A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / A Clash of Kings II / Sansa VII

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

labor
User ID: 8479113 Dec 19th 2:10 PM
We were comparing Sansa's actions to Catelyn's.

Padraig
User ID: 9593383
Dec 19th 5:23 AM
Harruk, I knew I would regret using the word insignificant. But I
will try to explain. Ned's orders were strictly defensive IIRC.
Robb soon had to surpass them anyway. The Lannisters did get
time to recruit. But I don't believe the Lannisters were going to
be caught napping anyway. One could argue that every little
advantage counts but in this case would we see much of a
difference if Catelyn had advoided Tyrion? I'm not military
astute but I don't see how.

I never thought of Tyrion's future reaction before though. He
may take vengence on Catelyn. Then again I would find it very
petty of him if he does. He knows she was used by someone. So
he should take revenge on that person rather than on another
victim. Similarly he would have good reason to get back at
Lysa. But sooner or later the Lannisters were going to have to
deal with the Arryns anyway. Lysa's madness was never going
to make that easy for them.

I do agree with Harruk on one point. When I re-read the
kidnapping scene I expected to read about Cateyln's fear of
Tyrion. We have a situation where a grieve-stricken woman full
of paranioa about the "evil" Lannisters takes shelter in an inn
and who happens to pop in, one of those self-same Lannisters.
If that doesn't knock anyone out of kilter then they are far
stonger than I. But fear dosn't seem to be there. Maybe there is
a hidden subtext but I am willing to think that the reason
Catelyn arrested Tyrion was because she thought Tyrion tried
to kill her son and he smiled at her. He seemed to be
_gloating_. So she took that smile of his face. And killed him.

Sorry, she arrested him. I was thinking about what Cersei would
have done;-) Blinded my worry and desperate for vengence she
struck back. I don't condemn her for arresting him. The pity was
that the Lannisters for _different reasons_ were ready to take it
all the way.

labor
User ID: 8479113 Dec 19th 2:36 PM
I am sorry, Padraig, but I don't see why the Lannisters weren't "going to be caught napping" if Cat didn't abduct Tyrion.

They had no idea that the incest accusation was rearing its ugly head yet again (well, not until Ned informed Cersei, anyway). They counted themselves well out of the incident with Bran - it is well to remember that Ned's raven post went through Pycelle and thus Lannisters were most likely appraised that while Bran woke up, he didn't remember anything.

Yes, they intended to quietly off Robert, but no preparations for war were indicated for this. Morever, according to Tyrion, Tywin well might be ignorant of the incest, i.e. "Do you think I was as blind as Father?" etc.
And if Ned went with Renly's plan... Well he still might have caught Cersei unawares.

Tyrion's abduction allowed the Rock to mobilize earlier than the Riverlands and far earlier than the North and gave the Lannisters chance to wreak significant devastation on the Riverlands before Robb showed up. It is also a big question whether they would have attacked the Riverlands at all without the abduction.

So, Cat arrested Tyrion for pure revenge, no fear, etc. on her part. Hm... I don't see her only as a victim of desinformation, sorry. She was duped, but the judgement call was hers. And she knew that she didn't have the evidence to get a lawful conviction of Tyrion.

Ran
User ID: 8075153 Dec 19th 2:50 PM
Actually, not sure of the fact that Cersei wasn't aware that Ned was probing.

It depends on whether Ser Hugh of the Vale was ordered to be killed by Cersei and if the reason has to do with fear of Ned discovering something of the incest (either directly or indirectly.)

Funny how police officers often pick up criminal suspects and interrogate them, and the results of the interrogation making or breaking their case against the suspect. What Cat did was no different. She obviously intended to try and draw a confession from him, which would be all the proof she needed. She had probable cause, though of course her abduction of him falls into a grey area of Westerosi law.

As to the rest, I'm kind of dropping out of the thread because (as with so many other topics) the bits that interest me have been talked to death and the lines are firmly drawn. Some are adamant that Cat did it for revenge and while others are certain that it was a split-second decision springing from an attempt to protect Ned. :)

labor
User ID: 8479113 Dec 19th 3:46 PM
And since Cat's right to arrest Tyrion was very much in a grey area, legally speaking, surely she had to count on Lannisters claiming that she had no such right and retaliating?

Draw confession from Tyrion? How? By torture? And then what? Cat's right to judge and convict Tyrion is even more in the grey area than her right to arrest him, thus Lannisters could very well cry murder and avenge such an outrage.

It is also worth noting, that although there was undeniable evidence of Ned's "treason" and Lannisters had drawn public confession from Ned, before convicting and executing him, the Starks/Tullys still viewed it as a murder and a cause for rightful revenge, even though they had no reason at the time to doubt Joff's and Cersei's legal right to arrest and judge him.

Ran, I myself used to defend Cat's action on the same grounds in the days of yore, but the text really gives us no evidence in support of this theory.

Ran
User ID: 8075153 Dec 19th 3:49 PM
It doesn't give any more grounds for reading it as an attempt to take revenge by that same token, which is my particular problem with attempts to continue arguing that particular point.

Min
User ID: 1446254 Dec 20th 1:22 AM
Apart from her right against Tyrion (which I always questioned and still question), I think that the main thing Sansa and her mother have in common os dependance. They always depended on someone. This is far more excusable for Sansa, for she is a child, but she, too, showed an immaturity of _thoughts_. I do not reproach her dependance as a child normally has on its parents, of course not. But she had a way to adapt the thoughts of those she thought important. "My father said", "everyone believes" and so on. And twelve IS the age where a person should at least try and start to develop some ideas independant from what the others say. She does now, but she never did in AGoT, and only began in the end of ACoK, and she is hardly there yet.

her mother is another matter. She, a grown woman, depends a lot on what others told her. her father, her brother, Ned. Alone and depending on her own ideas and actions, she starts to act irresponsably. Just because she is not used to take her own decisions. Those of you who will say that you cannot blame a woman of a medieval society for this: I disagree. Westeros is no typical, authentical medieval society. There are women who take their own choices, Brienne, Cersei and others. And I suppose Ned has not been the man to rule his woman strictly. She just depended on _someone_ all the time.

Given that, I can blame her less than I used to for her actions. She just did not know how to take decisions, so how could I assume she would take the right ones when she finally has to?
Even Arya, by the way, takes her own decision and has her own ideas, and she is four years younger than Sansa. So I suppose Sansa as well as Cat, many years earlier, DID have the chance. It just was more comfortable to depend on someone than to _think_.

Aerian
User ID: 0199184 Dec 20th 3:21 AM
It seems worth noting in Cat's defense, that we really have never seen her in a point of equilibrium, to judge whether or not she is always reliant on another person for her strength, and even now I don't think she is necessarily acting irresponsibly. I think the taking of Tyrion was a fairly isolated incident, not a part of a larger pattern of instability (although look at her sister, maybe it runs in the family).It also seems a little unfair to expect that losing her husband, whom she apparently loved inspite of Jon, would not affect her behavior.
As for Sansa, who finally seems to be growing beyond a conformist feather brain, as I recall, when I was twelve, my head was full of romantic fantasies, and I was desperate to fit in with my peers. Judging from my younger brothers experiences, and those of my friends a lot of twelve year olds seem to go through a Sanas-ish phase (although most of us don't get our fathers shortened in the process).

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Dec 20th 8:26 AM
haaruk, if Catelyn's sole motivation was to gain revenge upon Tyrion, why did she attempt to avoid detection in the inn? She would have seized him immediately. That's the one fact that I can't get around in terms of her motive. Otherwise, I agree that the facts point towards revenge rather than a concern over personal safety.

I do think that Tyrion's abduction made things worse for Ned. No abduction, and Ned doesn't send 100 loyal men after Gregor. Those additional men would have been enough, with Renly's, to hold against the Lannisters without involving the goldcloaks. Ned would have been healthy, Jory Cassel alive, etc.

Padraig
User ID: 2372774 Dec 20th 1:01 PM
I think revenge is too strong a term to use. That would have involved killing Tyrion. She wanted justice.

While she did try to advoid him, what drove her over the edge was talking to him. Imagine talking to a man who tried to kill your son. He making jokes. Laughing. I'm not a bit surprised that she arrested him then.

Padraig
User ID: 2372774 Dec 20th 1:36 PM
Labour, I very well may be wrong. But at the moment it seems to me that when Cersei and Jaime heard that Catelyn arrested Tyrion they automatically must have thought it had something to do with Bran�s attempted murder and thus their incestous relationship. I can�t think of any other reason that Catelyn would arrest Tyrion.

And while I agree with you that Ned could have won if he made a deal with Renly (or Littlefinger), he was never going to do that. Ned was too honourable and the Lannisters too ruthless. I think it was only a matter of time before they went to war. So I think Tyrion�s kidnapping only hurried things along with the same result.

If Littlefinger hadn�t told her about the knife then she wouldn�t have kidnapped him. So she was a victim of disinformation. Added to her grief over her son, then she was ripe for doing something rash.

The Lannister�s big mistake was killing Ned. If he had lived as a member of the Night�s Watch having admitted treason then the North would have had no choice but back down. Or look very bad. Ned death�s made sure that the Starks could conviently forget about his confessed treason. Honourable Ned commit treason? His death made sure nobody was going to believe that in the north.

I think Ran is right. Many �good� people have this idea that if they confront �bad� people with their crimes they would confess. That is what Catelyn believed. IMO her only crime was naivety. I kind of agree with Min. She never made decisions like that before. But in a place like the north she never had a chance. I�m not sure that she exactly depended on Ned.

Jeff, I didn�t think of Ned losing those men. But Ned sent those men after he got his leg broken. Whose men were they anyhow? I know Beric lead the squad. And he might have left by the time Ned went for broke anyhow. Except if Ned sent a lot of his own men I would still consider it doubtful whether they would have helped him. He had expected the Gold Cloaks to support him.

It is amazing that we are still debating these points a couple of years since we first read these books. GRRM surely does right great stuff. Whatever about our interpretations.

Padraig
User ID: 2372774 Dec 20th 1:42 PM
Sorry, labor not labour. I hope I never did that before.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Dec 20th 4:00 PM
Padraig, you gave a good explanation for why Catelyn seized Tyrion after Tyrion spoke. But that's not the same as saying why she was trying to avoid discovery in the first place if, indeed, her goal was "justice".

The men selected by Ned were a compilation. Some of his, some Baratheon men, etc. Basically, the Dondarrion/Thoros of Myr force. I think he went for the gold cloaks only _after_ he realized he would otherwise be outnumbered. And he wouldn't necessarily have had to go along with Renly's plan for a preemptive strike. The extra 100 men that would have been present might have been enough to encourage Renly to stay. Then again, maybe not.

I agree with you about Martin's talent. We all understand the facts in the book, yet draw completely different conclusions, just as the characters do. I'm usually on the opposite side of every issue from haaruk, but I've got to admit that his points are always well thought-out and well-supported. The fact that we can all _reasonably_ disagree is a testament to the skill of the writer.

Padraig
User ID: 8499503 Dec 21st 2:32 PM
Thanks Jeff. I think that Catelyn knew she hadn't enough evidence to convict him. So IMO there were two reasons why she tried to advoid him. Because she wanted to keep her journey south a secret. And she didn't want to talk to the person who tried to kill her son.

When he recognised her both reasons were no longer relevant. And when he started laughing and joking like an innocent man, well that really got her going. Reason almost forgotten she wanted justice now.

I see what you mean about the 100 men.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Dec 21st 4:00 PM
Padraig, I think both of your explanations were good. And at least the first reason shows some sound judgment on Catelyn's part.

Telisiane
User ID: 2233684 Dec 28th 9:31 PM
I can't believe I missed this incredible debate! Durn.

I still don't understand why Cat _had_ to abduct Tyrion once he spotted her in the inn. Who exactly was in danger? Why was there a necessity that she take him then and there based on the flimsy evidence that she knew she had? Why not wait to build a better case? I'm not convinced that she had such limited options, even after reading all of the well-written arguments in this and previous threads. I have to say that I mostly agree with Haruuk's and Labor's arguments. I think she absolutely overreacted and made an obviously bad decision. (Okay, I admit it. I am a long-time Catelyn hater.)

And as for Sansa's actions, I don't think that what she did in "betraying" Eddard is the same level of mistake that Catelyn made. (IMHO, Catelyn effectively started a war.) Every time I re-read AGOT, I realize how much Ned contributed to his own downfall. He was the one who told Cersei that he knew her secret, not Sansa. He was the one who turned down Renly's offer of help. And as far as I can see, he never had the truly serious talk with Sansa that might have made her see the gravity of their situation in KL. If he continually treated her as a child, how could he expect her to act as an adult? But I admit, I hated Sansa at the end of AGOT too. However, she has since become my one of my favorite characters. I'm not sure why she has to come to power though. Even if she remains a bit pathetic, seeking safety for herself, and acting as the viewpoint of the well-born pawn in the Game of Thrones, I will still find her interesting.

Dirjj
User ID: 0094674 Dec 29th 1:12 AM
I hated Sansa at the end of GOT. I only disliked her at the end of ACOK.

She is totally reponsible for Eddards death. Her ratting out to Cercei to keep Eddards from making her go home accelerated the time table of the conflict between the Lannisters and Starks. Eddard was making plans to get the kids, himself, and his entire retinue out of the city. Sansa's act made him act before he was prepared. I haven't re-read the book yet, but I'm pretty sure that she snitched before Robert was dead. So her act led to his death as well. Plus, is she hadn't have whined to Cercei, then Eddard would have still been alive when Catelyn captured Tyrion. I don't know if the Lannisters would have traded a Ned for a Tyrion, but geez, that (rhymes with switch and begins with the second consonant of the alphabet) opened up a whole can of worms.

ab

labor
User ID: 8785553 Dec 29th 1:32 AM
Dirji, re-read AGOT. Eddard warned Cersei about his knowledge of her secret and his intentions concerning her and her children. That, and that alone caused Robert's death. Ned indirectly caused it, not Sansa. IIRC it took a few days for Robert to die and Cersei couldn't have kept Sansa shut up for all that time without Ned noticing - ergo Sansa went to Cersei the evening before Robert's death, when he was already mortally wounded. She has absolutely nothing to do with Robert's "hunting accident" and death!

Also, Ned informed Littlefinger about his intention to enthrone Stannis, over the latter's objections. From that moment on, Ned was doomed to fall, Sansa here or there. He just couldn't do much with 30 men of his household guard against Lannister 100 and 2K of the City Watch. Nor did he intend to leave the city - he only intended for his daughters to leave and planned to confront Cersei/await Stannis himself. He also, very stupidly, didn't shedule their departure until the very last moment. Now, Sansa and Arya might have left if both all of Cersei's and all of Littlefinger's spies were to fall asleep, but it was far from the sure thing.
BTW, Teleisane is right that Ned didn't warn Sansa about the precariousness of their position at court, like he did Arya. It might have changed things, too.

Ned was alive when Cat captured Tyrion, but IIRC Tyrion was already sent down the high road by the time Ned was thrown into a dungeon. And of course, Lannisters wouldn't dream to exchange the one for the other. "Wrong brother", you know...

Let's not blame a 12-year-old girl for something for which Ned himself was responsible.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Dec 29th 8:21 AM
labor, I agree with most of what you said. Certainly, I can't "blame" Sansa for Ned's death. That burden falls squarely on Joffrey, Cersei, and whomever counseled Joffrey to have Ned killed.

But I do think that Ned's fate might have been different had Arya and Sansa escaped. The Lannisters were able to get away with killing Ned because of his confession of treason -- it gave them an excuse. But Ned only "confessed" when Sansa's life was threatened. If Sansa and Arya were safe, there would have been no public confession by Ned. Under those circumstances, I think it more likely that Ned would have been retained as a hostage.

Ran
User ID: 8075153 Dec 29th 11:30 AM
The Lannisters didn't get away with killing him, however. Everyone knew that that insane act by Joffrey would set the situation aflame.

In my opinion, they were far more likely to kill him if he refused to admit to treason, because he was too dangerous to the Lannisterslet live -- more dangerous, even, than the North coming down to seek revenge.

labor
User ID: 8785553 Dec 29th 12:04 PM
Couldn't agree more, Ran. BTW, Varys said as much :"I trust you know that you are a dead man, Lord Eddard", or something along those lines.

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

labor User ID: 8479113	Dec 19th 2:10 PM We were comparing Sansa's actions to Catelyn's. Padraig User ID: 9593383 Dec 19th 5:23 AM Harruk, I knew I would regret using the word insignificant. But I will try to explain. Ned's orders were strictly defensive IIRC. Robb soon had to surpass them anyway. The Lannisters did get time to recruit. But I don't believe the Lannisters were going to be caught napping anyway. One could argue that every little advantage counts but in this case would we see much of a difference if Catelyn had advoided Tyrion? I'm not military astute but I don't see how. I never thought of Tyrion's future reaction before though. He may take vengence on Catelyn. Then again I would find it very petty of him if he does. He knows she was used by someone. So he should take revenge on that person rather than on another victim. Similarly he would have good reason to get back at Lysa. But sooner or later the Lannisters were going to have to deal with the Arryns anyway. Lysa's madness was never going to make that easy for them. I do agree with Harruk on one point. When I re-read the kidnapping scene I expected to read about Cateyln's fear of Tyrion. We have a situation where a grieve-stricken woman full of paranioa about the "evil" Lannisters takes shelter in an inn and who happens to pop in, one of those self-same Lannisters. If that doesn't knock anyone out of kilter then they are far stonger than I. But fear dosn't seem to be there. Maybe there is a hidden subtext but I am willing to think that the reason Catelyn arrested Tyrion was because she thought Tyrion tried to kill her son and he smiled at her. He seemed to be _gloating_. So she took that smile of his face. And killed him. Sorry, she arrested him. I was thinking about what Cersei would have done;-) Blinded my worry and desperate for vengence she struck back. I don't condemn her for arresting him. The pity was that the Lannisters for _different reasons_ were ready to take it all the way.
labor User ID: 8479113	Dec 19th 2:36 PM I am sorry, Padraig, but I don't see why the Lannisters weren't "going to be caught napping" if Cat didn't abduct Tyrion. They had no idea that the incest accusation was rearing its ugly head yet again (well, not until Ned informed Cersei, anyway). They counted themselves well out of the incident with Bran - it is well to remember that Ned's raven post went through Pycelle and thus Lannisters were most likely appraised that while Bran woke up, he didn't remember anything. Yes, they intended to quietly off Robert, but no preparations for war were indicated for this. Morever, according to Tyrion, Tywin well might be ignorant of the incest, i.e. "Do you think I was as blind as Father?" etc. And if Ned went with Renly's plan... Well he still might have caught Cersei unawares. Tyrion's abduction allowed the Rock to mobilize earlier than the Riverlands and far earlier than the North and gave the Lannisters chance to wreak significant devastation on the Riverlands before Robb showed up. It is also a big question whether they would have attacked the Riverlands at all without the abduction. So, Cat arrested Tyrion for pure revenge, no fear, etc. on her part. Hm... I don't see her only as a victim of desinformation, sorry. She was duped, but the judgement call was hers. And she knew that she didn't have the evidence to get a lawful conviction of Tyrion.
Ran User ID: 8075153	Dec 19th 2:50 PM Actually, not sure of the fact that Cersei wasn't aware that Ned was probing. It depends on whether Ser Hugh of the Vale was ordered to be killed by Cersei and if the reason has to do with fear of Ned discovering something of the incest (either directly or indirectly.) Funny how police officers often pick up criminal suspects and interrogate them, and the results of the interrogation making or breaking their case against the suspect. What Cat did was no different. She obviously intended to try and draw a confession from him, which would be all the proof she needed. She had probable cause, though of course her abduction of him falls into a grey area of Westerosi law. As to the rest, I'm kind of dropping out of the thread because (as with so many other topics) the bits that interest me have been talked to death and the lines are firmly drawn. Some are adamant that Cat did it for revenge and while others are certain that it was a split-second decision springing from an attempt to protect Ned. :)
labor User ID: 8479113	Dec 19th 3:46 PM And since Cat's right to arrest Tyrion was very much in a grey area, legally speaking, surely she had to count on Lannisters claiming that she had no such right and retaliating? Draw confession from Tyrion? How? By torture? And then what? Cat's right to judge and convict Tyrion is even more in the grey area than her right to arrest him, thus Lannisters could very well cry murder and avenge such an outrage. It is also worth noting, that although there was undeniable evidence of Ned's "treason" and Lannisters had drawn public confession from Ned, before convicting and executing him, the Starks/Tullys still viewed it as a murder and a cause for rightful revenge, even though they had no reason at the time to doubt Joff's and Cersei's legal right to arrest and judge him. Ran, I myself used to defend Cat's action on the same grounds in the days of yore, but the text really gives us no evidence in support of this theory.
Ran User ID: 8075153	Dec 19th 3:49 PM It doesn't give any more grounds for reading it as an attempt to take revenge by that same token, which is my particular problem with attempts to continue arguing that particular point.
Min User ID: 1446254	Dec 20th 1:22 AM Apart from her right against Tyrion (which I always questioned and still question), I think that the main thing Sansa and her mother have in common os dependance. They always depended on someone. This is far more excusable for Sansa, for she is a child, but she, too, showed an immaturity of _thoughts_. I do not reproach her dependance as a child normally has on its parents, of course not. But she had a way to adapt the thoughts of those she thought important. "My father said", "everyone believes" and so on. And twelve IS the age where a person should at least try and start to develop some ideas independant from what the others say. She does now, but she never did in AGoT, and only began in the end of ACoK, and she is hardly there yet. her mother is another matter. She, a grown woman, depends a lot on what others told her. her father, her brother, Ned. Alone and depending on her own ideas and actions, she starts to act irresponsably. Just because she is not used to take her own decisions. Those of you who will say that you cannot blame a woman of a medieval society for this: I disagree. Westeros is no typical, authentical medieval society. There are women who take their own choices, Brienne, Cersei and others. And I suppose Ned has not been the man to rule his woman strictly. She just depended on _someone_ all the time. Given that, I can blame her less than I used to for her actions. She just did not know how to take decisions, so how could I assume she would take the right ones when she finally has to? Even Arya, by the way, takes her own decision and has her own ideas, and she is four years younger than Sansa. So I suppose Sansa as well as Cat, many years earlier, DID have the chance. It just was more comfortable to depend on someone than to _think_.
Aerian User ID: 0199184	Dec 20th 3:21 AM It seems worth noting in Cat's defense, that we really have never seen her in a point of equilibrium, to judge whether or not she is always reliant on another person for her strength, and even now I don't think she is necessarily acting irresponsibly. I think the taking of Tyrion was a fairly isolated incident, not a part of a larger pattern of instability (although look at her sister, maybe it runs in the family).It also seems a little unfair to expect that losing her husband, whom she apparently loved inspite of Jon, would not affect her behavior. As for Sansa, who finally seems to be growing beyond a conformist feather brain, as I recall, when I was twelve, my head was full of romantic fantasies, and I was desperate to fit in with my peers. Judging from my younger brothers experiences, and those of my friends a lot of twelve year olds seem to go through a Sanas-ish phase (although most of us don't get our fathers shortened in the process).
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Dec 20th 8:26 AM haaruk, if Catelyn's sole motivation was to gain revenge upon Tyrion, why did she attempt to avoid detection in the inn? She would have seized him immediately. That's the one fact that I can't get around in terms of her motive. Otherwise, I agree that the facts point towards revenge rather than a concern over personal safety. I do think that Tyrion's abduction made things worse for Ned. No abduction, and Ned doesn't send 100 loyal men after Gregor. Those additional men would have been enough, with Renly's, to hold against the Lannisters without involving the goldcloaks. Ned would have been healthy, Jory Cassel alive, etc.
Padraig User ID: 2372774	Dec 20th 1:01 PM I think revenge is too strong a term to use. That would have involved killing Tyrion. She wanted justice. While she did try to advoid him, what drove her over the edge was talking to him. Imagine talking to a man who tried to kill your son. He making jokes. Laughing. I'm not a bit surprised that she arrested him then.
Padraig User ID: 2372774	Dec 20th 1:36 PM Labour, I very well may be wrong. But at the moment it seems to me that when Cersei and Jaime heard that Catelyn arrested Tyrion they automatically must have thought it had something to do with Bran�s attempted murder and thus their incestous relationship. I can�t think of any other reason that Catelyn would arrest Tyrion. And while I agree with you that Ned could have won if he made a deal with Renly (or Littlefinger), he was never going to do that. Ned was too honourable and the Lannisters too ruthless. I think it was only a matter of time before they went to war. So I think Tyrion�s kidnapping only hurried things along with the same result. If Littlefinger hadn�t told her about the knife then she wouldn�t have kidnapped him. So she was a victim of disinformation. Added to her grief over her son, then she was ripe for doing something rash. The Lannister�s big mistake was killing Ned. If he had lived as a member of the Night�s Watch having admitted treason then the North would have had no choice but back down. Or look very bad. Ned death�s made sure that the Starks could conviently forget about his confessed treason. Honourable Ned commit treason? His death made sure nobody was going to believe that in the north. I think Ran is right. Many �good� people have this idea that if they confront �bad� people with their crimes they would confess. That is what Catelyn believed. IMO her only crime was naivety. I kind of agree with Min. She never made decisions like that before. But in a place like the north she never had a chance. I�m not sure that she exactly depended on Ned. Jeff, I didn�t think of Ned losing those men. But Ned sent those men after he got his leg broken. Whose men were they anyhow? I know Beric lead the squad. And he might have left by the time Ned went for broke anyhow. Except if Ned sent a lot of his own men I would still consider it doubtful whether they would have helped him. He had expected the Gold Cloaks to support him. It is amazing that we are still debating these points a couple of years since we first read these books. GRRM surely does right great stuff. Whatever about our interpretations.
Padraig User ID: 2372774	Dec 20th 1:42 PM Sorry, labor not labour. I hope I never did that before.
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Dec 20th 4:00 PM Padraig, you gave a good explanation for why Catelyn seized Tyrion after Tyrion spoke. But that's not the same as saying why she was trying to avoid discovery in the first place if, indeed, her goal was "justice". The men selected by Ned were a compilation. Some of his, some Baratheon men, etc. Basically, the Dondarrion/Thoros of Myr force. I think he went for the gold cloaks only _after_ he realized he would otherwise be outnumbered. And he wouldn't necessarily have had to go along with Renly's plan for a preemptive strike. The extra 100 men that would have been present might have been enough to encourage Renly to stay. Then again, maybe not. I agree with you about Martin's talent. We all understand the facts in the book, yet draw completely different conclusions, just as the characters do. I'm usually on the opposite side of every issue from haaruk, but I've got to admit that his points are always well thought-out and well-supported. The fact that we can all _reasonably_ disagree is a testament to the skill of the writer.
Padraig User ID: 8499503	Dec 21st 2:32 PM Thanks Jeff. I think that Catelyn knew she hadn't enough evidence to convict him. So IMO there were two reasons why she tried to advoid him. Because she wanted to keep her journey south a secret. And she didn't want to talk to the person who tried to kill her son. When he recognised her both reasons were no longer relevant. And when he started laughing and joking like an innocent man, well that really got her going. Reason almost forgotten she wanted justice now. I see what you mean about the 100 men.
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Dec 21st 4:00 PM Padraig, I think both of your explanations were good. And at least the first reason shows some sound judgment on Catelyn's part.
Telisiane User ID: 2233684	Dec 28th 9:31 PM I can't believe I missed this incredible debate! Durn. I still don't understand why Cat _had_ to abduct Tyrion once he spotted her in the inn. Who exactly was in danger? Why was there a necessity that she take him then and there based on the flimsy evidence that she knew she had? Why not wait to build a better case? I'm not convinced that she had such limited options, even after reading all of the well-written arguments in this and previous threads. I have to say that I mostly agree with Haruuk's and Labor's arguments. I think she absolutely overreacted and made an obviously bad decision. (Okay, I admit it. I am a long-time Catelyn hater.) And as for Sansa's actions, I don't think that what she did in "betraying" Eddard is the same level of mistake that Catelyn made. (IMHO, Catelyn effectively started a war.) Every time I re-read AGOT, I realize how much Ned contributed to his own downfall. He was the one who told Cersei that he knew her secret, not Sansa. He was the one who turned down Renly's offer of help. And as far as I can see, he never had the truly serious talk with Sansa that might have made her see the gravity of their situation in KL. If he continually treated her as a child, how could he expect her to act as an adult? But I admit, I hated Sansa at the end of AGOT too. However, she has since become my one of my favorite characters. I'm not sure why she has to come to power though. Even if she remains a bit pathetic, seeking safety for herself, and acting as the viewpoint of the well-born pawn in the Game of Thrones, I will still find her interesting.
Dirjj User ID: 0094674	Dec 29th 1:12 AM I hated Sansa at the end of GOT. I only disliked her at the end of ACOK. She is totally reponsible for Eddards death. Her ratting out to Cercei to keep Eddards from making her go home accelerated the time table of the conflict between the Lannisters and Starks. Eddard was making plans to get the kids, himself, and his entire retinue out of the city. Sansa's act made him act before he was prepared. I haven't re-read the book yet, but I'm pretty sure that she snitched before Robert was dead. So her act led to his death as well. Plus, is she hadn't have whined to Cercei, then Eddard would have still been alive when Catelyn captured Tyrion. I don't know if the Lannisters would have traded a Ned for a Tyrion, but geez, that (rhymes with switch and begins with the second consonant of the alphabet) opened up a whole can of worms. ab
labor User ID: 8785553	Dec 29th 1:32 AM Dirji, re-read AGOT. Eddard warned Cersei about his knowledge of her secret and his intentions concerning her and her children. That, and that alone caused Robert's death. Ned indirectly caused it, not Sansa. IIRC it took a few days for Robert to die and Cersei couldn't have kept Sansa shut up for all that time without Ned noticing - ergo Sansa went to Cersei the evening before Robert's death, when he was already mortally wounded. She has absolutely nothing to do with Robert's "hunting accident" and death! Also, Ned informed Littlefinger about his intention to enthrone Stannis, over the latter's objections. From that moment on, Ned was doomed to fall, Sansa here or there. He just couldn't do much with 30 men of his household guard against Lannister 100 and 2K of the City Watch. Nor did he intend to leave the city - he only intended for his daughters to leave and planned to confront Cersei/await Stannis himself. He also, very stupidly, didn't shedule their departure until the very last moment. Now, Sansa and Arya might have left if both all of Cersei's and all of Littlefinger's spies were to fall asleep, but it was far from the sure thing. BTW, Teleisane is right that Ned didn't warn Sansa about the precariousness of their position at court, like he did Arya. It might have changed things, too. Ned was alive when Cat captured Tyrion, but IIRC Tyrion was already sent down the high road by the time Ned was thrown into a dungeon. And of course, Lannisters wouldn't dream to exchange the one for the other. "Wrong brother", you know... Let's not blame a 12-year-old girl for something for which Ned himself was responsible.
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Dec 29th 8:21 AM labor, I agree with most of what you said. Certainly, I can't "blame" Sansa for Ned's death. That burden falls squarely on Joffrey, Cersei, and whomever counseled Joffrey to have Ned killed. But I do think that Ned's fate might have been different had Arya and Sansa escaped. The Lannisters were able to get away with killing Ned because of his confession of treason -- it gave them an excuse. But Ned only "confessed" when Sansa's life was threatened. If Sansa and Arya were safe, there would have been no public confession by Ned. Under those circumstances, I think it more likely that Ned would have been retained as a hostage.
Ran User ID: 8075153	Dec 29th 11:30 AM The Lannisters didn't get away with killing him, however. Everyone knew that that insane act by Joffrey would set the situation aflame. In my opinion, they were far more likely to kill him if he refused to admit to treason, because he was too dangerous to the Lannisterslet live -- more dangerous, even, than the North coming down to seek revenge.
labor User ID: 8785553	Dec 29th 12:04 PM Couldn't agree more, Ran. BTW, Varys said as much :"I trust you know that you are a dead man, Lord Eddard", or something along those lines.