The source of all Sansa-hate

[DrunkSister]

She had no reason to lie there.

And yet she lied. She does that a lot.

Absolutely:

No, Mladen is right, Ned was to take the black, Joffrey killed him.

Does intent matter? Ned talked to Cersei because he did not want her children to suffer from Robert's wrath. Sansa talked to Cersei because she wanted to marry Joffrey and be Queen. One was done for a noble reason, the other was done for selfish reason.

If Sansa did not know that she was betraying anyone why did she feel 'wicked' when she sneaked off to spill the beans to Cersei?

How about Sansa thinking "Dammit, If I had not told the Queen our getaway plans, me, Arya and Jeyne Poole could have got away on that ship my father arranged for us. Instead I am now stuck in this room with guards outside. And I even told Cersei where Arya would be this morning. And poor Jeyne could have left with us" ? Would that be logical?

Or how about Sansa thinking "I wonder what Littlefinger did to my good friend Jeyne Poole whose father was most probably killed by the man who I am having sexual fantasies about"

Or Sansa thinking " Damn. I should not have trusted the person who got my wolf killed"

So, Eddard was putting his own kids at risk, but that is okay because he is thinking of Cersei's kids. How noble!

Sansa is feeling wicked because she is being disobedient, not because she realizes what is going on.

Oh, yes, if only Sansa had all the information the reader has, she would be able to put the puzzle together, alas. She is being abused, pressured into lying ('my father was a traitor, my brother is a rebel'), presented with her father's and septa's heads, beaten, sexually harassed for months, she doesn't even have anybody to talk things through with, maids are spies, everybody else an enemy. It is much later that she speaks with Ser Dontos but apart from a few meetings we are not witnesses to what they were talking about.

There is no point in thinking about Jeyne because there is no way to find out.

AND FOR THE LAST TIME: EDDARD KILLED LADY!

He looked deep into her innocent eyes and hacked her head off with Ice, First Men style. And Sansa was her human, she probably felt the death. Eddard never talks to her about this, never clarifies what she did wrong, and what other people did wrong, so how is she (11yo) to make sense of it?

She does later think that she should not have trusted Joff and Cersei, but as the matter of fact, the issue is that her father sat in first men judgement over Lady and killed her himself, and continued himself to trust Robert who greenlighted the order.

But yea, Sansa is the one who deserves scorn.

Why? The acts are so similar, and one of them is an adult, the other a child, and yet, it is the child who gets all the blame. It is mindboggling.

[David Selig]

She had no reason to lie there.

Sure she did. Otherwise she had to tell Tyrion that Ned had figured about the twincest and came to her to warn her.

[butterbumps!]

Absolutely:

oh-- no, I wasn't trying to call you out for generalization. I was being policed by another poster for having apparently made a generalization, and was curious if the policing would would extend to those who did happen to share their views.

My argument was about whether Sansa was acting like a typical 11 year old girl in the modern world. Why are you suddenly bringing up Ned here? Have I said anything about Ned? Have I given my opinion on what I think about Ned's reactions to his situation? No. They why are you suddenly bringing up Ned?

Ned has a lot to do with this, Dicer, and I suspect you know that. You presented a version of events as justification for your finding her objectionable. My suspicion is that these reasons are in and of themselves not truly what you (and most likely others) find objectionable. I inserted Ned as a control to illustrate this point, because I know (from previous iterations of this thread) that you don't judge these two characters the same way for their parallel actions. Which means that there's something else that's really at issue here-- looking at another character who's done something very similar when teasing out "the source of all Sansa hate" is entirely reasonable in the context of seeking consistency.

Further to this point, Ned really is crucial for consideration here beyond his being a foil. An analysis of Sansa's objectionableness in the reactions you point out is automatically faulty if you exclude the context of Ned's influence from the matter.

For a much more overt example, consider this: If someone said they disliked Tyrion for "being a rapist at 13," I'd say this was a gross mischaracterization of the text, not least of which is because it excludes the context of Tywin's influence on the matter.

There's a similar breakdown in this sort of Sansa critique when one fails to consider Ned's tacit approval of Joff and the Lannisters, and the way his influence shaped the way Sansa understood the dynamic we tend to condemn her for.

I will leave that to you since you have been already doing that in this thread.

I addressed your generalization of people who criticize Sansa as being 'Sansa hater's manipulating the text to mask their hatred' because I had thought that people here had mentioned genuine reasons on why they disliked her. I don't like her myself, because I think she is an extreme version of a bratty teenager. I don't relate to teenagers and Sansa was a bratty, stupid, selfish shallow teen dialed to 10. She improved in later books but I still don't find her or her story arc interesting.

That's my interpretation of her character. I don't need someone telling me that I am manipulating the text to read her that way. People read the text and see the characters different ways. I love Dany. Most people here hate her for different reasons. Which is fine. Jon gets hate for being a white male savior figure, or for being boring and dull. Or being a Gary Sue. There are valid reasons for hating or liking characters, I think based on individual interpretations of the text. I see Sansa lying about the incident at the Trident because she was still infatuated with Joff and wanted to be Queen. Someone else thinks that Sansa genuinely forget about that incident. See? Different interpretations. That's not manipulating the text.

Ok, you don't like her because you see X traits in her. Fantastic. Not an issue.

What is an issue: the way you have completely disingenuously manipulate the text to pawn your personal reaction to her character into something that can be objectively found in the text. (for example, see my above point to you). Is that still too "general," or should I go through all of your posts in here with a fine-tooth comb?

[Cas Stark]

Sure she did. Otherwise she had to tell Tyrion that Ned had figured about the twincest and came to her to warn her.

No, she has no reason to even mention Sansa let alone Sansa's role in helping them retain power unless it's true. Yes she's lies and she's nut, but that doesn't mean everything she says is a lie or crazy. In the context of what she says, who she says it to, and what else we know, there is no reason...except to exonerate Sansa...not to believe she's being honest here.

[Jojosh]

I think its because Sansa isn't arya

[David Selig]

No, she has no reason to even mention Sansa let alone Sansa's role in helping them retain power unless it's true. Yes she's lies and she's nut, but that doesn't mean everything she says is a lie or crazy. In the context of what she says, who she says it to, and what else we know, there is no reason...except to exonerate Sansa...not to believe she's being honest here.

I don't believe because it makes no sense. How exactly the info that Ned planned to send his daughters back before Robert was even injured could be decisive in helping Cersei organize the coup?

Cersei made it sound as if it was her charm working on Sansa which made the crucial decisive, [probably in order to flatter herself, she probably believes it to a degree, but it doesn't make it true.

[Queen Sansa Stark]

She had no reason to lie there.

Actually she did. It was rather convenient that she left out the info of Ned telling her what he knew, because it required her to tell Tyrion about her affair with Jaime. So she is lying.

[Jasta11]

GRRM explicitely said, in the SSM provided, that she did play a role in her father's fall when she told Cercei everything she knew. I'm not even sure why we're arguing that. At the very least she denied both her and Arya their escape.

And I do consider it, if not a betrayal, then at least an incredibly foolish and selfish action. Yes, yes, she was young and all, but that excuse only works for so long. Not all children/teenagers in the series act as selfishly as Sansa does, in fact she was probably the worst in Game. Arya was even younger, also didn't want to leave Syrio behind, and didn't go tell anybody.

[butterbumps!]

GRRM explicitely said, in the SSM provided, that she did play a role in her father's fall when she told Cercei everything she knew. I'm not even sure why we're arguing that. At the very least she denied both her and Arya their escape.

And I do consider it, if not a betrayal, then at least an incredibly foolish and selfish action. Yes, yes, she was young and all, but that excuse only works for so long. Not all children/teenagers in the series act as selfishly as Sansa does, in fact she was probably the worst in Game. Arya was even younger, also didn't want to leave Syrio behind, and didn't go tell anybody.

Yes, undoubtedly foolish.

This is not directed at you, but your post highlights something I think gets missed:

It's frankly a shame that she didn't have a Syrio to grab her by the wrist and give her the breakdown of the situation, thereby thwarting the Cersei talk. If not for Syrio's intervention, Arya saw no issue with going with Lannister men at first in a similar fashion, which would also be classified as "foolish."

[Ser Duncan of Flea Bottom]

I prefer Sansa than Arya, in terms of POV, doesn't mean I don't like Arya's chapters, but I prefer Sansa's

[Skagosi High Chef]

My source of Sansa dislike is more disdain for the ridiculous defenses and blame displacement of her questionable actions by her super-fans. To me she is just a character and my dislike of the character grew on this forum, not in the books. For one, Lady's death is ultimately her fault. Joff caused it, Cersei ordered it, Robert OK'd it, Ned executed it, but... all Sansa had to do was tell the truth. She could have told the truth at any point, but she blamed Arya, she blamed Nymeria, she blamed Robert and she blamed Ned. She never blamed Joff or Cersei. She chose her fantasy future over Lady. She knew better. Robert had no real stake and just wanted the situation resolved, Ned's actions were based on his personal sense of honor. What were Sansa's motives. I just don't like misguided justification. Give blame and props where they are due. See things for what they are.

[DrunkSister]

No, she has no reason to even mention Sansa let alone Sansa's role in helping them retain power unless it's true. Yes she's lies and she's nut, but that doesn't mean everything she says is a lie or crazy. In the context of what she says, who she says it to, and what else we know, there is no reason...except to exonerate Sansa...not to believe she's being honest here.

You know, I think she is being 100% honest here, in the same way in which she is being absolutely honest here

I ought to have shown her to the black cells as the daughter of a traitor, but instead I made her part of mine own household. She shared my hearth and hall, played with my own children. I fed her, dressed her, tried to make her a little less ignorant about the world, and how did she repay me for my kindness? She helped murder my son.

and here just before the walk:

I would have made Sansa a good marriage. A Lannister marriage. Not Joff, of course, but Lancel might have suited, or one of his younger brothers. Petyr Baelish had offered to wed the girl himself, she recalled, but of course that was impossible; he was much too lowborn. If Joff had only done as he was told, Winterfell would never have gone to war, and Father would have dealt with Robert’s brothers.

Factually correct, the lot of it.

There is a tread dedicated to crosschecking her lies.

My source of Sansa dislike is more disdain for the ridiculous defenses and blame displacement of her questionable actions by her super-fans. To me she is just a character and my dislike of the character grew on this forum, not in the books. For one, Lady's death is ultimately her fault. Joff caused it, Cersei ordered it, Robert OK'd it, Ned executed it, but... all Sansa had to do was tell the truth. She could have told the truth at any point, but she blamed Arya, she blamed Nymeria, she blamed Robert and she blamed Ned. She never blamed Joff or Cersei. She chose her fantasy future over Lady. She knew better. Robert had no real stake and just wanted the situation resolved, Ned's actions were based on his personal sense of honor. What were Sansa's motives. I just don't like misguided justification. Give blame and props where they are due. See things for what they are.

How about *gasp* you do it? Or at least read the thread?

[butterbumps!]

My source of Sansa dislike is more disdain for the ridiculous defenses and blame displacement of her questionable actions by her super-fans. To me she is just a character and my dislike of the character grew on this forum, not in the books. For one, Lady's death is ultimately her fault. Joff caused it, Cersei ordered it, Robert OK'd it, Ned executed it, but... all Sansa had to do was tell the truth. She could have told the truth at any point, but she blamed Arya, she blamed Nymeria, she blamed Robert and she blamed Ned. She never blamed Joff or Cersei. She chose her fantasy future over Lady. She knew better. Robert had no real stake and just wanted the situation resolved, Ned's actions were based on his personal sense of honor. What were Sansa's motives. I just don't like misguided justification. Give blame and props where they are due. See things for what they are.

Why are you finding a causation between Sansa's omission of testimony during Arya's trial and Cersei's plea to kill Lady? They are two separate things, and that call was going to be made no matter what because a direwolf had, in fact bitten Joff.

Doesn't Ned choose the Lannisters and Robert over his family numerous time, including, but not limited to: not turning back at the Trident, not breaking off the betrothal, not taking Sansa aside to explain the situation, actually killing Lady (and then later regretting he'd done it), gone to Cersei prior to securing his kids?

Why is it ok for Ned's poor choices, borne out of a sense of personal honor, to lead to his family's downfall, but when a girl's misplaced desire for love/ appeasement in an environment without guidance leads to poor choices is worthy of contempt?

Your post is claiming objectivity here ("see things for what they are"), and this is precisely the sort of text manipulation I'm talking about.

[Cas Stark]

You know, I think she is being 100% honest here, in the same way in which she is being absolutely honest here

I ought to have shown her to the black cells as the daughter of a traitor, but instead I made her part of mine own household. She shared my hearth and hall, played with my own children. I fed her, dressed her, tried to make her a little less ignorant about the world, and how did she repay me for my kindness? She helped murder my son.

and here just before the walk:

I would have made Sansa a good marriage. A Lannister marriage. Not Joff, of course, but Lancel might have suited, or one of his younger brothers. Petyr Baelish had offered to wed the girl himself, she recalled, but of course that was impossible; he was much too lowborn. If Joff had only done as he was told, Winterfell would never have gone to war, and Father would have dealt with Robert’s brothers.

Factually correct, the lot of it.

There is a tread dedicated to crosschecking her lies.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but I do think here she is being honest, in her own Cersei way of framing things.

In the first paragraph, everything she lists is technically correct, all of that happened and is true, she only omits that she also allowed Sansa to be beaten and publicly shamed, classic Cersei. In the second paragraph, it also seems accurate, she's a snob herself, and we know that other Lannisters were on the block for the marriage because Tyrion says the same thing. She wouldnt have made a good marriage to help Sansa personally, but would have done to help her house, but in her eyes it would amount to the same thing and Sansa, in her mind, should have been grateful.

[Skagosi High Chef]

How about *gasp* you do it? Or at least read the thread?

I did read the thread. Why all the Sansa hate? I gave my reason. I do think the Sansa character evolved. I also don't hate Sansa, I am just not in the habit of making ridiculous justifications for past actions. So, gasp, catch your breath.

[Cas Stark]

Why are you finding a causation between Sansa's omission of testimony during Arya's trial and Cersei's plea to kill Lady? They are two separate things, and that call was going to be made no matter what because a direwolf had, in fact bitten Joff.

Doesn't Ned choose the Lannisters and Robert over his family numerous time, including, but not limited to: not turning back at the Trident, not breaking off the betrothal, not taking Sansa aside to explain the situation, actually killing Lady (and then later regretting he'd done it), gone to Cersei prior to securing his kids?

Why is it ok for Ned's poor choices, borne out of a sense of personal honor, to lead to his family's downfall, but when a girl's misplaced desire for love/ appeasement in an environment without guidance leads to poor choices is worthy of contempt?

Your post is claiming objectivity here ("see things for what they are"), and this is precisely the sort of text manipulation I'm talking about.

One comes from self sacrifice, the other from selfishness.

Eddard Stark repeatedly does what he does NOT want to do, he does not want to be hand, does not want to south, does not want to kill Lady, but does it all because this is what his code requires of him.

Sansa Stark repeatedly breaks this same code from selfishness to do and get what she wants.

That is the difference unless you want to make the claim that Eddard Stark's sense of honor was really an extreme form of selfish narcissm, which you are free to make, but I don't think it will fly too far.

[Skagosi High Chef]

Why are you finding a causation between Sansa's omission of testimony during Arya's trial and Cersei's plea to kill Lady? They are two separate things, and that call was going to be made no matter what because a direwolf had, in fact bitten Joff.

Doesn't Ned choose the Lannisters and Robert over his family numerous time, including, but not limited to: not turning back at the Trident, not breaking off the betrothal, not taking Sansa aside to explain the situation, actually killing Lady (and then later regretting he'd done it), gone to Cersei prior to securing his kids?

Why is it ok for Ned's poor choices, borne out of a sense of personal honor, to lead to his family's downfall, but when a girl's misplaced desire for love/ appeasement in an environment without guidance leads to poor choices is worthy of contempt?

Your post is claiming objectivity here ("see things for what they are"), and this is precisely the sort of text manipulation I'm talking about.

Had Sansa told the truth, Robert would not have allowed Lady's death sentence. I am not defending Ned's actions, but he was in this situation bound by both fealty and Sansa's lies to go through with the execution. I am also talking about Lady's death only if you read my comment. I don't blame Sansa for the Stark ruination. And this is the kind of desperate justifications I am talking about. You can like Sansa all you want, you can understand why she did what she did, but why justify everything she did and attempt to make her blameless. You seem to blame everyone else easy enough.

[juanml82]

I don't see it that way. The fact he tells us he's heard Sansa's version and he knows the truth, him calling her forward to speak indicates to me that he has coached her on what to say. He's trying to smooth the relationship between his daughter and her future husband and goodmother.

Look Sansa does not hold his actions against him, everything is fine. Please do not hold this unpleasant incident against her. She's going to be a good wife and will be on his side.

I think that when she went to her father and told him that she was scared and upset and drunk and that he will have had to calm her down and explain that she can't stand against her future husband.

But I do not require you to agree.

I'm sorry, but it makes no sense. If Ned wanted Sansa to give a non committal statement, all he had to do was to keep from asking Sansa from testifying. Had someone else asked Sansa to give her version of events and Ned then reinforced it with a "Tell us what happened", then it would make sense.

However, Sansa acting on her own, using her agency as her fans like, makes a lot of sense. Throughout AGOT she has a clear goal: she wants to be Queen. And there is nothing really bad about it. She will have to get married for political reasons, so she might as well marry a pretty kid near her age who, on top, will put her on top of the food chain. And, let's face it, Joffrey's behavior through AGOT is not atypical from other Westerosi nobles. And if her statement was something she decided on her own, it would show a degree of cunning, agency and political objectives.

Because Sansa was very aware she was being disobedient. She said that she felt that morning; "As willful and wicked as Arya." Besides it wasn't betrayal. She didn't know that Cersei was the enemy. Ned never said to her that the Lannisters were the enemy.

And who did she think killed Jory? Yes, Ned could, and should, have been more explicit instead of treating them as five years old, but really?

Sansa wanted to be a Queen. She thought, correctly, that her father was standing on her way and acted to secure her place as Joffrey's betrothed. Her failure to accept unpleasant truths (which she still has, even if she has a clearer picture of the world by AFFC) kept her from properly judging Joffrey and Cersei, despite the evidence to the contrary.

AGOT Sansa (and to a very large degree ACOK and ASOS Sansa as well) wouldn't admit reality even if Reality was dancing naked in front of her eyes.

I don't believe because it makes no sense. How exactly the info that Ned planned to send his daughters back before Robert was even injured could be decisive in helping Cersei organize the coup?

Cersei made it sound as if it was her charm working on Sansa which made the crucial decisive, [probably in order to flatter herself, she probably believes it to a degree, but it doesn't make it true.

GRRM explained in that interview: she knew details about where Ned household members were, how soon Ned planned to leave, which ship they were leaving (which arguably prevents Arya from escaping on it) and the like.

The author of the novels explained it, why are we even discussing it?

Why are you finding a causation between Sansa's omission of testimony during Arya's trial and Cersei's plea to kill Lady? They are two separate things, and that call was going to be made no matter what because a direwolf had, in fact bitten Joff.

Doesn't Ned choose the Lannisters and Robert over his family numerous time, including, but not limited to: not turning back at the Trident, not breaking off the betrothal, not taking Sansa aside to explain the situation, actually killing Lady (and then later regretting he'd done it), gone to Cersei prior to securing his kids?

Why is it ok for Ned's poor choices, borne out of a sense of personal honor, to lead to his family's downfall, but when a girl's misplaced desire for love/ appeasement in an environment without guidance leads to poor choices is worthy of contempt?

Your post is claiming objectivity here ("see things for what they are"), and this is precisely the sort of text manipulation I'm talking about.

If Sansa had corroborated that Nymeria was defending Arya, then Ned has a chance to defend Lady. Robert claims Lady would end up attacking Sansa. With Sansa's testimony, Ned can argue that the direwolves are acting as guard dogs and, thus, are reliable. Even if Lady is spared at Darry, though, she's likely going to get killed when Cersei seizes power.

As for Ned, I have a very low opinion on that warmongering fool, but that's not the character this thread is about.

[David Selig]

GRRM explained in that interview: she knew details about where Ned household members were, how soon Ned planned to leave, which ship they were leaving (which arguably prevents Arya from escaping on it) and the like.

The author of the novels explained it, why are we even discussing it?

Because the explanation doesn't work. Cersei had 2000 gold cloaks and 150 Lannister retainers. Ned had 27 men in total. She didn't need any info where they are to crush them with ease. The info when Arya and Sansa were leaving and on which ship didn't help with the coup either.

[Jasta11]

Yes, undoubtedly foolish.

This is not directed at you, but your post highlights something I think gets missed:

It's frankly a shame that she didn't have a Syrio to grab her by the wrist and give her the breakdown of the situation, thereby thwarting the Cersei talk. If not for Syrio's intervention, Arya saw no issue with going with Lannister men at first in a similar fashion, which would also be classified as "foolish."

Kinda true, but following Lannister soldiers at the queen's orders is a great deal less stupid than seeking out Cercei to tell her about Ned's plans because daddy didn't bend over backwards to feed your teenage fantasies. I'm pretty certain Arya would never have ratted out the plan to anyone no matter how dissapointed she was to leave Syrio behind.