[BOOK SPOILERS] Cat and Jon Snow

[David Selig]

Letting Jaime go in the books wasn't any smarter, though. It might be more understandable after the loss of her sons, but objectively, it's just as crappy of an idea.

As for the rest of it, I suppose if you take the POV of a Robb partisan, and care only about whether the Starks won or lost as if it was the RL, then it makes sense. I think personally she's valuable in representing one type of casualty of the war.

In terms of creating a Rift, Robb also did a pretty good job of that himself by breaking his oath to the Freys. These aren't perfect people.

I'm not sure why any of that really matters. Show Catelyn is not a physically powerful person. She's a bit older than book Catelyn, and doesn't appear to be capable of offering any credible physical resistance. I don't see her willingness to pick up a sword and fight as being a key component of her character given that everyone understood she was not a combatant. She had "women's courage", not battle courage. Had Ms. Fairley started swinging a blade or something, I think it would have been more humorous than impressive.

It matters because it shows her as too passive character, especially when you add all the other changes.

I am not saying she should've been mowing people down with a battle axe (though if Tyrion the dwarf can do it, why not her) - just show the scenes the way they were in the books or in a similar plausible way. Slitting the throat of a clansmen from behind doesn't require special training and all that physical power. And it would be nice to show her fighting for something else except defending her kids, since her one dimensional mama bear personality is a problem in the show since they cut many of her other traits.

IIRC, Cat didn't want Ned to go down to KL until she got the letter from her sister.

Nope, she wanted it before that, the letter only made her more certain it was necessary.

[freetickles]

You're wrong. Cat tells Talisa that "only a mother can make one for her children", and she made one for Jon. Therefore she identifies as Jon's stepmother.

But she also says he's motherless. Making one was part of her brief attempt to be his mother, which she quickly abandoned.

[eyeheartsansa]

That's really the core of it for me. Sure, you can point to things in the show and say "she didn't do that in the books", or "that's different from the books". But the real question that matters if you're doing an adaptation is whether she ends up with the same basic personality and motives, because whether or not she picked up a sword to fight armed bandits seems like just nitpicking.

In both book and show, she's a loving, traditionalist wife, absolutely devoted to her husband and chidren. She wants peace. She's got generally good political sense (trips to try to broker peace with Renly/Stannis), but her emotions and family concerns lead her to make occasional poor judgments. She harbors a great deal of resentment against her husband's bastard child, though she generally avoids being abusive and sometimes feels guilt over how she has acted. As her circumstances place her chidren at greater and greater risk, her emotions become more volatile, and her judgement suffers.

I see that as the core of her character, and I think the show has respected that even if some of the details are different. They've made some choices for the sake of drama, with some working better than others. But I don't see any of that as cause for the "Catelyn's character has been assassinated" theme.

Yes on all counts. :agree: :agree: :agree:

[Reeahlia Sand]

I didn't like this scene at all. That's all I have to say.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It matters because it shows her as too passive character, especially when you add all the other changes.

But too passive compared to what? She wasn't all that active in the books. She was active in the Tyrion kidnapping, and in pushing for and representing Robb at the Stannis/Renly negotiations.

I am not saying she should've been mowing people down with a battle axe (though if Tyrion the dwarf can do it, why not her) - just show the scenes the way they were in the books or in a similar plausible way. Slitting the throat of a clansmen from behind doesn't require special training and all that physical power.

Actually, I'd say that to do that convincingly on screeen is harder than you think when bodies are moving around the way they do in a fight. But look, really, the issue is that you have a problem with variance from the books. If the book had her slitting a throat in a fight, the show should, because otherwise, you're omitting the "trait" of her being willing to draw a blade in a batterl. That's a perfectly valid POV to have, but it isn't mine. I'm happy to accept variations from some of that -- I'd have been okay with Tyrion not being a battle-axing fiend, since I don't think it's all that credible or essential to his character. That's actually a pretty good example right there. You could easily argue that Tyrion doing that is important to him getting respect, and is consistent with the books. I personally don't see it that way. I think a sort of general recognition that he's physically not able to fight well, but it willing to go out there anyway as a target, is fine. I don't think it affects his character at all, even though it is a variance from the books.

And it would be nice to show her fighting for something else except defending her kids, since her one dimensional mama bear personality is a problem in the show since they cut many of her other traits.

I'm not sure what other major traits they cut -- they did have her play critical diplomatic roles at the Twins, and with Renly/Stannis. And her personality was essentially mama bear, wasn't it?

[The hairy bear]

And her personality was essentially mama bear, wasn't it?

This may be where we disagree. As I see it, Catelyn was much more things that a mother. And in my view, the changes that has suffered show Catelyn are (1) stripping her of her other facets and (2) make her more a passive than an active character.

I acknowledge that characters will always lose complexity in the translation to the screen, but I really feel that Catelyn is among the ones that have lost the most in the process.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This may be where we disagree. As I see it, Catelyn was much more things that a mother.

Such as...?

I mean, I agree with you that she wasn't just a mother (though I think that is a bigger thing than is being suggested), but I thought that they did include those other traits as well, so I kind of wonder which ones people think are missing.

They included her pivotal role in negotiating the transit of the Twins, they included her active role in kidnapping Tyrion, and they included the whole Stannis/Renly diplomatic effort. I just don't see what major thing the really missed.

[Ran]

Her ambition for her family. That's pretty major. They turn her from the woman willing and wanting to see her husband and children have a better and more successful place in the world, to the stay-at-home mom who just wants everyone at Winterfell, and damn the rest of the realm. They turn her from the woman for whom the words "Family, Duty, and Honor" are pretty central to her conception of self... and then they give her a speech damning Ned and, basically, all men for using concepts like duty and honor as excuses to do what they want.

Now she's about family over all other things, and duty and honor can largely go hang.

I'm kind of surprised you consider these minor facets of the character.

[CestWhat]

This story, while completely made up...

It's all made-up, right? It's a fictional TV series based on a fictional book series.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Her ambition for her family. That's pretty major. They turn her from the woman willing and wanting to see her husband and children have a better and more successful place in the world, to the stay-at-home mom who just wants everyone at Winterfell, and damn the rest of the realm.

I'd agree that was a change (and why they did it I have no idea).

But given events, that change became irrelevant pretty quickly. Once Bran fell, which was extremely early in the story (obviously), that ambition pretty much went out the window. All she wanted at that point was justice for her son, and safety for the rest of her family. So yes, it was a change, but it only really impacted her character very early on. Ambition is no longer a part of her character once Bran fell, and that's the Catelyn we see for the vast majority of the story. I'd prefer it differently, but I don't see it as a major issue for that reason.

Now she's about family over all other things, and duty and honor can largely go hang. I'm kind of surprised you consider these minor facets of the character.

Again, other than the pre-fall ambitions, I'm not sure what you're referring to. As I recall, honor still mattered to her in the show (as well as family) when Lysa tried to have Tyrion killed.

[eyeheartsansa]

Yeah, we get that she shouldn't have freed Jaime, but I don't see at all how she's 'abandoning' 'honor.' Some of these accusations are a little silly.

If anything she's upset with Robb for abandoning HIS honor breaking his pact with the Freys. It's Cat who correctly warns Robb that his men will no longer respect him if he can't keep his vows.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, the difficulty is that there was a lot of debate about the character of the characters -- so to speak -- based on the books alone. People have argued fairly strenuously as to interpretation, the significance (or lack thereof) of specific scenes, etc.. Was Catelyn a horrible person because of what she said to Jon, or should we just take that as a one-off due to grief? What can we infer from Robb's question to Jon when Jon emerges from Bran's bedside and Cat? So given that the interpretations of the book characters are different, it makes sense that there is going to be disagreement as to the significance of those times when the show varies from the books.

There's no question that Catelyn urging Ned to accept the position of hand was changed from book to screen. How much that actually bugs you moving forward is pretty subjective, though.

[Ran]

or should we just take that as a one-off due to grief?

Why is there a question? Martin has said it's a one-off. Never happened before, never happens after. Robb knew the mother his state was in and knew she might say anything.

That just seems pretty logical.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Why is there a question? Martin has said it's a one-off. Never happened before, never happens after. Robb knew the mother his state was in and knew she might say anything.

Yeah, that first part was a bad example because of Martin's comments on that. On the other hand, I don't think Jon's apprehensions on being with Catelyn, and Robb's question, were things that would have existed had every known that Catelyn wasn't exactly fond of Jon. And though her telling that to Jon was certainly a unique event, her having fairly negative thoughts about Jon but not expressing them openly seems a reasonable assumption. At least to me.

I'm still not sure how I feel about them omitting the "it should have been you" line. Knowing the board reaction to that line in the book makes me think it might have made Cat much more of a villain in viewers eyes than would be appropriate.

[eyeheartsansa]

Cats look of death in that scene spoke volumes though. She didn't need to say it.

[The hairy bear]

I think that the producers comments in the "inside the episode" feature from HBO's website are very illustrative of the problem. Benioff says:

I think that there's a lot of self-blame, I mean that Cat really feels responsible for some of what happened. You hear that guilt coming out when she's talking to Talisa about the night she stayed awake with Jon Snow.

The other fact is that a lot of people thinks she provoked the war between the Lannisters and the Starks by arresting Tyrion Lannister, and on a most basic and primal level she left home and she left her children Bran and Rickon, and now she knows she's never gonna see them again. So now I think she feels as if she's been an horrible mother.

If feeling guilty for failing to love Jon wasn't enough, now she feels guilt for starting the war and abandoning her kids. It's, in my opinion, a terrible missunderstanding of Catelyn as a character. The final line, specially, comes to me as sexist and dumb.

It's a pitty that the same writers that have been able to completely "get" many characters (Tyrion, Theon, Davos,...), have failed to get Catelyn. Or perhaps they are just not interested in her.

[Khal Porno]

Or maybe their interpretation of her character is just different from yours.

[Cinder Stark]

Jon is made a Stark, he then never goes to the Wall, he would either have gone to King's Landing with Ned and possibly saved him from his fate, or stayed in Winterfell with Bran and saved it from Theon...Jon going to the wall because he was a bastard had many consequences

Agreed!

[queenbeesteph]

You know, I started looking at this scene from another angle. Yeah, there was much talk of Jon... but really this scene is about all of Cat's regrets and failures, in fact, everything she's done has led to the fall of House Stark. (Someone have her direct quote?) She just summed it up by not keeping her word toward a helpless. motherless baby. Her husband is dead, her father is dead, Robb didn't heed her warning about making enemies with the Freys, Robb has her imprisoned, Sansa is hostage, Arya is heaven-knows-where, she thinks Bran and Rickon are dead, Theon has betrayed them etc... She seems like a sad, broken woman doing the only thing she has left - weaving a protection. I think this scene a a HUGE set-up for what

Lady Stoneheart

is going to come back and do! Instead of the impotence she feels in this scene,

Lady Stoneheart

is going to avenge everything.

[jons nissa]

I think that the producers comments in the "inside the episode" feature from HBO's website are very illustrative of the problem. Benioff says:

Quote

I think that there's a lot of self-blame, I mean that Cat really feels responsible for some of what happened. You hear that guilt coming out when she's talking to Talisa about the night she stayed awake with Jon Snow.

The other fact is that a lot of people thinks she provoked the war between the Lannisters and the Starks by arresting Tyrion Lannister, and on a most basic and primal level she left home and she left her children Bran and Rickon, and now she knows she's never gonna see them again. So now I think she feels as if she's been an horrible mother.

If feeling guilty for failing to love Jon wasn't enough, now she feels guilt for starting the war and abandoning her kids. It's, in my opinion, a terrible missunderstanding of Catelyn as a character. The final line, specially, comes to me as sexist and dumb.

It's a pitty that the same writers that have been able to completely "get" many characters (Tyrion, Theon, Davos,...), have failed to get Catelyn. Or perhaps they are just not interested in her.

and yet EVERY single thread about catelyn comes back to posters debating the things quoted above among others. we've all read the threads often enough: cat was mean to jon, cat started the war by arresting tyrion, cat abandoned her children and cat lets her emotions push her to make poor decisions. the same things repeated over and over.

regardless of what side of the argument you fall, these thoughts do not go away from the many people who have read the books. you can say "but they're wrong. pity they don't get it" however when a large number - dare i say the majority of readers based on the numerous polls around the internet - get something from a book, it is based on something. regardless of what grrm says. i don't doubt grrm had a plan for catelyn that didn't include all the contempt the character has had to endure but many readers didn't get that message from the text. that cannot be denied. not fair to blame d&d for their decision to go in the direction they went in when you consider how people have reacted to book catelyn on the forums.