Jump to content

Why the Sympathy?


Kittykatknits

Recommended Posts

Cat doesn't get to be a mother first and foremost any more than Robb gets to be a boy or brother or Ned gets to be a father. You're a so-called noble, with your job comes certain responsibilities. Do them. when you don't, people get killed.

To be fair I think it has less to do with demonising "girly" women that it did with showing that women could be y'know, good at "masculine" things. And since there's a huge action movie and fantasy market this just...persists.

I also don't see how Arya, Asha and Meera Reed are set apart from the "stupid, girly, girls" girls like Margaery are anything but stupid. They simply use different tools.

And neither of the three are the most powerful woman in-universe. Dany is. And while she didn't actually live in a court, everything she achieved, she pretty much did without lifting a sword. Her 'masculine' quality might be that she is commanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, Sansa does get called a vehicle. Sigh.

One day I'll figure out what "meta" means...

I know that she gets called a vehicle, so I was trying to paint the picture of exasperation when one hears that by using a more common victim of reader criticism.

And meta means 'beyond'. A meta analysis in this case would be talking about the purpose of the character in the story, whereas an analysis would be something like trying to figure out what happened in-story by picking up clues. R+L=J is the most common for instance.

I'm not too familiar with it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highlighted the latter part since I think it's both important and interesting. The text is as we have seen throughout the reread threads not at all neutral. In fact, it's often the opposite of neutral and it's certainly by design.

It's always fascinating to see readers claim that it's all individual without acknowleding that the text is not neutral and that it's been written specifically to manipulate reader expectation, for various reasons of plot or character development. It's not random or aimed at 100% objective individuals perceiving it without bias, it promotes bias as a narrative tool.

It's really informative to compare how the various characters were introduced, especially Tyrion, Arya and Jon vs say Sansa, Cat and Jaime. It was great to uncover the lengths GRRM went to associate Tyrion with the Starks in the beginning, and to present him as likable, while Jaime was presented as a 100% blackhearted villain who could not be worse if he tried.

A lot of readers also seem to put Cat and Sansa in the "popular girl, bad feminist" box, without appreciating the nuances and without noticing that even though Cat and Sansa are more traditional female characters, they both struggle against society in their own way, just not by picking up a weapon. (I mean Cat's most hated act: releasing Jaime, she did because Robb refused to trade Jaime for her daughters. Hence a woman trying to save her female offspring in opposition to a man and the views of other men. And as her assistant, she has another woman in Brienne. )

The text is certainly not neutral. It is by turns intense, evocative, introspective, bleak, lyrical, inspirational, sarcastic, balanced and biased ... depending on the POV. It is ceratinly meant to attack the reader's perceptions, expecations and even their sensibilities and yes, it promotes bias as a narrative tool through the POV. It also uses this by design to make things fly over our heads, leaving the reader uncertain as to what is going on. As the story progresses, readers find their entrenched opinions challenged as they are forced to look anew to characters they thought they knew.

Did the author lie to us? Aren't we complicit in our own "deception"?

There is no such thing as a 100% objective reader. And I don't see how it can be denied that each individual reader makes their own projections and judgements on the text and the characters. I certainly make my own. Some people are fascinated and excited by some passages and the same passages make other people snooze. Some acts bring forth fiery condemnations from some people, while others rise to defend these acts with equal fervor. I don't know why other people like or dislike particualr elements of the story (ok, in some cases I think I have a pretty good idea, but still it's a presumption I'd rather not make), sometimes I don't know myself why I do. People can find all sorts of reasons to sympathize with characters. They can also find all sorts of reasons to dislike them. On occasion they are the same reasons. This why I find it hard to argue on grounds of sympathy. It is utlimately up to the reader.

As there is no such thing as an objective reader, there is no such thing as an objective author. The characters themselves are a manifestation of his understanding of human nautre and he is certainly not neutral on that account. Though he can't be objective he can be honest, detached and consistent. He can also be inquisitive. The characters make choices (or fail to), have to live with the consequences and evolve as a result. The presentation is the means with which he leads to understand why these choices were made, where they lead to and how. Well, he doesn't usually do it in strict chronological sequence and he usually doesn't spell it out for us. I guess he thiks it might be more fun if we draw our own conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And neither of the three are the most powerful woman in-universe. Dany is. And while she didn't actually live in a court, everything she achieved, she pretty much did without lifting a sword. Her 'masculine' quality might be that she is commanding.

i kinda think it's her 3 dragons, tbh. worked for the aegon targaryen when he wanted to conquer westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The text is certainly not neutral. It is by turns intense, evocative, introspective, bleak, lyrical, inspirational, sarcastic, balanced and biased ... depending on the POV. It is ceratinly meant to attack the reader's perceptions, expecations and even their sensibilities and yes, it promotes bias as a narrative tool through the POV. It also uses this by design to make things fly over our heads, leaving the reader uncertain as to what is going on. As the story progresses, readers find their entrenched opinions challenged as they are forced to look anew to characters they thought they knew.

Did the author lie to us? Aren't we complicit in our own "deception"?

There is no such thing as a 100% objective reader. And I don't see how it can be denied that each individual reader makes their own projections and judgements on the text and the characters. I certainly make my own. Some people are fascinated and excited by some passages and the same passages make other people snooze. Some acts bring forth fiery condemnations from some people, while others rise to defend these acts with equal fervor. I don't know why other people like or dislike particualr elements of the story (ok, in some cases I think I have a pretty good idea, but still it's a presumption I'd rather not make), sometimes I don't know myself why I do. People can find all sorts of reasons to sympathize with characters. They can also find all sorts of reasons to dislike them. On occasion they are the same reasons. This why I find it hard to argue on grounds of sympathy. It is utlimately up to the reader.

As there is no such thing as an objective reader, there is no such thing as an objective author. The characters themselves are a manifestation of his understanding of human nautre and he is certainly not neutral on that account. Though he can't be objective he can be honest, detached and consistent. He can also be inquisitive. The characters make choices (or fail to), have to live with the consequences and evolve as a result. The presentation is the means with which he leads to understand why these choices were made, where they lead to and how. Well, he doesn't usually do it in strict chronological sequence and he usually doesn't spell it out for us. I guess he thiks it might be more fun if we draw our own conclusions.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: 'nuff said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think calling him a vehicle translates your dislike of the character onto a meta-analysis of him which is false. The entire storyline in King's Landing is strong evidence against Tyrion mainly being a vehicle into the world. If anything, he and Cat are the prime movers of the story, with her capturing him, his manipulation of the clans and later the defense of the castle during the battle of Blackwater. Everything he does, and all of his reactions to others' plots against him, causes massive reverberations through Westeros.

Imagine if Sansa were suddenly declared to be simply a vehicle :P

I'll be the first to admit you could be entirely right about that. I do feel that Tyrion is the character through whose eyes we are first exposed to most of the world, in that I mean through him we get a true sense of where the similarities and differences with our own world lie. I am thinking specifically of the early chapters in AGOT. Tyrion is our first sense of just how inappropriately medieval this world is. While through Ned you get an idea of lordly honor (I could do this with each character) I feel that Tyrion really pulls into place a sense of how corrupt and hypocritical this would can be--and he does it just by being himself. I think he is a bit modern and unrealistic with his viewpoints and having the criticisms that he does, no one in that situation would just happen to have the kinds of opinions that he does, and that is why I could believe he is an avatar for the author.

Your points about the plot kind of further my idea, actually, because it makes Tyrion out to be a more important character than he ever would be in that world/situation. He is one of the main driving forces of the plot, even though he himself points out that more than likely no one would care if he died.

I would never call Sansa a vehicle of the story because I think Sansa is quite obviously more the type of character I referred to in my first post who is a foil for other characters or there to express an idea. Sansa is an amazing foil for Arya to the point that there is some kind of debate over which of them is "better." Sansa (and Catelyn) are the prime examples of medieval ladies in the story. Asha is a rare breed and Daenerys is a trope of a fantasy princess, but Sansa comes closest to the reality of what a medieval era lady had to be and live through.

One reason I personally can get so defensive over Sansa and enjoy the growth in her character so much is because I think by being this character, she explores a type of woman who is given little or no voice in literature or history. There is always the beautiful princess/maiden that needs to be rescued. With Sansa we can actually get inside of her head and the sense of helplessness is really heartbreaking. This lack of agency and a reliance on the honorability of others was the reality for generations of women who were sent away from their families to make political alliance through marriages to husbands they barely knew. The point of "different tools" is a good one and I think that while our traditional model of the hero means he always holds a sword, and that therefore we are excited to finally see a woman (Arya, Asha, Brienne) holding the sword, we shouldn't be so quick to discount the bravery of girls like Sansa who use intangible tools like gentleness, mercy, inspiration, leadership, beauty, resilience and intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, you comment about Cat "moaning for years" to the Blackfish certainly shows that the opposition between Cat and Jon has been efficient due to this interpretation. Perhaps too efficient since Cat gets condemned for something that really is a non issue in Westeros, i.e. not being happy about a bastard born to her husband during their marriage being brought up alongside her own children. Apart from Walder Frey, who is generally regarded as uncouth, no other noble does this in Westeros. This emphasises Jon's unique position and how priviliged her was compared to other bastards.

Things like marital rape are a non-issue in Westeros, too, but that doesn't stop people condemning Robert for it. The manners and mores of Westeros are held up to 21st Century readers for their judgment, and if a reader condemns things like forced marriage and marital rape then that reader should get a pass for judging Cat using 21st Century sensibilities as well.

I do think that part of Cat's image problem come from the way GRRM uses her POV: she's there at the set up of (if not actually setting up) almost every disaster that happens to the Stark family, and then we get to see the disaster come to pass through her eyes. Sometimes the set-up strains credulity, like the kidnapping of Tyrion, or appear downright foolish, like the release of Jaime. For example, Jon had to have a reason to go to the Wall (which, in my opinion no sane man would choose) Cat made it impossible for him to stay at Winterfell. GRRM doesn't make her a vehicle, but he sure makes her the driver of the vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, you comment about Cat "moaning for years" to the Blackfish certainly shows that the opposition between Cat and Jon has been efficient due to this interpretation. Perhaps too efficient since Cat gets condemned for something that really is a non issue in Westeros, i.e. not being happy about a bastard born to her husband during their marriage being brought up alongside her own children. Apart from Walder Frey, who is generally regarded as uncouth, no other noble does this in Westeros. This emphasises Jon's unique position and how priviliged her was compared to other bastards.

So in that regard, the comments about Cat are interesting in that it clearly shows reader bias when it comes to interpreting and judging her actions.

Idk the sand snakes seem pretty privileged(I know they're situation is a little different but still). If all of Doran Martell's children died today I'm sure he would name one of the Sand Snakes his heir instead of a distant relative, yes they're his blood but they're still bastards. The point is he loves them because they're his brothers children, Catelyn was about to have a heart attack when Rob named Jon his heir even though Jon is the brother of her children who she knew all fiercely loved Jon vice versa. She doesn't have to love him but to freak out the way she did when Rob named him his heir even though she believed Sansa and Arya were being held captive in KL (with the kingslayer swap being a fool's hope at best), and Bran and Rickon presumed dead was pretty outrageous if you ask me. She really didn't do herself any favors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I would never call Sansa a vehicle of the story because I think Sansa is quite obviously more the type of character I referred to in my first post who is a foil for other characters or there to express an idea...

It depends on what or who you think the book is about.

I don't personally think that Sansa is only a foil, just there to be a contrast to Arya, although for sure their two stories are counterpoints - but then so are Bran's, Jon's and Daenerys. All of them start off as children with different and variously naive expectations about life and their roles in it, all of which they are with more or less harshness and speed disabused of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of this seems based on the fact that Cat is introduced as not really feeling comfortable in the north and how she is cold to Jon (and cruel at Barn's bedside). After these incidents, her character seems to have become "fixed" in a lot of readers' minds, and whatever she says or does is read through a lense of how Cat was introduced in opposition of the "correct Stark way", i.e. Jon, Arya and Ned. Then she also arrests Tyrion, who is set up as a "nice Lannister" and Jon's friend, to make it even worse. (Interestingly, even though Tyrion is not guilty of pushing Bran, he suspects immidiately that Cersei and Jaime are behind it, yet does nothing and does not reflect on it further, but decides to not pursue it or tell anyone. So Tyrion is concealing his siblings' guilt on purpose.)

Couldn't agree more. Its as if those incidents are what shape her character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only sympathy you could have in Cat's actions is she was desperate and wanted her daughters back, but even she probably realized the odds were against her making the decision even more ludacrous. She was gambling that the Imp, based on heresay from a house not known for their sympathy towards her house, would simply release the girls even though she knew he was every bit Tywin's son and seen how cunning he was. Apart from that he was perfectly willing to play dirty.

She was so desperate she even banked on the honour of knights (Cleos, Jamie) Sansa style, while she should've known better on how much that was worth.

Meh, on the honor thing I give her a break. There is a certain amount of practicality to the "honor" for families like the Lannisters. They cannot afford to be caught going back on their word, it fucks with future dealings. It would be a huge scandal to just break one's word like that. And at this point, no one knew that Tywin Lannister didn't give a fuck about anything except winning, the deal was more or less slanted towards the Lannisters anyway, they probably would have taken it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things like marital rape are a non-issue in Westeros, too, but that doesn't stop people condemning Robert for it. The manners and mores of Westeros are held up to 21st Century readers for their judgment, and if a reader condemns things like forced marriage and marital rape then that reader should get a pass for judging Cat using 21st Century sensibilities as well.

Correction: in Westeros it wasn't a crime, but I wouldn't call it "a non-issue". When Aerys brutally raped his wife, his Kingsguard's reactions varied between "we have to do something about it!" (Jaime, the noob) and "we can't" (more seasoned guards), but no one said "seriously, what's the problem?". So allowed by law, but at least frowned upon. Like, let's say, slapping the wife around: even Bob knew it was wrong (post factum), which isn't the same thing as "illegal".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, Jon had to have a reason to go to the Wall (which, in my opinion no sane man would choose) Cat made it impossible for him to stay at Winterfell. GRRM doesn't make her a vehicle, but he sure makes her the driver of the vehicle.

Jon wanted to go to the Wall because like uncle Ben Stark he knew he wouldn't inherit anything, and considering he had a martial education wanted a piece of the action and thought that the NW was like in the stories. Uncle Ben tried to talk him out of it, but Eddard considered it a problem solved (R+L=J) and Cat did indeed make it quite clear he wasn't welcome in her presence once daddy was gone. So yeah he was shoehorned into the NW for various reasons but it wasn't just Cat being hard on Jon that drove him to the Wall.

And at this point, no one knew that Tywin Lannister didn't give a fuck about anything except winning, the deal was more or less slanted towards the Lannisters anyway, they probably would have taken it.

Dude srsly? :rolleyes:

Everyone knew what Tywin was like that is why the feared him.

And Tywin would've just sent a note to Cat saying - thanks for releasing Jamie, now you die seeya. And even Cat knew that as well most likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude srsly? :rolleyes:

Everyone knew what Tywin was like that is why the feared him.

And Tywin would've just sent a note to Cat saying - thanks for releasing Jamie, now you die seeya. And even Cat knew that as well most likely.

Surely there's difference between being ruthless in seeking victory and shitting on ancient, mutually beneficial social ideas when the whole world is watching?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KhaleesiDany,

I agree with most of what you wrote, I would just like to add my 2 cents to this part

I do feel that Tyrion is the character through whose eyes we are first exposed to most of the world, in that I mean through him we get a true sense of where the similarities and differences with our own world lie. I am thinking specifically of the early chapters in AGOT. Tyrion is our first sense of just how inappropriately medieval this world is. While through Ned you get an idea of lordly honor (I could do this with each character) I feel that Tyrion really pulls into place a sense of how corrupt and hypocritical this would can be--and he does it just by being himself. I

I wouldn't quite say that he is the first POV where we see the differences and are exposed to the world. I would rather say that he is the first where the differences become obvious to us but not because of his POV alone.

Before we get to Tyrion I we have Prologue where the class divide between rangers is more important than age, knowledge and experience. In Bran I and we learn just how differently kids are treated than in our world, we see first hints of the position of bastards in society. Catelyn tells us of differences in laws and customs regarding sexes, tells us more about the social structure, religion etc. Later Jon, Arya and Eddard build on all we have already learned, Bran is thrown out of the window and only when we have been properly prepared we are given Tyrion POV.

Apart from that, I agree.

Things like marital rape are a non-issue in Westeros, too, but that doesn't stop people condemning Robert for it. The manners and mores of Westeros are held up to 21st Century readers for their judgment, and if a reader condemns things like forced marriage and marital rape then that reader should get a pass for judging Cat using 21st Century sensibilities as well.

The thing is, while we still have marriage and marital rape, we no longer have feudal system with lord's heirs fighting over succession. Catelyn fears that Jon will geopardize her own sons and considering what is happening in the world (Dance of Dragons, Blackfyre rebellion, Ramsey killing Domeric, Jon wanting nothing more than to be Lord of Winterfell...) she is not wrong.

Secondly, even if we do judge her by the same sensibilities, she does not come out all that black!

We have to take into account that she has not been given a choice by her husband, and that by today's sensibilities that is wrong. That Eddard has forbidden her to even inquire about Jon's origin, and that by 21c. standards that is wrong.

She has not opposed to the child being raised elsewhere by his own mother with Eddard supporting them, and therefore again is not in the wrong.

She has not unduly blamed Eddard for straying nor has she taken her displeasure on the boy, so again she is not in the wrong.

If you are going to blame her for complaining to her uncle (who was her confidant since she was little) than you are going to have to show that by 21c. sensibilities it is wrong to complain of your step children to your relatives (and is it?).

The only time she is intentionally cruel to Jon is when she hasn't slept for days and her favorite son was in a coma. And even then, only in words.

That is not the same as wife-beating and rape.

I am not sure about her setting up almost every disaster: Bran being thrown out of window, Lysa killing her husband and blaming the Lannisters, Lysa not giving Tyrion a fair trial, Eddard going to Cersei, Sansa going to Cersei, Joffrey deciding to kill Eddard, Edmure defeating Tywin, Robb deciding to marry, Theon storming Winterfell... She is guilty of arresting Tyrion and of letting Jaime go. Everything else is somebody elses fault.

Why do you have this impression that she is the one to blame? It is shared by many and it is not supported by the books.

Correction: in Westeros it wasn't a crime, but I wouldn't call it "a non-issue". When Aerys brutally raped his wife, his Kingsguard's reactions varied between "we have to do something about it!" (Jaime, the noob) and "we can't" (more seasoned guards), but no one said "seriously, what's the problem?". So allowed by law, but at least frowned upon. Like, let's say, slapping the wife around: even Bob knew it was wrong (post factum), which isn't the same thing as "illegal".

*nod* What he said.

Idk the sand snakes seem pretty privileged

It is said in the books that Dorne has a different approach to bastards than the rest of the realms. Since Jon was born somewhere South-ish I guess Catelyn is asking herself if he could have had the boy raised elsewhere and all could be happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true that Dorne seems to have a more relaxed approach to sexuality and bastards. However, the thing with the Sand Snakes is that they are not the daughters of some "other woman" left to be raised by their father's wife. Plus everybody knows who their mothers are or were. Ellaria Sand is a bastard herself, and she's not raising the daughters of some shadowy Other Woman figure, and it seems like Dornish women are so much more equal that they don't have to cling to the position of Lady Wife as their only status.

It is not the custom in most of Westeros for a man's wife to raise his bastards by other women. That is the issue that Catelyn has with Jon, and I can't say I blame her, much as I like Jon as a character. She was newly married, and her husband left to go to war. Then he returns with a bastard son about the same age as Robb and says that this kid will live with them, no ifs ands or buts. When Catelyn asks who the mother was, Ned gets scary angry. So she's left in a humiliating position, having Ned's bastard in her house (which most Westerosi women wouldn't have) and not knowing who the mother was (was she someone Ned truly loved?). And then the fact that Ned is a good husband to her and they grow to truly love one another and Jon is like salt in the wound - a reminder of Cat's beloved husband's infidelity. I can't blame Cat for being upset. I can't blame her for complaining to Brynden Blackfish either. He was her confidant, in fact, she mentions that the young Tully kids would always go to Brynden rather than their father for advice and comfort. Who hasn't bitched and moaned about their stepkids or indeed their own kids, or their parents, or their siblings, or... to a favorite uncle or aunt? Cat's blowing off steam to a man who is her father figure.

As for Jon going to the Wall - his decision happened at the feast welcoming King Robert and family. I know he was conscious of his bastard status there, but he was also drunk as a skunk (for the first time maybe?), and Uncle Benjen said "We could use a man like you at the Wall" and keeping him company. Jon thought Benjen looked so dashing in his black outfit and saving the realm from wildlings and so on; he had a head stuffed as full of romantic notions as Sansa there. It wasn't so much as "I want to get away from my wicked stepmother" as "I want to be a dashing, handsome, black-clad hero!" Jon and Sansa are much more alike than one might think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Jon going to the Wall - his decision happened at the feast welcoming King Robert and family. I know he was conscious of his bastard status there, but he was also drunk as a skunk (for the first time maybe?), and Uncle Benjen said "We could use a man like you at the Wall" and keeping him company. Jon thought Benjen looked so dashing in his black outfit and saving the realm from wildlings and so on; he had a head stuffed as full of romantic notions as Sansa there. It wasn't so much as "I want to get away from my wicked stepmother" as "I want to be a dashing, handsome, black-clad hero!" Jon and Sansa are much more alike than one might think.

Yes, Jon is idealistic. It shows when he talks about how the Young Dragon is his hero and someone points out how much of an utter failure he was. Jon of course, doesn't see this, he sees glorious war.

As for him making a decision, I question just how much of an informed decision someone like Jon could have made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things like marital rape are a non-issue in Westeros, too, but that doesn't stop people condemning Robert for it. The manners and mores of Westeros are held up to 21st Century readers for their judgment, and if a reader condemns things like forced marriage and marital rape then that reader should get a pass for judging Cat using 21st Century sensibilities as well.

But there's simply no good modern analogue to Ned, Cat and Jon's situation. Any husband today who shows up with a baby and admits this baby was conceived because he cheated on his wife, will find himself dumped and divorced ASAP. But that's not an option in Westeros which changes everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is said in the books that Dorne has a different approach to bastards than the rest of the realms. Since Jon was born somewhere South-ish I guess Catelyn is asking herself if he could have had the boy raised elsewhere and all could be happy.

Except Ned knew all wouldn't be happy because Jon would not have had a parent/relative in his life at all if he chose to go that route since his true mother(Lyanna) was dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...