From Pawn to Player: Rethinking Sansa XVIII

[bgona]

Brash a great essay! I am now reading from my phone and I like more write my thoughts at the computer. But I just want that you know it.

(If I normally write at a strange way, from the phone it gets worse and at least I want ti say something coherent).

[conon394]

but it does provide us with an idea of a path she could follow to reaching real autonomy

The long Essay above is impressive, but I think going into too much feminist analysis of Sanasa (as a women) in what is a Medieval society is over thinking. How much freedom of choice does say Samwell Tarly have or Gendry? The overall fact is almost everyone is locked into the roles they are quite by accident born into. Changing that is rather difficult and more or less often involves committing to some order that is even more ridged – the FM, the Maesters, Night’s Watch, etc. Apprentice boys did not get to pick their profession at 20...

[Lummel]

The long Essay above is impressive, but I think going into too much feminist analysis of Sanasa (as a women) in what is a Medieval society is over thinking...

To my mind to claim that somebody is over thinking an analysis of Sansa or any other POV character is to implicitly assume that GRRM is a careless or casual writer.

Westeros isn't a medieval society. It is what GRRM decided it should be. The restrictions and lack of freedoms that his characters face are the result of the author's choices. If they are deliberate choices then they are worth discussing and analysing. If on the other hand they are random and meaningless choices then so is all of our discussion here on the boards!

[Mladen]

The long Essay above is impressive, but I think going into too much feminist analysis of Sanasa (as a women) in what is a Medieval society is over thinking. How much freedom of choice does say Samwell Tarly have or Gendry? The overall fact is almost everyone is locked into the roles they are quite by accident born into. Changing that is rather difficult and more or less often involves committing to some order that is even more ridged – the FM, the Maesters, Night’s Watch, etc. Apprentice boys did not get to pick their profession at 20...

We have talked a lot about this. Lack of freedom and choice is something both genders have in common in Westeros.

Westeros isn't a medieval society. It is what GRRM decided it should be. The restrictions and lack of freedoms that his characters face are the result of the author's choices. If they are deliberate choices then they are worth discussing and analysing. If on the other hand they are random and meaningless choices then so is all of our discussion here on the boards!

I don`t believe that anything is meaningless when it comes to ASOIAF and therefore I would not assume that any of the analysis above (caro99`s, brash`s, milady`s, mine own) are random. If you read carefully and pay attention, you will find subtelties and clues. It`s better to do that than to have an ordinary what`s next reading experience.

[Ragnorak]

Wonderful essay, Brash. You have a gift for writing.

With this in mind, we have to ask ourselves, what vested interest did Sansa have in being a “good wife” to Tyrion?

I think this is very important and little focused on point. Your observation is not only a good one, but ties in very nicely with theme of your essay. There are drawbacks, diappointments, and compromises for both men and women in Westeros marriages. The scales are far from balanced but there is almost always a mutual benefit even if the wife is mostly sacrificing her hopes and wishes for her family at the expense of herself. Tyrion/Sansa represents all the negative aspects of an interpersonal marriage from the wife's POV without a single benefit that traditionally comes with this self sacrificing choice. It really does represent a purely extreme example of marital imbalance.

[brashcandy]

Edit: double post

[brashcandy]

Wonderful essay, Brash. You have a gift for writing.

Thank you Rag, and to bgona upthread :)

I think this is very important and little focused on point. Your observation is not only a good one, but ties in very nicely with theme of your essay. There are drawbacks, diappointments, and compromises for both men and women in Westeros marriages. The scales are far from balanced but there is almost always a mutual benefit even if the wife is mostly sacrificing her hopes and wishes for her family at the expense of herself. Tyrion/Sansa represents all the negative aspects of an interpersonal marriage from the wife's POV without a single benefit that traditionally comes with this self sacrificing choice. It really does represent a purely extreme example of marital imbalance.

Yes, you've captured the point I was trying to make precisely. To clarify even further, look at the proposed match to Willas Tyrell which Sansa was fairly optimistic about. Again, not a perfect choice by any means, but one where she had some modicum of consent, and where there was no extensive and personal bad blood between the families. Even though the Tyrells were acting primarily out of self-interest, there were still some benefits for Sansa too. And she was committed to making it work and being a 'good wife' to Willas. She was also planning on raising her children to hate Lannisters, which pretty much underscores why the Tyrion/Sansa match was inherently disastrous.

This is why it looks like Martin has Sansa on trajectory to full agency (to answer those who believe this is feminist overanalysis), because it's through her marriage which is so clearly exploitative and miserable, that she comes to question even the ones that might have been fairly palatable or agreeable. The blinders have been pulled from her eyes, and I can't see how they would be replaced at this point without sacrificing her personal development or jeopardising the narrative integrity.

And I hope I've been able to show that what makes Sansa different and why we're hopeful of her being the one to break the same old politics as usual, is because of the feminist consciousness that we see her developing as the story continues. While women like Cersei remain mired in trying to mimic the patriarchy, and others are able to find a compromise one way or another, Sansa looks poised to be able to transform the system from within, in a much more positive and productive manner.

[Caro99]

Aaaa dear Brash.. what can i say after that wonderful analysis from Carter's book in relation to Sansa's experiences? again, as in the previous essays you wrote regarding her works, you make me wanna read them very much, and i couldn't agree more with you regarding the case of why did sansa's marriage to a lannister was just never gonna work. Thank you for writting them and sharing them with us! :D

[KittensRuleBeetsDrool]

I'm so busy these days, I just have to pop in and say "atta girl!" to both Elba and Brash for their awesome, wonderful essays. I hope I can comment more tomorrow, especially on the marriage in Westeros issue as raised by Brash and the comments to her essay.

[Le Cygne]

Elba, I loved reading your essay but never read that one, now I want to!

brashcandy, I love your essay! Still thinking about all the good things, but I really like this part:

… in both cases the protagonists choose to explore the dangerous, exhilarating change that comes from choosing the beast. Both stories are careful to show a reciprocal awe and fear in the beasts, as well as in the beauty, and the reversal theme reinforces the equality of the transactions: lion kisses Beauty's hand, Beauty kisses lion's; tiger strips naked and so Beauty chooses to show him 'the fleshly nature of women'. In both cases the beasts signify a sensuality that the women have been taught might devour them, but which, when embraced, gives them power, strength and a new awareness of both self and other.

BTW, I added some more commentary from the author here, may be useful in analysis... I'll post that soon, I have some more to add...

[Lyanna Stark]

BTW, I added some more commentary from the author here, may be useful in analysis:

http://asoiaf.wester...20#entry4133204

Oh I love the "To all the Sansa haters: suck it" :lol:

Need more time to reread your beautiful essay brash, really interesting stuff. :)

[brashcandy]

Thanks for providing that link LC, and those quotes you highlighted really underscore the complex dynamics in the relationship between Beauty and the Beast. It's not a relationship of opposites, domination/submission, or predator/prey, but rather one of mutual give and take, 'unruly' pleasure and real empowerment in the end for Beauty.

ETA: I look forward to hearing your thoughts Lyanna :)

[Mladen]

My dear friends, before everythig let me say that posting here and doing essays and projects have been pleasure beyond words. To participate in some of most meaningful, profound discussion on this forums is a both privilege and honor. I am glad you listened my voice and opinion, as much as I was listening to your thoughts. We shared a love to all that is tender and beautiful, and we proudly stood for one of the most dismayed characters of ASOIAF

But, alas. all that is beautiful must end. I have accepted new job and I am embarking a journey a day after tommorow in order to help those that needs my help. My participation here will be therefore limited, for there will be days, even weeks, and I hope, not months before we can communicate again. Know that I won`t forget you, for you are the group of most sensible, profound and honest people I have ever met.

So, my farewell present to you shall be my 2 essays, who takes us to Russia, a country of some of the greatest novelists, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. It is their work on Anna Karenina and Brother Karamazov that I analyzed in order to giv a new light on San/san story and `beauty and the beast` concept. My teacher always said: `You need a French to explain you Hugo, you need a Brittish to speak about Shakespeare, and you need Russian to analyze Tolstoy`. I am not Russian, but of all of you, as a Serb, I am closest to that. So, give me chance to give you part of Slovenian soul in ASOIAF

Once more, I must say goodbye. But, mark my words, friends, this is ONLY goodbye, not a FAREWELL. So, here we go with Russians

[Mladen]

When we talk about female characters, one of the most referenced novels certainly is `Anna Karenina` by Leo Tolstoy. As one of the greatest masterpieces of Russian literature, `Anna Karenina` stands out as the story about tragic love, social inadequacy and individual religious turmoil.

Anna is every woman. For women`s life throughout the centuries has been battle after battle. Women fought against prejudice, bigotry and general ignorance. Every new given freedom was tenderly nurtured and carefully passed down to the next generation. Female freedom has grown with every woman, every story, and every word. The road was long and unfortunately isn`t over. But in order to fight next battle, we should always have in mind those we already won. And Anna won. Not in her world, not even in her own mind, but she won. She won for millions of women before and after her.

But, alas, every woman is not Anna. And that is not crime, not something that any woman should be ashamed of. Some of you are Dolly, some even countess Lydia. We all differ. In those differences women should find strength, for women can`t be strong unless they understand each other. And to do that, you have to search around for extraordinary women. Search for women who have lived and loved, woman who have known both sorrow and joy. And if anyone is example of women who transformed herself so she could become happy, it`s certainly Ekaterina `Kitty` Shcherbatskaya.

Kitty was, what would we call today, it girl. Very beautiful, with socially acceptable education in music, languages and fashion, coming from very old distinguish family, Kitty was an ultimate bachelorette. And if the story couldn`t be better, she could have chosen whom to be with. But, in the midst of many proper suitors, she fell for her male counterpart – Count Alexei Vronsky. Count Vronsky was an extremely handsome, with pedigree and promising military career, quite a dandy among Moscow high society. Their relationship was flourishing with each day, until the engagement was just the matter of day. The engagement that Kitty waited so exhilarated would have never come. For what was love for Kitty, it was adventure for Vronsky.

Among the many people who loved Kitty was Konstantin Levin, a ruggedly good-looking, but slightly older for suitable suitor. Levin was landowner who unlike his many so-called `colleagues` decided to live on the farm. He was uncomfortable in high society of Moscow, of parade of balls and receptions, empty courtesies and meaningless conversations. Levin was a man who saw Kitty as an angel, and treated her so. So, when the time came, when he finally got the courage to propose her, he did it so abruptly and clumsy, but with all the love of the world. Sadly for him, Kitty`s answer broke his heart since there was someone else in the picture.

And there it is – a dandy and the farmer. One was everything a girl could desire, other loved her beyond words. It`s like having a lion and the hound next to each other. It`s a tale old as time. Princess chose the prettier. Yes, Kitty chose a prettier one, but alas, not right one.

Just like Kitty, Sansa had the same dilemma. `I want a golden lion`, remember that. Ah, youth is allowed to make mistakes, but life is there to remind us that mistakes are always paid. Furthermore, you can draw a great parallel between Kitty`s and Sansa`s parents. Both of their mothers wanted the better opportunities for their daughters, but the fathers were those who saw the truth under the mask of courtesy and manners. And both Kitty and Sansa didn’t listen to their fathers. In their naiveté and foolishness, blinded by what they thought to be love, they pursued the man who didn`t love them and who genuinely hurt them at the end.

Vronsky`s face was revealed with arrival of another, more desirable woman. Anna was the new thing in town, the new toy this kid wanted. And he fell in love, just like Kitty fell for him. Despite all odds, despite common sense and decency, he abandons Kitty and Moscow and starts pursuing Anna.

Joffrey, unlike Vronsky, was not that merciful. Vronsky only abandoned Kitty, while Joffrey did his best to utterly break Sansa`s spirit. Both girls had suffered deep emotional stress. Kitty`s tragic love even sent her to recovery in Germany. Alone she suffered, for trusting Anna, for rejecting Levin, for loving Vronsky. Months were passing, and with time, wounded heart was healed.

Can we say that Kitty loved Vronsky? No more than we can say that Sansa loved Joffrey. But, was it a true love? Perhaps not in the right term of the phrase, but the thing is that I believe it was love. They loved in only one way a teenage girl can love. For the love in that age is dreamy, ideal and unrealistic. They loved as they were supposed to love. And they have healed from those affairs, as they are supposed to.

After having passed the time in Germany, Kitty goes to Russian countryside. Unable to face Moscow, she goes to find peace, tranquility and herself. But, she finds something more there. She finds Levin. And everything changes for both of them.

He could not be mistaken. There were no other eyes like those in the world. There was only one creature in the world that could concentrate for him all the brightness and meaning of life. It was she. It was Kitty. He understood that she was driving to Ergushovo from the railway station. And everything that had been stirring Levin during that sleepless night, all the resolutions he had made, all vanished at once. He recalled with horror his dreams of marrying a peasant girl. There only, in the carriage that had crossed over to the other side of the road, and was rapidly disappearing, there only could he find the solution of the riddle of his life, which had weighed so agonizingly upon him of late.

She did not look out again. The sound of the carriage-springs was no longer audible, the bells could scarcely be heard. The barking of dogs showed the carriage had reached the village, and all that was left was the empty fields all round, the village in front, and he himself isolated and apart from it all, wandering lonely along the deserted highroad.

He glanced at the sky, expecting to find there the cloud shell he had been admiring and taking as the symbol of the ideas and feelings of that night. There was nothing in the sky in the least like a shell. There, in the remote heights above, a mysterious change had been accomplished. There was no trace of shell, and there was stretched over fully half the sky an even cover of tiny and ever tinier cloudlets. The sky had grown blue and bright; and with the same softness, but with the same remoteness, it met his questioning gaze.

‘No,’ he said to himself, ‘however good that life of simplicity and toil may be, I cannot go back to it. I love her.’

This is by far my favorite part in `Anna Karenina`. You have just to take a moment to admire Levin`s passion, his profound love and the clarity that comes within. All the plans are gone, all the ideas he had doesn`t matter. He loves her. This moment of clarity can be connected to a peculiar un-kiss we have discussed for so long, or for TV-fans with marvelous line `No, little bird, I won`t hurt you`. This life-changing moment, in which Levin realizes that he had to have her, or there can be no life for him, can be used to parallel it with Sandor`s decision to go to Sansa`s room and `get a song`. These two men love in a way so rare in life, even so rare in literature. They are not Trojan prince or Romeo; they are not Jack from Titanic or whatever romantic hero there is. They don`t die for their love, they live for it. They live so they can love. And in their lives, love is the brightest and the most sacred thing they have.

San/San relationship has been described as `Beauty and the beast` fairytale, we talked about `Hunchback of Notre Dame`, but you can find it in Kitty and Levin`s marriage, and even more in the night before wedding day, when Levin goes to Kitty`s house to ask her does she love him.

‘I don’t understand,’ she answered, panic-stricken; ‘you mean you want to give it up...don’t want it?’

‘Yes, if you don’t love me.’

‘You’re out of your mind!’ she cried, turning crimson with vexation. But his face was so piteous, that she restrained her vexation, and flinging some clothes off an arm-chair, she sat down beside him. ‘What are you thinking? Tell me all.’

‘I am thinking you can’t love me. What can you love me for?’

‘My God! What can I do?’ she said, and burst into tears.

‘Oh! What have I done?’ he cried, and kneeling before her, he fell to kissing her hands.

When the princess came into the room five minutes later, she found them completely reconciled. Kitty had not simply assured him that she loved him, but had gone so far—in answer to his question, what she loved him for—as to explain what for. She told him that she loved him because she understood him completely, because she knew what he would like, and because everything he liked was good. And this seemed to him perfectly clear.

The idea of being unworthy of love of such angel is so poetic. We see this in Sandor every time he talks about Sansa, when he tries to hide it with his rudeness. Unlike Levin, who offers Kitty his soul on a platter, Sandor gives Sansa piece by piece. He told her his deepest secret; he had protected her in many occasions. Sandor may not be the man of great gestures, but everything he does is dazzling. So, when he finally did something, all went wrong. When Sandor went to Sansa`s room, he`s hoping for something, just it`s quite unclear to him what he wanted, and more unclear to Sansa. Both of them were confused, terrified and petrified by something they couldn`t explain. His `song` excuse is just an image of strong man frightened of his feelings, frightened of love, for before him is a living proof what love can do to you.

It`s quite clear that Sansa and Sandor belong to different worlds. It seems that both of them are unable to see them as happy pair. There is a huge abyss between them. Kitty and Levin did it. They did it by realizing who they really are, which gives us hope that our two little birds can be together at the end.

We all found happiness in different places. Woman can fight for the love against the whole world and win, or they can fight against themself and lose. Which battle is more important or easier? There is no right answer, for we all are different and we all love differently. Tolstoy was right, but not just about family. Happy loves are all alike; every unhappy love is unhappy in its own way. And that`s the universal truth we must all face with.

[Mladen]

‘The ladder’s the same. I’m at the bottom step, and you’re above, somewhere about the thirteenth. That’s how I see it. But it’s all the same. Absolutely the same in kind. Anyone on the bottom step is bound to go up to the top one.’

From the earliest ages of human civilization, philosophers have been intrigued by dualism. Men and woman, day and night, good and evil, ice and fire, all of them represent a constant battle of two opposite poles, and harmony and equilibrium that is between them. For achieving the harmony has been one of the main philosophical goals throughout the centuries.

In centuries of dark Middle Age, Christian churches transformed dualism in story about God and Devil, about sin and virtue, hell and heaven. Preaching that all that is good is beautiful and that man was created in God`s image, out of ignorance every malformation has become a sign of devil`s work. God only knows how many sick children have been slaughtered in the name of purification and faith. So, normally, the new goal has become to achieve beauty not only in its metaphorical than also in its physical sense. The theory has last through the centuries, and it echoed in modern society and literature, but nowhere more than in one of the greatest fairytales `Beauty and the beast`.

In classic fairytale, we have very simple, but profound story. Beauty and the Beast fell in love with each other, and at the end through power of love, Beast is transformed in Prince Charming. It is very beautiful and poetic. But the one thing I have been wondering is why the beast is one to be transformed? Why the Beast must be reshaped into a form adequate to a Beauty?

Beauty and the beast are the same. If we look carefully, they are not that different. There is pure beauty inside of beast, and as there is raging beast inside the beauty. So, in order to understand Martin`s paradigm of beauty and the beast in our two favorite characters, we have to reach for beast in Sansa, and the beauty in Sandor.

The quote above is from the greatest Russian novel `Brothers Karamazov` by Fyodor Dostoyevsky and it wonderfully depicts the human nature. It talks about that humans are the same, we are all capable of both good and bad, and whether you believe that `highest ladder` is morally good or bad, we all are capable of achieving that.

Can Sansa be the beast? Can Sandor become beauty? I say, why not? Sansa is actually quite capable of reaching for the beast inside of her, in form of very tame direwolf, and Sandor has been proving his beauty with every word, everything he did, the way he protected Sansa.

Sansa`s wilderness and harsh nature are most visible in the moments of solitude, in those time when there is no false courtship, no necessity of faking and lying. In those moments we can see how strong Sansa can be, and how little of classic `beauty` there is in her. She is not porcelain doll that can be chipped at the first occasion, she is everlasting Valyrian steel, the one that absorbs many colors but never changes its prime.

"What is hell? I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love."

Sandor`s burning hell was over when he opened his heart to Sansa. He found his beauty in his own emotions. He found something else inside of him, something that averted the course of his life. The man, whose life was travelling through a tunnel, finally saw a light at the end. He found a beauty in his life when he abandoned everything he believed in and boldly did his best to protect `the little bird`. Sandor found a beauty into wounded frightened girl, so much alike him. Sandor looked at Sansa and saw himself. Sandor`s beauty lies in his compassion, in ravishing emotions that tear apart entire image he had about himself. Death lost its primate when there is something worthy living for. The shadow casted by his brother has been enlightened by Sansa`s beauty and vulnerability.

"People talk sometimes of a bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel. The tiger only tears and gnaws, that's all he can do. He would never think of nailing people by the ears, even if he were able to do it."

What was Sandor`s goal in life before Sansa? Simple, probably impossible murder of his brother, something he wanted to do for so long. Is there anything we can`t understand? Are we horrified by his desire? No, for we saw what men are capable of doing. Man is capable of as much atrocity as he has imagination. But Sandor isn`t manly beast, as was Gaston or Frollo, in their human form. Despite all his hatred, Sandor was unable of atrocities other characters have committed.

"To be in love is not the same as loving. You can be in love with a woman and still hate her."

The Karamazov`s idea of love is something very close to what Sansa and Sandor are feeling for each other. It is undeniable love, but it was bound by logic and reason. What they know about each other is what is keeping them from realizing what they feel. Both of them are confused by sense of common reason, by that voice in their heads yelling `Not a good idea`. So, in order to cope with those feelings, they lie themselves, they are deceiving and pretending there is nothing there.

`Brothers Karamazov` is the story about beasts. It talks about beasts wearing human skins. Man of greatest virtues can smell of excrement, for all that is sacred is also bound by the Earthly laws. Man of honor can humiliate himself, and innocence is nothing more than being accomplice to heinous crime. The aspect of human psychology presented in Song of ice and fire is so close to what Dostoyevsky presented in his novels. Westeros or Russia, that means nothing, for people are those that count.

Dostoyevsky`s influence can be seen on every page of Martin`s series. Their characters have both beastly and beauty part. Their internal struggle is what defines them. But understanding of San/San `beauty and the beast` dynamics is understanding that there are no one-dimensional persons, not here in real life, not in Dostoyevsky’s Russia and certainly not in Martin`s World of Ice and Fire.

[Mahaut]

Still on brashcandy essay. I think they are two essential components in the Beast's/Mr Lyon's transformation:

- the Beauty must accept and "embrace" the beastly aspects of her lover

- She must acknowledge her own sexual desire for the Beast.

As brashcandy pointed out, these two elements are completely absent of Sansa's and Tyrion's relationship since Sansa doesn't want to marry him, doesn't want him as a confident and doesn't want him as a lover (pity is death to desire). Thus, this relationship doesn't fit the "requirements" of the tale.

Also, at the end of the tale, Carter mentions "Mr. and Mrs. Lyon" and I think it echoes the end of The Tiger's bride except that, this time, the Beauty's transformation is internal.

ETA:

Those are great essays Mladen.

I remember reading Anna Karenina years ago and loving the contrast between the couples Kitty-Levin and Anna-Vronsky.

[brashcandy]

Wonderful essays Mladen. You did a great job of highlighting how both Kitty and Sansa are eventually able to overcome their early disappointments in love and later display mature judgment which leads to the formation of much more substantive relationships and effects change in the lives of their respective suitors. I love your point in the second essay of Sansa's wildness being revealed in moments of solitude. There is such great imagery relating to this in the Eyrie.

Good luck with the new job!

[Pod The Impaler]

Kitty was, what would we call today, it girl. Very beautiful, with socially acceptable education in music, languages and fashion, coming from very old distinguish family, Kitty was an ultimate bachelorette. And if the story couldn`t be better, she could have chosen whom to be with. But, in the midst of many proper suitors, she fell for her male counterpart – Count Alexei Vronsky. Count Vronsky was an extremely handsome, with pedigree and promising military career, quite a dandy among Moscow high society. Their relationship was flourishing with each day, until the engagement was just the matter of day. The engagement that Kitty waited so exhilarated would have never come. For what was love for Kitty, it was adventure for Vronsky.

Just like Kitty, Sansa had the same dilemma. `I want a golden lion`, remember that. Ah, youth is allowed to make mistakes, but life is there to remind us that mistakes are always paid. Furthermore, you can draw a great parallel between Kitty`s and Sansa`s parents. Both of their mothers wanted the better opportunities for their daughters, but the fathers were those who saw the truth under the mask of courtesy and manners. And both Kitty and Sansa didn’t listen to their fathers. In their naiveté and foolishness, blinded by what they thought to be love, they pursued the man who didn`t love them and who genuinely hurt them at the end.

This is a point that seemed to be often overlooked - the role of father and family. The outsider perspective.

It's natural for a girl to feel in that state that their fathers are just being overprotective, but to dismiss it as some sort of patriarchal default often misses a point.

Men know the nature of other men / boys because they know what that "beast" that lives inside them is all about. (And women likewise, regarding seeing in other women what a man is blind to?)

Case in point: None of Sansa's brothers liked Joffrey, nor her father really, and this danger sign is ignored. Even Arya had Joffrey's nature down cold - and this was dismissed as Arya's jealousy or contrariness.

(And Eddard also in a way betrays his instincts about Joffrey because Robert is his best friend, that is his blind spot - not being able to say his best friend's "son" is a piece of shit, and then not his son at all.)

An ASOIAF theme about Starks is this: their instincts hold true, while their rationalizations get them killed. Keep your direwolf close.

I bring this up because of what was said below:

From the earliest ages of human civilization, philosophers have been intrigued by dualism. Men and woman, day and night, good and evil, ice and fire, all of them represent a constant battle of two opposite poles, and harmony and equilibrium that is between them. For achieving the harmony has been one of the main philosophical goals throughout the centuries.

In centuries of dark Middle Age, Christian churches transformed dualism in story about God and Devil, about sin and virtue, hell and heaven. Preaching that all that is good is beautiful and that man was created in God`s image, out of ignorance every malformation has become a sign of devil`s work. God only knows how many sick children have been slaughtered in the name of purification and faith. So, normally, the new goal has become to achieve beauty not only in its metaphorical than also in its physical sense. The theory has last through the centuries, and it echoed in modern society and literature, but nowhere more than in one of the greatest fairytales `Beauty and the beast`.

In classic fairytale, we have very simple, but profound story. Beauty and the Beast fell in love with each other, and at the end through power of love, Beast is transformed in Prince Charming. It is very beautiful and poetic. But the one thing I have been wondering is why the beast is one to be transformed? Why the Beast must be reshaped into a form adequate to a Beauty?

Beauty and the beast are the same. If we look carefully, they are not that different. There is pure beauty inside of beast, and as there is raging beast inside the beauty. So, in order to understand Martin`s paradigm of beauty and the beast in our two favorite characters, we have to reach for beast in Sansa, and the beauty in Sandor.

"People talk sometimes of a bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel. The tiger only tears and gnaws, that's all he can do. He would never think of nailing people by the ears, even if he were able to do it."

What was Sandor`s goal in life before Sansa? Simple, probably impossible murder of his brother, something he wanted to do for so long. Is there anything we can`t understand? Are we horrified by his desire? No, for we saw what men are capable of doing. Man is capable of as much atrocity as he has imagination. But Sandor isn`t manly beast, as was Gaston or Frollo, in their human form. Despite all his hatred, Sandor was unable of atrocities other characters have committed.

`Brothers Karamazov` is the story about beasts. It talks about beasts wearing human skins. Man of greatest virtues can smell of excrement, for all that is sacred is also bound by the Earthly laws. Man of honor can humiliate himself, and innocence is nothing more than being accomplice to heinous crime. The aspect of human psychology presented in Song of ice and fire is so close to what Dostoyevsky presented in his novels. Westeros or Russia, that means nothing, for people are those that count.

Dostoyevsky`s influence can be seen on every page of Martin`s series. Their characters have both beastly and beauty part. Their internal struggle is what defines them. But understanding of San/San `beauty and the beast` dynamics is understanding that there are no one-dimensional persons, not here in real life, not in Dostoyevsky’s Russia and certainly not in Martin`s World of Ice and Fire.

As I mentioned earlier, men know what "beast" lurks in the hearts of all men. The hungry sexual beast, yes. Also that aspect which can be ruthless in competition, brutal or sadistic in wrath, and which emerges as a killer when properly moved to do so (by jealousy, humiliation, desperation, ambition, or "tribal" motives like war.)

A "beast in human skin", it is often called. (The alleged crimes of "The Hound" at the Saltpans are even phrased this way.)

Yet, as said in the quote, it is men who act this way. Animals are efficient killers, not malicious ones. Their motives are more primal and more "pure". So in truth, who is more noble - a beast or a man?

Are we to be so surprised that the Stark men, and the "she-wolf" Arya, had contempt for Joffrey? They could sense what he was, even without having to see that bad side really come out first, while the human side with its social deference was the source of weakness in the face of this threat. Beasts survive it - pure, attuned, ruthless survivors. Men, with all their pomps and hopes and illusions, do not.

The Starks all typify this - their instincts hold true and guide them well, when they listen to them. When they fail to, when they allow rationalizations and ambitions (even noble ones) to take primacy, disaster strikes.

Winter is coming - ruthless and relentless reality, which strikes down the meek and proud alike.

In Sansa's case, she left Lady behind to pursue something (someone) false, and the symbolism there is clear. The beast was what she needed, that part of her which

Some of her sharpest moments are when she is actually using her wolfish instincts - seeing, thinking, speaking and acting with clarity. Her beast is a component of her beauty - and her strength.

When it comes to The Hound, it gets complicated; we see a clever highlighting of these two opposites.

The standard comparison we make here is that Sandor Clegane is the noble one, the true knight, the hurt soul who wants to be a better man than he has been. The Hound is the callous cynical killer, loyal to the Lannisters, obedient but uncouth, like a dog. His Hound helmet is even cursed to carry on these evils in others, when he is parted from it.

And yet the alternative one is: A hound is fierce, loyal, and can sense deceit. His motives are not complicated by such foolish human illusions like lawfulness or social standing or piety. Ser Sandor Clegane - the man - might be a sadistic hypocrite like his brother Gregor, but as The Hound he has abdicated those human conceits in favour of the simpler and more primal moral guidelines of a beast - friend or foe, threat and response, fight or flight, kill or be killed. (And of course, the impulse to find a worthy mate and defend her.)

It is a clever inversion at play here, a contradiction between these comparisons. Sandor is the sometimes-worthy man; the Hound is the often-horrible beast. Yet Sandor is most noble when he acts instinctually like a beast, and The Hound is least noble when he acts according to civilized human norms of conduct.

(And so ends another crackpot idea of mine.)

[Elba the Intoner]

Mladen these were such wonderful essays and beautifully written. I don't have much time to comment right now but wanted to say that before you go off to your new job. I did quickly want to comment on this:

It`s quite clear that Sansa and Sandor belong to different worlds. It seems that both of them are unable to see them as happy pair. There is a huge abyss between them. Kitty and Levin did it. They did it by realizing who they really are, which gives us hope that our two little birds can be together at the end.

We all found happiness in different places. Woman can fight for the love against the whole world and win,

Yes, this sums up what is going on with both of them very nicely. We can see Sansa getting closer to who she is with each chapter, and as you pointed out in the second essay, it is when she is closest to her beast that she seems to be at her strongest. With Sandor, we don't have the benefit of his POV, but my take on what we learned from the EB on the Quiet Isle is that he is going through a change too and finding out who he really is. He spent most of his life in a state of PTSD, but something of his true nature stirred within him when he met Sansa and now his time on the QI will hopefully bring that to the fore, of course hopefully without losing those positive beastly aspects like his ferocity and ability to sniff out BS. You mentioned duality in your second essay and I think this fits with that idea. And I do also view Sansa as fighting "for the love against the whole world" as you say.

Congrats and best of luck on your new job and I am sure I'm not alone when I say that we hope you'll pop in from time to time with some thoughts and comments.

[brashcandy]

This is a point that seemed to be often overlooked - the role of father and family. The outsider perspective.

It's natural for a girl to feel in that state that their fathers are just being overprotective, but to dismiss it as some sort of patriarchal default often misses a point.

Men know the nature of other men / boys because they know what that "beast" that lives inside them is all about. (And women likewise, regarding seeing in other women what a man is blind to?)

Case in point: None of Sansa's brothers liked Joffrey, nor her father really, and this danger sign is ignored. Even Arya had Joffrey's nature down cold - and this was dismissed as Arya's jealousy or contrariness.

(And Eddard also in a way betrays his instincts about Joffrey because Robert is his best friend, that is his blind spot - not being able to say his best friend's "son" is a piece of shit, and then not his son at all.)

An ASOIAF theme about Starks is this: their instincts hold true, while their rationalizations get them killed. Keep your direwolf close.

If only it were so straightforward. While Sansa's brothers may have noted that Joff was a jerk and a showoff, I don't believe anyone understood the level of his 'issues' and more importantly, it seems no one bothered to communicate this to Sansa. IIRC, the only criticism she hears about Joffrey before they leave Winterfell comes from Jon via Arya, in the comment that Joffrey looks like a girl. Hardly something that would make a girl think twice about her princely suitor! And we do see a bit of jealousy on Arya's part because Sansa gets to sit with Joff at the Winterfell feast, so the early and only conversation that Sansa has at Winterfell (that we are shown) concerning Joff isn't meant to offer her any real enlightenment. Given that right before this we see Ned's resolve in Catelyn's chapter that the marriage to Sansa and Joff must absolutely continue now, I don't believe any subsequent conversation at Winterfell would have advised her to be on her guard or to be wary. So yes, while Sansa's naivete and deep infatuation with Joff helped to blind her to his true nature, there is a sense that she is offered as a lamb to the slaughter by persons who should have known better (especially after the Trident debacle).

When Arya escapes from the sewing room, she is given a glimpse into the 'men's world' and there sees Joff acting not as the gallant prince Sansa imagines. Jon also is a lot more pointed in his critique:

"Joffrey is truly a little shit"

Meanwhile, where is Sansa? Back in the sewing room, surrounded by women like Septa Mordane. And when all has been revealed about Joff and Sansa sees him for what he really is and wants nothing more than to escape the Lannisters, what happens then? Robb refuses to trade her for her and Arya because he believes the Kingslayer is worth more. If he knows the beast in men it doesn't much change things for Sansa does it? And that's why we find ourselves going back to the 'patriarchal default' and why I imagine Martin shows Sansa becoming aware of such societal entrapment and unequal treatment and how it negatively curtails her freedom.