Did Catelyn abuse Jon for his whole life? - Part 2

[Anath]

So why does she save Brienne when she has no interest in doing so, assuming she is completely uncapable of warmth towards anyone other than her family? Why does she worry a few times about the commoner's plight in war, when Edmure is pretty much the only other noble to do so?

Because she's a good person. Brienne evoked her pity and she's a harmless one to interact with. She doesn't require any emotional investment on Cat's part. Cat worries about the commoners' plight because she's not a freaking monster and again, it doesn't require adequate personal interaction. You can be a good and caring person and incapable of warmth. To me, Cat is both.

I am a Cat hater but not because of the way she treated Jon. And not because she was a bad, bad, bad girl. She wasn't.

[butterbumps!]

You said she'd have acted differently had she known that her actions affected him. I never mentioned anything about maliciousness. Only actions. She meant to show him that he's a bastard and she did. So, you now say she didn't actually expect he'd take her behavior to heart?

No, that's a fairly weird reading of my post. Let's look at what I was responding to. You disagreed with my position that had Jon shown duress, that Cat would have modified her behavior toward him. I argued that her behavior was to make him know his place, not to make him feel purposeful duress. You disagreed with this by saying that Cat is unilaterally "not a kind person," and you posited that had Jon shown duress, she'd have continued with her behavior anyway.

Whether or not the behavior would have continued is speculation on both of our parts. What is clear, however, is that while Cat wanted Jon to know his social status as a bastard, there is no indication she wanted him to suffer, to be mistreated, or harmed in any way. Maybe we're talking at cross purposes. That Cat reinforced his bastard position wasn't something done out of malice; perhaps we both agree. That's the premise from which I extracted my thesis that had Jon responded to her actions with duress, she might have modified the way she treated him.

] Cat's interactions with Brienne are something entirely different altogether. Cat only pities her. No warmt here. Pity.

That's not true, though. There is much more than mere pity in the Cat-Brienne dynamic. There's a mutual respect and a real sense of companionship between the women. In general, Cat is very kind, but also extremely pragmatic. I think this pragmatism contributes to the impression of her as perhaps more cold or businesslike, but she's actually extremely compassionate even outside of her family. That's part of why the character of Lady Stoneheart is so jarring; all that warmth was taken out of her, and her existence is a poignant foil to the living Catelyn.

You are the one who talks about Cat actively wishing Jon harm. You've made a strawman's agrument and are now fighting it. I say Cat never cared about Jon's wellbeing while he lived there and she didn't care about that when he got sent away. Did I write anywhere that she wished him harm?

Stop creating false arguments and then fighting them, and we might actually come to something.

I didn't create a strawman argument. I posited that if Jon became emotional over her treatment that there is a strong possibility that she would have changed her behavior. You disagreed with this, and I responded. Since you seem to agree that Cat never meant Jon harm or malice, wouldn't it logically follow that if Jon were wounded by her actions, this might compel her to take pity/ force Ned to compromise in sending him away/ react to him differently?

[Anath]

Butterbumps!, I won't quote because it'll become a real sheet of an answer but this is my answer to your post.

I do believe Catelyn was well aware that her behavior hurt Jon. She just didn't care because she was hurting, too. Actually, I doubt she ever thought how he felt, be it good or bad. She preferred not to notice him. Hurting him was never her main objective but she must have been very stupid indeed not to realize that teaching him his place meant making feel unwelcome in his own home, in the only family he had ever known.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Brienne. While it's true that respect is mutual, I do believe it came out of a combination of Cat's empathy and the fact that she was feeling good about herself being compassionate to the ugly wench. Really, I am pissed off with Cat's quickness to notice other women's physical faults.

I don't think Cat would have it in herself to react differently to Jon if he were wounded by her actions. She's a brooding character who holds unnaturally long grudge against an innocent party who was in fact her fellow victim. She's pretty uncompromising and by this point, she's incapable of caring how Jon felt. Anyway, she's also incapable of actually wishing him harm, so she just stews in her own ange, otherwise she might actually have to come to terms with the realization that it was Ned who spoiled it for everyone. She loves Ned and she projects her negativity on Jon. Nothing unusual here, given her disposition. I actually think that had she let it finally pass, she might have been happier.

[butterbumps!]

Would you or anyone who can, please give an example/quote of a moment during which she portrays her guilt over her treatment of Jon? I never caught that but would love be directed towards it.

Here's a passage from Cat II, aGoT:

Whoever Jon’s mother had been, Ned must have loved her fiercely, for nothing Catelyn said would persuade him to send the boy away. It was the one thing she could never forgive him. She had come to love her husband with all her heart, but she had never found it in her to love Jon. She might have overlooked a dozen bastards for Ned’s sake, so long as they were out of sight. Jon was never out of sight, and as he grew, he looked more like Ned than any of the trueborn sons she bore him. Somehow that made it worse. “Jon must go,” she said now.

There's this one from a later chapter:

Catelyn had nothing against this girl, but suddenly she could not help but think of Ned’s bastard on the Wall, and the thought made her angry and guilty, both at once. She struggled to find words for a reply.

This is just specualtion on your behalf, based on your connection to the character but there is no evidence of this or of her ever showing attentiveness to his feelings.

Yes, it's speculation, but not something I believe due to some emotional connection to Cat. The issue is this: Cat doesn't harbor a desire to see Jon harmed, but rather to let him know his place. She's not a character immune to pity and empathy. I posited that if Jon showed duress, that given the fact she didn't wish to cause him said duress, that she would likely have adjusted her behavior. I don't think she's particularly attentive to Jon's feelings; however, I was speaking to the fact that he never shows his feelings in the first place, and Cat has never been confronted by an emotional outpouring by Jon in relation to her treatment of him. I wonder if that she had been confronted by this, how the situation may have been changed.

Jon lets us know that when she spoke harshly to him or told him he was not desired he would leave running in tears. How more do you want a child to demonstrate that your behavior is affecting him?

No, that's not what he says. He does not ever say that she spoke to him harshly, or that he had a history of wanting to cry from Cat's interaction with him. Let's look at the passage:

Something cold moved in her eyes. “I told you to leave,” she said. “We don’t want you here.”

Once that would have sent him running. Once that might even have made him cry. Now it only made him angry. He would be a Sworn Brother of the Night’s Watch soon, and face worse dangers than Catelyn Tully Stark. “He’s my brother,” he said.

This does not mean that she has actually said these things in the past, or that she caused him to cry. It is saying that her biting words here would have caused him to cry if she had said them when he was younger, but not now, not in this circumstance.

How is it possible that people support and think it is reasonable for Catelyn-a grown, educated, mature woman-to hold a grudge against a child for 14 years; but think that it was the kid's fault for not sitting down to explain his feelings to the adult that scares him and couldn't care less?

Now this is a strawman. I NEVER implied that Jon was responsible in this case for sitting down and explaining his feelings. I said that he always made a point of not showing Cat that she was getting to him, which seems to be the case even from his childhood. Jon simply doesn't show his feelings, period. Nor does he ever indicate to the reader that he felt any particular duress from Cat's treatment of him.

My position is not that Jon is responsible for broaching this subject. My position is that Cat is not made of stone, and that, had she seen a young child under duress/ crying/ highly emotional due to her actions, she would not, in all likelihood, have continued her behavior in the same way. This isn't about who's responsible for being the bigger person here, but simply acknowledging the fact that this situation was never tested, which I think is a really important point. There isn't a scene where a young Jon reacted to Cat's treatment in a way that showed sadness, hurt or discomfort. Martin has purposely omitted that question here. Cat never saw any negative effects of her treatment of Jon, and I think that's a fairly important point when discussing the extents for her treatment of the boy.

And for the record, I'm the one (or one of the ones, at least) who said her transference of hurt from Ned to Jon was objectively wrong, but something I find myself deeply sympathizing with/ forgiving her for, causing me extreme discomfort, and evoking personal conflict given how much of a Jon shill I am.

[Wanderer]

Its a bit of a straw man argument to imply that the people who find Cats action concerning Jon to be reprehensible, are only doing so because they hold some patriarchal view that all women must love all children. I haven't seen this argument posted anywhere. However, holding a grudge against an innocent child is imo damnably cruel as Ned said. Its not that she is unloving. It's the verbal abuse, singling him out on purpose, constant rejection, etc. Shes an ADULT. She is fully capable of acting like one concerning Jon. If anyone here is honestly OK with that then I don't know what to say.

Other than her actions with Jon though, I really like Cat. I certainly don't get the hate. She is flawed, yes. But, this is true with all people, so I don't judge her to harshly.

[Jasta11]

Because she's a good person. Brienne evoked her pity and she's a harmless one to interact with. She doesn't require any emotional investment on Cat's part. Cat worries about the commoners' plight because she's not a freaking monster and again, it doesn't require adequate personal interaction. You can be a good and caring person and incapable of warmth. To me, Cat is both.

I am a Cat hater but not because of the way she treated Jon. And not because she was a bad, bad, bad girl. She wasn't.

You'll have to explain that one to me. How can you care for others, people beyond your family (as she obviously cared for Brienne after a time) and be incapable of warmth? What is a person with warmth to you, a saint that stops to solve every single problem s/he seens and loves everyone equally without question?

Also, Cat thinking of the common folk is kind of a big deal because nobles don't usually do that. Even the ''better'' ones, like Robb, Ned, Kevan, Renly, Stannis, no one ever stops to think of the war's implication on the peasants. Edmure does openly, and everyone considers him a weak bleeding heart. Cat does, and everyone ignores her.

[Lady Blue Rose]

Here's a passage from Cat II, aGoT:

There's this one from a later chapter:

Yes, it's speculation, but not something I believe due to some emotional connection to Cat. The issue is this: Cat doesn't harbor a desire to see Jon harmed, but rather to let him know his place. She's not a character immune to pity and empathy. I posited that if Jon showed duress, that given the fact she didn't wish to cause him said duress, that she would likely have adjusted her behavior. I don't think she's particularly attentive to Jon's feelings; however, I was speaking to the fact that he never shows his feelings in the first place, and Cat has never been confronted by an emotional outpouring by Jon in relation to her treatment of him. I wonder if that she had been confronted by this, how the situation may have been changed.

No, that's not what he says. He does not ever say that she spoke to him harshly, or that he had a history of wanting to cry from Cat's interaction with him. Let's look at the passage:

Something cold moved in her eyes. “I told you to leave,” she said. “We don’t want you here.”

Once that would have sent him running. Once that might even have made him cry. Now it only made him angry. He would be a Sworn Brother of the Night’s Watch soon, and face worse dangers than Catelyn Tully Stark. “He’s my brother,” he said.

This does not mean that she has actually said these things in the past, or that she caused him to cry. It is saying that her biting words here would have caused him to cry if she had said them when he was younger, but not now, not in this circumstance.

Now this is a strawman. I NEVER implied that Jon was responsible in this case for sitting down and explaining his feelings. I said that he always made a point of not showing Cat that she was getting to him, which seems to be the case even from his childhood. Jon simply doesn't show his feelings, period. Nor does he ever indicate to the reader that he felt any particular duress from Cat's treatment of him.

My position is not that Jon is responsible for broaching this subject. My position is that Cat is not made of stone, and that, had she seen a young child under duress/ crying/ highly emotional due to her actions, she would not, in all likelihood, have continued her behavior in the same way. This isn't about who's responsible for being the bigger person here, but simply acknowledging the fact that this situation was never tested, which I think is a really important point. There isn't a scene where a young Jon reacted to Cat's treatment in a way that showed sadness, hurt or discomfort. Martin has purposely omitted that question here. Cat never saw any negative effects of her treatment of Jon, and I think that's a fairly important point when discussing the extents for her treatment of the boy.

And for the record, I'm the one (or one of the ones, at least) who said her transference of hurt from Ned to Jon was objectively wrong, but something I find myself deeply sympathizing with/ forgiving her for, causing me extreme discomfort, and evoking personal conflict given how much of a Jon shill I am.

I guess it is a matter of opinion or reader's perception. For me, the first quote shows that she precisely did not love Jon and even resented that he looked more like Ned than any of her own.

I do think that Jon's pain was noticeable since everyone else seemed to be aware of it. Even his brother notices in his face and asks "mother?" implying that it was a safe assumption to think his mother made Jon feel bad.

My feelings towards Cat at the start were that she was a spoiled (immature) Lady of the house, as most women were in those times, that did not worry herself with other people's feelings and was only concerned with her world (which was being lady of winterfell, her husband and her children). She feels she is entitled to feel this way (which given the times, bastards were nothing) and that since Jon is invading HER world, his feelings are irrelevant. So, she choses not to recognize them.

Then later as time goes by and she starts facing her own hardships, she thinks of him on the wall and feels guilt- I think her feelings there are due to personal growth. It is due to that, that I was able to look at her through different eyes. I don't hate Cat, I think her passion for her children is admirable and any child would be lucky to have a mother that is willing to fight so fiercely for his/her well-being. I think over-all she is a good person and that although sometimes misguided, her intentions are generally noble. Her issue is specific to Jon Snow and what he represents. I think it is because I believe she has it in her to be a good person, that I find her behavior and her desire to ignore Jon's feelings reprehensible.

Like I've said I do not judge Cat for not loving Jon, not even for resenting him. I fully understand from where she is coming. I just think that it is unbecoming of her to behave that way with a child. At the time we "meet" them, Jon is already 14, but this has gone on all their lives. When he was a toddler, when he was just 7.... It is one thing to passionately dislike someone, it is another completely to behave that way or act out on it when the other person is a defenseless child. She is an adult and sometimes part of being an adult is having to bite the bullet and rise above, even when it sucks.

BTW, butterbumps!, the question of people justifying Cat and holding Jon responsible was not at all specific to you. Just in general to several posts, where it sounds like people just think that Cat had every right and Jon was lucky to be treated the equivalent of a dog, being a bastard and all.

[butterbumps!]

Its a bit of a straw man argument to imply that the people who find Cats action concerning Jon to be reprehensible, are only doing so because they hold some patriarchal view that all women must love all children. I haven't seen this argument posted anywhere. However, holding a grudge against an innocent child is imo damnably cruel as Ned said. Its not that she is unloving. It's the verbal abuse, singling him out on purpose, constant rejection, etc. Shes an ADULT. She is fully capable of acting like one concerning Jon. If anyone here is honestly OK with that then I don't know what to say.

Other than her actions with Jon though, I really like Cat. I certainly don't get the hate. She is flawed, yes. But, this is true with all people, so I don't judge her to harshly.

I can't speak for everyone on this matter, but I think this is one of the main facets of disagreement. Cat did act like an adult; she did not verbally abuse him, single him out, constantly reject him-- none of this is in the text as some ongoing part of their dynamic outside of "it should have been you." Cat treated him the way two adults who don't particularly wish to be around each other treat each other. That's precisely it. It was a chilly civility, which I think comes across as coldness, or, perhaps, as something more extreme/ unfair when it involves a child.

There's a very subtle line here that's really difficult to articulate, which inevitably leads this discussion (in every thread iteration) to comparisons of strawmen. How do you articulate where Cat crossed the line? On one hand, our evidence shows us that it was chilly coexistence, but not an active sort of abuse. On the other, yes, it's clear she did let him know that he was not her child, and did not treat him with any sort of kindness. Yet, how does one articulate how far they believe she should have gone in the positive direction without making is seem like they're advocating for her to love or accept him as one of her own?

Because it seems like one side keeps insisting they don't believe she should have loved or accepted him as her own, yet also keep pointing out that the fact that she treated him differently/ reminded him of his bastard status is a severe character flaw. It seems a very circular argument-- she didn't need to make him feel like one of hers, yet the fact that she didn't make him feel like hers is problematic to many. I'm not trying to say this rhetorically, but rather wondering where this line might manifest, since it's always described in terms of "neither this nor that" but somewhere in between.

The parts of the dynamic that make me, personally, uncomfortable is the fact that she had never called him by his name (which I interpret to mean that she had never directly addressed him prior to the Bran scene), and the fact that behaving with a chilly, formal civility toward a child is not ideal. But there's also the fact to consider that Jon was extremely loved; given the rest of the household's attitude toward Jon, I especially can't see Cat's having any sort of imperative to go beyond the chill to "something more."

I do happen to think that at the heart of this, there is a tacit implication that her position as Ned's wife and mother plays a significant role for posters arguing in favor of Cat's treatment as decidedly wrong in context (I don't think it's a "woman" issue exactly). I don't mean that offensively at all, and I don't think or mean to imply anything about poster's beliefs of gender roles or anything like that. I say this because I haven't seen too many arguments condemning Ned for his chilly formal civility toward Theon, who is also part of the household, yet raised and reminded to know he is not one of them. Along these lines, I can't help but feel that had another member of the Stark household outside of the nuclear family treated Jon with chilly formality, there wouldn't be the idea of a similar imperative placed on that individual. I get the sense that there's something grating about the idea of Cat, in her position as matriarch and mother of the family, not accepting Jon as one of her brood, and I'll admit to letting this be at the source of my discomfort with the situation as well.

I don't think Cat would have it in herself to react differently to Jon if he were wounded by her actions. She's a brooding character who holds unnaturally long grudge against an innocent party who was in fact her fellow victim. She's pretty uncompromising and by this point, she's incapable of caring how Jon felt. Anyway, she's also incapable of actually wishing him harm, so she just stews in her own ange, otherwise she might actually have to come to terms with the realization that it was Ned who spoiled it for everyone. She loves Ned and she projects her negativity on Jon. Nothing unusual here, given her disposition. I actually think that had she let it finally pass, she might have been happier.

Since it's speculative, I can't prove my thesis about whether she would have altered her behavior, though I do believe the text has supplied us with enough reason to believe it's a good possibility. About Cat's character generally, I think some of your assertions about her are a little off from the text. I don't want to make assumptions about how well you know the text or anything, but I wonder if your opinion might change if you were to go over a few of her chapters again-- if you're interested I can try to locate a few chapters where I think her warmth and compassion for those even outside of her family is apparent; I don't think merely quoting snippets would do it justice.

Other than Brienne, an other example regarding Cat's compassion is the orphanage she establishes (as Stoneheart, no less) to alleviate their plight during war. She also appeals to the fact that the men fighting in the war are also sons, and she does reflect on Jon's mother, wondering if she fears for him the way she is anxious about her own children. I suppose those last two examples point to empathy, which you agreed she possesses, but the fact that she empathizes in this way tells me she does in fact possess warmth as well-- I think these aspects go together.

[kephv]

I posited that if Jon became emotional over her treatment that there is a strong possibility that she would have changed her behavior.

While I don't doubt GRRM's word that the one instance in the book was special, Jon (from what we know of Theon's thoughts and Jon's thoughts) was always a sullen bastard because he never truly fit in at Winterfell, in large part because Cat was there to remind him -- just by her very presence or stares -- of his place. While she didn't actively abuse him, ignoring him and pretending that he didn't exist reinforced those feelings. Jon's sullenness, then, stems from the fact that he was never completely included in the family. And of course, Cat never wanted it any other way.

[Wanderer]

I can't speak for everyone on this matter, but I think this is one of the main facets of disagreement. Cat did act like an adult; she did not verbally abuse him, single him out, constantly reject him-- none of this is in the text as some ongoing part of their dynamic outside of "it should have been you." Cat treated him the way two adults who don't particularly wish to be around each other treat each other. That's precisely it. It was a chilly civility, which I think comes across as coldness, or, perhaps, as something more extreme/ unfair when it involves a child.

There's a very subtle line here that's really difficult to articulate, which inevitably leads this discussion (in every thread iteration) to comparisons of strawmen. How do you articulate where Cat crossed the line? On one hand, our evidence shows us that it was chilly coexistence, but not an active sort of abuse. On the other, yes, it's clear she did let him know that he was not her child, and did not treat him with any sort of kindness. Yet, how does one articulate how far they believe she should have gone in the positive direction without making is seem like they're advocating for her to love or accept him as one of her own?

Because it seems like one side keeps insisting they don't believe she should have loved or accepted him as her own, yet also keep pointing out that the fact that she treated him differently/ reminded him of his bastard status is a severe character flaw. It seems a very circular argument-- she didn't need to make him feel like one of hers, yet the fact that she didn't make him feel like hers is problematic to many. I'm not trying to say this rhetorically, but rather wondering where this line might manifest, since it's always described in terms of "neither this nor that" but somewhere in between.

The parts of the dynamic that make me, personally, uncomfortable is the fact that she had never called him by his name (which I interpret to mean that she had never directly addressed him prior to the Bran scene), and the fact that behaving with a chilly, formal civility toward a child is not ideal. But there's also the fact to consider that Jon was extremely loved; given the rest of the household's attitude toward Jon, I especially can't see Cat's having any sort of imperative to go beyond the chill to "something more."

I do happen to think that at the heart of this, there is a tacit implication that her position as Ned's wife and mother plays a significant role for posters arguing in favor of Cat's treatment as decidedly wrong in context (I don't think it's a "woman" issue exactly). I don't mean that offensively at all, and I don't think or mean to imply anything about poster's beliefs of gender roles or anything like that. I say this because I haven't seen too many arguments condemning Ned for his chilly formal civility toward Theon, who is also part of the household, yet raised and reminded to know he is not one of them. Along these lines, I can't help but feel that had another member of the Stark household outside of the nuclear family treated Jon with chilly formality, there wouldn't be the idea of a similar imperative placed on that individual. I get the sense that there's something grating about the idea of Cat, in her position as matriarch and mother of the family, not accepting Jon as one of her brood, and I'll admit to letting this be at the source of my discomfort with the situation as well.

Since it's speculative, I can't prove my thesis about whether she would have altered her behavior, though I do believe the text has supplied us with enough reason to believe it's a good possibility. About Cat's character generally, I think some of your assertions about her are a little off from the text. I don't want to make assumptions about how well you know the text or anything, but I wonder if your opinion might change if you were to go over a few of her chapters again-- if you're interested I can try to locate a few chapters where I think her warmth and compassion for those even outside of her family is apparent; I don't think merely quoting snippets would do it justice.

Other than Brienne, an other example regarding Cat's compassion is the orphanage she establishes (as Stoneheart, no less) to alleviate their plight during war. She also appeals to the fact that the men fighting in the war are also sons, and she does reflect on Jon's mother, wondering if she fears for him the way she is anxious about her own children. I suppose those last two examples point to empathy, which you agreed she possesses, but the fact that she empathizes in this way tells me she does in fact possess warmth as well-- I think these aspects go together.

I think it stems mostly from the fact that I know that we judge others largely on our own values. I can tell you with near 100% certainty that I would not blame an innocent child. That is why I hold her to this moral compass. Perhaps before I was a father myself, I would have seen things differently, but now that I am one, children (all of them) hold a new meaning for me. There is no question that Jon was a blameless victim in this, yet she treated him as if he were somehow responsible. This is totally unacceptable behavior for an adult imo. So far, I see more pity being extended towards an adult who should know better and have firm control of themselves over the living standards of an innocent child. Dont you think that is wrong?

Also, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Robb very easily understands what his mother has done without any evidence at all. He has obviously seen these things before in Jon and knows what she is capable of. The only reason I can think of that GRRM would have included that scene is to let us know that this has happened before. Probably with some frequency.

And for the record, I do think Ned was wrong in being so chilly to Theon. Isn't the text obvious enough to show what damage it did to him? However, I do think there is more evidence of outright hatred and bitterness from Cat.

Again - I dont want to paint a one sided argument here. I really do like her warts and all. For the sake of this thread I am critical of this particular element of her personality. Just as her family still loved her even though they disagreed with her considering Jon. I guess with the exception of Sansa.

[Stannis ftw]

I think it stems mostly from the fact that I know that we judge others largely on our own values. I can tell you with near 100% certainty that I would not blame an innocent child. That is why I hold her to this moral compass. Perhaps before I was a father myself, I would have seen things differently, but now that I am one, children (all of them) hold a new meaning for me. There is no question that Jon was a blameless victim in this, yet she treated him as if he were somehow responsible. This is totally unacceptable behavior for an adult imo. So far, I see more pity being extended towards an adult who should know better and have firm control of themselves over the living standards of an innocent child. Dont you think that is wrong?

This is well put and the part I bolded is what it boils down to. This is not a situation that requires "digging deep" in the textual analysis department or long expositions. It is a simple situation that we all can identify in. I still hope and believe that many if not most of us find it indeed "totally unacceptable" (meaning, never right) to hold it against the child.

I have used the word "grudge" to formulate this question because it stays in the sphere of person's own character and own valuations without going into detail of, for example, what happened in day-to-day life of Winterfell (we have no way to know for certain, endless arguments), how did it affect Jon (not possible to sit Jon to shrink´s couch, endless arguments again) etc.

Butterbumps, may I ask you simple answers to simple questions, same thing as I asked David Selig:

- Do you think Catelyn did not hold a grudge towards Jon?

- Or do you think she did, but it was justifiable?

[mormont]

So just to be sure Robert, Cersei, Tywin and Tyrion = people of westeros. Okay, just wanted to confirm that. Next, are we sure Robert thought what he was doing was morally wrong? We have Cersei telling us that he was 'embarrased' for mauling her when he was drunk.

When he tells Ned this:

does he sound morally conflicted about bedding his unwilling wife? Where is his guilt and remorse if he indeed felt it was morally wrong.

This is a side argument, so I'm just going to say: if your argument is that Cersei is simply mistaken or inventing Robert's shame, or that Robert's remark above shows that he could not possibly have been ashamed of his behaviour at other times, it's a poor argument indeed. The author shows us Robert's shame at hitting Cersei: how likely is it that he means us to understand that Robert was not ashamed of raping her, especially when he goes out of his way to have Cersei recall how he was ashamed? Not likely at all. Fanciful and ridiculous, in fact.

In my opinion Tywin did not care one bit about Sansa. He was trying to sweeten the deal to make Tyrion accept it. He knew Tyrion's attitude about this and he was assuring Tyrion that he need do the deed only once. From all that we know about Tywin, do you really think that he thought what was going to happen to Sansa was morally wrong? He must have felt pity for Sansa that she had to sleep with a dwarf (given how distasteful he found Tyrion) but as for the sleeping part itself, I doubt he lost much sleep over it.

So other than Tywin and Tyrion what about the rest of the folks at the red keep. Did they think Tyrion would be a rapist if he slept with Sansa? Why did they laugh at him for not sleeping with her? Should they not show him that they think it's right he did not sleep with her instead of sniggering at him and making jokes? Where is their horror at the possible rape of a young girl?

Again, this is a side issue, but again, it would be utterly ridiculous to seriously assert that raping a 12-year-old is not regarded as morally dubious in Westeros.

I did not realize you meant Robert, Cersei, Tywin and Tyrion when you talked about 'people of Westeros'.

By no means just them. Ask yourself: would Ned have condemned these actions if they'd known about them? Cat? Davos? Jon? Robb? Stannis? Brienne? Elder Brother? Thoros? Barristan?

Of course they would have. Because these are moral men, and in Westeros, it is not moral to rape, whether it's legal or not. To deny that is to ignore the facts. And if you want to argue with the facts, feel free. They don't care, and neither do I.

But was it right for Catelyn to make Jon pay for that? Ned calls her cruel, he talks about Jon being a young boy. But nothing sways Cat. She wants him gone. Her own husband is calling her cruel for that. Honorable Ned thinks that Cat is cruel because she wants Jon gone from his home.

'Nothing sways Cat'? The argument lasts about two seconds, not two hours. She says she doesn't want Jon to stay: Ned reacts: Maester Luwin immediately breaks in to suggest the Night's Watch, and Ned agrees right away.

As I said, 'honourable Ned' is not present in this argument. He's taking a holiday. 'Selfish jerk Ned' is the one who unfairly calls Cat cruel because she doesn't lie down like a doormat to his unreasonable and unfair demand. He refuses to take Jon to court, knowing that the alternative is to force Cat to look after him when neither Cat nor Jon wants that and both would find it painful and difficult. Isn't that 'cruel', to both Jon and Cat? Yes, it is. But Ned, once again, gets to behave any way he likes, and Cat that has to take the blame.

But this is in complete contradiction to everything you said earlier where Cat did not have to be around Jon at all and it was a large household and there were others to take care of everything.

No, it's not. It's a big household, and Cat could avoid Jon on a daily basis easily. But once she's in charge of that household, she can't do that. Because Jon is now in her charge, whereas before he was not. It's a very simple and obvious difference.

In the end it comes down to this.

Was it morally right and justified for Catelyn to treat a child the way she treated Jon? A simple yes or no.

Simple answers to complex questions are meaningless: it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

In fact, I find Catelyn one of the most fascinating characters in the series. She's genuinely good at heart, yet she's, to me, extremely unlikeable. She's self-centered. She is so focused on her and hers that she is literally unable to see anything else and that makes her vulnerable.

Except that as I've pointed out before, Cat is one of the only noble characters of whom this is not true. She repeatedly thinks of and speaks of the people who are dying as a result of the war, people who have nothing to do with her. She adopts Brienne. She feels sad for Mya. She even wonders if Jon's mother worries about him. As we've said ad nauseam, Cat has empathy. Your description of her character is simply not accurate to what is written in the books.

[Anath]

Except that as I've pointed out before, Cat is one of the only noble characters of whom this is not true. She repeatedly thinks of and speaks of the people who are dying as a result of the war, people who have nothing to do with her. She adopts Brienne. She feels sad for Mya. She even wonders if Jon's mother worries about him. As we've said ad nauseam, Cat has empathy. Your description of her character is simply not accurate to what is written in the books.

My point exactly. She's concerned with the general "bigger things", like people who are dying - people who have nothing to do with her. They have nothing to do with her. They don't require personal attention and interaction and she can be good and concerned about them because that's what she is. When I say "warmth", I mean her relationship with people around her. One can't be "warm" to the world in general - they can be good and try to make a difference. Cat does. But warmth is reserved for personal interactions and in all her years in Winterfell, Cat was just dutiful. Not finding a single person she can trust in a castle where all are blindly loyal to the Starks?

Again, Mya has nothing to do with her and it's easy to feel 'sad' for her. Really, wondering about Jon's mother worrying about him is now a great proof for Cat's big heart? Please. She doesn't care about Jon's mother worrying about him or not. It's just a thought springing to her mind as a result of her very brief moment of guilt.

A little bit of civility to Jon would have done lots of good for her in my eyes. They weren't two adults who didn't like each other. She was someone in power which makes her attitude a mistreatment. Then again, would have Jon been content with that? I think he would have still wanted more. I don't think he realized just how good he was having it before he left. Actually, his lot was better than 99 % of the bastards in Westeros. The trick is, long-suffering, poor, wronged Cat also had it better than 99 % of the ladies in Westeros and just like Jon, who was 14, she didn't realize it. Yes, Ned cheated on her. Once. Yes, he brought his bastard to their household. So? Does he beat her? Does he shame her by being a notorious whore-lover? Does he parade his mistresses in front of her? Does he ever treat her with disrespect? Does he try to legitimize Jon and give him Ice? Why does she obsess over the one thing he didn't give her? I find her constant whining "Ned didn't send his bastard away and I am sooo hurt" a little bit more irritating than Jon's obsession how much he hated being a bastard. At least he grew out of it somewhat when he realized how worse his life could have been.

[mormont]

My point exactly. She's concerned with the general "bigger things", like people who are dying - people who have nothing to do with her. They have nothing to do with her. They don't require personal attention and interaction and she can be good and concerned about them because that's what she is. When I say "warmth", I mean her relationship with people around her. One can't be "warm" to the world in general - they can be good and try to make a difference. Cat does. But warmth is reserved for personal interactions and in all her years in Winterfell, Cat was just dutiful. Not finding a single person she can trust in a castle where all are blindly loyal to the Starks?

Nope, still wrong. As I said, Cat is concerned with Brienne, with Mya: she relates to them on a personal level. For that matter, she remembers Masha Heddle: she can remember the woman who used to come to Riverrun looking for shoes needing to be soled. (When she's trying to figure out who Tansy is.) This is fairly impressive - she can remember the name of a commoner after decades. And it simply doesn't fit with the notion that she's unable to build relationships with the people around her. (The claim that she simply hasn't any trusting relationships with anyone in WF is an absurd misrepresentation of her decision to go to Ned herself in AGOT.)

Cat clearly, consistently, shows empathy and relates to people on a personal level. Her reaction to Jon is out of character for her, not indicative of how she's just concerned with 'her own'. Your reading of her character, sorry to say, is simply not accurate and not consistent with the text. But that's the whole point; Jon is her weak spot, her Achilles' heel.

[Anath]

For that matter, she remembers Masha Heddle: she can remember the woman who used to come to Riverrun looking for shoes needing to be soled. (When she's trying to figure out who Tansy is.) This is fairly impressive - she can remember the name of a commoner after decades. And it simply doesn't fit with the notion that she's unable to build relationships with the people around her.

Not so impressive. I still remember many people I briefly interacted with in my childhood two decades ago, including the two women who came to ask my grandmother to give them something to do and then pay them because they were so very poor. I think it's a matter of memory. Which is not to say that Cat didn't notice her and didn't pay attention to her. I just find the fact she still remembers the commoner as more indicative to her memory than the goodness of her heart. Then again, maybe you meant to say Cat actually built a relationshiop with Masha? Because as I see it, Masha was no one to her and since Cat is Cat, it comes naturally to her to treat those who aren't important to her with goodness. She doesn't interact with spite when she has no reason to, Jon Snow excluded.

This is not the topic of the threat but the thing that seems most revealing to me in regard to Cat and Jon's relationship is not how she treated him when they were still living under the same roof. I am most impressed with the fact that she actually comes up with time to enlighten Blackfish about how Jon was not to be trusted. Yeah, she blabbered to herself how she could put up with a dozen bastards, as long as they were away. Well, this one bastard is away and what does she do? She finds it very necessary to share her distrust with Blackfish. I honestly doubt he asked her, "Well, Cat, how do you feel about your husband's bastard?" She can't help herself. Why? Isn't Jon now guaranteed not to father children who could claim Winterfell? Isn't he at the Wall? Entirely consistent with my reading of her as someone who wants to consider herself good. Sorry to say, but your reading of her character is simply not accurate and consistent with the text.

Listen, maybe we shoud stop criticizing each other's interpretation of the text? It is not simply built and I never claimed my interpretation is the only right one. You, on the other hand, obviously feel the need to reiterate that everyone who doesn't agree with *your* theories is simply reading it wrong. Why the forum then? By definition, we're bound to read different things in the text.

[butterbumps!]

I think it stems mostly from the fact that I know that we judge others largely on our own values. I can tell you with near 100% certainty that I would not blame an innocent child. That is why I hold her to this moral compass. Perhaps before I was a father myself, I would have seen things differently, but now that I am one, children (all of them) hold a new meaning for me. There is no question that Jon was a blameless victim in this, yet she treated him as if he were somehow responsible. This is totally unacceptable behavior for an adult imo. So far, I see more pity being extended towards an adult who should know better and have firm control of themselves over the living standards of an innocent child. Dont you think that is wrong?

Also, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Robb very easily understands what his mother has done without any evidence at all. He has obviously seen these things before in Jon and knows what she is capable of. The only reason I can think of that GRRM would have included that scene is to let us know that this has happened before. Probably with some frequency.

And for the record, I do think Ned was wrong in being so chilly to Theon. Isn't the text obvious enough to show what damage it did to him? However, I do think there is more evidence of outright hatred and bitterness from Cat.

Again - I dont want to paint a one sided argument here. I really do like her warts and all. For the sake of this thread I am critical of this particular element of her personality. Just as her family still loved her even though they disagreed with her considering Jon. I guess with the exception of Sansa.

The bolded is what I believe is wrong, and what I located about where we personally (you and I) disagree. I agree that the absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence when studying nearly anything in the natural world, yet this is a contained work of fiction, and that clause doesn't apply without bridging into fan fic territory. There's no reason to assume that Cat was verbally abusive outside of this one time. It's a stretch to say that Robb's reaction is an indication that actual verbal abuse has happened previously or with frequency. Here's the context for that comment. Jon looks for Robb to say goodbye right after he visits Bran. Jon looks sullen (according to Bran's last POV, Jon was looking increasing sullen, and in Jon's POV, he was sullen before even visiting Bran):

Robb knew something was wrong. “My mother …”

“She was … very kind,” Jon told him.

Robb looked relieved. “Good.” He smiled. “The next time I see you, you’ll be all in black.”

It's no secret that Cat is chilly to Jon; when Robb sees that Jon looks sullen and has just come from an interaction with Cat, he asks whether she said something that's disturbing him. When Jon tells him that she was "very kind," Robb immediately buys it, smiles, and jokes around. Now, if Cat was verbally abusing Jon with frequency, would Robb so easily believe that Cat was "very kind" to him here? I'm not going to use these lines to suggest that Cat was frequently kind to Jon from extrapolation, and likewise, I don't believe this points to an extrapolation that she was verbally abusive, frequently or occasionally.

More generally, I think there's a few things that need to be broken down methodically about the Jon-Cat dynamic regarding the common debate points:

1. Cat's actual treatment of Jon: Cat's treatment of Jon was chilly, formal, and civil, such that she never directly addressed him, wasn't kind to him but neither was she malicious, and let it be known that he was a bastard and did not have the same place as her trueborn children. This is what the text tells us. Anything beyond calling this a chilly co-existence are extrapolated assumptions without basis.

2. Whether "chiliness" is abusive: Once there's some agreement about the extent to which Cat was cold to Jon is reached, then the issue of whether any chilliness toward a child in the first place can be considered abusive or a case of mistreatment. I don't believe that Cat's actions can be fairly categorized as abusive in context, namely because the main part of her behavior was to show Jon that he was not a trueborn nor her own child, which, for all intents and purposes is true. This is where that circular argument of lines in the sand emerge from: everyone agrees that Cat was under no obligation to raise Jon as one of her own or to treat everyone equally, yet the fact that she simply did not accept him as one of her own and reminded him of his status is what causes many readers to see her behavior as "abusive." Where do you draw the line demarcating where Cat could have let him know he wasn't hers and treated him differently without encroaching on "abusive" territory?

If the situation at Winterfell were somewhat different, where Cat was tasked with raising this child on her own without the multitude other people around Winterfell, there might be a case for seeing this behavior as neglectfully abusive. That is, if Cat were Jon's step mother (which she is not), and this were a modern mixed family not living in a castle where the task of raising children is farmed out to a huge household of servants and she treated Jon thusly, then I think a case for neglect or mistreatment could be made. While I agree that treating a child with this kind of chilliness is wrong according to modern standards when looking at the dynamics of a nuclear family, this doesn't translate to what's going on with Jon and Cat because the very notion of household is extremely different, and Cat does not have the imperative that a step parent would to treat all kids warmly.

I think there's a general tendency to see Cat as having the same imperative as a step-parent would in a modern family configuration, but this is not something that translates given the very different way the raising of children was done at Winterfell, as well as the fact that Cat's role is not comparable to a step-parent. Not only that, but Jon absolutely was not neglected in any capacity during his time at Winterfell. Cat may not have given him physical affection or kindness, but everyone else at the castle loved Jon and treated him as any of the other kids. Jon is unequivocally not starved for love or attention.

3. How Martin balances the Jon-Cat dynamic: Martin had to reconcile several conflicting issues through Jon-Cat's history of interaction. Someone had to give Jon friction wrt being a bastard, and Cat does the honors. Yet, Martin took such great pains to not present this abusive, as well as to try to convince the reader that Cat's reasons for doing so are largely sympathetic.

Look at how this is crafted: the text lets us know that Cat held a grudge against Jon for Ned's actions, that she treated him with chilliness, and that she never let him forget he was a bastard. Yet, Martin is very careful to curb her treatment of Jon here, at the point of chilliness and no further (aside from the one comment, which, again, Martin took great pains to clarify). Martin could have easily pushed the extent of her treatment more clearly into territory we would all see as abusive, but chose not to. Further, he detailed out exactly what Cat felt, why she felt it, showed us she felt guilty for her grudge, that she didn't wish Jon any harm, and gives us a variety of reasons to support a reading of Cat's position as a sympathetic one, as it pertains.

Martin purposely left several situational dynamics remain untested here. For one, we do not have a scene in which Jon shows visible duress in response to her behavior. From the text we know that Cat wanted him to know his place, but not to cause him duress. The fact that Jon made a point of appearing unaffected by her words means that she has never been confronted by obvious, negative reactions from Jon, and it remains an open question whether she might have modified her course. But of course Martin would leave this unanswered; had she taken pity and behaved differently, then Jon would have lost that bastard friction thats so crucial to the storyline.

We also do not see how Cat interacts with the other children who are part of the household, yet not her trueborn. We have no baseline litmus against which to understand Cat's normal behavior toward non-Jon members of the household. Instead, we see her thoughts wrt her kids alone, whom we know she loves fiercely, so comparatively, anything else would seen as starkly less than this.

Also untested is how Cat would treat Jon in the event that she knew Jon's mother, or barring the full truth, if Ned had at least provided her with a name- any name- she could attach to it.

[butterbumps!]

Butterbumps, may I ask you simple answers to simple questions, same thing as I asked David Selig:

- Do you think Catelyn did not hold a grudge towards Jon?

- Or do you think she did, but it was justifiable?

First, I was pretty clear about how I viewed this, and I'm a bit irritated by the fact that you could simply have read what I'd written.

Secondly, what's your point?

[mormont]

Not so impressive. I still remember many people I briefly interacted with in my childhood two decades ago, including the two women who came to ask my grandmother to give them something to do and then pay them because they were so very poor. I think it's a matter of memory. Which is not to say that Cat didn't notice her and didn't pay attention to her. I just find the fact she still remembers the commoner as more indicative to her memory than the goodness of her heart. Then again, maybe you meant to say Cat actually built a relationshiop with Masha? Because as I see it, Masha was no one to her and since Cat is Cat, it comes naturally to her to treat those who aren't important to her with goodness. She doesn't interact with spite when she has no reason to, Jon Snow excluded.

I'm sorry, but your argument is becoming confusing - and contradictory. You started out saying that

She's genuinely good at heart, yet she's, to me, extremely unlikeable. She's self-centered. She is so focused on her and hers that she is literally unable to see anything else and that makes her vulnerable.

You added:

Cat is not a kind person at heart. She certainly isn't vicious and she's capable of empathy but I don't think she's capable of warmth to anyone but her family, Jon is excluded.

And then

I do think she's warm and empathic person but I never saw her relating to anyone who isn't family. I think she lacks the capacity for that.

And yet when people present evidence of Cat focusing on people who aren't 'hers', relating to people who aren't family, showing empathy and warmth, it gets written off. Now you're claiming it 'comes naturally to her to treat those who aren't important to her with goodness'. What does that even mean? How can someone treat people with goodness and that be an indication of how they consider those people 'unimportant'? It appears very much like reasoning backwards from a conclusion, rather than forwards from the evidence. That's why I am puzzled: yes, we are all entitled to our own readings of the text, but some readings simply don't make sense. A claim that Cat is self-centred and lacks warmth and empathy not despite, but actually because of, her kind treatment of those she's unrelated to, appears perverse. Particularly when some of your earlier claims about her behaviour have been factually contradicted.

This is not the topic of the threat but the thing that seems most revealing to me in regard to Cat and Jon's relationship is not how she treated him when they were still living under the same roof. I am most impressed with the fact that she actually comes up with time to enlighten Blackfish about how Jon was not to be trusted. Yeah, she blabbered to herself how she could put up with a dozen bastards, as long as they were away. Well, this one bastard is away and what does she do? She finds it very necessary to share her distrust with Blackfish. I honestly doubt he asked her, "Well, Cat, how do you feel about your husband's bastard?" She can't help herself. Why? Isn't Jon now guaranteed not to father children who could claim Winterfell? Isn't he at the Wall? Entirely consistent with my reading of her as someone who wants to consider herself good. Sorry to say, but your reading of her character is simply not accurate and consistent with the text.

Well, for one thing, there is no indication that the Blackfish's opinion results from recent conversations with Cat rather than letters and conversations years past, when Jon was living in WF. We know Cat visited Lysa at least once and wrote to her: it's very likely she included her uncle in those letters, and spoke to him. It seems very likely that this is where the Blackfish got his information, if for no other reason than it seems very unlikely that Cat was badmouthing Jon around Robb. This would be entirely consistent with the text, whereas the idea that she was saying one thing to Brynden offscreen and thinking quite another in her POV chapters is pretty hard to justify. For another, it's very likely, given the context, that the Blackfish is exaggerating - he needs an excuse to throw Jaime's offer back at him.

[Anath]

Where do you draw the line demarcating where Cat could have let him know he wasn't hers and treated him differently without encroaching on "abusive" territory?

Addressing him by name. Talking to him from time to time. Not looking at him accusingly when he bested Robb.

Note that I didn't say anything about taking any interest in him, his lessons and his everyday occupations. Just a few words from time to time and not looking at him trying to convey the message that he doesn't belong in Winterfell.

It isn't Cat's job to make him feel like one of her own. It's up to the other Starks to make him feel included. Just tolerating him without making it a point how much she detests him would have been enough.

[butterbumps!]

Addressing him by name.

The point is that she didn't address him. She avoided interacting with him.

Talking to him from time to time.

You can't possibly consider this an imperative that she "should" have done, do you? I agree that this would have been something showing great kindness, but it's well above the call of basic decency.

Not looking at him accusingly when he bested Robb.

I can kind of see this one as something skewing to the negative side, the absence of which would be better, I agree.

Note that I didn't say anything about taking any interest in him, his lessons and his everyday occupations. Just a few words from time to time and not looking at him trying to convey the message that he doesn't belong in Winterfell.

I really think this is a bit much, especially given that, objectively in context, Jon didn't belong in Winterfell. Noble men didn't bring home their bastards "for all the north to see." This was, in fact, highly unusual. I honestly think it's ridiculous to expect Cat to make small talk with him from time to time. Again, I agree that this is one of those "it would have been super nice" things, but I can't see the lack of this as something negative.

It isn't Cat's job to make him feel like one of her own. It's up to the other Starks to make him feel included. Just tolerating him without making it a point how much she detests him would have been enough.

But she didn't make a point of showing that she detests him. In fact, she doesn't seem to detest or hate him at all. She resents his presence, she resents the fact that he looks more like Ned than her own children, and resents the threat he represents to her kids' inheritance. She doesn't really have anything against him as a person, though.