Sansa's Savage Giant: Right Under Our Noses the Entire Time?

[butterbumps!]

A straightforward interpretation of Sansa's prophecy, similar to the other straightforward interpretations of the GOHH prophecies, is that she will slay a savage giant, something that she's physically incapable of doing. A metaphorical interpretation of Sansa's prophecy has already been satisfactorily fulfilled in all respects (savage giant = doll, castle made of snow = snow castle, Sansa slaying = Sansa ripping off the doll's head). Seems pretty open and shut to me, really.

Were the "snakes" in Sansa's hair straightforward like the doll?

I'm not sure I'm understanding your objection. The prophesy that did come true already referred to

1. A momentous event (a king was slain)

2. the snakes were not literal (they were poison crystals in a hairnet) and

3. she wasn't a witting participant.

Eadie's interpretation of this is actually very much in line with the spirit of the first prophesy. The idea of a figurative giant unwittingly poisoned by Sansa in an event that will have ramifications sounds exactly like what we see in prophesy 1.

If one is citing continuity to support their position then the view that this is about Sweet Robin's doll and a banal event doesn't fit.

I'm not sure I agree with Eadie's exact assessment (that is, I'm unsure about whether it would be referring to SR or someone else), but I do tend to agree with her logic in arriving there.

[Skoboe]

Sansa doesn't have the physical strength or combat ability to "slay" an actual savage giant,

...and Hobbits don't usually tag team with women to slay Nazgul...kitchen boys aren't usually associated with killing dragons or gods...intergalactic couriers don't usually make Aliens shake in their boots...

It's called fantasy for a reason :)

Edit: Forgot one of my favs...the orphan boy who became the most powerful Magician across two worlds!

[Newstar]

Were the "snakes" in Sansa's hair straightforward like the doll?

I'm not sure I'm understanding your objection. The prophesy that did come true already referred to

1. A momentous event (a king was slain)

2. the snakes were not literal (they were poison crystals in a hairnet) and

3. she wasn't a witting participant.

Eadie's interpretation of this is actually very much in line with the spirit of the first prophesy. The idea of a figurative giant unwittingly poisoned by Sansa in an event that will have ramifications sounds exactly like what we see in prophesy 1.

If one is citing continuity to support their position then the view that this is about Sweet Robin's doll and a banal event doesn't fit.

I'm not sure I agree with Eadie's exact assessment (that is, I'm unsure about whether it would be referring to SR or someone else), but I do tend to agree with her logic in arriving there.

Because it doesn't fit. You can metaphorically get from "purple serpents" to "poisonous purple gems" pretty easily (serpents are poisonous, gems in question are in fact poison, got it), but the connection between "savage giant" and "ill-behaved child who's small for his age who's afflicted with a seizure disorder" can't be drawn without distorting the meaning of "savage" and "giant" past all reason, and while I might buy Sansa poisoning Sweetrobin, that's hardly "slaying" (murdering, yes, slaying, no). Ditto for Littlefinger as the savage giant and Tyrion as the savage giant. As yolkboy pointed out, the other prophecies in that series are all pretty straightforward as well, that one doesn't have to contort oneself into knots to interpret. Why is the snow castle prophecy any different, especially when we already have a satisfactory moment in ASOS--when all the other prophecies were realized, fairly close to one another--which ticks off all the necessary boxes?

And if I'm right, that the Sansa prophecy is banal while the other prophecies (kingslaying, etc.) are momentous is kind of the point. Sansa's prophesied "big moment" is nothing more than ripping up a child's toy. And we should take note of that, rather than writing off the snow castle moment which already fulfills the prophecy in all respects and waiting for the imagined day when Sansa metaphorically "slays" a metaphorical "savage" "giant" in a metaphorical "castle made of snow."

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Was he "dicking around" when he wrote Catelyn helplessly stumbling from one catastrophic error in judgment to another and fruitlessly trying to save Robb from himself, only to be murdered for her trouble? Or when he lavished attention on poor Quentyn's doomed quest in ADWD, only to have him die pointlessly? Just wondering. :D

No, obviously not. Are you kidding? Did you not notice that Catelyn did a lot of things that are, you know, really fucking important to the plot? And that her importance continues as Lady Stoneheart? It might take some time before we know the full effects of Quentyn's death but no, I don't think he died 'pointlessly,' I think GRRM knows better than you and has something in mind.

I think you're imposing expectations that don't align with how GRRM's been writing the books, which smacks to me of incompetent reading. Fruitless quests, futility, pretty young things cut off in their prime because of horribly stupid decisions, and pointless, tragic, premature deaths seem to be GRRM's specialty. I don't know why you imagine Sansa's exempt from that. Other Starks and Stark POVs certainly were not.

Offer one example of a major character that died without having any importance to the overall plot. I'm no sure if you're trying to insult GRRM with your claims or if you're just unwittingly proving how profoundly you've misunderstood the books.

A straightforward interpretation of Sansa's prophecy, similar to the other straightforward interpretations of the GOHH prophecies, is that she will slay a savage giant, something that she's physically incapable of doing. A metaphorical interpretation of Sansa's prophecy has already been satisfactorily fulfilled in all respects (savage giant = doll, castle made of snow = snow castle, Sansa slaying = Sansa ripping off the doll's head). Seems pretty open and shut to me, really. Anything else reeks of denial.

I'll take this as you declining to defend your ridiculous strawman. Good. As for things reeking of denial, I guess you'll just have to get used to things which deny your opinion denying your opinion?

[butterbumps!]

Because it doesn't fit. You can metaphorically get from "purple serpents" to "poisonous purple gems" pretty easily (serpents are poisonous, gems in question are in fact poison, got it), but the connection between "savage giant" and "ill-behaved child who's small for his age who's afflicted with a seizure disorder" can't be drawn without distorting the meaning of "savage" and "giant" until they lose all meaning whatsoever. As yolkboy pointed out, the other prophecies in that series are all pretty straightforward as well.

Are you honestly saying that:

I dreamt of a maid at a feast with purple serpents in her hair, venom dripping from their fangs.

Is less of a stretch to the reality of what happened than the notion that this

And later I dreamt that maid again, slaying a savage giant in a castle built of snow.

could refer to Sansa bringing someone associated with giants low in the future?

Because I'm not seeing how the second strains credulity whereas the first makes such complete sense.

And if I'm right, that the Sansa prophecy is banal while the other prophecies (kingslaying, etc.) are momentous is kind of the point. Sansa's prophesied "big moment" is nothing more than ripping up a child's toy.

I know you have a "Sansa will do nothing" agenda, so I guess I'll address this. It's in poor taste and wildly inaccurate to summarily write off those who believe this prophesy as "readers in denial."

The notion that this prophesy reveals a fruitless event is not uninteresting or impossible, but it's awfully speculative to conclude that the doll fulfills it and that it's an impotent action because Sansa is a do-nothing. Since that position is sheer speculation, it's rather unfortunate to call out posters who do not agree with that as being inadequate readers.

I think an interpretation of the doll as a red herring with the prophesy portending a future event is more compelling at present, and not simply because I like Sansa. I'm not ready to write off this iteration of the prophesy as a statement of impotence because the story is far from over and the first part of the Ghost's predictions were all about events with major ramifications. So on the basis of these prophesies all having momentous referents is what I'm looking at firstly-- meaning, I think your reading of this as a comment on Sansa's banal path is highly premature.

I also think you're getting carried away with the specifics of "slaying." In the same way the serpents= poisoned crystals, I don't see why poison or even exposing and disarming LF (for example) would be precluded from this.

[MoIaF]

I don't think we have all the information as to how this person will come to be considered a "giant/savage", however, my money is that it'll be Littlefinger.

[Skoboe]

Just a thought bubble...if the Sansa/Giant thing does end up being a highbrow metaphor and not something simple, then think on this;

Several great houses have collapsed or are on the brink of collapse...Tullys - all dead, missing or captured, Lannisters on borrowed time, Tyrells - one aging heir, one burned and not terrible attracted to girls, the Arryns - all but gone, Starks all gone underground. The only house that is looking safe are the Freys, and only because there's so many of them.

On top of that we have an army of zombies moving in from the north, a couple of armies forming to the east, and a rogue wanna-be King running around trying to be everyone's friend.

The 7K are in chaos.

But the Starks hold the key to peace in the North...and historically, a good old marriage can stop a war.

Now; what has Sansa been told is her two greatest weapons??

Maybe the invading horde (human ones at least) could be construed as a 'giant', and Sansa removes that threat with a tactical marriage and loss of maidenhead?

[Sansa_Stark]

its going to be tyrion

[Skoboe]

its going to be tyrion

Actually Come to think of it, while the obvious giant is Gregor/Robert Strong, but Tyrion did have that dream where he had two heads and was weilding an axe 'as big as himself'.

[BitsOfBrains]

Personally I think the giant was Sweet Robbins doll and that part of the prophecy was to illustrate how unreliable and screwy prophecy is.

Like 12 year old kids watching scribble porn. You get the gist of what is going on, and occasionally there is a clear flash for a second or two, but generally speaking you aren't getting the full picture.

[borgenone]

I think Sansa will discover LF poisoning SR and will stop him and kill him!

[complexphoenix]

My theory is that the prophecy means that Sansa will kill Stannis.

The deaths of the other four kings in the Wot5K are clearly represented in the prophecy, in chronological order. It makes sense for the last portion to be about the death of Stannis, the last of the Five still living. He needs must die eventually, and it would seem odd if his death were left out, even if he were to die of old age. So I think it's him.

[E-Ro]

My theory is that the prophecy means that Sansa will kill Stannis.

The deaths of the other four kings in the Wot5K are clearly represented in the prophecy, in chronological order. It makes sense for the last portion to be about the death of Stannis, the last of the Five still living. He needs must die eventually, and it would seem odd if his death were left out, even if he were to die of old age. So I think it's him.

What on earth? No. why the fuck would sansa want to kill Stannis? First of all, he has done nothing at all to her, in fact, her and Stannis have similar goals. The complete and utter destruction of the lannisters and putting things right in the north and the realm at large. Second Stannis is a pretty big dude, a big dude with you know, soldiers to protect him. the last attempt on his life went pretty horribly.

His stupid son remained oblivious. "There are no chairs," the oaf observed. One of the ravens screamed inside its cage.

"Only mine." King Stannis sat in it. "It is no Iron Throne, but here and now it suits." A dozen men had filed through the tower door, led by the knight of the moths and the big man in the silvered breastplate. "You are dead men, understand that," the king went on. "Only the manner of your dying remains to be determined. You would be well advised not to waste my time with denials. Confess, and you shall have the same swift end that the Young Wolf gave Lord Rickard. Lie, and you will burn. Choose."

"I choose this." One of the grandsons seized his sword hilt, and made to draw it.

That proved to be a poor choice. The grandson's blade had not even cleared his scabbard before two of the king's knights were on him. It ended with his forearm flopping in the dirt and blood spurting from his stump, and one of his brothers stumbling for the stairs, clutching a belly wound. He staggered up six steps before he fell, and came crashing back down to the floor.

Also why does Stannis "need" to die within the story? This is wishful thinking at best.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

My theory is that the prophecy means that Sansa will kill Stannis.

The deaths of the other four kings in the Wot5K are clearly represented in the prophecy, in chronological order. It makes sense for the last portion to be about the death of Stannis, the last of the Five still living. He needs must die eventually, and it would seem odd if his death were left out, even if he were to die of old age. So I think it's him.

Lol sansa killing Stannis is the funniest thing i have read for a while.

[E-Ro]

Lol sansa killing Stannis is the funniest thing i have read for a while.

Yeah, now defending Stannis has to be done in Sansa threads. What fun.

Anyway, back on topic. I like the idea that Sansa is gonna off sr. the kid is really annoying, and harry sounds like a swell guy. I look forward to meeting him and seeing what he would do with the vales forces. He is old enough and liked enough to not be a pawn for LF to use, unlike sweet robin.

[bloodofwinterfell]

Therein lies the problem. There is really no way to interpret the prophecy as foreshadowing future events unless you twist the words "savage," "giant," and "slay" to the point where they lose all meaning altogether, and since Sansa swinging a sword to mow down the one savage giant that we do know of, UnGregor, is patently ridiculous. Thus we get nonsense like "Sansa's going to 'slay' Littlefinger by getting someone to remove him from power!", "Sansa's going to 'slay' UnGregor when the Hound as her champion kills him in a trial by combat!" and "Tyrion's the savage giant because Shae used to call him a giant!" LOL, no.

I don't think it's a stretch to say the giant is UnGregor or Littlefinger.

UnGregor: definitely savage, considered the giant of the series, and he is arguably the third shadow that looms over Arya and Sansa in Bran's dream

Littlefinger (who I personally think the prophecy refers to): could be considered savage for how many deaths he caused even if he had "clean hands" the whole time, the sigil of House Baelish is a Titan (I don't think calling Littlefinger a giant for this reason is stretching it because the Ghost of High Heart has referred to people by their sigils - Catelyn/Lady Stoneheart = fish, Renly = golden stag)

But I agree that the more convoluted ways of explaining how Sansa "slays" someone are stretching the meaning a bit. I personally think Sansa will be violent and actually slay the giant, but it'll be impulsive.

[Grail King]

I still think it's LF myself, he is a savage, he is a giant within the context of the story he is the one person who brought the country into this conflict by his deceits and cold blooded ruthlessness, he lied to everyone for 15 plus years, betrayed Ned, Cat, and brought Sansa into his web by implicating her in the PW with the hairnet; lets also not forget what he did to Jeyne Poole, Tyrion etc.

As far as Sansa and GRRM, he stated ALL the Starks will be important.

Then why all the pages for Sansa if she is meant to be nothing?

[The Mother of The Others]

the usual "savage giant" suspects:

UnGregor:

Littlefinger:

Sweetrobin's doll: She thinks of both Sweetrobin and Joffrey in this moment. If GRRM was really on his game, then this could be intentional.

Sansa wasn’t even aware, after all, that the “serpents” in her hair were “venom”. What if history is repeating itself

Uh, it's Joff. The giant is Joffrey.

(That way history doesn't have to repeat itself because the reference is to the history we know: the poison came out of her hairnet to kill Joff like a venomous snakebite.) Horrible evil giant falls, fully accounting for the Giant reference? The end? Or, will the debate perhaps continue on even after this shocking revelation? No, I'd wager that this post will end the Giant mystery forevermore, leaving the internet free to cure hemmorroids at last.

[yolkboy]

UnGregor: definitely savage, considered the giant of the series, and he is arguably the third shadow that looms over Arya and Sansa in Bran's dream

I agree, infact I don't think there's much to argue with there...

"Over them both loomed a giant in armor made of stone, but when he opened his visor, there was nothing inside but darkness and thick black blood."

Compares with;

“The silent giant.” Lord Randyll grimaced."

(He's called 'the silent giant' and is 8ft tall)

"His armour was plate steel, enameled white"

(Never takes off his armour, it's huge and very distinctive, specially made)

“The crest atop it was a stone fist”

(An allusion to Gregor, he wore 'stone' on his armour)

“long parapets built into the very stone of the mountains”

(Mountains are made of stone, this is a cryptic nod that its gregor)

“Whatever the face hidden behind Strong’s helm, it must remain hidden for now.”

('opening visor' is something Strong hasn't done yet, and we know he's hiding something)

“I am sending Balon Swann to Sunspear, to deliver him the head of Gregor Clegane.”

(Whether that head was real or not, I think we suspect there's no head on RStong)

“But this venom has been thickened somehow, so as to draw out the Mountain’s dying.”

(the dream insinuates the giant has thick black blood - RV thickened the black poison he put into Gregors blood. The poison seemed to spread and turned his insides black)

“When Oberyn spun the shaft between the palms of his hand, they glistened black. Oil? Or poison?”

(again, the poison in Gregors bloodstream was black)

“Be that as it may, his veins have turned black from head to heel.”

(RStrong's blood seems to have been turned black by the venom.)

Some people still think it's LF though :dunno:

---

(I don't think calling Littlefinger a giant for this reason is stretching it because the Ghost of High Heart has referred to people by their sigils - Catelyn/Lady Stoneheart = fish, Renly = golden stag)

I think this is a really good point, and she also mentions the fiery heart sigil for Stannis and Mel's shadow.

I would say it's a choice between the mundane doll, or the Littlefinger option, making the doll a nice red herring.

[Miss]

I am pretty sure those Sansa prophecies are both over. The giant was just the doll, there is no reason to think otherwise. And the vipers in her hair was what killed Joff at the wedding, so that is done too...