The Cat-Jon-Ned Debacle (long)

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Actually, it's quite obvious that the northerners would choose a nobody that no one has ever heard of and is not even from the north over Ned Stark's son who was going to be legitimized by Robb and named heir by the KitN.

Help me out — sarcasm, right?

I actually just reread that chapter and Catelyn's the one and the only one to even mention the Vale cousin, and she had to think it over for a few seconds. Seeing as Catelyn learns of everything last, it's pretty logical that Robb had already discussed the succession issue with his closest advisers and that they supported his decision or at least didn't argue well enough for him to back off of Jon. And one of those advisers would've almost certainly been the Blackfish. If Catelyn's own uncle is OK with Robb choosing to legitimize Jon and name him the heir, it's absurd to think the other riverlords wouldn't be. While the riverlords wouldn't mind a southerner, it was Robb's northern forces that initially helped relieve the Riverlands from the Lannisters; as such I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the northern interests prevail here even if there's a split in opinion, which nothing even suggests there is.

[James March x2]

Well, this is quite the fallacy then.

No, this is a subjective opinion, namely it is your opinion on the matter.

You believe that what is left unspoken it is likely in a way, I believe it is likely that it is in another.

I can't get why my opinion should value less than yours, or even be fallacy just because you say so.

You've cleared out your position pretty well in the OP, I have given you my own opinion - like many others - and the only thing you do is criticizing whoever has a different opinion for those unspoken matters.. It isn't like everything can be objectively agreed upon, when so few elements are there. So why do you keep repeating yourself on the same points? At least say it clearly that what I believe as a possibility and likely event is totally unwelcome in this thread and that you want people only to agree with your own hopes on Catelyn.

[jenerationx]

Because she has been snapping at anyone that bothers her when she was with Bran as seen in her interaction with Luwin. Thus, Robb isn't dense enough to not know that she might snap at Jon.

Ah, this is a fair point. Taken on its own that interpretation is certainly possible. My read of it is colored by the other undercurrents that were in the scene between Jon and Catelyn, and in hindsight, from reading later that Robb is able to see through her when she's trying to convince him not to legitimize Jon and make him his heir.

This is another reason why I don't actually think these two ever had verbal contact. It's never mentioned by anyone that she referred to him directly as something other than Jon. I'm not really sure that not calling him by name-- when there isn't verbal interaction in the first place-- is problematic.

Yes... I guess I just don't know to what extent I would have expected them to interact. I guess I assume that there would have been certain situations that would have required them to interact at least somewhat civilly. Part of the problem is that we don't really get to see the inhabitants of Winterfell go about their daily lives when kings aren't visiting and intrigue isn't underfoot. Since it appears Jon was for the most part not hampered from being a member of the family in that he is able to grow and maintain relationships with his trueborn siblings, I assume that Jon was able to eat meals with the family and spend time with them in other ways. I would think that there would be at least one or two occasions when it would have been natural to address him in a way that wouldn't make things super awkward, to draw attention to her lack of acceptance of him. I get the idea that she ignored him for the most part and basically didn't see him as a member of her family, but to ignore someone to the level of never once having addressed him by name is pretty pointed. But as I don't have any basis for this other than personal feeling, I'll let it go.

While I agree that Cat's fear of Jon's potential usurpation of her own kids' rights is not entirely logical, I do think that Cat's concern here is overwhelmingly pragmatic and sound wrt the contest of heirs.

I think I'd agree more wholeheartedly here were the "what ifs" not so drawn out. As Robert/Stannis/Renly shows, it's also possible for Robb's own trueborn brothers' heirs to fight his heirs for the throne. In fact, it's a much more timely and obvious parallel than the one she makes to Aegon IV. But it's not one of the points she brings up, because it does not support her argument's goal, which is imho primarily to keep Jon from being the heir to the North. But I can definitely agree to disagree here, because it would seem that our interpretations of Catelyn's motives in her advice to Robb on this point are vastly different.

Yea, I think this is Cat's first moral transgression-- she definitely transfers her negative feelings from Ned toward Jon.

One final point on this is that I admit that I feel the impetus to be the bigger person is on Catelyn. And the reason for that is simple -- she is the adult. Jon was/is a child. She has power over him, as an adult and as the Lady of Winterfell, that she could (and imho should) have exercised with more magnanimity. No matter what, he cannot hurt her as much as she can hurt him, not when he was a child anyway, and as the adult I do feel that she bears more responsibility.

[SkaggCannibal]

Help me out — sarcasm, right?

I actually just reread that chapter and Catelyn's the one and the only one to even mention the Vale cousin, and she had to think it over for a few seconds. Seeing as Catelyn learns of everything last, it's pretty logical that Robb had already discussed the succession issue with his closest advisers and that they supported his decision or at least didn't argue well enough for him to back off of Jon. And one of those advisers would've almost certainly been the Blackfish. If Catelyn's own uncle is OK with Robb choosing to legitimize Jon and name him the heir, it's absurd to think the other riverlords wouldn't be. While the riverlords wouldn't mind a southerner, it was Robb's northern forces that initially helped relieve the Riverlands from the Lannisters; as such I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the northern interests prevail here even if there's a split in opinion, which nothing even suggests there is.

The Blackfish would not approve, considering his conversation with Jaime. But he didn't go with them to the Twins so probably they never talked about it. Now if any child from Cat appears again, like Rickon, the Blackfish will never support Jon, no matter what the will says. Giving Jon Winterfell would be an insult to Cat and the Tully's, and the Lannisters aren't the only ones with harsch family values. Every house cares about its honour.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The Blackfish would not approve, considering his conversation with Jaime. But he didn't go with them to the Twins so probably they never talked about it. Now if any child from Cat appears again, like Rickon, the Blackfish will never support Jon, no matter what the will says. Giving Jon Winterfell would be an insult to Cat and the Tully's, and the Lannisters aren't the only ones with harsch family values. Every house cares about its honour.

1. As to the bolded part, there are plenty of people who think the Blackfish was talking strictly for Jaime's benefit, to throw him off Jon's scent. And here I thought you said you'd actually read the GNC ...

2. Do you really think Robb spoke to no one about his choice before it was made? The Blackfish might not have been there when it was formalized, but I'd be shocked if he weren't aware of the decision. I'm betting Catelyn was one of the last higher-ups to know, if not the last, and that Robb had already had everything planned out, including sending men to the Wall, before he even broached the subject with her.

I need to stop talking about the will because it's off-topic, but I still think the idea that the Vale whoever-the-fuck was preferable to Robb's own brother is absurd.

[ejhawman]

:thumbsup: Awesome analysis.

I'm sure some people will see this as a shining example of overthinking things and splitting hairs. But it holds up as a model of mature discussion.

[butterbumps!]

No, this is a subjective opinion, namely it is your opinion on the matter.

You believe that what is left unspoken it is likely in a way, I believe it is likely that it is in another.

I can't get why my opinion should value less than yours, or even be fallacy just because you say so.

You've cleared out your position pretty well in the OP, I have given you my own opinion - like many others - and the only thing you do is criticizing whoever has a different opinion for those unspoken matters.. It isn't like everything can be objectively agreed upon, when so few elements are there. So why do you keep repeating yourself and the same points?

Respectfully, there is a much stronger argument to read the omission of further examples of Cat's abuse as a sign that no other direct abuse occurred by looking at the contexts in which these abuses are mentioned.

The fact that we see Cat's abuses explained through Jon's POV, at a point when he's very angry with the way her abuses have made him feel, speaks volumes here. The fact that further abuses are not enumerated in this context-- which is when Jon has every reason to do so-- strongly indicates that there is no other vague abuses Cat has performed.

I understand that you are not trying to lambaste Cat's character here, and I don't mean to come across as disagreeable. However, the notion of further abuse doesn't stand up to scrutiny for both lack of evidence and logically deductive reasonings. Going by what we actually see and are told, the argument for further abuses is at best speculation.

[a free shadow]

This is another reason why I don't actually think these two ever had verbal contact.

I ran this through a situational strainer and it does not hold water :P Even if thinking that Jon was previously was gestured into his place not to approach or address Catelyn under any circumstances, he was always around her kids. And Catelyn was around her kids. Even at dinners there had to be times when Robb or Arya or Bran would burst into stories of the day involving Jon. So how did Catelyn make it out, without addressing Jon in some small way through 14 years?

I definitely think that not speaking to him at all would be entirely much worse than just not using the name, so here I am arguing in her favour. But it worries me that such an answer was even though of for this situation. It seems a quick brush-off and lacks the intendd quality of the discussion :P

Good night! :D

[TalalOfDorne]

Thanks for posting this butterbumps. I cant controbute to this thread at the moment, but I will say some quick thoughts.

The whole debacle unfortunately is too hard to resolve. Assuming R+L=J, Ned is put in a situation where he cant make a decision on this matter without hurting the two victims (Cat and Jon) in a way. I kinda disagree about fostering Jon not being a good option, though I definitely see where Ned is coming from. I do however also find it strange that Ned didnt get another person to be the maternal figure to Jon since Im not sure how that would be/make things difficult.

Its no denying thst the way Catelyn behaved wasnt nice at all. I do however think that she was trying to look out for her kids interests and well-being even though there was a hint of irrationality (Though understandable) in her approach to the matter. I think thats a flaw in Cat, which brings me to my next (And admittedly slightly out of topic) point: Cat is as flawed as a human being, so what?

I know the op didnt think the use of comparisons ( Like Cersei and Boberts bastards) would be correct. I do however think there is some level of unnecessary vitriol against Catelyn in this particular debacle (Which does influence some peoples take on her in other situations) considering that some characters have done much worse and get a free pass.

Im trying to say that I find it hard to hate a character for something that makes them human. Which is why I dont like it when I see someone loving a character despite acknowledging their flaws then hate another character because of their flaws.

[Sansa_Stark]

With Arya, Rickon and Bran presumed dead and Sansa disinherited, the Vale cousin is Robb's legal heir, with nothing major against him except that he wasn't raised in the North. But compared to Jon's issues, that's pretty minor. To think that Robb's bannermen would prefer a bastard oathbreaker (who, as far as they know, haven't distinguished himself in any way so far and they didn't really know) over him is illogical. Half of the realm's population and lords are Riverlanders for whom the heir being raised in the South would be advantage, not a flaw.

Also Robb was expected to have a child soon. If this had happened, the Vale cousin would've been even more clearly the better choice since Robb wouldn't have set a bad precedent for a king releasing his brother from the NW oath when convenient and wouldn't have insulted House Tully by legitimizing Jon unnecessarily.

But this is kind of tangential to the point of this thread, so I'll drop this discussion for nor.

Trying too hard.

Being raised in the north is everything for the northman.

Take 1:

"He spat. “ Renly Baratheon is nothing to me, nor Stannis neither. Why should they rule over me and mine, from some flowery seat in Highgarden or Dorne? What do they know of the Wall or the wolfswood or the barrows of the First Men? Even their gods are wrong."

As a cousin raised in the Vale, most likely said person does not believe in the old gods and even if he did, he knows nothing of real north culture.

It means everything.

And lets look at Robb's reasoning.

“Jon’s more a Stark than some lordlings from the Vale who have never so much as set eyes on Winterfell.”

Sounds similar to what the Greatjon does it not?

Because said lordlings have never seen Winterfell, or maybe have never been to the North, Robb automatically thinks Jon is a more worthy candidate.

Being a real Northman(which culturally Jon is) is a lot more important than just the Stark name.

I doubt the Northerners would accept a Faith knight Stark over a bastard but traditional Old God Stark.

Stark blood or no. Vale lordling cousin is not a Stark and did not grow up with Stark/Northerner values/customs.

[butterbumps!]

I ran this through a situational strainer and it does not hold water :P Even if thinking that Jon was previously was gestured into his place not to approach or address Catelyn under any circumstances, he was always around her kids. And Catelyn was around her kids. Even at dinners there had to be times when Robb or Arya or Bran would burst into stories of the day involving Jon. So how did Catelyn make it out, without addressing Jon in some small way through 14 years?

I definitely think that not speaking to him at all would be entirely much worse than just not using the name, so here I am arguing in her favour. But it worries me that such an answer was even though of for this situation. It seems a quick brush-off and lacks the intendd quality of the discussion :P

Good night! :D

Oh, I don't mean to summarily dismiss this as a concern. I honestly don't think there would be much need for these two to verbally interact on a day to day basis since they occupied their days with basically non-intersectiing activities, as well as the fact that they would be amongst a huge group during the times they were in the same room (which diffuses the pressure/ social imperative to talk to each other).

If we were to learn that Cat refused to utter a single word to Jon in contexts that would demand acknowledgement in order to remain decent, then yes, this would be a problem and probably a form of abuse (or at least extremely rude). We don't hear of these sorts of cases though. We do learn that she never spoke his name directly; this is something I find unproblematic, honestly. I really don't believe that they had any significant verbal interaction (I should have specified with "significant" earlier). Without significant verbal interaction, the lack of Cat's using Jon's name directly doesn't stand out to me as abusive, terribly rude, or socially unfair (I thought about this, and to be honest, I rarely address people I speak with often by name-- the need to doesn't really come up that often). Address by name is typically used in conversation as an attention-grabbing mechanism (like it was when Cat used in before "it should have been you"). I think this lets us know that Cat simply did not initiate contact with Jon.

I appreciate your points, but I'm a bit confused by the emoticons and the like.

[A Crow Come Over]

<snip>

TL;DR:

A. Cat was objectively wrong to tranfer her feelings from Ned to Jon. This is a failing on Cat’s part, but arguably forgivable in context.

B. Cat was objectively wrong to give Jon icy stares. This is a failing on Cat’s part, but arguably forgivable in context.

C. Icy stares are the extent of “abuse” Cat actually committed

D. Ned enforced the social distinctions surrounding bastardy, yet both Jon and the reader tend to place blame for this exclusively on Cat. Reinforcement of the legal distinctions is not in and itself a form of abuse.

E. Given the structure of the Winterfell household, Ned’s assumption of full parental duties, and the lack of other modern analogues like divorce, Cat does not fill the role of “stepmother,” and as such, there is no imperative to treat Jon as a son.

F. “It should have been you” is not representative of the Jon-Cat dynamic; while objectively wrong, it is arguably sympathetic in the grief context.

Excellent read, my only "problem" with Cat is the same thing that GRRM does with all his characters, takes their best characteristic and turns it into their worst as well.

When it pertains to her family/household, she is hard to hate but anyone that she perceives as not part of her family tend to get the shit end of the stick.

If Ned would've let her take some sort of parental role in his life and accept Jon into her perceived family/household, she would not have any of the hatred or trust issues we see now. All Ned had to do was lie but he couldn't due to his honor another example of someones greatest virtue being turned against them.

[IRON BANK]

Cat should have let go of her resentment and been able to respect Jon and forgive her husband considering she never challenged Ned on the isuue. Ned should have eventually told his wife the secret he was keeping. Keeping Secrets from your wife and family is never productive.

[E-Ro]

&#8232;That is misinformation right there, in the first paragraph &#8232;

&#8232;I read the OP! Despite the frightfully misleading first paragraph still.&#8232;

If you feel that bumps did such an erroneous job with this one, why don't you actually address it point by point (which you did not attempt to in her thread) instead of smugly telling her she failed with "zomg, I'm getting away with being condescending but it's ok because I'm using emotes!

Catnapping

there's the thread, linked above.

[Minsc]

Cat should have let go of her resentment and been able to respect Jon and forgive her husband considering she never challenged Ned on the isuue. Ned should have eventually told his wife the secret he was keeping. Keeping Secrets from your wife and family is never productive.

She did challenge Ned on the issue only for him to frighten her into silence.

[MaggiM]

Thanks butterbumps! As a long time hater of all things Catelyn I mostly lurk on these threads because they so quickly devolve beyond logic or reasoning. I really appreciate your fair analyses and must say I agree with you on almost all points, although I do think not using someone's name in 14 years is a lot more extreme than you seem to. I have always just had a visceral dislike of her character and that likely has more to do with my personality than anything else as I am not one to jump to blaming her for the downfall of mankind. I do think laying out your points in such a mature non-biased manner is really a helpful way to get across opinions and keep to cannon. The discussion around the OP has been interesting, enlightening and thought provoking, and it does (as subsequent readings have) help me to understand her character in a different light even if I still am solidly anti Catelyn. Great post!

[StannisBamfatheon]

I like this OP alot because while it shows why a lot of the more vehement criticism against Cat for this is unfair, it doesn't completely absolve Cat, and does acknoweldge this as a tragic flaw. White-washing gets us nowhere, but bumps is pretty analytical and fair.

[IRON BANK]

She did challenge Ned on the issue only for him to frighten her into silence.

She challenged Ned once, Not often enough to truly get to the heart of the matter. So at that point you have made your mind up to follow your husbands decision. Cat should let go of the resentment.

[Minsc]

She challenged Ned once, Not often enough to truly get to the heart of the matter. So at that point you have made your mind up to follow your husbands decision. Cat should let go of the resentment.

Why should that mean she should let go of her resentment? She only accepted Ned's decision is because she doesn't have the power to challenge him and she doesn't want to anger him and risk her and her children's well-being.

[butterbumps!]

Thanks butterbumps! As a long time hater of all things Catelyn I mostly lurk on these threads because they so quickly devolve beyond logic or reasoning. I really appreciate your fair analyses and must say I agree with you on almost all points, although I do think not using someone's name in 14 years is a lot more extreme than you seem to. I have always just had a visceral dislike of her character and that likely has more to do with my personality than anything else as I am not one to jump to blaming her for the downfall of mankind. I do think laying out your points in such a mature non-biased manner is really a helpful way to get across opinions and keep to cannon. The discussion around the OP has been interesting, enlightening and thought provoking, and it does (as subsequent readings have) help me to understand her character in a different light even if I still am solidly anti Catelyn. Great post!

Thanks! I actually really appreciate this from someone who doesn't like Cat. If it means anything, I don't think there's anything wrong with disliking Cat. I think the way we're introduced to the characters, how jarringly inconsequential Cat's chapters sometimes seem in relation to the other action or wittier characters, and the fact that she's set up as Jon's main antagonist do not lend themselves to easy sympathy. So I do get how Cat comes across negatively, especially in relation to the other characters at the outset, and I mean, we all have different tastes.

For what it's worth, I'm not going to push too hard about the issue of saying Jon's name either way. I mean, I think it's too far to call it "abuse," though I can see it as impolite across a number of contexts. It doesn't seem that outstanding to me I guess, but I understand on something like this, that there probably isn't a solid answer.