StarkInWinterfell Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 In how to handle Jamie for one thing. Karstark wanted vengeance for his sons death, but she felt that he wasn't entitled to that vengeance because Jamie could buy back the life of her daughters. We all know how that ended, lol She didn't think they weren't entitled to their revenge. She simply prioritised the possibility (however slim) of saving the life of one (or both) of her daughters over the Karstarks' need for revenge. She was a mother and she acted as a mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeddinGuest Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Not that anyone is changing the Cat-bashers' minds, but... At least speaking for myself, I'm not "defending" Cat for what she said to Jon at Bran's deathbed, in that I certainly don't think it was appropriate to say. However, I can totally understand why she said it, it's not like she pre-meditated it, as I recall she gets really offended when Jon tries to comfort her about Bran's condition, she snaps "I do not not need your absolution, bastard" and things go downhill from there. I think it's rather silly to compare Cat to, say, Gregor Clegane, almost anyone can be defended as "not as bad as" total monsters like Gregor, Ramsay, or Joff. However, let's compare what Cat says to Jon, to what Jon says to Gilly. Jon, in a quite cold and pre-meditated fashion, actually threatens to KILL Gilly's baby, and consciously seeks to ignore her tears and distress, rationalizing that being that cold-hearted is fulfilling the "kill the boy and let the man be born" part of him. I think such pre-meditated cruelty is a lot worse than the kind of impulsive outburst Cat makes to Jon. Yes, Jon has the Greater Good in mind here, and perhaps this was the only way to get Gilly to agree to the plot, but Cat's certainly far from cornered the market on cruel, hurtful language in Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 nor was Jamie Cat's prisoner either. She still made the trade anyway, a trade the Lannister had no reason to honor and freed Cleos Frey on top of that a man who's freedom wasn't even part of the deal That still doesn't make her entitled. Especially, seeing how her actions were done primarily in hopes of benefiting her two young daughters by securing their safety. Furthermore, she perfectly willing to accept any punishment that Robb saw fit to give her for her actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chatty Duelist Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 nor was Jamie Cat's prisoner either. She still made the trade anyway, a trade the Lannister had no reason to honor and freed Cleos Frey on top of that a man who's freedom wasn't even part of the deal yea, yea, yea, she was sad so it was alright to give her the pass on this one, like so much else. go on compare her to Jon or Davos now or someone else, lol When will you stop rehashing arguments and actually start doing rational discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleRickon Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 In how to handle Jamie for one thing. Karstark wanted vengeance for his sons death, but she felt that he wasn't entitled to that vengeance because Jamie could buy back the life of her daughters. We all know how that ended, lol Since you are so willing to judge actions solely by their results, I have a few other statements for you: Tywin is the worst strategist, just see where he got the Lannisters by ADWD, lol Arthur Dayne is the worst fighter, we know how he got pwned at the Tower of Joy, lol Ned has the least honor, we know he faked his confession at the end, lol Maester Luwin is a bad advisor, we know how he lost Winterfell, lol which one do you like best? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee-Sensei Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 having her daughters go the KL after being warned not to send them there Wasn't that Ned's decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Since you are so willing to judge actions solely by their results, I have a few other statements for you: Actually, hilarious enough if you want to judge it by hindsight her releasing Jaime has come to favorably serve her family. In how,it helped bring about the scenario that caused Jaime to begin to turn against his family's interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 She didn't think they weren't entitled to their revenge. She simply prioritised the possibility (however slim) of saving the life of one (or both) of her daughters over the Karstarks' need for revenge. She was a mother and she acted as a mother. The mother that acted as a mother? If she were acting as the mother to Bran and Rickon she wouldnt have only had Sansa and Arya left. She needed to get the other 2 back because the two she WAS responsible for she believed had died, Now if she believed helping Robb was more important than taking care of Bran and Rickon that is fine. But wouldnt helping Rob then be more important than taking care of Sansa and Arya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crow's Third Eye Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 The mother that acted as a mother?If she were acting as the mother to Bran and Rickon she wouldnt have only had Sansa and Arya left. She needed to get the other 2 back because the two she WAS responsible for she believed had died, Now if she believed helping Robb was more important than taking care of Bran and Rickon that is fine. But wouldnt helping Rob then be more important than taking care of Sansa and Arya?If she acted as a mother she wouldnt only have Sansa and Arya left? Really? She would have single handedly.stopped Theon taking Winterfell? Interesting.interpretation is all i will say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Yawn, no one is saying the action was right but is hardly some terrible unforgivable act. Seeing how I doubt you attempted to knife anyone during this time of stress if they insulted you yet I doubt most people consider Jon scum for attempting to do that to Thorne after Ned's arrest. None of those are terrible actions, simply they might not be the most well thought out yet there are hardly terrible actions performed for malicious reasons. Especially, things like "leaving Bran" or "having her daughters go to KL after being warned not to send them there," first in how the later is not even true as neither her or Ned (who equally made the decision) were warned not to bring the girls to KL. While, the former just reeks of some weak stereotype that women should be obligated to stay with their children in how no one complains about Ned leaving Bran. Finally, again even if we take those to be some terrible acts they still hardly rank her worse then numerous of the other major characters in the series. For example, Jon bullies innocent Gilly into abandoning her innocent baby(leaving it motherless!!!), Ned takes a child hostage (along with leaving Bran and taking the girls to KL), Brienne openly sides with a known usurper, Davos was originally a criminal and sides with a man who cruelly burns individuals to death, Robb lead raids and pillaging of the smallfolk of the Westerlands, and that is only the other lighter characters. Cat uses the needs to care for her children as her reason to release Jamie that is not a weak woman stereo type. it is her own assertion... and it is an assertion she had ignored up until that time. Cat cant eat her cake and have it too. She was wrong about releasing Jamie or she was wrong for not being with Bran and Rickon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Cat uses the needs to care for her children as her reason to release Jamie that is not a weak woman stereo type. it is her own assertion... and it is an assertion she had ignored up until that time. Cat cant eat her cake and have it too. She was wrong about releasing Jamie or she was wrong for not being with Bran and Rickon. Bran and Rickon had care takers and were safe until Rodrik literally took every able guard out of the castle to oust 30 men durning an invasion. Leaving him was in no way a bad idea. Arya and Sansa was believed to be in the hands of mad men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 If she acted as a mother she wouldnt only have Sansa and Arya left? Really? She would have single handedly.stopped Theon taking Winterfell? Interesting.interpretation is all i will say Bran and Rickon were not dead. The problem was that she thought they were, If she was with them she would have known the truth. so yes.... simply knowing where her kids were would have fixed things. How come being with Sansa and Arya was so important but not Bran and Rickon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Bran and Rickon were not dead. The problem was that she thought they were, If she was with them she would have known the truth. so yes.... simply knowing where her kids were would have fixed things. How come being with Sansa and Arya was so important but not Bran and Rickon? Because they were in the hands of mad men what don't you get? What she suppose to do travel up the ironborn infested nake probably be raped on the very, very slim chance they take her to Theon and the boys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Bran and Rickon had care takers and were safe until Rodrik literally took every able guard out of the castle to oust 30 men durning an invasion. Leaving him was in no way a bad idea. Arya and Sansa was believed to be in the hands of mad men. They had been in the hands of mad men for over a year--- apparently they had caretakers too... and their caretakers held out against an army... Where did Cat have to take the girls that was safer than KL? Cat was the one that said she had to have her children.... as a justification for releasing Jamie... I have 4 kids two with me and two with mad men.... the ones with the mad men are alive... the ones with me are dead...Where would the last 2 be safest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Bran and Rickon were not dead. The problem was that she thought they were, If she was with them she would have known the truth. so yes.... simply knowing where her kids were would have fixed things. How come being with Sansa and Arya was so important but not Bran and Rickon? If she had been at Winterfell it would have been harder for Bran and Rickon to escape, thus they all would have been there when Ramsay tricks Theon and burns Winterfell. Thus, the only difference is that now Bran and Rickon are really dead and Catelyn is raped and flayed before being killed by Ramsay. Sansa and Arya are not more important then Bran and Rickon, the reason for the exchange was so Catelyn could sit by the girls' bedside but so that they wouldn't be in enemy hands. In contrast, until Theon takes Winterfell (an ability he only achieves because Robb decided not to listen to her) both Bran and Rickon are in the care of loyal followers not the enemy. If the North still held Theon, while Asha captured Bran and Rickon I am sure she might have been willing to exchange Theon for Bran and Rickon the same as she wanted to exchange Jaime for Sansa and Arya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Because they were in the hands of mad men what don't you get? What she suppose to do travel up the ironborn infested nake probably be raped on the very, very slim chance they take her to Theon and the boys? The mad men at least didnt get them killed. Children killed in care of mad men 0. Children killed in care of mother 2. Duty number one of parents keep your kids alive. Mad men make better parents than Cat. Either not being with Bran and Rickon was wrong or releasing Jamie was wrong. Jamie had been captive for a year and Cat spent no time with children she did actually have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee-Sensei Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 ^What children were killed that were under her watch again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stateofdissipation Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 If she had been at Winterfell it would have been harder for Bran and Rickon to escape, thus they all would have been there when Ramsay tricks Theon and burns Winterfell. Thus, the only difference is that now Bran and Rickon are really dead and Catelyn is raped and flayed before being killed by Ramsay. Sansa and Arya are not more important then Bran and Rickon, the reason for the exchange was so Catelyn could sit by the girls' bedside but so that they wouldn't be in enemy hands. In contrast, until Theon takes Winterfell (an ability he only achieves because Robb decided not to listen to her) both Bran and Rickon are in the care of loyal followers not the enemy. If the North still held Theon, while Asha captured Bran and Rickon I am sure she might have been willing to exchange Theon for Bran and Rickon the same as she wanted to exchange Jaime for Sansa and Arya. Nice hypotheticals... I do like them and they are solid. I really cant think of a time when Cat gave good advice. Things went bad with Robb's Theon plan. Balon had the invasion planned before Theon returned. Theon was under threat of death if Balon invaded. Umm Theon was not a chip Robb could have ever used. If they didn't kill him they were weak. If they did he was gone. Following Cat's advice or not would not have helped. But Robb did listen to Cat and made a wedding promise in exchange for crossing a bridge. He also tried to use salt and bread as armor at the red wedding. Ok Bran, Rickon and Catelyn die but Jamie is still prisoner. Robb still has the Karstarks and there is no red wedding. Robb and Jayne and the army of the North alive.. 3 others dead... Cat at winterfell is a win. ^What children were killed that were under her watch again? None actually but she thought Bran and Rickon were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee-Sensei Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Nice hypotheticals... I do like them and they are solid. None actually but she thought Bran and Rickon were. Bran and RIckon weren't with her. They were under Rodrik Cassel and Maester Luwins care. How can she be blamed for what happened? In fact, had Robb listened to her and kept Theon close they would have been relativel safe and left in the care of people loyal to House Stark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 They had been in the hands of mad men for over a year--- apparently they had caretakers too... and their caretakers held out against an army... Where did Cat have to take the girls that was safer than KL? Cat was the one that said she had to have her children.... as a justification for releasing Jamie... I have 4 kids two with me and two with mad men.... the ones with the mad men are alive... the ones with me are dead...Where would the last 2 be safest? With you away from mad men and away from an Ironborn infested North. Serously what happened to Winterfell was completely Rodrik's fault and Martin for pushing the most unrealistic move ever by having him take all the guards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.