How reliable are the POVs?

[ummester]

It has occurred to me, reading Robb's campaign through Cat's eyes, that there may be the bias of a proud mother. Robb may not be as good at war as his mum sees.

This got me thinking, how reliable are the POV chapters in ASoIaF? How much personal bias is inserted in each one?

We only see Cersie through Ned's, Sansa's and Tyrion's eyes (and they all have good reasons to dislike her) - so perhaps she is not the bitch we read her to be?

Further, re Tyrion, he thinks everything is a plot. He has a crafty mind and sees all others that way - perhaps they aren't? Then take Tyrions sex seen with Shae - he growls her out in her sleep and it's all described as being very wet - how much of that is in Tyrion's head?

Theon's chapters provide a different POV of the Starks than what the Stark characters do - sure, Theon doesn't deny they were honorable but he feels like he was never really a part and that they almost looked down on him. Was this Theon feeling sorry for himself, were the Starks arrogant to their ward, or a little bit of both?

I'm posting it in ACoK subforum - because this is where I have read up to but I am starting to wonder how reliable each POV is? Has anyone else started to wonder if the characters might all be full of their own shit and there is no true story being told?

[lom678]

That's why they are called POVs.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Point-of-view means that you are looking through the eyes of that character. POV's will be influenced by their own thoughts, their own believes. You've read entire Clash, I assume? Once finishing all the books (or just the first 4), take another look at Sansa VII from Clash, and you will see a clear example.

POV's will be able to describe a situation as they see it happening. Their memory might be faulthy, though, just as their interpretation of stuff might be.

GRRM has stated himself that POVs can be unreliable, as well, though it depends on what part of the POV you are looking at.. As I explained above.

[ummester]

I'm on the cusp of finishing ACoK Rhaenys.

The thing I wonder is, with all the backstory involved in this saga, could a new POV character be inserted near the end that basically calls everything into doubt? It's getting to the point where I question the validity of every thought in every chapter - I accept the actions as real but not the thoughts.

I read where Dany went into the house of the undying not too long ago - which was basically a whole chapter of thoughts, none of which may be reliable. The whole 3 headed dragon thing, for example, could just be some drug induced imagination of Dany's - it may have no bearing on the unfolding plot beyond what is in her head - (this said, I thought it was pretty obvious that the 3 heads referred to were her, Stannis and Snow) - but after I thought, it may not even matter, depending on how later books are structured and what new POVs come into account.

I get that POVs can be unreliable - what I am suggesting is that, because the story is told via POV, every reader's understanding of the fantasy world may be inaccurate, or rather an accurate understanding of the world and especially the backstory, is impossible to achieve.

[House Martell]

Certain "facts" are supported across different POV's. Some thoughts and opinions of characters are just that "opinions". As far a "3 headed dragon" it may or may not involve an actual dragon but I'm guessing the reference will have some meaning and is not just a "drug induced imagination". Pretty much just stay on your toes.

[stateofdissipation]

It has occurred to me, reading Robb's campaign through Cat's eyes, that there may be the bias of a proud mother. Robb may not be as good at war as his mum sees.

This got me thinking, how reliable are the POV chapters in ASoIaF? How much personal bias is inserted in each one?

We only see Cersie through Ned's, Sansa's and Tyrion's eyes (and they all have good reasons to dislike her) - so perhaps she is not the bitch we read her to be?

Further, re Tyrion, he thinks everything is a plot. He has a crafty mind and sees all others that way - perhaps they aren't? Then take Tyrions sex seen with Shae - he growls her out in her sleep and it's all described as being very wet - how much of that is in Tyrion's head?

Theon's chapters provide a different POV of the Starks than what the Stark characters do - sure, Theon doesn't deny they were honorable but he feels like he was never really a part and that they almost looked down on him. Was this Theon feeling sorry for himself, were the Starks arrogant to their ward, or a little bit of both?

I'm posting it in ACoK subforum - because this is where I have read up to but I am starting to wonder how reliable each POV is? Has anyone else started to wonder if the characters might all be full of their own shit and there is no true story being told?

The PoV for aSoIaF is third person limited omnicient...

The narrator enters the thoughts of a view point character during that character's chapter.

The narrator reliably reports the thoughts and feelings of the view point character. The thought's and memories of a view point character may not be accurate and are subject to bias. However, the action and dialogue, are not.

It is not a simple case of an unreliable narrator... the narrator is reliable, a character's views, memories, and beliefs may be skewed and inconsistent.

[ummester]

So, basically, you can trust all actions as being true but every thought has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[stateofdissipation]

So, basically, you can trust all actions as being true but every thought has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Exactly... there are really less thoughts than you might expect... just off hand... Robert fighting Rhaegar in Ned's first chapter is not Ned's thought, the narrator says he did not get there until after it was over. Tricky narrator...

[Annara Snow]

It has occurred to me, reading Robb's campaign through Cat's eyes, that there may be the bias of a proud mother. Robb may not be as good at war as his mum sees.

This got me thinking, how reliable are the POV chapters in ASoIaF? How much personal bias is inserted in each one?

We only see Cersie through Ned's, Sansa's and Tyrion's eyes (and they all have good reasons to dislike her) - so perhaps she is not the bitch we read her to be?

Further, re Tyrion, he thinks everything is a plot. He has a crafty mind and sees all others that way - perhaps they aren't? Then take Tyrions sex seen with Shae - he growls her out in her sleep and it's all described as being very wet - how much of that is in Tyrion's head?

Theon's chapters provide a different POV of the Starks than what the Stark characters do - sure, Theon doesn't deny they were honorable but he feels like he was never really a part and that they almost looked down on him. Was this Theon feeling sorry for himself, were the Starks arrogant to their ward, or a little bit of both?

I'm posting it in ACoK subforum - because this is where I have read up to but I am starting to wonder how reliable each POV is? Has anyone else started to wonder if the characters might all be full of their own shit and there is no true story being told?

Sure there's bias... but not as much as you seem to think. We know that Robb is winning and winning because it's reported in Tyrion's chapters and Sansa's chapters where Joffrey has her beaten because of Robb's victory. As for Cersei... make up your own mind based on her actions and the things she says.

The opinions and views of each character are heavily colored by their personalities, circumstances, feelings and biases, but the accounts of actual things that happen in real time - the things people do, the things they say - are reliable. Memories, however, may not be reliable, but that only comes up in further volumes.

[Bran the Broken </3]

It would be unwise to rely on a POV entirely. I think that is the reason the Saga has been narrated from multiple POVs. These keep the story open to interpretation. Also, if the same thing is confirmed in multiple POVs it can be safe to assume that the event is fact to some extent and negates bias.

[dopplerdog]

IMO, anything that's open to interpretation by a character - e.g., motivations, suspicions, beliefs, emotions, is up for questioning. The characters are not reliable witnesses.

I think *facts* are reliable, e.g. if in a POV we hear some character saying something, then we can be somewhat confident in that that's what was said. But as to what motivated the speaker to say such things, etc, we can't be sure, and the POV's interpretation is not reliable at all. What's more, we don't know what the POV is leaving out of the narration - what is omitted is as significant as what's included when assessing bias.

[John Suburbs]

That's the brilliance of writing a third-person narrative from a character's perspective rather than a dispassionate narrator: The reader is only shown what the POV believes to be true, not necessarily what is actually true. Sometimes the POV sees things as they really are, and sometimes not, which is what makes for a compelling and endlessly debatable story.

[Taenqyrhae]

As for Cersei... make up your own mind based on her actions and the things she says.

.

And be prepared to change your mind somewhat when you get to her POV chapters in the later books. She is still not a good person, but her inner thoughts give more justification to some of her actions, and she is also being exploited and taken advantage of by those around her.

[ummester]

That's the brilliance of writing a third-person narrative from a character's perspective rather than a dispassionate narrator: The reader is only shown what the POV believes to be true, not necessarily what is actually true. Sometimes the POV sees things as they really are, and sometimes not, which is what makes for a compelling and endlessly debatable story.

Yes but it can also make it an un-resolvable story, because everything is always a matter of perspective. It doesn't bother me from the human/emotional perspective - because it is more or less like real life, people gauge the world and act from their own viewpoints. It does bother me sometimes that there is no definitive explanation of the world, wildlife and magics in it.

[kirt]

II think *facts* are reliable, e.g. if in a POV we hear some character saying something, then we can be somewhat confident in that that's what was said. But as to what motivated the speaker to say such things, etc, we can't be sure, and the POV's interpretation is not reliable at all. What's more, we don't know what the POV is leaving out of the narration - what is omitted is as significant as what's included when assessing bias.

There's an interesting take on this matter in AFFC and ADWD. Without going into the spoiler territory, there are two characters there, let's call them X and Y, who start their plots together, but split very soon. X's plot is told in AFFC while Y's is in ADWD, and their farewell is told from both points of view. Two interesting things can be drawn from this:

1. Indeed it's the confirmation that the dialogs in the book have the exact wording, because the sentences sound the same in both versions.

2. However, there is one interesting place along the way.

X's account:

- Y: "1st sentence"

- X: "Oh. Well, that's... that's good"

- Y: "2nd sentence"

Y's account:

- "1st sentence", he said. "2nd sentence".

AFFC spoiler, no ADWD spoilers

Jon paid no mind. “I am sending Gilly away.”

“Oh.” Sam bobbed his head. “Well, that’s... that’s good, my lord.” It would be the best thing for her, to go somewhere warm and safe, well away from the Wall and the fighting.

“Her and the boy. We will need to find another wet nurse for his milk brother.”

“I am sending Gilly away,” Jon said. “Her and the boy. We will need to find another wet nurse

for his milk brother.”

What does that mean? First, it may be an editorial mistake, it's completely possible. If not, however, it means that the dialogs are not 100% reliable either, it seems like just Y paid no mind to what X said, and there's no trace in Y's account that anything had been said. It means that the dialogs are not really what the POV hears, but what they pay mind to.

It's an important deal, because for example, when a POV is arguing with another character, it seems that (unless this single one moment is a mistake) we should acknowledge that we may've not heard all the arguments of one side, because the POV was just too angry to listen (or even "hear" is more appropriate, maybe?) what was being said to him, or both of them were outshouting each other and hence in the POV's account we may not find some really important thing the opponent actually said - which could've completely changed our view of who was right. We just really feel like the POV - if they didn't bother to listen, neither did we.

[Annara Snow]

There's an interesting take on this matter in AFFC and ADWD. Without going into the spoiler territory, there are two characters there, let's call them X and Y, who start their plots together, but split very soon. X's plot is told in AFFC while Y's is in ADWD, and their farewell is told from both points of view. Two interesting things can be drawn from this:

1. Indeed it's the confirmation that the dialogs in the book have the exact wording, because the sentences sound the same in both versions.

2. However, there is one interesting place along the way.

X's account:

- Y: "1st sentence"

- X: "Oh. Well, that's... that's good"

- Y: "2nd sentence"

Y's account:

- "1st sentence", he said. "2nd sentence".

AFFC spoiler, no ADWD spoilers

Jon paid no mind. “I am sending Gilly away.”

“Oh.” Sam bobbed his head. “Well, that’s... that’s good, my lord.” It would be the best thing for her, to go somewhere warm and safe, well away from the Wall and the fighting.

“Her and the boy. We will need to find another wet nurse for his milk brother.”

“I am sending Gilly away,” Jon said. “Her and the boy. We will need to find another wet nurse

for his milk brother.”

What does that mean? First, it may be an editorial mistake, it's completely possible. If not, however, it means that the dialogs are not 100% reliable either, it seems like just Y paid no mind to what X said, and there's no trace in Y's account that anything had been said. It means that the dialogs are not really what the POV hears, but what they pay mind to.

It's an important deal, because for example, when a POV is arguing with another character, it seems that (unless this single one moment is a mistake) we should acknowledge that we may've not heard all the arguments of one side, because the POV was just too angry to listen (or even "hear" is more appropriate, maybe?) what was being said to him, or both of them were outshouting each other and hence in the POV's account we may not find some really important thing the opponent actually said - which could've completely changed our view of who was right. We just really feel like the POV - if they didn't bother to listen, neither did we.

There's one interesting example from ASOS:

Samwell II:

“Aye,” said Craster. “I gave you all I could spare, but winter’s coming on, and now the girl’s stuck me with another squalling mouth to feed.”

“We could take him,” someone squeaked.

Craster’s head turned. His eyes narrowed. He spat on Sam’s foot. “What did you say, Slayer?”

Sam opened and closed his mouth. “I... I... I only meant... if you didn’t want him... his mouth to feed... with winter coming on, we... we could take him, and...”

“My son. My blood. You think I’d give him to you crows?”

“I only thought...” You have no sons, you expose them, Gilly said as much, you leave them in the woods, that’s why you have only wives here, and daughters who grow up to be wives.

“Be quiet, Sam,” said Lord Commander Mormont. “You’ve said enough. Too much. Inside.”

“M-my lord -

“Inside!”

Sam was apparently so frightened that he didn't even notice it was him who suggested it to Craster - in spite of his own fear. He's used to thinking of himself as craven, so it's no surprise that he surprises himself whenever he does something brave, even when it's speaking up, out of desperate wish to save Gilly's boy. Before Craster addresses him, it even seems to him like someone else is "squealing" those words, not him!

[Ser Cold Fingers]

Point-of-view means that you are looking through the eyes of that character. POV's will be influenced by their own thoughts, their own believes. You've read entire Clash, I assume? Once finishing all the books (or just the first 4), take another look at Sansa VII from Clash, and you will see a clear example.

POV's will be able to describe a situation as they see it happening. Their memory might be faulthy, though, just as their interpretation of stuff might be.

GRRM has stated himself that POVs can be unreliable, as well, though it depends on what part of the POV you are looking at.. As I explained above.

I agree, yet again, with the always reliable Rhaenys_Targaryen!

So, basically, you can trust all actions as being true but every thought has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Yes...the POV's are influenced just like Annara Snow states below...so it is just a matter of interpretation by the individual at that time...plus there are instances where the POV experiences revisionist history.

Sure there's bias... but not as much as you seem to think. We know that Robb is winning and winning because it's reported in Tyrion's chapters and Sansa's chapters where Joffrey has her beaten because of Robb's victory. As for Cersei... make up your own mind based on her actions and the things she says.

The opinions and views of each character are heavily colored by their personalities, circumstances, feelings and biases, but the accounts of actual things that happen in real time - the things people do, the things they say - are reliable. Memories, however, may not be reliable, but that only comes up in further volumes.

This.

[Inevittable]

People construct their own version of reality and truth based on what they saw or heard, what they can remember of what they saw, and how they interpreted what they saw. As Nietzsche said, there are no facts, only interpretations. 'Reliable' is a tricky way to describe the POV characters, because they're only as reliable as their own memories, perspectives and interpretations.

But that doesn't mean that they're not useful (or entertaining!). I think the ways that the character POVs work together to create a whole is one of the best things about ASoIaF. In a way it's like being a detective and trying to piece together the actual events by listening to different witness statements and looking at different evidence. You can never be completely sure of anything until something has been corroborated by another witness or you have evidence, which keeps us, as readers, on our toes!

[ummester]

But that doesn't mean that they're not useful (or entertaining!). I think the ways that the character POVs work together to create a whole is one of the best things about ASoIaF. In a way it's like being a detective and trying to piece together the actual events by listening to different witness statements and looking at different evidence. You can never be completely sure of anything until something has been corroborated by another witness or you have evidence, which keeps us, as readers, on our toes!

I agree with this to an extent.

Say a similar character style is used in a story set on Earth, we have our own interpretation of our planet and how it works to fall back on.

ASoIaF is set on an invented, fantasy planet. There remains the possibility that we have not been given any descriptions that are even close to accurate of how the planet looks and works as yet.

All of the characters in ASoIaF have far less understanding of their world than most modern humans have of Earth. Their gods and mythical events are more real to them than those kinds of things are for the majority of contemporary Earthlings, for instance.

I remember in another thread someone searched for the word compass in the saga and it came up once, as a description of Stannis table. Arguably, no-one on Planetos has an accurate (if any) understanding of magnetic directions.

I mean, GRRM could pull a Sword of Shannara and have Planetos being Earth in the future, after some global catastrophe and it could fit because of the particular use of POV.

[Skagosi High Chef]

This crossed my mind recently about Cat and Littlefinger. I know there is some subjectivity inherent in a POV but to what extent? Would a character lie to themselves? Also, by this I don't mean the naivety of interpretation or perspective we see with Tyrion or Sansa but actual internalized deception or avoidance of fact. Cat says Ned was her first yet Littlefinger says otherwise. We know Littlefinger lies however there is a certain tension in Cat's Pov's with Littlefinger. She thinks of him fondly but there is an aspect of resentment almost in their interactions. It could just be me but I kinda get the feeling Littlefinger hit that.