AryaUnderfoot33

Members
  • Content count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AryaUnderfoot33

  • Rank
    Freerider
  1. Bahaha, "let's all go around and share a story about an interesting person we met on our journey. But don't name name guys! It's more fun this way." Yeah they did. They have literally 2 minutes of screentime together and managed to mention Sansa. Jon and Tyrion managed to discuss Sansa. But apparently, Jon - who in the books can barely go a chapter without thinking about Arya - doesn't give a crap about his little sister.
  2. Yeah, I mean maybe it could be they were both too heartbroken to mention her because they both thought she was dead, but now it's like what? Jon admittedly has no way of knowing Gendry was friends with Arya, but Gendry sure as hell knows Jon' her brother. Why wouldn't be bring Arya up as well as Ned? It's like literally everything about Arya is relevant: Jon hears she's alive, Gendry who was her closest friend returns, BwB who Arya ran away from because they sold Gendry returns, the Hound who picked up her after the Brotherhood returns....aaaaand no mention of her at all.
  3. Um, how the hell did Gendry and Jon not mention Arya??? Gendry talks about Ned, who he spoke to for all of 3 minutes but apparently forgets he spent what, months, years with Jon's little sister? And then the Hound and the Brotherhood don't mention her either? Jesus christ, you've got literally every living character who Arya travelled with in Westeros together and her name doesn't even pop up? (Except Hot Pie, who I assume was excluded because he actually likes talking about Arya).
  4. I absolutely agree that Ned's education would have been ok if the Starks had stayed in the North. Ned was a very respected and beloved warden of the North, precisely for being plain-spoken, just, honourable, "the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword" etc. All of which he passed onto his kids, particularly his sons. But yeah, the main problem - in addition to not planning his kid's futures, marriage for Robb and Sansa, a keep for Jon etc. - was that the kids didn't learn Southern ways. In which case Ned and Catelyn needed to stick with keeping the kids in the North - or at least if Sansa does go South, like the Riverlands or Vale not Kings Landing. They needed to refuse Robert's offer of handship and Joffrey-Sansa marriage. But overall Ned did a pretty impressive job given he was never raised to be Lord of WF and like you said was carrying the trauma of the rebellion and 3 family members deaths in less than a year. Idk, I think the Mycah incident was a pretty rude awakening for Arya. She grew up believing that - even if others were unjust - her family and the people of Winterfell would defend those in need and make sure justice was served. That was how she thought life worked. What happened with Mycah and Lady broke that worldview: Arya had lived nothing better than to sit at her father's table and listen to them [people of WF] talk. She had loved listening to the men on the benches too....Only that was Winterfell, a world away, and now everything was changed. This was the first time they had supped with the men since arriving at Kings Landing. Arya hated it. She hated the sounds of their voices now, the way they laughed, the stories they told. They'd been her friends, she'd felt safe around them, but now she knew that was a lie. They'd let the queen kill Lady, that was horrible enough, but then the Hound found Mycah.....And no one had raised a voice or drawn a blade or anything, not Harwin who always talked so bold, or Alyn who was going to be a knight, or Jory who was captain of the guard. Not even her father. Sorry for the super long quote, but I always just found that passage so evocative in terms of how Arya is reappraising the world and how she views the people she idolized and loved. Imo, it was a shift in her belief system and trust in people. While she does talk to Ned, and realizes the complexities of it - that Ned did care, that the men cared but sometimes you can't do anything - some of her innocence was still shattered. And even her conversation with Ned was about how winter was coming and the world was dangerous. And it provides an interesting contrast to Sansa. Sansa instead of - like Arya - being angry the people she idolized (Cersei, Joffrey) for their actions, pretends it didn't happen to preserve her innocent world view.
  5. Ok. What? You have two characters: One told the truth, one told a lie. A third character refuses to side with the truth. They're implicitly helping the liar more, because it means the lie gets equal weight as the truth. Sansa threw Arya under the bus, because Arya. Was. Telling. The. Truth. It wasn't that Arya and Joffrey both had fair, balanced points of view and Sansa had to choose. Arya was in the right and Joffrey was in the wrong. Sansa's lie endangered Arya and Mycah, because it was less basis to punish Joffrey or let Arya/Mycah off the hook. Two against one would have put the blame firmly on Joffrey's side in front of the entire court and the King. Not siding with the person in the wrong, doesn't discount also not siding with the person in the right. Sansa doesn't deserve a freakin' parade for not going further in her lie for Joffrey. Yes, Sansa could have made it worse for Arya and didn't. But Sansa could have made the situation better for Arya. Not by making anything up. Just the plain unaltered truth. Just "That version is true." She didn't. She lied. And that was a betrayal.
  6. Exactly. It wasn't that Sansa never loved her family, or that she didn't come to appreciate the North as time went on. But at the beginning in s1/book 1, she stood out as the Stark kid who wasn't keen on the North whose dreams were wrapped up in a Southern husband and life. (And it wasn't just that that marriage was what she'd been taught, Arya had been told the same thing and loved the North and it's people. It was down to difference in personality and interests). Tbh, Sansa's refusal to see the truth about Joffrey and Cersei stretches belief. She literally saw Joffrey cut an innocent boy's face open for fun, almost kill her sister and then Cersei has Sansa's wolf killed. She still convinces herself they're good. Then, there's a fight with Jaime where her father is almost killed and Jory is killed - who Sansa has known since childhood and is close to the family.She still thinks the Lannisters are good. Then her injured father announces they're leaving. Sansa responds by going to Cersei. I'm sorry but wouldn't she realize something was up?? Even at 11? Arya knew Stark-Lannister relations weren't good even before Ned talked to her. I do think that there were gaps in the Stark kids education, Ned had a tendency to bury his head in the snow about the futures and I'm sideyeing Catelyn as well. i.e. Why wasn't Robb betrothed? Or even Sansa? Why hadn't he at least thought about some plans for Jon, so Jon didn't feel his only option was the NW? He knew Robert was coming to offer him the Handship, maybe prepare a better excuse to say no? They expected Sansa to make a great Southern match, maybe prep her for it. The Starks kids also did seem to be a bit naive. And yes, Ned screwed up bad with the Joffrey situation and looking after the girls at KL. He should have called off the match with Sansa long before. Probably should have sent Arya back to WF after the Mycah incident. He should have had a better guardian than Septa Mordane for the girls. He should have talked to Sansa. Ned failed at managing in court. The books acknowledge that, Ned dies for those mistakes. The ultimate problem imo was Ned prepared the Stark kids for Northern life and rulership. Had they all remained in the North and out of the game of thrones things probably would have been fine. But he and Catelyn made no contingency for teaching them to survive in the South. That said, it's notable that Sansa was one who was really naive and made particularly ridiculous mistakes before all hell broke loose. (Robb made big mistakes once he was forced to become King during war but those were exceptional circumstances that anyone would struggle with, albeit, it did show the issues in the Starks upbringing and lack of political education. Sansa made mistakes in less exceptional circumstances). Why Sansa was quite so oblivious I don't know. Maybe her naivety was highlighted because she and Arya were the only one who went South. (Aforementioned, "raised in Northern ways" problem). Or like you said, maybe it was on Catelyn and Septa Mordane as they were in charge of the girls education. Why did they let Sansa labour under this belief the world was a song?(In that case, did Ned do a better job with the boys, than Cat did with the girls?) But, the thing is, even if Ned and Cat did raise the kids to be overly idealistic, the rest of the Stark kids snapped out of it pretty fast. Sansa didn't. Like @teej6 mentioned, Jon went into the NW naive and kind of a snob but after a talking to got over it. For Arya, the Mycah incident broke her own idealism about the world. There's a hugely significant moment when she reflects that none of the WF men not even her father fought for Mycah, but unlike Sansa who avoids seeing the truth Arya faces it head on and it permanently changes her worldview and that things aren't fair. She can't bring herself to talk to WF men for a while and certainly never trusts the Lannisters. (Arya having her faith in justice and caring about the smallfolk challenged, is like Sansa having her fantasies of marriage/knights/chivarly questioned. But they respond very differently). Whereas for Sansa, it literally takes her father getting beheaded to see life as it is. So while, Ned and Cat neglected aspects of teaching the kids about the dangers of the world, a lot of it's Sansa's personality.
  7. Ok, you've come to a different point. The original premise was never about whether Sansa telling the truth would have saved Mycah. I acknowledged right at the beginning that Mycah was already dead and Cersei was always going to play unfairly. I'm not arguing anything ridiculous like that Mycah could have been raised from the dead. I'm not arguing over the logistics, I'm arguing over what Sansa and Arya thought Sansa's testimony meant at the time. The initial discussion was about Sansa's perspective when she testified, her knowledge of the situation and the difference she and Arya thought her testimony could make. And Sansa's perspective was: 1) She didn't know Mycah had already been killed 2) She knew Joffrey not Arya/Mycah/Nymeria were to blame 3) she was an idealistic 11 year old who idolized the King and Queen as fair and good, she didn't know Robert was useless and Cersei was evil. From her perspective, her truthful testimony could have meant the King (ha) could have judged Joffrey as wrong and stopped any punishment of an innocent boy and her sister. Her untrue testimony could have made things worse for Arya and endangered Mycah. (Not got him killed, Sansa wasn't think that drastically, but he could have been punished, whipped or had his hand cut off etc.) That was Sansa's knowledge of the situation....and she made the call not to back up Arya's version of events. Before you repeat "but Mycah was already dead/Robert was too weak to do anything/Cersei had already sent Sandor out" - that's not my point. We know that justice was never going to be served. But as I've kept saying over and over - Sansa didn't. Arya didn't. That was my original argument. Your original argument was: "One can argue that Sansa was lying to protect her sister from punishment" No. Arya admitted to hitting Joffrey, Sansa just didn't back up that she had a reason to. "Sansa telling the outright lie about the incident could be used against Mycah, her pleading the 5th, can't" Sansa didn't have to make up some story about the incident to protect Mycah. All she had to say was "Arya's story was true, Mycah never hit anyone." In contrast, not calling bullshit on Joffrey's lie that Mycah attacked him which put Mycah in danger. You cannot possibly argue that Sansa pleading 5th helped Mycah in any way. "Sansa wasn't throwing either Arya or Mycah under the bus and her lie didn't incriinate them." It meant, from Sansa's pov, that the Lannisters still had the grounds to claim their version was true and Sansa lying meant there was no deciding vote between the two versions for Robert and everyone watching. Arya didn't think of Mycah? The first thing she said when dragged before the court, been lost for days, scared out of her mind and Cersei accused her and Nymeria of attacking Joffrey was: "That's not true. She just bit him a little. He was hurting Mycah." Hell, she doesn't even mention "Joffrey tried to stab me" as a defense. She was all about Mycah. Mycah was talked about in the trial. Cersei and Joffrey accused Arya and Mycah of "beating Joffrey with clubs" and "attacking". It wasn't that Mycah was never mentioned and at the end it was "oh yes there was a butchers boy there too." I'll acknowledge that he wasn't at the forefront of Sansa and Ned's worries like he was for Arya. I don't think Sansa went up there going "I could determine if this boy dies or lives." But he was talked about enough that Sansa wouldn't have just forgotten about him. (Plus y'know she saw Joffrey practically torturing him). And I didn't say Sansa had "malicious intent" in lying. I said it was selfishness because she didn't want Joffrey to be angry and to preserve her dreams of Queenship (and by that I meant the whole life fantasy she had at the time, which you just refered to). It was selfish and yes she was an 11 year old blinded by love and fantasy. But it still happened.
  8. Absolutely. The writers definitely want us to question Sansa's motives. And given there's a whole thread dedicated to that one look she gave Arya they succeeded. But I expect any Stark sibling tensions to be short lived or a plot misdirection to make double crossing LF a shock. No Sansa lying and saying she didn't remember did not help Arya in anyway. As. @teej6 already said no one was saying Arya hadn't hit Joffrey. It wasn't a trial for whether she hit him. Robert was treating the trial as two children who got into a fight and finding out who started it: Arya told the truthful events - Joffrey hurt Mycah --> Arya hit him with a stick --> Joffrey tried to kill her with live steel --> Nymeria bit him. Joffrey said that Arya, Mycah and Nymeria attacked him out of nowhere. Sansa not backing up Arya leaves Joffrey's version - as the higher ranking prince whose parent is doing a hell of a better job arguing his case than Ned is arguing Arya's - gain more authority. (Or at the very least stand in equal with Arya's). Had Sansa told the truth Arya would at least have justification for hitting Joffrey. Robert was open to knowing why the fight started, not going - "doesn't matter how it started, you just admitted to hitting my son, punishment!" Sansa telling the truth would have given the spineless Robert - torn between his wife and best friend - a chance to go "there we go, Joffrey started it, leave everyone else alone." (And from Sansa's pov stop the death hunt for Mycah). Robert was already reluctant to punish Arya anyway. And re: striking a Crown Prince is a crime - yes it is but the big thing is Mycah never hit Joffrey. Joffrey's version claimed he did, Arya's didn't. While Arya committed a "crime" in both versions, the truth saves Mycah. He was the complete innocent Sansa sacrificed in lying. And while Arya was protected by her status - Robert wasn't going to execute or cut off the hand of a noblegirl/the daughter of his best friend - Mycah wasn't. And Sansa lying gave the Lannisters justification to keep trying to punish him. And yes, the fact Sansa continued to blame Arya for y'know defending an innocent while Sansa threw him under the bus, and claim that Mycah and Lady's deaths were Arya's fault shows that Sansa was never trying to help her sister. I'm not saying Sansa wasn't in a difficult situation, she was torn between obeying her King and family vs. her betrothed and had no training for this situation. But the decision was never driven by anything other than selfishness to stop Joffrey being angry at her/preserve her dreams of Queenship and was not intended to protect Arya. Yes to all of this. Arya/Sansa tension is a crappy, crappy plot and I was letdown by their pretty unemotional reunion. I was expecting a Sansa-Jon style big dramatic reunion, quick, serious talk forgiving each other for the past and moving on. I'm certainly not excited about a plot of them disagreeing or fighting. BUT because the writers haven't let them have a honest chat, I do understand why in-universe Arya is still suspicious of Sansa. She doesn't know she's changed. From her perspective all Sansa wanted was to be a lady and Queen, the first thing she sees is Sansa ruling WF as Lady Stark and acting as defacto QitN. How's she meant to know she's changed? The only silver lining in them forcing a contrived sister conflict is that maybe we'll get the proper heart to heart at the end that we should have got last episode.
  9. 1. If you read further up we were talking about the Starks as children, in the context of why so many of the audience are willing to believe Sansa could betray the Stark's even when it's clear she won't. So in terms of Arya/Jon/Bran's perspective of Sansa back then and how they remember her. Not Sansa now. And Sansa herself admits in the show that as a child all she wanted to do was leave WF and go South. She was the Stark least interested in Northern ways. Most of s1/book 1 is about her rejecting the North and embracing the South. During the books that clearly changes, she grows to appreciate the North, wants to go home and cares fiercely about it by s7. But that doesn't change her original position or how her siblings may perceive her. They haven't seen the journey she went on and need to reconnect. Just like Sansa doesn't know Arya has had quite enough of adventures. (And while Arya wanted adventures and Bran knighthood, they were never as dismissive about the North as Sansa was when they were kids. And neither of their dreams involved leaving the North forever the way Sansa's did). 2. Ah good, I couldn't remember if it did. That makes sense with the character being aged up and it being less believable a 13 year old would be that naive. That does soften whatever issues she and Arya have to talk out. 3. No Sansa's testimony didn't kill Mycah, he was already dead by the time she spoke. But she didn't know that. The trial happened, then Ned went outside and found Sandor with Mycah's body. She didn't know Sandor had already killed him. From Sansa's perspective she was called up knowing her testimony would determine whether Arya/Mycah/Nymeria or Joffrey was responsible for starting the fight. And that testimony was meant to determine who Robert would punish. For all Sansa knew her testimony WAS the difference between an innocent boy being killed/having his hand chopped off for striking a royal. (Not to mention how her own sister would be punished). And she chose to lie and not back Arya up, knowing full well it could harm Mycah. I get she was 11/13, pulled between her family and betrothed, that Ned handled the situation like shit, that Cersei was never going to play fair, Robert was too lazy to acknowledge that of course he knew his son was to blame and that punishing Lady was illogical and unjust. But from Sansa's perspective, during the trial itself she still believed Cersei to be good and had just witnessed Joffrey try to kill her own sister and maim an innocent. And she lied. And she had to know that was risking Mycah's life. And while other noble families raised their kids not to care about lowborns, Ned Stark sure as hell didn't. We see the rest of the Stark kids valuing the lives of those below them due to their father's teachings - Arya the most obviously given that's her mo, but also Bran at WF, Robb with his men, Jon at the Wall - it wasn't that Sansa didn't know that what she was doing was wrong. So yes, I think she at least needs to apologise to Arya for endangering an innocent boy and betraying her sister, for Joffrey.
  10. Exactly. They could have had Sandor and Arya together for the first few episodes of s4: Kept a few meaningful moments, Arya getting back Needle, Sandor opening up and then Sandor being injured (Maybe not by Brienne as she'd still be in KL, but the same end point of Arya refusing mercy). Have Arya arrive in Braavos in about episode 4, play out her s5 storyline then (man they might just have to cut some of her scenes sweeping floors, the tragedy) and have her going blind in the s4 finale. Switch her s6 training to s5 and then have her returning home, massacring the Freys/finding Nymeria/making her way North in s6. She rejoins Jon instead of Sansa early in s6, they rally the North together and Sansa brings in reinforcements having persuaded the Vale lords to help through some magnificent political savvy and manipulation she's learned over 2 seasons. (As opposed to rape having made her badass and capable). That also works better if the writers want us to believe Sansa could betray the Starks in s7. It doesn't make sense after LF handing her over to Ramsay and her working with Jon. It makes more sense if she was in the Vale all the time, LF won her over and she expected to be Queen in the North. And while she helped Jon and Arya, she thought she was ahead of them in the succession and would arrive in WF as the heir - only for the North to crown Jon. They could have worked in Robb's will which named Jon as his heir and struck Sansa out due to being married to Tyrion, giving more justification for the random "bastard over trueborn daughter" call. Sansa finding out she'd been removed due a marriage she never wanted, and that her bastard brother and little sister were now more recognized than her, would rightfully annoy her. Jeyne Westerling instead of Sansa is such a good alternative. (And yes, keep the Jeyne/Robb story - fairly nice Westeros girl Robb marries for stupidly honourable reasons - rather than the Talisa/Robb - a character that walked in from a different show and Robb marries "for love" in supreme selfishness). They'd probably need to show Jeyne being respected among the Northern lords and acknowledged as a Queen in the North in s3 - to justify her use to Ramsay. (As opposed to that weird foreign girl Talisa was). But she's an established character and the symmetry of Theon rescuing Robb's wife after betraying him would be amazing. The books had lots of parallels and connections between Robb/Jeyne Westerling/Theon/Jeyne Poole and how they all impacted each other. Simplify that and make Jeyne one character. Yeah, to be fair there wasn't much in the Vale and it seemed easy to cut. But D&D ended up writing so much terrible original material - hi, Dorne! Jaime! Stannis! - that at least they could have done it to benefit a major character like Sansa not ruin her. Learning manipulation from LF rather than dumbing him down, her reaction to LF trying to poison Robin (what does she do?) and Brienne finding her and swearing fealty would be something in s5. Sansa managing to win over the Vale lords to take WF in s6 could be fascinating. (If she's been disguised as Alayne Stone does she reveal herself as Sansa, and use the fact that Ned Stark grew up in the Vale? Pull on memories of the victorious North/Vale alliance in the Rebellion? Is Harry Hardng a character - does she promise to marry him and rule the Vale/North with her if he leads troops North?) There were options to expand.
  11. That's true. So much time has passed and Sansa has been so desperate to get home for a long time that it's easy to forget that - from her siblings perspectives - Sansa was the one who never cared about the North. Especially in comparison to the remaining Stark siblings: Jon and Arya were as Northern as they come and disliked the South/Lannisters from the get go. But they would have grown up with "WF sucks, the South rules" from Sansa. (The Southern aspect is why - while I don't think Sansa will betray the Stark - her becoming Queen of the North would make so little sense). Did they keep Sansa betraying Ned to Cersei in the show? I honestly can't remember. Either way, I think that Sansa needs to apologize for both the Mycah and Cersei incidents. While she's not the only Stark to make a stupid mistakes due to naivety - hi, Robb and Ned - she was also driven by selfishness and ambition while none of the others have been. The audience has seen her grow from that, the other Stark siblings - particularly Arya - haven't. But agree that Sansa's character has always suffered from Sansa having a resting bitch face. That was a frustration when she was at KL. (I think ST is a great actress, especially given how young she is but Maisie Williams is better at communicating nuance and emotion through her facial expressions even when her character is acting stoic or hiding things).
  12. 1. Yes she did, but it was notably out of character for "eager to please since she was 3" versus "wilful, wild" Lyanna. (When Sansa does something rebellious she even compares it to feeling "almost as wicked as Arya" to reflect how out of character her doing something disobedient is). And a very different type of rebellion in siding with your mother-in-law to ensure the arranged marriage goes and you become Queen versus. rebels against literally everyone and running away from all good society with a guy. 2. As a nine year old. Sansa believed she was living in a song when she started out. And honestly the whole point of Arya's Faceless men arc is that she's failing to be a Faceless man, and give up her identity and life. (And the books also depict her having a puppy love/childish romantic tease with Gendry and have now made a point of her being womanly enough to entice men). I'm not saying that she's going to end up happily married raising 7 kids in the countryside, but to say that a much younger Arya cannot be like 16 year old Lyanna because her story is devoid of any love or romance is reaching. But yes overall, you're right that we'll just to see about how how blinded Lyanna really was and how much R/L was a straight love story. It's one of the biggest mysteries of the series and I suspect it will be more complex and in-between the two contrasting versions of "kidnapped" vs. "they were just consumed by love!!" We may well get flashbacks of Lyanna gushing over Rhaegar being a "golden haired dragon/he was all she ever wanted/her perfect prince" or him being obviously an arse while she ignores the truth. (At the moment, I cannot imagine I-beat-up-squires-who-attack-helpless-men Lyanna, ever covering for Rhaegar if he did something like attack an innocent commoner or try to kill her sibling, but you never know). We might see Lyanna refusing to believe her warnings about the Prince, Rhaegar promising that he would make his wife and Queen, that she did choose a guy over the her family and believe Rhaegar is a fairytale Prince. Then absolutely I'll agree there are parallels. It's possible a lot of Lyanna/Sansa mirroring could pop up in future books. But at the moment we'll just have to wait (That if if GRRM ever finishes at all... :/ )
  13. The Northern storyline adaption was a mess. Tbh, a major problem was they've over emphasized Ramsay from the beginning and made him a major villain. I remember them justifying replacing Jeyne with Sansa because "Jeyne/Ramsay/Theon was a massive storyline, so it made sense to give that to Sansa not some random"....except it wasn't?? They chose to make it a central plot. Would have been better to expand on the Vale story with Sansa and Littlefinger. Both are bigger characters than Ramsay. They also could have put the book!Riverlands plots - Jaime becoming a better human being, Brienne, Blackfish retaking Riverrun, maybe the Brotherhood - into s5, instead of s6. So in s5 make the Riverlands and Vale more central and depict the aftermath of the war. The Vale and Riverlands tie together quite well, feature a lot of characters from previous seasons rather than introducing new randoms and give some overall plot follow up to the War of the 5 Kings and early season politics. Those stories could have shared characters and sets: Jaime and Littlefinger meet to discuss the state of central Westeros, maybe Brienne finds Sansa at the Vale. And spend less time on the North and Ramsay: Either cut fake!Arya/Jeyne Poole, keep her minor or merge her with another character. (Alys Karstark who like show!Sansa ends up fleeing to Jon?) And cut Dorne, they cut Aegon as well which was a main connection. That avoids the repetitiveness of two seasons of Ramsay being terrible. Then in s6 bring the Northern plot to the forefront and the Starks retaking WF. But have Sansa bringing the troops from the Vale herself, removing all the "why didn't she just tell Jon about the Vale army" plot hole. If you want a Stark sibling team up, they could have had Jon and Arya instead. Arya wasted so much time with the Hound and in Braavos. She could have gone to Braavos in s4 and come back to Westeros at the beginning of s6.
  14. I'd agree that both GRRM and D&D are to blame for the drop in quality basically since s5: 1) like @Lockjaw of House Boltagon said, there was also a drop in quality in the books post Storm of Swords with tonnes of filler and stagnation, it's not a coincidence that the show quality dropped at the same time. They were adapting lesser material to begin with. And that's on GRRM's writing not the show. That said - D&D had time to work out how they could improve issues in the books, but they only made it worse. 2) Like everyone's said, D&D no longer having a storyline framework to work off has meant the show has began to fall apart with plotholes everywhere. They really suck at writing original material and keeping things consistent. And that's on GRRM for writing so slowly. 3) D&D have just chosen to make GoT all about the spectacle not the substance. They've completely skipped out on character depth (Arya, Sansa, Stannis, Jaime, Littlefinger) and plot consistency for what looks "cool". That's all on them.
  15. Awww Stark babies <3 Both Jon and Arya are styled so much like Ned, if there's symbolism I'd guess it's that they're very Stark-ish and are following in their father's footsteps in protecting the North and rejecting Southern ways.