Whats in a kiss?

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

7 minutes ago, Lady Dacey said:

100% agreed. That's what I meant when I said the unkiss was already meaningful! Imagining being kissed by a man you find attractive has nothing to do with warging or going insane with hallucinations, please

Thank you, although I do think she will skinchange. I don't buy into the Sandor skinchanging theory purported above. My money is on a Merlin. And as for the idea of insanity etc. Oh FFS!

[Houseofthedirewolves]

17 hours ago, Lady Dacey said:

100% agreed. That's what I meant when I said the unkiss was already meaningful! Imagining being kissed by a man you find attractive has nothing to do with warging or going insane with hallucinations, please

• If it was that simple, George wouldn't go out of his way to tie it to Sansa's previous misremebering of events/etc. I mean why compare the Unkiss to Sansa misremembering Joffrey's sword's name? Why bring up Joffrey's sword if the Unkiss is simply about a crush Sansa has?

• This isn't a case about a girl innocently imagining a crush kissing her. This is a young girl that is convinced her false memory really occurred. It's frightening not romantic. And George specifically related the Unkiss to Sansa's habit of having lapses in her memories and being an unreliable narrator. But shippers love to simplify the Unkiss so they can paint it as evidence that Sansa is "in love" and "day dreaming" about a crush. Even George has hinted that it represents a bigger problem.

The Unkiss highlights Sansa's role as an unreliable narrator; which is a recurring theme in her story. She tends to misremember things whether intentionally or unintentionally. From altering Joffrey's role in the events leading to Lady's death, to claiming that Mycah the butcher's boy attacked Joffrey, to misrembering the name of Joffrey's sword, to altering and romanticizing the trauma that she experienced when the Hound invaded her room and held a knife to her neck.

The Unkiss is just one more lapse in memory as her narrative reliability as a character gets harder to ignore. It's not a testimony to her being in love.

• Thank goodness George is writing a complex story and is not simplifying the reason for the Unkiss to Sansa "being in love."

The Lion's Paw / Lion's Tooth business, on the other hand, is intentional. A small touch of the unreliable narrator. I was trying to establish that the memories of my viewpoint characters are not infallible. Sansa is simply remembering it wrong. A very minor thing (you are the only one to catch it to date), but it was meant to set the stage for a much more important lapse in memory. You will see, in A STORM OF SWORDS and later volumes, that Sansa remembers the Hound kissing her the night he came to her bedroom... but if you look at the scene, he never does. That will eventually mean something, but just now it's a subtle touch, something most of the readers may not even pick up on.

• George's explanation implies that the Unkiss and her other lapses in memory can be a psychological effect from all the trauma that she has experienced in her short life. And that is the most logical and sensible explanation. 

• SanSan shippers explanations that the Unkiss is as simple as Sansa "daydreaming about a crush" or "being in love" sounds like fanfiction fluff. 

So I will stick with logic for the win.

• SanSan shippers told me I was over complicating things when I pointed out that the Unkiss represents Sansa's psychological trauma and an alarming lack of mental wellbeing and mental instability. But George's own words support my speculation. Because ONCE again, George ties the Unkiss BACK to Sansa's psychological state of mind.

"What does that reveal about her psychologically?" - GRRM 

•P.S. This is what George asked an interviewer that brought up the Unkiss.

It's not a typo. It is something! [Laughs] ''Unreliable narrator'' is the key phrase there. The second scene is from Sansa's thoughts. And what does that reveal about her psychologically? I try to be subtle about these things. - GRRM

He continues to tie it back to her mental state. THIS IS IMPORTANT.

•Only SanSan shippers simplify it to romance. Please give George more credit than that. Stop simplifying his writing to fangirl fluff.

[The Bard of Banefort]

I didn't interpret her recollections of the Unkiss as frightening. To me, it seemed more like she was frustrated with him for, as she remembers it, kissing her and then running off:

Quote

As the boy's lips touched her own she found herself thinking of another kiss. She could still remember how it felt, when his cruel mouth pressed down on her own. He had come to Sansa in the darkness as green fire filled the sky. He took a song and a kiss, and left me nothing but a bloody cloak. (Alayne II)

I don't think she's altering unpleasant memories, either, since she's had far worse memories that she still remembers clearly. 

[Houseofthedirewolves]

36 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I didn't interpret her recollections of the Unkiss as frightening. To me, it seemed more like she was frustrated with him for, as she remembers it, kissing her and then running off:

I don't think she's altering unpleasant memories, either, since she's had far worse memories that she still remembers clearly. 

George himself ties it to her psychological state of mind. And relates it to her being an unreliable narrator who tends to have memory lapses. The text shows us that Sansa's memory lapses tend to occur when remembering traumatic events.

Here George gives us an in-progress example of her altering her memory of an traumatic event:   “[…] It’s singing he can’t abide, since Marillion killed his mother.“ Alayne had told the lie so many times that she remembered it that way more oft than not; the other seemed no more than a bad dream that sometimes troubled her sleep.

Convincing herself that Marillion killed her aunt, while Petyr, her beloved uncle tried to save her, allows Sansa/Alayne to keep her sanity and sleep better at night.

Similar to Sansa altering and romanticizing the fear that she felt on the night of the BlackWater battle when the Hound frightened her in her room. 

The difference between how the two are presented to us is that in the case of Lysa’s death, we get a peek into Sansa’s head as she’s in the process of “forgetting the truth.” While for the Blackwater incident, by the time we read about her remembering it again, she has already altered her memory of what happened into the Unkiss.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

This patronising diatribe is utter drivel. 

2 hours ago, Houseofthedirewolves said:

The Lion's Paw / Lion's Tooth business, on the other hand, is intentional. A small touch of the unreliable narrator. I was trying to establish that the memories of my viewpoint characters are not infallible. Sansa is simply remembering it wrong. A very minor thing (you are the only one to catch it to date), but it was meant to set the stage for a much more important lapse in memory. You will see, in A STORM OF SWORDS and later volumes, that Sansa remembers the Hound kissing her the night he came to her bedroom... but if you look at the scene, he never does. That will eventually mean something, but just now it's a subtle touch, something most of the readers may not even pick up on.

Let's look at the above actual quote from the SSM. What is GRRM telling us here? He is saying that his characters (plural) are not 100% reliable. That is characters plural, not Sansa alone. He uses Sansa as an example to illustrate this as the person posing the question brings it up by using her as an example. And he clearly has something he wants to give the reader. The fact that the UnKiss will be significant. But he is saying that all POV characters are fallible, and we do well as readers to remember that. A good example is Tyrion who in his own mind is a veritable saint and the best thing since sliced bread. But when you objectively assess his actions he's a twat. Yet because we read his character from inside his own head most readers at first think he's marvellous! Another is Cersei who misremembers when Ashara Dayne fell pregnant/ or maybe doesn't accurately recall how old Ned's bastard is.  As she suggests Ned stole this child, insinuating that child is Jon. But if the reader takes any time to assess the timeline it becomes clear she fell pregnant long before Jon was conceived. That is an inaccurate memory. And the first example is one of how the reader can be misled about a character if they do not carefully consider their actions from outside the POV technique. 

 You make out that Sansa is some kind of unstable fool, when in fact she is a very astute and intelligent young woman. And further you try to establish a long history of memory lapses as though they mean something deeply nefarious. Let's be clear here, She lies about the Trident because she wants to re-write events so Joffrey isn't the utter prick he, in fact, is which is understandable given that at this point she thinks she is in love with him, she forgets the name of a sword; big fucking deal, and she invents a fantasy about kissing a man at an age when fantasising about such things is very common, and developmentally normal. The fact that she fantasises to the point she believes it really happened is a bit odd but considering the what she has been through it is understandable. And doesn't mean she's a raving loon. 

When you try to dismiss romance in ASOIAf as fanfiction you only serve to show you do not fully understand the literature or the writer.    GRRM makes no bones about being a romantic and valuing romance as a genre. He is public about his affection for the Beauty & The Beast story and has a long history of using that theme in his work. He named his bloomin theatre after the director of his favourite version of Beauty & The Beast and commisioned a piece of SanSan art for the ASOIAF calendar based upon the film poster for that film.  He wrote the characters as a big physically scared older man and a young very beautiful girl who is just beginning to go through her sexual awakening. Which by the way is largely what Beauty and the beast is about; the fear of sexuality and the challenge of leaving your parental home to marry, what love is, in reality, V's the superficial idea of it as understood by one who has not yet experienced it. Etc. 

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

2 hours ago, Houseofthedirewolves said:

George himself ties it to her psychological state of mind. And relates it to her being an unreliable narrator who tends to have memory lapses. The text shows us that Sansa's memory lapses tend to occur when remembering traumatic events.

Here George gives us an in-progress example of her altering her memory of an traumatic event:   “[…] It’s singing he can’t abide, since Marillion killed his mother.“ Alayne had told the lie so many times that she remembered it that way more oft than not; the other seemed no more than a bad dream that sometimes troubled her sleep.

Convincing herself that Marillion killed her aunt, while Petyr, her beloved uncle tried to save her, allows Sansa/Alayne to keep her sanity and sleep better at night.

Similar to Sansa altering and romanticizing the fear that she felt on the night of the BlackWater battle when the Hound frightened her in her room. 

The difference between how the two are presented to us is that in the case of Lysa’s death, we get a peek into Sansa’s head as she’s in the process of “forgetting the truth.” While for the Blackwater incident, by the time we read about her remembering it again, she has already altered her memory of what happened into the Unkiss.

This is not actually what he is doing, he never says that it has anything to do with her state of mind. The quote is that she is simply remembering it wrong, and it sets the stage for a much more important lapse in memory. You are attempting to infer something which he never said. Also, I reiterate it is not she alone who is an unreliable narrator it is all characters, as all people too are biased, have agenda's, might misremember or forget things etc. He establishing that the memories of his viewpoint characters are not 100% reliable. Not specifically and only Sansa. If he meant just Sansa he would have said her and she and if he was tying this less than photocopy memory to her psychological state he'd have said so. He did not. 

 

 

 

[The Bard of Banefort]

3 hours ago, Houseofthedirewolves said:

 

Here George gives us an in-progress example of her altering her memory of an traumatic event:   “[…] It’s singing he can’t abide, since Marillion killed his mother.“ Alayne had told the lie so many times that she remembered it that way more oft than not; the other seemed no more than a bad dream that sometimes troubled her sleep.

 

Sansa has to keep telling herself (and others) that Marillion killed Lysa though. She doesn't repeatedly lie to herself about the Hound, she just remembers it differently than it happened. And she never tells anyone, either. 

[Houseofthedirewolves]

59 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

This patronising diatribe is utter drivel. 

Let's look at the above actual quote from the SSM. What is GRRM telling us here? He is saying that his characters (plural) are not 100% reliable. That is characters plural, not Sansa alone. He uses Sansa as an example to illustrate this as the person posing the question brings it up by using her as an example. And he clearly has something he wants to give the reader. The fact that the UnKiss will be significant. But he is saying that all POV characters are fallible, and we do well as readers to remember that. A good example is Tyrion who in his own mind is a veritable saint and the best thing since sliced bread. But when you objectively assess his actions he's a twat. Yet because we read his character from inside his own head most readers at first think he's marvellous! Another is Cersei who misremembers when Ashara Dayne fell pregnant/ or maybe doesn't accurately recall how old Ned's bastard is.  As she suggests Ned stole this child, insinuating that child is Jon. But if the reader takes any time to assess the timeline it becomes clear she fell pregnant long before Jon was conceived. That is an inaccurate memory. And the first example is one of how the reader can be misled about a character if they do not carefully consider their actions from outside the POV technique. 

 You make out that Sansa is some kind of unstable fool, when in fact she is a very astute and intelligent young woman. And further you try to establish a long history of memory lapses as though they mean something deeply nefarious. Let's be clear here, She lies about the Trident because she wants to re-write events so Joffrey isn't the utter prick he, in fact, is which is understandable given that at this point she thinks she is in love with him, she forgets the name of a sword; big fucking deal, and she invents a fantasy about kissing a man at an age when fantasising about such things is very common, and developmentally normal. The fact that she fantasises to the point she believes it really happened is a bit odd but considering the what she has been through it is understandable. And doesn't mean she's a raving loon. 

When you try to dismiss romance in ASOIAf as fanfiction you only serve to show you do not fully understand the literature or the writer.    GRRM makes no bones about being a romantic and valuing romance as a genre. He is public about his affection for the Beauty & The Beast story and has a long history of using that theme in his work. He named his bloomin theatre after the director of his favourite version of Beauty & The Beast and commisioned a piece of SanSan art for the ASOIAF calendar based upon the film poster for that film.  He wrote the characters as a big physically scared older man and a young very beautiful girl who is just beginning to go through her sexual awakening. Which by the way is largely what Beauty and the beast is about; the fear of sexuality and the challenge of leaving your parental home to marry, what love is, in reality, V's the superficial idea of it as understood by one who has not yet experienced it. Etc. 

• As patronizing as SanSan fans who act as if their view is the only correct one while dismissing any non SanSan theory?

"That is characters plural, not Sansa alone."       

• "Not Sansa alone" doesn't *exclude* any of the points about her.

• Pointing out examples of her having relapse in memory or altering things that have happened doesn't = making her sound like an unstable fool. It's me pointing out texts that support George's explanation of her as an unreliable narrator with a faulty memory.

"she forgets the name of a sword; big fucking deal"

• That's not George's view of the event. He made it very clear this was something to be noted not dismissed as "big fucking deal." Since it's another example of her worrying tendency to alter events which is going to snowball into larger and larger examples and eventually lead to something big.

"she invents a fantasy about kissing a man at an age when fantasizing about such things is very common, and developmentally normal"

•There isn't anything common about a thirteen year old believing something that didn't happen actually did. Thank Goodness George know this and is the one writing the story. If he thought it was normal he wouldn't have used the Unkiss and other incident to highlight Sansa's memory relapses. Nor would George have asked us a question to cause us to reflect on her psychological state.

Why do that if it can be swept under as simply  a romantic girlhood crush. Wait. Only SanSan fans view the Unkiss as that.

"When you try to dismiss romance in ASOIAf"

•At which point did I say do this? Way to generalize. Because I pointed out the Unkiss is not simply a girl day dreaming about a crush? But rather represents a bigger problem? Lol.

"He is public about his affection for the Beauty & The Beast story and has a long history of using that theme in his work."

•I love how SanSan fans overuse the tired argument that because George is a MASSIVE Beauty and the Beast fan that means that Sansa/Hound will have the exact same Beauty and Beast love story complete with the happy ending love story. George paying homage or being inspired by Beauty and the Beast does not mean Sansa and the Hound's relationship will turn into a love story or that they would end up together.

[Springwatch]

8 minutes ago, Houseofthedirewolves said:

"she forgets the name of a sword; big fucking deal"

• That's not George's view of the event. He made it very clear this was something to be noted not dismissed as "big fucking deal." Since it's another example of her worrying tendency to alter events which is going to snowball into larger and larger examples and eventually lead to something big.

Hold on here. You know perfectly well that different editions of the text conflict on whether Sansa forgot the sword's name at all. You know that because you pointed it out upthread. It is perhaps more likely that later editions are the correct version. And presumably getting the sword's name wrong is not a big deal when Arya does it.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

39 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Hold on here. You know perfectly well that different editions of the text conflict on whether Sansa forgot the sword's name at all. You know that because you pointed it out upthread. It is perhaps more likely that later editions are the correct version. And presumably getting the sword's name wrong is not a big deal when Arya does it.

Oh no, getting the name of a sword wrong is ONLY a big deal when Sansa does it because it fits with the idea of Sansa as THE unreliable narrator in ASOIAF and demonstrates how mentally unstable she is and how this will lead to dire consequences!!!!!!!

I mean yesterday I called my kid the wrong name so yeah looks like I don't know which is which or if they even came out my fanny? Must be proof I am mentally unstable and careering towards some fateful doom. 

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

41 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Hold on here. You know perfectly well that different editions of the text conflict on whether Sansa forgot the sword's name at all. You know that because you pointed it out upthread. It is perhaps more likely that later editions are the correct version. And presumably getting the sword's name wrong is not a big deal when Arya does it.

Sorry, Springwatch I accidentally quoted you twice. Please ignore. 

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

53 minutes ago, Houseofthedirewolves said:

• As patronizing as SanSan fans who act as if their view is the only correct one while dismissing any non SanSan theory?

"That is characters plural, not Sansa alone."       

• "Not Sansa alone" doesn't *exclude* any of the points about her.

• Pointing out examples of her having relapse in memory or altering things that have happened doesn't = making her sound like an unstable fool. It's me pointing out texts that support George's explanation of her as an unreliable narrator with a faulty memory.

"she forgets the name of a sword; big fucking deal"

• That's not George's view of the event. He made it very clear this was something to be noted not dismissed as "big fucking deal." Since it's another example of her worrying tendency to alter events which is going to snowball into larger and larger examples and eventually lead to something big.

"she invents a fantasy about kissing a man at an age when fantasizing about such things is very common, and developmentally normal"

•There isn't anything common about a thirteen year old believing something that didn't happen actually did. Thank Goodness George know this and is the one writing the story. If he thought it was normal he wouldn't have used the Unkiss and other incident to highlight Sansa's memory relapses. Nor would George have asked us a question to cause us to reflect on her psychological state.

Why do that if it can be swept under as simply  a romantic girlhood crush. Wait. Only SanSan fans view the Unkiss as that.

"When you try to dismiss romance in ASOIAf"

•At which point did I say do this? Way to generalize. Because I pointed out the Unkiss is not simply a girl day dreaming about a crush? But rather represents a bigger problem? Lol.

"He is public about his affection for the Beauty & The Beast story and has a long history of using that theme in his work."

•I love how SanSan fans overuse the tired argument that because George is a MASSIVE Beauty and the Beast fan that means that Sansa/Hound will have the exact same Beauty and Beast love story complete with the happy ending love story. George paying homage or being inspired by Beauty and the Beast does not mean Sansa and the Hound's relationship will turn into a love story or that they would end up together.

Hey, you set the patronising train in motion, who am I to argue with your approach.

Yes, characters plural because implying that GRRM was talking specifically about Sansa in regards to unreliable narator is false. He said characters he meant characters not character. To insinuate otherwise shows how much you need to twist things to support your theory, When you need to do that it rather indicates your theory is dog shit. 

No, but using language which implies that she alone as a character is fallible rather shows you up as twisting his words to suit your agenda. 

So you have never forgotten the name of something? never misremembered a name? You think to do so is indicative of mental instability? Because that is what you are implying and it makes you seem silly. 

He said the misremembering of the swords name is an illustration of how his characters(plural) are not 100% reliable. Not that it is significant. Arya too misremembers the swords name, and in some editions, Sansa does not. He said it paves the way for a significant memory lapse later on which is the UnKiss, why would it be significant for Sansa to think Sandor Clegane kissed her? What effect does that have on the story? 

And why do you feel her "tendency to alter events" is worrying? or that it will snowball? what evidence is there that this may happen? You are using hyperbole here. 

We have one example of her unconsciously (seemingly) altering events, and let's not forget she was shit faced, Cersei had been plying her with wine all night in the holdfast before she was able to return to her room.  You know what after a shit ton of wine I have been known to think I've done something I hadn't; thought I'd let the dog out for a piss last night.Turns out I forgot and the husband had to go let him out at 3 AM cos he was whining. Especially if said thing did actually almost happen, like say a bloke seeming to be about to snog you, to the point you ready yourself and hold his face in anticipation.  Now imagine if you kinda wanted that kiss, were a teenager and were living in constant danger and captivity. Might you escape into the fantasised memory of a kiss? And might things get a bit blurry if you'd been pissed when it happened? And does that mean you are a dangerously unstable individual whose life will snowball with ever increasing incidents of false memories and the alarming consequences would get out of control? Cos that is the picture you are painting.

It might have caused you to question her psychological state mate. But f you go back and re-read the quote you will find he asks no question at all, and in fact this is a small case of you misremembering something..................

Why do that indeed? Well he hasn't so I think we can drop that one. 

Swept under(what by the way? a rug? a rocking horse? the empire state building? as simply a romantic girlish crush. There you go using patronising minimising language in an attempt to dismiss romance as an integral and important element in the story as a whole and her story in particular. Indeed why think the thing GRRM said was significant (The UnKiss) is significant when one can simply dismiss the characters personal storyline in favour of something unsupported by the text which some random dude on the internet likes the idea of. Sansa's story arc about determining her own autonomy over her body and her sexuality in a society which denies her it based upon her sex is so unimportant when we can instead have the deranged female who gets what she deserves cos she did a "bad thing"Never mind exploring how the human heart is often in conflict with what society decrees acceptable or how women have been bought and sold as commodities for centuries yet are in fact whole human beings with desires and needs. Why would GRRM want to explore all that?  it's so irrelevant and dull. 

Oh the tired old lets ignore the fact GRRM has revisited B&TB repeatedly throughout th eentire body of his work argument. LMFAO. 

[Houseofthedirewolves]

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Hold on here. You know perfectly well that different editions of the text conflict on whether Sansa forgot the sword's name at all. You know that because you pointed it out upthread. It is perhaps more likely that later editions are the correct version. And presumably getting the sword's name wrong is not a big deal when Arya does it.

• Since George HIMSELF says that Sansa forgot the sword's name, and there are editions of the book that support this, it's George's version that I will go with. Editors can easily make mistakes.

• This discussion is not about Arya so why would I start discussing her forgetting the sword? Why do people always randomly bring up Arya. . .

• This is about the Unkiss. SANSA forgetting the sword's name is what GEORGE touches on when discussing the Unkiss.

• Sansa forgetting the sword matters because of  the attention that George himself drew to it. And the way that he analyzes it as being a memory lapse that shows that she (and yes other characters) can be unreliable narratives. He specifically said Sansa forgetting is IMPORTANT because it sets the stage for bigger memory lapse.

 

[Houseofthedirewolves]

3 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Hey, you set the patronising train in motion, who am I to argue with your approach.

Yes, characters plural because implying that GRRM was talking specifically about Sansa in regards to unreliable narator is false. He said characters he meant characters not character. To insinuate otherwise shows how much you need to twist things to support your theory, When you need to do that it rather indicates your theory is dog shit. 

No, but using language which implies that she alone as a character is fallible rather shows you up as twisting his words to suit your agenda. 

So you have never forgotten the name of something? never misremembered a name? You think to do so is indicative of mental instability? Because that is what you are implying and it makes you seem silly. 

He said the misremembering of the swords name is an illustration of how his characters(plural) are not 100% reliable. Not that it is significant. Arya too misremembers the swords name, and in some editions, Sansa does not. He said it paves the way for a significant memory lapse later on which is the UnKiss, why would it be significant for Sansa to think Sandor Clegane kissed her? What effect does that have on the story? 

And why do you feel her "tendency to alter events" is worrying? or that it will snowball? what evidence is there that this may happen? You are using hyperbole here. 

We have one example of her unconsciously (seemingly) altering events, and let's not forget she was shit faced, Cersei had been plying her with wine all night in the holdfast before she was able to return to her room.  You know what after a shit ton of wine I have been known to think I've done something I hadn't; thought I'd let the dog out for a piss last night.Turns out I forgot and the husband had to go let him out at 3 AM cos he was whining. Especially if said thing did actually almost happen, like say a bloke seeming to be about to snog you, to the point you ready yourself and hold his face in anticipation.  Now imagine if you kinda wanted that kiss, were a teenager and were living in constant danger and captivity. Might you escape into the fantasised memory of a kiss? And might things get a bit blurry if you'd been pissed when it happened? And does that mean you are a dangerously unstable individual whose life will snowball with ever increasing incidents of false memories and the alarming consequences would get out of control? Cos that is the picture you are painting.

It might have caused you to question her psychological state mate. But f you go back and re-read the quote you will find he asks no question at all, and in fact this is a small case of you misremembering something..................

Why do that indeed? Well he hasn't so I think we can drop that one. 

Swept under(what by the way? a rug? a rocking horse? the empire state building? as simply a romantic girlish crush. There you go using patronising minimising language in an attempt to dismiss romance as an integral and important element in the story as a whole and her story in particular. Indeed why think the thing GRRM said was significant (The UnKiss) is significant when one can simply dismiss the characters personal storyline in favour of something unsupported by the text which some random dude on the internet likes the idea of. Sansa's story arc about determining her own autonomy over her body and her sexuality in a society which denies her it based upon her sex is so unimportant when we can instead have the deranged female who gets what she deserves cos she did a "bad thing"Never mind exploring how the human heart is often in conflict with what society decrees acceptable or how women have been bought and sold as commodities for centuries yet are in fact whole human beings with desires and needs. Why would GRRM want to explore all that?  it's so irrelevant and dull. 

Oh the tired old lets ignore the fact GRRM has revisited B&TB repeatedly throughout th eentire body of his work argument. LMFAO. 

• 99% percent of patronizing statements/mindsets that I have encountered while discussing ASOIAF have been from SanSan fans, so yes I do approach you guys bluntly because of past dealings.

 

 

"Yes, characters plural because implying that GRRM was talking specifically about Sansa in regards to unreliable narator is false. He said characters he meant characters not character. To insinuate otherwise shows how much you need to twist things to support your theory, When you need to do that it rather indicates your theory is dog shit. "

 

• Your point is?

Just because George wasn't talking exclusively about Sansa does not mean Sansa was excluded. So once again, IT DOES NOT NEGATE THE POINTS MADE.

• George still focused on Sansa when he said “but it was meant to set the stage for a much more important lapse in memory.” That was exclusively about Sansa. You keep bringing up every other character being unreliable as if it changes the part that was directed at Sansa or cancels what was said about her.

Describing Sansa as someone that has laspes in memory still paints her as an unreliable character.

It's not a typo. It is something! [Laughs] ''Unreliable narrator'' is the key phrase there. The second scene is from Sansa's thoughts. And what does that reveal about her psychologically? -GRRRM

• The above comment from George was also SPECIFICALLY about Sansa. And guess what? He STILL used the words unreliable narrator to describe her. Go figure.

 

 

"Oh no, getting the name of a sword wrong is ONLY a big deal when Sansa does it because it fits with the idea of Sansa as THE unreliable narrator in ASOIAF and demonstrates how mentally unstable she is and how this will lead to dire consequences!!!!!!!"

 

• Arya is the only other person that says the sword name wrong but this discussion is about SANSA. So Arya doesn’t matter right now in this discussion. Let’s stay on topic.

• SANSA forgetting the sword IS a big deal BECAUSE GEORGE POINTED IT OUT AS ONE.

IT IS THAT SIMPLE. He did NOT single out Arya. HE SINGLED OUT SANSA and used her memory laspe as an example.

George pointed it out. And made it clear it SETS THE STAGE for her having a greater lapse in memory. While also making it clear that Sansa forgetting the sword’s name was an EXAMPLE of her being an unreliable narrative. SIMPLE. Straight from the writer’s mouth.

You being bitter about it won’t change what George said. You bringing up EVERYONE ELSE as an unreliable narrators STILL WON’T change the fact that Sansa is one.

 

 

"He said it paves the way for a significant memory lapse later on which is the UnKiss, why would it be significant for Sansa to think Sandor Clegane kissed her? What effect does that have on the story? "

 

•George constantly brings up Sansa's memory laspes when talking about the Unkiss. He brings up her being an unreliable narrator TWICE in two separate conversations about the Unkiss. And then asks this question concerning her false memory:  And what does that reveal about her psychologically?

•But this is unimportant to certain shippers because they believe the Unkiss is meant to be completely romantic fluff. Nothing to worry about with Sansa's psychological health. As far as SanSan fans are concerned, George just asked about Sansa's psychological well being FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON. Not for readers to reflect or ponder on it. Or dig deeper into the true meaning of the Unkiss and what it says about Sansa's mental well being. As far as these shippers are concerned, Sansa believing in false memories is completely fluffy romance. Slow clap for SanSan fans their logic has done it again.

 

 

"And why do you feel her "tendency to alter events" is worrying? or that it will snowball? what evidence is there that this may happen? You are using hyperbole here. "

 

• All I can say is THANK GOODNESS, you're not writing this story because if you think Sansa's tendency to alter events and hide from the truth is fine and normal and completely dandy then . . . LMAO. I'm speechless. I mean it's not like George purposely tied the sword incident and the Unkiss together through Sansa's memory lapse, before hinting that her faulty memory concerning the Unkiss will lead to something even bigger.

• I swear SanSan fans get bitter as soon as anyone including George hints that the Unkiss maybe be inspired by something other than romance. Like they're so triggered by the possibility of Sansa dealing with an actual mental trauma. Because it's so ABNORMAL for a girl who lost her ENTIRE family, was held hostage and constantly threatened with death, watched her aunt get murdered after trying to murder her to have psychological trauma. I mean mental trauma is so OUTLANDISH in a young child that has dealt with that level of upheaval and anguish.

• How dare George imply the Unkiss to be a possible psychological issue? How dare he ask a question that hints the Unkiss to be the result of something more complex and deeper than romance?

 

 

"Oh the tired old lets ignore the fact GRRM has revisited B&TB repeatedly throughout th eentire body of his work argument. "

 

• It's one thing to adapt Beauty and the Beast, is quite another to weave inspirations from it into his OWN ORIGINAL STORY. Just because he may pay homage in small parts DOES NOT mean that Sansa/Sandor will be a romantic item. It does not mean that the two will end up together. It simply means that some aspects of the story 'the ugly angry beast male' whose deep friendship with the beautiful enchanting girl changed him' was woven into the story.

"Inspired by" doesn't mean same journey or same ending. FYI.

• It's funny how my arguments were based on words that GEORGE HIMSELF used to describe Sansa in regards to the Unkiss such as "unreliable narrator and memory lapse" and "what does that reveal about her psychologically?" Yet those two words and the implication of the question (that came from George himself) still managed to trigger shippers.

George always brings up the mental part of the Unkiss. While SanSan fans keep convincing themselves that it's simply romance.

[Springwatch]

1 hour ago, Houseofthedirewolves said:

• Since George HIMSELF says that Sansa forgot the sword's name, and there are editions of the book that support this, it's George's version that I will go with. Editors can easily make mistakes.

Editors can make mistakes, fair enough. GRRM has made mistakes too - corrections have been made before; this could be one of them. I'd assume later editions have fewer mistakes than older ones - but the fact is, until GRRM says which version he wants, we don't know.  It's annoying.

1 hour ago, Houseofthedirewolves said:

• This discussion is not about Arya so why would I start discussing her forgetting the sword? Why do people always randomly bring up Arya. . .

Forgetting a sword's name is a tiny mistake. This is equally true for Arya and Sansa.

Now you come to mention it, we should consider both girls together. In earlier editions, both girls forget exactly the same thing - the name of the sword - which is a bit of a coincidence. But what makes it an absolutely enormous coincidence is that both of them come up with the same 'wrong' name. If that was deliberate, it must be some heavily underlined metaphor, and there's only one possibility really - Joffrey is a toothless lion. It's an excellent metaphor for Arya's opinion of him, but only true for Sansa after he's dead. It all works better if you leave Sansa out of it altogether.

1 hour ago, Houseofthedirewolves said:

• This is about the Unkiss. SANSA forgetting the sword's name is what GEORGE touches on when discussing the Unkiss.

• Sansa forgetting the sword matters because of  the attention that George himself drew to it. And the way that he analyzes it as being a memory lapse that shows that she (and yes other characters) can be unreliable narratives. He specifically said Sansa forgetting is IMPORTANT because it sets the stage for bigger memory lapse.

 

I don't follow SSM's because they are off-the-cuff responses and probably error-prone, but I interpreted the one quoted in the OP differently:

Quote

 The Lion's Paw / Lion's Tooth business, on the other hand, is intentional. A small touch of the unreliable narrator. I was trying to establish that the memories of my viewpoint characters are not infallible. Sansa is simply remembering it wrong. A very minor thing (you are the only one to catch it to date), but it was meant to set the stage for a much more important lapse in memory. You will see, in A STORM OF SWORDS and later volumes, that Sansa remembers the Hound kissing her the night he came to her bedroom... but if you look at the scene, he never does. That will eventually mean something, but just now it's a subtle touch, something most of the readers may not even pick up on.

He's saying the important lapse in memory is the Unkiss. He says the Unkiss will eventually mean something - it will have meaning, in itself. He does not say that the Unkiss points to further lapses of memory.

[Houseofthedirewolves]

17 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Editors can make mistakes, fair enough. GRRM has made mistakes too - corrections have been made before; this could be one of them. I'd assume later editions have fewer mistakes than older ones - but the fact is, until GRRM says which version he wants, we don't know.  It's annoying.

Forgetting a sword's name is a tiny mistake. This is equally true for Arya and Sansa.

Now you come to mention it, we should consider both girls together. In earlier editions, both girls forget exactly the same thing - the name of the sword - which is a bit of a coincidence. But what makes it an absolutely enormous coincidence is that both of them come up with the same 'wrong' name. If that was deliberate, it must be some heavily underlined metaphor, and there's only one possibility really - Joffrey is a toothless lion. It's an excellent metaphor for Arya's opinion of him, but only true for Sansa after he's dead. It all works better if you leave Sansa out of it altogether.

I don't follow SSM's because they are off-the-cuff responses and probably error-prone, but I interpreted the one quoted in the OP differently:

He's saying the important lapse in memory is the Unkiss. He says the Unkiss will eventually mean something - it will have meaning, in itself. He does not say that the Unkiss points to further lapses of memory.

That's your interpretation. My interpretation is different.

There will be a reason for Sansa's memory lapses and we will eventually find out why. Yes it's in response to trauma, but why does she cope with trauma like this? The Unkiss is not the climax of her memory lapses, but it WILL lead to the climax by causing a bigger incident that will force Sansa to examine WHY she tends to have these memory relapses. And why she alters certain incidents in her mind. 

If George's response was specifically about the Unkiss rather than Sansa's mental state, why ask a question inviting discussion into Sansa's mental wellbeing, after once again pointing out that Sansa being an unreliable character is a key thing to note in the Unkiss..

Whenever George discusses the Unkiss, he does not discuss it in terms of Sansa's closeness with the Hound and what the Unkiss implies about them. No. George approaches it from an angle that takes Sansa's psychological state into account. So this is bigger than the Unkiss itself. 

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

19 hours ago, Houseofthedirewolves said:

• 99% percent of patronizing that I have encountered while discussing ASOIAF have been from SanSan fans, so yes I do approach you guys bluntly because of past dealings.

 

 

"Yes, characters plural because implying that GRRM was talking specifically about Sansa in regards to unreliable narator is false. He said characters he meant characters not character. To insinuate otherwise shows how much you need to twist things to support your theory, When you need to do that it rather indicates your theory is dog shit. "

 

• Your point is?

Just because George wasn't talking exclusively about Sansa does not mean Sansa was excluded. So once again, IT DOES NOT NEGATE THE POINTS MADE.

• George still focused on Sansa when he said “but it was meant to set the stage for a much more important lapse in memory.” That was exclusively about Sansa. You keep bringing up every other character being unreliable as if it changes the part that was directed at Sansa or cancels what was said about her.

Describing Sansa as someone that has laspes in memory still paints her as an unreliable character.

It's not a typo. It is something! [Laughs] ''Unreliable narrator'' is the key phrase there. The second scene is from Sansa's thoughts. And what does that reveal about her psychologically? -GRRRM

• The above comment from George was also SPECIFICALLY about Sansa. And guess what? He STILL used the words unreliable narrator to describe her. Go figure.

 

 

"Oh no, getting the name of a sword wrong is ONLY a big deal when Sansa does it because it fits with the idea of Sansa as THE unreliable narrator in ASOIAF and demonstrates how mentally unstable she is and how this will lead to dire consequences!!!!!!!"

 

• Arya is the only other person that says the sword name wrong but this discussion is about SANSA. So Arya doesn’t matter right now in this discussion. Let’s stay on topic.

• SANSA forgetting the sword IS a big deal BECAUSE GEORGE POINTED IT OUT AS ONE.

IT IS THAT SIMPLE. He did NOT single out Arya. HE SINGLED OUT SANSA and used her memory laspe as an example.

George pointed it out. And made it clear it SETS THE STAGE for her having a greater lapse in memory. While also making it clear that Sansa forgetting the sword’s name was an EXAMPLE of her being an unreliable narrative. SIMPLE. Straight from the writer’s mouth.

You being bitter about it won’t change what George said. You bringing up EVERYONE ELSE as an unreliable narrators STILL WON’T change the fact that Sansa is one.

 

 

"He said it paves the way for a significant memory lapse later on which is the UnKiss, why would it be significant for Sansa to think Sandor Clegane kissed her? What effect does that have on the story? "

 

•George constantly brings up Sansa's memory laspes when talking about the Unkiss. He brings up her being an unreliable narrator TWICE in two separate conversations about the Unkiss. And then asks this question concerning her false memory:  And what does that reveal about her psychologically?

•But this is unimportant to certain shippers because they believe the Unkiss is meant to be completely romantic fluff. Nothing to worry about with Sansa's psychological health. As far as SanSan fans are concerned, George just asked about Sansa's psychological well being FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON. Not for readers to reflect or ponder on it. Or dig deeper into the true meaning of the Unkiss and what it says about Sansa's mental well being. As far as these shippers are concerned, Sansa believing in false memories is completely fluffy romance. Slow clap for SanSan fans their logic has done it again.

 

 

"And why do you feel her "tendency to alter events" is worrying? or that it will snowball? what evidence is there that this may happen? You are using hyperbole here. "

 

• All I can say is THANK GOODNESS, you're not writing this story because if you think Sansa's tendency to alter events and hide from the truth is fine and normal and completely dandy then . . . LMAO. I'm speechless. I mean it's not like George purposely tied the sword incident and the Unkiss together through Sansa's memory lapse, before hinting that her faulty memory concerning the Unkiss will lead to something even bigger.

• I swear SanSan fans get bitter as soon as anyone including George hints that the Unkiss maybe be inspired by something other than romance. Like they're so triggered by the possibility of Sansa dealing with an actual mental trauma. Because it's so ABNORMAL for a girl who lost her ENTIRE family, was held hostage and constantly threatened with death, watched her aunt get murdered after trying to murder her to have psychological trauma. I mean mental trauma is so OUTLANDISH in a young child that has dealt with that level of upheaval and anguish.

• How dare George imply the Unkiss to be a possible psychological issue? How dare he ask a question that hints the Unkiss to be the result of something more complex and deeper than romance?

 

 

"Oh the tired old lets ignore the fact GRRM has revisited B&TB repeatedly throughout th eentire body of his work argument. "

 

• It's one thing to adapt Beauty and the Beast, is quite another to weave inspirations from it into his OWN ORIGINAL STORY. Just because he may pay homage in small parts DOES NOT mean that Sansa/Sandor will be a romantic item. It does not mean that the two will end up together. It simply means that some aspects of the story 'the ugly angry beast male' whose deep friendship with the beautiful enchanting girl changed him' was woven into the story.

"Inspired by" doesn't mean same journey or same ending. FYI.

• It's funny how my arguments were based on words that GEORGE HIMSELF used to describe Sansa in regards to the Unkiss such as "unreliable narrator and memory lapse" and "what does that reveal about her psychologically?" Yet those two words and the implication of the question (that came from George himself) still managed to trigger shippers.

George always brings up the mental part of the Unkiss. While SanSan fans keep convincing themselves that it's simply romance.

17

Oh, I don't know, maybe treat each poster as an individual before bringing your sarcasm game? 

My point is that GRRM used a question about what was seemingly an editorial mistake to illustrate that all his characters are fallible. Because he is writing realistic human beings. He then chose to use this to springboard into talking about the UnKiss as another example of the unreliable narrator and says that this one though IS significant. Meaning the sword is not. I mean FFS why would anyone think to misremember a sword name is important. People do this all the time. OK, maybe not swords irl. But you know small things. 

He is not doing this to highlight Sansa specifically as the unreliable narrator, if he were he'd have said she is an unreliable narrator and not used the word Characters to mean all his characters need to be read with a more objective viewpoint and we can't 100% trust their thoughts and words.  

It's not a typo. It is something! [Laughs] ''Unreliable narrator'' is the key phrase there. The second scene is from Sansa's thoughts. And what does that reveal about her psychologically? -GRRRM                            I am not familiar with is SSM, could you please provide the link? You will forgive me but I have been basing discussion on the quote we have been discussing. If you howether are basing discussion upon another previously undiscussed quote ie the one above then I would consider it proper form to mention that and provide the link to it as proof and so that all parties can discuss in a fully informed manner. 

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

I have posted the above post early as my editing has fucked up and it was becoming impossible to format. But I shall continue here

I can not decide if you are being deliberately obtuse by pretending that you do not understand why people keep bringing Arya into it or if you genuinely don't grasp it or understand? But giving you the benefit of the doubt I shall explain. 

The fact Arya also forgets the name of the sword illustrates that forgetting the name of a sword is not proof that Sansa is unhinged. Anyone can forget the name of a sword. In fact I'd say most people have made similar mistakes in regards to similarly unimportant things. By continuing to act as though Sansa forgetting the name of a sword is totally important and significant of her mental state you make yourself seem as though you are clutching at straws. Can you imagine trying to say get a person admitted to an asylum based upon them misrecalling the name of the dog their boyfriend at uni had? That's akin to what you are doing here. 

GRRM did not point her misremembering the swords name out as important. The person asked about the name change of the sword and GRRM said Sansa misremembered it. He did not single out Sansa the person asked about the time Sansa said the wrong name for the sword. Can't you see that you are twisting the SSM round to be something it is not?  GRRM then uses that question which was about Sansa to springboard into the memory lapse which IS important, the UnKiss. I'm not bitter mate. I just don't think you can say something is straight from the writers mouth and use it as evidence your crackpot theory is correct when it isn't straight from the writers mouth it is in fact a misrepresentation of what the writer said. And pointing out that other people are also unreliable narrators isn't about trying to pretend Sansa is not one. It is about pointing out that her being one is not evidence she's loosing her grip on reality.  Which is damned obvious when we read her later Alayne chapters and the re-writing of Lysa's death. It is right there on the page that she knows deep down how it really happened but is trying to live the lie as Peytr tells her too. We see it again in TWOW Sample chapter when she is having some memories of her real father. 

I can't quite believe you are not trolling when in order to answer an accusation of hyperbole you used more hyperbole? 

What is this constant you mention? and when does HE bring her up as an unreliable narrator? The question was from a fan and related to Sansa therefor ehe did not bring her up the person asking the question did. It may seem that I am being pedantic here but the point is that it matters. You are presenting it as though GRRM brings her up but in fact the other person asked about her. The meaning is quite different and by framing it incorrectly as you keep doing you are attempting to alter the meaning of it. Twice is not constant and nor did he bring her up as an unreliable narrator twice. He was asked about her once and the other SSM can be discussed when you provide the link and context. I can't comment about something I am unfamiliar with. 

Why haven't you answered my questions? I made them clear by using the question marks. But I will ask you again. Why do you think it is significant that Sansa thinks Sandor kissed her? and what effect could that have on the story? 

Because it is the false memory of him kissing her that GRRM said was important. So I'd like you to explain why you think it is important specifically and what effect that false memory may have on the story. The thing itself matters not the fact she is mistaken. 

21 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

But this is unimportant to certain shippers because they believe the Unkiss is meant to be completely romantic fluff. 

This here is why people don't talk nice to you love. Could you possibly have been more dismissive and rude and patronising? I mean come on. You continually use language which is designed to minimise and dismiss. Fluff? Really?

Your dismissing an entire and significant chunk of the subject matter of the series as fluff? And you expect to be listened to as a serious theorist and analyst? 

Also I did not ask you to tell me what you think I think I asked you what you think? I asked you

26 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

"And why do you feel her "tendency to alter events" is worrying? or that it will snowball? what evidence is there that this may happen?

Yet you didn't answer any of this? Why is it worrying? She has 

mis-recalled the name of a sword; established already above no big deal and not indicative of a feeble mind we all do such small things. Evidenced by the fact Arya also misrecalls it's name. 

Thinks the Hound did kiss her when she was drunk and he almost did; A bit odd but given that it is a fantasy and she is a teenager and she was drunk at the time doesn't seem a huge indicator that she's loosing her grip on reality tbh. 

Is working very hard to conceal her identity and the truth about her Aunt's murder and tells herself she almost believes the lie herself now. Yeah that's normal mate. That's a real thing that we can all do if we try hard enough. It's a foundation of certain acting techniques and is how good liers manage to be so convincing. But you DO know the truth inside and Sansa shows this in her POV. 

So what is your evidence that any of this is worrying, and will snowball? 

33 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

 How dare George imply the Unkiss to be a possible psychological issue? How dare he ask a question that hints the Unkiss to be the result of something more complex and deeper than romance?

If you want this answering you're gonna have to provide the link to that second SSM, the one you keep quoting without introducing it as a subject matter or placing it in context.  

Don't use the word trigger it just makes you sound silly. Likewise no one is bitter, unless you are I can't speak for you. 

Yes I agree inspiration does not = copied verbatim. However when you look at the story pertaining to Sansa & Sandor as a whole and examine the various scenes,motifs, themes,and techniques included the evidence stacks up that theirs is indeed a love story resembling B&TB. Ditto Jaime & Brienne. Though I would say that when looked at side by side SanSan is the more robustly themed relationship with the authors personal investment seeming to be going into it to a higher degree. His requesting the calendar art which mirrors the poster for his favourite version of the B&TB hints at his affection for SanSan as an element of ASOIAF.  

But lets be clear, people haven't pulled SanSan out of their arses, it is there on the page. So for people to suggest that her fantasy of him kissing her could be important in relation to that story line isn't whacko. And making out it is makes you look very silly. 

[Blue-Eyed Wolf]

Probably going to regret this, but I'll bite.  I find it helpful to do a walk through of events to understand Sansa's processing of what happened.  Even though Sansa has had alcohol prior to going to her bedroom, she seems to be reporting the events as they happen pretty accurately.  Even during the more frightening moments.  So she has a good grip on what actually happened as it is happening. 

This is before the first incarnation of the unkiss:  

1)  It’s implied she’s already forgiven Sandor after he leaves her room wrapping herself in his cloak.  She was cold, but she was already in her own bed.  She has cloaks of her own.  That does not speak of fear and trauma after the fact to seek out his cloak and remain under it for some time.  It speaks of subconscious emotional attachment.  People who are actually traumatized don't tend to cling to to objects that would be triggering reminders of the traumatic event.  They tend to avoid them.  Since George seems to have done his research in depicting men's trauma from war and violence, I would expect he's familiar with how PTSD develops and is triggered.  Not all people who have been through a frightening event will develop PTSD, which occurs post events and is more likely to happen when a person has been unable to process what happened around the time of the event.  

2)  This passage takes place approximately one month later according to the ASOIAF timeline.    

I wish the Hound were here. The night of the battle, Sandor Clegane had come to her chambers to take her from the city, but Sansa had refused. Sometimes she lay awake at night, wondering if she’d been wise. She had his stained white cloak hidden in a cedar chest beneath her summer silks. She could not say why she’d kept it. The Hound had turned craven, she heard it said; at the height of the battle, he got so drunk the Imp had to take his men. But Sansa understood. She knew the secret of his burned face. It was only the fire he feared. That night, the wildfire had set the river itself ablaze, and filled the very air with green flame. Even in the castle, Sansa had been afraid. Outside … she could scarcely imagine it.                 

 She wishes the Hound were there for his advice.  She’s has spent more than one night considering the events of the Blackwater, so she’s already processed it.  Everything she is saying here is factually true.  There's no mis-memory.  She secretly kept his cloak with her future wardrobe, though she can’t give a reason she is consciously aware of.  Keeping the cloak again does not speak of it being a triggering object or that she is traumatized.  It's a source of comfort to her.   She understands why things happened the way they did from a non-emotionally charged place and with critical thinking.  It's processed.  This makes it highly unlikely she will experience PTSD over it later.  With understanding the why, it's implied she's forgiven him.  The only fear she emphasizes is the fear of the wildfire, both inside and outside the castle.  By “wondering if she’d been wise” (that slight pause over her choice but without overwhelming regret) says she might have chosen differently if he had approached her the right way.  He came to her seeking comfort and reassurance, but he didn't offer her the same comfort and reassurance because he was in the thick of his PTSD meltdown.    

Now we get to the first incarnation of the unkiss.  Compared to what actually happened, let’s look at what’s stayed the same, what’s changed or added, what’s been removed:

Sansa wondered what Megga would think about kissing the Hound, as she had. He’d come to her the night of the battle stinking of wine and blood. He kissed me and threatened to kill me, and made me sing him a song. 

He did not not come to her.  He was already in the room.  It’s been changed so he’s coming through the door where she can see him instead of startling her in the dark.  The first thing she says is that she kissed him.  The whole tone of the passage is matter-of-fact.  Not emotionally charged either positively or negatively.  No mention of the knife at her throat.  Then he kisses her.  Then he threatens her and makes her sing him a song.  So the kiss comes before any threat and is tied to the song instead.  The kiss didn’t come under duress, the song did.   

We know from Sansa’s fantasies of Loras Tyrell, she imagines herself being an actor, not just acted upon.  All while the Bear and the Maiden Fair is sang LOUDLY in the background (pointing to the subconscious) by Butterbumps just to drive the point home it’s the bear that satisfied the maiden.  Loras is still very much her conscious ideal at this point.  It’s the type that she is supposed to be with.  He’s what the songs are made of and she wants her life to be just like a song.  Sandor doesn’t fit in that superficial equation at all.  That’s the struggle.  The unkiss is not about coming to terms with trauma.  It’s coming to terms that deep down her erotic desires are the stuff of Gothic literature.  She’s not scared of Sandor, she’s scared of what wanting him says about her.  

Her first erotic dream that replaces Tyrion with the Hound in the marriage bed is definitely not a nightmare at the end.  It comes the night of Lysa and Petyr’s very loud bedding after their marriage and after Lothor Brune (who she initially mistakes for Sandor) saved Sansa from Marillion’s unwanted advances.  So if the dream is coming after she’s being reminded of sex by the wedding night and Sandor is replacing and protecting her from the unwanted, doesn’t that make his presence wanted? Desired?  The context in how we interpret these things is key.

Finally, let’s get to the second and last (so far) incarnation of the unkiss:

Before she could summon the servants, however, Sweetrobin threw his skinny arms around her and kissed her. It was a little boy’s kiss, and clumsy. Everything Robert Arryn did was clumsy.  If I close my eyes I can pretend he is the Knight of Flowers. Ser Loras had given Sansa Stark a red rose once, but he had never kissed her … and no Tyrell would ever kiss Alayne Stone. Pretty as she was, she had been born on the wrong side of the blanket.

As the boy’s lips touched her own she found herself thinking of another kiss. She could still remember how it felt, when his cruel mouth pressed down on her own. He had come to Sansa in the darkness as green fire filled the sky. He took a song and a kiss, and left me nothing but a bloody cloak.

It made no matter. That day was done, and so was Sansa.  

Once again, we must look at the context of what sparked this final version: Robert’s clumsy kiss.  Clumsy and cruel are now tied together.  Although Sansa has no desire to reciprocate Robert’s crush, she does want to be kissed again.  Her first inclination is to pretend he’s Loras, but that doesn’t work. She’s accepted the reality that courtship among the noble class is first and foremost about pedigree and politics.  The rose given was an empty gesture.  She can’t make him the focus of her desires any longer while accepting the truth.  Then her thoughts pivot to her “memory” of the unkiss. 

This version is far more poetic in tone than the first.  The wildfire outside is now turned into a vivid backdrop to the scene, not a horrific apocalypse.  There’s no knife, no threat, no vomit, no wine, no startling her in the dark, no fear.  She’s removed all unwanted elements and kept only the intensity of the moment.  Remember that Sansa wants to be an actor, not just acted upon.  As far as she knows the unkiss is her first real, mature, and erotic kiss.  And it was impulsively done (clumsy) under circumstances where she wasn’t prepared to meet it like an equal participant.  And he left!  The cruelty is making her desire him and leaving her nothing but a bloody cloak.  While the addition of the cloak is factual, it speaks to what she was given, what she was left with, was ultimately unsatisfying though she kept it all the same.  “That day is done,” there’s no going back. No other erotic fantasy will measure up now and it’s over before it can be satisfied.  We know from the preceding passage about Loras that her conscious desires now hinge upon accepting the truth.  This isn’t fear or trauma, it’s disappointment.  Like “I kissed the Hound and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.”  She’s consciously accepted her desire and must put it behind her immediately because he’s gone.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

2 hours ago, Blue-Eyed Wolf said:

snip.

Bravo!!! Such good quality analysis. I really think you did a great job especially in breaking down the anatomy of each version she tells herself of events. You really see the progression of her fantasy here. And the reasons for it become crystal clear!

Also as someone who actually has PTSD I agree re your comments on that. Thank you.