Scan barcode
A review by jarrahpenguin
Beyond the Wall: Exploring George R. R. Martin's a Song of Ice and Fire by
3.0
Beyond the Wall is a collection of essays looking at A Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones) from a variety of angles.
I definitely appreciated Brent Hartinger’s article on the “role of freaks and outcasts” in the series. Hartinger argues, I think fairly, that Martin has created a significant number of underdog characters who “violate major gender or social norms” and are not stereotyped (examples include Tyrion, Aria, Jon, Bran, Samwell, Brienne, and Catelyn). I thought it was interesting how Hartinger draws a distinction between these outsiders and the more traditional fantasy outsiders like Luke Skywalker or Harry Potter who are (usually white) men called to greatness.
Specifically referencing the violence against women in the books, Hartinger presents both the argument that the violence is too overwhelming as well as the counterargument that Martin is using the scale of the violence to show women as “the ultimate outsiders”.
I was also interested in Caroline Spector's article, “Power and Feminism in Westeros”. As in the panel, Spector makes the case that the challenges and violence the women characters in GoT experience are part of Martin’s attempt to show the hypocrisy of Westeros culture and the breakdown of social order. Spector goes through some of the notable women characters to talk about how they gain and lose power through the novels. She concludes:
I can’t say I agree on that point. I appreciate the nuanced women characters in GoT but I think if there is that bigger social feminist meaning intended by Martin, it probably goes over the heads of most of the readers.
In terms of the rest of the collection, there were some other really interesting takes, including an analysis of how Martin’s novels reflect Romanticism and a piece on Martin’s very careful use of magical and supernatural elements in the books. Less interesting to me were the pop-psychology articles analyzing the GoT characters and whether or not they could be said to have PTSD (Theon and Arya) or sociopathy (Littlefinger).
The other piece directly relating to violence against women came from Alyssa Rosenberg of Think Progress and The Atlantic. Rosenberg tends to agree with Spector that the violence serves a larger purpose to denote “monsters” among the characters as well as corruption and breakdown in social structures in certain regions and classes. However, Rosenberg acknowledges that some readers may find the number of assaults depicted to be “an insurmountable barrier to enjoying the books or the show”
However, the fact that the series is still unfinished means Spector may end up being proved right. As Lowder points out in his intro to the collection, it’s difficult to do a full analysis when there are still books to be written and published.
I definitely appreciated Brent Hartinger’s article on the “role of freaks and outcasts” in the series. Hartinger argues, I think fairly, that Martin has created a significant number of underdog characters who “violate major gender or social norms” and are not stereotyped (examples include Tyrion, Aria, Jon, Bran, Samwell, Brienne, and Catelyn). I thought it was interesting how Hartinger draws a distinction between these outsiders and the more traditional fantasy outsiders like Luke Skywalker or Harry Potter who are (usually white) men called to greatness.
Specifically referencing the violence against women in the books, Hartinger presents both the argument that the violence is too overwhelming as well as the counterargument that Martin is using the scale of the violence to show women as “the ultimate outsiders”.
I was also interested in Caroline Spector's article, “Power and Feminism in Westeros”. As in the panel, Spector makes the case that the challenges and violence the women characters in GoT experience are part of Martin’s attempt to show the hypocrisy of Westeros culture and the breakdown of social order. Spector goes through some of the notable women characters to talk about how they gain and lose power through the novels. She concludes:
“In the midst of what appears to be a traditional male-power fantasy about war and politics, he serves up a grim, realistic, and harrowing depiction of what happens when women aren’t fully empowered in a society. In doing so…Martin has created a subversively feminist tale.”
I can’t say I agree on that point. I appreciate the nuanced women characters in GoT but I think if there is that bigger social feminist meaning intended by Martin, it probably goes over the heads of most of the readers.
In terms of the rest of the collection, there were some other really interesting takes, including an analysis of how Martin’s novels reflect Romanticism and a piece on Martin’s very careful use of magical and supernatural elements in the books. Less interesting to me were the pop-psychology articles analyzing the GoT characters and whether or not they could be said to have PTSD (Theon and Arya) or sociopathy (Littlefinger).
The other piece directly relating to violence against women came from Alyssa Rosenberg of Think Progress and The Atlantic. Rosenberg tends to agree with Spector that the violence serves a larger purpose to denote “monsters” among the characters as well as corruption and breakdown in social structures in certain regions and classes. However, Rosenberg acknowledges that some readers may find the number of assaults depicted to be “an insurmountable barrier to enjoying the books or the show”
However, the fact that the series is still unfinished means Spector may end up being proved right. As Lowder points out in his intro to the collection, it’s difficult to do a full analysis when there are still books to be written and published.