Does Catelyn have any empathy/sympathy for other parents at all?

[Errant Bard]

At times she did, but most of her advice to Robb was pretty spot on.

Nope, at no time did she. Unless you mean that her motivations are emotional, in which case I have to point that it's like that for every single character. You think Robb going to war was not "based solely on emotion" like that, then, for example? Ridiculous.

[redviper9]

She excluded him from family events. Isn't it alluded to that when Robert and Cersei come isn't the first time he had to eat below the salt? I could have sworn there was other stuff, I haven't read AGOT in a while.

Cat did not exclude him from family events. The welcoming feast was the first time he wasn't allowed to eat with his siblings at the main table. Aside from that (and not being allowed to train with Joffrey), Jon was allowed to do everything that his siblings did. Cat wasn't jumping over the moon about it, and she felt jealous whenever Jon beat Robb at something, but she never forbade it. With the notable exception of the "it should have been you" incident, Cat seems to have done her best to ignore Jon.

[Errant Bard]

She excluded him from family events. Isn't it alluded to that when Robert and Cersei come isn't the first time he had to eat below the salt? I could have sworn there was other stuff, I haven't read AGOT in a while.

She put him in his place. Ned did not disagree. Not giving someone something he is not entitled to is not bullying. It is of course not caring or pandering either.

[Sansa_Stark]

Nope, at no time did she. Unless you mean that her motivations are emotional, in which case I have to point that it's like that for every single character. You think Robb going to war was not "based solely on emotion" like that, then, for example? Ridiculous.

I thought her pushing her "don't legitimize Jon" was done solely based off her emotions.

But whatever. And yeah, RObb had a lot of emotion decisions because he's an arrogant teenager.

I do agree that most characters act on emotions, but Cat does it a bit more consistently than some.

[Khal Iago]

Latter one. She did not act solely based on emotion.

I'll grant you I exaggerated how often she acted on emotion, but come on.

[Toxspecific]

She calls them useless mouths not because she has disdain for them, but because they are useless mouths in a time of war.

War that she started by kidnapping Tyrion. I wouldn't mind so much if she didn't want them in Riverun but at least thought something like

"It was regrettable, Catelyn knew as a mother how hard it was to deal with your children being in danger, but Robb had a war to win so Edmure could not keep his people in the castle during a siege."

Instead, she merely calls them useless mouths as if their lives did not matter at all.

And she does sympathize with Lord Karstark the Irrational losing his sons, but she doesn't agree with his immature cribbing about it and is right in doing so; he lost his sons the way Northerners would want their sons to die; in battle, as warriors.

I don't recall Catelyn showing sympathy after freeing Jaime. I could be completely wrong, but I don't remember her considering anything.

Her sympathy's pretty subtle in the text.

And as for you saying 'a war she started' not only is that very debatable, but you can even say it was the Lannisters who started the war by committing a crime against the son of Ned Stark in Winterfell. Bran. So saying Cat is to blame for those useless mouths isn't correct.

[Sansa_Stark]

Her sympathy's pretty subtle in the text.

And as for you saying 'a war she started' not only is that very debatable, but you can even say it was the Lannisters who started the war by committing a crime against the son of Ned Stark in Winterfell. Bran. So saying Cat is to blame for those useless mouths isn't correct.

Point out the subtlety please because I do not see it at all.

And I might have not worded the "war she started part" correctly. But I don't think it's debatable that Tywin only attacked because Catelyn kidnapped Tyrion. Who started the war(Stark or Lannister is debatable at that point)

[Errant Bard]

I do agree that most characters act on emotions, but Cat does it a bit more consistently than some.

No, this is just a way to dismiss her reasons. Give any character's name and I can list the "emotions" he based any of his decisions on.

I'll grant you I exaggerated how often she acted on emotion, but come on.

You did not exaggerate, you were utterly wrong in your desire to paint the character black.

But I don't think it's debatable that Tywin only attacked because Catelyn kidnapped Tyrion.

Tywin attacked because he decided to attack, and cannot stand a slight upon his family name. He's a prideful man, solely driven by emotion. (note: kind of funny that Cat gets all this "emotional" flak (read: hysteria for taking one man (and she did not even want to do it) because of two murder attempts on her son, and Tywin waltzes in and slaughters thousands (not "kidnap", note) because his son was arrested, and he's the rational, sane one, nobody discusses his reaction or tries to paint it as "emotional" or anything.)

Moving on, Tyrion was "kidnapped" (read: arrested), because a Lannister (and a "Baratheon") tried to kill Bran and someone (read: littlefinger) framed Tyrion. And those murders attempts happened because two men did not get to screw their childhood crush. One of those two men did it because of prophecy, and prophecy was created because of the Others. Ergo, it's all the Others' fault. (or alternatively, putting all the responsibility on one person or event is bloody moronic).

[Pinkie Baelish]

The whole Catelyn issue is rather perplexing. The flaws in her character, and the selfishness of many of her actions are clear to see. This doesn't make her the prime evil of the series, but it certainly doesn't paint her in a particularly good light.

She's no Cersei, but she's certainly no Septa either. She probably falls about halfway between the two extremes.

Now here's the thing: so many different readers would not independently arrive at this conclusion if Martin didn't deliberately write her character in this way. And yet, I find that on the board an extremely negative view is taken of attempts to point out Catelyn's flaws. People who geniunely point out the less than Catelyn's admirable parts of Catelyn's personality are swiftly painted with the "haters" brush.

I truly do not understand this. To me it is utterly clear that Martin did not intend to present Catelyn as a similarly sympathetic character to say Ned or Samwell or Jon. She is meant to divide opinion, and this is achieved by making some of her actions and attitudes

very questionable indeed.

The early scene where she acts incredibly hatefully towards Jon - the clear hero of the story - pretty much lays the foundation for this.

Anyway, to me this is just a a balanced way of looking at Catelyn, as opposed to the "whitewash" approach which excuses all of her less savoury acts by attributing them to grief and desperation.

Pretty much this. While it's silly to obsess over her flaws, it's just as silly to brush over them and try to excuse or ignore every questionable thing she's ever done.

[Toxspecific]

Cat took Tyrion captive after Ned told her about the Lannisters screwing around, blame Ned not her if that's how you're looking at things.

[Danelle]

The whole Catelyn issue is rather perplexing. The flaws in her character, and the selfishness of many of her actions are clear to see. This doesn't make her the prime evil of the series, but it certainly doesn't paint her in a particularly good light.

She's no Cersei, but she's certainly no Septa either. She probably falls about halfway between the two extremes.

Now here's the thing: so many different readers would not independently arrive at this conclusion if Martin didn't deliberately write her character in this way. And yet, I find that on the board an extremely negative view is taken of attempts to point out Catelyn's flaws. People who geniunely point out the less than Catelyn's admirable parts of Catelyn's personality are swiftly painted with the "haters" brush.

I truly do not understand this. To me it is utterly clear that Martin did not intend to present Catelyn as a similarly sympathetic character to say Ned or Samwell or Jon. She is meant to divide opinion, and this is achieved by making some of her actions and attitudes

very questionable indeed.

The early scene where she acts incredibly hatefully towards Jon - the clear hero of the story - pretty much lays the foundation for this.

Anyway, to me this is just a a balanced way of looking at Catelyn, as opposed to the "whitewash" approach which excuses all of her less savoury acts by attributing them to grief and desperation.

Very interesting post!

Catelyn's character is by no means perfect, but then again every character in ASOIAF has flaws.

GRRM in an interview stated that:

'Male or female, I believe in painting in shades of grey,' he says. 'All of the characters should be flawed; they should all have good and bad, because that's what I see. Yes, it’s fantasy, but the characters still need to be real.’

GRRM's characters are not perfect, flawless, wise creatures that always respond to injustice with acts of bravery and kindness. They are acting like real human beings. Feelings of anger, bitterness and resentment are evident. Catelyn's comment about Edmure's decision to protect his people and safely hide them inside the walls of Riverrun, is her reaction to a wrong strategic move.

[One of the strongest female characters is Catelyn Stark, in my point of view.] Well, I wanted to make a strong mother character. The portrayal women in epic fantasy have been problematical for a long time. These books are largely written by men but women also read them in great, great numbers. And the women in fantasy tend to be very atypical women… They tend to be the woman warrior or the spunky princess who wouldn’t accept what her father lays down, and I have those archetypes in my books as well. However, with Catelyn there is something reset for the Eleanor of Aquitaine, the figure of the woman who accepted her role and functions with a narrow society and, nonetheless, achieves considerable influence and power and authority despite accepting the risks and limitations of this society. She is also a mother… Then, a tendency you can see in a lot of other fantasies is to kill the mother or to get her off the stage. She’s usually dead before the story opens… Nobody wants to hear about King Arthur’s mother and what she thought or what she was doing, so they get her off the stage and I wanted it too. And that’s Catelyn.

Robb's father is dead, his uncle Benjen is missing and besides he is at NW, Catelyn must act and think as a mother and as a Queen Mother as well. Her double duty as a mother and as a political figure, forces her to take tough decisions and harsh judgements.

I never got the impression that GRRM clearly meant for some people to be heroes and others villains. Joffrey, Ramsay and most notably Gregor are cruel and evil, Tywin and Roose play the Game in their own way. LF and Euron seem to seek chaos. But the vast majority of characters are people,with flaws that react to extreme situations the best way they can.

For me there is no point in whitewashing a character, because it is like destroying the character. Trying to place a situation or a character in a black or white category makes little sense.

In any case, I always got the impression that her comments in regards to the smallfolk was meant to emphasize on Edmure's actions and decisions as Lord and how impractical his decision was, since in long-term he would have to face the consequences.

[The Farrison Horde]

I think that the "it should have been you" quote is an extremely harsh thing to say to someone, even when considering the fact that she was going through something of that magnitude. She can't really be blamed for feeling this way, but feeling a way and acting a way are two different things.

[rejndjer]

nice catch, really cat is only character i could hate as much as dany.

[SeanF]

Catelyn is quite correct. If Riverrun comes under siege, then the need to feed hundreds of non-combatants will jeopardise their chances. There often came a point in medieval sieges when non-combatants were expelled, and the besiegers refused to let them pass, so they starved to death in view of the garrison. Catelyn wants to avoid this.

[Daphne23]

Catelyn is quite correct. If Riverrun comes under siege, then the need to feed hundreds of non-combatants will jeopardise their chances. There often came a point in medieval sieges when non-combatants were expelled, and the besiegers refused to let them pass, so they starved to death in view of the garrison. Catelyn wants to avoid this.

Yes. I would also add that Cat notes in this quote that she loves Edmure for his 'soft heart' and hence is quite capable of appreciating the empathy that guided his actions, but she is too pragmatic not to realise that he also has 'a soft head'. It's not as simple as Cat thinking Edmure is stupid for being kind.

[David Selig]

Of course she has empathy and sympathy for other parents, plenty of it.

She knelt before the Mother. “My lady, look down on this battle with a mother’s eyes. They are all sons, every one. Spare them if you can, and spare my own sons as well. Watch over Robb and Bran and Rickon. Would that I were with them.”

...

Behind her the torch spit, and suddenly it seemed to her that it was her sister’s face on the wall, though the eyes were harder than she recalled, not Lysa’s eyes but Cersei’s. Cersei is a mother too. No matter who fathered those children, she felt them kick inside her, brought them forth with her pain and blood, nursed them at her breast. If they are truly Jaime’s . . .

“Does Cersei pray to you too, my lady?” Catelyn asked the Mother. She could see the proud, cold, lovely features of the Lannister queen etched upon the wall. The crack was still there; even Cersei could weep for her children. “Each of the Seven embodies all of the Seven,” Septon Osmynd had told her once. There was as much beauty in the Crone as in the Maiden, and the Mother could be fiercer than the Warrior when her children were in danger. Yes . . .

She had seen enough of Robert Baratheon at Winterfell to know that the king did not regard Joffrey with any great warmth. If the boy was truly Jaime’s seed, Robert would have put him to death along with his mother, and few would have condemned him. Bastards were common enough, but incest was a monstrous sin to both old gods and new, and the children of such wickedness were named abominations in sept and godswood alike. The dragon kings had wed brother to sister, but they were the blood of old Valyria where such practices had been common, and like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men.

Ned must have known, and Lord Arryn before him. Small wonder that the queen had killed them both. Would I do any less for my own? Catelyn clenched her hands, feeling the tightness in her scarred fingers where the assassin’s steel had cut to the bone as she fought to save her son. “Bran knows too,” she whispered, lowering her head. Gods be good, he must have seen something, heard something, that was why they tried to kill him in his bed.

First passage that came to mind, but there are others.

[TalalOfDorne]

If they let the people in, the castle will quickly lose all its supply, and that would mean both the people and the soldiers lives will be in danger. So nothing wrong with what she thought here, in fact, its what they should have done.

And what was Catelyn supposed to do with Karstark? Let him kill Jaime? People would have hated her just as much for going "Oh I feel for you Karstark! Lets go kill us a Kingslayer!"

Now Catelyn releasing Jaime without Robbs permission wasnt the correct thing to, but she put her reasons in the best words by saying: "The Kingslayer’s dying would not have bought life for your children. His living may buy life for mine.” And she is right. His death would not have accomplished anything.

And who says that she doesnt have any empathy/sympathy for other parents. There are plenty of examples in the books, and if I had the time I would post some.

[David Selig]

The whole Catelyn issue is rather perplexing. The flaws in her character, and the selfishness of many of her actions are clear to see. This doesn't make her the prime evil of the series, but it certainly doesn't paint her in a particularly good light.

She's no Cersei, but she's certainly no Septa either. She probably falls about halfway between the two extremes.

Now here's the thing: so many different readers would not independently arrive at this conclusion if Martin didn't deliberately write her character in this way. And yet, I find that on the board an extremely negative view is taken of attempts to point out Catelyn's flaws. People who geniunely point out the less than Catelyn's admirable parts of Catelyn's personality are swiftly painted with the "haters" brush.

I truly do not understand this. To me it is utterly clear that Martin did not intend to present Catelyn as a similarly sympathetic character to say Ned or Samwell or Jon. She is meant to divide opinion, and this is achieved by making some of her actions and attitudes

very questionable indeed.

The early scene where she acts incredibly hatefully towards Jon - the clear hero of the story - pretty much lays the foundation for this.

Anyway, to me this is just a a balanced way of looking at Catelyn, as opposed to the "whitewash" approach which excuses all of her less savoury acts by attributing them to grief and desperation.

Balanced, LOL.

Looking objectively at their actions and thoughts, there's no reason Catelyn should be less sympathetic than Ned, Sam or Jon. But being a woman of the non tomboy is a fatal flaw for many, many readers, and so is being a character type way different than the fantasy cliche.

I thought her pushing her "don't legitimize Jon" was done solely based off her emotions.

But whatever. And yeah, RObb had a lot of emotion decisions because he's an arrogant teenager.

I do agree that most characters act on emotions, but Cat does it a bit more consistently than some.

She's one of the most rational characters in the series.

Jaime and Tyrion, to name two fan favorites, act on emotions way more often but never get flak for it. I wonder what the difference is between them and Cat (or Dany)....

[Free Northman]

Balanced, LOL.

Looking objectively at their actions and thoughts, there's no reason Catelyn should be less sympathetic than Ned, Sam or Jon. But being a woman of the non tomboy is a fatal flaw for many, many readers, and so is being a character type way different than the fantasy cliche.

And there we go, with an exact example of what I was referring to.

[David Selig]

Yeah, what was I thinking making sense?

You know that Martin himself was shocked when he heard about the extreme levels of vitriol against Catelyn in the fandom, right? Ask Ran about it. She's supposed to be sympathetic. Of course she has flaws, but no more than the other "good guys".