Jump to content

Sansa + Ned: What’s the Difference?


butterbumps!

Recommended Posts

I think he set things up this way so the reader, upon closer examination, can see his own preconceived biases and begin to question assumptions made initially about the characters, which tend to be based upon expected tropes and cliches that we have internalized subconsciously.

But in this case, the writer would have to make a lot of presumptions about the preconceived biases of the reading audience. The writer would be biased on what the readers' biases are... that's a meta-bias of sorts and it gets quite confusing. There may be analyses of the profile of the "average reader" of a specific genre, I don't know, but for a writer who claims that the human heart in conflict is the only thing worth writing of, such a stance regarding the audience would seem quite mechanistic.

ETA: But generally speaking, I agree that an aim of any work of litterature is to challenge the readers' worldview and to lead them either reconsider or cement it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the OP? The thread isn't about "besmirching" or exonerating anyone. It's about unpacking why 2 characters who do nearly the same things for similar reasons elicit such different reactions from readers.

I've read enough, and all the other variations of it, to know where it's going. On some level I get it, Sansa's worst act affected Ned, thus pitting Nedheads against Sansanites. But I don't agree that they did the same thing, for the same reasons. And I also don't agree that they're just alike (especially the part about Ned being naive).

Ned is a grown man. He was basically faced with two choices; run or stay. And Ned's honor and character would not allow him to flee. He knew that he was putting his life on the line and he was okay with that. None of that screams naivety.

He did not, however, put the lives of his daughters at risk. He made arrangements to send them home and never planned on confronting Cersei before they had left. Unbeknownst to him, Sansa had divulged his plans and gave Cersei the head's up she's needed to beat Ned to the punch while also grabbing his daughters to use against him.

What Sansa did, she did for this:

She loved King's Landing; the pageantry of the court, the high lords and ladies in their velvets and silks and gemstones, the great city with all its people. The tournament had been the most magical time of her whole life, and there was so much she had not seen yet, harvest feasts and masked balls and mummer shows. She could not bear the thought of losing it all.

She thinks Ned is sending her back because of her and Arya fighting. Once tells her that it's for safety reasons and any bad behavior is when she uses Joffrey as a reason for staying.

"Father, I only just now remembered, I can't go away, I'm to marry Prince Joffrey."

It wasn't duty.

Look, Sansa did what she did, just like Judas had to do what he did (in the sense that both actions had to take place in order for the story to go where it needs to, and both have been demonized).

Sansa's not my favorite character, but I don't hate her. I actually feel sorry for her. No one should have to go through what she's been through. She's essentially a young, naive and innocent girl. She was pretty much clueless. Unfortunately, her one mistake was a biggie (and one that went beyond Ned). But I don't think anyone feels worse than she does. And if it ever gets back to her siblings and the North I hope she's forgiven.

Ultimately, Ned and Sansa are not one and the same. At best, they share obedience as a trait (even though Ned would have never disobeyed his father in this way).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did? When was that?

Never. He was going to sneak the girls away but never actually broke the betrothal.

Ned spoke about how the match with Joff was a mistake, but he didn't break it.

Really?! So what, it was going to be a long-distance betrothal? He would've broken the news to Robert once he returned. Sheesh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read enough, and all the other variations of it, to know where it's going. On some level I get it, Sansa's worst act affected Ned, thus pitting Nedheads against Sansanites. But I don't agree that they did the same thing, for the same reasons. And I also don't agree that they're just alike (especially the part about Ned being naive).

Ned is a grown man. He was basically faced with two choices; run or stay. And Ned's honor and character would not allow him to flee. He knew that he was putting his life on the line and he was okay with that. None of that screams naivety.

He did not, however, put the lives of his daughters at risk. He made arrangements to send them home and never planned on confronting Cersei before they had left.

Really? Ned went to Cersei, told her he knew her deadly secret and gave her an ultimatum 3 full days before his daughters were supposed to leave. How is this not putting his daughters at risk, especially given that he knew Cersei and Jaime had already almost killed one of his kids, killed 3 of his men and broken his leg?

And he was supposed to waste a whole day after Robert died doing nothing against Cersei? Even Ned isn't that clueless about succession politics in a monarchy. Wait that long and you lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Ned went to Cersei, told her he knew her deadly secret and gave her an ultimatum 3 full days before his daughters were supposed to leave. How is this not putting his daughters at risk, especially given that he knew Cersei and Jaime had already almost killed one of his kids, killed 3 of his men and broken his leg?

And he was supposed to waste a whole day after Robert died doing nothing against Cersei? Even Ned isn't that clueless about succession politics in a monarchy. Wait that long and you lose.

He went to Cersei when Robert was still alive. He never imagined that Cersei would be able to have Robert killed. His children were both confined to the Tower of the Hand.

He then waited after Robert died because he did not want to make a move before his children were safely out of the city. He went back on this because the queen herself summoned him to the throne room. He thought he had it wrapped up with LF and the Gold Cloaks.

Both times Ned made assumptions that turned out wrong. Underestimating Cersei, and trusting LF. Yet underestimating Cersei and trusting LF is slightly easier to do then believing that Joffrey was a beautiful bright prince. Tywin died apparently because he made the assumption that his Master of Whisperers and his son the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard wouldn't release his prisoner. He assumed his son wouldn't put a bolt through his bowels after insulting his wife.

Ned actually had political opponents that out-foxed him. Sansa was betrayed by her own sense of fantasy. Ned may have put his children in danger, but he was unaware he was doing so. He did what he did out of senses of duty and honor and mercy. Sansa did what she did out of fear and infatuation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait. Hold up: it is easier for Ned to assume his daughters are safe when the woman who killed the previous Hand and tried to kill the king than for Sansa to believe her parent-approved fiancee is a true prince in the making?



Ned believes the worst about Cersei: that she is an arrogant murderess who doesn't stick at killing children-especially his. The fact is, he went to confront her, showing his hand, while his daughters were still in the city.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Ned went to Cersei, told her he knew her deadly secret and gave her an ultimatum 3 full days before his daughters were supposed to leave. How is this not putting his daughters at risk, especially given that he knew Cersei and Jaime had already almost killed one of his kids, killed 3 of his men and broken his leg?

And he was supposed to waste a whole day after Robert died doing nothing against Cersei? Even Ned isn't that clueless about succession politics in a monarchy. Wait that long and you lose.

I could take the easy route and say that Martin planned it that way.But I'll humor you.

Ned has his men securing his daughters. He's also the Hand of the King (a title he didn't have when Jaime attacked him). Most importantly, Robert is still alive. So that means Cersei doesn't have the gold cloaks. And even Cersei wouldn't dare to kill or arrest the lord of House Stark, and leader of the North, and Hand of the King while Robert is still alive.

And yes, Ned would have waited until after they had left. His only action when news of Robert's death reached him was to install himself as regent.

Ned's thoughts:

There would be time enough to deal with the succession when Arya and Sansa were safely back in Winterfell, and Lord Stannis had returned to King's Landing with all his power.

Unfortunately, Robert happened to die the same day that Ned's daughters were leaving. Even then:

" ... Even so, it was a close thing. If Sansa hadn't come to me and told me all her father's plans . . . "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait. Hold up: it is easier for Ned to assume his daughters are safe when the woman who killed the previous Hand and tried to kill the king than for Sansa to believe her parent-approved fiancee is a true prince in the making?

Yes. Joffrey was no longer parent-approved, and she was apparently the ONLY individual in the universe, except for maybe Cersei, that thought he was a "true prince in the making". But as I said, it doesn't really matter who was stupider. The difference, as several have pointed out over and over, is that Ned did what he did out of a sense of honor, mercy, and duty, while Sansa's actions were done out of love/infatuation and rather more self-serving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't think it's GRRM deliberately misleading the reader. I believe he's on record as stating that he dislikes that technique, that he would never put clues or foreshadowing that the butler did it, only to reveal later that it was the housekeeper all along. And I also don't think that you are supposed to conclude that your first impressions were "wrong".

I think he set things up this way so the reader, upon closer examination, can see his own preconceived biases and begin to question assumptions made initially about the characters, which tend to be based upon expected tropes and cliches that we have internalized subconsciously.

Okay, you got me. I have no idea what it means to write a story such that the reader can "upon closer examination, see his own preconceived biases and begin to question assumptions made initially about the characters" without leading them to do so by use of literary device (I.e., misleading the reader in some way.)

Otherwise how do you know this is what is being done by GRRM? How do you ever find out if there's anything to your theory if (1) it's reliant mostly on extra-textual argumentation and thus resistant to text-based counter-arguments, and (2) is based on a very loose notion of authorial intent that cannot be proved through literary analysis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in this case, the writer would have to make a lot of presumptions about the preconceived biases of the reading audience. The writer would be biased on what the readers' biases are... that's a meta-bias of sorts and it gets quite confusing. There may be analyses of the profile of the "average reader" of a specific genre, I don't know, but for a writer who claims that the human heart in conflict is the only thing worth writing of, such a stance regarding the audience would seem quite mechanistic.

ETA: But generally speaking, I agree that an aim of any work of litterature is to challenge the readers' worldview and to lead them either reconsider or cement it.

Agreed.

Does anyone write like that? It seems like an awful sort of academic approach that I don't believe would lend itself to good writing. Also it's sort of impossible.

It'd be like, if I were GRRM, "okay, so most people assume/have biases about this thing, so I'll write this part in a way that subtly but meaningfully prods them to reexamine this assumption bias later/upon obsessive re-read, because I don't want to be too obvious, I hate misleading readers like that."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, you got me. I have no idea what it means to write a story such that the reader can "upon closer examination, see his own preconceived biases and begin to question assumptions made initially about the characters" without leading them to do so by use of literary device (I.e., misleading the reader in some way.)

It means that the story challenged the reader to change their attitude about their biases rather then by misleading the reader in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like that this thread uses Sansa and Ned as examples of bias as these are two of the characters who most internalize Westerosi bias. They both have nearly identical views on virtue, honor, knightly values, duty etc though of course they have differing perspectives from an adult male and tween female. They both have their ideals and expectations dashed pretty harshly and each provide a model for how we view other characters. Ned and Sansa are the personification of "things aren't what they appear" and can be used as a tool to help illuminate biases we readers might hold for other characters.



It's an enjoyable and crafty way that GRRM created his series as we are forced to constantly reevaluate how we perceive a character and the actions occurring. We are introduced to character biases by way of multiple POVs while also having to struggle with our own biases. I have found reading this thread to be an enjoyable exercise and I wonder if the parameters could extend to other characters.






But this is false. Love is not anything close to a baseline expectation of marriage for women of her station. Her mother was not in love with Ned when she married him and did not convince herself she was in love with him at the time. No other character we see either puts a false construct of love on top of an arranged marriage. Love is the exception to the rule. Doing your duty by your family is what is the primary expectation. As Lysa did, as Genna did.





Cat didn't experience a lengthy betrothal with Ned as Sansa was expected to with Joff. She was betrothed to Ned's brother Brandon and then was made to marry Ned due to circumstances. Hardly the same thing. Learning to love Ned was seen as part of her duty as his wife.



Still, we see other female characters discuss love as part of duty. Cersei thinks about love as part of her arranged marriage with Robert (in the early days). She even does so with Rhaegar back when her father was attempting to arrange that. Jeyne Poole discusses love with her arranged marriage. If I recall correctly, it sounds like something she feels compelled to say, as though it's expected or the norm to equate love with duty.



It's also seen in other instances, and not always with female characters. Sansa sees love being part of her duty as future queen. The Tyrells do the same thing when they arrive in KL. Robert was much the same. I don't see anything exceptional about Sansa using love to illustrate her duty.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, you got me. I have no idea what it means to write a story such that the reader can "upon closer examination, see his own preconceived biases and begin to question assumptions made initially about the characters" without leading them to do so by use of literary device (I.e., misleading the reader in some way.)

Otherwise how do you know this is what is being done by GRRM? How do you ever find out if there's anything to your theory if (1) it's reliant mostly on extra-textual argumentation and thus resistant to text-based counter-arguments, and (2) is based on a very loose notion of authorial intent that cannot be proved through literary analysis?

It's part of that whole "subverting tropes" thing that everyone goes on and on about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's part of that whole "subverting tropes" thing that everyone goes on and on about.

That's why I said, "without use of literary device." Namely, either flat out subverting the trope in the content of the character right off the bat (e.g., Brienne subverting the warrior princess trope by being described as unattractive) or leading you to believe one thing about the character but then turning that on its head at some later point, causing the reader to question their initial bias/assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I said, "without use of literary device." Namely, either flat out subverting the trope in the content of the character right off the bat (e.g., Brienne subverting the warrior princess trope by being described as unattractive) or leading you to believe one thing about the character but then turning that on its head at some later point, causing the reader to question their initial bias/assumption.

He does it with Tyrion: on the first go he seems a great guy till say Storm/Dance. Then when you go back and reread, you see that he was always an asshole, but you never notice because he's so sympathetically portrayed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus I don't know that you can even play with tropes if the character is given a story-long running POV. Tropes are story stereotypes based largely on appearances or assumptions based on limited and/or superficial data, so how can you have that if you're given immediate and constant access to the character's inner character through a POV? The only way that works is if you're denied a POV in whole or partially (like with Jaime.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He does it with Tyrion: on the first go he seems a great guy till say Storm/Dance. Then when you go back and reread, you see that he was always an asshole, but you never notice because he's so sympathetically portrayed.

That's really iffy. In the first place there's no way to know or prove that this was intended by GRRM, in the second there's no way to know that this was a widely held reaction of the readers, and in the third, if that is indeed what happened and what was intended, then that's an example of deliberately misleading the reader like I said (but which was vehemently objected to up thread.)

Also, that's not trope subversion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He does it with Tyrion: on the first go he seems a great guy till say Storm/Dance. Then when you go back and reread, you see that he was always an asshole, but you never notice because he's so sympathetically portrayed.

I Consider Tyrion before the trial as an entitled likable sarcastic witty insecure rogue with a heart.

It only after the trial that he embraces the demon monkey bitter hate filled creature that he looks like.

Looks to me like you took your storm dance bias and slapped it on early Tyrion. Kinda the same thing I see a lot of Sansa Apologists do. Instead of reading Sansa in the GoT light, they read her as she has become, with much more sympathy and understanding.

I understand how it is hard to unsee what has been seen, but unless it is revealed that a character has been acting contrary for a purpose, IE Roose Bolton, then you only do a disservice to that characters development forgetting the event that changed their being.

Always remember setting and context

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...