George RR Martin's Grotesques

[Paulclem]

I've just finished reading George RR Martin's excellent A Dance with Dragons in the Game of Thrones series, and I was rflecting upon the many characters he has written into the saga.

Many of them are frankly grotesque - Gregor Clegane, Cersei, Tywin Lannister, Stannis, Melisandre, The Spider, Little Finger, Roose Bolton...Loads of them. They make interesting grotesques, but what they seem to do is highlight the characters with the normal traits - Jon, Bran, Tyrion, Danaerys, Davos.

I thought of an interesting parallel - in reality TV shows, the ones who win - do they turn out to be the more normal, well adjusted ones? I stopped watching them a while ago, but it always seemed to me that the most normal won, and the grotesques - of which there seemed to be plenty - lost.

Perhaps that was Martin's feelings about the characters - that we root for the fair, well balanced, normal people. What do you think?

[Charles Darnay]

I've just finished reading George RR Martin's excellent A Dance with Dragons in the Game of Thrones series, and I was rflecting upon the many characters he has written into the saga.

Many of them are frankly grotesque - Gregor Clegane, Cersei, Tywin Lannister, Stannis, Melisandre, The Spider, Little Finger, Roose Bolton...Loads of them.


Not sure of your definition of "grotesque" here, but Clegane is the onyl one on this list that is really grotesque. Ramsay is also grotesque, he should be on your list. As far as the others go, they highlight what I think separates A Song of Ice and Fire from other fantasy series - that there is very little clear division of good or "normal" and evil or "grotesque."

Cersei, Melisandre, Varys and Littlefinger do things at times that may seem grotesque but they all have reasons for doing what they do. Likewise, the "normal" characters (Jon, Dany, Tyrion, Arya....) are now flawless "good" heroes. They too can be just as grotesque.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The characters are what makes Martins' series shine, in my opinion. The story is good, but convoluted (as tends to be the case in fantasy). Though, I'm not really sure how grotesque is being used here. Do mean grotesque in a mental sense? I always thought grotesque applied principally to the physicality of a character--I'd label characters like Clegane, the Hound, Varys, Brienne, Rorge, Hodor, Biter (others I can't think of) and especially Tyrion, as grotesque--a dwarf with a mangled face? Doesn't get more grotesque than that.

Actually, looking at that list, there're a lot of grotesque characters we root for in comparison to characters we don't--Cersei, Jaime (at least for the first two books), Joffrey . . . well, the Lannisters in general. The grotesques would seem to be pretty equally divided between good and bad.

I don't know about tv shows, but historically, the deformed and disabled have often been portrayed as either weak, evil, or insane.

[JuniperWoolf]

Littlefinger isn't grotesque, he's fantastic.

[Paulclem]

I mean character - unnatural in some way.

odd or unnatural in shape, appearance, or character; fantastically ugly or absurd; bizarre.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grotesque

Unlike charles, I think there is a clear division between good and bad. Eddark Stark and his family clearly contrast to the Lannisters. Robert is clearly of this ilk too, though his weakness for women distorts his judgement.

Is Cersei grotesque in character? I think so with her relations with Jaime, and her cruelty. As for reason or logic - I think that can be grotesque too. Abnormal, uncompassionate.

to pick up Mutatis' point about Tyrion, yes defomed and disabled were cast as grotesque, but characterwise he's with Jon and Arya. It could be argued that despite his grotesque appearnace, he is the least grotesque of all. He did kill his father, but that was motivated by a kind of natural emotional response that is understandable, compared to the calculating and cruel realpolitik of Cersei and Littlefinger.

[Sancho Panza]

There are characters in the series that seem to straddle the line between sides such as Theon Greyjoy who isn't really sure what he wants. To a certain degree Jon is also in this category once he gets to know the wildlings beyond the wall and is torn between love for Ygritte and loyalty to the Black Watch.

In fact, I don't think its possible or fair to put any of the characters into concrete categories and that is part of the enduring brilliance of the saga. Think of the way Jaime develops a certain degree of respect for Brienne when she bests him at swordplay. Admittedly, for some such as Bronn and Cersei it is difficult to find any redeeming features, with the opposite being true for the Starks, but they all have it within them, as has already been pointed out in an earlier post.

[Paulclem]

wasn't Jon sent on the mission to the wildling's camp by the former Lord Commander?

I've started with characterisation, but I think they're very well written too. By A Dance with Dragons, I've become very familiar with the world, but it seems effortlessly written, which as a sure sign that he's put a lot of work into it. He doesn't seem to waste a line.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

He may not waste lines, but I think he wastes chapters.

[Paulclem]

I find myself preferring the chapters with my favourite charcters.

[Sancho Panza]

I remember feeling less than impressed with Davos, the Onion Knight, when he first started getting his own chapters, but as he developed as a character, such as the way he is able to stand up to Stannis, I found myself liking him more and more.

My favourite character and the one whose chapters i most looked forward to was Arya, while her sister never ceased to annoy me with her endless grovelling.

[Paulclem]

Same here. I agree about Davos.

Theon is an interesting character, as someone said, who straddles the good/ bad divide. Victor to victim.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The only character I ever found uninteresting was Catelyn. I was glad she died.

I just think the newest book could have been well served with some editing. Martin edited it himself, and it shows. There was a lot of completely useless chapters.

[Paulclem]

Wasn't she resurrected - now a walking corpse? I'm only up to A Dance with Dragons so don't tell me.

I just found the interesting characters very interesting, and the less interesting characters still, but not as much, so.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yeah, she was (I'm not giving anything away since it was revealed in the end of A Storm of Swords), but corpse-Catelyn is pretty much a different character, and decidedly more interesting.

[Paulclem]

I came across the series by accident - someone donated some books to a charity event we were involved in, and this book didn't get sold. I picked it up idly one day when looking for something to read, and I was away. The beginning had a great hook with the Others and their creepy blue eyes. I think that must be ten years ago when i read the first one. I know me and my brother were waiting for ages for A Feast for Crows.

I think he gets the balance really good in the amount of fantasy and realistic elements he puts into the plot. The fantasy elements are integral, but they don't overshadow the realist everyday aspects of the world.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Oh, I completely agree. That's the other strong point for the series. It doesn't get bogged down in magic and dragons all the time . . . it makes the parts with dragons and magic all the more, well, magical. Plus, a lot of fantasy use magic as a crutch to solve difficult plot points. He's sort of limited himself to this scapegoat because of the little magic in his universe, though I'm not sure he's not going to take this route with the complicated plot he's dug himself in to.

[Sancho Panza]

I think sometimes the plot does tend to get too overcomplicated for its own good, hence some of the books overlapping in time, which can be both annoying and confusing. I am certainly a fan of books with multiple threads occuring in multiple lcations, but sometimes there is a risk of becoming lost in time and not quite knowing where events fit in with other events. However, I think overall Mr Martin has kept control of his menagerie of sub-plots marvellously well.

[ennison]

Although my son was a Martin fan, I have never read anything by him. Nor have I seen the televised version. (I don't own a tv.) There are a couple of his books on the kitchen shelf probably left by son. They look a bit big. Hmm. I don't want to become addicted. Is it likely?