Sansa's betrayal consequences partly overestimated?

[teej6]

49 minutes ago, Mystical said:

Yes Sansa is naive but whose fault is that? It's not Sansa's, she didn't raise herself. That's a parental fail from Ned and Cat. And as I've said repeatedly, he gave Sansa no reason as to why he was taking them out of KL. To Sansa, who saw her fairytale going away, is was simply disobedience for probably the first time in her life. For the bigger plot going on, it helped Ned's enemies. But that was not something Sansa was in any way aware of. And that is Ned's fault.

Being naive is not the same as being disloyal. Again, I ask you, which of the Stark kids (discounting Rickon the toddler) apart from Sansa do you see betraying their parent? Sansa went to Cersei purely out of selfish motives and I’d rather rely on the author’s description and intent of the character than the skewed view of a Sansa fan. 

55 minutes ago, Mystical said:

The Arya comparisons need to stop. She is a wildly different character with different temperament. She was allowed more freedom and has a different relationship with Ned.

The Arya comparison is very relevant whether you like it or not. The sisters had similar upbringings but are like night and day. It’s funny how you argue Ned’s fault as a parent but do not want to compare the sisters who had a similar upbringing. Martin gives us information on the interaction between Ned and Arya but nowhere does he even remotely imply that Ned was a derelict or indifferent father to Sansa. That Sansa views Ned not to be strict enough with Arya is her skewed view of what a parent should be. We should applaud Ned for being a kind and compassionate parent. And Ned being lenient to Arya or Sansa being the more obedient daughter does not automatically translate to Ned being strict with Sansa or Arya “allowed more freedom” — this is just fanfic on your part. We have no textual evidence to indicate that Ned was stricter with Sansa or Arya was given more freedom than Sansa.

The only thing we can probably (just maybe) assume from the text is that Ned may have had a closer relationship with Arya just as one can assume that Cat had a closer relationship with Sansa. Ned’s only real mistake as a father was in revealing to Cersei that he knew about the incest before seeing to it that his girls were well away from KL. You can call him stupid and naive but not a bad parent. Why, he even gave up what he valued most, his honor, to save Sansa. 

1 hour ago, Mystical said:

To say it's not parent fail... Ned and Cat raised Sansa in a bubble with nothing but fairytales while completely neglecting to prepare her for the reality of the world. The children should have never accompanied Ned to KL in the first place, both where completely unprepared for that vipers nest. Arya kept antagonizing everyone she didn't like no matter their standing in society and Sansa saw the world through rose colored glasses. Arya thumbed her nose at their societal norms while Sansa abided by them. That's a recipe for disaster that anyone with half a working brain should seen coming. Having no one assigned to watch over them but an alcoholic is absolutely a parental fail. Aside from all the pedophiles in that world who want Sansa, the Mycah incident and Sansa running to Cersei would never have happened if there were people assigned to watch over them. Freaking Joffrey showed more concern for Sansa's physical well being than Ned did when he tasked the Hound with taking Sansa back to the Keep after the tourney. Ned just send an alcoholic with Sansa who predictably passed out so Sansa was all alone. If that's not negligence and utter parental fail then I don't know what is.

In the first chapter, we have Ned taking his seven year old son to see a beheading. I doubt Ned wanted his kids to grow up clueless and in a fairytale world. The fact that Sansa did and Arya didn’t tells you more about their innate characters than their upbringing. Jon, Robb, and Arya could recognize Joffrey for the piece of shit he was, except Sansa. I’m sure you’ll assign blame for this also on Ned. 

As to the bolded, I’ve seen you make this ridiculous argument before. Calling Septa Mordane an alcoholic is hilarious. So Ned relied on the septa to chaperone Sansa and the poor septa couldn’t hold her liquor and that is somehow Ned’s fault.

Whether you like it or not, the author meant for Sansa to be the least likable Stark in AGOT. The fact that her character has progressed in subsequent books to one that we root for shows the ability of the author to show character growth. As I said before, that doesn’t mean we waive away the character’s mistakes and blame everyone else except Sansa for her mistakes.

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

This is your personal opinion of what an empath is. Not a scientific one. There are psychopaths, that don't feel any empathy towards others whatsoever. Cognitive psychologists suspect first and foremost biological reasons. This is not changeable. Even therapy won't change that.

We all other normal ppl have mirror neurons (psychopaths have them as well, but they don't function properly), they are responsible for our ability to takeover other ppl's perspectives. 

But it is something that has to physically develop and is not just something, that you are just fully formed born with. Children are in general not very good at empathy, because their brains are not as developed yet. Please just google "Theory of mind" if you don't believe me. I've studied psychology and in cognitive psychology and developmental psychology you do learn learn a lot about that.

Children and their brains do also develop at their individual pace. Just because a child is more empathetic at 6 than another one at the same age, is not at indication for said child to show also stronger empathy levels at 15 or 25.

There is also NO proof for biological reasons (being born with it) being the the critical factor, when it comes to empathy levels and the pace of development for those.

It is with most things in psychology a gene-envionment-interaction that influences certain traits and it is absolutely impossible to determine which factor weighs stronger. If you have a standardized, scientific acceptable control group for your experimental group (twins who grew up under different circumstances f.e.), you might find some evidence to support your theories (not talking about you here specifically), whatever they might be. But this is still never proof.

So there is really no way for us to determine, if Arya were to be as empathetic, if she grew up differently. If her environmental influence was stronger or the biological one. There is also no way to determine how her empathy levels will be at 20.

 

 

Oh, I know theory of mind and developmental psychology, and imo it simply does not cover all development correctly. These mostly talk about the average, the "norm", you know that "bell curve". Developmental psychology claims people rarely remember much before their 5th year. I have over 30 memories, for which I have no picture, or stories told by others, that go back as early as my 2nd birthday. My memory though is exceptionally good in comparison to the norm. My first memory actually involves an emotional conflict of "feelings of injustice", "envy" and "feeling bad about the latter". I had no siblings, and this was pre-kindergarten, so no adult ever had to teach me "don't be envious". I felt it, and it made me feel sick. And so I never spoke up about the cause of those feelings of injustice and envy at the time. In fact, the first time I ever told someone I was 12. I just "knew" right from wrong. And I bore the situation.

Nobody ever had to sit me down to teach me empathy. I score absolute 0 on Hare's test of psychopathy. And as you surely know, the 50% score is between 0-4. (Yes, I know about psychopaths, because I was involved with one a decade ago for 2 years, and from the tales of his family, I know his brain was pretty much set like that as a kid, except they thought it cute at the time). That is the sole experience in my life (at 37), that taught me to turn the empathy knob off when confronted with certain behavior. 

Any situation where the desires of my ego superseded my empathy was around the age of 2 (there were three, no more), and always in relation to the "don't do x or y" by a parent and I even remember how it hadn't even occured to me to do such a thing, but once they said it, it worked like a red bleeping trigger my brain compelled me to do. I actually still remember the sensation in my brain of the "defiant phase". And again I was younger than 2.5 years, because it was pre-kindergarten. The mid-phase at 3 where kids know rules, the altered rules, and still get it wrong? Skipped it somehow. By 4 I stubbornly drew clouds as white/grey and the sky as blue, ignoring every other kid insisting that you were supposed to color it the other way around, pointed at the sky and said that in reality "skies are blue and the clouds are white".

Everyone's brain development is individual. Some kids walk before they talk, other vice versa. The myth though is this belief that everyone's individual development gears towards the average, which is of course utter nonsense. 50% of the brains do, aka the majority, but not all brains. And chances are that if you are really good at something (above average) at an early age, you're also gonna be very good at it when you're older and an adult. My brain still retains and memorizes events better than everyone around me. People say: ask SSR, she'll know what year that was, where that was, who was with us, and what was said. I was a young teen in adult painting class, several years ahead than I was supposed to be. Gah, and likewise I've never felt envy ever again in my life and I guess ending HS with the Miss Congeniality price amongst others was the materialized evidence that I was above average empathic. I helped mediate behind the scenes in a fight between class-peers who formed a clique so they could end their HS in friendship, despite the fact they were actually nasty to me since we were freshmen. They never knew it was me who made sure they're still best friends now. Personally, I thought the prize was dumb, but my mom was over the moon over it. I was always an avid reader, as early as 6-7 years. I never had issues with math. And I was naturally a social butterfly. I just never fit in peer-class cliques. But my brain was never average, not when I was 3, not when I was 9, not when I was 14, not at 18 and not the rest of my adult life either. 

Empaths are the other end of the scale of psychopaths. And I stay clear even from people who'd only score 10-15 on Hare's test. If you want to talk averages, please talk development psychology. If we're talking above averages, then better leave development psychology at the doorstep.

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

But she didn't know that. For all she knew. He was going to die a painful and slow death. Even GRRM said it was partly revenge.

Indeed she didn't know. And it was partly out of anger, but also a deeper sense of knowing that he was all bark and no bite, and that she couldn't skewer him for barking. She left it to him, to take his own life if that was what he really wanted. Apparently, he didn't.

[Nagini's Neville]

1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

Indeed she didn't know. And it was partly out of anger, but also a deeper sense of knowing that he was all bark and no bite, and that she couldn't skewer him for barking. She left it to him, to take his own life if that was what he really wanted. Apparently, he didn't.

That's not evident from the text, that she considers that to be a possibility. 

[sweetsunray]

1 minute ago, Nagini's Neville said:

That's not evident from the text, that she considers that to be a possibility. 

No, because it's a natural consequence of her action. She picked his pocket. But she didn't steal his knife and sword did she?

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, Nagini's Neville said:

he grabs her face forcefully and doesn't let her go! That is very threatening imo! She is afraid of him for most of this walk . She even starts to cry.

He grabs her face to look at him. She looks, and the quote states that instead of being fearful of him, she is fearful for him. Why keep insisting that she must have felt threatened at the time, when the text stipulates that is not how she feels?

[Nagini's Neville]

4 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Indeed she didn't know. And it was partly out of anger, but also a deeper sense of knowing that he was all bark and no bite, and that she couldn't skewer him for barking. She left it to him, to take his own life if that was what he really wanted. Apparently, he didn't.

And if she considered him only bite and no bark what is empathetic about just leaving him?

[Elegant Woes]

@teej6 Just because Sansa was unsympathetic in AGOT doesn't mean there's no nuance to her behavior. It might not seem that way because of the borderline caricature way  George initially writes her chapters, but there's so much more complexity to her situation then people give her credit for, and that becomes more apparent with each book. Her behavior and way of thinking in ACOK and ASOS brings an interesting light on her actions in AGOT that makes it more sympathetic than it was before. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if George is doing that deliberately. There's a reason why he was surprised by the vitriol hatred she got right after AGOT. 

We see that how he does it with certain characters in the opposite way. Let's take Tyrion for example. At first he seems like a really good guy in AGOT, ACOK and ASOS, but after he becomes much darker in ADWD you see him in a different light and that makes you realize that Tyrion was awful from day one, but we never saw that way, because of the sympathetic way he was written. 

 

[sweetsunray]

3 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

And if she considered him only bite and no bark what is empathetic about just leaving him?

Because it was the end of the road for "them". You can be empathic and also be realistic. That's part of growing up. 

[Nagini's Neville]

2 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

No, because it's a natural consequence of her action. She picked his pocket. But she didn't steal his knife and sword did she?

You confusing it with the show. She didn't pick his pocket. And also the Hound doesn't exactly say, he should have raped Sansa. He only does that on the show as well. In the book his words have a different meaning.( But Arya probably understood it that way.) I don't think it's so easy to stab yourself. Especially when you are in so much pain and weak and delirious from fever. The man, who the Hound gave mercy to also didn't give it to himself. And now he is begging her to give it to him and there is no indication, that she thinks he could do it himself.

[Nagini's Neville]

15 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Because it was the end of the road for "them". You can be empathic and also be realistic. That's part of growing up. 

I think she should have given him mercy, if she was truly empathetic with him in that moment. I don't blame her for it of course, but she is not empathetic here. He is suffering. She could have left after killing him. 

[teej6]

11 minutes ago, Elegant Woes said:

@teej6 Just because Sansa was unsympathetic in AGOT doesn't mean there's no nuance to her behavior. It might not seem that way because of the borderline caricature way  George initially writes her chapters, but there's so much more complexity to her situation then people give her credit for, and that becomes more apparent with each book. Her behavior and way of thinking in ACOK and ASOS brings an interesting light on her actions in AGOT. 

In AGOT she is written as a spoilt selfish girl who cannot see beyond her own happiness and needs... whether it be a caricature/ trope. The fact that she does not even give a second thought to the killing of Mycah reflects really poorly on Sansa. Even after the killing of Lady she does not have the presence of mind to see things for what they are — she continues to blame Arya and continues to justify the actions of her beloved Joffrey although everyone else and their mother sees the little twerp as despicable. The fact that Sansa’s character has a growth trajectory in a positive way in subsequent books does not negate her actions in the first book. The author of course wants the reader to see his characters in a holistic way and ergo you have Jamie’s and Hound’s redemption arcs, but just because readers begin to like certain characters as the story progresses doesn’t mean they have to justify or rationalize these characters earlier acts. 

[kissdbyfire]

27 minutes ago, Elegant Woes said:

Just because Sansa was unsympathetic in AGOT doesn't mean there's no nuance to her behavior. It might not seem that way because of the borderline caricature way  George initially writes her chapters, but there's so much more complexity to her situation then people give her credit for, and that becomes more apparent with each book.

You say Martin writes her in a “borderline caricature way” early on, but that at the same time the character has depth and complexity -  I wholeheartedly agree with the latter btw. But it was Martin who gave Sansa depth and complexity, so it seems like an odd argument. 

[Elegant Woes]

@kissdbyfire On second thought that line does sound weird, but in my defense I initially found Sansa an odd ball when I read AGOT. When I read her very first chapter for the first time, especially the first page, it made me feel uncomfortable how over the top her characteristics were. At that time I thought she genuinely was one dimensional. Now when I reread her AGOT chapters I just think she's funny. 

[Nagini's Neville]

58 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

He grabs her face to look at him. She looks, and the quote states that instead of being fearful of him, she is fearful for him. Why keep insisting that she must have felt threatened at the time, when the text stipulates that is not how she feels?

1.He grabs her face 2.she is forced to look at him "His fingers held her jaw as hard as an iron trap." Being held as hard as an iron trap implies, that you cannot escape. He is physically forcing her and she has no way in the case he might do something else to defend herself against him.This is a very scary and threatening situation. And it does surprise me very much, that I have to point that out, imo that is very obvious. No wonder 3. she starts to cry - you forget,  Not a sign of being fearful of him for you?

"She was sad for him, she realized. Somehow, the fear had gone away. The silence went on and on, so long that she began to grow afraid once more, but she was afraid for him now, not for herself."

This is after his story and it implies, that she was afraid of him before. And her crying indicates that as well.

 

 

 

 

[Elegant Woes]

@teej6 You're taking my comment completely out of context. I've never excused Sansa's behavior, I only explain it. At first glance Sansa's actions do seem very unsympathetic, but when you take certain things into account, then your take on Sansa will change. First of to understand the nuance to Sansa in AGOT you need to keep one thing in mind. Sansa isn't your typical teenager you see nowadays, she's a noble lady. Most of actions in AGOT could be explained if you take that into account. If are wondering to what extent I suggest you read this post, it explains it so much better than I ever could.

[Nagini's Neville]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Oh, I know theory of mind and developmental psychology, and imo it simply does not cover all development correctly. These mostly talk about the average, the "norm", you know that "bell curve". Developmental psychology claims people rarely remember much before their 5th year. I have over 30 memories, for which I have no picture, or stories told by others, that go back as early as my 2nd birthday. My memory though is exceptionally good in comparison to the norm. My first memory actually involves an emotional conflict of "feelings of injustice", "envy" and "feeling bad about the latter". I had no siblings, and this was pre-kindergarten, so no adult ever had to teach me "don't be envious". I felt it, and it made me feel sick. And so I never spoke up about the cause of those feelings of injustice and envy at the time. In fact, the first time I ever told someone I was 12. I just "knew" right from wrong. And I bore the situation.

Nobody ever had to sit me down to teach me empathy. I score absolute 0 on Hare's test of psychopathy. And as you surely know, the 50% score is between 0-4. (Yes, I know about psychopaths, because I was involved with one a decade ago for 2 years, and from the tales of his family, I know his brain was pretty much set like that as a kid, except they thought it cute at the time). That is the sole experience in my life (at 37), that taught me to turn the empathy knob off when confronted with certain behavior. 

Any situation where the desires of my ego superseded my empathy was around the age of 2 (there were three, no more), and always in relation to the "don't do x or y" by a parent and I even remember how it hadn't even occured to me to do such a thing, but once they said it, it worked like a red bleeping trigger my brain compelled me to do. I actually still remember the sensation in my brain of the "defiant phase". And again I was younger than 2.5 years, because it was pre-kindergarten. The mid-phase at 3 where kids know rules, the altered rules, and still get it wrong? Skipped it somehow. By 4 I stubbornly drew clouds as white/grey and the sky as blue, ignoring every other kid insisting that you were supposed to color it the other way around, pointed at the sky and said that in reality "skies are blue and the clouds are white".

Everyone's brain development is individual. Some kids walk before they talk, other vice versa. The myth though is this belief that everyone's individual development gears towards the average, which is of course utter nonsense. 50% of the brains do, aka the majority, but not all brains. And chances are that if you are really good at something (above average) at an early age, you're also gonna be very good at it when you're older and an adult. My brain still retains and memorizes events better than everyone around me. People say: ask SSR, she'll know what year that was, where that was, who was with us, and what was said. I was a young teen in adult painting class, several years ahead than I was supposed to be. Gah, and likewise I've never felt envy ever again in my life and I guess ending HS with the Miss Congeniality price amongst others was the materialized evidence that I was above average empathic. I helped mediate behind the scenes in a fight between class-peers who formed a clique so they could end their HS in friendship, despite the fact they were actually nasty to me since we were freshmen. They never knew it was me who made sure they're still best friends now. Personally, I thought the prize was dumb, but my mom was over the moon over it. I was always an avid reader, as early as 6-7 years. I never had issues with math. And I was naturally a social butterfly. I just never fit in peer-class cliques. But my brain was never average, not when I was 3, not when I was 9, not when I was 14, not at 18 and not the rest of my adult life either. 

Empaths are the other end of the scale of psychopaths. And I stay clear even from people who'd only score 10-15 on Hare's test. If you want to talk averages, please talk development psychology. If we're talking above averages, then better leave development psychology at the doorstep.

Well, this is a case study on yourself by yourself. And also -excuse me-but by no means an empirical one. We have exactly one probant and one researcher here and they are both you yourself. So I apologize, but that's not really meaningful. That's not telling me anything. And even if there was evidence for a "natural born empath" (the environment is always a factor, that you cannot exclude) there is no evidence that Arya is one. That is just your interpretation and that's fine.

[Elegant Woes]

Another important note we should keep in mind when it comes to Joffrey Sansa is applying the same mindset she tried with Tyrion in ASOS:

Quote

Look at him, Sansa told herself, look at your husband, at all of him, Septa Mordane said all men are beautiful, find his beauty, try.

Instead of seeing Sansa as this spoiled little brat, try to understand she's a child who is desperately trying to cope with the fact she's about to marry a monster. It was easier for her to blame Arya instead of Joffrey. Completely understandable, but still not right. 

[Mystical]

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

Being naive is not the same as being disloyal. Again, I ask you, which of the Stark kids (discounting Rickon the toddler) apart from Sansa do you see betraying their parent? Sansa went to Cersei purely out of selfish motives and I’d rather rely on the author’s description and intent of the character than the skewed view of a Sansa fan.

OK I didn't bother reading beyond this. Boxing me in as a 'Sansa fan' and calling my view skewed. I'm not interested in this toxic nonsense. Just because I'm able to remove myself from any character preference or hate and look at the chain of events that unfolded doesn't make my view skewed in any way. Calling me a Sansa fan just shows that you have no idea about me and prefer to discard my opinion on a flimsy strawman like that.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

7 hours ago, teej6 said:

I don’t see any culpability for Ned in Lady’s death. The only thing he did that was stupid was to call Sansa to come and openly testify as to what she witnessed. He had heard what happened from Sansa and probably assumed Sansa would tell the whole truth. But she didn’t. She got selective amnesia at that point, which is understandable for someone in her position. She didn’t want to publicly state that her beloved Joffrey was a liar, so she chose to say she didn’t remember. In this case, GRRM is clearly contrasting Sansa’s weak and naive character to the bold and honest Arya. Arya is honest and loyal to a fault at this point in the books. Lady’s death is a consequence of Sansa claiming ignorance, Cersei’s cruelty, and Robert’s ineptitude. Ned had little to no say in how things transpired after Sansa refused to speak the truth. Had Sansa said that Joffrey attacked Mycah first, and Arya was just defending Mycah and Nymeria was defending Arya, perhaps just perhaps this would have given Robert the cover to dismiss the whole thing and let Lady live.

Listen I love Ned. He is great. But how can Sansa hold responsibility for Lady's death for not spilling the beans, Cersei holds some for giving the command, Robert for allowing it but Ned holds absolutely none for actually killing Lady? 

No way. I get Ned was in a bad position but so was Sansa. If it's no excuse for her, it's not one for him.