Catelyn Defense Thread

[NYC Falcon]

Shouldn't the subtitle read "Bring it on bitch haters"?

[Ser Vlad]

StarkDesolation,

Only Sith deal in absolutes-I mean- they are as 'fair' and 'just' as your defenses.

What's up with the bad movie quote?

Ned Stark was a man with a shrewish wife. He can barely control her with Jon and he probably uses all his 'foot down' points on that... If he stayed he'd never hear the end of it (even after she changed her mind as Ginny pointed out... cause Cate'd change it again thanks to a hunch or some nonsense) Eddard's choice was this- either listen to shrill Catelyn for the rest of his life as killing her would not be the Stark way or go to King's Landing. In the early discussions of the King's Landing Situation... Wasn't Catelyn assuming she'd get to go to court too? Just throwing that out there..

Catelyn is a shrew? Are you talking in terms of "Taming of the Shrew," because Catelyn is the antithesis of Katherine. Second - how can Ned "barely control her," with Jon? Outside of Catelyn's outburst at Bran's bedside and Jon's recollection of Catelyn being cold to him, how was Ned forced to "control" Catelyn?

Catelyn argued that Ned had to accept the position as Hand out of danger to the family, but Ned refused until he saw Lysa's letter and heard Maester Luwin's advice - a point you have yet to adress. Secondly, Catelyn assumed she would be leaving with Ned because that is what Westerosi Lords "do" when they took office at KL - they name a castellan and take their household to the capital. The most damming piece of evidence against your subtle "Catelyn wanted to head to KL for prestiege/power" accusation is that her first thoughts, in her own POV, focus on the fact that she will not see her children or Ned, not that she would lose out on some sort of political power.

As for Ned being coerced to leave - when Bran fell, and Catelyn all but begged him to stay, Ned told her that he had to leave. So her influence is anything if absolute - Ned decided for himself to go to King's Landing.

A raven. Ser Rodrick. Just about anybody. Hodor. The latter being the best choice for two reasons...

A raven? Putting aside the danger for interception and the problems with giving a message in print over discussing it personally, the risk of betrayal by the Grand Maester or the risk that others would see the message before Ned could not be ignored. Anyone else in the Stark household was of far too low rank to entrust with delivering a message personally (except for Rodrick). Actually, sending Rodrick may have been the smartest choice by Catelyn, but going herself was still one of the safer decisions.

Is that suppose to dissuade me? Or are you negotiating terms under which you'll accept that you can't spell 'cateclysm' without 'Catelyn' ?(the 'n' of course is half of them m in 'cateclysm'). Cause the Lannisters and Targaryens have some personal responsibility vested in this for sure... just like Catelyn Stark.

I'm pointing out the absurd accusations that Catelyn Tully started the war for the Five Kings! It's a leap to say that it was Catelyn's fault the war began, and by playing the chain of casuality with Catelyn's actions, we could go back all the way to the decision of the First Men to cross the arm of Dorne into Westeros.

Talk about your leaps- using your rather loose reasoning in terms of likelihood we could say it was likely that Jaime originally tended to invite Bran in for a threesome but accidentally dropped him, or hell, Aegon Targayrien was likely just lost... but made the fatal mistake of letting his dragons ask for him forgetting in his jet (or dragon) lag that dragons to not talk but rain molten doom upon their foes.

Strawman much, not to mention an ad homien? Attack the point if you feel capable, but don't go off on some irrellevant tangent and expect a response.

She handed the most dangerous man in Westeros a reason.

She pissed off one of the top ten most dangerous men in Westeros enough for him to lead a stunt which broke her husband's leg and left him drugged up to convalesce with the second most dangerous woman in Westeros (first being herself) who is probably a little ticked off that her brotherlover stormed off. And then got captured which pissed off Tywin and Cersei even further turning the cold blood hot...

Tyrion's kidnapping achieves all this, but you're doing nothing more than re-telling the events of AGoT in a very weird narrative. Attempt to prove how Catelyn's actions started the war and how it would have been avoided without her decision to arrest Tyrion and maybe we'll have a debate.

As per the clans... Didn't say that she armed them personally... said it led to it... It did hwoever indirectly.

And "however indirectly," Aegon's invasion of Westeros led to the War of the Five Kings. You see the absurdity behind your statement?

You attack my choice of reasoning and you use something like 'more evil'? Which is 'more evil' Gregor killing kids and their mommy or Gregor disfiguring Sandor? They are both rather miserable things.

Killing the mother and her children. There are degrees of evil and brutality. Just like shooting an old man is less evil than detonating a dirty bomb in the downtown core of NY. Your point?

Just like the Red Wedding and Zombie Cate's 'crusade o'justice'. She like many other things introduced and elaborated upon in AFFC willl probably take a turn for the worse and get out of hand in book 6.. But we you're right we should blame Walder. He didn't cut of her head, burn her and send packets of her ashes for safe keeping in each of the Free Cities.

Strawman, again? You've accused Catelyn of commiting unmentionable evil as Lady Stoneheart without mentioning what that evil was. What are you arguing, exactly?

Lord Baelish would agree with you... and he set up the baord admirably... but even he saw the destructive power with Cate... and used her to manipulate Eddard... which he might have had to try other methods... If she just stayed the hell home and mobilized resistance from the North...

What does that have to do with anything? If you admit that Baelish manipulated Catelyn, then it is absurd to say that Catelyn started the War of the Five Kings.

And that date was when it started... so if he hadn't set it... it wouldn't have begun when it did... So you could say it was Princip's fault that WWI started . I fail to see your beef, good ser. But nevermind that, I get what you're trying to say and would rather drop this instead of making the Elia threadjack look like small potatoes.

If Princip hadn't killed the Archduke, the war would have started for another reason. You can be as willfully ignorant as you want, but when you're willing to actually pay attention to opinions other than your own, then we can debate this. In the meantime, I suggest reading on the pre-WWI political situation in Europe, to see just how little a role Princip played in starting WWI.

Okay. Didn't Catelyn choose helping her healthy son,y'know for example move his kinsman, over helping her crippled son and his emotionally fragile and growing more so by the day baby brother rule the entire North? ...Eh? Oh Rodrick and Luwin are up there helping? She wouldn't let these people deliver a freaking letter but Babysitting and Kingdom running are fine? Gotcha.

I see your collection of straws is impressive, because you keep building these impressive strawmen.

Catelyn was if anything the only character with a POV for Robb's War. And from Theon's later chapters a better choice than at least one person... better than how many more? I couldn't say. So I think we're giving her more credit than is due.

Why didn't you rebuke these points?

What are you talking about? I said that out of all the ASoIaF PoVs, Catelyn was the only person who showed concern for the common folk, and for the lives on both sides of the war. Outside of whatever strawmen you've come up with, you haven't adressed my point, and now you're calling me out on what exactly?

What proof do you have that Catelyn did not care for the common Westerosi, or that someone cared for the people more than she did, out of all the PoV accounts we had?

Are you okay with those?

No - I completely disagree with the thesis that Catelyn is selfish and egotistical. Using your rather vague and general thesis, I could change this to argue that:

Sympathise with Tywin all you want but if you do not grasp that his selfish concern for the honour of his house Jeopardized and caused the suffering of a great many more then while you might have a soul... I question your possesion of a grasp of the events here.

You argue that Catelyn was foolish for provoking Tywin - in light of your absurd criticism, I could point out that the entire war could have been avoided if Tywin did not call his bannermen and attacked House Tully. You will, however, argue that his honour demanded action and will ignore any argument that points out how the Starks were threatened and provoked first. It's not a new debate, I tells ya.

[StarkDesolation]

I see you favor the internet flamewar definition of 'strawman' which is 'I don't feel like replying to this so I will just call it strawman and be done with it.' Ironically enough, that's an actual strawman, as we will see in the journey we are about to take.

Moving on...

Catelyn is a shrew? Are you talking in terms of "Taming of the Shrew," because Catelyn is the antithesis of Katherine. Second - how can Ned "barely control her," with Jon? Outside of Catelyn's outburst at Bran's bedside and Jon's recollection of Catelyn being cold to him, how was Ned forced to "control" Catelyn?

Barely, she's still rotten to him. I see Cate as not being abrasive in her arguing, but I can see a honeyed whine in her voice and a certain way she would say 'Ned' and even 'My Lord' that would make Ned cringe because after marriage he knew what it meant.

Catelyn argued that Ned had to accept the position as Hand out of danger to the family, but Ned refused until he saw Lysa's letter and heard Maester Luwin's advice - a point you have yet to adress.

Maybe Ned was feeling bold... but then Catelyn lettered him and Maester Luwin who as a celibate knows nothing of wives came in and gave Cate a "Ned the maester said..." to work with, in addition to the "But Ned, the letter from Lysa..." she had as a last resort to use indefinitely whenever she fewlt pissed off about Ned not doing what she wanted. Ned Stark is hopelessly whipped thanks to his honor. Catelyn's still a cow though. Several people can have flaws in song, probably even ALL of the characters. But aren't discussing these people. We're discussing Catelyn.

Secondly, Catelyn assumed she would be leaving with Ned because that is what Westerosi Lords "do" when they took office at KL - they name a castellan and take their household to the capital. The most damming piece of evidence against your subtle "Catelyn wanted to head to KL for prestiege/power" accusation is that her first thoughts, in her own POV, focus on the fact that she will not see her children or Ned, not that she would lose out on some sort of political power.

Perhaps it was subtle because it wasn't there? Let me get me this straight, you just attributed a weakend form of an argument you thought I made to me and then refuted that. There's a word for that. What could it be?

Catelyn Stark's tragic flaw is her devotion to her family. Everything she has done.was out of love for her family and desire to protect them. In this situation it brought disastrous results. Had the situation been written by a different but the character reamined the same, Catelyn Stark wouldn't be a tragic heroine, she'd be the woman with a sense of duty who weathered her family through the Long Winter. That's why you can't help but be ambivalent about her. Because in the Song, because her love was such that it made blind, deaf to certain things... just as Ned's honor yoked him.

It is this aspect of Catelyn I despise because how of how it manifests itself in the book... I'm pretty sure I know what I mean to say.

I'm pointing out the absurd accusations that Catelyn Tully started the war for the Five Kings! It's a leap to say that it was Catelyn's fault the war began, and by playing the chain of casuality with Catelyn's actions, we could go back all the way to the decision of the First Men to cross the arm of Dorne into Westeros.

To give you the benefit of a doubt I went back and scanned my points. Not once did I mention or even imply that Catelyn started the War of the Five Kings.

I said it was her fault the Lannisters went nuts. But I can see where attributing me with saying that she started the War of the Five Kings is much easier to refute.

I am finding your usage of 'straw man' more ironic by the second.

Strawman much, not to mention an ad homien? Attack the point if you feel capable, but don't go off on some irrellevant tangent and expect a response.

This may come off as grammar naziish, but , again, to give you the benefit of a doubt, I looked up ad homien

and I got nothing. Wikipedia would be more than happy to let you make an article about it, cause I'd like to to know what I'm being accused of.

At the risk of commiting myself to an actual straw man(the link to a good definition is up there twice) I will offer up that you meant ad hominem, which, if this is the case, is just as ironic as your usage and accusations of straw man given how you brought it up and followed through with it.

What I was doing there, there being the thing you decided to call ad homien and straw man- Just so you know- was called banter... Good humored, playful conversation. I was hoping for banter back, just as much as you were hoping to 'debate' somebody who'd accept your terms, both literally and metaphorically.

Alas, such is not the case for either of us. More's the pity.

Tyrion's kidnapping achieves all this, but you're doing nothing more than re-telling the events of AGoT in a very weird narrative. Attempt to prove how Catelyn's actions started the war and how it would have been avoided without her decision to arrest Tyrion and maybe we'll have a debate.

Okay... At this point... I think I have to ask: When you bring up 'strawman' and 'ad hominem' do you mean I should use them more ?

Again, in terms of Lannister action, which started before the war of the five kings, Tyrion's kidnapping It incensed Jaime into action, which made Cersei even crankier.. Cate's calling for her father's men in the inn implicated the Riverlands, which gave Tywin due cause to rape them and the raped riverlands are scenes to the most devastating . Prove to me how Tywin would accomplish this otherwise. We'll never have a debate, you and I, least of all under your terms.

And "however indirectly," Aegon's invasion of Westeros led to the War of the Five Kings. You see the absurdity behind your statement?

Are 'strawman' and 'ad hominem' absurd too? Because you don't understand those either.

Catelyn is rougly six degrees away... She kidnapped Tyrion (one), exposed him to the clansmen (two) , 'handed him' over to her sister (three) who allowed trial by combat (four) which Bronn won therefore he was allowed to go free in the mountains of the moon(five) and run into the Clansmen again(six)... That's Kevin Bacon territory. That's what I meant by however indirectly...

You might be able to do that with Aegon I, but they'd be vague broad strokes at best. Actually I take that back... you wouldn't be able to with any degree of correctness... but somebody could.

Killing the mother and her children. There are degrees of evil and brutality. Just like shooting an old man is less evil than detonating a dirty bomb in the downtown core of NY. Your point?

You'd just miss it. I wish that was banter.

Strawman, again? You've accused Catelyn of commiting unmentionable evil as Lady Stoneheart without mentioning what that evil was. What are you arguing, exactly?

'Strawman again', indeed, as I never accused Catelyn of commiting 'unmentionable evil as Lady Stoneheart', just that she was now an active participant in the greatest attrocities in the book... the hanging and bloodshed in the Trident. Dondarrion's men are also a little more colder than they were under him, I didn't think it needed to be spelled out but you seem to need that very much.

What does that have to do with anything? If you admit that Baelish manipulated Catelyn, then it is absurd to say that Catelyn started the War of the Five Kings.

For variety's sake: This is you.

Peter Baelish manipulates things involuntarily I think. He probably feels he coerced his bowels into take a shit and pats himself on the back for that - and again- I never said that Catelyn started the war of the five kings. Maybe you should be arguing with somebody who said that, you seem to be very prepared for it. Anyway back to Baelish, he manipulates everyone to the point where it doesn't mean anything.

If Princip hadn't killed the Archduke, the war would have started for another reason. You can be as willfully ignorant as you want, but when you're willing to actually pay attention to opinions other than your own, then we can debate this. In the meantime, I suggest reading on the pre-WWI political situation in Europe, to see just how little a role Princip played in starting WWI.

But play a role he did, and that role was the official cause of WWI, which is noted before the 'howevers' and 'but you could also say's in half of the books you would have me read for you and after 'but the offical cause', 'Ultimately' and 'Howevers' in the other half. And you not accepting that however you cut it, Princip's the guy with his name in the books and using ad hominem by depicting me as 'willfully ignorant'? Delightfully ironic.

What are you talking about? I said that out of all the ASoIaF PoVs, Catelyn was the only person who showed concern for the common folk, and for the lives on both sides of the war.

No , that's not quite what you said:

Cately was, if anything, the only character actually concerned with the human cost of Robb's war, and of the War of the Five King's itself.

To which I pointed out that I think he was the only chracter who had a POV in Robb's war so we can't really peg her as the only one who had concern for whatever... because she was the ONLY one... you weren't spoiled for choices...

Outside of whatever strawmen you've come up with, you haven't adressed my point, and now you're calling me out on what exactly? What proof do you have that Catelyn did not care for the common Westerosi, or that someone cared for the people more than she did, out of all the PoV accounts we had?

As per the War of the five kings, Brienne's chapters really display the cost rather well. Plus she has Septon Meribald who speaks rather well of the plight of the common soldier... which get's brought up sort of in the same way before... but not as eloquently.

No - I completely disagree with the thesis that Catelyn is selfish and egotistical. Using your rather vague and general thesis, I could change this to argue that:

Sympathise with Tywin all you want but if you do not grasp that his selfish concern for the honour of his house Jeopardized and caused the suffering of a great many more then while you might have a soul... I question your possesion of a grasp of the events here.

You argue that Catelyn was foolish for provoking Tywin - in light of your absurd criticism, I could point out that the entire war could have been avoided if Tywin did not call his bannermen and attacked House Tully. You will, however, argue that his honour demanded action and will ignore any argument that points out how the Starks were threatened and provoked first. It's not a new debate, I tells ya.

For a last example.. after calling me on strawmen a number of times, you CHANGE my ARGUMENT into a MORE REFUTABLE ONE and then PROCEED to REFUTE it.

but before you do that, you don't even argue my point...

Catelyn is selfish and egotistical <> Her selfish concern for the few (ie her family)

Another strawman.

Catelyn was foolish for kidnapping Tyrion <> Catelyn was foolish for provoking Tywin

Another. I don't think Tywin even figured into her reasoning. Because she was so caught up with Tyrion being ripe for the plucking.

Catelyn effectively called the banners first when she asked the knights who serve her father thus, as I have said, giving the lion of Lannister the chance to pounce.

Finally, it's not a debate at all. I can't tell what you do, Vlad, but it's not debating. And if it is... it's debating very horribly. You seem to rely on cutting people down on accusations of logical fallacy when you yourself make them left and right and over and under. Hell, some of the strawmen accusations you used were not only attempts to refute my argument but attacks on my character making them ad hominem in addition to strawmen.

If I were you, I'd pick another schtick. Because 'student of debate' shouldn't be cutting it , but you do it with such reckless abandon that leads me to believe you gotten away with it. Consider this a polite suggestion that perhaps this will not always be the case.

[Ser Vlad]

StarkDesolation,

I see you favor the internet flamewarâ„¢ definition of 'strawman' which is 'I don't feel like replying to this so I will just call it strawman and be done with it.' Ironically enough, that's an actual strawman, as we will see in the journey we are about to take.

No, I'm using the definition of strawman that states: "The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished."

I've accused you of misrepresenting my original statements, and refused to respond to them. I think we've really gotten off on the wrong foot - I started with the impression that you've ignored my arguments completely, which led me to an uncharacteristically condescending and abusive tone, which I apologize for. I really hope we can have a civilized debate, and put this nonsence behind us. We are adults, no (well, you likely are, anyway. )

Oh, and sorry in advance for forcing you to slog through these annoying quotes that aren't really quotes. My computer has decided to refuse to allow me to properly quote a message.

Barely, she's still rotten to him. I see Cate as not being abrasive in her arguing, but I can see a honeyed whine in her voice and a certain way she would say 'Ned' and even 'My Lord' that would make Ned cringe because after marriage he knew what it meant.

Catelyn believed it would be in the best interests of her family for Eddard to accept the position of King's Hand. Eddard did not do this until he had both Lysa's letter and Maester Luwin sided with Catelyn. And you still haven't answered my question: How did Ned reproach Catelyn, re: Jon, outside of the one isolated incident during the first year or so of their marriage?

Maybe Ned was feeling bold... but then Catelyn lettered him and Maester Luwin who as a celibate knows nothing of wives came in and gave Cate a "Ned the maester said..." to work with, in addition to the "But Ned, the letter from Lysa..." she had as a last resort to use indefinitely whenever she fewlt pissed off about Ned not doing what she wanted.

So you're arguing that Eddard Stark is spineless and makes life-shattering decisions based on how nicely his wife asks? I ask you again - why did the so-called "But Ned..." work when Bran fell down? Same context, Catelyn wanting something, same opportunity to use the "technique," yet Eddard Stark did what he wanted? If Eddard is spineless and in Catelyn's thrall, why did he refuse her?

Ned Stark is hopelessly whipped thanks to his honor. Catelyn's still a cow though. Several people can have flaws in song, probably even ALL of the characters. But aren't discussing these people. We're discussing Catelyn.

No, we're discussing Catelyn manipulating Eddard, thus Eddard and his qualities become central to this aspect of the debate.

Perhaps it was subtle because it wasn't there? Let me get me this straight, you just attributed a weakend form of an argument you thought I made to me and then refuted that. There's a word for that. What could it be?

A) Going by your own definition, wouldn't accusing me of using a straw man be a straw man itself? Fickle thing, these accusations.

But the fact remains that I did not alter your position. You said that Eddard could barely control Catelyn, that she was a shrew, and that she her goal was to reach King's Landing. I called you out on your first accusation and asked for proof from the text outside of your opinion, attacked your second position directly by stating that she is the opposite of Katherine from taming of the shrew, re: her dedication to her family vs. the desire to remain independent and the tendency to manipulate from Katherine, and as for your last point, I said that Catelyn's first thoughts re: KL were that she wouldn't see her family, refuting any notion that she pushed Ned into doing what he did for power. I further mentioned that it was natural for her to assume that she was going to King's Landing, since given what we know of Westerosi culture, most lords take their entire household with them to the capital. How exactly did I misrepresented your argument? Specifics, please.

Catelyn Stark's tragic flaw is her devotion to her family. Everything she has done.was out of love for her family and desire to protect them. In this situation it brought disastrous results. Had the situation been written by a different but the character reamined the same, Catelyn Stark wouldn't be a tragic heroine, she'd be the woman with a sense of duty who weathered her family through the Long Winter.

While it's true that Catelyn loves her family and is devoted to them and that this devotion is her tragic flaw, what does this have to do with your original point, i.e. that Catelyn forced and manipulated a weak-minded Eddard Stark to go to King's Landing?

That's why you can't help but be ambivalent about her. Because in the Song, because her love was such that it made blind, deaf to certain things... just as Ned's honor yoked him.

It is this aspect of Catelyn I despise because how of how it manifests itself in the book... I'm pretty sure I know what I mean to say.

I don't like Catelyn because I disagree with her values, the same reason I don't like Ned. Her actions were sound given her goals, and she was neither irrational nor erratic (for the most part) so I can't find much fault with her actions given her perspective and what she knew at the time she made her choices.

To give you the benefit of a doubt I went back and scanned my points. Not once did I mention or even imply that Catelyn started the War of the Five Kings.

I said it was her fault the Lannisters went nuts. But I can see where attributing me with saying that she started the War of the Five Kings is much easier to refute.

Alright, let's try to and go over this once again:

You say that Catelyn "made the Lannisters go nuts." Now, what was the result of this action? A) Jaime Lannister injures Eddard and Tywin scourges the Riverlands. Robert leaves the capital to hunt and "get away" from the bickering between the Starks and Lannisters, which eventually leads to his death. C) Cersei executes Eddard. D) The War of the Five King's breaks out, throw Stannis and Renly's claims to the Iron Throne. Balon attacks because of the weakened state of the north.

By accusing Catelyn of "making the Lannisters go nuts," and blaming her for Jaime's and Tywin's reactions, you are accusing her of starting the war of the Five King's.

This may come off as grammar naziish, but , again, to give you the benefit of a doubt, I looked up ad homien

and I got nothing. Wikipedia would be more than happy to let you make an article about it, cause I'd like to to know what I'm being accused of.

My mistake - it's spelled ad hominen. The definition that I go by is "Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem."

The second defition is irrelevant, because it is not what I was accusing you of. You avoid answering the post and attack a misrepresented version of my argument (the strawman accusation) and then procced to attack both my reasoning without addressing my point. This is, indirectly, an attack on me, therefore satisfying the ad hominen first definition.

And I understand the irony in accusing someone of an ad hominen attack. The fact that anyone can defend themselves from an ad hominen by claiming the ad hominen accuastion itself was ad hominen creates quite the paradox. Which we're going through, sadly.

What I was doing there, there being the thing you decided to call ad homien and straw man- Just so you know- was called banter... Good humored, playful conversation. I was hoping for banter back, just as much as you were hoping to 'debate' somebody who'd accept your terms, both literally and metaphorically.

Alas, such is not the case for either of us. More's the pity.

Banter works great in person - on message boards, where body language and tone are impossible to convey, it's very easy to give offence, especially with someone as prickly as Walder Frey, i.e. me.

Again, in terms of Lannister action, which started before the war of the five kings, Tyrion's kidnapping It incensed Jaime into action, which made Cersei even crankier.. Cate's calling for her father's men in the inn implicated the Riverlands, which gave Tywin due cause to rape them and the raped riverlands are scenes to the most devastating . Prove to me how Tywin would accomplish this otherwise. We'll never have a debate, you and I, least of all under your terms.

Catelyn called her father's men in arresting Tyrion, but she arrested him under her authority and claimed she was taking him north, to Winterfel. Since Tywin could only learn of what took place according to various second hand accounts, it depends on what those that travelled to Casterly Rock told him, but unless they really lied, I don't see how it can be infered that House Tully proper took hostile action against the Rock. Hoster and Edmure were removed from the events that took place, and we have no proof Hoster took any violent action towards Casterly Rock.

What was Tywin's goal? Ostensibly, Tywin's goal was to secure Tyrion's release. His actions, however, indicate nothing of the sort. By attacking the Riverlands, he draws a second party into the assault (since he had no idea that the Vale was implicated) and choses to escalate the conflict in military terms, without even a show of diplomatic outrage. Tywin could have demanded the release of his son rather than assault the Riverlands. He could have appealed to King's Landing and to Robert Baratheon, instead of striking the first blow against the Riverlands, and starting his campaign of rape and pillage.

As for due cause, wouldn't the same apply to Catelyn, given what she knew at the time? Or are you merely accusing Catelyn on the results of her actions, and not the reasoning that led to them?

Catelyn is rougly six degrees away... She kidnapped Tyrion (one), exposed him to the clansmen (two) , 'handed him' over to her sister (three) who allowed trial by combat (four) which Bronn won therefore he was allowed to go free in the mountains of the moon(five) and run into the Clansmen again(six)... That's Kevin Bacon territory. That's what I meant by however indirectly...

I agree that indirectly Catelyn is cupable for arming the mountain clans, but far more was involved in the chain of casuality leading to their armament. (1) She arrested Tyrion Lannister. (2) She chooses to take him to the Vale of Arryn over Winterfel. (3) She exposes him to the clansmen. (4) Lysa refuses to recognize Catelyn's authority and takes Tyrion away. (5) Lysa allows Tyrion to present a public confession, which Catelyn was opposed to. (6) Trial by Combat, victory by Bron. (7) Decision by Lysa to send Tyrion out through the Moon Door (or was it another one - regardless). (8) Tyrion's insight into how to avenge himself on House Arryn, and (9) Convincing his father to arm the clans.

Outside of arresting Tyrion, Catelyn was very much removed from the situation that led to the arming of the moon clans. Not to mention that she refused to surrender Tyrion but was forced to accept the situation, that she spoke against a public trial but was overriden by her sister, and that it was Lysa's decision which brought him into contact with the tribes a second time. So I disagree that it is correct to blame Catelyn for this, because she is from the event in question. If she is indirectly at fault for this event, then I feel that it allows for too many weaks links to be made in the same spirit in terms of casuality.

You'd just miss it. I wish that was banter.

How quaint. Evil, in terms of action causing harm and suffering, is not absolute - one action can be "more evil," than another in terms of scope, lives lost, the way in which those lives were extinguished...etc.

Or was your point someting else entirely?

'Strawman again', indeed, as I never accused Catelyn of commiting 'unmentionable evil as Lady Stoneheart', just that she was now an active participant in the greatest attrocities in the book... the hanging and bloodshed in the Trident. Dondarrion's men are also a little more colder than they were under him, I didn't think it needed to be spelled out but you seem to need that very much.

And which point I countered with the example of the Red Wedding. Do you honestly think that the greatest attrocities in the book are being commited by Lady Stoneheart, greater than event those that spawned her, i.e. the Red Wedding?

Peter Baelish manipulates things involuntarily I think. He probably feels he coerced his bowels into take a shit and pats himself on the back for that - and again- I never said that Catelyn started the war of the five kings. Maybe you should be arguing with somebody who said that, you seem to be very prepared for it. Anyway back to Baelish, he manipulates everyone to the point where it doesn't mean anything.

A) Let's define the War of the Five King's first, shall we? I think we understand two completely different things through its usage. My previous analysis on why accusing Catelyn of causing the hostilities between Lannister/Tully/Stark is an accusation in terms of starting the War of the Five Kings.

But play a role he did, and that role was the official cause of WWI, which is noted before the 'howevers' and 'but you could also say's in half of the books you would have me read for you and after 'but the offical cause', 'Ultimately' and 'Howevers' in the other half. And you not accepting that however you cut it, Princip's the guy with his name in the books and using ad hominem by depicting me as 'willfully ignorant'? Delightfully ironic.

As ironic as pointing out my usage of ad hominen attacks and then adding in quite a few of your own. But ce la vie, non? Princip's action was the pretext for WWI, but WWI was inevitable. The same applies for Tywin's actions against the Riverlands, given the political context of Westeros. But we have different perspectives on the issue, so I hope we can agree do disagree. I feel that the individual action is irrelevant when the war itself is inevitable, while you argue that regardless of the inevitability of war, blame should still fall on the action which sparked it, because at the very least war could have been avoided for a time.

To which I pointed out that I think he was the only chracter who had a POV in Robb's war so we can't really peg her as the only one who had concern for whatever... because she was the ONLY one... you weren't spoiled for choices...

Then it is my mistake, and I apologize - my wording on that statemen was downright terrible. My postion is this: Catelyn is the only PoV character in ASoIaF concerned with the human cost of the War of the Five Kings, the conflict between Robb and Tywin...etc.

As per the War of the five kings, Brienne's chapters really display the cost rather well. Plus she has Septon Meribald who speaks rather well of the plight of the common soldier... which get's brought up sort of in the same way before... but not as eloquently.

Ah, yes, Brienne. I keep forgetting AFfC was printed. Very well, I conceded that Brienne is corcerned with the human cost of the war. Thus I will amend the statement - Catelyn is the only pre-AFfC PoV concerned with the human cost of the war. I hope there are no more concerns?

Catelyn is selfish and egotistical <> Her selfish concern for the few (ie her family)

Bah, I always use language that's too strong and out of context. I apologize, and I'll try to be more exact in the future.

Catelyn was foolish for kidnapping Tyrion <> Catelyn was foolish for provoking Tywin

As for part two, you previously claimed that "Who [i.e. Catelyn] provoked the Lannisters?" and that "Until the Others show up south of the Wall... Catelyn Stark was the most devastating thing to happen to Westeros since Robert's Rebellion at the very least..."

The first statement implies that you believe that Catelyn Stark provoked Tywin, either directly or indirectly, correct? The second implies that Catelyn's decisions are less foolish, becuase of the harm they've caused, based on her intentions.

Another. I don't think Tywin even figured into her reasoning. Because she was so caught up with Tyrion being ripe for the plucking.

Be that as it may - you accuse her of provoking Tywin, much like you accuse her of indirectly arming the mountain clans.

Catelyn effectively called the banners first when she asked the knights who serve her father thus, as I have said, giving the lion of Lannister the chance to pounce.

But the Lion of Lannister could have refused to "pounce," and instead could have pushed for a diplomatic solution to the entire scenario. Recall that Tywin only had the word of whoever was at the Inn on the involvement of Tully troops, and we don't have any proof that Hoster/Edmure took hostile action against Tywin before Tywin struck at the Riverlands. So while you could blame Catelyn for the hostilities, the blame could be shifted on Tywin Lannister just as well for his decision to strike.

[Lord Mord]

StarkDesolation,

I am interested here in one particular point.

Cate's calling for her father's men in the inn implicated the Riverlands, which gave Tywin due cause to rape them and the raped riverlands are scenes to the most devastating .

Nothing justifies Tywin's attack on the Riverlands.

Nothing could justify the wholesale slaughter of thousands of disinterested bystanders.

Furthermore, if it were justified, then why doesn't he claim responsibility? Why doesn't he say outright, "Hey, Robert, looky here -- your Hand's wife has my son, and until he's released I'm ordering Gregor to cut the Riverlands to ribbons!"?

Why doesn't he? Because he's a moral coward and can't be bothered with integrity, or with justice. It doesn't matter to him whether it's just, he's going to do it anwyay. Whatever the injustice of Catelyn grabbing Tyrion in the first place, the response is so categorically unfounded, disproportionate, and dastardly as to absolve Catelyn of responsibility in incitement.

[StarkDesolation]

That was very quick! Many points for a quick rebound and conveying some sheepishness. Perhaps we were both mistaken on what we dealing with. Good.

No, I'm using the definition of strawman that states: "The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished."

Then you were using it incorrectly and overabundantly. Accusations of logical fallacy are tricky beasts and should be used sparingly in your case or at least differently with reasons for why you said it along with the accusations which you didn't really give, or hidden well because you seem to have this penchant for paraphrasing people's arguments into something else entirely. Too much of it coupled with a put off, condescending tone renders the whole thing very aesthetically damning. That might fly over the heads of some who balk at the very usage of debate terms, but in a forum about books like these you might very well run into somebody who wouldn't... F'rinstance, I think my Philosophy of History Prof might read these books in moments of sobriety... He also taught intro to logic. If he used this board and made comments you could reply to with your logical fallacy tact (the man drank like no tomorrow, so it's very likely that he would) , if he felt so inclined, would EAT you. But you'd learn alot from the experience.

I've accused you of misrepresenting my original statements, and refused to respond to them. I think we've really gotten off on the wrong foot - I started with the impression that you've ignored my arguments completely, which led me to an uncharacteristically condescending and abusive tone, which I apologize for. I really hope we can have a civilized debate, and put this nonsence behind us. We are adults, no (well, you likely are, anyway. )

Well you replied to my post without a stream of cusswords , apologized for going down that track and at least tried to convey a desire for constructive discussion. I'd say you qualify too.

And you still haven't answered my question: How did Ned reproach Catelyn, re: Jon, outside of the one isolated incident during the first year or so of their marriage?

I'm saying he didn't have to. That reproach worked quite well and all it probably had to do be kept up is a few Disapproving Stark Scowls during moments when Cate might feel the need to test the waters. HOWEVER, much like accusations of logical fallacy, this technique works best when used sparingly... If he used that on too many things... it would weaken it overall and if used too much would one day crumble to pieces along with everything it protected... So he uses only for Jon and perhaps Stark custom which he might not have to do it with since Catelyn could accept that if she can wrap Ned having to lop of heads and such around her house words... Family, Duty Honor.

So you're arguing that Eddard Stark is spineless and makes life-shattering decisions based on how nicely his wife asks? I ask you again - why did the so-called "But Ned..." work when Bran fell down? Same context, Catelyn wanting something, same opportunity to use the "technique," yet Eddard Stark did what he wanted? If Eddard is spineless and in Catelyn's thrall, why did he refuse her?

We're doing the dangerous paraphrasing again. Ned Stark is not spineless. He very much needs that spine to walk down wherever his code of honor would take him.

Also, it's not a question of how nicely... There's a a certain pitch and tone that isn't 'shrill' but isn't nice making it even more shrill...

And he certainly isn't in Catelyn's thrall, when you use that word, it implies, to me, anyway... being enrapt and besmitted. The best example I would use as a relationship in which the male was in the female's thrall... would be Ser Jorah and his last wife who's name eludes me.

Anyway, why did he go South on 'his own accord' ?

First off, Catelyn doing a flipflop is one of the OLDEST tricks in the book(not AGOT but 'the book')...

Person1-You should do this.

Person2- Don'twanna.

Person1-You should really really do this.

Person2-NO didn't you hear me?

sulking, scowling, thoughtful debate, swearing etc. ensues

Person2- Fine.

Person1-But you don't HAVE TO.

and that is a trap and Person2 knows this. Why is it a trap? Because Person1 knows if s/he accepts the pass from person2 to it renders him/her resposible for any horrible outcomes and nagging from Person1 forever which can be used in further arguments like this. Plus arguments like this and certainly in Ned and Cate's case are filled with ambivalence in Person2's case... On the one hand, Ned probably agrees with Cate and Luwin but on the other... his entire side of the family minus Ben is dead because of events transpiring in the South.

Now admittedly in between this particular 'But you don't HAVE TO' a little boy lay broken and dying (coincedentally after a similar interaction between the twins) so this 'don't have to' could be different... but Bran's fall was very stressful for Ned and Cate... and stress forces people to choose which value to abide by. Now let's take the three values of House Tully, CERTAINLY in Catelyn's case, 'Family' trumps 'Duty' and 'Honor' any day of the week.... Now if you apply the those three values to the Starks... and I think you can, I think it would be Duty, Family, Honor..(maybe even duty, honor, family... but duty comes first) and they talk about Stark's 'honor'... but his honor stems from his duty... which he fufills to the last obligation. So in this time of stress... Duty first stemming from his family... Brandon, Lyanna, Dad and wee Bran... the answers to this lay South...

Using one of your techniques... Ned would probably go South anyway at Cate's behest after Bran woke up. Because in all likelyhoods if Joff WAS the person who hired the assassin, he'd probably hire it irregardless... Which would spurn Ned south immediately.. And while the Littlefinger information mightn't get North, it's very likely Tyrion, who was at the wall and asked by Jon to help Bran (maybe Jon wouldn't be at the wall... but I think that was a given by the time Ned could decide to stick it out and see how Bran goes) would be detained anyway... by Catelyn still in the North. Since the riverlands weren't implicated in this fashion, Lord Tywin wouldn't have the opportunity and would probably have to resort to the alternative methods you use. However I think we're venturing into ASOIAF written by somebody else.

No, we're discussing Catelyn manipulating Eddard, thus Eddard and his qualities become central to this aspect of the debate.

I'll grant you that. I think manipulation might be the wrong word. 'Family then duty' clashing with 'Duty then family'... because it's George RR Martin writing it... and his decision for Ned to go when he does speaks to his tragic flaw... just as Catelyn's decision to stay when she does and go when she does speaks to hers. Yeah going south could be seen as duty, but it is being trumped by family on different side, wanting to avenge Bran, wanting to see her husband and her daughters.

A) Going by your own definition, wouldn't accusing me of using a straw man be a straw man itself? Fickle thing, these accusations.

I'm afraid not. You just threw out straw man without explaining why or how before moving on... what I did was explain the concept, give links to it... and then proceeded to try and speak to your point anyway...

But the fact remains that I did not alter your position.

You did: "your subtle "Catelyn wanted to head to KL for prestiege/power" accusation' <> Catelyn Stark's blinding love of her family above all else and the questionable decisions that arose from it.

You said that Eddard could barely control Catelyn, that she was a shrew, and that she her goal was to reach King's Landing.

Yes. Nope said she was shrewish.

From that link I think I will go with nagging and continually complaining... And I think she uses her highborn poise to be well mannered in her shewishness. So it doesn't come out in the same emotionally content as a lowborn shrewish wife. And I think... what I said is that I thought ORIGINALLY she thought she was going to go with just about everybody.

I called you out on your first accusation and asked for proof from the text outside of your opinion.

I'm sorry ... and I know I passed through this in the last thread. But I think 'rule Winterfell for me Cate' not directly cited (but I don't see you citing, nor do I demand it of you, I'd like the same courtesy) but paraphrased and then showing up at King's Landing... is pretty good proof. The raven I'll grant you... but Rodrick or another man eith some ingenuity could have gotten the point across just as well...

Attacked your second position directly by stating that she is the opposite of Katherine from taming of the shrew, re: her dedication to her family vs. the desire to remain independent and the tendency to manipulate from Katherine

That would be distorting an argument you thought I made which I never did, attrinuting it to me and then refuting it. I did not compare her to Katherine... I never mentioned Katherine. That was all you.

and as for your last point, I said that Catelyn's first thoughts re: KL were that she wouldn't see her family, refuting any notion that she pushed Ned into doing what he did for power. I further mentioned that it was natural for her to assume that she was going to King's Landing, since given what we know of Westerosi culture, most lords take their entire household with them to the capital. How exactly did I misrepresented your argument? Specifics, please.

For whatever reason this is what prompted me to get my book. Again... never said anything about power and explained why that was the wrong tack. Still here is what leads me to believe that Catelyn's first thoughts about King's Landing were that she'd get to go...

AGOT[63]-"Catelyn, you shall stay here in Winterfell." His words were like an icy draft through her heart. "No," she said suddently afraid. Was this to ber her punishment? Never to see his again, nor feel his arms around her?" That bolded part there... is what led to be belive that before he mentioned it... She thought she would be going too and that the family would not be broken up much, if at all.

Re:Westerosi assumption, I fail to see the bearing on that situation... she didn't to go... Ned wanted her North.

While it's true that Catelyn loves her family and is devoted to them and that this devotion is her tragic flaw, what does this have to do with your original point, i.e. that Catelyn forced and manipulated a weak-minded Eddard Stark to go to King's Landing?

I think we covered that that wasn't my point and how the flaw was and what the flaw had to do with my point.

Alright, let's try to and go over this once again:You say that Catelyn "made the Lannisters go nuts." Now, what was the result of this action? A) Jaime Lannister injures Eddard and Tywin scourges the Riverlands. Robert leaves the capital to hunt and "get away" from the bickering between the Starks and Lannisters, which eventually leads to his death. C) Cersei executes Eddard. D) The War of the Five King's breaks out, throw Stannis and Renly's claims to the Iron Throne. Balon attacks because of the weakened state of the north. By accusing Catelyn of "making the Lannisters go nuts," and blaming her for Jaime's and Tywin's reactions, you are accusing her of starting the war of the Five King's.

Actually I think you just blamed her for the war of the five kings. Yes, the outcomes of her Lannister provocations certainly helped things along and allowed plans to facilitate but you yourself posit that that would have happened anyway... so I fail to see how this helps you or hinders me. But my main concern as I continue to think about it are the horrible effects it had on her two homelands... the Riverlands and now the North. Both of which started before the war of the five Kings officially began.

You avoid answering the post and attack a misrepresented version of my argument (the strawman accusation) and then procced to attack both my reasoning without addressing my point. This is, indirectly, an attack on me, therefore satisfying the ad hominen first definition.

I phrased an argument using an argument of yours (one which I addressed and that you addressed back BTW making strawman wrong. ) in a mocking fashion yes... I suppose you could pass it off as ad hominem. But I think it was more just flat out mockery.

And I understand the irony in accusing someone of an ad hominen attack. The fact that anyone can defend themselves from an ad hominen by claiming the ad hominen accuastion itself was ad hominen creates quite the paradox. Which we're going through, sadly.

We're going through no such paradox... as it is not that you accused me of ad hominem that made it ironic .. but how you did it: Attack the point if you feel capable, but don't go off on some irrellevant tangent and expect a response. Don't you see where that conscrued as attacking the man? Also like strawman, you didn't take the time to back it up with the how and why.

Catelyn called her father's men in arresting Tyrion, but she arrested him under her authority and claimed she was taking him north, to Winterfel. Since Tywin could only learn of what took place according to various second hand accounts, it depends on what those that travelled to Casterly Rock told him, but unless they really lied, I don't see how it can be infered that House Tully proper took hostile action against the Rock. Hoster and Edmure were removed from the events that took place, and we have no proof Hoster took any violent action towards Casterly Rock.

Much like WWi I think the complicated structure and code of alliances and banner assembly porbably opened up with some of her father's men joined.

What was Tywin's goal? Ostensibly, Tywin's goal was to secure Tyrion's release. His actions, however, indicate nothing of the sort. By attacking the Riverlands, he draws a second party into the assault (since he had no idea that the Vale was implicated) and choses to escalate the conflict in military terms, without even a show of diplomatic outrage. Tywin could have demanded the release of his son rather than assault the Riverlands. He could have appealed to King's Landing and to Robert Baratheon, instead of striking the first blow against the Riverlands, and starting his campaign of rape and pillage.

Which would not have been so easily accomplished hate Catelyn opened the floodgates so to speak.

As for due cause, wouldn't the same apply to Catelyn, given what she knew at the time? Or are you merely accusing Catelyn on the results of her actions, and not the reasoning that led to them?

I agree that indirectly Catelyn is cupable for arming the mountain clans, but far more was involved in the chain of casuality leading to their armament. (1) She arrested Tyrion Lannister. (2) She chooses to take him to the Vale of Arryn over Winterfel. (3) She exposes him to the clansmen. (4) Lysa refuses to recognize Catelyn's authority and takes Tyrion away. (5) Lysa allows Tyrion to present a public confession, which Catelyn was opposed to. (6) Trial by Combat, victory by Bron. (7) Decision by Lysa to send Tyrion out through the Moon Door (or was it another one - regardless). (8) Tyrion's insight into how to avenge himself on House Arryn, and (9) Convincing his father to arm the clans. Outside of arresting Tyrion, Catelyn was very much removed from the situation that led to the arming of the moon clans. Not to mention that she refused to surrender Tyrion but was forced to accept the situation, that she spoke against a public trial but was overriden by her sister, and that it was Lysa's decision which brought him into contact with the tribes a second time. So I disagree that it is correct to blame Catelyn for this, because she is from the event in question. If she is indirectly at fault for this event, then I feel that it allows for too many weaks links to be made in the same spirit in terms of casuality.

Well Tyrion and Tywin are one or two dergrees away, Lysa is about 4, Catelyn is 6 but started the chain of events... and I don't think I ever said 'was solely responsible'...

How quaint. Evil, in terms of action causing harm and suffering, is not absolute - one action can be "more evil," than another in terms of scope, lives lost, the way in which those lives were extinguished...etc.Or was your point someting else entirely?

That they are both evil.... and while there are degrees to anything... the very definition of evil implies an absolute of sorts and should be stemmed off immediatedly... for instance... maybe incacerating Gregor after he disfigured Sandor would have spared Elia's rape at the very least not to mention the suffering of countless others... or shooting the old man would prevent him from setting off his dirty bomb... After that I tongue-in-cheek say thatthe Frey's careless disposal of Catelyn's body led to another evil being born so they should have taken counteractive measure and more care...

And which point I countered with the example of the Red Wedding. Do you honestly think that the greatest attrocities in the book are being commited by Lady Stoneheart, greater than event those that spawned her, i.e. the Red Wedding?

I said, that she was now contributing to the some of greatest attrocities in the book , namely those among the RIverlands. Now coming to think of it... The Red Wedding occurs on the Riverlands is also among the greatest attrocities on the boook. Dividing them up... the rape, pillage, salting of the Earth, slaughter of townsfolk is among the greatest consequences for the commoners... while the Red Wedding is among the greatest tragedies and conquencies and slaughter amongst the nobles. I didn't say it was the greatest I said it was among them... The Riverlands are a BAD place in Martin's books.

A) Let's define the War of the Five King's first, shall we? I think we understand two completely different things through its usage.

You'd like me to cop to 'Catelyn starting the War of thwe Five Kings' because it gives you a much better foothold to go from... as such and since I never said anything of the sort, I'd rather not.

As ironic as pointing out my usage of ad hominen attacks and then adding in quite a few of your own. But ce la vie, non?

First, it's 'c'est la vie' That's life... you said 'this the life'. And yes, I was rather fallacious wasn't I?

Princip's action was the pretext for WWI, but WWI was inevitable. The same applies for Tywin's actions against the Riverlands, given the political context of Westeros. But we have different perspectives on the issue, so I hope we can agree do disagree. I feel that the individual action is irrelevant when the war itself is inevitable, while you argue that regardless of the inevitability of war, blame should still fall on the action which sparked it, because at the very least war could have been avoided for a time.

I think the death of Ferdinand of Westeros was Robert's death though... and maybe Joff's coronation, that is what 'set the date'.

Then it is my mistake, and I apologize - my wording on that statemen was downright terrible. My postion is this: Catelyn is the only PoV character in ASoIaF concerned with the human cost of the War of the Five Kings, the conflict between Robb and Tywin...etc.

And I tried to portray that I believe... aisde from Arya, that Cate was the only chracter on the front... Davos might also be applicable.

Ah, yes, Brienne. I keep forgetting AFfC was printed. Very well, I conceded that Brienne is corcerned with the human cost of the war. Thus I will amend the statement - Catelyn is the only pre-AFfC PoV concerned with the human cost of the war. I hope there are no more concerns?

Again... barring Arya... I think she's the only chracter actually on the front... Arya and Cate are our only frontline characters in early Song... Jaime and Brienne seem to be taking up that torch now...

Bah, I always use language that's too strong and out of context. I apologize, and I'll try to be more exact in the future. As for part two, you previously claimed that "Who [i.e. Catelyn] provoked the Lannisters?" and that "Until the Others show up south of the Wall... Catelyn Stark was the most devastating thing to happen to Westeros since Robert's Rebellion at the very least..."The first statement implies that you believe that Catelyn Stark provoked Tywin, either directly or indirectly, correct? The second implies that Catelyn's decisions are less foolish, becuase of the harm they've caused, based on her intentions.

The first implies that Catelyn provoke Tywin. The second implies that Catelyns foolish decisions had horrible impact.

Be that as it may - you accuse her of provoking Tywin, much like you accuse her of indirectly arming the mountain clans.

But the Lion of Lannister could have refused to "pounce," and instead could have pushed for a diplomatic solution to the entire scenario. Recall that Tywin only had the word of whoever was at the Inn on the involvement of Tully troops, and we don't have any proof that Hoster/Edmure took hostile action against Tywin before Tywin struck at the Riverlands. So while you could blame Catelyn for the hostilities, the blame could be shifted on Tywin Lannister just as well for his decision to strike.

See my previous statement about weird rules of diplomacy. Lannisters in general are just the type to be looking for loopholes to facilitate ... and pouncing is waiting for the precise moment... Tywin didn't want a diplomatic solution. Tywin wanted a reason.

[StarkDesolation]

M'Lord Caspen

When I said 'due cause'... I meant due cause as far as Tywin Lannister was concerned... not like actual due cause in any forms of ideal justice... I'd posit that laws to Lannisters are things to chase their prey into to slow them down and strike. If a Lannister like Tywin or Tyrion is not above a law he finds a way around the law within that law.

And what makes you think Tywin feels the need to run things by Robert? What makes you think Robert wants to know about what's really going on? If anything, I think Robert runs things by Tywin if Tywin deigns to talk to him at all.

This isn't the 'Tywin defence thread', I agree with you... Tyrion killing him on the can was the heights of ASOIAF and bound me to the series forever. I don't think it particuarly absolves Catelyn of anything as at this point Tywin has been doing Tywin things for decades and the stories of the men he keeps and King's Landing are well known... So if she had seen the visage of Lord Tywin in her mind before that of her broken Bran it might have had to make that bastard work for his reason a little more. But yeah, Catelyn's a tragic heroine and Tywin Lannister is one of the greatest(greatest as in most prominent) outright villains in the series.

[Aerys]

A war with words about catelyn. See what she's done- she started a huge big post war which takes absolutely ages for me to read through. Another reason I don't like evil, annoying,warstarting catelyn. GO ON CATELYN HATERS!!!! whats the score for haters and lovers of the evil bitch?

[Lord Mord]

StarkDesolation,

This isn't the 'Tywin defence thread', I agree with you... Tyrion killing him on the can was the heights of ASOIAF and bound me to the series forever. I don't think it particuarly absolves Catelyn of anything as at this point Tywin has been doing Tywin things for decades and the stories of the men he keeps and King's Landing are well known... So if she had seen the visage of Lord Tywin in her mind before that of her broken Bran it might have had to make that bastard work for his reason a little more. But yeah, Catelyn's a tragic heroine and Tywin Lannister is one of the greatest(greatest as in most prominent) outright villains in the series.

I understand what you mean. Nevertheless, your argument was one of direct cause -- Catelyn abducted Tyrion, and because it could be reasonably expected that Tywin would attack the Riverlands, his attack of the Riverlands is on her head. If not on her head -- if she's not solely responsible for the attack on the Riverlands -- then she's not responsible at all.

The more that I think about this, the more I'm understanding your argument to be, "Catelyn wasn't responsible, but it's her fault, because she should have seen it coming." It can't be both. Either she should have seen it coming, and therefore it's her fault, in which case it cannot be Tywin's fault. After all -- *shrug* -- he's just going to do whatever he's going to do, like a force of nature, and Catelyn's the one who has to think about others and plan accordingly. Or else, Tywin is evil for attacking the Riverlands, and since evil implies a choice, then he's not a force of nature, and whatever Catelyn did, responsibility for that choice has to lie with Tywin solely.

[jon tarkaryen]

war of five kings wasn't of course completly catelyn's fault but her kidnaping of tyrion was one important piece. stupid foolish damn idiotic b****.

[StarkDesolation]

Lord Caspen

I think Catelyn implicating the Riverlands by getting the knights to help her escort Tyrion and not the actual abduction was the excuse and reason he needed.

While not force of nature, I think it would be fair to risk a Tywin defence thread and suggest Tywin is a lord of monsters and his plans for the riverlands and the need to have the proper veil to do what he did are not unlike the legends that vampires need permission to enter a house and thus would patiently wait for the time that permission is given or try to trick their way in. In this instance permission was given when the knights were obligated into helping her. She opened the door and let the lions in. If you want to damn Tywin, be my guest... but you can blame Cate too... so as I dislike both of them, I think I'll do that while you can lay it all on Tywin's doorstep, I don't think either of us will be alone.

[Tagot]

Catelyn is a good person. Flawed, but not by any means evil... not even as Lady Stoneheart.

However, to me she is still a very boring character. She isn't that interesting to read about, maybe because she lacks internal conflicts. I might like her more if Robb had a POV instead.

[John of the West Coast]

I don't particuarly like Catelyn for a few reasons, but most of them have to do with her personality even before Eddard is beheaded.

Her refusal to show any kind of compassion to Jon or Theon while they were in Winterfell. Theon to a lesser extent because there is less evidence except for a few passing remarks by Theon and Catelyn about his treatment in Winterfell. The thing that really hit home was the "It should have been you" statement to Jon.

I don't think she ever really forgave Ned for bringing Jon into their family, which is a really pissy thing to do. So, that's pretty much why I don't like Catelyn. It's a complicated situation, yes - but that doesn't make Catelyn and less of a crazy bitch for taking that road. She jumps to conclusions too quickly (Tyrion) and is completely unforgiving. It doesn't help that she really does nothing but knee-jerk reactions that, arguably, lead to everyone she loves dying.

[Lord Mord]

StarkDesolation,

She opened the door and let the lions in.

She did what she felt she had to do. It was the lions who interpreted that as an open door. Not her fault if they did -- completely their call.

If my brother is accused of a crime, and I turn evidence against him, and at his first opportunity he ckills my boyfriend in retaliation, I may have been able to guess there would be retaliation -- even that he would strike at what's dear to me. But I am not responsible for my boyfriend's death -- that was wholly my brother's call. There is no reasonable charge, legal or moral, which can be laid on me.

[cybroleach]

Shouldn't the subtitle read "Bring it on bitch haters"?

Soo very true.

On a side note man did this get thread jacked fast.

[VerySmallMonster]

Catelyn was not leaping to conclusions when she took Tyrion hostage. She had very good reason to believe him guilty. She and Littlefinger grew up together. He was like a brother to her, and she knows he loves her. She has had no reason up to this point to question his word.

And on the note of taking Tyrion captive, why do people insist on laying blame for the war on Catelyn's door? Do you really think the Lannisters wouldn't have started the war anyway? Everything suggests that they'd been preparing for this for years. True taking Tyrion hostage sparked it, but they would have done it anyway, and if Lysa hadn't been such an idiot, they would have had a hostage to use.

Is that suppose to dissuade me? Or are you negotiating terms under which you'll accept that you can't spell 'cateclysm' without 'Catelyn' ?(the 'n' of course is half of them m in 'cateclysm').

Actually....you can't spell it with Catelyn whatever you do. Cataclysm hasn't got an 'e' in it.

(sorry, just couldn't help myself)

[Steve Moss]

I've always believed there are two kinds of people in this world. Those who's hearts get torn apart reading Catelyn's plight and those without souls. What kind are you?

Count me amongst those without souls.

And Tywin had to, from a political standpoint, kill the children - although he kept himself appart from the war, he was still Aerys's former hand and the second most influencial man in the Targayrien dynasty in modern memory. For the rebellion to accept his betrayal, he had to offer proof of his conversion: that proof was the death of Aerys's heirs.

Not honourable or heroic, but rather realpolitik at its best.

Tywin did not merely demonstrate an absence of honor in killing the Targ children, he demonstrated he was a despicable piece of sh*t. A point he drove home repeatedly thereafter.

It would be exceptionally hard to put Eddard's unfaithfulness behind her; what with Jon living right there constantly in her face, and constantly a reminder of it.

Catelyn's marriage was a political match, not a jot of romance invloved. The problem was that Catelyn had a fairy tale childhood, followed by a pampered adulthood. Catelyn and Sansa have many similarities, including the creation of a fantasy prince who would sweep her away. She couldn't comprehend that Ned married her for her father's support, not because he wanted her. Thus, she manufactured an illusion, real in her own mind, that Jon's presence inconveniently disrupted,

She would have foregiven Ned a dozen bastards, as long as she didn't have to see them.

What proof do you have that Catelyn did not care for the common Westerosi, or that someone cared for the people more than she did, out of all the PoV accounts we had?

What does Catelyn ever do for the common folk? Edmure at least tried to protect them, though he was pretty ineffectual at it. As to Catelyn, she did nothing, so far as I can see.

And Catelyn is demonstrably unwilling to face hard truths. For example, when she begins to fell dounts about taking Tyrion, at the Eyrie, rather than explore her reasoning she resolutely pushed them away. This trend of observing misery/destruction, spotting her possible role in creating it, then moving away before that realization can crystalize, is rampant in Catelyn's chapters. Internal avoidance of responsibility is dam near a character trait with Catelyn.

Robb sums it up best when he asks her "Why do you lie to yourself?".

Catelyn is rougly six degrees away... She kidnapped Tyrion (one), exposed him to the clansmen (two) , 'handed him' over to her sister (three) who allowed trial by combat (four) which Bronn won therefore he was allowed to go free in the mountains of the moon(five) and run into the Clansmen again(six)... That's Kevin Bacon territory. That's what I meant by however indirectly...

You are being too kind to Catelyn. She was responsible for getting Tyrion to the Eyrie, against his will. That imposed a responsibility upon her to get him down again, especially as she knew the danger he was facing. She failed absymally in that responsibilty. Indeed, he efforts were close to none existent.

When the Vale burns, and at it will, Tyrion will be the culprit directly responsible. And Catelyn and her moronic sister will be two who gave rise to his motivation.

Nothing justifies Tywin's attack on the Riverlands.

You are correct in that there was nothing of justice in Tywin's actions. However, his response to the kidnapping of his son was what would be expected of a feudal lord. The feudal contract flows two ways: 1) bannerman promises armed support for his lord, if lord is threatened; and 2) lord promises armed support for his bannerman, if his bannerman is threatened. If Tywin had not called his banners in reaction to Tyrion's kidnapping, his position as a feudal lord would have been weakened.

And I'd like to point out that when Ned was seized, his thoughts were that Catelyn would be calling the banners. Thus, Tywin did exactly what Ned thought should be done, as a result of a ranking noble's captivity.

The more that I think about this, the more I'm understanding your argument to be, "Catelyn wasn't responsible, but it's her fault, because she should have seen it coming." It can't be both. Either she should have seen it coming, and therefore it's her fault, in which case it cannot be Tywin's fault. After all -- *shrug* -- he's just going to do whatever he's going to do, like a force of nature, and Catelyn's the one who has to think about others and plan accordingly. Or else, Tywin is evil for attacking the Riverlands, and since evil implies a choice, then he's not a force of nature, and whatever Catelyn did, responsibility for that choice has to lie with Tywin solely.

This is in error. An event can be set in motion by multiple actors, without which the event would not have occurred. The same holds true of Catelyn vs. Tywin causing the burning of the Riverlands.

Tywin ordered the Riverlands burned. That order was a direct response to Catelyn's seizing Tyrion. Both are at fault, especially under the cultural standards of Westeros.

The closest modern equivalent I can think of is the kidnapping of a mob boss' son. When the mob boss strat killing and torturing, he is responsible. But the kidnappers set the mob boss in motion, and bear a portion of the responsibility. After all, the mob boss is acting as a mob boss is expected to react. The cops can cry foul, but not the kidnappers.

[StarkDesolation]

Actually....you can't spell it with Catelyn whatever you do. Cataclysm hasn't got an 'e' in it.

(sorry, just couldn't help myself)

Fine, take the 'e' , turn it upsidedown and mangle it so it looks the other 'a'. As Don King would say: 'Ingenuatude overtriumphs grammarocity.'

[A wilding]

Catelyn's marriage was a political match, not a jot of romance invloved. The problem was that Catelyn had a fairy tale childhood, followed by a pampered adulthood. Catelyn and Sansa have many similarities, including the creation of a fantasy prince who would sweep her away. She couldn't comprehend that Ned married her for her father's support, not because he wanted her. Thus, she manufactured an illusion, real in her own mind, that Jon's presence inconveniently disrupted,

Can't let this one go by.

Catelyn did not have a "fairy tale childhood". She was the responsible dutiful daughter who acted as Lord Hoster's surrogate son until his wife was able to produce a real one.

Catelyn had no illusions when she married Ned, a "solemn stranger", having first dutifully thanked her father for obtaining her such a good match (in return for giving his support to the rebellion). She "came to love" Ned only later, as, presumably, he came to love her. There is no support in the books anywhere for her having any illusions about "a fantasy prince".

There is not a jot of evidence that Catelyn's adulthood has pampered beyond the norm for her class, and some evidence against. For example Ned leaves her in charge when he goes south, implying she has at least some experience of such matters.

Ned/Catelyn was a political marriage, and such a marriage has some terms attached to it:

- Ned did not have to be faithful to Catelyn, but he was expected to be discreet about his infidelities and any results of them.

- Catelyn's eldest son would get to be the next Lord of Winterfell, unchallenged by any potential rivals.

[Steve Moss]

Catelyn did not have a "fairy tale childhood". She was the responsible dutiful daughter who acted as Lord Hoster's surrogate son until his wife was able to produce a real one.

Catelyn had no illusions when she married Ned, a "solemn stranger", having first dutifully thanked her father for obtaining her such a good match (in return for giving his support to the rebellion). She "came to love" Ned only later, as, presumably, he came to love her. There is no support in the books anywhere for her having any illusions about "a fantasy prince".

There is not a jot of evidence that Catelyn's adulthood has pampered beyond the norm for her class, and some evidence against. For example Ned leaves her in charge when he goes south, implying she has at least some experience of such matters.

Not pampered? I see your point, if considered against the "norms of her class". But what is Catelyn's class? Daughter of one of the seven greatest lords in Westeros. Counting the king, that makes her a scion of the top 8 families in all Westeros, in terms of wealth, privilege and social rank. By any objective definition, Catelyn was pampered to an extreme.

And consider Catelyn's recollections of her childhood. It seems darn near idlyllic, complete with fond memories of LF. Consider Catelyn's and Hoster's interaction. Consider the risks that Hoster took to maximize the best marriages possible for his daughters. Consider his leniency in the matter of LF (he would have died, if it had been half the other great lords). Consider the leeway Hoster, Edmure, Ned and Robb all give her, even as an adult.

This leeway was something she had obviously grown to expect. Do you think Cersie or Margeary would be able to go flouncing through the kingdom on a moment's notice, with only an aged knight as escort? Robert, Tywin and Mace would have an absolute fit.

Now look at Catelyn's two daughters, Sansa and Arya. Consider how they are being raised and that it is Catelyn who seeing to their upbringing. Look at what she thinks is important (embroidery, songs and proper manners). While Arya obviously takes after her Stark blood, Sansa is, IMO, a mirror image of Catelyn (a Tully) and not just physically. Add 20 years to Sansa (before events of AGoT) and you have Catelyn.

And if Catelyn had not manufactured an ideal Ned in her mind, why was she hurt when she arrived at Winterfell and found his bastard? She certainly didn't have time before her arrival to come "to love him" before Winterfell. If she was out of sorts, it lends credence that she was emotionally invested in Ned already, in record time. Sort of like Sansa and Joffrey.