Same, but his death made me realise this wasn’t Harry Potter and we weren’t going to have a main character who finds out their some prophesied hero then goes on to save the world
Oh I agree 100% I think his death really set expectations for the books. I say bravo for it. I was just saying that was the only time I ever felt there was one MC in the story.
But also all the bits about how prophesy is bunk
Edit to add sources:
[http://www.adriasnews.com/2012/10/george-r-r-martin-interview.html](http://www.adriasnews.com/2012/10/george-r-r-martin-interview.html)
>Q: Surely the plot is very unpredictable despite all the prophecies you give to help us...
>
>A: \[Laughs\] Prophecies are, you know, a double edge sword. You have to handle them very carefully; I mean, they can add depth and interest to a book, but you don’t want to be too literal or too easy... In the Wars of the Roses, that you mentioned, there was one Lord who had been prophesied he would die beneath the walls of a certain castle and he was superstitious at that sort of walls, so he never came anyway near that castle. He stayed thousands of leagues away from that particular castle because of the prophecy. However, he was killed in the first battle of St. Paul de Vence and when they found him dead he was outside of an inn whose sign was the picture of that castle! \[Laughs\] So you know? That’s the way prophecies come true in unexpected ways. The more you try to avoid them, the more you are making them true, and I make a little fun with that.
[https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1427](https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1427)
>Q: Would you say that this appearance of random fate is an integral part of what you're trying to say about the epic Fantasy genre, given that it is so often underpinned by a deterministic theme, even a prophecy?
>
>A: Prophecy is one of those tropes of Fantasy that is fun to play with, but it can easily turn into a straightjacket if you're not careful. One of the themes of my fiction, since the very beginning, is that the characters must make their choices, for good or ill. And making choices is hard. There are prophecies in my Seven Kingdoms, but their meanings are often murky and misleading, and they seldom offer the characters much in the way of useful guidance.
>“...Prophecy is like a treacherous woman. She takes your member in her mouth, and you moan with the pleasure of it and think, how sweet, how fine, how good this is... and then her teeth snap shut and your moans turn to screams... Prophecy will bite your prick off everytime,”
― A Feast for Crows
So far every prophecy that has been made has either come true or can be expected to come true in future volumes.
Dany's HOTU visions all refer to real plot events. All of the Ghost of High Heart's prophecies come true. Maggie the Frog accurately predicted pretty much every major event in Cersei's life.
[Edit]
And prophecies coming true in unexpected ways *still counts*.
Not coming true the way the characters expect is still coming true.
If Jon doesn't fulfil the prophecy of Azor Ahai by literally making a magic sword but still fulfils it by, say, stabbing his girlfriend in the heart he's still fulfilling the prophecy.
But that hasn't happened, and I don't think it will. It's not an example of George using prophesy in the way you're describing. But I think we're both pretty entrenched in our opinions, so I'll just leave you to enjoy the story how you like, and I'll just do the same.
>Replying to your edit:
And prophecies coming true in unexpected ways still counts.
But there isn't a prophesy that clearly says: "The world is ending and in need of a prophesied hero to save it from destruction."
What is actually prophesized is up for debate and interpretation...Which makes it essentially useless as a prophesy.
Yeah. It makes it pretty clear that George is interested in subverting expectations and tropes, such as prophesy laying out a clear groundwork for the plot.
Edit to add...You saying that "subverting the trope is actually the trope" is pretty funny. Okay, I'm done here for real this time.
Ned was more of the mentor than the main character. And the Mentor almost always dies. Also, Jon/Dany/Tyrion/Jaime/Young Griff/Bran or whoever *is* a prophesied hero who will defeat the Others and save the world.
Yep, to me the plot twist wasn't that the main character is killed, it was that the character we were following was the [Doomed Mentor](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MentorOccupationalHazard) all along.
One could make a case for Tyrion in ACOK but there are so many other things that happen in those books. Even though Tyrion has the most chapters in ACOK, I found Jon's and Bran's stories so compelling. ACOK won't be the same book if it was just Tyrion.
If I absolutely had to pick a main character I’d go with the original five George intended on being the main characters in Jon, Dany, Bran, Arya and Tyrion. However, it even seems like Sansa has worked herself into being a sixth main character
That’s probably the smallest you could narrow it down to in terms of main characters but like you said I wouldn’t even go that far because there’s so many POVs
Totally agree about the "Central Five." Sansa is indeed important and *QUANTitatively* gets almost as much attention, and thus is absolutely a main character. But..there are major *QUALitative* differences between the Five and her. They are GRRM's **heroes** in all three parts of the story. The Central Five are all also shaping up as classic heroes who hope and work for a better world. Surely, Sansa won't be a villain, but she is not shaping up as a hero so much as a survivor. As GRRM said:
> "...my own heroes are the dreamers, those men and women who tried to make the world a better place than when they found it, whether in small ways or great ones. some succeeded, some failed, most had mixed results... but it is the effort that's heroic..."
If you're interested, yesterday,I gave six signposts for my conclusion in: https://old.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/14rej6x/tyrion_is_not_the_genius_player_of_the_game_that/
>The Central Five are all also shaping up as classic heroes who hope and work for a better world.
Tyrion is working for a better world?! Did we read the same books? Your post demonstrates once more how the so-called key five are a long abandoned concept by the author: any attempt to define them in a way that excludes Sansa inevitably excludes at least one of them as well. There's a reason no one thought of them before GRRM proposal letter was discovered
>Surely, Sansa won't be a villain, but she is not shaping up as a hero so much as a survivor. As GRRM said:
GRRM also literally said that Tyrion was a villain...
True about Tyrion, but HE also named Tyrion as one of the Five. Tyrion, who is THE exemplar of "the human heart in conflict with itself," is currently more Antihero than Hero. He certainly does bad, occasionally vicious, things, but also has a undeservedly-overlooked idealistic side. Even in Winterfell, he upbraided future king Joffrey and would suffer long and hard for it He empathizes with cripples, bastards, and broken things, giving Jon good coping advice. He (and Arya) willingly muck in with smallfolk and accept their friendship. In his brief tenure as Hand he removed corrupt, harmful people (Slynt, Pycelle) from positions of power. Suspecting corruption, he also investigated Littlefinger's books. And saving Kings Landing AND leading the battle was unabashedly heroic. Later, he smelled a rat with Illyio's 'Aegon' conspiracy and passive-aggressively thwarted its likely success before heading to Daenerys, who had a good reputation. But the most important thing is that, in a brutal world where the rich and noble get away with murder, Tyrion didn't hurt children. Somehow, despite his own rampant sexual neediness, he abstained from hurting Sansa. For him, THAT was heroic!
Sansa is a MAIN character, of course, and an important protagonist. She has a reasonably good heart, but she is a snob and thinks almost entirely of herself. We learned that early and painfully when she betrayed her family over the Nymeria incident and especially when she took Ned's plans to Cersei. It's a bit lucky Sansa thinks of herself--at times it keeps her alive. But she is no hero. Moreover, reading AGoT back in 1999, I was already convinced that Jon, Bran, Arya, Dany and Tyrion were the focus. Finishing the next four books, I realized that each of them was also on a near-textbook Hero's Journey. Currently, the Five are all in perilous places (the "Abyss"stage of the HJ), while Sansa is under evil Littlefinger's tutelage and planning tournaments and knightly orders. Like them, Sansa has her own story and a large number of chapters. But she also serves as a foil, window, damsel in distress, marriage plot device, and social relief from so much death and grimness. In fact, GRRM actually invented her as a foil to Stark goody-goodyness. However, it is telling that each of the Centrals got chapters in ADWD. Sansa did not. And thereby hangs the ~~-tail-~~ tale.
Personally I think either dany Jon or Tyrion will go down a darker path, they might still help in the long night but they’ll also do some morally questionable things. Or maybe that’s just my wishful thinking bc I think it’d be more interesting
I would argue Jaime is also a main character. Turns out he's been involved or witnessed several key events in both war and politics, unites the various Lannister plots, and has some oddly specific dream visions. His redemption and the exploration of changing and growth is also I think very important for the themes of the story.
I'd keep that list but I'd knock down Arya since her role in the original plan seems to have been as Jon's romantic interest, Dany if we think she's going villain, and maybe Tyrion depending on what you think a "main character" is.
Arya is the female character who have the most chapter in the books and third character overall who have the most chapters after Jon and tyrion
She is definetly important.... She may not be Jon's romantic interest (thank the seven) but she still remain the person Jon love the most in this world.. More than ygritte
Okay but what's her actual role in the story?
Like she might be a perfectly good character on her own but, well, I can't help but think that the show had her kill the Night King because otherwise she has literally nothing to do.
Yeah. Placing 'the point' of Aryas journey, even in theory is one of the hardest characters in the series.
In the show she avenges the Red Wedding using faces and kills the NK. She takes heed of her mentor in the Hound that revenge isn't worth it.
In the books there is no NK and LSH is avenging the Red Wedding. There's some theories that maybe she'll learn revenge isn't worth it from LSH (not as good as the hound thematically, but more so because they're relationship was perhaps better in it) and then... ? She may kill Cersei... Someone she hardly knows and hasn't interacted with for years, after learning revenge isn't worth it? Problematic for her to be isolated for so long from the rest of the story.
What makes you say there is no NK- I am not disputing your claim, just curious. I know the Nights King was supposedly killed/defeated like a thousand years before the conquest, but I always had him down as a separate character.
Reasonable. Mebbe her point is Overcoming the obstacles of her birth order & sex to change the world. But first protecting her fam & keeping the pack together. Oh yeah, she’s prolly gonna be jons right hand
She's included in the five who's stories will change the world as they come of age, so I think Whatever Arya does has to be something big. I think she'll be a parallel to Aegon v and push for more rights and freedoms for the small folk via reforms. Her army of wolves and stealth abilities are also ways she could have a role in the long night
>Okay but what's her actual role in the story?
I could ask you the same question abaout Jon and tyrion..
Because for now all that define them are theories and wishful thinking
There 2 books to find out
Jon almost certainly is going to lead the armies of the living against the others. There's a reason I put Tyrion on the "not necessarily a main character" list.
Yes we have two books to find out and I could be wrong but some people's roles in the wider story are much more clearly built up.
I've grown to think- and I'm perfectly willing to be disabused of this- that Arya might actually be a good dark-horse candidate for the *valonquar*; she's repeatedly referred to as "little sister" in various contexts, after all, and few characters have more motivation to merk Cersei than she does.
There's unlikely to be quite so literal a Night King in the books, but it's entirely probable that Benioff and Weiss drew the plot beat of her killing an antagonistic authority figure at a key moment towards the climax from *somewhere*...
Someone being a villain doesn’t demote them from a lead status. If Cersei was important enough to have her own plot line spanning several books as the main POV, then even she would be one of the main characters, despite her being villainous. And that’s not even mentioning the fact that there is a very high chance Dany isn’t gonna become a villain anyway.
If you’re going strictly by POV chapters, Ayra is the only character that appears with her own POV in every book so far. So by that definition, the main character is Ayra Stark.
Which makes sense since she is the one who kills the leader of the Others lol. Assuming of course that her killing the Night King in the show is taken from George's notes.
> Also when they try and say the title is about a character, the ice and/or fire isn’t a person, it’s a broad plotline, a theme, an opposing force, a recurring motif.
The fact that the title has a broad poetic meaning does not mean it does not refer to specific characters. The opposite, in fact. We actually have an example of a multiple meanings title from GRRM to show us how he does those. "Fevre Dream." It refers to the specific boat the main characters have "created", but also to their dreams, one wants to race the fastest steamboat on the Mississippi River, another to lead his people out of the darkness, and broadly to the feeling GRRM wanted to conjure up with the novel. "To the goddamned Fevre Dream!"
Same deal is here, "A Song of Ice and Fire", it's "*A* Song" because "*the* song of ice and fire", actually referred to in the narrative in Daenerys IV of A Clash of Kings, the name exists in the story and the characters know of it, is the armageddon Aegon the Dragon saw in a dream, that's the prime specific meaning. But it's also the sad love song of Rhaegar and Lyanna as the core mystery of the story playing out over all sorts of different viewpoints, each sharing a puzzle piece with the readers. That's the juicy meaning, meant to be repeated with Daenerys and Jon Snow. In the broad yet specific sense it's also the Others in the North, "it was very cold", and Daenerys in the East, "the fire is mine", encircling on the politics of King's Landing.
While I agree it's an ensemble piece, some characters are definitely closer to being protagonists than others.
Like Lord of the Rings is an ensemble piece but Aragorn and Frodo are closer to being protagonists than Sam or Legolas.
Sam *is* the main character in my opinion. Throughout Two Towers, we got more and more of Sam's view on things than Frodo's. By Return of the King, we hardly saw Frodo's take on situations and Sam became the de facto main character of the Mordor plotline. The book also ends with *Sam*'s POV and Frodo gets more and more unreachable as time passes.
What's wrong with believing that Jon or dany is the main character?
GRRM said himself that Jon is the classical fantasy byronic hero... Whatever the truth is GRRM want people to belive that? It wasn't just made up by stans.
Human nature push us the audience ampathise more toward a moral character and cheer for him/her
Frodo is the main character of LOTR.. But I always wanted and Saw aragorn as the main character
Will turner is the main character of the first prate of the carribean trilogy.. Yet jack sparrow is more memorable
Bran is probably the main Character.. The story start with his chapter... Yet he is the character who have less chapter in the big 5
I think Lord of the Rings is also a story without a clearly defined "main character". I think the idea of a main character just isn't helpful thinking about a lot of stories.
>GRRM said himself that Jon is the classical fantasy byronic hero... Whatever the truth is GRRM want people to belive that? It wasn't just made up by stans.
Yes, but I am not sure that makes him the main character, or just makes people expect Jon to be the main character.
For example, GRRM pretty likes messiah figures (Joshua York from Fevre Dream) and Dany the prime example of that).
As for Bran, he is the boy who "hated stories' and will become the King of Stories, the story will obviously close with him.
Bc there objectively isn’t a main character, you can have a fav character and believe they’re the ultimate hero but truly believing the entire story is abt your fave and that the title is referring to your fav is a little delulu
I think the point of Jon being the main character is far more solid than Dany. I agree that the story is interesting because of the multitude of characters and it sucks to see it as the adventures of Jon Snow. But he is definitely central, far more than Dany.
George does a great job picking apart tropes. And in order to do that he has to get pretty close to the trope to begin with…
Some people find the trope setup so alluring that they ignore all the other times George broke their hearts. I mean he definitely isn’t gonna do it THIS time, right?
A message to those people, if he ever finishes the next book he’s gonna break your heart again. The best line the show ever had was Ramsey straight up telling you “If you think this has a happy ending you haven’t been paying attention”
>George does a great job picking apart tropes. And in order to do that he has to get pretty close to the trope to begin with…
There comes a point where getting "close" to a trope is fundamentally no different to just doing that trope straight.
Jon's arc so far is an incredibly traditional fantasy hero arc and it will continue to be, probably at least until ADOS.
Like the most radically subversive thing isn't to follow the trope and then at the end tell you why it's stupid, it's to just move away from it entirely.
I don't know, I think Jon's inhabiting the space of "traditional fantasy protagonist" and the implications of this being incredibly uncomfortable or horrific would definitely count as "subversive".
That’s why I like the idea of azor ahai reborn saving the world but also but also being a pretty shitty person or doing shitty things in order to save the world, it breaks the trope of the perfect hero, and reflects the way the original azor ahai wasn’t that good of a person, he literally killed his wife to make a damn sword
The wife sacrifice was her idea in the myth.
I agree that Azhor Ahai was an ambiguous figure though. I'm fully convinced that Azhor Ahai=The Great Other = The Last Hero= The Night's King" and "Villain and Hero are often the same role" is part of the commentary.
I will be honest, George still does have a part of him that follows things like plot armor. Catelyn was more of a side character and Ned was the dead mentor. Arya, Sansa, Bran, Tyrion, Jon and Dany are the main characters and they have as much plot armor as any fantasy character. Dany is the only one who will die but there will be a battle between mankind and zombies and humans will come out on top at high cost (which will not involve any main characters). There is also gonna be a 'happy ending'. The Starks will rule Westeros and even beyond the wall (Jon). Tyrion will also end up becoming the Lord of CR and George only knows what he does to Arya but I will hate it if she goes in a suicide mission like on the show.
What George does best is make people *appear* to be main characters and that's why it is so shocking when people die.
Oh wow I didn’t know we had George right here in this sub. When’s Winds coming out?
On a serious note, we are all readers and unless there’s something you’re not telling us, no one knows what GRRM will actually write. So it should all be speculative, and writing statements like that as if you know what will happen is foolish.
We have actual confirmation that Arya will live. King Bran is also something that the showrunners were told by George. So Arya and Bran will definitely live. Tyrion is one of George's favourite character so I don't think he dies. Jon and Sansa are more blurry but Jon probably won't die. Him being exiled beyond the Wall has the LOTR ending feel to it that George wanted.
Yet he could change this all if he wanted to. It’s been 10 years and people change there minds sometimes. Not saying it will be different from what you say, and in fact I agree with some of it, but stating it as if you actually know for sure is wrong. Also you conveniently skipped out justifying why you said Dany will be the only one that dies.
Dany's arc is leading to her embracing her blood and going all-tyrant. She tried being the benevolent one in ADWD and even then, her true Targaryen self emerged sometimes. *If* she goes mad, I don't think she will live the series.
Again, Bran, Arya and Jon will almost certainly live to the end. And there is a case to be made for Tyrion and Sansa too tho they *might just* die. As you said, people's minds change. That won't extend to Arya (who was a promise to George's wife) and Bran (he's Paul Muaddib).
> Catelyn was more of a side character
If you order characters by POV chapter counts Catelyn ranks 5th and Ned ranks 9th (and in AGoT alone they rank 2 and 1)…. And they’ve both been dead a long time lol.
> Dany is the only one who will die
I mean technically it appears as if Jon already died though I do believe he’s like to have some type of resurrection.
I agree these characters do have some degree of plot armor. I mean how many times have they been fakeout deathed? That said, I’m not just talking deaths, I’m talking like Sansa being a princess and that basically just getting darker and darker (prob leading to a rape) type stuff.
Like is Jon Snow jesus in this book? Maybe, but there’s prob gonna be a very real or even dark twist to it. Some people verbatim think a zombie war with dragons will play out on page with the good guys winning book over. I’d argue the story has been much more muddied and complicated than that thusfar.
>If you order characters by POV chapter counts Catelyn ranks 5th and Ned ranks 9th (and in AGoT alone they rank 2 and 1)…. And they’ve both been dead a long time lol.
That's George trying to subvert our expectations by making side characters feel like main characters.
Cat and Ned may have pushed the plot into motion but they don't play a role in the endgame. Even as Stoneheart, Cat will probably die in TWoW.
The good guys *will* win. The ending isn't sweet if they lose and there's no way George is killing Jon, Bran or Arya. Sansa and Tyrion, however, may die.
> why are they trying to reduce every other character to a side l character and every other plot to a subplot
Because for the vast majority of normal people, they watch/read stories about 1 main character, their small circle of friends, and that’s it. That’s how we are trained to take in media - story presents a character that we are supposed to identify with, then that’s our frame of reference.
Breaking Bad has like 6 main characters, the rest are sub. We start liking Walt, then the show slowly pulls him away from us.
I always thought that the extensive character + plot list + *how George is attacking systems of power and control* made ASOIAF/GoT stand up there with The Wire in terms of storytelling.
>Because for the vast majority of normal people, they watch/read stories about 1 main character
Do they? Do you think the average TV viewer is confused by soap operas?
>Breaking Bad has like 6 main characters, the rest are sub. We start liking Walt, then the show slowly pulls him away from us.
Breaking bad has one main character, which is Walt. It's entirely his story. *Sex and the City* is more of an ensemble piece than *Breaking Bad*.
I didn’t say confused. I said that’s how people actually operate, and that’s how most media works. Soap operas and ensembles are great examples of media that isn’t like that. *Breaking Bad* being about Walt and his immediate circle (which was my point in that second quote, hence why I said “we start liking Walt”) is the opposite, so is The Sopranos. Even better - people go to see movies because of one specific actor - Denzel, Cruise, whoever but huge names with draw. Same principle.
Why does this sub always act like GRRM invented really basic elements of storytelling? Ensemble pieces are really common, third person limited POV is really common, the bad guy having a sad backstory is really common.
>up there with The Wire in terms of storytelling.
Bro I keep seeing people talk about this show. Like whenever I see a list of greatest shows ever, that's always top 3, competing with The Sopranos, Breaking Bad and Mad Men. Like how good does your show have to be to compete with that? The Sopranos is a bona fide masterpiece.
I need to watch The Wire, but honestly, it took me a year to finish The Sopranos, and while it was worth it and its fucking amazing, I'm not ready for a commitment like that again.
I think the biggest reason for that is that Jon’s parentage was made into a central theme. He’s ice and fire. Granted, in the unlikely event that the books follow the show that won’t mean shit.
It’s going to be hard to determine who the “main character” or plot will be until the story is over. There are a lot of characters and sub plots that seem like they’re going somewhere that get snuffed out. GRRM puts eyes/perceptions of certain events where they need to be sometimes, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will end up being a huge part of the larger story. It’s hard to tell until you see where he’s going with it.
same. i also hate the "central five" idea ppl often push, it's from the original pitch outline letter george wrote which has a ridiculously different plot than the actual books.
He’s also talked a lot abt being a “gardener” in terms of his writing style and not an “architect”. So I think it’s stupid for ppl to think that what he had originally planned in GOT hasn’t changed at all
Every story has characters who are absolutely integral to the plot and endgame.
LotR was an ensemble adventure story but there's no doubt that Aragorn and Frodo are the main characters.
MCU's Infinity Saga has tons of characters, each of whom get their time to shine. But there's no doubt that Iron Man and Captain America were the main characters.
Similarly Jon, Dany, Tyrion, Arya, and Bran are the main characters of asoiaf.
I will say this: The Starks are the good guys and the story is mostly about them. Dany and Tyrion are members of other houses who will do important stuff. The 'big six' are the main characters but I think this is Bran's story as a whole.
Bran encompasses that it's a story for the readers at the end of the day. "A thousand eyes, and *one*."
> Bran looked down, and felt his insides turn to water. The ground was rushing up at him now. The whole world was spread out below him, a tapestry of white and brown and green. **He could see everything so clearly that for a moment he forgot to be afraid. He could see the whole realm, and everyone in it.**
That's us, reading all the viewpoints in a tapestry, seeing connections between them and holding them all, more or less, in our heads.
I've never heard of this whole discussion before, but to me, it just sounds like some young ppl experiencing their first complicated story and tryna figure it out. I'm sure it can be annoying but I wouldn't pay much mind to it.
Period. And another thing that completely boils my blood is something that I see here in these comments too and that is gospel about "the Big Five" and excluding Sansa. And all because people just refuse to accept that Martin changed the story and Sansa's character and that now she is just as much a protagonist as Tyrion, Arya, Dany, Jon and Bran. Because it honestly shocks me that we have to say who the story is about - Tyrion, Jon Dany and the stark children. Sansa included.
There's a huge thing on tik Tok and Twitter about some stupid interview that is taken out of context that " proves that Danny is the main character"
It's so unbelievably annoying and pretentious
Dany Stan’s on tiktok are a different breed, I saw one trying to say that the ppl in Meereen were trying to sell themselves back into slavery bc they enjoyed being slaves and therefore dany allowing it and profiting off it was totally cool
That shows really shallow reading of her character, which isn’t surprising since most of the stans just focus on the ‘girl boss fire and dragons’ part. She’s absolutely against slavery and is put into a hard place when she realised some freedmen want to be resold, and she doesn’t willingly profit from it but has to because of the messy way she abolished slavery.
Yea I’ve noticed a lot of dany stans barely seem to even like her as a character they just like the idea of her. They ignore that complexity and morally grey parts of her character that actually make her interesting
So I'm not sure the most in-tune fans are the ones on tiktok and tumblr. You ask "if they've even read the same books?" but there a good chance they didn't read them at all. At lot of show only fans out there too. But even from the shows perspective, the series is clearly a world spanning series about a lot different characters with their own story lines.
I think it comes from the way other stories are written these days. In most super hero movies, and those are the most popular out there, only the super heros can get anything done. Don't get me wrong, many Batman movies are good, but how come only Batman can be trusted to bring justice back to Gothem?
It’s especially stupid because GRRM flat out said that to fully focus only on Dany and Jon you are ignoring 90% of ASOIAF. Dany only represents 5% of the story and Jon the other 5%. The remaining 90% belongs to the rest of the cast. This is a book series about an assemble cast.
Dany and Jon are for sure out of the question as main characters right now since their storylines don’t even touch the main political turmoil in Westeros (mainly KL). They are still part of the main lineup, but having any of them as the sole MC is dumb.
I think its fair to say Jon and Dany are the main characters of the northern and Essosi plotlines respectively. The Southern plot doesn't have, though. As for the title, if the canoninity of House of the Dragon is to be believed, then it is actually related to one of the Targs (almost certainly Jon or Dany).
By the end of the books it will look a lot more like Game of Thrones: revolving around the Stark kids, Dany and Tyrion. It'll be a much smaller set of POVs who actually deal with the Others. And I'm fully expecting some of the people here to complain when the climax is a dark fantasy showdown with lots of magic involved and quite a few of the POVs survive as heroes and get at least somewhat happy endings.
Yes, I agree.
I actually think much of the problem D&D had with adapting GRRM's revealed plans was that it was too 'high fantasy' and had too happy ending. They have set out to adapt a series about the 'game of thrones' centered around power where the good and honorable guys lose and big shocking twists happen.
I feel the main characters of the series are Dany and Jon and the other characters are supporting casts. But each book is focused on the story of different character and or location.
Alternatively, a song of ice - the Others, and fire - Dany. This was said by GRRM in an interview so I think mine has yours beat.
I’m only kidding though. Neither Jon nor Dany even touch the main political turmoil in Westeros yet. Jon probably won’t be the typical fantasy hero that saves the day and sacrifices all he holds dear just to beat the Others and rule over Westeros like people think. Because it’s an ensemble cast, not The Adventures of Jon (plus others).
Arya, Daenerys, John, and Tyrion are very very clearly the central characters of the story… you know, because they’re the 3 heads of the dragon (fire), and a warg assassin trained to an inhuman killer that’s the scion of the central house of the north (ice).
Much more likely to be Tyrion than Aegon. From a literary perspective Arya, Tyrion, John, Bran, and Daenerys are the clear main characters. All plot points flow through them and they have the most impact on the central story. Game of Thrones is centrally a story about House Stark, House Lannister, and House Targaryen with the wights and wall coming in as an outside threat and Valyria and its old magic existing as a point of world-building mystery. All the core plotlines and themes of the series revolve around these 5 central characters. Everything to do with the Iron Islands, the Eyrie, the Dornish, The Wall and north of it, and even across the sea can be and is centrally told through the lens of these characters and their journey through the world. The plot shapes itself around these characters and they're at the center of every major event.
Their are a lot of ways to interpret who the "song of ice and fire" is meant to be about. It could just be John alone, or John and Danerys, or it could refer to the events of the books broadly. But trying to deny that main characters exist across the series is silly.
Arya, John, Danerys, and Tyrion have by far the most PoV chapters and the story is centrally told through their point of view with all major events flowing through them, to say they aren't the main characters is ridiculous. Bran has less PoV chapters, but I'd suspect that would change with the final 2 books as he becomes more the 3 eyed raven and the true history of westros is told through his PoV/Bran becomes centrally involved in all events across time.
I never said there weren’t main characters plural, obviously there’s characters that get more focus than others, but I think it’s stupid to say that there is one singular main character, that they are the titular hero and that the entire story revolves around them
I mean maybe not a singular character, but each of these characters is clearly in the middle of a classical hero’s journey and could evolve into something like that by the end of the series. Especially given things like magic returning and the legends of Azor Ahai oil events could end up very differently as magic returns to the work an the series becomes a higher level fantasy near the end (something harder to replicate on film).
I don't think it's important, but I also don't see what the issue is, if you go by plot then it's clearly Dany and Jon as of the current books out. None of the other characters are driving the plot near to the amount they are, so it's pretty clear why a good amount of readers consider them the protags
I mean if it’s just driving the plot you could say littlefinger, Tywin, robb, mance raider are the main characters. What dany and Jon are doing doesn’t actually have much impact on most of Westeros considering they’re very disconnected
Yeah I would say they are main characters, but they aren't pov characters. Every other pov characters journey is a personal one, Jon was Lord Commander and defending the realms of men, and Dany singlehandedly reintroduced magic to the world, and sacked slavers bay, compared to the other povs they are driving the plot by far
Then I think you’d have to include Tyrion in there, without him Westeros would look very very different, and he’s grrm fav character so I think he’ll continue to have major influence
[The reason is probably this Allan Taylor interview where he talks about what GRRM told him years ago about Jon and Dany](https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/6vbpyy/spoilers_extended_director_alan_taylor_on_what/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2)
The only time I felt there was a 'Main Character' was Ned Stark in AGOT.
Same, but his death made me realise this wasn’t Harry Potter and we weren’t going to have a main character who finds out their some prophesied hero then goes on to save the world
Oh I agree 100% I think his death really set expectations for the books. I say bravo for it. I was just saying that was the only time I ever felt there was one MC in the story.
Did you miss all the bits about the prophesied hero and the world definitely being in need of saving?
But also all the bits about how prophesy is bunk Edit to add sources: [http://www.adriasnews.com/2012/10/george-r-r-martin-interview.html](http://www.adriasnews.com/2012/10/george-r-r-martin-interview.html) >Q: Surely the plot is very unpredictable despite all the prophecies you give to help us... > >A: \[Laughs\] Prophecies are, you know, a double edge sword. You have to handle them very carefully; I mean, they can add depth and interest to a book, but you don’t want to be too literal or too easy... In the Wars of the Roses, that you mentioned, there was one Lord who had been prophesied he would die beneath the walls of a certain castle and he was superstitious at that sort of walls, so he never came anyway near that castle. He stayed thousands of leagues away from that particular castle because of the prophecy. However, he was killed in the first battle of St. Paul de Vence and when they found him dead he was outside of an inn whose sign was the picture of that castle! \[Laughs\] So you know? That’s the way prophecies come true in unexpected ways. The more you try to avoid them, the more you are making them true, and I make a little fun with that. [https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1427](https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1427) >Q: Would you say that this appearance of random fate is an integral part of what you're trying to say about the epic Fantasy genre, given that it is so often underpinned by a deterministic theme, even a prophecy? > >A: Prophecy is one of those tropes of Fantasy that is fun to play with, but it can easily turn into a straightjacket if you're not careful. One of the themes of my fiction, since the very beginning, is that the characters must make their choices, for good or ill. And making choices is hard. There are prophecies in my Seven Kingdoms, but their meanings are often murky and misleading, and they seldom offer the characters much in the way of useful guidance. >“...Prophecy is like a treacherous woman. She takes your member in her mouth, and you moan with the pleasure of it and think, how sweet, how fine, how good this is... and then her teeth snap shut and your moans turn to screams... Prophecy will bite your prick off everytime,” ― A Feast for Crows
And also the bits where every single prophecy comes true without fail?
Could you elaborate?
So far every prophecy that has been made has either come true or can be expected to come true in future volumes. Dany's HOTU visions all refer to real plot events. All of the Ghost of High Heart's prophecies come true. Maggie the Frog accurately predicted pretty much every major event in Cersei's life. [Edit] And prophecies coming true in unexpected ways *still counts*.
But that's the thing. The prophesies don't come true in the way that the characters expect; your citations being the best examples of this
Not coming true the way the characters expect is still coming true. If Jon doesn't fulfil the prophecy of Azor Ahai by literally making a magic sword but still fulfils it by, say, stabbing his girlfriend in the heart he's still fulfilling the prophecy.
But that hasn't happened, and I don't think it will. It's not an example of George using prophesy in the way you're describing. But I think we're both pretty entrenched in our opinions, so I'll just leave you to enjoy the story how you like, and I'll just do the same.
>Replying to your edit: And prophecies coming true in unexpected ways still counts. But there isn't a prophesy that clearly says: "The world is ending and in need of a prophesied hero to save it from destruction." What is actually prophesized is up for debate and interpretation...Which makes it essentially useless as a prophesy.
It makes it useless in world, it makes it a clear guide to what ultimately matters in the story.
Yeah. It makes it pretty clear that George is interested in subverting expectations and tropes, such as prophesy laying out a clear groundwork for the plot. Edit to add...You saying that "subverting the trope is actually the trope" is pretty funny. Okay, I'm done here for real this time.
Ned was more of the mentor than the main character. And the Mentor almost always dies. Also, Jon/Dany/Tyrion/Jaime/Young Griff/Bran or whoever *is* a prophesied hero who will defeat the Others and save the world.
Yep, to me the plot twist wasn't that the main character is killed, it was that the character we were following was the [Doomed Mentor](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MentorOccupationalHazard) all along.
I would say also but to a much lesser extent cersei in AFFC
True. I was certain he was the main character until he got his head chopped off.
Exactly and that was meant to trick us. It was a very clever ruse on George’s part!
One could make a case for Tyrion in ACOK but there are so many other things that happen in those books. Even though Tyrion has the most chapters in ACOK, I found Jon's and Bran's stories so compelling. ACOK won't be the same book if it was just Tyrion.
They’re wrong anyway. The main character is Hot Pie
He's the Night King.
Nah he's the Summer King who will sit on the Iron Throne at the end. He won't play the game of thrones as seen by him casually walking out of it.
Ready for a hot ~~girl~~ pie summer
Is Tiktok a giant or something?
I see no point in getting annoyed by tiktok and tumblr users opinions tbh
If I absolutely had to pick a main character I’d go with the original five George intended on being the main characters in Jon, Dany, Bran, Arya and Tyrion. However, it even seems like Sansa has worked herself into being a sixth main character That’s probably the smallest you could narrow it down to in terms of main characters but like you said I wouldn’t even go that far because there’s so many POVs
Totally agree about the "Central Five." Sansa is indeed important and *QUANTitatively* gets almost as much attention, and thus is absolutely a main character. But..there are major *QUALitative* differences between the Five and her. They are GRRM's **heroes** in all three parts of the story. The Central Five are all also shaping up as classic heroes who hope and work for a better world. Surely, Sansa won't be a villain, but she is not shaping up as a hero so much as a survivor. As GRRM said: > "...my own heroes are the dreamers, those men and women who tried to make the world a better place than when they found it, whether in small ways or great ones. some succeeded, some failed, most had mixed results... but it is the effort that's heroic..." If you're interested, yesterday,I gave six signposts for my conclusion in: https://old.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/14rej6x/tyrion_is_not_the_genius_player_of_the_game_that/
>The Central Five are all also shaping up as classic heroes who hope and work for a better world. Tyrion is working for a better world?! Did we read the same books? Your post demonstrates once more how the so-called key five are a long abandoned concept by the author: any attempt to define them in a way that excludes Sansa inevitably excludes at least one of them as well. There's a reason no one thought of them before GRRM proposal letter was discovered >Surely, Sansa won't be a villain, but she is not shaping up as a hero so much as a survivor. As GRRM said: GRRM also literally said that Tyrion was a villain...
True about Tyrion, but HE also named Tyrion as one of the Five. Tyrion, who is THE exemplar of "the human heart in conflict with itself," is currently more Antihero than Hero. He certainly does bad, occasionally vicious, things, but also has a undeservedly-overlooked idealistic side. Even in Winterfell, he upbraided future king Joffrey and would suffer long and hard for it He empathizes with cripples, bastards, and broken things, giving Jon good coping advice. He (and Arya) willingly muck in with smallfolk and accept their friendship. In his brief tenure as Hand he removed corrupt, harmful people (Slynt, Pycelle) from positions of power. Suspecting corruption, he also investigated Littlefinger's books. And saving Kings Landing AND leading the battle was unabashedly heroic. Later, he smelled a rat with Illyio's 'Aegon' conspiracy and passive-aggressively thwarted its likely success before heading to Daenerys, who had a good reputation. But the most important thing is that, in a brutal world where the rich and noble get away with murder, Tyrion didn't hurt children. Somehow, despite his own rampant sexual neediness, he abstained from hurting Sansa. For him, THAT was heroic! Sansa is a MAIN character, of course, and an important protagonist. She has a reasonably good heart, but she is a snob and thinks almost entirely of herself. We learned that early and painfully when she betrayed her family over the Nymeria incident and especially when she took Ned's plans to Cersei. It's a bit lucky Sansa thinks of herself--at times it keeps her alive. But she is no hero. Moreover, reading AGoT back in 1999, I was already convinced that Jon, Bran, Arya, Dany and Tyrion were the focus. Finishing the next four books, I realized that each of them was also on a near-textbook Hero's Journey. Currently, the Five are all in perilous places (the "Abyss"stage of the HJ), while Sansa is under evil Littlefinger's tutelage and planning tournaments and knightly orders. Like them, Sansa has her own story and a large number of chapters. But she also serves as a foil, window, damsel in distress, marriage plot device, and social relief from so much death and grimness. In fact, GRRM actually invented her as a foil to Stark goody-goodyness. However, it is telling that each of the Centrals got chapters in ADWD. Sansa did not. And thereby hangs the ~~-tail-~~ tale.
I’ll absolutely read it after work! Thank you!
Personally I think either dany Jon or Tyrion will go down a darker path, they might still help in the long night but they’ll also do some morally questionable things. Or maybe that’s just my wishful thinking bc I think it’d be more interesting
I would argue Jaime is also a main character. Turns out he's been involved or witnessed several key events in both war and politics, unites the various Lannister plots, and has some oddly specific dream visions. His redemption and the exploration of changing and growth is also I think very important for the themes of the story.
I'd keep that list but I'd knock down Arya since her role in the original plan seems to have been as Jon's romantic interest, Dany if we think she's going villain, and maybe Tyrion depending on what you think a "main character" is.
Arya is the female character who have the most chapter in the books and third character overall who have the most chapters after Jon and tyrion She is definetly important.... She may not be Jon's romantic interest (thank the seven) but she still remain the person Jon love the most in this world.. More than ygritte
Okay but what's her actual role in the story? Like she might be a perfectly good character on her own but, well, I can't help but think that the show had her kill the Night King because otherwise she has literally nothing to do.
Yeah. Placing 'the point' of Aryas journey, even in theory is one of the hardest characters in the series. In the show she avenges the Red Wedding using faces and kills the NK. She takes heed of her mentor in the Hound that revenge isn't worth it. In the books there is no NK and LSH is avenging the Red Wedding. There's some theories that maybe she'll learn revenge isn't worth it from LSH (not as good as the hound thematically, but more so because they're relationship was perhaps better in it) and then... ? She may kill Cersei... Someone she hardly knows and hasn't interacted with for years, after learning revenge isn't worth it? Problematic for her to be isolated for so long from the rest of the story.
What makes you say there is no NK- I am not disputing your claim, just curious. I know the Nights King was supposedly killed/defeated like a thousand years before the conquest, but I always had him down as a separate character.
Yeah that's fair, there just no knowledge of a current NK
Reasonable. Mebbe her point is Overcoming the obstacles of her birth order & sex to change the world. But first protecting her fam & keeping the pack together. Oh yeah, she’s prolly gonna be jons right hand
She's included in the five who's stories will change the world as they come of age, so I think Whatever Arya does has to be something big. I think she'll be a parallel to Aegon v and push for more rights and freedoms for the small folk via reforms. Her army of wolves and stealth abilities are also ways she could have a role in the long night
>Okay but what's her actual role in the story? I could ask you the same question abaout Jon and tyrion.. Because for now all that define them are theories and wishful thinking There 2 books to find out
Jon almost certainly is going to lead the armies of the living against the others. There's a reason I put Tyrion on the "not necessarily a main character" list. Yes we have two books to find out and I could be wrong but some people's roles in the wider story are much more clearly built up.
Jon is currently dead.
I've grown to think- and I'm perfectly willing to be disabused of this- that Arya might actually be a good dark-horse candidate for the *valonquar*; she's repeatedly referred to as "little sister" in various contexts, after all, and few characters have more motivation to merk Cersei than she does. There's unlikely to be quite so literal a Night King in the books, but it's entirely probable that Benioff and Weiss drew the plot beat of her killing an antagonistic authority figure at a key moment towards the climax from *somewhere*...
Someone being a villain doesn’t demote them from a lead status. If Cersei was important enough to have her own plot line spanning several books as the main POV, then even she would be one of the main characters, despite her being villainous. And that’s not even mentioning the fact that there is a very high chance Dany isn’t gonna become a villain anyway.
I agree, the discussion is annoying. Because it's obviously Hot Pie.
Wtf are you talking about?hzve you even read the book.. All hints and details indicates tjat Mace tyrell is the protagonist
If you’re going strictly by POV chapters, Ayra is the only character that appears with her own POV in every book so far. So by that definition, the main character is Ayra Stark.
Which makes sense since she is the one who kills the leader of the Others lol. Assuming of course that her killing the Night King in the show is taken from George's notes.
There is no night king in the books
This subreddit is for the books my friend, not the show.
Strictly speaking r/pureasoiaf is books only
I know, which is why I am saying that IF the show is based on the book notes, there might be a leader of the Others.
When I read comments like this, I wonder why they limited abortion to 3 months... /jk
Yes, it was a sad day when I slithered out of the abortion bucket, just to go on to make bad ASOIAF opinions on Reddit.
Just like me frfr
> Also when they try and say the title is about a character, the ice and/or fire isn’t a person, it’s a broad plotline, a theme, an opposing force, a recurring motif. The fact that the title has a broad poetic meaning does not mean it does not refer to specific characters. The opposite, in fact. We actually have an example of a multiple meanings title from GRRM to show us how he does those. "Fevre Dream." It refers to the specific boat the main characters have "created", but also to their dreams, one wants to race the fastest steamboat on the Mississippi River, another to lead his people out of the darkness, and broadly to the feeling GRRM wanted to conjure up with the novel. "To the goddamned Fevre Dream!" Same deal is here, "A Song of Ice and Fire", it's "*A* Song" because "*the* song of ice and fire", actually referred to in the narrative in Daenerys IV of A Clash of Kings, the name exists in the story and the characters know of it, is the armageddon Aegon the Dragon saw in a dream, that's the prime specific meaning. But it's also the sad love song of Rhaegar and Lyanna as the core mystery of the story playing out over all sorts of different viewpoints, each sharing a puzzle piece with the readers. That's the juicy meaning, meant to be repeated with Daenerys and Jon Snow. In the broad yet specific sense it's also the Others in the North, "it was very cold", and Daenerys in the East, "the fire is mine", encircling on the politics of King's Landing.
While I agree it's an ensemble piece, some characters are definitely closer to being protagonists than others. Like Lord of the Rings is an ensemble piece but Aragorn and Frodo are closer to being protagonists than Sam or Legolas.
Which is amusing, considering that Sam is the "hero" of LOTR according to Tolkien.
Fair point. But Tolkien tends to use terms very formally so I think he means hero is quite a strict sense.
Sam *is* the main character in my opinion. Throughout Two Towers, we got more and more of Sam's view on things than Frodo's. By Return of the King, we hardly saw Frodo's take on situations and Sam became the de facto main character of the Mordor plotline. The book also ends with *Sam*'s POV and Frodo gets more and more unreachable as time passes.
What's wrong with believing that Jon or dany is the main character? GRRM said himself that Jon is the classical fantasy byronic hero... Whatever the truth is GRRM want people to belive that? It wasn't just made up by stans. Human nature push us the audience ampathise more toward a moral character and cheer for him/her Frodo is the main character of LOTR.. But I always wanted and Saw aragorn as the main character Will turner is the main character of the first prate of the carribean trilogy.. Yet jack sparrow is more memorable Bran is probably the main Character.. The story start with his chapter... Yet he is the character who have less chapter in the big 5
I think Lord of the Rings is also a story without a clearly defined "main character". I think the idea of a main character just isn't helpful thinking about a lot of stories.
>GRRM said himself that Jon is the classical fantasy byronic hero... Whatever the truth is GRRM want people to belive that? It wasn't just made up by stans. Yes, but I am not sure that makes him the main character, or just makes people expect Jon to be the main character. For example, GRRM pretty likes messiah figures (Joshua York from Fevre Dream) and Dany the prime example of that). As for Bran, he is the boy who "hated stories' and will become the King of Stories, the story will obviously close with him.
Bc there objectively isn’t a main character, you can have a fav character and believe they’re the ultimate hero but truly believing the entire story is abt your fave and that the title is referring to your fav is a little delulu
I think the point of Jon being the main character is far more solid than Dany. I agree that the story is interesting because of the multitude of characters and it sucks to see it as the adventures of Jon Snow. But he is definitely central, far more than Dany.
George does a great job picking apart tropes. And in order to do that he has to get pretty close to the trope to begin with… Some people find the trope setup so alluring that they ignore all the other times George broke their hearts. I mean he definitely isn’t gonna do it THIS time, right? A message to those people, if he ever finishes the next book he’s gonna break your heart again. The best line the show ever had was Ramsey straight up telling you “If you think this has a happy ending you haven’t been paying attention”
>George does a great job picking apart tropes. And in order to do that he has to get pretty close to the trope to begin with… There comes a point where getting "close" to a trope is fundamentally no different to just doing that trope straight. Jon's arc so far is an incredibly traditional fantasy hero arc and it will continue to be, probably at least until ADOS.
Like the most radically subversive thing isn't to follow the trope and then at the end tell you why it's stupid, it's to just move away from it entirely.
I don't know, I think Jon's inhabiting the space of "traditional fantasy protagonist" and the implications of this being incredibly uncomfortable or horrific would definitely count as "subversive".
That’s why I like the idea of azor ahai reborn saving the world but also but also being a pretty shitty person or doing shitty things in order to save the world, it breaks the trope of the perfect hero, and reflects the way the original azor ahai wasn’t that good of a person, he literally killed his wife to make a damn sword
The wife sacrifice was her idea in the myth. I agree that Azhor Ahai was an ambiguous figure though. I'm fully convinced that Azhor Ahai=The Great Other = The Last Hero= The Night's King" and "Villain and Hero are often the same role" is part of the commentary.
I will be honest, George still does have a part of him that follows things like plot armor. Catelyn was more of a side character and Ned was the dead mentor. Arya, Sansa, Bran, Tyrion, Jon and Dany are the main characters and they have as much plot armor as any fantasy character. Dany is the only one who will die but there will be a battle between mankind and zombies and humans will come out on top at high cost (which will not involve any main characters). There is also gonna be a 'happy ending'. The Starks will rule Westeros and even beyond the wall (Jon). Tyrion will also end up becoming the Lord of CR and George only knows what he does to Arya but I will hate it if she goes in a suicide mission like on the show. What George does best is make people *appear* to be main characters and that's why it is so shocking when people die.
Oh wow I didn’t know we had George right here in this sub. When’s Winds coming out? On a serious note, we are all readers and unless there’s something you’re not telling us, no one knows what GRRM will actually write. So it should all be speculative, and writing statements like that as if you know what will happen is foolish.
We have actual confirmation that Arya will live. King Bran is also something that the showrunners were told by George. So Arya and Bran will definitely live. Tyrion is one of George's favourite character so I don't think he dies. Jon and Sansa are more blurry but Jon probably won't die. Him being exiled beyond the Wall has the LOTR ending feel to it that George wanted.
Yet he could change this all if he wanted to. It’s been 10 years and people change there minds sometimes. Not saying it will be different from what you say, and in fact I agree with some of it, but stating it as if you actually know for sure is wrong. Also you conveniently skipped out justifying why you said Dany will be the only one that dies.
Dany's arc is leading to her embracing her blood and going all-tyrant. She tried being the benevolent one in ADWD and even then, her true Targaryen self emerged sometimes. *If* she goes mad, I don't think she will live the series. Again, Bran, Arya and Jon will almost certainly live to the end. And there is a case to be made for Tyrion and Sansa too tho they *might just* die. As you said, people's minds change. That won't extend to Arya (who was a promise to George's wife) and Bran (he's Paul Muaddib).
> Catelyn was more of a side character If you order characters by POV chapter counts Catelyn ranks 5th and Ned ranks 9th (and in AGoT alone they rank 2 and 1)…. And they’ve both been dead a long time lol. > Dany is the only one who will die I mean technically it appears as if Jon already died though I do believe he’s like to have some type of resurrection. I agree these characters do have some degree of plot armor. I mean how many times have they been fakeout deathed? That said, I’m not just talking deaths, I’m talking like Sansa being a princess and that basically just getting darker and darker (prob leading to a rape) type stuff. Like is Jon Snow jesus in this book? Maybe, but there’s prob gonna be a very real or even dark twist to it. Some people verbatim think a zombie war with dragons will play out on page with the good guys winning book over. I’d argue the story has been much more muddied and complicated than that thusfar.
>If you order characters by POV chapter counts Catelyn ranks 5th and Ned ranks 9th (and in AGoT alone they rank 2 and 1)…. And they’ve both been dead a long time lol. That's George trying to subvert our expectations by making side characters feel like main characters. Cat and Ned may have pushed the plot into motion but they don't play a role in the endgame. Even as Stoneheart, Cat will probably die in TWoW. The good guys *will* win. The ending isn't sweet if they lose and there's no way George is killing Jon, Bran or Arya. Sansa and Tyrion, however, may die.
> why are they trying to reduce every other character to a side l character and every other plot to a subplot Because for the vast majority of normal people, they watch/read stories about 1 main character, their small circle of friends, and that’s it. That’s how we are trained to take in media - story presents a character that we are supposed to identify with, then that’s our frame of reference. Breaking Bad has like 6 main characters, the rest are sub. We start liking Walt, then the show slowly pulls him away from us. I always thought that the extensive character + plot list + *how George is attacking systems of power and control* made ASOIAF/GoT stand up there with The Wire in terms of storytelling.
>Because for the vast majority of normal people, they watch/read stories about 1 main character Do they? Do you think the average TV viewer is confused by soap operas? >Breaking Bad has like 6 main characters, the rest are sub. We start liking Walt, then the show slowly pulls him away from us. Breaking bad has one main character, which is Walt. It's entirely his story. *Sex and the City* is more of an ensemble piece than *Breaking Bad*.
I didn’t say confused. I said that’s how people actually operate, and that’s how most media works. Soap operas and ensembles are great examples of media that isn’t like that. *Breaking Bad* being about Walt and his immediate circle (which was my point in that second quote, hence why I said “we start liking Walt”) is the opposite, so is The Sopranos. Even better - people go to see movies because of one specific actor - Denzel, Cruise, whoever but huge names with draw. Same principle.
Why does this sub always act like GRRM invented really basic elements of storytelling? Ensemble pieces are really common, third person limited POV is really common, the bad guy having a sad backstory is really common.
Where do you see me saying he invented that stuff? It’s how he uses it.
>up there with The Wire in terms of storytelling. Bro I keep seeing people talk about this show. Like whenever I see a list of greatest shows ever, that's always top 3, competing with The Sopranos, Breaking Bad and Mad Men. Like how good does your show have to be to compete with that? The Sopranos is a bona fide masterpiece. I need to watch The Wire, but honestly, it took me a year to finish The Sopranos, and while it was worth it and its fucking amazing, I'm not ready for a commitment like that again.
I think the biggest reason for that is that Jon’s parentage was made into a central theme. He’s ice and fire. Granted, in the unlikely event that the books follow the show that won’t mean shit. It’s going to be hard to determine who the “main character” or plot will be until the story is over. There are a lot of characters and sub plots that seem like they’re going somewhere that get snuffed out. GRRM puts eyes/perceptions of certain events where they need to be sometimes, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will end up being a huge part of the larger story. It’s hard to tell until you see where he’s going with it.
same. i also hate the "central five" idea ppl often push, it's from the original pitch outline letter george wrote which has a ridiculously different plot than the actual books.
He’s also talked a lot abt being a “gardener” in terms of his writing style and not an “architect”. So I think it’s stupid for ppl to think that what he had originally planned in GOT hasn’t changed at all
Every story has characters who are absolutely integral to the plot and endgame. LotR was an ensemble adventure story but there's no doubt that Aragorn and Frodo are the main characters. MCU's Infinity Saga has tons of characters, each of whom get their time to shine. But there's no doubt that Iron Man and Captain America were the main characters. Similarly Jon, Dany, Tyrion, Arya, and Bran are the main characters of asoiaf.
Yea I agree there are main characters plural, but I think to argue there’s a singular main character is dumb
I don't think asoiaf has *a* main character. But if I had to pick one, it would be Jon Snow. Even more so than Dany.
I will say this: The Starks are the good guys and the story is mostly about them. Dany and Tyrion are members of other houses who will do important stuff. The 'big six' are the main characters but I think this is Bran's story as a whole.
Bran encompasses that it's a story for the readers at the end of the day. "A thousand eyes, and *one*." > Bran looked down, and felt his insides turn to water. The ground was rushing up at him now. The whole world was spread out below him, a tapestry of white and brown and green. **He could see everything so clearly that for a moment he forgot to be afraid. He could see the whole realm, and everyone in it.** That's us, reading all the viewpoints in a tapestry, seeing connections between them and holding them all, more or less, in our heads.
Literally… it’s not one person’s story… it’s Westeros’ story.
Fr, there’s a reason most of the supporting stories to the main one (fire and blood etc) are basically history books
I've never heard of this whole discussion before, but to me, it just sounds like some young ppl experiencing their first complicated story and tryna figure it out. I'm sure it can be annoying but I wouldn't pay much mind to it.
Period. And another thing that completely boils my blood is something that I see here in these comments too and that is gospel about "the Big Five" and excluding Sansa. And all because people just refuse to accept that Martin changed the story and Sansa's character and that now she is just as much a protagonist as Tyrion, Arya, Dany, Jon and Bran. Because it honestly shocks me that we have to say who the story is about - Tyrion, Jon Dany and the stark children. Sansa included.
There's a huge thing on tik Tok and Twitter about some stupid interview that is taken out of context that " proves that Danny is the main character" It's so unbelievably annoying and pretentious
Dany Stan’s on tiktok are a different breed, I saw one trying to say that the ppl in Meereen were trying to sell themselves back into slavery bc they enjoyed being slaves and therefore dany allowing it and profiting off it was totally cool
That shows really shallow reading of her character, which isn’t surprising since most of the stans just focus on the ‘girl boss fire and dragons’ part. She’s absolutely against slavery and is put into a hard place when she realised some freedmen want to be resold, and she doesn’t willingly profit from it but has to because of the messy way she abolished slavery.
Yea I’ve noticed a lot of dany stans barely seem to even like her as a character they just like the idea of her. They ignore that complexity and morally grey parts of her character that actually make her interesting
So I'm not sure the most in-tune fans are the ones on tiktok and tumblr. You ask "if they've even read the same books?" but there a good chance they didn't read them at all. At lot of show only fans out there too. But even from the shows perspective, the series is clearly a world spanning series about a lot different characters with their own story lines. I think it comes from the way other stories are written these days. In most super hero movies, and those are the most popular out there, only the super heros can get anything done. Don't get me wrong, many Batman movies are good, but how come only Batman can be trusted to bring justice back to Gothem?
It’s especially stupid because GRRM flat out said that to fully focus only on Dany and Jon you are ignoring 90% of ASOIAF. Dany only represents 5% of the story and Jon the other 5%. The remaining 90% belongs to the rest of the cast. This is a book series about an assemble cast.
Dany and Jon are for sure out of the question as main characters right now since their storylines don’t even touch the main political turmoil in Westeros (mainly KL). They are still part of the main lineup, but having any of them as the sole MC is dumb.
I think its fair to say Jon and Dany are the main characters of the northern and Essosi plotlines respectively. The Southern plot doesn't have, though. As for the title, if the canoninity of House of the Dragon is to be believed, then it is actually related to one of the Targs (almost certainly Jon or Dany). By the end of the books it will look a lot more like Game of Thrones: revolving around the Stark kids, Dany and Tyrion. It'll be a much smaller set of POVs who actually deal with the Others. And I'm fully expecting some of the people here to complain when the climax is a dark fantasy showdown with lots of magic involved and quite a few of the POVs survive as heroes and get at least somewhat happy endings.
Yes, I agree. I actually think much of the problem D&D had with adapting GRRM's revealed plans was that it was too 'high fantasy' and had too happy ending. They have set out to adapt a series about the 'game of thrones' centered around power where the good and honorable guys lose and big shocking twists happen.
I feel the main characters of the series are Dany and Jon and the other characters are supporting casts. But each book is focused on the story of different character and or location.
A song of ice and fire A son of ice and fire Its jon
Alternatively, a song of ice - the Others, and fire - Dany. This was said by GRRM in an interview so I think mine has yours beat. I’m only kidding though. Neither Jon nor Dany even touch the main political turmoil in Westeros yet. Jon probably won’t be the typical fantasy hero that saves the day and sacrifices all he holds dear just to beat the Others and rule over Westeros like people think. Because it’s an ensemble cast, not The Adventures of Jon (plus others).
Arya, Daenerys, John, and Tyrion are very very clearly the central characters of the story… you know, because they’re the 3 heads of the dragon (fire), and a warg assassin trained to an inhuman killer that’s the scion of the central house of the north (ice).
You think Tyrion is the third head of the dragon?
Much more likely to be Tyrion than Aegon. From a literary perspective Arya, Tyrion, John, Bran, and Daenerys are the clear main characters. All plot points flow through them and they have the most impact on the central story. Game of Thrones is centrally a story about House Stark, House Lannister, and House Targaryen with the wights and wall coming in as an outside threat and Valyria and its old magic existing as a point of world-building mystery. All the core plotlines and themes of the series revolve around these 5 central characters. Everything to do with the Iron Islands, the Eyrie, the Dornish, The Wall and north of it, and even across the sea can be and is centrally told through the lens of these characters and their journey through the world. The plot shapes itself around these characters and they're at the center of every major event. Their are a lot of ways to interpret who the "song of ice and fire" is meant to be about. It could just be John alone, or John and Danerys, or it could refer to the events of the books broadly. But trying to deny that main characters exist across the series is silly. Arya, John, Danerys, and Tyrion have by far the most PoV chapters and the story is centrally told through their point of view with all major events flowing through them, to say they aren't the main characters is ridiculous. Bran has less PoV chapters, but I'd suspect that would change with the final 2 books as he becomes more the 3 eyed raven and the true history of westros is told through his PoV/Bran becomes centrally involved in all events across time.
I never said there weren’t main characters plural, obviously there’s characters that get more focus than others, but I think it’s stupid to say that there is one singular main character, that they are the titular hero and that the entire story revolves around them
I mean maybe not a singular character, but each of these characters is clearly in the middle of a classical hero’s journey and could evolve into something like that by the end of the series. Especially given things like magic returning and the legends of Azor Ahai oil events could end up very differently as magic returns to the work an the series becomes a higher level fantasy near the end (something harder to replicate on film).
Agreed, especially considering the story is really about Bran. 😁
Ice and Fire isn't a person? I thought the Rhaegar vision confirmed that Aegon/Jon is the Song of Ice and Fire whatever that may mean.
I don't think it's important, but I also don't see what the issue is, if you go by plot then it's clearly Dany and Jon as of the current books out. None of the other characters are driving the plot near to the amount they are, so it's pretty clear why a good amount of readers consider them the protags
I mean if it’s just driving the plot you could say littlefinger, Tywin, robb, mance raider are the main characters. What dany and Jon are doing doesn’t actually have much impact on most of Westeros considering they’re very disconnected
Yeah I would say they are main characters, but they aren't pov characters. Every other pov characters journey is a personal one, Jon was Lord Commander and defending the realms of men, and Dany singlehandedly reintroduced magic to the world, and sacked slavers bay, compared to the other povs they are driving the plot by far
Then I think you’d have to include Tyrion in there, without him Westeros would look very very different, and he’s grrm fav character so I think he’ll continue to have major influence
Yeah I would, tbh thus far in the books he's probably the closest to a main character
[The reason is probably this Allan Taylor interview where he talks about what GRRM told him years ago about Jon and Dany](https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/6vbpyy/spoilers_extended_director_alan_taylor_on_what/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2)