Jump to content

Defending Cat, again


corbon

Recommended Posts

She had as much obligation as Catelyn.

Oh yes I know :) So Catelyn can't muster some kindness to a child that is a victim in the whole situation, and walks around pouting and ignoring Jon. She's an adult by the way.

But Sansa, who is a child, and in a terrible position having to marry her jailer for all intents and purposes, actually manages to show some kindness to Tyrion.

Hmmm... yeah I'd argue she had even less obligation than Catelyn and that she was able to muster some courtesy and actually speak to Tyrion! proves she may not be her mother's daughter after all. Praise the Lord btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That simply isn't true. Lyvyathan has consistently claimed that Cat was Jon's step-mother, and that she ought to have given him a mother's love and affection.

Her reaction was to be distant from him, and to remind him that he's a bastard (which everyone does anyway). That people think this is abuse is pretty much the most laughable thing I've seen in this thread.

OK, in the spirit of reconciliation I take that back. I was wrong to say that Cat was Jon's step-mother in the legal sense of the word and that she had a duty to show the bastard child a "mother's love and affection".

That she should have - out of common human decency mayhaps - but this is the World of Westeros where whores can get whipped and where Lords can be burnt alive by their King.

Nonetheless, next thing we'll hear is how Cat supporters defend their reasons not to help a lost 2 or 3 or 4 or year old child whose wandering down their road. Meh, not my kid - I think I'll hear them say. Looks like my husband's kid though, maybe even more reason to ignore the bastard.

I leave it to you Catelyn supporters to defend and justify why she can treat her husband's bastard child with such disdain, ie. not calling the child by name until one day when he was 14 years - remember that chance incident?

Its no point in arguing with people who think its perfectly OK to not say a "single kind word" or call your husband's child who you (and your children) are living with - by name when was 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (bingo, he's a man!!! Gloves are off now!!!).

Catelyn was the perfect Aunt to Jon in their books. Mayhaps Aunt can't be the right word of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its getting a bit hard to conduct the discussion as I'm answering Corbon's poster and getting a different reply from you on the same post- so forgive me if I concentrate on one or two points to avoid confusion.

I said to Corbon

Quote "No. I'm questioning her logic pattern based upon her ill-founded decisions set within the context of the world of Westeros. I expect her to show some modesty when Maester Luwin brings Lysa's letter. Hey, you don't have clothes on, hello? Are you a Lady of House Stark or a tavern wench?"

And you said:

Hmm. It seems like you're using 20/20 hindsight (and, ironically, a highly emotional response. Damn that Catelyn, her actions caused harms to the Starks!!)

Don't base your argument on what you think I'm thinking based upon your assumptions - talk about the text, talk about what I'm writing. I'm questioning her judgment based upon the standards and logic and knowledge that the people of Westeros had at that time.

That's why I brought up the scene in Ned's bedroom where Catelyn exposes herself to Maester Luwin. Now what sort of woman is this - in the world of Westeros? Is it acceptable of Ladies of High Birth to show their naked flesh to another men apart from their husband? Her defense of her immodesty is laughable too - so what if Luwin had already seen her vagina a dozen times. Does that mean that she should expose herself to him in day to day activities? Why couldn't she ask Master Luwin to excuse himself while she wore something? That would have taken like one minute?

So could it be because she's the sort of person prone to do rash, impulsive acts?

See, I'm building a case to show you that Catelyn is exhibiting a pattern of behavior that can only been seen as being rash, impulsive and not deeply thought out. In short she's a fool or at the very least, cede from you that she has done very foolish acts. Now, since this Thread is entitled "Defending Catelyn, Again" - I pray that we may stick to the topic - ie is our protagonist's behavior justifiable? So bringing up examples of how Cersei, Ned did worst acts is therefore irrelevant.

True. Judging the characters using 20/20 hindsight or information that the characters didn't possess is of course - wrong. But that is not to say we can't criticize them for acting when they had information or norms that was readily available to them.

Catelyn knew her decision was highly dangerous. That's expressed clearly from her POV.

What do you call someone who takes a highly dangerous decision that places her family in danger based upon poor evidence or faulty thinking - and it would seem everyone from Yoren, crazy Lysa, and mayhaps Jingle Bell realizes this?

Let's keep the stupid actions of other characters out of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a number of instances where Cat's poor decision making led to catastrophic results. I'm willing to overlook a lot from her because I never saw her as an intelligent character. I'm reluctant to say she is evil simply because she hasn't demonstrated that she has the mental faculties to make better decisions. I don't want to hold that against her.

However, I really don't understand how anyone can justify or defend Cat's treatment of Jon. I certainly don't think that she should love the kid (I don't know that I ever could in her place), but how can you be okay with the fact that she NEVER ONCE SAID HIS NAME IN 14 YEARS!? It's just cruel. That doesn't just happen by accident. She really went out of her way to make him feel excluded. I bet there is not another person in all of Winterfell, from the most common foot soldier to the lowest scullery maid, whose name Cat could or would avoid using for 14 YEARS! I am sure Jon was acutely aware of this from an early age. I'm no child psychologist, but I can only imagine the effect this would have on a kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually pretty darn close. She sees Tyrion in the inn and decides to kidnap him on the spur of the moment. Had she thought about her children's welfare she would have realised the inherent madness of this decision.
Ridiculous, she grabbed Tyrion precisely because he was supposedly both involved in a conspiracy and an attempted murderer of one of her children already and he saw her in a place where she should not not be. Not letting him go was all about thinking of herself and her family. Letting him go on these premises has worse consequences than arresting him.

Plus, "thinking about her children welfare"? What? Ned told her to prepare for war already, so war is obviously in no matter what she does. After that, the kids are either with Ned, the hand of the king and friend of the king, and the others at Winterfell. So your contention is that she should have seen in her crystal ball that Robert would be assassinated shortly after, after firing Ned, that Ned would reveal his plans to the Lannisters, making the safety of his own girls an afterthought, that Robb would decide to go King in the North attacking the Riverlands and that he would screw up to a point where he would have to be assassinated, or that Theon would "kill" Bran and Rickon? Yes, sure.

And to what end? Thinking long and hard and still coming to Cat's conclusion doesn't make sense. She sets both Jaime and Brienne on a path to their own deaths and rape, undermines Robb's authority and gains exactly nothing for all this "thinking". Releasing Jaime was a wrong on every possible level one can think of.
You think wrongly then.

first:"setting Brienne and Jaime on the path to their death". Do you know what happens to them if she doesn't do that? Simple: Brienne dies in the Red Wedding, and Jaime is executed by the Blackfish. Path to their death, indeed.

Undermining Robb was Robb's own fault. She did it on her own so Robb could distance himself from him while still reaping the benefits of the exchange.

She gets nothing because independently from her everything goes south, but we know from Jaime's PoV that she would have successfully recovered Sansa. Heck, the guy even helps Brienne afterwards. And we also know he means to keep his word. Nothing indeed.

Also, of course, Jaime by then had no value as hostage except as token for exchange. Tywin had abandoned him for dead, as Tyrion notes in one of his chapters, it did nothing for them to keep him rotting in the cells.

As every adult should know, ignoring a problem only makes it worse, for you. But Cat was committed to being a child in the situation so I can see how this escaped her.
Ridiculous. Cat didn't ignore the "problem", she tried to ask Ned. Ned told her to shut up and that Jon stayed at Winterfell. She tried to love the boy, didn't work. Ignoring it was the only thing left to do, she could not leave, she could not go against her lord, she had no recourse.

Of course I know for you "not ignoring the problem" means going against upbringing and social norms, squashing one's feelings and forcing oneself to feel something else, and basically being a doormat. Feelings don't work that way.

Ummm, the mere fact that she resents him shows that she blames him (duh).
No, not really.

re·sent/riˈzent/

Verb:

Feel bitterness or indignation at (a circumstance, action, or person).

blame/blām/

Verb: Assign responsibility for a fault or wrong: "the inquiry blamed the engineer for the accident".

I see you've been skipping posts, (not that I blame you) but you must have missed the part we clearly state that Ned is a dick for his reaction and just as much to blame in the situation. However, the fact is that we're discussing Cat's behaviour.
Yeah, sorry I must have missed it, I don't know who is "we" though. But I was talking in a more general fashion: We are indeed discussing Cat, but underlining the fact that only she (on the whole) gets a raw deal for such minor wrongs against children goes a long way in proving how bloody biased the argument is.

Maybe you're saying Ned is a dick, but you're a minuscule minority on this, and not representative of the Cat-haters. On the Cat-hating, you are totally typical, though. (or at least that's what it feels, given my experience of the board posters)

First things first, no one liked Theon because he behaved like an ass. So really, I don't see where you're going there. If Robb liked him he learnt the folly of that as we all know. Are you trying to claim that Jon victimized Cat? LOL!!! My gosh, talk about fantasy! Jon was the child, my friend. He had no choice but to accept Cat's dislike and keep to himself. To suggest otherwise is downright ridiculous.
"Noone liked Theon... except Robb, but it doesn't count" Huhu. I might as well say "noone liked Jon, except everyone but Cat, but they will soon see the error of their ways"

Yeah, I am telling you to put things into perspective. Funny you talk about "having no choice", surely Jon could find it in his heart to love a woman that had no choice but to have him in her house, despite her being as unsympathetic to him as he is to her. This is precisely what you ask Cat to do. I'm certain you level the same criticism at Sansa, for (apparently) not loving another kid of the castle as well as Arya. But Jon, no, never, he's the victim, crawling in his skin.

It's BS alright - the claim that Cat tried to like Jon. Next time Cat try harder. Just as hard as she must have tried to forgive Ned and presto! success. Coexist? Please. It was a festering nightmare for Jon, he just learnt to carry on with his life. We never asked Cat to love him, Bard, just to acknowledge that a child is not responsible for the mistakes of his father, and to treat said child kindly.
Huh, she did not forgive Ned. That's also in the text. Festering nightmare? :rolleyes: Are you sure you read about the book with the kid who felt slighted because once he could not sit at the high table, and not Oliver Twist? BS that she tried to love him? That's in the text, what are you on? You never asked Cat to love him? Damn, go reread your own posts, this is what you blame her for since the beginning.

Not blaming Jon? Good, Cat doesn't blame Jon, she just resents him. Since you seem to have a problem distinguishing my meaning with blame and resent, let me take an example (taken from real life): Say a friend offered you a pair of books once... then this friend left with your wife (or your wife left with him, no matter)... You now cannot bear the sight of these books, in fact your resent their very presence in your home, and you soon trash them without reading them but are you blaming the books? Nope you are not. They are blameless, innocent. Didn't prevent you from hating the sight of them and getting rid of them.

Oh yes I know :) So Catelyn can't muster some kindness to a child that is a victim in the whole situation, and walks around pouting and ignoring Jon. She's an adult by the way.
It's telling that you cannot just put the truth (that is only put "ignoring") and have to resort to lying (saying Cat "pouts") to make your point.

What do you call someone who takes a highly dangerous decision that places her family in danger based upon poor evidence or faulty thinking - and it would seem everyone from Yoren, crazy Lysa, and mayhaps Jingle Bell realizes this?
Good sense, when the other decisions are even more dangerous.

Yoren doesn't have all the information about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Errant, Brash has already responded to you so I won't repeat the points already made.

Catelyn put her life at risk to save Brienne, even though she barely knew her.

In the same chapter she showed empathy to Cersei of all people, and started her prayers in the sept by asking the Mother "My lady, look down on this battle with a mother’s eyes. They are all sons, every one. Spare them if you can". She felt sad for Mya Stone when Mya told her the name of her lover, because sh knew Mya could never marry him.

Sure, her family is her primary concern, but to say nothing else matters to her and she lacks empathy is simply wrong IMO.

Your responses are really great. You understand the gist of the argument and get straight to the point with countering arguments which I have to concede. You are right of course, she is able to separate herself on occasion and I find her to be a better person for it. The examples you have made are some of her finer moments. However, what about the times she is unable to do that? Can you not see how it interferes with her judgement? She might think on an issue a lot, like for instance releasing Jaime, but if she only looks at it from one angle (mainly her perspective), doesn't it flaw her reasoning?

Returning back to the discussion, I think for many of us who see her treatment of Jon as a form of abuse, stems from the last conversation between her and Jon. I will post the passage and mark the parts that bother me personally and comment on them.

Finally she blinked. “What are you doing here?” she asked in a voice strangely flat and emotionless.

“I came to see Bran,” Jon said. “To say good-bye.”

(not a nice beginning to the conversation, but I will let it pass)

Her face did not change. Her long auburn hair was dull and tangled. She looked as though she had aged twenty years. “You’ve said it. Now go away.”

Part of him wanted only to flee, but he knew that if he did he might never see Bran again. He took a nervous step into the room. "Please," he said.

(This is so gut wrenching, out of love for Bran he is willing to risk being hurt in some way and he is pleading for understanding.)

Something cold moved in her eyes. "I told you to leave," she said. "We don't want you here."

(Not only is this unkind but it is untrue, only Cat doesn't want him around, but this is a form of emotional abuse.)

Once that would have sent him running. Once that might even have made him cry.

(This tells me that this incident is not the first time she has been so awful to him. There seems to be a pattern.)

Now it only made him angry. He would be a Sworn Brother of the Night's Watch soon, and face worse dangers than Catelyn Tully Stark. "He's my brother," he said.

(He perceives her as some sort of threat. Perhaps emotionally?)

"Shall I call the guards?"

(Really unbelievable, no empathy whatsoever.)

"Call them," Jon said, defiant. "You can't stop me from seeing him." He crossed the room, keeping the bed between them, and looked down on Bran where he lay.

She was holding one of his hands. It looked like a claw. This was not the Bran he remembered. The flesh had all gone from him. His skin stretched tight over bones like sticks. Under the blanket, his legs bent in ways that made Jon sick. His eyes were sunken deep into black pits: open, but they saw nothing. The fall had shrunken him somehow. He looked half a leaf, as if the first strong wind would carry him off to his grave.

Yet under the frail cage of those shattered ribs, his chest rose and fell with each shallow breath.

"Bran," he said, "I'm sorry I didn't come before. I was afraid." He could feel the tears rolling down his cheeks. Jon no longer cared. "Don't die, Bran. Please. We're all waiting for you to wake up. Me and Robb and the girls, everyone..."

Lady Stark was watching. She had not raised a cry. Jon took that for acceptance. Outside the window, the direwolf howled again. The wolf that Bran had not had time to name.

"I have to go now," Jon said. "Uncle Benjen is waiting. I'm to go north to the Wall. We have to leave today, before the snows come." He remembered how excited Bran had been at the prospect of the journey. It was more than he could bear, the thought of leaving him behind like this. Jon brushed away his tears, leaned over, and kissed his brother lightly on the lips.

"I wanted him to stay here with me," Lady Stark said softly.

Jon watched her, wary.

(He is expecting something cruel. From past experience?)

She was not even looking at him. She was talking to him, but for a part of her, it was as though he were not even in the room.

“I prayed for it,” she said dully. “He was my special boy. I went to the sept and prayed seven times to the seven faces of god that Ned would change his mind and leave him here with me. Sometimes prayers are answered.”

Jon did not know what to say. “It wasn’t your fault,” he managed after an awkward silence.

(he is consoling her, he is being very mature IMO.)

Her eyes found him. They were full of poison. “I need none of your absolution, bastard.”

(More emotional abuse for being kind. This was really uncalled for.)

Jon lowered his eyes. She was cradling one of Bran’s hands. He took the other, squeezed it. Fingers like bones of birds. “Good-bye,” he said.

He was at the door when she called out to him. “Jon,” she said. He should have kept going, but she had never called him by his name before.

(I find this so incredible. So she does not totally ignore him as we see from above, he has heard words like these before, cruelly barbed words, meant to inflict pain. She doesn't ignore him, she only refuses to call him by his name which in and of itself I think is another form of abuse IMHO and meant to enforce the fact that he is nothing/worthless.)

He turned to find her looking at his face, as if she were seeing it for the first time.

“Yes?” he said.

“It should have been you,” she told him.

(I think this is pretty self-explanatory and again unbelievable!)

Then she turned back to Bran and began to weep, her whole body shaking with the sobs. Jon had never seen her cry before.

It was a long walk down to the yard.

Outside, everything was noise and confusion. Wagons were being loaded, men were shouting, horses were being harnessed and saddled and led from the stables. A light snow had begun to fall, and everyone was in an uproar to be off.

Robb was in the middle of it, shouting commands with the best of them. He seemed to have grown of late, as if Bran’s fall and his mother’s collapse had somehow made him stronger. Grey Wind was at his side.

“Uncle Benjen is looking for you,” he told Jon. “He wanted to be gone an hour ago.”

“I know,” Jon said. “Soon.” He looked around at all the noise and confusion. “Leaving is harder than I thought.”

“For me too,” Robb said. He had snow in his hair, melting from the heat of his body. “Did you see him?”

Jon nodded, not trusting himself to speak.

“He’s not going to die,” Robb said. “I know it.”

“You Starks are hard to kill,” Jon agreed. His voice was flat and tired. The visit had taken all strength from him.

Robb knew something was wrong. “My mother…”

(Apparently, this sort of behavior is so common that others have come to expect it as well. Everybody knows. No she was definitely not ignoring him. Note how emotionally drained Jon is.)

“She was…very kind,” Jon told him.

(I think Jon really was the adult here. He relieves the tension, puts on a good face and rises above the situation. I really respect him for this, he does not contribute to the tension and the damage it might do to the welfare of the family.)

“Robb looked relieved. “Good”. He smiled.

I want to say that I understand she was grieving, before anyone uses that argument on me, but to me at least it does not justify her behavior ;). Besides, from the text we glean little tidbits that show us there is a pattern to her behavior towards him. This is taking immaturity too far and like I said before, I find it despicable. It is so easy to target a defenseless child but it takes guts to face what you fear. She should have confronted Ned despite her fear and been a better woman for it. I don't believe that Ned would have physically abused her as suggested in a previous post by someone, but to not even try and blame a child.... is cowardly.

My apologies for the really long post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

</p>

Ridiculous, she grabbed Tyrion precisely because he was supposedly both involved in a conspiracy and an attempted murderer of one of her children already and he saw her in a place where she should not not be. Not letting him go was all about thinking of herself and her family. Letting him go on these premises has worse consequences than arresting him.

Plus, "thinking about her children welfare"? What? Ned told her to prepare for war already, so war is obviously in no matter what she does.

The posts are getting very long and receiving multiple replies from different people at the same time - so I hope you don't mind if I separate the points - post by post - break it down and address the issues so that we can avoid confusion?

By the way, the ASOIAF books I am using is the Harper Voyage edition. So when I refer to a quote and use the abbreviation: (GoT, pg 326) I'm referring to Game of Thrones, Harper Voyage edition, page 326.

Again, why do you think it was a good decision for her to grab Tyrion? Can you please think deeply about it - and not through the prism of Catelyn's mindset.If we only look at the events only through the mindset of all the protagonists, I dare say we can justify any of their actions no matter how stupid or wicked - Jamie, Cersei, Tyrion, Sansa, Euron, Ramsay etc.., heck if Martin had wrote a POV for Gregor and Vargo, we'd be looking at their decisions for rape, torture through their eyes and find them totally justifiable.Therefore if we only view events through the prism of our flawed characters - virtually none of their decisions will be open for scrutiny will they?

And won't the board be that much boring? Someone will say mayhaps Gregor shouldn't have raped and murdered and tortured all those women and children - but since in way of thinking alright - its justifiable. And what about the Ramsay Bolton - do you think he was depraved for flaying women? Not if you viewed it through his idea for life - because in HIS MIND it was OK. And if he thinks its justifiable to tear the flesh off living women, should we accept his reasoning as acceptable too?

I'm not saying we expect them to have 20/20 vision, a crystal ball, or the Reader's knowledge either. Mayhaps i have given that impression in earlier post - but I'm categorically saying now I'm not expecting it from anyone. But I do expect their decision making to be judged based upon what they know.

When you say -

"Letting him go on these premises has worse consequences than arresting him."

What are you basing your judgement upon? Upon Catelyn's deluded thinking? How does not abducting the son of Tywin Lannister, the most dangerous and most powerful Lord in the 7 Kingdoms have worse consequences?

Aren't you basing it on the flawed premises and poor deduction of Catelyn? How does she know that not capturing Tyrion would have "worse consequences?"

Actually, why is she capturing him? What do you think is her prime reason?

In her own words: "This man came a guest into my house and there conspired to murder my precious Bran, a boy of seven, in the name of the King Robert... I call upon you to seize him and help me return him to Winterfell to await the King's justice." (GoT, page 283) (also repeated in 406)

Her argument with Tyrion - primarily rests on her belief that it was Tyrion who sought to kill her Bran. And she wanted revenge.

(True, she tried to hide from him - but when he exposed her in the Inn - she let her fury fly)

She wanted justice for her little boy whom she dearly loved."It might be that your death is the point Lannister," Catelyn replied (to Tyrion). (GoT, pg 320)

Was this a belief based on hard concrete fact- or something plausible that could stand up in court? True, she apparently had "his dagger. But didn't her beloved trusted Littlefinger already advise her that evidence was inconclusive?

Littlefinger :"The Imp would no doubt swear that the blade was lost or stolen... and who is there to give him the lie? My counsel is to drop that in the river and forgot that it was ever forged" (GoT pg 193)

(Yes, I know Ned's reply- but read his words careful and you'll find he did not seek to arrest Tyrion - yes, I know what he said to Jamie later on but you can ask me in another post - and I think I already addressed it in an older post if you care to check)

Now how is arresting Tyrion going to help at all? On what evidence? Won't he just deny it? Can she justify abducting the member of another major house, esp. that of House Lannister based on such flimsy evidence? Evidence which was so pathetic that it took Tyrion no time to tear it apart.

Tyrion "I tell you again, I had no part in the attempt to kill your son"

"The assassin was armed with your dagger"

Tyrion felt the heat rise in him, "It was not my dagger," he insisted. "How many times must I swear to that? Lady Stark, whatever you believe of me, I am not a stupid man. Only a fool would arm a common footpad with his own blade."

Just for a moment, he thought he saw a flicker of doubt in her eyes but what she said was, "Why would Petyr lie to me?"

(GoT, page 320)

(You can imagine her whispering out the words like a child whose just been told that the Easter Bunny is make belief. At this stage - I actually feel sorry for Catelyn because she's actually a good person but so woefully out of her depth like a Salmon out of the water.)

What does this reveal? It reveals to me a woman so angry so emotionally wrought that she can not think but one sole thing - justice for her little boy Bran. Littlefinger told her the killer's knife was Tyrion. So quid pro quo it HAD to be the horrible looking evil freak - yes, the hedious dwarf - who wanted to kill her son.

Her view was so narrow minded that she only allowed herself one possible theory. The fact that Tyrion's reply caused her to ask "Why Would Petyr lie to me?" would suggest that she has not been seriously evaluating the situation at all. Why? Because she's overcome with emotion and I'd also say she's not in the habit of thinking a lot.

You said,

"Ned told her to prepare for war already, so war is obviously in no matter what she does."

I'm afraid you are incorrect. Preparing for war and declaring war are two very separate actions. Nations prepare for war all the time, but that doesn't mean they are going to war. The US and its Western European allies were seriously preparing for war against Soviet Russia from the 1950s to the 1990s. Both sides were spending trillions of dollars on their military but thankfully, it has never come to major open conflict.

Now as we already know Catelyn's abduction of Tyrion was the spark that caused the War - Tyrion mobilized his troops shortly as a response from this very public incident. Littlefinger nor Varys nor anyone else conspired to place the two of them together in the Crossroads Inn whatever happened there happened due to the parties that were there at the time. So the war happened because of Catelyn's actions and not despite it.

You speak of the authority that Ned gave to Catelyn. But what was it exactly?

She was asked to raise two hundred bowmen and fortify Moat Cailin - and to get a Lord to repair all the defences at White Harbor + keeping a watch on Theon Greyjoy.

Catelyn asked her husband whether there would be war. And what did he say next?

Ned Stark: "It will not come to that," "The Lannisters are merciless in the fact of weakness... but they would not dare attack the north without all the power of the realm behind them, and that they shall not have." (GoT, pg. 196)

We know that Ned was worried about the chances of war - but at this point his advice to his wife was

1. There will not be a war until such time as the Lannisters gain sufficient strength which is in all likelihood not going to happen any time soon. (And actually his assumption was correct - House Lannister only started mobilizing their forces when Catelyn kidnapped Tyrion)

2. But as a precaution - get 200 archers to defend that choke point etc...

Ned never gave Catelyn the authority to abduct Tyrion Lannister, nor to go to prepare his forces to attack House Lannister.

She was only given a mission to go back North and help prepare the defences. It was not to mobilize the forces of the North and march to war against House Lannister because they did not have sufficient evidence for that yet. it was to build up and fortify their positions. Even Ned specifically tells her that the Lannisters would not attack until they all ALL the power of the realm on their side. You can read it as saying House Lannister would require the other Houses to support its war and would not act unilaterally.

So in that regard of war being an inevitable outcome no matter what Catelyn did you are very mistaken.

However what did Catelyn do next? Option Catelyn. On her own initiative, she spectacularly kidnapped a key member of House Lannister in the full public view which gave House Lannister the callus belli for war. This should have come as no mystery to her.

No one goes around kidnapping important members of major Houses, esp the vindictive House Lannister, and not expect some form of retribution.

Heck, even Catelyn wanted someone to pay for her precious Bran's terrible fall and attempted assassination. She was so vengeful she'd take any flimsy evidence that was pushed into her parochial view.

No one except Catelyn can take the blame for the folly of Tyrion's abduction. Not even Littlefinger. She did it all by herself.

Mayhaps you may say: her cover was blown. and she had reason to suspect that Tyrion would kill her next. So she had to kidnap Tyrion to complete her mission. And she also had to prevent the Lannister on reporting on her covert position.

How so???

Ned sent her back North to prepare the defences, - not even to mobilize Winterfell's armies but to make small but important moves to boost up their defences. So how is kidnapping Tyrion and taking him on the dangerous road to the Vale going to help at all???

Again I am not expecting her to have Crone-like powers or prescient vision. But I do expect her to base her judgements on the information she has readily available to her.

So what does she know?

1. The Road to the Vale is extremely dangerous. She already knew that.

Before she had seen Tyrion she had thought about it - "The eastern road was wilder and dangerous, climbing through rocky foothills and thicks forests into the Mountains of the Moon... Yet the mountain road was perilous. Shadowcats prowled those passes, rock slides were common, and the mountain clans were lawless brigands, descending from the heights to rob and kill and melting away like snow... Even Jon Arryn, as great a Lord as any the Eyrie had ever known, had always traveled in strength when he crossed the mountains." (GoT pg. 277 - 278)

But what does she do next? She takes Tyrion along the most dangerous path - protected only by a couple of men-at-arms, dubious sellswords, hedge knights of unknown quality or loyalty, and "elderly knight, armored in loyalty" (GoT 278)... not to mention Marillion armed with his woodharp. :D

Catelyn doesn't need a crystal ball to know what's coming next - she ALREADY knows the eastern road is bloody dangerous filled with murderous mountain clans. The chances of her reaching to safety were very slim - even without the threat of a Lannister rescue party.

And what happens? No surprise - her small party is attacked and nearly wiped out by said murderous mountain clans. Even she herself faced sudden death. At this stage, Catelyn should thank her lucky stars that she has Bronn and even Tyrion to protect her but of course she couldn't have known that which makes her decision even more ridiculous. What if Bronn was an incompetent swordsmen or Tyrion the cowardly freak that she already suspected him to be?

Now - what do you call a woman who embarks on a risky venture with extremely unfavorable chances of success based on the knowledge she knows to achieve an objective that has no bearing on her prime mission? Please think about that for awhile.

OK, so you may say that her cover is blown - and she's paranoid that Tyrion is going to get her killed and she has to capture him to prevent her death, so she's justified in kidnapping him to prevent an attack on her said self.

Now, let's think about it for a second shall we?

Where is Catelyn?

She's at the Crossroads Inn.

Where is the Crossroads Inn?

Its in House Tully territory - her father's territory.

And she knows it already.

"The crossroads gave her pause. If they turned west from here, it was an easy ride to Riverrun. Her father had always given her wise counsel when she needed it most, and she yearned to talk to him, to warn him of the gathering storm." GoT pg. 277

So, OK, her cover is blown. She's so paranoid she think that she's in grave danger from this frightening midget. But she's already in Tully territory, a short ride to her father's strongholds. You say she fears for her safety from the evil dwarf. So why doesn't she announce that she's in fear of her life from this said wicked dwarf or snarks and ask the knights in the inn to escort her to Riverrun, her father's castle safely? Women can get emotional at times, men accept that :D.

Same sort of speech, different objective.

At this stage, she's very close to her father's castle - much much closer than Tyrion is from Casterly Rock or King's Landing. From Riverrun she's safe and can send off as many ravens as she wants to Winterfell warning them of the threat - and /or collect a substantial escort to take her safely back to Winterfell and even possible arrange with her father to march the 200 archers to Moat Cailin to defend it.

By doing so she does not kidnap Tyrion and /or does she give House Lannister a reasonable excuse to go to war and she also gets a superior chance of accomplishing her main objectives - plus she gets to warn House Tully too. Bonus.

All this requires no superior powers of intellect - no prescient vision - she had this information in her hand.

There, see. Now please think about this for awhile - and not dismiss it without considered thought. You can see I've spent sometime thinking about it, now I hope you'll do the same courtesy.

But of course as she's rash and impulsive - she does the worst possible option. She kidnaps the wicked dwarf in broad daylight and takes him to see her sister. Why? Was it to throw off the Lannister troops that might be chasing after them? Hence the Winterfell decoy plan. Yes, of course.

But that's only part of the reason - she could, of course, have taken Tyrion to

1. Riverrun - it was a much safer route and much faster.

or

2. Kings Landing to face the King Robert's justice. After all she was arresting him in the name of the King, right?

No, she takes option 3. ie. takes the more dangerous route most likely to get herself and everyone with her killed, to see her sister - the most high risk, ill-conceived option - the fact that the entire party nearly get massacred twice should have come to no surprise to even Catelyn.

Now if they all get killed - which was highly likely - she

1. Fails in her primary mission to prepare the North's defences

2. Get Tyrion killed along the way- which apart from providing House Lannister the casus belli to go to war against House Stark and House Tully - defeats the purpose of kidnapping him in the first place, ie. to put him on trial for the attempted murder of her beloved dear 7 year old son.

3. Doesn't get to see her beloved Bran, Ned, Robb, Sansa, Arya and that boy... the one she's been neglecting for so long. What's his name? Oh, Rickon, her 3 year old son whom she has not been with since Bran's fall. Now wouldn't mummy's death shit on their parade?

At no point does she even wonder why would a dwarf want to kill a 7 year old boy. Even Ned in his POV says it makes no sense. Mayhaps because he's a dwarf makes him more evil in Catelyn's eyes, thank goodness Tyrion wasn't a bastard as well! That would have sealed his fate for sure!!! :)

(Sidenote: Anyone remember the Chewbacca defence? You can imagine South Park lampooning that - It does not makes no sense...)

But why does she take this high risk option? Because she hoped that by bringing Tyrion to Lysa would somehow enable her to find:

"the answers Ned sought. Surely, Lysa knew more than she had dared to put in her letter. She might have the very proof that Ned needed to bring the Lannisters to ruin, and if it came to war, they would need the Arryns and the eastern lords who owed them service." GoT page 278.

Now, whose trying to use a crystal ball here? Who is reaching? Whose making wild guesses here? Who isn't thinking clearly at all? Mayhaps not even thinking at all?

Wait!!! There's more!!

When Catelyn's party gets nearly wiped out by mountain clansmen and suffers grave losses - what does she want to do next?

Option 1. make all due haste to flee as fast as possible to the safety of House Arryn's strongholds.

Option 2. The most ill-conceived option which exposes them to the highest possible chance of being killed for absolutely zero material gain. i.e. Stay and bury the corpses of the dead men on ground which is practically impossible to dig because its stony.

What would be the most logical, sensible, justifiable thing to do - or the one which would help attain the main objectives?

Guess which one Catelyn wants to choose.

Make a wild guess.

"Lady Stark, I urge you to press on, with all haste," Ser Willis Wode said, his eyes scanning the ridgetops warily... "We drove them off for the moment, but they will not have gone far."

"We must bury the dead, Ser Willis," she said 'These were brave men. I will not leave them to the crows and shadowcats."

(Note: Apparently she did not seem to think that the shadowcats may take a fancy to live flesh.)

"This soil is too stony for digging." Ser Willis said.

"Then we shall gather stones for cairns" (GoT pg 326.)

***

Wow, brilliant thinking there. ROTFL!!!! Catelyn is stubborn alright. You can see why perhaps she chose to be cold and indifferent to a certain boy who was living in her house for 14 years since he was a baby.

Perhaps you may also try and hazard a guess why Catelyn's ideas weren't always taken too seriously by other people?

As for the other reasons why the kidnapping of Tyrion was such a poorly thought out choice I beg you to re-read my earlier post on the subject, I think you'll find them in page 15, 16 of this thread.

Now I ask you again :

What do you call someone who takes a highly dangerous decision that places her family in danger based upon poor evidence or faulty thinking and it would seem everyone from Littlefinger, Yoren, your crazy sister, Ser Willis, Bronn, Ser Rodrik etc.. realize it?

I hope that you will deeply think and give it your careful consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read many of GRRM's interviews and have not come across anything where GRRM says this was an exceptional scene. I would be much obliged to you, if you could direct me to the said interview/comment. I am interested because I am curious about why he would go to such lengths to describe this scene if it were unimportant. Until I see something that makes the scene exceptional, I have to stand by what is in the text, because if the books are unreliable then what is the point to any discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you really do an extended "Cat was mean to Jon" analysis, based on one scene even the author said was exceptional, arguing it supports speculation the author said were not true?

Did you just focus on the length of Shaggydog's post without actually reading the analysis - did you miss the part where we have definite clues that Cat's behaviour is not a one-off and that even the other children are aware that Jon suffers because of it. GRRM wrote all of this mind you. All he said was that"mistreatment" is a loaded term, because he trying to say that she didn't necessarily physically abuse Jon. But no matter which way you twist and turn it, this is blatant emotional abuse, and readers are being obtuse in trying to claim that this was "exceptional". It may have been an exceptional circumstance- but it was built on a pattern of neglect and cruelty.

As for your response to me earlier and the use of that analogy of someone resenting "books" and throwing them out of the house - all I can say is that if you would use an inanimate object to justify how an adult treats a human being - a child - then we are really speaking from different worlds. You're clueless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to put my head on the block here, Does anyone think Grrm made a bit of a blunder with this? As this thread has proved, people have very different ideas about the right and wrong of Cat's treatment of Jon. The omission of "should've been you" from the show I think is deliberate from D&D to stop viewers being alienated from Cat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you just focus on the length of Shaggydog's post without actually reading the analysis - did you miss the part where we have definite clues that Cat's behaviour is not a one-off and that even the other children are aware that Jon suffers because of it. GRRM wrote all of this mind you. All he said was that"mistreatment" is a loaded term, because he trying to say that she didn't necessarily physically abuse Jon. But no matter which way you twist and turn it, this is blatant emotional abuse, and readers are being obtuse in trying to claim that this was "exceptional". It may have been an exceptional circumstance- but it was built on a pattern of neglect and cruelty.

As for your response to me earlier and the use of that analogy of someone resenting "books" and throwing them out of the house - all I can say is that if you would use an inanimate object to justify how an adult treats a human being - a child - then we are really speaking from different worlds. You're clueless.

I have to agree with your comments. To me at least it explains plainly why Jon was a sullen angry boy when he joined the NW. You feel his anger melting away when he starts to gain acceptance from his circle of friends at the Wall. Acceptance for who he is as a person.

Otherwise, his whole character arc doesn't make much sense without the Cat back story. Without it, he comes off as a spoiled, ungrateful brat who whines about life even though he has had a much better upbringing than most. I would think that would be the way people saw him and who is to blame them? It would be a very superficial way to see him without the back story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read many of GRRM's interviews and have not come across anything where GRRM says this was an exceptional scene. I would be much obliged to you, if you could direct me to the said interview/comment. I am interested because I am curious about why he would go to such lengths to describe this scene if it were unimportant. Until I see something that makes the scene exceptional, I have to stand by what is in the text, because if the books are unreliable then what is the point to any discussion?

It was already posted on Page 3 of this thread, maybe even a few other times. Even without that, it's clear it's exceptional, because after all the circumstances were unique - the extreme grief, the lack of sleep, etc.

Apparently, this sort of behavior is so common that others have come to expect it as well. Everybody knows.

Robb surely knew that Cat has spent days in extreme grief, without sleep, and one of the result of that was getting angry and lashing out at people she normally treated kindly, as we see later with Maester Luwin. So it's normal of Robb to expect that Cat might've done something more extreme than her usual ignoring and cold looks at Jon in this case, but this does not mean that behaviour is common. Note that when Jon denied it, Robb immediately believed him without asking "Are you sure"?

Otherwise, his whole character arc doesn't make much sense without the Cat back story. Without it, he comes off as a spoiled, ungrateful brat who whines about life even though he has had a much better upbringing than most

But he was a spoiled, ungrateful brat who whines about life even though he has had a much better upbringing than most. The scenes at the Wall before Donal Noye set him straight made this pretty clear. He didn't even realise he was being a bully and that he's had a way better and privileged life than 99% of the boys in Westeros. He decided to go to the Wall in big part because he was offended he couldn't sit at the royal table (which is reserved for only few dozen persons in the whole realm) - he had serious entitlement issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But no matter which way you twist and turn it, this is blatant emotional abuse, and readers are being obtuse in trying to claim that this was "exceptional".
It's not emotional abuse. You can write it in caps and insult me more, it will not make it more true.

You're clueless.
Consider yourself blatantly emotionally abused.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was already posted on Page 3 of this thread, maybe even a few other times. Even without that, it's clear it's exceptional, because after all the circumstances were unique - the extreme grief, the lack of sleep, etc.

The circumstances may have been exceptional, but the treatment wasn't. Jon would have never dared to enter the room with Cat if he hadn't wanted to desperately see Bran before he left, so in that case yeah, it's an exceptional occurrence, because generally he would keep out of her way. She doesn't abuse him because she's tired, upset and grief stricken - she abuses him because she hates him.

Robb surely knew that Cat has spent days in extreme grief, without sleep, and one of the result of that was getting angry and lashing out at people she normally treated kindly, as we see later with Maester Luwin. So it's normal of Robb to expect that Cat might've done something more extreme than her usual ignoring and cold looks at Jon in this case, but this does not mean that behaviour is common. Note that when Jon denied it, Robb immediately believed him without asking "Are you sure"?

Please, this is really stretching it now David. Robb obviously knew that Catelyn had a habit of making Jon feel like shit, so this is why he automatically knows that something went down. That Catelyn is able to find the energy and malice to be so unkind to Jon when he is coming to say goodbye to his little brother really shows her extreme dislike of him. Robb didn't push it because what would be the point. They both know Cat hates him, why bother to go down a road if you know where it leads?

But he was a spoiled, ungrateful brat who whines about life even though he has had a much better upbringing than most. The scenes at the Wall before Donal Noye set him straight made this pretty clear. He didn't even realise he was being a bully and that he's had a way better and privileged life than 99,9% of the boys in Westeros. He decided to go to the Wall in big part because he was offended he couldn't sit at the royal table (which is reserved for only few dozen persons in the whole realm) - he had serious entitlement issues.

It never fails to amaze me how people can misconstrue Jon's character. Jon is one of the good guys in Westeros - one of the very very few. When he went to the wall he was sullen and withdrawn and prone to showing off a bit with the other recruits but so what. He had just been separated from his siblings, he grew up thinking he ain't much, and he's now in a place where he can actually be credited for being good at something. After Donal talks to him he realises what he was doing was wrong and corrected it. No more, no less. He doesn't walk arouns sulking at the wall for 14 bloody years. As for having entitlement issues... where, when!? Please tell me where Jon has ever shown "entitlement issues" You must have the wrong bastard. I think you were meaning Ramsay Snow... oops Bolton. :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not emotional abuse. You can write it in caps and insult me more, it will not make it more true.

Consider yourself blatantly emotionally abused.

If you think I insulted you then my apologies, that was not the intent. Saying that you're clueless is not an insult, it's just that if you cannot distinguish the difference between human feelings and emotions vs. a book, then yes, you clearly have no clue what we've been trying to argue all this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read many of GRRM's interviews and have not come across anything where GRRM says this was an exceptional scene. I would be much obliged to you, if you could direct me to the said interview/comment. I am interested because I am curious about why he would go to such lengths to describe this scene if it were unimportant. Until I see something that makes the scene exceptional, I have to stand by what is in the text, because if the books are unreliable then what is the point to any discussion?

Thus, the question I have is if Catelyn went out of her way to mistreat Jon in the past -- and which form this might have taken -- or if she rather tried to avoid and ignore him?

"Mistreatment" is a loaded word. Did Catelyn beat Jon bloody? No. Did she distance herself from him? Yes. Did she verbally abuse and attack him? No. (The instance in Bran's bedroom was obviously a very special case). But I am sure she was very protective of the rights of her own children, and in that sense always drew the line sharply between bastard and trueborn where issues like seating on the high table for the king's visit were at issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It never fails to amaze me how people can misconstrue Jon's character.

Misconstrue because they interpret him differently than you do?

When he went to the wall he was sullen and withdrawn and prone to showing off a bit with the other recruits but so what.

Is that what we call beating the crap out of people who are unable to fight back these days?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...