GRRM and women characters

[Jo Zebedee]

A conversation that came up today between myself and some fellow readers, that I thought was interesting.

Is GRRM misogynistic? Certainly, some of the females in the group I was with today felt he was, to the point where they were quite worried by it. Their view was that a lot of the strong female characters - Arya, Yigritte, Brienne, Asha - were quite tom-boyish/male characters.

Daneyrs surrounds herself by males to survive, and her brother is abusive to her (at least emotionally)

Others Catelyn, Cersei are schemers in the traditional female-cunning way, but Cersei, in particular, and the walk of shame has made them feel uncomfortable.

If I'm honest, as a female reader I was uncomfortable with the depictions of prostitutes (the tarts with the heart of gold seem to prevail), the sex which was often from the male perspective, and I thought the argument was one which bore discussion.

Just btw I have read all the books to date, this isn't to knock GRRM, but it is a conversation which is relevant about a writer who is having a massive impact on SFF genres at the moment, and an argument which has been had about other leading writers in the genre such as Tolkien, lewis, king, Jordan.

 

[Stribog]

Clarify misogynistic for those of us not speaking english as the first language?

 

[Mouse]

Springs, you're a brave lady, daring to say anything remotely other than GRRM is God!

I don't think he's misogynistic. I just think he doesn't know how to write women properly.

And before anybody bashes me, I loved the books.

*flees*

 

[Stribog]

SOMEBODY CATCH THAT MOUSE!

SHE DARED TO SAY OUR FAT, WEIRDO WRITER IS NOT GOD! Uuuups...

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Clarify misogynistic for those of us not speaking english as the first language?

Um, that he depicts women characters in less favourable light than males.

@Mouse; yes, brave, but if we're to accept him as an important writer with an influence on others, surely this is the type of question we should ask. I like his stuff, okay, enough to have read them all, but he left me with a lot of questions, such as this. Maybe it is a case of not writing women well, I'm not sure. I do know there were some I spoke to who felt that they didn't like the role of women, and if he's one of the leading SFF authors.... and therefore, I found myself in a corner trying to defend him.

I, too, will duck if the heat gets too much...

 

[Mouse]

*sneaks back*

I honestly think he is trying to write strong women. But he's thinking 'strong women' in the way a man thinks 'strong women.' If that makes sense.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

*salutes the brave rodent. *

Makes a lot of sense.... wish I'd thought of it several hours ago.

 

[Stribog]

This is Needles territory, as a male I can only give wrong answers.

As a reader, I found female characters as easy to identify with and like/hate as male, and that maybe is not a good thing (confirming that GRRM wrote women in the way men like to see them).

 

[Finnien]

Personally I think that GRRM is (approximately) equally harsh for both genders - if there was a third gender, he'd fill that one with miserable wretched scheming backstabbing murderous bastards as well. I personally attribute the fact that women are depicted as more scheming and men as more brutal/outright murderous just based on the positions of power and gender relations of the quasi-medieval time. Some of the strong female characters are boyish but some aren't, and some of the boyishness/masculinity could just be attributed to the martial role some take up, from what I can remember. The characters I disliked most intensely were men (or boys) in the series, I believe. So I would tend to believe that misogynistic tones might just be a product of a novel depicting power struggles of a generally nasty slice of humanity within a patriarchal medieval social structure. Now, that's just my first instinct - I have by no means extensively researched this, and while I've read the books several times each, it's been awhile. I also tend not to notice gender politics unless it's either very obvious (Jordan) or I'm specifically reading for it. So take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

[Warren_Paul]

I don't think he is misogynistic, but I don't like the sex scenes in the book. They are definitely written from a stereotypical male perspective and are more male fantasy than realistic depictions of sex. Some of the descriptions used were badly done as well.

I'm not sure I'd worry about the walk of shame though. The walk of shame was inspired by real historical events, like much of GRRM's books. It was based on Jane Shore's walk of shame enforced by Richard III because of her adultery. Of course Jane wasn't completely naked, but in those days, being seen dressed only in your underwear was naked enough to be shameful and scandalous - still is really.

I also agree with Mouse, it's hard for a man to get women perfect in their writing, as far as women are concerned. Okay, I'm treading in hot water here, but men see women differently to what women see themselves, which I think leads to situations like this, especially with Robert Jordan. I'm not saying women are like how they are depicted in these books, but this perspective is nothing out of the ordinary. It's a stereotypical male perspective of women. If you were to say that makes GRRM misogynistic then that means most men are misogynistic. So considering that, I'm not surprised many women look at the books and think, that's nothing like how women act.

 

[Finnien]

This is Needles territory, as a male I can only give wrong answers.

I often feel that way myself when approaching gender/feminist issues. There will always be this fear that no matter what a guy says, it's biased/wrong because he's a guy - I especially feel this way when I'm writing something that tends towards feminist criticism or involves gender-power relationships (I just finished an essay on Jane Eyre, madness/confinement, and Foucault, and that was certainly true when writing the piece). But I've come to the conclusion that while I may lack the insight of a woman (or in sexual politics, of someone homosexual, or in racial politics, the perspective of someone non-Caucasian), it shouldn't prevent me from contributing an opinion if I have one. Joss Whedon's a self-proclaimed and very active feminist, and he still gets viciously attacked by parts of the feminist community, but he also gets praised by other parts. If Joss can't win, none of the rest of us are likely to - but it shouldn't stop us from trying. The people worth actually discussing something with won't set us on fire just for being men.

 

[Mouse]

I think, and I've said this before, that women write men better than men write women. And that is most definitely not me saying that men can't write women.

Phillip Pullman, Jonathan Stroud, Garth Nix in particular (that I can think of of the top of my head) write brilliant women. GRRM writes some good female characters - I always liked Dany, I know lots of people disliked her.

Oh Joss Whedon writes excellent women.

 

[Warren_Paul]

I think, and I've said this before, that women write men better than men write women. And that is most definitely not me saying that men can't write women.

I think men are easier to write then women, no matter what gender you are. There is much more depth to women's personalities/emotions and such; men are shallow for most cases. Of course that is generalising, there are exceptions on both sides. Women that are like men, and men that are like women, so it's not quite as straight forward as that. This is just stereotypes.

 

[Mouse]

There is much more depth to women's personalities/emotions and such, men are shallow for most cases.

Oh no, don't say that! People are complex whatever their gender.

I find men fascinating.

 

[mtzGr]

How should the female characters be portrayed? Keeping in mind the historical context that the story is written, I just don't see an argument, unless the point is that women should only be portrayed through a 21st century filter, in which case I disagree.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

How should the female characters be portrayed? Keeping in mind the historical context that the story is written, I just don't see an argument, unless the point is that women should only be portrayed through a 21st century filter, in which case I disagree.

No, I don't think it's a case of seeing women through a 21st century filter, and I'm certainly not naive enough to argue there is a need to write emancipated medieval style women.

But seen in that light, women such as Brienne are difficult, and wouldn't have been tolerated easily in medieval society.

I think it's more a case of wondering if the women - particularly the main ones - are a little one dimensional in comparison to the men. Their circumstances shouldn't impinge on their ability to be well rounded individuals and be portrayed as such. there were strong medieval women, such as Eleanor of Aquitane (who I suspect he has based either Catelyn or Cersei on, but may be wrong), but if the history books are studied, they are much more rounded than their conventional story would say. He delves into it with Ned, much more than the conventional view of, for instance, Richard the lionheart, and presents a character who both pulls on the conventional view and adds depth to it. I'm not sure he does that with either Catelyn or Cersei to the same extent.

I think men are easier to write then women, no matter what gender you are. There is much more depth to women's personalities/emotions and such; men are shallow for most cases. Of course that is generalising, there are exceptions on both sides. Women that are like men, and men that are like women, so it's not quite as straight forward as that. This is just stereotypes.

I don't agree, men are difficult to write. Put two women in a room together, you can get a conversation about anything going. Two men, and it's much more difficult to draw dialogue out and touch on the nuances of a plot without someone saying, well they just wouldn't.... And I find men anything but shallow, they just don't talk about it as much, or as openly. As a very wide generalisation....

I think Mouse is right, it's about how well we nail people and I think GRRM might be better at nailing men...

 

[Mouse]

I think GRRM might be better at nailing men...

So to speak.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Um, yes, thought it was unfortunate as soon as I hit send...

 

[Stribog]

Yeah, right, just keep nailing us and see where it gets you

 

[Mouse]

To raise the tone (can't help myself, sorry)...

I think it's more a case of wondering if the women - particularly the main ones - are a little one dimensional in comparison to the men. Their circumstances shouldn't impinge on their ability to be well rounded individuals and be portrayed as such.

This is spot on. The time period the story's set in shouldn't make a blind bit of difference on how well the characters are portrayed.