Significance of Arya & Sansa Losing Their Wolves

[ultravioletgaia]

hey just don't 'unStark' her. Not all Starks had wolves jeez. does Ned has a wolf? no. I think she will just lose her ability to be a skinchanger. Varamyr wasn't born with a wolf but he's still a warg. And a damn good one at that.

[Protagoras]

This would be correct if that was what happened. However, that is not how the events revolved. Sansa didn't side with Joffrey. She didn't corroborate his story, she just tried to be neutral because she was put (idiotically) on center stage to decide things in place of adults. 

Oh, because that is exactly how I see it and I am surprised you think different.

If I see a thief steal something from you and I say in court "Sorry, don´t remember" am I not supporting the thief? I don´t need to corroborate his story to side with him. Me "not remembering" help him avoid jail. Even if the thief wouldn´t go to jail anyway I am still not giving the info I possess which make the prosecution against him more doubtful. Don´t forget here - we as readers KNOW that she lied. Your view of "being neutral" simply doesn´t work in what I see as reality. 

Also, intentions doesn´t matter squat, since it will be seen as support (and indeed Arya very much saw it as such). In addition, I doubt Sansa tried to be neutral since up to that point she had done everything to suck it up to Joffrey and blaming Arya for spoiling her day. It is far more likely her testimony is a matter of loyalty. 

This is a situation where "neutrality" is an impossible concept. Either you support Joffrey or you support Arya. Sansa supported Joffrey by not backing Aryas version Sansa knew was true. 

[LiveFirstDieLater]

Another thing. Sansa didn't "lose" her direwolf. Her direwolf was taken from her against her will. I'm not absolving Sansa of all responsibility for that outcome, but of all the people to blame for it, Sansa bears the least possible blame. She was caught in a classic dilemma: forced to choose between two equally bad options.

Robert Baratheon is more to blame, for being a weak-willed idiot. Cersei Lannister is even more to blame, for being a vindictive bitch. Sansa's father Ned is the most to blame, since he actually committed the unjust murder of her direwolf at the same time as he fully knew the whole story (Sansa had given him a complete factual account of the events days earlier) yet he never said a word in her support at the so-called "trial".

Everybody in the room at that so-called trial was aware that Sansa's direwolf was not even there, that it was Arya's wolf - now missing - who was responsible for attacking Joffrey. Everybody knew that Sansa's wolf Lady was completely innocent, yet said not a single word. Even Sansa's own father.

Perhaps Ned is the one who is not really a "Stark".

Really, this "Sansa is not a true Stark" idea, or the theory that "Stark-ness" is some exclusive club that only some people can belong to needs to die a swift and permanent death.

 

Really!?! Sansa lies, inditing her own family... She is the most to blame.

 

Ned just swings the sword because dire wolves are of the north and deserved better than a headsman. 

 

Like Ned deserved better than a headsman when Sansa tells the truth, to Cersei, betraying her family. 

 

We we can find lots of excuses for Sansa's horrible behavior, but they don't change the facts...

[Mladen]

Oh, because that is exactly how I see it and I am surprised you think different.

If I see a thief steal something from you and I say in court "Sorry, don´t remember" am I not supporting the thief? I don´t need to corroborate his story to side with him. Me "not remembering" help him avoid jail. Even if the thief wouldn´t go to jail anyway I am still not giving the info I possess which make the prosecution against him more doubtful. Don´t forget here - we as readers KNOW that she lied. Your view of "being neutral" simply doesn´t work in what I see as reality. 

Also, intentions doesn´t matter squat, since it will be seen as support (and indeed Arya very much saw it as such). In addition, I doubt Sansa tried to be neutral since up to that point she had done everything to suck it up to Joffrey and blaming Arya for spoiling her day. It is far more likely her testimony is a matter of loyalty. 

This is a situation where "neutrality" is an impossible concept. Either you support Joffrey or you support Arya. Sansa supported Joffrey by not backing Aryas version Sansa knew was true. 

Supporting Joffrey is if Sansa had said "Arya is lying, they attacked him and he had to defendhimself" That is support. What Sansa did was basically "Don't ask me", which helped no one's cause. Joffrey was never in danger of anything, not prison, not even some punishment. Why? He is Crown Prince. Martin wonderfully showed us how things work in "The Hedge Knight" and as we have seen later, Robert knew that Joffrey was the guilty party. Sansa was put there to decide because there were no sensible grown-up in the room. Ned naively believed in idealized version of Robert, Cersei was smelling blood and Robert was a moral coward. And they put the weight of their incompetence on the backs of 11-year-old girl who found herself between a future husband and her sister. 

Arya may see it as a support, but what one POV sees doesn't speak much about objectivity. Sansa did try to be neutral because according to the truth, even though she was provoked, Arya was the one who hit first. And again, referencing "The Hedge Knight", we all know what is a punishment for that.

As readers we know that neutrality here is an impossible concept. Sansa naively tried that and she never backed Joffrey as she was smart enough to tell Ned the truth. Ned knew the truth all along because it was Sansa who told him. It was when the burden of decision was put on her by the adults in the room, she tried being everyone's friend. The tragedy is that things don't work that way.

Really!?! Sansa lies, inditing her own family... She is the most to blame.

I suppose you mean indicting her own family? Then I suppose you forgot that it was Arya who broke the Law of the Land, when she hit (first one) Joffrey. The truth would indict Arya much more.

We we can find lots of excuses for Sansa's horrible behavior, but they don't change the facts...

True, they don't change the facts... Arya broke the law of land, a crime that, as we know, is punishable by amputation of an arm. Gosh, the girl was lucky Sansa played dumb.

 

[LiveFirstDieLater]

Supporting Joffrey is if Sansa had said "Arya is lying, they attacked him and he had to defendhimself" That is support. What Sansa did was basically "Don't ask me", which helped no one's cause. Joffrey was never in danger of anything, not prison, not even some punishment. Why? He is Crown Prince. Martin wonderfully showed us how things work in "The Hedge Knight" and as we have seen later, Robert knew that Joffrey was the guilty party. Sansa was put there to decide because there were no sensible grown-up in the room. Ned naively believed in idealized version of Robert, Cersei was smelling blood and Robert was a moral coward. And they put the weight of their incompetence on the backs of 11-year-old girl who found herself between a future husband and her sister. 

Arya may see it as a support, but what one POV sees doesn't speak much about objectivity. Sansa did try to be neutral because according to the truth, even though she was provoked, Arya was the one who hit first. And again, referencing "The Hedge Knight", we all know what is a punishment for that.

As readers we know that neutrality here is an impossible concept. Sansa naively tried that and she never backed Joffrey as she was smart enough to tell Ned the truth. Ned knew the truth all along because it was Sansa who told him. It was when the burden of decision was put on her by the adults in the room, she tried being everyone's friend. The tragedy is that things don't work that way.

I suppose you mean indicting her own family? Then I suppose you forgot that it was Arya who broke the Law of the Land, when she hit (first one) Joffrey. The truth would indict Arya much more.

True, they don't change the facts... Arya broke the law of land, a crime that, as we know, is punishable by amputation of an arm. Gosh, the girl was lucky Sansa played dumb.

 

hey first to be clear I enjoy arguing and it's fun not personal!!! Also, phone makes spelling hard, it fights me on every word I swear!

 

but Jeoff was no true prince, but a bastard of incest and the heir to a usurper. Arya committed no crime! It was the Targ's that cut off offending limbs...

[Protagoras]

Supporting Joffrey is if Sansa had said "Arya is lying, they attacked him and he had to defendhimself" That is support. What Sansa did was basically "Don't ask me", which helped no one's cause. Joffrey was never in danger of anything, not prison, not even some punishment. Why? He is Crown Prince. Martin wonderfully showed us how things work in "The Hedge Knight" and as we have seen later, Robert knew that Joffrey was the guilty party. Sansa was put there to decide because there were no sensible grown-up in the room. Ned naively believed in idealized version of Robert, Cersei was smelling blood and Robert was a moral coward. And they put the weight of their incompetence on the backs of 11-year-old girl who found herself between a future husband and her sister. 

Arya may see it as a support, but what one POV sees doesn't speak much about objectivity. Sansa did try to be neutral because according to the truth, even though she was provoked, Arya was the one who hit first. And again, referencing "The Hedge Knight", we all know what is a punishment for that.

As readers we know that neutrality here is an impossible concept. Sansa naively tried that and she never backed Joffrey as she was smart enough to tell Ned the truth. Ned knew the truth all along because it was Sansa who told him. It was when the burden of decision was put on her by the adults in the room, she tried being everyone's friend. The tragedy is that things don't work that way.

 

No, that's not how it works. As I explained above it is fully possible to support someone by feigning ignorance. Do you disagree with my example and why? Maybe you should actually try to meet what I say instead of repeating yourself? You were the one who replied to my post after all.

That Joffrey was unlikely to receive punishment changes nothing. Sansa was told to tell the truth and she didn´t. I could respect her far more if she actually told "Yes, Arya hit first" instead of "I don´t want to take a stance" but instead, if you are correct, she acts like a moral coward - a behaviour you actually seem to think she is entitled to (she isn´t). That she is telling Ned the truth before is no defense against her act - it doesn't matter how many times I tell the truth outside of a court - if I lie in it, I take a stance. You might see it as a non-committal answer but there is no reason to assume (rather the opposite) that this logic was on her mind. 

The point of the situation is for the reader to judge the characters of those involved and she does not come off well here. She is called as a witness (you do understand that concept I hope - this is also why she is (rightfully) getting some weight on her and why Ned can´t talk for her). That the adults didn´t handle it well is no argument why Sansa should be spared rightful criticism for her choice - because choose she did, a choice she later confirms, blames Arya for it unfairly and gets an orange in the face as a just reward. She should be forced to confront the reality of this situation and not be allowed to rewrite the event in her head as she has a history of doing. She very much internally blames Arya after the event.

You also seem to repeat this "she tried to be neutral since she understood soo much". Do you have any basis for this assumption? She clearly doesn´t come of as this - as I said, she have so far in the novel only sucked it up to Joffrey and blaming Arya. In addition, she is known by her siblings as a snitch and does seem to resent her sister (I would personally call it bullying since Arya horseface was a known term in the household and Theon seems to know it was hers). 

I have a hard time seeing your post as anything other than bias and you refuse to understand that it doesn´t matter if the trial was a sham.

 

[Mladen]

hey first to be clear I enjoy arguing and it's fun not personal!!! Also, phone makes spelling hard, it fights me on every word I swear!

LOL, I am no Grammar Nazi, I just wanted to be sure that "indict" was what you meant

but Jeoff was no true prince, but a bastard of incest and the heir to a usurper. Arya committed no crime! It was the Targ's that cut off offending limbs...

That would all be valid if Arya, Robert and the court knew that. Joffrey was Crown Prince and the problem is that regardless of what moral right Arya had to hit him, it was still illegal. That is why Ned was so scared that Lannister men would find her first, or why in AFFC when Jaime is recollecting events, he is thinking that Arya was lucky that it wasn't him who found her.

No, that's not how it works. As I explained above it is fully possible to support someone by feigning ignorance. Do you disagree with my example and why? Maybe you should actually try to meet what I say instead of repeating yourself? You were the one who replied to my post after all. 

The difference between your case and this one is that unlike your thief, Joffrey can't be judged. The difference is that both parties were guilty. The difference is that Sansa already told the truth to Ned. She just didn't want to decide what is to happen to her fiancee and her sister.

 

That Joffrey was unlikely to receive punishment changes nothing. Sansa was told to tell the truth and she didn´t. I could respect her far more if she actually told "Yes, Arya hit first" instead of "I don´t want to take a stance" but instead, if you are correct, she acts like a moral coward - a behaviour you actually seem to think she is entitled to (she isn´t). That she is telling Ned the truth before is no defense against her act - it doesn't matter how many times I tell the truth outside of a court - if I lie in it, I take a stance. You might see it as a non-committal answer but there is no reason to assume (rather the opposite) that this logic was on her mind. 

If we are calling an 11-year-old girl who was put in place of adults to decide between two people who are supposed to be her family a moral coward, then I suppose entire Westeros is. Sansa's lie itself was non-consequential as it allowed Robert to just pretend everything is OK and put the things behind them. That is why her position in the entire case was understandable, because if her position that no one is guilty can make things right, so be it. And that is basically how Robert and Ned saw it too. Ned himself wasn't pushing for truth either. He was there and he could have made Sansa tell the truth, but Ned himself believed that this entire case would be better handled in private. Sansa's lie cut the trial and for a very brief moment everybody thought everything is OK. And then naturally, Cersei spoke.

The point of the situation is for the reader to judge the characters of those involved and she does not come off well here. She is called as a witness (you do understand that concept I hope - this is also why she is (rightfully) getting some weight on her and why Ned can´t talk for her). That the adults didn´t handle it well is no argument why Sansa should be spared rightful criticism for her choice - because choose she did, a choice she later confirms, blames Arya for it unfairly and gets an orange in the face as a just reward. She should be forced to confront the reality of this situation and not be allowed to rewrite the event in her head as she has a history of doing. She very much internally blames Arya after the event.

Nobody said that it is some sort of moral victory, but we are talking about 11-year-old girl who was put in a very difficult position. And even Ned, answering to Arya later in KL said "not every lie is without honor". We haven't seen Ned talking to Sansa after the case, criticizing her for what she has done. We don't hear a word about the case. I am not trying to spar Sansa criticism , because I personally would react differently, but that is just me. I am able to understand what difficulty she has met. In a series where so many people do horrible and morally questionable things, why is this vetted every week? I mean, Tyrion supports illegitimate King, fights against the right one, kill people of jealousy, marries a girl against her will, and the highest point of criticism every once in a blue moon one can hear is that his storyarc in ADWD is boring. It seems that this, with some Cat's and Dany's choices represent the pinnacle of spent energy around the board when it comes to criticizing/

also seem to repeat this "she tried to be neutral since she understood soo much". Do you have any basis for this assumption? She clearly doesn´t come of as this - as I said, she have so far in the novel only sucked it up to Joffrey and blaming Arya. In addition, she is known by her siblings as a snitch and does seem to resent her sister (I would personally call it bullying since Arya horseface was a known term in the household and Theon seems to know it was hers). 

First and foremost, it is conclusion I have made (I doubt I am the only one) based on what is said in the books. The basis itself is well, situation. We do know Sansa couldn't have just easily sided with Joffrey, since well, not only that she knew the truth, but she also told her father all about it. Her decision to have memory lapse doesn't blame Arya. Her silence doesn't mean Arya is guilty and one should remind that not only Joffrey but Arya was also on trial, since Joffrey claimed that Arya attacked him. Later, after Lady dies for the crime objectively Nymeria did (it is the law of the land), Sansa blames Arya.

As for her being the snitch, I don't see how relevant it is in this case. And Jon and Arya's comment about "not telling Sansa" is more like about Sansa's disapproval but the fact that Sansa would tell her father about it. It should be noted that up until Trident, we see Sansa covering up for Arya to times - with Mordane in Wintefell and when she lets Arya roam around on Trident. 

As for bullying charges, shall we also call Winterfell people bullies who called her Underfoot? Plus it shall be noted that it was Jeyne who admits Sansa had nothing with the nickname and that she was the one who came up with it. Plus, let we not pretend that name-calling and throwing things at one (one can very hilariously say that throwing fruits at someone is bullying) isn't how kids behave when they are upset. Also, by all the time they have spent together, we never actually hear Sansa utter the word "Horseface". Given how Arya herself admits how well-bred Sansa is to mock her in public, I sincerely doubt that Sansa ever allowed herself to call Arya horseface in public.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

LOL, I am no Grammar Nazi, I just wanted to be sure that "indict" was what you meant

That would all be valid if Arya, Robert and the court knew that. Joffrey was Crown Prince and the problem is that regardless of what moral right Arya had to hit him, it was still illegal. That is why Ned was so scared that Lannister men would find her first, or why in AFFC when Jaime is recollecting events, he is thinking that Arya was lucky that it wasn't him who found her.

Well there are really two parts to this, I'll call them Moral and Legal for lack of better terms.

 

Moraly I think Arya was right to defend her friend and Sansa lied... I don't think we're arguing about this part. Morally, Arya stood up for 'right', Sansa lied, and Ned followed his sworn lords order.

Legally, it depends if you go just by the practical or the 'true justice' (again lack of better terms). Practically, I think you are right that the current regime clearly will always side with the prince, see the poor butchers boy meets Hound. But if you are talking about an 'all knowing' true justice, then Jeoff is even more of a pretender than Robert and doesn't deserve special protection. (Not trying to argue about what 'true justice' is but it was you that brought up the losing a hand for striking royalty, but that was a Targ rule so being consistent means using those 'true' rules, as dragons are about as close to divine mandate as ASoIaF gets)

 

I'm of the opinion it is wrong to lie and kill children...

[Black_Brother]

I have a personal bet about this question. Although their losses have similar significances - their Stark identities getting lost, I think that Sansa will inherit Nymeria, and Arya will become "100% no one". Maybe arya's participation, albeit vital, will remain unknown by other characters.

[Maxxine]

It is always important to note how Nymeria works as an anchor for Arya and doesn't allow her to float away into FM "nooneness". On the other hand, Sansa uses what she has - her memories to let WF and her family live inside her. Her snow castle scene is important because this girl, like all her siblings, is very much aware of who she is.

I always have believed that people look at this entire thing completely wrong. Or at least that the perception of this is narrow-minded. People tend to speak about "loss of Starkness", when the thing is more complex. Not only that it left Sansa adrift (which, TBH, plot itself demanded) and weak for the various influence, but it has also taken a lot of inner strength she has been trying to rebuild ever since. Mordane noticed how Sansa is as stubborn and willful when it comes to Lady. Also Robert's remark of getting Sansa a dog (hound ) is something that should not be forgotten. Lastly, the symbolism of she-wolf is also important here. As different as they are, Sansa and Arya represent different aspects of that motive. And one of the greatest and strongest motive regarding she-wolves is the freedom. Sansa losing her wolf means she has been vulnerable to be imprisoned. Like a bird. 

I don't think she lost it yet. I just think it will happen. I think the snow castle scene is important too. At that point she still has her sense of self as evidenced by her building the castle as a replica of WF. But then Robert Arryn comes and stomps all over it as if symbolize you're never going to have this again. At least that's the way I'm seeing for the purposes of what I think the significance of the loss of wolves is.

[Mladen]

Well there are really two parts to this, I'll call them Moral and Legal for lack of better terms.

 

Moraly I think Arya was right to defend her friend and Sansa lied... I don't think we're arguing about this part. Morally, Arya stood up for 'right', Sansa lied, and Ned followed his sworn lords order.

Legally, it depends if you go just by the practical or the 'true justice' (again lack of better terms). Practically, I think you are right that the current regime clearly will always side with the prince, see the poor butchers boy meets Hound. But if you are talking about an 'all knowing' true justice, then Jeoff is even more of a pretender than Robert and doesn't deserve special protection. (Not trying to argue about what 'true justice' is but it was you that brought up the losing a hand for striking royalty, but that was a Targ rule so being consistent means using those 'true' rules, as dragons are about as close to divine mandate as ASoIaF gets)

 

I'm of the opinion it is wrong to lie and kill children...

Well, no one argues here that Joffrey was right when he attacked bullied Mycah. But what is moral and legal are two very different things. Of course killing children is wrong and of course, Westeros has the faulty judiciary system, but the characters are operating within that system. And within that system, what Arya did was illegal. Was it morally wrong? Nope. But it was illegal. And that has nothing with true justice, but justice in Westeros. And once again, Robert was the King at the moment, Joffrey was Crown Prince. Their word is the law. And they do have the special protection. Just like Arya had special treatment, because it was Mycah, not her who got killed. Just like Joffrey, she was protected with her name, because no Lannister man (save Jaime) would ever dare kill the daughter of Warden of the North.

I don't think she lost it yet. I just think it will happen. I think the snow castle scene is important too. At that point she still has her sense of self as evidenced by her building the castle as a replica of WF. But then Robert Arryn comes and stomps all over it as if symbolize you're never going to have this again. At least that's the way I'm seeing for the purposes of what I think the significance of the loss of wolves is.

I doubt they will ever lose it. The strength of their identity and that family connection that works on different levels for each of four Stark POVs show us that much. Plus, Nymeria isn't lost. She and Arya are connected and who knows what would happen when Arya comes back to Westeros.

[Joan Jett]

I have a personal bet about this question. Although their losses have similar significances - their Stark identities getting lost, I think that Sansa will inherit Nymeria, and Arya will become "100% no one". Maybe arya's participation, albeit vital, will remain unknown by other characters.

It's impossible for Sansa to 'inherit' Nymeria. You can't just pass around direwolves for everyone to bond with.  And besides that, Nymeria is already too much like Arya to bond with Sansa. She's a wild man-killing pack leader. 

Sansa lost her wolf, that's it. I don't believe she'll get another one. That would minimize the importance of Lady. If Arya does go full 'no one' (she won't, she still has Needle) then she would still be bonded to Nymeria because she would still be a skinchanger.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

So I know some people like to make the snow castle scene important, but it's really her building a lie with Littlefinger(the mocking bird, but whose family sigil is the head of the giant of Bravos)... And it being smashed by a willful brat... If you think the giant in the castle made of snow was that scene, I say you are easily misled and probably think Dany saw the Red Wedding in the House of the Undying... HAH!

[LiveFirstDieLater]

Well, no one argues here that Joffrey was right when he attacked bullied Mycah. But what is moral and legal are two very different things. Of course killing children is wrong and of course, Westeros has the faulty judiciary system, but the characters are operating within that system. And within that system, what Arya did was illegal. Was it morally wrong? Nope. But it was illegal. And that has nothing with true justice, but justice in Westeros. And once again, Robert was the King at the moment, Joffrey was Crown Prince. Their word is the law. And they do have the special protection. Just like Arya had special treatment, because it was Mycah, not her who got killed. Just like Joffrey, she was protected with her name, because no Lannister man (save Jaime) would ever dare kill the daughter of Warden of the North.

so what you are saying is might makes right, if one family usurps the other then all of a sudden the old rules are out the window and the new kings word is law... But this is no basis for law and justice, even in an medieval brutal world there should be a distinction between the practical repercussions of something and the moral/just thing to to.

 

"Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"

[Maxxine]

Well, no one argues here that Joffrey was right when he attacked bullied Mycah. But what is moral and legal are two very different things. Of course killing children is wrong and of course, Westeros has the faulty judiciary system, but the characters are operating within that system. And within that system, what Arya did was illegal. Was it morally wrong? Nope. But it was illegal. And that has nothing with true justice, but justice in Westeros. And once again, Robert was the King at the moment, Joffrey was Crown Prince. Their word is the law. And they do have the special protection. Just like Arya had special treatment, because it was Mycah, not her who got killed. Just like Joffrey, she was protected with her name, because no Lannister man (save Jaime) would ever dare kill the daughter of Warden of the North.I doubt they will ever lose it. The strength of their identity and that family connection that works on different levels for each of four Stark POVs show us that much. Plus, Nymeria isn't lost. She and Arya are connected and who knows what would happen when Arya comes back to Westeros.

I know Nymeria still has that connection to Arya. That's my overall point. They have both been separated from their wolves but Nymeria is not dead like Lady is. That's why Arya will not be permanently "lost" but Sansa will be. Just my theory.

[Mladen]

I know Nymeria still has that connection to Arya. That's my overall point. They have both been separated from their wolves but Nymeria is not dead like Lady is. That's why Arya will not be permanently "lost" but Sansa will be. Just my theory.

I doubt that. The more LF puts the mask on Alayne on her, the more and more conscious Sansa is who she really is.

so what you are saying is might makes right, if one family usurps the other then all of a sudden the old rules are out the window and the new kings word is law... But this is no basis for law and justice, even in an medieval brutal world there should be a distinction between the practical repercussions of something and the moral/just thing to to.

 

"Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"

Well, that is pretty much how things worked in the past. The law is what King says law is. And the old rules are still being enforced in this case. Hence Dunk/Arya comparison. Might doesn't make it right, but might makes it legal. I doubt we would be able to count all the John and Jane Does who were killed throughout the history out of King's/Tsar's/Emperor's caprice. 

Simply, what Arya did was right from our perspective, from her and her father's, even from moral standpoint of the series, but legally speaking, she broke the law, when attacked the Prince.

[kimim]

...

 

If we are calling an 11-year-old girl who was put in place of adults to decide between two people who are supposed to be her family a moral coward, then I suppose entire Westeros is. Sansa's lie itself was non-consequential as it allowed Robert to just pretend everything is OK and put the things behind them. That is why her position in the entire case was understandable, because if her position that no one is guilty can make things right, so be it. And that is basically how Robert and Ned saw it too. Ned himself wasn't pushing for truth either. He was there and he could have made Sansa tell the truth, but Ned himself believed that this entire case would be better handled in private. Sansa's lie cut the trial and for a very brief moment everybody thought everything is OK. And then naturally, Cersei spoke.

...

It takes a while for Sansa to be sympathetic. Until she witnesses Ned's execution, she behaves like a very selfish, spoiled, stupid, and unlikable little girl, and this is what she is while she's watching Arya and Joff go at it. Joff's older than Arya. He has a sword, while Arya has a broomstick. In the middle of all this, Sansa goes "No, no, stop it, stop it, both of you, you're spoiling it."

This is so selfish it's not funny. Sansa doesn't care that Joff is armed, doesn't care that he nearly killed Micah, doesn't care that he could kill Arya. All she cares about is that her lovely day got ruined. Immediately after this, there's the "trial." Sansa's already told her father the truth. When asked to repeat her story, she clams up, as she can't lie outright--dad knows the truth--yet she doesn't want to say anything that would help Arya or hurt Joff. In effect, she IS siding against her family, by siding against Arya and with Joff. Whether or not her telling the truth would have changed anything, idk.

That doesn't mean she deserves to lose her wolf, though. Ned's at fault, too. When I first read the novel, I couldn't believe that he killed Lady. I thought he'd let her go, the way Arya let Nymeria go.  

[Bran the Shipper]

While I could see the argument that Sansa was at risk of losing her Stark-hood in the beginning of the series, that has now been disproven.  I would argue that she has in a sense been on a reverse arc than the other children (with the exception of Theon who most wouldn't count).  She starts off being more Tully than Stark, but then embraces her Stark nature.  While the rest of the children all have fond memories of Winterfell she seems to be the only one where that is her goal.  Jon, Arya, and Bran all seem to be drifting away from Winterfell and their Stark nature, whereas Sansa is moving towards them.

People also say that Lady's death is foreshadowing to Sansa's ultimate demise, but there is another way to think about it.  Sansa is actually the only one of the children who has outlived her wolf.  The rest of them use their wolf as a crutch to get them out of a tough spot, whereas Sansa has had to get herself out of danger.  I see this as Sansa becoming stronger and more likely to survive than the rest of them.

[Nevets]

I think Sansa is more of a Stark now than she has ever been.  The building of Winterfell shows a connection to the North, and, iirc, she is constantly thinking of / hearing wolves.  Also, she immediately says "Jon Snow", when she hears about the new NW LC.  Losing Lady most likely had the effect of delaying her becoming more "Stark", and slowing it down. It may have also retarded the development of any skinchanging abilities, which I think she has.

I see no indication that she is being corrupted by LF. If anything, I think she is continuing to resist him.   She doesn't really trust him and never has, from the moment she first met him at the Hand's Tournament.  Ultimately, I think she will be his downfall, as he will underestimate her attachment to honor, loyalty, friendship, and general decency, all of which she still retains, even after months of imprisonment and abuse.

As to the loss of Lady itself, I think that Sansa was afraid to tell the King, in public in front of a hostile crowd, that his son (and her betrothed) was a liar, a coward, and a bully. Also, in her mind, she places the blame for the incident on Arya's overreaction to Joffrey's hurting Mycah.  So she tried to split the difference and essentially say nothing at all.  She didn't realize how vengeful Cersei was, or how spineless the King was.  With respect to Arya, losing a hand was already off the table by then.  Nobody had any expectations at that point that Arya was in any danger.  She had already admitted to hitting the prince, so Sansa's silence wasn't going to help her in any case. 

[Protagoras]

The difference between your case and this one is that unlike your thief, Joffrey can't be judged. The difference is that both parties were guilty. The difference is that Sansa already told the truth to Ned. She just didn't want to decide what is to happen to her fiancee and her sister.

Oh, Joffrey certainly can be judged - in fact if this was a trial for a reason. Arya have already admitted of attacking the prince (in defense of Mycah), that her wolf bit him and that the sword was thrown in the river. Yet AT THIS POINT Robert say "he say one thing, she say another". If just laying a hand on the prince was treason then she is guilty here and then. 

You referred to Dunk before - well he got a trial by combat, didn´t he and he is far below Arya on the social ladder. In fact, Westeros is a feudal monarchy and the last time the heir of the king did something toward the daughter of a lord paramount, he certainly didn´t get away with it. That should be on everyone´s mind.

And of course Ned was right to force Sansa to take the stand. It was a volatile situation. What you seem to refuse to understand that no matter if Joffrey would be punished, Sansa should be expected to go up against Joffrey. The fact that she doesn´t and instead supports him by misremembering is nothing but sucking it up for him. Joffrey could in theory get a light punishment for attacking Arya. 

Sansa simply doesn´t deserve the be spared of taking a stand regardless of what she told Ned. A witness needs to be forced to give a direct testimony. Even today, a witness needs to appear in front of a court, not only telling the police (And Ned is not the police so she didn´t even do that). You somehow seem to believe that Ned is to blame for that poor, poor Sansa need to stand up for something. 

 

If we are calling an 11-year-old girl who was put in place of adults to decide between two people who are supposed to be her family a moral coward, then I suppose entire Westeros is. Sansa's lie itself was non-consequential as it allowed Robert to just pretend everything is OK and put the things behind them. That is why her position in the entire case was understandable, because if her position that no one is guilty can make things right, so be it. And that is basically how Robert and Ned saw it too. Ned himself wasn't pushing for truth either. He was there and he could have made Sansa tell the truth, but Ned himself believed that this entire case would be better handled in private. Sansa's lie cut the trial and for a very brief moment everybody thought everything is OK. And then naturally, Cersei spoke.

But we are discussing Sansa now aren´t we? In fact the thread is about Sansa, Arya and their loss of wolves. I don´t have to criticize say Robert and his moral cowardice in order to talk about Sansa. There are other treads for that? Or, are you that kind of person who believes say a feminist can´t talk about a single issue without having to criticize everything else at the same time?

Sansa didn´t believe for a second that no one was guilty. Again - Sansa internally blames Arya long after in this little gem for example: 

Arya screwed up her face in a scowl. "Jaime Lannister murdered Jory and Heward and Wyl, and the Hound murdered Mycah. Somebody should have beheaded them."

"It's not the same," Sansa said. "The Hound is Joffrey's sworn shield. Your butcher's boy attacked the prince."

"Liar," Arya said. Her hand clenched the blood orange so hard that red juice oozed between her fingers.

"Go ahead, call me all the names you want," Sansa said airily. "You won't dare when I'm married to Joffrey. You'll have to bow to me and call me Your Grace." 

Doesn´t strike me as a person who thinks no one are guilty. In fact, this is very much an argument that the non-commitment reasoning are bullshit. Sansa was showing Joffrey a gesture of lojalty by "not remembering", at the cost of loyalty towards her current family, yet are too cowardly to back Joffrey with a more clear statement. She does however clearly supports Joffrey here.

Instead of blaming everyone else, I think its time to accept that Sansa performed very poorly here and that she is rightly blamed by loads of ASoIaF readers for betraying her sister. Arguing that she is in fact a blameless victim will not change that opinion. 

Nobody said that it is some sort of moral victory, but we are talking about 11-year-old girl who was put in a very difficult position. And even Ned, answering to Arya later in KL said "not every lie is without honor". We haven't seen Ned talking to Sansa after the case, criticizing her for what she has done. We don't hear a word about the case. I am not trying to spar Sansa criticism , because I personally would react differently, but that is just me. I am able to understand what difficulty she has met. In a series where so many people do horrible and morally questionable things, why is this vetted every week? I mean, Tyrion supports illegitimate King, fights against the right one, kill people of jealousy, marries a girl against her will, and the highest point of criticism every once in a blue moon one can hear is that his storyarc in ADWD is boring. It seems that this, with some Cat's and Dany's choices represent the pinnacle of spent energy around the board when it comes to criticizing.

And now we are down to pure lies. This is not vetted every week. In fact - I have a hard time remember when exactly this was discussed last time on this forum. Years?

I have also seen several threads critical towards Tyrions actions in the latest book and have personally felt a drop in fans for him. 

People have the right to discuss things if they please. If you feel that this is a discussion you didn´t want to have, well maybe you shouldn´t have responded to my post in the first place? No one forced you to take part, right? But no, you wanted to defend Sansa as a guardian because you don´t want any criticism towards her at all do you? Well, guess what - you have no right to enforce what topics that can be spoken about and I think that is exactly what you are trying to do - forcing a silence on a topic you don´t like.

Also, not all topics are old to everyone. Instead of stemming debate, maybe more new people should participate? I respect fully that some might find some topics too well discussed to be interesting, but then - don´t participate in those threads. Easy. 

First and foremost, it is conclusion I have made (I doubt I am the only one) based on what is said in the books. The basis itself is well, situation. We do know Sansa couldn't have just easily sided with Joffrey, since well, not only that she knew the truth, but she also told her father all about it. Her decision to have memory lapse doesn't blame Arya. Her silence doesn't mean Arya is guilty and one should remind that not only Joffrey but Arya was also on trial, since Joffrey claimed that Arya attacked him. Later, after Lady dies for the crime objectively Nymeria did (it is the law of the land), Sansa blames Arya.

As for her being the snitch, I don't see how relevant it is in this case. And Jon and Arya's comment about "not telling Sansa" is more like about Sansa's disapproval but the fact that Sansa would tell her father about it. It should be noted that up until Trident, we see Sansa covering up for Arya to times - with Mordane in Wintefell and when she lets Arya roam around on Trident. 

As for bullying charges, shall we also call Winterfell people bullies who called her Underfoot? Plus it shall be noted that it was Jeyne who admits Sansa had nothing with the nickname and that she was the one who came up with it. Plus, let we not pretend that name-calling and throwing things at one (one can very hilariously say that throwing fruits at someone is bullying) isn't how kids behave when they are upset. Also, by all the time they have spent together, we never actually hear Sansa utter the word "Horseface". Given how Arya herself admits how well-bred Sansa is to mock her in public, I sincerely doubt that Sansa ever allowed herself to call Arya horseface in public.

But few things point in this direction. As I said before - we have alot of antagonism from Sansa towards Arya even before the event. She tells Arya she should marry Hodor because she is "stupid and ugly".

What you seem to miss is that her memory lapse helps the person lying (which is Joffrey). I am fully aware Arya is on trial too and that's exactly why Ned brings Sansa, who disappointingly refuses to speak. Again - if I see you murder someone but "forgets it", I am doing you a solid, not being neutral - I doubt few would deny this. So why is this different? A lack of testimony from Sansa could lead to harder punishment to Arya (That was not the case, but Sansa didn´t know that). There is no reason to assume anything would have been worse for Arya if Sansa had corroborated her story. Even if you don´t see it as support there should be clear that her silence benefits one part more?

No, this is about two things - partly that Sansa want Joffrey to like her. She lies about her fondness for riding, despite thinking earlier how much she hates it. She constantly lies to herself about Joffrey and the Lannisters in order to create her fairy tale and her testimony should be seen in the light of this. In addition, her antagonism is known - you deny she used the term Arya Horseface? Well, I find that extremely unlikely - that Theon (who have lived in their family for years) think it is HER invention and it is wide-spead enough that he knows it speak miles here. She certainly did use it - just not in the novels. Apply Occam's razor. Her snitching is relevant because it describes her illoyal character - In both the cases you describe Sansa have a good reason of covering (Not shaming herself and Arya in front of people Sansa doesn´t know how they will react - very common logic from bullies).

In addition - Sansa did go to Cersei in King´s landing. I haven't mentioned this before in order to avoid derailing, but it should be noted that she had no problem doing so, acting illoyal again and confirming her earlier choices (as well as screwing up the means for escape for Arya). When the push comes to showe, she again picks the same side she did at the Trident and as she did during the time in King´s landing. She have chosen.

In short - Sansas loss of Lady is indeed a symbolic consequence of her own choice of loyalty as I said in the first post. Her testimony was indeed a support for Joffrey, as much as she dared, in order to avoid problems from Ned afterwards. You said it yourself - she couldn´t easily support Joffrey directly, so she did the next best thing with some indirect support. 

In fact I remember some kind of Spake Martin where GRRM did himself claim something similiar (said "didn´t she" or something) as a direct response from a debate two persons had in front of him about Sansa.