Spontaneous Musings

And yeah, Joss is a piker compared to Martin.

I think it has to do with the motivations behind killing off the characters. Whedon has always struck me as someone who likes to kill off characters to shock the fans and create more drama/conflict within the plot. Whedon strikes me as a little vindictive-- he likes killing characters off because he knows his fans will go crazy and he enjoys that reaction.

Martin, on the other hand, seems to kill off his characters because that is a consequence that follows from their actions. Robb pissed off an extremely touchy nobleman, so the nobleman kills him and his supporters at a vulnerable moment. I don't get the sense that it's personal, or that Martin particularly enjoys the deaths and misery, it's just what happens in the world that he has created. I know he's a big history fan, which is why so much of Westeros is based on medieval history, so I imagine he enjoys showing off that knowledge, like "look! Here's how awful things used to be!" but I don't get the sense that he writes the plot to pander to fans.

From:

I think you're making a good point, but I also think the deaths in each work are related to how Martin and Whedon respectively see the world.

I agree with you about Martin and his adoption of Medieval themes. After all, the RW is modeled on the Black Wedding. And there's a classically tragic sense in which Robb's death and Catelyn's too follow directly from their own mistakes.

With Whedon, the most notable deaths (Jenny Calendar, Joyce, Tara) seem fairly random: Angel could have chosen any of Buffy's friends to kill; aneurysms could happen to anyone; and Tara died from a random shot intended for Buffy. But that gets me to how Whedon sees the world. He's an existentialist (an absurdist, technically), so he sees the world as one in which random bad things happen because the universe doesn't care about us. Those three characters didn't die as a result of karma, as might be said of Robb and Catelyn, because in Whedon's world there is no karma. Shit just happens.

So I think both of them are writing about the world they see.

From:

I'm not sure I agree. Because Whedon's world is very karmic. People do pay for doing bad things. As fans have complained incessantly over the years. It's really not a world where shit happens. Sure Buffy may see it that way, but when you drift outside of her narrowed point of view, it's not. There's a deeper causal relationship at work. You can't write a story without a causal relationship - that's plot, after all. Even stories without plot - have causal relationships. If I eat this, I get heartburn, if I eat that, I don't. Do this = that. So no randomness to events. Just our inability to see that they aren't random, because we can't see past our incredibly limited perspective, doesn't mean that they are random.

The difference may well lie within how they choose to tell their stories and how they think. Whedon tends to limit his point of view to one character, and loves protagonist privilege - there's always a hero in his tales. He subscribes to the idea of the hero saves the day, or the troubled heroes journey.

GRRM doesn't. While Whedon was studying the Civil War, Martin was studying the War of the Roses - where the issues are a bit murkier and the violence more intense. Also GRRM is a stragetist - he enjoys re-enacting medieval battles with action figures in his basement. He loves Football - for it's strategy, I suspect. And sees how small events can causally lead to greater ones.

Both agree that vengeance does not solve anything. But both have karmic universes - where actions result in consequences, some good, some not so good. In some respects I think Whedon's verse is more cathartically karmic than GRRM's. Angelus got it. All the bad guys do.
The villains do not win in Whedon's verse. They often win in Martin's, and unlike Whedon's verse, it is often not that clear who is who.
GRRM's verse is shade grayer than Whedon's and a shade more adult in some respects. Sex for example does not equal pain in GRRM's verse.
And War is never a good thing, while Whedon's verse still somewhat niavely believes that there can be a victor in WAR, that WAR is a good idea (see Season 7 Chosen, as an example). GRRM is not quite that niave, but again he's been studying it in greater detail.

I may have enjoyed Whedon's verse more, I did, and I certainly like his dialogue better - Whedon's sense of humor suits me, but I have to admit that in some respects GRRM's plotting works better as does his narrative.

From:

The distinction I'd make is this: in the cases of Jenny and Tara, there's a causal chain of events which we can connect to the death. However, I wouldn't say that the death was "deserved" or "karmic" in the sense that "God's justice has been meted out -- you paid for your mistakes". Tara didn't pay for anything, even if she was, arguably, the price Willow paid. And while Jenny did do wrong in spying on Buffy, her death couldn't be seen as some sort of "karmic payback" for that because it's too out of proportion.

In the case of Robb and Catelyn, not only did their mistakes lead causally to the RW, but those mistakes were at least arguably moral wrongs (e.g., seizing Tyrion) or political disasters (e.g., marrying Jeyne, executing Karstark).

As I see it, both Martin and Whedon follow a causal chain, but only in Martin do I get a sense that the death achieved some kind of karmic justice.

Joyce's case is, of course, entirely random and fits my theory better than Jenny or Tara, so I argued the more difficult part.

From:

True. But GRRM is doing a story about war in a world with dragons, zombies, and direwolves,as opposed to Whedon who is doing a story about the horrors of a high school in a world with vampires. There is that. ;)

I guess I'm pointing out to all of us, myself included, that we are to a degree comparing an apple to a pear.

That said...Tara and Jenny both knew they were playing with fire in a way. They live in a dangerous world. Tara went back to the Summers house to be with Willow - fully knowing the Trioka were after Buffy (they'd just attacked her) and people are gunning for them constantly, and Jenny decided to give Angel back his soul and stayed, alone, in the high school, at night to work on doing it - a bit dumb.

It's not karmic per se, but it is causal. Just as the fact that she never thought to warn Buffy about Angel's curse and how it might be broken - which is why Buffy is understandably pissed with her.

And Joyce's death - may well be genetic or have to do with environmental issues or a doctor's mistake...I know my Aunt died of the same thing - that's why that episode kills me every time I see it. I know Whedon meant it to be random, but since he delibertally planned it - to further Buffy's arc, not so much.

From:

With Whedon, the most notable deaths (Jenny Calendar, Joyce, Tara) seem fairly random: Angel could have chosen any of Buffy's friends to kill; aneurysms could happen to anyone; and Tara died from a random shot intended for Buffy.

Operative word here is "seem", because once you examine them they aren't random at all either from a writing perspective or a plot perspective.

1) Jenny - Angel kills her to prevent her from cursing him again, plus it provides an added bonus of hurting Giles (who Angel associates with his father - Angel has issues with father figures and approval. Note Angel spends a lot of time with Giles and goes to Giles for advice, ignores Joyce, while Spike spends a lot of time with Joyce and goes to Joyce for advice, ignoring Giles. That's deliberate and character motivated - so not random.)

2. Joyce - is ill from brain tumor and then gets an aneurysm - which is never explained but very well could be the end result of all the memory tinkering, and other things going on with her that year. Whedon kills Joyce off to further Buffy's story (clearly not random) - he specifically chooses her mother - it furthers the characters. Also gives him a chance to discuss death. Finally, the actress portraying the character was leaving the show to do something else - again not random.

3. Tara - this was planned by the writer a long time ago to turn another character dark and further that character, Willow's story thread. (Personally I think if the writer was a wee bit more creative and less in love with Willow the character, he may have seen far better and interesting ways of accomplishing this, which also would have been more realistic. Because as fan's pointed out in seemingly endless arguments that bullet was magical - at it's trajectory, there is no way it could have hit Tara. But that's another discussion). At any rate - it's clear that Warren is a threat. It's clear sooner or later he's going to come gunning for the Scooby Gang, it is also clear that they aren't taking him seriously (not a god or vampire). In some respects this was more realistic. Why none of the other villains ever thought to simply pick up a gun and open fire, I'll never know.
At any rate - not random, hardly an accident, and the result of a shooter who was insane and decided to kill people. If the guy wasn't able to get a gun, if he had been turned into the police sooner or dealt with sooner, if Buffy and Willow had handled him differently - wouldn't have happened.

I think I would have bought Whedon's view of Randomness better if someone other than a supporting character died. None of the major characters really die and stay dead. It feels all so very Star Trekian...red shirts die and guest stars, but we must not kill the core five or six, or our fans will be at us with pitch-forks.

In a random verse? Willow would have died or Xander or Giles. It's almost too convienent that Angel picks the character Buffy cares the least about - Jenny, or Tara. Why didn't Angel kill Willow? Or Warren shoot Xander? Which is closer to what GRRM did with the Red Wedding - he killed the heroes, the characters many fans were rooting for. In a seemingly random manner, yet look deeper, as you look deeper on Whedon's series - and it isn't. The only difference is Whedon caters to his fans, GRRM is telling his story.

From:

I agree with you on the causal chain; see my response above.

Your point about the characters being of less importance to Buffy is spot on. There are good story-telling reasons for this, but it's true.

From:

There are good story-telling reasons, true...but I also felt the writers chickened out a bit. They should have killed off either Willow, Xander or Giles. I would have picked Xander. It would have resonated more for both fans and Buffy - and would have done a better job of questioning what she was doing and how we view heroes and these tropes. If Whedon wanted to be truly daring and subversive - he'd have killed off either Xander or Willow -but the network forbade it and he couldn't. GRRM luckily doesn't have that problem on HBO - HBO leaves its writers alone for the most part. Dustin Hoffman recently stated that on HBO - you are completely left alone and have a great budget. Network tv isn't quite as forgiving or easy.

Whedon had to do 22 episodes for the WB and Fox, for a tween audience. There's only so much you can do within those boundaries. I wonder sometimes what he would have done for an HBO or Showtime? Would it have been more like Cabin in the Woods or Dollhouse?

From:

Well, you KNOW I'd have lost no sleep if he'd killed off Xander. And, to be honest, it makes sense as plot (though not as metaphor: Xander = heart).

If I ever got to ask Joss a question, it might be what he'd have done without the outside constraints, particularly budget. Of course, SMG never would have done the nude scenes for HBO. :)

From:

Yeah, I had heard that Xander was originally supposed to be killed by Angel? You could even argue that Angel might kill him because Xander is the only one who never trusted Angel and tells the others not to, and I feel like Angelus might enjoy proving Xander right. But they chose Jenny instead.

Frankly, I'd have been overjoyed if they killed off Xander. I never once liked him in the show, and especially in the later seasons I kept thinking "Why are you still here, Xander?" I know he's supposed to be the "heart" of the group, but... I never really understood that. He treats Buffy AND Willow horribly. He's a terrible friend, and I never got why we were supposed to treat him like he was providing useful or important commentary.

From:

Ah, where were you when I needed you at AtPO?

From:

AtPO??

From:

All Things Philosophical on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It's the board where sk and I met. To give you some sense of my view of Xander, someone put up a thread once entitled "Why Sophist [me] Shouldn't Hate Xander".

From:

Xander was one of those characters that seemed to push people's triggers one way or the other. Have a lot of folks on my flist who adore the character, and he is their favorite male character. And one of my friends at the time (cjl) adored him.

I was admittedly ambivalent about the character. Didn't care one way or the other. I felt the writers run out of ideas or grew tired of the character somewhere after Hells Bells...and feels like the token guy who gives pep speeches or calls people on their shit. Also, the character really began to grate on my nerves in S6 - with his hypocritical judgemental moralizing. I so wanted to see him get it - I think I applauded when Buffy got shot in Seeing Red - because it kicked Xander in the gut. Also Selfless - was a joy to behold, Xander finally gets to see his hypocrisy up close and personal. (actually the S6-7 made it difficult for me to care what happened to Xander, which ended up proving problematic when I read the comics.)

I give the actor a lot of credit - he made the actor, who was written poorly at times, rather interesting. Whedon clearly didn't know what to do with him after a certain point. And the actor was an alcoholic - which spiraled out of control during the sixth and seventh seasons, that's why we saw less of him.

Rumor has it Whedon originally intended Xander to be the Ben character in S5, but thought better of it (because it doesn't track at all) and
considered killing him and having him pop up as The First in S7, which the actor states he sort of wished they had done, because he would have had something to do - he was bored out of his mind in S7. (And so were die-hard Xander fans.) I'm lucky, I picked a more interesting character to adore - Spike. If I'd picked Xander...I think I'd have stopped watching in S6.

From:

I think there's a strong correlation between those who liked Xander and those who disliked S6-7. I also think NB's personal problems explain a lot about how his character was used in S7 (not so much in S6, which was always going to be Willow and Spike dominant [no pun intended]).

I actually jumped up from my couch and shouted at the TV when Buffy threw Xander's hypocrisy in his face in Selfless.

From:

Agreed.

And Robb's death was also based upon historical events. GRRM a history buff - based the Red Wedding directly on two events The Black Dinner and Glencoe Massacre (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/game-of-thrones-red-wedding-black-dinner-real-events_n_3393099.html).

Also this was set-up very well. And occurred for multiple reasons. Unlike Tara's death which occurred to turn Willow evil, or just killing people off to be Shocking! - the Red Wedding was a political and war maneuver set up by three people Tywin Lannister, Roose Bolton and Walder Frey. Frey did it due to a slight. Tywin - because he grown tired of fighting Robb and realized this was a perfect way to get rid of Robb and his entire army - by setting both his alleged supporters against him (diabolical but clever move - lost Tywin nothing - no men, or resources). And Bolton - because out of this deal he gets Winterfell (a better property than Harrenhal - no one wants Harrenhal). In the book this made a bit more sense - since in the book, Robb wasn't headed to Casterly Rock, he was headed to Winterfell which the Bolton's were trying to acquire. Here - the fact he's headed towards Casterly Rock - gives Tywin even more reason to take him out, not that he needed any.

Say what you will about GRRM - he doesn't pander to his fans. It's actually why he's endeared me to him, as has Neil Gaiman. He seems more laid-back about the whole thing.

From: