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

[zandru]

38 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

She gets beatings on a regular basis and has to fear abuse 24/7.

Sansa does have to fear abuse - but how many times has she heard Tyrion or Cersei tell Joffrey that, if anything happens to Sansa, your uncle Jaime is dead? Sansa could have listened and realized that it was very unlikely she'd be killed, as long as Jaime was being held by Robb, and that she had some sort of leverage. Truly, Sansa lived with Theon Greyjoy for most of her life; she looked down on him because he was merely her father's hostage - didn't she ever get a clue about what "hostage" meant??

 

[LiveFirstDieLater]

1 minute ago, zandru said:

Sansa does have to fear abuse - but how many times has she heard Tyrion or Cersei tell Joffrey that, if anything happens to Sansa, your uncle Jaime is dead? Sansa could have listened and realized that it was very unlikely she'd be killed, as long as Jaime was being held by Robb, and that she had some sort of leverage. Truly, Sansa lived with Theon Greyjoy for most of her life; she looked down on him because he was merely her father's hostage - didn't she ever get a clue about what "hostage" meant??

 

I don't think I said that, but if I did it was a rediculous thing to say... You make a valid point

[Marylou]

Lol, you quoted me   And did she really overhear these conversations? Can't remember, to be honest. 

But if she tried to escape, I am pretty sure she would have died a traitor, too. But at least, she could have asked Tyrion how he imagines to get her out of this.  But if I remember right, he offers  her to get her out of the betrothal, not to spirit her away from Joff and KL. But as a 12 year old girl who has witnessed her fathers beheading, I'm not sure if I would have asked Tyrion myself. Too dangerous.

[Protagoras]

3 hours ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Okay, I think the problem we seem to have here is one of our own personalities in that we clash on how we would like to see people punished by the readers in this case.  I don't deny for a moment that Sansa made mistakes that led to nasty consequences, same as for Ned with his bad judgement for example.  Yet, the way some readers including myself feel inclined to forgive them is because of what intentions were at the time.  Granted, Ned is a better example than Sansa because I don't believe it crossed his mind that Cersei would go and get Robert killed.  So even if he caused his dead in a way, I don't believe he is guilty of it.  Here comes the concept of foreseeability, although granted, perhaps it ought to have crossed his mind that this might happen, but still the guilty rests with Cersei and Lancel.  Now, Jaime is fully responsible for the murder of the Mad King.  Can I forgive him?  In my case yes because he genuinely thought the consequences of doing nothing or do his duty and protect the king could have been much worse.  Tyrion, yes, my favourite character or not, did killed Shae and his father, so definitely he is guilty.  Do I want to see him punished for it?  I think George has given him enough punishment given the state of mind he had through most of the last book, but in a justice system yes it caught I guess he would have to be punished or else life does become a bit cheap.  Same goes for Theon, who is perhaps the best example in the books of someone conflicted and very pushed in many conflicting directions who does terrible things but doesn't appear to be per se a super bad person inside.  But is every murder the same and should all be punished in the same way?  my idea is not.  I do admit I have a tendency towards leniency in real life too and yes I could describe myself as someone very "feeling" which to me is not a bad thing.  Is it better to be this way or more of a disciplinarian is very hard to say.  We could argue until the cows come home and we would probably still agree to disagree.  With Sansa I have never denied that she made mistakes whether I would go as far as calling them crimes... I don't think so.  Is it morally wrong to lie and say she didn't see to side up with her intended as opposed to her sister?  I would say yes because it was selfish to a point.  However, I am yet to meet anyone who has never done anything morally wrong ever or cause pain to others.  Now you mention, rightly so, that Ramsay's and Joffrey's actions like those of everyone are also rooted on experiences and circumstances.  Of course, eveyone's are.  When it comes to hating a character (the reader equivalent I guess to imparting punishment legally) I admit I do not hugely believe in the concept of retribution (rightly or wrongly) that of course doesn't mean that I would set every prison inmate free lol  what I do believe in is in the need for society to protect individuals from harm.  So, say a serial killer who is mentally ill, and not necessarily morally answerable for his/her crimes still needs to be locked up as does a religious fanatic who commits terrorism but believes is doing it for the greater good.  These people are very dangerous to society.  Sansa is not, not any more than potentially anyone who might one day hold power is.  Still I know the "double standards" bother you  hence I mentioned Stanis.  Was certainly not meant as an insult but he prefers expediency over as you said arguing for ever moral or legal points; took Davo's fingers, punishment fulfilled then rewarded him for something else.  There is some merit in that too.  Stanis only became a danger to society when he got himself involved with the Lord of Light.  Ramsay and Joffrey were a real continuing thread to others.  The same could be say mayhaps of Tywin, Walder Frey, Tyrion, Cersei etc but since they are more in control of their actions and use more logic (Tyrion only completely lost the plot when he was literally broken by loved ones) they are a bit more like the Cold War, they are easier to predict that people who appear to be arbitrarily dangerous because they enjoy inflicting pain and they are harder to persuade or contain as it were.  Now Cersei in the show of course has joined the later category because she has also lost the plot pretty much.  Will be interesting to see what is in store for her in the books though.

Do I have double standards?  maybe in that yes, like I guess every one I root for some characters more than for others and yes, I do believe that is someone did something terrible once but they are unlikely to do it again it is safe to set them free and leave them to their guilt and dark thoughts for a while.  Nothing that Sansa has done makes it unforgivable or even unforgettable for me.  Now, if she does kill LF somehow, yeah that would be a crime but if she does it to say save Sweet Robin or Harry Hardying or to prevent the Vale from starving over the winter, I would class that as a Jaime situation, not because I might like her better than LF but because sometimes people have to make difficult choices.  With the characters or real people living through these sort of circumstances though of course we all have wanted retribution on someone at some point in our lives but I personally believe we should try to work on being more rational and leaving this aside.  It is retribution that sets up this wonderful to write conflicts amongst mafia families or the medieval wars and certainly ASOIAF.  Tywin punishing Tyrion's imprisonment by Cat, Rob retaliating (not saying it was wrong) against his father's decapitation; trouble is that retribution perpetuates the violence.  If Sansa indeed and Tyrion had plotted to kill Joffrrey and succeeded one could argue Cersei had the right to retaliate which would have meant more retaliation from Stark supporters and on and on the wheel spins... I could be very wrong here and pretty out of topic as well but I believe the ending is going to involve some compromise and healing between various houses, certainly Stark and Lannister but Targaryen also because I believe George final message will be that this is the only way forward.  If we get stuck in, say, you wrong my brother you bitch or you killed my father and so on, on and on the eternal revenge will continue.

But finally, and a little bit more on topic, we are all human and we all have preference that endear us towards some characters more than others, is it double standards or mere preference?  If someone totally denies that Sansa ever made the wrong choice but castigates other characters very severely then maybe but I think everyone here has says that she did make mistakes but that they could understand where she was coming from.  To me, personally, that is not "white-washing" white washing to me would mean denying the action took place to protect a beloved character.  Just my two cents and hopefully not hard feelings  

Well, we are certainly having a different view on this. I think that a case can be made that logic (in this case: everyone gets the same punishment) is a better way to have in a justice system than feelings and double standards. I would under such a system for example have a very different time arguing with, say Ramsay Bolton, that he needs to change his ways and follow the same rules as everyone else since I will be met with the argument that certain individuals do have greater right to break the rules than others and that since he is one of those individuals that few people like he wins nothing in changing his ways. People will still have the same perceptions and that he even in the future will be seen guilty for things other, more popular people can get away with. He would win any discussion and logically make a strong case that he won´t need to adapt to society at all. He wouldn´t have that argument in my justice system. Another great example is Harry Potter, because is pretty obvious that the rules don´t apply to him the same way it does to those nasty, evil Slytherins. He gets away with far more than he should and that the teachers simply overlook his activities for the "greater good" certainly makes it questionable that anyone should be punished for breaking said rules. But then, I have always hated the Gryffindors and their "superhero" approach to life. They are the real bullies.

As for your last part, I want to quote the OP again to point out the parts that certainly sounds like denying to me.

On 2016-09-21 at 9:54 PM, Emie said:

Starting from the time she "lied" to the Lannister's about Joffrey and Arya's fight in the Riverlands which ultimately led to the death of Lady. When that happened, Sansa was still only a child and very naive about the world and what to do in very grown up situations.

...

So even at that time, Sansa was smart enough to realize that no matter what she said, her family would be screwed either way, so she believed that saying she didn't know what happened and try to stay neutral, hoping that no one would get in trouble.

...

Another thing, is that she did NOT cause her father's death. She told Cersei about what was going on because she was a scared little girl that didn't know any better. And she even begged them not to do anything to him. She thought they would be merciful and not harm him, but instead Joffrey betrayed his promise and had him killed. So the whole thing was Joffrey's fault, not Sansa obviously. She was the one who tried to stop it.

Looks like the OP doesn´t think it was a lie, denies that Sansa throwed Arya under the bus and instead claims she wanted to be neutral and that the whole thing was Joffreys fault (which still doesn´t absolve Sansa of her choice going to Cersei, even if Ned wrote his own doom - this discussion is about choice and loyalty, not wherether such a decision actually led to something. If you call the cops and say I am a pedophile but the cops somehow doesn´t act on this, I am most certainly going to hold you responsible for that even if I suffered no real consequences from your choice).

[Mladen]

3 hours ago, teej6 said:

I have to disagree with your reading of Ned's views of Robert in AGOT. We are shown through Ned's thoughts and words (in his conversations with Cat) that he is full of doubt about Robert's present character and if he even knows the Robert we see in AGOT. He's not deluding himself in any way about Robert. Ned hopes that Robert still has some traits of his old self and morality but never do we see Ned justifying any of Robert's immoral or questionable actions. In fact, we see just the opposite. We see Ned willing to sacrifice his friendship with Robert and his very life itself if siding with Robert means going against his conscience. There is no similarity between how Ned sees Robert and Sansa's total denial of what a shit Joffrey was. 

And when exactly Ned backs from Robert? When does that happen? It basically happens when Ned was asked to kill an innocent child. It happens at the point of no return. And Ned and Sansa are the same in that aspect. Ned believed in Robert up until he wanted Ned to do something what Ned considers unimaginable. Sansa of course believed Cersei and Joffrey until Ned's beheading. Naturally, Ned, as an adult, is far more conscious about the world around him, but in the course of one book turned many a blind eye when it came to Robert. It was only when it couldn't have been done anymore, he made his parting. But, up until then, Ned did even kill Lady because well, Robert wanted that. He even continued the engagement at the expense of his daughter's future and life. And only when he saw how wrong regarding Robert he has been, he turned his back. Unfortunately, at that point, it was quite, quite late.

So, yeah, Sansa deluded herself regarding Cersei and Joffrey (interestingly, not Jaime) in the same way Ned deluded himself regarding Robert. Only, the fact that Sansa is far more inexperienced made her illusions far stronger and easily noticed.

[Winter's Cold]

If Sansa hated all Lannisters, then she would have never been kind to Lancel. No the issue was that Tyrion was repulsive (especially after his nose was chopped off in Blackwater) and not a knight. Thus he did not fit the image of a savior to Sansa. She failed to manipulate Tyrion because she lacked the training and mental ability to see beneath surface apperances and think critically.

After Littlefinger takes her in, she does start to develop this ability but her progress is far too slow especially if you compare her to the main five: Jon, Dany, Tyrion, Arya and Bran. That's why the idea that she'll become a major player that controls House Stark is far fetched.

I think the best she can do is take down Littlefinger somehow and control the Vale through Sweetrobin. She doesn't have the political or economic skill of Littlefinger so it will be very difficult for her to control the Vale Lords. The only way to consolidate her control of the Vale would be to have a much closer relation to Sweetrobin. Lysa controlled the Vale because she was the wife of the previous lord and the mother of his heir. Littlefinger controls the Vale because he is the step-father of the heir in addition to his political and economic acumen. Sansa will need to transition from being Sweetrobin's cousin to being Sweetrobin's wife. There is already precedence for this type of relationship in the series with the Tommen and Margaery marriage.

Thus, Sansa's main role would be to use the Vale to help House Stark and the North either militarily or economically. The role of the main five characters will be to confront and defeat the Others. Sansa won't be Queen in the North. She won't marry Jon. She won't be head of House Stark. She won't command Jon, Arya or Bran. However, that doesn't mean that she can't be important and useful.

Anyway that's just my opinion on what Sansa's arc will be in the event that Sweetrobin lives and Littlefinger dies.

[zandru]

to LiveFirstDIeLater and Marylou ... sorry! I'm not yet very good at this quoting thing.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

4 minutes ago, Winter's Cold said:

If Sansa hated all Lannisters, then she would have never been kind to Lancel. No the issue was that Tyrion was repulsive (especially after his nose was chopped off in Blackwater) and not a knight. Thus he did not fit the image of a savior to Sansa.

Complete nonsense. She thinks herself many times, that Tyrion was kind to her even though he looked ugly. In fact, before the wedding Tyrion offers her the option to change to marrying Lancel but she doesn't take it precisely because she remembers that he helped her and stopped her beatings.

How much ever you may want to twist it, she was kind to Lancel out of compassion, nothing else. It was not because he looked handsome. 

8 minutes ago, Winter's Cold said:

After Littlefinger takes her in, she does start to develop this ability but her progress is far too slow especially if you compare her to the main five: Jon, Dany, Tyrion, Arya and Bran. That's why the idea that she'll become a major player that controls House Stark is far fetched.

I think the best she can do is take down Littlefinger somehow and control the Vale through Sweetrobin. She doesn't have the political or economic skill of Littlefinger so it will be very difficult for her to control the Vale Lords. The only way to consolidate her control of the Vale would be to have a much closer relation to Sweetrobin. Lysa controlled the Vale because she was the wife of the previous lord and the mother of his heir. Littlefinger controls the Vale because he is the step-father of the heir in addition to his political and economic acumen. Sansa will need to transition from being Sweetrobin's cousin to being Sweetrobin's wife. There is already precedence for this type of relationship in the series with the Tommen and Margaery marriage.

Thus, Sansa's main role would be to use the Vale to help House Stark and the North either militarily or economically. The role of the main five characters will be to confront and defeat the Others. Sansa won't be Queen in the North. She won't marry Jon. She won't be head of House Stark. She won't command Jon, Arya or Bran. However, that doesn't mean that she can't be important and useful.

Agreed with this. 

[teej6]

29 minutes ago, Risto said:

And when exactly Ned backs from Robert? When does that happen? It basically happens when Ned was asked to kill an innocent child. It happens at the point of no return. And Ned and Sansa are the same in that aspect. Ned believed in Robert up until he wanted Ned to do something what Ned considers unimaginable. Sansa of course believed Cersei and Joffrey until Ned's beheading. Naturally, Ned, as an adult, is far more conscious about the world around him, but in the course of one book turned many a blind eye when it came to Robert. It was only when it couldn't have been done anymore, he made his parting. But, up until then, Ned did even kill Lady because well, Robert wanted that. He even continued the engagement at the expense of his daughter's future and life. And only when he saw how wrong regarding Robert he has been, he turned his back. Unfortunately, at that point, it was quite, quite late.

So, yeah, Sansa deluded herself regarding Cersei and Joffrey (interestingly, not Jaime) in the same way Ned deluded himself regarding Robert. Only, the fact that Sansa is far more inexperienced made her illusions far stronger and easily noticed.

All through Ned's chapters, in his thoughts and conversations with Cat he doubts Robert is still the person he once knew. He is apprehesive of how Robert will act/react and doubtful of his friend's character. He's not fawning over Robert and excusing his actions as we see Sansa do with Joffrey and Cersei. Robert's indifference to killing Rhaegar's children and Elia is always in Ned's thoughts.

Ned didn't kill lady because "Robert wanted it" but because he was obeying an order from his King, big difference there. And he let Sansa's betrothal to Joffrey stand because he thought that was what Sansa wanted. For crying out loud Ned didn't want it in the first place and had to be convinced by Cat initially. And once it happened and he traveled to KL with Sansa, it wasn't so easy for him to call off the engagement. That would be seen as an insult to king and crown. And again, Ned believed that the marriage would make Sansa happy.

If you recall, Ned broke his friendship with Robert because he felt Robert condoned the killing of Rhaegar's children. By your interpretation of Ned, we should have seen Ned say its ok, it's not my friend Robert's fault, it's Tywin Lanister's fault. But he didn't, did he? Sansa on the other hand sees Joffrey attack and injure an innocent, but still gushes over that shithead and blames her sister for the incident in her warped sense of reality. And if you think Ned's relationship with Robert compares in anyway to that, then you have some weird interpretation of the text. 

The most you can say of Ned was that he was counting on or rather hoping that the relationship he had with Robert in the past would help him make Robert see things his way. He did not in AGOT or in the past condone or excuse any of Robert's immoral or questionable actions as Sansa did with Joffrey. 

[Morgana Lannister]

1 hour ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

I sorry, but I just have to point out they married her to Tyrion... A guy who deep down wants so badly to be the white knight... Maybe she should have been a little less aweful to him (I know she had reasons) and talked to him once in a while and he would have helped her... He stood up for her anyway before they were married... 

This idea that she had no options is nonsens, I mean it doesn't do any good for me to make up stuff that could have happened, but to suggest she was completely helpless is silly...

I agree with you Ty was her best option but given the war going between her family and his, easy to miss....

[Maxxine]

4 hours ago, Morgana Lannister said:

I hear what you are saying but Sansa had what personality and resources she had; to me using someone's help to your own advantage (or perceived advantage) also indicates a willingness which is not at all passive to get out of the situation.  Say for instance, I lose my job and find myself unable to pay the mortgage, so could lose my house (just a modern life example), the proactive think is to contact the bank and try to get another job; if that fails, say, a plan b could well include borrowing money free of interest from a close friend (i.e, become reliant on others).  There are circumstances in life where, IMHO, the bright thing is to rely on someone to "save" you if you haven't got the means to do it so yourself.  Tyrion is a classic example.  No way in hell to get himself out of that cell after the Joffrey trial, okay he might not have orchestrated it but Varys had the means, he didn't.  Arya is great because she tries and doesn't see the futility of it but if it hadn't been for Joren, kudos for trying to go solo but what would her realistic chances would have been.  I think the smart thing would have been to obtain help from whoever happened to be there... a troop of mummers or something just to theorise and blend in with them or something to get out of the place.  How would Sansa could possibly escape KL?  She could have used the Hound, I guess, but no way she could have gone very far had she done it alone.

I completely agree that sometimes you have to ask for help. That could even be considered the proactive thing to do. By no means am I saying that Sansa should have or could have gotten out of KL by herself. But she is not even asking for help. She is waiting for help. That's the difference & that's the issue I have. To me, she's just resigned to either I'm going to die, be raped, be beaten or some combination of all 3 or someone's going to rescue me. Or to use your modern analogy she hasn't asked her friends for a loan. She sitting on the couch as she goes into more debt hoping a rich man comes along to pay off mortgage and she's not even putting in the effort to find the rich man. She's just hoping he shows up.

ill admit she's in a bad situation & idk how much could've been done but she doesn't even consider trying to help herself. It's the shining white knight or bust. To me, there are some situations that stand out where she at least could've thought about taking some initiative. She notices Oakheart (I think) doesn't hit her as hard and the hound won't hit her at all. At least consider trying to use this to your advantage. Tyrion defends her. Even before the marriage why not consider getting his help. Btw I try not to fault her too much for Tyrion bc it's understandable that's she leery of Lannisters but still. Even Dontos. She saved his life & she doesn't even consider that he may owe her a debt and could be useful. And I'm not saying any of these ideas would've worked. I'm just saying those are ideas that could've been considered so she could think about trying to help herself

I hope that explains my issue a little more. I don't mind that she got rescued or that she actually needed rescuing. It's the attitude that she has of there is nothing I can do to help myself. Either someone going to come save me or I'm screwed. Just like to prototypical damsel in distress story. I understand that GRRM most likely did this on purpose to put in that fantasy trope. I'm just not a fan of it and it's a part of the reason why I'm not a Sansa fan

[Morgana Lannister]

1 hour ago, Marylou said:

Dude, asking a Lannister to help her escape is utter nonsense. But as I said before, a discussion with you is utter nonsense, too.

that is when I said "keep it polite", I believe a lot of us are even in agreement lol I ship Ty/San to hell right or wrong but in the situation I can see how she couldn't trust him...

Might have been the smarter move but takes "foreseeability" and if she had been with him when he was imprisoned she would have been the first to get beheaded, but neither Ty nor her could have known that...

 

[David Selig]

Sansa asking Tyrion for help would have been idiotic. The guy is a Lannister who did his best to help his relative murder Sansa's family and married her against her will. He is also a misogynistic scumbag.

[zandru]

Well said, Maxxine! It's Sansa's extreme passiveness, maybe due to lack of imagination as well as lack of courage, that really grates. And this isn't "femininity", as some may assert, or "good manners" or being "ladylike". It makes her, up til now, no better than average.

[Marylou]

22 minutes ago, David Selig said:

Sansa asking Tyrion for help would have been idiotic. The guy is a Lannister who did his best to help his relative murder Sansa's family and married her against her will. He is also a misogynistic scumbag.

Si. I ask myself why people judge Sansa for not fighting, but Tyrion did exactly what Tywin said. Not beause he is craven, because he had no chance at all to refuse.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

2 minutes ago, Marylou said:

Si. I ask myself why people judge Sansa for not fighting, but Tyrion did exactly what Tywin said. Not beause he is craven, because he had no chance at all to refuse.

and then Tyrion killed Tywin...

to be fair I think many, myself included, judge Tyrion as well

[zandru]

David Selig asserts

Quote

Sansa asking Tyrion for help would have been idiotic. The guy is a Lannister who did his best to help his relative murder Sansa's family and married her against her will. He is also a misogynistic scumbag.

Not at all. Sansa might have noticed the dynamic between Tyrion and his sister. If she'd ever bothered to talk to him, instead of sitting around sullenly refusing to speak at all, she'd have realized how much he hated Cersei and also his father Tywin. So he's "a Lannister" - that's all Sansa is capable of seeing, too. She sets aside the times Tyrion helped her, focusing on his surname and his ugliness and his dwarfism.

Sansa is supposed to have the super-empathy, the super-mannerliness, the super-sensitivity to others. If this were the case (and clearly, it's not), she would have engaged her unwanted husband and gained his sympathy. This nonsense about Tyrion being "a misogenistic scumbag" is absurd. Tyrion LOVED women, and he wanted them to love him back. Nobody did, which is why he spent so much time paying the women who would act as if they did. That's not "misogyny", it's just pathetic.

Tyrion was open and vulnerable to the least show of affection from Sansa. He clearly felt terrible that she was feeling bad about him, blaming himself even more than he deserved. But Sansa was too self-absorbed to notice anything but her own little fee-fees. And, as with the Hound, she couldn't handle his scarred face or overall unattractiveness. So she remained passive, doing nothing, nada, zippo, to help herself or otherwise deal with her situation. Waitin' on that handsome knight on a white horse to ride up, yo!

 

 

[Bea Noleto]

On 22/09/2016 at 4:42 PM, Lurid Jester said:

Are you really using Joffrey as a basis of comparison? 

There is a clear and distinct difference between someone showing poor judgment because they are young (Sansa, Robb, Jon, etc) and someone who is a morally bankrupt abomination who just so happens to also be young.  

 

It is not a bad comparison at all.  One of the main arguments to excuse Sansa's behaviour is that she was groomed that way, despite the fact that her mistakes (to say the least) are partially contraditory with what she was taught. 

Joffrey was raised to be an asshole. Sure, he probably was born with something off, but being a piece of shit could have been averted.

 He killed a cat. That it used as the ultimate proof that he is evil, that he was born this way. But he showed it to his father, which means he had no idea that it was a evil/cruel act. Quite the contrary, it is likely that he thought it was  something that would interest his father, something worth of drawing Robert's attention, like the dead animals he brings from hunting.

Then, instead of being taught the difference of killing an wild animal in a hunting and killing a cat or a dog, Joffrey was beaten so hard that he lost a tooth or something. From his perspective, that was completely uncalled for, and he probably learned violence for its own sake, violence as display of power, being violent just because you can.

We hear Cersei commenting how hungry for Robert's approval and affection he was. So he tries anything, as Robert hadn't given him any clear clue as what he could possibly do to please him.  As example, Robert mentions that it would be a mercy to Bran if he died from the fall instead of becoming a cripple, and Joffrey steals a dagger and pay someone to do the deed. 

You could say that Cersei was lying, but we have further evidence of that, and what Joffrey believes to be a  proper man's qualities, like his father, what kind of ideas people around him put on his head.

When presented with a very rare and important book from Tyrion, he immediately destroys it, claimming that kings/men don't read books, they fight and kill or something to that effect.

Also, during the trial of the Trident, the attack on Mycah is not really stressed as a bad thing, it is a matter of conflict between nobles. Mycah's death is nothing.  On the other  hand, he felt humiliated by Renly mocking him for being defeated by a 9 year old scrawny girl. They gave him all the bad signs.

And they must have been giving bad signs for a long time, considering that he is the fistborn and favorite son of Cersei, of all people, and Robert was a person who delights in seeing two babies brutally murdered just because he hates their father, and doesn't give a shit about the rape and murder of their mother. A man  who calls dragonspawn every Targaryen, and wants to kill a girl on the other side of the sea who doesn't pose any threat at all, for what he knows. 

Joffrey was a very insecure 13 year old, who was taught that one's rank is their value, that cruelty is a virtue and violence is strength by pretty much everybody around him, whether they meant it or not. That doesn't make it ok the things he does.

And even some bad things he did can be reevaluated.

He never found out that he was a bastard born out of incest, so when he ordered Ned's death, he thought he was killing one of the most despicable traitors. Ned was a close friend to his father, brought to KL to be the Hand of the King, given a bethrothal to the prince to his daughter and the very moment after his father died he was ready to steal the throne. Such honors bestowed on him, and that is how Eddard Stark repays them!  You would be infuriated and unforgiving too, if you were in his shoes. I know I would, and wouldn't care for mercy, not please said man's daughter. It was stupid, as it would be better to have the Lord of Winterfell and his daughter as his hostages then just the daughter. And you could argue that death penalty is immoral, etc, but considering his emotional standpoint and ignoring the death penalty issue, he is justified.

Besides, if you really want to go down the whitewash path, you can excuse him from everything. He was a very insecure teenager, who was being humiliated by the treason of a Lord who should have been his subject, friend and father-in-law and later by the rebelion of that Lord's son, who were father and brother to Sansa. His army was even defeated in battle by Robb. That is a lot to take in for a teenage boy who had just become a King. And he was incapable of doing anything himself, and he had to be strong, couldn't appear weak. He learned that strength is violence, that women are inferior and subject to men's desires, that the King can do as he pleases, and one's rank is their value. Sansa is female, his hostage, a daughter of a traitor, he is the freaking King who wants to vent his frustrations and needs to show strength. That is the recipe to justify Joffrey's beatings, threats and general mistreats of Sansa by using the culture he grew in, the parenting he was given, his age, his limited knowledge and the situation he was put in. 

Sure, Joffrey is vicious and Sansa is just mean and selfish. But the whitewashing mecanism is the same. If we had Joffrey's POV, or some likeable characters saying some not so bad things about him, perhaps there would be people that for some reason see themselves or their values in him somehow. They would concoct some tortuous explanation as to why he did nothing wrong, or even that he is a victim somehow of the people he hurt. 

Like I have seen done to Viserys. For some people, he was a good brother, Dany owes him a lot and she shouldn't have let Drogo kill him, as if she could.

PS.: English is my second language and this is a long text to revise every sentence. So I apologize in advance for any mistakes.

 

 

 

[Hodor the Articulate]

18 hours ago, Risto said:

I would strongly disagree that the writing is any way sexist. The fact that some people hate Sansa can be attributed to many things: from personal preference and experience, over general and expected dislike for privileged and spoiled children to even, yes, sexism. But, it is incredible how Martin put Sansa and Ned in the same position. And while Ned is generally being criticized for handling Cersei in such a poor manner, people would rarely speak that he was deluding himself with Robert in the same capacity Sansa was deluding herself with Joffrey. Is that sexism? Or just the fact that we are ready to cut Ned some slack? Hard to say. I tend not to over-analyze why people like this or that character but there are many ways to describe writing of Sansa. Sexist, certainly, is not one of them.

All writing is going to be sexist in some way, and this series is no exception. Take, for example, Sansa's sexual purity. For her character, its used as a indicator of her innocence, while for young male characters like Robb and Jon, it holds no such significance. Then there's Sansa's femininity. It's have proven to be useful in some instances, but overall, her 'softness' is still largely presented as a negative quality, as something that holds her back from gaining agency.

ETA: I forgot, there's also the aforementioned rivalry between Sansa and Arya. GRRM set up Sansa to be a foil to Arya, in the beginning, so it's no wonder fans would take sides. Compare this to the brotherly relationship between Jon and Robb. Jon is jealous of Robb, but they don't get into petty squabbles, nor is Robb mean to Jon.

[Bea Noleto]

On 22/09/2016 at 5:41 PM, tugela said:

One thing you people all seem to be forgetting about in the Sansa/Arya/Jeoffrey situation is that contradicting the account of a prince royal in mediaeval society and basically accusing him of lying and behaving dishonorably is treason. You could end up with your head on a spike for that. After all, it was exactly this sort of thing that started the civil war that brought Robert to power. A challenge like that could not go unpunished, and that was the hard place Sansa was in. Someone was going to be punished no matter what. Arya might get a slap on the wrist for poor behaviour as a child, but the consequences for Sansa, even for telling the truth (and especially for telling the truth) would be much greater. Her life in the royal court would have ended, and best case scenario is that she would be banished to the north. She might well have been forced to join the faith as a sister, basically social death and a life in poverty. And all that consequence for something that was not her doing. It is not a position she wanted to be in, nor was it her choice to be in that position, so she opted to stay out of it. It is not unreasonable for her to do that.

In an absolute monarchy the monarch and his/her heirs are always right, no matter what they do. Sansa understood that. Arya did not.

If that was the case, Arya, would have died, because she did much worse, she beat the prince, and confessed it. And Joffrey wouldn't even be on trial. Sansa wouldn't be brought to give her account of the events. The situation you are describing is when someone goes out of their way to humiliate the royals. Not to mention that Ned wouldn't put his own daughter in a position to commit treason, and he asked her to tell the truth. And the King also commanded her to tell the truth, and disobeying and lying to the King is not treason as well?