GRRM and women characters

[mtzGr]

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.

If the argument is now that the women are more one dimensional than the men, again I would disagree.

 

[Warren_Paul]

If the argument is now that the women are more one dimensional than the men, again I would disagree.

I have to agree with mtzGr, I don't think the women are shallow in GRRM's books, to me they are just as deep as the male characters. And I don't think the female characters are tomboyish on the whole at all, except for Arya, but that was intentional from the beginning.

Brienne isn't tolerated in the books, with the exception of Renly. She was criticised and made fun of, outcast by those around her. Renly was the only one who treated her with respect, hence how her feelings developed for him I guess. Then Jamie started to accept her too, but otherwise, she wasn't accepted as the way she was. As far as I'm concerned, that reflects the era just fine.

I think Cersei's character is spot on, imo. And so is Margery Tyrell in the TV show, imo - I just wish the books reflected this more. Women were powerful manipulators behind the scenes, and were in charge when their husbands were away from home. They had to be able to control the household/castle/whatever, just as well as their husband, often better because of gender bias - to earn respect. There are many women like this throughout history, we just have to look at some of the Queens of England for one.

I thought Dany was fine, up until ADWD, then she started acting too much the child for my liking, and to a certain extent was quite disturbing to me. Dare I suggest a slight alteration to the 'nailing' comment?

 

[Mouse]

Well I've not read ADWD yet so shush!

 

[Tywin]

If the argument is now that the women are more one dimensional than the men, again I would disagree.[/QUOTE]

Let me throw my two mysoginist cents in here.

Now that it's been brought up with the depth of Ned versus depth of Cat example, I think I can definitely seen a difference. Ned has various layers of doubt, uncertainty, and competing loyalties/desires/duties... whereas Catelyn more or less has only one priority (protecting her family) and she pursues it with the directness of a cruise missile even when it doesn't make sense.

Now, all that being said... when we're talking about the roles that women are put into in the series (which I gather was the chief original complaint), I think this is more a product of a society where power is wielded through physical force and violence at its most basic level. Although its not something that people like to mention much anymore, men are generally larger and are physically far stronger than women. In a world where your position in society is largely dictated by how effectively you swing handheld weapons... this is going to heavily favor men. Large, strong men specifically.

 

[Boaz]

This thread was planted, fertilized, watered, and blossomed in two hours!

Spoiler Alert for Catelyn through the end of AFFC.

If the argument is now that the women are more one dimensional than the men, again I would disagree.

I agree. Let me say that as a man, I cannot claim to fully understand women. So I will fully appreciate input from female posters. But from my experiences, I feel there is much to say for GRRM's female characters. Does GRRM flesh them out more than Robert Jordan? A hundred times more. Does GRRM write female characters as well Nicholas Sparks? I doubt that Louisa May Alcott, the Bronte sisters, Virginia Woolf, Judy Blume, and Maya Angelou together could depict women more tenderly than Sparks.

Many male authors follow the Melvin Udall school of writing. Melvin is a mysoginist.... actually, he's not because he is equally predjudiced and despicable to everyone.

Blonde receptionist: I can't resist! You usually move through here so quickly and I just have so many questions I want to ask you. You have no idea what your work means to me.
Melvin: What does it mean to you?
Blonde: [stands up] When somebody out there knows what it's like...[place one hand on her forehead and the other over her heart] ... to be in here.
Melvin: Oh God, this is like a nightmare. [Turns around and presses the elevator button multiple times]
Blonde: Oh come on! Just a couple of questions. How hard is that? [Scampers up to Melvin] How do you write women so well?
Melvin: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

Now, I don't mean that all male authors are mysoginists. But I do think that they see women more as plot devices than as characters. And I feel the opposite is true for female authors. They know they'll never get the character of the opposite sex one hundred percent correct, so they never even try.

I do think GRRM is trying. In ASOIAF, he freely admits to borrowing from actual historical characters. springs mentioned Eleanor of Aquitaine as inspiration for Cersei and Catelyn and I think that's right. I also feel that the Empress Mathilda is another woman of enormous personal confidence and ambition who might be inspiration for Cersei, Dany, Asha, and Arianne. Notable women from the War of the Roses include Elizabeth Woodville (Margaery, Sansa), the Neville sisters (Sansa, Arya, Jeyne Poole), Jane Shore (Shae), and Margaret of Anjou (Dany).

Does GRRM make his female characters one dimensional? You could say that for Arya, Sansa, Meera, and Margaery, and even Brienne, but the first four are children and Brienne never grew up in many ways. Dany is thin at the beginning, of course she was thirteen years old. Now, you could say the same for Bran, Rickon, Joffrey, and Tommen, and you could say that of Jon and Sam until they are forced to mature.

Personally, I think Catelyn is a deep character. In her life, she's lost her childhood friend, her fiancee, her husband, her father, and all five children. She had adventures like sneaking into KL, living in a brothel, kidnapping Tyrion, fighting clansmen, going to war with Robb, watching/listening to battles, negotiating an alliance with Lord Frey, conducting a royal embassage to Renly, watching black magic murder Renly, taking Brienne into her personal service, commiting high treason by freeing the Kingslayer, dying at Lord Walder's betrayal, and coming back to life as an insane hate-filled zombie leader of the Brotherhood. That's a heck of a life!!!! You could make the case that Catelyn was more inspired by Enguerrand VI deCoucy, the main character in A Distant Mirror.

But those are the things she did, not who she was. You see her depth first as a wife bearing grievous news to her husband who's already had a bad day. She is tender towards him. She bore him five children. She wants to bear him more children. She makes love to him. She also counsels her husband as sagely as she can. She gives him the hard truths as she sees them.

She has taken her family's words to heart, Family, Duty, Honor. In addition to her husband, she fiercely loves her children. This comes through not only in her POVs, but in Arya's, Bran's, and Sansa's POVs as well.

She did her duty by shunning Petyr in favor of Brandon. She did her duty by marrying Eddard. She did her duty by staying at Winterfell when Eddard went south. She served Robb faithfully until she loosed the Kingslayer. But you could argue that the word Family comes before Duty in the Tully words... and Catelyn freed Jaime for her daughters.

And honor? Except for her treason, didn't Catelyn always choose honor over tricks? No. This is Catelyn's achilles' heel. She is honorable as long as it is nice and easy. But when it the tough gets going, she's almost as unsteady as Lysa. She's not as openly manipulative as Lysa, but she was quick to lash out at Jon. She captured Tyrion and instead of taking the quick trip to King's Landing, she lied about her destination and took him to the Eyrie. And did she honorably compensate the men who bled for her on the high road? No, that's why Bronn chose Tyrion. Just think, if Catelyn had given Bronn a horse, armor, and a new sword for saving her life and her prisoner multiple times, would he have joined Tyrion? Probably not.

Catelyn is/was an intelligent woman. Educated in politics, religion, management and society, Catelyn was prepared to be the Lady of Winterfell. But she is much more reactive than proactive. She could only try to stop Bran from climbing, she did not replace it with something else... like a horse, armor, hunting, trips to White Harbor, etc. She had the knife, she had Tyrion, but she was never able to really turn the tables on Cersei. She was so worried, at differnt times, about different family members that she ignored all the rest of them... Bran, Eddard, Robb, Hoster, all caught her attention to the continual exclusion of Rickon and Arya.

I think Catelyn is not only a great female character, but the second most developed character in the series behind Tyrion. Yes, I love Jaime while Dany and Jon are fan favorites, but are they more developed than Catelyn. I don't think so. Jon and Dany are just too young to have experienced as much and they're not mature enough to try to accurately apply their education to real world situations without guidance. The Mormonts, father and son, are their mentors and chief advisors.

I know the translation of my signature is "Catelyn must be destroyed", but she's still a brilliant character.

Edit: Mouse, get reading! Immediately, if not sooner!!!!

 

[Ursa major]

*SPOILERS*

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.

It's interesting that you choose Eddard as your example because...

* puts on his armour *

...Ned is one of the least complex characters in the books, in the sense that it's relatively easy to forecast his opinions and actions.

Is something honourable, in the sense it honours a vow perhaps made in very different circumstances? Yes = Good; No=Bad. Look at his simplistic view of Jaime. Jaime's job was to protect, and die for, a homicidal maniac, because he'd made a vow. (Or, rather, he'd been made to take a vow, just so the man he eventually killed could snub his father, Tywin, in some way.)

The way Ned put his own children in jeopardy was a disgrace, but as he was deluded to think that it was "the right thing to do", the big idiot did it. (Oddly enough, many people who've read the books partly blame Sansa, a young girl, for all this, because she also warned Cersei, but in truth, Ned is the sole manufacturer of his own misfortune and that of his family, his retinue, and a good part of Westeros. For if warning Cersei wasn't enough, he'd already backed Catelyn's actions with respect to Tyrion, without a moment's thought, taking on the blame "like a man should" rather than saying that she had acted in haste, without his knowledge and against his will, and then seeking a solution. But that would have involved compromise and no honourable man can do that, not with the Lannisters.

Cersei has to be drunk to make decisions as bad as those. (True, for large parts of the story, she's in her cups, and the twincest is an outcome of love and lust, but still.)


(I think Ned may be seen to have more depth, because he has a lot of chapters in A Game of Thrones, and on those occasions when he can't drop all and sundry in the brown stuff, because he's on his own with only himself for company - poor beggar - he "thinks" about things. Not that this helps to inform his atrocious decision making.)

 

[Finnien]

I will agree that in general male characters have depth the female characters lack. If you were to make a list of the five or ten deepest characters in the series, one or two women might make the list. I think I would put that down to the author being more comfortable with/capable of writing men than women, as opposed to being misogynistic. There is, I think, quite a bit of variety among the various female characters in regards to their motivations, personalities, and behaviors - we just don't really have any single character who has the depth of the best of the male characters. I do think that both Arya and Sansa are developing more as the series goes on, however. (Once again, it's been awhile, so don't hold me to that - just a lingering impression.) Anyways, I also think that someone trying hard enough can find a flaw with any character - 'well, this one's scheming, and this one's too tomboyish, and this one had a male bodyguard, and this one is one-dimensional, and this one is too strongly associated with only matronly virtues, and this one...' I think you could pick apart just about any character in any book that way - certainly you could make an equally vicious attack about the portrayal of men in the story. If the argument was 'Men in the game of thrones series cast masculinity into a negative light' - that'd be a slam-dunk easy argument to make. Nobody's arguing that GRRM is a misandrist - but I personally feel that as strong an argument can be made for it as for misogyny.

 

[Needle]

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.

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.

Now, all that being said... when we're talking about the roles that women are put into in the series (which I gather was the chief original complaint), I think this is more a product of a society where power is wielded through physical force and violence at its most basic level. Although its not something that people like to mention much anymore, men are generally larger and are physically far stronger than women. In a world where your position in society is largely dictated by how effectively you swing handheld weapons... this is going to heavily favor men. Large, strong men specifically

Catelyn is/was an intelligent woman. Educated in politics, religion, management and society, Catelyn was prepared to be the Lady of Winterfell.

This is a complex and to some an extremely touchy subject. I am not one of the touchy one's.

I think Tywin and Boaz may have hit on the real truth of the series, in that it is a medevial (sp?) society. Only the wealthy were educated in anything but the trade they would use to survive. The women of wealthy families were educated as well but only, as Boaz points out, educated to be "Lady".

Yigritte is to me the best example of equality. Equality comes from freedom. She, and all the wildling women, are free to be whomever they wish to be. In their society even the "traditional" women have more options than women south of the wall, ie: 'You can own a knife or a woman, but not both." South of the wall a woman who cut her man's throat, be she peasant or Lady, would be hung. In Yigritte's world, the next man she graced with her presence would be much nicer!

The word "tomboyish" to me is slightly cringe worthy. This seems to the center of the discussion. It is the view so many (men and women alike) have of gender. For example: Littlefinger and Cersei go about things in much the same way (granted he is much better at it, but that's beside the point) So is he femenine (see I can't even spell that word! )

As for Arya (you all know she's my girl, so grain of salt here!) She says it all with a few words "I'm not a Lady." Does that make her "tomboyish"? To me, it makes her what all people should strive to be, strong, fit, capable of decision and action. This can be related to my own world, as a nurse. All the education in the world can be for nought in the real world if you are incapable of making a decision or unable to carry it out.

 

[digs]

Brilliant post, Boaz. I was thinking about this the other day. I know a bunch of people hate Catelyn (and I don't particularly like her either), but her motivations are always relatable. The audience judges her because they can see how her actions negatively affect the greater events happening around her, but Cat doesn't have the luxury of the audience's perspective: all she can see is that her family's in trouble and she's pretty much the only person who can try to protect them. Which of us, in all honesty, would choose distant victory over the immediate safety of our loved ones?

In a way, I think Cat might be my favourite character - not because I like her, but because I'm amazed at what GRRM has done with her.

 

[juleska]

For my ESL buds:

Definition of MISOGYNIST

: a person who hates women
—misogynist adjective
—mi·sog·y·ny noun, plural mi·sog·y·nies


As a woman, I do not find GRRM misogynistic in the least, and I personally reveled in Cersei's Walk of Shame. The only thing I found upsetting about her WOS was the fact that it was a fate better than she deserved.

Contrast her to Cat, who I believe was just as skilled in politics as Cersei is except that she never had to "sell her body" to achieve what she wanted or needed. Cat relied on her wits, her reason, her art of persuasion and her genuine empathy to get the necessary results. Her method didn't win out against Cersei's in the short run, but Cersei's Way will most definitely lose bigger in the long run (insofar as I can see, anyway).

I really dislike Dany's character a lot, but I have to remind myself that she is still very young, and I don't think she understands herself, her importance to "world" events or her powers yet. Given all those things, I think she's doing the best she can.

I also don't think it's accurate to say that Dany surrounds herself with men to survive. She very closely heeds the council of the women around her, even the young ones, and sometimes to her detriment (The Green Grace).

The reality of the world these characters occupy is that women are fragile little birds (like Sansa) that must be coddled and protected, but most assuredly are not fit for "man's work" like fighting battles (Asha, Ygritte, Arya), negotiating treaties (Cat), influencing politics (Cat, Old Lady Tyrell, etc), ruling kingdoms (Cersei, Dany, Margary), giving council (Melisandre, Dany's servants, Osha) etc. And yet, these women do all of those things. In my mind the women in GRRM's world are the savviest creatures save Littlefinger & Varys, certainly more in tune with the subtlest changes in direction of the undercurrent in every situation, and definitely the quickest to learn (well, except perhaps Cersei).

I believe your friends are judging GRRM's characters in a 21st Century context, but they should be judging them in a 15th Century context. And if they still think he's a misogynist, I'd recommend locating a time machine so they can visit King Henry the VIII's court and proffer their opinion there.

That's just my opinion though, I could be wrong.

 

[Koopa]

I would like to toss Penny in the conversation.

 

[juleska]

Yes, indeed! Sweet Penny.....on the outside she looks like a blubbering ball of silliness, but on the inside she's one of the bravest women in the series.

 

[Boaz]

I know a bunch of people hate Catelyn (and I don't particularly like her either), but her motivations are always relatable.

Digs, you summed up my entire post in one sentence. I don't know whether to kiss you or slap myself.

jules, I agree that GRRM is not a mysoginist. Terrible things happen to everyone! But I'm sure this discussion will get reopened everytime someone finishes the Reek storyline up through ADWD. I remember people posting about Lady's death on HBO. They claimed Martin was cruel to animals. Men, women, children, and animals, all suffer. Skin color does not matter either... red, brown, yellow, black and white. The religious, the non-religious, conservatives, liberals, honorable people, villains, etc. They all live in that world and therefore are affected by calamities, accidents, and crime.

Here's a shocker... They all benefit from good health, sunshine, bountiful harvests, love, friendship, etc. The rain falls on both the just and the unjust.

It's human nature to ponder the big questions.... Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do the unjust seem to prosper?

I think it's easier to single out women as having a rougher path in ASOIAF because they do not have the physical strength, social structure, legal systems, nor religious power to prevent them from being abused. Who prevents women from rape, slavery, beatings, neglect, homelessness, and starvation when the Lords, knights, and priests are the offenders? No one. The system must be purged... and that seems what the Sparrows are intent upon doing. So why do they leave a bad taste in my mouth?

 

[digs]

Digs, you summed up my entire post in one sentence. I don't know whether to kiss you or slap myself.

Why not both?

I really don't know what to think about Penny at this stage. The only reason I can think of for her existence was to get Tyrion into certain places/in front of certain people at certain times.

 

[The Judge]

Not having read the books I can't comment on how well or otherwise Martin writes the female characters, but I have to say, as an outsider, I'm surprised at some of the comments defending him.

I think everyone would accept that he is writing about a period in history which had misogynistic elements (and which period of history hasn't...?) and it may be (I don't know) that in his invented history he has tightened the screw so that every or nearly every person (male and female) accepts that not only are women inferior in intellect and status etc, but it is also right to abuse them and treat them with hatred and contempt, something which is not historically accurate. But there is a world of difference between showing the mores of a culture on the one hand, and on the other actively presenting abuse as not only inevitable within that culture but also right. Does he trangress against that? Does he linger over punishments and violence against women in a way he doesn't when the violence is against men? Does he invariably show the male reaction, the male enjoyment, the male viewpoint when he has the chance to show the female?

The fact that women are undervalued in this make-believe society doesn't mean that as a consequence only men can be written about as fully rounded human beings, as is implied by some of the responses here. That society might indeed favour large strong men, but aren't I right in thinking that one of the male characters is distinctly un-large? Does that mean he is treated as one-dimensional? He might be belittled by the other characters for all I know, but does Martin in writing about him belittle him? Is he shown in his own POV as being as good as the others?

I don't know the answer to any of the questions I've raised, and for all I know Martin acquits himself on all counts. But, please, don't use the fact that the society he writes about is patriarchal and misogynistic to excuse him for whatever flaws might appear when he writes about the women and their treatment in that society.

 

[mtzGr]

I don't know the answer to any of the questions I've raised, and for all I know Martin acquits himself on all counts. But, please, don't use the fact that the society he writes about is patriarchal and misogynistic to excuse him for whatever flaws might appear when he writes about the women and their treatment in that society.

By the same token, can we not accuse a writer of being a woman hater simply because he’s a man?

What you say is all well and good, but what flaws? So far what we have is unsubstantiated, sweeping generalizations about female characters being one-dimensional (which most rightly disagree with), and “the way women are portrayed in this story makes me uncomfortable, and I think he casts women in an unflattering light.” I’m all for critical analysis, but this looks like a witch hunt to me.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

By the same token, can we not accuse a writer of being a woman hater simply because he’s a man?

What you say is all well and good, but what flaws? So far what we have is unsubstantiated, sweeping generalizations about female characters being one-dimensional (which most rightly disagree with), and “the way women are portrayed in this story makes me uncomfortable, and I think they’re written in an unflattering light.” I’m all for critical analysis, but this looks like a witch hunt to me.

I'm a little surprised at the statement. A question was asked - a legitimate one, I think, given the range of responses - and a no stage has any sort of witch hunt been carried out. In fact, the general thread seems, to me as the OP, that Martin has as many men as women characters that are flawed.

It still doesn't take away that most of the sex scenes etc seem to be told from the male perspective, but he is a male writer, and perhaps this is why - bodily functions are always a little difficult, I find, in the opposite sex unless a writer asks very searching questions, and the responder is prepared to be very open...

I sometimes wonder, and I did hesitate before posting, if there is a sense that Martin is considered above challenging at the moment, and I hope not, because the very fact his ideas and work are being debated - and challenged - indicate he is a writer with enough ability and depth to engender such a debate and to make people think. I suspect, from what I've read about him, he would welcome these debates - you don't write a work like his without questioning, researching and reading a lot.

In terms of unsubstantiated, sweeping comments, I felt most of the comments (all of them, to my mind) have been considered and thoughtful, backed up with examples from history or literature, and very far from sweeping.

 

[The Judge]

By the same token, can we not accuse a writer of being a woman hater simply because he’s a man?

Well, you can if you want to, but I certainly wouldn't, and it has nothing to do with the point I raised so I'm not sure where "by the same token" comes from.

He has chosen to write about a society which is misogynistic. He has chosen to write about a society in which 13 year old girls are required to have sex with older men. (Incidentally, I have no idea if he requires 13 year old boys to have sex with men or predatory older women, though I can't recall anyone mentioning the fact anywhere.) He may be reflecting reality as it was. He may be distorting it. The fact remains he's chosen to do that, and consequently it's a valid question to ask whether something in his personality has affected the way he writes about the women he has placed in that situation.

I don't know the answer. All I'm saying is he doesn't get a free pass in either characterisation or tone of narrative just because the society he has chosen to portray is apparently a vile one.

 

[Warren_Paul]

It still doesn't take away that most of the sex scenes etc seem to be told from the male perspective, but he is a male writer, and perhaps this is why - bodily functions are always a little difficult, I find, in the opposite sex unless a writer asks very searching questions, and the responder is prepared to be very open...

In regards to sex in ADWD:







I would point out that in ADWD I believe ALL the sex scenes are from female PoVs, aren't they? Unless I'm forgetting some then I believe so.

The problem I think with them is that even though they are written from the female character's perspective, they are still written with a male impression of sex. Honestly, GRRM is bad at writing sex scenes, like I believe most men are. Not enough detail gone into the emotional side of it, and wrong use of words, like "sopping wet", and the brief mention of oral sex that worked its way into the scenes.

 

[Boaz]

The Judge, great name for your post... and Welcome to the discussions in the GRRM forum. I'm not quite sure if you mean me... let me assure I'm big enough to recieve criticism, so call me out by name if you need. I don't believe in using smilies, but if I did then I'd insert one now. I'm hoping my post comes across as fairly logical and coherent (usually only semi-coherent). I don't mean it to be an attack upon you, but a defense of ASOIAF... but that's a bit difficult when the accusations are non-specific since you've not read the story. I'll try to give concrete examples.

I know the original topic is women, but I'll continue along the current vein.

I am not advocating oppression of any kind. There is a difference in talking about sin and glorying in it. Yes, Martin's world features a plethora of patriachal societies. Yes, it is a brutal world. But social justice is a major theme/undercurrent of the story.

English speakers come from an English Christian background. Our worldview has been shaped by the religion of Jerusalem (righteousness before God and justice towards humanity), the politics of Athens (all men have value to the state and therefore should have a voice), and the legal system of Rome (all citizens have rights). Toss in some Norse legal processes, some French chivalry, some German language and work ethic... These ideas were left to ferment in England and consequently we still value being good, doing good, political representation, and equality before the law. I'm not saying English speakers are ethnically better, but
we value human life. History has it's ups and downs, but I feel these ideas have led to a value of women (foreigners may be a seperate issue) that has been consistently among the highest of all human societies. So, now Martin has created a fantastic version of England, but without the legacies of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome.

From the very beginning, a myriad of social issues crop up. Thes include unwed mothers, the stigma of bastardy, dwarfism, peasantry, legal hostages, cripples, murder, vigilanteism, homosexualism, racism, incest, capital punishment, imprisonment, torture, blindness, discrimination against the elderly, the sancitity of the marriage bed, rape, blood fueds, murder for hire, genocide, avarice, sloth, and bloodsports... and those are all covered in the first book. Mayhaps they live in patriachical and mysoginistic societies, but these issues are still our issues today.

The Judge, the conversation here is very limited in revealing the love, filial bonds, loyalty, and generosity of the people in ASOIAF, especially regarding women. Eddard loves his wife, Catelyn, very much. He built her a private chapel because she is of a different religion. He honored her before his people and his king. He never took a mistress. He assisted her in keeping in touch with her father, uncle, brother, sister, and nephew. He sought her counsel on many matters. He left her in charge of his realm, not his heir, when he went away. The only thing in which he did not honor her was when he brought Jon Snow home as his ******* son. MAJOR SPOILER ALERT FOR JON SNOW!!! He raised Jon alongside Catelyn's sons and this bothered her greatly. The problem is that only a very few readers actually believe Eddard is Jon's father. We believe that Jon is the son of Eddard's dead sister. We believe that Eddard was hiding him from the King and so accepted dishonor for himself and shame for his wife just to keep a promise to his dying sister. To protect Jon, Eddard never told Catelyn. And Catelyn never quite forgave either Eddard or Jon.

Eddard was greathearted towards everyone. He gave his children everything. He rewarded his subjects with justice and safety. He kept all promises. He threw away his honor for his sister and her son. He threw it away again to save his eldest daughter. He was publicly executed.

Yoren, a sour smelling Han Solo without any of Han's charm, was the only one to try and save Eddard's youngest daughter. He planned to give her back to her family. He protected her in every way possible when he could have turned his back on her because his sworn code forbade him to help her.

Upon Robb's return to Riverrun, he finds that two of his high councillors have committed seperate treasons. He executed Lord Karstark, a distant kinsman, but he pardoned Lady Stark, his mother.

Ygritte saved Jon's life a number of times.

Sam plotted to help Gilly escape her father/husband. That was a horrible situation.

The dwarf was the only one who defended Sansa from Joffrey's predations. Even after Tyrion was forced to marry her, he did not force himself upon her.

There are many other potential examples, but their motivations are clouded by politics. Of course, many, if not most, of the oppressive acts occur within political machinations as well. It's all so entangled.

There are also many examples of strong, healthy, and whole women. Women capable of defending themselves or exacting retribution. Olenna, a little wisp of a grandmother called The Queen of Thorns. She's a pill and a real player at the great game. Oh, and she's personally mentoring her granddaugter... who's only seventeen and been married to three kings already!

Cersei may look like Venus, but she can pay back with all of hell's fury. Robert? Eddard? Tyrion? A King and two Hands, she took them down easily.

And one other comment regarding Cersei. Yes, she's the most hated villain in the story, but she's still not Robert. Remember her time with Taena? Ultimately, even Cersei rejected violent sex as a means to her ends.

Asha. Osha. Ygritte. Val. Lady Mormont. Dacey Mormont. Meera. All of them would geld any man who made an unwanted move. And then there's Brienne. She is tough, real tough, I mean Dick Butkus tough. And after Brienne, there is Melisandre. Who dares defy Melisandre? Kings and Hands walk in fear of her.

Aside from physical capabilities and political power, many women exemplify grace...

Alayaya showed incredible loyalty to Tyrion and great poise in her situation.

How Sansa is sane is a miracle. How she still is a virgin is almost unbelievable. But how she is still a sweet girl is a testament either to her gentle upbringing and her loving parents or to her stupidity. I hold to the former.

Dany's heart for the widows, the orphans, the homeless, the motherless, the broken, the sick, and the destitute is a tribute to her soft heart in spite of her loveless upbringing. She is reputed to be the most beautiful woman in the world. Certainly she is the most desirable. Yet she welcomes all outcasts. Even Jon's accpetance of outcasts is viewed as politics, but Dany actively recruits les miserables.

The Judge, it is my opinion that Dany is the harbinger of the new order. A new matriarchy. Her rule is what GRRM desires for the people of Westeros. The abolition of slavery, the abolition of bloodsports, the abolition of the glory of war, the caring for the sick, the swift punishment of rapers and murderers, and fair and honest negotiations in politics and business is what Dany will bring. Of course, she'll bring it with the edge of the sword if they don't welcome her with open arms.

That should have been the end of my post, but I neglected to comment upon intellect... so I'll do it now. In no way does GRRM negate the intellect of women, if any shows diminished mental capabilities it's the men. Men of lesser intellect continually rule by force of arms and will... and Martin shows this is bad leadership and worse government. Aerys II, Robert I, Joffrey I, and Tommen I are the kings we know about. Tommen may be the smartest, but he's only ten. Aerys was a paranoid, meglamaniacal, sadistic, murdering sexual predator. Robert was a penis with a sword. He bankrupted the kingdom with drinking and whoring. Joffrey was another sadistic predator. Good riddance to all of them. When contrasting their regimes to the rule that Dany will bring, it's easy to see that GRRM wants Dany to usher in a golden age.

But back to intellect, the top players in the Game of Thrones are Varys the spymaster, Littlefinger the treasurer, and Olenna the Queen's grandmother. Two men and one woman. And with the number of women actually involved in public politics, I think Olenna's inclusion is telling. The other major players are Tyrion, Tywin, Lysa, Jaime, Mace, Margaery, Cersei, Loras, Renly, Stannis, Melisandre, Eddard, Balon, Euron, Victarion, Doran, Arianne, Walder, Pycelle, Oberyn, Catelyn, Aeron, Asha, Garlan, Barristan, Conninton, Dany, and Roose. Twenty men and eight women. None of the women on this list have **** for brains while at least seven of these men on the list are there for power than what's in between their ears. Even Cersei... look, she may not be wise or far sighted, but over a short time span she can lock onto a target and kill it quickly.

In James Clavell's Shogun (I wish Aegon the Unworthy were still around to berate me for mentioning Shogun), Toranaga compares his agents and allies to his falcons. Most players are falcons that go straight from the fist to the prey. There are only a few who can be sent to hunt on their own and to stoop over their prey and take them unawares. Cersei and many of the male players can only launch themselves straight after their prey. Of the othe kind of falcon, only Varys, Littlefinger, Olenna, Melisandre, Roose, Tywin, Tyrion, Balon, Walder, Connington, Asha, and mayhaps Margaery can qualify. Eight men and four women.

When I was young, I read all kinds of fantasy. The younger I was, the tamer the stories. I loved Tolkien, but now I'm looking for a less mythological style and something harder hitting. Martin is looking to push the envelope a bit. This is no longer ...and they lived happily ever after. Martin goes for shock value in turning fantasy and myth into a nasty business, but in my opinion he always keeps it within the bounds of the story. The violence, bloodshed, sex, and cruelty may be graphic, but I don't feel it is gratuitous. That may sound like a fine line to walk, but I like how Martin does it.

Tolkien wrote in a different style so I cannot even criticically comment upon the intelligence or motivations of Arwen, Rosie, Goldberry, and Ioreth. They might have a combined ten lines of dialogue in The Lord of the Rings. The only other woman is Eowyn. I think she could be defined as clinically depressed... and with good reason. She's an orphan. She's treated as a porcelain princess in a martial and patriarchal society. She's raised by men so she only knows manly things, but she's told she can cheer but not play. Her cousin was betrayed to his death, her uncle is senile and dying, and her brother is jailed. Her response is to fall in love with the noble outsider, but he tries to let her down gently as he marches off to his death. Then she's left to die with the other women when the men go off to war. Her response is to sneak off with the army and kill the undead warrior-sorcerer-king who's been plauging the world for the last two thousand years... only to be told that she has to stay home again when the army marches. So how well did Tolkien portray Eowyn's despair and sliver of hope?

One of the better female characters, in my experience, is Mara of the Acoma. I think Daughter of the Empire was one of Janny Wurts' first books. Mara is strong, intelligent, wise, and unconventional in a very conventional society. The problems with the story are that Wurts is writing in Raymond Feist's universe using his created cultures and characters and that Wurts is most likely under direction to work within the vision of another author. The result is Shogun told from a woman's POV. So how well did Wurts write her heroine?

I wonder if Shakespeare (hold on, I'm not quite putting GRRM in Will's class)... I wonder if old Willie experienced criticism for his female characters. I know he's been criticised roundly in the last century. But are Lady Macbeth's insanity, Beatrice's wit, Katherina's temper, Miranda's emotionalism, Juliet's commitment, Desdemona's faithfulness, Ophelia's innocence, and Cordelia's honesty accurately written?

All I'm saying is he doesn't get a free pass in either characterisation or tone of narrative just because the society he has chosen to portray is apparently a vile one.

Agreed. Some scenes may be extremely graphic, but they're not gratuitous.... and I mean Dany's wedding night, Bran's meeting with Jaime, Chiswyck's story (anyone who reveled in that needs to pray for forgiveness), and all things pertaining to the treatment of dwarfs. At times I do feel that Martin goes over the top, but it is to shock us to revulsion and not to acceptance... and by this I mean anything to do with Ramsay Bolton.

I know my post is all over the board, so much for coherency. Anyway, those are my two cents.