Jump to content

[Book Spoilers] Where is Catelyn Stark and what has HBO done with her?


fauxkaren

Recommended Posts

Good post Nymeria Star-Eyes. Yeah the TV show doesn't correctly portray some rather important themes of the books. It is still ASOIAF but a little dumber and simpler and less complex I guess. I still enjoy it though.

I think you are half-right. I think GRRM wants us to both sympathize with Robb who is also sort of honorable, sympathetic character and also think how he is possibly wrong, how revenge (or a fight for a north kingdom be pointless and not a sufficiently good reason for them to send people to die) might not be good, basically what you say. (This theme of how to those killed the causes of the ones sending them to die is irrelevant is also sort of repeated and empathized in Meribald's excellent speech towards Brienne) My point is that GRRM intends for readers to have two contradicting and opposite reactions. On one hand sympathize with him, on the other question his actions. So I agree with your post but there is also a sort of tragedy with Robb's story because the audience also sort of empathizes and sympathizes with him and his loss and even some of his reasons for war. So GRRM wants to show us that even good sympathetic characters when they control an army can cause tragedy and send people to die. And GRRM also tries to make us question the audience possible support to Robb's war. I think encouraging contradicting and opposite reactions is actually good writing as it encourages debate and for a reader to think about these issues and their own opinions.

I totally get what you're saying. I agree that a complex reaction to Robb is important, that's just not what I'm seeing reflected in the show. I guess maybe the definition of sympathize is getting a little muddled here? I think the distinction is between actively rooting for a character and caring about them in a sort of pitying way. Again, maybe pity isn't the right word. It's the difference between trying to get the audience to cheer on character's actions, and getting the audience to look at a character and say "nooooo don't make those choices, I care about you, you don't have to do that," (which is what Cat says in her internal monologue, over and over). That's why we already have tragedy in Robb's story, like you said, and why there's no need to change his character to make him somehow more "relatable".

When I read the books I cared about Robb, but I was also constantly questioning his choices. He has good intentions, but no idea how to make those result in positive actions. That's the duality you mentioned, and you're exactly right in the way that this makes the writing better. However, when B&W take away Robb's immaturity and make him come up with all the best political strategies on his own, that's depriving the viewer of the opportunity to relate to the character in a complicated way, and really think about the repercussions of his choices. Without Cat acting as a foil for Robb, this complexity suddenly disappears.

And as for the show, Robb is older, you can't really have him acting as 15(?) year old boy all the time...

I saw the age issues reflected in the scene with Jaime, because it made Robb look powerful and in command, rather than an immature posturing boy, but even this change shouldn't have to have an effect on Cat. Even if Robb can go around using Grey Wind as an effective intimidation tool, that doesn't mean he's suddenly also better at politics. Grey Wind plays into his strength on the battlefield, which is canonical. If he's 15 or 17 or 20, he should still be a bad politician, and he still lets his feelings for Theon get in the way of logic. Robb's age shouldn't have an a effect on Cat's character. Cat's a better politician than the grown men in Robb's army, too.

I don't see how switching the line "You should go treat with Renly" to "I should go treat with Renly" poses a threat to Robb's characterization. Or adding in the sentence "if you have to treat with Balon, don't send Theon, he's your leverage." In fact, if Cat had kept her original lines, it would have made both of them more complex and interesting characters (and it wouldn't have added any time to the script, if that's what people are worried about).

And if he's 15 or 17 or 20, it doesn't make his war any more moral, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morrigan- I love Cat as a character, and think she was generally a good and pragmatic person who tried her best the balance her roles as a mother and a powerful noblewoman. But are you really going to tell me she didn't make some spectacularly poor decisions?

In hindsight and with a god-POV, yes. At the time, based on her knowledge, it was actually smart and sensible.

"Smart and sensible"? Cat knew enough about Westeros and the Lannisters to know that seizing Tywin's son at sword point was tantamount to a declaration of war- and she did this based on hearsay from the least trustworthy man in all of Westeros. If you wanted to make an argument that, considering the fact that her son had almost been murdered, this was an understandable move in such an emotional state I would listen to your points, but smart and sensible?

ROFL. No. Just.... no. It had zero impact on that whatsoever. Seriously. Blaming the Karstark treason on her is bad enough, but the Red Wedding? All I can say to that is, "trolololol".

I don't think you've fully thought this through. The Red Wedding was as much Tywin's doing as it was Walder's, if not more. Walder was a dick, but not a stupid dick. He would not have simply killed his king and left himself shit out of luck stuck between the Riverlords and the North: in addition to getting revenge, the RW put him back in the good graces of Tywin and sealed the deal that basically gave the Freys and the Boltons the Riverlands and the North. The Red Wedding could never had happened if Jaime was still in a cell in Rivverrun, not in a million years. It would have meant the instant death of Tywin's son. Cat didn't cause the Frey and Bolton betrayals, but giving up the Stark's most powerful bargaining chip removed the one thing inhibiting the full wrath of Tywin Lannister, which included welcoming the Freys and Boltons into his arms.

And she was supposed to magically divine that Bran and Rickon were still alive because...? Oh right, another case of holding a character to unreasonable standards. Way to go.

No, of course not. The point is that giving up Tywin Lannister's son for a vague promise from a man thousands of miles of dangerous roads away who she had once helped put into sky cells and who wasn't even the true Hand was an incredibly near-sighted and foolish move. The jeopardy into which this plunged the lives of her daughters was just one aspect of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the changes at all.

Robb was portrayed through Cat's eyes in the books, and in my mind, despite some obvious boyish brashness and flaws, he was his father's son.

A military genius, a born leader and a young man who was on the road to greatness.

On the other hand, I found Cat selfish and just as brash - her cruelty to Jon, her taking Tyrion basically led to Ned's demise, letting Jaime go which basically made the RW possible -> by all accounts Tywin would never had let that happen if it meant Jaime's death, etc. - and she doesn't have the excuse of being very young.

...

Basically, I'm sure the changes in the series will bother Cat-fanboys/girl, but not anyone else. Fortunately, those aren't many.

Robb, for all his youth and flaws, is a hugely popular character and him not being seen through his mother's eyes but through the viewers might just inadvertently enhance his "hero" role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Red Wedding could never had happened if Jaime was still in a cell in Rivverrun, not in a million years. It would have meant the instant death of Tywin's son. Cat didn't cause the Frey and Bolton betrayals, but giving up the Stark's most powerful bargaining chip removed the one thing inhibiting the full wrath of Tywin Lannister, which included welcoming the Freys and Boltons into his arms.

Except that the timeline doesn't add up and Tywin started planning the Red Wedding before he knew Jaime was released. And having jaime as hostage didn't inhibit Tywin's wrath at all, since his men kept slaughtering people en masse in Riverlands, including nobles who could seek retribution on Jaime.

Besides, I don't understand the argument that the Red Wedding would've meant the instant death of Jaime. Why would the Blackfish doom his closest relatives just to get a bit a vengeance on a guy who was at a cell and had nothing to do with the RW? He's too smart and rational for that.

Anyway, back to the original topic. Come to think of it, it's hard to blame the showrunners much for the changes. Even the most cursory examination of the way Catelyn is seen by the fandom would've revealed how much she's hated, and not in the "I love to hate him/her" way which still makes a character valuable for the popularity of a show/book, but more in the "She annoys me an awful lot, I can't stand reading about her", which is a big problem when it is about a major character. After all there are millions at stake here and they chose to remove many of the key things which the hatedom objects to, which had the unfortunate side effect of making Cat a lot more simple character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find myself coming down somewhere between these two positions, and personally I think Robb and Catelyn are actually fairly evenly balanced: to me, Catelyn's decision to let Jaime go parallels Robb's decision to let Theon go (with a slight tinge of him marrying Jayne Westerling), whereas her seizure of Tyrion mirrors his decision not to tell Edmure about his plans to lure Tywin in between their two armies.

In the first case, both of them let go a valuable hostage without any way to follow through that their exchange would work. Yes, Sansa was valuable as a marriage piece, but Catelyn didn't get anyone else to sign off on her plan (which lead to Robb losing the Karstarks) and she had no guarantees that the Lannisters would honor their side of the agreement once Jaime was free. Similarly, Robb's plan had merit, but he put the cart before the horse in giving up the hostage before the agreement was reached.

In the second, both of them made a strategic gamble which had merit and some success, but their failure to communicate with their allies meant that they couldn't have followed through with their plan. I'm spoiling some stuff I was going to argue in my blog, but Catelyn's mistake wasn't in seizing Tyrion (after all, she had every reason to believe that he was involved in a conspiracy against her son's life) but in how she surrendered control of him to her crazy sister and didn't really communicate with either Riverrun or King's Landing about ways to make use of her captive (like Ned issuing a warrant for Tyrion's arrest, which would have made Tywin's actions in the Riverlands open treason). Likewise, Robb's plan to trap and destroy Tywin between two armies was sound, but his failure to let Edmure know what he was doing meant that the plan only half-succeeded. Now, I'll argue on my blog that he still would have been in a favorable position overall had he either listened to his mother about Theon or if she hadn't let Jaime go, but I think portraying Robb as a well-meaning incompetant misses the larger picture.

Regarding GRRM's themes - yes, it's true that he chose Catelyn for a reason. (although I will note that he's said post-season 1 that they've made Robb into a more interesting character that he would have liked to do a pov for) However, it's a literary reason, not a cinematic one. Remember how people complained about not being able to see the battle of the Whispering Woods? Now imagine an entire season of hearing about war, it might be very rich in character (although it creates huge obstacles for avoiding show don't tell while bringing out Catelyn's interiority), but it would be cinematically unbearable - ten hours of Waiting for Godot.

So we need to see Robb to get that side of the war. And in order for us to enjoy that storyline, we need something more than an immature boy that at best, people are feeling sorry for. Keep in mind, we aren't going to experience the Scarlet Reception through Catelyn's eyes, with all her wrenching stream of consciousness. What Benioff and Weiss are going for is a repeat of their head-fake with Ned; they're building up another tragic hero and then they're going to cut him down and the viewers are going to care because they've invested emotionally in a character who doesn't come off as a bit of a thickie.

Regarding war as a theme, I think people are right that GRRM was a conscientious objector who's making an argument that war has no winners. However, he's not just saying that. GRRM has also spoken very movingly about the strategy of war, the intellect behind it, the glamor of it. I think he's also been quite critical of the idea that unthinking pacifism is any better than unthinking militarism - all Lommy gets for his yielding is a spear in the throat; Lysa's isolationism is shown as self destructive selfishness, and Catelyn's desires to go home to Winterfell and shut the world out aren't realistic. She doesn't think about what happens when Robb gives up the war and goes home, leaving the Lannisters in complete control of the South; we know they're not going to let Robb alone. Even if Tywin's willing to let his enemies off their knees, neither Balon nor Cersei are. And at the end of the day, the Others have to be fought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what, pray tell, would you have done differently?

I'm not saying that I'm better at politics than Catelyn, but I'm sure people like LF and perhaps Kevan Lannister would have been better at negotiating with Renly. Again, I'm not saying Cat is stupid, but I don't think she's as politically competent as some would have her be.

HAHAHAHA there we have it folks, the blatant double-standard, just a few lines apart. Awesome.

Actually, I think you missed the point here. I was pointing out that if you can't blame Cat for not foreseeing the Red Wedding, then you can't really blame Robb for trusting Theon. Personally, I think they both made bad choices there, but that's easy to say now in hindsight, and if you walked around not trusting anyone you'd end up like Cersei. About her trusting LF: again, it's easy to say now that she shouldn't have done it, and I understand why she did it... and it shows that she in fact isn't the best judge of character or the incredibly politically shrewd character that some seem to think she is. There is a lot of middle ground between being Ned and being LF or Varys. Catelyn is better than Ned at politics, but that doesn't make her brilliant... at least that's my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was rather dissatisfied with the way that Catelyn was written in 2x01 and am not feeling too confident about the way that the show is handling the Robb and Cat portion of the story. I mean, I understand that this is an adaptation and that things have to change, but I'm struggling with understanding WHY certain changes were necessary. The following is adapated from something I wrote on tumblr, but I thought it would be a good jumping off point for discussion.

Really, I think HBO just does not understand the Robb and Cat storyline. It seems like the show is playing Robb As Hero completely straight. I think part of that is a by-product of aging up the character. It’s kind of hard to sell Richard Madden as a Boy King. So in the books when Robb pulls the Grey Wind stunt with Cleos Frey, it’s immature posturing. But in the show when he does it with Jaime, I think we’re supposed to read it as him being bad ass which completely misses the point of his character (the point being Robb as a deconstruction of the idea of a boy king).

But the way Cat was handled was even worse. There were four big mistakes with the way Cat was written in 2x01.

1. In the books, it is Catelyn who suggests to Robb that they go to Renly in order to try to get the Baratheon brothers to work together to take down the Lannisters. I love that it is Catelyn who has the political mind to see this solution. The fact that in the show they gave that idea to Robb does away with the idea we see in the books that while Robb is a capable general on the battlefield, he needs help ruling because he's not skilled in politics and diplomacy. It also de-emphasizes Catelyn’s perceptiveness and cleverness.

2. I didn’t really like the fact that the only reason Cat gave for not sending Theon to Balon to treat was because Balon was untrustworthy. I mean, that is true, but in the books she relents and says that if Robb has to treat with Balon send someone else other than Theon. I think that in order for later events to be most impactful, it’s important that she tell Robb specifically to NOT send Theon. Her opposition to sending Theon also shows her wisdom. Theon is a HOSTAGE. He is their leverage over Balon. WHY WOULD YOU GIVE UP YOUR LEVERAGE, ROBB? Robb was letting his emotions and his affection for Theon make his decisions for him, so he ignored Cat's wisdom.

3. I was annoyed that Cat didn’t get her line about girls not being worth it. Catelyn knows how the world works and she knows that in Robb’s eyes his sisters aren’t worth giving up his prize hostage of Jaime Lannister. I mean, I believe Robb loves his sisters, but he also doesn’t want to risk angering his bannermen and they would be upset if he traded Jaime for Arya and Sansa. But with the line about girls not being worth it, it becomes explicit that Cat understands how the politics of it all is very gendered and how girls aren’t worth much in this game of thrones. And I think that is important to her character because she's a character who fulfills the gender roles of her society. She LIKES being a wife and mother and is generally traditionally feminine, but that doesn't prevent her from seeing how unfair her society is to women. I mean, I think we still got some of that it in the show, but it could have been done better and more explicitly.

4. And finally and most aggravatingly, I was upset at her line about it being time for her to go home. I mean in the book she does want to see Bran and Rickon, but she knows that her duty right now is with Robb. So her wish to see Bran and Rickon in the books is more of a “I wish we were all safe in Winterfell” or a “I wish I could be in multiple places at once” type thing. In the book she makes a conscious choice to be with Robb because she knows that he needs her more at that moment in time (Robb is trying to stage a rebellion after all, while Bran and Rickon are far away from the fighting in the care of trusted guardians). But Robb is a typical teenager about it, trying to assert his independence and wanting his mom out of the way, so he tries to send her away to various places. I feel like by changing things to have Catelyn want to leave Robb and be with Bran and Rickon, it’s like the showrunners are validating all the Catelyn Critics who complain about what a terrible mother she is for abandoning Bran and Rickon which is just... not true.

All of these things might seem like minor changes, but there are specific shades of meaning and nuances and complexity in the original text that I think were lost in the adaptation to screen and I just don't understand why those changes were made. The only reason I can see is that the writers don't fully understand Catelyn as a character and subsequently those changes didn't seem like all that big of a deal. But I guess that to me, as someone who loves the character in the books, those changes just really stood out to me and didn't sit well with me at all.

Agree completely! Catelyn is shrewd when it comes to this political stuff but emotional in her hatred of Jon and trust in Petyr. The dichotomy is important for her character. the producers are sacrificng her to play up Robb and that's not cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Nymeria Star Eyes and Vikingkingq have been the most reasonable and introspective on this thread so far.

I'll start by saying that a book is a book, a tv show is a tv show, and a movie is a movie. Tv shows are not books, and books and not movies, and tv shows are not movies. It sounds ridiculous and redundant, but I think it needs to be reiterated to more than a few people on this thread.

I think many people on this thread are truly underestimating the visual component in telling this story through the medium of television and the limits of television itself. It's why Catelyn didn't tell Jon "it should have been you" in regards to Bran getting pushed out the window. Without knowing her internal monologue, the intricacies of her and Ned's relationship, the complexity of the gender roles of Westeros, audience members would instantly write her off as cold and unsympathetic forever. That one line would have colored your perception of her for the rest of the series simply because you saw her say it and you saw Jon's face react to it. So we cannot compare Robb from the books to Robb from the show because a book is not a tv show. And we can't keep calling Robb from the tv show a "boy king" in the same way we call Robb from the books a "boy king." They are at least 6 years apart. And I think Benioff and Weiss were right in making everyone older. In my opinion, it would have been ridiculous to watch a 15 boy tell the GreatJon "surely he only meant to cut my meat," and to see a 15 year old rise as, again, the GreatJon says "there's the only king i mean to bend my knee to," AND I think it would have called Jaime's competence into question to see a 15 year old riding out of the Whispering Wood with Jaime in tow. I teach 15 year olds. I think the showrunners made the right call.

As to the Robb/Catelyn characterizations, again, it has to do with the limits of television and my initial point. I think HBO is really playing up Robb as the general who "won every battle but lost the war." By making many of Catelyn's suggestions and ideas Robb's, I think HBO is really leading us directly to the Red Wedding. To FauxKraken's original point #2, I think you're right in that it would have a big impact to have Catelyn advise against sending Theon and it does show her wisdom, but then you say it in your very next sentence: "Robb was letting his emotions and his affection for Theon make his decisions for him." This emotional decision making is exactly why he marries Jeyne Westerling, which is exactly what gets him (and his mother) killed. "Won every battle but lost everything." I think Robb sending Theon out of brotherly love is setting him up as one who, while a calculating, brilliant tactician on the battlefield, he very much acts on emotion off the battlefield, and hence, this will make his betrothal to Jeyne more in character.

As to the cuts, it has been mentioned many times, but the one that sticks out is someone up thread saying they didn't even include Catelyn in the "King in the North" scene in season 1. If Martin wants to write something, anything, he is perfectly free to do so. He can add another 100, 200 pages of dialogue, stream of conscious, or whatever he wants without consequence. Tv shows don't have that luxury. Again, I know that is redundant, but it seems to need to be said. Benioff and Weiss only have roughly 55 minutes to cover between 100 - 250 pages of text. And they aren't just adapting the chapter or the book, they're adapting "A Song of Ice and Fire." I remember an interview with Peter Jackson about adapting "Lord of the Rings" and he said (roughly, I don't have the quote in front of me) "we started with the goal of the story: Frodo destroying the ring. Everything in the movies needs to support that end, if it doesn't, it got cut, then we worked our way backwards." I think Benioff and Weiss, having the benefit of knowing where Martin is going with this, are taking the same approach. This is a story about, in its broadest sense, a supernatural, perhaps even cosmic, battle between a foe that has been laying dormant for 8,000 years and magical creatures that were thought to have gone extinct returning. Do the complexities of gender roles in the world in which this battle is taking place add to the story? Absolutely. You would be a fool to say otherwise. If you personally had the task of parsing down what will probably be roughly 10,000 pages or text into what will probably be roughly 70 or 80 hours of television, what priority would you assign the complexities of gender roles in a world governed by magic that includes dragons, krakens, sorceresses, ice demons, zombies, Hodor, ESP, Roose Bolton, exiled princesses, maltreated bastards, the faceless men, and the night's watch among many many others? I understand that is a completely subjective question, but if answered honestly, there is really one answer.

However, that's not to say they aren't dealing with gender roles, they just aren't talking about it. The very fact that this thread exists proves that there are perceived inequities in gender. I think the changes Benioff and Weiss have made have been to push the complexities of gender roles into the subtext, which, in my opinion was wise. It's not what you notice upon your first viewing, but if you watch again or with that issue in mind, you will see that Catelyn, Cersei, Danaerys, and others are treated very much the lesser than their male counterparts, they're just not ruminating on it (because, obviously, we're not inside their heads). If you notice it, will it add to the story? Of course. If you don't notice it and just tune in for the ice zombies and dragons, is it going to spoil that? No. I am very curious to see Brienne, though, as I think all this subtext will be forced to become text, and maybe we will have characters actually talking about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and FYI, I'm pretty sure that Catelyn's line about the girls not being worth it shows up later in the season, because I have a strong memory of seeing it in some promo video.

EDIT:

Also, I think the promo for next week that shows Jorah saying "they don't like the idea of a woman leading a khalassar" and Dany responding "they'll like it a lot less when I'm done with them" suggests than Benioff and Weiss haven't forgotten the theme of gender and leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the Red Wedding. Would Tywin Lannister have given Walder Frey and Roose Bolton the green light for that project if Jaime Lannister had remained a captive at Riverrun? The Blackfish held Riverrun and I doubt that he would have had any problems with killing Jaime as payment for the Red Wedding

Didn't you read A Clash of Kings? The Boltons and the Freys were already colluding to betray the King in the North long before Jaime was released. And in early ASoS, we know that Tywin has been fighting his war with "quills and ravens" long before he knew of Jaime being freed.

Morrigan- I love Cat as a character, and think she was generally a good and pragmatic person who tried her best the balance her roles as a mother and a powerful noblewoman. But are you really going to tell me she didn't make some spectacularly poor decisions?

Releasing Jaime was a bad decision based on emotions, yes, but I wouldn't call it "spectacularly poor", since it ended up changing very little for the Stark situation. Capturing Tyrion was probably worse, but that's only in hindsight, she couldn't have foreseen the consequences.

"Smart and sensible"? Cat knew enough about Westeros and the Lannisters to know that seizing Tywin's son at sword point was tantamount to a declaration of war- and she did this based on hearsay from the least trustworthy man in all of Westeros. If you wanted to make an argument that, considering the fact that her son had almost been murdered, this was an understandable move in such an emotional state I would listen to your points, but smart and sensible?

That Littlefinger is the "least trustworthy man in all of Westeros" is known only to the reader (and possibly Varys and Tyrion). Everyone else trusts Littlefinger, that's why he's so good at politics and manipulating people at court. And he was Catelyn's childhood friend. She had zero reason to distrust him. Nor would she have any reason to doubt his story about the dagger belonging to Tyrion, there was no obvious motivation for making up a lie about that.

As for capturing Tyrion, remember, she thinks he committed a severe crime (attempted murder on her son), and she's incognito and tried to avoid him but he called out to her. She was painted in a corner. The only possible decision for anyone would be to have him arrested for a future trial, not to just let him go while he was within her grasp, surrounded by her father's sworn bannermen. Even Tyrion recognizes that this was clever. And even he rages when he realizes she duped everyone by going to the Eyrie instead of Winterfell. Going to Lysa was, again, a bad decision... in hindsight. She could not have known her sister would have turned into a nutcase and spiralled things out of control with her stupid whelp of a son sitting as "judge" at the "trial".

What, exactly, with the knowledge that Catelyn possessed at the time, should she have done differently? Let her son's would-be murderer go free while there was a golden opportunity to capture him? Madness. Then, ride north to Winterfell only to be caught up by Lannister bannermen? More madness. It amazes me that people criticize a character for failing to be omniscient.

I don't think you've fully thought this through.

Already refuted by David Selig above. So speak for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the frustration that some people have when characters, especially ones who we relate to in the reading, change when translated to a screen. An example of this for myself occurred more than once in the LotR trilogy. Faramir was portrayed quite differently in script as opposed to page, as was Elrond. In the books Elrond knew beyond a doubt that Aragon was to full-fill the prophecy, take up the remade Anduril and ultimately wed his daughter Arwyn. In the movie he was against this union and even tried to sabotage it, only at the bitter end did he accept this fate.

Having said this, I believe that Catlyn's character, while appearing to have different motivations, is at this point still true to the spirit of her character. One must remember that an audience who is not familiar with the books knows only what has been portrayed on screen through ten episodes, and while ten episodes is better than one movie, it still has difficulty explaining all the subtleties of who she is and what her goals are at this point in the narrative. I have no doubt that her story will unfold as portrayed in the books, but possibly at a different pace. it is very difficult to show a character's true motivation without the inner monologue that a book provides.

And remember too, that George R R Martin is an experienced TV writer and is also is co-executive producer on the show. So I'm sure that the die hard Catlyn fans will not be disappointed with the outcome of her tale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One should remember that in the books she wanted to stay, to stay with her father (not really with Robb), in show, we haven't found a father weakened by sickness, so she doesn't have him to stay with, so why not return to her kids?...

And as for the show, Robb is older, you can't really have him acting as 15(?) year old boy all the time...

This is an excellent point as well. Since there are no scenes with Catelyn's dying Father, there's a lot less pull for her to stay around now that its been made abundantly clear Robb is a natural born leader and being proclamed king of the north. They turned it around so that Robb wants to use her as negotiator the way she did with Frey - which from a viewer's standpoint seems pretty reasonable that a woman's touch often softens the deals with men who may respond better to a "Mother's love" than the demands of another aggressive male.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the frustration that some people have when characters, especially ones who we relate to in the reading, change when translated to a screen. An example of this for myself occurred more than once in the LotR trilogy. Faramir was portrayed quite differently in script as opposed to page, as was Elrond. In the books Elrond knew beyond a doubt that Aragon was to full-fill the prophecy, take up the remade Anduril and ultimately wed his daughter Arwyn. In the movie he was against this union and even tried to sabotage it, only at the bitter end did he accept this fate.

Having said this, I believe that Catlyn's character, while appearing to have different motivations, is at this point still true to the spirit of her character. One must remember that an audience who is not familiar with the books knows only what has been portrayed on screen through ten episodes, and while ten episodes is better than one movie, it still has difficulty explaining all the subtleties of who she is and what her goals are at this point in the narrative. I have no doubt that her story will unfold as portrayed in the books, but possibly at a different pace. it is very difficult to show a character's true motivation without the inner monologue that a book provides.

And remember too, that George R R Martin is an experienced TV writer and is also is co-executive producer on the show. So I'm sure that the die hard Catlyn fans will not be disappointed with the outcome of her tale.

A voice of reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Releasing Jaime was a bad decision based on emotions, yes, but I wouldn't call it "spectacularly poor", since it ended up changing very little for the Stark situation. Capturing Tyrion was probably worse, but that's only in hindsight, she couldn't have foreseen the consequences.

I disagree. It was a decision at the end of her wits as it was based in a futile attempt to see her daughters again by putting her hopes in the good nature of... the Lannisters. It's a terrible decision, but it's interesting to read about because she's broken at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brewmaster: "Catelyn is mean to a fan favorite right off the bat, but Jaime also pushes a child out a tower window right of the bat and somehow readers are able to forgive him and Jaime is one of the most popular characters in the book. Please try to tell me that there is not some degree of sexism involved in that. Female characters are held to higher (and more unreasonable standards) than their male counterparts."

Jaime was very much unliked until AFFC where his character arc undergoes a complete transformation. It has nothing to do with the fact that he's a man, but with the fact that he redeems himself in the eyes of some readers. Cat on the other hand never goes through such a process. The two situations are hardly analogous.

Anyways, I agree with the OP. I think they have undermined her character throughout this episode. But I think every adaptation is going to have flaws at some point, and it's a little too soon to play the sexism card (she has seem politically shrewd in other episodes, has she not?) because of one episode. Yes, the authors have changed the character arc as a result of Robb's age, but this is a minor change. If you can't live with this kind of change, then I suggest you stop watching the series alltogether because there are going to be larger changes than this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why Cat has to be a political genius or the savior of the north to justify the argument that her character should not have been changed. Or that because she isn't a political genius or the savior of the north, that the particulars of her characterization don't matter. That's utterly illogical.

The point is not whether or not she was the north's savior. Robb wasn't the north's savior either. But the show didn't take away Robb's accomplishments and give them to Cat, did they? They gave some of her to him. Does Robb have to be the north's savior in order to give him smarts, impressive ideas? Clearly not, in fact they give him some of his mother's.

They also took away all the commentary Martin makes about how women are cut out of "business" matters by taking away Cat's conviction that she belongs by Robb's side. How can they ever undo that? They can't. What about that can change in nine more episodes?

At this point they have also totally silenced Cat's words about peace in the king in the north scene and given her idea about an alliance with Renly to Robb. Robb is supposed to be about war, all the peace ideas in Robb's camp came from Cat.

They chickened out and betrayed their lack of understanding of core -- not trivial, but core -- elements of a major female character, and then they went on a media campaign the week before the premiere trying to shore up Feminist Cred with the fanbase to cover their behinds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brewmaster: "Catelyn is mean to a fan favorite right off the bat, but Jaime also pushes a child out a tower window right of the bat and somehow readers are able to forgive him and Jaime is one of the most popular characters in the book. Please try to tell me that there is not some degree of sexism involved in that. Female characters are held to higher (and more unreasonable standards) than their male counterparts."

Jaime was very much unliked until AFFC where his character arc undergoes a complete transformation. It has nothing to do with the fact that he's a man, but with the fact that he redeems himself in the eyes of some readers. Cat on the other hand never goes through such a process. The two situations are hardly analogous.

Anyways, I agree with the OP. I think they have undermined her character throughout this episode. But I think every adaptation is going to have flaws at some point, and it's a little too soon to play the sexism card (she has seem politically shrewd in other episodes, has she not?) because of one episode. Yes, the authors have changed the character arc as a result of Robb's age, but this is a minor change. If you can't live with this kind of change, then I suggest you stop watching the series alltogether because there are going to be larger changes than this one.

You do raise an interesting point, I never considered that. I will say, having read all the books, that Jamie has certainly turned a new leaf and yes, Fans have somewhat pardoned him for his past transgressions. I don`t know about actually forgiving him, but certainly his deed involving Bran and the window has been swept under the rug. My answer to this is would be that George writes like few others, in that he sticks to the `human condition` in the telling, and this can be frustrating as a reader. However this very point is what sets the story apart from other works of fantasy fiction. The characters are unquestionably ``human`` and not the carbon copy hero and villain of most popular fiction. The question of whether Jamie is in fact good or evil is truly up for grabs when considering the scope of the whole story, who`s end we still dont know. Real people are harder to define than fictional characters because real people evolve and can change their viewpoint based on their experiences. I believe that George has mastered this human quality in his writing and this thread of debate is evidence of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding GRRM's themes - yes, it's true that he chose Catelyn for a reason. (although I will note that he's said post-season 1 that they've made Robb into a more interesting character that he would have liked to do a pov for) However, it's a literary reason, not a cinematic one. Remember how people complained about not being able to see the battle of the Whispering Woods? Now imagine an entire season of hearing about war, it might be very rich in character (although it creates huge obstacles for avoiding show don't tell while bringing out Catelyn's interiority), but it would be cinematically unbearable - ten hours of Waiting for Godot.

But this is a strawman. It's fine to show Robb's story. They don't need to change Catelyn, give her ideas to Robb, change her motivations and desire to stay on the battlefield, to show Robb's story. I welcome Robb's story, his battles, everything. But changing Cat in reaction to that is a separate issue and it's unnecessary to give fans handsome, epic Robb. If Catelyn wants to stay, if she gets to be the voice of peace she is meant to be, that does not make Robb look immature. What made Robb immature is marrying Jeyne, and I believe he will still do that in the show.

Regarding war as a theme, I think people are right that GRRM was a conscientious objector who's making an argument that war has no winners. However, he's not just saying that. GRRM has also spoken very movingly about the strategy of war, the intellect behind it, the glamor of it. I think he's also been quite critical of the idea that unthinking pacifism is any better than unthinking militarism - all Lommy gets for his yielding is a spear in the throat; Lysa's isolationism is shown as self destructive selfishness, and Catelyn's desires to go home to Winterfell and shut the world out aren't realistic. She doesn't think about what happens when Robb gives up the war and goes home, leaving the Lannisters in complete control of the South; we know they're not going to let Robb alone. Even if Tywin's willing to let his enemies off their knees, neither Balon nor Cersei are. And at the end of the day, the Others have to be fought.

I don't exactly understand this point, could you explain it to me? Cat doesn't want to just go home and shut out the world in the books. She sues for peace not to escape reality but to preserve and because she refuses to fight a war for the purpose of vengeance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I love the books and the show alike I have to say that suggesting that the story line is adversely affected by Rob and Cat`s differences from page to script regarding the war is a little premature. Its simply a more palatable way of telling the gist of the story on screen. If you have read the books you know how important these details are in the long run. The Red Wedding puts all this to rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...