In the popular HBO show Game of Thrones -- and the books on which the series is based -- the female characters include a dastardly queen, an honorable mother and a whore with a heart of gold.
Though this fictional story takes place in an imagined, mythic past, these women portray modern female archetypes -- highly typical examples or models of femininity.
While this is not necessarily a bad thing, it does not please everyone. As my friend, a successful writer of fantasy literature, said, "If I have to watch or read about the Tomboy and the Princess one more time, I'll stab somebody."
Fiction and all its children -- from novels and plays to movies, television shows and mini-series -- rely on archetypes. My friend's outburst sums up the simultaneous irritation and recognition that many hard-working writers experience when dealing with simplistic, cliched archetypes: They strive to create plausible and appealing female characters who confound archetypes, but also recognize that successful fictional creations such as Game of Thrones depend on them.
By making an inventory of the modern female archetypes in the series' first season, starting with those who inspired my friend to thoughts of murder, we see modern Hollywood types in Hollywood-style medieval costumes:
The Tomboy. Arya Stark, the little daughter with a boy's haircut, learns to wield a sword and become an assassin. She is clearly metamorphosing into another favorite recent archetype, the Woman Warrior (think Guenevere in King Arthur, Lisbeth Salander in Stieg Larsson's trilogy or Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games).
The Princess. Sansa Stark, sister to the Tomboy, is not too bright and is often punished for her vapid and romantic delusions. In case you had any doubt which, the Tomboy or the Princess, is more appealing to contemporary audiences, compare what happens to poor Sansa to her clear-minded, independent sister.
The Seductress. The blond villainess, Cersei Lannister Baratheon, really is a nasty piece of work, sleeping with her brother, betraying her husband and routinely murdering and deceiving to advance the careers of her horrible children, or should we call them spawn (for, Grendel-like, truly they are children whom only a mother could love). The only puzzle is why, beyond her comely face and body, anyone would find this socio-path remotely attractive or seductive.
The Self-Made Woman. The rags-to-riches-to-rags-to-riches story of Daenerys Targaryen is a staple of Hollywood movies. She is the smart woman who makes her way toward independence in a hostile, male-dominated world. The self-made woman (or man) is a profoundly American archetype, born of the ethos of immigration and mobility. It is, frankly, heart-warming to encounter the archetype again, disguised and placed in surroundings so altered it almost (but not quite) sneaks past us.
The Good Wife. Catelyn Stark's devotion to her husband and children is profound and constitutes a core virtue of integrity that is recognized and honored by the other characters in the series. She is (usually) politically astute as well. Oddly, this Good Wife has a rather incongruous flaw; namely, she dislikes and distrusts Jon Snow, her husband's bastard child, who is so clearly a Good Man (another archetype). That she, a woman of great political insight, is blinded by Snow's very existence doesn't make much sense, but it does allow her to partially inhabit a different archetype: The Evil Stepmother.
There are other female archetypes, of course, and Game of Thrones' second season expands the repertoire: the Whore with a Heart of Gold (Shae); the Witch (Melisandre) and a Woman Warrior (Brienne), tall and strong, with androgynous looks and bearing.
Overall, the female characters in Game of Thrones are no smarter or stupider than the male characters; intelligence seems to be distributed randomly across the sexes in the series, as it is in real life. (Now that's progress!)
There is a dilemma when it comes to archetypes in fiction. Archetypes are immediately and effortlessly familiar and an easy way to make sense of the world.
This can be bad, too. The extreme of an archetype is a stereotype -- a simplified, often clichéd image of others held in common by a group. As we all know, stereotypes can infiltrate the political and social fabric of life and have insidious, damaging effects.
Yet the existence of archetypes in fiction is universal, no less prevalent in the past than in the present, historically and culturally specific, and endlessly fascinating.
Ann Marie Rasmussen is a professor of Germanic Languages & Literature at Duke University.
Sansa is introduced as the princess, but by the end of season 1, that entire archetype breaks when her "handsome prince" kills her father. There's even more breaking of Sansa's 'beautiful princess marrying the heroic handsome prince' archetype in season 3, but that's another story.
Catelyn Stark is more of "the good mother" than "the good wife", though she's both. GRRM breaks that archetype when being a loving mother leads her to cause a war (as well as other things - Karstarks). The writer also mentions that she hates Jon Snow, which breaks the archetype, too. One can't be the "good" mother and the "evil" stepmother at the same time. She becomes something in between.
The writer also fails to see perhaps the biggest aspect of Cersei's character, which is even more important than being the seductress: penis envy. And like others have said, only Joffrey is horrible.
Read the books...
Wow, this professor has clearly not managed to read the books thoroughly. The so called dasterly queen, is utterly loyal to her children and is charming when she wants to be and is humiliated into submission even when she acts in defiance.
The "Good man" sacrifices friends, brothers and gets murdered by his own men for his actions
The tomboy is an urchin, a blind priest, a beggar, a killer and a noblewoman but for the moment she is not yet a killer although she does seek revenge. She in the service of another, higher power probably and cannot claim her own destiny any more then other can in this world
The rags to riches can end at any moment with fire and blood for Miss Stormborn and as we speak her throne is being claimed by another, male targareyan, making her, at best, the "loving wife" of the king since she cannot control her dragons for now.
The Good wife she might be, but stoneheart now kills her allies in the belief they have betrayed her and does nothing but seek revenge with the sword and rope not caring who she hangs as long as he punishes people.
Perhaps, one should read the books, before commenting on what is in them. Stereotypes might be present in the books, but only for a while and the characters evolve into more then just a templates. The stereotypes die (sometimes literally).
1) the author is ONLY referring to the first season of HBO's series, not the full scope of the books.
2) She acknowledges that pure archetypes are filled with stereotypes and that has a negative connotations, but again, she is only analyzing the first season of the HBO series.
3) The "Good Man" she refers to is Jon Snow. Murdered by his own men? I think not.
Otherwise, quite valid observations. Thanks!
Instead of jealous rants I consider my own preferences: I do enjoy my share of popular literature, often much more than the high literature I read for class. Besides in my opinion it takes a lot of skill and self-confidence to write storys on elements that are as commonly known as princess/tomboy.
Or - to quote an author whose work I really appreciate reading (inspite of all its flaws considering "good writing" ;-) ):
If I wrote a story about an apprentice-wizard farmboy, an old wizard, a princess, a pirate, a dark knight and a talking bear, and there's a dark castle and a mission to save the princess, the audience reaction to it is going to be based on how well executed the story is, not on how tired people might think the common plot elements are. Done wrong, it's some bit of horrible pulp that rots on an assistant editor's floor. Done right, it's Star Wars. (Jim Butcher about writing)
It doesn't make sense to put 9-12 years old children into archtypes. At this young age personality isn't fully developed. Is it surprising that an 11 year old girl living far from court and political intrigue is oblivious to the maliciousness of the game of thrones? It isn't. Out of the both of them I'd say that Sansa's the more intelligent one, with more ability to fit in. Being a rebel doesn't make you intelligent.
Cersei: on the one hand, she's not advancing the careers of her children, she wants to control them and have the power for herself. She mentions a hundred times that should she have a cock, she could be greater than Tywin Lannister. On the other hand, you obviously don't know anything about her children; while Joffry is a monster, Myrcella and Tommen are very nice and sweet children with good hearts.
Long story short: archtypes barely exist and they all break down after a time. I suggest you read the books, and if you hate archtypes, stop seeing them everywhere and force them even if they do not exist.
And yeah, Cersei isn't a seductress.
She's an archytype that has for the most part been reserved for men, she's the gritty, ugly no nonsense warrior. That fits who she is better then any traditionally female archetype.
About Catelyn... how would you feel if your husband went to war and came back with his bastard son and you had to live with him for 14 years? Not good. And if her dislike of Jon Snow bothers you so much, you probably don't have a very clear grasp on reality.
And Arya with the boy haircut. She gets it hacked off in an alley by a grown man right after her father gets beheaded so she can masquerade as a boy to escape/not get raped. Not because she wants to go against the crowd and be a rebel.