Devouring their children: Portrayal of mothers in ASOIAF

[nanother]

Actually my theory on the matter is that Neds mother either died giving birth to him or died soon after, so Ned wouldn't have a concept of his mother to think about, and of Lord Rickon's three sons, only Ned was fostered off to another nobleman, Jon Arryn.

Perhaps it was because Neds father blamed him at some level for the death of his wife, like Tywin but not as extreme.

I thought Ben was the youngest of Rickard's children...still, it makes sense to assume Ned's mom died (or otherwise disappeared) when he was very young. But even then, it's strange that no-one ever mentions her.

[Raksha the Demon]

I don't recall anyone in the thread arguing that Cat was a bad mother - but even in her case the maternal instinct is can be seen as something that clouds her judgement and drives her mad in the end. The major decisions she made driven by this protective instinct seem to be not very well thought-out, and then not only does she go mad, but is resurrected as vengeful zombie - it's all plausible considering what she went through (well, not the resurrection), and doesn't make her a bad/weak person, but that's not the point either: the point is that GRRM chose to portray her this way for whatever reason. She's the only functional mother portrayed in detail, and even she turns into something sick and sinister in the end.

What about Gilly and Val; they are both functional mothers, even though Val did not give birth to the child she cares for; and they not only get their babies through some pretty dire things - battle, a dangerous journey - they then have to swap the kids, and manage to still be good, caring mothers to the infants. Selyse Baratheon strikes me as a functional mother; at least she watches over her daughter occasionally, and seems to care about her when they're at at the Wall. (though why she was allowing the poor kid to live such a lonely life, with only Patchface for company, no other kids, before Edric Storm was dropped into their circle, I don't know; usually a woman of Selyse's rank would have made sure her daughter had some suitable young companions - unless the mothers at Stannis/Selyse's 'court' were afraid of Shireen's greyscale and refused to bring their kids along).

Ned Stark seems to have a (for Westeros) tolerant attitude about women, he's not afraid of them or insecure in their presence, he doesn't hate them or want to rape/kill/overpower them; he may not always treat them as equal to him in rank (well, in Westeros, most of the women are not the heads of Great Houses) but he is courteous; and he does have empathy towards Cersei and does not patronize her (and if he does make the mistake of thinking that she will take his advice and not strike back at him, well, he's not the only one). I think he had to have had to have known a positive female influence in his early years; either a mother or a nurse/Septa. But it's very odd that he doesn't seem to think of a mother in his thoughts; so I would imagine that his died when he was quite young.

[nanother]

Yes, Gilly is promising. I don't think we've seen enough of Selyse to determine what sort of a mother she is. TBH with her personality probably not a very good one (that's not saying she doesn't mean well). Same for Val - she's not fleshed out enough for me to even have an idea of her personality...

[Arkash]

I dont see Val as a mother. She's too free and wild for that.

I see her more as a lover and a warrior rather than as a mother.

[Faceless Cat]

The fact that Ned never thinks about his mother makes me wonder if there's a good reason for it, similar to how he never gets to finish his thoughts about his promise to Lyanna. Perhaps there is some hidden secret to Lady Stark that we'll find out about later.

Or else, could be that Ned thinking about her simply wouldn't have added anything to the story, so GRRM didn't have him do so.

[Arkash]

I dont think Ned never thought of her, just that GRRM didnt show us his thoughts about this matter.

[Angalin]

I can't remember Ned recalling his mother in any form or fashion, let alone by name. It's like she never existed. When did she die, how, where was she buried? Her absence might mean she's just insignificant to the story, but the absence is so thorough, it makes me think she's might actually be very important.

Assuming that Ned's in his mid-30s, his mother could well have been dead for thirty years before the story opened. Since then he's lost his other parent and two siblings (Oscar Wilde would have something to say about this) and several friends during two wars. Lady Stark gave birth to him, but when we meet Ned, he has a lot more pressing things to think about than a hazy memory of a long-dead mother. Mentioning her serves no narrative purpose, whereas the recurring references to Joanna Lannister point up her relatively greater importance to the story: separating Cersei and Jaime, her death in childbirth partly provoking Tywin's hatred of Tyrion, Aerys' inappropriate lust, etc. By comparison, Lady Stark plays a minute role in the Westeros that we see.

I don't recall anyone in the thread arguing that Cat was a bad mother - but even in her case the maternal instinct is can be seen as something that clouds her judgement and drives her mad in the end. The major decisions she made driven by this protective instinct seem to be not very well thought-out, and then not only does she go mad, but is resurrected as vengeful zombie - it's all plausible considering what she went through (well, not the resurrection), and doesn't make her a bad/weak person, but that's not the point either: the point is that GRRM chose to portray her this way for whatever reason. She's the only functional mother portrayed in detail, and even she turns into something sick and sinister in the end.

If we go back to Greek mythology again, Catelyn is now Nemesis: neither one of the old gods nor of the Seven. I agree with Ran that Catelyn`s decisions were indeed the best she could make in extraordinary circumstances. Unlike Ned, however, she was able to compromise when the situation called for it, but the people she deals with, on her own behalf or on Robb's, see no value in compromise. It's Westeros game theory with horrendous consequences for everyone involved.

The question of what people are resurrected for, what drives them when they return, has been discussed at length. One theory was, IIRC, that your last emotion in life determined how you felt when you were revived. How else was Catelyn supposed to feel? She was never going to come back as a kindly mute to hand out candies.

What about Gilly and Val; they are both functional mothers, even though Val did not give birth to the child she cares for; and they not only get their babies through some pretty dire things - battle, a dangerous journey - they then have to swap the kids, and manage to still be good, caring mothers to the infants.

In the wildling way, Val is also careful not to get too attached to the baby (ie, not giving it a name) and there is a wet nurse to feed it. It's an odd mix of wildling and aristocratic parenting styles.

[stonygirl]

I'll weigh in on mothers eventually, but someone mentioned upthread that Robert Arryn had hydrocephaly?

Has anyone ever reported him having an enlarged head? Cause if not, I don't buy it.

Epilepsy, yes. PDD, perhaps (i.e., mid-level functioning on the autistic spectrum). Spoiled rotten and weird, yes.

I've been reading this whole thread to see if someone was going to call this out. He also doesn't have sunk in eyes, and his seizures seem to be triggered by emotional states rather than at random. I agree with the autism spectrum diagnosis.

However; I don't buy that Lysa is not at all responsible for her child's "sickliness". She is still breast feeding a nine year old. There is no telling what the lack of proper nutrition is doing to his brain development.

[Sun]

I've always though that Cersei over-identified with Joffrey, he was her with a penis, the pure Lannister she produced who was going to be king. She didn't try to discipline or restrain him because she didn't want to be disciplined or restrained.

My thoughts exactly. :agree:

[brashcandy]

I think Dany's situation with the dragons in ADWD illustrates the central conundrum of motherhood in the series. She's a Queen with a very serious responsibilty to her subjects, but she's also a mother who cares a lot about her children. When these "children" begin to act out and do bad things, such as literally eating others, what should an appropriate response be? By locking up the dragons, does it makes Dany a bad mother, or simply a conflicted, inexperienced one? Comparing her to Cersei is instructive, as Cersei basically does the opposite. She doesn't impose any real limits on Joffrey and he becomes a real monster, inflicting suffering on innocents like Tommen and Sansa. I think GRRM is suggesting that neither extreme - locking them up or letting them loose - will be very productive or beneficial. Both the mother's development and the child's seems to suffer as result as well. Dany gets lucky in that she is able to reclaim her relationship with Drogon (but what will happen with Viserion and Rhaegal?), but Cersei loses Joffrey in the worst way possible.

[Miss Andei]

Well, it would have been rather nonsensical to have these characters who are themselves emotionally twisted players of the game manage to raise well balanced and emotionally mature children. A mother can only do the best she can with the tools at hand, and if life has lead you to become crazier than a shithouse rat then your child's upbringing will reflect that. Show me a well balanced, sane and reasonable maternal (or any other) character in ASOIAF and I'll show you a potentially decent parent. Struggling? Yeah.

[RevengeOfTheStarks]

I dont see Val as a mother. She's too free and wild for that.

I see her more as a lover and a warrior rather than as a mother.

Val seems pretty nurturing to me. She seems really invested in what happens to Monster, and of course Dalla's baby before he went away. I agree with Angalin that if she is a little aloof, it's probably because of Wildling custom not to get too attached until the baby has survived the critical years. I have yet to see Val as a warrior, I don't think she's a spearwife, though she is certainly steely, collected, and capable. Those traits and being motherly are not mutually exclusive.

[Arkash]

No necessarily a warrior, but a fierce, wild woman, I think growing kids would destroy that flame she has in her... well, maybe that's because I love her I dont want her to have babies (laughs), but beyond that, yeah, she has that very feminine maternal instinct, but not as a mother, more as a woman I guess...

[voodooqueen126]

From TV Tropes (Creator Breakdown)

• After George R. R. Martin's best friend ran off with his girlfriend, he wrote a number of stories with this theme. One of his stories written during this time, about brainless humans being used for sex, even ends on the line that love is the cruelest lie anyone can be told.
  

Someone else mentioned Harry Potter awhile ago on another post.

Now the ultimate theme of Harry Potter is that love is a powerful force for redemption and will save you.

For instance Snape's love for Lily causes him to save Harry, whilst Petyr's "love" for Catelyn causes him to start a chain of events that will result in the destruction of everything Catelyn loves and causes him to sexually abuse Sansa....

So I was kinda thinking, In Harry Potter (written by an attractive woman with children) love, especially a mother's love is a powerful force for good.

In GRRM... love is portrayed as mad and dangerous and mother's are often portrayed as devouring.

[Woman of War]

Oh no, this unfair towards all people working as artists or otherwise creative, apart from a little indiscreet.This direct analysis of an artists' character out of his work is not as obvious: a work of art develops a life of its own that certainly reflects experiences and political ideas of the artist. But it has its own identity come to life in visualized or written form. Art is not an essay about political or social opinions, a good work of art doesn't lecture, it opens a new autonomous cosmos. If art becomes the servant of convictions it lessens itself, and I think Martin's books are too good for that.

A painter paints, a writer writes, they do not teach or preach. Read Sontag or Greenberg or whatever art critic you will, though you'll find 1001 opinions about that topic to keep you awake at night.

A wonderful example of art as reflection of an artists' identity is Eva Hesse who made sculptures and objects. She had no certainties for us, no simple answers or Ideologies but so much to tell about herself without giving easy answers.

[voodooqueen126]

Oh no, this unfair towards all people working as artists or otherwise creative! This direct analysis of an artists' character out of his work is not as obvious: a work of art develops a life of its own that certainly reflects experiences and political ideas of the artist. But it has its own identity come to life in visualized or written form. Art is not an essay about political or social opinions, a good work of art doesn't lecture, it opens a new autonomous cosmos. If art becomes the servant of convictions it lessens itself, and I think Martin's books are too good for that.

A painter paints, a writer writes, they do not teach or preach. Read Sontag or Greenberg or whatever art critic you will, though you'll find 1001 opinions about that topic to keep you awake at night.

yeah, but are artists and writers infallible or perfect? Artist's and writers might become indignant if we say "this was influenced by the artists on psychology/deep mommy issues" but doesn't make the criticism any less true. It's just artists and writers trying to shield themselves from criticism. the men in Da Vinci's paintings are rather effeminate looking, surprise surprise, Da Vinci was gay, so his taste in men is reflected in the art.

For most of history, art and literature has been preachy, indeed some would argue that in order for a book to be good it actually has to have a level of preachy to it. http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Premise-Harnessing-Virtue-Success/dp/1932907130/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326209301&sr=8-1

Think of Shakespeare, all of his plays have moral messages or greater themes, his works were popular with the lowerclasses of his time since they were in the language that they spoke (the reason that Shakespeare is not too popular with the less well educated to day is that his english is incomprehensible, not because of his plots) and with the upper classes (he received royal patronage).

Compare that with the meaningless drivel put out by people like Edgar Rice Burroughs, which is only enjoyed by a few ivory tower fools...

A guy who isn't that attractive and only married late in life after he had become a best selling novelist... has a pretty low opinion of love...

[Woman of War]

A guy who isn't that attractive and only married late in life after he had become a best selling novelist... has a pretty low opinion of love...

this is unfair, GRRM does not need to justify his life, nor will I ever ask Mr. da Vinci if I ever meet him in fornicator's hell. If you ever saw my paintings .........

[Silmarien]

yeah, but are artists and writers infallible or perfect? Artist's and writers might become indignant if we say "this was influenced by the artists on psychology/deep mommy issues" but doesn't make the criticism any less true. It's just artists and writers trying to shield themselves from criticism. the men in Da Vinci's paintings are rather effeminate looking, surprise surprise, Da Vinci was gay, so his taste in men is reflected in the art.

For most of history, art and literature has been preachy, indeed some would argue that in order for a book to be good it actually has to have a level of preachy to it. http://www.amazon.co...26209301&sr=8-1

Think of Shakespeare, all of his plays have moral messages or greater themes, his works were popular with the lowerclasses of his time since they were in the language that they spoke (the reason that Shakespeare is not too popular with the less well educated to day is that his english is incomprehensible, not because of his plots) and with the upper classes (he received royal patronage).

Compare that with the meaningless drivel put out by people like Edgar Rice Burroughs, which is only enjoyed by a few ivory tower fools...

A guy who isn't that attractive and only married late in life after he had become a best selling novelist... has a pretty low opinion of love...

Yeah that's seriously an unfair assumption to make about GRRM. By all accounts he is happy with his wife. So why would his view on love be so sour? Just because he married later in life? Really?

[headtrip_honey]

this is unfair, GRRM does not need to justify his life, nor will I ever ask Mr. da Vinci if I ever meet him in fornicator's hell. If you ever saw my paintings .........

And besides, GRRM actually married in 1975, (age 27, I believe) but divorced a few years later. His relationship with Parris began in the 80s, although he'd known her for longer.

So the point is moot.

[Woman of War]

A guy who isn't that attractive and only married late in life after he had become a best selling novelist... has a pretty low opinion of love...

this is unfair, GRRM does not need to justify his life, nor will I ever ask Mr. da Vinci if I ever meet him in fornicator's hell. If you ever saw my paintings .........

Being "preachey" is a conscious decision, so we can deduct ideas and timesetting from an artists work, something the artist gives to us, not something we take from him or her.

I could now start a really long essay about "female" and "feminist" art ( omigod, not in English)as example of art in biographic context

Some random points:

Do I do female art ? Obviously. Do I do feminist art? Not necessarily? Is perhaps every art feminist that brings up female topics? Yes or no? Is this done subconciously or does it require a conscious act? Does art give up on itself by serving a political or otherwise purpose ........ Too tired now