TheCasualObserver

Members
  • Content count

    1,063
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About TheCasualObserver

  • Rank
    Council Member
  1. Sansa: A passion for Killing. The New "psycho"?

    This is just bizarre. Sansa has had no experience ruling over people whatsoever. Jon might be a bit useless at times, but he does have experience being a leader at the very least. And LF's points are legitimate? Oh dear.
  2. What is the meaning of this aspect in Sansa's storyline?

    I agree to a certain extent; Sansa is still a mere stooge for LF, which puts paid to a lot of the buzz surrounding her killing Ramsay and "taking control". But then again, LF's plan is still incredibly stupid and works because the plot requires it to, not because of any particular intelligence on his part. For one thing, he had no way of knowing he would arrive in time to catch Ramsay's army out in the open; that was pure luck.
  3. What is the meaning of this aspect in Sansa's storyline?

    Ignore this
  4. The phrase "people act like people" is very apt. Outlander does this, no matter my other complaints about the show. GOT does not. I noticed it with Sansa in even the earliest seasons; she wasn't a character that acted like a person, she was a mouthpiece for the part a particular episode had for her. But season 6 is awash with people who don't act like people. Did the Waif act like a person? No, Arya needed someone to fight against so she was inexplicably horrible to her. Did Sansa act like a person? Possibly. If that person had a severe head injury and had no idea what they were doing or what they were trying to achieve. Did Jon act like a person? Again, possibly, but he was a rather stupid person, and noticeably unaffected by return from the dead. Fucking Buffy the vampire slayer dealt with this narrative conceit more believably. Did Davos act like a person? No; a person who loves a little girl who inexplicably dies does not wait nine episodes to discover what happened to her. Nor does a person opposed to black magic champion the (necromantic) cause of someone he barely knows. Did Dany act like a person? In a way. She acted like a person who knew the she was about to be pitted against an army of strawmen who she could easily defeat by pushing over a small fire. But really; what kind of a person knows that? Did Arya act like a person? No. People don't recover in a day from a lethal stab wound to the gut. People hunted by an assassin's guild do not stand around in broad daylight admiring the scenery. People's loyalties do not change dependent upon the requirements of a scene. Did Cersei act like a person? No. People don't blow up churches full of people to protect their children and then not care when their children die. People don't declare themselves the ruler of a kingdom when they have no believable way of maintaining it. I can go on and on. Time and time again the motivations and actions of a characters is decided entirely by what the plot requires, instead of the characters propelling the plot. We never had this in the books. We barely saw it in the earlier seasons of the show. How can a show so blatantly ignoring consistency, tone or basic characterization be praised so highly? D and D are in all out "wrap this shit up" mode and I am baffled as to why they are being rewarded for it.
  5. Can't Believe They Spoiled That! *SPOILERS*

    The issue with the Sansa marriage is how GRRM has set it up. In the case of the book, the marriage won't happen until Sansa demonstrably proves able to manipulate Harry. If she can't then the marriage won't happen because he still thinks she's a bastard and not up to snuff as the wife of the heir to the vale. She has to seduce him for the marriage to work, which places her in a very strong position.
  6. What is the meaning of this aspect in Sansa's storyline?

    What's the most important part of controlling a person's action? Controlling the information upon which they act. Not telling Jon about the incoming reinforcements is a clear indication of attempted intrigue. She decided not to trust Jon with the information that she had. What else am I to call it?
  7. What is the meaning of this aspect in Sansa's storyline?

    I think a key problem some of us have with the character is that she actually did "acquire some balance" in her life earlier in the show. At the end of season 4 she placed LF at a disadvantage (because he was relying on her to keep him cozy with the Vale lords) but kept him as an ally and secured her own position as a player within the Vale. She had taken control and gives it up instantly come season 5. This is largely because the plot required her to rather than any implication of characterization, but it still rankles. Marrying Ramsay is a profoundly stupid thing to do - stupid of LF to propose it, stupid of Sansa to agree to it. Nobody marries into their enemies for revenge. And we aren't throwing her into the ring - she throws herself into the ring because she wants revenge on Ramsay. It is Sansa that persuades Jon to fight Ramsay and Sansa that back channels with LF the whole time. Like it or not, Sansa demonstrably is plotting again within the first few episodes of season 6... she just sucks at it.
  8. Can't Believe They Spoiled That! *SPOILERS*

    Presumably it's a situation where the white walkers are coming and coming hard - a last, desperate, shocking hail mary before annihilation, made all the more shocking when it doesn't work. Clearly the scenario presented by the show can't logistically happen.
  9. What is the meaning of this aspect in Sansa's storyline?

    I guess there is something to be said about leaving a foot in the door for the next time she might need him. And this is certainly an improvement from their meeting in episode 4: It's all well and good to point out what an idiot LF was and how Sansa was mistreated, but revealing your hand to an enemy whilst giving him room to maeouver is a political no no, as Ned Stark's snafoo in the godswood with Cersei proves. That being said, I still can't say that this seems like a lesson Sansa has learned per se. She seems to be positively predisposed to LF now because he helped her at Winterfell, not because she has critically thought about her strategic position. I can't decide if it's Sophie Turner's acting or Sansa's scripting, but there's an element of simplistic cause and effect at play here. He rescues her from the Lannisters, she likes LF. She gets raped, she hates LF. He helps her out at winterfell, she likes LF, etc.
  10. Possible marriage

    This thread just won't die. I'm still waiting for anyone to give any indication whatsoever that Sansa and Jon will become romantically linked. They are brother and sister. They love each other very much. But this is not romance. Has GOT given us so many horrible character acting horribly to each other, we assume that when two people are nice to each other it's a given they are going to fuck?
  11. Who can Cersei ally with?

    I think we're all assuming at this point that her goose is cooked. She has less than eight thousand men of dubious loyalty and is trying to defend a city that loathes her, with a brother now convinced that she is crazy. Once Dany lands in Westeros the game of thrones is effectively over and we can get to the ice zombie smashing.
  12. What is the meaning of this aspect in Sansa's storyline?

    But it's debatable what effect any of her moves actually had when you examine them critically. Ramsay might have killed Roose because Sansa planted the idea in his head, but it's more likely that Roose's own conduct toward his son did that. And since Ramsay's legitimacy came from the iron throne and Sansa becoming his wife is proof of his split with the iron throne, did Sansa really need to say anything to make this an issue? Her passive presence should really have done the job without her needing to say anything, which is hardly a great political move. Even if we accept that she was responsible for Ramsay killing Roose, this also makes her partly culpable in innocent Walda and baby Roose's deaths as well. And how much did killing Roose change to the plot? Nothing, he simply would have died alongside Ramsay in ep 9 instead of at Ramsay's hand in ep 4. Her use of "the resources and people available to win the battle" was shoddy in the extreme - a failure to inform Jon of impending reinforcements was partially responsible for hundreds dying when they didn't need to. As an example of Sansa playing the game and moving her pieces it's pretty damn poor. Finally, LF was planning to invade the North for nearly two seasons. To what extent was Sansa's go ahead pivotal to his response? The writers might want us to think that Sansa' involvement was critical here, but that seems pretty weak sauce to me. LF can't martial all the forces of the Vale, march them hundreds of miles north in full armor and plan a way to take over of the North, and then turn them around a go home because Sansa is pissed at him. I just don't see the political savvy you mention at work here. How can Sansa have really learned anything if she considers the idea of LF in charge of the seven kingdoms with her at his side as a "pretty picture"?
  13. Actually, as an English guy I found Outlander to be pretty insufferable. It leans heavily into the Braveheart tactic of idealizing the Scots and vilifying the English, which can be very hard to swallow. To be fair to the show, there are some nasty scots, but every male English character is either a foppish and ignorant bigot, or, in the case of Blackjack, a violent torturer and rapist. As someone who likes his historical fiction nuanced and complex, the first season of Outlander exploits stereotypes on several occasions and leaves a lot to be desired. Clearly, it's not a show aimed at me, but I'm also put off by the romance angle. Clair's first meeting with Jaime is comical - she arrives in a room filled with a dozen dirty, ugly, middle aged scotsmen, and one young male model. I wonder who she will fall in love with? I'm also wondering if we would be as accepting of a love affair between a married man and a woman he meets on a trip through time, especially since this act of time distorting adultery is the central purpose of both the book and the show. That being said, I fully appreciate the ways in which Outlander trumps a show like Game of Thrones. Attention to consistency of character is one way it does this and consistency within the setting is another. The threat of sexual assault hangs in the air above Clare in a way which is believable but avoids being exploitative, which is one element that GOT has failed at in the worst way possible. Above all else, characters do things which make sense for them to do, not because the plot needs them to, which in comparison to GOT is proof of just how far the show has fallen since season 1.
  14. What is the meaning of this aspect in Sansa's storyline?

    It's tough to say what Sansa has learned, if anything. As a baseline for playing the game of thrones, "don't trust Littlefinger" might as well be the be all and end all. He got Ned killed, Tyrion exiled and Sansa raped. Since at this point she still hasn't split with the guy (watch her refusal of him in ep 10 vanish come season 7) I doubt she is really capable of the Machiavellian scheming playing the game requires. She clearly lacks both the constitution and the calculating mind for it. A finale which reveals that Sansa Stark cannot be a political heavyweight as she once wanted to would be refreshing in its uniqueness if nothing else.
  15. Almost an hour of Preston? We got real lucky today.