GRRM and women characters

[Peeves]

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]

Originally Posted by digs

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]

Originally Posted by Boaz

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]

Originally Posted by The Judge

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.

[springs]

Originally Posted by mtzGr

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]

Originally Posted by mtzGr

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]

Originally Posted by springs1971

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 bastard 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?

Originally Posted by The Judge

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.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by The Judge

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.

Originally Posted by The Judge

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.

Originally Posted by The Judge

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...

[springs]

[QUOTE=Ursa major;1608320]
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.