A different discussion about Catelyn

[chicky]

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?

Let me try to help you out here, since this discussion is going nowhere fast...I admire that Catelyn is a decision-maker and shot caller in her own life and in her kids' lives. She is not the type to sit around and embroider and hope that the menfolk will solve her problems. Whether or not you agree with the actions she took, one thing you can't accuse her of is placid passivity.

[Blueberry Stark]

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

Good point, I just always thought of them as really being in love. It makes the tragedy of their parting much more poignant, so it appeals to the romantic in me. Plus, I think being around Robert and away from WF made all this fresh for him.

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?

Ok, I'll shut up about Jon. Catelyn as a great mother was what first made me appreciate her as a character. The tragedy of her story, especially the crescendo of her WATCHING Robb die while being helpless to stop it, even though she would have done anything to save him, is one of the most moving and interesting arcs in the series.

[Cricket]

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?

Well it's not really a Cat appreciation thread. It says criticism is allowed, but is supposed to be about topics that aren't usually focused on. That said, there's much to be liked about her character.

Doting mother, shrewd adviser, compassionate, very observant. Particularly, I think the way she tried her best to be protective and supportive of her son Robb, while at the same time recognizing the need for him to assert himself as a ruler capable of making his own decisions was a very admirable part of her character.

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.

Agreed. If that's the case.

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.

Perhaps. Though she herself has never seemed that interested in the complete explanation. Maybe she never felt it was her place to make that demand as a wife but, her POV chapters have never shown resentment that Ned was unwilling to explain. Fact is, illegitimate children seem to be a accpeted fact of life in the noble houses of Westeros and having a bastard child doesn't undermine Ned's integrity in the eyes of Catelyn, especially since it occurred early in their marriage when they didn't know each other very well. It seems the fact that Ned insists on Jon being raised alongside his other children as a Stark (not helped by the fact that Jon inherited more Stark traits than any of Ned legitimate children) is what really seems to have bothered Cat.

[Fish Swim]

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?

Absolutely agreed. One of the things I like the most about her is the way she guides Robb at the beginning of the war, but is careful not to do it in a way that makes him lose his confidence (like when he wants to send the Greatjon against the Lannisters) - but also isn't afraid to give him some tough love when he needs it: "You named yourself battle commander. Command." If only he could have listened to her a little more often...

[butterbumps!]

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.

No, I'm not sure I need to go over that again. We're told that she in no way hid the fact that Jon was a bastard to Jon or his siblings. That is pretty much the definition of drawing the line sharply. We're told-- in the text-- that Jon was not forced to sit away from his siblings, and we know, in no uncertain terms, that he was never denied any part of being raised as their siblings. Cat drew the line by being open with her kids about his illegitimacy-- this is referenced by Robb, Bran, Arya and Sansa, who were made aware of the term, and understand that Jon is one, and therefore, not in the line of inheritance. Given that this is what the text shows us-- that is, we see this line being drawn via acknowledgment of bastardy-- we have no reason to assume that there is more than this.

I actually sympathize with your original position that Cat's neutrality/ distance/ whatever to Jon is jarring to us because she shows such control and warmth in nearly every other circumstance. This I agree with, and it tinges her behavior perhaps more malfeasantly than the objective reality of the situation truly is. I'm even the one who said that her inability to rise above herself is her great weakness, though I don't believe she had any moral imperative to be his step mother, so I'm not exactly trying to whitewash or anything.

We were not really that tremendously far in disagreement at first, and I'm not sure what compelled you to try to prove a more sinister Cat relationship here via this SSM, despite the OP's explicit suggestion to avoid that topic. Further, this SSM doesn't prove that Cat's relationship to Jon was anything other than chilly, distant and one of a desire to avoid rather than outright hatred; it's not telling us anything different than what's in the text.

Since DavidSelig explicitly did not want this thread evolving into this sisyphean exercise, I don't plan to continue with this.

[Pikachu101]

I think what I loved the most about Catelyn was the fact that she was so family orientated in a world where children were only seen as means to further their parents goals.

I also loved her practicality and compassion :)

My main critism for both her and Ned has to be Septa Mordane. The woman was clearly favouring Sansa over Arya and wasn't even trying to help the younger sister do better. She made a huge dent in Arya's self esteem yet neither Cat or Ned called Mordane out on it.

[WeirwoodTreeHugger]

The Catelyn chapters can be hard to read because she is so troubled and sad most of the time. Maybe that has something to do with her lack of popularity?

What's great about Cat is that she is one of the few characters who truly isn't selfish. The points the OP makes illustrate that she consistently puts the needs of those around her above her own feelings and desires. She really deserves more credit for that than she gets.

[DavosSeaworthy]

Cat is an interesting character and I understand her actions, why she did them, and why people don't like them. To me she is one of the most real characters in this series.

[Newstar]

The Catelyn chapters can be hard to read because she is so troubled and sad most of the time. Maybe that has something to do with her lack of popularity?

Could be. It would be one thing if she were troubled and sad but was darkly witty about it, but Cat isn't a witty character, and also even when otherwise humorous, clever characters are going through terrible depression, their popularity tends to nosedive.

What's great about Cat is that she is one of the few characters who truly isn't selfish. The points the OP makes illustrate that she consistently puts the needs of those around her above her own feelings and desires. She really deserves more credit for that than she gets.

Yup. She puts the "duty" in "Family, duty, honour." She doesn't really start putting herself first until she's transformed into Lady Stoneheart.

Cat drew the line by being open with her kids about his illegitimacy-- this is referenced by Robb, Bran, Arya and Sansa, who were made aware of the term, and understand that Jon is one, and therefore, not in the line of inheritance. Given that this is what the text shows us-- that is, we see this line being drawn via acknowledgment of bastardy-- we have no reason to assume that there is more than this.

No, GRRM's SSM tells us how she drew the line, and it wasn't through making her children aware of the term, it was through doing things like the seating at the high table. That's the only such specific instance in the text, but GRRM's SSM, in saying that she "always drew the line (...) where issues (...) were at issue," is alluding to similar incidents in his headcanon where she "drew the line sharply" just as she did with the seating. These incidents aren't explicitly in the text, since we don't have a POV of the entirety of Jon's childhood, but Jon stating that Cat "made sure" he never felt like he belonged sounds like a reference to them.

I agree that this is heading into off-topic territory, though, so I'm happy to drop it.

[WeirwoodTreeHugger]

Slightly off-topic, but this article is kind of relevant IMO.

http://jezebel.com/anna-gunns-just-trying-to-understand-why-people-want-t-1193439989

Catelyn isn't the only one with this problem.

[Indigo Cardinal]

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.

This--Ned and Cat didn't really know each other when they first married, he had no idea how trustworthy she might be. And consider that Cat had what could be considered a minor 'blot' on her record: Ned's brother was challenged to a duel for Cat's hand by Littlefinger. While it could easily been written off as unrequited love on LF's part (and in truth, was), it could also raise some questions of, "So what was she doing with him that he felt he had a right to challenge her betrothed?" Ned might have been a bit cautious towards Cat as a result of this, in the beginning.

There's also the following thought from Ned in GoT: "If it came to that, the life of some child I did not know, against Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon, what would I do? Even more so, what would Catelyn do, if it were Jon’s life, against the children of her body? He did not know. He prayed he never would."

This, to me, is telling--it says after fifteen years of marriage, Ned still doesn't feel he knows Cat well enough to judge what she might do to protect her children if Jon were a threat. I personally suspect this is why Ned has kept his mouth shut about Jon's parentage--Jon *may* be a threat.

This is supposing that the R+L=J theory is right--but consider that Westeros went through a bloody civil war to rid themselves of the Targs. The new king, Robert, hates the Targs so much that he'd love nothing more than to kill all of them, over and over again.

Ned brings home a baby in all this and tells his new wife, "This is my daughter's son by Rhaegar, so he's half-Targ."

I think Cat would, understandably, be in an absolute panic over that--Jon's existence, should anybody find out the truth of who he is, puts her family in danger. After all, the new king is known to be more than a bit psychopathic where the Targs are concerned. He finds out Ned's sheltering one, and all hell could break lose and put the Starks in the direct line of fire (because Ned likely wouldn't give Jon up to Robert.) Ned's thinking may be going along two lines here: 1.) "Can I trust this wife I hardly know to keep Jon's parentage secret?" 2.) "Woudln't that just worry her endlessly about what might happen if anybody found out?"

So Ned may have figured silence was the best course, for Cat's sake. She might not *like* having his presumed bastard there, but Ned might think her dislike would be better than her outright panic of sheltering a Targ baby (or, possibly turning Jon in to save her own kids' skins).

So Ned keeps his mouth shut, figuring this is the best course. Which would also explain why Ned might be so relieved that Jon's going to the Wall--even if anybody found out who Jon's parents really were, well, so what? He's at the Wall. He's taken the vows--no wife, no kids, no claims. The Wall already has one Targ who could have been king and nobody in KL seems to have worried themselves about him, so what's another one?

I also suspect this is why Ned didn't want to take Jon to KL--yes, bastards can do well there, but in the North, where Ned's word is law, he can say, "His mother's identity is not up for discussion," and it's dropped. In KL, where everybody spies on everybody else to get *any* little bit of blackmail on each other, somebody might've made it their business to root out who Jon's mother was to hold it over Ned's head. But since Jon doesn't come to KL, nobody thinks twice about him--out of sight, out of mind.

(I also suspect that Ned is a follower of the adage, "Three can keep a secret, if two are dead." That probably plays into it quite a bit. I don't think he would kill somebody for finding out/knowing--Howland Reed, who probably knows, still lives--but he may figure why spread it any further and risk it getting out? If Reed is the only other one who knows, and somebody else finds out, Ned knows who told and who to go after. But if both Reed and Cat know, then Robert suddenly comes screaming for Jon to die, whom does Ned accuse of betraying Jon's identity?)

Even if R+L=J *isn't* true, there could be other reasons Ned had for not telling. For example--if Jon is Ashara's son, Ned might have felt it would be rubbing Cat's nose into it a little too much to say, "This is the son of the woman I *would* have married if I hadn't had to marry you in my brother's place." It may have also created concern on Cat's part that Jon would be legitimized--Ashara's family might have called for it, to remove the stain on *her* honor. Again, by keeping his mouth shut, Ned probably figured he was doing Cat a favor.

None of this means Cat was necessarily a bad person--just that she would have seen the threats to her own family/children if she knew who Jon's mother was.

I think Cat is a well-written character--she has a lot of great qualities, but she also has her flaws (her attitude towards Jon being the main one.) She does come across as shrewd and intelligent, and warm and caring to those she loves. I don't think she has so much 'bad ideas' as it is she seems to be the living embodiment of the saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

[PatrickStormborn]

(I hate to continue this discussion but I just have to say a few things about Cat and Jon.)

From the SSMs and the evidence from the text, Cat's "mistreatment" of Jon basically amounts to reminding him that he is a bastard. It's a sad situation for Jon, but let's not pretend he lived a tragic life full of common abuse. He was allowed to live with the Starks, unlike a lot of bastards in this series; the vast majority of the time he was privileged enough to sit with his trueborn siblings at mealtimes; and he was raised alongside his trueborn siblings, giving him a fantastic education and training at arms. Most importantly, he was loved by all his siblings, and had healthy relationships with all of them (even if he didn't necessarily bond with Sansa as easily as with his other siblings).

He never suffered physical abuse, he never went hungry, he was always sheltered and secure and never had to fear what the next day would bring.

[Newstar]

It's a sad situation for Jon, but let's not pretend he lived a tragic life full of common abuse. He was allowed to live with the Starks, unlike a lot of bastards in this series; the vast majority of the time he was privileged enough to sit with his trueborn siblings at mealtimes; and he was raised alongside his trueborn siblings, giving him a fantastic education and training at arms. Most importantly, he was loved by all his siblings, and had healthy relationships with all of them (even if he didn't necessarily bond with Sansa as easily as with his other siblings).

He never suffered physical abuse, he never went hungry, he was always sheltered and secure and never had to fear what the next day would bring.

Interesting that you don't list verbal or emotional abuse here. I guess because she's not beating him, it doesn't count, right? There are plenty of well-fed, sheltered kids in nice homes with loving siblings and amazing educations whose guardians, step-parents, foster parents, etc. never laid a finger on them who would tell you about the years they spent in therapy because of how they were neglected and mistreated by uncaring, cold, cruel, frosty, passive-aggressive step-parents, foster parents, guardians, etc. So don't tell me that it's not abuse because no one ever hit him, he never missed a meal, he had good relationships with his siblings, and he had a roof over his head. I call BS on that.

Catelyn isn't the only one with this problem.

What problem, that some people take issue with a character because she, whatever her other positive qualities might be, mistreats an innocent child? Yeah, that's totally cray.

[butterbumps!]

Interesting that you don't list verbal or emotional abuse here. I guess because she's not beating him, it doesn't count, right? There are plenty of well-fed, sheltered kids in nice homes with loving siblings and amazing educations whose guardians, step-parents, foster parents, etc. never laid a finger on them who would tell you about the years they spent in therapy because of how they were neglected and mistreated by uncaring, cold, cruel, frosty, passive-aggressive step-parents, foster parents, guardians, etc. So don't tell me that it's not abuse because no one ever hit him, he never missed a meal, he had good relationships with his siblings, and he had a roof over his head. I call BS on that.

Except that Cat is not Jon's stepmother, foster mother, or any other sort of surrogate mother or guardian to Jon. This is why these parallels and appeals to neglect and modern notions of abuse are not fitting. She is not in a societally defined relationship to Jon, and "household" in this sense means something utterly different than any analogue to today. Ergo, her chilliness and avoidance is not akin to neglect or any other sort of emotional duress you are likening it to wrt modern household structures.

[PatrickStormborn]

Interesting that you don't list verbal or emotional abuse here. I guess because she's not beating him, it doesn't count, right? There are plenty of well-fed, sheltered kids in nice homes with loving siblings and amazing educations whose guardians, step-parents, foster parents, etc. never laid a finger on them who would tell you about the years they spent in therapy because of how they were neglected and mistreated by uncaring, cold, cruel, frosty, passive-aggressive step-parents, foster parents, guardians, etc. So don't tell me that it's not abuse because no one ever hit him, he never missed a meal, he had good relationships with his siblings, and he had a roof over his head. I call BS on that.

There's no verbal abuse, excluding That One Time at Bran's bedside (when Catelyn was evidently not herself).

Emotional abuse??? How can Jon have suffered emotional abuse from Catelyn, when they had no relationship? She wasn't a step-parent or a foster parent or a guardian. She was his siblings' mother, and his father's wife. That's it. They had no personal relationship to each other. So tell me how she abused him? By reminding him of his bastard birth? Because honestly I'm failing to see how that's different from, say, Jeyne Poole or Beth Cassel growing up knowing they are the children of servants.

And, most importantly IMO, what are Jon's own thoughts on the issue? Does he need years of therapy?

[Usrnmhsnomning]

There's no verbal abuse, excluding That One Time at Bran's bedside (when Catelyn was evidently not herself).

Emotional abuse??? How can Jon have suffered emotional abuse from Catelyn, when they had no relationship? She wasn't a step-parent or a foster parent or a guardian. She was his siblings' mother, and his father's wife. That's it. They had no personal relationship to each other. So tell me how she abused him? By reminding him of his bastard birth? Because honestly I'm failing to see how that's different from, say, Jeyne Poole or Beth Cassel growing up knowing they are the children of servants.

And, most importantly IMO, what are Jon's own thoughts on the issue? Does he need years of therapy?

I feel you haven't read many posts in this thread which GIVE Jons thoughts on the issue.

[David Selig]

I really should have started a separate "Catelyn and Jon" thread when I made this one.... :bang:

Tomorrow I will try to steer this discussion into less discussed territory, now i have no time.

[Newstar]

Except that Cat is not Jon's stepmother, foster mother, or any other sort of surrogate mother or guardian to Jon. This is why these parallels and appeals to neglect and modern notions of abuse are not fitting.

Hahaha, so we're playing the cultural relativism card now, when all else fails. So I guess Tyrion wouldn't have been raping Sansa if he'd consummated the marriage on their wedding night, what with marital rape being a rather modern concept and all. Good to know.

She is not in a societally defined relationship to Jon, and "household" in this sense means something utterly different than any analogue to today. Ergo, her chilliness and avoidance is not akin to neglect or any other sort of emotional duress you are likening it to wrt modern household structures.

Step-parent is probably the closest you can get. Abuse doesn't stop being abuse because the person committing it is your neighbour/master-at-arms, your uncle, a teacher/Maester, or a family friend/bannerman as opposed to your step-parent (father's wife). It's a difference in degree, not in kind.

There's no verbal abuse, excluding That One Time at Bran's bedside (when Catelyn was evidently not herself).

But she wasn't beating him, so it's all good! It doesn't count, does it?

She wasn't a step-parent. She was (...) his father's wife.

Step-parent = wife of kid's father. Sounds right to me.

Because honestly I'm failing to see how that's different from, say, Jeyne Poole or Beth Cassel growing up knowing they are the children of servants.

Except that Jeyne Poole and Beth Cassel aren't Ned's daughters. This is not a hard distinction to draw.

And, most importantly IMO, what are Jon's own thoughts on the issue? Does he need years of therapy?

Is visible trauma the factor which determines whether something was abuse or not? Sansa doesn't suffer from PTSD flashbacks to Joffrey having the crap beaten out of her and has erotic fantasies about the Hound kissing her when in truth he pressed a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her, so I guess that means it wasn't abuse! Again, good to know!

[PatrickStormborn]

Hahaha, so we're playing the cultural relativism card now, when all else fails. So I guess Tyrion wouldn't have been raping Sansa if he'd consummated the marriage on their wedding night, what with marital rape being a rather modern concept and all. Good to know.

Different situations. Just because marital rape wasn't illegal doesn't mean it didn't exist. Sansa still would not have been consenting; therefore Tyrion would have raped her. It just wouldn't have been illegal.

In contrast, Cat's position towards Jon is entirely dependent on their culture and society. Due to cultural norms, they have no technical relationship to each other; they live in the same place and share relatives, but that's it. She has no duties towards him; she can't, therefore, neglect him.

I won't respond to the rest of your post because it's just getting repetitive and derailing the thread. And most importantly, if we can't agree on the point I just made, then we'll never agree on the issue of "mistreatment". As far as I'm concerned, there was no relationship between Jon and Catelyn. They were two people who happened to share relatives. That's it. She can't "mistreat" him because there is not a correct/standard way for her to treat him. She reminded him he was a bastard, but apart from a few occasions it didn't have an impact on his life.

I can only conclude with this: Jon was not, in any way whatsoever, Catelyn's responsibility. If there's any long-lasting trauma in his life, the fault lies with his only living parent/guardian: Ned.

[The Don Dadda]

So it's a discussion of Catelyn where criticism is allowed but we're not allowed to discuss any of the major decisions people say she botched. I think some of the treatment she gets from readers is harsh but this discussion is pointless if you are just going to say 'ignore all that stuff, this is the stuff where she acted kindly or generously so we are just going to focus on this'. This makes you as one sided as the people who think the worst of everything that she does. The treatment of Jon is obviously understandable, especially when compared to how other bastards are treated in Westeros, and I definitely agree that people are probably wrong to argue that she is an evil or wicked person, but it seems like this thread just wants to ignore the mistakes that she makes in order to glorify her. It's so weird people recycle the cliche about how grey GRRM's character are on this forum about a million times a day but when it comes to analysing people's favourite character they immediately forget.