The Cat-Jon-Ned Debacle (long)

[yakaman]

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.

Good write-up. Regarding point F...you seem to be letting Cat off the hook a bit. All we have sometimes is one moment or one conversation in which we affect others. If one only has a small data set, then each piece of data holds great weight, regardless of the intent or the scope. With so little to go on in their relationship, "it should have been you" is the exclamation point on the very frigid, stuttering dialog between Cat and Jon. It is the conclusion, and as such, necessarily shades everything that has come before. It is a monumental, and unequivocal.

We rarely if ever get to truly know what others are thinking, what their intentions are, what they are motivated by. All we know of are their actions. To me, Cat's "it should have been you" is damning, petty, and cruel. Cat is the adult with all of the perspective - and all of the power, and yet she takes the opportunity to try to hurt someone lesser as much as she can. She sticks the knife in and twists.

Did she really mean it?

...

Doesn't matter one bit. That statement was meant to hurt Jon as much as possible, and it was the last he ever heard from her.

[a free shadow]

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.

Usually, if I got that approach in reality, my response would be "Go home, you are drunk". Because you are not only not getting what is talked about, you are not willing to see.

You made many false assupmtions, which all got politely refuted. But you are willing to stick to them and add some emotional dimension to that.

The second paragraph of your post is not even that coherent anymore and not much of an answer to what I said. First, I did not talk about your personal opinions, which I am getting less and less interested in. Second, you seem to contradict yourself by saying that I am wrong to get the feeling of certain posters being widely respected, but then argue there are things to read in their posts :dunno: I am not sure if I am right here though and I admit it. It is hard to see where you are coming from.

I personally do not feel inclined to deal with your misplaced emotions. Well, only to an extent. Which I am doing now. But if you want to add to the discussion something else than "I disagree with your entire stance", you definitely are welcome to it.

Also, if you really read my posts and disagree on my entire stance you must know that the only thing I posted on that was "I agree that Cat's main fault was misplacing her negativity from Ned to Jon". So that is what you disagree with.

[butterbumps!]

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.

But rehashing this into "simpler points" is exactly not the purpose of this thread, because that's what happens in every single Cat-Jon discussion. I think for multifaceted issues like this, there's something to be said for supplying the full picture at the outset rather than the inevitable back and forth game of throwing out selective quotes, sidelining contexts, and fragmenting the arguments across a full thread.

I'm totally getting the message that for whatever reason, you're irked by the existence of this thread. That you're taking issue with the fact I went out of my way to not reduce this to the same 2 points always rehashed is sort of perplexing. If you feel this thread is categorically unnecessary for your understanding of these issues, then I'm not sure why you are choosing to participate this way. There are other threads where this issue is discussed in more reductive terms; I didn't want this one to be. I'm not sure if you think I'm trying to manipulate people into liking Cat or whitewashing her or something; I'm not, although presenting her side of this in addition to Jon's (which is usually the focus) is one of my goals.

[Dicer]

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?

I think we can all agree that as with many of the societal conventions of Martin's Westeros, the way bastards are treated is not fair or right. I get the feeling that if Ned had a bastard he would treat him exactly as he treated Jon, by bringing him up at Winterfell. Ned does not seem the type to shirk responsibility for the mistakes he makes.

If Jon had been brought up elsewhere he would have never known a father and never known his siblings. He would never have had the relationship he has with Arya and Robb. Arya would not have a brother looking out for her. The advantage of being fostered elsewhere on the other hand could be that he may not have gone to the wall and instead chose to become a soldier or a guard or a bannerman etc. He may not have to grow up with Catelyn's hostility.

Ned must have had some plans for Jon in the future before everything went awry and he had to leave for KL. I am not sure which option that Jon would think is better. Would he really resent Ned for letting him grow up at Winterfell with a proper education and allowing him the love of his siblings? I don't think so.

[TepidHands]

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.

Just so. Edric Storm, for example, got sent to Storm's End by the Florents and was raised befitting a descendant of nobility. Ned could have fostered him to the Umbers or even the Manderleys (probably not to the Riverlands or Vale, though).

[E-Ro]

Usually, if I got that approach in reality, my response would be "Go home, you are drunk". Because you are not only not getting what is talked about, you are not willing to see.

yes, you are the height of wit, and excellent jokes.

You made many false assupmtions, which all got politely refuted. But you are willing to stick to them and add some emotional dimension to that.

Care to point out a few of these false assumptions in stead of just referring to them? Im pretty sure no false assumptions exist on my end, feel free to prove me wrong.(or just tell me im drunk, that's fun too)

The second paragraph of your post is not even that coherent anymore and not much of an answer to what I said. First, I did not talk about your personal opinions, which I am getting less and less interested in. Second, you seem to contradict yourself by saying that I am wrong to get the feeling of certain posters being widely respected, but then argue there are things to read in their posts :dunno: I am not sure if I am right here though and I admit it. It is hard to see where you are coming from.

Maybe its not that the post is incoherent, perhaps its a comprehension issue on your end? Regarding posters being taken as gospel, you must have missed the part in my post were i said "If you perceive another posters posts as being taken as gospel by others " meaning, if thats how YOU personally see it, perhaps there is something more to what they are saying then you realize.

I personally do not feel inclined to deal with your misplaced emotions. Well, only to an extent. Which I am doing now. But if you want to add to the discussion something else than "I disagree with your entire stance", you definitely are welcome to it.

Thanks for giving me permission to add more to the discussion, how good of you! :drunk: (emoticon to show cheer)

Also, if you really read my posts and disagree on my entire stance you must know that the only thing I posted on that was "I agree that Cat's main fault was misplacing her negativity from Ned to Jon". So that is what you disagree with.

Oh no, I disagree with your stance on her taking tyrion as well, and yes, I disagree with your points on her and jon.

[a free shadow]

But rehashing this into "simpler points" is exactly not the purpose of this thread, because that's what happens in every single Cat-Jon discussion. I think for multifaceted issues like this, there's something to be said for supplying the full picture at the outset rather than the inevitable back and forth game of throwing out selective quotes, sidelining contexts, and fragmenting the arguments across a full thread.

I'm totally getting the message that for whatever reason, you're irked by the existence of this thread. That you're taking issue with the fact I went out of my way to not reduce this to the same 2 points always rehashed is sort of perplexing. If you feel this thread is categorically unnecessary for your understanding of these issues, then I'm not sure why you are choosing to participate this way. There are other threads where this issue is discussed in more reductive terms; I didn't want this one to be. I'm not sure if you think I'm trying to manipulate people into liking Cat or whitewashing her or something; I'm not, although presenting her side of this in addition to Jon's (which is usually the focus) is one of my goals.

Hm. I definitely did not mean to dismiss the thread. In my last post I simply offered what is more or less a conclusion of my opinion. And the reason I did that is the reason you mention and I bolded. That people (almost) always go in circles, throwing this and that, while it might be (after careful analysis, of course) summed-up somewhat. I simply suggested my view on where these circles are coming from, which I thought could be another point of the discussion.

As you offered your own conclusions, I thought it was within the boundaries.

As far as the "whitewashing" comes, I only summed-up my own opinion, on how this term comes about to be used. Involving my own name in the example.

Anyway, as my participation in this thread is mostly in response to the OP, I certainly will step out, if you feel that way.

[The Wolves]

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.

I think fostering would have done ALL of Ned's children a favor, but I don't think Jon should have been taken out of his environment because Catelyn had issues with him. Also I don't think Jon was the problem in him staying at Winterfell he shouldn't be taken from his family because Catelyn was holding a grudge against him.

[a free shadow]

Double post.

[a free shadow]

yes, you are the height of wit, and excellent jokes.

I simply was brought to think that the finer points might be wasted here.

Care to point out a few of these false assumptions in stead of just referring to them? Im pretty sure no false assumptions exist on my end, feel free to prove me wrong.(or just tell me im drunk, that's fun too)

You addressed me saying that I was not informed about the butterbump's arguments on the Catnapping, that I thought she did the bad job with Jon/Cat situation analysis and, of course, that emoticons are a menancing thing, meant to scare anyone, who can't stand up to such weaponry. First was plainly not true, another one is still up to you to prove in any way. And the third one is bordering on... bad things.

Maybe its not that the post is incoherent, perhaps its a comprehension issue on your end? Regarding posters being taken as gospel, you must have missed the part in my post were i said "If you perceive another posters posts as being taken as gospel by others " meaning, if thats how YOU personally see it, perhaps there is something more to what they are saying then you realize.

It did get on adressing my previous post randomly and with some little meaning. So I offered an exit there. I am still not sure how my opinion on a poster's contet influences the opinions of the others :dunno:

Thanks for giving me permission to add more to the discussion, how good of you! :drunk: (emoticon to show cheer)

Welcome. For the thread of analysis, it is always welcome, in my opinion.

Oh no, I disagree with your stance on her taking tyrion as well, and yes, I disagree with your points on her and jon.

I do not offer Tyrion for this thread. And if you are trying to say something to the merit about Jon/Cat, take your own advice and adress by some finer points maybe.

EDIT: Replaced a questionmark with a stop. For possible benefits.

[honeyed chicken]

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.

PROMISE ME NED . . .

Those three little words started all this.

They were the hand grenade Lyanna tossed into Ned's lap from her deathbed.

Had Jon Snow's father been anybody but Rhaegar Targaryen, his life in Westeros might have been quite different. Instead, Jon is the son of the man King Robert hates more than anyone in the world. The fact that King Robert is Uncle Ned's best friend make's Jon's position in the world (unbeknownst to Jon) a tenuous one.

Everything Ned does for Jon flows from this awful situation. His parents are both dead and his king would want to kill him if he knew who Jon truly was.

I'm going through this as a reset, because I feel it is unfair to judge Ned and Catelyn without taking into account the extremity of their situation.

- Ned is clearly not a subtle thinker, but it's a tough situation for any man to be in (well maybe not Littlefinger or Tyrion). He's doing his best for everyone concerned.

- If Catelyn's worst treatment of Jon is "icy stares", consider Cinderella and all the various stepmother stories from the brothers Grimm and elsewhere. A child's mother dies, so the father remarries, then the father dies and leaves the child with a woman who does not love him/her. it's an old story line and Jon's is far less black and white than Cinderella's. That's why I quoted Butterbumps, above. GRRM made Catelyn's ill treatment of Jon far more subtle and subject to debate. The stepmother in Cinderella is just flat out bad and therefore, less interesting to consider.

- While Jon is feeling sorry for himself at the back of Winterfell's banquet hall, his father is just hoping Robert won't look too closely at him, for fear he'll see Lyanna, or worse, Rhaegar's looks in Jon.

- Because GRRM hides everything so effectively, we have no way of knowing if Benjen Stark was in on Jon's parentage. You would think Ned would feel safe confiding in him, but there's no way to know. If he had done so, it would make Jon's move to the NW far more sympathetic than it looks at first blush.

As Ned heads south, his 3 options with Jon are:

1) KL - where Robert awaits

.

2) Winterfell, which Catelyn takes off the table.

3) the Wall and Uncle Benjen.

The idea of fostering Jon out is interesting, but Ned might have felt that his promise to Lyanna required more personal care and supervision of Jon. As he leaves for KL, Benjen would appear to be Ned's surrogate guardian of Jon and the promise to Lyanna.

[Summah]

Not only did Ned see the sense of seating Jon separately and ruled in favor it, Ned is the one who decides to send Jon to the Watch. It is true that Cat refuses to let Jon stay at Winterfell when Ned and the siblings go away, yet as Lady of Winterfell and not Jon’s stepmother, Jon has no reason to be there, especially because the person who has assumed all responsibility for raising him is leaving. Ned could take Jon to court; while there are decorum issues wrt seating Jon at the high table, there is no reason why Jon could not simply come to court, stay removed from the political side of things, and even become a squire given that Jon did, in fact, want to become a knight. Even though there are loopholes here, it’s Ned who highlights the social stigmatization of bastards as a reason not to bring him. For all the criticism against Cat for making Jon’s status known to him, Ned subscribes to these distinctions just as much as she does, and in so doing, decides Jon’s course in life.

I agree with most of what you wrote. I think though in terms of taking Jon to court, it had nothing to do with Jon's status as a bastard, that was the reason Ned gave so he wouldn't be questioned about, but rather not wanting to expose Jon to people who are potentially in a position to figure out who he really is, and it goes without saying that Jon being outed as Rhaegar's son would be extremely dangerous for him and Ned and the rest of the Starks. Ned knows who Jon is really is and whether or not he's actually a bastard (I want to think R+L=J, but they were not married, though I know there are good arguments that they were married.) So I don't think there's much evidence one way or another that Ned subscribes to the distinctions as much as Cat does, because he needs to use Jon's bastardy as an excuse to avoid putting him in potentially dangerous situations, such as taking him to KL, and he also wants to make sure his son inherits Winterfell and the title not his nephew.

[Blueberry Stark]

This has been a really interesting thread about the Catelyn/Jon relationship, or lack thereof. I agree that one reason for her lack of popularity is that she is almost immediately set up in opposition to Jon and then Tyrion. I appreciate and value Cat as a character now, but during my first reading of GoT I didn't care for herbecause of the awful exchange in Bran's room. Other than killing JB at the RW wedding, this scene is the worst thing that Catelyn ever does. Although I can see WHY someone would consider this interaction with Jon forgivable because of the extreme distress that she was under, I do not. It didn't ever need to be said, and it was devastating. However, I see zero evidence that this scene is characteristic of how Catelyn typically treats Jon.

I like Lady Arya's theory that perhaps LS will one day make amends to Jon for how she treated him growing up. It has always been problematic for me as well that Martin had Cat treat him so cruelly in this scene, and that Jon was so terrified of her. Of course, he may have just wanted to highlight that Jon had difficulties and obstacles in his background, but that could have been achieved without Cat being the "villain" in the relationship. It does seem as though this relationship is begging for some kind of closure, and perhaps being LS will give these two that opportunity (that is, of course, if Jon lives).

Finally, I agree that for many people, Cat's treatment of Jon seems to be even more problematic because of the assumption that she should have or could have been a mother to him. First of all, I agree wholeheartedly with butterbumps that just because Catelyn is a maternal woman that does not mean that she should assume a motherly role with every child in her home. Secondly, this wasn't a normal stepmother/stepson relationship between these two characters. Remember, Catelyn firmly believed that Jon was the product of Ned's infidelity with a woman about which he will tell her nothing. That is galling to Cat. She herself admits that it wasn't the infidelity that bothered her, or that Jon was a byproduct of the infidelity, but the fact that Ned was raising him under the same roof as her and her own children. Understandably, Cat found this humiliating. Also, she had no reason to want to be a mother to Ned' s child when, at least in her fears, she believed that Ned loved the other woman more than her. Of course, even if Ned didn't care about Jon's mother at all, Cat still didn't owe it to Ned or Jon to be a mother to Jon. Why didn't Ned hire a woman to be some type of mom to Jon? It's annoying, and I haven't been able to figure out any rational reason why he wouldn't find someone to fulfill this role.

As outsiders reading the story we know that Ned was in a no win situation. If he tells Catelyn the truth about Lyanna and Rhaegar (assuming this theory is correct and they are Jon's parents) then he puts Cat at risk. I assume that Ned determines that it is safer for everyone involved if Cat doesn't know. It was a difficult situation, and unfortunately Jon had to suffer the most as a child with no control over the situation.

[juanml82]

Finally, I agree that for many people, Cat's treatment of Jon seems to be even more problematic because of the assumption that she should have or could have been a mother to him. First of all, I agree wholeheartedly with butterbumps that just because Catelyn is a maternal woman that does not mean that she should assume a motherly role with every child in her home. Secondly, this wasn't a normal stepmother/stepson relationship between these two characters. Remember, Catelyn firmly believed that Jon was the product of Ned's infidelity with a woman about which he will tell her nothing. That is galling to Cat. She herself admits that it wasn't the infidelity that bothered her, or that Jon was a byproduct of the infidelity, but the fact that Ned was raising him under the same roof as her and her own children. Understandably, Cat found this humiliating. Also, she had no reason to want to be a mother to Ned' s child when, at least in her fears, she believed that Ned loved the other woman more than her. Of course, even if Ned didn't care about Jon's mother at all, Cat still didn't owe it to Ned or Jon to be a mother to Jon. Why didn't Ned hire a woman to be some type of mom to Jon? It's annoying, and I haven't been able to figure out any rational reason why he wouldn't find someone to fulfill this role.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean Catelyn couldn't have called him by his name throughout his life. Catelyn wasn't indifferent to Jon. If you read everything else in the Bran scene, she was outright mean to him, and there are no excuses for that.

[Blueberry Stark]

Agreed, but that doesn't mean Catelyn couldn't have called him by his name throughout his life. Catelyn wasn't indifferent to Jon. If you read everything else in the Bran scene, she was outright mean to him, and there are no excuses for that.

I agree, she could have used his name. Please read through the rest of my post carefully. In the very first paragraph I specifically address the scene in Bran's room; the portion that you have quoted is where I discuss my view that Catelyn has no obligation to be a mother to Jon.

This has been a really interesting thread about the Catelyn/Jon relationship, or lack thereof. I agree that one reason for her lack of popularity is that she is almost immediately set up in opposition to Jon and then Tyrion. I appreciate and value Cat as a character now, but during my first reading of GoT I didn't care for herbecause of the awful exchange in Bran's room. Other than killing JB at the RW wedding, this scene is the worst thing that Catelyn ever does. Although I can see WHY someone would consider this interaction with Jon forgivable because of the extreme distress that she was under, I do not. It didn't ever need to be said, and it was devastating. However, I see zero evidence that this scene is characteristic of how Catelyn typically treats Jon.

I in no way let Cat off the hook for what she says to Jon. It was heartless, unnecessary, and unforgivable.

[Ludd]

While no one would expect Catelyn to love Jon, she had no cause to be cruel; to a young child and to begrudge him even food. It is a big black mark against Catelyn

Had Ned died while Jon was younger he perhaps would have exacted a promise from Cat to care for Jon, but she like the vicious Mrs Reed in Jane Eyre or Cinderella's step mother would have broken this promise and been cruel. She woud certainly have sent him away.

It was only the presence of Ned that stopped cat being outright cruel.

I think the whole idea of the Undead Cat is that it brings out he inner self ie empathizes certain basic personality characteristics. In Cat there is a cruel and vengeful streak.

She is not a BAD person but is also not the motherly figure some choose to portray.

By contrast think of Lady Smallwood who mothered Arya as best she could, treating her like her own daughter.

[Arya kiddin']

While no one would expect Catelyn to love Jon, she had no cause to be cruel; to a young child and to begrudge him even food. It is a big black mark against Catelyn

Does that actually happen? (the bold part)

[Ygrain]

While no one would expect Catelyn to love Jon, she had no cause to be cruel; to a young child and to begrudge him even food. It is a big black mark against Catelyn

It's not like she didn't really give him enough food. It's a reflection of that whole issue of Jon seated somewhere where he did not belong, that's why she was looking at him like that.

Had Ned died while Jon was younger he perhaps would have exacted a promise from Cat to care for Jon, but she like the vicious Mrs Reed in Jane Eyre or Cinderella's step mother would have broken this promise and been cruel. She woud certainly have sent him away.

It was only the presence of Ned that stopped cat being outright cruel.

Now that's a stretch entirely unsupported by the text. She might have sent him away but there is no way she would treat him like those two examples.

By contrast think of Lady Smallwood who mothered Arya as best she could, treating her like her own daughter.

I must have missed the part where Arya is her late husband's bastard raised far above her standing and in position to usurp her trueborn children.

[Blueberry Stark]

While no one would expect Catelyn to love Jon, she had no cause to be cruel; to a young child and to begrudge him even food. It is a big black mark against Catelyn

Had Ned died while Jon was younger he perhaps would have exacted a promise from Cat to care for Jon, but she like the vicious Mrs Reed in Jane Eyre or Cinderella's step mother would have broken this promise and been cruel. She woud certainly have sent him away.

It was only the presence of Ned that stopped cat being outright cruel.

I think the whole idea of the Undead Cat is that it brings out he inner self ie empathizes certain basic personality characteristics. In Cat there is a cruel and vengeful streak.

She is not a BAD person but is also not the motherly figure some choose to portray.

By contrast think of Lady Smallwood who mothered Arya as best she could, treating her like her own daughter.

I disagree. Just because Cat isn't maternal to Jon it doesn't mean that she isn't motherly. Do you have any evidence where she reveals that she isn't maternal? And as for her reneging on a hypothetical promise to Ned, I see no need to explore this possibility because it simply doesn't happen. Furthermore, the case of Lady Smallwood is hardly analogous. Lord Smallwood didn't bring Arya home as a bastard infant, product of infidelity, who could possibly be seen as a threat to Lady Smallwood's own children.

[Blueberry Stark]

Does that actually happen? (the bold part)

At some point Jon reflects that Catelyn begrudges him every bite of food (paraphrase), so Jon certainly feels that it is true. I don't recall any evidence proving that Cat actually felt this way.