A different discussion about Catelyn

[Toxspecific]

She certainly did not cause the Red Wedding, for one. Tbh I blame Robb for his extremely stupid marriage with Jeyne, but really I don't expect either him or Cat to have been able to anticipate Walder Frey to go to such lengths.

As for abuse of Jon Snow, well I don't know, is being cold and distant really abuse? She wasn't his mother, I mean it is a flaw of hers that she actually resented him since his birth wasn't his fault at all, but is it really abuse?

[Miodrag]

@David Selig

I know you and I have an unspoken agreement to respond to each other only when disapproving, but I have to break the tradition: I'm saluting you for the idea for this thread.

As for Cat's virtues and flaws, they're already discussed thoroughly by other posters. While some of her faults can't be denied, you did her right by approaching her differently and reminding of all those noble and honorable and brave things she's done but usually doesn't get the credit for, in the novels and among the readership both. With all of her complexity, Cat just can't be analyzed in a formulaic and calculative manner (pretty much none of ASOIAF characters can, but Cat's probably the most obvious such a case). Some people will always choose to blame her for this or that, most usually for the treatment of Jon, and who am I to tell them they're wrong? But, in my eyes, that whole Jon situation is a perfect example of a misery in which all the protagonists - Ned, Cat and obviously Jon - were trapped from the very start. Jon is the most obvious and most innocent victim, but Cat and Ned are victims too.

But, you asked that business to be ignored in this thread, so sorry for this disobedience. I'll just add that Cat's tragedy is possibly unparalleled in all the fiction I consumed in my lifetime. I honestly can't remember any other character from any other book or a film or a play, that suffered and lost nearly as much as Catelyn did (and I'm talking losses she knows about, of which some are false, but she's not aware of it, so for her all those losses are real). Therefore, while The Red Wedding is also the tragedy of Robb and of the entire North, it is first and foremost the tragedy of Catelyn, or, more precisely, the conclusion of it. In my opinion, she is the reason RW is so devastating to read, because she's the character Martin picked to carry that storyline from the beginning to the end. Everything she cared about perished violently, and the last strike, the death of Robb, she witnesses directly - small wonder it is then that, when brought back from the dead, she ended up seeking nothing but revenge.

Personally, I'm glad Martin didn't end her story at The Red Wedding. Whatever he has in his store for her, is probably going to be as masterfully as everything so far was, and I'm looking forward to find out what's that going to be.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

Yup. Is this even an argument?

Depends on whether or not you subscribe to the idea that had Robb married a Frey, Walder would have betrayed him anyway, only the method wouldn't have been as "savage", to use GRRM's own words. It's certain that Roose at the very least was planning to defect prior to the Westerling marriage; he states as much when he tells Theon that Robb lost as soon as Winterfell was taken. It's heavily implied in ASoS (typically in Tyrions PoV) that Tywin was in contact with the Freys via raven for some time.

[Chaircat Meow]

Depends on whether or not you subscribe to the idea that had Robb married a Frey, Walder would have betrayed him anyway, only the method wouldn't have been as "savage", to use GRRM's own words. It's certain that Roose at the very least was planning to defect prior to the Westerling marriage; he states as much when he tells Theon that Robb lost as soon as Winterfell was taken. It's heavily implied in ASoS (typically in Tyrions PoV) that Tywin was in contact with the Freys via raven for some time.

GrrM was saying that Walder would not have butchered Robb and the northern army if Robb hadn't spurned his daughter. So the honeytrap at the Crap = the RW is just straight up simple in terms of causality. It is a great source of bemusement to me how you can deny this.

Tywin might well have been in contact with the Twins before they got news of the westerling marriage (he ransomed off those Freys in CoK, and was trying to get Robb's bannermen to defect, like when he wrote to lord Manderly) but that doesn't mean the RW was being planned.

[Cricket]

I've seen the topic of Catelyn Stark's criticism come up numerous times. Basically, it seems that the criticism of her character is a mixture of 20/20 hindsight and her cruel remark to Jon Snow in GoT. I often wondered why that line was added in the first place, as it seemed to be deeply out of character for her. It seemed petty and vindictive for an otherwise understanding, kind (through pragmatic) person. But I came to realize that without hinting at that darker part of her nature before she died, I wouldn't have found her actions as LS nearly as intriguing. It'd be too easy to believe that her actions are just due to her being undead. But now readers have to wonder if this part of Catelyn has always existed under the surface.

Of course, the only truly pure, innocent character who seems to actually have a major role in the events unfolding is Bran. But before the RW and sans the coldness towards Jon, Catelyn definitely would've been one of the most good-natured characters in the story.

[Newstar]

Wrt to her lack of maternal warmth to Jon, I don't hold it against her. He WASN'T her son! I hold Ned responsible for not telling her the truth about Jon, whatever it is. If she had known the details, L+R=J, or that Ned is the father, whatever the truth is, I think that Catelyn would have been kinder to Jon.

Cat's treatment of Jon is on her. It's not on Jon for having the temerity to be born, not on Ned for not cluing her in, and certainly not on Lyanna for birthing a child who had to be concealed as Ned's bastard, but her. Even if, hypothetically, Jon were Ashara's bastard as Cat suspected, would that make her lack of kindness any more justifiable or less cruel? It's not that she was incapable of "maternal warmth," but of basic decency, understanding, and sympathy of the type she was willing to show Mya, another bastard (once she gets over her initial distaste for Mya's bastard status), or most other human beings she comes across.

In fact, Cat's treatment of Jon is in fact all the more jarring and distasteful because she's capable of such kindness and warmth not only towards her own children, but towards most other people, even a girl who helped Robb ruin a strategically essential alliance, someone who, unlike Jon, has actually done something to wrong her. Cat's not some socially awkward person who comes off as cold and aloof towards others because she's not very well adjusted. She can be perfectly warm, kind, understanding, sympathetic, and accommodating towards all manner of people, even those who have actually personally done something to harm her, not just her own children. So her petty, callous and vindictive treatment of Jon, embodied by such things as passive-aggressively seating him as far away from her children as possible at feasts, snarling "It should have been you," and her eagerness to pack Jon off to a hard, cold, cruel life at the Wall rather than look at his face on a daily basis (Ned calls her urging him to take Jon south with him "damnably cruel"), is all the more baffling.

[Jory Cassel]

Cat's treatment of Jon is on her. It's not on Jon for having the temerity to be born, not on Ned for not cluing her in, and certainly not on Lyanna for birthing a child who had to be concealed as Ned's bastard, but her. Even if, hypothetically, Jon were Ashara's bastard as Cat suspected, would that make her lack of kindness any more justifiable or less cruel? It's not that she was incapable of "maternal warmth," but of but basic decency, understanding, and sympathy of the type she was willing to show Mya, another bastard (once she gets over her initial distaste for Mya's bastard status), or most other human beings she comes across.

In fact, Cat's treatment of Jon is in fact all the more jarring and distasteful because she's capable of such kindness and warmth not only towards her own children, but towards most other people, even a girl who helped Robb ruin a strategically essential alliance, someone who, unlike Jon, has actually done something to wrong her. Cat's not some socially awkward person who comes off as cold and aloof towards others because she's not very well adjusted. She can be perfectly warm, kind, understanding, sympathetic, and accommodating towards all manner of people, even those who have actually personally done something to harm her, not just her own children. So her petty, callous and vindictive treatment of Jon, embodied by such things as passive-aggressively seating him as far away from her children as possible at feasts, snarling "It should have been you," and her eagerness to pack Jon off to a hard, cold, cruel life at the Wall rather than look at his face on a daily basis (Ned calls her urging him to take Jon south with him "damnably cruel"), is all the more baffling.

I agree completely.

[Fish Swim]

If she had known the details, L+R=J, or that Ned is the father, whatever the truth is, I think that Catelyn would have been kinder to Jon.

I like to think so, too. I've always felt that one of the reasons she was so distant to Jon, was that he was a constant reminder that (almost) the first thing her new husband did once he was out of her sight was to sleep around. (Even though it wasn't an unusual thing culture-wise, it doesn't mean that you want to be reminded of it every day.) I think that if Ned at least had told her that Jon wasn't his (I'm a firm believer that R+L=J), things would have been better.

[butterbumps!]

So her petty, callous and vindictive treatment of Jon, embodied by such things as her eagerness to pack Jon off to a hard, cold, cruel life at the Wall rather than look at his face on a daily basis (Ned calls her urging him to take Jon south with him "damnably cruel"), is all the more baffling.

I don't find her treatment of Jon to be vindictive or even callous-- it's a case of mutual avoidance. With the exception of "it should have been you," which I agree, is an objectively nasty thing to say, I don't find her treatment of Jon to be negative. At worst I find it neutral in terms of what we know of their interactions. Because she's not his step mother, I don't see any imperative on Cat to nurture Jon. Filling the role of step-mother would have been a surplus, but as it stands, the imperatives that come with step-motherhood did not exist, and not filling this role is not negative.

I agree with you that it seems jarring in light of her general capacity for warmth and kindness; I think in relation to this consideration, the lack of nurturing seems more dismal. She does think on how she tried to find it in herself to love Jon, but couldn't; while I don't believe this is a moral failing (since there is no imperative for her to be nurturing), I do think it shows us that Cat is not able to rise above herself in every single instance (because she does rise above self-interest in nearly everything she does).

[David Selig]

I wanted to avoid discussion the Jon Snow mess, but I just have to note that Ned's "damnably cruel" words only showed he either had no clue or was lying (possibly to protect the R+L=J secret). Bastards aren't treated any worse in KL than anywhere else. Aurane Waters was on the small council. With his father as hand, Jon would've been treated well there.

[Newstar]

I don't find her treatment of Jon to be vindictive or even callous-- it's a case of mutual avoidance.

You don't find it vindictive that she finds ways to remind Jon constantly that he's not one of the legitimate Starks (seating him at the back of the hall at the feast, which GRRM suggests in his SSM was typical of Cat's behaviour towards Jon), or callous that she flat-out refuses to allow Jon to stay at Winterfell when Ned goes south for no other reason than she doesn't want him around, and is thrilled when Maester Luwin proposes that Jon be packed off to the Wall and all that that entails, because it means he'll be out of her hair forever? Seriously?

As for "mutual avoidance," that's rather misleading. Of course Jon is going to avoid someone he's well aware "would have preferred him elsewhere" (in GRRM's SSM words). If someone has made it clear in a thousand nasty little ways that they want nothing to do with you, as GRRM is suggesting in the books and in his SSM, then of course you're going to avoid them. That hardly makes it "mutual."

Because she's not his step mother, I don't see any imperative on Cat to nurture Jon. Filling the role of step-mother would have been a surplus, but as it stands, the imperatives that come with step-motherhood did not exist, and not filling this role is not negative.

Again, this is misleading, because you (and other posters) are suggesting that it's zero-sum. Either Cat can treat Jon as her own and dole out the mother love, which she's not obliged to do, or she can treat him as she did in the books, and since she's not obligated to do the former, we can forgive her for doing the latter. This is just not the case.

While she may not have had any obligation to "nurture" Jon and treat him as her own, she owed him the same obligation she owes to every other human being, the same obligation we all owe to each other, especially to those who haven't wronged us personally: basic decency, respect, kindness, understanding, and sympathy. We owe an even higher obligation to children, who are more vulnerable and more in need of kindness, understanding, and decency. Cat failed in that basic obligation. She couldn't even clear that extremely modest bar with Jon. If she had, she wouldn't be finding little ways to remind him that he'd never be a Stark. She wouldn't be obsessed with drawing the line between bastard and trueborn at every available opportunity. She wouldn't go out of her way to make Jon feel unwelcome. She wouldn't be telling Jon that he should have suffered a possibly fatal accident instead of Bran. And she certainly wouldn't be all but jumping for joy at the prospect of Jon basically going to Ice Prison for life because it means she'll be rid of him.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

GrrM was saying that Walder would not have butchered Robb and the northern army if Robb hadn't spurned his daughter. So the honeytrap at the Crap = the RW is just straight up simple in terms of causality. It is a great source of bemusement to me how you can deny this.

Tywin might well have been in contact with the Twins before they got news of the westerling marriage (he ransomed off those Freys in CoK, and was trying to get Robb's bannermen to defect, like when he wrote to lord Manderly) but that doesn't mean the RW was being planned.

I didn't suggest the Red Wedding was being planned at all, just that Walder was probably going to betray Robb anyway. It's a great source of bemusement to me that you apparently didn't even read the post.

[butterbumps!]

You don't find it vindictive that she finds ways to remind Jon constantly that he's not one of the legitimate Starks (seating him at the back of the hall at the feast, which GRRM suggests in his SSM was typical of Cat's behaviour towards Jon), or callous that she flat-out refuses to allow Jon to stay at Winterfell when Ned goes south and is thrilled when Maester Luwin proposes that Jon be packed off to the Wall and all that that entails, because it means he'll be out of her hair forever? Seriously?

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.

Cat refuses to let Jon stay at Winterfell; she tells him to take Jon to KL. Ned vehemently refuses. Is Ned also being callous in his refusal to take Jon? Ned was also pretty relieved to have a 3rd option wrt Jon's taking the black. Ned is the one who makes that decision for Jon rather than bring Jon to court.

As for "mutual avoidance," that's rather misleading. Of course Jon is going to avoid someone he's well aware "would have preferred him elsewhere" (in GRRM's SSM words). If someone acts like they want nothing to do with you, of course you're going to avoid them. That hardly makes it "mutual."

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.

[Blueberry Stark]

Cat's treatment of Jon is on her. It's not on Jon for having the temerity to be born, not on Ned for not cluing her in, and certainly not on Lyanna for birthing a child who had to be concealed as Ned's bastard, but her. Even if, hypothetically, Jon were Ashara's bastard as Cat suspected, would that make her lack of kindness any more justifiable or less cruel? It's not that she was incapable of "maternal warmth," but of but basic decency, understanding, and sympathy of the type she was willing to show Mya, another bastard (once she gets over her initial distaste for Mya's bastard status), or most other human beings she comes across.

In fact, Cat's treatment of Jon is in fact all the more jarring and distasteful because she's capable of such kindness and warmth not only towards her own children, but towards most other people, even a girl who helped Robb ruin a strategically essential alliance, someone who, unlike Jon, has actually done something to wrong her. Cat's not some socially awkward person who comes off as cold and aloof towards others because she's not very well adjusted. She can be perfectly warm, kind, understanding, sympathetic, and accommodating towards all manner of people, even those who have actually personally done something to harm her, not just her own children. So her petty, callous and vindictive treatment of Jon, embodied by such things as her eagerness to pack Jon off to a hard, cold, cruel life at the Wall rather than look at his face on a daily basis (Ned calls her urging him to take Jon south with him "damnably cruel"), is all the more baffling.

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. Cat tolerates it, whether it's because she has no choice about it or not, she still deals with it. The comments to Jon when he goes to visit Bran were unnecessary and indefensible, so I'll not defend her there. Otherwise, I think she treats him as well as can be expected.

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.

Yes, I'll agree with you that Catelyn is an adult responsible for her own decisions and behavior. However, I can't help but to find fault with Ned for not telling her the truth so that she could make a more informed decision. As far as Mya is concerned, Catelyn's kindness to her highlights the fact that Catelyn doesn't hate bastards just for being bastards. 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.

Lastly, I never remotely suggested that Jon was in any way responsible for Catelyn's treatment of him, or for the "temerity" of being born. Nor did I criticize Lyanna for having Jon, dying, asking Ned to raise her son, etc. I did criticize Ned for not being honest with Catelyn. 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.

[chicky]

You don't find it vindictive that she finds ways to remind Jon constantly that he's not one of the legitimate Starks (seating him at the back of the hall at the feast, which GRRM suggests in his SSM was typical of Cat's behaviour towards Jon), or callous that she flat-out refuses to allow Jon to stay at Winterfell when Ned goes south and is thrilled when Maester Luwin proposes that Jon be packed off to the Wall and all that that entails, because it means he'll be out of her hair forever? Seriously?

As for "mutual avoidance," that's rather misleading. Of course Jon is going to avoid someone he's well aware "would have preferred him elsewhere" (in GRRM's SSM words). If someone has made it clear in a thousand nasty little ways that they want nothing to do with you, as GRRM is suggesting in the books and in his SSM, then of course you're going to avoid them. That hardly makes it "mutual."

I believe it was stated in the book that he usually sat with the family for dinner, and he was annoyed because the royal family's presence caused them to seat him in the back of the hall. Customarily, bastards would not be seated with the nobles. Also, note that I said "them," not "she" because nowhere is it even implied that Catelyn stopped Jon as he took his seat and said, "Uh uh, not you, bastardino" and shooed him to the back. That would have been a call Ned and Catelyn made. So I don't see how this is typical behavior on her part since he usually sat with the family.

Mutual means exactly what you said: he avoids her, she avoids him. They both are doing the avoiding. Doesn't matter why. Still mutual.

I don't think anyone would disagree that Jon would prefer a doting mother. But the fact remains that Catelyn is not his mother. I don't understand why you are determined to paint her as vindictive. Vindictive is sneaking up behind Jon and whispering, "You don't belong her, sucka" at every opportunity. Vindictive is making him play separately from the other kids. Vindictive is making him live in a cupboard under the stairs.

Catelyn's behavior is not admirable, but I don't think she should continue to be dragged over the coals over the Jon Snow thing. The woman spent 15 years with a living, breathing reminder that her husband cheated on her, and apparently with someone important enough to him that he brought the boy home instead of just providing for him elsewhere, and shuts her down when she asks any questions. I'd say her behavior, while not loving, is neutral. Not what a child needs, but it's all she is able to bring herself to do.

[Bushido]

I hate when I starting thinking about Lady Stoneheart, as full fledged character, just because she's Catelyn. Then I revisit the first 3 books and realise that she is very much dead.

Fiercely perceptive. Naturally gifted at politics. Integrity and strength.

The episode regarding Jon shows passive aggression, yes. But, it also show how passionate she is... Was. /sigh

[Sansa_Stark]

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

[Cruella]

just have to note that Ned's "damnably cruel" words only showed he either had no clue or was lying (possibly to protect the R+L=J secret). Bastards aren't treated any worse in KL than anywhere else. Aurane Waters was on the small council. With his father as hand, Jon would've been treated well there.

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.

[Pikachu101]

You don't find it vindictive that she finds ways to remind Jon constantly that he's not one of the legitimate Starks

I don't think Cat's the only person to blame for that. Westerosi culture, society, Ned, common sense etc. is why Jon knows he's not a legitimate Stark.

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

seating him at the back of the hall at the feast, which GRRM suggests in his SSM was typical of Cat's behaviour towards Jon

You can't throw that one on Cat. Even if it was just Ned and his bastard son Jon, he still wouldn't be seated next to the royal family.

Do you know how offensive it is to dump a bastard right next to the king and queen?

and is thrilled when Maester Luwin proposes that Jon be packed off to the Wall and all that that entails, because it means he'll be out of her hair forever

And that's bad because?

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

As for "mutual avoidance," that's rather misleading. Of course Jon is going to avoid someone he's well aware "would have preferred him elsewhere"

Because he should be elsewhere, Jon should have been sent off to be fostered the minute he turned 8. So it was mutual avoidance Jon stayed far away from Cat in respect and Cat stayed away from Jon in order to keep her marriage together.

They both made the best out of an awful situation neither had any say over.

[Sansa_Stark]

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

hypocrisy much?