Lady Stoneheart: Why bring Cat back?

[Jon of the Dead]

I wouldn't say it ruins her, I'd say it's a logical progression of her character given the propensity she's shown in the past to completely lose it when she can't protect her children. We see this side of her in AGOT when she lingers at Bran's bedside after his fall and neglects everything else she ought to be doing. We see it in ACOK when she responds to Bran and Rickon's deaths by freeing Jaime in a desperate attempt to get her girls back. We see it in ASOS when she takes Jinglebell hostage in a desperate attempt to save Robb and then kills him when it doesn't work. And in Lady Stoneheart we see this side of her, this darkness that was always there, always a part of her, consume the rest of her. This is a classic form of tragic character development.

Yes, I understand that on principle, that Lady Stoneheart is the physical manifestation of all her bottled up anger, frustration, and vengeance that she was unable to carry out when she was alive. In a way it's a fascinating concept, how this woman spent the books giving advice which most times went ignored (as it was with Renly, Stannis, Lysa, and sometimes even with Robb or Edmure), and after she's resurrected she finds herself not in the role of an advisor again, but on the place of a leader, with the followers and the power necessary to do as she pleases.

So, yes, I like the concept, but I don't like some things in the execution. For instance (and I'm not trying to verge into a feminist discussion), as I said, she's now in a position of power akin to Robb's (well, she's not a queen, but a leader of a powerful band of outlaws), but yet Martin gives her no voice. He literally renders her mute, and he leaves her in the background for most of the story. So that side of the character remained the same: it's still the old Cat in the background, looking helpless as Robb, or Renly or whoever did as they pleased, and she's left voiceless.

And second, I don't have a problem with her desire to kill Freys and Lannisters, that's understandable. But I don't like how Martin made her practically insane and a kind of monster. He explored a monstruous version of motherhood enough with Cersei, and I don't think it's a good paralellism. I don't think her character motivations are deep or complex enough, not even as close as when she was alive. Now her character amounts to "CAT SMASH! PUNY FREY!" Her distrust against Brienne felt contrived and unnecessary, just to be an antagonist for Jaime and Brienne. All in all I think it devalues the tragic theme of a mother losing her children.

But this is just my interpretation, of course everyone has their own, and I know lots of people enjoy her character, so different strokes and all that

[complexphoenix]

Yes, I understand that on principle, that Lady Stoneheart is the physical manifestation of all her bottled up anger, frustration, and vengeance that she was unable to carry out when she was alive. In a way it's a fascinating concept, how this woman spent the books giving advice which most times went ignored (as it was with Renly, Stannis, Lysa, and sometimes even with Robb or Edmure), and after she's resurrected she finds herself not in the role of an advisor again, but on the place of a leader, with the followers and the power necessary to do as she pleases.

So, yes, I like the concept, but I don't like some things in the execution. For instance (and I'm not trying to verge into a feminist discussion), as I said, she's now in a position of power akin to Robb's (well, she's not a queen, but a leader of a powerful band of outlaws), but yet Martin gives her no voice. He literally renders her mute, and he leaves her in the background for most of the story. So that side of the character remained the same: it's still the old Cat in the background, looking helpless as Robb, or Renly or whoever did as they pleased, and she's left voiceless.

And second, I don't have a problem with her desire to kill Freys and Lannisters, that's understandable. But I don't like how Martin made her practically insane and a kind of monster. He explored a monstruous version of motherhood enough with Cersei, and I don't think it's a good paralellism. I don't think her character motivations are deep or complex enough, not even as close as when she was alive. Now her character amounts to "CAT SMASH! PUNY FREY!" Her distrust against Brienne felt contrived and unnecessary, just to be an antagonist for Jaime and Brienne. All in all I think it devalues the tragic theme of a mother losing her children.

But this is just my interpretation, of course everyone has their own, and I know lots of people enjoy her character, so different strokes and all that

Well, she seems able to communicate well enough to get her men to do what she wants, so I don't think her difficulty speaking is all that bad.

As for Brienne, remember, she didn't know Brienne for very long. They met in Renly's camp, traveled together from Storm's End to Riverrun, and then Cat sent Brienne with Jaime. Then they meet again a long time later after Catelyn has gone through the terrible trauma of losing the last of her children and seeing the downfall of her House, and Brienne is carrying a sword that is a sickening symbol of House Lannister's triumph over House Stark and a letter from King Tommen claiming she's on a royal mission, plus she murmurs Jaime's name over and over in a way that suggests she's in love with him. I can see why Cat would come to the conclusion that Brienne had turned cloak and would be reluctant to give her the benefit of a doubt. And as for Brienne's pleading that Jaime has changed? Would you buy that, after "Jaime Lannister sends his regards"? Cat didn't get to see any of what we did, in Jaime and Brienne's chapters in ASOS and AFFC, remember. Her treatment of Podrick is a lot less excusable, but her distrust of Brienne is quite understandable given what she does and does not know.

[SadRelicOfThePast]

The thing is, Berric was interesting and dynamic, UN_cat is even more one dimensional then before she died. Her arc is over. She need to die and stay dead. Maybe Lem can take over the BwoB. Or Gendry.

[Ser Creighton]

Well I don't know if this helps at all but I think there are two basic aspects to dealing with this question.

1. Cat is still around because her story is unfinished, and it will probably revolve around what it has always revolved around. Ned her kids, family, the North the Riverlands, the Vale etc... She has unfinished business regarding her children, her family, Ned and LF.

2. Death. Why kill off Cat to bring her back? Martin admits he hates it when authors do that. Yet he keeps doing it. Given Martins major theme of death its not that hard to deduce why he is doing this. In Cats case it would seem rather clear he is drawing a rather strong parallel between the Others and the Red god. Both bring the dead back in there own way, it's really two sides of the same coin. It's a simple parallel between two sides.

If I had to guess we will see a some form of a Great Other, perhaps Bran or through Bran, and we will see fire and Ice dragons. Well we have seen fire, but now we will see ice. Perhaps the others want Bran and his gifts for there own use. Not to say he is evil in any way, but things happen in Martins books. It's not really out of the realm of reason to think it is possible, we would end up with multiple Starks on different sides. With some of them probably caught in the middle. Lots of emotional conflict to generate within that scenerio.

[TheReal_Rebel]

Well I don't know if this helps at all but I think there are two basic aspects to dealing with this question.

1. Cat is still around because her story is unfinished, and it will probably revolve around what it has always revolved around. Ned her kids, family, the North the Riverlands, the Vale etc... She has unfinished business regarding her children, her family, Ned and LF.

2. Death. Why kill off Cat to bring her back? Martin admits he hates it when authors do that. Yet he keeps doing it. Given Martins major theme of death its not that hard to deduce why he is doing this. In Cats case it would seem rather clear he is drawing a rather strong parallel between the Others and the Red god. Both bring the dead back in there own way, it's really two sides of the same coin. It's a simple parallel between two sides.

If I had to guess we will see a some form of a Great Other, perhaps Bran or through Bran, and we will see fire and Ice dragons. Well we have seen fire, but now we will see ice. Perhaps the others want Bran and his gifts for there own use. Not to say he is evil in any way, but things happen in Martins books. It's not really out of the realm of reason to think it is possible, we would end up with multiple Starks on different sides. With some of them probably caught in the middle. Lots of emotional conflict to generate within that scenerio.

But when Beric was resurrected he didn't go on a quest for vengeance against those who killed him. But then he didn't lose his whole family, particularly innocent children, or a first born during a violation of a sacred and ancient custom of guest rights.

I don't think its much of a parallel between the Others and the Red God since one resurrects walking corpses and the other resurrects people with their abilities to communicate, their memories and sense of who they are and relationships to others in tact.

[Ser Creighton]

But when Beric was resurrected he didn't go on a quest for vengeance against those who killed him. But then he didn't lose his whole family, particularly innocent children, or a first born during a violation of a sacred and ancient custom of guest rights.

I don't think its much of a parallel between the Others and the Red God since one resurrects walking corpses and the other resurrects people with their abilities to communicate, their memories and sense of who they are and relationships to others in tact.

Well Beric actually did go on a quest of vengeance. He just had a different subject matter. And yes the resurrections of the dead are different as I said, but they are both still resurrecting the dead and it would be hard for the author not to notice he is doing this and that a parallel exists, between two opposing forces. Fire can kill you and Ice can kill you and they do it in different ways, but in the end your still dead and they still kill. Opposite sides of the same coin. It's not really about how, but about what.

[Shebara]

Perhaps to annoy the Cat-haters? ;)

yeah annoyed me indeed! :rolleyes:

[TheReal_Rebel]

Well Beric actually did go on a quest of vengeance. He just had a different subject matter. And yes the resurrections of the dead are different as I said, but they are both still resurrecting the dead and it would be hard for the author not to notice he is doing this and that a parallel exists, between two opposing forces. Fire can kill you and Ice can kill you and they do it in different ways, but in the end your still dead and they still kill. Opposite sides of the same coin. It's not really about how, but about what.

Where is Beric shown on a quest for vengeance? I don't remeber him doing that? And there is difference between vengeance and justice.

Also the fact that one force grants resuscitated life with your memory , abilities, and self autonomy in tact, while another enslaves you to the will of creatures who want to wipe out the human race-- & everyone you know or love--are quite different forces.

Yes, Fire and Ice can both kill, but one apparently allows for individual

Choice while the other makes an army of enslaved Zombies.

Also you will notice in the House of the Many Faced God, where symbols reof every faith can be found neither Arya nor anyone else mentions any icons representing the Great Other. This is because unlike other God-like forces in the World of Ice & Fire, freedom, peace and the possibility of uniting with the God of one's faith is not granted in death by the Others, but enslavement.