Catelyn: Even more misunderstood than before

[FanTasy]

My thoughts about another point that has been mentioned here: Many people think Jon is Raegar's son, and he may be, but this makes him a royal bastard and not a prince. He'd be to Raeger what Edric Storm is to Robert. No, he wouldn't be so important, because R never recognised him as his son. I don't know why people think his possible Targaryen origin is so important.

In the threads about R+L=J some people state that Jon was a legitimate child, by a polygamous marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

My thoughts about another point that has been mentioned here: Many people think Jon is Raegar's son, and he may be, but this makes him a royal bastard and not a prince. He'd be to Raeger what Edric Storm is to Robert. No, he wouldn't be so important, because R never recognised him as his son. I don't know why people think his possible Targaryen origin is so important.

I think there's decent circumstantial evidence that Jon is legitimate, namely the presence of all three remaining Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy (if he'd been a bastard, they would've left already for Dragonstone and Viserys).

Though I think that Jon is legitimate, I believe that his identity as a half-Targaryen, half-Stark is important in the grand humanity-saving scheme of things, not in terms of whether he'll be the king (over the entire Seven Kingdoms, anyway). "He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire." Rhaegar says this about baby Aegon, but it's possible, even likely, that this possible future is out of play (Aegon's actually dead) or Rhaegar changed his mind.

I don't believe that ice or fire will overcome the other. There has to be a balance. Ice won't — can't — defeat fire, and fire won't — can't — defeat ice. In the end there has to be some symmetry.

Rhaegar = Fire

Lyanna = Ice

Jon = Ice and Fire

[MaryaStone]

Well, Jon is probably Rhaegar's son. Then, unless he's legitimate, which I doubt, because he was never officially recognised as such,we have to accept that bastards are indeed a threat to legitimate children, because they may have claims to the throne or lordship that belonged to their father. So, Catelyn's opposition to Jon being given too much preeminence isn't all that paranoid.

On the contrary, it's quite reasonable.

I agree with you that Jon must play an important role in the fight against the Others, but this doesn't mean he's not a threat to the status of other players in this so called game of thrones. If we are considering his possible claims to the Iron Throne even when he was never recognised by Rhaegar ( if he really was his son, he never recognised him, so he couldn't be considered legitimate), then, thinking that he has claims to Winterfell, when everybody knows he's Ned's son (although he may be Lyanna's instead, this is a secret) is much more likely than thinking that he could have any reasonable claims to the Iron Throne.

[FanTasy]

The irony is that Catelyn's fear about the threat Jon could pose towards Winterfell and the heritage of her children was in fact very to the point

Robb using his jurisdiction as King of the North decided to make Jon legitimate and as Lord of Winterfell decided to make Jon his heir. Jon being legitimate would surpass Bran and Rickon's claim to Winterfell.

And of course Stannis offered twice to make Jon legitimate and become Lord of Winterfell.

[Fearsome Fred]

FanTasy wrote:

Pray, did I say that I condone what Catelyn could have seen as an other option?

Dunno. Feel free to clarify. You wrote that: "she does not blame Ned for what he did RIGHT". I understood that to mean that you do not agree with me that what Ned did was right.

I gave textual reference and said that I think what it says is open for multiple interpretation.

I'm not seeing any multiple interpretation. We both agree that Catelyn blames Ned ... for something I happen to think was RIGHT. My moral disagreement with Catelyn was why I called her outlook morally flawed.

[FanTasy]

FanTasy wrote:

You wrote that: "she does not blame Ned for what he did RIGHT".

My moral disagreement with Catelyn was why I called her outlook morally flawed.

LOL It was a quote ... your words ... I just changed 'him' to 'Ned' if I recall, don't want to split hairs though.

You not only called her outlook morally flawed, mine too ...

Well ... that's okay, I hold no offense - intended or not - against you.

I appreciated the reactions of other posters, though. Thanks guys!

[Fearsome Fred]

See above. She is Lady Stark. She cannot behave with the all-for-the-little-child devotion like a 21st century mother is expected to. She lives in a dangerous world, and being of assisstance to those members of the family who are endangered is more important than being with those who are currently quite safe.

You are all wet. I was not criticizing her for the trip south, but for her behavior during her bedside madness with Bran.

I'm still quite new to these forums; is this a common custom here to offend fellow posters?

I have said nothing offensive. If you disagree, you are necessarily implying that my posting ethic is morally flawed. Which is, by your standards, an offensive thing to say.

Again, you're applying 21st century morality [...]

No, I am not. My religion is 2000 years old, and the applicable moral principles are no doubt far older.

without taking into consideration different standards by which Catelyn was raised.

I can disagree with them regardless of where they come from.

[MaryaStone]

FanTasy wrote:

Dunno. Feel free to clarify. You wrote that: "she does not blame Ned for what he did RIGHT". I understood that to mean that you do not agree with me that what Ned did was right.

I'm not seeing any multiple interpretation. We both agree that Catelyn blames Ned ... for something I happen to think was RIGHT. My moral disagreement with Catelyn was why I called her outlook morally flawed.

Well, what you call a RIGHT decision by Ned, resulted in doing a great disservice to his legitimate children, as they ended up losing their claim to Winterfell in favour of Jon's , as Fan Tasy explains very well here:

The irony is that Catelyn's fear about the threat Jon could pose towards Winterfell and the heritage of her children was in fact very to the point

Robb using his jurisdiction as King of the North decided to make Jon legitimate and as Lord of Winterfell decided to make Jon his heir. Jon being legitimate would surpass Bran and Rickon's claim to Winterfell.

And of course Stannis offered twice to make Jon legitimate and become Lord of Winterfell.

I don't know if Arya,Bran,Sansa and Rickon should be very happy about Ned's, and then Rob's, RIGHT decisions.

Finally, I'd like to agree with those of you who've already said that, expressing value judgements about other people's morality, is out of place here. Fan Tasy :cheers:

[Ygrain]

You are all wet. I was not criticizing her for the trip south, but for her behavior during her bedside madness with Bran.

I stand corrected, wet or not.

I have said nothing offensive. If you disagree, you are necessarily implying that my posting ethic is morally flawed. Which is, by your standards, an offensive thing to say.

You didn’t say anything offensive because the person decided to take no offence even though s/he could.

No, I am not. My religion is 2000 years old, and the applicable moral principles are no doubt far older.

Words are wind. Unsurprisingly, 21^st century morality didn’t appear out of nowhere. - It might be better here not to speak of morality but rather socially acceptable behaviour, which may, and may not be, overlapping categories.

I can disagree with them regardless of where they come from.

You can disagree as much as you wish but you should not be condemning a person brought up in a different environment for not complying with your idea of right and wrong.

[Fearsome Fred]

LOL It was a quote ... your words ... I just changed 'him' to 'Ned' if I recall [...]

[sigh] No. You also inserted a term of negation. You DISAGREED with "my words". You are now scolding me for misunderstanding the nature of your disagreement, while refusing to clarify what that disagreement was.

[Fearsome Fred]

If your think she abandoned Rickon and the rest of the family, you could say the same about Ned.

No you couldn't. I never criticized her for her trip south.

Maybe she saw the existence of a bastard with too much preeminence as a threat for her own family. There were reasons to think bastards were a threat.

Dude. I agree that it was wrong of Ned to sire a bastard. That's why I criticized her for condoning what Ned did wrong, and blaming what he did right.

We, as readers, know Jon Snow is a good person and he would never do something like that, [...]

We don't know that. My moral assessment of the situation is not based on that. A father owes a duty to his children. This is not based on any assumption that the children will turn out to be good people.

[mormont]

A father owes a duty to his children.

Certainly, but equally certainly Cat believes - and every other character seems to agree - that Ned went way beyond his duty to Jon. (In fact Cat seems to imply she'd have thought less of Ned if he hadn't done his duty to Jon.) And that's what she blames him for - not doing his duty, but far exceeding his duty, without any explanation or justification. It's pretty clear also that her problem with this is that it's been done without any regard for her feelings, and that Ned has never apologised for that or even acknowledged it. Quite the reverse: it's the one area of their relationship where he's been closed and cold to her.

Whatever you think of the morality of Ned's behaviour in taking Jon in, the way in which he's acted to Cat is morally very dubious. He's done something that affects her intimately on a daily basis, and he not only neglected to ask her opinion, he positively refuses to take it into account - in quite a forceful way. I think Cat is quite entitled to resent this.

[Fearsome Fred]

You can disagree as much as you wish but you should not be condemning a person brought up in a different environment for not complying with your idea of right and wrong.

I was brought up in a different environment than you. Hence, by your standards, you should not be telling me what I should be doing.

[Ygrain]

I was brought up in a different environment than you. Hence, by your standards, you should not be telling me what I should be doing.

Of course I can tell you what you, IMHO, should be doing - I just shouldn't think of you too badly for being judgemental if that is your case how you were brought up, or at least I should at least honestly try. I am also perfectly entitled to try and point out the relativity of things which tend to be considered as absolute.

[morkish outpost]

I'll take advantage of this to chime in with my usual argument re Cat hate: I adore her, she's one of my favorite characters, and the Jon Issue is the reason why i'm a Cat-fan.

Not becuase I hate Jon and want to see him suffer (I like Jon quite a bit, actually) but because that relashionship makes her interesting. Along with her other, less than perfectly saintly thoughts, interactions, actions, etc. She's one of the most undeniably morally upstanding characters in the series. Maybe the most so. But as a character I want to read about, its her conflicts, errors and tragedies I enjoy thought.

In short, the idea that Catelyn would be a popular character if only she had been nicer to Jon/Brienne/Arya/given better advice/not freed Jaime/whatever is absolutely absurd to me. The fact is, i've never heard anyone criticize Tyrion or Jaime, as characters, for behaviour less than deserving of the Nobel peace prize.We find Jaime interesting becuase he's sleeping with his sister. Tyrion is popular becuase he's a self pitying basket case. Catelyn however never gets the same slack. If she's ever less than exemplary, then she's somehow loathsome rather than, y'know, human and compelling.

I don't know if it's sexism or some apple-pie idealization tied to motherhood or some nuance to the way the character is written that is different from the way all the others are that passes me by completely or what, but Its this double standard that I find both offensive and inexplicable when it comes to talking about Catelyn.

:agree: I think it is because she is sometimes percepted as a mother and a mother only - and that's where the sterotypes kick in...

[Cap Ou Pas Cap]

When the word "missunderstood" is used, it implies that someone somewhere did not read the book in THE RIGHT WAY. I think everybody here paid more than enough attention to detail. And what Catelyn has done, said or thought was fairly detailed. While all the readers UNDERSTAND the chain of her reasonings, some just do not AGREE with her.

I see her as shortsighted (now I marsh my son to war, give my daughter to Freys, but NOW I endanger the whole army (and the said son) for that daughter coming back to me RIGHT NOW). She wants things, she involves people in them and then just turns on them, because she can't handle it for a longer period of time.

In the curious case of Jon Snow I don't blame her for disliking him, I blame her for making a point out of it. With all those constant looks, slights. "it should have been you's". I also kind of dissaprove that she was creating the atmosphere for Jon that he wasn't any good and not because "he was a bastard", but because "he had nothing good to offer whatsoever".

I like that she was doing something and not just staring at the Red Weding. Points for her. That's one time I was cheering her. But still hoped she will die. I actually think her character might be based on Michael from "Lost". Constantly screaming WAAAAAAAAAAALT! SANSA! Robb! One-dimensional. Boring.

[dark sister]

I'm still quite new to these forums; is this a common custom here to offend fellow posters?

I wouldn't call it common, but it's definitely not nice. Fearsome Fred has quite a history of insulting other people's intelligence, morality, "wetness", etc...

Whatever the case, I always admired Catelyn as a character. She was an incredibly strong woman who held up almost inhumanely well under all the tragedies that befell her. A lot of people probably view her as "whiny", but note that these thoughts were internal; she hardly ever complained out loud. She was prudent, wise, and I for one appreciate her.

[mormont]

[mod] I think it's definitely time to knock off the personal comments about other people's posting style. Address the arguments, and if you have a complaint to make, make it privately. PM or use the 'Report' button, please. [/mod]

[Lemon Cake]

Certainly, but equally certainly Cat believes - and every other character seems to agree - that Ned went way beyond his duty to Jon. (In fact Cat seems to imply she'd have thought less of Ned if he hadn't done his duty to Jon.) And that's what she blames him for - not doing his duty, but far exceeding his duty, without any explanation or justification. It's pretty clear also that her problem with this is that it's been done without any regard for her feelings, and that Ned has never apologised for that or even acknowledged it. Quite the reverse: it's the one area of their relationship where he's been closed and cold to her.

Whatever you think of the morality of Ned's behaviour in taking Jon in, the way in which he's acted to Cat is morally very dubious. He's done something that affects her intimately on a daily basis, and he not only neglected to ask her opinion, he positively refuses to take it into account - in quite a forceful way. I think Cat is quite entitled to resent this.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I just wish she had directed that very justified anger and resentment at Ned instead of Jon. If she had done that, I would have been cheering her on the whole way.

[Ygrain]

When the word "missunderstood" is used, it implies that someone somewhere did not read the book in THE RIGHT WAY. I think everybody here paid more than enough attention to detail. And what Catelyn has done, said or thought was fairly detailed. While all the readers UNDERSTAND the chain of her reasonings, some just do not AGREE with her.

As it happens, I as a person also don't AGREE with Cat's attitude to Jon. However, I've received quite some lecturing in literature and history to see that her mindset is different from the mindset of a contemporary reader like myself and that by the standards of her society, her attitude is perfectly justified. Writing her in a more "motherly" way towards Jon would be out of character for her.