Jump to content

[BOOK SPOILERS] Cat and Jon Snow


teemo

Recommended Posts

I don't think she feels guilt over not loving Jon Snow, she feels guilt for promising the gods she would love him and then breaking her promise - that's why she, a very religious person, believes these things are happening (as part of her grief process). Not because she believes it was bad karma to not love Jon Snow.

Maybe, but then the line should not have been: All because I could not love a motherless child. It should have been something like: All because I could not keep my prmise to gods.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robb does not have the authority, except as King, to legitimize Jon and make him Lord of Winterfell. And he wasn't declared King until long after he'd left Winterfell. Therefore, he couldn't have left Jon as Lord of Winterfell in his absence even if he'd wanted to. And while I think he was fine with legitimizing Jon after he believed his brothers were dead, I can't seem him disinheriting Bran when Winterfell still stands securely.

IF Ned legitimized Jon, by King Robert, then Jon would be in line after Robb. I don't see anything wrong with that, it's like adopting a child. Would you place a "natural" born child over a child who was adopted? Of all the Stark kids, Robb was the only one inheriting everything, title, lands etc. Sansa, Arya, Bran and Rickon could only hope for good marriages. Marriages that would bring, lands, money, since they would be lords and ladies. Jon legitimated would take anything from them, it's all Robb's anyways, what another person in front really matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Snow Pov II

He stood in the door afraid to speak, afraid to come in. Martin has written this to imply a pattern in Jon's life in regard to Catelyn Stark.

Part of him wanted only to flee.

Something cold moved in her eyes. " I told you to leave." " We don't want you here". ( who is the we? is she speaking for Bran Stark as well?) This is symbolic of Jon's later dreams of the crypt where cold eyes stare at him and say You do not belong here.

Once that would have sent him running. Once that might have even made him cry. ( pattern of earlier times with Catelyn Stark)

I prayed for my special boy. I prayed for it. she said dully. " He was my special boy". I went to the sept and prayed seven times to seven faces of gods that Ned would change his mind adn leave him here with me. Sometimes prayers are answered. (Catelyn praying to god and in her mind the gods answered her with Bran's fall and being close to death. This I think is where the TV producers took the idea that Catelyn Stark believes the gods are punishing her but they twisted it to refer to Jon Snow. The book certainly has not yet done this in AGOT

Jon tries to comfort her. " It wasn't your fault," he mangaged after an awkward silence. ( The irony of Jon Snow trying to give comfort to a woman who has hated him and made him feel unwanted his entire life)

Her eyes found him. They were full of poison. "I need none of your absolution, bastard. "

Further down in the chapter Martin tells us that Never one time has Catelyn Tully Stark ever called Jon by his name. Just this once..she says Jon so that he turns around so she can deliver the stinging words.." It should have been you."

That is not only a stabbing in the heart but a twisting the blade. She deliberatley used his name for the first time in his life so that she could utter " It should have been you".

The TV show upset me, but sometimes I think the people who have read the book upset me more..lol Go read that POV once again..underline the adjectives and think about the history Martin is giving us subtly in how Catelyn has treated Jon through the years..This was not a distant neglect from this woman..it was nasty and sometimes in Jon's face. Never using his name once??? So are we to imply she called him bastard daily? or Snow ? Martin does not tell us..he only gives the character Catelyn the line....bastard.

Catelyn Stark is a character that I admire for many reason, her love for her children. However I am not giving her a pass on this entire scene. I do like the idea that the TV writers are trying to make her more sympathetic and trying to show that she has struggled with guilt over her treatment and feelings towards Jon Snow and perhaps Rob making Jon his heir.

Martin's work is subjective in the sense that when we read his words..we each have emotional responses to the characters and stories. I am an older woman with a strong traditional religious faith. I am sure this colors my feelings regarding characters but I do try to actually go back and read each word written by Martin to objectively try to understand the character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you think Jon Snow (who's pretty much an idiot on the show and would be green as grass without his experience at the Wall) would do better than Ser Rodrik, an experienced knight and master-at-arms?

Jon's wall experience proved given a chance, Jon can make something of himself. He's a good leader, if he stayed at Winterfell with Bran/Rivkon, I think he would have proven he was a capable lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally Martin does clarify how Catelyn behaved around Jon for most of those 15 years:

Thus, the question I have is if Catelyn went out of her way to mistreat Jon in the past -- and which form this might have taken -- or if she rather tried to avoid and ignore him?

"Mistreatment" is a loaded word. Did Catelyn beat Jon bloody? No. Did she distance herself from him? Yes. Did she verbally abuse and attack him? No. (The instance in Bran's bedroom was obviously a very special case). But I am sure she was very protective of the rights of her own children, and in that sense always drew the line sharply between bastard and trueborn where issues like seating on the high table for the king's visit were at issue.

And Jon surely knew that she would have preferred to have him elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Snow Pov II

He stood in the door afraid to speak, afraid to come in. Martin has written this to imply a pattern in Jon's life in regard to Catelyn Stark.

Part of him wanted only to flee.

Something cold moved in her eyes. " I told you to leave." " We don't want you here". ( who is the we? is she speaking for Bran Stark as well?) This is symbolic of Jon's later dreams of the crypt where cold eyes stare at him and say You do not belong here.

Once that would have sent him running. Once that might have even made him cry. ( pattern of earlier times with Catelyn Stark)

I prayed for my special boy. I prayed for it. she said dully. " He was my special boy". I went to the sept and prayed seven times to seven faces of gods that Ned would change his mind adn leave him here with me. Sometimes prayers are answered. (Catelyn praying to god and in her mind the gods answered her with Bran's fall and being close to death. This I think is where the TV producers took the idea that Catelyn Stark believes the gods are punishing her but they twisted it to refer to Jon Snow. The book certainly has not yet done this in AGOT

Jon tries to comfort her. " It wasn't your fault," he mangaged after an awkward silence. ( The irony of Jon Snow trying to give comfort to a woman who has hated him and made him feel unwanted his entire life)

Her eyes found him. They were full of poison. "I need none of your absolution, bastard. "

Further down in the chapter Martin tells us that Never one time has Catelyn Tully Stark ever called Jon by his name. Just this once..she says Jon so that he turns around so she can deliver the stinging words.." It should have been you."

That is not only a stabbing in the heart but a twisting the blade. She deliberatley used his name for the first time in his life so that she could utter " It should have been you".

The TV show upset me, but sometimes I think the people who have read the book upset me more..lol Go read that POV once again..underline the adjectives and think about the history Martin is giving us subtly in how Catelyn has treated Jon through the years..This was not a distant neglect from this woman..it was nasty and sometimes in Jon's face. Never using his name once??? So are we to imply she called him bastard daily? or Snow ? Martin does not tell us..he only gives the character Catelyn the line....bastard.

Catelyn Stark is a character that I admire for many reason, her love for her children. However I am not giving her a pass on this entire scene. I do like the idea that the TV writers are trying to make her more sympathetic and trying to show that she has struggled with guilt over her treatment and feelings towards Jon Snow and perhaps Rob making Jon his heir.

Martin's work is subjective in the sense that when we read his words..we each have emotional responses to the characters and stories. I am an older woman with a strong traditional religious faith. I am sure this colors my feelings regarding characters but I do try to actually go back and read each word written by Martin to objectively try to understand the character.

Great post all around.

The idea that she was really just sort of neutral towards him crashes completely on the fact that she had never called him by his name his entire life. I mean, that's quite a concept to get your head around. And the emphasis on her prayers to the Seven, then the "it should have been you", makes her having prayed for his death at some point in the past seem like barely a stretch at all.

And I also think your point about being a parent is important. My view of other people's kids, annoying babies crying, etc., all changed once I had kids of my own. Being a parent somehow brings you closer to all children, not just your own. Catelyn, I think, was torn between who she is as a mother/person, and her resentment of Jon. It's why she later felt guilt even in the books for the way she treated him. And I think the scene on TV makes perfect sense, completely consistent with how you'd expect a normally very caring and devoted mother to feel about the way she treated another child.

Incidentally Martin does clarify how Catelyn behaved around Jon for most of those 15 years:

Right. She didn't make a habit of telling Jon she wished he was dead, and she didn't do whatever GRRM meant by "abuse". Whether he's talking physical abuse or whatever, we don't know. At the same time, she never called him by his name once his entire life, except the time she told him she wishes it had been him. I suppose "Snow" probably makes the most sense. I don't care what label you put on that, but that is some pretty nasty shit. I've got stepkids, and deliberately never calling one of them by their actual name would be a pretty nasty piece of business.

I do think Martin was a bit surprised by the negative reaction to Catelyn, and has made an effort to soften that reaction among fandom to avoid painting a picture of her he didn't intend. And honestly, I think what the writers did with Catelyn's speech, pointing out that she wasn't good to him but also that she is a good person who regrets it, seems consistent with that to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many orphans have you adopted?

How many children do you have?

I've got adopted neices and nephews that I take care to treat no different from the others. I've got stepkids for whom I do the same. We've taken in another child who was getting abused at home and really had nowhere else to go. And I'm not patting myself on the back -- I think that most parents I know would try to do the same. I've been around lots and lots of parents, seen their interactions with small children not their own, and it's overwhelmingly an attitude of kindness and consideration. Shit, many animals have a biological urge to take care of and raise babies of different species. Mother cats letting motherless puppies suckle, the whole thing. There are pretty much limitless cross-species mothering videos out there.

The idea that a human mother feels nothing for any child not his or her own, particularly one with no mother or father, makes me believe we must be talking about a different species or something, because the human beings I know aren't like that.

ETA: To put it differently, I think Catelyn's speech is certainly not so far outside the range of normal human behavior as to be not credible.

This is why I found all those "They made Catelyn more sympathetic with this scene" reactions kind of disturbing. Apparently she's more sympathetic because she's humbling herself and blaming herself for everything. She's "put in her place" and people love it. They are thinking "If only she knew her place and had mothered the poor kid instead of standing up for herself".

Standing up for herself against whom? It wasn't Jon who wronged her. He was a freaking baby. The person who wronged her was Ned, and if she'd "stood up for herself" against him, that would be a completely different story. What she did was essentially treat a blameless kid like shit because she was pissed at her husband. While that may be an understandable reaction on a human level, it's certainly not a justified reaction of which.

Frankly, I think part of the problem is that Martin overplayed that in the books. Taking her anger out on Jon when Ned brought him home is understandable. Keeping that same level of resentment against him throughout being a baby, toddler, small child, etc. right up to 15 years old, takes a particularly nasty person. And I don't think that's what he intended. I liked Catelyn overall, and definitely considered her one of the good guys. But her treatment of Jon was just dead wrong, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was a great scene. It showed how selfish Cat is. She didn't ask the gods to save child Jon because he deserved to be saved because he was an innocent child; she asked them to save Jon because she didn't want to feel bad about it. I know a lot of people like her, and that's hard to hear, but I think this scene sums up who she was with Jon in a nutshell.

I also think it's interesting that she asked the 7 gods to save him, and since she broke her promise, all of her family that has gone south into the land of the 7 have been punished and have suffered in one way or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was a great scene. It showed how selfish Cat is. She didn't ask the gods to save child Jon because he deserved to be saved because he was an innocent child; she asked them to save Jon because she didn't want to feel bad about it.

Why would she feel badly about it if she didn't think it was wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that she was really just sort of neutral towards him crashes completely on the fact that she had never called him by his name his entire life. I mean, that's quite a concept to get your head around. And the emphasis on her prayers to the Seven, then the "it should have been you", makes her having prayed for his death at some point in the past seem like barely a stretch at all.

She does not feel neutrally about Jon Snow, but her behavior minimizes the expressions of her negative opinion. She feels resentment, but she does not act on that resentment most of the time. That's not that hard to get your head around.

Right. She didn't make a habit of telling Jon she wished he was dead, and she didn't do whatever GRRM meant by "abuse". Whether he's talking physical abuse or whatever, we don't know. At the same time, she never called him by his name once his entire life, except the time she told him she wishes it had been him. I suppose "Snow" probably makes the most sense. I don't care what label you put on that, but that is some pretty nasty shit. I've got stepkids, and deliberately never calling one of them by their actual name would be a pretty nasty piece of business.

Catelyn is not the equivalent of a modern stepparent. There is literally no expectation that she should have any contact with Jon Snow whatsoever.

I do think Martin was a bit surprised by the negative reaction to Catelyn, and has made an effort to soften that reaction among fandom to avoid painting a picture of her he didn't intend. And honestly, I think what the writers did with Catelyn's speech, pointing out that she wasn't good to him but also that she is a good person who regrets it, seems consistent with that to me.

Most people who hate the scene don't think that she was good to him nor that she didn't feel regret, that's all in the books. The point is the extremeties they took it to.

We've taken in another child who was getting abused at home and really had nowhere else to go.

By choice, something you consented to do, not something that was forced on you without your consent. Nor are these children in a position to threaten your children's aristocratic inheritances, nor are you a woman in a patriarchal society whose body has been used to harvest heirs. Catelyn isn't just cheated on, she is disrespected without explanation and forbidden to even talk about it for 15 years. That resentment is never allowed to be addressed productively, so it does what human resentment often does, it festers.

I don't believe your stepchildren were products of your spouse's infidelity, were they? That's the sort of thing that is a personal choice to accept or not. But in Cat's society she is not given a choice.

Standing up for herself against whom? It wasn't Jon who wronged her. He was a freaking baby. The person who wronged her was Ned, and if she'd "stood up for herself" against him, that would be a completely different story. What she did was essentially treat a blameless kid like shit because she was pissed at her husband. While that may be an understandable reaction on a human level, it's certainly not a justified reaction.

Frankly, I think part of the problem is that Martin overplayed that in the books. Taking her anger out on Jon when Ned brought him home is understandable. Keeping that same level of resentment against him throughout being a baby, toddler, small child, etc. right up to 15 years old, takes a particularly nasty person. And I don't think that's what he intended.

It's not what he intended because for the most part Catelyn did not take her resentment out on Jon. She avoided him. That's just not the same as intentional nastiness, to conclude that it is basically forces her to consent to Ned bringing Jon Snow home against her own will. She cannot get a divorce like she would be able to now. So she keeps distant from Jon. There are unfortunate consequences, but those are Ned's responsibility to curtail since he is the one who created the mess in the first place.

Incidentally in the books Catelyn is allowed to tell Ned that she refuses to raise Jon as her own, and we also know that she begged Ned to send Jon away (not kill him). In the show you would have no clue that Catelyn sees this issue as a matter of her rights as a wife and lady of a major house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would she feel badly about it if she didn't think it was wrong?

She's not a monster. I think if Jon had died as a baby and that she believed it was her fault, she'd feel bad. Basically, had he died, from her perspective, she killed him, so since killing children is wrong, she'd feel bad.

My perspective is she wished him to live just wanted to avoid feeling bad. She didn't want him to live just beacuse he was a kid and shouldn't die- her baggage came along with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I found all those "They made Catelyn more sympathetic with this scene" reactions kind of disturbing. Apparently she's more sympathetic because she's humbling herself and blaming herself for everything. She's "put in her place" and people love it. They are thinking "If only she knew her place and had mothered the poor kid instead of standing up for herself".

This piece puts it better than I did (although I don't think it's complete character assassination, but the gist stands):

But this history was clearly added as a way to put Catelyn in her place. ... The writers of the show have transformed Catelyn’s dislike for Jon Snow, and her one-time grief-fueled declaration that he should have fallen instead of Bran, into a passionate, almost murderous kind of hatred. For if she does not love Jon Snow enough, she must be that terrible. It is an either-or proposition.

And in order to make up for her horrific behavior, she must swing far in the other direction, and treat him exactly the same as her own children, including giving him the name “Stark.” And we get the sense that this would be the normal thing to do, that this would be the thing any caring person would do, rather than an extreme. This is proper behavior, how she should have acted from the beginning, despite the fact that she isn’t his mother, has no obligation to be his mother, and that giving him the name “Stark” breaks all expectations in Westeros and could potentially threaten her own children’s inheritance. But motherhood, to the writers, seems like a binary system. Either she’s perfectly selfless and loving to all children, no matter who they are, or she is a horrid woman who deserves misery. No other options exists.

... And then Catelyn, intelligent, compassionate Catelyn, takes entire responsibility for all the horrors that have come to her family — Ned’s beheading, Sansa’s imprisonment, Bran and Rickon’s deaths. All because she did not love Jon Snow. And no one corrects her. She makes that declaration, and the scene ends, because although assumedly the viewers aren’t meant to agree that this is all her fault, we are meant to find her grief and regret reasonable. We’re meant to agree that she is not a good person, and consider her regret and self-loathing as a kind of redemption. If she sees how awful she’s been, and despises herself for it, then perhaps she can be an acceptable character. Otherwise, she deserves all the hate she receives.

It is complete character assassination, disguised in an attempt to redeem her. And that’s not the kind of “development” of female characters we need to see.

The part I bolded seems to echo a lot of viewers' own opinions, which I find worrisome in this day and age. Natalie Dormer had a great quote recently about how men continue to see women in drama as either-or propositions. By playing to extremes Benioff and Weiss betray their own agreement with that mentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She does not feel neutrally about Jon Snow, but her behavior minimizes the expressions of her negative opinion. She feels resentment, but she does not act on that resentment most of the time. That's not that hard to get your head around.

We apparently have different standards as how adults should treat children in their care. I think deliberately never calling a child by its name (most likely "Snow"), and treating him in a manner that makes him terrified to be in a room with her, is not "minimized" to the point I believe is moral, justified, or unworthy of criticism.

Catelyn is not the equivalent of a modern stepparent. There is literally no expectation that she should have any contact with Jon Snow whatsoever.

She's a human being, right? A bitch isn't a modern stepparent either, but she'll raise a motherless kitten as one of her own anyway. And there are plenty of examples among humans other than modern stepparents caring for children not their own simply because that's the human thing to do. Again, Cat felt guilt about the way she treated Jon. That's right in the text. Why did she feel that guilt if she didn't think her behavior was wrong. Ok, I know, because of the oppressive patriarchy....

By choice, something you consented to do, not something that was forced on you without your consent.

That's circular. I consented to do it because taking care of a child who has nobody else is the human thing to do. In this case, the fault was Ned's, not the babies. I think it is amusing that you try to justify what is clearly misplaced anger.

Nor are these children in a position to threaten your children's aristocratic inheritances, nor are you a woman in a patriarchal society....

I knew it.

Catelyn isn't just cheated on, she is disrespected without explanation and forbidden to even talk about it for 15 years. That resentment is never allowed to be addressed productively, so it does what human resentment often does, it festers.

And she took it out on an innocent baby/child, which is morally wrong.

I don't believe your stepchildren were products of your spouse's infidelity, were they? That's the sort of thing that is a personal choice to accept or not. But in Cat's society she is not given a choice.

Doesn't matter.

It's not what he intended because for the most part Catelyn did not take her resentment out on Jon. She avoided him. That's just not the same as intentional nastiness, to conclude that it is basically forces her to consent to Ned bringing Jon Snow home against her own will. She cannot get a divorce like she would be able to now. So she keeps distant from Jon. There are unfortunate consequences, but those are Ned's responsibility to curtail since he is the one who created the mess in the first place.

He eats at the table with the rest of the family, and is generally included in all those family events. At every single one of those many events over all those years, Catelyn would call all the children by their name. Very likely calling the servants, and the children of servants by their names. But she never once, in all those days, calls him by his. Again, you and I obviously have different standards for the treatment of babies, small children, etc.., and different beliefs as to how such conduct would make that child feel.

But I get it. She's a female, so any criticism is wrong, and simply a product of the oppressive patriarchy. You're not making criticisms of the story as a story -- whether it makes sense on it's own terms. You're judging it on the basis of whether or not it is consistent with your feminist ideology. That's fine to do as an academic exercise, but since Catelyn Stark wasn't a modern feminist, I fail to see the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shame on me for thinking that feminism is a fundamental aspect of human rights? Is that your point? Who cares if women are subjected to sexist standards, nobody should care?

She's a female, so any criticism is wrong, and simply a product of the oppressive patriarchy.

Jesus, hyperbole much?

Does it feel good to gloss over what other people actually say to grandstand around? When others have a conviction that you don't it's an agenda or a mere exercise, but when you have a conviction it's basic goodness and common sense?

Catelyn Stark is not a modern feminist. Neither is Emma Bovary, Hedda Gabler, Clarissa Dalloway, on and on, but that doesn't mean that their authors aren't writing from a feminist standpoint. Martin is a modern writer writing for a modern audience, and he has explicitly acknowledged the role of gender in his patriarchal setting numerous times. To treat ideology as entirely mutually exclusive from "story" accomplishes what, exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shame on me for thinking that feminism is a fundamental aspect of human rights?

I wasn't aware that human rights and demonstrating gender equality was one of the goals of the book. I mean, I suppose you could write a great feminist critique on the Dothraki too, but it would seem equally beside the point of the story.

Does it feel good to gloss over what other people actually say to grandstand around? When others have a conviction it's an agenda but when you have a conviction it's just basic goodness and common sense?

I'm just calling it as I see it. Do you think the way Catelyn treated Jon was justified, and the morally right thing to do, about which she should feel no regret or guilt? Is that really your opinion?

Catelyn didn't even see it that way in the text -- she felt guilt about Jon. Yet somehow, saying that she did something wrong is all due to the oppressive patriarchy, or some such.

Catelyn Stark is not a modern feminist. Neither is Emma Bovary, Hedda Gabler, Clarissa Dalloway, on and on, but that doesn't mean that their authors aren't writing from a feminist standpoint. Martin is a modern writer writing for a modern audience, and he has explicitly acknowledged the role of gender in his patriarchal setting numerous times. To treat ideology as entirely mutually exclusive from "story" accomplishes what, exactly?

A more entertaining story not forced to portray a society where the characters all act in accordance with a particular 21st century morality.

The truly revealing thing about this discussion is that you're focusing on feelings relating to parenthood -- motherhood in Catelyn's case -- as somehow not reflecting appropriate principles of gender equity, as if the very concept of a parent -- male or female -- having a moral obligation to treat a baby or small child decently offends 21st century sensibilities.

I'm not judging Catelyn based on some gender-construct of what I think "mothers' should be, or should do. Another poster did a fine job of that above. I'm going off my own feelings and emotions as a male parent, a father, and the proper treatment of young ones not your own. And not just my own feelings, but how I've seen other parents of both genders behave, and plenty of examples throughout human history of adults showing kindness to children not their own just because it is the right thing to do.

The idea that a woman to show some basic human decency to a motherless child shouldn't be offensive from any reasonable ideological perspecitve. I don't excuse her any more than I excuse Randyll Tarly for treating Sam like shit, even though he was certainly within his rights to do so given Sam's inability to meet expectations of their culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This piece puts it better than I did (although I don't think it's complete character assassination, but the gist stands):

The part I bolded seems to echo a lot of viewers' own opinions, which I find worrisome in this day and age. Natalie Dormer had a great quote recently about how men continue to see women in drama as either-or propositions. By playing to extremes Benioff and Weiss betray their own agreement with that mentality.

While your quoted part is a good argument. it completely misses the point, imo. "And then Catelyn, intelligent, compassionate Catelyn, takes entire responsibility for all the horrors that have come to her family — Ned’s beheading, Sansa’s imprisonment, Bran and Rickon’s deaths. All because she did not love Jon Snow." This is incomplete and borderline disingenuous if it is going to be used as some sort of commentary about sexism or the roles of women in film or TV

It is not "all because she did not love Jon Snow" the destined male hero. It's that she made a promise to her gods and herself to love a motherless child. This is something that should have been easy for her (in her mind recalling it in episode 2) because she is such a loving mother to her children. In her retrospect, it should have been a no-brainer. Only it wasn't.

The act of loving Jon is only half of the issue. The other is that she think the Seven intervene in her family's lives. They made him sick because she asked them to. They healed him because she said she would love him and make him a part of the family. They are now punishing her for not living up to her word.

In other words, she could loved him or not without guilt, but because she asks for divine intervention in the first place she feels responsible. All she had to avoid it was live up to her promise

"And no one corrects her"

The correction would then be to say that the Seven and your faith are nonsense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that human rights and demonstrating gender equality was one of the goals of the book.

Well, that's not my problem.

I'm just calling it as I see it. Do you think the way Catelyn treated Jon was justified, and the morally right thing to do, about which she should feel no regret or guilt? Is that really your opinion?

I don't think that refraining from being Jon's mother is morally wrong. I do think that not ever talking to Jon has nothing kind about it, but calling it a moral crime is a stretch. If the argument is that Jon needs a mother, Ned can give him a mother who is not Cat, not the woman he cheated on. He can find a woman in the castle to be Jon's foster mother, and then Jon will not lack for maternal affection. There is no moral law that says that because Jon's siblings have one individual's attention, he should too. I do think that a woman who wants an innocent child to die should feel regret and guilt, but what I dislike about how the show handled it is that they show that Catelyn wanted Jon dead all the time, and not just in a moment of intense grief when her own child was on death's door.

Catelyn didn't even see it that way in the text -- she felt guilt about Jon. Yet somehow, saying that she did something wrong is all due to the oppressive patriarchy, or some such.

She felt guilt about what in the text, though? About not being a mother to Jon? No, she felt guilt about wishing him dead, as well she should. But never in the books did she ever feel she had to be Jon's mother, to urge Ned to give him the Stark name, to treat him like one of her own. She had no objections to the idea that Jon should be cared for and that Ned is responsible for that care, she just did not want to be the one who provided that care herself. That's it. She's entitled to not wanting to be a given person's mother, yes I do believe that.

I don't want to be anyone's parent (right now) either, for what it's worth, and I don't think I'm a bad person for it. I don't have the right to make a child's life miserable, but nobody has the right to force me to be a parent either, and if a child's needs are being met by someone else, I'm not doing anything wrong by refraining from providing care. The only reason Cat's withdrawal from Jon is able to hurt him is because Ned puts Jon in Cat's proximity in the first place. It's not like Cat wakes up every morning thinking "Jon Snow can see how much I try to ignore him today, score!"

A more entertaining story not forced to portray a society where the characters all act in accordance with a particular 21st century morality.

More entertaining for people who have never been victims of patriarchy perhaps. But if you think what I want is for the characters themselves to be perfect models of 21st century progressive thought you're overreaching.

The truly revealing thing about this discussion is that you're focusing on feelings relating to parenthood -- motherhood in Catelyn's case -- as somehow not reflecting appropriate principles of gender equity, as if the very concept of a parent -- male or female -- having a moral obligation to treat a baby or small child decently offends 21st century sensibilities.

I'm not judging Catelyn based on some gender-construct of what I think "mothers' should be, or should do.

I don't believe you intentionally are, but you do seem to deny that gender is a part of the story itself the way Martin wrote it. Is that fair to say? That's where I can't agree with you. "I'm a feminist at heart" is what I believe Martin himself has said. His world is obviously a world in which women cannot be as sexually liberal as men can be (the entire Margaery vs Cersei subplot demonstrates this), obviously a world in which women are defined by their ability to have children (maiden/mother/crone), obviously a world in which women are bartered like cattle (Cersei and Lysa explicitly verbalize their resentment for this), obviously a world in which wives are not expected to merely love and honor their husbands but obey them. Cat's attitude towards Jon is not without its pettiness, but she does not have to be his mother nor should we need to see her wishing it as compensation for her not dealing with the shitty situation Ned created ideally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not "all because she did not love Jon Snow" the destined male hero. It's that she made a promise to her gods and herself to love a motherless child. This is something that should have been easy for her (in her mind recalling it in episode 2) because she is such a loving mother to her children. In her retrospect, it should have been a no-brainer. Only it wasn't.

That's part of what the piece I linked to criticizes, this mentality that any mother who is a loving mother would love any and all motherless children. There is no in-between. That mentality is part of the divisiveness of this issue. People are totally unable to comprehend the idea that Martin wanted to create a mother character who does not love all motherless children and is still not a Bad Mother. That Jon is the Destined Male Hero is just icing on the cake at most, the bulk of the issue is concepts of motherhood.

In other words, she could loved him or not without guilt, but because she asks for divine intervention in the first place she feels responsible. All she had to avoid it was live up to her promise

"And no one corrects her"

The correction would then be to say that the Seven and your faith are nonsense

You're analysing from a Watson perspective and I'm analysing from a Doyle perspective. Why did they have Catelyn want the gods to take Jon Snow in the first place? The only time in the books that Catelyn did that was when she herself was practically crazy with grief. In the show, we are not supposed to think that it was a one-time thing, we are supposed to think that she always wanted Jon Snow to die, and only briefly did that desire abate, and then it returned. What is the writers' purpose for including Catelyn's now-typical death wish for Jon?

So that they could show her being super remorseful for her super hatred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally Martin does clarify how Catelyn behaved around Jon for most of those 15 years:

If that's how he intended to present Catelyn's treatment of Jon, then he failed in writing it, at least he failed with me. The text is quoted by a poster above, and it does suggest a pattern, a history if you will, of emotional rejection, resentment, and even hate, not mere distance.

On to the scene in the show: The reason I found fault in it is because there's plenty for Catelyn to blame herself for, but to pin it all on a broken promise to the gods seems too irrational, even for Catelyn.

Rather than blame herself for her role in precipitating the war by kidnapping Tyrion, or for not not returning North to Winterfell once the war has started, or for releasing Jaime Lannister and engendering the resentment and possible rebellion among Robb's ranks and possibly risking her only surviving son's life, she has to go as far back as a broken promise to the gods to find a responsible act? It just does not make sense.

The scene was emotionally potent, it made me cry, but it was logically flawed, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...