POVs, Unreliable Narrator, and You

[brashcandy]

I thought that Sansa's chapters were some of the most horrifying in the books because she casually comments about things that are pretty horrifying due to her naivete. One of the examples that stands out to me is Jeyne Poole. The readers know what is happened to Jeyne and are sickened by it, but Sansa doesn't understand. It reminds me of another famous example of an unreliable narrator, Scout Finch, in To Kill a Mockingbird. Due to Scout's age, she doesn't really understand everything everything, so she matterfactedly recounts some ugly truths.

Are you speaking of the time in AGOT when Sansa thinks that Jeyne will be allowed to see her father? Because this isn't an issue of unreliable narration, just that Sansa simply doesn't know, and she certainly has no clue what happens to Jeyne after she departs KL.

[Catacombs]

The unreliable narrator and/or the Rashomon effect of multiple POVs describing the same character or event creates the fun and the mysteries of the books. It the backbone structure of the series.

Jamie is a good example. In AGoT he is a human monster. He is defined by many characters [and readers] according to his myth. And yet, as the series develops his character becomes more complex--in part because of of his many POV chapters--and that story arc has made the overall story a deeper tale. Myth and memory are never what they seem.

What we know about many other non-POV characters are based on the impressions of POV characters.Some are bias, some are unreliable and some only show a character at a given point of time (the Lem Lemoncloak Arya knew is a very different man than the one Brienne knows). It is a great device to leave clues, red herrings and McGuffins.

The Hound, Wyman Manderly, Littlefinger, Varys and a host of other characters are only known though the perceptions of the POV characters. This allows for endless surprises.

Of them all, Brynden Rivers (Bloodraven) strikes me as one of the most interesting. Like Jamie, most of what readers and ASoIaF characters know about him is his myth--not his reality. I suspect, that like Jamie his story is far more complex than his legend would suggest.

We only meet him in the Bran POVs. In the Dunk and Egg stories he is also mostly described by his legend--except in the Mystery Knight where Dunk has first hand knowledge of him. Bloodraven is a living link to the past. He is one of the only known living characters left who might actually know what happened at Summerhall and the secrets of the overall plot. I suspect that he is a positive force in the stories, but based on how he is described in the POVs I can see how others might come to a different conclusion. I think a lot revolves around who's POV do you trust.

And in the guessing of what and who to trust is the fun of it.

Nice thread.

Cheers

[Elder Sister]

This is a fantastic thread; thank you.

The first reading of the books, I didn't notice the incongruities in various POVs. It was only in discovering this site that it even occurred to me what GRRM does; you get to know the characters the way you get to know people in real life, to some extent.

Also, it's interesting to read what a character says and what they actually do. Take Tyrion - what he says and what he does are very different. Sandor Clegane is another good example. He's constantly threatening Sansa and Arya, yet his actions are quite different.

Reading between the lines of Cersei's and Alayne's chapters are fascinating, but hard work, but Dany's and Jon Snow's seem fairly straightforward.

[Dr. Pepper]

Wow, this discussion is turning out to be quite fascinating. Thanks y'all!

In Varys' case a very unreliable narrator is Kevan dying. We get what Varys tells him, we even do not know if the wounded man is still able to understand everything he hears and of course we have no idea if Varys is telling the truth. Why should he tell Kevan anything, I mean, the man is meant to die! Does Varys simply like to hear himself talking - or is someone somewhere in the room who is supposed to hear Varys' speech? A hidden witness or is one of the little sparrows a spy for someone else to be fed with false hints? Conspiracy, conspiracy!

When I first read the books, I read all five in literally a week. I barely retained anything or connected things. But that last chapter in Dance was the biggest eye-opener for me and it was what made me start re-reading and seeking out more information. My final thought when I first read that epilogue was, "What the eff? Why would someone tell all of their secrets to a dying man when we are told over and over that the walls have ears? It doesn't make sense!" It was an excellent way to end the speed-read and a perfect jumping board to begin a re-read. On a lot of my rereads, I often completely ignore dialogue (internal and external) and only focus on the action and surroundings to try to pick up what really might be going on.

I thought that Sansa's chapters were some of the most horrifying in the books because she casually comments about things that are pretty horrifying due to her naivete. One of the examples that stands out to me is Jeyne Poole. The readers know what is happened to Jeyne and are sickened by it, but Sansa doesn't understand. It reminds me of another famous example of an unreliable narrator, Scout Finch, in To Kill a Mockingbird. Due to Scout's age, she doesn't really understand everything everything, so she matterfactedly recounts some ugly truths.

Sansa is a really good example of the use of the naive narrator, which is interesting to explore as well. With the naive narrator, the character unwittingly reveals the ugly truth of the world around them via their innocence and ignorance. I think Dunk might also be an example of the use of the naive narrator. Thinking about this, it makes me wonder about the use of this narration method in other POVs. I think it's easy to conclude that the child characters are naive narrators, but are their other instances of the naive narrator in the series?

[Pearlthegirl]

Brienne maybe? She does have a lot of Dunk-like qualities! ;) and Samwell. They aren't AS naive as the Stark children POVs but they are the only others I think come close.

Wow, this discussion is turning out to be quite fascinating. Thanks y'all!

When I first read the books, I read all five in literally a week. I barely retained anything or connected things. But that last chapter in Dance was the biggest eye-opener for me and it was what made me start re-reading and seeking out more information. My final thought when I first read that epilogue was, "What the eff? Why would someone tell all of their secrets to a dying man when we are told over and over that the walls have ears? It doesn't make sense!" It was an excellent way to end the speed-read and a perfect jumping board to begin a re-read. On a lot of my rereads, I often completely ignore dialogue (internal and external) and only focus on the action and surroundings to try to pick up what really might be going on.

Sansa is a really good example of the use of the naive narrator, which is interesting to explore as well. With the naive narrator, the character unwittingly reveals the ugly truth of the world around them via their innocence and ignorance. I think Dunk might also be an example of the use of the naive narrator. Thinking about this, it makes me wonder about the use of this narration method in other POVs. I think it's easy to conclude that the child characters are naive narrators, but are their other instances of the naive narrator in the series?

[brashcandy]

I think it's easy to conclude that the child characters are naive narrators, but are their other instances of the naive narrator in the series?

Not sure if this would apply but I've always felt Tyrion's narration in the PW chapter to be incredibly naive. Garlan is flattering him and basically setting him up to be the fall guy, and Tyrion thinks that Garlan truly gives a damn. We see the cunning of the Tyrells, but Tyrion remains blind. His perception of Sansa is skewed as well. We know that she's anxious about her coming escape, but Tyrion entertains the thought that she could be jealous of Margaery.

[Michael Snow]

I was absolutely thrilled when I realized old fat Manderly wasn't actually a craven walrus lord, and that he had no intention of executing Davos. I remember how worried I was about Davos because we got word of his execution much earlier, and things seemed to be heading in that direction when his arrival in White Harbor didn't go very well. Then, kaboom... Manderly became one of my new heroes. Frey pie n' all that.

[Kittykatknits]

The first reading of the books, I didn't notice the incongruities in various POVs. It was only in discovering this site that it even occurred to me what GRRM does; you get to know the characters the way you get to know people in real life, to some extent.

Also, it's interesting to read what a character says and what they actually do. Take Tyrion - what he says and what he does are very different. Sandor Clegane is another good example. He's constantly threatening Sansa and Arya, yet his actions are quite different.

Reading between the lines of Cersei's and Alayne's chapters are fascinating, but hard work, but Dany's and Jon Snow's seem fairly straightforward.

Tyrion and Sandor both reveal a theme within Martin's word - words are wind. What the characters say and do are two very different things often.

I like your observation that the POV structure is like meeting people in real life and I think that is absolutely true. I've had my first impressions of someone influenced by what I had previously heard before and I'm sure I am not alone in this. It really adds to the realism in this. A good example in the book appears in Arya's first chapter. She makes many comments about Sansa that really do not match what Sansa is actually doing. It is not until later in the book, after learning a bit more about Arya, that you realize that Arya is projecting her insecurities and presenting her thoughts as fact. Yet, it can influence us as readers.

Sansa is a really good example of the use of the naive narrator, which is interesting to explore as well. With the naive narrator, the character unwittingly reveals the ugly truth of the world around them via their innocence and ignorance. I think Dunk might also be an example of the use of the naive narrator. Thinking about this, it makes me wonder about the use of this narration method in other POVs. I think it's easy to conclude that the child characters are naive narrators, but are their other instances of the naive narrator in the series?

Brienne and Arya also serve as a narrator for other events. Brienne is very much like a GOT Sansa and Arya is just as naive as Sansa in her own way. We see the plight of the small folk through her POV which is magnified through her sense of justice and her existing connections to small folk.

[brashcandy]

I also think that we shouldn't necessarily construe unreliability as a negative trait. The example that stands out to me is Sansa's unkiss memory. I've seen it read as a sign that she's still a child indulging in a fantasy world, when it's actually connected to her developing womanhood and sexual agency.

[Kittykatknits]

I also think that we shouldn't necessarily construe unreliability as a negative trait. The example that stands out to me is Sansa's unkiss memory. I've seen it read as a sign that she's still a child indulging in a fantasy world, when it's actually connected to her developing womanhood and sexual agency.

Martin has said that the unkiss is a very specific example of unreliability so it's important to note that it is a specific incident versus an overall trend. I think one of the character that suffers from a large degree of unreliable narrator is Cersei in Feast. Martin gives the reader some obvious examples such as her ignoring the information about Slaver's Bay and the Ironborn. But, it's enough to point out that there is quite a bit more going on. There are scenes where Cersei is meeting with her advisers and she makes several interpretations of their expressions and actions that are wrong. It becomes apparent the death of her son and father, Tyrion's disappearance, and her estrangement from Jaime are all having an impact on her, manifesting as unreliable narrator.

[winterbird]

Sansa is a really good example of the use of the naive narrator, which is interesting to explore as well. With the naive narrator, the character unwittingly reveals the ugly truth of the world around them via their innocence and ignorance. I think Dunk might also be an example of the use of the naive narrator. Thinking about this, it makes me wonder about the use of this narration method in other POVs. I think it's easy to conclude that the child characters are naive narrators, but are their other instances of the naive narrator in the series?

Brienne and Jamie are both naive and Tyrion is likely to pick and choose at will and be willingly-naive (like with Shae and Jamie). Brienne is pretty self explanatory. Jamie less so, but throughout the series he has been naive falling to Cersei to do his thinking for him and when we get his POV it is like he is suddenly forced to face facts, face his shortcomings and face Cersei as not being everything he imagined. He was faithful to her while she slept with several others and he really thought she and Tyrion both had never lied to him. There are other instances too. It seems like having his hand cut off means he has to actually look with his eyes and see what is going on rather than just rely on his strength and charm to get him through. He has to start to think. And Tyrion, he picks someone and decides to be completely faithful to everything about them. We see this with Jamie as an idolized big-brother and with Shae as a lover. He reminds himself she's just a whore several times, but can't convince himself of the fact. It seems that he so much wants that love and connection that he is willing to ignore facts that are right in front of his face and believe in an ideal. Shae was very concerned with her dresses and jewels and less concerned with being near him. I think this is one reason they changed Shae for the show. when we see them on equal footing (as we would in the show) it would be all too apparent of book-Shae's motives. Making her seem like she loves him in the show achieves the same shock at her betrayal as the unreliable willing-blind to her character Tyrion POV in the book.

Yes. We can't fault the characters for their unreliability because we are getting their experiences and feelings and that always changes thing. Brash, when I said brushing aside, I meant more like "compartmentalizing." (Which means I think we were on the same page from what you've said). It's like she's taking the things that are happening (when LF is being creepy) and accepting that they happen and putting them away to think about them later. Alayne can't think about them now because it's detrimental to her survival (she can't give a man like LF reason to doubt her. It's also I think why she makes the distinction between LF and Petyr). For example we can look at three kisses 1) the hound 2) Sweetrobin and 3) Petyr (not the first time) 1) this kiss doesn't happen yet she remembers it in vivid detail more than once. 2) as this kiss is happening she describes it and you get thought and feeling. She compares the kiss and seems impatient with it. 3) the first time Petyr kisses her there is shock and she describes it. The more times he kisses her the less she describes it. almost like she is disassociating from the fact that it is happening which makes the kissing all the creepier. Oh! Dantos too, she describes his sloppy wet lips on her cheek in detail too. If you don't look beyond the surface of that it seems like Sansa is letting Petyr take advantage of her because she is just as naive as in GoT, but if you look deeper, you can see the disassociation and the pulling away from what is happening. You can read how she is dealing with the strange things that are happening to her and see how she has changed in the ways she approaches the information. As Alayne she is determined to learn as much as she can and by the way she refers to things you can tell that she is sorting the things that happen to her into two categories: things that are useful right now and things that I will need for later. She doesn't "forget" them. She talks about them, but the detail drops. She is one that because of the unreliable POV on the surface it looks like she changes little, but when you get into the way she speaks abut things and how she describes them you can see where she has really grown and changed. You have to get into the language in her head to do this though (and LF is only able to see her surface and not her inner monologue like us which is why I have hope that she will pull the wool over his eyes).

I wanted to say too, it's fun to see a POV that is unreliable because it really changes how you view the story. I remember for a history class I took in college, we were given two different packets of art work from the same Grecian island (same time period) one packet was full of art work depicting heroes and godly scenes the other packet was full of brutally sexual images with impossibly long members and all sorts of oppressive sex. By looking at one or the other packet you get a very different view of the society, but by looking at both together you get a more complete picture. But history is written by those who get to pick and choose what to use.

Let's take GoT... can you imagine what we would be thinking if we got a different POV instead of Ned's? What if we were introduced to Cersei first who thinks highly of herself. What if we saw this evil Hand coming and claiming her children were not heirs to the throne. Remember Ned is not exactly the warm welcoming fellow he is slightly detached in all human relations except for with his family (purposefully he told us he didn't get close in case he needed to judge but we wouldn't know that if we only had Cersei.) We would have heard sob stories about how drunken Robert was sharing beds with whores and picturing Lyanna while he hates Cersei and the only one who loved her in the whole world, the only one who looked out for her was Jamie. Would we have found her a more sympathetic character? Would we have been more likely to forgive her faults if we were allowed into her head early on? It's hard to think of Cersei starting out as a sympathetic character, but she wouldn't paint herself as a villain. She always thinks she right (as opposed to say Jamie who will tell us if he is doing something wrong but still committed to doing it.) Who's POV we see largely changes the way we feel about what is going on. I'm not arguing whether Cersei is sympathetic or not, what I am saying is if she had her POV right from the beginning and Ned didn't we might see her differently because she presented herself differently. (remember she seems more crazy as the series progresses. Or she might have been more over the top and we might have hated her even more strongly and right from the beginning.) It's interesting to me that GRRM doesn't give us her POV for so long and then suddenly does when she has always been a major character.

It is interesting when we do get two POVs that tell us the same thing. Jon and Cat for instance are both very clear on how Cat didn't like Jon. If we only got Jon's POV on the situation we might have assumed he wasn't so reliable because he was a child and children can often be overly sensitive (aside from the "it should have been you" line that was pretty clear, but I mean his childhood treatment). If we didn't see it from Cat or from how Cat affected his own siblings, we might not have taken his word so seriously. As it is we get from both flat out that she hates him we are certain of it.

I love the unreliable POV because it's much more realistic than a narrator that knows exactly everything about what is going on in factual detail.

[bent branch]

The POV structure of ASOIAF is the single thing I love most about the series. I normally don't read fantasy (that is my husband and daughters' preferred genre) and tend to read mysteries. I loved the POV structure from the beginning, because it demands the reader engage the material if they want to have any chance of understanding what is going on. Additionally, GRRM is very subtle in how he manipulates the reader's perceptions. One thing I have noticed is that he will have a reliable and trustworthy character say something that is completely wrong and put the correct answer in the mouth of a fool.

There's one minor thing I've got to mention I love from the Sansa / Alayne POV. It's not really about narrative structure but I thought it was a neat titbit. Alayne is travelling down the mountain and Sansa hears a wolf howl.

As kind of a reverse situation from POV's adding clues towards a truth, there's the problem of working out the truth from only a single unreliable POV. What happened to Cersei's childhood friend Melara? Cersei is an unreliable narrator and it is unlikely anybody knows or cares enough to reveal the truth to us. But if the narrator is consistently unreliable in the same way that can reveal a lot of truth they are not directly thinking. I see in Cersei a tendency to convince herself that other people have betrayed her in order to justify her mistreatment of them (did she not at one point stun the Small Council into silence by complaining Sansa betrayed her despite all the kindness she had been shown?). According to Cersei's memories Melara also betrayed her - but because of the trend this just convinces me that it was Cersei that did Melara wrong and Melara did not commit a betrayal. So I don't think Melara fell in the Well by accident but was pushed by Cersei for selfish reasons. I think the actual motive has to be worked out from a single remembered line; Melara suggested if they never spoke of the prophecies they would not come true, perhaps Cersei took the idea a step further and killed the only other person who had heard her prophecy.

You are right that Cersei pushed Melara into the well. I have never thought any differently.

"I get three questions too," her friend insisted. And when Cersei tugged upon her arm, she wriggled free and turned back to the crone. "Will I marry Jaime?" she blurted out.

You stupid girl, the queen thought, angry even now. Jaime does not even know you are alive. Back then her brother lived only for swords and dogs and horses . . . and for her, his twin.

"Not Jaime, nor any other man," said Maggy. "Worms will have your maidenhead. Your death is here tonight, little one. Can you smell her breath? She is very close."

Cersei pushed Melara into the well. She pushed her into the well for daring to want Jaime. I say this because at one point Cersei says Melara was her best friend until Melara betrayed her. Well, Melara had done nothing to betray Cersei up to the point they entered the tent. After they left the tent Melara "fell" down a well. Ergo, the only possible betrayal was Melara expressing an interest in Jaime.

Viserys and the Hired Knives

In Dany's chapters, we learn that she and Viserys were constantly on the move because they were fleeing from Robert's hired knives. However, we see in a Ned chapter that Robert regrets never sending hired knives after them when he had the chance on advice from Jon Arryn. This revelation does not undermine Dany's fear of these hired knives. She believed them to be a very real threat to her life and safety. However, it reveals to the reader that Viserys was unwilling to admit to the real reason why they were always on the move: no one took him seriously enough to offer him assistance in claiming the Iron Throne nor to offer them indefinite shelter free-of-charge. It also reveals to the reader that Dany is not as observant as she thinks she is.

I have to disagree with your interpretation of Dany's ideas on this issue. In Dany's first POV in AGOT we get this:

They had wandered since then, from Braavos to Myr, from Myr to Tyrosh, and on to Qohor and Volantis and Lys, never staying long in any one place. Her brother would not allow it. The Usurper's hired knives were close behind them, he insisted, though Dany had never seen one.

Viserys insisting means Dany was questioning. Dany always doubted that there were hired knives following them, but as a child she had no choice other than to let Viserys drag her around. The conversation between Robert and Ned would appear to actually confirm Dany's suspicions that there were no hired knives following them. However, I agree with you that Dany was unobservant (and I would cut her a big break here because during this time period she was between about 5 and12 years old), because there were "hired knives" sent after them. From this same quote I get the impression that Viserys and Dany were being "herded" towards Pentos and Illyrio. The intent was never to kill them, only to get them to head independently in the direction that Varys wanted them to go.

Great thread.

I like to be practical: if one questions everything things tend to get wide-open for personal interpretation based on that nasty creepy thing called personal bias.

So to keep things simple I tend to think that most of what GRRM gives us in the text can be trusted.

Of course there are unreliable narrators, but GRRM gives us clues for this.

Those clues are probably the same as we encounter in real life when people are telling us things from their point of view.

Time can fog memories, eye witnesses are not always reliable, people tend to blame others and not themselves for what goes wrong, people tend to see the black in characters they don't like and the white in characters they do like.

I agree with you that many interpretations are subject to personal bias. There is indeed the unreliable narrator and also the unreliable reader. Those readers who express a great love, a great hate or extreme boredom for certain POVs need to be extra careful in their interpretations. Emotions like these can lead to incorrect interpretations. One of the biggest problems I see in how somethings are interpreted is that many people don't ask the first question that an old mystery reader like myself asks, "Is it even possible for this person to know this?" An example of this was when reports of Davos' death were being flung about in AFFC. I never assumed either way (dead or alive), because I realized that all the characters reporting this information really had no way of actually knowing if Davos was truly dead.

[kg1982]

Are you speaking of the time in AGOT when Sansa thinks that Jeyne will be allowed to see her father? Because this isn't an issue of unreliable narration, just that Sansa simply doesn't know, and she certainly has no clue what happens to Jeyne after she departs KL.

Actually from a reader's point of view, it is quite clear that something bad is going to happen to Jeyne. She knows her father is dead and she knows that nothing good can come of this. A savvier point of view - Tyrion or even Margaery - would know exactly what was happening to Jeyne and would mention it outright. What is horrific about the situation is that we're observing the scene through a young girl and that she is clueless about what is happening to her friend. The readers have enough clues and hints that they are not. Sansa isn't lying to herself like the "unkiss," but she is an unreliable narrator because because what she is saying is untrue.

[brashcandy]

Sansa isn't lying to herself like the "unkiss," but she is an unreliable narrator because because what she is saying is untrue.

I see your point, but I think it's closer to what Dr. Pepper described as naive narration. We're not so much fooled by Sansa's POV here, but aware that she hasn't fully grasped the severity of the situation.

[Dimadick]

And I'm very interested in Barristan getting POV chapters because he was a silent figure in the background for so long. He seems reluctant to take the helm and actually become a protagonist. It feels almost like the POV was forced upon him just as the job of working as the Queen's representative within Mereen is.

Actually Barristan hasn't been silent in quite a while. He was our main source on insider information on the previous generation of Targaryens. But his POV paints his role in a slightly different light. "Plots, ploys, whispers, lies, secrets within secrets, and somehow I have become part of this. Perhaps by now he should have grown used to such things. The Red Keep had its secrets too. Even Rhaegar. The Prince of Dragonstone had never trusted him as he had trusted Arthur Dayne."

First we learn that he was out of the loop for several secrets. Second, Barristan had been painting a rather ambiguous view of Rhaegar within the last couple of books. We thought he was trying to be objective. If he felt the Prince distrusted him and marginalized him, his objectivity when it comes to Rhaegar comes into question.

Also the line implies that Arthur was more involved in the "cloak and dagger" stuff than Barristan. Up till now, we get overwhelmingly positive views of Arthur. Particularly by guys like Jaime who looked up to him. Perhaps we have yet to understand his role.

[Eira Seren]

I'm glad you brought this up as it's an example I had forgotten when I set aside examples for this thread. To further this, the reader must consider which POV or character to trust. We see Sansa interact with Lollys very little, but it's more than we see with other characters. Does that mean Sansa's view is more reliable (I believe this), or does it mean that there is truth in Tyrion's and Cersei's opinion that she's a bovine lackwit? Furthermore, what does it reveal about the characters when they reveal their opinions of others?

this is a really good point. more and more, i find that i have to read things two ways: first, take into consideration the information, where else it applies and how it changes previous understanding of a character. second, read it back against the character presenting the info. for example, on my 2nd read i started paying more attention to Selmy's info to Dany regarding Rhaegar. my perception (Robert's perception) of Rhaegar as a vile kidnapper certainly started to change. I wondered how reliable Selmy is as a narrator, and how he says he wasn't ever close to Rhaegar or really included in Rhaegar's plans.

When I read Dr. Pepper's post above, I also started thinking about this. Why is Selmy helping Dany? Is it anger at the Lannisters? Atonement for bending the knee? Or maybe he thinks she's a good bet? Now I am thinking, What if Selmy always wanted to be part of Rhaegar's inner circle, but wasn't really invited. He got to be, for a while he even got to be Lord Commander. Now that he's lost everything, it makes sense that he would return to the Targaryen side. And he's finally made it in good, with Rhaegar's sister, the up-and-coming Queen. (at least she is according to Selmy).

Pay attention to how he comes across in each POV too. He's also in Tyrion and Ned's point of view. In Ned's, he's the most brutal, Tyrion he is more of a servant, in Sansa's he is the most erratic. But you get the closest to who he is as a person in the Sansa and Arya POVs.

Loving this thread! Thanks for it.

I've been enjoying picking up more on the trustworthiness ( or lack thereof) of the different POVs on rereads. It's especially insightful to see everyone fooling themselves. Alayne and Cat of the Canals hiding from who they are. Cercei's drunken arrogant elitism(it's hard not to say "oh snap" after her every thought). Wondering...who are the most trustworthy of POVs? Does anyone see the face value of the people around them?

I think Jon and Selmy are more trustworthy than others. And Arya too, in all her incarnations, after all Syrio fought her how to be observant. She is observant for us the reader, even when she doesn't understand quite what she is witness to due to her youth! GRRM really captures her inner monologue and I think that helps her to be a fan favorite.

Also, Jaime....he is becoming more likable? redeemed? because he's learning to not lie to himself. Anyway I think his POV is pretty straight shooting.

Anyone else?

i'm really glad you asked about trustworthiness, because it occurs to me that GRRM began the series with a character who we would have little trouble trusting, Ned. Now, we know that Ned has made some promises that have had some mixed results, but I trusted Ned completely. Before I go back and totally dismantle my initial reading of Ned, I will say that I think GRRM deliberately presented us with a character we could find genuine. He may even be genuine. It may be that we need these characters, the Neds and the Arya's, etc, in order to pick up on all the lies and deceptions of the other characters.

But, and this is my caveat when it comes to trustworthy characters, like Ned's perception of the Hound, just because they are trustworthy, they aren't always right. Or maybe they are? The Hound is a brutal character. And to someone like Ned, the Hound's brutality contrasts with gentler personalities, which may serve to highlight the contrast further. We see him a bit differently from Sansa. Sansa also probably thinks Ned is brutal from time to time (he did kill Lady). Before I get completely lost here, I want to say that Ned makes plenty of bad decisions. This does not detract from his trustworthiness. Rather, it makes me trust his POV all the more. Reading the series from the beginning through the POV of a character I trust is important--I'm willing to stay with the story, despite it's brutality and gruesome realities. It makes us work a little harder to uncover the layers and get to know the characters. I think the opening trustworthiness of Ned's POV lulls us a bit into letting the unreliable things initially slip by unnoticed, allowing GRRM to surprise us.

[Dimadick]

We see something different with Brown Ben Plumm. Dany meets him first and says that he has friendly eyes and thinks she can trust him. In Dance, Tyrion also meets BBP and notices that he has very calculating eyes and is someone not to be trusted.

Even better. Tyrion's impression of Ben is: "A warm smile, that. Friendly. But my, those eyes are cold".

This paints a parallel to "A Game of Thrones" where Eddard pays attention to the smile of Petyr Baelish, but not his eyes. Instead Sansa notices immediately:

He had grey-green eyes that did not smile when his mouth did.

Suddenly kindly old Ben starts sounding like our old familiar face from the Vale.

[Dimadick]

She's also ignoring a revolt in Slaver's Bay when Qyburn is telling her it is deadly serious . . .

She never lets the Master of Whisperers finish his report on Slaver's Bay, and we learn that he knows more than her on what is going on there.

Qyburn: "The slave revolt in Astapor has spread to Meereen, it would seem. Sailors off a dozen ships speak of dragons."

Cersei: "Harpies. It is harpies in Meereen. Let the slaves revolt. Why should I care? We keep no slaves in Westeros. "

She also ignores his report on political developments in the Free Cities, because "The Free Cities were always fighting one another. Their endless betrayals and alliances meant little and less to Westeros."

She again pays little attention to his report on Dorne. Despite Qyburn insisting that there have been news of arrests and forced marriages of close associates of Princess Arianne Martell. He implies that this means there are internal conflicts in Dorne, but again Cersei reacts with loosing patience with him.

Some characters' actions are definitely making waves, but Cersei's POV sees all information not concerning King's Landing as useless trivia.

[Dimadick]

And Arya too, in all her incarnations, after all Syrio fought her how to be observant. She is observant for us the reader, even when she doesn't understand quite what she is witness to due to her youth! GRRM really captures her inner monologue and I think that helps her to be a fan favorite.

Actually, Arya has other problems of reliability. She is knowledgeable enough on ground-level events. She rarely pays attention to the political aspect of things and is at times frustratingly ignorant on things we would expect to learn from characters like Sansa. During her stay in Harrenhal, Arya herself is frustrated because she can recognize only a hand-full of the sigils of the prisoners. Failing to recognize their identities because of that. She thinks to herself:

"Sansa would have known who he was, and the fat one too, but Arya had never taken much interest in titles and sigils. Whenever Septa Mordane had gone on about the history of this house and that house, she was inclined to drift and dream and wonder when the lesson would be done."

For example, Arya easily recognized the symbol of the Twins and calls "Frey" everyone bearing it. But is unable to understand what a sigil with "a silver-and sapphire trident" means. She has no idea who House Manderly are supposed to be. She is equally frustrated with failing to recognize "a black cloak with white suns". She is actually interacting with Harrion Karstark, but fails to recognize that the guy is a Northman. Because again she has no idea who House Karstark are to begin with.

[Dimadick]

Bloodraven is a living link to the past. He is one of the only known living characters left who might actually know what happened at Summerhall and the secrets of the overall plot.

I would seriously doubt that. He would be a great source on information on the reigns of Aegon IV (172-184), Daeron II (184-209), and Aerys I (209-221). But spend the reign of Maekar I (221-233) in the dungeons of the Red Keep, and was sent to the Night's Watch c. 233. The death of Aergon V and his closest advisors in Sumerhall took place c. 259. By that time Bloodraven was out of power for almost 40 years and at a great distance from Summerhall. He may know a lot, but the guy is not omniscient.