Catelyn: Even more misunderstood than before

[Evamitchelle]

But Tyrions point that only a fool arms an assassin with his own blade - especially one as remarkable as a valyrian steel/dragonbone hilt one - is a VERY good one, and something that should have immediately occurred to the Starks. The other hole in LF story, that Tyrion never bets against his brother, would not have immediately come to mind, it would have been revealed if the Starks did anything more than a cursory investigation.

Except that the assassin was armed with his master's dagger, meaning that there was indeed someone stupid enough to do something like that. Really I don't see how the "I couldn't have done it because I'm not an idiot" defense is supposed to work so well. Cat can't possibly know that Tyrion is actually clever since the last time she saw him he probably still was a teenager and that she's managed to outsmart him just fine from the moment they bumped into each other at the Crossroads Inn until they arrived at the Eyrie.

As for Tyrion's betting habit I'm not sure that there are a lot of people who interest themselves in that sort of thing, so I wonder who they could have found to confirm or deny that story (considering that the two biggest informants in KG, Varys and LF, both tell her that it was Tyrion's dagger) outside the concerned parties : Tyrion, Jaime and Robert (they don't even know about Robert's involvment), none of whom are particularly trustworthy to the Starks.

[The Mother of The Others]

So I forgot, was it really Joffrey who acted on his own to have Bran stabbed in his sick bed with Tyrion's knife? Because then it looks like Joffrey started the war and not Petyr. What am I missing?

[The King in the South]

So I forgot, was it really Joffrey who acted on his own to have Bran stabbed in his sick bed with Tyrion's knife? Because then it looks like Joffrey started the war and not Petyr. What am I missing?

It's the fact that Petyr lied about Tyrion doing it which set off a chain of reactions. But yes, you could make a case for Joffrey being a contributor.

[Evamitchelle]

So I forgot, was it really Joffrey who acted on his own to have Bran stabbed in his sick bed with Tyrion's knife? Because then it looks like Joffrey started the war and not Petyr. What am I missing?

Yes Joffrey sent an assassin after Bran after hearing his "dad" say that crippled dogs and horses are killed out of mercy but not children.

I think the war mainly started because LF got Lysa to murder Jon Arryn and pin it on the Lannisters. And then he lied about the dagger's ownership, which only made it worse.

[Skeksi]

I don't think it's ever been confirmed beyond a doubt that it was Joffrey- Tyrion had his suspicions, and when he makes digs about a knife to Joffrey in ASoS, Joffrey's reply makes him think "He knows that I know...", unless I remember incorrectly, implying he was right. However, he could have been misreading the situation- it did seem a bit of a leap to make. Though doesn't Jaime come to the same conclusion?

If Tyrion is correct, Joffrey took a dagger from his father's collection, armed the assassin with it and told him to kill Bran after they left.

As for the dagger, Littlefinger claims it was his, and that he lost it betting to Tyrion, however I don't think it's ever established whether that was all a lie, or whether he simply changed the man he lost it to so as to inflame Stark-Lannister tensions. Mind you, I don't think that's entirely relevent to the murder plot, anyway.

It really depends if you believe Bran's attempted murder was the reason for the war- I think it was a mixture of factors, not least the simmering tensions between various houses, however I think Lysa's murder of Jon Arryn (orchestrated by LF) was definitely a major one. You could certainly make a case for Joffrey helping to cause it, though.

[headtrip_honey]

Re: the origin of the dagger, LF told the truth...if you switch Robert for Tyrion. Which makes sense. Robert disliked Jaime, bet against him, and won when Liras unseated him.

(null)

[Datepalm]

Is she? For me the issue isn't that she is evil (I don't think she is) as much as I honestly don't know what is 'good' about her, except for the fact that she clearly loves her children a great deal. Cersei shows us how much immorality can come from loving her children. This, coupled with issues I have with her judgemental personality, is why I dislike her. What are her good or kind acts?

You're exactly missing my point. I don't read the series, outside of ocassional marxist thought exercises, as a calculus of good and bad. I am not the Westeros Nobel Peace Prize committee when it comes to assigning my interests and sympathies to characters. I do not like the good ones and hate the bad ones. (I'd argue that one of the major themes of the series is actually the perspective bias and fluidity of this impossible calculus.) I consider Cat, as a character that I like or dislike, in this light - the same as any other character.

I could make a list of the things where Cat is really morally exemplary, and almost all the other major characters would come short in the same circumstances, but I won't because thats not why I like Cat. Furthermore I don't think its the root of the criticisms against her as boring, shrewish, depressing, someone who's chapters you just don't like. Again, I don't frequently hear criticism that one would enjoy Jaimes chapters, but he's such a jerk and threw a kid out a window so we hate reading about him.

For example, my least favorite character - the one I wish would fall out of the book, die already, never show up in another plotline. The one who's every appearance has me rolling my eyes and groaning "not you again" and skimming to get past, is the Hound. It's not becuase he's morally bankrupt (though he is) but becuase I just find the whole hardened-warrior-with-a-heart-of-gold, (but also hypocricy and stalkerism) narrative seriously uninteresting. It does nothing for me. It's a hackneyed, cliched, trash-romance staple. What's worse, it's when he's all weeping-woobie-redeemed by love of a good woman girl and also, found god yay! that he's most upstanding and yet most irritating.

OTOH, "It should have been you," is like one of my favorite lines of the book. It's up there with "things I do for love," a vicious, take-your-breath-away moment of a character in an extreme situation that reveals so much - all that anger and fear under the social conditioning and personal discipline and cool, careful buttoned up propriety. It's awesome.

So, I dunno, maybe the people who don't like reading about Catelyn really are doing it on basis of moral judgment. It simply does not do to read stories about bad people. They actually spend the rest of the time reading only Narnia and Eddings (but they've never forgiven Edmund for taking the Turkish Delight and they don't like Silk. Not to upstanding, that guy.) Correct me if that is your case.

But collectively speaking in terms of what I know of the general discourse, I don't see the same vitriol turned against Jaime, or Tyrion, or the Hound, or Robert or any other major character that is morally way out there but presented sympathetically. Men being bad makes them grey, nuanced and realistic. A woman being bad is a bitch.

[MaryaStone]

You're exactly missing my point. I don't read the series, outside of ocassional marxist thought exercises, as a calculus of good and bad. I am not the Westeros Nobel Peace Prize committee when it comes to assigning my interests and sympathies to characters. I do not like the good ones and hate the bad ones. (I'd argue that one of the major themes of the series is actually the perspective bias and fluidity of this impossible calculus.) I consider Cat, as a character that I like or dislike, in this light - the same as any other character.

I could make a list of the things where Cat is really morally exemplary, and almost all the other major characters would come short in the same circumstances, but I won't because thats not why I like Cat. Furthermore I don't think its the root of the criticisms against her as boring, shrewish, depressing, someone who's chapters you just don't like. Again, I don't frequently hear criticism that one would enjoy Jaimes chapters, but he's such a jerk and threw a kid out a window so we hate reading about him.

For example, my least favorite character - the one I wish would fall out of the book, die already, never show up in another plotline. The one who's every appearance has me rolling my eyes and groaning "not you again" and skimming to get past, is the Hound. It's not becuase he's morally bankrupt (though he is) but becuase I just find the whole hardened-warrior-with-a-heart-of-gold, (but also hypocricy and stalkerism) narrative seriously uninteresting. It does nothing for me. It's a hackneyed, cliched, trash-romance staple. What's worse, it's when he's all weeping-woobie-redeemed by love of a good woman girl and also, found god yay! that he's most upstanding and yet most irritating.

OTOH, "It should have been you," is like one of my favorite lines of the book. It's up there with "things I do for love," a vicious, take-your-breath-away moment of a character in an extreme situation that reveals so much - all that anger and fear under the social conditioning and personal discipline and cool, careful buttoned up propriety. It's awesome.

So, I dunno, maybe the people who don't like reading about Catelyn really are doing it on basis of moral judgment. It simply does not do to read stories about bad people. They actually spend the rest of the time reading only Narnia and Eddings (but they've never forgiven Edmund for taking the Turkish Delight and they don't like Silk. Not to upstanding, that guy.) Correct me if that is your case.

But collectively speaking in terms of what I know of the general discourse, I don't see the same vitriol turned against Jaime, or Tyrion, or the Hound, or Robert or any other major character that is morally way out there but presented sympathetically. Men being bad makes them grey, nuanced and realistic. A woman being bad is a bitch.

I agree with you in nearly everything you've said here and I also love the way you've expressed it. There's only one thing where I disagree: I looooove the Hound. I can't believe you dislike him :eek:. He's great.

No, seriously. I love the Hound but I understand why you don't like him. You've explained why so well. This makes me think of other readers and other characters. It's silly for readers to think that everybody has to like their favourite character. People shouldn't feel offended because other people don't like the same characters they love. Not everybody likes Catelyn Stark, and that's O.K. but there's no reason to expect others to like Jon Snow, or Tyrion, the Hound (he's my favourite, by the way), or any other character.

Maybe some readers see Cat as a mother figure and Jon Snow as a sort of Oliver Twist or Harry Potter and when they read that shocking 'it should have been you...' they feel she's committed the ultimate unforgivable crime : being nasty to a teenage boy.

Well, other characters would kill anyone, teenage boys or even babies included, for the right price (Bronn, for instance) and they aren't hated because they are so badass. Oh, but Cat should be warm and welcoming because she's a mom and moms are supposed to be kind. Only warriors and tomboys can be badass.

I don't need a character to be morally good to like reading about him/her ( I wouldn't like the Hound then) so, I enjoyed Cat's chapters even when she chose the wrong options.

Really, I don't understand why so many people say they hate certain characters. I don't even hate Ramsay as a character. Of course I think he's a monster and should be flayed to death, but I enjoy reading about a bad guy who really scares me and disgusts me. If there were no characters like him (or Tywin, or Roose) the good guys would still be at home training in the yard or eating lemon cakes and there would be no SOIF for us to enjoy.

I find some characters boring but then I read their chapters more quickly, I roll my eyes from time to time and that's all. I see no reason to hate them because they are boring I find them boring .

[corbon]

OTOH, "It should have been you," is like one of my favorite lines of the book. It's up there with "things I do for love," a vicious, take-your-breath-away moment of a character in an extreme situation that reveals so much - all that anger and fear under the social conditioning and personal discipline and cool, careful buttoned up propriety. It's awesome.

Quoted for absolute truth.

Sorry, not much to comment about the thread really. Just this was so 'right' I felt it needed repeating.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

You're exactly missing my point. I don't read the series, outside of ocassional marxist thought exercises, as a calculus of good and bad. I am not the Westeros Nobel Peace Prize committee when it comes to assigning my interests and sympathies to characters. I do not like the good ones and hate the bad ones. (I'd argue that one of the major themes of the series is actually the perspective bias and fluidity of this impossible calculus.) I consider Cat, as a character that I like or dislike, in this light - the same as any other character.

I really don't think I am missing your point. If I could state it in my own way: you're interested in reading about complex characters, not morally upright characters. I hope you'll consider that a fair restatement. I agree, and I think if you take a look at what I said you'll see that we're not so far off from one another on this. What I'm saying is that Cat is not interesting or sympathetic to me. She isn't wrestling with big issues or anything. She's born high, marries high, loves her own children, and despises a bastard child and the insult he represents to her high birth. I don't 'hate' her for any of her actions in the books, I don't think she does anything 'evil.' But she has a judgmental and stubborn personality that I actively dislike.

Now consider Jaime Lannister, who has committed one of the most immoral acts of the entire series, throwing Bran out the window. And he more or less remains this basically bad guy in our minds until we get his POV and learn his back story. He joins the Kingsguard when he thinks it will allow him to continue his incestuous relationship with his sister and then kills the King he is sworn to protect to the prevent that King from burning 10s of thousands of his subjects alive. This is a complicated character.

I would add that Jaime would not be on my list of favorite characters because I do try to weigh the good and bad of these characters and pick my favorites based on that (I guess we'll have to just disagree on whether it's even possible to make these moral judgments, but I think it is). I would have to have a separate list for characters I find most interesting. But Catelyn would be on neither because I don't see anything in her that is either endearing or complex. I see a very understandable love of her own children and resentment of her husband's bastard which more or less drives all of her actions in the series. Now, you said you like Catelyn because of the way she treats Jon but then turns out to be 'one of the most undeniably morally upstanding characters in the series,' making her one of the most fascinating characters to read about. I don't see that moral goodness, so I don't see the attendant complexity or likability and she is still not on either of my lists. I just see a character with simple motivations and some bad personality traits. I've read all the books once except GoT which I've read twice (shouldn't have lent out CoK or I'd be rereading it now arg), and was legitimately looking to be pitched to about what Catelyn's goodness is, thinking that I may have been overlooking things from CoK and SoS. So I come back to my question, what are her good or kind acts?

[Woman of War]

For example, my least favorite character - the one I wish would fall out of the book, die already, never show up in another plotline. The one who's every appearance has me rolling my eyes and groaning "not you again" and skimming to get past, is the Hound. It's not becuase he's morally bankrupt (though he is) but becuase I just find the whole hardened-warrior-with-a-heart-of-gold, (but also hypocricy and stalkerism) narrative seriously uninteresting. It does nothing for me. It's a hackneyed, cliched, trash-romance staple. What's worse, it's when he's all weeping-woobie-redeemed by love of a good woman girl and also, found god yay! that he's most upstanding and yet most irritating.

Thank you , Datepalm, I thought about it and I agree.

To me Cate is one of the characters that are really living breathing people, full of doubts and insecurities, committing errors. It was outright stupid to capture Tyrion and incredibly naive to free Jaime. But the character Cat has the most touching scenes, highly emotional without being cheesy at all. And there is a woman who suffers beyond all imagination and yet is not pathetic and full of self pity but still has her dignity.

That's why I am so annoyed that she now is undead, her humanity and dignity taken from her, a vengeful shell left.

[Fearsome Fred]

I can think of 2 occasions where Catelyn must choose between duty and vengeance, and makes the wrong choice:

(1) Catelyn at the Inn at the cross-roads: Her duty to her family (all of whom still live) lies to the North; vengeance lies to the East. She chooses vengeance.

(2) Catelyn at the Red Wedding. Jinglebells was an innocent, but she murders him for vengeance.

(Can anyone think of other examples?)

This foreshadows what she has become in undeath: a monster consumed with vengeance, but with no discernable interest in the wellbeing of surviving family.

[headtrip_honey]

I'm not sure you can categorize Jinglebells as vengeance. It was, but she was not in her right mind making that decision. Tyrion was a calculated move, Jinglebells was maddened grief.

[brashcandy]

The depiction of the Hound as a "hardened warrior with a heart of gold" is laughable. By the same token I could call Catelyn a "Tiger mom with an insecurity complex". The truth is, we all have our personal preferences and reasons why certain characters appeal to us and others don't. I don't find Cat any more compelling than the Hound, but hey different strokes for different folks. I'm just truly tired of the accusation that people who critique Cat don't appreciate the complexity of her character. She had her "it should have been you" moment, and the Hound had his "I'm the butcher and they're meat." Both instances revealed something distasteful and warped about both characters IMO.

[Lemon Cake]

I'm not sure you can categorize Jinglebells as vengeance. It was, but she was not in her right mind making that decision. Tyrion was a calculated move, Jinglebells was maddened grief.

Agreed. I wouldn't put it in the same category. It was awful to read about and I felt sick to my stomach for poor Jinglebells, but Catelyn herself was mentally ill at that point. After all, only seconds later she clawed her own face all the way down to the bone. She was not in her right mind in that moment.

[Datepalm]

Now consider Jaime Lannister, who has committed one of the most immoral acts of the entire series, throwing Bran out the window. And he more or less remains this basically bad guy in our minds until we get his POV and learn his back story. He joins the Kingsguard when he thinks it will allow him to continue his incestuous relationship with his sister and then kills the King he is sworn to protect to the prevent that King from burning 10s of thousands of his subjects alive. This is a complicated character.

...Now, you said you like Catelyn because of the way she treats Jon but then turns out to be 'one of the most undeniably morally upstanding characters in the series,' making her one of the most fascinating characters to read about. I don't see that moral goodness, so I don't see the attendant complexity or likability...

I actually see those two backwards. Jaimes internal good-bad conflicts are stark (oh the irony,) clearly delineated and dribbled to the reader in a carefully controlled, almost manipulative manner. Jaime is bad but he used to want to be good but everyone thought he was bad so he became bad. Oh, conflict.

Catelyns inner life and moral conflicts are, IMO, much murkier and more compelling to me. Part of this is becuase she's drawn a much more intimate and human scale, and so are her moral successes and failures*. Jaime - incest! kingslaying! child murder! prevention of crimes against humanity! loss of limbs! It's all very....extreme. Mythic, even. (Apropos morality, The notion that Jaime is objectively a better person than Catelyn is absurd though. Being cool to Jon and thinking being Brienne isn't all that awesome DO NOT rank the same as attempting to murder children.)

Catelyn's actions can't be interpreted as black or white by the reader (as this thread demonstrates), are tangled up in nuances of social convention, subjective emotion, legality and politics. She was mildly unpleasant to a child - becuase his existence was a constant personal injury. She made legally dubious arrest with unforseen consequences - becuase she was working on the best information she had. She threw away a military asset - to save her daughters lives. I find these conflicts and choices with genuine meat. Jaime is just popcorn.

No one can possibly argue that Jaime should have let the city burn or is a good person for tossing Bran. Its not that I necessarily dislike the grand romantic narrative of these huge larger-than-life actions - I read a lot of fantasy, don't I? - but Catelyns is on another level alltogether, and fundamentally more interesting.

*BTW, I agree that morality does have a role to play in reading and in judging charactrs, even an important one. The moral hypocricy in the presentation of the Hound is certainly one of the reasons I dislike the character, but I tend to look at what I think the text is saying, morally, via a character rather than at the in-world morality of the character as a person.

[Datepalm]

I'm just truly tired of the accusation that people who critique Cat don't appreciate the complexity of her character.

Me too, but thats not what i'm arguing against. I think not enjoying Cat becuase the themes and issues the character is about are just kind of meh to you is totally legitimate. Thats me with my antipathy for the hound.(And furthermore, i find that discussion, of the way different characters impact different readers, genuinely interesting. Why is my awesome your meh? Sue me, I love reader response.)

What i'm bothered by is the line of argument against Catelyn that she's not a very good person or a very effective soldier, and not interesting becuase of that, which I think is a particularly bad and double-standarded excuse in this series, where she is one of the most morally upstanding main characters. (never murdered anyone in cold blood (er, while alive) - check.)

[Natalia Borgia]

I think once Ned brought Jon to Winterfell and raised him as a "Stark" Catelyn could have been less of a bitch to him. My sons have a stepfather and he is better to them than their "bio dad" who they haven't seen for 4 years. Cat took no pity on a helpless baby and even resented that he looked like Ned. She had 5 other kids why be so hostile? It is too bad Benjen was on the wall and couldn't have raised Jon at a nearby castle as his nephew/ward. But Ned probably wouldn't have allowed it. Why? This goes into a R+L=J theory so I will stop. Obviously Ned only felt Jon was safe at Winterfell. Not good enough for old Cat nope she had to ignore Jon and her visceral hatred of him is annoying.Makes her and her actions more understandble in that she is not NICE!!!

[David Selig]

I can think of 2 occasions where Catelyn must choose between duty and vengeance, and makes the wrong choice:

(1) Catelyn at the Inn at the cross-roads: Her duty to her family (all of whom still live) lies to the North; vengeance lies to the East. She chooses vengeance.

(2) Catelyn at the Red Wedding. Jinglebells was an innocent, but she murders him for vengeance.

(Can anyone think of other examples?)

This foreshadows what she has become in undeath: a monster consumed with vengeance, but with no discernable interest in the wellbeing of surviving family.

About your first, I don't think you can really put that way, because for her it wasn't suuch a choice between vengeance and duty.The telling detail is that she took action to capture only after he saw and recognised her at the inn. If her main motivation was vengeance, she'd have tried to arrest him as soon as she saw him and not try to hide.

I'd give you Jinglebells, sure, but she was going insane at this point.

On the other hand, she repeatedly asked Robb to take actions towards achieving peace unlike Robb and most other nobles in the North and Riverlands who were obsessed with getting vengeance at all cost.

[Natalia Borgia]

Hmm Duty would have summoned her to Winterfell and not to Riverrun in ACOK. Then her sons die. She loved her dad but as a Tully if he was in his right mind and not dying he would have told her to get her butt back to Winterfell where her 4 year old and 8 year old were mostly unguarded. If she had half a brain she would have sent the boys to Manderly or Umber or summoned them to Riverrun and gotten them away from Winterfell after Ned was dead and had them fostered. She seems to like Theon more than Jon Snow umm hello he is your kid's half brother/cousin whatever still blood. Theon is the one who betrays Robb not Jon. But she speaks to Theon like an equal and allows him to eat at the feast with the Lannisters? So many of her actions in the book are just crazy. I love when the Old Bear says to Jon "It was a bad thing you lady mother taking him captive" and Jon says "she is not my mother". People outside the circle obviously thought that because Ned was so accepting of Jon- Cat would have treated him like oh I don't know a mother. We see Cortnay Penrose willing to DIE for Edric, Yoren and Syrio endanger their lives for Arya, strangers have more regard for one another than she shows Jon. She shows her cattiness VERY early in the series and makes so many decisions based on pride rather than family, duty, or honor. Jon was family whether she liked it or not.