[BOOK SPOILERS] Book Catelyn vs. Show Catelyn

[Easy]

I have to say I can't see any sexism when it comes to most of those that dislike Cat. And because I can't see it I don't agree that the writers for the show are trying to appease a sexist audience when they made a few small changes to her.

People quite simply have different tastes. There's a ton of people that hate Jon, Dany and Bran while others are Roose, Tywin and Littlefinger fans. To me their attitude with respect to these characters is almost inexplicable until I realise that I can't expect others to look at things with the same mindset as I. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and whatnot. Everyone has a unique viewpoint. The dislike of Catelyn is no different from that of say, Jon and Bran. Sexism doesn't come into it unless one is trying too hard to find it or when one can't understand the hate and comes to the wrong conclusion as to the source of it.

[Lady Blackfish]

I think you have to look at the specific arguments. "Catelyn is boring" is not sexist. "Catelyn is a nag" may well be (and IMO pretty much is; I find it hard to imagine anyone would find Ned scolding Robb or telling him what to do an example of infantilizing, emasculating nagging, but those are the arguments that are often made, anyone can go look in a discussion thread about the character in the book forums and usually find it).

If the show was trying to do something to make a character they feel is boring into someone less boring, that change has nothing to do with sexism. If they make Catelyn less authoritative because they fear people will find her an overbearing, nagging, controlling, emasculating mother, but freely allow male characters to have those traits without fear, then they are caving to a pressure that they oughtn't be caving to, if they mean what they say when they claim to respect and appreciate Martin's women and their female perspectives.

I think we can do better than "Sexism doesn't exist unless you go looking for it." Maybe you can take the nagging example I gave and explain how it doesn't involve some sexist attitudes somewhere within it?

[Brewmaster]

If the show was trying to do something to make a character they feel is boring into someone less boring, that change has nothing to do with sexism. If they make Catelyn less authoritative because they fear people will find her an overbearing, nagging, controlling, emasculating mother, but freely allow male characters to have those traits without fear, then they are caving to a pressure that they oughtn't be caving to, if they mean what they say when they claim to respect and appreciate Martin's women and their female perspectives.

I think you have it totally backwards. Like I said in my post, I like show-Cat more precisely because I think they've made her a stronger person, not less authoritative in the least.

Book Cat comes across as ruled by emotion far too much for my taste. I see her somewhat like Sansa with another 20 years on her before her lesson that life is not a song (that comes with Bran's fall). That's what I mean by not being "north enough". Its not just saying that she's not comfortable there. Book Cat shows her discomfort there over and over by action or though. Sure, show-Cat says it, but she still feels like a woman of the North.

I don't think she's particularly authoritative or strong, in the books, at all. Sure, she gives Robb a lot of advice, but its only about 50/50 that he actually follows her advice and it appears to be about 50/50 that she even gives anybody good advice. "Ned, trust Littlefinger. Robb, don't trust Jon." It's kind of a non-factor.

Show Cat appears more decisive, whether that's truth or perception doesn't really matter. Perception is reality. Show Cat's scene of keeping it together walking through the Northmen into the woods gave her a nice bit of grace and strength that I think book-Cat was meant to have, but that never worked on paper for me. It was a great casting too and she looks like a strong, but still attractive middle-aged woman.

The warmth of her relationship with Ned didn't come across in the book much to me. There's the one scene of them naked in bed early on, but its kind of lost in the rest of it. That's not all on her character; Ned's much less warm himself in the book, but their scenes together in the show gave me a better sense of their love for each other than the book. Hell, she reflects on her disappointment over his plain face upon first meeting him, in her thoughts int he book. Yes, it was part of a thought process about how she grew to love him, but it just doesn't scream "love" to me. Even the change of making her want Ned to stay from the beginning helps here. In the book I always thought it was a little odd that she was so eager to get rid of Ned, knowing that she would be staying in Winterfell.

People really need to get over book-Cat hate. It's not sexist. Its going to happen more often than not for a few simple and obvious reasons. Early on she wrongs 2 main characters that are well liked, in Jon and Tyrion. Also she trusts, and convinces Ned to trust Littlefinger. Everybody has their different things they like in the story, but odds are one of those 3 fuck ups are going to turn a lot of readers off of that character. And that's even before letting Jaime go, and coming back to life as a, heartless, zombie that hangs Pod and Brienne. Can excuses be found for all her actions? Sure, but that's true for almost anybody, and as the list of actions that require excuses grows. it becomes harder and harder to defend. Its really not hard to see why she's a commonly hated character.

How many POV characters have done as much harm as her? Theon? Jaime? Cersei? There aren't many.

[Lady Blackfish]

I'm going to dash this off quickly, hopefully I'll cover everything.

First, IF the show is responding to Catelyn's unpopularity in their changes (and please note that I made it a point to include the word "if" earlier, as I have never considered it known fact), no one person's opinion is the cause. It would be a response to many many people's opinions. As such and in brief the argument that, My dislike of her has nothing to do with sexism therefore sexism is not involved, doesn't hold water. Moreover I think I clarified above that it has to do with the specific examples.

I listed some changes above that really have nothing to do with her advice to Robb about Jon, arrest of Tyrion, trust of Littlefinger, etc. I'm not interested in discussing Cat hatred in general here except for the ways it might've impacted the show. And even then, I'm not overly interested, the reason it came up is because people are responding to my OP with responses that they like show Cat better, so I'm trying to isolate the reasons and see if those reasons pertain to and necessitate the changes I listed.

Again, these are some of the changes I saw: her response to Robert's offer hinges solely on emotional needs. Even if they wanted her to side with Ned's desire to stay home, they could have given her a politically motivated basis for doing so instead. That would have been a perfectly reasonable compromise between such a goal and what Martin presents in the book. Then they choose to show her begging Ned to stay at home for her own emotional needs at Bran's bedside; I maintain as I did before that that was not the wisest use of the scene if they wanted to be true to the spirit of Catelyn in the books, whose thoughts are sometimes (sometimes! and at very justifiable times! ie loss of loved ones) so emotional precisely because she is conditioned not to express them. They did not include any of her politically-related misgivings about Jon, ie the threat he poses to her children's inheritance. Then they skip her kill in the mountains and show her instead audibly nervous and in need of saving (I find it hard to see how one would argue that that kind of change is necessary to make her appear more authoritative, strong, and northern, etc). Then they do not show Robb seeking her approval for his battle plans (I would think that this would strengthen the idea that her advice is good, whereas you said in the books that you only found her advice 50/50, and that Robb did value her advice at one time, whereas you said that in the books he never listened much anyway). Finally they do not show her pleading for peace, which we know in retrospect would've been the wiser course all along and shows her prescient wisdom and self control over her own anger. Instead we have her almost sadistic blow at Jaime with the rock, and the image of her complacently sitting through this whole birth of a doomed rebellion with nothing to say (hard for me to see how a woman sitting there in total silence, with nothing to say against the opinions of men, qualifies as the show making her stronger and more authoritative).

I don't think it's particularly interesting or telling to discuss vague perceptions (I think she seems more decisive, etc). Without specific examples it's impossible to say if that sort of thing is due to the mere effect of the medium or if it's due to actual hard changes in the storyline and characterization.

I think you have it totally backwards. Like I said in my post, I like show-Cat more precisely because I think they've made her a stronger person, not less authoritative in the least.

Yes you said that, but I'd love some examples of where she is authoritative in the show but was not in the books.

Book Cat shows her discomfort there over and over by action or though. Sure, show-Cat says it, but she still feels like a woman of the North.

And as I asked for in my last post to you, I was wondering if you could give examples of how her non-northernness manifests itself in her book actions as vs her show actions. I'm also wondering why being "of the North" is equivalent with "sympathetic" or not having any song-like illusions for you. Tyrion is not from the north, people find him sympathetic. Jaime is not from the north, does he operate on the idea that life is a song?

I don't think she's particularly authoritative or strong, in the books, at all. Sure, she gives Robb a lot of advice, but its only about 50/50 that he actually follows her advice

I can't wrap my head around this. Robb doesn't listen, so that makes her not strong? What was she supposed to do, blackmail him? Lock him up and starve him into submission? And I can't see the relevance; the show hasn't even reached the point where Robb starts ignoring her advice (but I'd bet money that it's still coming).

Finally I (think I) have one more point, regarding her relationship with Ned. I have only come across two or three people who have ever said that seeing the warmth of their relationship on screen made them like Ned more; more often than not, it's Cat who benefits from this. I also note that the show chose to soften up Cersei and Cat, in the opinions of many fans if not yourself, to make them more palatable, whereas with Ned they chose to make him more badass. That you find Cat stronger is valid, but again, unless you can point to actual changes in the writing I don't think one can chalk that up to anything more than the change in mediums.

[Brewmaster]

That you find Cat stronger is valid, but again, unless you can point to actual changes in the writing I don't think one can chalk that up to anything more than the change in mediums.

Considering you just went through and dismissed all the changes I said, it seems kind of pointless to keep bringing up more, however I can point to the changes you brought up to illustrate my point

Since Catelyn's big role after AGOT becomes a political advisor to Robb. the biggest thing that sticks out at me is the lack of political-mindedness associated with the character in season one. If HBO thought that Catelyn urging Ned to go south would make people like her, why couldn't they just have her advise him to stay home for political reasons?

Cat's big role after AGOT is not as a political advisor to Robb. They will soon be parted as he goes off to marry Jeyne. Cat will go to Stannis and Renly, and they have already established that she negotiates with Lords for him. Completely no issue there. She'll then betray him by setting Jaime free, spend a lot of time at her father's death bed and scold Edmure a bit until Robb returns. The North men around her, particularly the Great Jon, will spend most of the time talking about how weak she is as a woman and should be excused her mother's sins. She's been shown as an advisor to Robb already, there is nothing more that needs to be set up there, the betrayal is by far the bigger role that needs to be set up. She just needs to get Brienne and head back to Rivverrun.

Also, when they did bring up her issue with Jon, they make it seem like she resents Ned's marital infidelity more than anything else, but in the book we see that she's really preoccupied with Jon being raised in Winterfell and the dynastic threat he poses to her children. There is no attention called toward Ned leaving her as regent of Winterfell, there is no Blackfish around to call her the right kind of woman to rule, and at least through episodes 8 & 9, Robb doesn't seek her approval for his battle plans as he does in the books.

If this was truly so clear we wouldn't have such a large portion of book readers disagreeing with it. The book-POV system creates an unreliable narrator and just because Cat thinks something doesn't make it true. As readers we can look at actions, and form our own opinions, not just trust the character's thoughts. It's why we, as readers, don't buy Cersei's excuses for her actions, or Theon's. And why it is clear that she is extremely resentful of Ned's infidelity. It is an awful lot of rationalization and self-justification that takes place in her own mind to get to the conclusion that she just didn't want Jon raised in Winterfell. I don't see how this is a good thing, and IMO it makes her both a weaker person and hurts the perception of the love in her and Ned's relationship. Just stop and think about it for a second. She literally says (thinks) that she doesn't care if Ned fathered a bunch of a bastards as long as they weren't raised in Winterfell. That means one of two things, and neither of them are positive. 1. She really means that Ned can fuck whoever he wants as long as she doesn't see the evidence. or 2. She's just rationalizing it to herself. I actually give her the benefit of the doubt that it's number 2, because number 1 is worse IMO. Its one of those "grass in greener" type whining and comes off as weak in character.

Also, she doesn't even suggest that Jon poses a threat to her children at all until the 3rd book. There's no reason for the show to bring up that point by now, it isn't an issue until Robb wants to legitimize him and with the setup they've done for Theon's betrayal in the show it will likely make her concerns come off as more valid than they do to book-readers.

As for The Blackfish saying she's the woman to rule, or Ned leaving her as regent of Winterfell...show me, don't tell me. That's what I've been getting at since the beginning. We don't need people telling us what Cat is, in a show, we need to be shown. And we've been shown just fine, with her attitude, her scenes and her character. She's authoritative, she commands respects. We see it. We don't need to be told.

[Easy]

I think we can do better than "Sexism doesn't exist unless you go looking for it." Maybe you can take the nagging example I gave and explain how it doesn't involve some sexist attitudes somewhere within it?

Sorry about that. I did also mention the possibility that you could just be coming to the wrong conclusions.

Nagging. I find that most readers, including myself, fail to step back and look at a character's actions and thought process in the context of their age, experience, culture etc. The hate for Sansa in book 1 is a good example of this.

Catelyn is pretty wise and politically aware. Not on the level of Littlefinger, Tywin or Olenna(few are tbf) but far more than most. She comes across as a good advisor to Ned and to Robb as well and that's how it should come across to readers if it wasn't for the fact that her main story arc is about a mother's natural instincts and emotions coming into conflict with her political instincts. It's actually a cruel descent for her rather than a sudden change with the fall of bran, death of Ned, loss of her girls and then the deaths of Bran and Rickon gradually pushing her to breaking point. In the end all she wants to do is take her only remaining son and go home.

This is understandable when you step back and see her in the context of who she is and what has happened her. You probably know all this but the reason I rehash it is because most readers actually fail to step back and so all they see, especially towards the end, is a worrier and a whiner whose emotions rule her head and who not only makes stupid decisions but cramps Robb's style - a boy general who's very popular by this point.

It's all made worse by the fact that we're in her head and so the final(narrow) impression of her is that she's a nagger and a whiner with few good actions in the end to redeem her bad ones.

That's why the hate for her isn't sexist in nature. It's narrow mindedness at most. Ned is in a different situation. People similarly berate his stupid decisions. In fact, many call him stupid full stop. He doesn't come into contact with Robb so we can't compare his nagging if there was any.

As far as the transition to TV goes. The differences go with the medium and certain things have to be rushed. In the book, she's an emotional wreck when Bran is bedridden. They chose to quickly show her emotional state using the exchange with Ned.

In the king in the North scene, Lady Mormont was present and roaring with the rest of them. Cat by contrast was silent and almost passive(nicely displaying mixed emotions) but that actually made her seem wiser and nobler than the rest of the rabble. Especially when she didn't bow with the rest of them. Obviously she doesn't need to but she still came across as a cut above the rest just by virtue of being able to control her emotions so well.

In both cases, the changes come with the medium and the necessity to quickly get to the meat n' bones of a scene. I can't detect even a hint of sexism about it.

[Lady Blackfish]

Considering you just went through and dismissed all the changes I said

I did not dismiss them, I said that we need concrete things to talk about. We can't have a very in depth discussion without specific things to point to and analyze. I asked you to elaborate, that's not dismissal.

Cat's big role after AGOT is not as a political advisor to Robb. They will soon be parted as he goes off to marry Jeyne. Cat will go to Stannis and Renly, and they have already established that she negotiates with Lords for him. Completely no issue there. She'll then betray him by setting Jaime free, spend a lot of time at her father's death bed and scold Edmure a bit until Robb returns.

She makes the very critical point to ask him not to send Theon to Balon Greyjoy. She is acting as part of Robb's political team when she talks with Stannis and Renly (and on that note, she mentions how poor Robb's terms are before she leaves; no wonder she has no leverage to use against them). She very correctly urges Edmure to not leave the Twins empty, and to let Tywin pass by and not engage him in the field. She sets Jaime free only after people ignore her advice to trade him immediately.

And in any case, I am having a hard time understanding why you are objecting to this stuff being included. Is it somehow offensive to show her political side?

Personally I really hope that HBO understands that Catelyn is no stupider than the men around her, and yet she is the only one who is disregarded because she is a woman and mother. That is her story. They chose to make her a main character, she's billed right after Sean Bean and Mark Addy. They could have promoted Richard Madden if they wanted to, but they didn't. They chose her, or at least, went along with Martin's choice when he decided to make her the POV character. Martin chose her POV, the POV of a woman and a mother and a relative pacifist, to relay this story of the Starks' war, and HBO needs to either understand why Martin did that, or stop paying lip service to how much they value the character.

She literally says (thinks) that she doesn't care if Ned fathered a bunch of a bastards as long as they weren't raised in Winterfell. That means one of two things, and neither of them are positive. 1. She really means that Ned can fuck whoever he wants as long as she doesn't see the evidence. or 2. She's just rationalizing it to herself. I actually give her the benefit of the doubt that it's number 2, because number 1 is worse IMO.

However, #1 is a realistic portrayal of a woman who grew up in a society that says that men could fuck whomever they want, however. Plus, she does not think that Ned can be a Robert. Rather, she doesn't begrudge him his comforts while they were strangers and while he was away at war for a year. Those are details that bespeak nuances about the society, and I don't know about you, but I would much rather have a show that embraces nuances instead of simplifies them.

Also, she doesn't even suggest that Jon poses a threat to her children at all until the 3rd book.

In her second chapter in AGOT, she thinks that if Jon goes to the wall, his sons could never threaten her grandsons for their inheritance. Even if Robb never legitimized Jon, that doesn't mean Jon's progeny could never supplant hers. This is a world where dynasties are overturned on a regular basis, where might makes right and a puissant bastard-born son with Eddard Stark's look can appeal much more to male warriors than, say, a daughter who resembles her southern lineage.

Bringing it up now would certainly be a lot more elegant for what comes later on. It establishes in-world truths before they are called on to guide the plot, and that's only smart. It simultaneously shows off the part of Catelyn's character that concerns itself a lot with politics and dynasties. Two birds, one stone.

As for The Blackfish saying she's the woman to rule, or Ned leaving her as regent of Winterfell...show me, don't tell me.

Fine, I agree. But that's not what HBO did, is it? They could have shown her in more of a ruling capacity if her advice to Ned to stay home was based on political motivation, not emotional domestic ones. But they went with the latter, not the former. They trimmed down those elements that would only enable them to do exactly what you asked. Being shown her authoritative manner is nothing that wasn't there in the books, Martin wrote her with that element himself, so it's not like it's something HBO did better than the books. It just strikes people more obviously because of the change in mediums. And it's totally valid to appreciate her better in a visual medium, but isn't a really change that HBO made, and that's what I started this thread for.

That's why the hate for her isn't sexist in nature. It's narrow mindedness at most.

Well, those things aren't mutually exclusive, but I want to emphasize again that though it's a subject I'm happy to discuss, it isn't totally why I started the thread and I just don't want to get so far off course. It's my own habit of wandering that I'm trying to curb here. To reiterate again, I am not even saying that I think for sure that HBO changed Catelyn in response to the audience, though I think it's likely that there is an element of it (to be quite blunt I think they don't really get her role in the books, but this is speculation). What I did was list changes that I couldn't understand, and to me, personally, these changes make Catelyn conform to a more stereotypical concept of the mother and wife, and I do think that gender and sexism shapes our stereotypes of people. But I am not saying that every possible way that Catelyn could be adapted or changed would inevitably be sexist. I listed a few changes that I thought were good, and there are some more I left out entirely even though I think they're out of character.

TCat by contrast was silent and almost passive(nicely displaying mixed emotions) but that actually made her seem wiser and nobler than the rest of the rabble. Especially when she didn't bow with the rest of them.

It might make her seem more graceful, but it robs her of a lot of conviction and agency. I feel like that's quite a cost. And speaking as a woman who really relates to Cat, I loved that her mask of grace and nobility slipped off her when things were dire; grace and nobility and the hallmarks of a sexist society's perfect lady run deep in her, but even deeper are her convictions about peace and the sanctity of life. That is an admirable character.

[neutronicus]

Show-Cat's argument for Ned to stay wasn't entirely emotional. She correctly pointed out that Ned could probably have gotten away with staying in Winterfell. Ned insisted he didn't have a choice, she insisted otherwise. I like the change because I think she comes off a tiny bit grasping in the book.

Also note that she did pull out a dagger for the High Road scene, though I too would have preferred her to use it.

I do miss her advice to Robb, which was good, but at least she got to negotiate on his behalf at the twins.

I agree with the decision to cut out her dynastic issues with Jon, simply because first-time viewers really don't need to be more confused about who might inherit what.

In any case, I'm in the camp that her internal monologue didn't do her any favors, so I like Fairley's Catelyn better than the book's.

[Lady Blackfish]

Show-Cat's argument for Ned to stay wasn't entirely emotional. She correctly pointed out that Ned could probably have gotten away with staying in Winterfell. Ned insisted he didn't have a choice, she insisted otherwise. I like the change because I think she comes off a tiny bit grasping in the book.

Her line that Ned had a choice was appropriated from the internal monologue she had in the book. That she pointed out that Ned could've gotten away with staying in Winterfell really doesn't say much about her motivation, which is the overriding factor in our impression of Catelyn in that moment. I mean, I don't think anyone came out of that scene thinking "Boy, Catelyn sure has her calculating political side," you know?

I agree with the decision to cut out her dynastic issues with Jon, simply because first-time viewers really don't need to be more confused about who might inherit what.

It could be confusing, true, but if they left the line out of that scene entirely then it wouldn'tve implied that the sanctity of her domestic unit is her driving concern. In the book, Catelyn barely even cries when Ned first suggests that the family is to be split up, it's one brief pang of sadness and then she has her brave face on. It may be realistic that her strength wears down in a moment like that, but that doesn't make it the best use of that screentime to introduce us to Catelyn, a woman who more often than not sucks up her emotions (which is the precise reason why she feels them so intensely - they have no outlet).

[Easy]

It might make her seem more graceful, but it robs her of a lot of conviction and agency. I feel like that's quite a cost. And speaking as a woman who really relates to Cat, I loved that her mask of grace and nobility slipped off her when things were dire; grace and nobility and the hallmarks of a sexist society's perfect lady run deep in her, but even deeper are her convictions about peace and the sanctity of life. That is an admirable character.

She understands the need for war and violence though. She's not faint hearted at this point in the story. The show does a good job of showing that with her silence in this scene and by the way they portrayed her arrest of Tyrion. That was badass. Even more so than the book version.

And then there's the 'kill them all' line which you feel descends into Stoneheart territory. The unsullied viewers whom the writers make the changes for don't know about Stoneheart. They see her plot a more sensible but colder revenge than the grief stricken and emotionally charged one of Robb with his 'I'll kill them all'. It's more chilling and out of character imo but certainly not sexist.

[Lady Blackfish]

She understands the need for war simply because Robb had no way out -- until Ned died and Riverrun was freed, because then the bannermen had won one solid cause and lost the other beyond any hope. She is not faint of heart, but that's not related either way to why she preaches peace. She is not peaceful out of timidity or weakness, she is peaceful out of conviction and compassion. Those are her strengths, the strengths of civilization. That is Catelyn, civilization in an uncivilized world, and her descent into an animal is a lengthy process. I think it's very sensible to say that solidifying her identity as the civilized creature of the team, before beginning the transition, is a much more elegant and clear signal. For her, violence is not her strength, violence is her weakness. That has such immense meaning in the greater narrative; I don't see how HBO's Catelyn interacts with the greater narrative and its thematics in such a meaningful way, at least, not unless they find a way to undo some things they inexplicably did.

The unsullied audience doesn't know about Stoneheart -- yet. They will one day though, and when that happens the story will have had to unfold in the proper way for that revelation to mean what it did in the books. Also, again I never said that every change was probably sexist. I would not say that the eradication of her speech at the end of AGOT was sexist, but it is out of character and, from my view, poor planning.

I admittedly do think, though I realize it is only speculation and won't base any strict arguments on this, that the writers of the show don't really demonstrate any deep understanding of the character's role in the narrative; their changes are hard to compromise with that. Is it sexist for them to not get it? It could involve some subtle or less subtle forms of sexism, sure, if for no other reason than people often take straight what GRRM is actually trying to subvert and don't realize what he's really saying about the society he's writing about. But you know, that is a long and involving discussion that I feel is beyond the scope of this thread. The reason that I mentioned sexism at all is that I DO very much think that SOME elements of hatred towards Catelyn, Sansa, Cersei, Dany, etc, are rooted in sexism. Not all, but some, and it exists in a complicated relationship with other elements of the narrative (I do acknowledge those other elements, for sure, but I don't think that that necessarily means they have effects in a vacuum free of biases). Anyway, TL;DR, if it's bothering you so much let me put it this way: I want them to understand why GRRM chose Catelyn to tell this part of the story through instead of Robb, or Jaime, or the Greatjon, etc. If they can understand that and show that element the importance it warrants, then we can all go home happy.

[Brewmaster]

let me put it this way: I want them to understand why GRRM chose Catelyn to tell this part of the story through instead of Robb, or Jaime, or the Greatjon, etc. If they can understand that and show that element the importance it warrants, then we can all go home happy.

I would say that they have a much better understanding of why Martin chose Catelyn to tell this part of the story than you, or I do. Considering that they have been talking with him throughout the development, read an as yet unreleased book, and even learned where the story is ultimately heading straight from the horses mouth.

[Lady Blackfish]

That they understand other pieces of the story doesn't mean they understand Catelyn. It doesn't mean they don't, but then at best it's not really here or there. They might, I don't know what they know, but what they have demonstrated on screen doesn't suggest it yet. And we are an intelligent audience capable of critical thinking, there is no shame at exercising our capacity to critically analyse. If I'm not suitably of credence then perhaps you can read Ran's thoughts on the matter in his posts on the series at suvudu; he doesn't seem very convinced by their handling of the character either, though he allows that things could change in the future if there was an intent to do so. I'm in the same boat, as it happens, and haven't said a thing to contradict that position.

One thing we can say about Catelyn herself though is that her arc is already pretty much over; certainly a fairly self-contained phase of that arc has already passed since the middle of book three.

[Easy]

The reason that I mentioned sexism at all is that I DO very much think that SOME elements of hatred towards Catelyn, Sansa, Cersei, Dany, etc, are rooted in sexism.

Possibly, but probably only true of an insignificant minority of people. Not enough for the writers to consider catering to.

Book 1 Sansa and Cersei are written by GRRM to be hated. Their actions alone are enought to warrant that hate. There's nothing odd about that hate. Dany-hate is strange but it parallels with Jon-hate, which is equally strange, rather than with any other woman. Just because they are women that are detested does not mean they are detested because they are women.

Anyway, TL;DR, if it's bothering you so much let me put it this way: I want them to understand why GRRM chose Catelyn to tell this part of the story through instead of Robb, or Jaime, or the Greatjon, etc. If they can understand that and show that element the importance it warrants, then we can all go home happy.

That's a matter of interpretation. Most readers of this scene were looking forward to the battle cry of 'King in the North' in the TV adaptation rather than Catelyn's counsel. Judging by the reaction to it, the writers were successful in translating the essence of the scene according to what is popular with most readers and what GRRM was delivering as the climax. They didn't leave out Cat's bit because it was unpopular but because it isn't important enough to demand inclusion. It's expendable and stuff has to be left out when adapting the story to TV which is fine as long as they capture the essence of the story.

They even made the brave but correct decision to leave out the popular battle scenes. Those are also expendable and obviously people will be sore but while the action is awesome it's not important in terms of the plot for us to see it. We just need to know the result.

Obviously, Cat fans looking forward to her lines will be disappointed but you see tons of people in the episode threads complaining about various little bits they were looking forward to that were missed out. It's no different to that until Cat fans start blaming it on sexism.

[Lady Blackfish]

Just because they are women that are detested does not mean they are detested because they are women.

Look, I know this. Let's drop the subject, because we're not going to agree about how prominent it is.

Most readers of this scene were looking forward to the battle cry of 'King in the North' in the TV adaptation rather than Catelyn's counsel.

But Catelyn's counsel is what proves prescient, what proves to be the better course in retrospect, and they had the opportunity to showcase her immense self control and wisdom there at a very dramatic moment, and they didn't. I think it's a legitimate beef against them, especially knowing the tone the future novels take in regard to war and vengeance-seeking.

[Lady Blackfish]

Obviously, Cat fans looking forward to her lines will be disappointed but you see tons of people in the episode threads complaining about various little bits they were looking forward to that were missed out. It's no different to that until Cat fans start blaming it on sexism.

I didn't see this comment before. I don't understand how you can so misunderstand what I am saying, but you are. The most I ever said was that it was possibly at play, amongst other things, and if at all it would be in a really complicated relationship to other variables. If you can't appreciate the difference between that and "OMG it's all sexism's fault" then I don't know what to say.

Furthermore, it is not merely about looking forward to her lines, it is about a fundamental understanding of her role in the story, and the prominence allotted to that story. Martin chose Catelyn's perspective to tell the story of this war, not Robb's, not anyone else's. That is not just an interpretation or opinion, that is fact. If people are looking forward to her story having lesser prominence, because they don't understand or care for her story, that's their right. But it is a definite change from the text, and not a minor one, and if that is what D&D cater to then they are absolutely being disingenuous when they say they appreciate Martin's women's POVs.

And once again, I do not think Catelyn is the only one who has been changed, but I find that she among the actual major characters has been changed the most for the most inexplicable reasons. I did not like their handling of Ned either, but there is less reason to argue about it because once we learned of it all season one was already in the books and after that Ned does not exist in the story, so it's moot. I did not like their handling of certain aspects of Sansa, but Sansa's arc trends upward after book one whereas Catelyn's arc trends downwards, so though I dislike it I find that less hinges on the changes, and the reasons are easier to comprehend even if, for me, they are no easier to like. I did not like that they had Cersei pine for the man who beat her, but I am totally flabbergasted on how to comment on it further because my feelings on how Cersei was handled in the source material are much more confused and mixed than those on Catelyn. I cannot find any other major characters that were so inexplicably ill done by the show as Catelyn, and Ned and Catelyn are the major characters who have a limited time to play out their stories because we lose them. In contrast, as of yet we still have Cersei, Jaime, Theon, Sansa, etc, so the time frame in which they must be served well by the show is more generous.

I am once again incredibly sorry that I mention the word "sexism" in here at all, since people seem to flip out beyond reason every time it comes up.

[Maithanet]

I think the for book readers, I would agree that it would have been better to portray the Catelyn/Ned go-to-the-capital discussion as more political, rather than Ned's Duty/Politics vs Catelyn's Family/Emotion. It would have been a stronger scene, and truer to the book. But I do understand the decision to make that change, even if it does water down Cat's character some (and I agree that it does).

The show was written with the audience of non-readers in mind. And frankly, I think they were always looking for shortcuts to simplify the politics, because they just don't have time to go into the intricacies. There are countless examples of this - the eliminations of the Warden position, Robert's decision not to enter the tourney, and essentially everything that LF and Varys do. I think that B&W saw this as a way to present unfamiliar viewers with a familiar situation: one person appealing to emotion vs another appealing to reason. Catelyn was given the Emotion card, because it made more sense for her to make an appeal based on her family than it would for Maester Lewin or Ned to do so.

[Lady Blackfish]

What I dislike is that the Emotion Card is handed out to help Ned's character, it defines his dilemma by sacrificing an aspect of her character. And then the show never made much of an attempt to replace that aspect later, it simply does conform to a more stereotypical view of the character.

I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I'm really hesitant to agree that it would be too difficult for new viewers to follow a more politically oriented discussion. I'm afraid I find that the show does underestimate viewers' intelligence at least some of the time. Or rather, the way that GoT challenges viewers is through the sheer scope of things going on, but the intellect level of each individual arc is not that complicated, and usually settles for more simplistic versions of the characters. I feel like they can toy with this balance a bit better.

Alternatively in this scenario, why not simply place the bulk of the dilemma between Ned and Luwin? Catelyn could merely facilitate exposition by being neutral or ambivalent. They skipped the part where she assumed she'd go with Ned, which is understandable, and thus it makes sense that she might be torn between breaking up the family and wanting to advance her family + investigate Arryn's murder. The focus of the scene wouldn't have to be on her, it could still be about Ned, but her characterization would not have to be contradicted to facilitate his arc.

[Easy]

I am once again incredibly sorry that I mention the word "sexism" in here at all, since people seem to flip out beyond reason every time it comes up.

Ok, I'll stop focusing on that.

Considering changes made to characters, I would say Shae is the worst done. However, she's not an A league character. Out of major players, on reflection it probably is Cat or maybe Theon. With Cat I'd agree that certain nuances to her character are trimmed somewhat and possibly lost. But being 'worst' done doesn't mean it's that bad. Fans of a particular character feel the changes far more than the rest of us.

[Lady Blackfish]

That may be, but I don't much see how it's here or there. It's not like a complaint about the handling of one character means that anyone thinks the whole show is bad. Is that what you think I'm saying? As far as I can tell, I've limited my points very specifically to the handling of one character. And really, there's been threads about changes to Cersei, changes to Drogo, discussion of the changes to Sansa here and there. Is it anything out of place to have this thread too? I'm sorry, I'm just curious what you're getting at.

Surely a major character's treatment is worth discussion. I think the deletion of Catelyn's political side and the removal of her plea for peace are two very big things. Would you say that it's just no big deal if they made Tyrion not funny, or skipped Ned's refusal to assassinate Daenerys? These are just as big a part of her character as those are theirs, no? I mean, people complain about Sandor's exposition being given to Littlefinger, surely this is a bigger change than that.