The Cat-Jon-Ned Debacle (long)

[SeanF]

Right, because reacting to or getting affected by emotional abuse is being too 'sensitive'. It does seem like you are a young girl who knows little of the ways of the world.

Well, it's not that big a deal. Jon just has to pull himself together and man up.

[James Arryn]

And Rhaegar...?

Was apparently more moody than a person presaging a zombie apocalypse in the near future ought to be? A real man would just roll with that shit?

[butterbumps!]

bB-

My point was not that you were being anal. I get the point you're after.

oh, lol, no, I'm being anal about it-- I was kind of laughing at myself about it.

My point was about applicable probabilities, behaviourally, absent actual evidence. IMO three things are suggestive:

1) That this was the only example shown.

2) That the character involved has already crossed a line which moves the benefit of the doubt somewhat.

3) That Jon in no way reacts as though this was exceptional, but in fact contextualizes it within his own personal progress, as a known entity.

None of these prove anything. And I think it likely Cat's words here were the most overtly hostile she had spoken go Jon. But I think they are likely preceded by lesser degrees of verbal hostility that fall short ofvabuse when viewed in isolation.

This-- the bolded in particular-- I agree with and it's a great point with a lot of subtlety there. I do believe that Cat's presence and behavior-- taking into account both non-abusive specifics as well as the abusive stares-- in its entirety had an emotional impact on Jon. I think this is where the ground gets all muddy; it's wrong to say that Cat's behavior did not have an affect on Jon holistically, but I think it's also wrong to see Cat as an aggressor merely because she caused these affects to occur outside of the stares. I guess it raises the question of whether non-nefarious acts that affect a child can be rolled into a case for abuse merely because they had an affect. I'd tend to say not.

As to the other exceptions, I disagree. For example, Jaime chucking Bran was exactly what I would expect him to do at the time now that I know who that character is/was. This is different from character development, wherein a character's expected behaviour changes over time, due to experience. And with regards to GRRM playing with our sympathies, IMO his genius there is in doing do without false leads. In retrospect, Tyrion doesn't act differently in the first book. Our assumptions and associations built contextual constructs, but GRRM used the same bricks and mortar. We fooled ourselves, albeit by design.

In any event, I still believe it unlikely Cat is the only exception.

Well, I guess I sort of see the defenestration and "it should have been you" more similarly. The events themselves are aberrations, but in much the way you suggest Jaime would kid-chuck in the future, we also see Cat lost to grief with Jinglebell later and lashing at a non-responsible party. I just mean that while Cat doesn't ordinarily behave this way, and 98% of the time she's pretty collected and rational, when pushed into a situation like this involving her children, maybe this episode isn't so remarkably "out of character" as a manifestation of grief like this.

Agreed completely on Tyrion, btw-- I think the initial sympathy is largely in the craft, and those darker aspects are there at the outset.

[The Wolves]

Well, it's not that big a deal. Jon just has to pull himself together and man up.

Which he does

[MaggiM]

Oh, yea, I'd originally thought to do a tri-part series on this, with a forth about a discussion of the way the books are crafted that sets up early favoritism and antagonists that tend to shadow subsequent character perception.

After reading the rest of this thread I think the forth discussion would be extremely interesting. If people had more of a handle on their own biases, and what causes them, the forums would be a much less hostile environment (even with my few posts I've spent quite a lot of time lurking here for the past three years).

Saying that, I also think the supposition of early favouritism/villainy has been disproved by GRRM in many circumstances. ie: I'm now unsure if Jaime love, outweighs Dany hate around here. Not that any view is universal, but Martin has done a pretty good job creating his cast of "grey" characters. It's generally only Cat, Ned and Sansa I see people retaining their original gut reactions to and I think it would be a fascinating in depth analysis to look at why that is.

[SeanF]

Saying that, I also think the supposition of early favouritism/villainy has been disproved by GRRM in many circumstances. ie: I'm now unsure if Jaime love, outweighs Dany hate around here. Not that any view is universal, but Martin has done a pretty good job creating his cast of "grey" characters. It's generally only Cat, Ned and Sansa I see people retaining their original gut reactions to and I think it would be a fascinating in depth analysis to look at why that is.

My initial reaction to Catelyn was pretty hostile, due to "it should have been you", her arrest of Tyrion (who we know to be innocent), and the release of Jaime. I'm now a lot more sympathetic, due to re-reads and discussions on this website.

But, to an extent, my first impression has stuck. I could never imagine myself actually enjoying Catelyn's company, if i lived at Winterfell. While I might not get cold stares at a dinner she hosted, I doubt if there'd be anything other than formal politeness.

[Skeksi]

I think this is an excellent post (OP), and sums up a lot of my own thoughts on the situation. Particularly about the part with Ned also being responsible for enforcing the societal rules upon Jon. Ned agrees that Jon should not sit with his siblings when the royal family are visiting, nor practice at swords with Joffrey and Tommen, from what I recall (it might even have been partly Ned's idea- given Jon's probably identity, I imagine Ned wanted to keep him out of Robert's eye). Ned lets Jon go to the Night's Watch, rather than taking him to court, or attempting to set up some sort of fostering/ apprenticeship/ what have you for him, that didn't involve him working alongside murderers and rapists and never having a family of his own. Ned is a lot warmer towards Jon than Cat is, and so it is much easier for Jon to blame all the negative treatment on Cat, rather than admit to himself that his father is complicit in at least some of it.

A lot of this is based on guesswork- all we know for sure is that GRRM has confirmed that she was neither physically nor verbally abusive to him beyond the time with Bran, but she did deliberately distance herself from Jon, and that her looks towards him were generally cold and unwelcoming. But overall, I would conclude that: It is a flaw in Cat's character- and one that I believe she acknowledges- that she transfers the anger for her situation over to Jon, rather than Ned. It is unfair to treat Jon coldly specifically because of this. Her words to Jon when he came to see Bran were foul, but an anomaly. It is not a character flaw for her not to act as a mother to Jon, nor to love him, for reasons that have been specified countless times. It is not a character flaw to make her own children aware of Jon's status, and that he would not inherit, as they would doubtless have asked about it- it WOULD have been had she tried to force them to stop spending time with Jon, but we have no evidence that she does this. Her cold behaviour undoubtedly impacted upon Jon, who felt unwelcome in her presence. The implications of being a bastard in Westeros, I would argue, impacted upon him more, and these were enforced by Ned as well as Cat, not to mention Westerosi society as a whole.

I'm not trying to paint Cat's cold stares and unwelcoming attitude towards Jon as a good thing. They are character flaws, and unpleasant behaviour, albeit heavily influenced by the society in which she lived. I understand why she acts that way- she is forced into a situation that she is unhappy with, the blame for which lies with Ned, not Cat, again, albeit for understandable reasons. I don't believe that she is on the level of Tywin, who is consistently emotionally and verbally abusive to the point of having Tyrion's wife raped in front of him, or Randall who physically and verbally abused him son, and threatened him with death. I believe there is a valid comparison that could be made with Ned's relationship with Theon (Theon was his ward, an innocent in the midst of a bad situation, taken from his own family, and yet, I recall a passage where he says that only Robb ever made him feel welcome at Winterfell), yet this is barely talked about. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. Robert is cold and distant towards Cersei's children, with apparent occasional violence, and that is to children he believed himself the father of, and whilst I've seen him acknowledged as a bad father several times, it rarely seems to raise the same vitriol that Cat does. Sometimes it feels like Cat gets a lot of criticism for being a woman and a mother who isn't motherly to Jon, compared to fathers/ stepfathers/ father figures who are cold and emotionally distant, though perhaps it is simply that Jon is a popular POV character, where Theon is a much darker character, and Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella are not POVs.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

I think that the only viable way for all of them to live in the same place in harmony would be if Cat had somehow found it in her to love him - otherwise, her feelings being what they were, the child would have sensed it I believe, even if she had tried her best to conceal them.

The situation was a loss-loss for both of them (or should I include Ned too? he did make the decisions, but maybe he chose the least bad option, I can't really say what would be the best from his part, there are too many pros and cons and what-ifs in all alternatives).

Cat is my favorite character, and I love her because of, not despite, her flaws. I wouldn't care much for an embodiment of the Mother Above. Her feelings in regards to Jon are very human and understandable, but she's wrong and she knows it, and feels guilty for it. Yet, she can not transcend her emotions and she lets them rule over her, the otherwise rational, understanding and self-controled lady. The result of this (understandable and sympathetic - to me) failing, however, is seriously affecting Jon who happens to be just an innocent child. I suppose that, were it me in Jon's place, I could never forgive her. But I am not. As an outside observer, I can feel for both characters (and for Ned, too) and I think that this situation has all the attributes of a "small tragedy", where people are hurt, but there is no one to play the role of the "villain" - to single out and put the blame.

As for Jon, his resentment of his bastard status and his life as the bastard in Winterfell is more complex and has more sources than Cat's treatment I believe, and I think that the "worse" thing that Cat did to him (consciously or not) is to never let him forget that he is one, but this is another discussion.

[MavsWorld]

Yes, I agree with you on the fact that telling someone that they should die is neither morally good, nor exactly rational in this circumstance.

The reason I find it "forgivable" (which I don't mean to impose on everyone), is because the raw grief Cat felt over Bran destroyed her. She wasn't being rational here, as she believed she was going to lose her kid and was overcome with justified emotion. Contrary to what I sense is the common belief, that Cat descended into this grief-trance is pretty abnormal. That is, she normally doesn't act poorly due to emotion, and the only other time we see this is when she kills Jinglebell during the RW.

Once again, a brilliantly written and I think very unbiased opening post. There are a few things I wanted to add, as well as get your further opinion on this post.

I'll start with the quote: when people are emotional it becomes increasingly difficult to use the executive functions of the pre-frontal cortex. This leads to irrational thought, but this irrational thought does not come from loss of logic, but the inability to suppress certain thought patterns, which can be seen in a variety of experiments (Diamond a not b review paper is probably best explanation and tubes/later experiments (Hood, 1998 onwards)). Therefore this loss of executive function I think illustrates many years negative thoughts towards Jon.

My other points were regarding her actions towards John during childhood, I agree with pretty much everything you said about the Cat and Ned relationship. I may be misinterpreting your view, so if so I am sorry and please correct me. So firstly I think it was completely unacceptable if Cat made her children aware of John's legal position at such a young age. Children have less control over their executive function and less knowledge of the social world. At a young age the children will not fully understand the concept of bastard and Jon's legal situation. I believe what Cat is doing is making setting the children up to see Jon as a potential intruder into their family. Further, she is creating situations where they have vicious means to attack Jon verbally as a proxy for Cat. I think that until they are of an age to understand fully, they do not need to be told of John's legal status. I may be incorrect as to the age at which Cat told the children and I do accept that they would need to know something, as people around the castle will talk. However, the impression I get is that Cat does not do it in a sensitive manner.

My other point is about Cat being distant and giving looks like she wants him to fail. Firstly, to me it feels that she is taking out problems she has with Eddard on Jon. I can understand why she does this, but Jon is a child, he did not decide to do any of these things, so it is unfair to take out these feelings on Jon. Further, Cat is an adult and therefore should have the executive function to control these emotions around John. If she let herself have a positive relationship with Jon this could actually be therapeutic for her and allow her to drop her worries. She cannot avoid seeing him, and so long as she maintains this form of relationship, she will be have a negative experience every time she sees him. However, I understand that to draw a distinction between the two is difficult for her and thus interacting is difficult for her. Further I could be wrong as to the consequence of creating a relationship with him. My suggestion comes from CBT and MBCT, as Catelyn appears to be describing negative thought loops that she cannot break. By getting to know John she could prime positive thoughts upon seeing him.

The latter half of my thoughts on this section is the effect that Cat's actions have on Jon with regards to her coldness. Emotional distance is difficult for a child, particularly if they do not fully understand what they are doing wrong. The way Cat acts towards Jon can damage his attachment pattern (withdrawal of affection leads to a avoidant attachment (Bowlby) and self blaming). Jon is a child and cannot understand the social world in all of his complexities. Families for infants are a simple construction, and as the wife of his father, Cat, whether she likes it or not, will be incorporated into Jon's social map as a family figure and thus can do such damage.

I think that we generally agree on this, but possibly not to extent and thought process.

To sum up:

Cat's snapping at John illustrates her thought process towards Jon for many years, which she has allowed to grow highly negative. This was facilitated by her strategy of avoiding Jon, giving him cold glares and wishing for him to be beaten by her children in everything. Further I think that having a positive relationship with Jon would have helped her as a person, as well as him. I think that she tells her children too early about John's situation and that they do not fully comprehend it, which can lead to damage of Jon's self. Finally I think that her actions towards Jon are unfair, as she is taking out her disagreement with Ned on Jon. Jon is a child and cannot understand this, whilst Cat is an adult and should be able to control her emotions.

[Summah]

I think that the only viable way for all of them to live in the same place in harmony would be if Cat had somehow found it in her to love him - otherwise, her feelings being what they were, the child would have sensed it I believe, even if she had tried her best to conceal them.

The situation was a loss-loss for both of them (or should I include Ned too? he did make the decisions, but maybe he chose the least bad option, I can't really say what would be the best from his part, there are too many pros and cons and what-ifs in all alternatives).

As for Jon, his resentment of his bastard status and his life as the bastard in Winterfell is more complex and has more sources than Cat's treatment I believe, and I think that the "worse" thing that Cat did to him (consciously or not) is to never let him forget that he is one, but this is another discussion.

I don't think expecting Cat somehow finding it within her to love Jon is really in keeping with her character, I think bb explained this well in the OP where she argued that Cat was in no way obligated to become to step-mother to Jon. However if Cat could have found in herself to not blame Jon and treat him neutrally rather coldly, I think it would made a lot of difference to Jon, but then he wouldn't be who he is.

In terms of Cat never letting Jon forget he is a bastard, while that may have cruel, it would have been better for Jon to accept it, realize how privileged he still was despite that. I thought Tyrion gave him great advice when he told to accept it and not let Lord Snow japes and like bother him, but rather to be Lord Snow and wear his bastardy as an armor, so that others can't use it to hurt him. I also think part of that never letting him forget was more reminding her children that they were the true born ones and heirs, not Jon. It was cruel yes, but at the same time once they were old enough they did need to understand the situation with Jon. I know she called him bastard in the scene where he wanted to say goodbye to Bran, but I wasn't under the impression that she regularly addressed him as bastard, I doubt Ned would have allowed it. I imagine that when she was forced to interact with him she called him you or boy or something like that. Although there's no proof either way.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

I don't think expecting Cat somehow finding it within her to love Jon is really in keeping with her character, I think bb explained this well in the OP where she argued that Cat was in no way obligated to become to step-mother to Jon. However if Cat could have found in herself to not blame Jon and treat him neutrally rather coldly, I think it would made a lot of difference to Jon, but then he wouldn't be who he is.

I think I got myself misunderstood. I used the word "love" quite freely, quoting Cat's own words, but I should have used a lighter word, as "like" instead... I agree that Cat had no obligation at all to become a mother figure to Jon and I think it would take a saint to do so. But Jon is objectively a member of her wider family, whether she likes it or not. He is the brother of her children, a part of her household, someone who she has to see every single day. There can't be "neutral" in a relationship like this. It's positive or negative. Something like in-laws, you do not choose them and you might not even like them at all, but they come with the "package" and if you have to live with them, as it was usual in the past, it makes the daily co-existence a small hell for everyone if the feelings are negative (on a side note, just imagine what poor lady Alerie has to put up with, having Olenna as her mother-in-law... hilariously insufferable, it must be).

So, I don't mean anything like treating him like a child of hers, rather than the possibility to find it in her to feel some sympathy for him, small things like an occasional smile instead of cold stares make a huge difference. I also believe that things like that can not be faked, if you dislike someone -fairly or unfairly-it shows. But as I said, I completely understand Cat's feelings and while it is wrong, I can see why she transfers her negative feelings from Ned to Jon and I can sympathise with her. I believe that all people have their weak points that can make them behave irrationally and out of character.

Compare this situation to Jayne Westerling: Cat feels that this marriage puts their war efforts (and thus her family) in a very perilous position and her feelings are totally negative about this. She is angry, but she can't keep being angry to Robb because she loves him. But she doesn't direct her anger towards Jayne either. She accepts that she's now a member of her family and she tries (and succeeds) to see the positive things in her and to treat her kindly, while still keeping her negative feelings about the marriage. She just can't do the same for Jon, because his mere existence hits a very sensitive "nerve" of hers: feelings of insecurity, jealousy for Ned's love, hurt pride... all these feelings interwined can make an explosive mixture and very few IMO can easily rise above them. It would also require a sincere explanation, one that Ned doesn't offer for his own reasons (justified or not - I can't decide).

In terms of Cat never letting Jon forget he is a bastard, while that may have cruel, it would have been better for Jon to accept it, realize how privileged he still was despite that. I thought Tyrion gave him great advice when he told to accept it and not let Lord Snow japes and like bother him, but rather to be Lord Snow and wear his bastardy as an armor, so that others can't use it to hurt him. I also think part of that never letting him forget was more reminding her children that they were the true born ones and heirs, not Jon. It was cruel yes, but at the same time once they were old enough they did need to understand the situation with Jon. I know she called him bastard in the scene where he wanted to say goodbye to Bran, but I wasn't under the impression that she regularly addressed him as bastard, I doubt Ned would have allowed it. I imagine that when she was forced to interact with him she called him you or boy or something like that. Although there's no proof either way.

On Cat's bahaviour: I believe that direct insulting/hurtful words, like those in the goodbye to Bran scene are an one-off. I doubt she called Jon "bastard" to his face ever before. There is this quote of Arya about Sansa, "Sansa was too well bred to smile at her sister’s disgrace..." and I suppose she held her mother as an examble for a lady's behaviour. Cat possesses a sharp tongue as we learn from her interactions with Renly and Stannis, but she never crosses the line of minimum required politeness (except that specific scene, where she's under extreme emotional conditions). Nevertheless, cold courtesy can be as much, even more, hurtful than offensive vocabulary. For examble, I imagine her correcting her children when they refer to Jon as "my brother", that he is, in fact, "half-brother". This is precise and not in-your-face offensive, but the undertone is what makes all the difference.

On Jon and his siblings understanding the situation: I agree, in general. However, it is a different thing to address the situation as a matter of fact, and totally an other to include in it all the negative connotations of bastardy. Jon can not inherit, but normally neither can Bran, Sansa etc. For the later, it's just a matter of fact, that's the law, they accept it. For Jon it's not the same. It's not that he can't inherit, it's the why that hurts. Because it marks his mere existence as something disgraceful, his only fault being that he was born. When I say that she never let him forget that he is a bastard, I was thinking about the negative connotations, not the fact itself.

[Maxpey]

Yes, I know this passage comes up as proof of further abuse, but I don't think it actually tells us that saying things like this was a common-- if ever-- occurrence.

"Once that would have sent him running. Once that might have even made him cry. . . " (ital. mine)

Your interpretation assumes that these sorts of things were said in the past and that they made him cry. I think the translation of the scene is "Had she said these things in the past, he'd have gone running or cry." They're conditional sentences, meaning, it doesn't tell us that these things happened in the past and that this was his response; it's taking what's occurring now and comparing them to a point in time when Jon's outlook was different. It doesn't tell us that she never spoke to him in a way that made him cry ever, but it's also not telling us that such interactions had happened before either.

To be clear, though, I'm not trying to "mitigate" the extent of Cat's abuse, or claim that her unsaid actions did not affect Jon. I'm just trying to be super precise about what abuses and behaviors can be backed up by the text, because, in my experience, allegations of Cat's treatment of Jon tends to be way more inclusive of other behaviors that we don't actually see, and it tends to get carried away with all sorts of unsupported/ vague/ nefarious suggestions. I think readers take as fact that there "was more," but this can't really be supported based on what we've already read, and the preconception that "more" occurred makes the criticism against Cat for this that much more vitriolic.

I understand your concern about the need to be super precise about what "abuses and behaviors" can be backed up by the text. Clearly, the fact that we don't have any specific examples of Cat saying similar things to Jon when he was younger makes the passage somewhat ambiguous.

However, I believe that the fact that the passage is, at the very least, open to interpretation means that it's not unreasonable for readers such as myself to use it as evidence that Cat said things to Jon in the past that upset him. Now, is it conclusive evidence? Absolutely not.

[Blueberry Stark]

I understand your concern about the need to be super precise about what "abuses and behaviors" can be backed up by the text. Clearly, the fact that we don't have any specific examples of Cat saying similar things to Jon when he was younger makes the passage somewhat ambiguous.

However, I believe that the fact that the passage is, at the very least, open to interpretation means that it's not unreasonable for readers such as myself to use it as evidence that Cat said things to Jon in the past that upset him. Now, is it conclusive evidence? Absolutely not.

If we maintain that the passage is inconclusive and ambiguous, then I don't see how it can be used as evidence either way. In other words, it's merely speculative as to whether or not Cat was similarly verbally abusive to Jon in the past. I agree with butterbumps that IF Cat had been verbally cruel to Jon on a regular basis, then he or she would have probably thought of it at some point during one of their POVs. Of course, the series isn't finished so perhaps we'll get more conclusive evidence later.

[Maxpey]

If we maintain that the passage is inconclusive and ambiguous, then I don't see how it can be used as evidence either way. In other words, it's merely speculative as to whether or not Cat was similarly verbally abusive to Jon in the past. I agree with butterbumps that IF Cat had been verbally cruel to Jon on a regular basis, then he or she would have probably thought of it at some point during one of their POVs. Of course, the series isn't finished so perhaps we'll get more conclusive evidence later.

Well, to be fair, I said the passage was "somewhat ambiguous" only because GRRM did not provide specific examples of Cat saying hurtful things to Jon in the past. I was also acknowledging that it's not unreasonable to interpret the passage the way Butterbumps and you have, precisely because GRRM did not give specific examples of such past conduct. In other words, I cannot definitively say that your interpretation is wrong.

However, I believe that my interpretation of the passage is reasonable. As such, I believe that Cat said things to Jon in the past that hurt him. If you require specific examples of this conduct before you reach such a conclusion, that is certainly your prerogative.

[Summah]

I think I got myself misunderstood. I used the word "love" quite freely, quoting Cat's own words, but I should have used a lighter word, as "like" instead... I agree that Cat had no obligation at all to become a mother figure to Jon and I think it would take a saint to do so. But Jon is objectively a member of her wider family, whether she likes it or not. He is the brother of her children, a part of her household, someone who she has to see every single day. There can't be "neutral" in a relationship like this. It's positive or negative. Something like in-laws, you do not choose them and you might not even like them at all, but they come with the "package" and if you have to live with them, as it was usual in the past, it makes the daily co-existence a small hell for everyone if the feelings are negative (on a side note, just imagine what poor lady Alerie has to put up with, having Olenna as her mother-in-law... hilariously insufferable, it must be).

So, I don't mean anything like treating him like a child of hers, rather than the possibility to find it in her to feel some sympathy for him, small things like an occasional smile instead of cold stares make a huge difference. I also believe that things like that can not be faked, if you dislike someone -fairly or unfairly-it shows. But as I said, I completely understand Cat's feelings and while it is wrong, I can see why she transfers her negative feelings from Ned to Jon and I can sympathise with her. I believe that all people have their weak points that can make them behave irrationally and out of character.

I do think some people could manage neutral, but probably not Cat. So now that I understand what you mean, in terms of warm behavior yes that would have made a world of different to Jon. I think we can agree that we understand why Cat would transfer her negative feelings to Jon, but I also think we can agree that it's wrong transfer those types of feelings to a child.

I would not want Olenna as a MiL, but being a fly on the wall and listening to their dinner conversations would be quite amusing.

Nevertheless, cold courtesy can be as much, even more, hurtful than offensive vocabulary. For examble, I imagine her correcting her children when they refer to Jon as "my brother", that he is, in fact, "half-brother". This is precise and not in-your-face offensive, but the undertone is what makes all the difference.

This I can easily imagine, I always thought she'd probably focus on this, half-brother rather than brother, I think Sansa's thoughts about Jon as her bastard brother in GoT tell us a lot. The others certainly know, but Robb as a teen doesn't seem to need to rub Jon's face in it, as he did once when they were younger, playing at swords and told Jon he can't inherit Winterfell because he's a bastard. Arya must know but seems to think of Jon as her brother, without any half or bastard prefixes. I don't remember what Bran thinks of Jon, and Rickon has never had POV and is probably too young to fully understand such distinctions.

On Jon and his siblings understanding the situation: I agree, in general. However, it is a different thing to address the situation as a matter of fact, and totally an other to include in it all the negative connotations of bastardy. Jon can not inherit, but normally neither can Bran, Sansa etc. For the later, it's just a matter of fact, that's the law, they accept it. For Jon it's not the same. It's not that he can't inherit, it's the why that hurts. Because it marks his mere existence as something disgraceful, his only fault being that he was born. When I say that she never let him forget that he is a bastard, I was thinking about the negative connotations, not the fact itself.

I think the situation is a bit more complex than this. Jon as a bastard is completely out of the line of succession. However child mortality was likely high (it was in the real middle ages, and still is in many poor countries, they had maesters, who seem to know more than their medieval counterparts, but still don't practice modern medicine) and then wars took others. So there's always been a decent chance that Bran or even Rickon would inherit because Robb could die before marrying and having children. Remember how the two Walders who came to Winterfell knew exactly where they were in the line of succession to the Twins and how that affected their relationship. Also Sansa, Arya, Bran and Rickon (assuming Robb lives to inherit) could expect good marriage alliances, Bran and Rickon might become successful knights or even be given land to create a cadet branch of house Stark. Jon would likely have received help, but not land to create a cadet branch, and I doubt a good marriage alliance could have been arranged for him. I think the situation is compounded by how close Jon and Robb are in age, we know that Ned claimed that Jon was a few weeks younger than Robb (probably to ease fears about inheritance if he were for some reason legitimized, and I imagine Robert would have done that if Ned wanted, but Ned wouldn't have wanted his nephew to inherit before his children), but if we look carefully at the timelines, it's quite possible and maybe even likely that Jon is actually slightly older than Robb.

[butterbumps!]

However, I believe that my interpretation of the passage is reasonable. As such, I believe that Cat said things to Jon in the past that hurt him. If you require specific examples of this conduct before you reach such a conclusion, that is certainly your prerogative.

In isolation, your interpretation of the passage is not unreasonable. However, I do think that this interpretation does not hold up when taken with the rest of our information on this matter. It would be one thing if Jon never thinks about his feelings on Cat again. Then the precise behaviors would be deemed correctly ambiguous as per your interpretation of the passage. Yet, the issue of Cat's treatment of Jon does come up subsequently, and the omission of further abuses speaks volumes. Is it possible that in future books a major revelation will occur proving that Cat did engage in further abuse? Sure, it could happen. But based on what we have-- holistically-- the argument that there were further abuses based on the ambiguity of this one passage doesn't hold.

[Maxpey]

In isolation, your interpretation of the passage is not unreasonable. However, I do think that this interpretation does not hold up when taken with the rest of our information on this matter. It would be one thing if Jon never thinks about his feelings on Cat again. Then the precise behaviors would be deemed correctly ambiguous as per your interpretation of the passage. Yet, the issue of Cat's treatment of Jon does come up subsequently, and the omission of further abuses speaks volumes. Is it possible that in future books a major revelation will occur proving that Cat did engage in further abuse? Sure, it could happen. But based on what we have-- holistically-- the argument that there were further abuses based on the ambiguity of this one passage doesn't hold.

I am not basing my argument solely on the "ambiguity" of the statement. We know Cat's feelings towards Jon. We also have the fact that she actually said things that hurt Jon to show that she was certainly capable of doing such a thing (even if they were the result of stress and grief). Finally, Robb could tell from Jon's demeanor that Jon was upset by something that Cat had done when he went to visit Bran. This suggests that Robb knew from previous experience that Jon would get upset by something Cat had done. Are we to believe that Jon would get upset solely because Cat would give him cold stares?

I understand your desire for specific examples whereby Cat said things that hurt Jon before we conclude that she was verbally abusive towards him, but I wonder if in this case you are setting the evidentiary bar a little too high.

[butterbumps!]

I am not basing my argument solely on the "ambiguity" of the statement. We know Cat's feelings towards Jon.

Which is what exactly?

We also have the fact that she actually said things that hurt Jon to show that she was certainly capable of doing such a thing (even if they were the result of stress and grief).

Out of interest, do you also think that she lashed out at Maester Luwin in the past? In Cat's chapter following Jon II, she snaps at Luwin in a similar way; Luwin is also shown to be treading lightly when he comes to see her. Of course she's "capable" of saying such things; the issue is whether such things are said outside of a context of extreme grief. We have no reason to think so, and Jon is by no means the only person who receives this reception by Cat.

Finally, Robb could tell from Jon's demeanor that Jon was upset by something that Cat had done when he went to visit Bran. This suggests that Robb knew from previous experience that Jon would get upset by something Cat had done.

Everyone-- from Jon to Ned to the other kids-- knew that Cat did not want to interact with him. We see that Jon's concern in entering the room was that Cat could order him out. Fear of being prevented from seeing his sibling, which looks like Jon thought was a real possibility given the passage, seems like what Robb was expecting. Everyone knows that Cat is tense about Jon. How is this not sufficient for explaining Robb's reaction? Why isn't this about keeping distance-- which is referenced elsewhere-- instead of the supposition that Cat said these sorts of things to Jon in the past? Further, when Jon tells Robb that Cat was "kind," Robb believes it. If the concern here was about the possibility that Cat would say hateful things to him rather than simply want Jon away, why would Robb be satisfied by Jon's answer? People like to point to Robb's concern as a form of proof, yet the fact that he accept the answer of "kind" tells us that Cat does not have a history of saying nasty things to him, since, if that were the case, Robb would think it was bullshit.

Are we to believe that Jon would get upset solely because Cat would give him cold stares?

Well, yea. He tells us this in Jon XII, aSoS. Stares that sent an uncomfortable message.

[Miodrag]

Out of interest, do you also think that she lashed out at Maester Luwin in the past? In Cat's chapter following Jon II, she snaps at Luwin in a similar way; Luwin is also shown to be treading lightly when he comes to see her. Of course she's "capable" of saying such things; the issue is whether such things are said outside of a context of extreme grief. We have no reason to think so, and Jon is by no means the only person who receives this reception by Cat.

Sorry, but the way she snapped at Luwin is really not similar. "Leave me alone" is not similar to "We don't want you here". The former one is a sign of despair, while the latter is of something that is close to hate. I agree with a lot of points in your essay, and I'd never say Cat is a hateful character, even her occasional aggression is not rooted in hate (opposite to Cersei's aggression, for example), but this thing with Jon does come close very close. And I think holistic approach suggests exactly that: in ASOIAF things usually happen in the context, whether the context is fully revealed to us or not; in this particular case, it would mean that Cat's words to Jon aren't based only on the current circumstances. The circumstances are drastic and they influenced the extension to which Cat succumbed to her negative feelings, but some feelings were undoubtedly there. And Jon was aware of her feelings. Ultimately, it probably doesn't matter did she ever verbalize her feelings, or she made them known to Jon by some other means (icy look, as you say), though I don't think she used only her eyes in delivering the message to Jon, because otherwise, if that instance was the first time she addressed him that way, he'd definitely be more surprised.

Everyone-- from Jon to Ned to the other kids-- knew that Cat did not want to interact with him. We see that Jon's concern in entering the room was that Cat could order him out. Fear of being prevented from seeing his sibling, which looks like Jon thought was a real possibility given the passage, seems like what Robb was expecting. Everyone knows that Cat is tense about Jon. How is this not sufficient for explaining Robb's reaction? Why isn't this about keeping distance-- which is referenced elsewhere-- instead of the supposition that Cat said these sorts of things to Jon in the past? Further, when Jon tells Robb that Cat was "kind," Robb believes it. If the concern here was about the possibility that Cat would say hateful things to him rather than simply want Jon away, why would Robb be satisfied by Jon's answer? People like to point to Robb's concern as a form of proof, yet the fact that he accept the answer of "kind" tells us that Cat does not have a history of saying nasty things to him, since, if that were the case, Robb would think it was bullshit.

And Robb maybe thought it bullshit, but lets it pass, because Jon decided to play it that way. And maybe you're right, as in, maybe he did accept "kind" as the truth. But, we just don't know what Robb thought. What we do know is that he expected some sort of unpleasantness from Cat toward Jon. Just like Jon expected it. Which is why I think it was always more than just looks.

No Cat's action in the past - words or no words - was as drastic as this one, that's for sure. The circumstances were never as drastic as these, with Bran in coma and everything. Hence, her feelings toward Jon were probably never so expressive, and that may be the reason why Jon never thinks of those. But, whenever he thinks of Cat later, he remembers her feelings toward him. Again, I'm not saying those feelings equal hate, because eventually your conclusion seems right: she just wanted him out of Winterfel. But, he knew what she feels toward him, and her last words to him were the confirmation of all that, maybe even the stronger confirmation than she'd ever intended.

And, since some posters are determined to take everything literally, I'm not crucifying Cat. By no means. More than a few times on these forums I expressed my biggest admiration for Martin over creating a character like Cat. Even with Tyrion, the usual suspect, in the mix, I'd say Cat is the most complex character in ASOIAF. Reviewers sometimes single out Tyrion as "Martin's craftiest creation", and there are reasons for that, no doubt, but Cat's tragedy is what gives the tone to the first three books, in my opinion. And even in this case, with Jon, I find her a victim. Just as Ned is. If R+L=J is true, of course. They're all victims of a promise given long time ago. And not even Rhaegar and Lyanna are to be blamed. Nobody's to be blamed, as it appears, because everyone contributed to the tragedy, while nobody done it deliberately. That's why I can't understand Cat-hate. What she done was wrong, plain and simple. But, she was put in a situation from which there was no happy solution. Again, just like Ned was: just imagine the choice he faced for years - to betray his dead sister, or go on lying to his wife. Small wonder he didn't make the 'right' call: any man with a strong word wouldn't, probably. Just like any woman with a self-respect would feel at least unpleasant around Jon, and it has to surface somehow.

And at the end of the day, those were just words. Wrong words and hurtful, but just words. Jon lived, and became an extraordinary person. Whatever Cat did to him, her "I'm sorry" would be enough to make things right between them, most probably. At the end of the day, I follow Ned: he knew Cat's feelings toward Jon were rather dark (hence his famous question to himself, when he confronts Cersei, about would Cat sacrifice Jon for any of her kids), but he was aware of her reasons, and that it was he who put her in that position, and ultimately he was pretty sure she wouldn't hurt Jon, because otherwise he probably wouldn't suggest for Jon to stay at Winterfel after he, Ned, goes to KL. Ned knew the entire situation all the time, he knew his wife, and he knew her attitude toward Jon, and he knew it's wrong, but he didn't hold it against her, and after accepting the position of The Hand he was even ready to put Jon in Cat's arms entirely. Good enough for me.

[Maxpey]

Which is what exactly?

Out of interest, do you also think that she lashed out at Maester Luwin in the past? In Cat's chapter following Jon II, she snaps at Luwin in a similar way; Luwin is also shown to be treading lightly when he comes to see her. Of course she's "capable" of saying such things; the issue is whether such things are said outside of a context of extreme grief. We have no reason to think so, and Jon is by no means the only person who receives this reception by Cat.

Everyone-- from Jon to Ned to the other kids-- knew that Cat did not want to interact with him. We see that Jon's concern in entering the room was that Cat could order him out. Fear of being prevented from seeing his sibling, which looks like Jon thought was a real possibility given the passage, seems like what Robb was expecting. Everyone knows that Cat is tense about Jon. How is this not sufficient for explaining Robb's reaction? Why isn't this about keeping distance-- which is referenced elsewhere-- instead of the supposition that Cat said these sorts of things to Jon in the past? Further, when Jon tells Robb that Cat was "kind," Robb believes it. If the concern here was about the possibility that Cat would say hateful things to him rather than simply want Jon away, why would Robb be satisfied by Jon's answer? People like to point to Robb's concern as a form of proof, yet the fact that he accept the answer of "kind" tells us that Cat does not have a history of saying nasty things to him, since, if that were the case, Robb would think it was bullshit.

Well, yea. He tells us this in Jon XII, aSoS. Stares that sent an uncomfortable message.

It seems that your arguments why my belief is unreasonable boil down to your interpretation of circumstantial evidence. I wouldn't have an issue with it except for the fact that your interpretations appear to be colored by your conviction that Cat never said anything to Jon that hurt his feelings. In other words, because you have decided that Cat never said anything to hurt Jon, you provide an alternate interpretation of any circumstantial evidence that could contradict this assertion. The inference you draw from Robb's reaction when he saw that Jon was upset after seeing Cat is an example. It's as if you are saying because we know Cat never said anything hurtful to Jon, Robb's reaction must have been because he was worried that Cat gave him another one of her cold stares.

Further, I don't understand why Robb's acceptance of Jon's answer is proof that Cat only ever gave Jon cold stares. Given how Cat had treated Jon in the past, wouldn't Robb think Jon's answer that Cat was kind to him was bullshit, regardless of whether it involved a cold stare or a verbal jab?