|
Post by Basil on Jul 7, 2015 12:28:15 GMT
We LSH fans are as resilient as cockroaches. We will never let this go. I bet in 20 years from now, D&D will still be asked as to why they made the decision to cut Stoneheart. And they'll probably still refuse to answer.
|
|
|
Post by mattpeto on Jul 7, 2015 12:34:51 GMT
I think it's pretty safe to say now they cut Jon Connington/fAegon storyline in the show. I could be wrong but these cuts are very telling about their importance in the final two books and in the end-game. The same applies to LSH. People don't want to hear this but "bringing back people from the dead" in any story is often quite cheap IMO. Most of us believe they do need to save this gimmick for one important character that should have major implications on the end-game and the final two books. The subtle hints to resurrection have been planted which prove that it can happen in this universe. There have been hints that LSH character simply wasn't worth Michelle Fairley's time in the minds of D&D. D&D know where the story is going. I knew the arc, and that was it. -FairleyI'm not saying LSH isn't a great character in the novels and heck I'd love to see her. But maybe that "can of worms" isn't really worth it when you think of all the implications. Side note: Where can the LSH arc really go in the books anyway? After killing a few Freys or Boltons-which would be cool), do you want to see Catelyn/LSH die again in the novels? There's no happy ending for that character guys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 12:53:58 GMT
I think it's pretty safe to say now they cut Jon Connington/fAegon storyline in the show. I could be wrong but these cuts are very telling about their importance in the final two books and in the end-game. The same applies to LSH. People don't want to hear this but "bringing back people from the dead" in any story is often quite cheap IMO. Most of us believe they do need to save this gimmick for one important character that should have major implications on the end-game and the final two books. The subtle hints to resurrection have been planted which prove that it can happen in this universe. There have been hints that LSH character simply wasn't worth Michelle Fairley's time in the minds of D&D. D&D know where the story is going. I knew the arc, and that was it. -FairleyI'm not saying LSH isn't a great character in the novels and heck I'd love to see her. But maybe that "can of worms" isn't really worth it when you think of all the implications. Side note: Where can the LSH arc really go in the books anyway? After killing a few Freys or Boltons-which would be cool), do you want to see Catelyn/LSH die again in the novels? There's no happy ending for that character guys. Bringing back people from the dead is only as cheap as the way it is written. I agree that it can be cheap when done poorly, but the way GRRM did it in the books was not cheap, IMO, and the way D&D could do it on the show wouldn't be either. In any case, this discussion is as old as the SoS epilogue and people will always have different opinions on that. To me, LSH only adds to the tragedy and the horror of the RW. It is not the same as bringing her back sane and unharmed. Replying to your side note: There is more to LSH than killing Freys or Boltons. The whole dynamic with Brienne and Jaime is very interesting. She could also meet her children. A fitting end for Stoneheart would be her sacrificing herself in order to safe one of her children. In this sense, she would finally succeed in which she failed to do for Robb. There are other possibilities as well. I'm sure GRRM has some good ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Nezzer on Jul 7, 2015 13:03:10 GMT
I think it's pretty safe to say now they cut Jon Connington/fAegon storyline in the show. I could be wrong but these cuts are very telling about their importance in the final two books and in the end-game. The same applies to LSH. People don't want to hear this but "bringing back people from the dead" in any story is often quite cheap IMO. Most of us believe they do need to save this gimmick for one important character that should have major implications on the end-game and the final two books. The subtle hints to resurrection have been planted which prove that it can happen in this universe. There have been hints that LSH character simply wasn't worth Michelle Fairley's time in the minds of D&D. D&D know where the story is going. I knew the arc, and that was it. -FairleyI'm not saying LSH isn't a great character in the novels and heck I'd love to see her. But maybe that "can of worms" isn't really worth it when you think of all the implications. Side note: Where can the LSH arc really go in the books anyway? After killing a few Freys or Boltons-which would be cool), do you want to see Catelyn/LSH die again in the novels? There's no happy ending for that character guys. Bringing back people from the dead is only as cheap as the way it is written. I agree that it can be cheap when done poorly, but the way GRRM did it in the books was not cheap, IMO, and the way D&D could do it on the show wouldn't be either. In any case, this discussion is as old as the SoS epilogue and people will always have different opinions on that. To me, LSH only adds to the tragedy and the horror of the RW. It is not the same as bringing her back sane and unharmed. Replying to your side note: There is more to LSH than killing Freys or Boltons. The whole dynamic with Brienne and Jaime is very interesting. She could also meet her children. A fitting end for Stoneheart would be her sacrificing herself in order to safe one of her children. In this sense, she would finally succeed in which she failed to do for Robb. There are other possibilities as well. I'm sure GRRM has some good ideas. The problem for me is that resurrections take away a lot of the impact of a death, especially combined with GRRM's love for fake/feigned deaths. Even in the show, where we got just one resurrection so far, very few people actually believed Jon was actually killed. Now whenever someone important dies we will never feel the true finality of that death until the body is burned or buried, unless it's something gruesome that can't be simply fixed with resurrection alone, like Oberyn's death.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 13:36:49 GMT
Bringing back people from the dead is only as cheap as the way it is written. I agree that it can be cheap when done poorly, but the way GRRM did it in the books was not cheap, IMO, and the way D&D could do it on the show wouldn't be either. In any case, this discussion is as old as the SoS epilogue and people will always have different opinions on that. To me, LSH only adds to the tragedy and the horror of the RW. It is not the same as bringing her back sane and unharmed. Replying to your side note: There is more to LSH than killing Freys or Boltons. The whole dynamic with Brienne and Jaime is very interesting. She could also meet her children. A fitting end for Stoneheart would be her sacrificing herself in order to safe one of her children. In this sense, she would finally succeed in which she failed to do for Robb. There are other possibilities as well. I'm sure GRRM has some good ideas. The problem for me is that resurrections take away a lot of the impact of a death, especially combined with GRRM's love for fake/feigned deaths. Even in the show, where we got just one resurrection so far, very few people actually believed Jon was actually killed. Now whenever someone important dies we will never feel the true finality of that death until the body is burned or buried, unless it's something gruesome that can't be simply fixed with resurrection alone, like Oberyn's death. From my perspective, the impact of a death would only be lessened if the character in question came back exactly as he or she was. Lady Stoneheart is not the same person as Catelyn Stark. Jon Snow had to die so that "his watch is ended" and he can come back as someone else, possibly Jon Targaryen or Azor Ahai or both. There are a lot more dead characters who won't be back than characters who will. And IF they are brought back, they are always changed and thus further the plot in ways they couldn't have done if they hadn't died.
|
|
|
Post by Nezzer on Jul 7, 2015 15:59:01 GMT
The problem for me is that resurrections take away a lot of the impact of a death, especially combined with GRRM's love for fake/feigned deaths. Even in the show, where we got just one resurrection so far, very few people actually believed Jon was actually killed. Now whenever someone important dies we will never feel the true finality of that death until the body is burned or buried, unless it's something gruesome that can't be simply fixed with resurrection alone, like Oberyn's death. From my perspective, the impact of a death would only be lessened if the character in question came back exactly as he or she was. Lady Stoneheart is not the same person as Catelyn Stark. Jon Snow had to die so that "his watch is ended" and he can come back as someone else, possibly Jon Targaryen or Azor Ahai or both. There are a lot more dead characters who won't be back than characters who will. And IF they are brought back, they are always changed and thus further the plot in ways they couldn't have done if they hadn't died. Sure, but their stories still go on, they still exist and there's still hope they will make the person who "killed" them pay. Dead characters don't get the same luxury, so it's not nearly as bad as a final death IMHO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 16:44:17 GMT
Bringing back people from the dead is only as cheap as the way it is written. I agree that it can be cheap when done poorly, but the way GRRM did it in the books was not cheap, IMO, and the way D&D could do it on the show wouldn't be either. In any case, this discussion is as old as the SoS epilogue and people will always have different opinions on that. To me, LSH only adds to the tragedy and the horror of the RW. It is not the same as bringing her back sane and unharmed. Replying to your side note: There is more to LSH than killing Freys or Boltons. The whole dynamic with Brienne and Jaime is very interesting. She could also meet her children. A fitting end for Stoneheart would be her sacrificing herself in order to safe one of her children. In this sense, she would finally succeed in which she failed to do for Robb. There are other possibilities as well. I'm sure GRRM has some good ideas. The problem for me is that resurrections take away a lot of the impact of a death, especially combined with GRRM's love for fake/feigned deaths. Even in the show, where we got just one resurrection so far, very few people actually believed Jon was actually killed. Now whenever someone important dies we will never feel the true finality of that death until the body is burned or buried, unless it's something gruesome that can't be simply fixed with resurrection alone, like Oberyn's death. I think I have to agree with Nezzer on this - it *can* detract from the significance in a story if overdone and if we're being really honest here, one of the criticisms I've read on the subject long before the show came out was that GRRM was using it too much as a device and it was bordering on the unbelievable zone even for a fantasy novel where magic and dragons exist. When we first learned people could be brought back from the dead - it was with that creepy Mirri Maaz Dur and Dany and Drogo. It was weird and unnatural and it cost Dany everything... she lost her people, her husband and her unborn child. We were hit hard by that and it felt realistic. There's taboo behind messing with the dead. Then we met a man who had been magically resurrected multiple times and that too was weird and creepy yet felt just magical enough to be plausible within the context of the story. By the time we got to Lady Stoneheart, we already knew about unGregor the Frankenstein (I think that came in the timeline somewhere my memory is foggy) ... and it started to get a little too over the top at that point, at least for me it did. I don't like unGregor but it's to hammer home that weird/creepy/taboo part I mentioned that started back long ago with Drogo. There are some magics you don't mess with. Qyburn was banished from the Citadel for a good reason. Some would argue he's doing 'science' but we all know better. LSH I'm much more torn about. On one hand I love the vengeance theme and it's so sorely needed at that point in the story after all the hell the Starks have been put through ... their entire family torn apart and either killed, kidnapped, abused or lost in the world. But on the other hand, some of the undeath stuff seems to go a little over the top for many and I think that's why there was some criticism and LSH hate by some fans. I don't hate her or the theme/story, but I think I can at least get a perspective on why some do and maybe why it was decided to be left out if it didn't end up going anywhere for the end-story. That's not to say it's not important to the story, because yes it is - for the Starks and Riverlands and vengeance. But when they decided to cut it, they had to make some choices I guess. Personally I would have rather unGregor been cut if we're talking about lessening the impact of resurrection - that does it for me more. But apparently he has an important role to play as the champion for the trial by combat so they needed to add him. Fans of the show only seem to love it so it's working. They could have made LSH work too but they are either holding off on it (because of Jon's resurrection) or they have other unknown reasons story-wise for cutting it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 16:54:24 GMT
I don't have much time now, so I would like to reply to @envie later, but one thing about the general LSH discussion has bothered me for quite some time now. Why is unGregor always named as an example for a resurrection? He didn't die. He almost died, but didn't. He was kept alive by Qyburn's weird medical procedure and lost his humanity because of that. He, like Frankenstein's monster, was transformed to this thing by science. That is hardly the same as dead people getting resurrected by magic.
|
|
|
Post by Nezzer on Jul 7, 2015 17:04:38 GMT
I don't have much time now, so I would like to reply to @envie later, but one thing about the general LSH discussion has bothered me for quite some time now. Why is unGregor always named as an example for a resurrection? He didn't die. He almost died, but didn't. He was kept alive by Qyburn's weird medical procedure and lost his humanity because of that. He, like Frankenstein's monster, was transformed to this thing by science. That is hardly the same as dead people getting resurrected by magic. Gregor did die in the books, though.
|
|
|
Post by janicia on Jul 7, 2015 17:07:46 GMT
I don't have much time now, so I would like to reply to @envie later, but one thing about the general LSH discussion has bothered me for quite some time now. Why is unGregor always named as an example for a resurrection? He didn't die. He almost died, but didn't. He was kept alive by Qyburn's weird medical procedure and lost his humanity because of that. He, like Frankenstein's monster, was transformed to this thing by science. That is hardly the same as dead people getting resurrected by magic. In both books and show, it is not clear what exactly happened. We only get a few creepy hints and then he's walking around not saying anything. The books imply that his head was removed, which is a pretty solid indicator that somebody is dead. But maybe his head just looks dead-ish and was never removed. We just don't know if he died or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 17:12:50 GMT
I don't have much time now, so I would like to reply to @envie later, but one thing about the general LSH discussion has bothered me for quite some time now. Why is unGregor always named as an example for a resurrection? He didn't die. He almost died, but didn't. He was kept alive by Qyburn's weird medical procedure and lost his humanity because of that. He, like Frankenstein's monster, was transformed to this thing by science. That is hardly the same as dead people getting resurrected by magic. Gregor did die in the books, though. Did he? It's time to reread the books then. But what I said is definitely true for the show and we are discussing whether or not the show should bring back characters like Catelyn. And in this case, show!unGregor is not a valid argument against the resurrection of show!LSH, IMO. Besides that, do you guys use the same argument against Jon? I've never read an argument against Jon's resurrection, but it would be only consequent to say that he should stay dead as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 17:22:04 GMT
I don't have much time now, so I would like to reply to @envie later, but one thing about the general LSH discussion has bothered me for quite some time now. Why is unGregor always named as an example for a resurrection? He didn't die. He almost died, but didn't. He was kept alive by Qyburn's weird medical procedure and lost his humanity because of that. He, like Frankenstein's monster, was transformed to this thing by science. That is hardly the same as dead people getting resurrected by magic. In both books and show, it is not clear what exactly happened. We only get a few creepy hints and then he's walking around not saying anything. The books imply that his head was removed, which is a pretty solid indicator that somebody is dead. But maybe his head just looks dead-ish and was never removed. We just don't know if he died or not. On the show, it's not ambiguous at all. I just rewatched S4 and S5 and it's said that he will die IF Qyburn doesn't do anything, BUT if he does something, the process may change Gregor. The show tells us that he is dying, but Qyburn is doing everything he can do to prevent that from happening. This is exactly what happened.
|
|
|
Post by Basil on Jul 7, 2015 17:57:33 GMT
I personally don't see how the impact of death is diminished by a resurrection the way it is shown in ASoIaF. Every time a character is brought back to life, be it through magic or ... "science" - they lose parts of what makes them human. Beric was nothing but the sad, empty shell of the person he once was - and that's pretty much also true for Catelyn, aka Stoneheart, who has absolutely nothing left in the world except bitterness, anger and the thirst for vengeance. Stoneheart fills me with dread. To me, she represents one of the most horrible things that has ever happened to a character in this series. Death is harmless, sweet and merciful, compared to Catelyn's new life. It's amazing storytelling, and to me it is heart wrenching and devastating to witness what has become of my favourite character. Nothing in this series has ever had the same impact on me as the first reveal of Lady Stoneheart in the epilogue of Book 3. I can't describe the horror I felt when she lowered her hood for the first time, I was literally shaking. But at the same time I thought, George, you magnificent son of a bitch, you are a fucking genius.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 18:53:01 GMT
We LSH fans are as resilient as cockroaches. We will never let this go. I bet in 20 years from now, D&D will still be asked as to why they made the decision to cut Stoneheart. And they'll probably still refuse to answer. It depends if ADOS has come out by then really...
|
|
|
Post by Nezzer on Jul 7, 2015 20:41:16 GMT
Gregor did die in the books, though. Did he? It's time to reread the books then. But what I said is definitely true for the show and we are discussing whether or not the show should bring back characters like Catelyn. And in this case, show!unGregor is not a valid argument against the resurrection of show!LSH, IMO. Besides that, do you guys use the same argument against Jon? I've never read an argument against Jon's resurrection, but it would be only consequent to say that he should stay dead as well. We can't use the same arguments against Jon's resurrection, unfortunately. Jon being killed off for good now would simply be bad writing. His story is the most important in the series and his arc is still incomplete.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 20:57:58 GMT
Glad to have sparked some debate about the whole undeath vs. resurrection topic on this as it's a favorite theme of mine in debating the ambiguity of it all from the books. GRRM's main talent is writing in a way that convinces you so strongly of something and then later you start second-guessing or little niggling questions start popping up. The death and resurrection did that for me. I felt like I was trying to solve some sort of mystery! He has of course admitted there are some things in the books we will never learn the true answer of because that's more realistic. Some things in life cannot be explained fully. Gregor did die in the books, though. Did he? It's time to reread the books then. But what I said is definitely true for the show and we are discussing whether or not the show should bring back characters like Catelyn. And in this case, show!unGregor is not a valid argument against the resurrection of show!LSH, IMO. Besides that, do you guys use the same argument against Jon? I've never read an argument against Jon's resurrection, but it would be only consequent to say that he should stay dead as well. I still think using Gregor's "return" (even if not a full resurrection) is a valid point in the argument even in regards to the show. The dude was as good as dead towards the end - the poison Oberyn used was fatal and caused prolonged suffering. Qyburn said he would die if he did not 'intervene' but just exactly how he intervened isn't entirely clear. We did see him pumping blood out or in, one or the other. I assume he was draining his blood to get the poisons out but there was also a lot of weird stuff happening (the rats and other body bits he collected from others). One can assume if his blood is pumped out and something else is pumped in, he's died somewhere in the process and isn't really very "alive" by technical terms anymore. And what we could see of his face and eyes through the helmet definitely did not look very alive. Science wasn't a really great thing in medieval times in which this world parallels, so if we're going based on the fantasy side of it, it probably has a lot more to do with blood magic and necromancy - which is exactly the same as Mirri Maaz Dur did with Drogo. Somehow she used blood magic and the blood of his stallion to save him...but he too came back a lifeless vegetable, not really a human anymore. He was worse off even than Gregor so I guess we can say Qyburn is better at whatever this dark art is than MMD was at least. But regardless, the overall argument is that we were shown, in quite a lot of detail, that someone could be brought back from death or the brink of death and be someone else entirely. This is what happened to Drogo and similarly to Beric Dondarrion. LSH was in fact truly completely dead, for some time, before they fished her out of the river. The thing that differs with her is that she received a second-hand resurrection after some time had passed and it worked. THAT is one key element we aren't given in the show in regards to Jon Snow being brought back. In all of the cases we see someone 'brought back to life' in some way ... the results have been different and for various reasons whether you call it blood magic, necromancy, 'science' (Qyburn probably prefers people think it's that) or religion. All of them came back when under normal circumstances they would have been dead. That's the key to the story of it all ... that someone (or something) intervened and kept them alive or brought them back. This is to emphasize the importance of Jon Snow's return (we speculate anyways!) ... In both books and show, it is not clear what exactly happened. We only get a few creepy hints and then he's walking around not saying anything. The books imply that his head was removed, which is a pretty solid indicator that somebody is dead. But maybe his head just looks dead-ish and was never removed. We just don't know if he died or not. On the show, it's not ambiguous at all. I just rewatched S4 and S5 and it's said that he will die IF Qyburn doesn't do anything, BUT if he does something, the process may change Gregor. The show tells us that he is dying, but Qyburn is doing everything he can do to prevent that from happening. This is exactly what happened. Same as above discussion on this ... was it just really great medical ability or ... something else? You tell me. That dude's face under that helmet gave the message loud and clear ...he's dead and now undead. I personally don't see how the impact of death is diminished by a resurrection the way it is shown in ASoIaF. Every time a character is brought back to life, be it through magic or ... "science" - they lose parts of what makes them human. Beric was nothing but the sad, empty shell of the person he once was - and that's pretty much also true for Catelyn, aka Stoneheart, who has absolutely nothing left in the world except bitterness, anger and the thirst for vengeance. Stoneheart fills me with dread. To me, she represents one of the most horrible things that has ever happened to a character in this series. Death is harmless, sweet and merciful, compared to Catelyn's new life. It's amazing storytelling, and to me it is heart wrenching and devastating to witness what has become of my favourite character. Nothing in this series has ever had the same impact on me as the first reveal of Lady Stoneheart in the epilogue of Book 3. I can't describe the horror I felt when she lowered her hood for the first time, I was literally shaking. But at the same time I thought, George, you magnificent son of a bitch, you are a fucking genius. I don't think it necessarily diminishes Jon Snow's resurrection in the books because there's SO much detail in between all of it happening and so many other magical things we don't get full info about (other red priests performing miracles etc). But on the show, everything is much more condensed. They *may* have felt bringing Catelyn back to life just one season before Jon Snow's big return would lessen the impact somewhat. Jon Snow is a main character of the story based on the 5 characters GRRM listed out as his original main focus characters. Somehow Jon's story is central to the entire series ending. We speculate it's that he's Azor Ahai reborn or some portion of that prophecy. To bring Catelyn back as LSH, who is not a major character, may have seemed like a less important aspect to them. I'm not defending them or justifying it, just trying to put it in perspective for the overall show storyline only. I'm sad we won't have all the great vengeance stuff from her that left us hanging (hahahah) at the end, waiting for more!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 21:00:11 GMT
Did he? It's time to reread the books then. But what I said is definitely true for the show and we are discussing whether or not the show should bring back characters like Catelyn. And in this case, show!unGregor is not a valid argument against the resurrection of show!LSH, IMO. Besides that, do you guys use the same argument against Jon? I've never read an argument against Jon's resurrection, but it would be only consequent to say that he should stay dead as well. We can't use the same arguments against Jon's resurrection, unfortunately. Jon being killed off for good now would simply be bad writing. His story is the most important in the series and his arc is still incomplete. But then he didn't have to die in the first place. Following your argument, killing a character to bring him back later is also bad writing. Using that logic, the best would have been not killing him at all since he's so important. But most fans don't say that about him, which I find inconsequential. By the way, Catelyn may not be THE most important character, but she was one of the original POVs and the matriarch of the most important family of the story. She was also the central figure of the most important event of the story (thus far). An event that is already considered to be one of the most iconic moments of television of all times! And Catelyn was the key character in that scene! I'm sorry, but that puts her in a very, very important position. She is not some obscure tertiary character. Considering only female characters, Daenerys is the only character that is more important than Cat. That is not nothing. Actually that is quite a lot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 21:03:08 GMT
But here's one grain of hope I will give after my way too long debate above:
IF the show-writers felt Catelyn's resurrection would have diminished or lessened things on the show for Jon Snow's then THAT could entirely be why they refuse to say anything about it! They CANNOT speak about it for fear of giving away the real reason ... that either 1.) They ARE going to bring her back next season (less likely), or 2) The more likely reason is because they don't want to give away Jon Snow's resurrection. Either way it makes sense for them to just keep tight-lipped about it all!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 21:05:44 GMT
We can't use the same arguments against Jon's resurrection, unfortunately. Jon being killed off for good now would simply be bad writing. His story is the most important in the series and his arc is still incomplete. But then he didn't have to die in the first place. Following your argument, killing a character to bring him back later is also bad writing. Using that logic, the best would have been not killing him at all since he's so important. But most fans don't say that about him, which I find inconsequential. By the way, Catelyn may not be THE most important character, but she was one of the original POVs and the matriarch of the most important family of the story. She was also the central figure of the most important event of the story (thus far). An event that is already considered to be one of the most iconic moments of television of all times! And Catelyn was the key character in that scene! I'm sorry, but that puts her in a very, very important position. She is not some obscure tertiary character. Considering only female characters, Daenerys is the only character that is more important than Cat. That is not nothing. Actually that is quite a lot. I know you guys are huge Catelyn fans but I disagree that as far as lead female roles go she was more important than other female characters in the story. Cersei, Arya, Sansa are all much bigger characters with central storylines entirely about them as individuals. Catelyn's story revolved around the North and Ned and Robb mostly. She was hugely important, don't get me wrong, but she wasn't a central figure in the overall ASOIF story.
|
|
|
Post by Nezzer on Jul 7, 2015 21:11:03 GMT
We can't use the same arguments against Jon's resurrection, unfortunately. Jon being killed off for good now would simply be bad writing. His story is the most important in the series and his arc is still incomplete. But then he didn't have to die in the first place. Following your argument, killing a character to bring him back later is also bad writing. Using that logic, the best would have been not killing him at all since he's so important. But most fans don't say that about him, which I find inconsequential. By the way, Catelyn may not be THE most important character, but she was one of the original POVs and the matriarch of the most important family of the story. She was also the central figure of the most important event of the story (thus far). An event that is already considered to be one of the most iconic moments of television of all times! And Catelyn was the key character in that scene! I'm sorry, but that puts her in a very, very important position. She is not some obscure tertiary character. Considering only female characters, Daenerys is the only character that is more important than Cat. That is not nothing. Actually that is quite a lot. I agree. I still wish Jon hadn't been killed in the first place and that GRRM found another way to release him from his vows. For a long time I hoped that Jon remained dead, but I realized how bad that would be for the story and now I hope he is resurrected, even though I hate this development. It's just the lesser evil in this case. I have to say, though, that I really liked an idea that I saw on /r/asoiaf, that Jon would be resurrected by Melisandre, but we would lose his POV. Then, at the end of TWOW we would see a Jon POV, but it's revealed that he's still stuck in Ghost after all that time and we are left wondering who is controlling Jon's body (probably Bloodraven). Now that would be an incredible use of the resurrection device that even I would forgive.
|
|