Discussing Sansa XXXII: Game of Faces

[Pandean]

1 minute ago, darmody said:

Sansa's actions last season would've been treasonous had Jon been king back then. She's responsible for countless Northmen and Wildling deaths. So there's that. 

In the show, afterward, Jon praises Sansa for what she did though. So that's out. He wasn't mad. He said that they won the battle because of her. 

Not to mention, it was mainly for the deux ex machina.

[darmody]

On 8/20/2017 at 10:11 PM, tallTale said:

Sansa clearly believes she should at least be in charge of the North. Arya sees it. I think Sansa would turn on Jon if she felt in danger or threatened. 

In Sansa's defense, she was the rightful inheritor of Winterfell before Bran showed up. She should have it now that Bran has turned it down. Jon has no real claim on the North. I never bought his jumped-up status. Especially considering no one seems to even question why he's not in the Night's Watch anymore, besides Tyrion briefly. 

Sansa did turn on Jon, last year. He could very easily have died in the Battle of the Bastards. 

[darmody]

3 minutes ago, Pandean said:

In the show, afterward, Jon praises Sansa for what she did though. So that's out. He wasn't mad. He said that they won the battle because of her. 

Not to mention, it was mainly for the deux ex machina.

That's Jon. It would be entirely reasonable, in my opinion, for Arya to be outraged on Jon's behalf. And it speaks to an ambition and disloyalty to Team Stark that could still be within Sansa. ('Course, Arya is being disloyal to Team Stark, too, by lashing out wildly at a senior member.) 

By the way, it was both for the deus ex machina and to develop Sansa's character (in a confusing direction). The show obviously wants her to be a Strong, Independent Woman who's more than Jon's little sister-cousin. Also, someone who *might* rejoin with Littlefinger. But not really. But maybe. But seriously, not really. 

[Mladen]

3 minutes ago, darmody said:

That's Jon. It would be entirely reasonable, in my opinion, for Arya to be outraged on Jon's behalf. And it speaks to an ambition and disloyalty to Team Stark that could still be within Sansa. ('Course, Arya is being disloyal to Team Stark, too, by lashing out wildly at a senior member.) 

By the way, it was both for the deus ex machina and to develop Sansa's character (in a confusing direction). The show obviously wants her to be a Strong, Independent Woman who's more than Jon's little sister-cousin. Also, someone who *might* rejoin with Littlefinger. But not really. But maybe. But seriously, not really. 

So it seems you are aware of all of this and still speak of Sansa's betrayal? That doesn't make much sense. Plus, as has been said countless times, Sansa's actions are not perceived as treason not by Jon but by anyone in TV show. The idea that she killed thousands is not supported by the show's canon.

[Pandean]

4 minutes ago, darmody said:

That's Jon. It would be entirely reasonable, in my opinion, for Arya to be outraged on Jon's behalf. And it speaks to an ambition and disloyalty to Team Stark that could still be within Sansa. ('Course, Arya is being disloyal to Team Stark, too, by lashing out wildly at a senior member.) 

By the way, it was both for the deus ex machina and to develop Sansa's character (in a confusing direction). The show obviously wants her to be a Strong, Independent Woman who's more than Jon's little sister-cousin. Also, someone who *might* rejoin with Littlefinger. But not really. But maybe. But seriously, not really. 

Yeah. Don't get me wrong, I can see where Arya comes from due to what she's been through. It still doesn't justify her actions, to me.

Annd yay for shoddy writing on D&D's part whoop.

[Pandean]

2 minutes ago, Risto said:

 she killed thousands

Dontcha know she blew up the Sept of Baelor?

 

Okay, I'm sorry....I'll be over here. It's 4AM where I am and I haven't slept yet. 

[Illiterati]

6 hours ago, Pandean said:

Yeah. Don't get me wrong, I can see where Arya comes from due to what she's been through. It still doesn't justify her actions, to me.

Annd yay for shoddy writing on D&D's part whoop.

This could be some of D&D's best writing in my estimation.  Look how much they have us talking about it, trying to figure out what the hell is going on!

The answer shall come in 4 days.

[Mladen]

1 hour ago, Illiterati said:

This could be some of D&D's best writing in my estimation.  Look how much they have us talking about it, trying to figure out what the hell is going on!

The answer shall come in 4 days.

For better or worse, it does create a lot of debate across the board. Not just this thread. There are like 5 open threads on the subject. So, either this will be amazing or it will be a bust. We shall see

 

[Cas Stark]

3 minutes ago, Risto said:

For better or worse, it does create a lot of debate across the board. Not just this thread. There are like 5 open threads on the subject. So, either this will be amazing or it will be a bust. We shall see

 

Everyone said that about Arya's fight with the waif and stroll through Braavos, too.  And we see how that turned out.  I'm not sure debate caused by things so implausible that the fanbase creates it's own fixes is a good thing?  Maybe, who knows in this day and age.

[darmody]

11 hours ago, Risto said:

So it seems you are aware of all of this and still speak of Sansa's betrayal? That doesn't make much sense. Plus, as has been said countless times, Sansa's actions are not perceived as treason not by Jon but by anyone in TV show. The idea that she killed thousands is not supported by the show's canon.

Sansa's actions should have been perceived by Jon and anyone in the know as betrayal. It's the sort of thing one could lose their head for in real life. 

The show wanted to have it both ways. Give Sansa something duplicitous to do, so that she's independent from Jon and to continue the tradition of Jon being an idiot who screws everything up yet somehow ends up on top. But they also wanted them to be a happy family afterwards, so they had him say no big deal. But it was a big deal. 

Sansa is responsible for Jon's forces going in outnumbered. She's not responsible for his incompetent command, but if he had known about the Vale army, Jon and the Vale commanders would've planned differently and almost certainly the Northmen and Wildlings wouldn't have come within a hair's breadth of being slaughtered.

I don't care whether that's recognized as "show canon" or not. 

[Pandean]

I don't get it. If it's shown to be considered a heroic action, the saving action, and not treason in the show and in the scripts shown to mainly be for the Big Damn Heroes bit....why do we continue to talk about whether or not it's treason when it truly isn't considered treason in the context of the show?

It's considered very black and white versus the grey area of, say, Sansa's non-testimony after the Mycah incident, or Arya's treatment of Sansa in this season, etc.

 

Maybe I'm missing something.

[Mladen]

57 minutes ago, darmody said:

Sansa's actions should have been perceived by Jon and anyone in the know as betrayal. It's the sort of thing one could lose their head for in real life. 

Well, during SDCC 2017, Sophie Turner said that the entire thing was done solely to make dramatic entrance, not because there is some foul play.

Quote

The show wanted to have it both ways. Give Sansa something duplicitous to do, so that she's independent from Jon and to continue the tradition of Jon being an idiot who screws everything up yet somehow ends up on top. But they also wanted them to be a happy family afterwards, so they had him say no big deal. But it was a big deal. 

You know, if the writers don't see it as a betrayal and don't intend us to see it as one, if no one in-universe doesn't see it as betrayal, why the insistence that it is a betrayal. Perhaps in some other story it would be, in this one, it isn't.

Quote

I don't care whether that's recognized as "show canon" or not. 

You don't care what is canon of the show you are debating? I am sorry, but if we are going to ignore the canon, what is the purpose of discussing the show? Then we can discuss about Hot Pie as Azor Ahai and Jon being the son of Cersei and Robert. The canon exists for a reason.

 

[Cas Stark]

It's hard to respect the show when they do things like that.  There is no world where having access to a huge, well rested army and not telling the general on your side about it isn't treason/betrayal.  But in GOT, they don't care about realism any more, so it's heroic.  They even have Sansa and others blab repeatedly how she won the battle.  It's laughable.  Just like Jon is not a hero, he's a suicidal dumbass, he hasn't made a smart decision in years. Bad writing makes it bad.  It's bad.  It's Conan the Barbarian/Transformers bad now.  Even Fast and Furious is more believable and grounded.

[Morgana Lannister]

1 hour ago, darmody said:

Sansa's actions should have been perceived by Jon and anyone in the know as betrayal. It's the sort of thing one could lose their head for in real life. 

The show wanted to have it both ways. Give Sansa something duplicitous to do, so that she's independent from Jon and to continue the tradition of Jon being an idiot who screws everything up yet somehow ends up on top. But they also wanted them to be a happy family afterwards, so they had him say no big deal. But it was a big deal. 

Sansa is responsible for Jon's forces going in outnumbered. She's not responsible for his incompetent command, but if he had known about the Vale army, Jon and the Vale commanders would've planned differently and almost certainly the Northmen and Wildlings wouldn't have come within a hair's breadth of being slaughtered.

I don't care whether that's recognized as "show canon" or not. 

With all due respect I would like some clarification as to this "betrayal."  I would agree she fail to tell Jon everything but ultimately the objective was that Jon succeeded, so where is the betrayal?

I come from a family when oftentimes it was better not to reveal your next move as people would oppose it, no questions, so okay, for me engaging LF would have been a last resort to save the battle (and Jon and WF) but revealing my moves would have resulted likely in me being confined to my chambers until the battle was done! lol  If she had told Jon, he would have opposed that move.  Cleverly may be because well we all know LF but still, it was a last resort and she could not risk not having it!  Furthermore, she endured much and more under Baelish, why not use him for once???

Good point re the wildlinglings but, even if Jon intended to use them without consulting her, is it more treacherous for him not telling her or her for not telling him?

 

[darmody]

18 minutes ago, Risto said:

You don't care what is canon of the show you are debating? I am sorry, but if we are going to ignore the canon, what is the purpose of discussing the show? Then we can discuss about Hot Pie as Azor Ahai and Jon being the son of Cersei and Robert. The canon exists for a reason.

 

I put "show canon" in quotation marks for a reason. I don't think the term has any use in this case. We're not talking about what's in the books versus what's in the show, or wild fan theories based on no evidence from the show. We're talking about my entirely reasonable interpretation of events on the show versus the interpretation the writers and showrunners would like me to have. But if they wanted me to interpret it their way, they could've done a better job writing.

Fankly, they screwed up Sansa's character majorly at the end of Season Six, and for that matter haven't known what to do with her since she married Ramsey. Finally in the last few episodes she's come off as reasonable and purposeful, but that's only because they made Arya a gullible psycho. And still, in the background there's this giant betrayal that the show illegitimately treats as a non-betrayal partially justifying Arya's psychosis. 

I'm under no obligation to accept the show's bad writing and poor self-interpretation. Especially concerning such a cut-and-dry case like Sansa's betrayal, which is nothing like believing Jon is Cersei's child. (The only thing going for that, I think, is that there was mention of a dark-haired baby of Cersei's back in Season One.)

What if the show never included the line about Jon Snow knowing nothing, but had the same character all these years. Then suddenly next season every other character started remarking upon what a brilliant genius Jon is. Would I be allowed to say, "Wait a second, he's been an idiot ever since episode one?" Or would the other characters' interpretations, if the show agreed with them, be "canon" and off-limits?

[Mladen]

2 minutes ago, darmody said:

I put "show canon" in quotation marks for a reason. I don't think the term has any use in this case. We're not talking about what's in the books versus what's in the show. We're talking about my interpretation of events on the show versus the interpretation the writers and showrunners would like me to have. I'm under no obligation to accept their bad writing and poor self-interpretation. Especially concerning such a cut-and-dry case like Sansa's betrayal . 

But you have to admit that no one in-universe doesn't see the action as a betrayal, which is kind of the most important thing in the said discussion. In order to betray someone, there has to be a betrayed party. Now, since everyone in-universe knows what Sansa did, and none of them feels betrayed, one has to conclude that the said betrayal never occurred. 

[Cas Stark]

3 minutes ago, Risto said:

But you have to admit that no one in-universe doesn't see the action as a betrayal, which is kind of the most important thing in the said discussion. In order to betray someone, there has to be a betrayed party. Now, since everyone in-universe knows what Sansa did, and none of them feels betrayed, one has to conclude that the said betrayal never occurred. 

Or, since it's a piece of fiction, I can conclude that it's poorly written and nonsensical, no longer grounded in any kind of realism.

[Gaz0680]

5 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Or, since it's a piece of fiction, I can conclude that it's poorly written and nonsensical, no longer grounded in any kind of realism.

This.

[darmody]

23 minutes ago, Morgana Lannister said:

With all due respect I would like some clarification as to this "betrayal."  I would agree she fail to tell Jon everything but ultimately the objective was that Jon succeeded, so where is the betrayal?

Did you miss the part where Jon nearly lost the battle and thousands of his men died? Sansa isn't to blame for Jon attempting suicide by charging the Bolton forces on her own, but she is for very nearly allowing her forces (yes, they were hers, too, along with Jon) being encircled, moments away from annihilation. If she had told Jon about the Vale beforehand, the battle never would've gone like that.

There's always the argument that maybe Jon would've turned Littlefinger down, and Sansa couldn't risk not winning back Winterfell so she was willing to let them go to battle severely outnumbered* in exchange for what she thought was a better shot at winning.  But Jon was the commander, for better or worse. (Sansa didn't want, nor could she handle, that responsibility.) He had a right to know. Not telling is betrayal. 

*There was some strategic advantage to being apparently outnumbered, in that Ramsey maybe would've stayed inside the walls of Winterfell if he knew the Vale was there. But since the Vale somehow made it all the way north without being seen, I don't know why Jon couldn't have had them hiding behind a hill or whatever. 

[darmody]

23 minutes ago, Risto said:

But you have to admit that no one in-universe doesn't see the action as a betrayal, which is kind of the most important thing in the said discussion. In order to betray someone, there has to be a betrayed party. Now, since everyone in-universe knows what Sansa did, and none of them feels betrayed, one has to conclude that the said betrayal never occurred. 

I certainly don't agree that's the most important thing. If next episode all the characters for no reason agree Cersei is male instead of female I won't go along with them, either. (Unless I'm given a compelling reason, like someone cast a sex-change spell on her).

The show does not possess plenary power to dictate to me how things are. They shouldn't want such power, even if they had it. Because much audience enjoyment derives from their ability to draw upon our common sense, general knowledge of human behavior, and more specific knowledge of say, the norms of feudalism or military command. 

One has to conclude, on the basis of the fact that no one treats what Sansa did as betrayal, that the show is being written poorly. Because that's a highly unrealistic reaction among those who should know better, and we haven't been given any countervailing reason for why they should overlook it. Except in Jon's case, because he's forgiving and naive, perpetually frustrated by political realities, unambitious and generally focused on the big picture of the White Walkers to the detriment of everything else. 

For everyone else, the writers wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Sansa got to be a Strong, Independent Woman, and they wanted her to also be a loyal Stark and citizen of the North. But you can't have both with her betraying Jon and the North. So they just ignored the betrayal. 

But I saw it, and I haven't forgotten. I would have preferred for Sansa to have been trying to get Jon killed so she'd be unopposed afterwards, if they were going to introduce the betrayal plot. Even though I want a happy Stark family. That way, this whole Arya-Sansa storyline would make more sense. Instead, they pretend it never existed. Which is bad writing.