here?

No.
I've seen many crazy theories on this forum, regarding everything, but no.

[ti'esar]

Frankly, I think it's odd that this comparison to Martin is coming up now and not, say, back when War and XPs was going on. Back then, we had the deaths of way more characters, many of whom were plenty likeable, including Shojo, Sangwaan, General Chang, the entire Sapphire Guard, Roy, and Miko.

Well, to be fair, Sangwaan, General Chang, and most of the Sapphire Guard weren't major characters, or even characters with the level of importance of, say, Zz'dtri. And it's not like Roy was intended to stay dead.

[Giggling Ghast]

George R.R. Martin can't be ghost-writing Order of the Stick for the simple fact that there hasn't been a five year delay between Books 4 and 5.

[rgrekejin]

George R.R. Martin can't be ghost-writing Order of the Stick for the simple fact that there hasn't been a five year delay between Books 4 and 5.

Well, not to nitpick or anything, but it'll be four years since book 4 came out in November, and the 5th book isn't done yet.

[Sir_Leorik]

Yes. George RR Martian has taken the liberty of flying on his UFO over here to write for the Giant. Really, we should be thankful. He is a very busy alien.

Wasn't George R.R. Martian a "Scooby Doo" villain?

[Sir_Leorik]

Ned, probably. Brienne, almost certainly. But Jon is lawful good and knows when to keep his trap shut and when to lie. He does know some things, after all.

Spoiler

Show

I guess you didn't finish reading "A Dance of Dragons" yet, right?

[The Giant]

I'm really tired of this idea that George R. R. Martin invented the concept of killing characters circa year 2000. At least the OP didn't insultingly imply that I'm only killing characters because I'm a fanboy of his, as I have seen elsewhere.

So, for the record: I've never read George R. R. Martin. I haven't watched Game of Thrones. I don't have HBO, for starters, and I haven't bought the DVDs. I am aware, second-hand, that apparently he kills off a lot of characters, sometimes all at once. I can't really say too much about that, though, because I'm not familiar with it.

I can say that I have read several reviews/articles about the work that makes me think that it's not for me, as I have no interest in "gritty realism" for its own sake, I almost exclusively want to read about actual heroes being actually heroic, and I prefer not to read extensive descriptions of meat dishes.

And I've never killed a developed character where that character's death wasn't a direct result of their own choices.

[The Giant]

If i may, it has never been about the fact he kills major characters that is so characteristic of Martin , many auithors do it. It's the delighfull soul crushing down to earth cynicism and amorality (meant in the best way) with which it happens.

I don't know how to respond to this except to say that if you feel that my work is amoral and cynical, I've completely failed as a writer.

[SowZ]

Spoiler

Show

I guess you didn't finish reading "A Dance of Dragons" yet, right?

Spoiler

Show

No, I'm mainly thinking of Storm of Swords where Jon actually starts to learn the things and picks up on when he needs to do what and starts whining less. He makes dumb calls, but those calls come more from not being all too intelligent and doing the best he can with limited smarts in a tough situation, not from being Lawful Stupid. Maybe this isn't the case in number 5..

[Michaeler]

In fairness, GRRM's works mostly pale by comparison to most of Shakespeare's demonstrations of the same style.

[SowZ]

I don't know how to respond to this except to say that if you feel that my work is amoral and cynical, I've completely failed as a writer.

I could be wrong, but I thought smuchmuch made that statement to explain why GRRM 'killing off characters' style is iconic. I didn't see him making a direct comparison to OOTS. Maybe I missed it or maybe the context was confusing.

[The Giant]

I could be wrong, but I thought smuchmuch made that statement to explain why GRRM 'killing off characters' style is iconic. I didn't see him making a direct comparison to OOTS. Maybe I missed it or maybe the context was confusing.

No, the first "he" in his quote was me; that I was characteristic of Martin because I killed characters in a soul-crushingly cynical and amoral way. Which I can't even see how you could get that, unless you were rooting for the villains all along. But then that's on you.

[Shale]

So you're saying he's not your favorite Martin?

Running away now.

[neriana]

Well let's see. Does Rich write rapey, rape apologizing, racist shaggy dog soap operas? I'd say no.

If Rich's work were anything like George R. R. Martin's, I wouldn't be here.

[FlawedParadigm]

You know, I had often wondered Rich's opinion on GRRM's writing but it had simply never occurred to me that perhaps he hadn't even read it.

That being said, while I can say there's a certain lack of fully heroic characters in the novels - even people acting benevolently are not always doing it for altruism - I can also say both that there are genuinely heroic characters. Enough that I actually wonder how people can get the impression that there aren't. I can name half a dozen off the top of my head, and could probably find more examples if I put my mind to it. But, spoilers. I could also point to this same lack in the Stickverse, though. We're down to something like a dozen or dozen and a half named characters actively trying to prevent the supposed end of the world as we know it although, being fair, that's due in part to a lot of them not knowing the world is imperiled. Also, just like GRRM's writing, they're not all altruists. Roy is actually the only one who even got into the group for strictly heroic reasons, as Durkon was "alternative to suicide-by-monster" and Elan was more as a witness to heroics.

I must be the wrong person to comment on the "long food descriptions" thing. I never thought any of the food descriptions were especially long, and certainly nothing like some of the poetry asides in Lord of the Rings. Then again, I've also read Anne Rice and there's an actual Game of Thrones cookbook, so I can only guess I have different standards for long and detailed descriptions of food.

Actually, come to think of it, Rich, your writing rather accidentally probably has far more in common with George's works than you know, or would apparently like to think. I won't say you should read it, because that's arrogant and subjective in any case, but I will say that I consider both of you to be very good writers and that's something I'm rather extremely critical of (especially with my own writing) and that at the very least I would at least recommend them from a library. I personally think they're worth buying and re-reading several times, but I can also understand your hesitation. There might be elements that are darker than usual, and certainly there are things that happen worse than anything that has happened in this story (barring, perhaps, a certain epic Necromancy spell...) but I don't see it as gritty "for it's own sake" but rather to provide realistic examples of human behaviour in a different time. As a paraphrase of something you've said, fiction isn't worth it if it doesn't make us examine our place in the real world.

TL;DR - I recommend the books as a well-written read even if you could find no other reason to try them. There's few enough of those to be had these days, in my wholly subjective and very critical opinion.

[SowZ]

No, the first "he" in his quote was me; that I was characteristic of Martin because I killed characters in a soul-crushingly cynical and amoral way. Which I can't even see how you could get that, unless you were rooting for the villains all along. But then that's on you.

Huh, that's odd. I'm not sure how a world can be completely uncaring and cruel/cynical when that universe has an objective reward system for the good you've done in your life after you die. With the exception of the snarl killings, I suppose, but none of the readers are really in a position to do more than speculate on those.

[martianmister]

Well let's see. Does Rich write rapey, rape apologizing, racist shaggy dog soap operas? I'd say no.

This is uncalled for...

[Flame of Anor]

No, the first "he" in his quote was me; that I was characteristic of Martin because I killed characters in a soul-crushingly cynical and amoral way.

I suppose we'll have to wait for smuchmuch to clarify, but--in my experience at least--the phrase "characteristic of X" is used much more often to describe something typical of X when X himself is doing it, not when someone else is.

I have no interest in "gritty realism" for its own sake, I almost exclusively want to read about actual heroes being actually heroic, and I prefer not to read extensive descriptions of meat dishes.

*slow clap*

[FlawedParadigm]

This is uncalled for...

And untrue for reasons I can't go in to by reason of board rules.

[Taelas]

Well let's see. Does Rich write rapey, rape apologizing, racist shaggy dog soap operas? I'd say no.

If Rich's work were anything like George R. R. Martin's, I wouldn't be here.

GRRM really doesn't deserve that kind of comment. There is absolutely nothing "rape apologizing" about his work. Yes, it includes the subject, but all characters that have engaged in it have been complete and utter monsters.

It's also not a soap opera. I'm not sure how you could arrive at that conclusion.

As an aside, Martin does not kill off characters unless there is a logical reason behind the death; we're not talking rocks falling out of the sky, here. When people die, they die for a reason.

The idea that Martin offs people all the time for no reason is just not grounded in the books or the show, at all. He kills characters, yes; even characters that have had massive impact on the story. But there's always a solid in-story reason for the deaths.

[SowZ]

Well let's see. Does Rich write rapey, rape apologizing, racist shaggy dog soap operas? I'd say no.

If Rich's work were anything like George R. R. Martin's, I wouldn't be here.

All the rapists in GRRM works tend to die in fairly painful/gruesome ways or else the ones that survive are acknowledged in universe as pretty despicable people. You may think that is cheap/distasteful to use rape and violence like that, but I don't think it is fair to call it rape apologizing. Rapey, I can see.

If you read GRRMs other works, short stories, etc. you get a picture of a pretty nihlistic guy. 'Meathouse Man' is still one of the most depressing things I've ever read.

I don't think GRRMs rape, murder, and rampant racism in his books is something he approves or. It doesn't seem he is trying to make a comment to condemn evil, either. If anything, it strikes me that he has this message of the universe not caring one way or another and all the evil and tragedy that happens just happens, justice may or may not occur, and we should make the best of it and latch onto the few moments of happiness we get because that's all there is and most people are selfish, racist d-bags who would screw you over if they benefited from it so the more you expect out of the world the more you are going to be disappointed in it. If you want to be a truly good person, good on you, you can make the world a slightly better place but you are likely going to have a pretty painful life for it.

It's dismal and not consistent with my world view at all and maybe GRRM would read that and say, "Whoa, SowZ, you have misinterpreted me severely, that isn't my message or worldview." and I'd say," Oh, okay, sorry." But that doesn't mean it justifies rape or torture or anything. He may just use the worst and ugliest things he can as the most dramatic ways to show people the grimness of his setting.

Tying this back into the discussion at hand, I've never really gathered any of those same themes from OOTS. The OOTS world strikes me as one where injustice happens frequently and often perpetuates for a long time, but at the end of it all, good usually triumphs over evil in the end. Most people want to be good people, (even if most people aren't good at being good,) and there are very few people without redeeming qualities. Try your best to do what's right, try to be good to your loved ones, sometimes things still won't pan out for you but doing good is more likely to come around and help you find happiness than doing evil.

Again, maybe I am way reading into it and just applying my own values to the OOTS world and maybe all that I said isn't in the text. But whereas I get a very dark feeling with small pinpricks of light from Westoros, the world of OOTS is one that I see plenty of both light and dark in.

Characters dying are usually a consequence of their own actions and choices coming back to them even if they don't always deserve it, (Big spoilers)

Spoiler

Show

like Ned or Robb or Drogo,

but occasionally happen as the result of someone else's choices. Doesn't mean it is totally random.

[Sir_Leorik]

No, the first "he" in his quote was me; that I was characteristic of Martin because I killed characters in a soul-crushingly cynical and amoral way. Which I can't even see how you could get that, unless you were rooting for the villains all along. But then that's on you.

I think the "Song of Ice and Fire" world is more "uncaring" in a Lovecraftian sense than "amoral". Either way, comparing the comedic heroic fantasy of "Order of the Stick" to "ASoIaF" is comparing apples to ping pong balls.

[Sir_Leorik]

Spoiler

Show

No, I'm mainly thinking of Storm of Swords where Jon actually starts to learn the things and picks up on when he needs to do what and starts whining less. He makes dumb calls, but those calls come more from not being all too intelligent and doing the best he can with limited smarts in a tough situation, not from being Lawful Stupid. Maybe this isn't the case in number 5..

Spoiler

Show

Jon starts to learn to make the hard calls in "ADoD", but he forgets something very important: the Nightswatch is a very old, very conservative institution, and very old, very conservative institutions do not react well to innovations or change.

[Kish]

All the rapists in GRRM works tend to die in fairly painful/gruesome ways or else the ones that survive are acknowledged in universe as pretty despicable people.

While I am not going to do the obnoxious "fixed that for you" thing, I am going to point out that you could rephrase that sentence to have two fewer words and just as much accuracy, by replacing "All the rapists" with "Everyone."

[FlawedParadigm]

Well, okay, maybe it is possible to discuss it here, but yes, calling it rape-apologising is absolutely unfair. Yes, it is a thing which happens, but it's never glorified, and the only people who even speak of it in a neutral or dispassionate fashion are all bona fide unambiguously horrible people. There is one culture in which it is a war practise, but it's also made very clear that it's not even universally accepted there, and even then the entire story is set in a different time period without modern sensibilities.

In short, it's like a number of other things wherein just because they are mentioned does not mean they are accepted or held forth to be good things, like many other war crimes in other fictions or fictional histories. One could speak of things Sauron did without automatically showing support for those actions.

[Sir_Leorik]

While I am not going to do the obnoxious "fixed that for you" thing, I am going to point out that you could rephrase that sentence to have two fewer words and just as much accuracy, by replacing "All the rapists" with "Everyone."

Not true at all.

Spoiler

Show

Hoster Tully died in bed of old age. Tyrion Lannister has survived exploits that would have killed men three times his size. Arya Stark is doing just fine at the end of "A Dance of Dragons", as is Daenerys. Bran and Rickon are both alive, Bran beyond the Wall learning the secrets of skin walking. Catelyn Stark may have survived the Red Wedding (possibly). Cersei Lannister may wish she's dead, but she's alive and well. And of course Nymeria is still roaming Westeros with a pack of wolves, terrorizing the countryside.

[Shale]

Of those, how many of them are not generally acknowledged as horrible people? Certainly not the Lannisters.

[Sunken Valley]

And I've never killed a developed character where that character's death wasn't a direct result of their own choices.

I checked the entire comic and books to see if this was true. It's true! Everyone in the online comic has died in this manner! I assume that old age is considered "their own choices" (Girard, Soon, Eugene) and that Kubota is not considered developed (his death was a result of V's conclusions). Is this a coincidence or did you sit down and say "all character's must die by their choices".

With one exception to the quoted rule....

Spoiler

Show

Ridizak, Redcloak's Nephew. A developed character who wanted to be a wizard against his dad's wishes but got on well with him and his siblings. A character who defied authority but not to much. A character who respected his uncle greatly. A character who died because he was drafted into an army and killed when his new boss could have saved him at any time.

I almost exclusively want to read about actual heroes being actually heroic.

Do you like reading about heroes who although they are brave, never give up and do good things, rarely ever truly win? Their enemies are far more powerful than them, they do not know very much about the big picture (and neither would we if the author didn't cut to side-characters) and most of their turn-arounds are achieved by dumb luck (a villain decides to double cross another villain right in the middle of a fight) or the aid of others (a mysterious figure saves one hero from certain death at the hands of the main villain). These heroes are considered small fry by the main group of villains and the other villainous groups could destroy them easily but keep them alive because on some level, they will help the villain's futher their own goals. These heroes increasingly get odds stacks against them making look impossible for them to win, even though the author tells us that they will (even though they will not kill the main villain).

Edit: I think you'd like Martin, he writes a complicated story with lots of characters planning things (Like B5 and OOTS)

[Sir_Leorik]

Of those, how many of them are not generally acknowledged as horrible people? Certainly not the Lannisters.

Tyrion Lannister is not perfect, but he's probably the most ethical person in his family. (Of course that's damning with faint praise...)

[The Bushranger]

While I'm certainly not the Giant, I can say that when I want to read about heroes, I want to read about them being heroes - larger than life, big cheeses, they're not pawns in a Xanatian strategy by the villians, they're not "kept alive because the villains find it convienent" - they're heroes, and they're therefore heroic.

I want to see Superman being Superman.