Westeros.org Interviews... Michelle Fairley

[Bran Swift]

Thanks for the explanation Ran. I know I'll watch every episode of the show, but stuff like this just makes me want to bury my nose further in the books, and try to separate them from the show in my own mind. What you describe sounds like such a weird decision to make, on the writers' behalves. I'll wait for the show to pass judgement, of course.

[Abaddon]

Nobody in Westeros would ever think that legitimising Jon is a good idea. It's ridiculous, and it makes Catelyn look stupid. But more importantly, it makes the writers and showrunners look (even more) stupid.

You mean, other than Robb?

[Abaddon]

Thanks Ran, that really helps with some context.

I think it's important to remember that the Cat of the show is (already) far from the Cat of the books. This is not in broad sweeping terms an unexpected way to write the show Cat. The decision to make her different was made a long time ago and I've basically come to terms that show Cat and book Cat are pretty different, so it doesn't bother me terribly. I can understand those who haven't reconciled this, but it's hardly unexpected. If they were to suddenly write her like book Cat it would be a total failure of the show.

That said, it sounds like they did a bit of a half-way job and it sounds really weird. But I will wait to see it myself before passing judgement.

[Ran]

That's taking Patrick out of context, since he's obviously referring to pre-book feelings and thoughts on the matter.

It's not like the first act that Robb made when crowned was to legitimize Jon. It's a choice he made out of necessity, not some deep-rooted belief that it was the just and right thing to do. Prior to the novels, book Robb probably just accepted it as part of the way things are.

[Abaddon]

The language I quoted is "nobody in Westeros would ever" (emphasis mine). I stand by my comment.

Anyway, I've blabbed enough about this, and unlike you I haven't seen it yet. So, I will wait until the episode airs before commenting more.

[lojzelote]

I just read Ran's spoiler comment. Now it's all clear - I'm so not going to watch S3. The only thing I'm gonna do is that I will look up the Red Wedding on Youtube, so I can witness the end of the hot unharmed nurse who walks battlefields alone. That's all I expect from S3. I hope they won't disappoint me at least in this.

[Eir]

But anyone who has read the spoilers of the scene in question will know that it's absolute character assassination. It's not just feeling regret over Jon, it's genuinely out of character and just stupid writing.

Basically she tells Talisa that one time, when Jon had been ill, she had prayed to the gods for his recovery and swore that she would encourage Ned to legitimise him. But when he recovered, she couldn't bring herself to do it.

.

So this scene... let me lay out, very briefly, my issues:

Catelyn is making her votive figure. Talisa asks if she can help her make it. Catelyn says no, and explains only a mother can make them to protect her children.

See the problem, right from the get go? The Catelyn of the TV series sees herself as Jon Snow's mother. This means she is a very, very bad mother by her own lights. The Catelyn of the novels? She is not his mother. He is Ned's son, and that's it. She is neither his mother nor his step-mother. That's how it goes in Westeros, where inheritance and political alliances are all decided by marriages and descent. No one in Westeros thinks Catelyn is an unnatural person for refusing to play the part of mother when it's not expected of her. It's Ned who's acting outside of the norms of society, bringing his bastard in to his household and raising him as an equal to his trueborn children.

From there, it just makes it all kind of awful. Catelyn, the bad mother, proceeds to have prayed to the gods -- the gods she believes in -- that her step-child be killed. Would the Catelyn of the novels do that... ? Probably not. From what we see, she wanted him gone, but she's never wanted him dead. And would she ever have prayed for a child she considered herself mother to to die? Never, ever. But on the show? Yep!

And then, you know, he gets seriously ill, and she fears it's her fault, and she regrets it and tries to do what she can to have the gods save him. Which is fine, you know, as such things go. If the book Catelyn had by some craziness ended up in that situation, sure, she would have regretted it immensely because she failed at being a decent person. But of course, then she fails to live up to what she promises the gods -- a very human failing, also perfectly reasonable...

But now she thinks that because of this, all the disasters that have befallen her family may be the punishment of the gods for her breaking her promises. Now, this is her opinion, her subjective view. But I can't help but expect -- and groan at the idea -- that there will be viewers of the show who will take this facile explaination and decide that, yes, it's all Catelyn's fault.

Whoa. That's a LOT of thinking about Jon Snow on Catelyn's part...if I read the chapters correctly, "book" Catelyn seemed to try to avoid thinking about him altogether.

So I guess she is feeling remorse over her actions towards him, but in a really bizarre way...entertaining the thought of legitimising him?? That's...sort of extreme, even for "show" Catelyn.

The new information about this scene has me quite perplexed--did they absolutely have to take it there to make Catelyn more sympathetic to the audience, or at least to demonstrate that she is in a very vulnerable place right now?

There's also a review from Vulture that adds to the confusion:

There are some performance gems in the first four episodes, including a monologue by Catelyn that will bring a tear to the eye of any parent who ever failed to properly appreciate a child.

http://www.vulture.c...rikes-back.html

So apparently the scene itself is really well-done, at least for people watching the series without the books as a point of comparison. But at the core of it is this notion that Jon is Catelyn's child in some way, which, as Ran detailed, is far, far off the mark. I'm really surprised--based on the first season, I'd thought that at least in regards to her feelings on Jon Snow, the writers were keen to keep "book" Catelyn and "show" Catelyn congruous.

*Sighs* On a positive note, thanks for keeping us all up-to-date, guys. Much appreciated.

[jons nissa]

As someone who has in fact watched the scene, I can say that my reaction was... "What the fuck?!" And I mean, literally, out loud. (Apparently Jace Lacob at the Daily Beast suggests his was "For fuck's sake!")

I don't know if I would call it "character assassination", as he does, but it's one more in a series of disappointing character choices for Catelyn. Right from the start, they've shoehorned her into the "mother" role, taking away her ambitions and hopes for her family and replacing it only with a desire to keep the family together. They've taken away many of her ideas and given them to others, reducing her agency. They took away her call for an end to vengeance and war, and just had her sit there silent. They didn't allow her to come to the notion of freeing Jaime, and instead Michelle Fairley notes that Catelyn was hoodwinked by Littlefinger and Tyrion -- so now she's a victim of of her naivete rather than being a desperate woman surrounded by tragedy making the only choice she can see toward recovering her family.

So this scene... let me lay out, very briefly, my issues:

Catelyn is making her votive figure. Talisa asks if she can help her make it. Catelyn says no, and explains only a mother can make them to protect her children.

See the problem, right from the get go? The Catelyn of the TV series sees herself as Jon Snow's mother. This means she is a very, very bad mother by her own lights. The Catelyn of the novels? She is not his mother. He is Ned's son, and that's it. She is neither his mother nor his step-mother. That's how it goes in Westeros, where inheritance and political alliances are all decided by marriages and descent. No one in Westeros thinks Catelyn is an unnatural person for refusing to play the part of mother when it's not expected of her. It's Ned who's acting outside of the norms of society, bringing his bastard in to his household and raising him as an equal to his trueborn children.

From there, it just makes it all kind of awful. Catelyn, the bad mother, proceeds to have prayed to the gods -- the gods she believes in -- that her step-child be killed. Would the Catelyn of the novels do that... ? Probably not. From what we see, she wanted him gone, but she's never wanted him dead. And would she ever have prayed for a child she considered herself mother to to die? Never, ever. But on the show? Yep!

And then, you know, he gets seriously ill, and she fears it's her fault, and she regrets it and tries to do what she can to have the gods save him. Which is fine, you know, as such things go. If the book Catelyn had by some craziness ended up in that situation, sure, she would have regretted it immensely because she failed at being a decent person. But of course, then she fails to live up to what she promises the gods -- a very human failing, also perfectly reasonable...

But now she thinks that because of this, all the disasters that have befallen her family may be the punishment of the gods for her breaking her promises. Now, this is her opinion, her subjective view. But I can't help but expect -- and groan at the idea -- that there will be viewers of the show who will take this facile explaination and decide that, yes, it's all Catelyn's fault.

The writers try rather earnestly to make her sympathetic with one hand, and in the process make her an easy mark for hatred. And all because they've chosen to deviate from the richer, more complex character in the novels, the one who is very much a person of her time and place and class. She's not just a mother, she's a lady, she's a noblewoman, she's a believer in the Seven, she's a figure whose person helped bind together two great families, who has borne and brought up the heirs to the North. She's a lot of things. She's not "just" a mother.

And this is a book spoiler...

And so, I can't wait for this version of Catelyn Stark to be put out of her misery, and mine. She is a simplified and sometimes clumsily handled version of the character, portrayed by a talented actress who has not been given the role that this could have been.

while i haven't seen the scene yet, i was watching season 2 and stumbled on a cersei tyrion scene where cersei says (paraphrasing) "i wonder if joffrey is punishment from the gods. for my behavior." she implies that joffrey is mad because of how he was conceived. anyway, i found it striking that she used the same words "god punishing me" as this scene and think it might be d & d's attempt at creating a parallel path for the 2 mothers. as well as setting up the "will" scene.

[franko99]

Whoa. That's a LOT of thinking about Jon Snow on Catelyn's part...if I read the chapters correctly, "book" Catelyn seemed to try to avoid thinking about him altogether.

So I guess she is feeling remorse over her actions towards him, but in a really bizarre way...entertaining the thought of legitimising him?? That's...sort of extreme, even for "show" Catelyn.

The new information about this scene has me quite perplexed--did they absolutely have to take it there to make Catelyn more sympathetic to the audience, or at least to demonstrate that she is in a very vulnerable place right now?

There's also a review from Vulture that adds to the confusion:

http://www.vulture.c...rikes-back.html

So apparently the scene itself is really well-done, at least for people watching the series without the books as a point of comparison. But at the core of it is this notion that Jon is Catelyn's child in some way, which, as Ran detailed, is far, far off the mark. I'm really surprised--based on the first season, I'd thought that at least in regards to her feelings on Jon Snow, the writers were keen to keep "book" Catelyn and "show" Catelyn congruous.

*Sighs* On a positive note, thanks for keeping us all up-to-date, guys. Much appreciated.

What I get from the reviews, it's a really good scene for TV-Cat, and if you don't mind changes it is a touching scene, but almost "character assasination" for those who still expected to see some of BookCat on the show. I guess we should have to wait and see for ourself before taking any conclusion :dunno:

Don't want to sound too cynical, but Robb's story has been butchered so much, that the RW will be a relief more than a sad (but awesome) event

[Eir]

I guess we should have to wait and see for ourself before taking any conclusion :dunno:

Too true...but waiting is so difficult! :P But yes, I think if and when we detach ourselves from the preconceptions/expectations, it's easier to watch the show as a show, as opposed to a sequence of (well-loved) events from the book. It's simply quite challenging to do so--the third book in particular is so jam-packed with iconic scenes and key moments for characters that it's hard to imagine the series without them, or done in a way that doesn't do justice to the original source material.

Less than 22 hours left! I really am looking forward to the series, to seeing how some of these great characters and scenes will play out. I just...don't want to have cause to yell at the screen in frustration.

[teemo]

I think the only time Cat may have experienced even a little bit of guilt was when she spent all of that time with Mya Stone at the Eyrie.

I don't think she died loathing Jon Snow like she did at the beginning of the series, but she was adamant that he shouldn't be Robb's heir, even comparing Jon to Theon for heaven's sake...

But all in all, Cat doesn't seem to feel like her attitude toward Jon Snow is inappropriate at all. She's a highborn Tully woman...it is completely normal for her to dislike her husband's bastard. I don't like it, but it makes sense in the Westeros world and considering Cat's background. Not to mention, Ned treated him like a son, which was really over-the-top for a lord to do with their bastard. I don't see how she ever felt guilty enough to justify a monologue on it. I guess I'll just have to see it for myself. Is there any way this is a chance to sort of plant the idea in people's heads that Jon may be more than just a bastard? Total wishful thinking because it doesn't sound like it and not sure why they'd do it, but that's the only credible excuse for that monologue I can think of..

[David Selig]

OMG, I just read the spoilers, That's just terrible stuff. Just about the worst kind of character assassination imaginable. And to top it off it's all to make Jon Snow look extra special and awesome. Gag me with a spoon...

[Words of Winter]

I haven't minded most of the changes between book-Cat and tv-Cat, but

making a votive for Jon when only a mother can do so. She is highborn. Should may accept Ned as the "father," but never, never, never, would she dote on her husband's illegitimate child as a mother. Hopefully she is making the votive for another son - Robb maybe?

Maybe I'm wrong. I can' recall. Does anyone know if book-Cat knows who Jon's real mother is? Maybe that would allow for more acceptance?

:dunno:

[jons nissa]

Maybe I'm wrong. I can' recall. Does anyone know if book-Cat knows who Jon's real mother is? Maybe that would allow for more acceptance?

:dunno:

no one knows who jon's real mother is, save ned and howland reed, possibly one or two others. that's why there's so much speculation on the boards.

[Words of Winter]

no one knows who jon's real mother is, save ned and howland reed, possibly one or two others. that's why there's so much speculation on the boards.

Than this make no sense.

:bang:

[MyLittleDirewolf]

I don't see it as character assassination so much as ASOIAF-verse deviation. IDK.. I'm a Cat fan and I can't get all ragey on this speech. Maybe I'll feel differently when I see it. It's a huge departure from what we know of Westerosi culture. But the show also hasn't included things like how kinslaying is an unforgivable act (see: Jaime and cousin Alton).

However, so many book readers hate Cat mostly based on her attitude towards Jon Snow. If they carried it over to the show, I think like PatrickStormborn said, she would be another hated TV woman. I've spent many a post defending Cat for "It should have been you" and her arguing against Jon being Robb's heir. If they included that in the show, she would be The Worst Person in Westeros (behind Sansa, of course).

I feel like D&D don't quite know what to do with some of the female characters GRRM has created and fleshed out so wonderfully. They are much more in their wheelhouse with witty Tyrion and Bronn bromance dialogue. But I suppose that's a topic for another day.

[jons nissa]

However, so many book readers hate Cat mostly based on her attitude towards Jon Snow. If they carried it over to the show, I think like PatrickStormborn said, she would be another hated TV woman. I've spent many a post defending Cat for "It should have been you" and her arguing against Jon being Robb's heir. If they included that in the show, she would be The Worst Person in Westeros (behind Sansa, of course).

I feel like D&D don't quite know what to do with some of the female characters GRRM has created and fleshed out so wonderfully.

while i am completely speculating on the part of d&d, i don't think they don't know what to do with some of the females characters grrm has created but rather haven consciously chosen not to do the same for the very reason you've stated here - they would not be liked very much. i'm reminded of a the following quote:

Interestingly, I read a recent interview with Martin where the interviewer asked him how he felt about the fact that the TV series left out the scene where Sansa told Cersei about Ned's plans to leave King's Landing.

The reason being that it would compeltely alienate the viewers from Sansa and they would never forgive her. Martin said he completely understood their reasoning, as most of his readers had not forgiven Sansa either.

i think grrm loves situations like that but d&d and hbo would rather be less divisive. doesn't mean they don't get it but that they don't want it. whether that's the right choice or not is a whole other conversation.

[Bayard]

No no no no no :bang:

Even taking out the books completely, this is another deviation which even in the story of the show is illogical. Almost every change they make, creates a new plot hole.

......

So apparently the scene itself is really well-done, at least for people watching the series without the books as a point of comparison.

....

That is because Michelle Fairley is a great actress. She has some of the most powerful scenes in the show, but she is still oversimplified.

[David Selig]

And that's the main reason why the show is much inferior to the books. The showrunners are way too concerned with stuff like that instead of developing the characters more organically and naturally. They whitewash the flaws and remove many morally questionable acts of the "good guys".

Given how expensive such a show is, it's hard to blame them for avoiding risks. Though many other successful shows lately have their characters be big time jerks or worse so I am not sure whether this strategy is really necessary or they are underestimating the viewing public....

[Bayard]

double