A different discussion about Catelyn

[chicky]

but catelyn is not a legitimate stark either she is a tully of riverrun

hypocrisy much?

Uh...what? She is married to Ned, she's not his mistress.

[Newstar]

Which SSM is this? In Jon I, during the feast, Benjen asks if his sitting in the back is normal. Jon tells Benjen that this is uncommon and that he always sits with his family, only that Cat advised against it here due to the fact that the royal family would not like it.

SSM Quote:

"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.

[bold mine]

GRRM is stating that little passive-aggressive nastiness like seating on the high table for the king's visit was a typical Cat stunt and an example of one of the ways in which she would sharply draw the line.

And look at that "but." He starts off by saying that "mistreatment" is a loaded word, because Cat was not physically abusing him, verbally abusing him or attacking him. The "but" there suggests that he does consider her "drawing the line sharply" with stunts like the high table bit to be mistreatment, or at least not on.

Ok, so the issue is that Cat made her desire to avoid Jon known first, so Jon's desire to avoid her is a result of that. Fine. Avoidance is hardly something to get worked up over, though, either way. I don't see an imperative on Cat to not avoid Jon-- I just don't see this as anything other than a neutral.

Again, you're being really weirdly misleading. You were one who characterized Jon and Cat's behaviour towards each other as "mutual avoidance," which is misleading and minimizing, since it suggests a mutual, neutral decision to go one's separate ways, as opposed to one person mistreating the other and the other avoiding them as a result. Big, big difference there. And there might not be an imperative on Cat to "not avoid" Jon, but GRRM indicates that she was doing things other than distancing herself from him (passive-aggressive stunts, making it clear to Jon that he'll never be a Stark, etc. etc.).

I don't hold Catelyn's lack of maternal warmth to Jon against her. If my husband brought another woman's child home and expected me to raise him with my sons, I wouldn't be able to do it.

But if you had to do it because society required you to obey your husband, surely you'd take it out on the husband and not on the kid, no?

I believe Ned did Catelyn, himself, and especially Jon a disservice by not telling her the truth. There's no doubt in my mind that Ned could have trusted her with the truth.

Be that as it may, however Ned wronged Catelyn does not justify or excuse her treatment in the slightest, since it would be equally unacceptable if Jon were Ashara's bastard as she believed.

Why would she have a problem with Mya? Ned isn't her father, and Mya isn't being raised under Catelyn's roof with her own children. The situation isn't analogous.

Because Cat shows herself capable of swallowing her distaste for Mya being a bastard and treating her with kindness and sympathy, even though Jon should have had an equal claim on her sympathy.

If Ned had told her the whole truth, whatever it may be, I truly believe Cat would have been kinder because she would no longer resent not knowing the truth.

So what? That doesn't excuse Cat in the slightest, so it's rather irrelevant as a "defense" of her actions.

Also when did Cat ever remind Jon he's not a legitimate Stark?

Jon thinks in AGOT that he never felt like he belonged with the Starks, and that Cat "made sure of that." The SSM I quoted also points to this type of behaviour occurring with some frequency.

Jon and any sons he has will always be a threat to her children and their inheritance. Any decent mother would be overjoyed if they knew Jon couldn't be a threat.

I dunno about any decent mother, but any decent human being would be horrified at the idea of sending a boy off to a life--a life--of danger amid extremely harsh conditions, with no family of his own. But Cat is over the moon, because it means she'll be rid of him. I also think any decent human being would think twice before shipping someone away from the only home he's ever known because she can't stand the sight of him, but that's just me.

I would honestly think she was very thoughtless if she didn't see a threat coming from Jon Snow.

It's hard to know how much of it is genuine concern for her children's inheritance and how much of it is dislike for Jon Snow, honestly. The latter seemed to predominate, since she would have been happy to ship Jon off to King's Landing as well. Leaping at the opportunity to have Jon at the Wall because it solves a personal problem of hers about a remote threat which may never ever come to fruition as far as she's aware, even though others are frank about the kind of life it is, is callous. It's like being happy that your neighbour's being shipped off to a prison camp in Siberia because you were worried their smoking would lead your kids to develop cancer (and even that analogy isn't accurate, because Jon isn't doing anything personally to pose a threat to Cat's children).

[Pikachu101]

why does every cat thread involve her hatred of jon snow?!

Because its the only thing Cat haters can actually hate her for <_<

Back to topic:

If Cat had more control and authority over Robb; the way Cersei has with Joffrey, do you think the plot would change into the Starks favour?

On one hand you can say yes because she wouldn't let him send Theon back, marry the Westerlings, ignore Greywind etc.

But at the same time you can say no because the Starks fell due to actions out of their control e.g. Stannis' defeat, the Lannister-Tyrells alliance.

So what do you think?

[Blueberry Stark]

I know, right? It drives me insane. Aurane Waters can take it (and rise high), Frey bastard is doing just fine, but Jon must be hidden at cold North least he hears some barb about bastards at KL and promptly offs himself. Because being insulted by rapists and murderers at the Wall for the same is so much better.

What's more natural than lords and great lords and kings having bastards who hang around them? Nobody would blink an eye.

I always assumed that Ned didn't want Jon around Robert. You know, because Robert is so intuitive and sensitive that he would eventually discern that Jon may be Lyanna's son.

[Sansa_Stark]

Uh...what? She is married to Ned, she's not his mistress.

but she was born a southerner with 0 stark blood

its why robb had to stay at winterfell because there must always be a stark and she didnt count

therefore she is not a stark

[chicky]

but she was born a southerner with 0 stark blood

its why robb had to stay at winterfell because there must always be a stark and she didnt count

therefore she is not a stark

I kind of see what you're saying. But I still think it's stretching it to say that she is not a legitimate member of the family.

[The Wolves]

My point about blaming Ned for not telling Catelyn the truth about Jon's parentage was perhaps unclear. If he is the father (which I know is a long shot), then he definitely owes Catelyn the truth. Her tolerance level would have grown exponentially had she been told the truth. Yes, she rightly resents that Ned betrayed and humiliated her, but I think she also despises the mystery surrounding Ned's infidelity. If in fact Lyanna and Rhaegar are Jon's parents, which is in all likelihood the truth, I believe Ned did Catelyn, himself, and especially Jon a disservice by not telling her the truth. There's no doubt in my mind that Ned could have trusted her with the truth.

I agree with everything you said about Catelyn but this.

Ned does not owe Catelyn of the name of Jon's mother if it be Lyanna or any other woman, Jon is the only person who should ask who his mother is.

And Ned has known Catelyn for 15yrs, I think he knows Catelyn's character enough to know if he can tell her the truth about Jon. It does say a lot that after 15yrs he never told her and he wasn't planning on to either.

Also I'm not a Catelyn fan but I think she was a intelligent character who I felt the most sympathy for. She's a really well written character so I can appreciate her.

[Cruella]

Also, while not admirable, it is very understandable that Catelyn doesn't want Jon at WF without Ned. Remember, she's losing Arya, Sansa and Bran to KL. Ned takes them away, Bran against her wishes basically, and she won't see them for years, well, maybe a visit a year, but not very likely as often. Yet Jon will be living at Winterfell with her? Of course if she already doesn't like him much it would be very hard to take that and stay civil. It makes much more sense for him to leave with his father, sisters and brother and have some sort of career in KL. Can't Ned buy him a house? Small mansion perhaps. Ned is near-royalty, not a poor schmuck, I don't see the drama. He's a Duke and king's best friend, he could set up Jon with a good business, or find him good place in military etc. Bastards can be knighted, given land for their service etc.

(((Ned does not owe Catelyn of the name of Jon's mother if it be Lyanna or any other woman, Jon is the only person who should ask who his mother is.)))

If you cheated on your wife, you better tell her a name of a woman you fucked on a side, if she asks you. The real tragedy here is that Cat cannot divorce his ass.

((I always assumed that Ned didn't want Jon around Robert. You know, because Robert is so intuitive and sensitive that he would eventually discern that Jon may be Lyanna's son.))

I agree. What makes no sense to me is that nobody calls Ned on his words, like "Wait, Nedster, but I am sure your good friend Robert will find a good place for Jon if you ask him. and since when people in KL are shocked by existance of bastards?"

My theory is that in the beginning GRRM didn't think the world all way through, and needed for the story for the Wall to be Jon's only option. I doubt Aurane Waters etc existed in his mind back then.

[Blueberry Stark]

SSM Quote:

[bold mine]

GRRM is stating that little passive-aggressive nastiness like seating on the high table for the king's visit was a typical Cat stunt and an example of one of the ways in which she would sharply draw the line.

And look at that "but." He starts off by saying that "mistreatment" is a loaded word, because Cat was not physically abusing him, verbally abusing him or attacking him. The "but" there suggests that he does consider her "drawing the line sharply" with stunts like the high table bit to be mistreatment, or at least not on.

Again, you're being really, really misleading. You were one who characterized Jon and Cat's behaviour towards each other as "mutual avoidance," which is misleading and minimizing, since it suggests a mutual, neutral decision to go one's separate ways, as opposed to one person mistreating the other and the other avoiding them as a result. Big, big difference there. And there might not be an imperative on Cat to "not avoid" Jon, but GRRM indicates that she was doing things other than distancing herself from him (passive-aggressive stunts, making it clear to Jon that he'll never be a Stark, etc. etc.).

Look, SSMs are useful, but I'm a lot more interested in what Martin actually SHOWS us in the text. In other words, other than the seating at the feast, and the time in Bran's room, what does Catelyn actually DO to Jon that is so terrible?

[Sansa_Stark]

Look, SSMs are useful, but I'm a lot more interested in what Martin actually SHOWS us in the text. In other words, other than the seating at the feast, and the time in Bran's room, what does Catelyn actually DO to Jon that is so terrible?

didn't jon say that cat would always stare at him resentfully whenever jon did better than robb at random things and that he felt that cat begrudged him every bite that he ate.

for a young, emotionally fragile boy like jon that is borderline torture.

[Miodrag]

If in fact Lyanna and Rhaegar are Jon's parents, which is in all likelihood the truth, I believe Ned did Catelyn, himself, and especially Jon a disservice by not telling her the truth. There's no doubt in my mind that Ned could have trusted her with the truth.

You are right, of course, and Ned probably realizes that eventually, but at the beginning of his marriage to Cat, how was he to know Cat's a trustworthy person? She was a mystery to him, just as he was to her. Their love and mutual respect came only later, and at that point maybe Ned thought it's the best not to open that can of worms. In hindsight, it was a wrong decision, but Ned was managing the situation he didn't create but had to deal with somehow and without any help whatsoever. Considering Ned's logic and views on life, the moment he gave his word to Lyanna was the moment Jon's fate was doomed.

In fact, Jon was doomed the very moment he was incepted. A lot of people contributed to his tragedy (I mean, so far it is a tragedy, because his life is pretty far from a relaxed one), but nobody's to be blamed exclusively, or even blamed at all. All those people whose actions and/or inaction lead to the situation in which Jon's a forgotten bastard on The Wall - Rhaegar, Lyanna, Robert, Ned, Cat - share the responsibility, but I see no blame in a usual sense of the word, because they all acted according to their personalities and/or their limited knowledge.

[butterbumps!]

SSM Quote:

[bold mine]

GRRM is stating that little passive-aggressive nastiness like seating on the high table for the king's visit was a typical Cat stunt and an example of one of the ways in which she would sharply draw the line.

No, I don't believe that Martin is stating she frequently engaged in passive-aggressive antagonism. In fact, he's drawing a purposeful distinction between the passive-aggressive antagonism we see in Jon II ("it should have been you") and Cat's normal behavior toward him. That SSM is saying the opposite of what I think you are suggesting. Distance and (by extension) avoidance is what Martin explicitly states in that SSM. Distance and avoidance are the vehicles through which Cat drew that line sharply. She also let his siblings know that he was a bastard rather than true-born, yet she simultaneously did nothing to stop them from engaging with him as a trueborn brother.

And look at that "but." He starts off by saying that "mistreatment" is a loaded word, because Cat was not physically abusing him, verbally abusing him or attacking him. The "but" there suggests that he does consider her "drawing the line sharply" with stunts like the high table bit to be mistreatment, or at least not on.

No, honestly, I think you are projecting. Martin explicitly cites "distant." Distance is the textually supported- as well as explicitly stated here- method of drawing that line. We see that Jon was raised identically to his trueborn siblings in terms of education, eating with the family, having comparable chambers, being denied nothing. Cat wanted to ensure, however, that there would be no confusion in terms of inheritance wrt her own children, and yes, did not act the mother to Jon and didn't hide the fact that he was a bastard. In no way does this suggest she frequently pulled any "stunts," nor is such suggested by the SSM.

[chicky]

Just a reminder, from the OP's first post: "As the title indicates, the idea for this thread is to be different from the usual Catelyn on this board. Most of you know how these usually go - the same major incidents are argued over and over again. In order to avoid this, I want to emphasize that this isn't a thread to discuss these major issues. So please, if you want to talk about Catelyn telling Jon Snow "It should've been you", her arrest of Tyrion, the release of Jaime, her advice to Ned to go to KL, whether she was right to stay with Robb instead of going back to Winterfell, advising Robb not to send Theon to his father, her role in putting Roose in charge of the infantry of the north - don't do it here. There are hundreds of long threads on this topics, bump one or start a new one, please."

I think we've gotten away from the OP's intent with his thread (myself included) by rehashing the "Cat vs. Jon Snow, is she bad to him, isn't she bad to him thing." So maybe we should all just agree to disagree and call it a day. On that particular discussion, at least.

[Blueberry Stark]

I agree with everything you said about Catelyn but this.

Ned does not owe Catelyn of the name of Jon's mother if it be Lyanna or any other woman, Jon is the only person who should ask who his mother is.

And Ned has known Catelyn for 15yrs, I think he knows Catelyn's character enough to know if he can tell her the truth about Jon. It does say a lot that after 15yrs he never told her and he wasn't planning on to either.

Also I'm not a Catelyn fan but I think she was a intelligent character who I felt the most sympathy for. She's a really well written character so I can appreciate her.

She is his WIFE, therefore she deserves an explanation concerning his supposed bastard son who is being raised under the same roof as her children. If the situation was reversed, you damn well better believe that Catelyn would have to tell Ned the truth.

[Sansa_Stark]

I agree with everything you said about Catelyn but this.

Ned does not owe Catelyn of the name of Jon's mother if it be Lyanna or any other woman, Jon is the only person who should ask who his mother is.

And Ned has known Catelyn for 15yrs, I think he knows Catelyn's character enough to know if he can tell her the truth about Jon. It does say a lot that after 15yrs he never told her and he wasn't planning on to either.

Also I'm not a Catelyn fan but I think she was a intelligent character who I felt the most sympathy for. She's a really well written character so I can appreciate her.

i think ned promised lyanna he would not tell so even catelyn cannot be told

he probably loved his sister more than he did his wife

[Blueberry Stark]

didn't jon say that cat would always stare at him resentfully whenever jon did better than robb at random things and that he felt that cat begrudged him every bite that he ate.

for a young, emotionally fragile boy like jon that is borderline torture.

You are correct. Catelyn didn't like him being there, he knew it, and she gave him dirty looks. Ned should have told her the truth and I believe it could have and would have been better.

You are right, of course, and Ned probably realizes that eventually, but at the beginning of his marriage to Cat, how was he to know Cat's a trustworthy person? She was a mystery to him, just as he was to her. Their love and mutual respect came only later, and at that point maybe Ned thought it's the best not to open that can of worms. In hindsight, it was a wrong decision, but Ned was managing the situation he didn't create but had to deal with somehow and without any help whatsoever. Considering Ned's logic and views on life, the moment he gave his word to Lyanna was the moment Jon's fate was doomed.

In fact, Jon was doomed the very moment he was incepted. A lot of people contributed to his tragedy (I mean, so far it is a tragedy, because his life is pretty far from a relaxed one), but nobody's to be blamed exclusively, or even blamed at all. All those people whose actions and/or inaction lead to the situation in which Jon's a forgotten bastard on The Wall - Rhaegar, Lyanna, Robert, Ned, Cat - share the responsibility, but I see no blame in a usual sense of the word, because they all acted according to their personalities and/or their limited knowledge.

Good point, they were newly wed so he probably didn't realize that he could trust her. I believe he should have told her the truth later, but that's probably a tough issue to bring up. Perhaps he felt he would be betraying Lyanna to tell anyone, even Cat.

[Blueberry Stark]

i think ned promised lyanna he would not tell so even catelyn cannot be told

he probably loved his sister more than he did his wife

No grounds for saying that. They're different kinds of love anyway, so how would one go about measuring them? Ned loved all of his family - sister, kids, wife, Jon.

[Sansa_Stark]

No grounds for saying that. They're different kinds of love anyway, so how would one go about measuring them? Ned loved all of his family - sister, kids, wife, Jon.

are you sure ned really loved catelyn? i knew he was fond of her but i always thought his true love was ashara dayne

lyanna dying made her a martyr for ned and thus she is far more important to him than cat

remember all of those "promise me" moments in agot the promise was extremely important to him almost like her death caused some ptsd

[Pikachu101]

Can we get away from the whole Jon issue please.

As this is a Cat appreciation thread I'd like to ask: what do you like the most about Catelyn?

[Newstar]

No, I don't believe that Martin is stating she frequently engaged in passive-aggressive antagonism.

Passive-aggressiveness as I understand means expressing negative feelings (resentment, anger, hatred) in an unassertive, "passive" way.

In fact, he's drawing a purposeful distinction between the passive-aggressive antagonism we see in Jon II ("it should have been you") and Cat's normal behavior toward him.

There's nothing passive about "It should have been you." It's straight-up aggressive.

That SSM is saying the opposite of what I think you are suggesting. Distance and (by extension) avoidance is what Martin explicitly states in that SSM. Distance and avoidance are the vehicles through which Cat drew that line sharply.

I don't think you're right. Go back to the quote:

]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.

It's saying that where issues like seating on the high table for the king's visit were at issue--where the question came up as to whether to treat Jon as a Stark or a bastard for the purposes of whatever--Cat "always drew the line sharply between bastard and trueborn." So whenever Cat had an opportunity to treat Jon as a Stark or as a trueborn, she always drew the line sharply between bastard and trueborn, meaning that, like the king's visit seating issue, she would take the opportunity to make as clear a distinction between Jon and her children as possible.

And yes, I call that passive-aggressive nastiness, since she's not telling him what she really thinks of him ("It should have been you") but rather expressing her resentment and dislike towards him by taking whatever opportunity she can to remind Jon that he's not a Stark. And if you read the SSM very carefully, it's clear that GRRM considers this "mistreatment": "Mistreatment is a loaded word (...) She didn't verbally attack him, but she (...) always drew the line sharply, etc. etc."

So GRRM seems to be saying that Cat's passive-aggressive stunts like the high table bit were an ongoing thing with her, which makes sense when Jon later bitterly thinks that he didn't feel as if he belonged with the Starks, and Cat "made sure of that." It seems pretty clear what was going on. It suggests something much more than Cat quietly and meekly distancing herself and "avoiding" Jon, and the SSM confirms that.