"He smiled a lot, as if the world were a secret joke that only he was clever enough to understand"

[INCBlackbird]

One of Theon's most distinct characteristics is that he smiles, A LOT, often in situations where one shouldn't be smiling. This is so well known that the northmen who visit the dreadfort mention it at once when talking about Theon "The stark's ward, smiling, always smiling"

There's a simple reason why Theon smiles so much. It's something known as reaction formation: A defense mechanism mechanism where emotions and impulses which are anxiety-producing or perceived to be unacceptable are mastered by exaggeration of the directly opposing tendency.

 

When Theon experiences emotions he considers inappropriate, which probably happens a lot considering the situation he's in and the fact that he is trying to uphold a fake identity, he smiles. This becomes abundantly clear when we look at two specific situations:

 

"The head bounced off a thick root and rolled. It came up near Greyjoy's feet. Theon was a lean, dark youth of nineteen who found everything amusing. He laughed, put his foot on the head and kicked it away."

 

Theon's just witnessed an execution in the same way, with the same sword by the same man as he would be executed if it came to Theon. And he is very aware that next time it could really be him. But fear is an innapropriate emotion, in Theon's mind it would show weakness so he hides it by laughing about it. There's another layer to this, Theon treats it as a joke not only to convince others but also to convince himself that it's not so serious, because if it's not so serious he doesn't need to be so scared.

 

“’I shall release my own captives taken in the Whispering Wood and the Battle of the Camps, save Jaime Lannister alone, who will remain my hostage for his father’s good behavior.’ She studied Theon Greyjoy’s sly smile, wondering what it meant. That young man had a way of looking as though he knew some secret jest that only he was privy to; Catelyn had never liked it.”

 

This is related to Theon's captivity again and he is smiling, he's being reminded of his position and needs to hide the emotions that make him feel.

 

 

 

 

 

[LordStoneheart]

I prefer an easier explanation. He's being set-up early on trickster figure, someone not to trust. Turns out to be true for the Starks, who all of his smiling is done around in the first book. I think it's overcomplicating things to assign it as part of his mental trauma of living with the Starks.

[INCBlackbird]

I prefer an easier explanation. He's being set-up early on trickster figure, someone not to trust. Turns out to be true for the Starks, who all of his smiling is done around in the first book. I think it's overcomplicating things to assign it as part of his mental trauma of living with the Starks.

it's not overcomplicating things at all, it's very simple. People do it all the time. reaction formation is one of the most common defense mechanisms and with a lot of people it's expressed by smiling. Like my best friend doesn't go  to funerals because she'll start laughing because she's uncomfortable. I was smiling at one point when I told my friend that I saw my father cry for the first time at his brothers funeral because I wasn't comfortable with expressing my real emotions about it.

[LordStoneheart]

I think this is just kind of a flaw in the way you analyze your characters. No offense at the way I'm phrasing this, but I feel like with this explanation you're looking at Theon as a "case" and not a character in a novel. Characters, especially in fantasy, are more trope/stock based than on mental state. From a literary/author perspective, Theon is set up as a trickster figure, someone untrustworthy. Because the story starts with the Stark cause as the main sympathetic one, this comes to fruition in the form of Theon's betrayal (in the Northern POV, of course).

The reason I would readily give this as the better explanation is because, as I've probably said before, I don't think "diagnosing" characters is a helpful endeavor unless the story is specifically about mental health issues. His later chapters are, but his arc until his Reekification is more about torn loyalties than mental health. (I should clarify that by mental issues, I mean specific DSM disorders applicable. I wouldn't count Theon's loyalty struggle as one of those.)

[INCBlackbird]

I think this is just kind of a flaw in the way you analyze your characters. No offense at the way I'm phrasing this, but I feel like with this explanation you're looking at Theon as a "case" and not a character in a novel. Characters, especially in fantasy, are more trope/stock based than on mental state. From a literary/author perspective, Theon is set up as a trickster figure, someone untrustworthy. Because the story starts with the Stark cause as the main sympathetic one, this comes to fruition in the form of Theon's betrayal (in the Northern POV, of course).

The reason I would readily give this as the better explanation is because, as I've probably said before, I don't think "diagnosing" characters is a helpful endeavor unless the story is specifically about mental health issues. His later chapters are, but his arc until his Reekification is more about torn loyalties than mental health. (I should clarify that by mental issues, I mean specific DSM disorders applicable. I wouldn't count Theon's loyalty struggle as one of those.)

No offense taken, I get what you mean but honestly I don't even think about what the author intended because I think a character can be more than what the author intended them to be. I've analysed characters while knowing that what I was writing about them was not at all what the writer was thinking while writing them (though I don't think this is the case with asoiaf, the characters are so rich that I just can't imagine any of this stuff is unintended by the author.) The idea is that when this character is created they are an imaginary person with as much depth as a real person so that is how i'll treat them.

"From a literary/author perspective, Theon is set up as a trickster figure, someone untrustworthy. Because the story starts with the Stark cause as the main sympathetic one, this comes to fruition in the form of Theon's betrayal (in the Northern POV, of course)." But what I love about this book series in particular is that it shows perspectives from all sides, Theon isn't a simplified evil villain who betrayed the Starks who are the good guys. we get his perspective on the matter, he's treated as a person just as the Starks are, we are shown that Theon had his own reasons for what he did.

It's about torn loyalties but it's very much related to Theon's identity issues, that is his main arc throughout all the books. He has an identity crisis, and what I just pointed out is related to that identity crisis as well because he finds these emotions inappropriate and tries to hide them because they don't fit into the fake identity he's created for himself, they don't fit with the person he's pretending to be.

[LordStoneheart]

It does show many perspectives, but in the first book, we only have Stark and Lannister, and the less connected Daenerys. So we don't get the Ironborn side until Theon's first POV, at the end of which most readers should assume that they are the enemy of Stark. And honestly, it is not an endearing chapter. It's quite ugly. Plus, by the end of Theon's arc in Clash, we do get his mental struggle but we've also seen him pitted against... an eight year old crippled boy. I'm not saying he's simplified or evil. I'm not saying he doesn't have depth. But to most readers at first, his Clash arc is not sympathetic. That is why I believe Theon's smiling in the first book is nothing more than subtle foreshadowing that Theon will 'betray' the Starks.

As for:
 

honestly I don't even think about what the author intended because I think a character can be more than what the author intended them to be.

 

I also disagree with aspects of this approach, especially in the case of a more modern writer who does regularly speak about his work and his intentions behind it. I understand that this doesn't work with all literature. We can't ask Shakespeare about Lady Macbeth. I see why the Death of the Author is a notable idea. But it's not one I adhere to. I prefer to use what's actually there in terms of text and author's comments to analyze a character. As for assinging things to characters to make them 'more' than what the author intended, I feel that would lead to the character becoming less of the author's creation and more of the analyzer's creation.

[Mithras]

Theon was smiling because he was a jackass. Ramsay removed that smile out of his face for good.

[INCBlackbird]

It does show many perspectives, but in the first book, we only have Stark and Lannister, and the less connected Daenerys. So we don't get the Ironborn side until Theon's first POV, at the end of which most readers should assume that they are the enemy of Stark. And honestly, it is not an endearing chapter. It's quite ugly. Plus, by the end of Theon's arc in Clash, we do get his mental struggle but we've also seen him pitted against... an eight year old crippled boy. I'm not saying he's simplified or evil. I'm not saying he doesn't have depth. But to most readers at first, his Clash arc is not sympathetic. That is why I believe Theon's smiling in the first book is nothing more than subtle foreshadowing that Theon will 'betray' the Starks.

As for:
 

 

I also disagree with aspects of this approach, especially in the case of a more modern writer who does regularly speak about his work and his intentions behind it. I understand that this doesn't work with all literature. We can't ask Shakespeare about Lady Macbeth. I see why the Death of the Author is a notable idea. But it's not one I adhere to. I prefer to use what's actually there in terms of text and author's comments to analyze a character. As for assinging things to characters to make them 'more' than what the author intended, I feel that would lead to the character becoming less of the author's creation and more of the analyzer's creation.

we don't get his perspective indeed, but his issues weren't created when his perspective was, just like with a realistic person he got messed up because of what happened to him in life, That is shown in AGOT already, do you think that GRRM only started to think about Theon's issues when he started writing his chapters, in my opinion if he's a good author he had Theon's character thought out before that. To me Theon is sympathetic in his first chapter though, in fact to me he's sympathetic in AGOT. ANd I know many people who think the same way.

 

Well, like I said, in the case of ASOIAF this is not the case for me, I believe everything I write about Theon to be intended by the author.

 

[LordStoneheart]

we don't get his perspective indeed, but his issues weren't created when his perspective was, just like with a realistic person he got messed up because of what happened to him in life, That is shown in AGOT already, do you think that GRRM only started to think about Theon's issues when he started writing his chapters, in my opinion if he's a good author he had Theon's character thought out before that. To me Theon is sympathetic in his first chapter though, in fact to me he's sympathetic in AGOT. ANd I know many people who think the same way.

 

Well, like I said, in the case of ASOIAF this is not the case for me, I believe everything I write about Theon to be intended by the author.

 

 

I think Theon's arc was a later addition to the book. Certainly present in aGoT but after a large portion of the story elements were thought of. It's only speculation of course, but if I had to guess, I'd say his "smiling" and all those elements that foreshadow his eventual betrayal were added in after a lot the first book was written. The 93 letter would support this notion. He may not have existed in the first chapter of Bran & company discovering the direwolves. If that's the case, I don't think GRRM was thinking that adding in mere smiles would signify and support a deeper interpretation than "untrustworthy" or "trickster."

[INCBlackbird]

Theon was smiling because he was a jackass. Ramsay removed that smile out of his face for good.

That's not an explanation, people are jackasses for a reason that's the point of analysing them. and no Ramsay didn't, Theon is smiling again.

[INCBlackbird]

 

I think Theon's arc was a later addition to the book. Certainly present in aGoT but after a large portion of the story elements were thought of. It's only speculation of course, but if I had to guess, I'd say his "smiling" and all those elements that foreshadow his eventual betrayal were added in after a lot the first book was written. The 93 letter would support this notion. He may not have existed in the first chapter of Bran & company discovering the direwolves. If that's the case, I don't think GRRM was thinking that adding in mere smiles would signify and support a deeper interpretation than "untrustworthy" or "trickster."

Than we'll have to agree to disagree because I think GRRM is a better author than that.

[LordStoneheart]

Than we'll have to agree to disagree because I think GRRM is a better author than that.

 

He doesn't think so. He's admitted to being a "gardener" style writer in a few interviews. The Greyjoys were not in his original draft, at least not in a big way. Have you read the letter?

 

[spoiler]

Tyrion burns down Winterfell, not Ramsay. No mention of any Greyjoys as major characters.

[/spoiler]

[INCBlackbird]

 

He doesn't think so. He's admitted to being a "gardener" style writer in a few interviews. The Greyjoys were not in his original draft, at least not in a big way. Have you read the letter?

 

[spoiler]

Tyrion burns down Winterfell, not Ramsay. No mention of any Greyjoys as major characters.

[/spoiler]

I've read the lettre yes, and Theon wasn't even mentioned so the character wasn't even there in his original plan. But he is there in AGOT from the begininning, he changed his entire original idea for the story for sure. I've had a few lessons in scriptwriting and the first thing they teach you is that if you add a character you need to know everything about that character, their entire life story, their personality and so on because everything they do needs to make sense from the characters point of view, rather than characters acting randomly to further the plot, that is what I call lazy writing, it happens a lot but not in ASOIAF, because GRRM is a better author than that.

[LordStoneheart]

Some would say GRRM and lazy writing go hand in hand. xD But seriously, I don't see him spending much time on Theon once that arc was concieved. Not every writer is the same. GRRM may not have the same philosophy as you and characters. In fact, he's admitted the character's actions can and has gone off the rails of what he thought (meaning, in less fun terms, he thinks of twists for characters just because. For instance, the Catnapping was not planned from the beginning. Probably thrown in for action since that part of the book is pretty slow.)

[BlueDragon]

 Characters, especially in fantasy, are more trope/stock based than on mental state

 

 

All decent writers create an inner life for their characters and a psychological profile. It is impossible to write without that background. Hell, most actors can't even do their jobs without a lot of background info, even if they have to make it up when it is not present in the script.

 

What you call 'mental state' is the basis of character motivation. 

 

Smiling inappropriately indicates a great deal about any character. In fact, all inappropriate affect gives away tons.

 

How Martin started versus what he put in his final drafts is a non issue. The final draft counts except when we are trying to understand Martin's process which is a different kettle of fish.

 

I really wish people would actually study the proper use of the word, 'trope' before throwing it out as an all purpose noun. I was taught by one of the world's masters in these matters and while understanding and distinguishing the major tropes is quite a challenge, understand what a trope is, in general, is simple. The original root means 'to twist.' One must be able to twist language in on itself.

 

The simplest tropes twist so clearly only a numskull would mistake them. Irony and satire are simple twists meaning the direct opposite.

 

But while there are zillions of simple tropes, there are far, far more of the more complicated kind.

 

Theon's fractured identity and his anger for the Starks as his captors conflicts with his desire to be loved and the real affection he feels at times for Robb and the others. 

 

That leads to a twisted psychological problem for him. Theon realizes his mistake when he admits that Ned was his real father, too late tho.'

 

Thousands of people have written Freudian interpretations of Shakespeare with great success. 

 

We can use any sort of serious methodology we wish as readers. We can even do reader response criticism as a way of untangling as the knots 20 years of waiting have created. 

[LordStoneheart]

All decent writers create an inner life for their characters and a psychological profile. It is impossible to write without that background. Hell, most actors can't even do their jobs without a lot of background info, even if they have to make it up when it is not present in the script.
 
What you call 'mental state' is the basis of character motivation. 
 
Smiling inappropriately indicates a great deal about any character. In fact, all inappropriate affect gives away tons.

If you expect me to believe that Martin went over each and every character's mental motivations with a fine tooth comb and diagnosed them as if they were his patients, I'm not sure you're the best authority for writerly opinions. It is not "impossible" for writers to write without an extensive background like this. I believe there was a certain amount of it, yes, but by his own admission he lets the story take him where it will go. He's said that his characters "surprise" him. Based on how he describes his own writing process, I don't think it's likely that he meant for Theon's smile to be a character depth rosetta stone. A smile is not some deep element that reflects every single inner moment of turmoil for a character.

But if you want something more concrete than that, Jon notes that Cersei's smile is fake i.e. Cersei is fake. So Theon's smile probably just means he is in fact an "ass."

 

I really wish people would actually study the proper use of the word, 'trope' before throwing it out as an all purpose noun. I was taught by one of the world's masters in these matters and while understanding and distinguishing the major tropes is quite a challenge, understand what a trope is, in general, is simple. The original root means 'to twist.' One must be able to twist language in on itself.

I am well aware of what a trope, stock character, and archetypes are, thank you. They are another thing that the author has admitted to using very knowingly and with a purpose.

[BlueDragon]

I don't think you are aware of what a trope is in the classical sense or you wouldn't use it the way you do. It now has a popular sense which is pretty messed up. I'm not aware of Martin's use of the word, but neither am I aware of his training in classical literary theory. Words can evolve, but we aren't in Alice in Wonderland where any word can be made to mean anything, or maybe we are: it is the innertoobs after all.

 

And I didn't say all characters, but surely, surely major characters. Neither does letting a character/story develop contradict what I am saying. People know themselves and surprise themselves all the time; ditto their psychotherapists. That doesn't mean that basic analysis of character is wrong or that people don't know themselves. There are always different facets of human personality which develop and emerge over time. Also, writers often do things they do not realize they are doing. Basic fact. Writing is mysterious and complex, but we have figured out a fair amount about how it works.

 

And no reason to use absolute language like 'rosetta stone.' Neither the original poster nor I suggested that. 

 

And I am qualified, degrees and publication and all. It amazes me how posters on the internet assume the worst of others just because they don't agree, as if not agreeing is the beginning and end of any process or truth. And this from people who read novels. Might as well play darts if this is the level of analysis people want to limit themselves to.

 

Normally, I let a lot of things go, but when people pull out the nasty words, I sometimes feel like shooting back. 

 

This board, like so many others, is a cesspool of insults. The innertoobs sure bring out the best and the worst of humanity.

 

Do you have formal training in literary studies at the graduate level? Are you a published writer with such training? Did you bother to even studying the Wikipedia page as to the classical meaning? Have you read scholarly exposition on tropes?

 

Like I said, they are easy on one level and impossibly difficult on another.

 

Discussing Theon's inner life and characterization has little to do with tropes. Tricksters in literature and folklore, if he is one, are figurative constructs, but have little to do with classical tropes. 

 

Now calling Theon, Reek, is a classical trope. If you are so well versed, can you name it?

[INCBlackbird]

If you expect me to believe that Martin went over each and every character's mental motivations with a fine tooth comb and diagnosed them as if they were his patients, I'm not sure you're the best authority for writerly opinions. It is not "impossible" for writers to write without an extensive background like this. I believe there was a certain amount of it, yes, but by his own admission he lets the story take him where it will go. He's said that his characters "surprise" him. Based on how he describes his own writing process, I don't think it's likely that he meant for Theon's smile to be a character depth rosetta stone. A smile is not some deep element that reflects every single inner moment of turmoil for a character.

But if you want something more concrete than that, Jon notes that Cersei's smile is fake i.e. Cersei is fake. So Theon's smile probably just means he is in fact an "ass."

I am well aware of what a trope, stock character, and archetypes are, thank you. They are another thing that the author has admitted to using very knowingly and with a purpose.

You are contradicting yourself. You say that GRRM doesn't think off a background for the characters because he says they surprise him. But they surprise him because he does have a background and a personality for them. to the point where they start leading their own lives and take their own decisions that surprise even the writer.

Either way I don't think you have any authority on how other people should or shouldn't analyse characters. and frankly I don't really understand why you're even interested in analysing characters at all if this is how you think of them. or is it only the case with characters you don't like?

[~~~~~~~~~~~~~]

Theon could have smiled simply because he found it amusing as is actually written in the text.  He found most things amusing.  It needn't go any deeper than that. 

 

Character development happens over the course of the book.  George clearly wanted to develop Theon's character once he committed to having him in the book.  I truly do not feel Theon was in any way traumatized by what he witnessed.  It would not be the first time he had seen justice done. 

 

You must remember that in their time, hunting and killing animals was a matter of survival.  So was punishing criminals.  If they were sentenced to die then they died.  Most of the people in King's Landing came out to watch Ned's beheading.  I'm sure they weren't ordered to, they just wanted to.  This doesn't make them sick or evil.  It was just an ordinary occurrence in their time and in their society.

 

I agree that you can get anything out of the books that you wish, but I don't think that everyone else is wrong if they don't feel it is necessary to diagnose a character with a mental illness.  Few of us are qualified to do such a thing.  Its quite obvious that you invest a lot into Theon's character and perhaps strongly identify with him and some of the issues he has faced.  Not everyone will identify that strongly and its not the reader's responsibility to dissect every characters emotional makeup.  While some will find Theon sympathetic, not all will.  Everyone feels differently and they're entitled to.  Its not necessary for you to convince everyone that Theon is disturbed and that from the get go he is reacting to childhood traumas. 

 

One could argue that a mass murderer's childhood traumas led them to despicable acts.  This is cold comfort to those that were murdered or to their surviving families.  Theon did some horrendous things.  He has to own that, and I'm afraid you will have to accept that not everyone is going to forgive him for what he did.  If it helps, I'm sure that Bran forgave him.  Remember when he saw him through the Weirwood tree at Winterfell and called his name?  I believe that Bran was trying in some way to comfort Theon.  That is Bran's way.  Even his mother and father knew him to be a sweet and good natured child.

 

My first read through I wanted to bash Theon myself.  When he was tortured once, it didn't bother me.  When it was done again, over and over and over, well then, I changed my mind.  No one deserves that kind of torture.  Ramsay should have killed him.  Instead he chose to keep torturing him for his own pleasure.  Now, Ramsay is one sick puppy!

 

Anyway, I would not let anyone else's opinion upset you so much.  Whatever enjoyment you can get out of the books, I'm sure GRRM would want you to have it.  Books are meant to be enjoyed.  All of us are entitled to our own opinions and perspectives.  Have fun with the books.  They are fictional though and its important to keep that in mind also.

[INCBlackbird]

Theon could have smiled simply because he found it amusing as is actually written in the text.  He found most things amusing.  It needn't go any deeper than that. 

It's Bran who says that Theon "finds everything amusing" and he is another character with his own point of view of the matter. There is no all knowing force in AGOT, it's all character perspectives.

 

Character development happens over the course of the book.  George clearly wanted to develop Theon's character once he committed to having him in the book.  I truly do not feel Theon was in any way traumatized by what he witnessed.  It would not be the first time he had seen justice done.

Character development happens over the course of the books yes, but a character already needs to have a background and personality based on that background before the books start to make them a good character. That's why I was taught during my lessons on screenwriting that you need to know details about your characters to the point of "what's their favorite color" because their actions need to make sense and their development through out the story needs to make sense.

 

Traumatized is a strong word, but it's hard to believe that someone who knew he might die in the same way was not at all affected by seeing an execution like that happen.

 

 

You must remember that in their time, hunting and killing animals was a matter of survival.  So was punishing criminals.  If they were sentenced to die then they died.  Most of the people in King's Landing came out to watch Ned's beheading.  I'm sure they weren't ordered to, they just wanted to.  This doesn't make them sick or evil.  It was just an ordinary occurrence in their time and in their society.

The point is that Theon knew he might die the same way one day and we know he was very much aware of that since he talks about being scared of the shadow of Ned's longsword. So certainly that's different from someone who sees an execution without that knowledge, certainly that would affect them differently, would you agree?

 

I agree that you can get anything out of the books that you wish, but I don't think that everyone else is wrong if they don't feel it is necessary to diagnose a character with a mental illness.  Few of us are qualified to do such a thing.  Its quite obvious that you invest a lot into Theon's character and perhaps strongly identify with him and some of the issues he has faced.  Not everyone will identify that strongly and its not the reader's responsibility to dissect every characters emotional makeup.  While some will find Theon sympathetic, not all will.  Everyone feels differently and they're entitled to.  Its not necessary for you to convince everyone that Theon is disturbed and that from the get go he is reacting to childhood traumas. 

 

what i'm doing here is very far from diagnosing characters with mental illnesses though. it's simple character development. It's one of the most common defense mechanisms, that as I pointed out my best friend uses often and I have used, neither of us are mentally ill for using, I'm convinced that most people will use this defense mechanism at some point.

 

I'm not trying to convince people, I've learned long ago that when people dislike a character they'll continue to do so, but just because others don't think it's nessacary to invest time in a character before judging them, doesn't mean that I can't. or even that I can't find it important. i'd like to point that I'm quite consistant in doing this also with characters that I personally don't like. If I'll judge them, i'll take the time to look at things from their point of view and understand their actions.

 

 

One could argue that a mass murderer's childhood traumas led them to despicable acts.  This is cold comfort to those that were murdered or to their surviving families.  Theon did some horrendous things.  He has to own that, and I'm afraid you will have to accept that not everyone is going to forgive him for what he did.  If it helps, I'm sure that Bran forgave him.  Remember when he saw him through the Weirwood tree at Winterfell and called his name?  I believe that Bran was trying in some way to comfort Theon.  That is Bran's way.  Even his mother and father knew him to be a sweet and good natured child.

I don't need everyone to forgive him, but I do think it's important to be consistant in judging characters. If you are going to judge a character soley on their actions, and disregard their point of view completely, (which I do consider a wrong way to judge people but if you're consistant in doing this to every other character, I can be ok with it, it's a matter of not being a hypocrite) and that is not what happens, people cherrypick the characters they like and judge them according to the characters point of view and cherrypick the ones they don't like and go "look at it from the perspective of the people they got killed only" The same thing is happening here in my opinion. Lordstoneheart is cherrypicking Theon as a character who doesn't have any depth because he thinks George didn't intend for him to have any depth, while he himself has a reread thread about Catelyn, pointing out her character depth. You can't cherrypick which character has depth according to which character you like.

 

 

My first read through I wanted to bash Theon myself.  When he was tortured once, it didn't bother me.  When it was done again, over and over and over, well then, I changed my mind.  No one deserves that kind of torture.  Ramsay should have killed him.  Instead he chose to keep torturing him for his own pleasure.  Now, Ramsay is one sick puppy!

 

Anyway, I would not let anyone else's opinion upset you so much.  Whatever enjoyment you can get out of the books, I'm sure GRRM would want you to have it.  Books are meant to be enjoyed.  All of us are entitled to our own opinions and perspectives.  Have fun with the books.  They are fictional though and its important to keep that in mind also.

my enjoyment comes from analysing the characters I like, so I'd just really like it if I'm allowed to do that without people accusing me of excusing Theon's actions or overcomplicating him or undercomplicating him (all of this has happened LOL)