PoV induced prejudice

[Errant Bard]

This was inspired by an off topic about Jaime Lannister in the Dany and Marriage AFFC thread, and the remark that some characters do pretty horrifying things and are forgiven for them, while others might do milder things and are hated for it.

It seemed interesting to conduct a sort of moral assessment of these different characters, to try and see how the story structure twisted the reader's point of view.

I'll take two cases, to illustrate:

Jaime Lannister

He's a much reviled guy, but the reader's opinion of him started to change a bit after he got a PoV. Most of the bad things he does have good justification and arguably may do more good than bad. Let's review:

• He's a oathbreaker, but he had to choose between that oath and letting a genocidal, cruel, insane rapist get away with it after he decided to nuke one the biggest city of the continent just out of spite.
  
• He's fucking his sister, but incest has been actually tolerated in their society. In his own words: "If the Targaryens could do it, we can't we?". I have to add that if we forget the incest part, he's a model lover: faithful, devoted, sacrificing his own future for his lady, accepting to stay in the shadows for her to satisfy her ambition.
  
• He tried to kill Bran, because he saw him fucking Cersei. He is ready to go in exile to stay with Cersei, but Cersei won't have that. Hence, "The things I do for love," he said with loathing: he recognize that this is a loathsome act, but he still does it, for love.
  
• He killed Ned's men, after Ned endorsed Tyrion's arrest. Same for his freeing of Tyrion, it shows his care for his brother. He's practically the only one in the whole realm to love him. Other people have waged war for kidnapping or arrest of a loved one. Among them Eddard Stark and Robb Stark, so his reaction though still extreme is still mild, more akin to a border skirmish than a full on war.
  

On top of that, he actually does good deeds that are not controvertial:

• He doesn't lie. Simply noone asks him anything, except Catelyn.
  
• He protects people he likes, like Brienne or Tyrion, selflessly, and this includes their reputation like we see with Red Ronnet Connigton
  
• He tries to keep his words, until he is forced to choose between them and something more important (like another oath, family, love or actual morals)
  
• He tries to help his children, despite Cersei.
  
• He doesn't kill without good reason, and we never saw him do it for himself alone.
  
• He chose to break some oaths knowingly, but still bears the culpability, even if he feels it was justified, to the point that he decides to suicide the last time, when he decided to break his oath to Catelyn and fight the Tullys, or that he thinks himself that the victory was not honourable.
  

So, from my point of view, Jaime is essentially a hotheaded murderer, with extenuating circumstances and a good core, In a way he seems like a twisted Lancelot, who puts his love above anything, even the life of children.

Tyrion Lannister

The likable, witty dwarf, PoV from the start, wise and friendly to at least one other major PoV good guy, he's also cynical, hot-blooded, vicious and ready to do anything to get what he wants. He looks very much like Jaime, except his motivation is at times much more selfish.

What did he do:

• Raped his first wife because he was disappointed in her. You could say that he was ordered to, but if he was against it, he wouldn't have been physically able to do it. I blame Tywin mostly, but Tyrion isn't all white in this.
  
• Knew of his siblings incestuous relationship and children, and said nothing. Like Jaime, I chalk that to family sense. Tyrion never bets against his family, he plays along them.
  
• Knew who threw Bran out of the window, hinted at it the next morning when speaking to Jaime. Said nothing. Same as previous point
  
• Out of spite against Catelyn, decided to arm the mountain clans and go take the Eyrie. Can't say anything about this one, it's pure unadultered revenge. He's ready to plunge the whole region into war to "pay his debt".
  
• He kills a hapless bard on the pretext that, like Bran with Jaime, he threatened Shae and his relationship with her if he talked. I find it less palatable than even bran's accident, because in Tyrion's case, the consequences of anyone knowing are purely personal.
  
• He kills a lover that betrayed him, for vengeance.
  
• He kills his own father, for vengeance.
  

Like Jaime, he did good things, though, when it didn't cost him much:

• He was honest with and gave good advice to Jon, though he was not especially friendly, looking back.
  
• He was kind to Bran, giving him a saddle and good advice on his way down.
  
• He tried to educate Joffrey, and ended up criticizing his treatment of Sansa
  
• He protects his family, even Cersei and Joffrey
  
• He works hard for the people under his control, trying to do a good job, though that might be him trying to prove he can do it
  

.

That's all I can think of at the moment, but anyway, considering this, Tyrion is worse than Jaime, he murders twice as much, for selfish reasons, and has about as much care for consequences as his brother.

I had planned to talk about some other things to compare, like Jon's oathbreaking, Catelyn Stark fair judgement of Brienne, Beric Dondarrion's unfair judgement of Sandor, Arya Stark's cold blooded murders, Sandor Clegane's murder of Micah, and Bronn, but it's getting long already, maybe someone else do that in my place.

Anyway, with the two examples provided, Tyrion is vastly more popular than Jaime, even though the things he does have less moral justification. (Yes I know some people don't think much of Tyrion, but they are not the majority. I don't see constant Tyrion hate on the board either like I see about Jaime). I think the reason isn't that Tyrion is better than Jaime, it's that at first we saw Jaime's actions without PoV to justify them and were shocked about them, and we cannot overcome this initial impression. Tyrion had the pity factor working for him, he was always the underdog and thus garnered sympathy from the audience, and could not shake it even when he very clearly premeditated the murder of his father. On the other hand, Jaime cannot give us fancy bout of rage or sappy backstory when he orders Ned's men killed, he's the antagonist, and perhaps rightly so.

I wanted to continue with other characters because it might be fun seeing how the reader would percieve them if he wasn't in their head. I mean, for example, Arya, if you just saw her through other people's eyes, would be a rebellious kid, loud, annoying, uncaring of others, violent, dangerous to even her own friends, paranoïd, and frankly, slighly less psychopathic than Gregor Clegane. If Micah was a PoV, she would almost be a Joffrey.

[Anthem]

Brilliant post, Errant Bard. Though I'm a Jaime fan, mostly based on his wit.

I find that no matter how vile a character is, they're forgiven if they're actually funny. Tyrion is funny, to most people. We find him amusing, so despite his rape, murder and nasty sense of vengeance that rivals unCat's, it's forgivable because he's one of the best wise-crackers in the entire series.

He killed Ned's men, after Ned endorsed Tyrion's arrest. Same for his freeing of Tyrion, it shows his care for his brother. He's practically the only one in the whole realm to love him. Other people have waged war for kidnapping or arrest of a loved one. Among them Eddard Stark and Robb Stark, so his reaction though still extreme is still mild, more akin to a border skirmish than a full on war.

I always thought this was out of character for Jaime. I can't see Jaime of AFfC, or even ASoS, ordering something like that. Maybe GRRM was trying to establish readers' opinion of Jaime as a revolting piece of slime in AGoT, and turn it around completely in later books? Though I may blaspheme, I don't think Martin was entirely successful in this.

I mean, for example, Arya, if you just saw her through other people's eyes, would be a rebellious kid, loud, annoying, uncaring of others, violent, dangerous to even her own friends, paranoïd, and frankly, slighly less psychopathic than Gregor Clegane. If Micah was a PoV, she would almost be a Joffrey.

I disagree with this. Arya does care about others - remember in ACoK, she rescues that 'Weasel' girl from the fire even though she could've abandoned the kid? She saved Jaqen, Rorge and Biter from the flames, though in hindsight she should've only bothered with Jaqen. She cares enough about her friend Micah that she wants to avenge him.

I'll give you that she is rebellious, loud, annoying (this one's rather subjective) and violent. But she's a child who has seen too much too soon. Give me someone who wouldn't be permanently damaged after encountering the likes of the Tickler, or Weese, or Roose Bolton.

'Slightly less psychopathic than Gregor'? I'm no Arya fan, but this is going too far.

[Sarella]

Arya does care about others - remember in ACoK, she rescues that 'Weasel' girl from the fire even though she could've abandoned the kid? She saved Jaqen, Rorge and Biter from the flames, though in hindsight she should've only bothered with Jaqen. She cares enough about her friend Micah that she wants to avenge him.

I'll give you that she is rebellious, loud, annoying (this one's rather subjective) and violent. But she's a child who has seen too much too soon. Give me someone who wouldn't be permanently damaged after encountering the likes of the Tickler, or Weese, or Roose Bolton.

'Slightly less psychopathic than Gregor'? I'm no Arya fan, but this is going too far.

Errant Bard was describing how we would perceive Arya if we didn't have her POV. It is only because we do have her POV that we see her as you described.

ETA: The Arya example was an excellent one, Errant Bard. I completely agree that we have POV induced prejudice, and I think it happens with all POV characters. Ned and Catelyn would both seem like stone-faced snobs without their POVs.

The only two who I think I perceived the same before and after having their POV are Brienne and Sam.

[Anthem]

Errant Bard was describing how we would perceive Arya if we didn't have her POV. It is only because we do have her POV that we see her as you described.

If we had a Gendry POV we'll see pretty much the same thing. Or Hot Pie's, though Arya would be a bit more scary. But no way in hell would she look like a Joffrey.

[Anatole Kuragin]

She's about as annoying and bitchy as Joffrey.

[Elrick]

She's about as annoying and bitchy as Joffrey.

I have to disagree, Arya happens to be one of my favorite characters and I also happen to like Bran. I guess I don't agree with anyone on this board. Especially when they say stuff that is just an opinion and than make it sound like a fact in the series.

[Zoë Sumra]

I think Arya's a fantastic example of the kind of thing the OP meant. If we went into Arya's POV for the first time after about midway through ACOK, and if her story were written in any other way, we'd see just the traumatised child who is far too quick to kill people for comfort. This is the key thing - remember Hot Pie's shock when she killed the Harrenhal guard at the end of ACOK: this is a more natural reaction!

Instead, because we have the dual advantages of (a) having read Arya's AGOT background and ( her touches of naivete and charm, particularly when she's around Gendry, I feel she comes across as far more sympathetic than perhaps she "should". She's one of the three main (and all female) pillars of the darkening of the Stark family: her POV just hides it very well.

Cersei's another example. She's actually, in the first three books, not incredibly bright. This isn't particularly clear in AGOT - where she gets a lot of lucky breaks - but in ACOK she slips up all over the place and in ASOS she's near-completely ineffectual, probably due to Tywin's presence on set. Her particular brand of stupidity only truly reveals itself during her POV sections in AFFC, but it was there all along. Without her POV far fewer readers would have noticed.

I'm biased on this topic. I'm a massive fan of Jaime Lannister, but because of the whole redemption arc and increasing chivalry that is most clearly seen through his own POV and that I wouldn't appreciate properly if we didn't have his POV. (I would also be a big fan of Arya's if I didn't find much of her story arc (the wandering around the riverlands bit) annoying: I'm very fond of the character. Detest Cersei.)

...which illustrates the wonderful frustrations of ASOIAF. If you'd told me at the end of my first AGOT read that at the end of AFFC the Starks would look likely to erupt like so many little phoenixes instead of direwolves and that the Lannisters were imploding, I'd have cheered. Instead I'm permanently moping, because of the extra insights given by the later Lannister POVs, largely Jaime's.

[Lady Blackfish]

I think part of this is exactly the point with Martin's decision to tell the story in distinct points of view. Good guys and bad guys are dependent on who's side you're on, it's very us vs them and ... I think that's intended.

Though not a favorite of mine, I've always found Tyrion to be very well written, and that includes his dark side. It's very believable and compelling, but its not nonexistent. Same with Jaime actually. I wasn't aware that he was vastly less liked than Tyrion, he seems really popular (and is one of my favorite characters, so maybe I'm biased). I find them compelling, but lets be real, they've done pretty awful things.

I kind of think there are some characters that were put in Cinderella positions early on in the story and those grabbed the readers quickly, they chose to be on their side and sympathize. That's kind of powerful in a metafiction kind of way, if you think about it. That's kind of how history works, right? Seen from certain POV's (the winners' POVs, which is also related to how some people are very results-oriented about the characters they like). You choose your horse and you follow it until the end. Good and bad is dependent on POV, and some critical thinking about the story illustrates that to us.

[GSP]

Then there's the good old Hound. I mean, without even the advantage of a POV half the board seems to forget him butchering Mycah, and the myriad of similar attrocities that he is implied to have conducted as Lannister serice.

I find some of the things he's done attrocious, but am ever more the Sandor fan regardless. I wonder how far up the list to 'favourite character' he'd climb if we ever had the benefit of sympathetic explanations in his P.O.V. (personally I'm hoping GRRM opts for it. There's no reason not to. He's inherently a fascinating character in his role as 'anit-knight' and I can't think of any huge crackpot theory spoilers his P.O.V. would uncover like in the case of Howland Reed etc. (do inform me if you believe I'm incorrect). But maybe he's just a character GRRM likes to paint from a distance.).

[Elrick]

I dunno I suppose everyone has their favorites my brother for example just cant stand Tyrion while I happen to like him a lot. I don't feel sorry for Jaime at all, he deserved to lose his hand as far as I'm concerned for the man he once was. Now that he has lost his hand he's shown change and improvement but if this didn't happen I suspect that he would have been pretty much the same.

[mashiara]

Errant Bard, brilliant post. My perception of Jaime changed after we started seeing his POV. I went from disliking him to justifying his actions and then to actually liking him a lot. I doubt that would have happened if we weren't inside his head finding out what makes him tick and what causes his actions and how serious his internal struggle and his attempt to redemption is.

Tyrion.. I always liked Tyrion. And yes, I do agree with you, it probably had to do with seeing his thoughts from the first minute of the book and identifying with his POV.

Good point about Arya too. She would look even more unstable and strange without her own POV. Half her actions would make her look like a twisted child and there wouldn't be anything likable about her.

[Jon Targaryen]

I am definitely of the opinion that if Tyrion and Jaime's POV were reversed in the sense that Jaime was a POV from AGOT and Tyrion was introduced in ASOS, then the opinions on the characters would have been reversed. Many people would love Jaime all the way and while some people would have turned to Tyrion's side, many would still hate him as they did in AGOT and ACOK.

It's really a function of getting in their heads and when it happened. Both are on the side of the "bad guys" at least from a Stark POV, which is the POV we are made to identify with in the beginning. Both support incestous bastards who have no right to the throne. It's just that when we see their POV they become more likeable. And when we get into their heads makes a difference in how we view them.

[hobomagic]

Nice, but the best example of this is Dany. We all feel a tug at the heartstrings when her son dies, but the Stallion who Mounts the World would bring rape, fire, and death to a continent. Ironically, Viserys was right about the Dothrarki, all they know how to do is fight and steal the things better civilizations have built. From an objective perspective, Miri is a hero who saved tens of thousands of lives, if not more, but we still hate her...

[a_homeless_harpy]

So, from my point of view, Jaime is essentially a hotheaded murderer, with extenuating circumstances and a good core, In a way he seems like a twisted Lancelot, who puts his love above anything, even the life of children.

Ser Jaime and his oaths...I wonder why most of ASOIAF characters have such a mess in their heads. Is it the result of some gaps in their upbringing? Lack of religious or moral education of any kind? A bad example of the adults? Jaime knows pretty well what it takes to be a knight but he's broken this first and perhaps the most important oath in practically every book, sometimes more than once. Maybe he is shown this way just to expose the flaws of the society he lives in? As it was put by Sandor, the first and the most important function of a knight for his liege lord is killing - if so, why are the knights forced to swear an oath to protect the weaker - women, children etc.?

I'm not a big fan of Jaime Lannister. I agree that his character has made a long way from the darkest hue of grey (after throwing Bran out of the window just because the boy saw what Jaime definitely shouldn't have done) to almost Baleor the Blessed with a golden fist (when he saved Brienne from the bear or when he finally started to think about his oaths more seriously and didn't want to fight actively against the Tullys) but still his lack of spine from the first three books makes me uneasy. A twisted Lancelot? Very true, and I don't expect him ever go straighter.

It's really a function of getting in their heads and when it happened. Both are on the side of the "bad guys" at least from a Stark POV, which is the POV we are made to identify with in the beginning.

Even when I get into Jaime's POV I'm still aware of his flaws, although the author made a lot to make the reader understand his charm too. The main difference between Jaime and Tyrion from my side is that Tyrion thinks about his options and often choses the right/more honourable action although doing the wrong thing would be equally or more enticing, whereas Jaime...just acts and thinks later (or not).

An example? The scene of fight between Catelyn's men and the highwaymen, when they were approaching the Vale. Tyrion's first thought, seeing Catelyn attacked, was "let them have the bitch". After that, he defended her, although nobody would blame him for not doing so. He was her hostage, dragged to certain death. What do you think our sweet Jaime would do?

Good point about Arya too. She would look even more unstable and strange without her own POV. Half her actions would make her look like a twisted child and there wouldn't be anything likable about her.

Reading about Arya made me think about soldier children from Africa. Although her actions might be perceived as twisted and her character - unstable, the fact that she is just nine years old justifies it all even without her POV. Seeing attrocities of a post-war country would unhinge even an adult so you can't blame her for killing and scheming - she's had nobody and nothing else to protect her apart from her wits and her hands. I would also compare her to people, imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps - nobody even thought of finding them guilty of some attrocities they were forced to committ in order to survive. The fact that she didn't lack stamina and determination I would only count as her advantage. Not forgetting about eating worms. Mark my words, eating worms will be a big fave one of these days.

[Fatuous]

I dunno I suppose everyone has their favorites my brother for example just cant stand Tyrion while I happen to like him a lot. I don't feel sorry for Jaime at all, he deserved to lose his hand as far as I'm concerned for the man he once was. Now that he has lost his hand he's shown change and improvement but if this didn't happen I suspect that he would have been pretty much the same.

The most important part of Jaime's story arc. Even in his early POV scenes, he was still still the same bastard he always was from the first two books but for some reason people tend to ignore it. Vain, arrogant and deadly, that's all he wanted to be and he acted liked it to Brienne and his cousin Cleos.

The change came later but he always had the potential for "good works" because of he had a certain sense of loyalty.

POV induced prejudice? Not exactly but "Clear Motivation leads to understanding" is a little obvious.

[oneeye]

I'm always suprised how hard people are on Arya. She's fighting Tywin's 'monsters' as best as she can.

[Guest Other-in-law]

[*]He kills a hapless bard on the pretext that, like Bran with Jaime, he threatened Shae and his relationship with her if he talked. I find it less palatable than even bran's accident, because in Tyrion's case, the consequences of anyone knowing are purely personal.

"Hapless"?? That's almost as bad as claiming he's innocent. Symon Silver Tongue was actively blackmailing Tyrion with Shae's life at stake, upping the stakes and plotting for an "accident" to happen to one of his singing rivals. So Bran is innocent in intent, Symon greedy and malicious.

The infractions being covered up? Jaime was having an adulterous and treasonous affair with the Queen (we know what happened to the Toyne who did the same), breaking the explicit laws of the realm and his vow as a KG. Tyrion was having a perfectly legal relationship with a whore...that his tyrannical father forbade. Moreover he threatened to hang Shae if the relationship didn't stop. What possible legal basis would Tywin have for that? Unlike Jaime and Cersei's potential execution for treason, well...absolutely none.

The two cases are really night and day, and Symon should have damned well known the risk of blackmail. That he didn't insure himself the usual way by arranging for the damaging information to be made public if he died is his own stupid fault, but he's no innocent. He was offered an expense paid tour of all nine Free-Cities by his victim and turned it down out of greed and vanity. It's really hard to have any sympathy for him.

Of course the general point is obviously true. We forgive Tyrion a lot of things, like letting his wildlings run amok in the city, and refusing to punish them when they commit murder, as Shagga did. Maybe if Tyrion was a hypocrite about that sort of thing it would be easier to hate him, but he makes fairly few pretenses to being honourable, and doesn't have much reputation for it anyway.

I just noticed an interesting parallel between Robb and Tyrion. Robb is disgusted by Tyrion breaking his solemn vow before the gods to return Sansa (even though it was hardly so solemn as all of that, the messenger was extremely unreliable, in fact it was merely an offer with no expectation nor confirmation of acceptance). Likewise, Tyrion is simply shocked that Robb broke his solemn vow to marry a Frey girl. Now why is it that non-POV Robb doesn't get any hate for his dishonouable conduct? He is criticised for being dumb, and non-pragmatic, but what readers actually fault him for breaking his word to the Freys in itself? I don't recall any. Is that simply because the Freys are so unpleasant, and they got their hideous revenge anyway? That bit of oath-breaking is far less justified than Jaime's kingslaying, imo.

[Lady Blackfish]

Hardly anyone faults Tyrion for not returning Sansa either though. Robb does, which is different. (Though maybe I don't pay enough attention.)

[Guest Other-in-law]

Hardly anyone faults Tyrion for not returning Sansa either though. Robb does, which is different. (Though maybe I don't pay enough attention.)

OK, readers don't so much, but Tullys and Starks do it right and left!

[Shewoman]

Errant Bard, interesting thread. Thanks!

I do think one thing in Tyrion's favor deserves more attention than you gave it in your assessment of him in the first post: Sansa. He repeatedly protects her from Joffrey and those who follow Joffrey's orders as much as he can long before there's any talk of marriage between them that I recall. He makes such a point earlier in the series of saying he doesn't go against his family, but he doesn't let Joffrey get away with this kind of behavior. When he and Sansa are married and she expresses a desire for a celibate marriage, he's not happy with it in the least but he accedes to her request. It's hard for me to imagine any other adult male in the series doing that.

I am not, by the way, anything remotely resembling a Sansa fan. But I think his behavior where she's concerned is worth noting.

I did find myself reassessing Jaime once he had a PoV; I think it requires us to re-evaluate the oathbreaking "Kingslayer" image we got from Ned in Game of Thrones. Whatever he did, he had to break an oath.

Other-in-law, I agree with you about Tyrion and Robb in the breaking of oaths. I hadn't put them together that way until you did.

I'm just as glad that Arya doesn't live in my vicinity, but I have a lot more sympathy for her than for some of the older PoVs. She does seem to be by nature rebellious, as shown by the unsuccessful attempts to make a lady out of her at Winterfell, but she and Sansa see their father killed when they are about eight and ten (I have trouble keeping track of the kids' ages) and are both out of touch with their family from that time on. They react differently to this--Sansa puts her trust in Cersei and Arya trusts in herself and Needle. Arya, as the only girl in the troop being taken to the Wall, has to keep her gender a secret all that time as well as hiding her true name and parentage--she must constantly hide or lie about everything she is. She is in violent circumstances and responds violently, but she doesn't seem to have had many options. If she'd run to Cersei as Sansa did, I don't think she'd have found help there; Cersei really needed only one Stark daughter in her attempts to manipulate Catelyn and Robb, and after Arya's attack on Joffrey over Lady, she would never have accepted Arya in any case.