Sansa is truly one of the best characters and her development is fascinating

[Mladen]

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Within the context her "Arya did it!" is not referring to their involvement, but who instigated it, because it was well established that Arya and Nym did assault the prince. This is later confirmed with how Sansa inherently blames Arya.

Yes, I pointed out how Sansa's reshaping memories is important to her arc, but it still shows that Sansa chose Joffrey... It had nothing to do with "protecting Arya", but everything with "protecting Joff". Sansa lies by reshaping her memory, but is very conscious and feels guilt over lying otherwise. She did not want to tell the factual truth before Robert, because it would make look Joff bad. She could not fully lie either, not with her father standing there. So, she said "I don't remember".

And no, it's not to overcome trauma... She does not reshape her memory to overcome trauma, but to support her desires and wants.

Sansa chose not to blame Joffrey, yes. Until that balloon burst in her own face.  I never saw that "Arya did it" as a testimony, more like "Don't punish me". She sided with Joffrey, because well, she and Arya were always at their necks and she was an idiot in love. Most 11-year-old girls are not very reasonable.

3 hours ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

I don't understand what you mean by that...

I think that Ned and Cersei were so adamant in pushing this, for different reasons, certainly, but still. Ned was more preoccupied with who is right and who is wrong instead of smoothing things down.

3 hours ago, Horse of Kent said:

Again, I see no way Sansa could have known that. Yes, Arya was in a privileged position in comparison to Mycah, but her words would have been outweighed by the heir to the throne if it came to it. 

Wait, Sansa not collaborating Joffrey's story means that it is still in the air who is to be blamed. Sansa's silence, as unhelpful was to determining who is at fault, also didn't in any way put Arya in danger. She didn't collaborated Joffrey's story which would undoubtedly hurt Arya. She simply didn't incriminate Arya.

31 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

At what point would you have had Eddard renege the betrothal? 

I remember there were months between Trident and the night he decided to end it. He had many, many, many chances to do that. He didn't. And there is no argument which can negate how irresponsible that was.

1 hour ago, Woman of War said:

 

This is very well said.

Some fans feel the need to style her favorite Sansa into someone very special. Why? As if it were illegitimate or below standards  - or simply boring - to like and to root for a character who is nothing but, well, average. Sansa is like any of us in this strange world, she is our eyes and ears, she sees and remembers a lot without always understanding, her POV's allow us to draw our own conclusions without spoonfeeding us solutions and clever deductions. No, she cannot be the special heroine with superpowers, neither intellectually nor emphatically. Her role in the story is to lead us, clueless newcomers like her, into Martinworld, easy access.

1. It's all in the eye of beholder.

2. Well, just an opinion

3. 

Yes, she is special and she is one of the most beautiful characters in the entire ASOIAF. If people can't appreciate, understand, realize Sansa, her character and her story, fine by me, but also please at least understand there are others who see things differently  

[Darksnider05]

Everyone's a winner and everyone gets a trophy?  Seems to be the gist here?

[sweetsunray]

2 minutes ago, Risto said:

Sansa chose not to blame Joffrey, yes. Until that balloon burst in her own face..[snip].. She sided with Joffrey, because well, she and Arya were always at their necks and she was an idiot in love.

That's all one needs to acknowledge.

[Mladen]

1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

That's all one needs to acknowledge.

Was that ever a question? I mean, I can't say that she didn't want to see JOffrey exonerated, but that is the long way from saying she incriminated or threw Arya under the bus.

[sweetsunray]

5 minutes ago, Risto said:

Wait, Sansa not collaborating Joffrey's story means that it is still in the air who is to be blamed. Sansa's silence, as unhelpful was to determining who is at fault, also didn't in any way put Arya in danger. She didn't collaborated Joffrey's story which would undoubtedly hurt Arya. She simply didn't incriminate Arya.

That's quite a misrepresentation. Cersei demanded Arya to be punished. Sansa's silence did not "help" Arya at all, on the contrary. It was Robert who decided to not bother punishing the girl. And her silence gave Cersei the ammunition to demand the death of a direwolf.

[Mladen]

Just now, sweetsunray said:

That's quite a misrepresentation. Cersei demanded Arya to be punished. Sansa's silence did not "help" Arya at all, on the contrary. It was Robert who decided to not bother punishing the girl. And her silence gave Cersei the ammunition to demand the death of a direwolf.

No, Nymeria's attack was what gave Cersei the ammunition. People always forget that Arya has been hiding for three days after the attack. That she chased away Nymeria. Why? Because she knew what she did was OK? Arya was never in danger, Nymeria was. Cersei wanted Arya punished, but just like Ned, she needed Sansa to confirm Joffrey's story, which, to remind everyone again, she didn't. So, Cersei attacked much easier target - Nymeria. After all, Nymeria wasn't under Arya's control when she attacked Joffrey. And with Robert already not inclined to see wolves as pets, she was as good as dead. 

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, Woman of War said:

Some fans feel the need to style her favorite Sansa into someone very special. Why? As if it were illegitimate or below standards  - or simply boring - to like and to root for a character who is nothing but, well, average. Sansa is like any of us in this strange world, she is our eyes and ears, she sees and remembers a lot without always understanding, her POV's allow us to draw our own conclusions without spoonfeeding us solutions and clever deductions. No, she cannot be the special heroine with superpowers, neither intellectually nor emphatically. Her role in the story is to lead us, clueless newcomers like her, into Martinworld, easy access.

And this misrepresents my post you quoted and agreed with. I did not say that Sansa is not special. I said her empathy levels are average. I also said much earlier in another post that Sansa does not need to be a hera. But nowhere do I claim that Sansa has nothing special. I think her endurance, her ability to disarm a possible lethal situation and the way she uses fantasy to be free and explore situations and feelings is special.

[sweetsunray]

1 minute ago, Risto said:

No, Nymeria's attack was what gave Cersei the ammunition.

No, the lack of confirmation that Nym and Arya responded in defense was what gave Cersei the ammunition.

Stop assuming what I may have forgetten or remember.

[Mladen]

Just now, sweetsunray said:

No, the lack of confirmation that Nym and Arya responded in defense was what gave Cersei the ammunition.

Stop assuming what I may have forgetten or remember.

Nymeria attacked Joffrey. Even Arya knew she was in danger. She chased her. One has to wonder why.

I wasn't referring specifically to you. Just general observation  

[sweetsunray]

10 minutes ago, Risto said:

Was that ever a question? I mean, I can't say that she didn't want to see JOffrey exonerated, but that is the long way from saying she incriminated or threw Arya under the bus.

Yes. It has been pointed out before that people try to paint Sansa's choices in that moment in a positive light, completely ignoring Sansa's motivation, and then even trying to paint her as her sister's savior. Just plain admit Sansa's selfish motivation and then show her improvement later on.

Well, she did incriminate and threw Arya under the bus when she cried "Arya did it!" It doesn't matter she said it because she feared for Lady's life. She was fully willing to throw Arya under the bus when it came down to it.

[sweetsunray]

16 minutes ago, Risto said:

Nymeria attacked Joffrey. Even Arya knew she was in danger. She chased her. One has to wonder why.

I wasn't referring specifically to you. Just general observation  

No one has to wonder why Arya's life was in danger. Of course Arya knew she was in danger - Nym and herself. Jaime was going to kill her if he found Arya first. That's the whole point: Arya's limbs or life is in danger, so is the wolf's, because they defended an innocent boy against a bully prince. She hid for three days in the woods. Arya feels horribly guilty, more than she actually needs to be. Sansa thinks on how Arya ruined her day, but she never wonders how she and Joff ruined Mycah's life and if Arya hadn't been found or not by the right person, it indeed might have cost her life too. And then there is an impasse on why Arya and Nym assaulted the prince, and Sansa is asked to clear the impasse, and she refuses to exonerate Arya and admit that Joffrey drew life steel against an untrained boy with no more than a stick and ordered Mycah to fight him with that stick. Sansa is a horrible brat in that moment and her later behavior and mind on it in aGoT does not improve.

[Philokles]

24 minutes ago, Risto said:

Wait, Sansa not collaborating Joffrey's story means that it is still in the air who is to be blamed. Sansa's silence, as unhelpful was to determining who is at fault, also didn't in any way put Arya in danger. She didn't collaborated Joffrey's story which would undoubtedly hurt Arya. She simply didn't incriminate Arya.

You seem to be missing my point. When two contradictory stories were all there was to go on, the evidence of Arya is outweighed by the evidence of Joffrey as he is the heir to the Iron Throne. However, if another witness backed up Arya's story then it would seem the most likely. Sansa lied, claiming that she could not remember instead of telling the truth that would take Arya out of serious danger. Sansa did not incriminate Arya, but abandoned her in a losing position.

[David Selig]

What do you guys find so interesting in discussing the Trident incident over and over and over again? I don't get it.

[rhythmicsheep]

Sansa is selfish and entitled and hopelessly in love as only an eleven year old can be. Honestly, speaking as a younger sister, GRRM has portrayed a sisterly dynamic pretty accurately. The lack of empathy she displays towards Arya are just a result of her being constantly told that she's "Right" for being the good girl who obeys all the rules. However, there are people in this thread implying she only cares about being queen in a selfish, power-hungry sort of way, and that isn't what Sansa is about. She cares intensely about being a queen who is loved by her people, married to the man of her dreams (whose nature she is currently in denial about), and a loving mother. All of these are norms she's been raised to fulfill, and her actions are a result of her trying her best to live up to them. They has far-reaching consequences, but I wonder why no one says Cersei or Joff or killed Ned as often as they say Sansa was responsible for her father's death.

Is it because we expect this behaviour of Cersei and Joff, that we assume it's natural for everyone in the book to do everything they can to foil Lannister plans? It's a case of Watsonian vs Doylist perspective. We see Cersei as the scheming cretin she is and Joff as a pile of crap. Sansa saw Cersei as a beautiful Queen and doting mother, wife to her father's best friend. Joff was the handsome prince who was to be her future husband. (Emphasis on beauty in Sansa's perception, as good in songs and stories is beautiful) She was wilful in her rejection of anything that marred this image, and her major flaw here is naivete and wanting to believe that "life is a song". Tracing this flaw back to a eleven year old really puts into perspective (for me) how much this was more of a simple tragedy for the Starks, rather than some sort of blunder in political machinations on Sansa's part.

What I think GRRM needs to show is either Sansa's explicit reflection upon her actions or discussing it in conversation if there is ever a sibling reconciliation, for the fanbase to rest on this issue.

[Woman of War]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

And this misrepresents my post you quoted and agreed with. I did not say that Sansa is not special. I said her empathy levels are average. I also said much earlier in another post that Sansa does not need to be a hera. But nowhere do I claim that Sansa has nothing special. I think her endurance, her ability to disarm a possible lethal situation and the way she uses fantasy to be free and explore situations and feelings is special.

Ok. Maybe Sansa has a certain ability to de-escalate situations if she wishes to do so though she completely failed when Joffrey was bullying Mycah and Arya.

And  Sansa has another competence: she is resilient.

 Resilience is mostly interpreted as positive quality but it has a dark side: insensitivity. 

Resilience is a very particular ability: to deal emotionally with horrible situations without breaking down. This has nothing to do with empathic competence, with sensitivity, maybe right the contrary. It has to do with the ability to deny, to not see, to not realize the horrors that happen around you, to not let them get close to yourself, to shield yourself from others' misery. For example Sansa's approach to the tournament killing or to the disappearance of Jeyne. 

Yes, Sansa is a survivor because she is able to fabricate and to deny reality. This is good for her and it may carry her to the end of the books since we need the observing character who tells but does not interpret. But it does not make me like her character overly much. To each his or her own.

[sweetsunray]

13 minutes ago, Woman of War said:

Resilience is a very particular ability: to deal emotionally with horrible situations without breaking down. This has nothing to do with empathic competence, with sensitivity, maybe right the contrary. It has to do with the ability to deny, to not see, to not realize the horrors that happen around you, to not let them get close to yourself, to shield yourself from others' misery. For example Sansa's approach to the tournament killing or to the disappearance of Jeyne. 

You are right it has little to do with empathy, but it does not oppose it. Dissociating in a moment does not mean you deny horrors or are withoiut empathy or emotion. It simply means you set aside emotion at that time, because the emotion might actually endanger you and others. If you ever have seen people panic about you and possibly endanger themselves and others in that panic, then you would know that someone necessarily has to remain cool-headed, both to get people out of the situation as well as calm them down. When people panic, they don't need empathy, they need a rock. And I'm speaking of personal experience here. I've been in several hazardous situations while leading a group of people, who did panic. The show of empathy to each other only increased the feelings of hysteria in them, and only the giving of almost mechanical orders decreased the panic and solved the situations. You can still share emotions afterwards, when the danger has passed. 

[sweetsunray]

50 minutes ago, David Selig said:

What do you guys find so interesting in discussing the Trydent incident over and over and over again? I don't get it.

Because people keep bringing it up over and over again to argue that Sansa was doing the right thing there, or no harm.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

1 hour ago, Risto said:

I think that Ned and Cersei were so adamant in pushing this, for different reasons, certainly, but still. Ned was more preoccupied with who is right and who is wrong instead of smoothing things down.

I firmly disagree with this reading of Eddard's motivations and thinking regarding the incident. (Even though the trial is from his POV, the discussion almost never takes consideration of his perspective, I guess that's the parent's fate, but I digress...) Ned was preoccupied with his child's safety - no, I don't agree that Arya was *never* going to be punished, there was a Lannister hunting party taking place after all and a public trial was an outright hostile act. Eddard had actual reasons to fear of Arya's life; it's only from the readers meta perspective that we may assess Robert's intentions and still, Robert is easily swayed by his unwillingness to confront Cersei, as we know.

 

20 minutes ago, rhythmicsheep said:

...

Tracing this flaw back to a eleven year old really puts into perspective (for me) how much this was more of a simple tragedy for the Starks, rather than some sort of blunder in political machinations on Sansa's part.

I wholeheartedly agree. My pet peeve is with a certain reading that attempts to present this as some sign of political brilliance from Sansa's part and/or as an attempt to save her sister. Even worse when, in order for this inerpretation to (seem to) work, other characters (mostly Eddard) need to be put down with this (unfounded) reasoning or the other. It still "succeeds" to bother me a little, even though I've mostly lost interest.

[Woman of War]

 

@sweetsunray

This is true in general what you are writing but Sansa is imo not of that enlightened emphatic resilience but of the self absorbed kind.

it does not mean that I am not interested in Sansa's  fate, I am, and even more so in her character within a show we are not allowed to name here.

But it is a detached interest, not an emotional one like some posters in these forums here have. Or not an emotional interest like I have in e.g. Brienne.

 

[sweetsunray]

6 minutes ago, Woman of War said:

This is true in general what you are writing but Sansa is imo not of that enlightened emphatic resilience but of the self absorbed kind.

Then don't make general statements that detachment and dissociation oppose empathy. They don't. You can't detach without being attached first. You can't dissociate if you don't associate before that.

Sansa's response to Ser Hugh's death is not one of detachment or dissociation. We witness how she screams for Ned to stop the Mountain the following day when he threatens Loras, at Ned's beheading and responds shocked and physically ill at Dontos' death. It has nothing to do with detachment, but her not having an automatic affective empathic response to strangers. She can only muster cognitive empathy for strangers, and will only do it for people she deems deserving of it.

It also does not necessarily make her self-absorbed, or at least not any more than the average joe and jane. What made her over-self-absorbed in aGoT is her age, her hormones, her privileged class and the whole household making her out to be the "golden child", the "perfect child" who is to bring in a major political alliance, just like many male heirs are more self-absorbed. Amongst the privileged, she is even more privileged, except for the royal children and her brother Robb. She has been promoted to feel entitled all her life, even over her siblings. So, where she has the empathy range of me-and-mine, the "mine" promoted her to think mostly of "me".

In that sense, losing Lady was probably the first time she actually lost one of her "mine" in her young life. On the one hand she's a horrible brat because of it in aGoT, but on the other hand she has been severely indulged and taught to be a horrible brat. There's a reason why people regard a spoiled child as a victim of those raising the child to be spoiled. But she's no Joffrey. One of her first confrontations with one sibling feeling entitled over the other is Sandor's story. His brother was so entitled and priviledged that he could get away with burning half his brother's face for simply playing with his toy. And she considers Gregor a monster for it.