The Cat-Jon-Ned Debacle (long)

[butterbumps!]

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.

I actually agree with you. I don't think we should minimize the awfulness of her having said these lines, and as this is one of the last exchanges he will have with members of his household at Winterfell, I agree with the monumentality factor.

I tend to use a forum shorthand of "justifiable/ excusable" when I think an action doesn't constitute an objective wrong, versus "forgivable" to specify when I feel an action is objectively wrong, but done in a context that I find sympathy for the wrong doer (in this case, I feel for Cat's having lashed out because the grief has hollowed her out). I'm not sure if these are the best terms to use, but that's the distinction I'm trying to draw.

I don't want to negate the fact that this was a dreadful statement to make to someone. Whether the speaker was Cat, Fat Tom or Cersei, I think saying this to someone is objectively wrong. I personally find myself forgiving (not absolving) Cat, because I don't think she truly meant it (given her non-hateful thoughts about Jon), and the fact that her having uttered this at all shows just how far into grief she's sunk-- this is not the sort of way Cat typically behaves to people any more than killing Jinglebell was. I see it as a moment of great weakness.

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.

Yea, those are interesting points-- was part of Ned's reluctance to bring Jon to KL due to his fear that someone might connect the pieces/ there'd be too much spotlight on Jon/ his features might out him potentially? I don't know if any true danger exists wrt Robert's thinking there's a resemblance to Rhaegar and figuring it out-- hell, Robert couldn't even figure out that his own kids weren't his. I'm also not sure how much of Rhaegar's features exist in Jon-- it's Arya and Ned he seems most physically similar to. But would Ned, who's been living in fear of such a thing, be concerned about this even if real danger doesn't truly exist? I wouldn't dismiss this.

I think I agree that in terms of the prevailing view of bastards, Cat is likely more concerned than Ned in terms of social decorum. But I do think that Ned draws social distinctions more than he's often credited for-- he's quite insistent about issues of succession and legitimacy wrt Joffrey's assumption of the throne. I think Ned is portrayed as less concerned with decorum than Cat, and this may even be true, but I do think he subscribes to the legal status distinctions quite firmly. It's an interesting question though of how much of Ned's reluctance to bring Jon was about the decorum versus fear of exposure.

great points

I agree with your take on this. As an aside, I'm starting to wonder if there's a better way for me to articulate the "forgivable" distinction-- that is, to acknowledge the objective wrongness of an action, while being able to sympathize with why the action was committed. I don't mean to come across as excusing "it should have been you," and I fear it may seem that way because of my use of "forgivable."

I'm not an english native speaker, but maybe understandable would be a useful word?

Sure-- I think that's more neutral than "forgivable," so that works. good call.

[yomi]

I agree with your take on this. As an aside, I'm starting to wonder if there's a better way for me to articulate the "forgivable" distinction-- that is, to acknowledge the objective wrongness of an action, while being able to sympathize with why the action was committed. I don't mean to come across as excusing "it should have been you," and I fear it may seem that way because of my use of "forgivable."

I'm not an english native speaker, but maybe understandable would be a useful word?

[TepidHands]

Overall, my attitude towards Jon, at this early stage of the story, is similar to Donal Noye's. Yes, it would be nice if Catelyn had been kind towards him, but really he should count his blessings.

Indeed.

The Jon-can-do-no-wrong, Cat-can-do-no-right views may be strong, but they're grounded in something other than the text.

In my U.S.-English-speaking reader's mind, I did forgive Cat, because I could see both the roots of her antipathy toward Jon and the state she was in, with her favorite child lying near death. Yes, her final words to Jon were cruel and wrong, but they came from that place we all try hard to cage and suppress but that in times of great stress can rise and lash out.

Hurtful words, they were. But, to quote a great man, words are wind. Jon was, in deed if not in name, raised a Stark. He wore the same clothes, ate at the same table, trained with the same maesters and masters at arms.

edited for a comma and an e.

[Blueberry Stark]

No trust me people have verbally abused me in ways you cannot imagine it does not hurt that much.

Usually I just cry myself to sleep and get over the next day. It literally took me years to forgive my dad for his constant verbal abuse towards me at a certain point in my life, and the things he said were 1000x worse than what Catelyn did.

And trust me I will tell you that physical abuse is likely 1000x worse.

I'm sorry to hear that. In general I agree with you that physical abuse can and usually is worse, however, I doubt that it's always true. I'm sure that there are some people who've experienced both who see it differently. And, not to argumentative, but believe me I can imagine some pretty bad stuff.

Back to the OP - I don't think that Catelyn physically abused Jon; I think her worst mistreatment of Jon was the comment in Bran's room.

[Summah]

Yea, those are interesting points-- was part of Ned's reluctance to bring Jon to KL due to his fear that someone might connect the pieces/ there'd be too much spotlight on Jon/ his features might out him potentially? I don't know if any true danger exists wrt Robert's thinking there's a resemblance to Rhaegar and figuring it out-- hell, Robert couldn't even figure out that his own kids weren't his. I'm also not sure how much of Rhaegar's features exist in Jon-- it's Arya and Ned he seems most physically similar to. But would Ned, who's been living in fear of such a thing, be concerned about this even if real danger doesn't truly exist? I wouldn't dismiss this.

I think I agree that in terms of the prevailing view of bastards, Cat is likely more concerned than Ned in terms of social decorum. But I do think that Ned draws social distinctions more than he's often credited for-- he's quite insistent about issues of succession and legitimacy wrt Joffrey's assumption of the throne. I think Ned is portrayed as less concerned with decorum than Cat, and this may even be true, but I do think he subscribes to the legal status distinctions quite firmly. It's an interesting question though of how much of Ned's reluctance to bring Jon was about the decorum versus fear of exposure.

I think the concern wouldn't be with Robert figuring it out, as much as someone else. Ned may not have known (or at least not well) some of the better players before becoming Robert's Hand, but from what he knows of people like Varys, there's always the risk that someone will connect the dots. All it takes really is an accurate assessment of Ned's personality, looking carefully at the timeline and then one can make some connections. We know Jon looks like Arya who looks like Lyanna, so from that we can gather that Jon probably looks like Lyanna as well (though since those are Stark features people assume it comes from Ned), the only physical trait he seems have gotten from Rhaegar is his build. Ned's been keeping this secret for many years and if he were found out the consequences could be dire, it's easy to become paranoid in a situation like that.

I do agree that Ned draws social distinctions and is concerned with decorum, and from what I gather more so than most Northerners, likely due to the influence of Jon Arryn, but less so than Cat and many other Southerners.

[Ygrain]

Indeed.

The Jon-can-do-no-wrong, Cat-can-do-no-right views may be strong, but they're grounded in something other than the text.

In my U.S.-English-speaking reader's mind, I did forgive Cat, because I could see both the roots of her antipathy toward Jon and the state she was in, with her favorite child lying near death. Yes, her final words to Jon were cruel and wrong, but they came from that place we all try hard to cage and suppress but that in times of great stress can rise and lash out.

Hurtful words, they were. But, to quote a great man, words are wind. Jon was, in deed if not in name, raised a Stark. He wore the same clothes, ate at the same table, trained with the same maesters and masters at arms.

Indeed. Under such circumstances - and what we see happening with Cat after Bran's fall, IMHO, fully qualifies as a breakdown - people are known to lash out and say terrible things even to loved ones, so there is little wonder that she lashes against an unloved person. And we know that Cat feels guilty about Jon later.

[Maxpey]

Do we have any reason to believe that Cat's direct actions to Jon involved more than cold stares? I can agree the cold stares are a form of abuse, but I've never found anything that elaborates on anything "more." That final chapter of aSoS-- when Jon thinks over taking Winterfell at Stannis' command-- is when all the dirty laundry comes out in terms of Jon's feelings about belonging in Winterfell. That it only goes so far as stares is really noteworthy, I think, because this would be the time it makes sense to reveal further abuses in terms of the story, and at that point Jon has strong incentive to recall such interactions.

I don't want to downplay the effect of the stares-- this passage, and the one in DwD, shows us that these stares did affect Jon. I just want to be very precise about what the text tells us about the behavior, because I think there's often a lot of assumption of "more" that isn't really supported.

I apologize if this has been mentioned (I don't have time to read the rest of the thread as I have to leave my office for the rest of the day) but I think this passage on page 94 of aGoT implies that Cat did more than just give Jon cold stares:

Something cold moved in her eyes. "I told you to leave," she said. "We don't want you here."

Once that would have sent him running. Once that might have even made him cry. . .

I interpreted this passage to suggest that not only would Cat give Jon cold stares, but she would also say things to him that, at the very least, would upset him. I don't think I can go so far as to say that Cat was verbally abusive towards Jon, but I think it's fair to conclude from this passage that she had said hurtful things to Jon when he was growing up.

[juanml82]

Wrt to the Bran scene, it's not just the 'it should have been you' moment. It's everything else, and what that tells us about the relationship between Jon and Catelyn.

Jon is afraid to go visit his brother because Catelyn is there, and he only goes because he's leaving and it's his last chance of seeing him. Let's make this clear: Jon didn't go to watch Bran after his fall because of Catelyn's presence. What does it tells us about the previous, background, relationship between Jon and Catelyn?

Robb supports this view when he shows concern about Catelyn's treatment of Jon. We then go on how Catelyn never called him Jon by his name. How did she call him then? Boy? Bastard? Snow? And this, during his entire childhood.

Those things are also telling about Catelyn's treatment of Jon, maybe even more than that phrase or Jon's memories later on. They do not tell us anything good, no matter how bad, and many times worse, other Westerosi parents are.

[butterbumps!]

I apologize if this has been mentioned (I don't have time to read the rest of the thread as I have to leave my office for the rest of the day) but I think this passage on page 94 of aGoT implies that Cat did more than just give Jon cold stares:

Something cold moved in her eyes. "I told you to leave," she said. "We don't want you here."

Once that would have sent him running. Once that might have even made him cry. . .

I interpreted this passage to suggest that not only would Cat give Jon cold stares, but she would also say things to him that, at the very least, would upset him. I don't think I can go so far as to say that Cat was verbally abusive towards Jon, but I think it's fair to conclude from this passage that she had said hurtful things to Jon when he was growing up.

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.

Wrt to the Bran scene, it's not just the 'it should have been you' moment. It's everything else, and what that tells us about the relationship between Jon and Catelyn.

Jon is afraid to go visit his brother because Catelyn is there, and he only goes because he's leaving and it's his last chance of seeing him. Let's make this clear: Jon didn't go to watch Bran after his fall because of Catelyn's presence. What does it tells us about the previous, background, relationship between Jon and Catelyn?

It's pretty clear that Jon knew Cat did not want him living there, or at least around her. I even supplied passages in the OP showing that Jon knew Cat didn't want him around, and that the notion of not truly belonging is something that affects him.

Robb supports this view when he shows concern about Catelyn's treatment of Jon. We then go on how Catelyn never called him Jon by his name. How did she call him then? Boy? Bastard? Snow? And this, during his entire childhood.

I have a hard time believing she addressed him as "bastard" (not only because I'd expect this fact to have come out at some point, but also because I have trouble seeing Ned allow such a thing). I have a hard time believing she had much need to call him anything at all given that she wanted no contact at all with him, and calling him to get his attention seems rather unlikely with that in mind. Bear in mind that other than mealtimes, where they'd be separated by scores of people, they'd have very little intersection during the day (Cat doesn't take her lessons with Jon, she's not training at arms, she's not accompanying Ned on state business).

[James Arryn]

But what's the sense of progression re: once, BB? If the demarcation lines aren't previous actions, what is the sense of marking the change? Seems an abstract time to raise a hypothetical contrast. More likely would be previously harsh words, if not to the same degree.

[butterbumps!]

But what's the sense of progression re: once, BB? If the demarcation lines aren't previous actions, what is the sense of marking the change? Seems an abstract time to raise a hypothetical contrast. More likely would be previously harsh words, if not to the same degree.

I'm not following your query. You're saying that this seems like a bizarre time for Jon to run this hypothetical, and therefore, it stands as an indication that Cat has said similar things to him previously?

Jon's first few chapters are when he's convincing himself that he's no longer a boy, but a man of the NW. In fact, he invokes this in that scene as a way to bolster strength: "Once that would have sent him running. Once that might even have made him cry. Now it only made him angry. He would be a Sworn Brother of the Night’s Watch soon, and face worse dangers than Catelyn Tully Stark. “He’s my brother,” he said."

This is Jon's POV, he's been preoccupied with becoming a "man," and he's been comparing "current Jon" to "boy Jon" before and after this as a way of measuring his strength. This falls completely in line with these sentences being read as the conditional statements they are. Jon's focus here isn't about Cat, it's about how he handles himself as a man of the NW versus the boy he was.

I brought this up a few times mid-thread so it might be buried now, but there's also the fact that in Jon XII, aSoS, when he contemplates Stannis' offer, he doesn't mention any further abuses beyond cold looks. It's at a point in Jon's POVs where he's directly thinking about feeling that Winterfell doesn't belong to him, he thinks on Cat as the major antagonist to that end, yet, only specifies her icy stares. This would really be the time to elaborate further abuses, but since he doesn't, I think the safest assumption is that such abuses didn't occur.

[Pelican]

This was a well-written and interesting OP, and the questions raised are going to be important in the next books. My own judgment of Catelyn is harsher but that's a personal response.

"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."

My reading of that section is that it does tell us that those interactions had happened before, but I also believe it's telling us more about Jon in the present -- that his farewell to Bran is a turning point for him; he is not going to run or cry. It's a different form of learning to not fear the coldness.

[Dicer]

Indeed.

The Jon-can-do-no-wrong, Cat-can-do-no-right views may be strong, but they're grounded in something other than the text.

Has anyone, anywhere in this debate suggested that Jon can do no wrong or that Catelyn can do no right? I wish generalized, sweeping statements like this would not be made without any basis in facts.

In this particular instant, in her treatment of Jon, Catelyn was wrong. It may be understandable, but it's not excusable IMO. How is Jon to blame for anything here? He was the child, she was the adult. And the text provides us with enough information about their relationship. Readers are not just pulling it out of thin air.

Catelyn has been right on several other instances and Jon has made mistakes in his treatment of others. But we are not talking about that in this thread are we?

But, to quote a great man, words are wind. Jon was, in deed if not in name, raised a Stark. He wore the same clothes, ate at the same table, trained with the same maesters and masters at arms.]

Sorry, but as Newstar pointed out earlier, being well clothed and well fed does not negate mistreatment. And just because other bastards had it worse than him, does not negate emotional abuse.

[James Arryn]

I'm not following your query. You're saying that this seems like a bizarre time for Jon to run this hypothetical, and therefore, it stands as an indication that Cat has said similar things to him previously?

Jon's first few chapters are when he's convincing himself that he's no longer a boy, but a man of the NW. In fact, he invokes this in that scene as a way to bolster strength: "Once that would have sent him running. Once that might even have made him cry. Now it only made him angry. He would be a Sworn Brother of the Night’s Watch soon, and face worse dangers than Catelyn Tully Stark. “He’s my brother,” he said."

This is Jon's POV, he's been preoccupied with becoming a "man," and he's been comparing "current Jon" to "boy Jon" before and after this as a way of measuring his strength. This falls completely in line with these sentences being read as the conditional statements they are. Jon's focus here isn't about Cat, it's about how he handles himself as a man of the NW versus the boy he was.

I brought this up a few times mid-thread so it might be buried now, but there's also the fact that in Jon XII, aSoS, when he contemplates Stannis' offer, he doesn't mention any further abuses beyond cold looks. It's at a point in Jon's POVs where he's directly thinking about feeling that Winterfell doesn't belong to him, he thinks on Cat as the major antagonist to that end, yet, only specifies her icy stares. This would really be the time to elaborate further abuses, but since he doesn't, I think the safest assumption is that such abuses didn't occur.

I get your point to a degree. I think it's slightly awkward, but it works (not your construction, but the line in that context.) To that end, fair enough.

But...'Worse dangers than...' Would also seem to indicate a known entity rather than something novel, no?

As to Jon's reflection of stares more than words, I acknowledge that stares were likely where Cat was least diplomatic, because they would be the least accountable. But I really fail to see the significant distinction you apparently get. We are talking about an adult's interaction with a child here, for the most part. An adult capable of regular 'icy stares' towards a child, and making that child very aware that they are unwelcome in the only home they've ever known has IMO crossed a line. On the other side of that line is another, vaguer line about what words would be said how often. I feel it a less reliable rubric than you do, given the regularity with which the first line had been crossed, child-wards.

In another aide...legit question here, not positional...what other moments in the first novel do we have of major characters acting dramatically out of character? My tendency is to think GRRM was establishing character at that point, and so Cat's words (being the only interaction we are given) seem less likely as an aberration as a realization, but on the other hand GRRM has his own drum beat. There probably are other exceptions, too...I just can't think of any that were up to the character themselves.

[juanml82]

I have a hard time believing she addressed him as "bastard" (not only because I'd expect this fact to have come out at some point, but also because I have trouble seeing Ned allow such a thing). I have a hard time believing she had much need to call him anything at all given that she wanted no contact at all with him, and calling him to get his attention seems rather unlikely with that in mind. Bear in mind that other than mealtimes, where they'd be separated by scores of people, they'd have very little intersection during the day (Cat doesn't take her lessons with Jon, she's not training at arms, she's not accompanying Ned on state business).

Well, we just don't know and we have to fill in the blanks. I think that, had Catelyn and Jon had few interactions over those 13 years, Jon wouldn't be wary of visiting Bran.

Now, exactly how much (unhappy) time they've spent together, well, we don't know.

[butterbumps!]

I get your point to a degree. I think it's slightly awkward, but it works (not your construction, but the line in that context.) To that end, fair enough.

But...'Worse dangers than...' Would also seem to indicate a known entity rather than something novel, no?

As to Jon's reflection of stares more than words, I acknowledge that stares were likely where Cat was least diplomatic, because they would be the least accountable. But I really fail to see the significant distinction you apparently get. We are talking about an adult's interaction with a child here, for the most part. An adult capable of regular 'icy stares' towards a child, and making that child very aware that they are unwelcome in the only home they've ever known has IMO crossed a line.

Well, yea, I agree that the icy stares crossed a line-- I definitely included this in the OP and throughout. I did make the determination of icy stares to be absuive, and they definitely had the effect of causing Jon to understand that he's not welcome in her eyes, to the point that he felt begrudged of food by her.

I'm being so anal about hammering out the specifics, though, largely in response to past threads that became yelling matches between those who assumed further abuses (like taking for granted she went around telling him die, calling him bastard, actively tormenting him, etc), and those who defended against these where it inevitably ends up as a tug of war between two sides assuming the other is whitewashing/ blackwashing.

In another aide...legit question here, not positional...what other moments in the first novel do we have of major characters acting dramatically out of character? My tendency is to think GRRM was establishing character at that point, and so Cat's words (being the only interaction we are given) seem less likely as an aberration as a realization, but on the other hand GRRM has his own drum beat. There probably are other exceptions, too...I just can't think of any that were up to the character themselves.

That's a good question. This is the main occurrence I can think of; over the course of the rest of Cat's arc, I think it becomes clear that this was an aberration, where we don't see such a thing until her final chapter. But, I think the fact that Cat was so torn by grief that she became irrational is part of her character, that is, setting her up as being "compromised" by her love for her children, so perhaps "out of character" was mis-stated, but this sort of lashing episode is pretty unique. In a slightly different sense, I think Martin set up Dany and Tyrion as highly sympathetic initially (though not with "out of character" necessarily), which he erodes somewhat over time, and does the reverse with Jaime (Jaime doesn't really have a habit of throwing kids out windows).

Well, we just don't know and we have to fill in the blanks. I think that, had Catelyn and Jon had few interactions over those 13 years, Jon wouldn't be wary of visiting Bran.

Now, exactly how much (unhappy) time they've spent together, well, we don't know.

I do think the looks Jon describes sufficiently sent the unwanted message and made an impact. We know that they had "interaction," in that, we know there were times they were in the same room together, I just question how much direct verbal interaction they had. Keeping distance from Jon and looking at him coldly would be enough, I think, to make Jon feel that she could send him away during the Bran scene, and to question his right being in such tight quarters with her.

I really think Jon's fear here wasn't anticipation of what she'd say; it seems to be about whether she'd get the guards to bounce him: "Lady Stark was watching. She had not raised a cry [for the guards]. Jon took that for acceptance."

[TepidHands]

But we are not talking about that in this thread are we?

My apologies. I didn't realize all threads were discrete and prevailing attitudes couldn't be mentioned. I am but a young girl, and know little of the ways of war.

Sigh.

I do think Jon shows signs of that Rhaegaresque "sensitivity."

[Dicer]

My apologies. I didn't realize all threads were discrete and prevailing attitudes couldn't be mentioned. I am but a young girl, and know little of the ways of war.

And where does this attitude prevail? Both characters have their detractors and supporters. Jon has been blamed for getting stabbed on the wall, and been seen as an incompetant commander, an oathbreaker by many readers. He's been described as bratty and arrogant in AGoT. Dismissed as cliche and boring.

Where is this place where Jon is universally praised and liked? Any thread has any number of people who criticize Jon or Catelyn or both of them.

I do think Jon shows signs of that Rhaegaresque "sensitivity."

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.

[James Arryn]

bB-

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

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.

[bbstark]

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.

very nice OP, bumps! I endorse your continued efforts to reveal the nuances and extent of Cat's transgressions.

My personal view is that Cat upholds her Tully family words : Family. Duty. Honor.

Within that scope she hardly felt that Jon was family, as you have argued already. Therefore she hardly felt any sense of duty for him. As far as honor goes, well, she didn't physically abuse him, and as far as we know, apart from the isolated incident, she didn't verbally abuse him either.

The chilly demeanor and icy stares might have been her only channel of defiance against the circumstances she found herself in, and had no power to change. From that perspective, I find her rather sympathetic.