405 replies to this topic

[Dr. Pepper]

Melisandra, on 17 April 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

If that is correct, then Edric is indeed Ned's son.

The timelines don't add up as Edric is too young to have been fathered by Ned.

Edited by Dr. Pepper, 17 April 2012 - 12:25 PM.

[Feather Crystal]

Dr. Pepper, on 17 April 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

The timelines don't add up as Edric is too young to have been fathered by Ned.

Then something is really screw-y because I thought Ashara killed herself on account of Ned's marriage.

[Winter's Knight]

Melisandra, on 17 April 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

Then something is really screw-y because I thought Ashara killed herself on account of Ned's marriage.

Have you read ADwD? Popular opinion states that

Spoiler

Ashara is the Septa with Young Griff.

[Lummel]

A Free Shadow, on 17 April 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

...What is in the text is that one day Robb, who clearly had no such thought before, says that Jon can not be a lord of Winterfell even at a game. He calls him a bastard. He says his "lady mother" told him so...

But that is the fact of the situation.  Jon is a bastard and he can't be lord of westeros.  There isn't a nice way of expressing that.  We know from Bran I AGOT that little Bran is aware of that fact and the poignancy of it.

The incident is important in establishing just how much of a defining fact his bastard status is.  On the other hand we don't see Jon and Catelyn grinding their teeth and cursing each other from afar once they have seperated.

[Greywolf2375]

Fire&Blood, on 16 April 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

She directed the blame and anger that should have been on Ned onto Jon. Emphasis on innocent child - what the hell would you call him then? Where did I say she was cruel? You're taking things to the extreme just to make your argument more sound. I believe I only said that I find it confusing that people see her embarrassment as more important than an INNOCENT CHILD being made to feel guilty for breathing when you pounced on me.

No - she didn't. She did not direct that blame and anger at Jon - to do that would have meant she was paying more attention to him than she did.  She ignored him - that's it, that's all.  She COULD have gone out of her way to make things far worse for him by excluding him from activities with her children, but didn't.

Why should she have made any more connection with Jon than any other person in Winterfell who is not her child or husband?

[Greywolf2375]

Red Raven, on 16 April 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

Two sides of the same coin.  Cersei had her husband's bastards hunted down and killed.  Considering that Cat openly told Jon she wished he were effectively dead after having him around for 14 years tells me that she probably would have had Jon killed too if she could've gotten away with it.

Cat got screwed over by Ned and was treated like a pawn, that's not her fault.  Taking her anger out on an innocent child who didn't do anything wrong, that is her fault.

As far as Jon was concerned, Cat was a bully.

And that is in line with Cats character how?  No, the worst Cat wanted for Jon was to be sent away - there is never anything that would lead to a conclusion of on any given day, Catelyn wanted Jon dead.

[Mindrot]

My biggest problem with how Cat treated Jon lies in the fact that Jon did not choose any of the situations he was placed, certainly when he was very young, and it appears that his plan was to leave and try to make his own life ASAP, but he had no choice in being born a bastard, being raised in his 'fathers' home, or being an affront to Lady Cat.  Yet Cat directs her anger at the shame and embarrassement of Jon towards him, and not to the source, Ned.  Obviously we know it was a difficult situation for Ned, because he is honor bound to his sister to protect Jon, and the best way to do that is keep him in Winterfell, not fostering him somewhere else.  

I believe Cat acted in a morally wrong way in not showing love towards Jon.  Not for some sexist belief that all women should be motherly, nurturing, forgiving etc, but by the sheer fact that Jon was not the resposible party.  He did nothing to deserve the coldness she showed him, in fact his interactions with the other children etc should have showed Cat that despite his bastardness, he was growing to be a good man, and good Stark.  Her anger should have been directed at Ned.  I know that she was frightened into not bringing it up to Ned after the first time, but again, this is not Jons fault.  At no point is he deserving of her coldness, and therein lies my problem with Cat.  Put aside all the sexist stuff, pure logic should tell this woman that treating Jon badly/coldly w/e is unfair to him.  And if she somehow justifies this by saying that him being raised in Winterfell is unfair to HER, then once again, her problem lies with Ned, not Jon.  

Cat has something very special with Ned.  She has a husband that is the very Platonic Form of Honor.  While she believes that his honor has but one smear, Jon, does she not also see that he is the 'Best' man in the entire realm?  A man with 1 smear of shit, in a world that is neck deep in shit, and she focuses her anger at that one smear?  The fruit of that smear.  Why could she not forgive Ned for his 1 mistake and show love to Jon?  That is her fault, her flaw, in regards to Jon.  A better person (man or woman) would forgive and love IMO.

Also in the same regard, why does she not trust and love Ned enough to raise this one bastard?  Certainly Ned made mistakes, but he made every effort to welcome Cat to winterfell as wife, and apart from THE ONE TIME HE FRIGHTENS HER (read every other husband in this world of shit could beat for just a wrong look but Ned ALWAYS treats her with respect, except in this one case where he has givin his word to his dying sister), why cant she just forgive Ned for this ONE transgression (a big one yes, but just ONE?!) and love Jon?

[Dr. Pepper]

Melisandra, on 17 April 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

Then something is really screw-y because I thought Ashara killed herself on account of Ned's marriage.

There are many reasons in the books given for why Ashara killed herself.  She was sad over her brother's death, distraught over delivering a stillborn, overcome by grief over being dishonored by a Stark.  There's evidence that these reasons may be true and there's evidence that they aren't true in the least.  ADWD presents yet another theory.

[Dracarya]

Greywolf2375, on 17 April 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

No - she didn't. She did not direct that blame and anger at Jon - to do that would have meant she was paying more attention to him than she did.  She ignored him - that's it, that's all.  She COULD have gone out of her way to make things far worse for him by excluding him from activities with her children, but didn't.

Why should she have made any more connection with Jon than any other person in Winterfell who is not her child or husband?

I don't believe I said that she should have had more connection with Jon than any other person, so I thank you to not put words into my mouth.

Ignoring a child can be extremely damaging. I don't know how anyone can claim otherwise. It's another form of mental and emotional abuse - if Ned had ignored Catelyn in the same way, I'm sure you'd all be raving about how it was unfair and cruel. Our opinions clearly differ, but it's not really fair to imply that everything was fine because she could have been worse. I think being ignored, given the cold shoulder and verbally abused to that extent, even once, is bad enough, especially when Jon did nothing to deserve it, he was simply born. That's it, that's all.

[Greywolf2375]

Red Raven, on 16 April 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

And he can't state that cold-shouldering and dehumanizing a child isn't abusive in some way, for many people including some in this thread, it is.  He can't tell us it's not.

He absolutely can by telling how the society works and whether or not that is what is considered abusive by those peoples.  It's part of the world building he has done and, with a few exceptions, he has shown that as a comparative to the "average" bastards life in Westeros, Jon was treated just fine.

[Sand Snake No. 9]

Well I swore I wasn't going to dip my toe in this muddy pool again, but . . .

Dr. Pepper, on 17 April 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:

Stannis refused to call Edric Storm by name. He used the same names as Cat used; boy, bastard, etc. He does this in order to distance himself as much as possible to prevent caring for Edric Storm. It's understandable considering what Mel was encouraging him to do with the boy.

Yes.  And what does Davos, the man with the only reliable moral compass in the series, do?  He forces Stannis to acknowledge the boy by name, to remind him the boy is a human being.  Because bastards are human too.

It's significant, I think, that Davos is common born; highborn Westerosi, men and women alike, apparently come out of the womb with their heads firmly up their asses, and some make it to the grave in that position.

Anyhoo, I think I've found my standard going forward – whenever I face a question I'll ask, What Would Davos Seaworth Do?  WWDSD.  Sounds like an acronym for a weapon of mass destruction, but it works for me.

Catelyn evidently never heard Septa Mordane say that "Courtesy is a lady's armor."  Seems to me she could have saved herself and Jon a lot of pain, or whatever you want to call it, by donning that armor.  IMO, any obligation she may have had to Jon would have been completely discharged if she had been polite, i.e., called him by name.  But perhaps courtesy only applies to those higher on the social scale, not lower.

[Kate Poem]

Jon is completely innocent in all this mess, what Ned created... and Catelyn should behaved in other way toward baby Jon, toddler Jon etc. etc.

[LordBloodraven]

Well, most people who have dogs will show affections for their companion. They will feed, protect, pat, play with him. Cat didn't certainly treat Jon as a dog, but perhaps it would have been better if she had

[birdsong66]

mormont, on 17 April 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

I don't think I'm making such a contention. I'm saying that it's simply not possible to discuss the issue of whether 'emotional distance' is mistreatment without considering gender: and so, it's not really practical to avoid 'making it a gender issue'.



You could, but I don't think it would be as good a case. Mind you, I'm not unbiased.



Fair enough, but to me this looks somewhat like adapting the definition of 'loathing' so that the evidence fits the preferred conclusion: ex post facto reasoning. I think most people would define a personal 'loathing' as something more obsessive and intrusive: they'd expect to see frequent bitterness and dwelling on the negative attributes of the loathed person.



Fair enough. But we don't see much of Jon and Cat while at WF, so it's hard to judge. I agree with whoever it was that said it would be hard to distinguish between a resentment of Jon's presence and personal feelings of animosity to him while he was there: my point is precisely that we can probably best judge the degree of personal loathing or hatred by Cat's reaction once the hated situation is done with.



I think Cat's reaction to this is perfectly understandable on the face of it. She was, in effect, being asked to take on a parental role for Jon for the first time. I think she could find this emotionally unbearable and unacceptable without the need to suppose that she feared some sort of loss of control as a result.

I also think Catelyn's reaction perfectly understandable.  

My point is that the relationship that Jon and Catelyn have while at Winterfell is one defined by boundries, unspoken rules and expectations of behavior imposed by Ned, for the most part.  If that boundry is removed, if that person who necessitated the boundries in the first place is no longer there, then Jon and Catelyn must temper themselves.  I think Catelyn understands herself well enough to fear an inability to continue status quo in Ned's absence.

Try this another way:  Stannis had no intention of harming Edric prior to Robert's death, or Melisandre's influence.  The act required both Robert's death, Renly's death, and Mel's influence.  So, the previous expectations of appropriate behavior came into question, and were acted on, as a direct result of that absence.

Cercei managed to dispose of Robert's bastards and their mothers in selective cases prior to Robert's death, but it was Robert's absence that allowed her the freedom to dispense with all of them, without conscience or consequence.

I'm not suggesting that Catelyn would kill Jon in Ned's absence as I believe we can agree this is entirely against her core nature.  But an inability to continue as two people who reside within the same environment, indifferent and silently cold, without it becoming more damaging to the greater whole in Ned's absence is not that difficult to hypothesize.

[Queen Cersei I]

Sand Snake No. 9, on 17 April 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

Yes.  And what does Davos, the man with the only reliable moral compass in the series, do?  He forces Stannis to acknowledge the boy by name, to remind him the boy is a human being.  Because bastards are human too.

Really, I'm not sure how Stannis's willingness to burn a child alive is morally equivalent to Cat's avoiding her husband's illegitimate son.

The underlying idea that "Stannis dehumanized Edric, and Cat dehumanized Jon!" is certainly interesting.

But I think we'd all agree that emotionally avoiding a person and blowing up at them once whilst unhinged by grief is not really the same as burning a person alive.

Edited by Queen Cersei I, 17 April 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[Greywolf2375]

Red Raven, on 17 April 2012 - 03:41 AM, said:

I stand by what I said.  She felt guilt over not attending to her duties and paying more attention to Rickon, she didn't feel guilty about snapping at Jon.  There was nothing to stop her from sending a raven of apology to him.  She never did.  She felt guilt over her feelings toward Mya, not Jon.  She still loathed him.

I have as much right to participate in this thread as anyone else and to express my opinion about Cat.  If you don't like that, not my problem.

No, she did not loathe him - again, she ignored him.  Loathing something is active, where as she wanted nothing to do with Jon.

You absolutely can participate in the threads.  Please just keep the opinions to things that actually happened in the books.

[Lummel]

Mindrot, on 17 April 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

...I believe Cat acted in a morally wrong way in not showing love towards Jon.  Not for some sexist belief that all women should be motherly, nurturing, forgiving etc, but by the sheer fact that Jon was not the resposible party.  He did nothing to deserve the coldness she showed him, in fact his interactions with the other children etc should have showed Cat that despite his bastardness, he was growing to be a good man, and good Stark.  Her anger should have been directed at Ned.  I know that she was frightened into not bringing it up to Ned after the first time, but again, this is not Jons fault.  At no point is he deserving of her coldness, and therein lies my problem with Cat.  Put aside all the sexist stuff, pure logic should tell this woman that treating Jon badly/coldly w/e is unfair to him... why cant she just forgive Ned for this ONE transgression (a big one yes, but just ONE?!) and love Jon?

I don't think there is any mention in the text about The Ned ever playing with Jon.  Instead he took his sons to public executions.  Yet we don't blame him for not beeing an active, involved father.  Did he help Sansa learn maths when even Arya knew she was struggling - what a terrible father!

Why is it Catelyn's job to show love to Jon?  (And according to the Queen of Thornes appropriate maternal feelings are shown by beating your sons until they aren't stupid any more!).  Is it because she is defined for us as a Mother that we expect her to be maternal in all circumstances and apart from our own hang-ups over gender and 'women's roles' is being cold to somebody who is not your child such a problem to us?

Catelyn is a mother to her children and she loves them, but being a mother isn't the enterity of her personality.  She is also the Lord's wife which is probably a full time job in it's own right.

Fire&Blood, on 17 April 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

...Ignoring a child can be extremely damaging. I don't know how anyone can claim otherwise. It's another form of mental and emotional abuse...

Yes but in this case Jon is being brought up in a big household not a nuclear family.  All kinds of elements of the family are going to be contracted out from breast feeding onwards.  Obviously this can be damaging - just look at our own Royal Family.  But in this case being ignored does not mean that he is ignored - there are a bunch of people at Winterfell who would have been responsible for looking after him, that would not have been Catelyn's role in any case.

[Feather Crystal]

Winterbreath, on 17 April 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

Have you read ADwD? Popular opinion states that

Spoiler

Ashara is the Septa with Young Griff.

I think it's rude to state, "have you read aDwD" when someone has a different take on the story than you do. I am on a second reread of all the books and am currently on the fourth book, aFfC. Some of my opinions are coming from this reread. It's amazing how you catch different things and how it can change your interpretation. This thing with Ashara...I know many people have formed this opinion that she is the Septa, but we do not know for certain.

Lummel, on 17 April 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

But that is the fact of the situation.  Jon is a bastard and he can't be lord of westeros.  There isn't a nice way of expressing that.  We know from Bran I AGOT that little Bran is aware of that fact and the poignancy of it.

The incident is important in establishing just how much of a defining fact his bastard status is.  On the other hand we don't see Jon and Catelyn grinding their teeth and cursing each other from afar once they have seperated.

We've already learned two ways that Jon can be legitamized and become Lord of Winterfell and both ways come from kings: Robb leaves Winterfell to Jon, and Stannis wants to make him Lord. By the end of aDwD, we know that Jon doesn't want to accept Stannis's offer, and he doesn't know about Robb's offer, but we could assume that even if he knew Robb named him, he'd probably still want to stay on the Wall.

Mindrot, on 17 April 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

My biggest problem with how Cat treated Jon lies in the fact that Jon did not choose any of the situations he was placed, certainly when he was very young, and it appears that his plan was to leave and try to make his own life ASAP, but he had no choice in being born a bastard, being raised in his 'fathers' home, or being an affront to Lady Cat.  Yet Cat directs her anger at the shame and embarrassement of Jon towards him, and not to the source, Ned.  Obviously we know it was a difficult situation for Ned, because he is honor bound to his sister to protect Jon, and the best way to do that is keep him in Winterfell, not fostering him somewhere else.  

I believe Cat acted in a morally wrong way in not showing love towards Jon.  Not for some sexist belief that all women should be motherly, nurturing, forgiving etc, but by the sheer fact that Jon was not the resposible party.  He did nothing to deserve the coldness she showed him, in fact his interactions with the other children etc should have showed Cat that despite his bastardness, he was growing to be a good man, and good Stark.  Her anger should have been directed at Ned.  I know that she was frightened into not bringing it up to Ned after the first time, but again, this is not Jons fault.  At no point is he deserving of her coldness, and therein lies my problem with Cat.  Put aside all the sexist stuff, pure logic should tell this woman that treating Jon badly/coldly w/e is unfair to him.  And if she somehow justifies this by saying that him being raised in Winterfell is unfair to HER, then once again, her problem lies with Ned, not Jon.  

Cat has something very special with Ned.  She has a husband that is the very Platonic Form of Honor.  While she believes that his honor has but one smear, Jon, does she not also see that he is the 'Best' man in the entire realm?  A man with 1 smear of shit, in a world that is neck deep in shit, and she focuses her anger at that one smear?  The fruit of that smear.  Why could she not forgive Ned for his 1 mistake and show love to Jon?  That is her fault, her flaw, in regards to Jon.  A better person (man or woman) would forgive and love IMO.

Also in the same regard, why does she not trust and love Ned enough to raise this one bastard?  Certainly Ned made mistakes, but he made every effort to welcome Cat to winterfell as wife, and apart from THE ONE TIME HE FRIGHTENS HER (read every other husband in this world of shit could beat for just a wrong look but Ned ALWAYS treats her with respect, except in this one case where he has givin his word to his dying sister), why cant she just forgive Ned for this ONE transgression (a big one yes, but just ONE?!) and love Jon?

Yes its morally wrong for Catelyn to make Jon feel unwelcome, but I think its understandable. Have you ever tried to put yourself in Catelyn's position? Could you love your spouse's bastard? I don't think I could. In today's world, the typical response to a reveal like that would be divorce.

[Ran]

FWIW, I don't think Lemore is Ashara. No, no special knowledge from GRRM, just that the details don't particularly seem to fit the character.

[Dracarya]

Lummel, on 17 April 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Yes but in this case Jon is being brought up in a big household not a nuclear family.  All kinds of elements of the family are going to be contracted out from breast feeding onwards.  Obviously this can be damaging - just look at our own Royal Family.  But in this case being ignored does not mean that he is ignored - there are a bunch of people at Winterfell who would have been responsible for looking after him, that would not have been Catelyn's role in any case.

I just find it baffling that someone could keep that kind of attitude up for 14 years against child who did no wrong. I also find it pretty worrying that people seem to think it's okay to excuse that kind of behaviour.