Risto

Discussing Sansa XXVII: Northern ways...

191 posts in this topic

I really adore Sansa, but – and since everything that comes before ‘but’ is horseshit in the words of her father – one thing I wished LF would teach her is timing. Her reasoning is often sound. Her timing STINKS! Especially when LF, who tried to sow the rift between her and Jon last season, is looking on. The time to disagree with your brother/cousin-king is not during meetings with the Northern lords in the great hall, but on the walls of Winterfell in private. Doing otherwise makes her look petulant when he shoots her down, rather like the ignorant girl she once was rather than the insightful woman she has become. Also, she’d be wiser to present a united front with Jon in front of LF, if she wanted to play it smart, regardless of her personal feelings. The advice clearly found support among the Northern lords, but damn woman, timing is everything. The arrival of those Arryn soldiers should have taught her that. Oh well, she still clearly has some learning to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show Sansa is no longer a nice person.  Her judgment is terrible.  I tend to doubt that Book Sansa will be this awful, but I guess there is always a chance she goes dark and dumb like in the show.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilarious that Sansa thinks Jon's judgement is similar to Ned and Robb's, even though she wants to take away the houses of Karstark and Umber, which is even stupider than Robb's decision of beheading the Karstark Patriarch :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah Sansa hate, it's like the good old days. 

I knew Sansa was going to be hated for speaking out against Jon, but I think she's right. Jon needs someone there who knows how to play the game, and Sansa's entire arc has been about becoming a player. Maybe it wasn't right for her to question Jon in front of the other lords, but I think you have to give her a break, Jon is still her half-brother and thinking of him as "King" will take some getting used to.  

Just because Sansa is standing up to Jon doesn't make her (insert favorite insult here). Jon needs someone who knows how to play the game, otherwise he'll be attacked from the South unexpectedly and then who will fight for the living? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sand11751 said:

I really adore Sansa, but – and since everything that comes before ‘but’ is horseshit in the words of her father – one thing I wished LF would teach her is timing. Her reasoning is often sound. Her timing STINKS! Especially when LF, who tried to sow the rift between her and Jon last season, is looking on. The time to disagree with your brother/cousin-king is not during meetings with the Northern lords in the great hall, but on the walls of Winterfell in private. Doing otherwise makes her look petulant when he shoots her down, rather like the ignorant girl she once was rather than the insightful woman she has become. Also, she’d be wiser to present a united front with Jon in front of LF, if she wanted to play it smart, regardless of her personal feelings. The advice clearly found support among the Northern lords, but damn woman, timing is everything. The arrival of those Arryn soldiers should have taught her that. Oh well, she still clearly has some learning to do.

I have no idea if taking the castles from the umbers and karstarks was a good idea. In KL with the current admistration it is what would happen, however the north is uniting again and those are old houses with lots of history in the north... while the houses that supported jon should be recompensated by allowing the heirs of the umbers and karstarks that didn t have any relation with the Bolton revolt he can gain the love of his people and the devotion of those 2 houses. I think it is a matter of keeping an equilibrium between keeping those that supported him happy and not being too bad to the remaing umber and karstark.

Sansa's way would only garante that the houses remain loyal because of fear and rewards, it doesn t inspire loyalty...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lord Godric said:

Ah Sansa hate, it's like the good old days. 

I knew Sansa was going to be hated for speaking out against Jon, but I think she's right. Jon needs someone there who knows how to play the game, and Sansa's entire arc has been about becoming a player. Maybe it wasn't right for her to question Jon in front of the other lords, but I think you have to give her a break, Jon is still her half-brother and thinking of him as "King" will take some getting used to.  

Just because Sansa is standing up to Jon doesn't make her (insert favorite insult here). Jon needs someone who knows how to play the game, otherwise he'll be attacked from the South unexpectedly and then who will fight for the living? 

she didn t simply speak up against jon, she was too insistent with her ideas.

And I would agree with you if she was playing the game, but she is mostly nagging all the time without giving any solutions for the problems she talks about... In order to play the game she would need to advise jon on how to act to keep the houses happy after his decision and she doesn t do that. She simply says he is dumb like robb and ned and should listen to her...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, divica said:

she didn t simply speak up against jon, she was too insistent with her ideas.

And I would agree with you if she was playing the game, but she is mostly nagging all the time without giving any solutions for the problems she talks about... In order to play the game she would need to advise jon on how to act to keep the houses happy after his decision and she doesn t do that. She simply says he is dumb like robb and ned and should listen to her...

"nagging all the time"? We saw her in two scenes questioning Jon. 

It's a process, like I said Sansa isn't used to be a royal adviser nor is she used to having her half-brother be a King. She has learned a lot but she needs to refine herself. That doesn't mean we should hate her and call her whiny and bitchy and blah blah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

14 minutes ago, Lord Godric said:

"nagging all the time"? We saw her in two scenes questioning Jon. 

It's a process, like I said Sansa isn't used to be a royal adviser nor is she used to having her half-brother be a King. She has learned a lot but she needs to refine herself. That doesn't mean we should hate her and call her whiny and bitchy and blah blah. 

since BoB that she is basically nagging. Her advices so far were:"jon, you will fall into ramsays plot/ I don t know what you shoud do diferently" "be careful cersei has killed all her enemies/no advice" "don t be dumb like ned and robb/ do what I say" and the scene about the umbers and karstarks...

She raises mostly good problems, but doesn t give solutions... The only real advice was about rewarding the loyal houses and punishing the other house which jon didn t agree with punishing an entire house for the crimes of some of its members...

Edited by divica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Oh! How do you solve a problem like Sansa" and character development? Every time I see, “Oh, wait, now she’s gonna be such a badass now!” I just bust a gut laughing. Some people on this show are clearly meant to be badass like Arya; others like Sansa could be meant to maneuver behind the scenes. If only her character development was consistent! The things Sansa hides from Jon, the ways in which she disagrees with him, make absolutely no sense. There was no reason not to trust Jon about the knights of the Vale last season as there is no reason to openly disagree with him in front of LF this season. If Sansa’s meant to fit the model of the lone wolf, I fear she’s going to ultimately die – so much for that “but the pack survives” lesson. I root for that chick because she’s survived so much and learned from her errors. Only to take 5 steps back and make whole new ones. Sigh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, divica said:

"nagging"

There's a word with no sexist conotations. /sarcasm

I have to ask what the point of these threads is. I doubt many Sansa fans still watch the show (I don't). The show's creators have made it pretty clear that they don't care about or respect this character or gender issues in general.

So here is a question for Risto:

Is show-Sansa well-written enough (or even coherent enough) to actually merit these analysis threads?

My personal answer is no. In the absence of an opportunity for actual thoughtful commentary, these threads seem like just an opportunity for knee-jerk Sansa hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Godric said:

Ah Sansa hate, it's like the good old days. 

I knew Sansa was going to be hated for speaking out against Jon, but I think she's right. Jon needs someone there who knows how to play the game, and Sansa's entire arc has been about becoming a player. Maybe it wasn't right for her to question Jon in front of the other lords, but I think you have to give her a break, Jon is still her half-brother and thinking of him as "King" will take some getting used to.  

Just because Sansa is standing up to Jon doesn't make her (insert favorite insult here). Jon needs someone who knows how to play the game, otherwise he'll be attacked from the South unexpectedly and then who will fight for the living? 

No, withholding crucial information from her half brother/cousin on the Vale army is what makes her either treasonous or dumb or both.  Contradicting Jon and then going on to squabble with him in public is Fredo stupid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sansa is wrong. She is wrong in how she approached the matter, and she is wrong in her reasoning.

In how she approached it, she went too far. Sure other lords voiced their opinions, but Sansa started a full on debate with the king in front of everyone, and when you say things like loyalty not being rewarded, and treason not being punished, while these being a good point in the abstract, in FRONT OF EVERYONE, that clearly undermines the authority of the king. You could see in the faces of the many of the lords that they agreed and were concerned by her words. 

In her reasoning she is also wrong, because of the current situation. If this had been at the end of a war, and peace was to follow, her reasoning would have been more sound. But the worst war that Westeros has seen in a long, long, time is about to start, and just like it won't matter who sits the Iron Throne, it won't matter who holds which castle. And I would say that allowing the people who lived on Umber and Karstark lands all their lives, and whose loyalty to these houses has been taught from generation to generation, fight under Umber and Karstark banners is a better idea. After all, a number of the houses who sided with Jon did just because of the name of Stark, they kept to their old loyalties. Now Jon is partially at fault here, because no matter how long he talks about them, none of those people really want to believe that the WW are real, and the wildlings are his only witnesses, and they are not trusted.

And I agree with Jon that the sins of the parents should not be passed on to the children. That has always been the Westerosi way, feuds carried out over centuries, something Tyrion laments about in the books. So Jon's way of thinking is a new way, the conciliatory way (maybe there is a parallel here with Jaeherys), while Sansa's thinking is the old way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her point made no sense to me. Who exactly in that room outside of the Mormonts and the Wildlings is he supposed to reward with those lands? Does she not think Glover, Manderly and Cerwyn, even though they didn't fight would be pissed to lose those lands. And who in that hall would've been happy with Wildlings getting castles and land. Sure, theyre all for sending them to the Wall and their castle cuz they think they'll all die anyways.

Her little snipes relating him to Joffrey, Ned and Robb show how little respect she has for him, and shes trying to placate him here and there with her words. But you just know shes pissed shes not queen as Ned's trueborn child and how much no one cared about her. No one tried to rescue her when she was married off to Ramsay or listened to her pleas for support, even little Lady Mormont mocked her. She hates that Jon, a bastard, is treated better than her, still being a spoiled brat I cant stand.

I think she thinks if she mutters sweet words like LF she can be like him, but LF knows what to say and when to say it, unless she's playing a game for his benefit, acting unhappy and fighting with Jon, trying to goad LF into doing something which results in his death

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Christi84 said:

Her point made no sense to me. Who exactly in that room outside of the Mormonts and the Wildlings is he supposed to reward with those lands? Does she not think Glover, Manderly and Cerwyn, even though they didn't fight would be pissed to lose those lands. And who in that hall would've been happy with Wildlings getting castles and land. Sure, theyre all for sending them to the Wall and their castle cuz they think they'll all die anyways.

Her little snipes relating him to Joffrey, Ned and Robb show how little respect she has for him, and shes trying to placate him here and there with her words. But you just know shes pissed shes not queen as Ned's trueborn child and how much no one cared about her. No one tried to rescue her when she was married off to Ramsay or listened to her pleas for support, even little Lady Mormont mocked her. She hates that Jon, a bastard, is treated better than her, still being a spoiled brat I cant stand.

I think she thinks if she mutters sweet words like LF she can be like him, but LF knows what to say and when to say it, unless she's playing a game for his benefit, acting unhappy and fighting with Jon, trying to goad LF into doing something which results in his death

I think the worst part is, she believes that she is still in a situation where she can play the "game of thrones". Like there is no one in the room but LF who was push to destabilize the north.

 

And that part about Eddark making stupid decision? HELLO!! The guy was able to overthrown the strongest dynasty the world has ever known. He was not that dumb. The fact that he choose to show mercy, compassion, and keep his honor does not make him stupid. it's like Eddark said, "you think my life is some precious thing to me? That I would trade my honor for a few more years"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon's got no claim to Winterfell.  Of course, he does not know it.  Sansa's right to assert herself in Bran's absence.  She knows what's right, she's winning.  She's got littlefinger round her finger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Christi84 said:

Her point made no sense to me. Who exactly in that room outside of the Mormonts and the Wildlings is he supposed to reward with those lands? Does she not think Glover, Manderly and Cerwyn, even though they didn't fight would be pissed to lose those lands. And who in that hall would've been happy with Wildlings getting castles and land. Sure, theyre all for sending them to the Wall and their castle cuz they think they'll all die anyways.

Her little snipes relating him to Joffrey, Ned and Robb show how little respect she has for him, and shes trying to placate him here and there with her words. But you just know shes pissed shes not queen as Ned's trueborn child and how much no one cared about her. No one tried to rescue her when she was married off to Ramsay or listened to her pleas for support, even little Lady Mormont mocked her. She hates that Jon, a bastard, is treated better than her, still being a spoiled brat I cant stand.

I think she thinks if she mutters sweet words like LF she can be like him, but LF knows what to say and when to say it, unless she's playing a game for his benefit, acting unhappy and fighting with Jon, trying to goad LF into doing something which results in his death

True.  Almost no houses in the show stayed loyal to the Starks...so according to Sansa, everyone should lose their lordships except for Baby Mormont.  Even Not Wyman Manderly told them to F. off last season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon is corupt and Sansa knows it, and tells him that.  Sansa is superior morally.  She knows right from wrong.  Jon cannot distinguish the two, he is all heart.

Sansa knows that Rickon will die, Jon still believes he can save him.  Jon has no clue.

Jon leads the troops into a disaster.  Sansa saves him.

For Sansa the moral judgment over the losers is, whether they should kill them or let them live.  And that is the right approach.

For Jon the question is whether the losers should keep the lordship, which is insane.  

Jon say, I will not hold the children responsible for their parent's acts.  This moral stance does not discourage rebellion, if you lose you do not lose everything.  Sansa's stance is they let them live and that is plenty generous, which is the right stance.  But even that is too generous for the world of Westeros.

As a ruler, Jon is morally corupt, he cannot distinguish right from wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hoo said:

Jon is corupt and Sansa knows it, and tells him that.  Sansa is superior morally.  She knows right from wrong.  Jon cannot distinguish the two, he is all heart.

Sansa knows that Rickon will die, Jon still believes he can save him.  Jon has no clue.

Jon leads the troops into a disaster.  Sansa saves him.

For Sansa the moral judgment over the losers is, whether they should kill them or let them live.  And that is the right approach.

For Jon the question is whether the losers should keep the lordship, which is insane.  

Jon say, I will not hold the children responsible for their parent's acts.  This moral stance does not discourage rebellion, if you lose you do not lose everything.  Sansa's stance is they let them live and that is plenty generous, which is the right stance.  But even that is too generous for the world of Westeros.

As a ruler, Jon is morally corupt, he cannot distinguish right from wrong. 

Except Sansa kept information from Jon hoping he'd need her. When he asked her where he can get more men from, she did not inform him about the Veil.

Good think Jon killed every wilding instead of sparing them.

Sansa learned so much from Cersei. Look what position she is in now because of the approach she took

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I can't add much more to the discussion, as most of what I believe about her in this episode has been written already. However, I will say Sansa is the character I've personally had the biggest roller coaster of feelings about in this series. She's gone from a character I genuinely disliked in S1, to someone I slowly gained pity for in S2, then kinda of disliked but also respected once she joined up with Littlefinger in the Vale, back to someone I pitied when she was sold to Ramsey, and now to a world-hardened badass that I could totally see ruling Winterfell. The way she dismissed Littlefinger when Brienne approached her was fucking legendary! I'm a little worried though as Littlefinger is not to be underestimated and Sansa isn't quite the master that Baelish is. She did hint at she knew how to play her sexuality with him to her advantage. I just hope another stark doesn't end up dead for underestimating Littlefinger.

Also, I'm very curious to see why Jon is going to rough Baelish up next episode. Everyone is guessing it has something to do with him knowing Jon's true parentage, but I'm guessing it'll be something Sansa related. Likely asking for her hand in marriage and threatening to pull out the men of the Vale if Jon refuses.

Edited by PetyrPunkinhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hoo said:

Jon is corupt and Sansa knows it, and tells him that.  Sansa is superior morally.  She knows right from wrong.  Jon cannot distinguish the two, he is all heart.

Sansa knows that Rickon will die, Jon still believes he can save him.  Jon has no clue.

Jon leads the troops into a disaster.  Sansa saves him.

For Sansa the moral judgment over the losers is, whether they should kill them or let them live.  And that is the right approach.

For Jon the question is whether the losers should keep the lordship, which is insane.  

Jon say, I will not hold the children responsible for their parent's acts.  This moral stance does not discourage rebellion, if you lose you do not lose everything.  Sansa's stance is they let them live and that is plenty generous, which is the right stance.  But even that is too generous for the world of Westeros.

As a ruler, Jon is morally corupt, he cannot distinguish right from wrong. 

Dont agree. Jon agrees with killing the traitors. what he doesn t agree is punishing the familly of the traitors because the leader of their familly was a traitor. He just wants to kill the people who actually betray him.

Sansa's stance is useful to rule through intimidation while jon's stance is useful to rule through loyalty and love (which was how the northerners felt about ned). I think the show is trying to portray jon as what could possibly be a great ruler while sansa is using cersei's tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now