The Cat-Jon-Ned Debacle (long)

[butterbumps!]

As you might have noted, I read the OP and adressed a few points I disagree with. After finishing it, I had a little true concern that it was written in that form (starting with the statement that Catelyn was already exonerrated for Catnapping and concluding that her actions with Jon were forgivable). As butterbumps is often taken as speaking gospel in the threads ( :P) I had a problem with it, because it seemed intended as some general and final agreement, where opinions turned to facts.

I'll go in and rephrase that part of the OP to make it clear that I wanted to explain I was doing a similar sort of breakdown as before, while making sure at the outset that my goal here was not to exonerate, but explain. Since I'm known for being vocal about defending Cat-- specifically about the Catnap-- I wanted to acknowledge that, but establish at the outset that this wasn't the same sort of argument toward justification of common criticisms.

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.

I agree with the points I clipped, but I'll explain why I thought cultural comparisons would be a weaker argument. When it comes to making determinations about morality, I come down on the side of a modern reading of it, such as reading marital rape and domestic violence as marital rape and domestic violence-- concepts in existence today, though not necessarily called such in ASOIAF. When dealing with questions of morality, I don't use cultural relativism or normalization to excuse immoral behavior, and I wanted to make it clear that I was keeping a consistent rubric with Cat that I would to other characters. To use the "others treat bastards worse" argument, it opens the door for "well, Tarly treated Sam better than Tywin treated Tyrion, so let's excuse the clear abuse Tarly committed," or "rape and torture are just the cost of doing business of war, so it's not really rape and/ or the guys who do that aren't that bad because it's normal."

I do agree that there's unnecessary vitriol toward Cat for this, and in terms of making a point that this vitriol seems better directed toward Cersei for substantially worse treatment is a fair. For what it's worth, though, Cersei has an extraordinary list of enormities to be vitriolic about, and killing bastards doesn't stand out the same way that things like "it should have been you" does with Cat. In terms of mitigating the Cat vitriol, the argument I'd make is one of the way her character is introduced and immediately set against Jon and even Ned (and then Tyrion), which does not present her positively if one immediately sides with these other characters, and this shadow of seeming antagonism tends to hang over her character, sometimes irreparably for some readers. I think a lot of the "Cat is always emotional and rash" criticism stems from "it should have been you," that is, this happens early, against a character crafted to be worthy of admiration and sympathy, and it's easy to see her subsequent actions in this same vein, even when she's completely analytical.

[Ygrain]

Great post, as always, butterbumps!

I especially like the point how both Cat and Jon channel their frustration towards each other instead of Ned.

[Lady Arya's Song]

Cat is one of my favorite characters and I think she had many admirable qualities. It is my sincere hope that Martin has an ending for Lady Stoneheart that will give Cat's character some type of peaceful ending. I just believe there must be a reason that Martin has made an UnCat..something is not yet finished with this character. What could that be? The only thing I can hope for is that there will be some type of restoration between Jon and Cat. Might be wishful thinking but I have it in regard to this character.

I also want to comment on her treatment of Jon. I do sometimes feel like there is a white wash with Cat regarding Jon. What I find more appalling than what she said to him in their final meeting at Bran's beside is the subtle emotional issues that Martin hints at in this scene. For example.

He reached the landing and stood for a long moment, afraid. Ghost nuzzled his hand. He took courage from that. ( What has Martin implied in this sentance?) Many moments where Jon as a child was afraid to enter a room where Cat was? He needs courage to even enter the room where she is and normally would NOT however Bran is perhaps dying and Jon is leaving so his love for Bran is influencing his decision.) This becomes subject for us the readers. I have a very soft heart and I can immediately see a small five year old Jon Snow slowly coming to the realization that the Lady of the manor will never kiss his boo boos or gently ruffle his hair as she might have done to Rob. This must have been a slow drip painful understanding from a toddler to a young child.

Something cold moved in her eyes. " I told you to leave," she said. "We don't want you here." (Once again Martin has used an adjective cold to give us an emotional response. Who is the we don't want you here? Is there someone else beside Cat in the room? Yes Bran! This is a truly hurtful thing to say to Jon...that Bran also doesn't want him there? Once again Martin leaves it up to us with our subjective thinking to supply who the we is and the motive behind it.)

The conversation between Jon and Cat is gut wrenching. She is actually confessing to him about her prayers and that she feels its her fault Bran is lying there broken and he is trying to offer her comfort with words. ( Once again Martin is giving the reader the chance to take sides so to speak regarding these two characters. ) Jon is coming across as a loving brother to Bran and also a good hearted person who is stumbling to give a broken women some words of comfort.)

Her eyes found him. They were full of Poison. " I need none of your absolution, bastard." ( eyes full of poison..hmmm) He was at the door when she called out to him " Jon", she said. He should have kept going, but she had never called him by his name before.

And there is the real kicker. She has only ever called him bastard..has never ever said to his face Jon.

Eyes full of poison. This breaks my mother's heart!

I love Catelyn as a character and I so want her to find peace..but George wrote those words and I did not conjure them up..so what was his point? This is Cat's greatest failing..that she could not even treat this boy with any decency at all. I never expected Cat to be a step-mother to Jon..but there is a system and pattern of subtle in my mind cruelty that Cat's actions directed to Jon his entire life. She never had once said his name to him? How does that work with a four year old, or a six year old?

I am a bit older than George Martin and my children are grown, I am soft-hearted and not pc savy..I am just an older generation woman who reads these lines and the scene conjurs up tons of earlier pain for a young boy.

George Martin wrote it this way for each of us to consider what is emotional and hurtful to a young child.

Cat was an excellent wife, and mother and ambassador for her children, however in my honest opinion she was just horrible to Jon but I blame Ned Stark for this too, however this is what George Martin wanted us to do.

I just can't believe there is not going to be some sort of epic closure for Lady Stoneheart in regard to who Jon really is before she dies..and I oh so hope it is Lady Stoneheart who send that crown to Jon.

[Dicer]

I especially like the point how both Cat and Jon channel their frustration towards each other instead of Ned.

I do think that Jon had some issues with Ned.

From AGoT

Benjen Stark stood up. “More’s the pity.” He put a hand on Jon’s shoulder. “Come back to me after you’ve fathered a few bastards of your own, and we’ll see how you feel.” Jon trembled. “I will never father a bastard,” he said carefully. “Never!” He spat it out like venom.

He also thinks about Ned fathering a bastard when he muses about honor and oaths while spending time with Ygritte and the Wildlings.

I don't think Jon is wrongly channeling his frustrations towards Catelyn instead of Ned. He has genuine reasons to dislike Catelyn for the way she treated him.

[Ygrain]

I do think that Jon had some issues with Ned.

From AGoT

He also thinks about Ned fathering a bastard when he muses about honor and oaths while spending time with Ygritte and the Wildlings.

I don't think Jon is wrongly channeling his frustrations towards Catelyn instead of Ned. He has genuine reasons to dislike Catelyn for the way she treated him.

I meant the frustration over their situation which Ned got them into both - he chose that Jon should be staying at Winterfell instead of being fostered with some vassals.

[butterbumps!]

I also want to comment on her treatment of Jon. I do sometimes feel like there is a white wash with Cat regarding Jon. What I find more appalling than what she said to him in their final meeting at Bran's beside is the subtle emotional issues that Martin hints at in this scene. For example.

He reached the landing and stood for a long moment, afraid. Ghost nuzzled his hand. He took courage from that. ( What has Martin implied in this sentance?) Many moments where Jon as a child was afraid to enter a room where Cat was? He needs courage to even enter the room where she is and normally would NOT however Bran is perhaps dying and Jon is leaving so his love for Bran is influencing his decision.) This becomes subject for us the readers. I have a very soft heart and I can immediately see a small five year old Jon Snow slowly coming to the realization that the Lady of the manor will never kiss his boo boos or gently ruffle his hair as she might have done to Rob. This must have been a slow drip painful understanding from a toddler to a young child.

Something cold moved in her eyes. " I told you to leave," she said. "We don't want you here." (Once again Martin has used an adjective cold to give us an emotional response. Who is the we don't want you here? Is there someone else beside Cat in the room? Yes Bran! This is a truly hurtful thing to say to Jon...that Bran also doesn't want him there? Once again Martin leaves it up to us with our subjective thinking to supply who the we is and the motive behind it.)

The conversation between Jon and Cat is gut wrenching. She is actually confessing to him about her prayers and that she feels its her fault Bran is lying there broken and he is trying to offer her comfort with words. ( Once again Martin is giving the reader the chance to take sides so to speak regarding these two characters. ) Jon is coming across as a loving brother to Bran and also a good hearted person who is stumbling to give a broken women some words of comfort.)

Her eyes found him. They were full of Poison. " I need none of your absolution, bastard." ( eyes full of poison..hmmm) He was at the door when she called out to him " Jon", she said. He should have kept going, but she had never called him by his name before.

And there is the real kicker. She has only ever called him bastard..has never ever said to his face Jon.

Eyes full of poison. This breaks my mother's heart!

I want to say that the points you've highlighted that show the effects of Cat's behavior on Jon are things I do agree with. It is clear that Jon felt uncomfortable going into a space where he would have direct interaction with Cat, undoubtedly due his knowledge of the fact that she didn't want him around. I feel obliged to state that I think it's a stretch to assume that she only ever calls him bastard from this due to the lack of corroborating evidence when this topic is mentioned in the books. I've only ever read this to say that she never addresses him. Which has a potentially problematic set of issues on it's own, to be sure. But yes, the tenseness of this scene does show us certainly that Jon believed Cat was a very real antagonist to him.

I wanted to present a more objective analysis in the OP, but your post touched on some more subjective issues that I kind of want to react to.

For the record, the entire Cat-Jon-Ned situation makes me extremely uncomfortable. I'm uncomfortable by Ned's treatment of Cat here, and find that his actions are a form of duress. I'm uncomfortable by the fact that Cat displaced this rightful duress on Jon. I'm uncomfortable by the idea that someone made Jon feel unwelcome in his own home (which, yes, Cat did most openly it seems, and for emotional reasons, yet setting up Jon as a bastard was the fiction Ned was selling).

This part of your post is probably the crux of what makes me most uncomfortable:

I have a very soft heart and I can immediately see a small five year old Jon Snow slowly coming to the realization that the Lady of the manor will never kiss his boo boos or gently ruffle his hair as she might have done to Rob. This must have been a slow drip painful understanding from a toddler to a young child.

The thought of a kid not being treated equally by everyone in his household is cause for concern. I agree that the strange family dynamic of trueborn versus being only Ned's son is a hard realization for Jon to have come to, and Cat's refusal to nurture him adjacently to his "siblings" was undoubtedly mystifying and crushing.

But competing with this discomfort over the child's situation is my discomfort with the supposition that a woman thusly placed must nurture all kids. I'm not saying that you made this leap, but I think this notion is at the back of sympathizing overwhelmingly with the child in this instance, and I want to address it. As much as I hate the notion of a child's not getting love from those frequently around him, I also dislike the notion that a woman has an imperative to stand in for the role of mother by virtue of the fact that she's a woman and a mother to other kids. To be clear, icy-looks that lead the child to feel uncomfortable are not excusable, and I think this is a failing on Cat's part. And the spaces between "not loving" and "active antagonism" (i.e., the stares), are kind of muddled, as simply "not loving" a child constantly around one could be argued as being "active antagonism."

I agree that we clearly see Jon received no maternal comfort from Cat in the way she gives this to her kids, and that Jon felt it. This is a tragedy from Jon's POV because we want to see children nurtured. The ideal "good" here is that Jon would have been raised equally, which would have included two loving parents the way his siblings had. But I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea that because this lack occurred in Jon's upbringing, that Cat should have assumed this role, or that she is wrong for not assuming it. If the problem is Jon's lack of positive maternal influence, I question why Wylla or another surrogate mother/ nanny figure was not procured and devoted exclusively to Jon as a means of equalizing this. I find placing the imperative on Cat to be the one to "kiss boo boos" to be troubling, because it implies some degree of failing if a women doesn't love a child, which I consider "troubling" in part because I feel the same expectation does not exist for men, and as such, perpetuates the notion that a woman should fill in for the role of "mother" interchangeably by virtue of their being an available woman.

[Lady Arya's Song]

I actually agree with you Butterbumps in regard to to Cat needing to be the one to kiss the boo boos. My real point was that Martin deliberately wrote the story this way. Any other way and we do not get sullen Jon Snow dreaming of going to the Wall to forge a new identity for himself. Also I am struck by the word Martin used in Catelyn's response to Jon's offered comfort.. " I need no absolution from you bastard."

I am stepping back from the emotional responses that Martin's words cause some of us to respond to and just looking at what the character said..I believe a clue was given in that one word absolution. It will be interesting to see how the story arch of Catelyn and her motiff of duty and family resolves itself as Lady Stoneheart in the future books. I still believe Martin has written her story arch with a purpose and that purpose lies in the future with Jon Snow.

Not sure I was clear enough in regard to Cat needing to be the surgate mother to Jon..no no no..another wet nurse or woman for Jon would be in order for sure but Martin did not write it that way for a purpose is my theory.

[The Wolves]

I meant the frustration over their situation which Ned got them into both - he chose that Jon should be staying at Winterfell instead of being fostered with some vassals.

But here's my question, why does Jon HAVE to be fostered anywhere?

[butterbumps!]

I actually agree with you Butterbumps in regard to to Cat needing to be the one to kiss the boo boos. My real point was that Martin deliberately wrote the story this way. Any other way and we do not get sullen Jon Snow dreaming of going to the Wall to forge a new identity for himself. Also I am struck by the word Martin used in Catelyn's response to Jon's offered comfort.. " I need no absolution from you bastard."

I am stepping back from the emotional responses that Martin's words cause some of us to respond to and just looking at what the character said..I believe a clue was given in that one word absolution. It will be interesting to see how the story arch of Catelyn and her motiff of duty and family resolves itself as Lady Stoneheart in the future books. I still believe Martin has written her story arch with a purpose and that purpose lies in the future with Jon Snow.

Not sure I was clear enough in regard to Cat needing to be the surgate mother to Jon..no no no..another wet nurse or woman for Jon would be in order for sure but Martin did not write it that way for a purpose is my theory.

Oh, totally agree; Martin was toeing a delicate balance between crafting Jon's character as a bit of an underdog/ facing a form of oppression, setting up Cat as the "benefactor" of that oppression, yet making sure to not go too far with her antagonism so that she can still be seen as a sympathetic character holistically. It's kind of brilliant, honestly, especially when we see Jon arrive at the Wall and it becomes very obvious how "spoiled" he was on top of all this.

I like your post, btw-- it presents the problem from a child's POV quite fairly and well; I used your post as something of a platform to open this other issue, but didn't mean to suggest I was in opposition to your points.

[Ygrain]

I find placing the imperative on Cat to be the one to "kiss boo boos" to be troubling, because it implies some degree of failing if a women doesn't love a child, which I consider "troubling" in part because I feel the same expectation does not exist for men, and as such, perpetuates the notion that a woman should fill in for the role of "mother" interchangeably by virtue of their being an available woman.

Exactly. While I do not advocate treating a child coldly, I can totally see myself in Cat's shoes being unable to overcome the resentment to the product of my husband's affair rubbed into my face each and every minute of every day for fourteen years. The woman would have to be a saint; I know that I am not. It was tough both for both of them and I think that GRRM wrote it masterfully.

But here's my question, why does Jon HAVE to be fostered anywhere?

Well, he doesn't have to, but he would be placed in a neutral environment where no-one held a grudge against him and where he wouldn't be reminded of his status constantly.

[Aerys the Glad]

This might be a little off-topic but I'll go ahead anyway. I agree on that Cat's way of dealing with Jon by itself isn't worth calling abuse, but I think that the effects of it are much graver than what would be expected of some chilling uncourtesy.

Jon lacks a mother figure in a time where fathers aren't really sweet and loving in the same way mothers are. This is not the ideal way of raising a child, at least as far as I'm concerned (I don't have a PhD in psychology), because children need some kind of love, appreciation, safety and support, usually received from their mothers. His siblings have their mother though, a mother who hates his guts. I'm only guessing this would be a very clear way for Jon to understand how he differentiates from his siblings and what his bastard status means. It's quite understandable after all why he keeps ranting about his relationship with Cat, since she was what stood in the way of him being a Stark, and never having a mother on his own only worsens things (What do you do when that bully called you something as a child? That's right, run back to mom and weep bitter tears. Not if you're Jon though). I'm guessing he might be quite jelaous of his siblings' relationship to Cat. This might also be the cause to why he is somewhat distant and hard to befriend, as he has learned to solve his emotional problems by himself.

Great post, but it still can't change things between me and Cat, not after what she did to all of ours poor Petyr Baelish.

[butterbumps!]

This might be a little off-topic but I'll go ahead anyway. I agree on that Cat's way of dealing with Jon by itself isn't worth calling abuse, but I think that the effects of it are much graver than what would be expected of some chilling uncourtesy.

Jon lacks a mother figure in a time where fathers aren't really sweet and loving in the same way mothers are. This is not the ideal way of raising a child, at least as far as I'm concerned (I don't have a PhD in psychology), because children need some kind of love, appreciation, safety and support, usually received from their mothers. His siblings have their mother though, a mother who hates his guts. I'm only guessing this would be a very clear way for Jon to understand how he differentiates from his siblings and what his bastard status means. It's quite understandable after all why he keeps ranting about his relationship with Cat, since she was what stood in the way of him being a Stark, and never having a mother on his own only worsens things (What do you do when that bully called you something as a child? That's right, run back to mom and weep bitter tears. Not if you're Jon though). I'm guessing he might be quite jelaous of his siblings' relationship to Cat. This might also be the cause to why he is somewhat distant and hard to befriend, as he has learned to solve his emotional problems by himself.

Great post, but it still can't change things between me and Cat, not after what she did to all of ours poor Petyr Baelish.

So, this is exactly the perception I want to challenge. Jon did receive love and support from Ned (and siblings), so it's not as though Jon grew up unloved. I don't contest the fact that Jon was affected by Cat's treatment-- he obviously was.

I think you have a very unfair notion of what "mothering" imperatives are placed on women by virtue of the premise that "women should be mothers." It is not fair or accurate to say that all women must love all children, which is what your post is doing.

Further to this, you are selectively using the "typical" behavior of the series to say that men don't have the same nurturing role they would today, but then fail to apply this same standard to Cat's situation. If you're judging this by the norms of ASOIAF, then Cat would be completely exonerated for her actions, because the norm is not for a wife to accept or nurture her husband's by blows.

I'm not sure if you got here yet, but these two posts address what I think you're getting at, and might reframe things a bit.

Lady Arya

Me

ETA: Aerys-- I don't disagree with the majority of your post, I want to specify. Only the suggestion of adhering to expectations of "mothering," and the like.

I honestly never see anybody argue that Catelyn should become any type of mother figure to Jon. The most common argue I see is that Catelyn used Jon as a way to place her anger and resentment towards Ned.

And I also see why Catelyn is not able to be a type of mother towards Jon, its not her duty and she's not maternal towards children that are not hers.

And I really don't see why Jon needed to have a mother figure at all. Jon having some type of mother figure would not be a solution to whatever issues he had. I think Jon's only problem was was that he knew NOTHING about his mother and that was Ned's fault. I honestly think if he knew something about the woman who birthed him than Jon not having a mother would be much much easier for him.

lol, the post I just responded to does, and it comes up often enough. I agree with your other points as Jon's biggest emotional struggles and root of what haunts him.

[The Wolves]

I find placing the imperative on Cat to be the one to "kiss boo boos" to be troubling, because it implies some degree of failing if a women doesn't love a child, which I consider "troubling" in part because I feel the same expectation does not exist for men, and as such, perpetuates the notion that a woman should fill in for the role of "mother" interchangeably by virtue of their being an available woman.

I honestly never see anybody argue that Catelyn should become any type of mother figure to Jon. The most common argue I see is that Catelyn used Jon as a way to place her anger and resentment towards Ned.

And I also see why Catelyn is not able to be a type of mother towards Jon, its not her duty and she's not maternal towards children that are not hers.

And I really don't see why Jon needed to have a mother figure at all. Jon having some type of mother figure would not be a solution to whatever issues he had. I think Jon's only problem was was that he knew NOTHING about his mother and that was Ned's fault. I honestly think if he knew something about the woman who birthed him than Jon not having a mother would be much much easier for him.

[TepidHands]

Again, a very insightful examination of a topic by Butterbumps. Thank you!

Thank you in particular for pointing out the root of Cat's pain on this issue: The fact that she believed, truly, that her husband "fiercely" loved this child's mother -- even before he truly loved her, and she him. She had no way of knowing, thanks to the Honorable Eddard's "promises," who this child really was. What Catelyn knew is that Jon was her husband's son, by another woman, whom she believed he loved with an intensity that eclipsed any other. In her sole time to try to challenge him on this, she became truly frightened of him -- and who knows what Ned did or said to those gossiping maids.

[aceluby]

Great post as usual. Lots of insight. Never really understood the Cat hate because I think she did the best w/ the hand she was dealt. Yeah, she made some mistakes, but she had every right to be much, much worse.

[Daphne23]

Great post as usual. Lots of insight. Never really understood the Cat hate because I think she did the best w/ the hand she was dealt. Yeah, she made some mistakes, but she had every right to be much, much worse.

I agree; a fantastic and very fair post on Cat's relationship with Jon. Any plans to write something on the third of the three most controversial of Cat's actions, i.e. her release of Jaime? I'd be very interested to hear from you on this, as it's the only one of the three I find it difficult to define my own position on (I 100% agree with you on the Catnapping as well). Cat's motivations for releasing Jaime seem so perfectly poised between the emotional and the logical - or perhaps you'd disagree?

[a free shadow]

I feel that while this is an in-depth thread, trying to place more light on many faucets, it could also be re-hashed into a smaller and simpler version.

Two facts widely agreed upon (where the number of people disagreeing do not exceed the margins of a statistical error in my experience) is that Catelyn was not in any way obliged or expected to act as a mother for Jon. She also had the right to be angry with Ned.

The difference begins in people's evaluation on how excusable it was to direct her negativity toward Jon and how much of that negativity there actually was.

The first one is more or less based on personal values and convictions. And I find that it always corellates with the latter estimation on the extent of the trouble between Jon and Catelyn.

This is the main knot.

Because that correlation (facts more or less inevitably percieved beside personal convictions) make people on "both sides" feel "another side" is twisting those facts.

To give the same example, I personally find it not believeable that 14 years without speaking Jon's name went about without more than a few ugly moments, possibly embarrasing for Jon in front of bigger groups of people. And that it implies serious problems for which Catelyn loses a considerable chunck of my respect.

But others might feel Catelyn deserves more credit and that 14 years of such silence were more circumstantial (that the circumstances allowed for there being no direct contact and brought about no ugly moments).

And it will stay this way, unless some new and entirely decisive bits will be introduced.

Also, I do not mean to imply that the feeling of people falling into what I called a "statistical error margin" are not valid. I simply find that they are mostly recent books readers or new forumers, who base their evaluation entirely on the strong feelings they got when reading the books. As they were meant to. And they either do not hold those opinions for long or are more interested in sharing the impression, rather than in the discussion.

Also I am struck by the word Martin used in Catelyn's response to Jon's offered comfort.. " I need no absolution from you bastard."

An interesting note!

[E-Ro]

I just recently had a couple of pages of discussion on major point(s) I disagree about the Catnapping with butterbumps. It starts here. I did question her definition (which came across as her certainity at first for me) that Tyrion's arrest was peacable and did not break the kings peace. In the end we agreed that there was no uniformly of accepted relevant laws or not enough information to decide on that for us, even if our subsequent conclusions stayed different.

I do not feel it necessery to go on stating the same opinions every day in every thread so that not a man would miss it. I try to discuss mostly what might be new to me. I think the threads about Catelyn tend to go around in many unproductive circles and I do not feel very strongly about her to be very outspoken. I only entered the one linked above, because butterbumps is quite known for her in-depth analysis and I absolutely wanted to know if I missed some important detail on the laws that could change my view on the Catelyn/Tyrion situation. I concluded that I didn't, but it still was an interesting small topic.

So, yes, I was refering back to that. But it was definitely light-hearted and a little mockery on the tradition how Cat's threads quickly turn sour, because some people do not even bother to read what they decide to argue with. It was intended to be cheery and I think it is hard to think otherwise. And as I said, people (like yourself this time) tend to finght anyone and anything in similar threads, so emoticons should make it harder for them to misintepretate things.

As you might have noted, I read the OP and adressed a few points I disagree with. After finishing it, I had a little true concern that it was written in that form (starting with the statement that Catelyn was already exonerrated for Catnapping and concluding that her actions with Jon were forgivable). As butterbumps is often taken as speaking gospel in the threads ( :P) I had a problem with it, because it seemed intended as some general and final agreement, where opinions turned to facts.

I think it is you who was hostile in this case.

What? All your posts have been condescending in the extreme, the use of emoticons doesn't just mean you can say whatever you want and not be called on it. I usually don't post in cat threads, I prefer to lurk them, your posts in this thread managed to draw me out of lurk mode though, congratz on that. I disagree with pretty much your entire stance on cat, I think your wrong. your supposedly "cheery" and "light hearted" use of emoticons are anything but.

Also, I don't take any posters words as "gospel" I just happen to agree with certain posters on this subject. And if you perceive another posters posts as being taken as gospel by others, perhaps there is something to those posts you aren't seeing, maybe they are making better points then you realize.

[juanml82]

I didn't read the full thread. I'd say a kid growing afraid of his siblings mother and being called 'bastard' or 'Snow' (which means the same) by that woman through all his life, while his siblings receive a huge amount of motherly love is... well, bad. As in, really bad. Not as bad as pulling the kid's fingernails, or send him to town dressed as a girl, but bad anyway. And I don't think there is any excuse in Catelyn behavior. If she was wronged by Ned cheating on her (which, arguably, she wasn't) she has to take it on her husband, not in an innocent child.

GRRM doesn't write Mary Sues, or at least not for main characters. Trying to find her excuses, or whitewash her behavior is sort of looking to 'Marysue' the character of Catelyn Stark.

I don't think it's expected, in universe, for Catelyn Stark to become his stepmother. I also don't think Ned completely shut her off that possibility. Ned refused to tell her who the mother was, that doesn't mean she's shut off Jon's education. In any event, she doesn't have to be mean to him (yes, she was mean) and I'll even say, in universe, nobody would think she's required or expected to be mean to Jon. No, she doesn't have to console him when he has nightmares, but she can call him by his name and be polite with him.

Wrt divorce, no, formally, there is no divorce in Westeros. Exile exists though - few people appreciate how wonderful an invention are doors. That is a breach of the existing social contract, so it's not like she can demand half the income earned during marriage, or whatever modern legislature allows in different countries. She'd have to leave her children behind and become a peasant or live out of any allowance Hoster Tully allows her. Does it mean life in the middle aged styled Westeros is harsh and unfair? Oh, yes. Does it mean Catelyn is a prisoner? No, it doesn't.

And, honestly, let's look at Ned's 'fault': they barely knew each other. He was at war. He was expected to have sex with other women. He, supposedly, fathered a bastard. He decided to educate the boy and raise him himself. What's the fault? That she betrayed her, somehow, when he cheated on her? Maybe she'd feel insulted, but how do Ned actions do anything other than painting him as a good, decent, man?

Catelyn is living under the ghost of the Blackfyre rebellions.

[butterbumps!]

I agree; a fantastic and very fair post on Cat's relationship with Jon. Any plans to write something on the third of the three most controversial of Cat's actions, i.e. her release of Jaime? I'd be very interested to hear from you on this, as it's the only one of the three I find it difficult to define my own position on (I 100% agree with you on the Catnapping as well). Cat's motivations for releasing Jaime seem so perfectly poised between the emotional and the logical - or perhaps you'd disagree?

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.

The Catnap is the big thing I feel Cat's really in the right about. On Jaime-gate, I'm less decided about how I feel-- I don't have a strong "Cat was right! or Cat was wrong!" stance. Since these tend to require a lot of commitment (in terms of researching, writing, keeping abreast of responses), I'm not in a hurry to do Jaime-gate for a little while, but I do plan to make one.