The question is not whether a peasant could be an interesting character. Obviously they could. A talented writer could make almost anyone’s life compelling. The question is whether that perspective serves the story being told.

ASOIAF is a story about political power. The people who have the ability to affect those outcomes are the obvious focus.

A peon’s POV would be telling a different story and shift the focus from the people competing to the people living with the consequences of the competition. That could be a great novel, but it would not advance the retelling of the dynastic struggle for control of Westeros.

This is why I asked why you find the absence of lower-class POVs surprising. It seems like an obvious consequence of the scope and focus of the story.

Is this surprising? The book series centers around the struggle for political control of a kingdom and as a result is told by the people involved in that struggle. What would the perspective of an uninvolved peasant or stevedore add?

Suttree strikes me as being similarly world weary as Maqroll but McCarthy’s characterization is much richer than Mutis’s and I enjoyed the book more than I’m enjoying Maqroll.

You know - I read the comparisons to Don Quixote before I picked up this book and I REALLY disliked Don Quixote. I did finish part 1 but could not bring myself to start part 2 - not sure if that counts as DNF or not.

In answer to your question, I’m not sure I see strong parallels between Maqroll and Don Quixote, the tone in Don Quixote was much less disenchanted/jaded and more… well, quixotic. I don’t think Maqroll as character has the same “humorous” (I didn’t find it funny) self-delusion that people appreciate in Don Quixote. Maqroll is a realist his adventures just aren’t very believable and I don’t think the writing/atmosphere outweighs the trudging plot. I think my main objection to Maqroll (hearkening back to the Dr. Evil reference) is that it comes across to me as if it was written by a person who isn’t very worldy but uses obscure/exotic settings to seem like they are. Which is strange because by all accounts Mutis was actually quite well traveled. I guess in my opinion where Melville succeeds in building credibility by delving into the minutia of cetology Mutis fails in establishing his worldliness with his plot/settings (in my opinion of course).