Lady Sansa Clegane

[Meera of Tarth]

35 minutes ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

Considering Sansa 11-12 y.o. in the books and 13-14 in the show, anyone expressing romantic/sexual interest in her would seem creepy for modern viewers.

In the books the bond between Sansa and sandor is mostly shown through Sansa's perspective. In the show it doesn't happen, though D&D could include mentioning the Hound in dialogues or smth. But they did show that Sandor cares about Sansa and protects her. So if SanSan will happen in the show, it won't be completely out of the blue. But I don't think we will see any sex scene between them, it would be too good for GoT.

She is more than 13-14 in the show, she was 14 in S3 and next season is S7. 14+4 seasons=at least 16, I'd say, probably more.

Sansa has been married to older men and awfully raped. I can't think of anything more creepy than this.

27 minutes ago, A spoon of knife and fork said:

I'm arguing by making the age difference greater than in the books, they were signaling it is less likely to be a romantic relationship than if they had cast the age gap to be more similar to the books.  That is, by casting an older actor they are choosing to emphasize his role as a protector figure for both Stark girls, rather than the emphasizing the romantic arc with Sansa.  And, so far, they really haven't done as much with it that hints at romance as the books have, particularly in key scenes like BoBW.  They could still change course if they want of course. 

It could be for this but it could also be because Rory was the best actor for that role.

We have to take into account that Dinklage is playing someone 10 years younger than him, Emilia and Kit, while still being young, play people who are 6-8 years younger than them. So Rory could be playing someone aged 15 yearsyounger easily.

[sweetsunray]

6 minutes ago, ThePukwudgie said:

Burden of proof is always on those who make the positive assertions. I don't have to prove that House Clegane is useless. YOU have to prove that it's USEFUL.

When you claim that it's "useless" then the burden of proof is on you. In a debate, the burden of proof is on the person making a claim. You claimed it was useless. So, you are required to prove it. If you can't, then you can't make such an assertion. Houses can be useful in many ways, but in a feudal society, the most useful houses are those that are loyal bannerman, know how to fight and ensure that the common people living on their lands are safe from harm in order to produce.

Quote

Also, House Clegane isn't a part of the north. I guess it can just move. I don't know how these things work.

This only shows that you responded with some unproven assertions in response to a post of mine where I explained in-world historical precedents of houses that moved and became part of the North. House Clegane is currently not part of the North, but it can become a Northern House. Even though Robert Strong is Gregor Clegane, he is now a KG, and therefore cannot be Lord Clegane anymore. Since Sandor, Gregor's heir, has been proclaimed a traitor the lands of House Clegane will be declared forfeit and given to someone else, to form a new House. But Sandor has a chance to take the Clegane name and establish a House in another region. 

Precedents for this are:

• Blackwoods: they were originally a Northern House that lost their lands and were exiled. They were given land in the Riverlands instead, and continued House Blackwood there.
• Manderlys: they were originally a Reach House that lost their lands and were exiled (over a rivalry between House Manderly and House Peake). They were given Wolf Den in the North by the Starks and built White Harbor, and continued House Manderly in the North. They are now some of the most loyal and most powerful House because of it, since they have a city harbor for trade and built a fleet.
• Houses of bannermen of Stannis (Massey and others): many of these Houses were Crownland Houses. Because they fought alongside Stannis, they lost their seats in the Crownlands. They're still nobles, but landless. And what do they all hope to get in the North? A castle and a wife. 

So, the argument - an exiled traitor to the crown is of no use to the North and is no more different than a hedge knight/warrior is disproven by the above.

Quote

Also, Sansa(in the show at least) isn't like other Starks. She's aiming to be smarter at playing the game than her father.

Yes, currently that is what she's trying to do in the show, with destructive results, under the misguided influence of LF. The books though indicate that Sansa is getting sick and tired of her supposed "claim". And they have a character like Jaime commenting that if Sansa was smart she'd never reappair and choose herself some husband she loves and just live a life.

Quote

Symbols can be misinterpreted, which I feel you are doing. Heavily. I don't need to address it any further than that.

If you haven't read any of my essays and the tons of book quotes for it, then indeed you cannot really address it at all.

Quote

Yes, it's creepy. I believe Sansa is 14 in the last book. You honestly think she's mature enough to make these decisions for herself? Whatever Sandor is willing to do or not do, it doesn't change the fact that he's thought about her in an extremely inappropriate way.

Sansa's 13 in the last book, and was already married to a man who had similar thoughts and resents her for not wanting him. If her society thinks she is old enough to be bedded, then she certainly has the right to make these decisions for herself, rather than have other people decide for her.

[Ashes Of Westeros]

8 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Sansa has been married to older men and awfully raped. I can't think of anything more creepy than this.

Literally nothing. But I was talking about the s1-s2, when the main interaction between Sansa and the Hound took place.

[Masha]

42 minutes ago, ThePukwudgie said:

Burden of proof is always on those who make the positive assertions. I don't have to prove that House Clegane is useless. YOU have to prove that it's USEFUL. Also, House Clegane isn't a part of the north. I guess it can just move. I don't know how these things work. Also, Sansa(in the show at least) isn't like other Starks. She's aiming to be smarter at playing the game than her father.

Symbols can be misinterpreted, which I feel you are doing. Heavily. I don't need to address it any further than that.

Yes, it's creepy. I believe Sansa is 14 in the last book. You honestly think she's mature enough to make these decisions for herself? Whatever Sandor is willing to do or not do, it doesn't change the fact that he's thought about her in an extremely inappropriate way.

No matter how anybody spins it, it's a creepy ship. It may be contextually accurate, but us the audience are reading it from the 21st century. The correct response is discomfort.

Hear! Hear! Creepy as hell

[Meera of Tarth]

Just now, Ashes Of Westeros said:

Literally nothing. But I was talking about the s1-s2, when the main interaction between Sansa and the Hound took place.

Someone can begin to fall in love with someone else when he/she is younger: 13. Then, it can become something more in the future.

[sweetsunray]

24 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

She is more than 13-14 in the show, she was 14 in S3 and next season is S7. 14+4 seasons=at least 16, I'd say, probably more.

Sansa has been married to older men and awfully raped. I can't think of anything more creepy than this.

It could be for this but it could also be because Rory was the best actor for that role.

We have to take into account that Dinklage is playing someone 10 years younger than him, Emilia and Kit, while still being young, play people who are 6-8 years younger than them. So Rory could be playing someone aged 15 yearsyounger easily.

Exactly.

You know I do get the "oooh a 13 year old girl and a 29 year old man". In our modern society that's a big no-no. Jerry Lee Lewis and his teen cousin, or Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith (who he began dating when she was 13) were a complete outrage within the last half century. In these situations the premisse is that the teen was not obliged to marry at all and had the alternative of going to school, go on dates.

But it isn't our society. In Westeros babies and 13 year old girls are forcibly wedded to men of any age (from 20s to 50s or even older). I consider that still sick as fuck in general for a society. But if the premisse is that Sansa's's going to be married at 13-15, then I root for the guy she likes and wants - whether he's late teens, late 20s, late 30s or late 40s - and a guy who loves her back. If the premisse is that Sansa's going to be married at 13, then the creepiest guy is the one she doesn't want at all or who enjoys hurting her. If the premisse is that Sansa's going to be married at 13, then the whole "is she old enough to make an informed decision on who she loves" schtick is a smoke screen debate, and besides the point.

I recognize that it would be easier on our modern sensibilities if Sandor was anywhere between 19-23, or if Sansa was between 19-21. But he isn't. And she isn't. Just as I recognize my aunt and my mother and I weren't keen on my cousin of 15 dating seriously with her first love (18 at the time). Well, it's the only man she ever dated, married him at 24, had a son at 25, and are still happily married 17 years later. Good for her! And good for Sansa, certainly within the premisse of being forcibly married against her will to a guy of the same age as Sandor or being raped by a sadist.

[Darksky]

1 hour ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

Considering Sansa 11-12 y.o. in the books and 13-14 in the show, anyone expressing romantic/sexual interest in her would seem creepy for modern viewers.

In the books the bond between Sansa and sandor is mostly shown through Sansa's perspective. In the show it doesn't happen, though D&D could include mentioning the Hound in dialogues or smth. But they did show that Sandor cares about Sansa and protects her. So if SanSan will happen in the show, it won't be completely out of the blue. But I don't think we will see any sex scene between them, it would be too good for GoT.

I certainly wouldn't want to see Sandor in all his glory on mah screen. The cringe factor from seeing those two mate would be too much.

 

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Euhm are you using "romantic subtext" as a euphemism for "sex" with Sansa's arc? Sansa was raped on the show. So, clearly they don't have any issues with Sansa having sex on screen. So, they don't have any issue with showing Sansa being raped, "but they won't go there [romantic lovemaking]" with Sansa afterwards? On the show where Tommen was aged up particularly so that he and Marg could share a marriage bed? I don't think they'll shy away from having an adult Sansa having a romantic night with the man she chooses.

Well, they didn't actually show her being raped. Let's be precise here.

They obviously told you the reason for Tommen's age. Like it wasn't because a few years had passed between season 1 and 4 (within the show's universe). He should have stayed the age he was in s1 right?

[sweetsunray]

8 minutes ago, Darksky said:

Well, they didn't actually show her being raped. Let's be precise here.

They obviously told you the reason for Tommen's age. Like it wasn't because a few years had passed between season 1 and 4 (within the show's universe). He should have stayed the age he was in s1 right?

They showed her in a bedroom, her dress being torn from her back and her weeping as Ramsay made clear he wanted to hurt her. She was raped, period. If the idea of a scene of Sansa kissing a man she likes near a bed with more implied creeps you out, but the rape doesn't...

He was younger than Arya in S1, and now he's older than her And they had to age him up to 16, not just he actor had to be that age but the character too, because that's the law in depiction of sex scenes on TV, even allusion scenes.

 

[Darksky]

No matter the spinning, Littlefinger and Sandor are creey predos in both mediums. There is this common misconception that noble women married at a very young age in the middle ages. The average age of marriage for them was 17-18, for women of lower status around 22. The majority of people didn't marry until they were in their 20s.

88% of marriages fell outside the 'creepy' category, that is a very young bride married off to a way older man. Only 2 out of 9 creepy marriages had the bride under the age of 15. 71% of marriages had spouses within 0 to 5 years of each other.

[OldGimletEye]

3 hours ago, Darksky said:

No matter the spinning, Littlefinger and Sandor are creey predos in both mediums. There is this common misconception that noble women married at a very young age in the middle ages. The average age of marriage for them was 17-18, for women of lower status around 22. The majority of people didn't marry until they were in their 20s.

88% of marriages fell outside the 'creepy' category, that is a very young bride married off to a way older man. Only 2 out of 9 creepy marriages had the bride under the age of 15. 71% of marriages had spouses within 0 to 5 years of each other.

Assuming your numbers are correct here, and I do think marriage was done at an older age in RW history, in your opinion, was it GRRM's intention here to portray his story as being chalk full of pedos, to include Tyrion, evidently, or did he make an error here? And is that why he evidently said he wished he would have aged the characters up a bit?

I think GRRM was trying to show that our notions of childhood didn't exactly apply in the middle ages and there is truth to that. For instance, executions of children for capital crimes was normal. 

Also, I think GRRM tries to show that by having people like Sandor going to war at 12 and Barristan, if I recall correctly, doing his first tourney at 10.

So I ask you, again, should we read the story with the understanding that Sandor, Drogo, Tyrion, Daario LF,, and Jorah are pedos? That seems like a lot of pedos for one story.

[sweetsunray]

17 minutes ago, Darksky said:

There is this common misconception that noble women married at a very young age in the middle ages. The average age of marriage for them was 17-18, for women of lower status around 22. The majority of people didn't marry until they were in their 20s.

88% of marriages fell outside the 'creepy' category, that is a very young bride married off to a way older man. Only 2 out of 9 creepy marriages had the bride under the age of 15. 71% of marriages had spouses within 0 to 5 years of each other.

Yup, I know that. The belief that in medieval times the majority of girls were married under 15 is actually a myth, even amongst nobility. Common folk married even later. George is actually wrong when he claims it was so, historically. But Westeros is not an actual historical world. It's his creation based on the myth that the majority of girls married under 15. So, it is still the premisse we have to work with.

For the show it matters much less, since Sansa's supposed to be 18 already and thus in our modern sensibilities at an age where she can choose a man from any age she likes.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, sweetsunray said:

Yup, I know that. The belief that in medieval times the majority of girls were married under 15 is actually a myth, even amongst nobility. George is actually wrong when he claims it was so, historically. But Westeros is not an actual historical world. It's his creation based on the myth that the majority of girls married under 15. So, it is still the premisse we have to work with.

Yeah, that's my interpretation too. GRRM pretty much made an error here. And it's in that context that I understand the story.

[Darksky]

I can't grasp the reason for the characters' ages  at the start of the narrative. Can't presume to understand what motivated Martin. Because of the age of the kids their journeys have been really far-fetched. Did Bran really have to be 9 at the beginning? Did Rickon have to be 3? (He didn't even sound like a 3yo but more like a 6yo). What was the point of having Robb and Jon at the age of 14?

[LadyVal]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yeah, that's my interpretation too. GRRM pretty much made an error here. And it's in that context that I understand the story.

Yup you're right, 

because childbirth was so dangerous, girls were married when they were fully grown and old enough so that there was a bigger possibility they would survive giving birth. Maybe they got married at a young age (12/13) but marriage wasn't consummated until a few years later.

[sweetsunray]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yeah, that's my interpretation too. GRRM pretty much made an error here. And it's in that context that I understand the story.

Yes. Even menarche set in at a slightly older age than the mean nowadays (closer to 15). The first year girls are irregular and in average don't even ovulate though they have menses. The less rich and various the nutrition was the older menarche starts since the body requires to spend energy in choosing growth or developing the reproduction organs and doing all the hormonal cycle stuff. And childbirth was very hazardous. The child marriages are famous but they were an exception even at the time itself.

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, Darksky said:

I can't grasp the reason for the characters' ages  at the start of the narrative. Can't presume to understand what motivated Martin. Because of the age of the kids their journeys have been really far-fetched. Did Bran really have to be 9 at the beginning? Did Rickon have to be 3? (He didn't even sound like a 3yo but more like a 6yo). What was the point of having Robb and Jon at the age of 14?

To be honest, the age thing has always bothered me a bit too. And I think it would have been an improvement and more "believable" if they were all older to begin with. And I think he has admitted as much.

I think the age thing was largely motivated by his understanding of medieval history, which I don't think he got quite right. But, given, that he gets other things right, given it's a fantasy story, I'm willing to give him a bit of a pass on that one.

[sweetsunray]

3 minutes ago, Darksky said:

I can't grasp the reason for the characters' ages  at the start of the narrative. Can't presume to understand what motivated Martin. Because of the age of the kids their journeys have been really far-fetched. Did Bran really have to be 9 at the beginning? Did Rickon have to be 3? (He didn't even sound like a 3yo but more like a 6yo). What was the point of having Robb and Jon at the age of 14?

George has admitted that he made them too young at the start, and certainly now with the drop of the 5 year gap it's even more apparent. The gap would have made Sansa 18, Arya 16, Rickon 11-12, Bran 13-14 (he was 7 at the beginning, Arya was 9 at the start) and Jon (21-22) and Dany (20-21).

He can't undo that mistake, and he just defends it with their experiences making them far older mentally and emotionally than kids of the same age in the here and now of our society.

[Meera of Tarth]

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

To be honest, the age thing has always bothered me a bit too. And I think it would have been an improvement and more "believable" if they were all older to begin with. And I think he has admitted as much.

I think the age thing was largely motivated by his understanding of medieval history, which I don't think he got quite right. But, given, that he gets other things right, given it's a fantasy story, I'm willing to give him a bit of a pass on that one.

The age thing also bothered me, and I find it difficult to imagine the characters being so young.

However, I consider that the important thing is that she finally decides with who she wants to be, no matter how old is she or how old is the partner she choses.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

The  Clegane's aren't Lords they are just landed Knights, under Lannister control. How is that useful? Really Tywin kept them around because they are both very good at killing people nothing more. 

[ThePukwudgie]

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

When you claim that it's "useless" then the burden of proof is on you. In a debate, the burden of proof is on the person making a claim. You claimed it was useless. So, you are required to prove it. If you can't, then you can't make such an assertion. Houses can be useful in many ways, but in a feudal society, the most useful houses are those that are loyal bannerman, know how to fight and ensure that the common people living on their lands are safe from harm in order to produce.

This only shows that you responded with some unproven assertions in response to a post of mine where I explained in-world historical precedents of houses that moved and became part of the North. House Clegane is currently not part of the North, but it can become a Northern House. Even though Robert Strong is Gregor Clegane, he is now a KG, and therefore cannot be Lord Clegane anymore. Since Sandor, Gregor's heir, has been proclaimed a traitor the lands of House Clegane will be declared forfeit and given to someone else, to form a new House. But Sandor has a chance to take the Clegane name and establish a House in another region. 

Precedents for this are:

• Blackwoods: they were originally a Northern House that lost their lands and were exiled. They were given land in the Riverlands instead, and continued House Blackwood there.
• Manderlys: they were originally a Reach House that lost their lands and were exiled (over a rivalry between House Manderly and House Peake). They were given Wolf Den in the North by the Starks and built White Harbor, and continued House Manderly in the North. They are now some of the most loyal and most powerful House because of it, since they have a city harbor for trade and built a fleet.
• Houses of bannermen of Stannis (Massey and others): many of these Houses were Crownland Houses. Because they fought alongside Stannis, they lost their seats in the Crownlands. They're still nobles, but landless. And what do they all hope to get in the North? A castle and a wife. 

So, the argument - an exiled traitor to the crown is of no use to the North and is no more different than a hedge knight/warrior is disproven by the above.

Yes, currently that is what she's trying to do in the show, with destructive results, under the misguided influence of LF. The books though indicate that Sansa is getting sick and tired of her supposed "claim". And they have a character like Jaime commenting that if Sansa was smart she'd never reappair and choose herself some husband she loves and just live a life.

If you haven't read any of my essays and the tons of book quotes for it, then indeed you cannot really address it at all.

Sansa's 13 in the last book, and was already married to a man who had similar thoughts and resents her for not wanting him. If her society thinks she is old enough to be bedded, then she certainly has the right to make these decisions for herself, rather than have other people decide for her.

No, only positive assertions have to be proven. This is done because negative assertions can be extremely hard, if not outright impossible to prove, and because the absence of something is self-evident by the lack of evidence proving its existence, in this case the usefulness of House Clegane. For example:

Someone asserting that dragons don't exist don't have to prove their assertion. The burden of proof is on those who disagree.

 

Given that you have no evidence of House Clegane's usefulness, I can only conclude that you don't know.

Moving on. A fair point about House Clegane being able to become a Northern house, but given that you can't even prove whether House Clegane is useful, nor prove if it even exists anymore, it makes no sense to talk about House Clegane as if it exists.

I can address what you wrote. The small write-up you did on symbolism wasn't compelling enough to convince me of the importance of your interpretation of the symbols. Interesting read though.

So in other words, it's a creepy ship? Moral relativism doesn't change that. It's fiction, and based on actual history, and that's fine. However, shipping it?