Martin's Ability To Write Commoners

[protar]

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 point I was making in the TWOP thread before I decided it would be better to up sticks was that while we do hear about some of the atrocities that Stark soldiers commits, we never actually get to see the rank and file Stark soldiers do any unpleasantness first hand. Whereas with the Lannisters we have people like the Mountains men as direct examples.

When we do see morally ambiguous northerners they're all high Lords, which was what led me to look at the possibility that Martin wasn't very good at writing commoners in general. And even when looking at the high lords, the worst of the northerners (Roose, Ramsay, Arnolf and Cregan Karstark.) are all Lannister allies.

That said I believe that the northern lords like Rickard Karstark, Lady Dustin, Mors and Hother Umber and of course Wyman Manderly are all well written, morally ambiguous characters.

[Cybvep]

The funny thing is that GRRM makes it clear the smallfolk suffer the most during the war. Starvation and devastation mostly affect the commoners. We don't need a POV for that.

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.

Yeah, I think that part of the "problem" is that there are simply not enough Stark soldiers "on screen". Martin gives us hints here (livestock moved from the Westerlands to Riverrun, "They Lay With Lions" etc.), but we don't have a POV which describes these things in detail. I don't know, maybe that was the point, i.e. to give the impression that the "good guys" are nice and only imply that there is more under the surface here?

[SeanF]

Martin clearly can write about non-noble characters, judging by his other stories. He's just chosen not to, on the whole, in this one.

Interestingly, many of the nobles are left having to worry about having enough to eat/avoiding being stabbed, rather than worrying about more profound subjects. Really, Tyrion's the only major POV who's an intellectual.

[Buried Treasure]

The freedom of soldiers to commit cruel acts is largely dependant on the discipline they are being held under. Most of the war is occurring in the Riverlands, so any lord with a vested interest in seeing the Riverlands prosper is going to command his soldiers not to rape and murder, and punish any men caught doing so. Any lord wanting to ravage the Riverlands (and not himself overly burdened with moral qualms) is going permit his men to commit atrocities.

If we'd seen the campaign in the Westerlands we'd have seen more atrocities committed by northerners - Robb said he was burning granaries. But because Robb is not like Tywin we would have probably seen a lot less of northern commoners committing rape and destroying septs. - I doubt Robb would have permitted that in an army under his command, and probably he had to hang some looters and rapists at some point. Robb would have been mad if he had known what Bolton was letting men under his command do - not only was Bolton causing suffering in the Smallfolk, he was causing suffering in Robb's smallfolk.

[Don Roberto]

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.

Agreed. Dunk is a recently appointed knight, but he still has the mind of a peasant for much of the story.

[MikeTheSlayer]

I think the speech given by Septin Maribald in AFFC is one of the most powerful monologues in the entire series. It gives the reader a first hand account of how war affect the small folk of Westeros.

Sadly, we don't have a speech or any other form of exposition to tell us much about the everyday lives of commoners.

I also think the Dunk and Egg tales gives the reader a greater understanding of commoners, especially with regard to how they view and interact wiith the high born.

[protar]

The freedom of soldiers to commit cruel acts is largely dependant on the discipline they are being held under. Most of the war is occurring in the Riverlands, so any lord with a vested interest in seeing the Riverlands prosper is going to command his soldiers not to rape and murder, and punish any men caught doing so. Any lord wanting to ravage the Riverlands (and not himself overly burdened with moral qualms) is going permit his men to commit atrocities.

If we'd seen the campaign in the Westerlands we'd have seen more atrocities committed by northerners - Robb said he was burning granaries. But because Robb is not like Tywin we would have probably seen a lot less of northern commoners committing rape and destroying septs. - I doubt Robb would have permitted that in an army under his command, and probably he had to hang some looters and rapists at some point. Robb would have been mad if he had known what Bolton was letting men under his command do - not only was Bolton causing suffering in the Smallfolk, he was causing suffering in Robb's smallfolk.

Robb didn't know though. As much as Robb would surely punish those kinds of people, when he has thousands of people under his command it's impossible for him to keep track of all of their actions, especially in the heat of a battle.

It would have been nice (well quite unpleasant actually) to see a couple of Ned's household guard - the main source of Stark soldiers that we actually meet - being mean or cruel in some fashion. Not even loads necessarily, just as a little fleshing out detail.

[Groat]

I think the commoners were summed up by Jorah in GOT.

“The common people pray for rain, healthy children, and a

summer that never ends,” Ser Jorah told her. “It is no matter

to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, so long

as they are left in peace.” He gave a shrug. “They never

are.”

[SeanF]

I think the commoners were summed up by Jorah in GOT.

There's truth in that, but it's also a slightly patronising remark, as one would expect from a noble discussing his social inferiors. We see that in fact quite a lot of the small folk are strongly committed to their lords.

[KOM]

for a lower-class soldier, look also at Longshanks. Gendry and some BWB give some of the common perspective.

But for the most part, unless a commoner without supernatural powers actually gets a POV, it's hard to really get 'commoner' perpective.

but the pre-riot scene in ACOK, with the starving woman and the child seems pretty powerful to me.

Look also at AGOT, when the smallfolk are brought before Ned to testify.

I for one, would like to see random POV snippets, smallfolk living their life... and then an army column marches by on the road. Faulkner was really good at varying the perspectives in his POVs, but GRRM decided to do things differently.

[mrunderhill]

I think the commoners were summed up by Jorah in GOT.

Nope, Jorah is just a high lord, who thinks the common people are idiots. Staying alive is their primary concern, but they care who sits on the throne. Renly and Robert were close to their hearts and Margaery is too.

[Khal Pono]

Nope, Jorah is just a high lord, who thinks the common people are idiots. Staying alive is their primary concern, but they care who sits on the throne. Renly and Robert were close to their hearts and Margaery is too.

I think it's unwise to completely dismiss what Jorah said. It was condescending, but it wasn't entirely false either. Smallfolk might love a charismatic king or queen, but the political struggles taking place behind the scenes are extremely low on their list of concerns, even if the results may affect them to some degree.

[Forest of the Children]

The Jorah quote about the small folk is possibly my favourite one from the entire series. It is a truism that stretches throughout history. Common folk do not start wars, it is the leaders who do and are prepared to have their own people die for their own power games. Some common folk may profess their love for their lords, but that is because it is all they have ever known and if a new lord came along who promised stability and peace they would take it. Look how quickly Robert was accepted after the rebellion.

I feel the quote may be important, as kings and queens come and go but the 'people' remain. I also feel the expected 'bittersweet' ending will be something along the lines of massive societal changes similar to those after the Black Death, with the end of feudalism. Whoever is in power at the end will not have much of a kingdom to command and will not be able to wield the same power as before.

[SeanF]

I imagine that for most of the Smallfolk, the Iron Throne is pretty remote. I think they'd care very much that the King (or Queen) should be fairly just, and able to keep the peace. But, Targaryen vs Baratheon matters less, except for the inhabitants of King's Landing. OTOH, many of them are committed to their own local lords, and to their Lords Paramount. The BWB immediately accept Lady Stoneheart as leader, because she's Hoster Tully's daughter, and Tom O'Sevens makes clear to Merrett Frey how disgusted he is at his family's behaviour. The Mountain Clansmen think nothing of risking their lives to rescue "the Ned's daughter"; men like Steelshanks "slay because their lord commands it", and so on.

[Techelles]

Dunk the Lunk.

[Sigurður Ingi]

I always hoped that riot in kings landing was started by common men since it would have been interesting see some common men fighting against the king and nobles.

but also I find strange that people are staying because in long ago common had no voice which untrue since common in ancient Greece had voices and rights and also in Iceland they had their voices and some rights.

but I wondered could considered the high sparrow as an common man and also could Varys be considered a common because of his background of being an slave.

[Tommens Cat]

Because commoners POV would all be the same.

Wake up

Work/ struggle

Struggle/ suffer

Shit

Hopefully eat/ suffer

Sleep

All the while, Cersei is building dromons, tyrion is hanging out with future kings and dany is abolishing slavery.

POV slave #566

Wake up

Work/ struggle

Struggle/ suffer

Watch Dany ride by and hear something Barry is telling her

Eat

Shit blood

Die

Not so exciting. It could advance a story. But I doubt I'd read it.

[JungWheats]

I always hoped that riot in kings landing was started by common men since it would have been interesting see some common men fighting against the king and nobles.

but also I find strange that people are staying because in long ago common had no voice which untrue since common in ancient Greece had voices and rights and also in Iceland they had their voices and some rights.

but I wondered could considered the high sparrow as an common man and also could Varys be considered a common because of his background of being an slave.

Well, not in all of Greece. Much of the hellenistic world was ruled by kings and local lords; Athens had a democracy for about 100 years until they ran themselves into the ground, pissed off all their vassals, and caused the entire Greek world to unite against them. Before this 100 years Athens was an oligarchy ran by the elite land-owning warrior class.