Jump to content

Archived

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

Cavendish

Sansa is not a Stark

Recommended Posts

I do think Lady's death may mean that Sansa will lose her Stark-identity(if she already hasn't); {snipped}

Sansa hasn't lost her Stark identity at all. Her identification as a Stark is strengthening and she is re-asserting it more and more, thinking of her parents and her brother and constantly reminding herself to be brave like them. Like Arya, she can't shake off her Stark roots.

It's the one thing, more than any other, that is keeping her from finally succumbing to Littlefinger's views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





That hardly makes it mysgonistic. That word seems to be a fan favorite for several sansanistas. It's a rather lazy way to respond to a POV you don't agree with.





Oh, come on... Sansanistas (I suppose Sansa fans) are the ones who almost never play misogyny card. But when you use "Sansa Lannister", as a term that has no basis in the series, as one of hits to Sansa for not being Arya or not "Stark enough" which apparently is the coolness factor here solely because she is not Arya, with the usual forceful marriage/rape danger connotation it has, you don;t have to be "lazy" to name it as it is.






Well yeah, didn't you know they're the same exact thing?





Don't get me in trouble. ;)







Actually he says there's no consistent approach. But either way, being wrong doesn't make you mysoginistic, especially when the error (if there is one) isn't meant to be destructive to women. That's my point. The OP isn't showing hatred or mistreatment to Sansa because she is a woman. That just doesn't fly in this instance. The OP is very well thought out and presents one opinion based on the reading of the text. That's all. The fact that it's a different opinion from other posters doesn't make it mysogistic. Enough of that already.





I generally don't find everything misogynist and have been one of the loudest criticizers of Dany fans doing so, but I do find "Sansa Lannister" argumentation deeply misogynist. Not all Sansa criticism/arguments are misogynist, but I believe this one to be.






One has to blind or mentally incapable not to notice Stannis's intentions by naming Sansa "Lady Lannister." Curious that he doesn't name Arya "Lady Bolton" when he's gathering support to "free" her.





Amen. Stannis is being deeply hypocritical regarding this because in his "rightful heir" quests, he is OK changing laws when it doesn't suit him. And I still wait for all these technicality-oriented readers to start using "Arya Bolton"... Which will never happen, and which is why "Sansa Lannister" is deeply rooted in Sansa hate.






Good point, but I think that is different.The direwolves seem to exist as a metaphor for the Stark children. That isn't to say that previous Starks without a direwolf weren't Starks, but that these particular children were bonded to plot driven pets at a young age. It is simply a writing technique to portray the fate of the Starks, as well as the effect it has on them.



Out of those who do have direwolves, we of course have Sansa, along with Robb, Jon, Arya, Bran and Rickon. On the face of it, one could say that Greywind is dead and so is Robb- creating the link. But it goes deeper than that. Robb rejected his bond to Greywind in many ways, isolating him from his wolf. I feel that here Martin showed us (and pushed home in Cat's POV) the importance of keeping the wolves around, and the dangers of neglecting the bond (I'll come back to this later). Jon and Ghost have a similar connection, and it is interesting to note that Jon would have been killed by the wildlings before returning to Castle Black after he sent away Ghost had it not been for Bran and Summer turning up.



The relationship between Bran and Summer is obvious to all, what with Bran fully realising his warging powers. Bran kmew to keep Summer close, and even Robb realised that the mere sound of him howling was enough to raise Bran's vitals whilst in his coma. Finally we have Rickon. I actually feel that Rickon has gone the other way, and is losing to his wolf in terms of become more like the beast than the man, something both Jojen and Bloodraven warned Bran about. This is something that I can't really allow to back up my point until we discover whether or not Rickon has been eaten by Skagosi cannibals, but I doubt that is the case!



As to whether she'll die, I don't think she'll die in WOW, but I do think she'll go in ADOS. I pray I'm wrong, but I feel that she will really make a massive impact on the last two books, before dying at the end. As to why this will be, I feel (althought once again I'd be happy to be wrong) that she will become one of the people she hates the most- A cold hearted player of the game- and will be brought down by the people she started out trying to protect. I have no evidence for that bit, but I think it would be a logical turn of events what with how she is morphing into Littlefinger V2.



Thanks, and I see your point. As this theory suggests, Sansa does not have to die to compensate the loss of her direwolf, but something has to happen to make her at the very least lose the part of her that came from her Stark background.


I bow to your wisdom.





First, I like this line... Not an argument. Just a reminder.



Second, Sansa will never be LF V.2 or Cersei v.2 or whatever ruthless person you have in mind. We are talking about person with perhaps strongest identity in the series, the one who endured the daily tortures to renounce it and still remained it. I have seen people arguing that Sansa hates her family because she was repeating "treasonous family" to Joffrey. This is someone who felt remorse for Margaery, for Dontos, for Lancel, FFS. Sansa will most likely end up not being white as pure snow, but there is whole world between that and LF. Also, being player doesn't necessarily mean being the shittiest person in the world. Game can be played by being sweet and kind and good. Just look at Tyrells' game in KL.



You have to understand that there are many reasons, or that GRRM intended many things with Lady's death. And the debate can go in many different directions. All I am saying is that GRRM have kept Sansa and built her character for something. You don't do that if you are going to kill your character. And if she is "dead woman walking", he could have killed her with Ned and the "no life without direwolf" would have its meaning. That said, she can die after doing something great, but I don't think so. Her story is about staying alive.






Will someone tell me what exactly a ''Stark'' is? Because this recent lot seem nothing like the ones in the world book, so is this entire generation not Starks? Or were the previous countless generation not Starks and only Ned and his kids are the true Starks? Is a Stark only someone with a wolf or wolf's blood?





It is the cool factor. No one here wants to question whether Bran, who wanted to be a knight is a Stark. Or how both Ned and Brandon, basically two completely different persons are both Starks. Or how Sansa, who is most like Ned psychologically, is not Stark. It is all about the coolness factor, The cooler you are, the more Stark you get.






I do think Lady's death may mean that Sansa will lose her Stark-identity(if she already hasn't); however, I don't believe that direwolves specifically represent Stark-identity. The direwolf represents the Starks in a more broad sense. In this way the Starks not having direwolves for centuries can mean that something fundamental to the family has been lost or forgotten.







When I see things being built from snow, normally they are left standing. They are left there through the winter and they melt away when the weather warms. Sansa needed Littlefinger's help to build the castle and it was destroyed in the same scene that it was made; this left me with the impression that the castle scene was negative.





Sansa's identity as Stark has been reiterating itself throughout the books. The snow castle scene is just a wonderful example. And if you are going to use seasonal metaphors, then winter is coming, which means that the snow castle she built is staying. Furthermore, Winterfell is destroyed, remember.




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sansa hasn't lost her Stark identity at all. Her identification as a Stark is strengthening and she is re-asserting it more and more, thinking of her parents and her brother and constantly reminding herself to be brave like them. Like Arya, she can't shake off her Stark roots.

It's the one thing, more than any other, that is keeping her from finally succumbing to Littlefinger's views.

At all is an exaggeration. She like other characters such as Arya or Theon (though Theon's case of identity crisis is far worse) does have a sort of identity crisis. That being said her identity crisis doesn't mean she has lost her Stark identity. There is a certain struggle which is good because struggle and imperfections are interesting and not boring.

In Sansa's case, based on her situation, all the things she suffered from, the fact that most of her family is dead and she has to hide her identity and become someone else, the way a skilled manipulator such as LF is pushing the Alayne identity on her, it also wouldn't make that much sense if there was no identity crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I like this line... Not an argument. Just a reminder.

Second, Sansa will never be LF V.2 or Cersei v.2 or whatever ruthless person you have in mind. We are talking about person with perhaps strongest identity in the series, the one who endured the daily tortures to renounce it and still remained it. I have seen people arguing that Sansa hates her family because she was repeating "treasonous family" to Joffrey. This is someone who felt remorse for Margaery, for Dontos, for Lancel, FFS. Sansa will most likely end up not being white as pure snow, but there is whole world between that and LF. Also, being player doesn't necessarily mean being the shittiest person in the world. Game can be played by being sweet and kind and good. Just look at Tyrells' game in KL.

You have to understand that there are many reasons, or that GRRM intended many things with Lady's death. And the debate can go in many different directions. All I am saying is that GRRM have kept Sansa and built her character for something. You don't do that if you are going to kill your character. And if she is "dead woman walking", he could have killed her with Ned and the "no life without direwolf" would have its meaning. That said, she can die after doing something great, but I don't think so. Her story is about staying alive.

As to the first part, it is a very good line (and also a great way to start your point)! I just hope Tyrion's right!

Now for your second point. As stated, I do have no evidence for this, it is purely my prediction. I guess that my reasoning for this is that whilst it would be nice for Sansa to overcome opposition in an overall good way, I feel that she will learn from Ned's mistakes (and Littlefinger's successes) that you have to 'play dirty' to win. Perhaps she won't die, but I don't think she'll be regarded as a good person by the end. That said, I do stand by my view that she won't make it. I JUST DON'T WANT TO HAVE MY HEART BROKEN IF SHE DIES!

I completely agree with your third point. He killed Lady off before he even drove home how immensely important she was to Sansa's story. there are so many ways it could go, that (as can be seen) people end up with wildly different view points that will not be proven right or wrong until maybe as far as ADOS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who wants to marry her for love as Alayne would also marry her for love as Sansa, so why exactly would she need to remain Alayne in order to have someone want to marry her for love? Assuming that she's able to see through their motives, of course. The issue is whether she has enough power to decide who she will or will not marry, and not have others treat her as pawn. Being a bastard doesn't give you a lot of power, either, she saw that when Marillion tried to rape her - and if she had not been under LF's protection and therefore had Brune to defend her, she would have fared no better than the other servants that Marillion tried to rape. ASOIAF is not a series that romanticizes the position and life of lower classes. And as LF's "natural daughter", she is still not safe from people trying to marry her off - LF is doing that with the Harry the Heir plan.

Considering the Snow Castle scene, her memories of Winterfell and her famioy, "I'm stronger within the walls of Winterfell", Sansa asserting in her internal thoughts she is Eddard Stark's daughter and "blood of Winterfell", references to wolves and Jon in her latest chapter, I really don't see her deciding to give up her Stark identity for good.

Well the point was that she marry for love AND inherit LF's finances. She could very well complete the reconstruction and live in Winterfell; everyone who matters knows who she truly is. It doesn't matter what everyone calls her as long as she remembers who she truly is.

If you recall Myranda Royce said that her father tried to arrange a match for Mya Stone, but she refused, so bastards do have some power here. As for Harry, I really doubt the match will happen, remember that she needs to seduce him, otherwise no sale, and since Alayne isn't particularly thrilled about her betrothal I doubt her heart would be in it. LF foiled Varys' plan on betrothing Sansa to Willas Tyrell, maybe Varys will foil LF's plan to marry Alayne Stone with Harrold Hardyng... after all the mad mouse is there for a reason.

Another bonus would be that she wouldn't have to deal with the whole unpleasantness of dissolving her marriage to Tyrion; remember Sansa's wanted for regicide and the current High Septon isn't the most cooperative of lads. Alayne is single and has never been near KL.

Her remaining as Baelish's only child would also work in to the self sacrifice theme and the whole secret identities phenomena that's been going around.

I'm not saying it will happen, but it definitely could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read a word beyond the OP's title, but can safely say 2 things:

1) OP, duck.

2) whatever the content of the OP, I can almost guarantee this will become a discussion involving gender bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, just read the OP.

Firstly, I've avoided tumblr/reddit so the format was a trifle confusing. That said, it's a well constructed argument. I don't agree with the extent of the conclusion, though. I don't think Sansa stops being a Stark, but I do think she is distinguished from her siblings in a significant way by Lady's death. 'Adrift' was the term used at one point, with which I agree in so far as it relates to the loss of a connective part of the pack/herself as it seems to be with her brothers and sisters.

I think GRRM is intentionally differentiating her from her siblings, yes. The mistake is in assuming that her siblings represent Starkness. They don't. They are a new thing so far as we know. They may in fact be Un-Stark, as they mostly take after Ned and Cat, neither of whom seem to be typical Starks. Cat's a Northernized Tully and Ned's more Jon Arryn than any of his mentioned ancestors. Rickon might end up the most typical Stark, I guess.

So Lady's death is, I believe, a fully formed comment distancing Sansa from her brothers and sisters, but not from being a Stark. Stannis' 'Lady Lannister' is Stannis' didactic version, I am sure it reflects a lot of opinion from those who barely care, but it's not reflective of a narrative truth. Westeros might indeed see her as compromised, but Westeros is wrong about a lot.

So, nice argument...not all that novel but well presented, but it stumbles. I think you are onto something about her losing an important aspect/connection with Lady's death, but I think the leap to labelling that something 'Starkness' is where you fall down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sansa is as much a Stark as the rest. If anything she becomes more Stark like as the books progress.

Lady's death for me foreshadows her death, an act of mercy by someone with her fathers features (I'm betting more on Arya than Jon).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secret Targaryen?

:rofl:

Oh no, not another one!

Sansa did make a wolf connection when she descended from the Eyrie with Sweetrobin, so she hasn't completely lost connection with her wolf nature. Life after death is a theme of just about any religion and GRRM may be making a subtle connection here with Lady's bones being in Winterfell's lichyard...in that case she's the only direwolf currently in Winterfell. I have also seen other people here mention that Bran came out of his coma when Lady was killed, so the element of sacrifice was brought up.

I have only read the books twice and didn't specifically look for those connections when I did so I may be all over the place with this. I do find it worth considering that Sansa could be connecting with Winterfell through Lady's bones tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arya would not kill Sansa. They don't like each other, that doesn't mean they don't love each other. Arya is more likely to be sent to off Jon after word gets to the FM that he 'rose from the dead'.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will someone tell me what exactly a ''Stark'' is? Because this recent lot seem nothing like the ones in the world book, so is this entire generation not Starks? Or were the previous countless generation not Starks and only Ned and his kids are the true Starks? Is a Stark only someone with a wolf or wolf's blood?

A few years back I started a topic on "Starkness" to get some discussion going on what qualities go into that. The main reason was that so many people held Ned up as the example of what a Stark is, ignoring the fact that he was so different from Brandon, Rickard, and the old Kings in the North. Lots of opinions were expressed; none were overridingly persuasive.

Things haven't changed. Everybody seems to use his own definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will someone tell me what exactly a ''Stark'' is? Because this recent lot seem nothing like the ones in the world book, so is this entire generation not Starks? Or were the previous countless generation not Starks and only Ned and his kids are the true Starks?

It is really simple. The Starks which you like best are True Starks. The rests are pretenders and losers who don't deserve that glorious name.

Hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years back I started a topic on "Starkness" to get some discussion going on what qualities go into that. The main reason was that so many people held Ned up as the example of what a Stark is, ignoring the fact that he was so different from Brandon, Rickard, and the old Kings in the North.

This. What the readers know about the Starks for the most part is identified by Ned. His actions, thoughts and beliefs. He definitely mentions that there is the more wild Starks but the fact that he makes that distinction all the more cements that for this series, he's what most readers refer to when they say "acts like a Stark". The truth is more than likely there were many different personalities but it does seem safe to say the values of honesty, loyalty - especially to family, and tenacity - especially when difficult choices must be made - are what most think of when they mean when they say "Starkness". Is this what all Starks were like? NO! But it's the measure we tend to use for them because it's what Ned valued. I'd argue that is what Martin considers them to be Stark values, too, since it's meant to shock the reader when the Starks do things that counter the 3 traits I mentioned. We're meant to see it as they character is becoming more grey when they are dishonest or disloyal. That is not what we "think" of when we think of Starks even though I'm sure history has had dishonest and disloyal Starks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is really simple. The Starks which you like best are True Starks. The rests are pretenders and losers who don't deserve that glorious name.

Hope that helps.

Does it have to be this complicated? Arya and Sansa have been through hell, and are now under FM/LF who demand that they change, and not in entirely healthy ways. I don't want Arya to turn into a FM any more than I want Sansa to turn into LF. Arya still has her wolf and her Needle, and might have an easier time resisting than Sansa, whose wolf is dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Sansa was a Stark once but since she betrayed her family and sided with the Lannisters she lost that privilege.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it have to be this complicated? Arya and Sansa have been through hell, and are now under FM/LF who demand that they change, and not in entirely healthy ways. I don't want Arya to turn into a FM any more than I want Sansa to turn into LF. Arya still has her wolf and her Needle, and might have an easier time resisting than Sansa, whose wolf is dead.

Not quite. Arya's change is on more deeper psychological level. FM are literally trying to turn her into "No one" while LF is role-playing with Sansa. Arya's PTSD is a fertile soil for such change, while Sansa might prove to be more resilient. At the end, I doubt either FM or LF will be successful. Stark kids showed extraordinary resilience to changing or forgetting their identities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Sansa was a Stark once but since she betrayed her family and sided with the Lannisters she lost that privilege.

Did Tyrion lose a privilege of being a Lannister after killing Tywin? Or better, did Lyanna lose the privilege when her actions (arguably) got her father and brother killed? Did Ned lose the same privilege when he killed Lady? Or Robb when he refused to save his sisters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stark kids showed extraordinary resilience to changing or forgetting their identities.

It's circular reasoning to offer this as part of an argument for why Arya & Sansa are unlikely to change their identities when they are the only 2 we have seen challenged in such a way and the results are tbd.

Rickon ought to be going through the same thing, I'd imgine, but we have yet to see it. Robb and Bran's existence constantly emphasized their being a Stark, and Jon isn't, so I don't see any extraordinary resistence on the page yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Tyrion lose a privilege of being a Lannister after killing Tywin? Or better, did Lyanna lose the privilege when her actions (arguably) got her father and brother killed? Did Ned lose the same privilege when he killed Lady? Or Robb when he refused to save his sisters?

Tyrion is a really bad example considering he ended up wandering Essos as an exile. Lyanna died. Ned is dead. Robb is also dead. You are not setting a good precedent for your cause Mladen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×