The source of all Sansa-hate

[herr witz]

The person who is, at the root of it, the most responsible for the ruination of the Starks is Robert Baratheon. Wanted to overthrow Aerys, took the throne, had no idea how to handle it once he did, and he deliberately turned a blind eye to the actions of his wife, Joffrey, Jaime, Littlefinger, Slynt, etc. because even thinking about it probably made his thick head hurt. He had the most power to fix all of it and once he realized he had to do something he was completely surrounded by enemies and liars (Barristan an exception). Then he brings in Ned because he finally sees the dagger around the corner. What a doofus.

Sansa was a victim, a bystander and naive to the ways of the world outside the walls of Winterfell. Can't really blame her for anything, she had no idea of what to do other than to sing her pretty little songs.

I really like her development, and I think she'll be a key cog to the end game. She has come a long way, and she IS a weakness for LF. He is ruthless and calculating, but she is an absolute weakness for him.

/rant

edit: Seriously Bobby was an AWFUL king and everything bad that ever happened ever was his fault

[butterbumps!]

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.

How is blindly following a command to kill an innocent party-- a party both he and the king knew were innocent-- rendered "ok" because following that command isn't truly what he wanted to do?

What part of "self sacrifice" was involved in failing to consider the option of turning back and focusing on his daughter's welfare once he got a real glimpse of Joffrey? What part of "honor" was involved in not leveling with Sansa right after the Trident? What part of "honor" is involved in failing to secure his kids on a ship prior to going to Cersei? I don't call this "honor." I call this something closer to neglect and idiocy.

Sansa doesn't "repeatedly" behave selfishly by contrast (because how many times does she actually go to Cersei?). I agree that her prime motive in going to Cersei was because she didn't want to leave KL. I don't believe this would necessarily be a problem if there was no danger-- appealing to your future mother in law about something you want isn't inherently problematic. So I think the real problem is her ignorance of the danger-- it was a blind move as well. Foolish given the consequences.

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.

I firmly disagree that Lady would have been spared. Do you honestly believe that Cersei would have allowed live direwolves to come anywhere near the Red Keep? Even if (an "if" I don't believe, but I'll roll for now) Sansa's testimony changed Lady's fate, how long do you believe it would be until a stay arrow, a hunting accident, some poisoned food brought Lady down? They all knew Lady wasn't the direwolf in question and killed her anyway; what good could Sansa's saying Nym bit Joff in defense of Arya going to do?

Look, I honestly don't see Sansa's lack of testimony resulting in Lady's loss of life. I think the blame rests on the adults. I think Sansa's lack of testimony is a disappointing moment as a reader, because I wanted her to publicly speak against that shithead. In terms of what happened to Lady specifically, I think both girls are blameless.

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.

I firmly disagree that Lady would have been spared. Do you honestly believe that Cersei would have allowed live direwolves to come anywhere near the Red Keep? Even if (an "if" I don't believe, but I'll roll for now) Sansa's testimony changed Lady's fate, how long do you believe it would be until a stay arrow, a hunting accident, some poisoned food brought Lady down? They all knew Lady wasn't the direwolf in question and killed her anyway; what good could Sansa's saying Nym bit Joff in defense of Arya going to do?

wrt Ned: This thread is called "the source of all Sansa hate." Given that people have listed reasons for hating Sansa that Ned performs adjacently to her, it is quite reasonable to inquire if the same standard is being used in determining hate based on these stated reasons. The thread is about teasing out the source of hate, so if people list reasons for hating her that another character also does and is not hated by the poster, then it means that the reasons they cited for hating her are not truly the reasons. Which seems pretty apropos to the thread devoted to figuring out where the hate comes from, don't you think?

And, as I said, unless "I hate Tyrion because he's a 13 year old rapist" should start flying in Tyrion threads, then it seems hugely unreasonable to not take into account Ned's tacit approval of the Lannisters and the way his handling of these situations are part of what has influenced Sansa's mindset. He's setting an example of appeasing the Lannisters, seemingly taking their side after the Trident, for example. It seems a bit silly to condemn Sansa for continuing to fancy Joff when Ned's given no indication that she should do anything otherwise, especially because the expectation of marriage is still on her.

[WhiteWalder]

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

I don't think anybody is arguing that about Joffrey's order. Just that Sansa betrayed her father to Cersei and Ned would never have confessed to treason if not for her. He would have not been in the situation if not for Sansa. By situation - I mean Ned being put on public display for treason and giving Joff the opportunity to make the decision. Ned is still in the black cells or going to the NW if not for Sansa. In retrospect, Sansa for sure had a hand in Ned's death. It is a great reason for people to hate Sansa.

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.

I didn't take it as being called out. Was just giving a recent example of the generalization I made. I love reading your arguments because they are usually prudent and you like to use a thing I like to call common sense. My statement would have been less generalized if I went back to a rethinking Sansa thread or the like, and counted how many times I have heard the argument that "Sansa did go to Cersei, but....", or "Sansa did lie about her sister, but..." The arguments happen quite often in Sansa's defense. It's like one should absolve Sansa for being naïve. She still caused the problems no matter of intention.

[DrunkSister]

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.

So the little fact that many of your claims have been thoroughly, thoroughly debunked as untrue had no bearing on your opinions?

[Woman of War]

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.........

This counts for me too and actually it is sad since Sansa certainly has been wonderfully created by Martin and has a distinctive role in the books. Though not the one some of her fans want to see her in: the girl next door turned into Superwoman, the female character who is more worthy of feminist analysis than any other ASOIAF character, no matter how brilliant the other female characters are.

If Sansa has a huge story impact it will probably be due to an unexpected and not fully intended and understood move, the coincidence that has gigantic implications. Or the small remark, the tiny yet careful observation that may change the game. No, Sansa may never be the player and yet she, like any carefully shaped character, may make all the difference: the butterfly who bats its wings and the world turns upside down.

I see Sansa as observer, as translator between Martinworld and ours, as someone to whom Martin's world is nearly as unknown and alien as to us. She cannot understand too much since she is not supposed to spoonfeed deductions to us, we are invited by Martin to draw our own conclusions. And we are invited to learn together with her. So far her learning may at times be frustratingly slow but even those who have not been fascinated by her so far believe that her story will take up speed. I guess at some point of the story I will be hooked, love her and it won't bother me if she turns much darker.

And let's not forget that she got some of the best chapters in the books, the wedding night chapter in all its touching awkwardness and misery, or the snow poetry at The Eyrie.

[Cas Stark]

Has anyone ever collected all of the crazy Sansa exoneration theories in one place?

• Ned called her to testify about what happened at Trident with the expectation that she would lie.
  
• She was too drunk to know what happened at the Trident/alternately too hung over to remember what happened.
  
• Bob would have killed the wolf no matter what anyone said or did.
  
• Ned's loyalty to his best friend is the same as Sansa's loyalty to Joff.
  
• Sansa went to Cersei because she thought there had been some kind of misunderstanding, nothing to do with her desire to wed Joff.
  
• Despite what Cersei and GRRM said, Sansa going to the queen had nothing at all to do with anything bad happening to her family.
  
• Calling her sister a traitor before the queen isn't betraying her family.
  

Those are off the top of my head, LOL.

[Skagosi High Chef]

I firmly disagree that Lady would have been spared. Do you honestly believe that Cersei would have allowed live direwolves to come anywhere near the Red Keep? Even if (an "if" I don't believe, but I'll roll for now) Sansa's testimony changed Lady's fate, how long do you believe it would be until a stay arrow, a hunting accident, some poisoned food brought Lady down? They all knew Lady wasn't the direwolf in question and killed her anyway; what good could Sansa's saying Nym bit Joff in defense of Arya going to do?

Look, I honestly don't see Sansa's lack of testimony resulting in Lady's loss of life. I think the blame rests on the adults. I think Sansa's lack of testimony is a disappointing moment as a reader, because I wanted her to publicly speak against that shithead. In terms of what happened to Lady specifically, I think both girls are blameless.

I firmly disagree that Lady would have been spared. Do you honestly believe that Cersei would have allowed live direwolves to come anywhere near the Red Keep? Even if (an "if" I don't believe, but I'll roll for now) Sansa's testimony changed Lady's fate, how long do you believe it would be until a stay arrow, a hunting accident, some poisoned food brought Lady down? They all knew Lady wasn't the direwolf in question and killed her anyway; what good could Sansa's saying Nym bit Joff in defense of Arya going to do?

I think Lady would have been sent back had Joff been blamed.

@Mirijam: Just because someone opposes a theory it is not automatically debunked.

[David Selig]

I don't think anybody is arguing that about Joffrey's order. Just that Sansa betrayed her father to Cersei and Ned would never have confessed to treason if not for her. He would have not been in the situation if not for Sansa. By situation - I mean Ned being put on public display for treason and giving Joff the opportunity to make the decision. Ned is still in the black cells or going to the NW if not for Sansa. In retrospect, Sansa for sure had a hand in Ned's death. It is a great reason for people to hate Sansa.

Yeah, let's the blame the victim, that's a great reason for hate...

[The Mother of The Others]

It's an analogy, not a jape or a jab but a journey of the mind:

Bran is a tree, while Sansa is a little bird perched on a precarious branch of the tree of life. Femme readers want to feel more at home in this desolate land they've been given to read about, so they fixate on this branch of the story that feels most like home, most familiar to their own worldly experience, and they set to work building a nest for Sansa. Meaning that they take the story details, the detritus of so many pages, and fidget with the narrative here and there to arrange it all into a nesting ground they can feel proud of, a place within the story where their minds can be at ease despite the larger turmoil of Westeros. So from this Sansa focus we get lots of clarifying and eagle-eye spotting of details by readers who've taken wing on winds of Sansa while bustling to take the character safely under their wing. It takes them to lofty places, and it leads to some revisionist tendencies as well, which is what sometimes sparks wildfires in the internet forest. But fires are a part of nature. Just as it's generally encouraged for each reader to make what they will of a story, make it their own. As a lord might claim first dibs on someone's wedding night according to the old ways, so the reader is given dibs on claiming whatever insights they can gleam. The writer wrote it but then he sold it so it's the reader's book now and we get to decide the significance of things we find therein. It gets a little weird when many people's personal driftings are then brought together to meet on a chatboard and share the spotlight (or compete for it). Still, it hasn't resulted in chaos. There's not 1000 ships charting 1000 different courses here. Because those who ship Sansa to safe harbor do it for similar reasons, they generally captain each of their ships to similar ports (conclusions), a floatilla of readership sailing the stormy internet seas together, with some drift to be expected like what happened to Victarion's fleet. Some of his ships landed on distant beaches in Essos because they experienced the storms differently. Currently they're separated by currents, but they remain united in purpose. The divide isn't real. They'll eventually seek each other out again and be on the same page. ...Then you've got ships which really are charting a different course, like that Aurane guy's dromonds. If he encountered Sansa he'd likely ship her to a different port, sell her back into the queen's clutches, etc. Or Sallador might try to recoup his losses by taking Sansa back to the north and hinting that a reward would be [Tony the Tiger] Grrrrreat! These characters, like many readers, chose different nesting grounds in which to hatch their eggs of allegiance. So when all of us big birds migrate onto the web to waddle and squawk together in the same crowded squishy marshlands (topics), it's a big 'ol chirp fest.

[Cas Stark]

What part of "self sacrifice" was involved in failing to consider the option of turning back and focusing on his daughter's welfare once he got a real glimpse of Joffrey? What part of "honor" was involved in not leveling with Sansa right after the Trident? What part of "honor" is involved in failing to secure his kids on a ship prior to going to Cersei? I don't call this "honor." I call this something closer to neglect and idiocy.

You are conflating two things.

Ned makes several mistakes, mostly by under-estimating the treachery of his enemies. He moves too slowly and attempts to preserve the appearance of normalcy, e.g. everyone continues on to KL, while he is trying to determine the facts and correct course of action. This has nothing to do with honor v. selfishness. This is a result of being Eddard Stark, Lord of Winterfell whose family has been ruling the North for the sum total of what would amount to most of recorded human history for us. He's not used to treachery or disloyalty, especially to such an extent that mercy should be repaid with death. This is a grievous error that destroy his house and his family.

However, in the scheme of things, from a purely strategic standpoint, sending the girls back to KL at the Trident would be bad politics. And the same with breaking the engagement. The marriage wasn't going to take place for YEARS yet, so he is safer to leave it as it is until he knows what he's going to do.

There is no excuse but over confidence and the author conspiring against him that he told Cersei his plan before he sent the girls away.

[DrunkSister]

Skagosi High Chef

So, instead of arguing the evidence presented, you just reiterate your own opinion? Well, it is a good tactic, you can't be proven wrong if you refuse to argue your points.

I don't think anybody is arguing that about Joffrey's order. Just that Sansa betrayed her father to Cersei and Ned would never have confessed to treason if not for her. He would have not been in the situation if not for Sansa. By situation - I mean Ned being put on public display for treason and giving Joff the opportunity to make the decision. Ned is still in the black cells or going to the NW if not for Sansa. In retrospect, Sansa for sure had a hand in Ned's death. It is a great reason for people to hate Sansa.

So, basically, she played a miniscule part in his demise, therefore she is totally to blame for all of it, and that is good enough reason to hate her. Okay... Seems legit.

Have you noticed if people also hate Littlefinger? How about Varys? How about Eddard? Robert? Or is it just an 11yo girl that is so deserving? Cause I don't see many 'the source of all eddard/littlefinger/varys hate' treads I have to say. And they all played a greater part in Ned's death.

snip

Whatever you are on, I want some. Please?

[butterbumps!]

I didn't take it as being called out. Was just giving a recent example of the generalization I made. I love reading your arguments because they are usually prudent and you like to use a thing I like to call common sense. My statement would have been less generalized if I went back to a rethinking Sansa thread or the like, and counted how many times I have heard the argument that "Sansa did go to Cersei, but....", or "Sansa did lie about her sister, but..." The arguments happen quite often in Sansa's defense. It's like one should absolve Sansa for being naïve. She still caused the problems no matter of intention.

Well-- and I think you might have mentioned it in that first post you made, too-- is that the "X character did Y, but..." statement is ubiquitous in every character thread. I'm sure I've used this clause (and for a number of other characters as well), so speaking as a "user," I want to specify that I use that phraseology not as an excuse, but to denote that I find something non-objectionable despite whatever it is. As in, "I wish Sansa did testify, but I find it forgivable in context."

I think Lady would have been sent back had Joff been blamed.

I doubt this very much, but am curious why you see this causality (genuinely).

You are conflating two things.

Actually, no, I was trying to delaminate the issues. You alleged that Ned blundered due to the selflessness of honor, while Sansa "repeatedly" blunders due to selfishness. I can attribute one of Ned's blunders to honor (the Lady killing). The rest I mentioned aren't due to selflessness but neglect and a failure to understand the danger, with a touch of idiocy. Sansa blunders once (going to Cersei), and while I agree this has a large self-interest component to it, the mere fact that she appealed to Cersei out of self-interest isn't inherently problematic. The problem is that Cersei was a danger, and Sansa, like Ned, didn't understand the extent of it.

If you find it more forgivable to act out of idiocy/ neglect/ naivity than self-interest combined with naivity in all circumstances, regardless of the character's ignorance of the resultant danger, then that's perfectly fine if you find the fact that Sansa stumbled into danger due to personal desire reprehensible. If you find other cases where self-interest and failure to see danger more forgivable, then I'd say that there's still some yet-unarticulated issue at stake wrt this Sansa case.

Ned makes several mistakes, mostly by under-estimating the treachery of his enemies. He moves too slowly and attempts to preserve the appearance of normalcy, e.g. everyone continues on to KL, while he is trying to determine the facts and correct course of action. This has nothing to do with honor v. selfishness. This is a result of being Eddard Stark, Lord of Winterfell whose family has been ruling the North for the sum total of what would amount to most of recorded human history for us. He's not used to treachery or disloyalty, especially to such an extent that mercy should be repaid with death. This is a grievous error that destroy his house and his family.

Whose making crazy excuses now? So Ned can blunder his way into oblivion, because, hey guys, he's not used to treachery or disloyalty! (but Sansa should know that Cersei = treachery and disloyalty?)

However, in the scheme of things, from a purely strategic standpoint, sending the girls back to KL at the Trident would be bad politics. And the same with breaking the engagement. The marriage wasn't going to take place for YEARS yet, so he is safer to leave it as it is until he knows what he's going to do.

So, if politics trump the morally correct thing to do (send both girls and Lady back to Winterfell), then Sansa's political neutrality in abstaining from testimony is a good thing?

There is no excuse but over confidence and the author conspiring against him that he told Cersei his plan before he sent the girls away.

The author conspires against Ned? Am I reading this correctly? Overconfidence and Martin conspiring against Ned are what led Ned to confront Cersei before sending his family to safety?

[The Abominable SnowOther]

Sansa is Ludovica (yep i went there)

[MasterJack]

Skagosi High Chef

So, instead of arguing the evidence presented, you just reiterate your own opinion? Well, it is a good tactic, you can't be proven wrong if you refuse to argue your points.

So, basically, she played a miniscule part in his demise, therefore she is totally to blame for all of it, and that is good enough reason to hate her. Okay... Seems legit.

Have you noticed if people also hate Littlefinger? How about Varys? How about Eddard? Robert? Or is it just an 11yo girl that is so deserving? Cause I don't see many 'the source of all eddard/littlefinger/varys hate' treads I have to say. And they all played a greater part in Ned's death.

Whatever you are on, I want some. Please?

Her minuscule part seems way bigger since she is family. The others, who played a bigger part, owed nothing to Ned. So I understand both point of view.

[WhiteWalder]

Yeah, let's the blame the victim, that's a great reason for hate...

Again, making my argument even more. Sansa is absolved for "being the victim" . Whether or not one sees her as a victim or just dumb, she still betrayed her family.

[Cas Stark]

Well-- and I think you might have mentioned it in that first post you made, too-- is that the "X character did Y, but..." statement is ubiquitous in every character thread. I'm sure I've used this clause (and for a number of other characters as well), so speaking as a "user," I want to specify that I use that phraseology not as an excuse, but to denote that I find something non-objectionable despite whatever it is. As in, "I wish Sansa did testify, but I find it forgivable in context."

I doubt this very much, but am curious why you see this causality (genuinely).

Actually, no, I was trying to delaminate the issues. You alleged that Ned blundered due to the selflessness of honor, while Sansa "repeatedly" blunders do to selfishness. I can attribute one of Ned's blunders to honor (the Lady killing). The rest I mentioned aren't due to selflessness but neglect and a failure to understand the danger, with a touch of idiocy. Sansa blunders once (going to Cersei), and while I agree this has a large self-interest component to it, the mere fact that she appealed to Cersei out of self-interest isn't inherently problematic. The problem is that Cersei was a danger, and Sansa, like Ned, didn't understand the extent of it.

If you find it more forgivable to act out of idiocy/ neglect/ naivity than self-interest combined with naivity in all circumstances, regardless of the character's ignorance of the resultant danger, then that's perfectly fine if you find the fact that Sansa stumbled into danger due to personal desire reprehensible. If you find other cases where self-interest and failure to see danger more forgivable, then I'd say that there's still some yet-unarticulated issue at stake wrt this Sansa case.

Whose making crazy excuses now? So Ned can blunder his way into oblivion, because, hey guys, he's not used to treachery or disloyalty!

So, if politics trump the morally correct thing to do (send both girls and Lady back to Winterfell), then Sansa's political neutrality in abstaining from testimony is a good thing?

The author conspires against Ned? Am I reading this correctly? Overconfidence and Martin conspiring against Ned are what led Ned to confront Cersei before sending his family to safety?

Sansa is supposed to be loyal to her family and her House. Lying when her father calls her to tell the truth is clearly disloyal, I don't see what is so difficult to understand about this.

I realize you want to create and have created these elaborate Ned/Sansa parallels where we have a high lord trying to negotiate the political landscape of the realm with a teenage girl acting out...but I don't find them convincing, I find them very strained, so we might as well end this here.

Yes, the author created a ridiculous set of bad luck in order to destroy Ned. His super obedient daughter goes off the reservation. Cersei's crackpot plan to feed her husband strong wine in the lame hope he'll die in a hunting accident actually works. Ned refuses Renlys help. Ned refuses to listen to LF. LF betrays Ned despite his alleged love for Cat. LOL. And then to top it all off, somehow the nut job boy king is allowed to start a war by beheaded him at the sept.

[juanml82]

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.

If Sansa hadn't talked to Cersei, Cersei wouldn't know how fast Ned was planning to act and might not have trusted Littlefinger either. Give it a few hours, the Stark household is reunited at some place Cersei doesn't know about and doesn't want to, still, openly look for. Whoever is in charge is given strict orders to leave, Arya says she knows a secret way and, seeing how tense the situation is, the Stark household leaves the Red Keep without Cersei being able to stop them, and maybe even without her (immediate knowledge).

Ned will try to use the Goldcloaks to confront Cersei and fail. But by then, his entire household, including both his daughters, are sailing through the Blackwater in an unknown ship which is also planning to make a pit stop at Dragonstone. Stannis dispatches Ned's own letter to Winterfell. And that doesn't even take into account the possibility of Ned forcing Maester Pycelle to send his letters and commands, addressed as Lord Protector, to all the High Lords of Westeros (but then again, that requires Ned to think).

If they guy who writes the books say something, it's for a reason.

[ghosts in winterfell]

I find it quite interesting that Sansa is villified for not siding with her family while Theon is villified for doing to exact opposite. Hmmm.....

[Jasta11]

If Sansa hadn't talked to Cersei, Cersei wouldn't know how fast Ned was planning to act and might not have trusted Littlefinger either. Give it a few hours, the Stark household is reunited at some place Cersei doesn't know about and doesn't want to, still, openly look for. Whoever is in charge is given strict orders to leave, Arya says she knows a secret way and, seeing how tense the situation is, the Stark household leaves the Red Keep without Cersei being able to stop them, and maybe even without her (immediate knowledge).

Ned will try to use the Goldcloaks to confront Cersei and fail. But by then, his entire household, including both his daughters, are sailing through the Blackwater in an unknown ship which is also planning to make a pit stop at Dragonstone. Stannis dispatches Ned's own letter to Winterfell. And that doesn't even take into account the possibility of Ned forcing Maester Pycelle to send his letters and commands, addressed as Lord Protector, to all the High Lords of Westeros (but then again, that requires Ned to think).

If they guy who writes the books say something, it's for a reason.

Yeah, I do think if Martin explicitely says it helped we pretty much have to accept it did. He's the ultimate authority on such matters.

[DrunkSister]

Her minuscule part seems way bigger since she is family. The others, who played a bigger part, owed nothing to Ned. So I understand both point of view.

I still find it weird that Sansa (11yo kid) is hated with such passion and that a perving, corrupt slavers and traitors are not.

We don't have 3 'I hate Littlefinger' treads per week, and he set up Jeyne as a sex slave and Ramsay's bride. He lied, manipulated and murdered. He set up the whole war in motion for shit and giggles.

Or Varys: owns slaves, lies and manipulates, destabilizes 7K and causes several wars so that he can put a king of his own choosing on top.

There is a Jon reread ongoing where people are trying to look at Janos Slynt sympathetically.

I have tried to compare Sansa to Eddard, not because I blame Eddard but because if we were to measure him with the same measure Sansa is constantly held against, he would not come out looking good. And he is the adult, he is a lord, protector of north, king's hand etc. etc.

But there are 0 treads that tell how he was a horrible person and it is great to hate him. People jump to his defence.

I don't understand both points of view.