5 POVs a bit much? *CAUTION SPOILERS*

[DarkRaven]

After reading A Game of Thrones, I'm pretty much in love with the series. However, I feel that the writing is far from stellar on one point - characterisation. For me, five POVs from the get go means that I don't get to get emotionally attached with the characters.

For some reason, I just don't get much of an ''OMG'' feeling when Ned dies. I blame this on not being given ample opportunity to know him, because I had to focus on so many other characters. Perhaps introducing the story with two POVs, and then gradually expanding it would have given me a bit more of a chance to get to know them.

Thoughts?

 

[HareBrain]

Re: 5 POVs a bit much?

Well, if you think five is too many, just wait ...

I do sort of agree. I was starting to get attached to Ned when that happened, but to be honest, I haven't become emotionally invested in many of the characters in the series. GRRM took a big risk with introducing so many, one chapter after another, at the beginning of AGOT, and it did almost lose me.

But the fact that I rate the series so highly even without that emotional investment shows the extent of its other qualities. Some of the things that make it so great would inevitably have suffered had he kept the POV count down. Yes, he could have started with only a couple and expanded, but he would have been left with the same number in the end, and the same problem. All in all I think he found the right balance.

The only thing I feel to be missing is a POV character who believes in some ideal stronger than his or her self-interest (or that of family). That would have encouraged stronger identification, I think, at least from me. But that's not to say one won't arise, and its absence so far might be a deliberate strategy.

 

[xLORDSNOWx]

Re: 5 POVs a bit much?

My take on this is, the more the merrier! I love the complexity and robust amount of characters. I've pretty much characterized all of my friends and family with characters from this series, and alot of them are spot on. As HareBrain mentioned, i believe its a good balance of story telling and characters.

This is kind of like a kid going into a candy store saying : "There's to many different kinds of candy!"

However, if it wasnt for the mulititude of characters, i probably wouldnt have re read all of the books a zillion times, only to come on this forum and somebody points something out that i completely missed

Besides, what else would we do with all of our time in between books?

Davos is one who comes to mind who puts his king and realm ahead of his self interests.

Grand Maester Pycelle said something like (totally paraphrasing and may not be correct for the last two): "I serve the Realm, The Crown, and then House", but Cercie asked, "In that order?"

Also Jon Snow and Maester Aemon, when they decided to take the black. That goes for the others who volunteered for the wall, putting down their own self interests, holdings, wealth, and family. Should i have someone recite the Night's Watch Creed for you?

 

[Ursa major]

Re: 5 POVs a bit much?

Is there any chance a mod could put the word, SPOILERS, in the thread title?


Just for xLORDSNOWx:

Hear my words, and bear witness to my vow. Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honour to the Night's watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

 

[The Judge]

Your wish is my command, O Bear...

I'm rather assuming it requires the caution, since I've no idea what has been revealed here (oh... the chap dying)

 

[Ursa major]

Yes, TJ, only a punch in the readers' guts (though there's worse to come later in the series).


And thanks (on behalf of potential AGOT readers).

 

[Koopa]

Whilst you have a point, i'm certain most like me do have certain characters they favour resulting in a more detailed reading of their povs, or anything mentioned about them. Likewise there are certain characters you dislike, to the point of almost skimming their chapters to get to the characters you prefere. (Catelyn and sansa --> a truly horrific mother-daughter pair).

It's also interesting how certain characters grow on you, or you lose some interest in through the storyteling. For instance, fist i didn't care a lot about reading about Jaime, now i like his story.

But what's really interesting, and given your feelings you might want to try out, you can read the books by POV. Basically every POV is a story, a book on it's own. You could remove the other POVS, and have an (almost) complete on his own standing book. You could get attached that way, by reading the books from one pov, then rereading the books from another pov, and so on. I think this feat is quite amazing, i have never seen it, at least not for so long a series, done by an author. It's part of what make the books so awesome.

 

[C Of K]

Personally I think getting to know too much about Ned, or other characters, so early in the series would have been counter productive for the type of story that GRRM is writing.There is no one all important character. Far be ASOIAF from a story about heroes. It's more about Westeros than it is about Jon or Tyrion. What I do know about them is often sufficient to keep me surprised when they go against my opinion of them.

I always thought Joff was an insolent little prick. I had know idea he was capable of ordering Ned's death. Even after that, I still expected someone to come to Ned's rescue.

It's all about what the people of Westeros will end up doing, or not doing, at any one moment. Not so much about getting to know them intimately. They die to quickly for that. GRRM keeps the mystery alive this way. Even though we wait five years between books, there is still so much to talk about.

 

[southron sword]

Not having rediculous amounts of information on a certain character, or the POV characters is good I think. It lets the reader form their own opinion and develop whatever "feelings" they want for the character. Then, when the character does something unexpected we aren't sitting there saying, "They would NEVER do that." We just think, wow, didn't think they had it in them, this is juicy and rub our hands together with an evil grin. Look at Arya, she is stab happy, shes just a little girl.

I was fine with not getting too into the psychy (sp?) of Ned. We knew he was honourable and all that, and his death was a surprise, but did I "weep"? nope. Whereas some people would have. We all form our own opinions of the characters.

 

[CadleyX]

When Ned died I remember being shocked because who I saw as the "main character" had been killed off in the first book of the series, rather than any emotional investment in him.

Now if Jon Snow or Tyrion kicked the bucket in A Dance with Dragons, I'd probably be upset. If I can remember who they are by the time it comes out.

 

[Ursa major]

I find that I know enough about the POV characters (and others) to care about what happens to them. GRRM also has the skill to change what I'd like to see happen to the characters.

As for southron sword's point about Westeros: I find I care about this continent's future. Having said that, I'm not sure what I want for it: there are numerous futures on offer, some obviously** disastrous, none perfect, and GRRM's tale is such that it isn't clear which would be the best.

The key pleasure, for me is the unpredictability of it all; the principal means by which GRRM delivers this is the use of all those POVs. There are just enough in each book for me to forget various story threads until they hit me between the eyes. (It's a bit like watching a juggler: with time, you can track three or four balls, perhaps more, but over a certain number, the task becomes hopeless; it is out of this hopelessness that GRRM conjurors most of his surprises; even when you know something is coming - though often you don't - you've been sufficiently distracted to be gobsmacked when it happens.)




** - "Obviously" is not a word you should ever use when considering where ASoIaF will go. GRRM does not shy away from killing "the good guys" or letting us find out that some of "the bad guys" are no such thing. Most, even the children, exist somewhere in the grey area between god and bad. Give or take the genuinely mad (or, perhaps, infatuated), most are doing what they think they must. (I expect even good old Gregor and Tywin have vaguely sympathetic hinterlands.)

 

[devilsgrin]

Re: 5 POVs a bit much?

Well, if you think five is too many, just wait ...


The only thing I feel to be missing is a POV character who believes in some ideal stronger than his or her self-interest (or that of family). That would have encouraged stronger identification, I think, at least from me. But that's not to say one won't arise, and its absence so far might be a deliberate strategy.

the only character i can think of who comes close to this POV-type is Bran. Once his journey starts, his own quest is all about saving Westeros... Jon Snow to an extent is also a little more selfless once he gets to the Wall. Everyone else is guided by ego, desperation or greed to varying degrees.

 

[HareBrain]

Re: 5 POVs a bit much?

the only character i can think of who comes close to this POV-type is Bran. Once his journey starts, his own quest is all about saving Westeros... Jon Snow to an extent is also a little more selfless once he gets to the Wall.

You're right, and, surprise of surprises, these two are the characters I have the greatest identification with, at least once their stories get going. I'm not sure Bran quite has that specific goal yet, but you can see he will do.

 

[southron sword]

As for southron sword's point about Westeros: I find I care about this continent's future.

I had a point about Westeros????

 

[Koopa]

Southron_swords, don't even know their own pointy ends...
No wonder Robb never lost a battle in the field.

 

[Ursa major]

I had a point about Westeros????

Oops!



C Of K was clearly channelling you on that point. (That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. )

 

[Eulalia]

I'm glad DarkRaven brought up reaction to characterization. I think there is no disputing in matters of reaction to characters, because everyone brings their own POV to the book. It's interactive.

Now I felt differently. I don't generally tear up at movies or while reading. But GRRM gets to me, and Ned's execution was one of those times.

This honourable guy (who has taken a job that is way over his head, out of loyalty) is betraying the truth so that he can save his kids. His daughter, Sansa, who has partly put him in this position, makes a very risky but naive speech to try to save him. And his ferral daughter Arya is in the crowd panicking because her Dad is going to be killed, is saved in her turn. It seems that Ned may be saved, but Joffrey is just that much of a monster--perhaps put up by someone and viciously decides to carry out the execution, thus creating permanent strife. How much pathos and tension do you need?

I like complex characters, with much more to invest in those that are realistic, and flawed. I tend to eye roll when they are not. But true, it is hard to know which "side" to be on.

Dany saves women, children and slaves, and tried very hard to save her husband. Some heroism there, even if it all goes fubar.

 

[Koopa]

Dany is also deluded. Thinking like her dear brother that westeros is her by right. Spouting nonsense about the rebellion wherever she goes. For all that she is portrayed as growing up fast, she seems childischly naive when it comes to questioning her own family. Especially after seeing Viserys madness from close-up, and that was probably nothing compared to Aerys.

Rhaegar doesn't come out of things scotch clean either. Noble though he undoubtedly was.

 

[devilsgrin]

Dany is also deluded. Thinking like her dear brother that westeros is her by right. Spouting nonsense about the rebellion wherever she goes. For all that she is portrayed as growing up fast, she seems childischly naive when it comes to questioning her own family. Especially after seeing Viserys madness from close-up, and that was probably nothing compared to Aerys.

Rhaegar doesn't come out of things scotch clean either. Noble though he undoubtedly was.

oh thankyou kiwi... someone else who sees Dany's ridiculous naivete. BFS tells her about the coin toss of the gods for each Targaryen... greatness or madness... i suspect her coin landed in the side... and she's as equally mad as (she thinks) she is great... the coin is still spinning tho, so its bound to fall one way or the other... madness me-thinks.

 

[Eulalia]

In GRRM's world, I don't think "heroism", delusions and naivite are mutually exclusive.

Dany, Robb, Renly. Even Theon is pretty brave.

It is interesting that the heroes are often not who you would expect. Brienne acts heroically quite a bit. People don't seem to like her, though. Pod acts heroically. Tyrion does (such as his going berserk on the bridge of burning ships on the Blackwater) and then he is attacked. He does his best to help Sansa. The Hound despises knights, but saves Sansa (to her confusion). Jaime the Kingslayer and child maimer, saves Brienne. Qhorin Halfhand dies heroically--but he's not a hero to the wildlings. It all muddies the waters. That is what I like about it.

Real life has the same problems. Or does anyone here know a true hero? Who stays that way? Where there isn't some crazy media stuff involved? Ever read about Pat Tillman? Quite a story there. Even someone like Sully the Pilot on the Hudson, does not really think that he is a hero--which makes him more heroic.