Martin's Ability To Write Commoners

[protar]

We were having a discussion in the TWOP thread over at the show forum about whether or not Martin could actually write commoners well and about the lack of moral ambiguity in the lowborn troops in the Lannister and Stark armies. I was rather off-topic so I thought I'd make a thread here about it.

[Dragonstar]

I think with so many plots, POV characters and key non-POV characters, there just isn't much scope for developing 'commoners' as characters. However, I will say that any time I read about the BwB's travels, or some of the Prologue/Epilogue POV characters, read about life in Kings Landing - I "See" what life for a commoner in that universe must be like - and its not very good.

[protar]

The posts relating to the topic in the other thread:

I'd add one thing I've always disliked about the Bolton betrayal, that's made even more, er, stark in the show by the transformation of Vargo Hoat into a Northerner, is that it kind of whitewashes what had been a demonstration that the Northerners were just as bad as the Lannisters in terms of treatment of the Smallfolk. Northerners and Lannisters alike are brutal and cruel, both book and show say - except that the Northerners whom we see being cruel turn out to actually be bad guys in league with the Lannisters, which rather undermines the theme.

I've never thought that Martin has been particularly good at showing moral ambiguity in the armies of the different houses. Martin introduces us to a dozen vile, unpleasant (to say the least) Lannister forces whereas the Stark's get no such treatment. The only Stark soldiers we individually meet are Ned's household guard and all are pleasant, amiable people.

Weren't the guys that Brienne kills Stark men?

Starks are almost universally nice and honourable (most of them are rather stupid, though, but that's a different issue). They are as close to the good guys as you are going to get, IMO. However, the non-Stark Northerners seem to be a very mixed bunch. Many people look at the Starks and assume that all Northmen are like them, but it's not true.

The only Lords who are truly unpleasant are Roose, Ramsay and Arnolf Karstark (and does he have a brother or something?). Characters like Karstark and Lady Dustin are tragic imo, the Mormonts and the Umbers are loyal and honourable but rough around the edges and Manderly is awesome. However conversely there are plenty of decent folks on the Lannister side.

But I was referring to the Lannister and Stark soldiers. The Lannister soldiers we see are all unpleasant, perfectly happy to pillage and burn. The Stark soldiers we meet are all friendly and honourable. At worse they're a bit raucous.

IIRC Maege Mormont, Rickard Karstark and Galbart Glover were pretty much raiding in the Westerlands. It's obvious that they weren't doing it personally, heh.

They were ordered it by Robb and we don't hear any particular atrocities committed. War is war after all.

And again, I'm talking about the lowborn soldiers.

If you are taking livestock, you are pillaging. That's what they were doing.

How many "lowborn soldiers" do we meet BTW, excluding the Brave Companions etc.?

I am talking about the livestock driving. It's pillaging but it is war.

As for the soldiers we meet: On the Lannister side we have people like Weese, Chiswyk, Polliver, Raff the Sweetling, and the Tickler. They're rapists and torturers, taking a disturbing pleasure out of abusing and mistreating their underlings as Arya discovers during her stay at Harrenhal.

On the Stark side we meet Ned's household guard who are all very pleasant that I remember, and that's pretty much it. We do meet Steelshanks Walton who Jaime judges to have committed his fair share of atrocities but we really have no evidence of that beyond Jaime's assessment.

We do see/hear about some of the atrocities the northern soldiers do like the prostitutes hung for "lying with lions" but there's never really anyone to pin the blame on. In most cases I applaud Martin greatly for how he handles moral ambiguity, but when it comes to the war crimes it's transparently obvious that he's just going through the motions of making the Stark army "grey" imo.

Well, there's the Mountain's gang, but that's all I can think of. However, that supports protar's argument - we mainly see only Lannister soldiers doing horrible things.

ETA: protar, you beat me to it, and much more in depth.

Well, you have your answer - not enough Stark soldiers "on screen". Maybe GRRM should have done more in that area.

Maybe it's less because they are Lannister soldiers and more that they are the Mountain's soldiers, although obviously, Tywin hasn't minded using the Mountain for decades.

In the books, we do see Bolton's men being very unpleasant when they take Harrenhal - and of course the Brave Companions, who are temporarily on Robb's side, are awful. But, yeah, we see the awful things the Lannisters do, and we're only vaguely given the idea that Northern soldiers might do the same. But I was pointing to the specific fact that the one time we do see northerners doing bad things - from Arya's perspective at Harrenhal - it turns out that they are "bad" northerners who are going to betray Robb, which makes it turn out that all the people who do bad things end up being on the Lannister side.

As to the Northern lords, I think there's a fair number who are ambiguous, beyond the obvious example of the Boltons. Rickard Karstark is scary intense, and his uncle is a creep. The Umber uncles do not seem like they'd be very fun people to have around, either, and Lady Dustin is distinctly unpleasant. On the other hand, the Manderlys, Cerwyns, Hornwoods, Glovers, Mormonts, and Tallharts all seem decent enough. But, then, besides Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch, Tywin's bannermen don't seem like that bad a bunch either. You've got some foolish old men, like Harys Swyft and Leo Lefford, and some compeent, loyal guys who aren't that different from most of the northern bannermen, like Addam Marbrand and the Strongboar. It's kind of a mix among all the armies.

But we've gotten rather far afield. I enjoy the conspiracy theorists on the TWOP thread arguing that Roslin isn't really a Frey.

As much as I love Lord-Too-Fat, he is not even close to the Starks as far as "goodness" goes (which is a compliment, because characters like that are more interesting). He is more pragmatic and more ruthless, I think. I mean, this is a guy who said that he didn't actually take any risks with Davos and that he wouldn't hesitate to kill him if the Freys discovered that the rotting head is not Davos' head. He also turned 3 Freys into PIES and ate good chunks of these pies himself, which is awesome, but also disconcerting, when you think about it.

House Umber seems like a fun bunch. When even Roose Bolton says that the Umbers have a "certain low cunning", one might be worried what to expect of them... Oh, and the First Night, blech.

Concerning Karstarks - the only member of that House whom I like is Alys. Rickard is scarily vengeful, Arnolf is a dick and Cregan doesn't seem nice, either.

I'll agree that he's definitely a lot more cunning, and ruthless than the Starks. I mean he bakes people into pies and eats them. But he's also loyal and honourable to a degree as well (though how many points he gets for waiting until the Freys are no longer his guests to cook them into pies is debatable.).

The phrase "a certain low cunning" is in my experience almost always used dismissively, like how Tywin uses it to describe Tyrion if I remember correctly. Besides which cunning doesn't necessarily mean anything "evil". I'll admit though that Whoresbane Umber seems pretty dark, unless some new details about his debacle ever come to light.

I haven't read ADWD in a while (on my ASOIAF re-read though atm.). Do they still practice the First Night? I thought it had died out?

Cregan, that's who I was thinking of. Yeah him and Arnolf are pretty nasty pieces of work. Rickard I see as a pretty tragic character who was just seeking vengeance for his sons. And speaking of which they seemed fairly decent from what we saw of them. Eddard and Torrhen where part of Robb's honour guard afterall. We know nothing about Harrion.

But I agree when it comes to the actual noble lords Martin has done a good job in making them more ambiguous. Especially when we look at the Lannister side as well where Joffrey is the only Lannister where you can get a unanimous opinion on his evilness. And lords like Addam Marbrand and Lyle Crakehall all seem like fairly decent chaps. I do think Martin is much better at writing the nobles than he is the commoners. The only "commoners" I've ever found particularly interesting have either not really been commoners (i.e Davos at the point we meet him.) or were outlaws (i.e Tom o sevens).

Re the bad northern soldiers, we have the BWB saying how they defend the smallfolk from lions and wolves, but again this is implied and not shown first-hand.

I would add Septon Meribald to those. Do you feel this is a wider problem in the books that Martin just favours nobles above commoners? I mean we get loads of references and eyewitness accounts of how bad things can be for the commoners but the commoners themselves don't really get their own voices. I think artistically he is definitely biased towards the nobles as they're probably more interesting to write about.

Oh yeah, forgot about Septon Meribald. He manages to write a few gems but most of the lowborn characters just seem pretty flat. So yeah I agree he's definitely biased towards the nobility. They're more interesting to write I think because they actually have the capacity to do much more about whatever situation they're in. Plus Martin gets to spend more time lavishly describing clothes and food :P.

We're getting a bit off-topic though, so perhaps we should make a thread in the general forums about it?

[Khal Pono]

There were a number of novelists and playwrights (perhaps the majority) in the 19th Century and earlier who believed that true drama and tragedy could never be centered around poor people, because their struggles are about the mundane (their primary goal is trying not to starve or be stabbed to death), whereas rich people have the comfort and the time to struggle with more profound matters like the heart, the soul, the mind, the nature of man, etc.

This view, of course, has fallen out of favor, but there still could be something to it, when looking at the question of why nearly all of GRRM's POV characters are highborn.

[Prince Bran]

This view, of course, has fallen out of favor, but there still could be something to it, when looking at the question of why nearly all of GRRM's POV characters are highborn.

Perhaps, but we don't even have to go that far. To the extent that the "Game of Thrones" is by definition a power struggle amongst elites, there's not much use for lowborn characters in abundance.

[protar]

There were a number of novelists and playwrights (perhaps the majority) in the 19th Century and earlier who believed that true drama and tragedy could never be centered around poor people, because their struggles are about the mundane (their primary goal is trying not to starve or be stabbed to death), whereas rich people have the comfort and the time to struggle with more profound matters like the heart, the soul, the mind, the nature of man, etc.

This view, of course, has fallen out of favor, but there still could be something to it, when looking at the question of why nearly all of GRRM's POV characters are highborn.

I do find it telling that even the lowborn POV's have actually broken free of being peasants in one way or another.

• Davos: A knight, a lord and hand to the king.
  
• Melisandre: A powerful priest, and also adviser to said king.
  
• Chett: Part of the NW, so outside the class system.
  
• Will: Same as Chett.
  
• Pate: An apprentice Maester, so (before being killed) has the potential to move into a respectable position in society engaging with nobles.
  
• Cressen? : Is where Pate might have gotten in a few decades time.
  
• Varamyr: Practically royalty by wildling standards by the time we meet him.
  

[Khal Pono]

I do find it telling that even the lowborn POV's have actually broken free of being peasants in one way or another.

• Davos: A knight, a lord and hand to the king.
  
• Melisandre: A powerful priest, and also adviser to said king.
  
• Chett: Part of the NW, so outside the class system.
  
• Will: Same as Chett.
  
• Pate: An apprentice Maester, so (before being killed) has the potential to move into a respectable position in society engaging with nobles.
  
• Cressen? : Is where Pate might have gotten in a few decades time.
  
• Varamyr: Practically royalty by wildling standards by the time we meet him.
  

And the more obvious thing that ties most of them together is that 5 of those people on your list die in their first and only POV chapter. They are the redshirts (or, if we want to be politcally incorrect, the black movie characters) of this story.

[Dragonstoned]

About the 19th century thing, the Russian preoccupation in literature was the peasant/serf question and the inherent problem with writing about it was the 'commoners' were viewed strictly through the eyes of the gentry and aristocracy, not given voices of their own, viewed condescendingly and for their symbolic significance (what the commoners meant to their social betters, rather than the actual details of the commoners' lives). Most importantly, they were depicted by writers who were themselves gentry and aristocrats i.e. not commoners.

I think a lot of this can be said of A Song of Ice and Fire too. However the difference is (as I have just learned from the Conan interview) Martin grew up basically as a 'commoner', so you would think he as a writer ought to be more concerned with the Realist (i.e. not Romantic) depiction of other commoners' lives and with showing commoners in their own right rather than as extensions of noble interest. Even if commoners are basically much less interesting to write and read about, the volume of commoners' voices in the books is still extremely low.

[Scipio Africanus]

We were having a discussion in the TWOP thread over at the show forum about whether or not Martin could actually write commoners well and about the lack of moral ambiguity in the lowborn troops in the Lannister and Stark armies. I was rather off-topic so I thought I'd make a thread here about it.

History before the advent of mass media (say, from second half 18th century onwards when newspapers became populair) the voice of the common man was rarely heard. Most weren't literate, and in the ancien regime most smallfolk had no political participation.

Therefor the daily lives of peasants and other sorted commoners were rarely heard. Most people we know of from history are those from the elitist castes, the nobility and the clergy, because they could leave accounts and actually mattered in the political process.

So that we don't have detailed accounts of Riverlands peasant #47 (freshly raped and murdered) is not surprising. Wouldn't be realistic either, as pesant #47 had no means to convey or express his feelings (other than peasant revolts) and certainly had no influence in politics.

[Thendel]

Don't forget Areo, who was born to parents too poor to feed him, and was summarily sent to the bearded priests of Norvos.

As for the lack of full-fledged commoners, it's kind of concurrent with the underlying theme that when the nobles play their game of thrones, it's the commoners who suffer. Random Peasant #007891's account of Amory Lorch descending upon his village with fire and steel might be terrifying reading, but it doesn't move the story forward in any way. What examples we have of "interesting" commoners are people who more or less break out of the class system to join class-less groups, such as the Night's Watch, the Citadel, the Faith and the BWB, groups that are intricate to the progression of the story, and whose interests rarely align with that of the nobles. In that sense, the commoner's voice is heard, albeit the commoner must radically change his or her lifestyle in order to do so.

[FuriousGeorge]

I was trying to think of reasons why you are wrong for suggesting this and then I remembered Nimble Dick is both a commoner and the most ill-conceived character GRRM has ever come up with.

[protar]

Don't forget Areo, who was born to parents too poor to feed him, and was summarily sent to the bearded priests of Norvos.

As for the lack of full-fledged commoners, it's kind of concurrent with the underlying theme that when the nobles play their game of thrones, it's the commoners who suffer. Random Peasant #007891's account of Amory Lorch descending upon his village with fire and steel might be terrifying reading, but it doesn't move the story forward in any way. What examples we have of "interesting" commoners are people who more or less break out of the class system to join class-less groups, such as the Night's Watch, the Citadel, the Faith and the BWB, groups that are intricate to the progression of the story, and whose interests rarely align with that of the nobles. In that sense, the commoner's voice is heard, albeit the commoner must radically change his or her lifestyle in order to do so.

True, but there's two sides to that sword. The nobles are playing their game of thrones but it's the commoners who are suffering. Obviously the story as it is has no need of a commoner's POV, and Martin succeeds to a degree in showing their plight by having noble POV's like Arya and Brienne take on the roles of commoners temporarily. But when building the story from the ground up, and deciding that the plight of the common folk would be an important message in the story, it is odd in hindsight that a commoner wasn't somehow built in as a POV (Though how he'd fit in I've no idea.).

[Dragonstoned]

Also the issue which is difficult to appreciate as a modern reader, that nobles were brought up to believe they were fundamentally different and superior to the commoners, and commoners brought up to believe the nobles were their social betters not only in name. This is why having POVs where characters adopt the roles of commoners (Arya & Brienne) is nice but not really enough, as even those characters (and Arya & Brienne are very accepting of common people) will have an ingrained superiority complex.

[The Sleeper]

Is the question about his ability or his choice?

The choice of an aristocratic social environment presents this opportunity, to intersect the political with the personal and examine both personal struggles along with the big picture. As such a commoner would have a far more limited perspective in such a context and it would be hard to be relevant to the plot in the long run.

As far as his ablility goes, I think Davos, Pate, Septon Merribald, Nimble Dick and guys like Gendry, Hot Pie and Lommy are very-well conceived and realistic.

[Scipio Africanus]

As such a commoner would have a far more limited perspective in such a context and it would be hard to be relevant to the plot in the long run.

Indeed, random peasant #67 would never be near enough to any source to see the whole or even a part of the picture. Arya barely knew what was going on when she worked at Harrenhal posing as a servant for example.

[FuriousGeorge]

Is the question about his ability or his choice?

The choice of an aristocratic social environment presents this opportunity, to intersect the political with the personal and examine both personal struggles along with the big picture. As such a commoner would have a far more limited perspective in such a context and it would be hard to be relevant to the plot in the long run.

As far as his ablility goes, I think Davos, Pate, Septon Merribald, Nimble Dick and guys like Gendry, Hot Pie and Lommy are very-well conceived and realistic.

I agree. Was about to comment saying basically the same thing. I certainly don't think it is an issue of GRRM struggling to authentically represent any particular class, just a function of the story he is telling

[protar]

Is the question about his ability or his choice?

The choice of an aristocratic social environment presents this opportunity, to intersect the political with the personal and examine both personal struggles along with the big picture. As such a commoner would have a far more limited perspective in such a context and it would be hard to be relevant to the plot in the long run.

As far as his ablility goes, I think Davos, Pate, Septon Merribald, Nimble Dick and guys like Gendry, Hot Pie and Lommy are very-well conceived and realistic.

I'd say Septon Merribald and Gendry are the only ones on that list who are well conceived and realistic as a commoner. Davos as much as I love him is no commoner by the time we meet him, Nimble Dick, Lommy and Pate I personally found rather dull and uninteresting and Hot Pie is awesome but really nothing more than a piece of comic relief. Out of Gendry and Meribald, the former is the only one to get any significant screen time.

[mrunderhill]

Read the Dunk and Egg books. Has the perspective of the comman man much more. This book is about the nobles, but even then we get the some insight to what the peasants are thinking.

[The hairy bear]

I don't agree at all that Martin doesn't depict moral amiguity in the Stark and Lannister armies. I'd even say that besides of the bands lead by Lorch and mainly Clegane (the worst of the worst, as Tywin acknowledges), we would be hard pressed to find examples of depicable behavior in the Lannister side. At Harrenhal, for instance, the Boltons kill lady Harra just for having served the Lannister, and put the women that have slept with Lannisters in stock for every man to use.

And all the third party reports we've heard (the BwB, Septon Luceon) do not take sides and blame the Starks and the Lannisters alike. I think that if the reader is skewed against the Lannister side, this is only because there are more Stark POVs fand because Robb is much more likeable than Tywin.

[The Sleeper]

I'd say Septon Merribald and Gendry are the only ones on that list who are well conceived and realistic as a commoner. Davos as much as I love him is no commoner by the time we meet him, Nimble Dick, Lommy and Pate I personally found rather dull and uninteresting and Hot Pie is awesome but really nothing more than a piece of comic relief. Out of Gendry and Meribald, the former is the only one to get any significant screen time.

Davos very much stands out of his environment and finds the attention and responsiblity terrifying, as much as a man would after having spent most of his life-time having to think no more about than himself and his family. There is also the reverrence he feels at his position, unlike all the lordlings that surround him. He, very much, has the mindset of a commoner.

As for the rest, finding them dull is a subjective observation, but unrealistic? Nimble Dick is a deserter turn hustler, Pate has the small dreams of someone who no one would expect to amount to anything and

Lommy and Hot Pie are basically just kids who are cast out to their own. I think I've met them. The self awareness we see in the nobles, or would expect in a modern setting, would be the exception among the disenfranchized and largely illiterate commoners in the setting of the story.