Putting Sansa on trial

[nan1973]

I guess my point flew right over head. I don't think you know what psychoanalyzing means.

It doesn't matter what kind of father I had, nor does it matter what kind of relationship other posters have had with their parents, the only thing that matters is what was expected of someone like Sansa in a world like Westeros.

I'm not the one who brought up the "all ten year olds disobey their parents" argument. But the people who do bring up the argument are strictly talking 21st century sensibilities and their personal experience with parenting. In Westeros, there is no such expectation that ten year olds will often defy their Lord father's direct order and go behind his back. So to portray her action as "normal" and "expected" in that world is simply false, it's only normal and expected in our world. Because things aren't as high stake in our world with regard to normal families so we are more lenient.

But on that pretext you could also argue that Sansa has been brought up to believe that her greatest duty is to her King and Queen and her future husband, even over her own father. King, queen, father, it makes no difference she still acted like a child, not more was expected of her up until KL. She was pretty spoilt being a summer child and all.

[Knight Of Winter]

In Westeros, there is no such expectation that ten year olds will often defy their Lord father's direct order and go behind his back. So to portray her action as "normal" and "expected" in that world is simply false, it's only normal and expected in our world.

Let's see some Westerosi examples:

Bran disobeyed his mother and climbed city walls (7 years old)

Arya went specifically against her parents' wishes by being rude to Septa Mordane (9 years old)

Jaime knew very well his father will be furios if he joins KG (15 years old)

Lysa was aware her father didn't aproove of her feelings towards Petyr (15 years old)

Tyrion ignored his father's "direct order" not to bring whores to KL (20-and-something years old)

Tyrion again ignored his father's order by not sleeping with Sansa (truly a traitorous character he is)

It seems that children of all ages, while staying loyal and loving towards their parents (except Tyrion, but that's different story), disobey their advices and commands.

Please explain how is Sansa different then any of the examples given above. If you argue Bran, Arya & co. knew they weren't harming their parent's direct interests by their disobedience, be reminded - neither did Sansa. She truly had no knowledge the people she (mistakenly) confided in were her father's enemies.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Let's see some Westerosi examples:

Bran disobeyed his mother and climbed city walls (7 years old)

Arya went specifically against her parents' wishes by being rude to Septa Mordane (9 years old)

Jaime knew very well his father will be furios if he joins KG (15 years old)

Lysa was aware her father didn't aproove of her feelings towards Petyr (15 years old)

Tyrion ignored his father's "direct order" not to bring whores to KL (20-and-something years old)

Tyrion again ignored his father's order by not sleeping with Sansa (truly a traitorous character he is)

It seems that children of all ages, while staying loyal and loving towards their parents (except Tyrion, but that's different story), disobey their advices and commands.

Please explain how is Sansa different then any of the examples given above. If you argue Bran, Arya & co. knew they weren't harming their parent's direct interests by their disobedience, be reminded - neither did Sansa. She truly had no knowledge the people she (mistakenly) confided in were her father's enemies.

There is a difference between a child misbehaving, which admittedly all children do, and one who defied their parent.

Bran and Arya belongs in the first category.

The other examples all goes REALLY badly for the person doing the defying and in general for everyone.

Jaime's choice wounds his father deeply, leads to his father resigning as Hand, and without whose advice Aerys goes nuts and precipitates the War.

Lysa's choice leads to a forced abortion, a forced loveless marriage to a man older than her father, her committing both adultery and killing of her husband, which precipitates the war.

Tyrion's action were basically considered betrayals by his father, leads to his death sentence.

If you wish to admit that Sansa's choice was of similar nature as those choices, then you're basically admitting that her betrayal had serious negative consequences which she much accept blame for. Westeros is not forgiving of mistakes just because they were made by youth.

[Natsu]

You could totally convict Sansa of killing Ned.

Could you?

Or killing Robert.

Excuse me? Have we read the same book?

In Clash of Kings, Cersei explicity tells Tyrion that after Ned talked to her (she doesn't tell Tyrion what Ned told her, of course), she sent Lancel with wine four times as potent than Robert was used to drink. While Robert was hunting boars. Which amounts to Cersei poisoning Robert and causing his death just after Ned told too much. And that was, mind you, before Sansa had done anything.

Really, you can just make stuff up in Westeros, no one cares enough to check. Sure, Ned probably dropped the ball by telling Cersei that he was going to expose her and then asking her henchmen to help him arrest her and put their least favorite person on the throne. But that stupid bitch Sansa! Jeez!

What pisses me off about Sansa hatred is that people dislike her because she is uncool, and instead of admitting that, they insist on blaming her for things she didn't do.

If Sansa is traitor because she talked to Cersei, then Ned is a traitor because he talked to Cersei.

In case hatred blinds judgement, let's explain facts:

Fact 1:

Ned Stark, age 35, who knows Cersei is cheating on Robert and has something to do with the assasination attempt of his 5 year old son Bran, warns Cersei Lannister and tells her everything he knows.

Result: Cersei immediately has Robert killed (poisoning a man when he's hunting boars is still manslaughter). Admitted by Cersei herself.

People accusing Ned Stark of betrayal? Zero.

Fact 2:

Sansa Stark, age 11-12, who does not know shit about the world because she's been specifically sheltered since she's very young, goes to Cersei Lannister to beg permission to stay at King's Landing.

Result: she is taken hostage, her sister flees, her father has to compromise in order to keep her safe.

People accusing Sansa Stark of being not only a traitor, but a bitch? Hundreds.

Can anyone explain me why on Earth Sansa is a traitor and her father isn't? Is Sansa stupid? Well, if she is, she's certainly no more stupid than her father. If she's a traitor, Ned must be a traitor too. In case anyone forgot, they did exactly the same thing with exactly the same result.

I perfectly understand people hating Sansa. Martin specifically wrote her to be uncool and unlikable, and to not stand the comparison to Arya. What creeps me off and scares the shit out of me is that because people hate Sansa, they ignore the facts as written in the goddamned books, and choose to give her moral, ethical and criminal flaws the girl doesn't have.

Good lord, guys: you might one day be in a jury with someone's life in your hands and some of you refuse to see the facts to justify your hatred for a character. Instead of "I hate her because she's cheesy", many people want to think "I hate her, so she must be guilty". You can hate her as much as you want, just be fair about it.

If Sansa is a stupid bitch, her father is too. If Sansa is a traitor, her father is too. If you don't believe Ned is a traitor, then Sansa isn't. And if you judge the same deed differently according to whether you like the character or not, please stay out of the legal system.

[Natsu]

There is a difference between a child misbehaving, which admittedly all children do, and one who defied their parent.

Bran and Arya belongs in the first category.

So does Sansa. She has been told all her life that being good and obeying and playing nice will get her everything. She misbehaves just like Arya does, when she sees her hopes crushed. And because she is shown by example that misbehaving pays off.

As soon as she gets out of Winterfell, Arya starts disobeying the septa Mordane once, and again, and again. Sansa is a docile child that sees her sister not behave. And what does Arya get for not behaving? A swordsfighting teacher specially for her, and her father's thanks. Kids do not forgive incoherence. Any docile kid who sees a sibling disobeying and getting away with it will learn to disobey, since she'll think she can get away with it too. Sansa strayed in the worst possible moment, but her reaction was perfectly normal for a child (I knew she was going to do that... didn't surprise me at all. Even the Septa knew, she tried to go after Sansa, but Ned stopped her, when it was clear that Sansa was going to disobey that time... it was just "time" for her to test boundaries, as she had seen Arya breach them with no bad result).

About "Arya" just misbehaving... Let's just remember when Arya got in a fight with Joffrey, she was endangering her sister's bethrotal. We all like Arya and we all think Joff's an ass and he deserved it? For sure, but point is, Arya was the one who was misbehaving seriously. If your sister is going to marry a guy from a far away place, who is going to be king too, it is a goddamned bad idea to hurt him in any way. Was Joff asking for it? Yes. Is Joff hateful and is Arya adorable? Yes. We all root for Arya there, since she's a child innocently playing who's unaware of the consequences of her acts.

What I don't understand is why when Sansa does the same thing (not obey, be childlike and do, for once, what she pleases), she is judged far differently than Arya is. Both are being children, unaware of the dangers they might get in, and trying to get what they want. One wants a sword, and the other wants to live in a court with musicians and pretty stuff. Just because the second is far less cool and very annoying, that doesn't mean that what they're doing is different. They both disobey when their interests are thwarted. One to play with her sword, the other to try to fulfill her dreams. I don't see why one should be better than the other. When Arya offended Joff, she was offending the kid who was going to be king of all of them and who would have had her sister in his full power. She was putting Sansa and the rest of the Starks at risk. We forgive her because she's a child playing, and because she has no notion of what might happen. When Sansa disobeys her father, she's in the same situation: she's a child trying to do what she wants, absolutely ignorant of the consequences of her acts.

I, for example, as I said before, knew that Sansa would try to stay in King's Landing and find herself in all sorts of trouble. I could see it coming since her first chapter (a naive girl in a world where 5 year olds are old enough to watch executions? Disaster is coming). In fact, after seeing how Arya's rebelliousness gets rewarded (Arya misbehaves and she gets a special swordfight teacher for her? What's the use of being good then?), I was just waiting for the moment when Sansa would disobey. It was clear she was going to do that. In fact, I would have been disappointed if she hadn't. She showed initiative for the first time in the books. At the worst moment, but still.

Ned buried himself in trouble. He commited many mistakes, trusting Littlefinger, sending Beric instead of Loras to fight Gregor, refusing Renly's offer of help, refusing to take the three Baratheon kids hostage, telling Cersei everything... He didn't commit one mistake, he commited a full string of them. Letting Sansa go when she was distraught by disappointment, and telling the Septa not to go after her (when any person could see Sansa was going to cause trouble) was another one.

Sansa, however, despite what she suffered at court, was better off there. At Winterfell, Theon Greyjoy explicitly said it was a shame that Ned Stark had taken the girls South, because he could have married one of them to strenghten his claim on Winterfell. "Sansa was a pretty little thing too, and probably beddable now..." So, she probably avoided wedding-rape by both Theon Greyjoy, and after that, by Ramsay Bolton.

It was the worst moment to show a little bit of initiative, but in the end she was better off for that. I'm not sure if Arya would have been better off. Would probably have escaped with Bran and Rickon... If Sansa ever comes to term with the results of her actions (unwilling as they were), I doubt she'll have to admit being responsible for Ned's death. But she will have so seriously consider being responsible for Arya's death. I'd really like to see her face that, because her mistake could have killed Arya (of course, Arya's mistake fighting Joff could have killed Sansa, but Arya got scolded by Ned, while Sansa was never given a serious reality check by anyone in her family).

So, no, I don't think Sansa is guilty of treason. She's guilty of being uncool, annoying, cheesy to the extreme, and slow to realize things that happen around her. A snob, too, though certainly doesn't seem a harmful snob. Still... uncool. But not a traitoress.

[Lord Godric]

What pisses me off about Sansa hatred is that people dislike her because she is uncool, and instead of admitting that, they insist on blaming her for things she didn't do.

I don't hate Sansa because she is "uncool" I hate her because she's a little whiny bitch who seems to not care for her own family. She was so wrapped up in a fantasy world that she created around Joffrey and Cersei that she entirely ignored reality. Leading to some unfortunate events.

Is Sansa stupid? Well, if she is, she's certainly no more stupid than her father.

The case can certainly be made of Ned being stupid, but I think far more people would tell you he was being stupidly honorable. He didn't want Cersei and her children to feel the wrath of Robert, no more than he wanted Daenerys to. Sansa, on the other hand, ignores her father and her Septa's orders and runs into Cersei's arms. Does she deserve the full blame for the death of her father? Of course not. Did she make Cersei's plan a lot easier? Of course. With Sansa's information Cersei knew to strike Ned immediately, without delay. Which led to Ned and Sansa being captive, Cersei obtaining Ned's letter to Stannis, and the leverage needed to require Ned to confess to treason, ultimately leading to his death. Is it all Sansa's fault? No. Partly, yes. But that is not why I hate her. I hated her long before she squealed to Cersei.

If Sansa is a traitor, her father is too. If you don't believe Ned is a traitor, then Sansa isn't.

Can you just explain to me how someone can be a traitor to themselves?

[Natsu]

Of course kids disobey their parents, but when you're the daughter of House Stark, or any of the major houses, there is a different set of rules.

A normal kid disobeys his parents, not that much bad can happen. She does, and her family gets killed. Because the world doesn't care that you're a kid, the world will still make you and your family pay for your mistakes.

You cannot judge Sansa by the standards your judge a normal kid in our world.

Then why is Sansa a traitor, but not Ned? When Arya attacks Joff because she refused to do her girly stuff and went swordplaying with the butcher's son, she put the alliance of Lannisters and Starks into severe risk. She unwilling caused the death of Lady and loss of Nymeria. Why do we forgive her? Oh, yes, because she's a child that doesn't know the consequences of her acts. I just wish I knew why Ned and Arya get scot free with things Sansa is demonized for.

Sansa made a mistake similar to mistakes made by Ned and Arya. Only she gets the crap. And I really would like to know why other characters get exonerated while she is vilified.

Does Sansa ever feel guilty for what happened? I know she felt remorse over the death of her father, but does she ever actually make the connection that it was her actions that led to the execution of Eddard? I can't recall that she ever did, and to me that is worse than her being a selfish naive child. In the later books she can not be called naive anymore and yet I don't remember her ever feeling guilty for the death of her father and family.

Does she know she had anything to do with it? Where in the book does she think or does anyone tell her what happened at KL and the result of her acts? Because it's hard to reflect on things you don't know.

Jaime can feel remorse abot throwing Bran off a tower, because he did it himself. Do we know if Sansa has any idea of her implications in her father's death? Because so far, she knows she went to talk to Cersei, Cersei caged her, and next time someone was accusing her father of being a traitor for reasons Sansa knows nothing about. She still acts like the fairytale princess and tries to make love save the day. Until her father's head roll. Then, whole vision of the world destroyed, there comes catatonic state (logical reaction to everything falling under your feet).

I would dislike her tremendously if she didn't think or repent for her mistakes. Problem is, if she doesn't know she had anything to do with what happened in KL, she cannot repent. And from her POV chapters, it seems she doesn't know why on Earth his father was accused or what happened there. Neither Cersei nor Tyrion nor the Hound ever gave her any explanations, and she was too afraid to ask. How do you expect her to repent for something she doesn't know she did?

That's my point. She never made the connection. That's why I blame her, that's why I don't feel sympathy for her. She stood by as they discussed the guilt of her father, she watched his execution, but she never realized that it was her fault all of this was happening.

I'd accept that excuse for GoT, but not the later books.

What information is she given that she might know the relationship between "Can I stay at King's Landing?" "Why, are you going anywhere?" and her father being beheaded? There's a huge gap of information there, I don't know how she's supposed to fill it. Try to read Sansa chapters only, separated from the rest, and try to grasp the info that might lead her to think her words are related to what happened afterwards. I don't see anything in her chapters that gives her the pieces she needs to make the picture.

And... ratted out her own father? "Can I stay at King's Landing?" doesn't amount to betrayal, in any way you put it. You have to mean betrayal to commit it.

Surely there's a subtle difference between childhood hijinx and ratting your father out to his enemies. The point you are trying to make has some merit but that analogy is comparing apples to submarines.

Sure there's a difference between asking leave to stay at King's Landing because you like to have a musician close more than once a year; and willingly betraying your father to the people that, up until four hours ago, where your father's main allies, the family of his best friend, and a family so trusted they were going to marry you into it.

Another thing that I don't understand... Sansa still keeps the rosy colored glasses after the Lady incident. Sure. But, doesn't everybody? When Ned Stark sees Cersei asking the death of an innocent (and Mycah's body), he still goes on with the betrothal. Ned lectures Arya, not Sansa, on that incident. If everyone thinks and acts like it's normal (except Awesome Arya, who has a 21st century sense of justice), it's normal for Sansa to go on with the crowd. It's not cool, but it's normal.

[Natsu]

I don't hate Sansa because she is "uncool" I hate her because she's a little whiny bitch who seems to not care for her own family. She was so wrapped up in a fantasy world that she created around Joffrey and Cersei that she entirely ignored reality. Leading to some unfortunate events.

Well, for starters, when her mother married she never saw her family again for the next fifteen years. A girl marries, she becomes part of her husband's family. Everyone is using 20th century family concept, avoiding the fact that Sansa is going to be shipped off and end up belonging to another family. Her mother isn't a Tully, she's a Stark. If Sansa is going to be married to Joff (and at that point, she is), it makes a lot of sense to try hard to believe (even if it's unbelievable) that things will go right. The other option is look at things the Cersei Lannister way: you are shipped off to some stranger so he can mount you until he tires of you and casts you aside for a younger filly. Sansa clings to her rosy vision of the world because that's what she's been taught... and because it takes guts to admit reality. She doesn't see reality because she's been taught not to, and because reality would be hard to swallow.

People judge Sansa as if Joff was only a school sweetheart and she could stay in touch with her family after marriage. She is no American teenager who can phone her parents. She is going to be married by political reasons and she will belong to the family she's married into. It's logical for her to try to avoid trouble among members of the two families. It never works, but it's logical that she tries.

The case can certainly be made of Ned being stupid, but I think far more people would tell you he was being stupidly honorable. He didn't want Cersei and her children to feel the wrath of Robert, no more than he wanted Daenerys to. Sansa, on the other hand, ignores her father and her Septa's orders and runs into Cersei's arms.

Arya disobeys the septa and her mother to run to play with a sword. And attacks the future king, a guy with right over life and death. And risks the alliance between Starks and Lannisters. But she's not to blame because she's a child playing. Arya isn't being any more selfish than Sansa. Only Arya is far cooler.

Can you just explain to me how someone can be a traitor to themselves?

What I said is that Ned did to Robert the very same thing that Sansa did to Ned, exactly with the same results. And that I think Sansa is judged with a different standard than everyone else.

Is Sansa an annoying, cheesy snob, with all the selfishness of children? Yes. What I'd like to know is why she is considered a traitor for doing the very same things other characters get away with.

You say you hated her before she talked to Cersei. That's fine, my problem is not with Sansa hatred, I very much despised her myself. The only thing that creeps me off is that some characters do the same thing or far worse than Sansa does, but she is the one who gets vilified. In short: the same fact is judged differently according to the sympathies the character raises. As someone who might face some day a popular jury, I find that reaction extremely scary. Her acts aren't worthy of he blame she gets, period. Her personality is cringe-worthy or hate-worthy, but just because you hate someone that doesn't mean they're guilty.

Jamie's way more fun to read. Duh.

That's a great reason to like Jaime better. As I said, it's easy to dislike or hate Sansa. It's just wrong to try to justify your hatred by blaming her for stuff she didn't do.

I haven't seen it mentioned here yet that after Ned is arrested Sansa sits in on his trial and truly believes that her father had committed treason against the king.

Actually, she says that's not possible and then she's threatened by Cersei (and other five adults), and scared into admitting she's no traitor. It's called intimidation. It works wonderfully on children.

She puts Joffrey and Cersei above her father,

That is never stated. She thinks the marriage will go on and she will save her father with the power of love. Stupid? So much it breaks the stupid'o'meter. Traitorous? Hardly. Cowardly? Yeah, letting yourself being intimidated by a queen who can imprison and threaten you is quite cowardly. Average for sheltered 12 year-olds, but cowardly.

She believes them as opposed to him. She blames her father's actions on milk of the poppy, and promises he'll confess to treason. This is going beyond disoeying her father, this is believing her father is a traitorous, murderous criminal. Sansa never even doubts the accusations of the Lannisters. She gives up so quickly on her family for the words and promises of the Lannisters.

As for her father, she speaks for his honesty and claims it all must be a misunderstanding until she's threatened and then cowers. After that, she doesn't "put Cersei and Joff" before her family, she gets into rosy land and believes her love will save the day and she will bring her father back. Yeah, stupid. She does what she's been taught to do and what she can do. In her twisted and idiotic view of the world, she's trying to save the day the only way she can, because she knows nothing else.

The fact that she's saying that his father's acts were due to milk of the poppy shows she didn't really believe her father was a traitor (he can't be, then it's a misunderstanding then he must be drugged? She doesn't really believe it). She always tries to say something that will exonerate her father, only when it's either "say what I want to hear or you're getting jailed or beheaded too", the girl backs off. Cowardly. Normal, but cowardly. I don't see her believing her father was a traitor, but swallowing the official version until "she" could arrange everything. After her letter to Robb, she is sure she can solve everything and make the world a little poney land again. Lame to no end, but she actually thought she could save her father and make everything right again. She didn't see reality until her father's head fell off, when it was impossible to ignore it.

[Lord Godric]

Rereading CoK I came across this from Tyrion's first chapter:

"So this Lord Slynt, he was part of it, was he? Tell me, whose fine notion was it to grand him Harrenhal and name him to the council?"

"Littlefinger made the arrangemenets. 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..."

Even Cersei knows how significant Sansa was in bringing down Eddard.

[Faint]

Even Cersei knows how significant Sansa was in bringing down Eddard.

Honestly, Cersei thinking Sansa's contribution was important is almost better evidence that it wasn't.

[Lord Godric]

Honestly, Cersei thinking Sansa's contribution was important is almost better evidence that it wasn't.

While thats a nice little slam on Cersei it doesn't actually make sense knowing that Cersei orchestrated the whole thing with Littlefinger.

[AvengingAryaFan]

I wouldn't say she is responsible for Ned's death, but there is an argument that she prolonged the war (which led to the Red Wedding).

I feel that Ned was aware of the risks of accusing Cersei of incest and murder. I am constantly frustrated by the assumption that he is an idiot for telling her. He didn't tell her out of stupidity, he thought it was the right thing to do, even knowing how dangerous it was. And knowing the dangers, he took precautions, i.e. buying the goldcloaks and arranging for his daughters to be taken to safety. Sending Sansa and Arya back to the north was more than a father protecting his children, it was a tactician removing hostages from the game. Ned knew everything might go wrong, otherwise why arrange for the ship?

What I'm saying is that having Sansa and Arya in safety would have been an enormous boon to Robb's campaign. There is no way Ned could be executed while Jaime was held hostage on the other side. If they held a trial and threatened him with execution, it would be an idle threat. It would have changed the whole flavour of the situation, removing the opportunity for Joffrey/Littlefinger to shorten Ned by a head.

Breakspear, Ned bought the goldcloaks only when LF practically begged him to do so. He massively failed to secure his position before he warned Cersei.

Yes, sending the girls to Winterfell was a wise move; knowing it was wrong to do so, Sansa revealed that plan to Cersei because she didn't want to leave. That selfish act by Sansa not only warned Cersei but undercut their position all around, supporting the charges against Sansa. The stronger charges against Sansa stem from her convincing him to admit treason, which led to his death at the probable suggestion of LF. Having said that, it may have been more because Varys said Sansa would be endangered if he did NOT admit treason. Varys seems to have made a major mistake in this case, believing that Ned would go to the wall as planned. He should have known better.

BTW, people get confused: if person A drives the car, and person B shoots the guard, and person C grabs the bank's money, who is responsible for the bank robbery? The answer: person A is responsible. Person B is responsible. Person C is responsible. Each independently. People can't wrap their heads around the idea that a contributing cause with intention, or a necessary contribution irrespective of intention, is still responsible.

OTOH, Sansa certainly never intended to hurt her father or her family - any more than Ned intended to get himself killed by telling Cersei he had the goods on her. Yes, Ned was responsible for the coup at the Red Keep; but Sansa may have been responsible too (I'm actually not quite sure that Ned would have survived "but for" Sansa's actions - that's a close one; and Sansa certainly did not intend to aid Ned's death. If neither her revelation of their plans to leave, nor her help in convincing Ned to confess treason, was necessary for the coup to occur and Ned to confess treason, then Sansa isn't responsible.)

But Sansa caused her self to be present in KL after the coup, and it was the threat to Sansa that caused Ned to accede when Sansa implored him to confess. All things taken together, I think it is more likely than not that, but for Sansa's two actions of revealing the intent to leave to Cersei, and petitioning Ned to confess treason, Ned would have survived. So Sansa is probably responsible for Ned's death. She still certainly didn't mean to do it, but she did disobey for selfish reasons as part of those actions.

[AvengingAryaFan]

The concept of betrayal without intent is so odd and useless to me. Sansa was wilfully ignorant, she trusted Cersei after Cersei proved herself malicious. But to continue to require her to "pay" for Ned's death at this point is so bizarre to me, I cannot even comprehend. If it was your little sister who did what Sansa did, you would really want her to feel guilty? You'd require her to atone?

Would we want to throw responsibility for her father's death up to a distraught younger sister? No. Is that a germane argument against her responsibility? No.

I don't think it's quite clear, but there's a strong case to be made that "but for" Sansa's (partly dangerously disobedient) actions, Ned would have survived. If so, then Sansa is responsible as a "proximate cause" (or "cause in fact") of Ned's death. That doesn't mean there aren't other proximate causes, but each one is independently responsible. This is a crucial concept, no matter how counterintuitive you find it. Otherwise, nobody would ever be responsible for almost anything - because there are always other contributing causes. Always. Those other proximate causes are themselves responsible, too, but that does NOT negate the responsibility of Sansa. You want "responsibility" to be a single thing, a 100%, that can be divided up into partial responsibilities, like 10% or something, but that doesn't work. Sigh. It IS odd; yet it's the only fair way to view responsiblity that avoids excusing almost everybody.

And while I probably wouldn't throw that up to a younger sister unless it could prevent similarly dangerous future misbehavior, the fact is that Sansa is a young sister only in a book. A real person's feeling would be relevant. Sansa's feelings are not. We can and should consider whether or not she is responsible without the least bit of sympathy to cloud our reasoning.

About "betrayal without intent": Without intent it would be responsibility, but probably not betrayal. But it's clear that Sansa went against her father's instructions to try to interfere with his plans - so she could stay in KL, as she wished, rather than return to Winterfell. She didn't intend all that happened, but she DID intend to reveal private information to Queen Cersei, directly against her father's instructions, for her own (perceived) gain. That's betrayal. The consequences were just a lot worse than she expected.

You can speed lots of times and get away with it, no ticket, no consequences, but every once in a while you get busted. That doesn't mean you weren't speeding all those times there were no consequences. Lots of times a little betrayal has no serious consequences. This time it did. It was still betrayal.

[Lady Blackfish]

AAF, I said nothing about Sansa's responsibility, the thrust of my posts in this thread pertain to my opinion that Sansa does not need to further atone for her part in Ned's death. So please spare me your exasperated sighs.

"Betrayal" is an exorbitantly dramatic word for Sansa's act. It might fit a dictionary definition, but show me a parent who calls any little disobedience "betrayal" and I will have nothing but serious concern for their lack of perspective.

And I very much do not want to interact with this series in such a way that treats the characters as less than real people, even if it's only a temporary suspension of disbelief. I find it effectively pointless, it's the exact opposite of why I engage in fiction in the first place.

[AvengingAryaFan]

AAF, I said nothing about Sansa's responsibility, the thrust of my posts in this thread pertain to my opinion that Sansa does not need to further atone for her part in Ned's death. So please spare me your exasperated sighs.

"Betrayal" is an exorbitantly dramatic word for Sansa's act. It might fit a dictionary definition, but show me a parent who calls any little disobedience "betrayal" and I will have nothing but serious concern for their lack of perspective.

And I very much do not want to interact with this series in such a way that treats the characters as less than real people, even if it's only a temporary suspension of disbelief. I find it effectively pointless, it's the exact opposite of why I engage in fiction in the first place.

I agree that she doesn't need to atone, so long as she understands how her actions were a cause of Ned's death. I'm confident the result itself is more than adequate for a lesson.

"Betrayal" has many definitions, and by some perhaps any little disobedience could be construed as a betrayal - of trust, of word, whatever - but I'm using it in the most serious sense: To deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty. "Disobedience" typically doesn't involve an enemy. Sansa exposed House Stark to Cersei, a powerful member of another house substantially at odds with House Stark - an enemy. She did so by disloyally attempting to prevent Ned from implementing his plan to ship her and Arya back to Winterfell, and specifically by treacherously disclosing private plans. It doesn't merely meet "a" dictionary definition, it is an example of the most rigorous definition of betrayal. Calling it a betrayal is merely accurate, not dramatic, and certainly not exorbitantly dramatic.

She didn't betray with the intention of causing harm to the Starks, but rather to gain a boon for herself - escape from her parent's authority so she could stay in KL. I don't think that betraying for personal gain is less culpable than betraying with intent to cause harm.

I also enjoy treating the characters as real, full humans - in their world. "Believing" in their ability to understand and be offended by how we in this world speak about and judge them would be not only extreme, but self-contradictory: any belief in their existence in this world would be a denial of their existence in Westeros, where there are no internet forums to argue on, for example. If they interact with this world, they are no longer characters of Westeros. We can argue whether Richard III did or did not have his nephews murdered, whether he was honorable or not, without in any way denying his reality or hurting his feelings, and the same is true for discussions of characters in Westeros.

[A wilding]

Sansa exposed House Stark to Cersei, a powerful member of another house substantially at odds with House Stark - an enemy. She did so by disloyally attempting to prevent Ned from implementing his plan to ship her and Arya back to Winterfell, and specifically by treacherously disclosing private plans. It doesn't merely meet "a" dictionary definition, it is an example of the most rigorous definition of betrayal. Calling it a betrayal is merely accurate, not dramatic, and certainly not exorbitantly dramatic.

However, in mitigation, Sansa had no idea Cersei belonged to a "house substantially at odds with House Stark", whether this House was Lannister or Baratheon. AFAWK Ned had never spoken a word against either House in her presence, and was planning to marry her to Cersei's oldest son right up to the moment he called the betrothal off without giving Sansa any reason.

[Ko Coopy]

On my first reading, I felt that Sansa was very much to blame for Ned's death. Upon re-reading, I find her less responsible because many things were in motion already. Ned's naivete' is far more responsible but Sansa's actions did have an impact.

I find Sansa guilty of being a bad Stark. Look, she chose sides against her family twice. That was enough to earn Fredo a one-way boat ride to the middle of a lake.

Has she been punished enough for what she did? I don't know, probably. I still don't like her. The lie to protect Joffrey and denounce her sister was my breaking point.

[Alexia]

The lie to protect Joffrey and denounce her sister was my breaking point.

Which lie? The tearful..."I don't know, I don't remember, it all happened so fast" lie? It doesn't denounce Arya though - could you clarify when she lied to protect Joffrey and denounce Arya, please?

[Whitering]

It really came a couple pages later when she said

"...don't let them do it, please, please, it wasn't Lady, it was Nymeria, Arya did it, you can't, it wasn't Lady...."

Even under extreme duress she was still willing to blind herself to Joff's role in events. She should have learned at that point how horrible Cersei was, I can't believe she ever forgave Cersei, but then again, she blamed the entire incident on her sister.

In the long run telling Cersei about the plan kept her and Arya from being sent to Winterfell. Ned would still be dead and I think the Lannisters would have threatened Winterfell itself and got the same result re his confession.

However, in the long run, this was the best result. Winterfell was brutally sacked twice, she (Sansa) would almost certainly have been married to Bolton's bastard. Having to hide Sansa and Arya in addition to the boys would have been even more difficult (have to get more food, more chance of being noticed, etc..).

I am pretty neutral regarding Sansa, so from my perspective, her telling Cersei Ned's plans to send them away was a good thing. Any other realistic situation leads to death or capture by the Boltons.

[AvengingAryaFan]

In the long run telling Cersei about the plan kept her and Arya from being sent to Winterfell. Ned would still be dead and I think the Lannisters would have threatened Winterfell itself and got the same result re his confession.

You forget that Ned confessed only due to two things: first, Sansa begging him to; and more importantly, due to the threat to Sansa, made clear by Varys. Had Sansa obeyed and been on her way with Arya to Winterfell, Ned would never have confessed.

ETA: and as pointed out above, without the confession plus the hostage, it would have been very difficult to retain loyalty by any Houses if Ned is killed without a trial. A trial couldn't be held b/c it would have come out that Joffrey is not Robert's son, etc. So the whole thing falls apart; Ned survives if Sansa doesn't run to Cersei, but goes to Winterfell as Ned intended.