Possible marriage

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, ThePukwudgie said:

It's not as if they haven't lied in their commentary to misdirect the audience before . . . .

They have the actors lie for them about what's to come (Kit about Jon after S5 regarding S6). But not about a scene already shown in the Outside the Episodes, no.

If you're going to call them out for liars on commentary on an already shown episode than I want evidence for that. I think they're very poor writers, and that they fail, misconstrue and misrepresent points of the books, and forget about stuff they wrote 4 seasons ago (Cersei's 4 babies // 3 shrouds).

Quote

Rewrite? He doesn't have to rewrite anything. People act as if all of GRRM's writing is going to be telegraphed beforehand. For all you know D&D are still loosely translating what GRRM told them endgame would look like.

Have you read the books? (honest question)

Oh my, if you truly believe that George is writing to have Ramsay live for another whole book and wed and rape Sana and have Jon go for a whole tour around the North to gather some houses to finally beat Ramsay. That LS isn't going to do anything anymore, but somehow Arya's going to kill Freys and put them in a pie. That's Brienne's going to look at a candle. Etc. The show has been rewriting whole gazillion of plots that they give to other characters than in the books for the time being. By now, George has to rewrite aCoK, aSoS, aFfC and aDwD to make the books like d$d's show. And rewrite them into a worse tale than he already wrote.

[Bear Claw]

Well, I re-watched the commentary Inside the Episode for 10. It didn't clear anything up for me.  There was still some anger and jealousy. Sansa didn't tell Jon about the Vale and no one listened to her at the war council. Is Sansa angry and jealous? Is Jon angry and jealous? Is Sansa angry and Jon jealous? Is Jon angry and Sansa jealous? Are they both angry and jealous? They both insulted one another, so they should both feel negatively. 

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

Sansa didn't speak up at the meeting, Thormond & Davos did. Jon really should be pissed at her.

I really find it interesting how people who are shooting down every possible ship they don't like are bending over backwards to say that everything points to SanSan despite evidence to the contrary! Sandor heading North? Will right now he's in the Riverlands with the BwoB, & Arya is there too! He ain't going to make it North & the showdown with "FrankenGreagor" is going to happen. In the books the "relationship" is a child's crush + Stockholm Syndrome! He doesn't even get all of that on the show...Little Finger got most of it with the best of Sandor's book dialog!

**sigh** I swear if The Winds of Winter comes out tomorrow & the final 2 page are a slow description of Sansa pushing a short sword through Sandor's neck...they will go-"It's a Dream! Those two love love LOVE each other! SanSaaaan!"

[WolfClaw]

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

They have the actors lie for them about what's to come (Kit about Jon after S5 regarding S6). But not about a scene already shown in the Outside the Episodes, no.

If you're going to call them out for liars on commentary on an already shown episode than I want evidence for that. I think they're very poor writers, and that they fail, misconstrue and misrepresent points of the books, and forget about stuff they wrote 4 seasons ago (Cersei's 4 babies // 3 shrouds).

 

I really hate myself for doing this, but it seems that i should re-post this in order to give you an answer. And here we go again...*sigh*

 

These parts are from season 4 about Sansa's future in season 5:

Season 4: Inside the Episode 8

 

From George R. R. Martin himself

 

 

We all know how things end up for Sansa in season 5. Did any of those things happen? Or maybe they did happen and we just misinterpret the whole fifth season.

 

And of course there is the 6th season:

  Season 6: Inside the Episode 5

 

David Benioff said

Quote

Sansa has gotten really good at playing the game.

She is starting to look a couple of moves ahead and she is starting to think is it possible this person is more useful to me alive than dead.

Does any of those things played out to be that way in this season? Unfortunately, not exactly. Sansa did use the Vale army, but she did it because she had no other alternative and with regret, because many of the Northern Lord acted as cowards and forgot their oaths. She promised to reward Littlefinger, so it is not that she manipulated him to do what she wanted.

 

It is not as if George R. R. Martin himself lied. Oh, wait... he might not outright lie but he did not say the truth, did he?

Are those enough?

[Le Cygne]

Season 4, they were setting her up to be in over her head. Season 5, sure enough, they said she was in over her head. (And she's in over her head in the books, too. Something is about to go down.)

Season 6, yes, she held back on Jon to keep LF as an option. She thinks she's a good player and that is a plot point. She's in over her head. Sure enough, they had her apologize for holding back.

And then at the end, they are hinting that she will betray Jon. They said they hinted we should worry because of the Robb parallel, trusted people let him down. Likely, she will let LF mess with Jon.

As for GRRM, he's talking books, listen to him start to say Willas instead of Loras. He doesn't do those anymore. He was not happy with the direction they took Sansa in season 5, he told people at a con.

Also here's what they said about Sandor:

"He's a more thoughtful person... He's really thinking about his past in a way he never had before... He's starting to see that there's perhaps a different way of living your life. The unfortunate ugly reality is the kind of pacifism Ray is preaching is often suicidal when you are in the middle of the world they are all in."

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, WolfClaw said:

I really hate myself for doing this, but it seems that i should re-post this in order to give you an answer. And here we go again...*sigh*

 

These parts are from season 4 about Sansa's future in season 5:

snip

We all know how things end up for Sansa in season 5. Did any of those things happen? Or maybe they did happen and we just misinterpret the whole fifth season.

 

snip

Does any of those things played out to be that way in this season? Unfortunately, not exactly. Sansa did use the Vale army, but she did it because she had no other alternative and with regret, because many of the Northern Lord acted as cowards and forgot their oaths. She promised to reward Littlefinger, so it is not that she manipulated him to do what she wanted.

It is not as if George R. R. Martin himself lied. Oh, wait... he might not outright lie but he did not say the truth, did he?

Are those enough?

So, to recap - they have a scene of Sansa trying to play the game, or believing that she'll play the game. In the episode commentary they comment that Sansa is "trying to be a player" instead of a "piece".

=> That's not a lie. That is what Sansa believes she's doing, regardless of the fact that she's not a bright or smart player in the show.

[Le Cygne]

Just now, sweetsunray said:

So, to recap - they have a scene of Sansa trying to play the game, or believing that she'll play the game. In the episode commentary they comment that Sansa is "trying to be a player" instead of a "piece".

=> That's not a lie. That is what Sansa believes she's doing, regardless of the fact that she's not a bright or smart player in the show.

Yeah, they give quite the boatload of clues for what's ahead in those things.

[sweetsunray]

3 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

Yeah, they give quite the boatload of clues for what's ahead in those things.

Yup. The false expectations from viewers comes from the viewers imo.

Analogy - d$d say "Sansa's applicating for a job", and she applicates. Still, doesn't mean she'll get it. When she's not hired, it doesn't make d$d liars for saying she applicated for a job.

[Le Cygne]

5 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Yup. The false expectations from viewers comes from the viewers imo.

Analogy - d$d say "Sansa's applicating for a job", and she applicates. Still, doesn't mean she'll get it. When she's not hired, it doesn't make d$d liars for saying she applicated for a job.

Yeah, they are also talking from the character's perspectives in those things. Because that was the way they wrote it. You can see the writers' wheels turning. It's like a little glimpse inside the writer's room. It's like Weiss saying "I would hope you can't help but love the Hound" after he was dead. He's saying what they set out to do, make you love him. And why "hope" you love him after he's dead, if he's not coming back. It was a good clue. Also a nice clue for SanSan, amongst many other such clues. They are gentling the Beast, making him suitable for the Beauty. They are also toughening her up, making her suitable for him. That's what he's doing in the books, too. That's their story. They meet in the middle.

[Meera of Tarth]

19 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

S3 people were shipping Brienne-Jaime, SanSan, Gendrya and Jon-Ygritte was obvious but fatal. Brienne became a brute and Jaime is always talking about wanting to be with Cersei (aside from one Tarth gaze). Sandor was supposedly dead by end of S4. Gendry has been rowing for 3 seasons. Those ships seem to have been completely abandoned for at least 2 seasons for a show-only (1/3 to 1/2 of the series). Meanwhile almost all of the remaining interactions have been mostly negative, cruel, abusive and dark between characters. So, people want to see something positive, and they wanna see romance, wanna see who gets to go with whom, while thinking the set-up romances are completely abandoned (they're not). There's a slightly more positive reunion and interaction between two siblings, and bam "ship". When the show runners "ship" two characters nowadays they have Bronn around to tell the viewer those two want to fuck each other, so you won't miss it.  

Exactly.

[sweetsunray]

10 hours ago, Winds of Winter blow cold said:

. In the books the "relationship" is a child's crush + Stockholm Syndrome! He doesn't even get all of that on the show...Little Finger got most of it with the best of Sandor's book dialog!

**sigh** I swear if The Winds of Winter comes out tomorrow & the final 2 page are a slow description of Sansa pushing a short sword through Sandor's neck...they will go-"It's a Dream! Those two love love LOVE each other! SanSaaaan!"

If you're gong to use big words like Stockholm Syndrome, please apply them correctly. First of all, Stockholm applies to a hostage situation and particular symptoms and behavior in that situation. One of those symptoms is an irrational amount of empathy for the hostage taker. This comes about because the hostage depends on their survival directly by the decisions made by the hostage taker (his/her moods) and trying to anticipate the hostage taker's emotionality in order to please him/her so they don't kill you. It is strengthened by the victim by equalling lack of abuse = kindness. Very important - Stockholm happens rarely. It's the exception of hostage situations.

Sansa is a hostage in KL -> of Joffrey. Joffrey is her captor, not the Hound. If Stockholm is used and applied to Sansa it belongs in her behavior towards Joffrey, not the Hound.  Sansa develops no empathy with Joffrey, nor does she identify wit him. Though she does try to please him in words. She is adapting her behavior towards him in order to survive, but she's not identifying with Joffrey. => No Stockholm.

Meanwhile, Sandor is not her captor, nor her tormentor, nor her abuser in any way or form.

Now the overall term in which Stockholm fits is called 'trauma bonding'. Trauma Bonding does not require a hostage situation, but an abusive (mental, physical or emotional) relationship. But it follows the same mental survival and anticipation mechanics as Stockholm. You'd have to see ongonig cycles of abuse with intermittent punishment and reward in between the abuse periods. Fear is an important ingedrient to these type of relationships (for example by being threatened with violence, or witness them being violent to others), but it's only one of the elements. There must be actual reward and punishment. 

All you have is that 'fear' is a component between Sandor and Sansa from her POV. But Sandor does not abuse it. He actually allows her to choose, without punishing her, or rewarding her. We see her contradict and argue with him while he's in KL. Only in his absolute absence does she increasingly think fondly of him. This type of thinking goes completely against 'trauma bonding'. He doesn't abuse her, he's not even present, and she develops romantic feelings more and more over time. 

So,no, not Stockholm, not trauma bonding either. Just a strong romantic bond forming. If we're gonna apply your defintion of Stockholm to anyone who ever felt fear of being vulnerable and insecure to someone they fall in love with, then basically everyone who ever bonded romantically has Stockholm, which makes the term completely meaningless.

Quote

I really find it interesting how people who are shooting down every possible ship they don't like are bending over backwards to say that everything points to SanSan despite evidence to the contrary!

You are projecting here, it seems. It's not about not liking a ship. It's about WHO Sansa likes. And that's Sandor, and there is heaps of evidence for it (in show and in books). It's everybody else who doesn't like Sandor and has some male favourite who denies evidence and sees proof even in the most absurd to hook up Sansa like some blow-up barbie doll to their male of choice who isn't Sandor, while negating her feelings by calling them Stockholm, Trauma or childhood crushes. There's no more paternalistic example of dismissal of the reality of a person's feelings by relegating it to some psychological syndrome. "See! She's just a child and she has Stockholm, so her feelings and desires aren't really real." Newsflash - feelings are always real to the person feeling them, even the feelings of someone who actually is trauma bonded (Sansa isn't). In trauma bond relationships there is only one falsehood: the abuser.

Quote

Sandor heading North? Will right now he's in the Riverlands with the BwoB, & Arya is there too! He ain't going to make it North & the showdown with "FrankenGreagor" is going to happen

FrankenGregor is not in the North and he ain't in the RL. The BwB certainly aren't going South. They're going North. Sure, Arya is there. But BwB said "North", and Sandor is going along. They can all meet up and go North together.

[a black swan]

36 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

~snip~

I truly appreciate the thoroughness of your posts. Every point gets clocked. 

Side note: Your analysis on the Bear & the Maiden Fair, Acorn Hall, Swans in Arya's story... just SO good!

[a black swan]

3 hours ago, Le Cygne said:

Yeah, they are also talking from the character's perspectives in those things. Because that was the way they wrote it. You can see the writers' wheels turning. It's like a little glimpse inside the writer's room. It's like Weiss saying "I would hope you can't help but love the Hound" after he was dead. He's saying what they set out to do, make you love him. And why "hope" you love him after he's dead, if he's not coming back. It was a good clue. Also a nice clue for SanSan, amongst many other such clues. They are gentling the Beast, making him suitable for the Beauty. They are also toughening her up, making her suitable for him. That's what he's doing in the books, too. That's their story. They meet in the middle.

 

They brought the Hound back. If he served no purpose, they would have left him off screen and "dead". Now they have him heading North when they could have sent him South. Why do that? 

Didn't George grin at the idea that Sansa would bond with a hound or something? Now that she is without a direwolf.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

28 minutes ago, DutchArya said:

 

They brought the Hound back. If he served no purpose, they would have left him off screen and "dead". Now they have him heading North when they could have sent him South. Why do that? 

Didn't George grin at the idea that Sansa would bond with a hound or something? Now that she is without a direwolf.

It's something he had Robert say to Ned, after the jerk sentenced Lady to die.  "Get her a dog, she'll be the happier for it".  Yes I think it was foreshadowing of their relationship, whatever it ends up being.  

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

snip

Thanks for explaining this. 

There was a time when the term "Stockholm Syndrome" was one of the most over used and tiresome terms on this forum.

Before, reading ASOIAF I was generally unaware that I had to have psychology degree (or maybe phycology degree? I am no sure which. Shows how much I know) or, not having any formal training in that area, I would have to delve into the serious material on that subject in order to discern what was or what was not "Stockholm Syndrome" in order to be able to understand what was going on in ASOIAF. 

I think though, GRRM wasn't requiring me as a reader to be able to discern which situations were Stockholm cases and which were not. So, yeah, I am going with  no legitimate case of "Stockholm Syndrome" going on here.

[sweetsunray]

3 hours ago, DutchArya said:

I truly appreciate the thoroughness of your posts. Every point gets clocked. 

Side note: Your analysis on the Bear & the Maiden Fair, Acorn Hall, Swans in Arya's story... just SO good!

Thanks

 

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Thanks for explaining this. 

There was a time when the term "Stockholm Syndrome" was one of the most over used and tiresome terms on this forum.

Before, reading ASOIAF I was generally unaware that I had to have psychology degree (or maybe phycology degree? I am no sure which. Shows how much I know) or, not having any formal training in that area, I would have to delve into the serious material on that subject in order to discern what was or what was not "Stockholm Syndrome" in order to be able to understand what was going on in ASOIAF. 

I think though, GRRM wasn't requiring me as a reader to be able to discern which situations were Stockholm cases and which were not. So, yeah, I am going with  no legitimate case of "Stockholm Syndrome" going on here.

Exactly! It's pretty clear which character is completely irrational in his/her behavior about their abuser: Reekified Theon with Ramsay. His whole reluctance to flee the Dreadfort, to be given clean clothes, to actually serve Roose or Lady Dustin separately from Ramsay, and the "Ramsays' coming!" spittle those are Stockholm reactions. A trauma bond is so pervasively strong that the victim cannot stand being 24 hours away from the abuser. It's the thing where on the one hand a victim seeks shelter and run for their lives, but return a week later expressing empathy and blaming themselves for provoking him. Even in mental and emotional or financial abuse situations (without actual physical abuse), the victim cannot properly function for months on end without thinknig 24/7 of the person they're bonded with. It's very pervasive, impairs decision making processes, etc. It makes the victim's mind a hormonal slave to the abuser. It's insulting imo to anyone who ever actually experienced a trauma bond to use the word willy nilly and so incorrectly.

You don't need to know the psychology behind it to know that Reek/Theon is irrationally bonded to Ramsay and functions with Ramsay being the absolute central figure in his mind his world revolves around, even after escaping.

[OldGimletEye]

24 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Thanks

 

Exactly! It's pretty clear which character is completely irrational in his/her behavior about their abuser: Reekified Theon with Ramsay. His whole reluctance to flee the Dreadfort, to be given clean clothes, to actually serve Roose or Lady Dustin separately from Ramsay, and the "Ramsays' coming!" spittle those are Stockholm reactions. A trauma bond is so pervasively strong that the victim cannot stand being 24 hours away from the abuser. It's the thing where on the one hand a victim seeks shelter and run for their lives, but return a week later expressing empathy and blaming themselves for provoking him. Even in mental and emotional or financial abuse situations (without actual physical abuse), the victim cannot properly function for months on end without thinknig 24/7 of the person they're bonded with. It's very pervasive, impairs decision making processes, etc. It makes the victim's mind a hormonal slave to the abuser. It's insulting imo to anyone who ever actually experienced a trauma bond to use the word willy nilly and so incorrectly.

You don't need to know the psychology behind it to know that Reek/Theon is irrationally bonded to Ramsay and functions with Ramsay being the absolute central figure in his mind his world revolves around, even after escaping.

Yeah, good point with Theon/Ramsay. In that case, what was going on was so patently obvious and clear, to us that can barely spell psychology or Stockholm Syndrome or whatever, that some high degree of qualification, to discern legitimate cases from non-legit ones, wasn't necessary to understand what was going on. About the only qualification necessary was "I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express Last Night."

[Le Cygne]

6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

You are projecting here, it seems. It's not about not liking a ship. It's about WHO Sansa likes. And that's Sandor, and there is heaps of evidence for it (in show and in books). It's everybody else who doesn't like Sandor and has some male favourite who denies evidence and sees proof even in the most absurd to hook up Sansa like some blow-up barbie doll to their male of choice who isn't Sandor, while negating her feelings by calling them Stockholm, Trauma or childhood crushes. There's no more paternalistic example of dismissal of the reality of a person's feelings by relegating it to some psychological syndrome. "See! She's just a child and she has Stockholm, so her feelings and desires aren't really real." Newsflash - feelings are always real to the person feeling them, even the feelings of someone who actually is trauma bonded (Sansa isn't). In trauma bond relationships there is only one falsehood: the abuser.

Agreed, it's about a story. Show isn't as good as books, but the basic structure of the book story is there. 

[willowbark]

10 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

Agreed, it's about a story. Show isn't as good as books, but the basic structure of the book story is there. 

It is about a story, which is as yet, unfinished.  None of us know what will happen by the end.  We really don't know what is/is not foreshadowing until the events unfold.  I don't think anyone has the right to be telling anyone that they are wrong when discussing events that have yet to unfold in the show or the books.  We all have our biases, and we all have different interpretations.  We should be able to be respectful of the fact that other people see things differently, and be able to discuss what each of us sees, interprets, and predicts may come in the future.  And when the show and books are done, then we can go back and see what was foreshadowed, and what wasn't.  Personally, I find that the forum is much less fun when not everyone is able to discuss their views, thoughts, opinions and predictions with equal respect.  

[Le Cygne]

6 hours ago, DutchArya said:

They brought the Hound back. If he served no purpose, they would have left him off screen and "dead". Now they have him heading North when they could have sent him South. Why do that? 

Didn't George grin at the idea that Sansa would bond with a hound or something? Now that she is without a direwolf.

Yeah, he winked when someone asked him about SanSan, too. I think he likey this story... 

Another thing I noticed is that of the two showrunners, Weiss is the SanSan fan, things he says.