Changed Opinions?

[Timbits]

My opinions of characters haven't been influenced by the boards or even rereading the books. If I find the character relatable then I generally feel a strong bond to them. These characters are usually outcasts, strange, weak in certain ways, etc. for example: Arya, Tyrion, Jon Snow, and Brienne are my favorites.

I have to add that I strongly dislike Catelyn and I actually find that she has some qualities similar to Cersei.

[Lady Blackfish]

I think i've grown to like Dany better - in that i've grown to find her a darker more complex character than I saw at first read. (I still think freeing the slaves was objectively morally right, but it makes her a more interesting character to acknowledge that it was also an act of stunning entitlement within the cultural context she herself had been raised in.)

I've also grown to like Jaime less, in book 3 at least. His redemption arc there was completely sympathetic and captivating on first read, but has grown to seem shallower and too obviously pulling at reader sympathies without real moral justification yet.(I like book 4 Jaime though. I think the duels with Payne are some of the nastiest, rawest scenes in the books.)

I have had a roller coaster with Dany. I liked her in AGOT, then grew unsure in ACOK & ASOS, and then went through a phase of being underwhelmed, and then I began crawling back. I'm still mixed about her, but now I've mostly identified my issues as relating to her setting and the dimensionality of her peripheral characters. I have reaffirmed my initial conclusion, which was shaken in the interim, that GRRM knows what he's doing with her obvious conventional heroism.

Regarding Jaime, I was and remain confident that GRRM never intended him to be redeemed in the first place, so I don't have a problem with the character. My enjoyment actually came from thinking how cool it was that GRRM still lets him be an unrepentant asshole. However, I am a little iffier these days about GRRM's decisions to not just let bad people remain bad, but kind of cover it up with entertainment. I'm not sure how I feel about that as a tactic any more. I do agree that AFFC Jaime is way more interesting than ASOS Jaime.

Honestly, I think Catelyn's biggest flaw is that she's too real.

I agree (that it's a problem for a lot of people; it's most definitely not a problem for me), all the contradictions AAF lists may be somehow stupendous in your average epic fantasy character, but it's pretty run of the mill when considering real people in the real world. The other characters that are reducible to only one or two traits, OTOH, are pretty flat. Maybe easier to digest, but flat. Pancakes.

[Lady Blackfish]

How long did it take for her to doubt herself once Tyrion made the very convincing point that he would never bet against Jaime?

And why is that convincing from her point of view? Because she is somehow privy to the Lannister family dynamics? She should know that the brothers are close?

I don't buy all the contrived reasoning people are imputing to her to justify her rash actions (we're in her head, for cripes' sake, and we don't see any of that stuff). Nor is it ever clear or even plausible that Cat would think Tyrion seeing her at the inn put her or Ned in direct danger.

Littlefinger makes it clear in the arrival in King's Landing chapters that the Lannisters are not to know of Catelyn's presence there.

"I am most anxious to keep the Lannisters from learning that Cat is here in King’s Landing."

"Why?" Ned asked. He saw her hands then, the awkward way she held them, the raw red scars, the stiffness of the last two fingers on her left.

Then they launch into a recap of the assassination attempt; I think GRRM made it pretty clear that said Lannister attempt is the answer to Ned's question.

It's such a huge leap of logic to presume that Tyrion's mere spotting of her would lead to his conclusion that he knew she was on to him just baffles me. "Once Bran woke up, I decided to visit Ned and the girls in KL for a bit, and btw how did you get back from the Wall so quickly?" or any number of variations on that should have been plenty adequate an explanation under the circumstances.

Again, reread the arrival in King's Landing chapters:

"Lord Varys knows everything ... except why you are here." He lifted an eyebrow. "Why are you here?"

"A wife is allowed to yearn for her husband, and if a mother needs her daughters close, who can tell her no?"

Littlefinger laughed. "Oh, very good, my lady, but please don’t expect me to believe that. I know you too well. What were the Tully words again?"

Her throat was dry. "Family, Duty, Honor," she recited stiffly. He did know her too well.

"Family, Duty, Honor," he echoed. "All of which required you to remain in Winterfell, where our Hand left you. No, my lady, something has happened. This sudden trip of yours bespeaks a certain urgency."

And this is what I dislike so much about her character; not once does she recognise the part she played in starting the war.

It was your doing, yours, a voice whispered inside her. If you had not taken it upon yourself to seize the dwarf ...

After this, her one real mistake is releasing Jaime at the end of ACOK. That is it, and that's actually probably a more legitimate thing to criticize her for than this arrest of Tyrion, where she was placed in an impossible (and highly coincidental) situation. Even then, that action's consequences were dwarfed by those of Robb's.

I also think, in response to Daughter of the Morning's earlier comments, that releasing Jaime is her one really emotional decision. Wanting Ned to take a job in King's Landing is a perfectly normal career decision for a couple to make together, and her arrest of Tyrion was made out of consideration of situational realities and not this overwhelming desire for maternal vengeance that some people ascribe to her. Other than that, her actions are: going south to treat with the Baratheon brothers, saving Brienne, returning to Riverrun, questioning that Frey fellow, figuring out what Hoster's "Tansy" meant, attending a funeral, attending a wedding, dying. Her chapters also happen to have a lot of emotions, but those emotions are more than understandable given her experiences in the story. But as for emotional decision-making I can only see one that comes close to that.

And to tie it all together in a nice pretty bow, it may not make everyone a raging misogynist, but to hear a female character decried for being too emotional, in a series where a witty iconoclastic outsider can get away with murdering a whore just because he was sexually humiliated, well you have to admit, there's something awfully fishy about that kind of stuff. I don't think every charge against the character bespeaks sexism, but some sure sound like it, and as far as I'm concerned those will be argued because, you know, sexism sucks a lot. It's true that opinions on controversial matters get galvanized, and we should all watch what we say to make sure we are making sound arguments, but controversy generates heat, no way around it. All we can do is concentrate on productive talk.

[Peter the Gun]

Reading this board has changed my opinion of Tywin. All those praising him and trying to rationalize his actions made me go from disliking him to absolutely loathing everything about the man.

[AvengingAryaFan]

...

I agree (er, I agree it's a flaw for a lot of people, it's most definitely not a problem for me), all the contradictions AAF lists may be somehow stupendous in your average epic fantasy character, but it's pretty run of the mill when considering real people in the real world. The other characters that are reducible to only one or two traits, OTOH, are pretty flat. Maybe easier to digest, but flat. Pancakes.

Thank you for precisely understanding my point: Cat has emerged from the board arguments as the most complex, most realistic character.

I like Cat (prior to her first death) a lot, but reading these boards has made me realize that in addition to doing lots of good things, she also made serious mistakes (as did Ned and Robb). Problem is, she was at a position of power such that her mistakes had huge ramifications. A mistake by Arya would get her caught (again) or get somebody undeserving killed (possibly herself); the damage would have been limited. The consequences of Cat's mistakes, like those of Robb and Ned, strongly affected the Starks, the Lannisters, the people of the North and Riverlands, and elsewhere. With great power comes great responsibility.

Why do the bad guys never seem to make mistakes? They do horrible things entirely on purpose, but never seem to cause disasters to themselves by accident. Maybe it's because they never try to do anything "good", so there is never an opportunity for the kind of irony the Starks experience so brutally, in which acts intended to be good result, due to mistake, in the most dire consequences.

Perhaps Tyrion's efforts to get Cersei and Joffrey to behave a little better fall in this category: he resorts to some threats to achieve cooperation (mistake!) and it comes back to almost literally hang him in his trial for Joff's murder. Then again, he's not really one of the "bad guys" like the Boltons, LF, Tywin, Cersei, or Gregor et al.

Or maybe I just need to wait for their turn. For example, I'm simple enough to hope that the gods will yet bring a disastrous curse onto House Frey for their monstrous violation (mistake?) of guest right.

[Lady Blackfish]

Cat has emerged from the board arguments as the most complex, most realistic character.

Along with Theon, I think, though he is less controversial because he's more obviously unsympathetic.

With great power comes great responsibility.

At the same time, even people in powerful positions are only human. That always seemed to me to be more in keeping with GRRM's take on history: he is still writing a story about individuals, but the thing that keeps this from becoming an exercise in the Great Man theory of history is that the players are all brought down to earth.

Why do the bad guys never seem to make mistakes?

I always thought that Tywin's treatment of Tyrion was meant to come across as his big mistake. It is dramatically ironic because he is insurmountable to external foes yet is undone from within his own house, owing to the very flipside of what brings down many of the Starks: his inability to love.

Cersei, of course, makes a bazillion mistakes, starting (as far as I can recall) from her silly promotion of Janos Slynt. Joffrey's beheading of Ned was also painted as a mistake, recognized even by bright bulb Cersei. Thus far the Lannisters haven't suffered as much because they won when it mattered: at the end. But it was see-saw for a while.

Littlefinger has been able to thrive in no small part because he gets to be in the shadows, behind the scenes. That's a place of relative security, because very few people know you have a horse in the race. The Starks, on the other hand, have no way to hide their intentions, and less of a way to compensate for the open nature of their goals than the rich and powerful Lannisters. Littlefinger is now visible, however, after assuming his new position in the Vale, so we shall see what we shall see.

Bolton does seem to be running a good game though.

Or maybe I just need to wait for their turn. For example, I'm simple enough to hope that the gods will yet bring a disastrous curse onto House Frey for their monstrous violation (mistake?) of guest right.

It might be gods, it might just be a consequence of the lack of structure of the house causing it to descend into civil strife. I myself would really like it if Martin had the Freys die off but made some effort to take the karmic satisfaction out of it. A hollow, unsatisfying end, more unique because it prevents the reader from being comfortable.

[Datepalm]

It might be gods, it might just be a consequence of the lack of structure of the house causing it to descend into civil strife. I myself would really like it if Martin had the Freys die off but made some effort to take the karmic satisfaction out of it. A hollow, unsatisfying end, more unique because it prevents the reader from being comfortable.

I'm with you there. I'm not looking forward (but nor am I expecting it, so) to UnCat systematically wandering around and killing freys to much cheering like they're some kind of westerosi Mexicans being hunted down by the vigilante border patrol.

Re both Jaime and Dany (and Cat, and Theon, for that matter.) I still feel like when I say I like a character its not what most people mean. Duh, I don't like Theon, but I love reading about him. Hes compelling. So's Cat - because she's flawed. If the things people accuse her of hadn't happened, if she'd never said "it should have been you", or kidnapped Tyrion or released Jaime...then I wouldn't like her. She'd be really boring. There would be no conflict, no interest, no emotion, no layers, nothing for me as a reader to chew at. Whats the point?

So, overall, the more I examine it the more I find Jaimes very linear redemption arc in ASOS (yes, including losing his hand. For him its terrible, but in narrative terms, contributing to making him sympathetic to the reader, its very convenient.) kind of predictable. Theres nothing there that delivers the sort of punch "it should have been you" or Theons capture and loss of winterfell does.

[Lady Blackfish]

So, overall, the more I examine it the more I find Jaimes very linear redemption arc in ASOS (yes, including losing his hand. For him its terrible, but in narrative terms, contributing to making him sympathetic to the reader, its very convenient.) kind of predictable. Theres nothing there that delivers the sort of punch "it should have been you" or Theons capture and loss of winterfell does.

I guess it's always been my feeling since my first read of the books that his redemption arc, which I don't see as over yet even if Jaime might feel he has reached a plateau, will fail. In Feast, I didn't think he came across as any kind of hero. He is trying a new approach, but not really finding any clarity in it. Instead, its more of that conflicted, ambivalent nature of life that turned him off before, only now he's justifying his choices and actually acting instead of becoming apathetic. I didn't take away a sense of triumph from Jaime's chapters at all, instead muddy victories built on compromise.

[Valmorfëa]

I also think, in response to Daughter of the Morning's earlier comments, that releasing Jaime is her one really emotional decision. (...)

You make a valid point, but as AvengingAryaFan stated, with power comes responsibility, and Catelyn is acting completely irresponsibly in both instances you mentioned. She is acting like Arya, as if her decisions affected only herself and her immediate entourage, she fails to grasp the larger consequences. i.e Tywin not being amused by his son's kidnapping, Jaime being the Riverlands' only shield from the Lannisters, etc.

I do think she is very real and I certainly see any mother making similar decisions... it would have been best for all if she had never left Winterfell... which brings me to your next point:

And to tie it all together in a nice pretty bow, it may not make everyone a raging misogynist, but to hear a female character decried for being too emotional, in a series where a witty iconoclastic outsider can get away with murdering a whore just because he was sexually humiliated, well you have to admit, there's something awfully fishy about that kind of stuff. I don't think every charge against the character bespeaks sexism, but some sure sound like it, and as far as I'm concerned those will be argued because, you know, sexism sucks a lot.

I may be guilty of this. As someone who values rationality greatly I tend to be quite judgemental of anyone acting without ample reflexion and logic. It probably isn't fair on my part towards Catelyn, but I think that if you cannot play the game, then don't pick up the cards.

Why do the bad guys never seem to make mistakes? They do horrible things entirely on purpose, but never seem to cause disasters to themselves by accident. Maybe it's because they never try to do anything "good", so there is never an opportunity for the kind of irony the Starks experience so brutally, in which acts intended to be good result, due to mistake, in the most dire consequences.

Because the "good guys" play by the rules, whereas "bad guys" know that there are no rules. This conversation springs to mind:

"Will Turner: You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you.

Jack Sparrow: That's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it? "

[Errant Bard]

On topic, the board did not so much change my opinions as make me think about points I was undecided on, and sharpen the opinions I already had. A lot of that is rather reactionary, too, because I don't care that much, but arguing has a knack for bringing up arguments with deeper undercurrents, like, for example, sexism in the dislike of Sansa or Catelyn.

Or maybe I just need to wait for their turn. For example, I'm simple enough to hope that the gods will yet bring a disastrous curse onto House Frey for their monstrous violation (mistake?) of guest right.

Excuse me, but what do you think the Lannister House disintegration, as the result of grave social and political mistake on about everyone's part, actually is? You know : Tywin's death, Joff's death, Cersei's imprisonment, Myrcella's mutilation, Kevan's estrangement, Lancel defection for the faith, Tyrion's mutilation... They are all results of their own mistakes, or loved ones mistakes.

And they are not the only ones. Everyone remotely against Jon, Dany or Arya pretty much dies due to one's own mistake. What with Chett & deserters, Magnar of Thenn, Vyserys, the slavers, Drogo, MMD, Chiswick & co, bloody mummers, stableboys, squires, bards. And this can be extended, just look at Gregor, Symeon Silvertongue, Marillion, Rorge & Biter, the Kettlebacks, Lysa... it always comes back to bite them in the ass.

The impression I get is that 1) all those who win in a cynical world that's definitely not carebearland are labelled "bad guys" and 2) you want all the bad guys to meet their end by deus ex machina.

[Lady Blackfish]

You make a valid point, but as AvengingAryaFan stated, with power comes responsibility, and Catelyn is acting completely irresponsibly in both instances you mentioned. She is acting like Arya, as if her decisions affected only herself and her immediate entourage, she fails to grasp the larger consequences. i.e Tywin not being amused by his son's kidnapping, Jaime being the Riverlands' only shield from the Lannisters, etc.

I had a big argument typed in about why I don't think the arrest of Tyrion is as irresponsible as many others do, but I am truncating it because I don't know if you want to have an extended discussion about it or not. In short, I disagree with the idea that she should have known that Tywin would take the specific action he did, and no other action, based on his unhappiness, and I think the consequences that can be laid at Cat's feet are limited to the attacks on the riverlands, as it took other things happening from other people's decisions to get the north to really commit to the war. It's a step by step process, but not all the steps were hers.

Regarding Jaime, I would understand the charge that she is being selfish. I don't think she failed to consider the consequences though, she just did it anyway, because her goal is the safety of her children, not the winning of the war.

it would have been best for all if she had never left Winterfell

Perhaps, but it would have been best for all if Robb had never left Winterfell as well. Many things would have been better in retrospect, but that's no reason to single out mommy to send back to the kitchen, I feel.

It probably isn't fair on my part towards Catelyn, but I think that if you cannot play the game, then don't pick up the cards.

See, the Starks don't know what they're getting into when they're getting into it. They signed up for a murder mystery and uncovered high treason, and it did take a whole lot of forces conspiring to lead to their downfall, step by step. It's frustrating, yes, but I think it does Martin's story a disservice to reduce it too much to obvious solutions.

[Datepalm]

I guess it's always been my feeling since my first read of the books that his redemption arc, which I don't see as over yet even if Jaime might feel he has reached a plateau, will fail. In Feast, I didn't think he came across as any kind of hero.

OTOH, there are things in Feast that actually made Jaime more sympathetic as potential redemption fodder, to my mind, like the regrets and confusion over Tommen, the maybe-hallucination of Joanna, and the physical punishments he mets out to himself with the vigil over Tywin and the 'duels' with Ilyn Payne. There was a lot of self reflection in Storm, but it was very narcissicistic, regrets over the man he might have been and failures to live up to adolescent heroes, how will he be remembered in the white book, etc. The mid life crisis of redemption arcs. in Feast he seems to be thinking a bit about his place vis other people.

[CFdS]

I find people funny who criticize Cat, Ned and Robb for their mistakes: They are slaves to the plot. Their mistakes ware necessary to make the series last so long...

[Lady Blackfish]

OTOH, there are things in Feast that actually made Jaime more sympathetic as potential redemption fodder, to my mind, like the regrets and confusion over Tommen, the maybe-hallucination of Joanna, and the physical punishments he mets out to himself with the vigil over Tywin and the 'duels' with Ilyn Payne. There was a lot of self reflection in Storm, but it was very narcissicistic, regrets over the man he might have been and failures to live up to adolescent heroes, how will he be remembered in the white book, etc. The mid life crisis of redemption arcs. in Feast he seems to be thinking a bit about his place vis other people.

Well yes, he does grow, but he has to or else he'd stagnate. I didn't think he came off all that sympathetic because of his dreams of Joanna or his vigil for Tywin, honestly. He seemed like a little lost boy who has no clue what he's doing, and I didn't feel that Martin was doing that in a "Oh don't you just want to hug the poor baby" way. The way Jaime was unable to feel anything for Tywin highlights the hollowness of his vigil, he knows he should care but he just doesn't. He's grown but the limitations of his growth are pretty clear, which kind of puts a damper on the whole "Life has given you a second chance, you can be anything you want to be" feeling when he's first released back in ASOS. We see that Jaime Lannister will never be the man he wanted to be.

[Valmorfëa]

Regarding Jaime, I would understand the charge that she is being selfish. I don't think she failed to consider the consequences though, she just did it anyway, because her goal is the safety of her children, not the winning of the war.

And this is what I meant by she's not acting in the greater good... ah well, no use crying over spilt wine I guess.

Many things would have been better in retrospect, but that's no reason to single out mommy to send back to the kitchen, I feel.

Eh, I think what I said came out a bit wrong maybe... I'm all for girl power, but I stand by my cards quote :P

See, the Starks don't know what they're getting into when they're getting into it. They signed up for a murder mystery and uncovered high treason, and it did take a whole lot of forces conspiring to lead to their downfall, step by step. It's frustrating, yes, but I think it does Martin's story a disservice to reduce it too much to obvious solutions.

This is a failure on the Starks' part though, they should know better by now. Which is not a jab at GRRM, quite the contrary, you can't like/agree with everyone, if you did the books wouldn't be nearly as good^^.

With regards to Jaime, I think that now he's finally free of his sister and father he can finally come into his own and discover what it is that he truly believes/lives for. His personality hasn't changed though - he is still an unrepentant superficial asshole a, though now he knows it. Surely that should not limit his growth?

Lady Blackfish, why do you think he'll never be the man he wanted to be?

[Ran]

Daughter of the Morning,

i.e Tywin not being amused by his son's kidnapping, Jaime being the Riverlands' only shield from the Lannisters, etc.

She's worried about Ned and the girls first, who could be dead in two week's time given the information she has. Tywin's response is much more hypothetical, and the fact is that Ned is the Hand and should have Robert on his side, which in the normal run of things should have prevented any violence from becoming too troublesome. Alas, Catelyn is a victim of fate -- Ned is unpredictably onthe out with his best friend and is no longer Hand _precisely at the moment_ when the news arrives, and so things resume being pear-shaped.

And Jaime wasn't, actually, a shield for the riverlands. I can't see how anyone can forget Tywin's pronouncement in the very chapter where he's learned of Jaime's capture:

"I have no intention of remaining here. We must finish our business with young Lord Stark...

Unleash Ser Gregor and send him before us with his reavers. Send forth Vargo Hoat and his freeriders as well, and Ser Amory Lorch. Each is to have three hundred horse. Tell them I want to see the riverlands afire from the Gods Eye to the Red Fork.

Or Tyrion's thoughts when he thinks on why Tywin appointed him to take up the office of Hand in his name:

You bloody bastard, you think Jaime's good as dead, so I'm all you have left

Basically, at no stage does anyone in the novels make a cogent argument for how Jaime is a shield against Lord Tywin. He does not prevent Tywin from fighting on. He does not prevent the Lannisters for carrying out actions that notionally (at least according to some on this board) put Jaime in danger. Tywin has written Jaime out of his plans at this stage, because not even his beloved son is worth rolling over for. That's just not how he works.

Jaime's primary value was as a hostage to be exchanged for other hostages. Robb was hoping to get way more leverage out of Jaime than just his sisters back, but he was wrong.

[Datepalm]

Well yes, he does grow, but he has to or else he'd stagnate. I didn't think he came off all that sympathetic because of his dreams of Joanna or his vigil for Tywin, honestly. He seemed like a little lost boy who has no clue what he's doing, and I didn't feel that Martin was doing that in a "Oh don't you just want to hug the poor baby" way. The way Jaime was unable to feel anything for Tywin highlights the hollowness of his vigil, he knows he should care but he just doesn't.

I at least partially ascribe it to Tywin being, you know, evil. The whole funeral is a pathetic sham, from every perspective, so its hard to expect Jaime to be the one person there really grieving. Of course, I don't think that feast really shows Jaime in a better light - just a mor interesting one, compared to the very optimistic and effortless arc he had in Storm. Reading Jaime in Storm was fun, reading jaime in feast was by turns harrowing, awkward, dissapointing, pathetic and even embarrassing - much better, to my tastes.

(Its like that episode of Buffy where she resolves to become a better student...

Buffy: I thought it was gonna be like in the movies—you know, inspirational music, a montage: me sharpening my pencil, me reading, writing, falling asleep on a big pile of books with my glasses all crooked, 'cause in my montage, I have glasses. But real life is slow, and it's starting to hurt my occipital lobe.

Willow: Aw, poor Buffy's brain.

so, like, Jaime in ASOS is the montage, and in AFFC we expect to see the results, but really, it just hurts his brain.)

[Lady Blackfish]

And this is what I meant by she's not acting in the greater good...

In this instance, no, most definitely not, she is acting for the good of her daughters, as best as she can see how with the means available to her. But much of the time she is putting everyone else's needs above her own, urging peace and alliance when she has the opportunity to, even partly hoping that her release of Jaime might buy peace for the realm.

You know Azor Ahai? The guy who sacrificed his beloved Nissa Nissa to forge the sword that would hold back the darkness? And how Davos thought to himself that he wouldn't be able to do that even for the greater good, that he isn't cut out to be a hero if that's what it would take? That's Cat. Davos is actually a great counterpart to Cat in a lot of ways, come to think of it ...

This is a failure on the Starks' part though, they should know better by now.

In "by now" do you mean by the start of the books, or later on in the story?

Lady Blackfish, why do you think he'll never be the man he wanted to be?

Because he wanted to be Arthur Dayne, not an unrepentant superficial asshole. Jaime likes to pretend that he doesn't care, and he maybe comes this close to convincing himself, but he cares. Disillusionment and bitterness implies that you care, otherwise you wouldn't have the fixation.

Reading Jaime in Storm was fun, reading jaime in feast was by turns harrowing, awkward, dissapointing, pathetic and even embarrassing - much better, to my tastes.

I agree.

[IceNeedle]

And to tie it all together in a nice pretty bow, it may not make everyone a raging misogynist, but to hear a female character decried for being too emotional, in a series where a witty iconoclastic outsider can get away with murdering a whore just because he was sexually humiliated, well you have to admit, there's something awfully fishy about that kind of stuff. I don't think every charge against the character bespeaks sexism, but some sure sound like it, and as far as I'm concerned those will be argued because, you know, sexism sucks a lot.

I may be guilty of this. As someone who values rationality greatly I tend to be quite judgemental of anyone acting without ample reflexion and logic. It probably isn't fair on my part towards Catelyn, but I think that if you cannot play the game, then don't pick up the cards.

I think I come from the same viewpoint as DotM: I'm much more sympathetic to people who act rationally, even if errantly, than those who make major decisions emotionally. As I mentioned elsewhere, the incident at the inn doesn't really weigh too much against Cat in my mind. It's her antipathy towards Jon and her release of Jaime that truly bother me. The last half of AGOT and most of ACOK, I mostly like her.

I can only speak for myself, but this viewpoint has nothing to do with gender. 3 of my very favorite characters are Arya, Asha, and Dany, largely because they take control of their own lives and don't sit back and let some man tell them how to behave. (So does Cersei, but her evil overwhelms everything else). The whole Kingsmoot annoyed me greatly because the person with the best claim by blood (Asha), who had the fortitude and disposition to lead the Ironborn, was dismissed out of hand by almost everyone strictly for her gender. Similarly for Myrcella. I always thought the Dornish had it right.

For a time I could envision GRRM having the future of this mostly-chauvinistic society of Westeros come down to a clash among Dany, Cersei, Arianne, and Asha. That would have been rich. Oh, well.

[Timbits]

I agree (that it's a problem for a lot of people; it's most definitely not a problem for me), all the contradictions AAF lists may be somehow stupendous in your average epic fantasy character, but it's pretty run of the mill when considering real people in the real world. The other characters that are reducible to only one or two traits, OTOH, are pretty flat. Maybe easier to digest, but flat. Pancakes.

I find majority of the characters quite real. As I find Cat a realistic character, that is not why I dislike her. The reasons why I disliker her are that she's had everything handed to her in life, is extremely judgemental, dry sense of humor, and normal. I don't find her relatable, and if I did find her relatable I would slit my own wrist. But at the same time I do like how GRRM has a variety of different characters so that everyone can atleast relate to one character.