Jump to content

Sansa's betrayal consequences partly overestimated?


Greywater-Watch

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

She was afraid of him earlier, yes... but she was afraid of him before he forced her to look at him, both as he escorts her to her room as well as a chapter before that. And then he tells his story and she is afraid for him.

I don't know what the hell you're debating here: I agreed that Sansa empathizes with Sandor after his story. I agree that Sansa was always initially fearful of him. I disagree part of the reason she was afraid of him. And I disagree that you conclude on this sole incident that Sansa is heroically above average empathic when "faced" with a horrible story of abuse, while she fails to feel anything for a stranger who died right in front of her earlier that day.

I think you know exactly what I'm debating here. Our whole debate is about your opinion being that Sansa has little to no empathy in AGOT(correct me if I'm wrong), while mine is she is very empathetic, especially in this moment here. So please stop statements like that! 

My point (as I thought I had explained before) is that it is very difficult to feel empathy AT ALL, if you are that afraid to the extent that you start to cry! So much adrenaline going on. It is very difficult for adults, but even more so for children.

PLEASE STOP DOWNPLAYING HER FEAR, SHE WAS CRYING!!

And some would argue, that the Hound did not deserve her compassion after treating her like that! That she gave it to him anyway does not only reveal her empathy, but also her kind heart. 

If you have the ability to read the nuance in Arya's behavior, then you're supposed to read the nuance in Sansa's actions. That you don't, reveals you're biased towards Sansa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Well, you "asked" me who I consider an "empath", and I answered.

Your "comprehension of empathy" is such that you consider a paragraph of a girl "feeling absolutely nothing" for a stranger dying right in front her "an empath".

Of course it's just one "case" (and the word you're looking for is "anecdotal")... What you don't seem to understand about "evidence" is that the exception does not confirm the rule. You apply the avareged development psychogoly to declare a character written within that average range as "exceptional" and "above average". That's not how it works. Someone is exceptional and above average (or below average for that matter) when their development is faster/slower, significantly different outside of the "average range", when it deviates from the age ranges and stages development psychology claims.

And while I indeed gave you anecdotal evidence, there exists a trail of measured empirical evidence: both for EQ as well as IQ I'm in the 1% percentile (above average). The empirical measuring was done by psychologists who perform standardized tests on all children in kindergarten, elementary and HS + MENSA staff.

And what a complete cop-out on "there's no (empirical) evidence that Arya is one".

Her thinking how sad it is, that no one will sing songs about him and remember him is not "nothing". She feels sad for him. I never said, that she is exploding with empathy here. She doesn't know him. It is like seeing a car crash. You are shocked, you are unable to look away, but you don't immediately burst into tears, because you don't know these ppl. 

I'm very well aware of outliers and variance :) there are a topic in developmental psychology as well.

And what a complete cop-out on "there's no (empirical) evidence that Arya is one".

Well, if you take that sentence out of context it sounds strange. What has made it more difficult for me to answer is, that you state you opinions often as if they were facts. When I asked, if you believed Arya's upbringing had nothing to do with her becoming more empathetic? Your answer was "you are born an empath" and I held against that "no, you are not and even if you were, there is no way to collect evidence for very high solely biological generated empathy levels"- this is not my opinion, this is a fact. 

Therefore there is no way for us to know, if Arya' s empathy were as high, if she grew up differently- accepted like Sansa for example.

If you think, Arya would have turned out just as empathetic no matter the circumstances- this is your personal opinion and totally fine by me. 

I personally think, Arya is empathetic, but I just don't think you have extraordinary levels of empathy, if you turn out to be a serial killer.

Such a person would rather die, than have to kill to someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree. I think what NN was saying (I may be wrong) is that Sandor is saying he should have raped her before he left her. So, he should have done the most horrible thing to her he can think of rather than leave her there because that was worse - if that makes sense? 

That's how I take what he is saying. 

So not that he literally should have or wished he would have but that he should have done anything rather than leave her to her fate in KL. 

I agree with the rest though. He is trying to provoke Arya into giving him the gift of mercy but his body language & expressions give him away. It lets us know & on a subconscious level, Arya know, that he actually feels bad for these things. 

My interpretation is, that Arya saw him lying there and she thinks, she could kill him now like she always wanted, but suddenly she is hesitating and for some reason she doesn't just do it like she had always planed to do. Killing him is just not so easy anymore.

Than he makes his confession and I actually think hearing his crimes again makes her first and foremost angry and reminds her, why she wanted to kill him in the first place. But now he doesn't want to survive , he wants desperately to die. He is making the dilemma easier for her, because now she can use her revenge as a reason to justify to herself, why she doesn't kill him. Basically the perfect scenario has happened, she doesn't even have to kill him anymore, to take revenge, which is good, because she can't kill him anymore.

So imo it was both her not being able to kill him anymore, but also not wanting to give him what he so desperately wanted, after just being reminded of his crimes again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I think it's empathy that stayed her hand, and she tried to rationalize her inability to kill him to herself with the lingering feelings of resentment she has. But no, I don't believe Arya refrained from giving him mercy out of resentment at all.

And I don't believe she should have given him mercy.

I read that scene again and I agree. He has become human for her through their journey together. So she can't kill him anymore. Him desperately wanting to be killed, but at the same time reminding her of his crimes helps her to justify to herself, that she doesn't kill him. She can take revenge for Mycah, while at the same time not having to do, what she can't do anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Both Renly and Robert make clear in their response to Arya's story that they have no intentions to harm Arya over it. Renly's laughing and Robert confronts Joffrey with being so bad at swordsplay that a little girl like Arya can even disarm him. So, the Sansa was protecting Arya just doesn't hold up.

The only adult in the room making demands was Cersei. So, the question is whether you believe that Cersei would have demanded Robert to say "kill" Arya for striking at Joffrey. Personally, I doubt that Cersei would have gone that far, not because she doesn't want Arya dead. After all, she had Jaime search for Arya with the purpose to have her killed. But during the King's justice scene she as well as anybody else could see that Robert didn't think Arya was wrong or bad for disarming Joffrey, but Joffrey being the "unskilled" one. Cersei does like to make demands of Robert, but she aims and pushes for demands that she knows she can pressure Robert into. Getting Robert to agree to chop the heads off Ned's children for this incident was never in the cards. That's exactly why she had Jaime search for Arya: to kill her without needing Robert's approval.

So, let's say that Sansa had told the truth. Robert would have dismissed the case as child's play and would have further put blame on his own son for it. However, Cersei would never fully rest about it and would seek some form of retaliation. She would still have demanded for a recompensation in some form and that would have been: kill those dangerous wolves. So, imo, no matter what Sansa or Ned had done, in the end Cersei would have still demanded that the direwolves would be killed. And in the end, Robert would have acquiesced to the demand to avoid further hassle with Cersei.

As for Ned - he never truly realized the value of the wolves, until he learns from Cat that Summer saved Bran's and Cat's life against the catspaw. Just like Robert he saw them as pets, and as potential dangerous pets. He didn't want to kill them, because he recognizes that they only act by instinct and therefore are not "evil" and because he knows it grieves his daughters who love their "pets". But again when push comes to shove, I don't think he would have decided to turn back North with both his daughters over the life of Lady. He too would in the end acquiesce to Robert's decision. But neither Robert nor Ned would kill Lady without Cersei demanding it.

I would also stress that Cersei wanted those wolves dead and planned to get them killed somehow, even if Joffrey had never happened upon Arya playing with Mycah. The moment she saw Lady behave protectively towards any potential threat to Sansa earlier the day of the incident, her mind bent towards getting rid of them. There's just no way she would allow the wife of her son to have a protector who might be willing to kill Joffrey in the case Joffrey hurt Sansa someday. And not only does Cersei know that there is a high chance that one day Joffrey would harm Sansa, she would defend Joffrey having that right. It's not as if Cersei ever did or try anything to stop Joffrey from having Sansa being beaten. Cersei aims to destroy Loras for similar reasons: her son's wife is not allowed to have their personal loyal guard/protector.

No matter what scenario would have played out at Darry's, Lady's death would have been demanded, and she would have been executed by Ned at that time. Let's say that Nymeria had been caught, Cersei would still have pushed for Lady's death. And no matter what scenario would have played out, Robert would never have agreed to have Arya phsyically harmed by his decree. So, imo the moment Arya was found and safe from Jaime looking for her, Arya would never have come to harm, and Lady would always have been killed.

IMO George writes situations that seem to be the result of a domino-effect, but upon closer inspection are quite insular, or the seeming provocation was just an easy opportunity for a villain to do what they wanted to happen.

The argument that it would have been worse for Arya if Sansa had told the truth is a false argument. That it would have been better for Lady if Sansa had told the truth is also a false argument. The situation just reveals something about Sansa's values at the time and it's left tot he reader to decide whether they agree with those values or not. It also causes a deep rift between the sisters that go beyond children squabbles. While Arya did not realize that Robert would never have agreed to harm a hair on Arya's head, she ended up believing her sister would possibly get her killed in order to be liked by her fiance, even if Sansa attempted to remain neutral. And no matter Sansa's intentions, and it being understandable from Sansa's POV to say "I don't remember", it's just as understandable that the sister - who feared for her life for the past days, was hunted and had little to eat - to feel deeply betrayed by Sansa.  But hey, if only Arya wasn't so "annoying" quick to anger, right?

 

 

I don't know why you writing this to me. This was never my argument in the first place. It was NLG's. And I didn't even agree with it, just told another poster, who I thought had trouble understanding NLG's argument. If you read a bit further, we all came to the conclusion, that it was wrong. I acknowledge it in #336:

"Yep, missed that you are right. Especially because Joffrey had also said both attacked him. So no matter, who sansa would have agreed with "the wolf and girl attacked" " 

So I feel like this whole post is just no directed towards me. 

"But hey, if only Arya wasn't so "annoying" quick to anger, right?" I have never ever stated anything like that! So what do you always say- Straw man! I don't find Arya annoying, nor do I blame Arya for attacking Sansa. I have only ever mention it, in the context, when we asked ourselves, why Ned didn't follow up with Sansa right after she said "I don't remember", because he knew the truth and asked her himself to tell her story. I mentioned it, that doesn't mean I think she was wrong! I just reiterated what happened to prove another point. 

I don't think Arya is to blame for anything in this whole scenario, so I really don't get, what you attacking me here for.

I never thought Arya was fearing for her life, when brought before Robert. Is there a quote to back that up? 

I agree, that the outcome would have been the same no matter what, I have stated that many times here before in this thread for example in #54

Imo you completely ignore the context of, what it would mean for Sansa to go against Joffrey. You forget, that marrying him, even though it is something she wants, is her duty and is chosen for her. She can't just get out of it, just because it suddenly doesn't work anymore. She has to make sure, that it works, because there is no way out of it. And part of that is pleasing her future husband. That's what she has learned is part of her duties as a wife.

Ned should have never put Sansa into this position, while simultaneously expecting her to still marry him afterwards. She has been told a wife has to obey her husband, be loyal to him. And that is the truth- that is how this society works. She is the one, who has to live with Joffrey afterwards and will be completely in his power. Not Ned, not Arya. At these times women were expected to give up their families and be loyal and answer to their husband's families. They have the rights to the wife. Sansa knows that. She has been prepared for that, it was part of her education just like sword fighting is for Rob and Jon, hence her helplessness in the situation. 

It is an impossible situation. She doesn't want to betray Arya otherwise she just would have sided with Joffrey, but she also can't betray Joffrey, because he is her future husband and already angry at her.

We have to keep in mind, that Ned knew the truth about the Trident, he knew what kind of boy Joffrey was and he still NEVER breaks off the engagement, instead he keeps letting Sansa hanging out with Joff, without ever mentioning anything negative about him. And there is no evidence, that he ever would have broken the engagement, if it wasn't for the incest. So Sansa really has no choice in the matter, independent from what she wants or doesn't want. Daughters marry whoever their father order them to.

So imo it had nothing to do with hurting Arya at all.  I of course understand, that this was horrible for Arya. And my heart breaks for her. She did nothing wrong at all!!

I have written a lot about that in my other posts and the thread below captures my opinions even better. Especially all the posts from mambru and OP butterbumps. But I agree with almost everyone, who argues on Sansa's behalf in this thread.

If you choose to keep this conversation going please read these before. I have addressed almost everything in my posts before. And sometime I correct myself in a following post. 

Elegant Woes linked it first, don't wanna take credit for finding it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Agreed.

I think it's important to realize though that this is the first situation where Ned ever has to be a parent to either of his daughters. From Arya's first chapter we learn that those who rear the girls are her mother Catelyn and the Septa. The maester may be one of her teachers, but he's not "rearing" her hands on. This is typical for a patriarchal society: women are responsible for rearing daughters and the boys until they are at the age of being a page, and fathers rear only the boys once they are old enough to get from behind the mother's frocks. So, up until then Ned Stark only parented Jon, Robb and Theon, directly and had started to rear Bran (likely since he was 5). We know this, because in Bran's chapter where Jaime pushed him, Bran remembers Cat asking Ned to be the authority over him and punish him for his broken promise of not climbing anymore. In the Godswood chapter, Ned expresses it's time for Cat to help get Rickon under his parenting wing, when he tells her Rickon is getting old enough not to be afraid anymore.

George put both Cat and Ned in reversed parenting roles. Ned leaves for KL and has no son with him whatsoever, only the daughters. He's completely out of his debt with the rearing of daughters, and relies on Septa Mordane doing it when they start out. Likewise, Cat is initially out of her debt in her task with the sons. She knows how to be the nursing role to a son. This is why she ends up neglecting Robb and Rickon. Before Ned left, Robb was Ned's responsibility, and she likely had already started to let go of Rickon after Ned's remark about Rickon (months before that). But she is used to taking care of the boys when they're sick. So, she sits at Bran's bed all the time. Without Ned being there, it's not enough of course. It requires a fire and an assassination attempt to force Cat to adjust her parenting role. And then she goes overboard, acting too much, taking too much responsibility upon herself without consulting much at all.

After the Trident incident, Ned realizes he needs to step up the plate, and naturally he relies on the info his wife n odubt gave him: complaining about Arya and praising Sansa for being such a good girl. If Catelyn and Mordane never realized how Sansa's teasing (and Jeyne being outright mean) was a negative factor that was part of the equation of Arya's behavior, then Ned knew it even less. Only at the Hand's tower and witnessing the cat fights between Arya and Sansa does he start to realize some of the dynamics. So, he begins to take up the rearing role, but only starts with Arya, for she's the daughter Cat and Mordane complained about. But he's not Cat, let alone Mordane. He does it the only way he knows how - having a heart to heart with Arya similarly to how he would have a conversation with any of his sons. He's also the first who starts to pick up on Sansa's passive aggressive nastiness towards Arya. Sansa showed this type of behaviour for a long while already, but it certainly flew under Mordane's radar, as well as Cat's, who only apparently was called in to reprimand her daughters when Mordane asked for help, and Mordane has a bias against Arya. So, when Sansa is rebuked for her venomous words to Arya, it's likely the first time that any parent actually did so.

In a way, Mordane and Catelyn allowed Sansa to "run wild" in her passive aggressiveness towards Arya, who was their scapegoat just as well. Ned's the first to try and put a stop to it, but he does it the wrong way: by ordering it, expecting her to be obedient, and smarter, and more grown.

So, yes, their parents failed them in a way. I too wish Ned had the realization to have a heart to heart with Sansa in the way he had one with Arya. But equally, given the gender parenting roles in the feudal society, I don't think it's realistic to ask of the recent parent who's only been doing this for the last six months, to do a better job at rearing Sansa, when those who did it for 11 years before that also failed at it when they constantly praised Sansa for being what came easy to her and being understanding and indulging in her ostracising her sister.

And I certainly think that modern standards of parenting are impossible to apply here for some poisters here to call either Ned or Cat "bad" parents. In comparison to most nobles they're the better ones, and Ned succeeds in Arya where all others before him failed. Ned failed with Sansa, because neither Cat let alone awful Mordane ever seemed to realize the underlying issues that were brewing long before that. 

 

I think you have a big double standard going here. When it comes to Ned, he is out of his depth, because he is new to raising girls. And somehow, that is an excuse for him. While Sansa is also new to being betrothed, with no one to guide her through this and she is a child and somehow no compassion for her. 

I dont blame Ned for being new to the responsibility of rearing daughters, but that was something he maybe should have thought about before going to KL and ask Cat for help, how to navigate Sansa through her engagement. This is a big deal for her. It is her future after all. And he put her in a horrible position, when he asked her speak against Joffrey in front of Robert. 

You say we can't apply modern logic, when we judge Ned's and Cat's parenting, but for some reason you do apply modern logic, when it comes to demanding loyalty from Sansa to her sister. 

I really think it's funny, that you accused me of having a bias against Arya.

I don't think Ned needed help from Cat, when it came to Arya. He was probably better with her than Cat.

And I really think you are blowing this fight between sisters out of proportions. That's all that it is.

Arya isn't saying nice things to Sansa either. She gives it right back to her. And even calls her stupid. This is absolutely normal among siblings, mine have done way worse to me than Sansa did to Arya- turned out okay. This is normal, everyone with siblings knows that, especially, if you are so close in age.

That doesn't mean, that I don't think Mordane and Cat should have disciplined Sansa harshly for how she treated Arya, since Sansa was the one with the advantage, she was the one , who did well and was praised, she wasn't the one out of her element. But that's what parents are for. Children don't raise themselves.

Sansa doesn't understand Arya. She wants have a sister and doesn't get why Arya, just can't act like a normal girl. How Arya behaves is unusual and seems to go against her nature as a woman. Sansa again would need to have parents, who sit her down and tell her: "Your sister can't be different. This is just the way she is. And she is good the way she is. She is just different than you. And you must accept her and stop critiquing her and trying to change her." (that is actually similar to the talk Arya got, but of course Sansa never got one) But since Mordane and Cat were critiquing and punishing Arya as well, that didn't set a good example for Sansa.

I find it strange, that you claim to like Sansa. The only impression I get from your posts is, that you have an intense disdain and dislike for her and are quite biased against her at least in AGOT. Imo you also don't grasp her nature, have little compassion or empathy for her. Apparently in your opinion her main character traits are being selfish, self-centered, ignorant and basically a phony and maybe even cold-hearted in AGOT. Before you accuse me of straw man- I'm just letting you know my impressions.

I really don't get, why you would spend your time writing a long essay on such a sensitive and delicate subject like Sansa's "sexual maturation", when you don't even seem to like or appreciate her character. Are you only interested in her character, when it comes to her dynamic with Sandor Clegane?

I find it weird, that you seem quite forgiving towards a character like Sandor, while simultaneously being so harsh on Sansa, who is just a normal 11 year old girl, going through normal 11 girl things, having never murdered anyone.

Imo it's fine to judge characters harshly, but you have to apply the same logic to all of the characters or admit it's bias. (generally speaking; not you specifically )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

I think you know exactly what I'm debating here. Our whole debate is about your opinion being that Sansa has little to no empathy in AGOT(correct me if I'm wrong), while mine is she is very empathetic, especially in this moment here. So please stop statements like that! 

No my opinion is that Sansa has average empathy, but also quite disturbing moments of low to no empath. There is a moment where she shows no empathy whatsoever - Ser Hugh of the Vale... the one you call the "squire". Can't recall your answer to my post where I quoted the text and showed that Sansa "feels" nothing. You completely ignore that, and declare her an above average empath, because she felt empathy for a horrific story told by a man she was afraid of.

 

Quote

My point (as I thought I had explained before) is that it is very difficult to feel empathy AT ALL, if you are that afraid to the extent that you start to cry! So much adrenaline going on. It is very difficult for adults, but even more so for children.

I need research papers and links for your claim that people who are afraid have difficulty to empathize. Because you are making a claim that goes against everything we know about "stockholm syndrome", "trauma bonding" and people staying with their abuser. Fear (and adrenaline) promotes bonding, and empathy is the vehicle to bonding. Or more precise it's the combination of fear for your life and the person you fear also signaling you have the ability to please/calm them by empathizing with them. In such situations empathy promotes personal survival.

Your whole claim about it being difficult for adults and children to empathize when they are afraid is just utter rubbish. Fearful situations are exactly the moments that you get social cohesion in small groups for example.

Quote

PLEASE STOP DOWNPLAYING HER FEAR, SHE WAS CRYING!!

And some would argue, that the Hound did not deserve her compassion after treating her like that! That she gave it to him anyway does not only reveal her empathy, but also her kind heart. 

If you have the ability to read the nuance in Arya's behavior, then you're supposed to read the nuance in Sansa's actions. That you don't, reveals you're biased towards Sansa. 

I'm not downplaying her fear. I'm not downplaying that she was crying. The scene does reveal she has normal empathy and can have a kind heart, and we needed that after that utterly cold lack-of-empathy paragraph about Ser Hugh bleeding to death in front of her, for he is but a stranger who means nothing to her.

What I'm saying is that the combination of not feeling empathy for a complete stranger dying while she feels no fear, but bonding and empathizing in a situation where she's first terrified and then is signaled she can assuade the man who seems to be dangerous by empathizing with him is average empathy. The average people with empathy do not empathize with strangers, but they will in fearful situations where empathy promotes their survival. Sansa falls neatly into that category.

It's not bias towards Sansa to "not consider her a superempathic" person. You're the one who doesn't seem to be able to read this Sansan scene with nuance. And you're calling something "normal" the "abnormal". And on top of that you considered Sansa as having above average empathy for Ser Hugh, a total stranger. The latter makes me question your understanding of empathy, and indeed your bias for Sansa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sweetsunray I agree with Nagini's Neville. You do seem to have a bias against Sansa - or at the very least AGOT!Sansa. Why is that you can judge Ned's actions through their feudal society, but when it comes to Sansa you judge her on our modern values? Sansa isn't your typical teenager, she's a noble woman, every thought she has and action she makes should be looked at through the feudal lense. To judge Sansa on modern sensibilities is to do her as a character a great disservice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Elegant Woes said:

@sweetsunray I agree with Nagini's Neville. You do seem to have a bias against Sansa - or at the very least AGOT!Sansa. Why is that you can judge Ned's actions through their feudal society, but when it comes to Sansa you judge her on our modern values? Sansa isn't your typical teenager, she's a noble woman, every thought she has and action she makes should be looked at through the feudal lense. To judge Sansa on modern sensibilities is to do her as a character a great disservice. 

How do I judge Sansa by modern values? Are you saying that feeling "empathy" is a modern value? Is ratting out your pops the norm in a feudal society? Is betraying your family the norm in a feudal society? Especially the Westerosi feudal society? On the contrary. Empathy is not a modern value. It's not even a "value". It's a human capacity of all ages. And ratting out on your pops is very much NOT the norm in a feudal society, where family/clans is everything.

If she isn't "your typical teenager"  and "we have to see Sansa through the feudal lense" then why does NN use the argument that "teenagers typically behave more entitled and selfish and without having the ability to foresee the consequences of their actions"? In fact, I consider Sansa very much the prototypical teenager: popularity, starting to rebel, idolizing Loras like a poster boy.

I have said from the start that aGoT Sansa is written to be an usympathetic character; that I consider aGoT Sansa entitled, selfish, disloyal, self-absorbed and at times having a disturbing low amount of empathy, sometimes even cruel - in short she's a bit-of-a-shit in aGoT. I do NOT hide that is my opinion of Sansa in aGoT. My opinion is also that she improved and I root for her, and therefore it was more a phase than a defining trait of her personality. I still do not consider her someone with above average empathy. More, George has admitted that is exactly how he wrote Sansa as a character in aGoT. It's not bias, when the author himself confirms it to be a fact.

Despite having that opinion of aGoT Sansa, I still do not consider her responsible for Lady's death, nor do I consider her responsible for Ned's death.

So, I'm not biased against Sansa. My opinion aligns with how George wrote her. But some posters here are biased pro-Sansa in such a way that to them she's the wonder woman of empathy, the sweetest character in the books with the biggest heart, because she empathized with a man she feared and who made her cry, and stating that Sansa is actually only average empathic is being "biased against her"... The moment fans of a character cannot deal with their favourite character not being seen as utterly perfect on everything, even when the author himself admits she starts out being a bit-of-a-shit, it's not the reader who agrees with the author who's biased. I only had to mention that Sansa was not a "good horserider" and there was instant reaction and defense to that ability. ... Good thing I didn't mention she's bad with numbers. But I'm biased against Sansa and "judging her through a modern lens"? Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

My interpretation is, that Arya saw him lying there and she thinks, she could kill him now like she always wanted, but suddenly she is hesitating and for some reason she doesn't just do it like she had always planed to do. Killing him is just not so easy anymore.

Than he makes his confession and I actually think hearing his crimes again makes her first and foremost angry and reminds her, why she wanted to kill him in the first place. But now he doesn't want to survive , he wants desperately to die. He is making the dilemma easier for her, because now she can use her revenge as a reason to justify to herself, why she doesn't kill him. Basically the perfect scenario has happened, she doesn't even have to kill him anymore, to take revenge, which is good, because she can't kill him anymore.

So imo it was both her not being able to kill him anymore, but also not wanting to give him what he so desperately wanted, after just being reminded of his crimes again.

I gotcha. That makes sense as well. I think we are both kind of saying the same thing. 

Especially the bolded, that's pretty much what I gathered from the passage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sweetsunray I was not speaking of the empathy discussion between you and Nagini's Neville.

I am speaking about how you hold a different standard towards Ned and Sansa's situation in AGOT. You are very forgiving of Ned when it comes to how he takes care of his daughters, because the task of rearing children - especially girls is not the job of a father in a feudal society. He's out of his depth. You even say we shouldn't apply modern standard to him.

However you don't give the same leeway towards Sansa in the Trident incident. You expect her to be completely loyal to Arya and when she isn't you judge her harshly for it. In this you suddenly apply your modern standards.

You ignore the fact that the moment Sansa was betrothed to Joffrey she is required to be loyal and obedient to him and once she marries him she will also be under his jurisdiction. On top of that Sansa also got a taste of what Joffrey truly like. All of these play a factor in the choice she made. Arya doesn't see it that way because a) she's scared and b) she doesn't understand the tough spot Sansa is in. However we the readers have more than enough information to have sympathy in the situation Sansa is in. 

I am not asking you to see Sansa as this perfect person in AGOT, because she isn't. All I ask you to have just a little bit of sympathy in the horrible situation she is in and that you hold Sansa and Ned to the same standard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

need research papers and links for your claim that people who are afraid have difficulty to empathize. Because you are making a claim that goes against everything we know about "stockholm syndrome", "trauma bonding" and people staying with their abuser. Fear (and adrenaline) promotes bonding, and empathy is the vehicle to bonding. Or more precise it's the combination of fear for your life and the person you fear also signaling you have the ability to please/calm them by empathizing with them. In such situations empathy promotes personal survival

 

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Your whole claim about it being difficult for adults and children to empathize when they are afraid is just utter rubbish. Fearful situations are exactly the moments that you get social cohesion in small groups for example

This isn't true. Stockholm Syndrome & trauma bonding don't happen instantaneously. 

Fear promotes bonding with the people who are experiencing the fear with you, not the people who are scaring you, except for in special situations (Stockholm Syndrome etc) which is why we have names for those special situations. If it happened each & every time we wouldn't need that. 

Of course it's hard to feel empathy towards someone who is harming you. 

If someone puts a gun to your head & demands all your money are you going to feel empathetic towards them in that moment? Most people would not. 

Trauma bonding needs cycles of rewards & punishment to manifest & Stockholm Syndrome is typically in a captor or kidnapping situation. Neither of those apply here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

Her thinking how sad it is, that no one will sing songs about him and remember him is not "nothing". She feels sad for him.

No, she does not FEEL sad for him. She THINKS it's "sad nobody will sing a song about him". THINKING is not FEELING.

7 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

I never said, that she is exploding with empathy here. She doesn't know him. It is like seeing a car crash. You are shocked, you are unable to look away, but you don't immediately burst into tears, because you don't know these ppl. 

Jeyne burst into tears. Is Jeyne Poole now the wonderwoman of empathy?

7 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

What has made it more difficult for me to answer is, that you state you opinions often as if they were facts.

And you don't?

7 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

When I asked, if you believed Arya's upbringing had nothing to do with her becoming more empathetic? Your answer was "you are born an empath" and I held against that "no, you are not and even if you were, there is no way to collect evidence for very high solely biological generated empathy levels"- this is not my opinion, this is a fact. 

You kept on harping on this speculation of yours: "being a social outcast helps people to have more life experience at earlier age and therefore develop empathy earlier" and also implied that in the end, by adulthood others have also gotten enough experience, and so it all ends up being average.

To be quite honest, I wanted to puke when I read your claim about social outcasts. It's a completely and utterly paternalizing opinion and it certainly does not come from empirical research.

Yes, I said "you are born an empath". With that I do not mean that a newborn baby is already fully empathic. With that I mean that the capacity for empathy is biologically defined to be that within outlier ranges. The brain of course still has to physically develop.

You also seem to confuse two different concepts: development and life experiences. Life experiences are part of the environmental factors, but not all. When they talk about environmental factors in development psychology, they also mean anything that may happen to the brain. If you get knocked over the head and you have a brain injury that too is an environmental factor. We do not consider those to be "life experiences" but they are "physical traumas to the brain". It also includes the required factors within the environment to promote a certain development. Children who were abandoned in the wild and somehow survived with the help of animals before the age of speech development can never learn to speak properly afterwards. It isn't the emotional shock or "life experience" that hampered the speech development. It's the fact they didn't grow up around people promoting their abstrahation abilities to develop. On top of that, part of the development is purely physical, aka growth. And yes, there are environmental factors that can promote or inhibit growth, such as nutrition. But the biological capacity cannot be exceeded because of nutrition, and only in very rare genetic defects can a three year old develop into having the body of an adult.

So, yes, the development of empathy comes in stages, but it's not 100% determined by environment either. And just as psychopaths were born with the physical impairment that their braincells do not match with the hormone oxytocin, empaths (who score high on affective empathy tests) have an unusual large amount of mirror neurons being active. The activation of mirror neurons starts as early as a baby can "perceive" the world around them. When a mother smiles, the mirror neurons in the baby's brain make them smile back. 

Furthermore, the type of empathy you seem to be talking about is the type of empathy we call the "cognitive empathy". It is true that "cognitive empathy" develops at older ages in children than the affective one. However, people can develop cognitive empathy without having an ounce of affective empathy. For example, psychopaths have cognitive empathy, but no affective one. They "know" what other people must be feeling, but they do not "feel" it (nor do they care to feel it). And they "know", because without knowing how a target feels, you cannot manipulate them. People with autism for example have affective empathy, but have low cognitive empathy, and are usually hampered in forming affective empathy at the appropriate time, because they have difficulty reading body language.

People who are empaths are people who have a very high level of affective empathy. They see something happen and are spontaneously affected by it up to extreme emotional levels because of it. The typical issue for empaths is regulating their emotional response in situations where their empathy is triggered. They are so overwhelmed by empathic feelings that they cannot but express that emotion.

You complained about Arya's anger as somethign that annoys you and as a sign of her only being an average empathizer. That you think this shows once again that you have little psychological understanding, empathy and knowledge about affective empathy. There is something like "empathic anger".  Once that person witnesses someone else in pain (or remember them being in pain) they first feel (extreme) distress, which then is transformed into (extreme) anger to propel them into action to come to the aid of the other person or to stop the assailant. 

Almost every example you gave of Arya so annoyingly flying off into a rage is an example of empathic rage. And it is this empathic anger that Sandor tries to trigger in Arya when he tries to goad her into killing him. Empathic anger is speculated to be the necessary ingredient for feelings of injustice and ultimately an inner motivation for moral behaviour. For this type of being emotionally overwhelmed you (and others) seem to have little to no sympathy or empathy for. Her inability to regulate this emotional response is partly because of her age but also the amount of feelings. The more emotional a person is, the more energy it requires to control themselves and not instantly act on it.

And then there's something else readers tend to do with certain POVs: when a character is written to be in personal distress, the reader sympathizes and empathizes wit the distress of the character. However, whether personal distress (affective) is a precursor or requisite to affective empathy towards others is a subject of debate. My opinion is that it is not a precursor. Narcissists and psychopaths have self-pity and self-empathy (in fact they overflow with self-empathy). When a child gets personally distressed in the face of the distress of another child - for example one child starts to cry, and the other child starts to cry along - this is not regarded as empathizing with the first child, but the expression of self-centered discomfort and anxiety in response to someone else being in pain or distress. The Trident scene is a perfect example of Sansa showing only personal distress. She faces the fear and distress of Mycah as Joffrey slashes at him, Arya's anger and taking action in defence of Mycah, and Sansa crying out "to stop it, because they're ruining her day". Joffrey clearly lacks any form of affective empathy. In fact, he enjoys the emotional and physical distress he causes. Arya responds with string affective empathy, so much that she's prompted to act. Sansa gets distressed, but only in a self-centered manner. The personal distress response is normal in infants, but from the age of 2 children can start to respond in other-oriented ways when distressed by someone else's distress. And it is quite disturbing that in the face of potential mortal danger of another, Sansa at the age of 11 solely has a personal distress response.

Sansa has the ability to put herself in someone's shoes cognitively, identify with fictional characters from stories (cognitive empathy). But in the face of Mycah's and Arya's distress her distress response is not even that of a 2 year old. Even with Jeyne Poole, a large part of her distress is related to how Jeyne upsets her with her crying. George explicitly wrote the Trident scene, her thoughts to Ser Hugh's death and made sure to include Jeyne Poole in the tower for a scene to inform us about Sansa's underdeveloped affective empathy, how self-centered her "feelings" are in that phase of her personal development. Even at the Vale, she still has inklings of this: the lords declarant she wishes to squash like ants, handling and medicating Sweetrobin because his distress annoyes her. These are thoughts and actions to avoid being inconvenienced more than from empathizing with others. Hell, even with Harold Hardying, Littlefinger has to spell it out to her that his rudeness upon arrival is less personal, but has more to do with him being pre-disposed against marrying Littlefinger's daughter, because Littlefinger and Harold's backer Royce are each other's enemies.

7 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

Therefore there is no way for us to know, if Arya' s empathy were as high, if she grew up differently- accepted like Sansa for example.

Rubbish. Being ostracised by her sister does not make her grow extra mirror neurons, does not affect her hypothalamus in secreting oxytocin, nor enhance the size and twists of brain matter in the requisite regions. Experience can increase the amount of associative neuro-connections created in the cortex, but that relates to "cognitive empathy" which is accepted as not to be the general meaning when we use the word "empathize". We say we "empathize" when we "feel" and thus experience "affective empathy", not when we "think".

7 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

I personally think, Arya is empathetic, but I just don't think you have extraordinary levels of empathy, if you turn out to be a serial killer. Such a person would rather die, than have to kill to someone else.

Arya's not a serial killer. And I disagree that being an empath makes it impossible for a person to kill another person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Fear promotes bonding with the people who are experiencing the fear with you, not the people who are scaring you, except for in special situations (Stockholm Syndrome etc) which is why we have names for those special situations. If it happened each & every time we wouldn't need that. 

Of course it's hard to feel empathy towards someone who is harming you. 

If someone puts a gun to your head & demands all your money are you going to feel empathetic towards them in that moment? Most people would not. 

Trauma bonding needs cycles of rewards & punishment to manifest & Stockholm Syndrome is typically in a captor or kidnapping situation. Neither of those apply here. 

I was not suggesting that the Sansan situation is stockholm syndrome or trauma bonding in an abusive relationship. But as extreme examples that disptrove the general claim that fear excludes the ability to empathize with the threat. That said, while both are extreme examples, there is a build up towards it, and unlike what you claim fear is always part of the equation. Psychopaths for example put the targets they are zoning on in unsettling situations that promote feelings of anxiety and fear. Here's the story on how I ended up in relationship with a psychopath. He owed me money (the night before he was going to get drinks for a group of us and then disappeared). I did not trust him. He met up at a public place to pay me what he owed me, but then told me he needed to go get it and that I should accompany him. This meant going to a dark alley away from people. My bodily response was one of anxiety. This was a stranger I distrusted and now he was asking me to walk into a deserted dark alley with him. I went along anyway (being brave), all the while apprehensive, in a state of "run at first sign of trouble". But he behaved perfect. So, I relaxed and then concluded I could "trust him". Refraining from harming me when he had the chance was enough to switch from distrust to trust. Later that evening I rebuffed his attempts to flirt with me. He made big hurt-dog eyes at me. I went home, feeling nothing but sympathy for him. The next day I was hooked, line and sinker. From the very beginning he used natural fear responses to promote bonding and empathic behaviour from me. And no, he never harmed a hair on my head directly, never hit me, never held a gun to my head. He did wave a shotgun at some point to invisible gangsters coming to get us at some point. 

One of the hormons responsible for "trauma bonding" is "oxytocin" - the bonding hormone. It is also a hormone tied to fear: that is it "modulates" fear responses, either increasing or decreasing the fear sensation, depending on the stimuli, in order to enhance survival through pro-social bonding behavior.

So, let's consider Sandor. He's a stimulus that initially provokes a fear response in Sansa, well before he ever threatened her. Before the Trident incident, we have such a moment where she fears Sandor, but feared Ilyn Payne far more. Before being escorted by Sandor to her room, she hears Joffrey (whom she mistakenly regards as a positive stimulus) praise his dog. Still, she fears the man. Since she cannot avoid him, she has to modulate her fear for him in some way, and thus alter the perception of the fear-stimulus. She does this with pro-social behaviour: she tries to talk to him. If she managed to have a civil conversation with him, he would cease to be someone scary. He's not the man for civil talk, and so her fear is not alleviated, and she still cannot avoid him (flight response). Worse, he forces her to look at him from up close and touches her. Both touch and having to stare further promote Sansa's body to seek and modulate her fear response. But her staring at his face, even if forced, has the first positive social response from him. Sandor shares his story with her. Sansa's cognitive empathy abilities are stimulated through story-telling and her fear-response is also modulated to grasp that "looking away" makes him dangerous, but "staring at him" calms him somewhat. Since oxytocin is involved in modulating fear-responses and it's also the bonding hormone, it's therefore no surprise whatsoever that Sansa starts to form some form of attachment or partiality to Sandor that defies the ratio, logic and assumptions of how people should respond to a threat. By the end of aCoK, her fear response to him is so modulated that she can with confidence claim he won't hurt her, despite his behaviour and threats.

Prolonged exposure to someone or something that instills fear in you, the inability (or in my case refusal) to run and the absence of violence while the fearful person expects it to occur has a weird result in bonding and empathizing with the threat. So, when someone holds a gun to your head and demands your wallet and runs off with it after you give it, indeed you won't bond with your robber. But if you come across a total stranger holding a gun, visibly upset and talking about thinking of doing harm because he's desperate for money, you won't just feel fear, but also feel there's a chance you may reason with this stranger or can avoid anyone from coming to harm by helping them.

My point about stockholm syndrome and trauma bonding is that while these are extreme situations, they can occur because the hostage taker and the abuser abuse a natural occuring response in a person on how to deal with potentially fearful and threatening situations where they cannot use the flight response, but where empathy and bonding can help both modulate the fear as well as calm the potential threat. This natural response can also occur when the potential threat is not an abuser, not a hostage taker, and does not have to involve extreme violence at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

was not suggesting that the Sansan situation is stockholm syndrome or trauma bonding in an abusive relationship. But as extreme examples that disptrove the general claim that fear excludes the ability to empathize with the threat. That said, while both are extreme examples, there is a build up towards it, and unlike what you claim fear is always part of the equation.

Fear is always part of what equation? I assume you are not saying fear is always a part of the empathy equation but am not sure what else you could mean by that. 

At any rate, I'm not saying fear excludes the ability to empathize, I'm saying in a fearful moment it would be hard for anyone to empathize with someone if that makes sense? 

43 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

I was not suggesting that the Sansan situation is stockholm syndrome or trauma bonding in an abusive relationship. But as extreme examples that disptrove the general claim that fear excludes the ability to empathize with the threat. That said, while both are extreme examples, there is a build up towards it, and unlike what you claim fear is always part of the equation. Psychopaths for example put the targets they are zoning on in unsettling situations that promote feelings of anxiety and fear. Here's the story on how I ended up in relationship with a psychopath. He owed me money (the night before he was going to get drinks for a group of us and then disappeared). I did not trust him. He met up at a public place to pay me what he owed me, but then told me he needed to go get it and that I should accompany him. This meant going to a dark alley away from people. My bodily response was one of anxiety. This was a stranger I distrusted and now he was asking me to walk into a deserted dark alley with him. I went along anyway (being brave), all the while apprehensive, in a state of "run at first sign of trouble". But he behaved perfect. So, I relaxed and then concluded I could "trust him". Refraining from harming me when he had the chance was enough to switch from distrust to trust. Later that evening I rebuffed his attempts to flirt with me. He made big hurt-dog eyes at me. I went home, feeling nothing but sympathy for him. The next day I was hooked, line and sinker. From the very beginning he used natural fear responses to promote bonding and empathic behaviour from me. And no, he never harmed a hair on my head directly, never hit me, never held a gun to my head. He did wave a shotgun at some point to invisible gangsters coming to get us at some point. 

One of the hormons responsible for "trauma bonding" is "oxytocin" - the bonding hormone. It is also a hormone tied to fear: that is it "modulates" fear responses, either increasing or decreasing the fear sensation, depending on the stimuli, in order to enhance survival through pro-social bonding behavior.

So, let's consider Sandor. He's a stimulus that initially provokes a fear response in Sansa, well before he ever threatened her. Before the Trident incident, we have such a moment where she fears Sandor, but feared Ilyn Payne far more. Before being escorted by Sandor to her room, she hears Joffrey (whom she mistakenly regards as a positive stimulus) praise his dog. Still, she fears the man. Since she cannot avoid him, she has to modulate her fear for him in some way, and thus alter the perception of the fear-stimulus. She does this with pro-social behaviour: she tries to talk to him. If she managed to have a civil conversation with him, he would cease to be someone scary. He's not the man for civil talk, and so her fear is not alleviated, and she still cannot avoid him (flight response). Worse, he forces her to look at him from up close and touches her. Both touch and having to stare further promote Sansa's body to seek and modulate her fear response. But her staring at his face, even if forced, has the first positive social response from him. Sandor shares his story with her. Sansa's cognitive empathy abilities are stimulated through story-telling and her fear-response is also modulated to grasp that "looking away" makes him dangerous, but "staring at him" calms him somewhat. Since oxytocin is involved in modulating fear-responses and it's also the bonding hormone, it's therefore no surprise whatsoever that Sansa starts to form some form of attachment or partiality to Sandor that defies the ratio, logic and assumptions of how people should respond to a threat. By the end of aCoK, her fear response to him is so modulated that she can with confidence claim he won't hurt her, despite his behaviour and threats.

Prolonged exposure to someone or something that instills fear in you, the inability (or in my case refusal) to run and the absence of violence while the fearful person expects it to occur has a weird result in bonding and empathizing with the threat. So, when someone holds a gun to your head and demands your wallet and runs off with it after you give it, indeed you won't bond with your robber. But if you come across a total stranger holding a gun, visibly upset and talking about thinking of doing harm because he's desperate for money, you won't just feel fear, but also feel there's a chance you may reason with this stranger or can avoid anyone from coming to harm by helping them.

My point about stockholm syndrome and trauma bonding is that while these are extreme situations, they can occur because the hostage taker and the abuser abuse a natural occuring response in a person on how to deal with potentially fearful and threatening situations where they cannot use the flight response, but where empathy and bonding can help both modulate the fear as well as calm the potential threat. This natural response can also occur when the potential threat is not an abuser, not a hostage taker, and does not have to involve extreme violence at all.

 

I'm having a hard time quoting each passage on my phone so I apologize. 

First & foremost I want you to know that I'm sorry this happened to you & am hopeful you don't suffer any lasting affects from what this man put you through. I've been a victim of psychopathic manipulation myself & it isn't fun. :grouphug:

My point, relating to your situation would be, that you didn't feel empathy until after the fear response. During the course of the event you were fearful, on edge, ready to run at the slightest clue that something was wrong - not empathetic. It would have been difficult for you or anyone to feel empathy in that moment toward the man who you were fearful of. It took a little more time & that cycle of reward/punishment to come about in order for you to be manipulated into that empathy. Which is what you are saying in regards to Sandor & Sansa so I suppose I don't really disagree with that premise because there was that build up of fear (punishment) & then the story & having to look at his face & pity him (reward) cycle. 

I just don't think in a normal situation it is unreasonable for a person to not feel empathy toward someone they are fearful towards. Like you said, it takes exposure to said person & a cycle of sorts. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

I don't know why you writing this to me. This was never my argument in the first place.

Because I wanted to partially discuss a topic brought up by a poster I prefer not to engage fully with, though I ended my post addressing them.

11 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

"But hey, if only Arya wasn't so "annoying" quick to anger, right?" I have never ever stated anything like that! So what do you always say- Straw man! I don't find Arya annoying, nor do I blame Arya for attacking Sansa. I have only ever mention it, in the context, when we asked ourselves, why Ned didn't follow up with Sansa right after she said "I don't remember", because he knew the truth and asked her himself to tell her story. I mentioned it, that doesn't mean I think she was wrong! I just reiterated what happened to prove another point. 

You mentioned "her anger" (and her "black and white" feelings of justice) several times in response to me last week. You expressed dislike for it, as a trait that you do not associate with empathy. If that was not what you were expressing then indeed it's a straw man.

11 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

Imo you completely ignore the context of, what it would mean for Sansa to go against Joffrey. You forget, that marrying him, even though it is something she wants, is her duty and is chosen for her. She can't just get out of it, just because it suddenly doesn't work anymore. She has to make sure, that it works, because there is no way out of it. And part of that is pleasing her future husband. That's what she has learned is part of her duties as a wife.

I don't completely ignore it. I understand why she says "I don't remember".

Now, I disagree with the argument of "what it would mean for Sansa to go against Joffrey in a society where she has no choice who she'll marry". Not because I disagree that's how Sansa's society works, but because I seriously doubt that was her motivation. IMO she did not want to anger Joffrey further because she has a crush on him, and simultaneously does not want to go as far as go along with Joffreys lies. She's basically trying to please Joffrey as well as her father, except in such a situation (where someone innocent was hunted for Joffrey's lies) you can't remain on the fence. You have to choose sides.

As for the argument that Ned shouldn't have put her in the situation. In part I agree with that sentiment. But I don't think "Ned should just have said, Sansa told me what she witnessed and it confirms Arya's story" would have helped much either. Ned's words are hearsay. First thing Robert would have done is say, "Okay, so fetch me the girl and let me hear her confirm it." And if Robert had not demanded that, then Cersei would for sure. It's quite suspect if someone else has to speak for a witness, because the witness doesn't want to come forward themselves. So, in the end, Sansa would still have to answer questions and confirm or deny a certain version, and thus choose or say "I do not remember".

Now, it wasn't Ned who had Sansa fetched. She was brought in and called for by someone else already. Heck, even Ned arrived at a trial that was already happening before his arrival. Arya was found and instantly brought before the king and his court, without her father there. So, either Robert or Cersei had Sansa fetched beyond Ned's approval. All Ned really could do was lend some form of show of support to Sansa, by making some sign that he trusted her to be brave and tell the truth. He also does not blame her for not being able to.

8 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

While Sansa is also new to being betrothed, with no one to guide her through this and she is a child and somehow no compassion for her. 

I have compassion for her. Sansa was in an impossible situation and she gave the answer she believed would preserve the peace.

8 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

ou say we can't apply modern logic, when we judge Ned's and Cat's parenting, but for some reason you do apply modern logic, when it comes to demanding loyalty from Sansa to her sister.  

It's not a modern logic to demand Sansa to be loyal to her sister. It's expected of her by her society as well. No matter how much families may disagree amongst themselves, they are all expected to show loyalty to one another: the Lannisters, the Starks, etc. My modern sensibilities are  the following: fuck family - you don't choose the people you share blood bonds with, and some of them are people I think ill of and would never associate with if I can help it. In fact, there are people who strictly speaking are family of mine, but I refuse to meet with no matter what event. My "family" are the people I choose to spend my time with. So, guess, I'm not really applying MY modern logic onto the Arya and Sansa situation.

8 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

Arya isn't saying nice things to Sansa either. She gives it right back to her. And even calls her stupid. This is absolutely normal among siblings, mine have done way worse to me than Sansa did to Arya- turned out okay. This is normal, everyone with siblings knows that, especially, if you are so close in age.

Fully agreed.

8 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

Sansa doesn't understand Arya. She wants have a sister and doesn't get why Arya, just can't act like a normal girl. How Arya behaves is unusual and seems to go against her nature as a woman. Sansa again would need to have parents, who sit her down and tell her: "Your sister can't be different. This is just the way she is. And she is good the way she is. She is just different than you. And you must accept her and stop critiquing her and trying to change her." (that is actually similar to the talk Arya got, but of course Sansa never got one) But since Mordane and Cat were critiquing and punishing Arya as well, that didn't set a good example for Sansa.

Also agree.

8 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

I find it strange, that you claim to like Sansa. The only impression I get from your posts is, that you have an intense disdain and dislike for her and are quite biased against her at least in AGOT. Imo you also don't grasp her nature, have little compassion or empathy for her. Apparently in your opinion her main character traits are being selfish, self-centered, ignorant and basically a phony and maybe even cold-hearted in AGOT. Before you accuse me of straw man- I'm just letting you know my impressions.

For the nth time: I have said so from the very start that aGoT Sansa is a bit of a shit imo: selfish, self-centered, snob. I do not like aGoT Sansa. I find her unsympathetic and low in affective empathy and sometimes quite disturbingly cold and at times cruel. If Sansa had remained aGoT Sansa throughout the four books I'd hate her. And while I understand her motivations cognitively, it is very hard to sympathize with aGoT Sansa emotionally. Some of her emotional responses are offensive to me. Still, I can go beyond that dislike of Sansa's character in aGoT and try to see the world through her eyes, I can see where her parents and Mordane failed her, I can fully agree with the premisse of the OP - that the consequences of her choices are overestimated, nor do I wish her to come to harm, nor do I think "she got it coming". Once, she's dragged from her bed to look at the heads on spikes, my initial dislike evaporates and I sympathize with her and have rooted for her ever since. From the bit-of-a-shit she started out being she grew into someone likeable. But me growing to like her more with every book, doesn't alter my initial opinion of who she is at the start. I like Jaime too, but I still think he's an extremely shitty person in aGoT.

Since when does liking a character for who they've become have to mean you change your mind who they were at the start?

8 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

I really don't get, why you would spend your time writing a long essay on such a sensitive and delicate subject like Sansa's "sexual maturation", when you don't even seem to like or appreciate her character. Are you only interested in her character, when it comes to her dynamic with Sandor Clegane?

First of all, liking a character is not a prerequisite to write an essay. I wrote an essay on Craster for example.

Secondly, when writing a literary essay about how a character was written, you can still appreciate how a character or their arc was written even if you don't like them.

Thirdly, I only dislike Sansa in aGoT, which is essentially the Sansa discussed in this thread.

Fourthly, I have several more essays tackling Sansa chapters, none which have to do with SanSan. There is for example an analysis of all of the tourney chapters in Sansa's POV, and how they foreshadow events later to come (both the Hand's tourney and Joffrey's name day tourney), and a prediction on what will happen in the Vale in tWoW (avalanche and attack by the Burned Men).

As for Sandor - I find him dislikable too in the beginning. And he remains a character I feel reoccuringly uncomfortable about. I get why many readers are disturbed by him, especially with SanSan. But I do think that both Sansa and Arya managed to discover the person he is behind the menacing Hound mask. And I have faith in both their conclusions about him, and very much looking forward to see the gravedigger take Stranger out of the stable and get back into the action a different man, less haunted by the ghost of the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Fear is always part of what equation? I assume you are not saying fear is always a part of the empathy equation but am not sure what else you could mean by that. 

You're right, clumsily expressed. What I mean is that when you have a fearful situation and it results in empathy, then fear was part of the formation of that empathy.

28 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

First & foremost I want you to know that I'm sorry this happened to you & am hopeful you don't suffer any lasting affects from what this man put you through. I've been a victim of psychopathic manipulation myself & it isn't fun. 

I cleared all the debts he managed to get me into about 5-4 years ago, and the sole lasting effect is when I'm exposed to high levels of stress. That's when I turn into an utter scatter brain, potentially hampering part of my functioning at work or administrative tasks. It used to be worse. Other than that, I've developed a shudder-red-flag response when exposed to certain behaviours or situations that remind me of him. It's not triggering anymore, but I can sense a "OMG that's how I felt when with ...." and I avoid all contact with the person making me feel that way. I consider that a positive effect. Another positive effect is that I learned not to feel ashamed or guilty or responsible anymore when someone else behaves shamelessly, provocative or abominably. 

Likewise I hope you managed to move on from the experience without overtly lasting negative effects.

Quote

My point, relating to your situation would be, that you didn't feel empathy until after the fear response. During the course of the event you were fearful, on edge, ready to run at the slightest clue that something was wrong - not empathetic. It would have been difficult for you or anyone to feel empathy in that moment toward the man who you were fearful of. It took a little more time & that cycle of reward/punishment to come about in order for you to be manipulated into that empathy. Which is what you are saying in regards to Sandor & Sansa so I suppose I don't really disagree with that premise because there was that build up of fear (punishment) & then the story & having to look at his face & pity him (reward) cycle.  

Yes, I didn't feel empathy until I had modulated my fear. However, his pity-play at me would not have had such an impact if I "hadn't felt guilty over feeling fearful/anxious" about him.  I felt guilty for distrusting/fearing him. I felt bad for "judging him so quickly". So, in that sense "fear" and "distrust" was part of the equation. Without it, his later appeal to my empathy would have had a less profound impact.

And yes, that's what I'm trying to say, the cycle of fear and pity (punishment-reward) is present in that scene, and repeats again towards the end of aCoK at the top of the tower.

Quote

I just don't think in a normal situation it is unreasonable for a person to not feel empathy toward someone they are fearful towards. Like you said, it takes exposure to said person & a cycle of sorts.

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

How do I judge Sansa by modern values? Are you saying that feeling "empathy" is a modern value? Is ratting out your pops the norm in a feudal society? Is betraying your family the norm in a feudal society? Especially the Westerosi feudal society? On the contrary. Empathy is not a modern value. It's not even a "value". It's a human capacity of all ages. And ratting out on your pops is very much NOT the norm in a feudal society, where family/clans is everything.

If she isn't "your typical teenager"  and "we have to see Sansa through the feudal lense" then why does NN use the argument that "teenagers typically behave more entitled and selfish and without having the ability to foresee the consequences of their actions"? In fact, I consider Sansa very much the prototypical teenager: popularity, starting to rebel, idolizing Loras like a poster boy.

I have said from the start that aGoT Sansa is written to be an usympathetic character; that I consider aGoT Sansa entitled, selfish, disloyal, self-absorbed and at times having a disturbing low amount of empathy, sometimes even cruel - in short she's a bit-of-a-shit in aGoT. I do NOT hide that is my opinion of Sansa in aGoT. My opinion is also that she improved and I root for her, and therefore it was more a phase than a defining trait of her personality. I still do not consider her someone with above average empathy. More, George has admitted that is exactly how he wrote Sansa as a character in aGoT. It's not bias, when the author himself confirms it to be a fact.

Despite having that opinion of aGoT Sansa, I still do not consider her responsible for Lady's death, nor do I consider her responsible for Ned's death.

So, I'm not biased against Sansa. My opinion aligns with how George wrote her. But some posters here are biased pro-Sansa in such a way that to them she's the wonder woman of empathy, the sweetest character in the books with the biggest heart, because she empathized with a man she feared and who made her cry, and stating that Sansa is actually only average empathic is being "biased against her"... The moment fans of a character cannot deal with their favourite character not being seen as utterly perfect on everything, even when the author himself admits she starts out being a bit-of-a-shit, it's not the reader who agrees with the author who's biased. I only had to mention that Sansa was not a "good horserider" and there was instant reaction and defense to that ability. ... Good thing I didn't mention she's bad with numbers. But I'm biased against Sansa and "judging her through a modern lens"? Wow.

please look at the thread EW originally linked especially butterbumps!&mambru's posts as well as my posts in this thread. I don't like repeating myself. I only respond to the horse riding, because you linked it to empathy. Lyanna<3Rhaegar makes my point, when it comes to feeling empathy for someone, that is harming you, while being afraid of them. Sansa does that from the beginning towards Sandor and later in an even more dangerous and threading moment (BotB). So it is not a coincidence. This is obviously not Stockholm syndrome or trauma bonding. They have just met, she is not his captive, there is not trauma. As L<R has stated those are special situations. therefore have special name. 

My point still stands most ppl would have difficulty, feeling empathy towards someone, who is threading them. 

When someone puts a gun to your head, than takes the gun away for a moment and tells you a sad story about themselves you do not immediately think: "oh, poor you." you are to busy with fearing for yourself.

That she is able to do so shows she has above average empathy in this moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

I only respond to the horse riding, because you linked it to empathy.

And I only linked it to empathy in the case of Arya being a natural rider who manages to get a horse to maximize their speed without resorting to abuse. You were not the sole person who responded to the horse riding, and I was not pointing at you over it in post #410.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...