Jump to content

Why I think Lady Stoneheart is much more important than we imagine


Queen Nym

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, HoodedCrow said:

Just for fun I looked up weir for weir wood. Weir means a dam basically. It’s designed to regulate the flow of water from a river, or a fish trap!
 

Martin is a deadhead, and the heart trees are named after Bob Weir, Grateful Dead's guitar player. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mourning Star, your thoughts are provoking.   Please forgive me if I lose place in reply.  Your post is long and I had to open another screen in an attempt to do it justice.  

22 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I have to strongly disagree with you here. Vengeance is just as human an emotion as love, and just as personal.

First and foremost, vengeance is part of Cat's character, and the road for her to get there was much of her arch. Perhaps the line between a Cat and a Cersei, both loving mothers, isn't as stark as one might suspect.

 

Vengeance and grief (along with justice and loyalty) are very human emotions.  However, they are the only semi humanity Lady Stoneheart exibits.  Same goes for Beric, though his justice and loyalty are much easier to get behind and interact with than grief motivated vengeance.  I would be interested in knowing why you find vengeance part of Catelyn's character?  Grief is apparent in living Cat's story, but she worked very hard at making peace, not exacting revenge?  In clarification, I don't see LSH = Catelyn.  LSH is not a person and therefore not capable of anything other than the horror of her final moments.  I could be wrong, but that is what I see.  

28 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Cat jumps to conclusions and wrongly abducting Tyrion on the King's road, using an authority that was not hers to break the peace and start the War of Five Kings. 

As it turns out, I think Beric is very much a part of this same arch, the difference between justice and vengeance.

It is Cat's abduction of Tyrion that causes Tywin to send Clegane to rape and pillage the Riverlands, and in turn which causes Ned to send Beric after him. Ned sends Beric because exactly because it wouldn't be personal vengeance.

Unfortunately for Ned, we clearly see another dance of blood and vengeance, and this is the crux of Cat's arch for the rest of her story so far.

And, at first, Cat seems to be the staunch advocate for peace, mercy, and wanting to see an end to the bloodshed.

But, it is a thin veneer at best, and mostly seems to be based on wild hopes of saving her own children.

Cat makes a seemingly legitimate effort to end the war here, coming close to getting the gathered lords to listening, but instead it results in Rob being crowned King in the North. But she begins, honestly, by admitting she would take vengeance on Cersei given the chance.

Capturing Tyrion certainly altered the landscape of the tensions in the realm and I see where the capture could be taken as vengeance.   Funny, I thought it was an (misguided) act of justice.  Cat believed Tyrion sent a killer to her little boy.  She made him answer at trial.  I'm sorry, I don't identify any of this as vengeance so much as justice.   That's not to say you haven't made some important points that I completely agree with.   I think we see this as much the same thing from different vantages.  

33 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

The parallel between Cat and Lord Karstark should also not be ignored in this conversation. Cat lets Jaime go in a desperate attempt to help her daughters.

So again, while Cat seems to be a proponent of peace here, it is really about her personal situation, something she herself realizes.

When it is Cat's sons who have died she suddenly changes approach entirely.

And this brings us to the Red Wedding.

Where we see Cat's last act is one of petty vengeance, worried about her word and her honor, it is entirely personal, and entirely human.

And the saddest sound was the little bells. Which is again highlighted in the epilogue.

And now Cat has come back, less human perhaps, and full of hate and vengeance, but those are as human as any quality can be.

Vengeance cannot be justice because it is personal.

I have to be careful here as I am not a Cat fan and find very little in her living part of the story to be anything other than self serving.  We are discussing the revenant of Catelyn with no pulse or beating heart or need for sustenance.  Her raging thirst for vengeance born of the horror of her grief is all Lady Stoneheart has to offer.  Was Catelyn surprised at her ability to viciously murder an innocent?  Was it liberating?  Did it even a score?  I think the answer is no to all.  It was a visceral reaction to her loss.   I think in those last moments living Cat expected Walder Frey would care as much for his as she cared for hers.  Cat was a lot of things, but murderer wasn't a quality I saw in her prior to that exquisite moment of horror.  I submit that vengeance and grief do not make a human any more than simple loyalty or a sense of justice.  Humans are multi faceted.  Humans hunger.

46 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

This is not the same as Beric, who also may have forgotten things and become a little less human with each death, but never lost his sense of justice.

Beric was about the cause, not the man.

We do see from Arya that Beric is still able to make jokes about being killed by Cleganes three times, so I can't believe his humanity is entirely gone. As much as I think love and hate are human, humor is doubly so!

In conclusion, I guess the point of this rambling was that Lady Stoneheart may have lost parts of herself and memories of Cat, the vengeance and hate were already there and are entirely human and part of her character from the start. In fact it seems to be the crux of her story arc.

Beric is a bit different from LSH.   He didn't spend his entire soul dead in a river of massacred bodies.  He didn't spend much time at all being dead and this may be the point as much as the deeper losses he experienced with each resurrection.  I think you're right and Beric may have retained more humanity than LSH.  That Thoros stays close to LSH speaks to his distrust of the monster Beric brought forth.  

While I agree with your conclusion I am trying to reach a little deeper into my pocket of fairness to Catelyn.  Catelyn resurrected may have been a less awful thing than LSH.  She could have been much worse, too.  I think a sooner resurrection could have produced a different character, perhaps capable of much more humanity than this creature displays.  Of course she died in most appalling circumstances.  Witnessing the betrayal of so many against her first born son never mind the horror of watching her son die seems a hard hard thing to rebound from.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Seams said:

Sorry, something may have been lost in my gigantic post.

Robb had a similar crown made for Jeyne: a bronze circlet with swords. I don't think Lady Stoneheart has Jeyne's crown, as we know that Sybell Spicer (Lady Westerling) took that crown from Jeyne.

As you say at one point, Catelyn seems to have Robb's crown in the hollow hill.

I don't think Pia has Jeyne's crown.

When I say that Jeyne could be a fourth Queen o' Whores, I was deriving this from the similar, separate crown Robb gave her, not from the crown we see in Lady Stoneheart's hands.

I'm a little confused by some of your other questions, but maybe I have just forgotten some of the details. Or it may be another situation where GRRM is deliberately vague about who has which crown - along with the original sword Ice, the original crown of the Kings of Winter / Kings in the North was lost at some point. The author sometimes gives us a "reborn" sword or crown or character when it is convenient to be inexact about some detail.

I am confused myself.   Sorry I misunderstood your words.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

Capturing Tyrion certainly altered the landscape of the tensions in the realm and I see where the capture could be taken as vengeance.   Funny, I thought it was an (misguided) act of justice.  Cat believed Tyrion sent a killer to her little boy.  She made him answer at trial.  I'm sorry, I don't identify any of this as vengeance so much as justice.   That's not to say you haven't made some important points that I completely agree with.   I think we see this as much the same thing from different vantages.  

Vengeance itself is often a misguided attempt at justice, or justice is often used as an excuse for vengeance, however you want to phrase that.

In the case of Cat and Tyrion, Cat (who has no right to be enforcing any laws) uses her dad's name to rally men to abduct the man she believes responsible for the attempted murder of her son, and attack on her own body.

This is a prime example of what Ned characterizes as vengeance, not justice. 

She is avenging damage done to her personally and this can never be justice.

Cat did not hold a trial for Tyrion. She lies to the men gathered saying she is taking Tyrion to Winterfell, but it is Lysa who puts Tyrion on trial.

29 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

Vengeance and grief (along with justice and loyalty) are very human emotions.  However, they are the only semi humanity Lady Stoneheart exibits.  Same goes for Beric, though his justice and loyalty are much easier to get behind and interact with than grief motivated vengeance.  I would be interested in knowing why you find vengeance part of Catelyn's character?  Grief is apparent in living Cat's story, but she worked very hard at making peace, not exacting revenge?  In clarification, I don't see LSH = Catelyn.  LSH is not a person and therefore not capable of anything other than the horror of her final moments.  I could be wrong, but that is what I see. 

Justice is not an emotion, it is not, and I believe cannot, be personal like vengeance, love or hate if it is truly going to be justice. (Loyalty, and vows, are a whole other can of worms).

We haven't seen much of Lady Stoneheart yet, so this is all speculation. But the way she holds the crown shows some memory for a loved one, no? And can you really feel hate and vengeance without having loved (and lost)? She has returned embodying one aspect of her personality in the extreme, but it's hard to tell at this point how much if any of the other aspects remain.

Beric admits he is losing memories, and seemingly will to keep going, with each death, but he still makes a joke and seems to care, nothing about his behavior is very inhuman.

While it's easy to highlight the times when Cat is a proponent of peace instead of war, she does so when it benefits her personally, not others (family before duty or honor), and we see that she turns to vengeance just as easily once her hope is lost, like in the quote above about Bran and Rickon.

Cat's death and resurrection was different, to be sure, and the loss of parts of her character and humanity appear to have been more profound, but what is left is still entirely human.

I think this is sort of a human internal reflection of the sort of imbalance we see at large with the seasons lasting years. Fully embracing the hate, without the accompanying love, like a winter that lasts for years.

However, I expect that her demise, or passing on, will occur when something breaks threw and melts that heart of stone, and gives her hope again. But, maybe that's optimistic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

Vengeance itself is often a misguided attempt at justice, or justice is often used as an excuse for vengeance, however you want to phrase that.

In the case of Cat and Tyrion, Cat (who has no right to be enforcing any laws) uses her dad's name to rally men to abduct the man she believes responsible for the attempted murder of her son, and attack on her own body.

This is a prime example of what Ned characterizes as vengeance, not justice. 

She is avenging damage done to her personally and this can never be justice.

Cat did not hold a trial for Tyrion. She lies to the men gathered saying she is taking Tyrion to Winterfell, but it is Lysa who puts Tyrion on trial.

Justice is not an emotion, it is not, and I believe cannot, be personal like vengeance, love or hate if it is truly going to be justice. (Loyalty, and vows, are a whole other can of worms).

I don't really agree with you here. Cat can't see the reason in Tyrion's arguments, due to her personal involvement in the case, but she did want to have a real trial for him. I think she intended to bring him to KL from the Vale, to put it before Robert, but I'm not sure. It's been a while since I read the books.

She was genuinely appalled by the way Lysa treated Tyrion ; putting him in a sky cell, rather than a tower, like a noble prisoner could expect, and forcing a (grotesquely unfair) trial by combat onto a dwarf. Tyrion outwitted Lysa and survived that way, which upset Cat as well, but as far as I can tell she did intend to have a fair trial for him.

The reason she lied about going to Winterfell, is that she didn't want him to be freed by Lannisters on their way, not to have him murdered. If that was what she intended to do, there was ample opportunity on their way to the Vale to have him be "killed by mountain clans" or "fall of a mountain" or something.

I don't think it's that simple to say that she acted out of vengeance rather than it off a sense of justice. Yes, she had been harmed personally, and yes she was convinced he was guilty, and yes she was also making the arrest, but in no way did she seem to intend to be the judge in his trial.

If someone breaks into my house, and I later see that same person in the street, and I make a civilian arrest (not sure if there are specific circumstances to make a civilian arrest, but let's not get into detail), am I acting out of vengeance? If I'd shoot him, sure, but if I basically hand him to the police, and let the justice system deal with deciding on his guilt, and the appropriate punishment, then surely I'm more driven by a desire for justice than vengeance, and that was exactly what Cat was trying to do. It's Lysa who messed up that plan, because Lysa was mad.

Cat wanted Tyrion to have a normal trial, she wasn't trying to murder him on their way to the Vale, she wasn't planting false evidence on him, and the reason she wasn't willing to hear Tyrion's arguments why it wasn't him, came more from her misplaced trust in LF, than her hatred, or need for vengeance towards Tyrion. And it's quite understandable that she has more faith in the word of someone she grew up with, and saw as a brother, than someone she barely knew, and didn't come from a family known for being trustworthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

In conclusion, I guess the point of this rambling was that Lady Stoneheart may have lost parts of herself and memories of Cat, the vengeance and hate were already there and are entirely human and part of her character from the start. In fact it seems to be the crux of her story arc.

Interesting thoughts. I have to agree vengeance and hate had to be there at the moment of death, to create the persona of Stoneheart. That's how it works. But the Red Wedding was a very exceptional event; I think the peace-loving, war-hating Cat was more typical - and being married to Ned probably strengthened that side of her character. The fierceness seemed to be triggered by 'family, duty, honor', which Stoneheart has mostly forgotten.

What strikes me is that Stoneheart doesn't choose bloody revenge - she kills bloodlessly, by hanging, on trees. It reminds me a bit of the entrails hung on the weirwoods. It's not a fire death either; I always thought fire and trees were incompatible opposites. Maybe the river heritage of her family works against the fire magic? Or the 3 days dead? I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Queen Nym great opening post, huh? We've got some food for thought here. I enjoyed reading the whole thing. Don't think I have a lot to add right now, but I'm very interested in anythinf happening in the riverlands. Stoneheart seems to be moving north, do you have an inkling why? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Springwatch said:

What strikes me is that Stoneheart doesn't choose bloody revenge - she kills bloodlessly, by hanging, on trees. It reminds me a bit of the entrails hung on the weirwoods. It's not a fire death either; I always thought fire and trees were incompatible opposites. Maybe the river heritage of her family works against the fire magic? Or the 3 days dead? I don't know.

Oh nice one...have not seen that put together so concisely.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i cheer on Lady Stoneheart, i hope she gets her vengeances big-time. 
all that she trusted & believed in was evilly twisted & ruined.  horrible; nightmare like. & totally bloody, unnecessary.   can't wait to see what happens to old snotty walder frey in the books (cause i have no idea how he 86's in the stupid tv show)   hey - make a thread of that - how do you think that old %$#&*@ is gonna die?


please note that some of ya'all are getting the book & show all merged like.  don't be a melder!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

LSH is important in Arya's plot because it foreshadows what she might become.  It also should predict what kind of person Jon will be when he comes back from death.  

Your comment triggered a recollection of Arya's experience when she is given the face of the Ugly Little Girl and experiences the trauma of her last moments.  Jon's last words were "stick them with the pointy end".  Yikes!

There might be some insight into LSH's nature in this passage:

Quote

A Game of Thrones - Catelyn VI

"We learned that to our sorrow, Ser Donnel," Catelyn said. Sometimes she felt as though her heart had turned to stone; six brave men had died to bring her this far, and she could not even find it in her to weep for them. Even their names were fading. "The clansmen harried us day and night. We lost three men in the first attack, and two more in the second, and Lannister's serving man died of a fever when his wounds festered. When we heard your men approaching, I thought us doomed for certain." They had drawn up for a last desperate fight, blades in hand and backs to the rock. The dwarf had been whetting the edge of his axe and making some mordant jest when Bronn spotted the banner the riders carried before them, the moon-and-falcon of House Arryn, sky-blue and white. Catelyn had never seen a more welcome sight.

I think a bit of foreshadowing here and also Ned's comments about Catelyn:

Quote

A Game of Thrones - Eddard XII

"No less do I love mine."

Ned thought, If it came to that, the life of some child I did not know, against Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon, what would I do? Even more so, what would Catelyn do, if it were Jon's life, against the children of her body? He did not know. He prayed he never would.

Ned can see no mercy or kindness in Cat concerning Jon Snow when it comes to her own children.  He doesn't want to know what she would do if their lives were threatened.  I'd say the ruthless dark stony part of her heart has existed for a long time.  

Also unforgiveable crimes has been committed in the eyes of the gods, when it comes to guest rights and kingslaying.  I think LSH is their instrument and she has been stripped of all mercy.

As others have noted, Arya could be on he same path.  She already thinks there is a hole where her heart should be.  The Ghost of High Heart calls her dark heart.  
 

Quote

A Storm of Swords - Arya VIII

The great dog. Did she mean the Hound? Or maybe his brother, the Mountain That Rides? Arya was not certain. They bore the same arms, three black dogs on a yellow field. Half the men whose deaths she prayed for belonged to Ser Gregor Clegane; Polliver, Dunsen, Raff the Sweetling, the Tickler, and Ser Gregor himself. Maybe Lord Beric will hang them all.

"I dreamt a wolf howling in the rain, but no one heard his grief," the dwarf woman was saying. "I dreamt such a clangor I thought my head might burst, drums and horns and pipes and screams, but the saddest sound was the little bells. I dreamt of a maid at a feast with purple serpents in her hair, venom dripping from their fangs. And later I dreamt that maid again, slaying a savage giant in a castle built of snow." She turned her head sharply and smiled through the gloom, right at Arya. "You cannot hide from me, child. Come closer, now."

Cold fingers walked down Arya's neck. Fear cuts deeper than swords, she reminded herself. She stood and approached the fire warily, light on the balls of her feet, poised to flee.

The dwarf woman studied her with dim red eyes. "I see you," she whispered. "I see you, wolf child. Blood child. I thought it was the lord who smelled of death . . ." She began to sob, her little body shaking. "You are cruel to come to my hill, cruel. I gorged on grief at Summerhall, I need none of yours. Begone from here, dark heart. Begone!"

 The maid at the feast isn't Sansa but Arya and the GoHH is referring to Arya's part in the Weasel soup episode, another kind of feast.  Arya is tainted with the smell of death by association with the Lord of Death (Jaqen H'gar).  Like the Medusa, Arya has 'serpents in her hair' dripping venom. That really sums up Arya's emotional state at this point.  She has a bucket list of vengeance and poison is a tool pf the trade of the Faceless Men.

I'm not sure that the FM will be able to convert Arya completely, or strip her of all humanity.  There may be a hole where her heart should be, but her list is getting shorter by the day and she has hidden Needle.  That's serves as a connection to someone she loves.

When Arya finally meets LSH, she won't recognise her as her mother anymore and I think she will be compelled to give her the gift of mercy.   

As for Jon Snow; jf Catelyn had no kindness or mercy for him in life; LSH is not likely to have any in death.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2020 at 4:51 PM, Manderly's Rat Cook said:

I don't really agree with you here. Cat can't see the reason in Tyrion's arguments, due to her personal involvement in the case, but she did want to have a real trial for him. I think she intended to bring him to KL from the Vale, to put it before Robert, but I'm not sure. It's been a while since I read the books.

I don't think this is right, taking Tyrion to KL would have changed a lot. However, there is no location where Cat can be both victim and judge and it be justice.

On 10/16/2020 at 4:51 PM, Manderly's Rat Cook said:

She was genuinely appalled by the way Lysa treated Tyrion ; putting him in a sky cell, rather than a tower, like a noble prisoner could expect, and forcing a (grotesquely unfair) trial by combat onto a dwarf. Tyrion outwitted Lysa and survived that way, which upset Cat as well, but as far as I can tell she did intend to have a fair trial for him.

What sort of fair trial could Tyrion ever get?

Yes, that is her reasoning, but it doesn't change how illegitimate her abduction was. Her entire case was based on her word and who her family is, and she was lying, not to mention wrong. This is not what justice looks like.

On 10/16/2020 at 4:51 PM, Manderly's Rat Cook said:

I don't think it's that simple to say that she acted out of vengeance rather than it off a sense of justice. Yes, she had been harmed personally, and yes she was convinced he was guilty, and yes she was also making the arrest, but in no way did she seem to intend to be the judge in his trial.

You are welcome to disagree, but I'm inclined to think Ned has a point about his distinguishing justice from vengeance.

On 10/16/2020 at 4:51 PM, Manderly's Rat Cook said:

If someone breaks into my house, and I later see that same person in the street, and I make a civilian arrest (not sure if there are specific circumstances to make a civilian arrest, but let's not get into detail), am I acting out of vengeance?

Emphatically yes, that is vengeance not justice.

On 10/16/2020 at 4:51 PM, Manderly's Rat Cook said:

If I'd shoot him, sure, but if I basically hand him to the police, and let the justice system deal with deciding on his guilt, and the appropriate punishment, then surely I'm more driven by a desire for justice than vengeance, and that was exactly what Cat was trying to do. It's Lysa who messed up that plan, because Lysa was mad.

Was that her plan? It's pretty clear to me that if she wanted to give Tyrion a legitimate trial she would have brought him to King's Landing.

On 10/16/2020 at 4:51 PM, Manderly's Rat Cook said:

Cat wanted Tyrion to have a normal trial, she wasn't trying to murder him on their way to the Vale, she wasn't planting false evidence on him, and the reason she wasn't willing to hear Tyrion's arguments why it wasn't him, came more from her misplaced trust in LF, than her hatred, or need for vengeance towards Tyrion. And it's quite understandable that she has more faith in the word of someone she grew up with, and saw as a brother, than someone she barely knew, and didn't come from a family known for being trustworthy.

She bore false witness... it wasn't Tyrion's knife that cut her, despite that being what she literally told the people in the Inn.

Cat's personal involvement makes it impossible for her to be anything resembling objective, and that is one big reason this sort of vengeance can never be justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2020 at 4:38 PM, Mourning Star said:

I don't think this is right, taking Tyrion to KL would have changed a lot. However, there is no location where Cat can be both victim and judge and it be justice.

What sort of fair trial could Tyrion ever get?

It never seemed to me that Cat intended to be the judge in the trial. I don't know what her exact plan is, but she was shocked at the way Lysa treated Tyrion, and she was also shocked by the farce of a trial Lysa gave him.

Quote

Yes, that is her reasoning, but it doesn't change how illegitimate her abduction was. Her entire case was based on her word and who her family is, and she was lying, not to mention wrong. This is not what justice looks like.

Her entire case was based on Littlefinger's word and the lies he told her. She was only lying about where she was going on order to avoid being attacked and possibly murdered by Tyrion's family. Her arrest of Tyrion was rash, and stupid, but I do believe she did intend to have a real trial for Tyrion, probably with LF as a witness that the dagger belonged to Tyrion. She didn't know that LF lied. The mistake she made was trusting his word. If LF had spoken the truth, Tyrion would indeed be the prime suspect. Obviously there was not enough proof altogether, but that is what trials are for; determining whether the proof is convincing enough. Arrests can be made before there's enough proof for a trial, that doesn't make it vengeance. Vengeance would be killing Tyrion on the way to the Vale, or killing his brother.

Quote

You are welcome to disagree, but I'm inclined to think Ned has a point about his distinguishing justice from vengeance.

But there's no indication that Cat intended to be the judge. The deserter from the wall in the very first chapter, is arrested. After that the people who arrested him call in Ned, and Ned is the judge. Cat made the arrest, and intended to take him somewhere where he could get a trial and be judge, by someone in a position to do so. I think she intended that judge to be Robert, because Robert seems like the only viable choice to avoid starting a war. Cat acted stupidly by arresting Tyrion, but she was not that stupid that she would flat out start a war.

Quote

Emphatically yes, that is vengeance not justice.

I disagree. Because you are not trying to determine the punishment for the crime. Arresting him, or calling the police is simply the right thing to do. A criminal is a danger to society, and SHOULD be arrested. Calling 911 is not vengeance, and depending on the situation a civilian arrest can be the better option.

Quote

Was that her plan? It's pretty clear to me that if she wanted to give Tyrion a legitimate trial she would have brought him to King's Landing.

I think her intention was to write to Robert/Ned from the Eyre, and arrange an escort to KL for him. The only person who could sit in judgement of this trial was Robert, and Catelyn knew that. She just didn't count on Lysa's madness. 

Quote

She bore false witness... it wasn't Tyrion's knife that cut her, despite that being what she literally told the people in the Inn.

No she didn't, Littlefinger did. She believed the knife was Tyrion's. If you believe something to be the truth, than you're not lying if you say that that's the truth. You can be wrong, but you're not lying.

Quote

Cat's personal involvement makes it impossible for her to be anything resembling objective, and that is one big reason this sort of vengeance can never be justice.

Yes, that's why she couldn't be the judge, but she can still make an arrest and let him be judged by an appropriate person. Arresting Tyrion was definitely stupid, and yes she wanted him punished for the crime she believed he committed, but she didn't punish him herself, and it's quite clear that she didn't intend to do so. For something to truly be vengeance, you'd have to do the actual act of punishing, and deciding what the punishment should be. Catelyn clearly doesn't intend to do that.

You are right that the arrest is an emotional act, but arresting does not equal punishing. By your reasoning any victim of a crime providing evidence to the police, is trying to take revenge, because they want the perpetrator punished. Any victim who would point to the perpetrator in a line up would be trying to take revenge. Especially if they're emotional, and angry. They can be wrong as well. But it can ONLY be called vengeance, if they point out a person who they don't recognise from the event, but know is the one who has been arrested, which is why they're not supposed to know. 

Taking steps within the law (and there's no indication whatsoever that Tyrion's arrest was illegal) to get a criminal to trial without KNOWINGLY providing false evidence or harming the perpetrator (and Catelyn absolutely believed him to be the perpetrator), is not taking vengeance. Taking vengeance is going to any length to punish someone. She didn't send men after him to kill him, after he won the trial by combat. She didn't do anything that was out of line. Lysa did, yes, but not Cat. She definitely shouldn't have arrested Tyrion, it was stupid and dangerous, and she had virtually no proof that he was guilty, but it wasn't like she was pulling a Cercei on him.

Catelyn is balancing on the line between justice and vengeance, but as long as she is simply trying to bring him before a judge, rather than being the judge herself, it cannot be called vengeance.

If you want vengeance, look at the trial Cercei gave him, or look at Arya..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Manderly's Rat Cook said:

It never seemed to me that Cat intended to be the judge in the trial. I don't know what her exact plan is, but she was shocked at the way Lysa treated Tyrion, and she was also shocked by the farce of a trial Lysa gave him.

I agree that we get no real sense of Cat's plan, and Lysa is clearly being unjust in her handling of the "trial", but this is part of the same story, and highlights the need for justice and not just a mockery of it.

Quote

Her entire case was based on Littlefinger's word and the lies he told her. She was only lying about where she was going on order to avoid being attacked and possibly murdered by Tyrion's family. Her arrest of Tyrion was rash, and stupid, but I do believe she did intend to have a real trial for Tyrion, probably with LF as a witness that the dagger belonged to Tyrion. She didn't know that LF lied. The mistake she made was trusting his word. If LF had spoken the truth, Tyrion would indeed be the prime suspect. Obviously there was not enough proof altogether, but that is what trials are for; determining whether the proof is convincing enough. Arrests can be made before there's enough proof for a trial, that doesn't make it vengeance. Vengeance would be killing Tyrion on the way to the Vale, or killing his brother.

But this is also exactly why victims can't be impartial in their own cases. It doesn't matter why she was wrong, the point is that she can't ever be reasonable when it comes to the wrong done her own family and person. It isn't ok to go around arresting anyone you suspect of a crime or who somebody else suggests might be related somehow to a crime. It's pretty insane.

And there are two issues here, the first is that she shouldn't be involved in any justice relating to her own victimhood. 

The second is that she has no right to be arresting anyone, let alone trying a member of another great house, the king's brother in law.

Quote

But there's no indication that Cat intended to be the judge. The deserter from the wall in the very first chapter, is arrested. After that the people who arrested him call in Ned, and Ned is the judge. Cat made the arrest, and intended to take him somewhere where he could get a trial and be judge, by someone in a position to do so. I think she intended that judge to be Robert, because Robert seems like the only viable choice to avoid starting a war. Cat acted stupidly by arresting Tyrion, but she was not that stupid that she would flat out start a war.

The King is the only one in a position to judge this, and she did not go to King's Landing, nor did she have any right to make an arrest.

Cat literally did start the war, her abduction of Tyrion is the first act of violence beginning the war of five kings. She broke the king's peace and the king says as much.

Quote

I disagree. Because you are not trying to determine the punishment for the crime. Arresting him, or calling the police is simply the right thing to do. A criminal is a danger to society, and SHOULD be arrested. Calling 911 is not vengeance, and depending on the situation a civilian arrest can be the better option.

Calling in authorities is not the same as arresting someone in a bar who is not actively committing a crime. 

Random people do not have the right to decide who is a criminal and who is a danger to society, lol.

Cat didn't call in an authority, she didn't stop a crime, she abducted a innocent man, lied about where she was taking him, and put him in repeated bodily harm resulting in the deaths of multiple men. 

Quote

I think her intention was to write to Robert/Ned from the Eyre, and arrange an escort to KL for him. The only person who could sit in judgement of this trial was Robert, and Catelyn knew that. She just didn't count on Lysa's madness. 

We don't know, but it's clear that everyone else sees what she did as madness and a crime, that's why Ned has to lie and cover for her.

Quote

No she didn't, Littlefinger did. She believed the knife was Tyrion's. If you believe something to be the truth, than you're not lying if you say that that's the truth. You can be wrong, but you're not lying.

It doesn't matter what she believed, that's the point. She knowingly lied about where she was taking the man she just kidnaped. That she was wrong about the entire premise for her abduction just compounds her crime. She shouldn't be involved when she is the victim and she had no authority to administer justice.

Quote

Yes, that's why she couldn't be the judge, but she can still make an arrest and let him be judged by an appropriate person. Arresting Tyrion was definitely stupid, and yes she wanted him punished for the crime she believed he committed, but she didn't punish him herself, and it's quite clear that she didn't intend to do so. For something to truly be vengeance, you'd have to do the actual act of punishing, and deciding what the punishment should be. Catelyn clearly doesn't intend to do that.

Again, she had no right to make an arrest, and it was morrally, practically and legally wrong of her.

Her intent doesn't matter, she was taking vengeance on someone she perceived as wronging her. She didn't follow and standard of justice and recklessly committed a clear crime herself.

Quote

You are right that the arrest is an emotional act, but arresting does not equal punishing. By your reasoning any victim of a crime providing evidence to the police, is trying to take revenge, because they want the perpetrator punished. Any victim who would point to the perpetrator in a line up would be trying to take revenge. Especially if they're emotional, and angry. They can be wrong as well. But it can ONLY be called vengeance, if they point out a person who they don't recognise from the event, but know is the one who has been arrested, which is why they're not supposed to know. 

NO, providing evidence is not the same as abducting someone. Think about how wild what you are suggesting is? If I think someone stole from me you think it's ok for me to show up in a restaurant where they are eating, and hold them at gunpoint, tie them up, lie to the people there about where I'm taking them, and drag them a few states over where I think things will be more favorable for me? It's madness, madness and stupidity!

It is petty vengeance clear and simple.

Quote

Taking steps within the law (and there's no indication whatsoever that Tyrion's arrest was illegal) to get a criminal to trial without KNOWINGLY providing false evidence or harming the perpetrator (and Catelyn absolutely believed him to be the perpetrator), is not taking vengeance. Taking vengeance is going to any length to punish someone. She didn't send men after him to kill him, after he won the trial by combat. She didn't do anything that was out of line. Lysa did, yes, but not Cat. She definitely shouldn't have arrested Tyrion, it was stupid and dangerous, and she had virtually no proof that he was guilty, but it wasn't like she was pulling a Cercei on him.

It is explicit that Cat's abduction of Tyrion is illegal. This is why Ned has to lie and say he ordered it.

Abducting and harming someone you believe wringed you is the definition of vengeance.

Again, that's not my assessment that is how Ned explains it in the story.

Quote

Catelyn is balancing on the line between justice and vengeance, but as long as she is simply trying to bring him before a judge, rather than being the judge herself, it cannot be called vengeance.

If you want vengeance, look at the trial Cercei gave him, or look at Arya..

Wrong, it is the definition of vengeance. She saw someone who she believe wronged her in a public place and acted violently against them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2020 at 3:21 PM, Queen Nym said:

First of all, Hi everybody!  I am new in this forum so I am very excited (and a little nervous) because this is my first post:)

Lady Stoneheart's importance 

In the past, I thought Lady Stoneheart's role in the books was only revenge, and that her biggest impact on the story would be the plotting of Red Wedding 2.0... and although I am 100% sure she will participate in the new RW and kill her fill of Freys and Lannisters, her role seems to be much more important than avenging poor Robb. Why? 

[An Italian fan] then asked George if Lady Stoneheart was going to appear on the show. George said no, that she’d been cut. He said if he were involved in the show things would be different, but he’s busy trying to finish books. (Speaking to fans at a dinner at Balticon in 2016).

here’s Martin in 2017 talking to TIME

"At some points, when [showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss] and I had discussions about what way we should go in, I would always favor sticking with the books, while they would favor making changes. I think one of the biggest ones would probably be when they made the decision not to bring Catelyn Stark back as Lady Stoneheart. That was probably the first major diversion of the show from the books and, you know, I argued against that, and David and Dan made that decision".

 

This quote seems somehow fishy for me. How could LS character be the first major diversion from the books if hers was merely a revenge arc? I mean, yeah, she can be the mastermind behind  the Red Wedding 2.0, but any other character could take her place: Arya, Blackfish or even bloody Jane Westerling, there is no need for LS in such as way that George considers it a "major diversion". 

George, who takes utmost care in revealing nothing about his story and future plot twists, and specially when it's related to the TV adaptation,  seems quite vocal about his disagreement with D&D in this point. Spoiler from TV show:

  Reveal hidden contents

specially if you take into account that in the TV show Arya took the revenge arc in the Riverlands from Stoneheart: what does it matter if RW was accomplished by Arya or LS?  

In an interview with Esquire China (translated by CNET)

"In the book, characters can be resurrected. After Catelyn is resurrected as Lady Stoneheart, she becomes a vengeful, heartless killer. In the sixth book, I still continue to write her. She is an important character in the set of books. [Keeping her character] is the change I most wish I could make in the [show]".

I searched in the internet and this last interview is from 2017. That year Game of Thrones released (July-Agost) their seventh season. Seriously the biggest change he regret in that moment was still that LS didn't make it to the screen? There are a lot of diversions that seems more important to me...

In my opinion, perhaps George R R Martin created this zombie Cat with a key role in mind. What if she is Nissa Nissa? Or she could be there for other reasons I can't fathom.

Playing devil's advocate, here Martin says:

"Lady Stoneheart does have a role in the books. Whether it’s sufficient or interesting enough… I think it is, or I wouldn’t have put her in. One of the things I wanted to show with her is that the death she suffered changes you."

Martin is a fan of Tolkien, but he always points how Gandalf's death felt cheap to him when he came back alive and more powerful. Of course LS sends a nice message that death shouldn't be so easy for your characters, but I think he can send the same message using Beric Dondarrion, and It does't look like a major diversion for me.

That's all, sorry if it was very long and excuse any grammatical problems, english is not my first language:)

My working theory is that while she is gunning for Freys, and Lord Walder in particular (although I doubt she will get him before he croaks), her main target is Roose Bolton, aka, the guy who drove his sword into Robb's chest with Jaime Lannister's regards.

I combine this with my other working theory that Roose is the son of the Night King and has been swapping bodies with his own offspring throughout the ages, and I think we will get a showdown between LSH and Roose (who by now will be Ramsay), in a fight to the true death. And I never noticed it before, but after reading some comments up above, this would be a battle between an ice wight and a fire wight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Wrong, it is the definition of vengeance. She saw someone who she believe wronged her in a public place and acted violently against them

You're wasting your sympathy on Tyrion - he's all about vengeance:

Quote
  1. ... Tyrion chalked up one more debt against the Starks.
  2. ... the fools came rushing forward. Tyrion studied their faces; they would indeed be well rewarded, he vowed to himself, but not quite as they imagined.
  3. Tyrion wondered whether the boy would think the adventure quite so splendid once the Lannister riders caught up with them.
  4. Tyrion had made a special effort to learn all their names, so that he might thank them later for their tender treatment of him. A Lannister always paid his debts. Kurleket would learn that some day, as would his friends Lharys and Mohor, and the good Ser Willis, and the sellswords Bronn and Chiggen. He planned an especially sharp lesson for Marillion...
  5. ... it had been hundreds of years since they [the mountain clans] had threatened the Vale with anything beyond an occasional raid. Tyrion meant to change that.
  6. Tyrion was about to tell his lord father how he proposed to reduce the Vale of Arryn to a smoking wasteland....

And that's just AGOT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...