Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Impbread

Catelyn was right about everything.

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Mystical said:

What are you even trying to say? Especially since Tyrion was not only making fine points about his innocence but his trial by combat proved that beyond doubt (in the south of the continent anyway). And Cat let him go.

cat made a mistake 

Are you suggesting you think Tyrion’s “trial” was justice? Wtf?

16 hours ago, Mystical said:

The fact that people have to point out to you that Westeros doesn't operate like our times with judge and jury and laws is frankly beyond disappointing.

Lol at no point have I used or suggested using modern standards, this is a straw man used by those who can’t express their own coherent thoughts.

I used the standards of the series itself, to the point of literally quoting it.

16 hours ago, Mystical said:

You said Robb, Not Cat. Pick one. Or discuss them separately, even though Robb has nothing to do with what we were discussing. This is getting confusing. Do you even know what point you are trying to make?

So when analyzing literature a common tool is to look for meaningful comparisons and contrasts.

Rob going to war over an imprisoned Ned is worth comparing to Tywin going to war over an imprisoned Tyrion.

But if that’s to much to think about at once we can just stick to the obvious things Cat got wrong.

16 hours ago, Mystical said:

And no, Cat abducting Tyrion started the razing of the Riverlands by Tywin.

Not just that…

16 hours ago, Mystical said:

Nothing more.

Wrong. Jaime attacks Ned, and this precipitates the assassination of Robert on his hunt. Also, sending Beric and company into the Riverlands, which if Jaime hadn’t hurt Ned would have been a trap for Ned.

The abduction of Tyrion is the first open act of violence which sparks the war, there isn’t really any debate to be had about that.

16 hours ago, Mystical said:

The war was started because of the twin fuckers having illegitimate kids and LF wanting his petty revenge on the Houses that 'stole' his girl.

You are talking about motives not acts of war.

16 hours ago, Mystical said:

And I ask you which came first: a Lannister trying to murder a Stark or a Stark apprehending a Lannister?

Did you even read this series? Did you read what you wrote?

People are not to blame for the actions of their family members.

Cycles of violence are bad.

One wrong does not excuse another.

Jaime can be wrong for throwing Bran out a window and Cat can be wrong for abducting Tyrion at the same time. Both are acts of violence against innocents.

16 hours ago, Mystical said:

And by your modern sensibilities regarding Westeros, Tyrion knew who tried to kill Bran and refused to tell anyone. So Tyrion is actually guilty of concealing the identity of an attempted child murderer.

Never used modern standards, this is silly…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Not just that…

The war start is related to Tyrion's abduction but it's only possible because Robert dies and Cersei seizes the throne, had the first not happened or Ned or some proxy taken control of the city, Tywin would have simply kept making false flags attacks until the end of time.

 

22 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Also, sending Beric and company into the Riverlands, which if Jaime hadn’t hurt Ned would have been a trap for Ned.

It wouldn't. For starters because that plan never made any sense and Tywin would not risk openly commiting treason like that.

The most important factor however is that had it not been because Ned got hurt, he would have been on his way to White Harbour when the news reached court.

 

Cat was wrong in kidnapping Tyrion, even when it made sense with the limited info she had (which was wrong anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, frenin said:

The most important factor however is that had it not been because Ned got hurt, he would have been on his way to White Harbour when the news reached court.

Ned didn't go because LF gave him a lead on the twincest/Jon-Arryn-murder. That's the important issue.

Varys said the queen had to act because the king was getting unruly. And it's true - Robert replaced his dead Hand with another one even more fixated on justice. Joffrey's succession was not safe - that's why there was a war. Anything else is a side effect, not a cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, frenin said:

It wouldn't. For starters because that plan never made any sense and Tywin would not risk openly commiting treason like that.

The most important factor however is that had it not been because Ned got hurt, he would have been on his way to White Harbour when the news reached court.

I don’t agree with this at all. The plan is pretty simple and makes total sense to me. But, it’s not worth arguing about hypotheticals, or we end up in endless unsatisfying rabbit holes. 

Suffice it to say, abducting Tyrion was a wrong, both in practice and morally.

2 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Ned didn't go because LF gave him a lead on the twincest/Jon-Arryn-murder. That's the important issue.

Varys said the queen had to act because the king was getting unruly. And it's true - Robert replaced his dead Hand with another one even more fixated on justice. Joffrey's succession was not safe - that's why there was a war. Anything else is a side effect, not a cause.

This is like saying the assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand didn’t spark WWI...

Nobody is saying there weren’t other things going on or deep seeded reasons for conflict.

The abduction of Tyrion is what sparked the war, and it was clearly wrong of Cat to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Ned didn't go because LF gave him a lead on the twincest/Jon-Arryn-murder. That's the important issue.

Not really, Ned did not decide to stay after visiting the brothel not that Ned was grasping the truth after the visit regardless, he was planning on leaving anyway. It was that Jaime got him hurt that made him stay in King's Landing for a week and made his peace with Robert and getting reappointed. Besides covering for Cat. God's know what Robert might have decided with Cersei whispering on his ear and without Ned there to "defuse" the situation, if that's what he did.

 

7 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

that's why there was a war. Anything else is a side effect, not a cause.

It's a direct cause however. You can make a pretty good case from their actions to the events that lead the war.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

that's why there was a war. Anything else is a side effect, not a cause.

It's a dumb plan imo, if Tywin was bold enough to openly commit treason on Robert's and Ned's faces he would gone to war right away and not simply waited until both of them were out of the picture. It's also quite telling that no one but Ned's guard say that.

It's a plan doomed to fail anyway because by the time Jaime confronts Ned, the latter had already resigned as Hand of the King and was making preparations to travel to Winterfell.

I do agree that kidnapping was morally wrong, although if you're under the impression that war is coming, a hostage to smooth things over is never a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mystical said:

But a Lannister did try to kill Bran. Who knows how things would have unfolded if that hadn't happened. Cat and Tyrion might not have run into each other.

No one knew that, so it's irrelevant.

1 hour ago, Springwatch said:

Even so, both Catelyn and Tyrion expected a rescue. And why not? Delivering Tyrion to the king earns nothing. Delivering him to a father that shits gold is a much more tempting prospect. And the Lannisters aren't locked up in their territory anyway. There are probably Lannister friends and agents all over the place, to keep them informed. They are planning a war, after all.

Delivering him to the King allows you to keep your head above your shoulders. All justice flows from the King, remember that. Besides, a Lannister is the Queen anyway.

They were "planning" a war only after Catelyn unlawfully kidnapped Tyrion.

1 hour ago, Springwatch said:

See? They both expect a rescue.

Of course they did. The King himself said that what Catelyn did was a kidnapping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

why do you think that?

Cat isnt some oppressed peasant, she is on top of the social pyramid and seems to be a proponent of duty and honor.

I’m using her standards, and the standards in the story, certainly not modern ones.

no she didn’t. That’s kind of the point.

She chooses to rush the judgement, and that’s on her.

Obviously she shouldn’t have been there at all, but those mistakes had already been made.

I’m holding her to the standards of the series.

It’s hysterical to me that anyone could read this story and come away thinking she was never wrong.

You really aren’t.  

You’re arguing that Catelyn should handwave the attempted murder of her son, by the man that the Finance Minister and Spymaster of the realm have told her attempted  to murder her son, in pursuit of some abstract notion of “justice.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

They were "planning" a war only after Catelyn unlawfully kidnapped Tyrion.

What? No! Cersei needs the red cloaks and the Hound for her coup. No way could they be persuaded to act for her and in secret from Tywin. Tywin is going to find out after all, and he is their paymaster. Therefore, Tywin knew about the coup in advance.

War in the Riverlands does nothing to support Tyrion - it's even counter-productive because it angers the king, and the king is 100% supportive to the Lannisters on the Tyrion issue.

The war is helpful to the coup, because it neutralises the river lords, the Starks natural allies.

ETA 2

Another aim of the war was to get Ned out of KL. That's stated somewhere. iirc

ETA

@Mourning Star and @frenin, the above is relevant to your arguments also. There was going to be a war anyway, whether Tyrion was seized or not.

Edited by Springwatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, SeanF said:

You really aren’t.  

You’re arguing that Catelyn should handwave the attempted murder of her son, by the man that the Finance Minister and Spymaster of the realm have told her attempted  to murder her son, in pursuit of some abstract notion of “justice.”

I don’t know how you got that from what I wrote but I think you are wildly misinterpreting me.

The “abstract” notion of justice is laid out by the text itself. It’s not just a core theme of the series, it’s literally the topic of the very first chapter.

Edited by Mourning Star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2021 at 9:05 AM, Mourning Star said:

Much like Hodor, Jinglebell is an innocent child, even if his body was that of a grown man.

I’m wasn’t talking about convicting anyone or saying it’s hard to understand why Cat does what she does. I’m trying to look at how the story explores right and wrong through her character. I think it’s really hard to argue that this wasn’t wrong, and I think it’s a very intentional moment by the author.

How characters use the power they have over innocents is highlighted by the story as maybe the single most important determining factor for judging them.

It’s not surprising that good people are rare, it’s hard to do the right thing even when it might hurt you personally or you really really just want to spite someone.

You are an honest and honorable man, Lord Eddard. Ofttimes I forget that. I have met so few of them in my life." He glanced around the cell. "When I see what honesty and honor have won you, I understand why."

Have you looked at any of the analysis of that scene either by LML or whoever it is he cites in his (been a while since I looked at it)? The whole Cat as a weirwood tree (bloody hands, carved bloody face, pale skin and red hair) and Aegon the fool as the greenseer or sacrifice killed to enter the tree? It's an interesting read and hard to disagree with - he has a lot more support than what I threw into parentheses. Anyway the reason I bring it up is that Martin obviously spent a lot of time on that scene's imagery and flow and I wonder if something like consistency of Cat's character was sacrificed in order to make that scene work on a different level. That killing was really uncharacteristic. It reminds me of Tywin in the sack with Shae in that it really sticks out like a sore thumb when you look at the whole of his character as we've seen it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Springwatch said:

What? No! Cersei needs the red cloaks and the Hound for her coup. No way could they be persuaded to act for her and in secret from Tywin. Tywin is going to find out after all, and he is their paymaster. Therefore, Tywin knew about the coup in advance.

Cersei needs the Gold Cloaks for her coup. Had the Gold Cloaks gone to Ned, both the Red Cloaks and the Hound would have been inmaterial to the outcome. The Red Cloaks obey the senior Lannister around and that's Cersei.

I don't see how none of that applies, the Red Cloaks were ordered to stand by Cersei and help the Red Cloaks to arrest Ned for treason, which was by all means apparently true, Cersei really didn't have more to tell them. 

I don't know how Tywin knows about the coup in advance, unless Cersei tells Pycelle.

 

 

1 hour ago, Springwatch said:

War in the Riverlands does nothing to support Tyrion - it's even counter-productive because it angers the king, and the king is 100% supportive to the Lannisters on the Tyrion issue.

There was no war in the Riverlands until Robert dies and Ned is seized.

 

 

1 hour ago, Springwatch said:

Another aim of the war was to get Ned out of KL. That's stated somewhere. iirc

I still mantain is a terrible argument, especially given Ned being likely to be gone to his domains.

 

1 hour ago, Springwatch said:

The war is helpful to the coup, because it neutralises the river lords, the Starks natural allies.

It's not helpful to the coup tho, like at all, it gives the Riverlands a reason to hate the Lannisters in a situation where they would have been split between the Starks, the Baratheons and the Lannisters. The Riverlords are a  famously divided bunch, Tywin's war crimes only made it sure that all of them followed Robb.

1 hour ago, Springwatch said:

There was going to be a war anyway, whether Tyrion was seized or not.

Likely, his seizure simply accelerated that part. Both Robert being in that fateful hunt and Ned sending his retinue to the Riverlands are due to that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catelyn is my favorite character in the whole series.

Overall, she has extremely astute political judgement. If she had been in charge instead of Robb, they would have won. (Don't declare as King in the North; don't release Theon; make common cause with Stannis/Renly against the Lannisters, etc.). 

That said, Catelyn's prone to making impulsive decisions if she feels her family is threatened. Kidnapping Tyrion and freeing Jaime are the most egregious examples of this. I would also throw in going to KL in the first place (this never made sense to me). Her loyalty to her family also blinds her from seeing the danger that Lysa and Littlefinger pose. So I'm not convinced by this maximally revisionist take.

This woman, who is brilliant and humane in so many ways, is ultimately undone by her greatest strength and weakness, her family. It's a Shakespearean tragic flaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Hoare said:

No one knew that, so it's irrelevant.

What does it matter what anyone knows? I was talking about cause and effect. If the Lannisters don't try to kill Bran then the whole timeline of events on Cat's end might have changed. In which case Cat's and Tyrion's paths wouldn't have crossed at the inn and Cat wouldn't have taken Tyrion prisoner.

5 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Are you suggesting you think Tyrion’s “trial” was justice? Wtf?

What are you babbling about? 'Trial by combat' is a 'let God sort out someone's guilt' trial in the southern part of Westeros. If someone wins it that means the Gods judge them innocent. Or do you not know what 'trial by combat' is or means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, this thread reminds me that Stannis is well, an idiot.

Always was and always will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2021 at 10:56 AM, Mystical said:

Even if you think said son tried to kill your son?

It doesn't matter what they did, a great house takes hostage the son of another great house they very likely just started a war. If they believe they have a legitimate grievance then the way to go about things without starting a war is to bring it before the king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, draft0 said:

Also, this thread reminds me that Stannis is well, an idiot.

Always was and always will be.

And an entitled idiot at that.

13 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

It doesn't matter what they did, a great house takes hostage the son of another great house they very likely just started a war. If they believe they have a legitimate grievance then the way to go about things without starting a war is to bring it before the king.

It would have been very unwise to just waltz right into the Throne Room and tell King Robert "I have reason to believe that your wife's brother tried to kill my son twice" without the leverage of having Tyrion in your custody.

If the Lady/Mycah, Jaime Lannister and the Elia Martell situations are any indications (which they are), you would be waved/laughed out of court by the Baratheon king (IF he bothered to even show up) and then have a target painted on your back by the Lannister queen and her very powerful family.

Even if Robert was to say yes, would Tywin, Jaime or Cersei even hand Tyrion over...or allow him to be captured? Cersei might but Jaime and Tyrion? Yeah okay...

And that's operating under the presumption that Varys and Littlefinger are reliable, truthful witnesses. Which they aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Mystical said:

What are you babbling about? 'Trial by combat' is a 'let God sort out someone's guilt' trial in the southern part of Westeros. If someone wins it that means the Gods judge them innocent. Or do you not know what 'trial by combat' is or means?

You got me, the issue here is that I didn't know what a trial by combat was, and didn't realize that it was a valid way to get to the truth. Thanks for explaining it so nicely! Have a great day!

Edited by Mourning Star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mystical said:

What does it matter what anyone knows? I was talking about cause and effect. If the Lannisters don't try to kill Bran then the whole timeline of events on Cat's end might have changed. In which case Cat's and Tyrion's paths wouldn't have crossed at the inn and Cat wouldn't have taken Tyrion prisoner

Why are you talking about cause and effect if it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of Tyrion's abudction?

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

It would have been very unwise to just waltz right into the Throne Room and tell King Robert "I have reason to believe that your wife's brother tried to kill my son twice" without the leverage of having Tyrion in your custody.

Thats exactly what should've happened. The King decides who is innocent and who is not.

If Catelyn couldnt prove that Tyrion tried to kill Bran(which she couldnt, because he didnt) before the King, then Tyrion would be free.

Even someone like Tywin would be forced to do what the King commanded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Hoare said:

Even someone like Tywin would be forced to do what the King commanded

The king commanded that Tywin stop laying waste to the Riverlands. Did Tywin stop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlackLightning said:

The king commanded that Tywin stop laying waste to the Riverlands. Did Tywin stop?

He didnt commanded anything.

I remember that Robert speaking against "kidnappings in the streets" however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...