GRRM and women characters

[Timba]

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.

I can understand that, occasionally happens to me also but usually I am on to the next book from my seemingly endless TBR pile so unless it really pounds me I do not do much of it.

Looking forward to your continuation of the Mal and Colby story line, loved the first book.

 

[Ursa major]

I have to admit that when I read Fantasy**, I do so with the sensibilities of someone whose main interest is in (good) SF. I need to know that what I'm looking at works and hasn't just been cobbled together to provide a suitable backdrop.








** - Or political programmes, for that matter (although with these, I always expect to be disappointed ).

 

[Stribog]

Right to the spot Ursa (although it took me three readings to completely understand your mining ).

 

[Stribog]

The previous post I mean.

 

[Anne Lyle]

Looking forward to your continuation of the Mal and Coby story line, loved the first book.

Thanks! /derail

Bringing it somewhat back on-topic, since I'm writing historical fantasy myself, I'm well aware of the challenges of creating characters whom the readers can empathise with, whilst staying true to the spirit of the era. Even in an actual historical setting, though, you have the choice of fudging things a bit - I don't send my characters to bear-baitings, for example, because I don't want to write about animal cruelty.

 

[Ursa major]

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.

Actually, a narrative based on a PoV character who has been brainwashed into thinking that way (or who naturally believes it) would, almost by definition, see deceit and scheming in the actions of any Jews the (PoV character happened to see. How, in truth, could they see them in any other way? They're not someone who knows the truth of the matter but is prepared to ignore it; they're someone who believes it's true and so sees everything through this prism.

Someone who doesn't believe the Nazi propaganda, but behaves as if they do, is an entirely different sort of person. Though their actions could be identical, their thought processes could never be, not until they started to believe the same things as the convinced Nazi. (And because their thought processes are different, a book with them as the PoV character would be entirely different to the one with the convinced Nazi as the PoV character. Only their actions, and the external events, might be the same.)

As it happens, I would believe that a book written with the convinced Nazi as the sole PoV would be problematic for me, because though common, that mindset was not universal, even in Nazi Germany. Many people didn't believe it, including, obviously, its victims. One way round this problem would be to have more than one PoV, so that the extreme views/beliefs of the main PoV could be contrasted with the less extreme views of most of the people on the planet (or living in the same street).

Which brings us to another matter. Nazi Germany was an aberration. While anti-semitism was rife in the 1930s and before, it hadn't been an official policy of previous German governments (no more than in, say, France and Austria). Contrast this with Westeros: the attitudes displayed by GRRM's characters are true to their time and place. (Things are a little different on the Iron Islands, but the beliefs and actions of the population there are not held up as examples to follow in the rest of Westeros.) Their current society is not aberrent to them, only to us. So unless we get a 21st Century PoV in A Song of Ice and Fire, we won't be seeing 21st Century sensibilities.


A final comment: if the Nazi PoV book was written solely from that point of view, I still wouldn't ascribe the PoV character's beliefs to the book's author unless I had real evidence (i.e. not from their fiction writing) that they did hold them.

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.

The author is not in a dock, and so doesn't have to exonerate himself. But if he had to do so, it wouldn't - and shouldn't - be in the pages of A Song of Ice and Fire.

 

[Stribog]

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...)

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.

Off the topic here but there have been some great Fantasy books which women wrote and I ,as a male, thoroughly enjoyed. One of them is Earthsea by Ursula Le Guinn, in which we had Ged, male character and main protagonist. Another is Wolkodav by Maria Semenova. Both of which were totally unreal. They were, sorta, "perfect" males from women's POV. And, in my opinion, creating that kind of characters both of them "cheated" a little. Making characters likable to women, and to which men also can not have any objection to (although anybody half-decent would have to say it is way too pretty picture of males).
Unlike them GRRM had courage to TRY to portray women as he thinks they are in real life - far from perfect. That made him mistake in portraying them in some points, bat it is FAR FROM hating or intentionally neglecting female characters in his books. And as Needle pointed out more than once, females from the wildlings people are depicted free and wild, and so is their view of the world of ASoIaF, and I don't see them mentioned often in post of those that think GRRM is misogynistic in the least.
So don't count how many readers that think one way are male, and how many are female. It is normal that we have different view of things, and does not prove anything, as feminists are as often wrong as chauvinists.

That said, I have sister in my country which is one of the leaders of feministic movement. We clashed numerous times, but one thing she told me stuck in my head forever. I asked her, does she consider me chauvinistic, since we always clash over all sort of issues, she answered me " Not in the least, you respect me enough to debate with me everything you consider of importance, and with that show me that you consider me your equal, while men which nominally support my cause, always agreeing with my words, show me that in reality they don't care what I'm saying, and THAT is the root of all chauvinism - considering somebody not worthy of your attention with no obvious reason." We still clash, but since then, never had an issue with telling women what I really think, however it may sound to her.

 

[Anne Lyle]

Personally I'm not keen on idealised versions of either sex - if I wanted to read about "the ideal man" I'd read romance

I agree that GRRM tries to portray real women - the question is, does he succeed? For the most part I think yes, but like everyone he has his blind spots. He's good at strong maternal women and tomboys, but he falls into cliche/idealisation sometimes with the young, sexy ones...

 

[digs]

TJ's posts are furiously eloquent torrents of intelligence. I love it.

 

[Stribog]

TJ's posts are furiously eloquent torrents of intelligence. I love it.

T'J posts are passionless, and very politically correct, trying to prove the point without stepping on anybody's toes, and speaking in widely accepted and abused terms, don't like it. Lawyers, judges and political speakers are my natural enemies.

 

[Ursa major]

For an incendiary topic (when discussed elsewhere, and not the Chrons), we've so far managed to keep things civil. It will remain so.

So we don't want any playing of the man, not the ball (or the judge, not the judgment**).





** - Not the best example, perhaps: judges aren't keen on judgments being questioned (especially in Northern Ireland, as an ex-UK minister has discovered).

 

[Stribog]

??? What in those posts was not civil?

 

[Stribog]

Or is it just Ursa flexing muscles whenever chance appears?

Admins job is to keep things in check, no objection there, just fill me in what was so wrong in this conversation to provoke this warning?

 

[Ursa major]

I didn't say anyone had been uncivil; I was reminding people that the thread had better remain so. (The word, remain, should tell you this.)


(These things things can flare up quickly, and sometimes inadvertently. My responsibility as a Mod is to see that they don't; or that if they do, they're extinguished as quickly as possible.)


Now back to the thread topic....

 

[The Judge]

Ursa, I would reply as I think perhaps you've misunderstood what I've tried to say, but I'd just be repeating myself. We're like the two women standing in adjoining houses who will never agree because we are arguing from different premises...


Mouse, digs, you are hereby founder members of my fan club.

 

[Brian G Turner]

My personal opinion is that GRRM's characters are well developed for what they need to be, regardless of gender.

However, my other half always hated the general threat of violence to women in the books.

My feeling is that if GRRM had tried to *realistically* portay women as we knew them in the mediaeval period that inspired him, then most of the female characters would be little better than some line between Sansa and Cersei.

What I think he has done that is very clever is to try and write strong female characters in an age and setting where normally they would neither survive or thrive - and in doing so, keep at least a number of female readers very much hooked on these characters.

Arya is a particularly good example, I think, of one that comes up frequently among chronicles members as one to identify with and cheer.

Personally, I don't think many of his male characters really comes across as good examples of men - I can only think of Ned Stark as someone worth aspiring to, and even he had some fatal flaws.

 

[Eulalia]

I believe that GRRM is as misogynist as Margaret Atwood who wrote "The Handmaid's Tale", that is, not.

The people who are abusive to Sansa are not portrayed as nice people. In fact, they are some of the worst and at least one gets his commupence. Even the Hound, who is a pretty hard guy, is uncomfortalbe with her treatment and rescues her. She goes from being a socially well integrated character with teenaged flaws to one who shows the effects of what she has experience. I imagine that her survival strategies were not atypical for the time period, and they work for her. Her actions have fatal consequences, but she is learning queenly qualities, self restraint, and role playing. It shows more quickly in the tv series.

I think Sansa learns that life is not a fairy tale, even if people are expecting it to be such as a fantasy. Will she figure out who her friends are though they don't look much like what she imagines are romantic knights? She is even learning to be motherly to (eww) Robert. I agree that the medieval world for noble women was probably a lot like her fate. There was a lot of enforced passivity, or nasty propaganda, if they were not.

As far as 13 year olds being married and being forced to have a child, look to Margaret Beaufort, Henry VIII's gran. So Dany isn't out of line. She is plucky and has teenaged crushes--is that so bad, or do we expect her to be a chaste widow. I mention Elizabeth I because, although she was a conscientious queen and headed a "golden age", she was also flirty. She had a strange relationship with her step father, who was beheaded for his actions. We know Dany is good at heart because Barristan admires and supports Dany and he is the epitome of honour. Eliz. did need her excellent advisors, a navy and army, though. Bring on the Volantine armada.

I think GRRM is quite sympathetic to Arya's resilience and plight. Same with Brienne (Joan of Arc has a pretty rough time for crossdressing). He even gives Cersei some extenuating circumstances, and I think he goes over the top with the religious shaming to deliberately make us uncomfortable with that. Shaming women for sexuality happens to this day--should we accept it? Or are we stuck in "knights and virgins"?

Ramsey is abusive of his wives and everyone else, and he is properly seen as a monster, even by his own very icy father.

I don't think GRRM sees prostitutes or women who are driven to that to survive as necessarily evil just for the sex. Shae, by the way, does not have a heart of gold. Chatalya (?) has sex as part of her spiritual mind set. That was more common before Roman values took over. The Romans whose laws and government are used as a model by the United States.

The wildling women are quite empowered. You know nothing Jon Snow. (But I think he learns his lessons)

 

[juleska]

Well said, Eulalia.

 

[Jaqen H'gar]

I really don't think he is a misogynist, he is just being period appropriate. I know its a fiction, but the society is a spot on representation of medieval Europe, and this is imply the way that gender politics worked. If anything, women seem to have somewhat more power in this world than they would in our equivalent time.

Think about Dany fighting and rallying thousands of followers to her cause. As much as we see characters hating her, so many more love her. She fights and men from all over the world want to join her cause (Quentyn, Tyrion, Victarion, and Griff to name a few).
She didn't have to manipulate these people to join her cause.

Melisandre has converted a major political player and alot of followers (including an entire society of wildlings) to her belief systems through her action, not really through manipulation.

Arya only looks boyish as a disguise. Sure she is doesn't want to be a "lady," but she just wants to be outside the role her society has set for her. Very independant.

I really think you guys have gotten caught up in all of the plotting and manipulation, and it has narrowed your viewpoint

 

[C Of K]

Perhaps GRRM does have a problem writing women, but it's no surprise to me because he's not a woman. I think he does the best that he knows how to do, and that for the most part, he doesn't dwell very much on the fact that one character is male, and one is female. Not the way some authors, like Robert Jordan, do. Personally, I don't think anyone ever truly portrays the opposite sex sufficiently to please everyone who might read their stuff. I feel fortunate that GRRM has a good grasp on how to write men. Both Robert Jordan's and Terry Goodkind's depictions of men and women are atrocious.

As has been mentioned already, I think GRRM has developed some intriguing female characters. It's a common misconception that Catelyn "always puts her family first, and everything else second, and that her path is a "straight line" whereby you can always telegraph what she will do next.

Perhaps the television series portrays her that way, GRRM, however, did not.

The way GRRM depicts Catelyn, she actually puts the good of the realm before the good of her family by convincing Eddard to go south, despite the fact that after the last time she watched him go south, he returned with a ******* that she was forced to suffer for almost 15 years. In fact, it's only after her family has been torn apart that she actually tried to salvage what she could of it.

How many other characters in ASOIAF would risk the well being of their family for the good of faceless people living someplace else? For all she knew, anytime Lord Stark is out of site for a good enough length of time, he loses site of his marriage vows.

Eddard, on the other hand, did seem to lose his wits with age. During Robert's rebellion, he proved himself to be an exceptional battle commander. It can seem like he always turned up in the right place at the right time to save the day, and eventually he took King's Landing. This would suggest that young Eddard had a good grasp of his allies and enemies, where they all were positioned, and what they were all capable of. The man who went south to rule as Hand of the King was altogether different. He was a good enough detective, and he was honorable, but in almost every other way, he was a failure. He was a very bad judge of character, and was totally unprepared for what lay ahead of him.

GRRM has a better grasp of men than women. But should that really surprise anyone? In the end, he doesn't really portray many characters at all in a very favorable light. I've read a few female authors who I've enjoyed. Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan series was great. Sometimes her protagonists are men, and sometimes they are women. I love all her characters, but I think her women are probably more real. The reasons for this are obvious to me. I don't know that I've ever read an author who didn't rely somewhat on stereotypes in order to portray the opposite sex.