Sansa + Ned: What’s the Difference?

[Addam_Marbrand]

"Ned knew the truth"

Sansa blames the whole mess on Arya and tells Ned the honest truth from that point of view.

I cannot find the part where Arya tells Ned the whole truth, including her being attacked.

In fact, for the quote you posted, I cannot find it anywhere on kindle

Again, post where Ned is told that Arya is attacked by Joff specifically. If it exists at all.

[Mourneblade]

Just replace every mention of "Ned" with "Sansa" would you?

Except for the part where he does't see the event. But again I do not overly blame Sansa here. She is 11 and sees this as Arya's fault. She does not concern herself with what is done to Micah only that her dream could be completely ruined. This is the first crack in her image of her fairy tale world and she paints right over it with little though.

[Addam_Marbrand]

In reply to this?

As to the other quote, I'm looking through my files yeah?

Okay, better.

[Mladen]

I cannot find the part where Arya tells Ned the whole truth, including her being attacked.

In fact, for the quote you posted, I cannot find it anywhere on kindle. In fact, seeing as its probably from Ned's POV, it doesn't show that Ned knew Arya was attacked by Joff.

Again, post where Ned is told that Arya is attacked by Joff specifically. If it exists at all.

“They were not the only ones present,” Ned said. “Sansa, come here.” Ned had heard her version of the story the night Arya had vanished. He knew the truth. “Tell us what happened.”

Ned knew what has exactly happened that day. I don't see what you want more... Sansa told Ned everything that happened.

[Mourneblade]

I cannot find the part where Arya tells Ned the whole truth, including her being attacked.

In fact, for the quote you posted, I cannot find it anywhere on kindle. In fact, seeing as its probably from Ned's POV, it doesn't show that Ned knew Arya was attacked by Joff.

Again, post where Ned is told that Arya is attacked by Joff specifically. If it exists at all.

Sansa does.. It is right before Sansa speaks to king Robert .

[Mourneblade]

I think we should all take a step back and don't turn this about exonerating anyone. What OP wanted is simply to see the huge parallels between two stories, the trains of thoughts, and yes even the nature of them, and collide that with such very different reactions to their mistakes we, readers have. There is no goal here... Just simple analysis of very different reaction to quite striking similarities. And I think that we should all have a good faith and not say that everyone has some goal around here. So, there is no exoneration of Sansa by OP, which is rather clear, only a point OP made in which we use double standards for quite similar situations.

Very beautifully written, but a flawed conclusion. Ned's entire core is more than just about honor, loyalty and duty. He wonderfully exemplifies how that dilemma between honor and love is always in, as Jon said "the right thing". So, one has to understand that Ned always did what was the right thing, not was rigid honorable thing. He did the right thing when he rebelled, he did the right thing when he supported Robert to become a King, he did the right thing when he brought Jon to be raised with him (regardless of R+L=J, but even more enhanced with it), and lastly he did the right thing when he saved Sansa's life by naming himself a traitor. So, Ned's cold honor is also intertwined with the passionate love he feels for his family. Ned is not as honorable as much as he is righteous... And that is something we should always have in mind, that Ned didn't sacrifice his core to protect Sansa, he solely did what he has been doing many times - the right thing. And that is what is beyond any doubt, the most admirable thing about Ned. Not his code of honor, loyalty to the King or some dutiful behavior, but his ability to always do the right thing.

It IS the right thing that is forcing his core to implode. I did not make that clear though lol

You are spot on

[Mourneblade]

Ned knew what has exactly happened that day. I don't see what you want more... Sansa told Ned everything that happened.

Ned knew what happened from Sansa's point of view on what happened. Knowing exactly is an impossibility as he was not there. Do not forget GRRM's own statements to the effect that Point of Views are interpretations of events based on the person viewing them.

[butterbumps!]

Butter but you are attempting to excuse Sansa her actions by suggesting that most, or, all of her choices were made out of duty, loyalty, and love. Or at the very least attempt to tear down Ned by comparison. Your goal is a simple one. To attempt to show us, that if we admire Ned we should also admire Sansa, by comparison, or or at the very least, if we see Sansa in a negative light, that we should view Ned in that very same light.

I apologize if it comes across that way.

I don't think behaviors should be "excused" "exonerated" or "justified" due to motive or anything. I'm not trying to say that Sansa was right for her actions or anything like that. I think Ned and Sansa were both wrong in some of what I've cited. A good intention doesn't erase the bad consequence.

I'm not trying to tell anyone that admiration of Ned means that one must also admire Sansa; this thread is not nearly as pro-Sansa as you and others might be thinking.

I'm saying that reader reaction to these two characters, who both unwittingly act against their family, are extremely divergent. There are solid reasons for sympathizing more with Ned than Sansa throughout aGoT.

But the point is to challenge our sympathy bias and look at these two characters, who follow a very similar path, with a consistent rubric. Sansa is frequently accused of being "disloyal/ a betrayer" whereas Ned is typically uncritically excused for their respective appeals to the enemy party.

Neither of them intended to harm their family, but their actions produced those consequences, Ned even more egregiously. I don't think there's a problem with sympathizing with one more than the other. What I do think is a problem is judging these "unintentional betrayals" inconsistently. That is, it's dishonest to view Sansa as a "disloyal betrayer" for the Trident Trial and going to Cersei, but excuse Ned for those actions.

The point is, it's not these "hotbutton" parallel issues, which are often cited as proof of Sansa's awfulness, that cause many readers to see Ned and Sansa's culpability so differently. Divergent reader reactions to these events are a symptom of the issue I'm trying to get at.

There's a lot in aGoT that encourages us, intentionally or otherwise, to view Ned as a paragon hero and deserving of utmost sympathy, while undermining our sympathy for Sansa. A lot of the responses toward the middle of thread were kind of unpacking the craft of this-- the way both are introduced so divergently, with Sansa's presentation being one a modern audience might have more trouble identifying (and therefore sympathizing) with.

I'm not asking anyone to exonerate Sansa's behavior. I'm asking more to examine the root of the character bias.

[Mourneblade]

I apologize if it comes across that way.

I don't think behaviors should be "excused" "exonerated" or "justified" due to motive or anything. I'm not trying to say that Sansa was right for her actions or anything like that. I think Ned and Sansa were both wrong in some of what I've cited. A good intention doesn't erase the bad consequence.

I'm not trying to tell anyone that admiration of Ned means that one must also admire Sansa; this thread is not nearly as pro-Sansa as you and others might be thinking.

I'm saying that reader reaction to these two characters, who both unwittingly act against their family, are extremely divergent. There are solid reasons for sympathizing more with Ned than Sansa throughout aGoT.

But the point is to challenge our sympathy bias and look at these two characters, who follow a very similar path, with a consistent rubric. Sansa is frequently accused of being "disloyal/ a betrayer" whereas Ned is typically uncritically excused for their respective appeals to the enemy party.

Neither of them intended to harm their family, but their actions produced those consequences, Ned even more egregiously. I don't think there's a problem with sympathizing with one more than the other. What I do think is a problem is judging these "unintentional betrayals" inconsistently. That is, it's dishonest to view Sansa as a "disloyal betrayer" for the Trident Trial and going to Cersei, but excuse Ned for those actions.

The point is, it's not these "hotbutton" parallel issues, which are often cited as proof of Sansa's awfulness, that cause many readers to see Ned and Sansa's culpability so differently. Divergent reader reactions to these events are a symptom of the issue I'm trying to get at.

There's a lot in aGoT that encourages us, intentionally or otherwise, to view Ned as a paragon hero and deserving of utmost sympathy, while undermining our sympathy for Sansa. A lot of the responses toward the middle of thread were kind of unpacking the craft of this-- the way both are introduced so divergently, with Sansa's presentation being one a modern audience might have more trouble identifying (and therefore sympathizing) with.

I'm not asking anyone to exonerate Sansa's behavior. I'm asking more to examine the root of the character bias.

I must have over simplified that suggestion of your question in the summation of the original post. My apologies as this has been a wonderful thread.

[Lord Voldemort's Toes]

I apologize if it comes across that way.

I don't think behaviors should be "excused" "exonerated" or "justified" due to motive or anything. I'm not trying to say that Sansa was right for her actions or anything like that. I think Ned and Sansa were both wrong in some of what I've cited. A good intention doesn't erase the bad consequence.

I'm not trying to tell anyone that admiration of Ned means that one must also admire Sansa; this thread is not nearly as pro-Sansa as you and others might be thinking.

I'm saying that reader reaction to these two characters, who both unwittingly act against their family, are extremely divergent. There are solid reasons for sympathizing more with Ned than Sansa throughout aGoT.

But the point is to challenge our sympathy bias and look at these two characters, who follow a very similar path, with a consistent rubric. Sansa is frequently accused of being "disloyal/ a betrayer" whereas Ned is typically uncritically excused for their respective appeals to the enemy party.

Neither of them intended to harm their family, but their actions produced those consequences, Ned even more egregiously. I don't think there's a problem with sympathizing with one more than the other. What I do think is a problem is judging these "unintentional betrayals" inconsistently. That is, it's dishonest to view Sansa as a "disloyal betrayer" for the Trident Trial and going to Cersei, but excuse Ned for those actions.

The point is, it's not these "hotbutton" parallel issues, which are often cited as proof of Sansa's awfulness, that cause many readers to see Ned and Sansa's culpability so differently. Divergent reader reactions to these events are a symptom of the issue I'm trying to get at.

There's a lot in aGoT that encourages us, intentionally or otherwise, to view Ned as a paragon hero and deserving of utmost sympathy, while undermining our sympathy for Sansa. A lot of the responses toward the middle of thread were kind of unpacking the craft of this-- the way both are introduced so divergently, with Sansa's presentation being one a modern audience might have more trouble identifying (and therefore sympathizing) with.

I'm not asking anyone to exonerate Sansa's behavior. I'm asking more to examine the root of the character bias.

But what if the "root of the character bias" is not merely a presentation issue (i.e., because of the narrative structure we're "supposed" to root for Ned despite his similar shortcomings and hate Sansa despite her strengths and/or seeming lack of culpability due to being a child/misunderstood/just doing her duty) but is based on a real (and ethically significant) distinction between Ned and Sansa's motivations?

It seems unlikely to me that Ned and Sansa have fundamentally similar shortcomings, only the writing directs us to like Ned and dislike Sansa (for whatever reason...latent author misogyny? Is that your claim as to why this supposed bias was written in?) It's much more likely that they both have different shortcomings, but Ned's have less of an overall negative impact because they're offset immediately by his virtues, whereas Sansa seems not to display any notable virtues until later books (she required time and tribulations to develop them.)

[whitedog91]

I felt like Ned traded Lady's life for Arya's given the possible consequences of the Arya/Joff Trident incident. Later, (I know- don't say anything in AFFC) it turns out Cersei only wanted to have Arya's hand cut off... Ned won that battle but lost the war.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

It seems unlikely to me that Ned and Sansa have fundamentally similar shortcomings, only the writing directs us to like Ned and dislike Sansa (for whatever reason...latent author misogyny? Is that your claim as to why this supposed bias was written in?) It's much more likely that they both have different shortcomings, but Ned's have less of an overall negative impact because they're offset immediately by his virtues, whereas Sansa seems not to display any notable virtues until later books (she required time and tribulations to develop them.)

Not to speak for butterbumps!, but I think the argument is not that we're, in fact, directed to dislike Sansa, but that GRRM deliberately plays with character introductions and reader expectations to elicit impressions that intentionally do not withstand closer inspection or concur with later character development.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

I can understand the argument of character bias when it comes to characters like Rhaegar Targaryen or Jaime Lannister. Both were characters that were presented through the eyes of others that later did not necessarily stand up after being able to walk in their shoes for a mile or after being presented with other points of view.

The opinions formed concerning Ned and Sansa through the reading of AGoT were drawn entirely from their own presentations of events, through their own eyes. Certainly Arya speaks/thinks nastily about her sister, but you get to see Sansa's point of view as well. You get to see others point of view of Ned Stark, but you get to see his own point of view as well.

GRRM in fact attempts very strongly to NOT have a bias against Ned or Sansa in the first book. The bias comes from readers own biases they have formed through their own life experiences and opinions as to the morality or intelligence of the actions of Ned and Sansa. I can't blame George for not giving me enough information to allow a good character judgement on either one of those characters when he allows me to walk in their shoes when they are actually making their mistakes.

[Lord Voldemort's Toes]

Not to speak for butterbumps!, but I think the argument is not that we're, in fact, directed to dislike Sansa, but that GRRM deliberately plays with character introductions and reader expectations to illicit impressions that intentionally do not withstand closer inspection or concur with later character development.

I'm having trouble seeing the distinction between what I said and what you said. You're (general/thread you, not you personally) saying that GRRM, on purpose, introduces characters in such a way that the audience will be lead to think one thing about them, only for it to be later revealed that they should have thought another. And that he's done this with Sansa, so he's deliberately directed us to dislike her from the beginning, only to reveal later that our impressions were wrong. Well, if this were the case, he didn't do it very well, did he? Otherwise this thread wouldn't be necessary. It would be like with Jaime, where everyone fully admits that maybe they were wrong about hating his ass in AGoT. Like I said, it seems more likely that in Sansa's case, and Ned's, WYSIWYG, and our impressions of Sansa are only meant to change as her character changes organically throughout the series. Not that she was really X all along, but we were led to see Y.

And anyway, in Sansa and Ned's cases, the impressions we get DO withstand closer examination. There is consistency between the impression the reader gets from the character's own POVs and other character's judgments and observations of them (for Sansa and Ned.) And as far as "concur[ing] with later character development," isn't it normal for a character to start off being one way and then developing into something else (not that this applies for dead Ned)? That wouldn't make your initial impression of the character wrong, or somehow the result of author misdirection...it would just mean that the character changed.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

And anyway, in Sansa and Ned's cases, the impressions we get DO withstand closer examination. There is consistency between the impression the reader gets from the character's own POVs and other character's judgments and observations of them (for Sansa and Ned.) And as far as "concur[ing] with later character development," isn't it normal for a character to start off being one way and then developing into something else (not that this applies for dead Ned)? That wouldn't make your initial impression of the character wrong, or somehow the result of author misdirection...it would just mean that the character changed.

Yes

[Khal BlackfyreO]

I think we should all take a step back and don't turn this about exonerating anyone. What OP wanted is simply to see the huge parallels between two stories, the trains of thoughts, and yes even the nature of them, and collide that with such very different reactions to their mistakes we, readers have. There is no goal here... Just simple analysis of very different reaction to quite striking similarities. And I think that we should all have a good faith and not say that everyone has some goal around here. So, there is no exoneration of Sansa by OP, which is rather clear, only a point OP made in which we use double standards for quite similar situations.

Very beautifully written, but a flawed conclusion. Ned's entire core is more than just about honor, loyalty and duty. He wonderfully exemplifies how that dilemma between honor and love is always in, as Jon said "the right thing". So, one has to understand that Ned always did what was the right thing, not was rigid honorable thing. He did the right thing when he rebelled, he did the right thing when he supported Robert to become a King, he did the right thing when he brought Jon to be raised with him (regardless of R+L=J, but even more enhanced with it), and lastly he did the right thing when he saved Sansa's life by naming himself a traitor. So, Ned's cold honor is also intertwined with the passionate love he feels for his family. Ned is not as honorable as much as he is righteous... And that is something we should always have in mind, that Ned didn't sacrifice his core to protect Sansa, he solely did what he has been doing many times - the right thing. And that is what is beyond any doubt, the most admirable thing about Ned. Not his code of honor, loyalty to the King or some dutiful behavior, but his ability to always do the right thing.

Yes, totally! I said something, (less clearly than you do) Here, when I referred to his moral compass.

Well...we can go back and forth about it, but it is essentially just a matter of POV. I don´t see Ned making decisions based upon the fact that he thinks LF is a 'good, trustworthy' guy, or that Cersei is a ray of sunshine. He knows who and what he is dealing with, but...again, by bad luck, he is forced into situations where he can either fight with the cards (and alliances) he is dealt, or he can run. Running would not 'serve the kingdom' and install a rightful king, so Ned can´t contemplate that either. We know what he chooses, and I just think it is his ironclad moral compass that guides his decisions judged to be 'poor', not a blind faith in the good of the people around him. He knows he is in a snake pit, but would rather go down with his integrity intact than without.

Essentially the point of this is that he is more sympathetic. This is why he is a martyr, it is, of course, also why he is dead. He tries to save his enemies children, when all common sense, (and Renly), tells him to imprison them. This is why we stand with him, and yet find much wrong with Sansa. Her actions are not wrong or right, based on her point of view. She stares the serpents in the face and believes when they smile at her. But we fault her because we know what is really going on and can´t understand how she can´t see it.

As far as the threat to his family, I think I already covered that, when he 'threatens' (at least in her perception) Cersei, he is speaking from a place of power. And when things start to fall apart he does try to get them out, but Sansa unfortunately seals her own fate with her actions. Which of course is borrowed from a dozen other tales, where the moral is, 'be careful what you wish for.' This is usually reserved for horror, and for villainous characters, but in a 'real world' setting, its the kind of thing that teaches people to be more mature and thoughtful about what they want.

To Ned honor is only as important as it is in the right. He makes decision after decision based upon his morals, and sees things as very black and white. To me he is not naive or blinded by honor, he is forced by his morals to make decisions that don´t turn out horribly well...

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I'm having trouble seeing the distinction between what I said and what you said. You're (general/thread you, not you personally) saying that GRRM, on purpose, introduces characters in such a way that the audience will be lead to think one thing about them, only for it to be later revealed that they should have thought another.

The difference is fairly obvious. I'm saying we're not meant to dislike Sansa, in opposition to your suggestion that the argument is that we are, in fact, meant to dislike her, and that this is perhaps the result of GRRM's latent misogyny or some such nonsense which is not at all the point of the thread. There's a wide difference between suggesting GRRM plays with introductory bias and arguing that he actually means for readers to dislike the character.

[Mourneblade]

The difference is fairly obvious. I'm saying we're not meant to dislike Sansa, in opposition to your suggestion that the argument is that we are, in fact, meant to dislike her, and that this is perhaps the result of GRRM's latent misogyny or some such nonsense which is not at all the point of the thread. There's a wide difference between suggesting GRRM plays with introductory bias and arguing that he actually means for readers to dislike the character.

quite the contrary he means exactly for us to dislike Sansa through the first book at least. It allows him, as the writer, the enjoyment of making us like her later.

In addition I see no evidence of any misogynistic tendencies in his writing. The setting and context are done in a medieval patriarchal society. You are supposed to feel that women are treated as less than men it is built into the framework of the story. This is done with purpose for our own examination, but not out of some latent hate of women on the authors part.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

{snipped everything but:}

You're (general/thread you, not you personally) saying that GRRM, on purpose, introduces characters in such a way that the audience will be lead to think one thing about them, only for it to be later revealed that they should have thought another. And that he's done this with Sansa, so he's deliberately directed us to dislike her from the beginning, only to reveal later that our impressions were wrong.

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.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

quite the contrary he means exactly for us to dislike Sansa through the first book at least. It allows him, as the writer, the enjoyment of making us like her later.

I disagree. In any case this is unrelated to what is, in my opinion, Lord Voldemort's Toes' misstatement of the thread's argument.

In addition I see no evidence of any misogynistic tendencies in his writing. The setting and context are done in a medieval patriarchal society. You are supposed to feel that women are treated as less than men it is built into the framework of the story. This is done with purpose for our own examination, but not out of some latent hate of women on the authors part.

I'm not sure if you realize that I'm arguing against GRRM's writing expressing latent misogyny, so I don't quite know how to respond to this.