Nathan Stark

"Most Dangerous Man in Dorne; What will he do next?" Get killed by Areo Hotah, for exactly the reasons you describe.

Your optimism is inspiring. I hope you are correct.

Quaith just needs a hug. That's probably why she's crying though, because she disappears whenever anyone tries to touch her. Living in some tower with nothing but a glass candle for company must be pretty lonely.

Like who?

The sequel is never as good as the original.

Silent Arya Sorry. What does any of this have to do with Arya being silent?

Eh. Stannis goes back and forth. Sometimes he's upstanding, honorable and willing to learn from defeat, and sometimes he's childish, petty and spiteful. Of course he is the sorest loser. That's why I like him.

I wouldn't count any of these options as "minor" houses. In Westeros, there are the Lords Paramount, and their bannermen. We are then shown how important these houses are relative to each other. Without having been propped up by the Targaryens for a couple of centuries, Houses Tully and Tyrell would probably be afterthoughts. House Martell was largely overlooked until they joined forces with Nymeria and her Rhoynish followers. A House can quickly become quite powerful under the right circumstances. The Houses on the op's list, and many of the honorable mentions, are of prestigious noble bloodlines, are quite old, and they each have considerable resources at their disposal in terms of manpower, wealth, or both. In addition, these houses tend to occupy lands that are of great strategic importance. These things being true, none of the entries on this list can be considered "minor." They might answer to their Lord Paramount, but if these Houses could step in and run their respective kingdoms in place of their liegelords, they cannot be considered "minor." A minor House would be something like House Westerling, prestigious maybe, but poor and unable to throw their weight around. But just because a House isn't in charge of everything in their kingdom, that doesn't make them minor.

Well reasoned and well argued. I think this puts to rest any notion that Stannis is politically inept. He can and does manage good political intrigue when it suits his purposes.

That's a problem for the publishers, but George is already writing this thing as an intended single volume. Figuring out how to split the completed book up into two volumes is not the same as writing it in the first place.

Maybe just a semi-enthusiastic confused shrug will do?

It was Joffrey. The little shit didn't need a motivation to have Bran murdered. Being a little sadist was enough.

On my first comment on this this thread, I allowed that Sansa was likely poisoning Sweetrobin. Not intentionally out of malice, but out of a practical political desire to protect his image as a healthy, strong Lord, which itself goes a long way towards assuring the child's longevity. After reading your comments, and taking a few days to reflect on the matters discussed, I think you have the right of it. It's odd that I didn't look askance at Maester Coleman before now, but the evidence you provide for Coleman's own treachery is pretty hard to dismiss. I think the larger discussion over whether Sansa has "authority" or "influence" over Coleman misses the point, which is that Coleman knew about sweetsleep's effects on Robin and carried on dosing him anyway. No matter how one slices it, Coleman knows more about the drug than Sansa does, and she is simply trusting his good intentions regarding Robin's health. Sansa's "authority" or lack thereof does not change the fact that Coleman was giving unhealthy doses of sweetsleep to Robin that Sansa had no reason to know about. All in all, your position is well argued and convincing.

Sure, the kid is a little shit. Honestly, so was Sansa when we first met her. They are/were both little shits for different, but still unsurprising reasons. Sweetrobin was sickly, and overly sheltered by his mother, who had her own mental health issues that exacerbated Sweetrobin's problems. Kid's like, six? Seven? And Sansa is honestly a much better influence on the child precisely because she isn't overprotective. If Sansa murdered Sweetrobin, I wouldn't be cheering and whooping. I would feel sickened, angry and betrayed.

I completely disagree. The thematic reason for Lady's death is the forshadowing of House Stark's fall at Cersei's hands, and the death of Sansa's childhood dreams. Lady did not die because Sansa lied to the King. She died because Nymeria wasn't there for Cersei to vent her rage upon.

First you said Sansa lied to Ned "for days." Now, having demonstrated otherwise through a quote from the actual book, you move on to saying "it's not clear she defended her sister in the slightest." She didn't, but that's not the discussion here. Did Sansa lie to Ned "for days?" No, she didn't. I just proved that from the quote, and you didn't even try to engage. You moved goalposts. I've noticed this is a tactic you engage in quite often. Again, you make the error of holding the same standards to Sansa, a 12 year old, as you would to an adult. No. She's a child behaving childishly, not a grown woman betraying her family out of spite. And yes, Sansa calling her wolf Lady is clearly a reflection of Sansa's own dreams and desires to become a respected noble Lady. That's why Cersei's order to kill Lady forshadows how she will treat Sansa later on; Cersei literally killed Sansa's dreams. Lady's death is NOT a punishment for Sansa's actions, which, though childish, do not merit having a faithful pet killed. In fact, the only reason Lady died at all was because Arya forced Nymeria to run into the wild. The point is that Lady, an innocent, is wrongfully executed. It was an act of sadism on Cersei's part, not a moral act in response to some imaginary crime Sansa committed. You could just as easily argue that Micah's death was punishment for Arya's actions. It would be just as bad as the argument you're making.

I read the books.

Umm, yeah, it does. The game of thrones is just a fancy expression meaning "politics." If one is in any position of power and authority over multiple people, they are doing politics whether they realize it or not. Ned was responsible for the lives of millions of people in the North, and worked with his bannerman to maintain order and stability. That's what being a high lord means in a feudal system. That's how politics works in this story. King Robert didn't want to accept that the price of being King of Westeros was that he had to actually do politics. Robert tried to never play the game at all, so instead the game played him. Ned, Robb and Jon each played the game more effectively than Robert did, but each made crucial errors in judgement that lead to their downfall. Sansa is learning to play the game the way Littlefinger does, devoid of scruples and completely cynical, but she doesn't yet fully see the costs of that approach yet, which is why her future interactions with SweetRobin are so important. But Sansa can never escape the game. No one can escape the game. If you do, you end up like King Robert.

Yes, you are. Ned did not go against his instincts to play the game of thrones. He went against his instincts to go to Kings Landing to serve as Robert's Hand. Ned was playing the game the whole time, because that's what you do as Lord Paramount. The North didn't just rule itself.

I think Lady died for one reason only; Cersei's desire to punish and humiliate House Stark. Robert wasn't going to do anything about... well, anything. He wanted the whole sorry business over with as soon as possible. As it all relates to Sansa's ark in the story, the loss of Lady clearly forshadows Cersei's future mistreatment of Sansa, and indicates that Sansa's naive romantic worldview will have to die if she is to survive to adulthood. Just as Jon was advised to "kill the boy and let the man be born," Sansa must "kill the girl and let the woman be born." Lady's death serves to remind us that Sansa's romantic worldview is as out of place and vulnerable in Kings Landing as an actual direwolf would be. Never forget, Arya had to give up Nymeria as well, but unlike Sansa, Arya was aware of the choice, whereas her naive sister had it made for her.

You are mistaken to say the game of thrones is in opposition to House Stark. Everybody plays the game. Ned played it and lost. Robb played it and lost. Jon played it and and was betrayed by his own men. The game of thrones is politics, not some ethereal standard to which the Starks stand in opposition. They want to win the game as much as anyone else. And yes, Lady was symbolic of Sansa's dreams of being a proper noble lady, which is why Sansa named her wolf Lady. Your argument would apply only if Sansa herself had killed Lady. But she didn't. Cersei ordered Lady's death, and Ned did the deed. Lady's death had nothing to do with anything Sansa did herself.

Ah, but Sansa didn't lie to Ned, her dad, she lied to Robert, her King and future father in law. And even then, the lie was "I don't know what happened, I didn't see." Very different from outright saying "Arya and Micah did it and Joffrey was entirely innocent!" Again, not a great moment for Sansa, but she's 12. Name one 12 year old you know who wouldn't fudge in front of authority to make themselves look better. Many adults do this. Sansa critics frequently make the error of applying the same standards to Sansa, a child, that they would to an adult like Cersei. The reality, in text, is that nothing Sansa has done of her own volition is anywhere close to the least of Cersei's crimes. Sansa murdering Sweetrobin in cold blood, fully aware of what she is doing, would be a major change in her character, way beyond anything she has done so far.

Nope. Lady's death is symbolic of the death of Sansa's dreams. She starts out far from the ethos of the contemporary Starks, much closer to the values reflected by Catelyn and Septa Mordayne. By AFfC, Sansa has grown much closer to the values of Ned and the North, reflected in her growing attachment to the Old Gods.

Even the book doesn't agree with the bolded part. Sansa certainly was not lying to her father "for days." She told him her story the night Arya vanished, which seemed to line up with the story Arya gave King Robert, since Ned saw fit to use Sansa as backup for the story Arya was telling. The text explicitly tells us that Mycah died long after Sansa could have done or said anything to save him. It really wasn't her responsibility anyway. It was the adults who failed in that situation, not the children. As for Lady, her death was not punishment for Sansa's sins, but a symbol of the death of Sansa's dreams. She desperatly wanted to be a Lady, a Queen, who everybody loves and looks up to the way she looked up to Cersei. And it was Cersei who ordered Lady put to death, forshadowing the way Cersei would ultimately betray, capture and abuse Sansa. The scene is not a sadistic punishment by the author upon one of his characters, but a tragedy fortelling how Sansa's naive dreams will eventually lead to her and her families downfall. Sansa running off to Cersei is hardly her best moment, and she will have to reckon with that some day. But lets not overstate her role here. Sansa made things a little easier for Cersei, but it was Littlefinger and Janos Slynt and even Ned himself who ensured Cersei's coup succeeded. None of this indicates that Sansa is capable of deliberately murdering a child. Unintentionally she may cause his death, or she may yet choose to save the boy. But there is no indication in the books so far that she is willing to commit murder solely for power.

There's not really a difference between Sansa and Alayne. Sansa is many things, but she doesn't have multiple personality disorder.