POVs, Unreliable Narrator, and You

[Tave]

The POV structure is one of my favorite aspects of the series. You don't fully appreciate it until partway through ACOK when you start to realize how limited your perception was in GOT and how vast the world is compared to what you previously thought. It's both a painful and liberating experience.

Negatives:

- It doesn't play as well in Dany's storyline

- How can GRRM reign it back to finish the story as tight and thrilling as it began

[Dr. Pepper]

<snip>

For example: Barristan, Ned, and Jaime: what happened during the Sack of King's Landing and is Jaime an Evil Sneak or Not? We've heard Ned tell Robert about finding Jaime sitting on the Throne.... if I remember correctly, when I first read this Ned made it sound like it was musical chairs and whoever knocked the king off it first became king. But under Ned's watchful eye, Jaime told him that he was just keeping it warm for Robert. And Ned was forever suspicious of Jaime's royal intentions and leanings.

Later, we get the Jaime POV, which is an earth shaker. Jaime has gone from being the guy that tossed Bran out a window, to the troubled but articulate and witty, maybe even sympathetic guy that Catelyn grills in the dungeons of Riverrun, to a likeable POV that gives a quality explanation to his infamy. I was so certain on the first read that Jaime was totally misunderstood by Ned's POV.

Then in Dance we get to Barristan's POV, which is much the same as Ned's. He seems to judge Jaime strongly, and believes that he is a stain on the Kingsguard.

If you had all the POVs make a list of the most honorable guys alive in the realm at the start of the books, I feel confident that Ned and Barristan would be popular favorites. And yet I believe Jaime. It can't be that all three of them are right. Even though they aren't at odds over the basic facts of history, there is such a slant on the whole Kingslayer incident that you start to wonder what really happened.

I think the Ned/Barry/Jaime relationship is probably one of the best cases in the books of how the POV structure and narration methods can be deceiving. If we consider Ned's and Barry's thoughts and Jaime's words in isolation, one wonders why we would believe Jaime. He's an arrogant guy who threw a kid out a window, breaks his vows, screws his sister, and is generally demeaning to women. Looking at the whole picture is only what gives us a reason for why Jaime might actually being speaking honestly. We can glean that Ned is heavily biased towards the Lannisters for their lateness to the cause and for what became of Elia and the children, so it's safe to assume that this house bias extended to a KG who came from that house. Ned uses the incident of Jaime sitting on the throne and having broke his vows to justify his bias.

Going further, Barry is set up to be this righteous and bold knight, the best of the best, but we also know that Barry did basically the same thing Jaime did. He forswore his vows and turned his back on the dynasty he swore to protect to his death. He may not have plunged a knife into Viserys nor crowned him with molten gold, but he's still just as much of an oath breaker as Jaime. Barristan is an unreliable narrator because he ignores this fact. He's also had enough 'weird' thoughts in his POV that makes us question everything he's about.

Ned's inherent bias to House Lannister and Barristan's unreliable testimony coupled with our knowledge of Aerys' is what makes us so certain that Jaime is telling the truth. I think this is one of the reasons that people really love this series. We can connect with the realism of it. It's rare that we get the full, completely unbiased and reliable image of a person we barely know.

Thankyou OP for starting this, and every one else for opening my eyes to a bunch of stuff I never would have picked up on, because I've been trying to describe to a couple of friends who wouldn't never "stoop" to read genre fiction that the POVs in this series are as good as those in "real high literature" like Poison Wood Bible. And now I can actually explain that the unreliable narrator is used both to inform the audience, by giving insight to character and illuminating biases, prejudices, and emotionally dominated moments, and also to confuse and cloud the truth to the audience by giving us a bunch of foggy, contradictory lenses to sort out.

I'm glad you mention this. I think I will use this argument to persuade some of my literature snob friends why ASOIAF is worth their time. One of their primary arguments against genre fiction is that there isn't enough character development to make it worth their time.

[FanTasy]

(snip)

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.

Exactly, and well put. Next to that excellent question one should always ask (how can he be sure of what he says) another question I like to put to myself when reading is: why does he think it is like he thinks it is; what is his interest. First impressions are in books as important and steering as they are in real life. It is extremely hard to accept 'uncomfortable truths' - most of the times they are not even considered worthy of thinking through.

[bent branch]

Exactly, and well put. Next to that excellent question one should always ask (how can he be sure of what he says) another question I like to put to myself when reading is: why does he think it is like he thinks it is; what is his interest. First impressions are in books as important and steering as they are in real life. It is extremely hard to accept 'uncomfortable truths' - most of the times they are not even considered worthy of thinking through.

Thanks. And I agree with the rest of your post. That is my second question. If they can't know what they are saying or thinking is true, why do they choose to believe the version of events that they do believe? :)

[Viserys_The Transformed]

I thought your point about Ser Barristan was interesting. He does seem a bit...'obsessive', doesn't he? Almost like a very one-dimensional, uninteresting stalker.

He and Areo Hotah remind me of one another.

May be due to Suppressed Sexuality that they attained some Neurosis :cool4:

[Maxpey]

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?

What you said about Jaime made me think about his POVs and why I find them so interesting. I think it's because his POVs are arguably the most introspective and insightful. I also find Reek/Theon and Tyrion's POVs contain similar insights.

[Le Cygne]

GRRM, from So Spake Martin (bold is mine):

7/14/11

He said he gets upset with himself when he makes a mistake, because there are already intentional mistakes in what characters say. "Some inconsistencies are deliberate. There are unreliable narrators, especially when they are remembering things."

5/6/05

He said there are inconsistencies in the books that are NOT mistakes. He believes in the "unreliable narrator" -- you can't always trust what people say because they might be remembering it wrong, or you get two different stories depending on who's doing the telling...

10/5/02

. . . this is an inconsistency with ASoS more than an outright error. In ASoS, Sansa thinks that the Hound kissed her before leaving her room and King's Landing. In ACoK, no kiss is mentioned in the scene, though Sansa did think that he was about to do so.

Well, not every inconsistency is a mistake, actually. Some are quite intentional. File this one under "unreliable narrator" and feel free to ponder its meaning. . .

6/26/01

The Lion's Paw / Lion's Tooth business, on the other hand, is intentional. A small touch of the unreliable narrator. I was trying to establish that the memories of my viewpoint characters are not infallible. Sansa is simply remembering it wrong. A very minor thing (you are the only one to catch it to date), but it was meant to set the stage for a much more important lapse in memory. You will see, in A STORM OF SWORDS and later volumes, that Sansa remembers the Hound kissing her the night he came to her bedroom... but if you look at the scene, he never does. That will eventually mean something, but just now it's a subtle touch, something most of the readers may not even pick up on.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM

[Wilbur]

On this site many participants have expressed a dissatisfaction with the Dany narrative. One of the reasons that I believe people are unhappy is that we only have Dany's POV for most of the series. Readers have been treated to multiple, though sometimes second-hand viewpoints on common events on Westeros, and this layering adds to the richness of the plot.

On Essos, however, we only have Dany's eyes for a very long time, and thus her storyline seems somehow more thin and less engaging.

Whether the Dany detractors realize it or not, I believe that this has an impact on their positions.

[Lion of Judah]

Something I found unique about this writing style is that characters can be just as misinformed as the reader. An example of this is Edric Dayne's testimony of Jon's mother and again his testimony of Ned and his aunt. Not until ADWD does Barristan give us some clarification on what Edric said and by then the reader can dissect which parts of Edric story is credible and which is not.

[Annara Snow]

He didn't have anything to do with the WoS. Cersei remembers LF asking to marry Sansa while she is in the middle of her WoS, that's what Lyanna Stark is referring too.

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.

But Sandor isn't always seen as a brute in Ned's chapters - at first we see him that way, especially when he kills Mycah, but the perception of him is very different when he fights Gregor during the Hand's tourney. (Someone observed that this is only time he is referred to as "Sandor" in Ned's POV.) I think GRRM wanted this to be from Ned's POV because, had it been from Sansa's POV, it would come off as biased (through Ned's eyes we know that she was rooting for the Hound against Jaime, "all misty eyed and eager), but Ned has no reasons to like Sandor and all the reasons to hate him, so it comes off as an unbiased view.

It's generally interesting to follow the way the perception of other characters varies in the POV of the same person, e.g. Sansa's perception of various characters, Arya's perception of Sandor - which is contradictory even in the same chapters. The most drastic example if Sansa's change of view of Joffrey after Ned's death, even down to the physical descriptions (from "he is too beautiful to hate" and description of his golden hair etc. to "his fat wormy lips", "his fat lips reminded her of the worms you see after the rain" and "she could not understand how she had ever found him handsome"). Her feelings about his personality determine her feelings about his looks. From other, less biased POVs, we know that Joffrey is considered handsome even by people who think he's a little shit and a psycho monster, the only other negative thing anyone says about his looks is Jon's "he looks like a girl".

[Annara Snow]

Thank you for this amazing thread!

Brienne's POV is a good example of an unreliable narrator. The first example that comes to my mind is when she is having a conversation with the Elder Brother on the QI about the death of the Hound - the EB is obviously hinting that it is only 'the Hound' that has died, not Sandor. After his telling, he asks her repeatedly whether she understands what she means. Brienne does not pick up the hint that Sandor may very well be alive, she only focuses on the impression that her quest has ended.

In another POV chapter, I believe Jaime's, Lem Lemoncloak appears with the helm of the Hound. He is referred to as 'the Hound' which is clearly an indication that the use of the term 'the Hound' points out the brutal and ruthless aspect of somebody's persona. I think this is an indication how somebody's POV can hide layers of other persons with the use of different terms. This one is more subtle than the continuous switch between Sansa/Alanye though.

Actually, that was Brienne's own POV chapter, which undermines your point and suggests that she did understand it on some level, even if it didn't translate to "Sandor Clegane is alive". She also refers to Rorge as "The Hound" several times when he's wearing the helm, even though she's aware who he is, and definitely aware who he isn't.

[Kittykatknits]

But Sandor isn't always seen as a brute in Ned's chapters - at first we see him that way, especially when he kills Mycah, but the perception of him is very different when he fights Gregor during the Hand's tourney. (Someone observed that this is only time he is referred to as "Sandor" in Ned's POV.) I think GRRM wanted this to be from Ned's POV because, had it been from Sansa's POV, it would come off as biased (through Ned's eyes we know that she was rooting for the Hound against Jaime, "all misty eyed and eager), but Ned has no reasons to like Sandor and all the reasons to hate him, so it comes off as an unbiased view.

It's generally interesting to follow the way the perception of other characters varies in the POV of the same person, e.g. Sansa's perception of various characters, Arya's perception of Sandor - which is contradictory even in the same chapters. The most drastic example if Sansa's change of view of Joffrey after Ned's death, even down to the physical descriptions (from "he is too beautiful to hate" and description of his golden hair etc. to "his fat wormy lips", "his fat lips reminded her of the worms you see after the rain" and "she could not understand how she had ever found him handsome"). Her feelings about his personality determine her feelings about his looks. From other, less biased POVs, we know that Joffrey is considered handsome even by people who think he's a little shit and a psycho monster, the only other negative thing anyone says about his lowoks is Jon's "he looks like a girl".

Well, it's a good thing I didn't say that then. I pointed out that he's the most brutish. He's introduced to us via Ned as a Lannister henchmen and Ned, even after the tourney, thinks oft him as dangerous. The tourney is a hint that there is more to the man but it doesn't change the fact that Ned seems him as a rather brutish henchman.

In other words, seeing him through multiple characters add to his development.

[twikee]

I think Sansa's forgetting the happening isn't solely focused on her. GRRM says that Sansa misremembering the happening means that his characters are not infallible in their narration.

Somehow I think this is also a message about Dan'y narration, since of all the POVs she has the most vague narration ever.

[evita mgfs]

You may wish to visit my thread on POV. Bring the fan club! Posters on my thread did not celebrate my ideas about shifts to second person you, formally or informally.

No matter what form of “you” in limited-third – when an author uses it, he is speaking to his reader, methinks.

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/132287-martins-pov-pronoun-errors-in-agot-prologue/

[evita mgfs]

From my thread:

Consider:

“Royce’s body lay face down in the snow, one arm out flung. The thick sable cloak had been slashed in a dozen places. Lying dead like that, you saw how young he was. A boy” (AGoT 10).

Should read:

“Lying dead like that, he looked young, like a boy”.

1. Who is “lying dead”?
   
2. To what does “that” refer? Its antecedent is ?
   
3. If Royce is facedown, how does Will tell that he looks young, like a boy?
   

[evita mgfs]

^{Here’s another ill-worded passage – or not!}

^{PASSAGE UNDER EXAMINATION/ANALYSIS:}

^{“Rickon patted Shaggydog’s muzzle, damp with blood. “I let him loose. He doesn’t like chains.” He licked at his fingers” (734).}

^{“HE” is a vague reference. There are two views of the performer of the action “licked” in the last sentence. Is it Shaggydog who licks Rickon’s fingers? Or Rickon who licks his own fingers?}

^{Grammatically, the passage contains prose narrative interrupted by a direct quote, a separate element with words set apart by opened and closed quotes. See the example:}

^{“Rickon patted Shaggydog’s muzzle, damp with blood. “I let him loose. He doesn’t like chains.” He licked at his fingers” (734).}

^{The antecedent of HE is the subject of the “first” sentence: Rickon. “Rickon patted Shaggydog’s muzzle, damp with blood. “Rickon Speaks”. “He licked at his fingers”. HE must refer to Rickon for two reasons: it makes sense because “Shaggydog’s muzzle” cannot LICK at his fingers. Second, “he” is a subjective case pronoun that stands in for a noun in a sentence.}

^{The ANTECEDENT for HE should be in the prose narrative that precedes the direct quote.}

^{As Drgon07 pointed out, Shaggydog has no fingers.}

^{A muzzle can’t lick.}

^{Edited for offensive colored fonts.}

[Tyrell_like_Squirrel]

^{Here’s another ill-worded passage – or not!}

^{PASSAGE UNDER EXAMINATION/ANALYSIS:}

^{“Rickon patted Shaggydog’s muzzle, damp with blood. “I let him loose. He doesn’t like chains.” He licked at his fingers” (734).}

^{“HE” is a vague reference. There are two views of the performer of the action “licked” in the last sentence. Is it Shaggydog who licks Rickon’s fingers? Or Rickon who licks his own fingers?}

^{Grammatically, the passage contains prose narrative interrupted by a direct quote, a separate element with words set apart by opened and closed quotes. See the example:}

^{“Rickon patted Shaggydog’s muzzle, damp with blood. “I let him loose. He doesn’t like chains.” He licked at his fingers” (734).}

^{The antecedent of HE is the subject of the “first” sentence: Rickon. “Rickon patted Shaggydog’s muzzle, damp with blood. “Rickon Speaks”. “He licked at his fingers”. HE must refer to Rickon for two reasons: it makes sense because “Shaggydog’s muzzle” cannot LICK at his fingers. Second, “he” is a subjective case pronoun that stands in for a noun in a sentence.}

^{The ANTECEDENT for HE should be in the prose narrative that precedes the direct quote.}

^{As Drgon07 pointed out, Shaggydog has no fingers.}

^{A muzzle can’t lick.}

Do you just sit around all day finding grammatical errors? This has literally nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

[Chinoiserie]

evita mgfs, is there some reason for the different colors and fonts? They are a bit annoying and strange. And this thread is not really about grammar.

[evita mgfs]

I am so sorry about my fonts. I am color-blind. I will try to edit them out - my son is here to help me select the color least offensive.

I must have misread the title - I thought it referenced errors in POV. Shifting POV and vague reference are part of point-of-view errors.

The OP said:

"In a third person limited narration, the narrator is limited to the thoughts and feelings of a single character. The only insight revealed about other characters is external and dependent upon what the POV character thinks and feels about them".

I find your remark about my disability offensive! Are you against color-blind people? Or is it more personal?

I can see only certain opinions are welcome.

Again, I humbly apologize. :blushing:

[Chinoiserie]

evita mgfs, I did not mean to be offensive, I just personally think it is more difficult to read so I was honesty wondering if you had a reason to use then. I could have been in the minority and there is other people giving you feedback of liking it or something, I was just giving my feedback, it was not personal in any way. Of course you can have different opinions than I do.

And as for grammar, I think this place was more to discuss about unreliable narrators and GRRM choises what to reveal through them and not about errors. But this maybe just me wanting to avoid talking to grammar because English is not my first language so I can not really participate ;) It was again, just an opinion, I am not the OP.