GRRM and women characters

[Ursa major]

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?

I don't often get the opportunity to ride my PoV hobbyhorse in the GRRM forums, so this is a bit of a treat.

GRRM writes strict close 3rd person PoVs. (There is no omnipotent narrator, not even one who'd fit right in to the era of the Wars of the Roses, which provides a lot of the historical, as opposed to fantasy, skeleton on which the series is based.) It stands to reason, then, that the narratives mirror the attitude of the PoVs (who are of that time and place) towards women. So the male PoVs will follow, vary from, or react to, the mores of the time, i.e. those of a patriarchal society, where abuse of "inferiors" is common if not necessarily inevitable. This, I believe, gives GRRM a pass with his male PoVs.

His female PoVs are, in terms of world view, almost the same. Just like the men, they've been taught that women are, in a very real sense, societally** inferior to men of the same class, if I can use that word in this context. The main difference is that they're (relatively***) subjugated. So where a man in that society might see that the way women are treated is wrong, this is mainly a theoretical matter (one where he's a beneficiary of the way things are). To a woman seeing women's subjugation as wrong, she will also see that she's a victim of it; but she'll see this in the context of the society in which she lives, not ours.

In both cases, men and women, however enlightened (or not) their views, will measure their own attitudes relative to the societal norms. So whether a PoV character is male or female, he or she will not, cannot, have an outlook anything like that of an enlightened 21st Century man or woman.

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.

His main inspiration is, as I've mentioned above, the Wars of the Roses. The rest of that society, which I expect was highly misogynistic (though I may be wrong; I'm no historian) came bundled with that. GRRM didn't go looking for the misogyny.

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.

Sorry, but in a strictly PoV-driven narrative, he does get that free pass.


None of which is to say whether GRRM is or isn't a misogynist. (I don't know either way.) And it doesn't give him a free pass to sympathise with the oppression of women outside of the context of the series. (But I don't think he has, although someone may know otherwise.)


** - They may or may not also be seen as individually inferior, but that's a different issue (although I do think they are seen in this way in that world).

*** - Relative in the sense that it's "class" based.

 

[Boaz]

Uh, what he said...

 

[Jo Zebedee]

This, I believe, gives GRRM a pass with his male PoVs.

But it does if his male povs are consistently deeper, more real. I'm not saying that is the case, incidentally, I'm saying that is what some readers pick up. to a certain extent I wonder is the tv series feeding this, which has upped the ante in things like the sex, the prostitutes etc.(only a few of the people I spoke to had read all the books, so is he being filtered down as something he's not?)


she's a victim of it; but she'll see this in the context of the society in which she lives, not ours.

Surely a writer showing a socity that has passed uses it as a mirror for ours? William Shakespeare was mentioned earlier - he excelled at that, using his understanding of the audience of the now to expound the understanding of the past? If not, why not write it as historical fiction? Fantasy/sff has always had a deep root in showing the climate of our time in its literature: tolkien, the wars; lewis, faith; orwell, future impact/fear; burgess, the march of immorality.

So whether a PoV character is male or female, he or she will not, cannot, have an outlook anything like that of an enlightened 21st Century man or woman.
But his readership are 21st century, he's writing it in the 21st century to sell to a 21st century audience*

* I am playing devil's advocate a lot here**

** which I think is good, it may be the devil's advocate, but it makes us question...

 

[Ursa major]

If I want to read about current issues in the form of a novel, I'd read books set in the current day. It's easier for me and easier for the author. Hell, if I want fictional commentary about today's world, I'd be better reading the UK newspapers. (I'm only half joking.)

The whole point of SFF should be to widen one's horizons, not simply dress the existing ones up.


By the way, it's often said that you can tell when many an SF book was written because the authors concerns are of their present day. Which is fine, if the author really is seeking to make a point, by taking a policy/invention they like or dislike and showing it being applied/used in extreme circumstances (but still grounded in today). But sometimes it's the result of an inability to really place themselves elsewhere, i.e. a lack of imagination, which in my book is not a good thing.

So if Westeros was merely a disguised US, whose population displayed modern US values (except with an extra bit of gore for shock purposes), I wouldn't see any point in reading it. (And I doubt GRRM would see any point in writing it.)

 

[Tywin]

Wow, this is getting too long-winded for my wine-sodded brain to read through in depth.

Needle, please fill my cup again while I pointedly don't notice that you are my rival's sister.

Short and readable commentary:
1) Why is judge proffering opinion on a series of books he has not read? The answer to as much of his comments as I remember was, "Um, no, that's not what the author wrote."

2) For those that comment that the society was mysoginistic and that "a woman who cut a man's throat would be hanged"... I don't think you took to heart my comments about what an enormous advantage physical strength and power is in a society with this level of technology. Not only is "cutting a man's throat" not quite as easy as some seem to believe compared to a man "bashing a woman to death with his bare hands when he wakes up in the night"... but if you are a big enough/strong enough/skilled enough man, then you have the ability to ignore "society" when it tries to imprison or execute you. See for instance the character "Bronn" or "Ser Bronn" or "Lord Bronn" or whatever people call him at this point.

 

[digs]

1) Why is judge proffering opinion on a series of books he has not read?

She's not.

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.

 

[Needle]

Wow, this is getting too long-winded for my wine-sodded brain to read through in depth.

Needle, please fill my cup again while I pointedly don't notice that you are my rival's sister.

Short and readable commentary:
1) Why is judge proffering opinion on a series of books he has not read? The answer to as much of his comments as I remember was, "Um, no, that's not what the author wrote."

2) For those that comment that the society was mysoginistic and that "a woman who cut a man's throat would be hanged"... I don't think you took to heart my comments about what an enormous advantage physical strength and power is in a society with this level of technology. Not only is "cutting a man's throat" not quite as easy as some seem to believe compared to a man "bashing a woman to death with his bare hands when he wakes up in the night"... but if you are a big enough/strong enough/skilled enough man, then you have the ability to ignore "society" when it tries to imprison or execute you. See for instance the character "Bronn" or "Ser Bronn" or "Lord Bronn" or whatever people call him at this point.

Tywin my dear I may never pour you another cup of wine if this is what it does to your thinking! It was I who made the post about cutting a mans throat! I dont know about all the big words being used here but the world of asoiaf is clearly male dominted. In a world where men routinely kill each other with swords and worse things any women killing her husband regardless of what he had done to her would very likely be hung for murder! My point was that the society north of the wall is much more equal. A man must use his strength and cunning to steal a women but he cannot hold her with them. As Yigritte said, "I would cut his throat as he slept." There would be no hanging, their society would say he got what he deserved. Now I hate to burst your bubble but cutting a mans throat is a simple thing when he is naked in your bed. So there "You know nothing good Ser!"

 

[allmywires]

His main inspiration is, as I've mentioned above, the Wars of the Roses. The rest of that society, which I expect was highly misogynistic (though I may be wrong; I'm no historian) came bundled with that. GRRM didn't go looking for the misogyny.

I'm just going to nip in here to say that this is not an excuse for the perceived wrongs GRRM inflicts on his female characters. I don't think he's misogynistic, and I do believe he is trying to emulate a War of the Roses-era philosophy in his characters, but does that make it right? Why couldn't he have chosen to take the era, the politics, and put a spin on it? Give women power as well as men? This is fantasy - as much as it's great to read something with a strong basis in reality, or the past, the whole point is to take that and put your own spin on it. If he's so hung up on getting every detail right about this mediaeval setting, why not just write historical fiction?

(This is me mainly just being devil's advocate - the point is you can't excuse GRRM because he's based it on fact, like he had no choice in the matter. He consciously chose to write women that way, as he chose to write some of the more hideous male characters that way also.)

 

[juleska]

But it does if his male povs are consistently deeper, more real. I'm not saying that is the case, incidentally, I'm saying that is what some readers pick up.

I'd have to seriously question if those readers are reading the same books that I am. And I kinda have to echo mtzgr here....I wouldn't use the term "witch hunt" but to get that from the story you really have to disregard some major elements of the story, and that tells me you (not you specifically, Springs, but someone who does this) are just looking for a fight. There's room for interpretation, to an extent. But in a series as densely populated with complex characters as this one is, to the point that many would say it is overpopulated with such characters, I can't really accept that someone would be that blind to the storylines of Dany, Cat, Cersei, Arya, Brienne, Margary, Asha, Osha, Ygritte, Meera, Penny, the Sand Snakes, Melisandre, Val, The Queen of Thorns, Gilly, or any one of dozens of bit characters who've popped up at critical points of the story to perform notable acts and advance the stories of the major players to reach the conclusion that GRRM's female characters are....in any way....one dimensional, shallow or "less real". (That was a helluva run-on sentence but I don't really care.)

to a certain extent I wonder is the tv series feeding this, which has upped the ante in things like the sex, the prostitutes etc.(only a few of the people I spoke to had read all the books, so is he being filtered down as something he's not?)

I live and work abroad, so haven't been able to see the TV series. But my friends who are devoted readers that also watch the show have complained about exactly that. In fact, there's another forum that I run where a few of us are fans and both men and women have been complaining that the producers of the series seem to have an issue with strong women.

If that's what's driving your friends to this conclusion, point out that the books should not be judged by the TV show, or vice versa.

My two cents...

 

[Stribog]

First of all, I tend not to participate in this kind of discussions, primarily because I don't see point to it. There is plenty of evidence pro and contra to make this last forever, as the truth is in the eye of the observer.

At the beginning of this thread I was mislead to the meaning of the word misogyny,

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

So it was quite unclear to me why all the fuss. So I looked it up on Wiki, and definition is:
"Misogyny ( /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of women or girls. According to feminist theory, misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women. Misogyny has been characterized as a prominent feature of various religions. In addition, many influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic."

In light of this definition, I must strongly disagree with the theory of GRRM being misogynistic.

As Boaz and Tywin are pointing out, GRRM is doing his best to describe fantasy world reminiscent of medieval Europe, however, GRRM never vent to medieval Europe (nor it is POSSIBLE), so his writings are pure IMAGINATION. What I believe is that he is doing his best to describe female characters as plausible as he is able to and he is taking in consideration info he has on medieval Europe (which might be misleading), and his understanding of women as a man (which can never be 100% correct). His attempts will pass as misogyny to some while as great portrait of female characters to others, and there is no helping it. There has been NO author to this day who was able to please ALL of the readers. Bot there is no evidence of HATRED toward women as characters in his books. They are all shades of grey, as are his male characters, as are we all.

About dimensional part of his writing let me just say this - compared to Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky "Crime and punishment", ALL of his characters are barely developed. But compared to Shea Ohmsford, they are sparkling fountains of well written human emotions and insights.

All in all, GRRM might not write best female characters ever, but I have no doubts that he is doing his best, and is doing it without hatred or some hidden agenda of trying to depict women as inferior to men, or some such nonsense.

 

[juleska]

Stribog, I believe that term is my hang-up in this conversation as well. I believe the term is grossly overused. Any woman who has been subjected to a genuine misogynist in her life (I have) can tell the difference between someone who sincerely hates women and just some normal dude who occasionally does dude-like-stuff. As I said, I'm a woman, I work in a very, very, very male-dominated work environment / industry, I have been in the *highly* male-dominated realm of the Middle East since 2004 and been subjected to some serious misogyny that would make Springs' friends toes curl and blood boil.

I don't particularly think GRRM is all that bad at writing women, but that's my opinion and that's definitely open to interpretation. But to say that he's a hater of women.....that's more than a bridge too far. That's way off base, and totally unjustified. Truth being in the eye of the beholder only carries a certain amount of validity. And the charge of misogyny against this author exceeds that.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think there is a delineation between someone being an misogynist, and a book being misogynistic.

The first is setting a label on the writer and saying that he is a hater of women, therefore... this is not what my OP put forward, nor what I was opening to discussion. I have no knowledge of Mr Martin, and his personal views on women.

To say something is misogynistic is "misogyny is a cultural attitude of hatred for females because they are female " (Johnston)

"It also is taken, by some, to mean the description of an attitude that is perceived to be negative and demeaning about women as a group."

Sometimes also described as misanthropy with a focus on women.

My question, therefore, boils down to whether Martin presents the women in his book in a less favourable light - across the culture protrayed - than the men.

Not is George Martin a women hater.

*just thought I better clarify it, I'm sure I'm not worth being sued, but he has much bigger pockets than I have. *

For me as a reader (and only me, I can only speak for myself) I have found his male pov's the more engaging. But that's only me, and I think it's a genre thing as evidenced by a couple of threads on the Chrons about female characters who are stronger/as strong as males in SFF books. *although I like Arya*

 

[Anne Lyle]

I've been avoiding most of the GRRM threads because I'm only halfway through A Clash of Kings and I want to avoid spoilers! However I was intrigued by this thread title, so...

I think that, as others have said, he's chosen to base his books on the Wars of the Roses and therefore had to create a close analogue of medieval society, because if you start changing things too much, the whole edifice will fall apart. If women have more rights, that impacts all kinds of things, from royal lines of inheritance downwards.

It tends to be minor things in ASOIAF that irritate me. OK, so Brienne makes a nice change from the cliched "hot warrior babe", but by making her look like the back end of a bus, I feel it diminishes her choice to follow her own path. Maybe it's just my reaction to "ugly woman is the butt of male contempt", which does feel just a shade misogynistic, even if GRRM never intended it to be. He was probably trying to set her off against Asha, who is handsome rather than beautiful, but extremely self-confident because her culture accepts strong women.

And yes, there is a bit too much of the "tart with a heart of gold", especially in the TV show. Watching the commentary, I discovered that they liked Esme Bianco (Ros) so much in her early scenes, they made her a prominent character. I think it's slightly telling that the whores seem to be universally happy with their lot, whereas all the other women in the story suffer. Given this is the reverse of real life, it feels out-of-place and...troubling.

P.S. GRRM seems a nice guy - he was lovely when I met him at Eastercon. But we didn't get a chance to discuss his books in depth, so I can't comment on his attitudes to women.

 

[Stribog]

Stribog, I believe that term is my hang-up in this conversation as well. I believe the term is grossly overused. Any woman who has been subjected to a genuine misogynist in her life (I have) can tell the difference between someone who sincerely hates women and just some normal dude who occasionally does dude-like-stuff. As I said, I'm a woman, I work in a very, very, very male-dominated work environment / industry, I have been in the *highly* male-dominated realm of the Middle East since 2004 and been subjected to some serious misogyny that would make Springs' friends toes curl and blood boil.

I don't particularly think GRRM is all that bad at writing women, but that's my opinion and that's definitely open to interpretation. But to say that he's a hater of women.....that's more than a bridge too far. That's way off base, and totally unjustified. Truth being in the eye of the beholder only carries a certain amount of validity. And the charge of misogyny against this author exceeds that.

Well, this is something of the cultural difference in this (and many other) forums dominated by western posters. It is hard to explain sometimes how different and how influential on someone's opinion is background literary opposite to modern western culture. I'm still adapting to politically correct writing, and rules of conduct which are WAYYYY.... too cold and formal for my tastes, but there you have it, adapt or shut up, and I love this forum so much that no sacrifice is too great

 

[juleska]

To say something is misogynistic is "misogyny is a cultural attitude of hatred for females because they are female " (Johnston)

Even this distinction hinges on that word "hate", and I don't think this makes the cut. There's a strong argument to be made that the most boneheaded decisions by many of the male characters are a result of them fumbling because a woman seems to have gotten the better of them.

(Generalized spoilers below)



Cersei keeps Jaime off balance ("The things I do for love").

Ned lost his head because he didn't know when to leave well enough alone, nor half a teaspoon's worth of sense to realize Cersei'd gotten the better of him.

Littlefinger stupidly challenged Brave Brandon Stark to a duel for Cat's honor, and only Cat was able to save him from his own stupidity. A scar on his honor that's not left him since.

Robert started a war because Rhaegar made googley-eyes at his fiance, then proceeded to throw away the rest of his life and his crown chasing whores.

The Hound is duped by Arya more than once. In fact, pretty much every older male has been duped and bested by Arya.

Asha played Theon like a fiddle, and drove him to do the utterly stupid thing of seizing Winterfell because he had to prove he was a better son than his sister.

Dany took advantage of the fact that a bunch of stupid slavers gravely underestimated her, then roasted them with dragonfire as she set their slaves free.

Tyrion allowed himself to be so blinded by Shae that it very nearly cost him his life. And now he's wandering around Essos asking everybody where whores go.

Jon broke his vows for Ygritte, Sam broke his vows for Gilly, etc etc etc

I could go on for ages but really, just look at that list of charges and tell me, in GRRM's world, who's the weaker sex? (Apart from Brienne, I'm obviously not talking about brute force here as I think earlier points about physical strength & ability to wield a hand-held weapon are totally valid.)

My question, therefore, boils down to whether Martin presents the women in his book in a less favourable light - across the culture protrayed - than the men.

My answer, as I gave before, is that I do not believe he does, and I can't imagine what books people are reading to get that conclusion.

For me as a reader (and only me, I can only speak for myself) I have found his male pov's the more engaging. But that's only me, and I think it's a genre thing as evidenced by a couple of threads on the Chrons about female characters who are stronger/as strong as males in SFF books. *although I like Arya*

And that's fine....that's your reaction. I haven't had that experience at all. *shrug*

 

[The Judge]

Ursa, when I wrote my last post I debated whether to add a bit about POV issues, and I'm glad I didn't as it might possibly have deprived us of one of your insightful posts. However...

I wholly accept that his characters, male and female, must reflect the culture and attitudes of the society/societies in which they find themselves. To do otherwise would be wrong. But, as I said, there is a difference between showing their views and showing (to us) that their views are correct.

To take it away from misogyny for a moment and make it more hypothetical in view of the emotions stirred up by the books, let's suppose we've got a novel written about a boy living in late 1930s Germany who is a willing member of the Nazi Youth. He has been taught, and he believes, that all Jews are deceitful schemers who will seek to defraud Gentiles. If he interacts with Jews he will see everything they do in this light and will interpret their every action and their every word as being deceitful and scheming whether or not those actions and words actually are. That's how it must be for the integrity of the novel. However, if every Jewish action in the novel and every scrap of Jewish dialogue is in fact deceitful and scheming, then the author has crossed over from expressing his character's racist views to, possibly, expressing his own. The author cannot excuse himself and his story simply by saying he is writing about a racist period of history and a racist person, whether he's doing so in first person, third person or omniscient.

That's why I say Martin doesn't get a free pass just because he's writing about a misoygnistic era. He gets some lee-way, perhaps, but he can't just point to historical attitudes and exonerate himself.

In addition, of course, as springs says, the issue of the patriarchal society has no bearing on how three-dimensional he makes the male and female characters. If every male character is a fully-rounded human being and every female character might as well be a bit of cardboard, claiming that the 1400s were a pretty unpleasant time to live ain't no excuse whatsoever. I see that many people think that his female characters are as equally well-drawn as his men. I can't comment. However, it would be interesting to note how many of those who think his women are well-drawn are actually men and how many who think his women are badly-drawn are women...


Boaz, thank you for your comments. My posts weren't directly aimed at you, they were more of a general point since others had made similar remarks. Your enthusiasm and love for the books and the characters always shines through your posts, which I've enjoyed reading, even if I understand very little of them! And just to make it clear, I wasn't making any accusations against Martin, merely trying to point out errors in the defence team's presentation. (I only ever defended, never prosecuted, by the way...)

1) Why is judge proffering opinion on a series of books he has not read?

Well, as digs has kindly pointed out on my behalf, I haven't offered any opinion on the books, and I have gone out of my way not to do so, as I thought was pretty clear from what I had written. But then, perhaps as I haven't read the books, you thought yourself at liberty not to read my posts.

In any event, as to my credentials, I am interested in the issues of feminism, and in trying to dispel the curse of misogyny which continues to blight the lives of millions of women. I am also interested in English history, in historical writing, in fantasy and in the power of the written word. And since the GRR Martin forums aren't yet the sole preserve of the faithful, I would hope that anyone who had insights they would like to share on relevant matters would feel free to comment here without being made to feel unwelcome. Indeed, as a mod, I would be distinctly unamused, and very vociferous, if I thought that anyone was attempting to silence others, for whatever reason.

 

[Mouse]

Magnificent, TJ.

 

[Ursa major]

Why couldn't he have chosen to take the era, the politics, and put a spin on it? Give women power as well as men? This is fantasy - as much as it's great to read something with a strong basis in reality, or the past, the whole point is to take that and put your own spin on it.

I was going to respond to this point, but Ann Lyle has already done so, and in far fewer words than I could do so:

...he's chosen to base his books on the Wars of the Roses and therefore had to create a close analogue of medieval society, because if you start changing things too much, the whole edifice will fall apart.

Now back to a more prolix style of argument....

The danger with magic-based fantasy (or SF where some of the characters have control of the basic workings of the universe in which they live), there's always a danger that the plot comes to rely on things that may appear to be examples of deus ex machina. Or that anything goes. This can soon descend into the author showing off just how imaginative they can be. Which is fine, I suppose, but it tends, at least for me, to undermine my belief in the plot. (If anything can be done or resolved by mumbling a few magic words, why not do this in the first chapter and have done with it?) More than that, the artificiality of the invented world is thrown into focus.

At an Eastercon 2012 panel, I made the not-that-well-received (or argued ) point that in Ang Lee's film about the Hulk, I expected particular care to applied to making the Hulk's bulk and weight obvious, because even as a child, I wondered how the Hulk could be so much heavier than Dr Banner. (Obviously this isn't a common problem for Hulk fans: someone suggested, in jest, that it was all water, which is why Banner looked so sweaty after returning to his normal form.) But I stand by my position that if you want to show something impossible and you want people to believe (in) it and the whole story and set-up, you should take special care to create a believable background against which something impossible can plausibly take place, but not everything impossible can.

So while it may be possible to create something that looks like a medieval world populated by people with 21st century sensibilities (though I very much doubt it), all this would do - apart from trying to please those who may be impossible to please on this matter (without the use of magic ) - would be to seriously undermine the believability of the whole enterprise**.




** - It's believable, Jim, but not in the way we know it.

 

[Timba]

Wow, great thread Springs. Made for an enjoyable read this morning.

I find myself in the no he doesn't crowd but on this type of discussion I often wonder if I am a the type of reader to really make a substantive comment. Why? Well I freely admit I do not do as much analyzing as many folks on this thread seem to do. I look for a story to capture me and for the characters, men and women alike, to have 1 or more characteristics that allow me to relate to them in some way. The point of the reading for me is to be carried to another time and place, be struck by wonder, made to cry, be revulsed or whatever. If the book can do those things then I am a fan, at least of that book. In this case GOT "scores" over and over again for me.

When a thread like this forces me to think more about an issue like this I find it a worthwhile exercise but really is not what I read a book for in the first place.

Having made that qualification I find myself in the Juleska camp (In an aside to Juleska, thank you for your service) and if I had to make a judgment call on this I would say GRRM has hit the right notes for me but as has been noted by others this is a matter of individual perception.

 

[Anne Lyle]

I don't tend to analyse a book whilst I'm reading it - unless there was something in it that really rubbed me up the wrong way, it's more likely to be afterwards that I mull it over and come to conclusions about how it made me feel.