MARTIN’S POV & PRONOUN ERRORS in AGoT “PROLOGUE”

[LiveFirstDieLater]

Do you judge SMS text messages when you receive them?

Lol!!!

[evita mgfs]

Do you judge SMS text messages when you receive them? :worried:

I AM SAD. Martin has never sent me a message, but I never sent him one either.

Don't get me wrong, dear. As an educator whose job was to instill an appreciation of the English language and its correct usages to young minds, I value the preservation of what seems to be a lost art -especially with texting and emails.

AS IS SAID IN MY ESSAY, there are instances when informal or colloquial language is accepted.

I hold Martin to a higher standard - YOU KNOW, like Fitzgerald, James Joyce, William Golding, and Antony Burgess.

[Lord Freypie]

What about the erroneous use of caps lock in a thread title, or random SHOUTS in posts ?

Is it intended to create a contrast between support of XIXth century formal litterature concepts, and ignorance of XXIth century basic internet etiquette ?

(and why the small "in" in the title when the rest is in caps, is it to examplify the nuances of "good style" ?)

Someone needs to write an essay on that.

[Greg B]

Martin is not writing from Will's first person point of view! It IS LIMITED THIRD!

[snip]

Martin does not emulate Twain in Huck Finn.

It's not a question of POV or language/dialect. It's a question of narrative voice. This rather famous example of third person limited narrative must drive you mad:

Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say

that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last

people you'd expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious,

because they just didn't hold with such nonsense.

[falcotron]

The premise here seems to be that the colloquial use of impersonal you from Will's perspective is something unique to the prologue, which doesn't match the precise writing of the rest of the book, and therefore it must have some meaning.

But GRRM does the exact same thing throughout the rest of the book. Here are just a few of the many examples:

Arya thought that Myrcella’s stitches looked a little crooked too, but you would never know it from the way Septa Mordane was cooing.

(chapter 7)

To a boy, Winterfell was a grey stone labyrinth of walls and towers and courtyards and tunnels spreading out in all directions. In the older parts of the castle, the halls slanted up and down so that you couldn’t even be sure what floor you were on.

(chapter 8)

She treasured every chance to spend time with him, few as they were. The only thing that scared her about today was Arya. Arya had a way of ruining everything. You never knew what she would do.

(chapter 15)

Then he was above the towers, still inching his way upward. Castle Black lay below him, etched in moonlight. You could see how stark and empty it was from up here; windowless keeps, crumbling walls, courtyards choked with broken stone.

(chapter 21)

And he continues to do it over the next four books. And this is not incorrect in any way. Colloquial language makes perfect sense to represent the inner viewpoint of a character. (Especially in American English, where the pronoun "one" almost always comes across as stilted and unnatural.)

[evita mgfs]

It's not a question of POV or language/dialect. It's a question of narrative voice. This rather famous example of third person limited narrative must drive you mad:

Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say

that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last

people you'd expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious,

because they just didn't hold with such nonsense.

NO.

I tried to post an essay with original thought that had not been hashed and rehashed to death on westeros.

As usual, I get such fireballs hurtled because NO ONE READs anything my essay said!

I address all your points in the essay!

[evita mgfs]

The premise here seems to be that the colloquial use of impersonal you from Will's perspective is something unique to the prologue, which doesn't match the precise writing of the rest of the book, and therefore it must have some meaning.

But GRRM does the exact same thing throughout the rest of the book. Here are just a few of the many examples:

(chapter 7)

(chapter 8)

(chapter 15)

(chapter 21)

And he continues to do it over the next four books. And this is not incorrect in any way. Colloquial language makes perfect sense to represent the inner viewpoint of a character. (Especially in American English, where the pronoun "one" almost always comes across as stilted and unnatural.)

EXACTLY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

As I pointed out in my essay and posts, I took a year off westeros to annotate and deconstruct POVs in AGoT.

That Martin does shift POV in other narratives - but he does NOT in, say "Bran I" AGoT, indicates that Martin may be leaving a breadcrumb for his readers.

However, I see how informal language uses may be the cause of Martin's shifts.

But please, why were the PRONOUN REFERENCE PROBLEMS and DANGLING MODIFIER not corrected by editors?

[evita mgfs]

What about the erroneous use of caps lock in a thread title, or random SHOUTS in posts ?

Is it intended to create a contrast between support of XIXth century formal litterature concepts, and ignorance of XXIth century basic internet etiquette ?

(and why the small "in" in the title when the rest is in caps, is it to examplify the nuances of "good style" ?)

Someone needs to write an essay on that.

I suppose this is an insult gauged at my use of capitalization. I am not as aware of appropriate voice or style as I taught my students how to write using correct form.

I apologize if my use of caps has offended anyone.

[evita mgfs]

It's not a question of POV or language/dialect. It's a question of narrative voice. This rather famous example of third person limited narrative must drive you mad:

Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say

that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last

people you'd expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious,

because they just didn't hold with such nonsense.

Your example is mute. It is in no way part of the narrative as it is separated by a comma and it is clearly informal.

Your evidence in no way reflects what Martin does.

Why are posters so hateful?

Please look at how I analyzed Martin's shifts - I assert they have great purpose.

I came from a thread where maggots on a dead direwolf are discussed ad nauseum for pages!

Either Martin writes purposely - or he doesn't.

If you people are correct, you draw all my fine thoughts about Martin into question!

Why are so many people on westeros if Martin is a sloppy author?

[Bastard of Balmora]

Your example is mute. It is in no way part of the narrative as it is separated by a comma and it is clearly informal.

Your evidence in no way reflects what Martin does.

Why are posters so hateful?

Please look at how I analyzed Martin's shifts - I assert they have great purpose.

I came from a thread where maggots on a dead direwolf are discussed ad nauseum for pages!

Either Martin writes purposely - or he doesn't.

If you people are correct, you draw all my fine thoughts about Martin into question!

Why are so many people on westeros if Martin is a sloppy author?

Capitalizing random parts of your sentences for emphatic effect does nothing to convince us one way or another. In fact, it just makes you look lonely and sad.

[Greg B]

I am not as aware of appropriate voice or style as I taught my students how to write using correct form.

Cool.

Your example is mute. It is in no way part of the narrative as it is separated by a comma and it is clearly informal.

"Moot."

Rowling uses third person limited POV. Her use of the "generic you" is appropriate to the informal narrative voice she employs. Same with Martin.

On the dangling modifier, I mostly agree that the sentence you identified is somewhat poorly constructed. Note, too, that even this very old "rule" is diminishing. Some editors are fine with danglers as long as the meaning of the sentence isn't ambiguous. Some will leave a dangler alone if the implied subject is the reader or writer.

[three-eyed monkey]

I really enjoyed the OP, but I don't agree with all of it. I would not consider GRRM's use of "you" in the examples you cited as a switch to 2nd person. I read it as an indefinite pronoun, and as people have pointed out, "one" would seem inappropriate for a poacher like Will. If anything, Will seems extremely articulate at times, given that every word of his chapter should come from his character. But that's a balance every writer has to strike. Too much Will and not enough George, and it wouldn't be as good a read.

The only time I can remember GRRM seriously breaching a character's POV was when Vic was getting his arm treated and there was a brief switch to what can only be described as an omniscient narrator for a paragraph, if I recall correctly. This has to be intentional though. There's no way anyone but a novice would do it in error. It might be for reasons of mood, or perhaps there is an in-universe explanation like an OBE, but it is a conscious choice by the writer.

With regard to the use of italics, as mentioned by some of the posters, this is to signify a switch to first-person. While all first-person sentences are inner monologue, not all inner thoughts are in first-person. Sometimes GRRM gives inner thoughts in third-person, and not always with the qualifier of "he thought" or "she thought" attached, which means he is using an increasingly popular form of third-person-limited known as close-third, and that makes phrases like "in your cups" even more acceptable. These are choices made by the writer to place you more firmly in the skin of the character. And they work.

[evita mgfs]

Cool.

"Moot."

Rowling uses third person limited POV. Her use of the "generic you" is appropriate to the informal narrative voice she employs. Same with Martin.

On the dangling modifier, I mostly agree that the sentence you identified is somewhat poorly constructed. Note, too, that even this very old "rule" is diminishing. Some editors are fine with danglers as long as the meaning of the sentence isn't ambiguous. Some will leave a dangler alone if the implied subject is the reader or writer.

HAR! I used to be a far better speller than I am now!

I agree. What my essay asserts is that Martin does shift for a purpose!

I am sad about danglers being accepted.

I still think better of Martin.

[falcotron]

EXACTLY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

Then I don't understand your point. If the use of impersonal "you" is correct (normal and idiomatic) English, and appropriate for anything but highly formal and stylized contexts in American English, and there's no contrast between the prologue and the rest of the book, then how does any of your evidence show that he's using incorrect English and that must be meant as a contrast with the rest of the book?

That Martin does shift POV in other narratives - but he does NOT in, say "Bran I" AGoT, indicates that Martin may be leaving a breadcrumb for his readers.

Again, he's not shifting POV, he's using a perfectly natural English-language idiom.

And where in "Bran I" would you expect him to use this idiom? He doesn't use it because it doesn't come up; there's no evidence of him deliberately avoiding it by using the pronoun "one" or awkwardly rewording sentences. Throughout the book, wherever you'd expect someone to use impersonal "you", they do so.

But please, why were the PRONOUN REFERENCE PROBLEMS and DANGLING MODIFIER not corrected by editors?

Because they're not errors. If you try to analyze English by the rules you're taught in high school, some things that are perfectly valid English don't fit into those rules. That doesn't mean it's incorrect to use such English, just that the rules are imprecise and/or incorrect.

Your example is not a dangling participle, but an absolute construction. When you say "All things considered, it's not that bad", the participial phrase does not modify "it" (whatever "it" refers to), but the entire sentence. The American Heritage Dictionary's usage section gives this example: "The referee having finally arrived, the game began." In our case, "lying there like that" modifies the entire sentence. The fact that it appears as if it could also modify "him" is a misleading coincidence.

I'm suspect you're going to object that an absolute construction requires a subject to the participle, but that's actually not true. What it requires is not a subject, as can be made clear by adding one. Compare the following:

1. He lying there like that, you saw how young he was. Clearly incorrect.
2. Him lying there like that, you saw how young he was. Correct, but somewhat awkward.
3. Lying there like that, you saw how young he was. Correct and natural, even if some grammar school teachers will mark you down for it.

Also, the antecedent of "that" is not at all unclear. It's a discourse reference, not an anaphoric reference, so the reference is looked up at the discourse or pragmatic level, not the grammatical level.

The other issues you raise are only a consequence of misinterpreting the participle. Or, to put it a different way, even if it really were a dangling participle, there's no additional error of logic or anything else independent of that dangling participle; you have to deliberately misinterpret the sentence to make it illogical.

And finally, even if this were a dangling participle, you're making a huge mountain out of a molehill here. That would be one error, out of all of the examples of non-errors that you compiled.

[evita mgfs]

I really enjoyed the OP, but I don't agree with all of it. I would not consider GRRM's use of "you" in the examples you cited as a switch to 2nd person. I read it as an indefinite pronoun, and as people have pointed out, "one" would seem inappropriate for a poacher like Will. If anything, Will seems extremely articulate at times, given that every word of his chapter should come from his character. But that's a balance every writer has to strike. Too much Will and not enough George, and it wouldn't be as good a read.

The only time I can remember GRRM seriously breaching a character's POV was when Vic was getting his arm treated and there was a brief switch to what can only be described as an omniscient narrator for a paragraph, if I recall correctly. This has to be intentional though. There's no way anyone but a novice would do it in error. It might be for reasons of mood, or perhaps there is an in-universe explanation like an OBE, but it is a conscious choice by the writer.

With regard to the use of italics, as mentioned by some of the posters, this is to signify a switch to first-person. While all first-person sentences are inner monologue, not all inner thoughts are in first-person. Sometimes GRRM gives inner thoughts in third-person, and not always with the qualifier of "he thought" or "she thought" attached, which means he is using an increasingly popular form of third-person-limited known as close-third, and that makes phrases like "in your cups" even more acceptable. These are choices made by the writer to place you more firmly in the skin of the character. And they work.

:bowdown: THANK YOU! Great thoughts.

As Will is Martin's homage to Shakespeare, I considered deliberate errors, especially since Shakespeare wrote for the masses, he makes many grammatical errors. :dunce:

I appreciate your evidences, and you are very convincing.

[evita mgfs]

Then I don't understand your point. If the use of impersonal "you" is correct (normal and idiomatic) English, and appropriate for anything but highly formal and stylized contexts in American English, and there's no contrast between the prologue and the rest of the book, then how does any of your evidence show that he's using incorrect English and that must be meant as a contrast with the rest of the book?

Again, he's not shifting POV, he's using a perfectly natural English-language idiom.

And where in "Bran I" would you expect him to use this idiom? He doesn't use it because it doesn't come up; there's no evidence of him deliberately avoiding it by using the pronoun "one" or awkwardly rewording sentences. Throughout the book, wherever you'd expect someone to use impersonal "you", they do so.

Because they're not errors. If you try to analyze English by the rules you're taught in high school, some things that are perfectly valid English don't fit into those rules. That doesn't mean it's incorrect to use such English, just that the rules are imprecise and/or incorrect.

Your example is not a dangling participle, but an absolute construction. When you say "All things considered, it's not that bad", the participial phrase does not modify "it" (whatever "it" refers to), but the entire sentence. The American Heritage Dictionary's usage section gives this example: "The referee having finally arrived, the game began." In our case, "lying there like that" modifies the entire sentence. The fact that it appears as if it could also modify "him" is a misleading coincidence.

I'm suspect you're going to object that an absolute construction requires a subject to the participle, but that's actually not true. What it requires is not a subject, as can be made clear by adding one. Compare the following:

1. He lying there like that, you saw how young he was. Clearly incorrect.
2. Him lying there like that, you saw how young he was. Correct, but somewhat awkward.
3. Lying there like that, you saw how young he was. Correct and natural, even if some grammar school teachers will mark you down for it.

Also, the antecedent of "that" is not at all unclear. It's a discourse reference, not an anaphoric reference, so the reference is looked up at the discourse or pragmatic level, not the grammatical level.

The other issues you raise are only a consequence of misinterpreting the participle. Or, to put it a different way, even if it really were a dangling participle, there's no additional error of logic or anything else independent of that dangling participle; you have to deliberately misinterpret the sentence to make it illogical.

And finally, even if this were a dangling participle, you're making a huge mountain out of a molehill here. That would be one error, out of all of the examples of non-errors that you compiled.

wow. as I said, poor grammar has its own defenses and many fans to point them out.

as I asserted, perkins would never have allowed gatsy to go to print with such offenses.

but, now they are accepted - so I will no longer bother with such details when I post.

poor perkins had to correcy 1o spelling mistakes a page. he should not have bothered.

spelling is no longer inbortent.

[evita mgfs]

what follows is my high praise of martin's style, which is now moot to me if all I have read is true.

OBSERVATION 10: SOUNDS

Martin marks the journey of Bran and company to the Cave of Skulls with long periods of silence shattered by harsh, discordant noises, such as the ravens screaming, their leathern wings flapping, even Hodor screaming “Hodor”: “Hodor hodor hodor hodor. Hodor hodor hodor hodor. Hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor.”

• Martin’s decision to employ figurative language and poetic devices is evident in his repetition of words and sounds, in his forgoing commas when using items in a series, in his pattern of grouping words in some series of numbers. In the example above, the pattern of lines is four words, four words, then five words, all of which share a balance and a center.
  

• The words may be delivered musically, such as a chant or a lilt. Martin has fun with his omission of commas in similar examples, which contrast sharply with those instances the items in a series are mechanically and grammatically sound.
  

Once Bran and his group enter the Cave of Skulls, Martin’s language becomes more poetic and lyrical, an homage to those who sing the song of earth. The singers and their heart-breaking voices are one redeeming feature of the time spent in the Cave of Skulls.

As a matter of fact, Martin creates a rhythm by repeating key words and phrases intermittently over the course of Bran’s Cave of Skulls POV’s.

For instance, the phasing moon announces nightfall, but Martin’s language is repeated word for word. Actually, this is a great epic tradition: repetition of words and sounds which some scholars believe assisted the bards in memorizing long works for oral performances.

• “The moon was fat and full” (ADwD 448, 452).
  
• “The moon was a black hole in the sky” (ADwD 449, 455).
  
• “The moon was a crescent, thin and sharp as the blade of a knife” (ADwD 454).
  

Repetition of key words and phrases establish transitions and tell the passage of time. Martin enriches his narratives through styling language with a myriad of poetic devices. He evokes a mental picture with the moon as a black hole in the sky, and he uses simile, the crescent moon is “thin and sharp as the blade of a knife”. These are but a few examples of how Martin makes music with words.

To demonstrate Martin’s poetic style, I will write in verse a passage from Bran’s last POV in ADwD:

The Cave of Skulls

Timeless, vast, silent

Were the caves

They were Home

To three score singers

The bones of thousands

Dead

Far below

The hollow hill

Martin elevates his prose to poetry, and in this he truly embraces the totality of the genre “great epic”. Only POEMS about the deeds of heroes are “great epics”.

Martin’s fondness for lyrical language sets a mystical, magical tone that permeates and thickens as Bran’s points-of-view may be less frequent and more cryptic.

In ADwD, Bran’s final POV is at the midpoint of my text, roughly. [but Bran demonstrates his prowess and control of his greenseeing magic by making several appearances to the heart tree in Winterfell in later narratives.[

[evita mgfs]

Since I have worked – and still do – as an editor, and a typesetter, I am dismayed . Knowing all this, I may have to allow danglers, shifts, vague references, etc.

[Ser Leftwich]

It was likely a style choice for the AGoT prologue to not let Will have an inner monologue. But then GRRM just gave up in later prologues, because writing 'correctly' can read as very wooden and far too different from the rest of the books, which the AGoT Prologue does.

Ultra-fine aspects like these will almost never come out in the books themselves. It would have to be GRRM saying, "I meant Will as an homage to Shakespeare," or "That time I switched to 'you' was an indication of magic," which is kind of lame to have to tell your readers what you wrote, as opposed to having written in the first place.

A great example is the "Prometheus" film from a few years ago, the creators went on and on and on and on in the press after the fact explaining the story and what they tried to say, which only revealed that they did an incredibly poor job of telling a story in the first place.

[evita mgfs]

Then I don't understand your point. If the use of impersonal "you" is correct (normal and idiomatic) English, and appropriate for anything but highly formal and stylized contexts in American English, and there's no contrast between the prologue and the rest of the book, then how does any of your evidence show that he's using incorrect English and that must be meant as a contrast with the rest of the book?

snip

I respect that Martin’s prose narratives are rich in layers of subtext that invites readers to draw conclusions based on different levels of interpretation and different approaches of studying literature. Certainly Martin does not skimp on providing a series of novels of prodigious length, covering substantive details that allow for multiple analytical assumptions.

I am always able to see both sides - or all sides - of an argument.