Jump to content

Sansa's betrayal consequences partly overestimated?


Greywater-Watch

Recommended Posts

@Nagini's Neville, there’s this one as well:

 

"Reluctantly, she let go of them in her heart. But not Bran. Never Bran."

 

There are a few others, but I haven’t had time to dig them up. I will say, I don’t think a mother having a favourite means she loves that child more than the others. And I am sure Cat loved all her children very much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

@Nagini's Neville, there’s this one as well:

 

"Reluctantly, she let go of them in her heart. But not Bran. Never Bran."

 

There are a few others, but I haven’t had time to dig them up. I will say, I don’t think a mother having a favourite means she loves that child more than the others. And I am sure Cat loved all her children very much. 

Thank you! I see what ppl are talking about. I agree, that it probably just means she had a special connection with him. Favorite to me always sounded like a parent loves one child more than the others, so I never looked at it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 11/12/2019 at 6:22 PM, kissdbyfire said:

I don’t recall any interviews where Martin says that. The one I do recall that touches on the subject is one from way back where he says that Sansa in AGoT is the least sympathetic Stark, and that that changes once she takes responsibility for her actions having contributed to Ned’s death. And there’s nothing about Lady’s death.

 

O could find again that interview but found this. https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1017

 

No single person is to blame for Ned's downfall. Sansa played a role, certainly, but it would be unfair to put all the blame on her. But it would also be unfair to exonerate her. She was not privy to all of Ned's plans regarding Stannis, the gold cloaks, etc... but she knew more than just that her father planned to spirit her and Arya away from King's Landing. She knew when they were to leave, on what ship, how many men would be in their escort, who would have the command, where Arya was that morning, etc... all of which was useful to Cersei in planning and timing her move
 
 
#genel kanalına mesaj gönder

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, YeniAy_Ottoman said:

O could find again that interview but found this. https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1017

 

No single person is to blame for Ned's downfall. Sansa played a role, certainly, but it would be unfair to put all the blame on her. But it would also be unfair to exonerate her. She was not privy to all of Ned's plans regarding Stannis, the gold cloaks, etc... but she knew more than just that her father planned to spirit her and Arya away from King's Landing. She knew when they were to leave, on what ship, how many men would be in their escort, who would have the command, where Arya was that morning, etc... all of which was useful to Cersei in planning and timing her move

I've read it before - it's tosh. Garbage. Piffle. Wrong.

Stretching empathy to the max, it can't be easy being quizzed on the entire canon so far - but I can't find it in me to forgive this SSM. It hurts that an author insists on contradicting what he actually wrote in the books. What then is the point of reading the damn things?

The only information that could make a difference to the success of Cersei's coup is the exact moment of Robert's death. So she can beat Ned to the punch. As she did.

Nothing Sansa knows could make the slightest bit of difference. Cersei's forces are an order of magnitude greater than Ned's - there is no possible arrangement of his troops that could beat hers. As for the ship, and Arya's location - these have no impact whatsoever on the coup's success, and Ned's fall.

Therefore, the SSM is wrong. It goes on:

And let me add that I am always astonished to be reminded how fiercely some of my readers argue these points. It's gratifying to know I have readers who care so much, although if truth be told sometimes I get the scary feeling that you people know these books better than I do...

How sweet. But if readers care, then authors should be fair. If he wants Sansa to share guilt for Ned's death - that's fine, write it in the books. At least make it possible. Anything else is stupid, stupid, stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

I've read it before - it's tosh. Garbage. Piffle. Wrong.

Stretching empathy to the max, it can't be easy being quizzed on the entire canon so far - but I can't find it in me to forgive this SSM. It hurts that an author insists on contradicting what he actually wrote in the books. What then is the point of reading the damn things?

The only information that could make a difference to the success of Cersei's coup is the exact moment of Robert's death. So she can beat Ned to the punch. As she did.

Nothing Sansa knows could make the slightest bit of difference. Cersei's forces are an order of magnitude greater than Ned's - there is no possible arrangement of his troops that could beat hers. As for the ship, and Arya's location - these have no impact whatsoever on the coup's success, and Ned's fall.

Therefore, the SSM is wrong. It goes on:

And let me add that I am always astonished to be reminded how fiercely some of my readers argue these points. It's gratifying to know I have readers who care so much, although if truth be told sometimes I get the scary feeling that you people know these books better than I do...

How sweet. But if readers care, then authors should be fair. If he wants Sansa to share guilt for Ned's death - that's fine, write it in the books. At least make it possible. Anything else is stupid, stupid, stupid.

I think sometimes it's a bit weird the stuff GRRM says. He also said readers like Sansa more now, since she has taken responsibility for her father's death. But I don't recall her every finding out why Ned was executed or what exactly happened there at all. I don't recall her ever thinking she had a role to play. She didn't even know Joff was a bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

I've read it before - it's tosh. Garbage. Piffle. Wrong.

Stretching empathy to the max, it can't be easy being quizzed on the entire canon so far - but I can't find it in me to forgive this SSM. It hurts that an author insists on contradicting what he actually wrote in the books. What then is the point of reading the damn things?

The only information that could make a difference to the success of Cersei's coup is the exact moment of Robert's death. So she can beat Ned to the punch. As she did.

Nothing Sansa knows could make the slightest bit of difference. Cersei's forces are an order of magnitude greater than Ned's - there is no possible arrangement of his troops that could beat hers. As for the ship, and Arya's location - these have no impact whatsoever on the coup's success, and Ned's fall.

Therefore, the SSM is wrong. It goes on:

And let me add that I am always astonished to be reminded how fiercely some of my readers argue these points. It's gratifying to know I have readers who care so much, although if truth be told sometimes I get the scary feeling that you people know these books better than I do...

How sweet. But if readers care, then authors should be fair. If he wants Sansa to share guilt for Ned's death - that's fine, write it in the books. At least make it possible. Anything else is stupid, stupid, stupid.

Idk it's his series. He is the author, and while he is definitely subject to human error at the end of the day it doesn't matter what the readers interpret, it matters what the author meant in regards to the truth. 

George says Sansa's info helped Cersei to plan & time her move & I think we have to believe him. If we don't believe the person who wrote the story when questioning things what do we believe? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Idk it's his series. He is the author, and while he is definitely subject to human error at the end of the day it doesn't matter what the readers interpret, it matters what the author meant in regards to the truth. 

George says Sansa's info helped Cersei to plan & time her move & I think we have to believe him. If we don't believe the person who wrote the story when questioning things what do we believe? 

 

Yeah, I also came to believe, that GRRM clearly intended for Sansa's actions to have played a role. I just hope he brings it full circle one day, because up until now in my opinion Sansa doesn't seem to understand she played a role or even what exactly happened. She doesn't even know what her father found out, why he was executed. She of course is siding with him and doesn't believe he is a traitor, but she has no "proof" for that.                                                                                                                                                                                     I really want George to revisit that in the future. She could be repressing all of it of course, because it was all so traumatic for her and if she'd allow herself to think about it, it would be just all to much ( like Dany always thinks "If I look back I'm lost"), but I do want it to have a function in the story and to come full circle. Even if Sansa ends up being self righteous about it- I don't care- I want it addressed, especially, because apparently George thinks it already has been, but that surely only happened in his head, because I know Sansa-chapters by heart :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

Yeah, I also came to believe, that GRRM clearly intended for Sansa's actions to have played a role. I just hope he brings it full circle one day, because up until now in my opinion Sansa doesn't seem to understand she played a role or even what exactly happened. She doesn't even know what her father found out, why he was executed. She of course is siding with him and doesn't believe he is a traitor, but she has no "proof" for that

Absolutely. I do worry that Sansa will come to realize all of this & then suffer guilt from it & I don't want that for her. She didn't cause his execution & I don't want her to carry that weight on her shoulders.

57 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

really want George to revisit that in the future. She could be repressing all of it of course, because it was all so traumatic for her and if she'd allow herself to think about it, it would be just all to much ( like Dany always thinks "If I look back I'm lost"), but I do want it to have a function in the story and to come full circle. Even if Sansa ends up being self righteous about it- I don't care- I want it addressed, especially, because apparently George thinks it already has been, but that surely only happened in his head, because I know Sansa-chapters by heart :)

Yeah for sure. I always looked at it as her being young & not having all of the information & therefore not really understanding it all. I would like for it to be addressed also. I just hope when it is Sansa understands that her father's death was not her fault. That's a big cross for a young girl to carry, especially one that has already been through so much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Idk it's his series. He is the author, and while he is definitely subject to human error at the end of the day it doesn't matter what the readers interpret, it matters what the author meant in regards to the truth.

George says Sansa's info helped Cersei to plan & time her move & I think we have to believe him. If we don't believe the person who wrote the story when questioning things what do we believe?

And here is the problem. If a writer has a specific intend in mind, then he needs to be 100% correct in how he presents it so as to leave no room for interpretation. Because if he doesn't make things 100% clear in the text, what he says afterwards has no bearing on the story. Intend of a storyline does not always match the execution.

If you notice in this thread, people who remove themselves emotionally from any character bias (love or hate) and write down all the facts known from the books (timeline, spies, who is where, who bought whom, right down to orders for docked ships and where the  luggage is etc.), leaves very little chance that Sansa's actions had any impact. So what does it matter what GRRM says outside the story in some interview? Was it his intend to have Sansa play a part in Ned's downfall? Obviously, per his own words. Did he make it absolutely clear that anything she did actually contributed to said downfall? Apparently not, as this very thread shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Springwatch said:

I've read it before - it's tosh. Garbage. Piffle. Wrong.

Stretching empathy to the max, it can't be easy being quizzed on the entire canon so far - but I can't find it in me to forgive this SSM. It hurts that an author insists on contradicting what he actually wrote in the books. What then is the point of reading the damn things?

The only information that could make a difference to the success of Cersei's coup is the exact moment of Robert's death. So she can beat Ned to the punch. As she did.

Nothing Sansa knows could make the slightest bit of difference. Cersei's forces are an order of magnitude greater than Ned's - there is no possible arrangement of his troops that could beat hers. As for the ship, and Arya's location - these have no impact whatsoever on the coup's success, and Ned's fall.

Therefore, the SSM is wrong. It goes on:

And let me add that I am always astonished to be reminded how fiercely some of my readers argue these points. It's gratifying to know I have readers who care so much, although if truth be told sometimes I get the scary feeling that you people know these books better than I do...

How sweet. But if readers care, then authors should be fair. If he wants Sansa to share guilt for Ned's death - that's fine, write it in the books. At least make it possible. Anything else is stupid, stupid, stupid.

I find it hilarious when people argue that they know better than the author. In his SSM, GRRM is not retconning or contradicting anything in the books. You can perhaps make an argument that the text is vague as to the significance of Sansa’s role in Ned’s downfall. The extent of her culpability can be argued and interpreted differently by different readers.

GRRM clearly shows in the text that Sansa revealed to Cersei Ned’s plans to remove his daughters from the capital. This is vital information to Cersei. Why, she even admits as much to Tyrion in the next book (see quote below). For Cersei, this provides her with information that Ned means to act against her quickly. I’m not arguing that Cersei was sitting on her hands up until then as Ned’s conversation with Cersei happened before Sansa went to Cersei. Ned telling Cersei that he knew the real paternity of her kids sets in motion Cersei’s plan to eliminate Robert and probably even Ned. But this does not mean Sansa’s information was completely without value to Cersei. As GRRM states in the SSM, Sansa provided Cersei with information that helped her plan and time her move. Nothing in the books contradict this statement of his. Here’s Cersei’s (GRRM’s) words for you on the subject:

Quote

“Littlefinger made the arrangements. We needed Slynt’s gold cloaks. Eddard Stark was plotting with Renly and he’d written to Lord Stannis, offering him the throne. We might have lost all. Even so, it was a close thing. If Sansa hadn’t come to me and told me all her father’s plans . . .”

Now you can argue that this is hyperbole or exaggeration on Cersei’s part and Ned signed his own death warrant when he revealed to Cersei that he had uncovered her secret, or when he refused Renly’s help, or even when he refused LF’s advice and confided in the snake his plans. But to state that GRRM is contradicting the text is utterly false. All GRRM states in the SSM is that several factors led to Ned’s downfall and Sansa (unwittingly) going to Cersei with her father’s plans was one of them. The readers can debate as to whether the eventual outcome for Ned/ Starks would have changed had Sansa not told Cersei about Ned’s plans but the SSM is in no way a contradiction of the text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mystical said:

And here is the problem. If a writer has a specific intend in mind, then he needs to be 100% correct in how he presents it so as to leave no room for interpretation. Because if he doesn't make things 100% clear in the text, what he says afterwards has no bearing on the story. Intend of a storyline does not always match the execution.

If you notice in this thread, people who remove themselves emotionally from any character bias (love or hate) and write down all the facts known from the books (timeline, spies, who is where, who bought whom, right down to orders for docked ships and where the  luggage is etc.), leaves very little chance that Sansa's actions had any impact. So what does it matter what GRRM says outside the story in some interview? Was it his intend to have Sansa play a part in Ned's downfall? Obviously, per his own words. Did he make it absolutely clear that anything she did actually contributed to said downfall? Apparently not, as this very thread shows.

I wanted to reply but @teej6 pretty much said it all. 

I would only add that the writer does not have to make something 100% clear & leave no room for interpretation or else his words mean nothing afterwards. To some of us it is 100% clear. We have Sansa telling Cersei, Ned getting captured, & Cersei specifically saying if not for Sansa's info her plan may not have worked. Then we have the author reiterate that for us. I don't know how much clearer it could be without being redundant. 

To those who have written down all the facts & timeline & come to the conclusion that Sansa's words made no difference I would say you are wrong. Either mistaken or reading too much into the facts you believe you have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might have already said this in the many Sansa discussions over the course of my membership here.  What Sansa did was very selfish and it resulted in the failure of the Starks to secretly escape the capital.  Most of the hate directed at Sansa do come from the fans of the Starks.  It is logical.  The damage when compared to the big picture is rather minimal though.  It has no effect on what's happening in Slaver's Bay, the Wall, Volantis, Dorne, etc.  At least not yet. Maybe we have seen the extent of the fallout.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Victor Newman said:

I might have already said this in the many Sansa discussions over the course of my membership here.  What Sansa did was very selfish and it resulted in the failure of the Starks to secretly escape the capital.  Most of the hate directed at Sansa do come from the fans of the Starks.  It is logical.  The damage when compared to the big picture is rather minimal though.  It has no effect on what's happening in Slaver's Bay, the Wall, Volantis, Dorne, etc.  At least not yet. Maybe we have seen the extent of the fallout.  

I'm a Stark loyalist and Sansa is my favorite character! What can I say... you like your heroes good-looking - I like mine selfish. We all have our priorities :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

I find it hilarious when people argue that they know better than the author.

To be honest, I'm surprised to find myself in this position, but reading the books forced me to it. The SSM is wrong. There is no possible scenario in which Sansa's information made a difference to the death of Ned - and let me tell you, I have thought and thought about it. The more I look for evidence, the more impossible it gets. If you can do better, go for it.

Quote

In his SSM, GRRM is not retconning or contradicting anything in the books.

GRRM has added many (apparently unnecessary) details to the books showing the weakness of the Stark forces, the lack of information security, and in contrast, Cersei's strength and dedication to spies. And a lot of other stuff I'm not going to repeat all over again. There is a contradiction here in choosing to have the text push one way, and in his personal remarks declaring the opposite case - that Cersei depended on Sansa for information,

If you ask me, the SSM is aimed to heat up the argument, not settle it. Settled arguments are dead space in the public conversation, but hyping up an already controversial character makes for endless debate. Perhaps we're supposed to notice that the ship and dancing lesson are irrelevant, and that Ned's forces are way too weak to make a difference.

Quote

You can perhaps make an argument that the text is vague as to the significance of Sansa’s role in Ned’s downfall. The extent of her culpability can be argued and interpreted differently by different readers.

In this particular case, there is a right answer and a wrong answer. Nothing Sansa could say would make any difference.

Quote

GRRM clearly shows in the text that Sansa revealed to Cersei Ned’s plans to remove his daughters from the capital.

He did! It's a direct quote from Cersei to Sansa - your father's plans to remove you, or something. At a minimum that's the fact that they are sailing that evening, at a maximum that's the name of the ship and details of the escort.

Quote

This is vital information to Cersei.

How?

Quote

Why, she even admits as much to Tyrion in the next book (see quote below).

I've got a quote to counter that, which you must like, because it's yours.

... she’s not the most reliable person. She misconstrues things, even in her own thoughts, to suit her view of herself and others.

Quote

For Cersei, this provides her with information that Ned means to act against her quickly.

Ned has set her a very tight timetable already - 'When the king returns from the hunt, I intend to lay the truth before him.' Which would mean her death, we assume. Full steam ahead from that point, then.

Quote

I’m not arguing that Cersei was sitting on her hands up until then as Ned’s conversation with Cersei happened before Sansa went to Cersei. Ned telling Cersei that he knew the real paternity of her kids sets in motion Cersei’s plan to eliminate Robert and probably even Ned.

Not the bolded. Robert, Lancel and the strongwine had already gone out. Before that, she goaded Robert to enter the melee.

I don't think she wants to kill Ned particularly. But she's not going to let him exile her. She's going to win or die.

Quote

But this does not mean Sansa’s information was completely without value to Cersei. As GRRM states in the SSM, Sansa provided Cersei with information that helped her plan and time her move.

I've asked this before and got no answer. What is the crucial information that makes a difference to the success of Cersei's coup?

  • The ship? No.
  • The dancing lesson? No.
  • The timing? No. (Bob has to die first.)
  • Troop deployments? I ask you. Ned has less than thirty men (not his best) against the full garrison of the Red Keep. Cersei sends out her pet Kingsguard. She sends the freaking Hound. However Ned distributes Fat Tom and the guys, there is no possible scenario in which they win.
Quote

Nothing in the books contradict this statement of his. Here’s Cersei’s (GRRM’s) words for you on the subject:

Cersei lies even to herself.

Quote

Now you can argue that this is hyperbole or exaggeration on Cersei’s part and Ned signed his own death warrant when he revealed to Cersei that he had uncovered her secret, or when he refused Renly’s help, or even when he refused LF’s advice and confided in the snake his plans. But to state that GRRM is contradicting the text is utterly false.

Is it the word 'contradiction' that bothers you? It's not essential. Liar Cersei aside, all the detail of the books supports the case that Sansa made no difference to Ned's death. Why write all that detail in the books, and give the opposite conclusion in an interview?

Quote

All GRRM states in the SSM is that several factors led to Ned’s downfall and Sansa (unwittingly) going to Cersei with her father’s plans was one of them. The readers can debate as to whether the eventual outcome for Ned/ Starks would have changed had Sansa not told Cersei about Ned’s plans but the SSM is in no way a contradiction of the text.

If there's going to be a debate, we need two sides. I say there is no scenario in which Sansa's information made a difference to the fall of Ned. The other side must be able to give such a scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

I think sometimes it's a bit weird the stuff GRRM says. He also said readers like Sansa more now, since she has taken responsibility for her father's death. But I don't recall her every finding out why Ned was executed or what exactly happened there at all. I don't recall her ever thinking she had a role to play. She didn't even know Joff was a bastard.

Yes! She hasn't. I don't recall anything like this either.

In fact, when she thinks of her conversation with Cersei, she only brings to mind pouring her heart out, while Cersei listened sympathetically. Does she keep troop deployments in her heart? Itineraries? Don't think so.

If grrm wants Sansa to be guilty of something, he really needs to write down some specifics. In a book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main effect of Sansa's going to Cersei was the fact that Sansa herself was captured, and Arya was forced on the run.  Sansa's capture enabled Cersei to exert pressure on Ned, specifically to force him to admit to treason and state that Joffrey was legitimate.

As to Ned's actual capture, that was the result of the actions of others, and nothing Sansa did made any difference there.  If Cersei believes otherwise, she is wrong.  If Sansa's statement was what made her take action, then she is even stupider than I would have believed, considering Ned has essentially told her he would be taking action against her.  Of course, considering her later decisions, stupidity on her part would hardly be surprising.

While Sansa may not realize the effect of her revelations to Cersei, she has certainly learned to become much less trusting than she was.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Nevets said:

The main effect of Sansa's going to Cersei was the fact that Sansa herself was captured, and Arya was forced on the run.  Sansa's capture enabled Cersei to exert pressure on Ned, specifically to force him to admit to treason and state that Joffrey was legitimate

If this is so it can be argued that this essentially allowed for Ned's execution. Having Sansa provided the leverage the Lannisters needed to get Ned to "confess" to treason. 

Just to be clear, I do not think Sansa is at fault for Ned's execution, I'm just saying this effect in & of itself has major implications. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

If Sansa's statement was what made her take action, then she is even stupider than I would have believed, considering Ned has essentially told her he would be taking action against her.  Of course, considering her later decisions, stupidity on her part would hardly be surprising.

This is Cersei we're talking about, she knew that old Jon was about to spill the beans and still had no plan to act against him, it was Petyr the one who saved the day, the idea that Cersei might have believed that with Robert's death everything would be fine and dandy is hardly surprising, she didn't even attempt to bribe the Golden Cloaks until LF delivered them and Ned's head to her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

If this is so it can be argued that this essentially allowed for Ned's execution. Having Sansa provided the leverage the Lannisters needed to get Ned to "confess" to treason. 

Just to be clear, I do not think Sansa is at fault for Ned's execution, I'm just saying this effect in & of itself has major implications. 

But I always thought, that Ned's execution was clearly an "accident" and nothing truly allowed for it. Just that the Lannisters were lucky, that they had Sansa, otherwise Ned's execution would have had more severe consequences for them- Jaime's death.

If Ned's execution had been a well thought out plan by Cersei or Tywin, I'd agree, but they never wanted Ned to die in the first place. 

And if we agree that Ned's capture wasn't Sansa's fault (or at least mainly caused by his own actions and LF's betrayal) and with him being a prisoner there would have always been the possibility of Joffrey going crazy and executing him.

I highly doubt Joff thought about Jaime's life and that it wouldn't be in danger with Sansa as a hostage and that he therefore was free to execute Ned. The guy is 12, not very bright and doesn't even care for Jaime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...