Sexism in Catelyn bashing

[John Galt]

Folks, no more sniping at one another. This is the last warning.

Noted. I appologize for my grand entrance, and I had not seen the prior warnings. Hard not to get my hackles up at such things sometimes.

[Ran]

John,

The first thing that comes to mind is not wading in unprotected into the Frey's domain.

They weren't unprotected. He was surrounded by his battle companions and he had his army right outside the castle.

... went through great pains to describe him as somebody who'd likely not be ...

That may be, but they all "knew" what they were in for -- he would make Robb and Edmure humble themselves as part of getting even before reconciliating. He did exactly that when they arrived, and played along diplomatically. He played exactly to the script.

And then he decided to butcher everyone, despite guest right and time-honored tradition (there's no greater sin than breaking guest right) to the shock of the rest of Westeros (except Tywin Lannister -- who's quick, you'll notice, to disclaim any personal taint from the outrage). There's no reason in the world for Robb to ever think that Walder Frey might decide to butcher him, his companions, and his army. Indeed, this is probably why the thought never really crossed his mind, and it was up to Catelyn to make him take the important precaution of formally invoking guest right.

Not jump out of your seat and kidnap the son of the Warden of the West when you had NO PROOF other than heresay

What, and let the man who might have tried to murder her son (and whose siblings, as we know, _did_ try to murder him; and in fact, that's probably why someone was trying to murder said son, after failing to manage it the first time) get away from her, to get back to his family and warn them that the jig is up and that they need to strike hard and fast at the Starks?

If Catelyn were a meek kitten of a woman who never had cause to fear in her life, you'd be right. As it is, she did the only _reasonable_ thing under the circumstances. He was accused of a crime, and must needs stand trial, and in the meantime would serve best as a hostage to protect her family. This was entirely reasonable.

At the time, that was most unwise from a strategy POV

Jaime Lannister was worthless as a hostage. His being a prisoner never stopped Tywin from doing anything, ever.

[John Galt]

Re: John Galt

The same can be said of nearly every character. In particular, Ned and Robb are both just as guilty of making bone-headed decisions that led to the ruins of their family. Cat is not alone in this trait. Ned's naivety on honor caused him to first let Cercei go, and then to trust Littlefinger, and then again to trust Varys. Those are all irreparable blunders on the same scale as Cat's blunders. Robb gave up his campaign for love. He decided to dishonor his alliance with the Freys and directly precipitated the Red Wedding (textually, we know that Tywin was in communication with the Freys and he knew of the Westerling's plot, possibly that Tywin was the mastermind behind it all). Cat shared no blame in the Red Wedding. Her actions had been aimed to defuse the damage and she was the only one wary enough of the Freys to do anything at the Wedding. Your willingness to shift the blame from Robb to Cat despite clear textual support for otherwise renders your claim of "logic" more pathetic than laughable.

I 1000% agree that the same can be said for many characters. However, those are characters whom I enjoy as people regardless of their place in the plot line of the books. I cannot say the same for Cat. I obviously am not saying Cat is solely responsible for the Red Wedding. Has anybody actually ever contended that?

If you don't fine her POV chapters enjoyable to read, that's your call. But she certainly isn't the only "overly" emotional character. Look at Tyrion. His infatuation with Shaye has led him down some rash decisions and ugly paths. Is that not "overly" emotional?

What ugly paths did it lead Tyrion down beyond hiding the thing from his father? Tyrion is one of the most cold, calculating characters in the book. I don't think Cat has ever come off as anything even close to "calculating". She was emotional.

We can also look at Samwell. He is also an emotional character. Do you dislike all characters that show strong emotions?

I actually hate Sam's chapters as well. Funny. It's more cowardice and indecisiveness in his case that I dislike. It's not frantic decisions such as with Cat. Both based on emotion continually overriding logic though.

Perhaps your favorite characters are Hodor and Gregor Clegane?

Hodor cracks me up. He's good comic relief. I detest Sir Gregor as a person, although his character makes for a good story. Kind of like the a-typical, fantasy "champion of evil".

Is it possible that you qualified your description as "overly" as a way to pussyfoot around the real reason behind your dislike of Cat? Given the preponderance of characters, POV or otherwise, with strong emotions on display, isn't it likely that your use of that trait as an explanation for your dislike of Cat is just a coward's way of saying you don't like that character because she's female?

I'll ignore the last little barb. Feel free to discuss my other answers. Again Arya and Dany are both amung my favorite characters. They are female last I checked. Sansa is in the middle ground. I find it hard to fault her for her actions as she was merely a product of her upbringing. I quite enjoyed Cersei's chapters although I don't like Cersei the woman much. She still makes for entertaining reading. I really like Adrianne as well. Cat is actually the only woman I can think of of characters that I really dislike. I felt the same about Viserys, and I feel the same about Sam. I'm not really a huge Bran fan either. It's not that I actually dislike Bran, but I find his story and his character rather boring. The books as a whole and the characters mostly are really enjoyable or else I wouldn't care enough to discuss them on the internet. Women comprise 2 spots of my top 4 characters, and a woman comprises only a single spot of my bottom 3. Geez, I even convinced my wife to name our first child Arya because I enjoyed her character so much. I'm failing to see the sexist overtones in this.

It's funny that I can't dislike a character without some underlying reason.

[Piper]

John,

I'm replying to this post, but don't think I'm ignoring your one about your feelings towards Ned and Rob and Cat; I'm still gathering a reponse to that one, it was well written and evokes many of the same thoughts I had my first read through. I'll duly try to get back to it in a bit. On this one though,

The first thing that comes to mind is not wading in unprotected into the Frey's domain. Trying to determine if Walder Frey would be accepting of such a slight when Martin went through great pains to describe him as somebody who'd likely not be as opposed to be just like "Oh yeah! He accepted. Let's over into his castle with no protection and no contigency plans".

Doesn't this fall entirely into Robb's lap? Cat doesn't have the authority to change troop arrangements, nor can she stop Robb, who is King, from doing what he wants. Besides, they both know that anything other than giving in fully to Walder's demands means they can't get back north, in which case they are truly lost.

Edmure being much less of a catch than the King of the North... Again, they should have been suspicious of anyone; especially Walder Frey.

I think this is well explained away by Edmure's comment to the effect that "he's had his eye on me since I was born," and because it's a symbolic victory over Hostor Tully (who had refused the marriage in the past), whom he certainly dislikes for (amoung other things) the "Late Lord Frey" remark. It's really the next best thing to having Robb, and the groveling makes sense as making up for the difference (to some extent, at least).

[Lady Blackfish]

John Galt, it has been often stated that this is not about picking on an individual's opinions. It is assumed that if one is offering contributions, they are meant in the spirit of the original poster's intentions in starting the thread. Several people have tried to reiterate what this thread is about, the other General Chatter thread from which this grew was clearly named in the first post also. How much clearer can it be made what kind of discussion being attempted here?

You do not have to have a reason for anything, nobody is going to come over and hold a gun to your head.

If it isn't clear by now I don't know what else to say. It is getting very frustrating to have the type of conversation that was intended to be had here. This is not an "air out your opinion on Cat and see if it passes the inquisition" thread. How many times does it have to be said?

[Lord Mord]

JG,

IMO, he was portrayed in a such a way that it was nearly impossible not to fall in love his character half way through the book. When he ultimately brought destruction to House Stark by tipping his hand to Cersei, you already loved the guy, so it was hard to fault him too much. He was just doing what he saw as the "honorable" thing.

Okay, great. But why is that your opinion? You say "he was portrayed in such a way," but what about the portrayal made it so easy to fall in love with his character? And then, by saying "portrayed in such a way," I get the impression you're hinting the author intends us to fall in love with Ned. OTOH, this is not about what the author wants us to feel for Ned, but about what we actually feel for him.

The distinction is an important one, because thread is meant to discuss why some regard Catelyn in a harsher light than Ned. Even saying, "The author made me think it," is insufficient, because all the author can do is relate the events -- it's up to us to make sense of them. Therefore, if your sense is that Ned is much more sympathetic than Catelyn, it's up to you to demonstrate why that is a superior judgment, by establishing conditional premises, and giving us text from the books which substantiates your conclusion based on those premises.

Then you have Cat. Almost immediately in the story she is erratic and emotional. She urges Ned to be the Hand when he might otherwise have rejected it. That is merely something to pin on her in hindsight though.

Then you would have done better to omit the point.

At the time, its not like you were wishing for he to shut her yap then and there.

She's his wife and one of his most trusted counsellors and a friend. I think Ned would bristle at your characterization of her having "a yap" to be shut. If you love him so much, I think it best if you would respect his feelings in the matter. Certainly the use of "yap" is loaded.

It is really the fact she came off so frantic and erratic for me.

Okay. Have you any textual examples?

Some say she had good reason because of what had happenned to Bran, but she had a responsibility to not only her family, but of all the people who composed Winterfell/The North to keep a clear head and put the welfare and safety of them into her mind and to add weight to her decisions.

She had a moment of human weakness that has very little to do with actual overall weakness of character, and rather more to do with the unreasonable demands of her position -- and then she got over it.

I suppose, if you were expecting a superhuman device, instead of an impassioned mother, you would be disappointed in Catelyn's character at this point. I don't like to think that's what you expected, but you don't give her much choice.

Her actions put me ill at ease almost immediately and it never seemed to stop. That's not to say I wouldn't feel for any person, man or woman, put into that position, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy the character.

Okay, let's not be careful not to conflate two separate ideas. What is meant to be discussed here is not whether we enjoyed the character -- whether we like her or not, I should hope that we all enjoyed her, or else the series must have really dragged for some of us -- but whether we like her as a person. Is she pleasant/witty/intelligent/capable/genuine/careful/generous/sweet -- some combination thereof, or all of the above? Or is she grumpy/plain/thick-witted/bungling/deceitful/reckless/miserly/sour -- ditto?

In any case, nobody's saying you have to enjoy her character. Nobody's even saying you have to like her. Basically, this thread is for people who have something they feel they have to prove: "I dislike Catelyn, and my reasons for disliking her are purely logical." If you admit you have biases, and don't particularly want to examine them, don't bother with this thread. If you believe you have no biases but don't particularly need to prove it to us, then don't bother with this thread.

But if you are going to post here, then you will be, reasonably, expected to posit evidence to support your claims that Catelyn is unlikeable, and to keep yourself open for that inspection, not free to then turn and hide behind your freedom to have an opinion at all -- which is already stipulated.

If this seems a little like jumping the gun, I apologize. I merely want to set the ground rules early; these kind of points come up often.

Robb was but a boy thrust into a man's situation; a situation which he rose to meet. He was forced to grow up quickly and without the continued guidance of his father, and he did a rather remarkable job. He faltered where many young men falter... hormones.

And Catelyn faltered where a mother may be expected to falter, where she had rather less responsibility than Robb. Robb was responsible for an entire army, dozens of castles and lords, and an entire kingdom, to say nothing of his whole family. Catelyn had charge of a part of that family and only one castle. Robb may have been a boy to Catelyn's being a grown woman, but if Robb couldn't handle being king, he should never have taken up that mantle. The fact that he did makes a comparison to Catelyn's failings, at worst, a wash.

True, all of Winterfell depended on him and his wise actions too, but again at least I had a grace period to learn to like Robb the boy/man.

Okay, now we are getting to the heart of a new perspective on this matter -- at least new to this particular iteration of discussing Catelyn-hatred.

Your primary claim, if I understand you, is that you cannot be expected to like Catelyn, because her poor decisions came without having had a period of getting-to-know-her warmth first. You are also talking about Robb and Ned, and you are saying that youmay well be expected to like them by comparison, because at least you'd gotten that warm-fuzzy time with them first.

If that's how you function, that's your perogative.

However, I would ask you if that's really fair to Catelyn. The author doesn't take an opprotunity to show you Catelyn's warmest, most gracious side, and consequently you write her off as unlikeable?

That is in stark (wank wank no pun intended) contrast to Cat.

In stark contrast to Cat, whose motives were what?

Overall, your argument is long on very broad impressions why Robb and Ned are likeable, and very short on even broad impressions why Cat is not. In neither case does your argument to date provide specific points underscoring these broad impressions.

[DanteGabriel]

I obviously am not saying Cat is solely responsible for the Red Wedding. Has anybody actually ever contended that?

"Obviously" I, and others, misread your initial post, then.

I hate Cat. She caused all her pain by first insisting that Ned be Robert's Hand, kidnapping Tyrion, and then by insisting that Robb make amends with the Freys and leading him to the Red Wedding.

You said some things later to moderate it, but an opening like that, especially in a thread where we have been dissecting the many dozens of posts that open up exactly like yours, is bound to draw some negative reaction. It's bound to get you pigeon-holed, perhaps unfairly, as an irrational and perhaps sexist Catelyn-hater. If you couldn't be bothered to read the rest of the thread before posting this, the blame lies at least as much on you as it does on those of us who assumed you to be one of many irrational Catelyn-haters. How could we not, when you start with "I hate Cat"?

What ugly paths did it lead Tyrion down beyond hiding the thing from his father? Tyrion is one of the most cold, calculating characters in the book. I don't think Cat has ever come off as anything even close to "calculating". She was emotional.

Tyrion's emotional weakness for Shae (and Alayaya) caused him to threaten Cersei that he'd torture Tommen and turn her joy to ashes on an unspecified day, a threat that later became one of the most damning pieces of evidence against him. Tyrion's emotions led him to trust Varys too much because he needed her to protect Shae.

And Catelyn has had her moments of calculation. She saved Brienne's (a character you have professed to enjoy, no?) life in Renly's tent with some quick thinking. She was right in advising Robb not to send Theon as an emissary to the Greyjoys. She was instrumental in helping Robb get through his initial difficulties with his bannermen -- counseling him on how to show strength for his lords, and what kind of man ought to lead the foot host that would keep Tywin busy while he rode for Riverrun. She had enough sense to see all of Lysa's mistakes in dealing with Tyrion and the trial at the Eyrie. She reasoned with the lords of the North and the Trident when trying to get them to sue for peace, right before the Greatjon crowned Robb.

Should we hold it against her that some of her good advice was ignored while some of her bad advice was followed?

Of course Catelyn was emotional. I'd be pretty emotional too if my family was dying in bits and pieces around me. You seem to be damning her for her emotional responses for things while preaching that you shouldn't have to defend your own emotional reaction to her. But she's shown that she's capable of thought and sound, rational advice, and is not just one bundle of poorly considered emotional responses.

[DanteGabriel]

What I basically want to say is that the patriarchal setting may predispose a reader to judge Catelyn by the gender-biased standards of the society she is in, yet the authority for the setting ultimately derives from the fact that it is included in the narrative.

(snip the rest for brevity)

LB, I just have to say, I wish I could have expressed myself this thoroughly and eloquently, and that I never thought I'd find myself nodding in agreement so many times with a post that uses the word "patriarchy" that often.

[salinea]

Ladyy Blackfish, that was awesome :bow:

[Lord Mord]

DG,

Bravo. As always, when seriously engaged you are formidable.

[John Galt]

John,

They weren't unprotected. He was surrounded by his battle companions and he had his army right outside the castle.

Right. He had plenty of protection... just on the opposite side of a castle wall that would take weeks to take in a seige while leaving yourself open to be taken in the flank. The castle is the anvil, and the arriving force is the hammer... Poorly thought out.

That may be, but they all "knew" what they were in for -- he would make Robb and Edmure humble themselves as part of getting even before reconciliating. He did exactly that when they arrived, and played along diplomatically. He played exactly to the script.

And then he decided to butcher everyone, despite guest right and time-honored tradition (there's no greater sin than breaking guest right) to the shock of the rest of Westeros (except Tywin Lannister -- who's quick, you'll notice, to disclaim any personal taint from the outrage). There's no reason in the world for Robb to ever think that Walder Frey might decide to butcher him, his companions, and his army. Indeed, this is probably why the thought never really crossed his mind, and it was up to Catelyn to make him take the important precaution of formally invoking guest right.

That's all they cared to think about. Ignorance and naivite is no excuse.

What, and let the man who might have tried to murder her son (and whose siblings, as we know, _did_ try to murder him; and in fact, that's probably why someone was trying to murder said son, after failing to manage it the first time) get away from her, to get back to his family and warn them that the jig is up and that they need to strike hard and fast at the Starks?

If Catelyn were a meek kitten of a woman who never had cause to fear in her life, you'd be right. As it is, she did the only _reasonable_ thing under the circumstances. He was accused of a crime, and must needs stand trial, and in the meantime would serve best as a hostage to protect her family. This was entirely reasonable.

Jaime Lannister was worthless as a hostage. His being a prisoner never stopped Tywin from doing anything, ever.

The man whom you had no proof of anything other than heresay. In today's world, I doubt they'd get a warrant for his arrest, yet Cat is convinced of it on heresay and the fact that the heresay says he had possession of that dagger at some point prior to the assassination. Tyrion had no motive, and Cat had no proof.

Grabbing the son of a powerful house is not reasonable, and hoping that in the mean time evidence will surface is not reasonable. Thinking this house is about to crash down on you under the circumstances prior to this is not reasonable. Cat does not need to be meek, she nearly needs to think. She didn't. Even if she was convinced of his guilt and knew she couldn't prove it, at the very least she could move to have him killed from the shadows in a tragic "accident" as opposed to being completely wreckless.

[Mormegil]

Aren't the alternatives rather obvious? Not jump out of your seat and kidnap the son of the Warden of the West when you had NO PROOF other than heresay and he'd obviously be freed in any trial that didn't reek of bias, which obviously the Warden of the West would not sit idly by at such a trial. It's not like Tywin wasn't one of the greatest strategists in both battle and politics in the Kingdom... Best not upset the man without rock solid proof.

I really do hate the way this situation is constantly misread by so many people. Catelyn did not set out to kidnap Tyrion. In fact, when first she sees him enter the Inn, she tries to hide from him. She does not want trouble. However, when he sees her, things change. Remember, she was convinced at this point that the Lannisters, including Tyrion, had already murdered Jon Arryn and attempted to murder Bran. She was travelling in secret from King's Landing back to the North. She even keeps her identity secret from her father's bannermen because of the danger she thinks she'll be in if the Lannisters find out she's even been to King's Landing. If you imagine for a moment that the Lannisters really had been behind all the plotting, with her secrecy broken through no fault of her own, it is not unreasonable to think she is in real danger from Tyrion and his guards (remember, she only has one companion herself at that point!). Going on the offensive right there, where she has people she can sway to her cause, seems to me the only reasonable option she had.

I for one don't want to accuse anyone of sexism, but I do get tired of people blaming the Starks for Littlefinger's plotting against them. (Just as it annoys me when they credit Tywin for Littlefinger's plots working out in his favor.)

[DanteGabriel]

DG,

Bravo. As always, when seriously engaged you are formidable.

Thanks very much TM, that means a great deal coming from you, but I can't help but feel a little shameful for my kneejerk contempt of JG's initial post.

I should strive to keep myself in the mindset where I can argue points more like you and Lady Blackfish instead of giving in to my strong inclinations to be a smart-ass. My title is, I fear, too fitting.

[Lady Blackfish]

Thank you, everyone concerned.

and that I never thought I'd find myself nodding in agreement so many times with a post that uses the word "patriarchy" that often.

I know, I will never live it down.

Something Tony Marston said prompts me to say one more thing in attempt to clarify the spirit of the thread: we are indeed talking about "Is she likeable" over "Do you like her", etc. That distinction is what I think is the intention here. Not that this thread is solely about if you like her, but the distinction I'm trying to make is that there is a level of generalization we are going for, one that attempts to look at somewhat objective, though certainly interpretable, data items.

A lot of the time, "freeform" Cat threads go back and forth over that line of distinction. One side argues, it's my right to dislike her. The other side argues, she's not wholly dislikeable. It goes back and forth, ad nauseum. Those threads often pop up, and are allowed to exist as per Ran's prerogative. I'm just saying this is not that thread.

[Xray the Enforcer]

I should strive to keep myself in the mindset where I can argue points more like you and Lady Blackfish instead of giving in to my strong inclinations to be a smart-ass. My title is, I fear, too fitting.

Hot-head.

Well-done, BTW. I think we could dredge up many characters who were ultimately ruled by emotions (e.g. Stannis is one big ball of righteous indignation), but Tyrion is such a delightful example because of his wide popularity.

[John Galt]

"Obviously" I, and others, misread your initial post, then.

As I've said as naseum, I appologize for that. I felt it abosuletly absurb somebody would contend Cat was the sole person responsible for that, so I didn't see the need to qualify the remark. I'm sorry.

You said some things later to moderate it, but an opening like that, especially in a thread where we have been dissecting the many dozens of posts that open up exactly like yours, is bound to draw some negative reaction. It's bound to get you pigeon-holed, perhaps unfairly, as an irrational and perhaps sexist Catelyn-hater. If you couldn't be bothered to read the rest of the thread before posting this, the blame lies at least as much on you as it does on those of us who assumed you to be one of many irrational Catelyn-haters. How could we not, when you start with "I hate Cat"?

I figured we were all adults here, so I didn't think I needed to preface it by saying Cat is a character who's actions have led me to strongly dislike her in a fictitious setting. I appologize for that. I know sometimes arguments are made to a ridiculous extent on message boards, so I can certainly empathize with being sick and tired of it. I just felt you jumped down my throat and jumped to conclusion without once asking for any clarificaration, and that certainly rubbed me the wrong way.

Tyrion's emotional weakness for Shae (and Alayaya) caused him to threaten Cersei that he'd torture Tommen and turn her joy to ashes on an unspecified day, a threat that later became one of the most damning pieces of evidence against him. Tyrion's emotions led him to trust Varys too much because he needed her to protect Shae.

That is a valid point, but I feel it a minor incident. True in the plot the incident itself turned out to be his undoing, but Cersei could have just as easily lied about it all. I don't find it anywhere near being on par with kidnapping a son of one of the most powerful men in the kingdom. With the exception of those words, Tyrion was largely a calculating individual who when he had power, generally tried to the "right" thing. Tyrion's slips were exceptions, whereas Cat's were the rule.

And Catelyn has had her moments of calculation. She saved Brienne's (a character you have professed to enjoy, no?) life in Renly's tent with some quick thinking.

I didn't really see that as a calculating moment. It's comparing saving a lone knight from the fury of another compared to political maneuvering to keep your family in charge of a kingdom as well as defeating a seige. Not really comparable.

She was right in advising Robb not to send Theon as an emissary to the Greyjoys.

I agree with this and this even came to my mind as one of her exceptions to her erratic behavior.

She was instrumental in helping Robb get through his initial difficulties with his bannermen -- counseling him on how to show strength for his lords, and what kind of man ought to lead the foot host that would keep Tywin busy while he rode for Riverrun. She had enough sense to see all of Lysa's mistakes in dealing with Tyrion and the trial at the Eyrie. She reasoned with the lords of the North and the Trident when trying to get them to sue for peace, right before the Greatjon crowned Robb.

I think you over-state her import in Robb's relationship with his bannermen. Anybody with any sense would see Lysa was bat-turd crazy. Sueing for peace could have been the right move, but it could have ended even bloddier than before. You really can't count that one.

Should we hold it against her that some of her good advice was ignored while some of her bad advice was followed?

It's not so much her advice as her motives behind it. The emotion and the franticness.

Of course Catelyn was emotional. I'd be pretty emotional too if my family was dying in bits and pieces around me. You seem to be damning her for her emotional responses for things while preaching that you shouldn't have to defend your own emotional reaction to her. But she's shown that she's capable of thought and sound, rational advice, and is not just one bundle of poorly considered emotional responses.

My emotional reaction to Cat does not have the lives of my family and all my family's bannermen and retainers at stake. There is quite a difference...

[mormont]

I 1000% agree that the same can be said for many characters. However, those are characters whom I enjoy as people regardless of their place in the plot line of the books. I cannot say the same for Cat. I obviously am not saying Cat is solely responsible for the Red Wedding. Has anybody actually ever contended that?

Lots of people do, yes.

What ugly paths did it lead Tyrion down beyond hiding the thing from his father?

Murder, for one. Tyrion has Bronn murder Symon Silvertongue in order to hide Shae from Tywin.

I actually hate Sam's chapters as well. Funny. It's more cowardice and indecisiveness in his case that I dislike. It's not frantic decisions such as with Cat. Both based on emotion continually overriding logic though.

Which characters don't frequently allow emotion to override logic? Arya, Jon, Robb, Ned, Dany, Tyrion? And neither Sam nor Cat does so 'continually'.

Again Arya and Dany are both amung my favorite characters. They are female last I checked.

True, but both are archetypal female fantasy characters - the tomboy fighter (who's still beautiful, of course, she just doesn't know it) and the proud, beautiful queen with an exotic bloodline and a magical gift. Arya is easy for male readers to identify with and Dany is easy for them to admire.

Most male readers, in my experience, rank these two amongst their favourites, along with Asha and Arianne (lesser versions of the same archetypes). Very few rank Cat, Brienne or Sansa as such.

[Lord Mord]

JG,

Right. He had plenty of protection... just on the opposite side of a castle wall that would take weeks to take in a seige while leaving yourself open to be taken in the flank. The castle is the anvil, and the arriving force is the hammer... Poorly thought out.

Were they supposed to add further insult to the man they had already abased by Robb's treasonous marriage by saying, "Oh, and incidentally -- we don't trust you, so we're going to carry our soldiers with us into the castle" ...?

I invite you to find a diplomatic way to say that, that Walder Frey wouldn't instantly see through and deflect.

That's all they cared to think about. Ignorance and naivite is no excuse.

This is a little like putting a coin into a slot machine, pulling the lever, and somehow the machine knifes you. Yes, it's expected the machine will humiliate you by taking all your money, all the while tempting you with its sweet promise of reward, that it will bleed you, but are you supposed to expect a knife when all conventional wisdom argues against it?

The man whom you had no proof of anything other than heresay. In today's world, I doubt they'd get a warrant for his arrest, yet Cat is convinced of it on heresay and the fact that the heresay says he had possession of that dagger at some point prior to the assassination. Tyrion had no motive, and Cat had no proof.

The evidence may be slim, but there are no forensic sciences in this time and place. Would her arrest be legal today? Irrelevant -- it's legal in Catelyn's world. The question is not whether she has a universal right to arrest Tyrion, but whether she felt hampered by any sense of rightness at all. She does not order Tyrion Lannister murdered, she takes him as a hostage against Lord Tywin's refusing to let the matter of the Lannisters' attacks on Bran be discussed at all.

Grabbing the son of a powerful house is not reasonable,

When he's an attempted-murder suspect? You're surely not claiming that the rich and powerful should not be held accounatable for murder?

and hoping that in the mean time evidence will surface is not reasonable.

Hoping that Tywin Lannister will sometime later reproduce his son to face justice is also not reasonable.

Thinking this house is about to crash down on you under the circumstances prior to this is not reasonable.

Why not? They're willing to send hired knives to kill heirs, aren't they? Who knows what kind of treachery they're plotting?

Cat does not need to be meek, she nearly needs to think. She didn't.

Actually, she did. She didn't arrive at the conclusion you think would have been best, but she thought it through, inasmuch as she is shown weighing the odds. As for plotting long-term, it was a lose-lose situation for her. Injustice forever for the near-murder of her boy, or risk Lord Tywin's wrath. Given that she could not know just how little the king regarded the affairs of his kingdom in comparison to how long they kept him from his wenching and bingeing, and given that she could not know just how deeply ran Lord Tywin's disregard for any law or decency, there was no reason to expect the outcome that occurred.

Even if she was convinced of his guilt and knew she couldn't prove it, at the very least she could move to have him killed from the shadows in a tragic "accident" as opposed to being completely wreckless.

I don't understand. On the one hand, we shoold rail Catelyn for not being high-minded, for not letting Tyrion go because she can't prove his guilty by our standards ... and yet on the other, we should otherwise rail Catelyn for not recklessly, lawlessly, villanously murdering Tyrion under cover of darkness.

How are you able to countenance such contradictory positions, and then try to tell people who want to be sympathetic to Cat that we're unreasonable?

[Ran]

Right. He had plenty of protection... just on the opposite side of a castle wall that would take weeks to take in a seige while leaving yourself open to be taken in the flank. The castle is the anvil, and the arriving force is the hammer... Poorly thought out.

That's all they cared to think about. Ignorance and naivite is no excuse.

It's not naive to think that guest right would not be broken. You seem to completely discount the weight given to guest right in Westeros. It is sacred.

Moreover, there were hundreds of his people _in_ the castle.

The man whom you had no proof of anything other than heresay. In today's world, I doubt they'd get a warrant for his arrest, yet Cat is convinced of it on heresay and the fact that the heresay says he had possession of that dagger at some point prior to the assassination. Tyrion had no motive, and Cat had no proof.

What, the Lannisters had no motive for trying to kill Bran?

As to "today's world", it's _not_ today's world. In ASoS, Tyrion has someone quietly murdered because the guy is trying to blackmail him. In _today's_ world, Tyrion would go to the police and inform them that he's being blackmailed, and due process would possibly follow -- though doubtless in today's world, there wouldn't be a warrant for Symon Silver Tongue either just on Tyrion's say so.

Grabbing the son of a powerful house is not reasonable, and hoping that in the mean time evidence will surface is not reasonable.

Taking hostages is pretty common in the series. It's seen as reasonable to use hostages in this fashion.

Moreover, she arrests him with what's arguably acceptable authority, as eldest child of Lord Tully within whose domain they were and (through a bit of a lie -- Ned does lie) as an agent of the second most important man in the realm.

Westerosi law is full of loopholes, contradictions, and so on. This is _normal_ for them, and within the context of what we saw (it's not like she _sought_ a confrontation -- she tried to hide in a corner, praying that Tyrion wouldn't see her in the first place, so that they could each just go on their way) and within the context of what we've seen, what she did was reasonable conduct.

It's interesting, but I don't ever recall a specific time when anyone really says, "Oh, if only Catelyn Stark hadn't kidnapped Tyrion, none of this would have happened." The tragedy of the war, I think, is that it was largely inevitable, and the one man who could have stopped it (that's Ned) was simply ill-equiped to do so.

Thinking this house is about to crash down on you under the circumstances prior to this is not reasonable.

Of course it is. The Lannisters attempted to kill a comatose, crippled child, apparently because he witnessed something he should have, something that they couldn't have revealed (this story is far more logical than 'They tried to kill Bran because he saw something, yes, _but_ the second time that was a completely unrelated thing and had nothing to do with the Lannister secrets'). If they're prepared to kill a child, why in the world would they not stoop to killing the rest of her family? The Lannisters are a feared family, and rightfully so. Tywin and his twins had already revealed to the world that they were ambitious and ruthless, and had no qualms with the killing of children or even seated kings.

Even if she was convinced of his guilt and knew she couldn't prove it, at the very least she could move to have him killed from the shadows in a tragic "accident" as opposed to being completely wreckless.

Right. Rodrik Cassel is, among other things, an assassin.

[John Galt]

I really do hate the way this situation is constantly misread by so many people. Catelyn did not set out to kidnap Tyrion. In fact, when first she sees him enter the Inn, she tries to hide from him. She does not want trouble. However, when he sees her, things change. Remember, she was convinced at this point that the Lannisters, including Tyrion, had already murdered Jon Arryn and attempted to murder Bran. She was travelling in secret from King's Landing back to the North. She even keeps her identity secret from her father's bannermen because of the danger she thinks she'll be in if the Lannisters find out she's even been to King's Landing. If you imagine for a moment that the Lannisters really had been behind all the plotting, with her secrecy broken through no fault of her own, it is not unreasonable to think she is in real danger from Tyrion and his guards (remember, she only has one companion herself at that point!). Going on the offensive right there, where she has people she can sway to her cause, seems to me the only reasonable option she had.

I for one don't want to accuse anyone of sexism, but I do get tired of people blaming the Starks for Littlefinger's plotting against them. (Just as it annoys me when they credit Tywin for Littlefinger's plots working out in his favor.)

Right. You have to assume a lot for her actions to be right. Off heresay, she in convinced that the Lannister's killed Arryn and that they attempted to kill Bran, a small child. Jon Arryn is understandable as there could have enbeen political implications with being the Hand... Bran, not so much. He was a boy. She was duped, and easily at that. She really required no proof rather than half-arguments which she accepted as fact. Because of this, she kidnaps a noble.

Now, let's pretend she is right. Let's forget the motive for her actions was severely lacking. What will kidnapping Tyrion do? She can't bring him North because surely they'd search there first. She can't bring him south because that would lead him right into Lannister hands. She can't bring him west because of the Lannisters. She is thusly forced to bring him east with scant protection through very dangerous country. Poor decision at that.