GRRM and women characters

[Anne Lyle]

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.

I disagree with this assessment. One can be a fine military commander, and yet totally out of one's depth in the shark pool that is politics. Ned Stark dooms himself when he treats Cersei as if she were a conventional subservient medieval woman, not a ruthless politician who is willing to commit murder to stay in power.

(I also find it interesting that GRRM named his scheming queen after the Ancient Greek sorceress who turns Odysseus's men into pigs. Of course he changed the spelling, perhaps to prevent his readers pronouncing the name Circe as "Sirky" )

 

[digs]

Anne - that's so strange, I never made the Cersei/Circe connection, and I study Greek archaeology! But now that you point it out it makes complete sense to me.

 

[C Of K]

I disagree with this assessment. One can be a fine military commander, and yet totally out of one's depth in the shark pool that is politics. Ned Stark dooms himself when he treats Cersei as if she were a conventional subservient medieval woman, not a ruthless politician who is willing to commit murder to stay in power.

(I also find it interesting that GRRM named his scheming queen after the Ancient Greek sorceress who turns Odysseus's men into pigs. Of course he changed the spelling, perhaps to prevent his readers pronouncing the name Circe as "Sirky" )

I'd say trusting Cersei was perhaps the final nail in Ned's coffin, but trusting anyone in King's Landing was what endangered Ned's children, started a war, and started Ned off on his journey toward the grave. What you say about politics and battle is correct, and yet, in many respects, the two can be approached in much the same manner. Before Ned arrived in King's Landing, he knew better than to trust any of the people on the small council, but when he arrived, instead of ruling, he let them lead him around like a puppy at almost every turn. I find some of his mistakes nearly inexcusable. On the battlefield, Ned was expected to lead men, and I'm certain he knew better than to be caught trying to lead men he couldn't trust, or trusting men he couldn't lead. Someone of Ned's experience as a ruler, and a battlefield commander, should have been far better prepared to handle King's Landing.

 

[juleska]

I dunno about all that, CoK. I work in Afghanistan and I'm surrounded by people who are skilled at executing an operational plan but utterly drown in the realm of office politics. In war you know clearly, for the most part, who are your enemies and who is fighting on "your side". With politics, you can never be sure. And since the stakes are usually exchanges of power rather than life or death, it's easier for people like Littlefinger to move between the two. You really can't even blame Ned's death on the politics of King's Landing. Certainly you can to an extent, but really....they intended for him to take the black, until that little s*** Joffrey fouled up the plan. In fact, Joffrey is more responsible for the war than Ned is, since he's the one who sent a henchman after Bran in the end.

Thank god his reign as king was short lived....just look at all the problems he caused before he ever wore the damn crown.

 

[Tywin]

I dunno about all that, CoK. I work in Afghanistan and I'm surrounded by people who are skilled at executing an operational plan but utterly drown in the realm of office politics. In war you know clearly, for the most part, who are your enemies and who is fighting on "your side". With politics, you can never be sure.

For those at the junior levels, politics are very different from military operations, but in the GO levels you have some amazing politicians. We make fun of it often enough that we may as well admit it. At Ned's level, his experience as a military commander would have entailed lots and lots of politics. (Assuming that the author understands that).

 

[Anne Lyle]

Perhaps nowadays, but we're talking medieval warfare: a bunch of well-born men with big swords going up against their king. The historical figures on whom GRRM models his characters included some pretty flawed and incompetent individuals...

However this is totally off-topic. Guys, take it outside, please

 

[Toby Frost]

I think I'm the only person I've ever heard of who read the first book and thought "That was really good stuff, but I don't want five more of the same to find out the ending, thanks". But anyhow, on a slightly broader note:

I've been writing novels, published and unpublished, for about 10 years, and I have written about two good female characters, both of whom I suspect could be written off easily as crude stereotypes. The fact is that "She is strong-willed and struggles to be more than a reactive doormat" is the flip side of "She is a man in a woman's body" or "She is completely unrepresentative of women in the society of X and is therefore more a freakish anomaly than a credible woman". Similarly, "She has more traditional female interests, but is still a strong and rounded character" becomes "She's girly until you want her to be a bloke". You just cannot win if people really don't want you to, and this counts double if you are a man, because you are expected to have all sorts of wrong, usually pervy, motivations and greater difficulty in comprehending the mysteries of women (not that that's a bit of crude stereotyping in itself, of course...).

When you enter the arena of gender, class, race and that sort of thing, you as a writer are instantly exposed to criticism. Someone out there will be able to come up with something if they try hard enough. It all depends on the angle from which you approach a character. I am not suggesting that Martin is beyond criticism (I doubt he is, but from A Game of Thrones I felt he did a reasonable job of making everyone almost comically miserable) or that anyone in this thread is making unfair points, but that the concept of misogyny and proper portrayal of women is probably open to as many (perhaps conflicting?) interpretations as feminism itself.

 

[Anne Lyle]

Yes - the feminist critique can go a bit too far, as this wonderful tumblr site points out:

http://isthisfeminist.tumblr.com/

 

[C Of K]

I dunno about all that, CoK. I work in Afghanistan and I'm surrounded by people who are skilled at executing an operational plan but utterly drown in the realm of office politics. In war you know clearly, for the most part, who are your enemies and who is fighting on "your side". With politics, you can never be sure. And since the stakes are usually exchanges of power rather than life or death, it's easier for people like Littlefinger to move between the two.

Ned fought side by side with men who could have stabbed him in the back at any moment. He was a rebel, and not in a much different position than Rob. Rob was stabbed in the back by the Boltons, and the Freys. He completely lost the loyalty of the Karstarks. It doesn't make much difference that Rob betrayed the trust of the Freys first, the result is that Rob did not know who all his enemies were. Rob couldn't even trust Edmure, his own uncle, to follow orders in a critical situation. Rob had a lot of great victories, but they all would have paled next to the prospect of leading Tywin's army into a trap. Because Edmure failed to follow orders, Tywin failed to take Rob's bait. It was Rob's fault for giving Edmure a command, and it cost him greatly. Taking Tywin out of the picture would have been second to ending the conflict with the Lannisters.

I personally have a strong feeling that Rob was warging in and out of Grey Wind in order to gain tactical advantages over Tywin. Because Rob was never a POV character, we will probably never know whether he was, or was not. We can be pretty sure that Eddard was not warging into an animal in order to gain advantage over his enemies. In many ways, Ned handled war altogether different from Rob, whether he was warging or not. The fact that he and his army was 1. there to save Robert from Randall Tarly, when Robert needed him 2. there to save Stannis and Storms End from Mace Tyrell when Stannis needed him, and 3. was able to take King's Landing to virtually end the war, can't be ignored. As a rebel, Eddard was treading dangerous water by trusting any man very far, and yet, he was able to move about Westeros with a sizable army in a way that allowed him to be exactly where he needed to be in order to divert disaster time and time again, and eventually end the war. Leading a campaign like that would be sheer brilliance by anyone's standards. Such a leader would have to be a great judge of character under any circumstances, politically, or martially. In King's Landing, Ned was totally different, trusting the word of any man who would give it out to him for free.

You really can't even blame Ned's death on the politics of King's Landing. Certainly you can to an extent, but really....they intended for him to take the black, until that little s*** Joffrey fouled up the plan. In fact, Joffrey is more responsible for the war than Ned is, since he's the one who sent a henchman after Bran in the end.

Thank god his reign as king was short lived....just look at all the problems he caused before he ever wore the damn crown.

Whether the politics killed him or not, does not negate the deaths of the people who came south with him, and the danger that his decisions imposed upon his children. Besides, the politics of King's Landing is what allowed Joffrey to take the throne. Both Ned's politics, and the politics of everyone else involved. Ned had his chance to stop that from happening. He didn't have the best circumstances to work with, but who gets to work under the best circumstances? Circei didn't have the best circumstances either, but it likely wasn't hard for her to totally dismantle Ned's attempt to decide who should sit on the iron throne. It all comes down to who he was willing to trust while he was in power, and who he was forced to trust, because, while he was in King's Landing to rule the realm, Ned never once made the effort to build a power base, or even a plan to fall back on in order to save his family, and the people that worked beneath him, should things fall apart. Any ruler should know better. People who are unconcerned with rule, or command may not think this way, but in politics, and war, as well as in life in general, if you don't have any kind of back up plan, you very well could be asking for trouble.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I'm not sure Ned was a good commander - felt more like a follower, simply being told by Robert where to send his northern allies to fight. A great warrior, but not necessarily anything else perhaps!

 

[C Of K]

Perhaps, but Robert was not always present for Ned's victories. If I'm to believe that Stannis is an accomplished battle commander, how much more accomplished would Ned be? Any army needs a figure present to lead them, or chaos is likely to precede a defeat. Ned was that stabilizing force for his men, much as Tyrion prevented Joffrey's army from falling apart at the Blackwater.

Edit: Earlier I stated that Ned saved Robert from the army of Randall Tarly, but Ned actually saved Robert from John Connington's forces in the Battle of the Bells. It's not likely that Robert planned the Northern movements in every case, and he certainly did not plan them alone. He could probably take more credit for approving Eddard's movement than he could for singlehandedly planning them.