How did the female characters in GRRM books inspire the most...shall we say fervor?

[Queen Cersei I]

Honestly, what intrigues me is not so much the fervor with which fans defend female characters, but the fervor of the hatred in the fan community that seems to be reserved specifically for female characters.

It seems as though there are almost periods in which a single female character is the target of the majority of poster hatred and scorn on these boards. A few years ago, while I was still a lurker, it was Sansa, whom numerous people proclaimed to hate. Then it was mostly Catelyn, who had multiple hate threads dedicated to her each week. Then, when I first joined, it seemed as though Cersei was the main target for the female character fandom hatred—with her endlessly being called “slut” and “whore,” and people professing that they loathed her even more for cheating on Jaime and Robert than for murdering and torturing people. Now, finally, it seems as though Danerys has taken over for female target of choice, with several Danerys hate threads each week.

This is what is interesting to me, rather than the fervor with which fans like myself defend Sansa and others. After all, the defense is merely a reaction to the hatred and scorn that is habitually reserved for female characters.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and venture the following opinion—that posters on these boards respond the way they do to female characters because the text itself encourages them to do so.

Why are females like, say, Danerys, Sansa, Cat, et. Al hated so deeply, by such great numbers, and blamed for such a variety of things (half of which, often, are really not their fault, and some of which are straight up ridiculous?) I’d have to say it’s all in the way they are portrayed.

No, I don’t think that the text itself sets out to assure that every single reader will loathe Danerys, Cat, or Sansa on a deep personal level and blame them for everything from the sexual frustrations of male characters to the reemergence of the others to the weather in Westeros, while defending their male counterparts for far greater crimes (which, ironically, often involve the mistreatment, sexual harassment, or abuse of females.) However, I do believe that the text itself simply gives a good deal more leeway, morally speaking, to the men than it does to the women. And while some male characters are excused for nearly everything, others treated with neutrality, it seems that with several females, GRRM often seems to be overtly trying to portray them in a way that leads audiences to feel annoyance and contempt for them, often for reasons that are not totally fair or valid if one examines the situation closely.

Let’s look at a few instances of individual women so I can try to clarify what I’m talking about.

I’ll start with Sansa in AGOT. The idea that Sansa was insufferable in AGOT, and only became “good” after being humbled in subsequent books is a very popular one. Let me utilize a few quotes from this thread alone to illustrate what I’m talking about:


 Sansa is a brat in the first half of aGoT and a sympathetic character on the rest of the series.


- Sansa is also a good person (although quite spoiled and entitled at the begning of the books). 


` I can only speak for myself. Sansa was a character I disliked because of what she represented initially. The haughty attitude, how she referred to Jon and how she treated Arya. But mostly it was how she betrayed Arya and Ned in favor of the Lannisters.


Sansa I think you are supposed to hate at the beginning because of her vanity and silly boy crushes, which are natural, but incredibly dumb. She also unwittingly leads to the death of her father, one of the precious few honorable characters in the book.


Now it’s very often that people (even hard core Sansa fans) will imply that Sansa has “improved” or gone from “insufferable” in the first book, to “better” in the last. By this one would think Sansa had some secret habit of abusing kittens in her off time. However, in AGOT (where posters often hold her to be “really annoying”) she is actually a perfectly nice, sweet girl whose few, innocent flaws (slight accordance with the social snobberies of her day; awareness of her own high birth; love for beauty/ ceremony; slight tendency to judge by appearances; dislike for her sister—the last of which, by the way, is fully shared, but in Arya’s case it is made to look sympathetic/ just, in Sansa’s like mere snobbery—wildly unfair, but whatever) actually only make her the more human and believable. Furthermore, these slight flaws are nothing compared to those of many of the most sympathetically portrayed male characters (Tyrion and others.)

However, going back to the Sansa sections, one gets the distinct feeling that GRRM is not only satirizing and criticizing Sansa inordinately for her slight faults; but that he wants the readers to do so as well, to the point that they will subtly dislike/ disapprove of her, and root for her to learn a lesson/ get shown, or what have you.

For instance, let’s look at Sansa’s attitude towards social differences, both in class and in matters of birth:

]

“Sansa could never understand how two sisters, born only two years apart, could be so different. It would have been easier if Arya had been a bastard, like their half brother Jon. She even looked like Jon, with the long face and brown hair of the starks, and nothing of their lady mother in her face or her coloring. And Jon’s mother had been common, or so people whispered.” *

“Sansa sighed as she stitched. “Poor Jon she said. He’ get’s jealous because he’s a bastard.”

“He’s our brother,” Arya said, much too loudly. Her voice cut through the afternoon quiet of the tower room.

“Septa Mordane raised her eyes. “What are you talking about, children?”

“Our half brother,” Sansa corrected, soft and precise. She smiled for the septa.

“They had always been close….. When Arya had been little, she had been afraid that meant that she was a bastard too. It had ben Jon she had gone to in her fear, and Jon who had reassured her.”

Arya says, “Sometimes it’s just fun to ride along with the wagons and talk to people.”

Sansa knew all about the sorts of people Arya liked to talk to: squires and grooms and serving girls, old men and naked children, rough spoke freeriders of certain birth. Mycah was the worst; a butcher’s boy, thirteen and wild, he slept in the meat wagon and smelled of the slaughtering black. Just the sight of him was enough to make Sansa feel sick, but Ayra seemed to prefer his company to hers.”

In both cases, Sansa (it seems) is being made to look inordinately wrong and petty; Arya good and true and correct. Arya is the awesome little girl of the people; Sansa the entitled bitch who looks down upon awesome people like the miller’s boy and Jon Snow, without even realizing that they don’t want her either. (Sansa at one point reflects that she is mystified as to why the miller’s boy hangs out with Arya but ignores her, then figures that it must be because he’s intimidated. It seems to me that this is GRRM making a joke at Sansa’s expense that Sansa is lame/ haughty and that the miller’s boy really just doesn’t want to hang out with her, but she’s too clueless/ entitled to realize it.)

Oh, and then we see what pain Sansa’s attitude towards Jon Snow has wrought:

“He missed the girls too, even Sansa, who never called him anything but “my half brother” since she was old enough to understand what “bastard” meant.”

I can’t help but feel that the reader is supposed to feel deep sympathy for Jon Snow, admiration for the accepting, egalitarian Arya, and disapproval for the “snobby” Sansa. Never mind that Sansa’s attitude is perfectly attuned to her time, and that Arya’s strikes me as slightly anarchrostic in it’s perfect mixture of democracy and utter disregard of birth/ social class that would have shocked people 100 years ago, much less in a class centered feudal society based on Europe during the war of the roses. And never mind that many beloved male figures (Tyrion, Jaime after his redemption arc, etc.) get away with far, far greater amounts of snobbery without authorial censure, or the kind of satirical criticism that Sansa gets throughout AGOT for accepting some minor prejudices of her society.

There is also the issue that, as one poster put it, “Sansa is a pretty girl who knows she’s a pretty girl.” Ridiculous though it sounds, I honestly think Sansa gets some grief for this. Rather than explain what I mean, let me provide a few examples:

“Sansa brushed prettily. She did everything prettily.”

“He’s so beautiful,” Sansa gasped.

“She was almost in tears. All she wanted was for things to be nice and pretty, the way they were in the songs. Why couldn’t Arya be sweet and delicate and kind, like Princess Myrcella.”

Sansa on Arya: “Her long horsey face got the stubborn look that meant she was going to do something willful.”

Oh, and then there are the Sansa/ Jeyne Poole comments:

“…the Redwyne twins, Ser Horas and Ser Hobber, homely youths with orange hair and square, freckled faces. Sansa and Jeyne Poole used to call them Ser Horror and Ser Slobber, and giggle whenever they caught sight of them.”

“Sansa and Jeyne Poole had laughed at Thoros of Myr until he lit his flaming sword.”

"Her hair was a lusterless brown, and her face was long and solemn. Jeyne used to call her Arya Horseface, and neigh whenever she came near.”

Interpretations of this may vary. But to me it seems as though Sansa and Jeyne are being portrayed as the mean girls of Westeros, here.

More problematically, it seems as though Sansa is being subtly mocked, poked fun at, and portrayed as shallow for some silly reasons—she’s pretty, she enjoys feminine pursuits. There also seems to be something else odd going on here that it’s hard to put one’s finger on…it’s as though Sansa is being portrayed with bitterness for being a pretty, popular girl—an insider, who might not really bother to notice the outsider guys that the author so deeply identifies with.

Sansa is a pretty, popular girl who likes pretty things and cute guys, and the reader is encouraged to feel a small (but significant) degree of scorn over this fact. Which strikes me as, frankly, bonkers.

But nothing earns Sansa more scorn then her putting her own desires, feelings, and goals above those of her family patriarch. Rather ironically, Sansa, who is frequently called out as wimpy and girly, is most satirized and condemned by GRRM for her single act of blatant feminism—disobeying the (unexplained, inexplicable) demands of her great patriarch Ned Stark to follow her own desires—to marry the man she wants, and to claim the future she choses.

In going behind Ned’s back, she threatens the patriarchy as a structure in a way that Arya quite simply never does (Arya belongs to the class of girls GRRM adores—girls who fight with weapons and take on some of the responsibilities of the patriarchy, without messing with the male privilege towards power and property, or demanding a single right for themselves.) As one poster put it, (derisively) arguing that Sansa’s “betrayal” of her father was wicked and unforgivable, “She betrayed her family for a dreamy prince.”

Or she chose her own destiny, and in doing so put her will above daddy patriarchs. And let’s see how that’s done, shall we?

Her first act of “betrayal” is accidental, in which she freaks out, starts crying, and says (frightened and hurt) that she can’t remember what happened. Upon saying this, Arya starts to beat her up. Yet numerous people have professed to feel a deep loathing for Sansa over this incident. And is it any wonder? It seems as though, despite having her herself clearly remember that it was the Hound who killed Mikah, etc., she (in later scenes) acts in a way that seems clearly designed to encourage readers to feel contempt for her 11 year old self:

"What did Gregor do ?" Arya asked.

"He burned down a holdfast and murdered a lot of people, women and children too."

Arya screwed up her face in a scowl. "Jaime Lannister murdered Jory and Heward, and Wyl, and the Hound murdered Mycah. Somebody should have beheaded them."

"It's not the same," Sansa said. "The Hound is Joffrey's sworn shield. Your butcher's boy attacked the prince."

What is the point of all this? Again, interpretations may vary. But to me, it seems to serve little purpose beyond inspiring readers to feel deep indignation and annoyance with Sansa, perhaps even hate her a bit.

Later, Sansa decides to go against her fathers (unexplained) demands to leave kings landing, and secure a happy future for herself.

When she does so, she is portrayed as thoughtlessly, selfishly betraying her family for “a dreamy prince.” The feminism and courage that this act took is disguised; it is portrayed as pure betrayal, and amped up for maximum reader outrage. (“I don’t care what happens to Sansa from here on out. I don’t care if she gets stalked by LF or anyone else. Since she lied about her direwolf and betrayed her father, she is dead to me,” said one blog.)

Sansa is portrayed as smug and wicked as possible; and just in case anyone missed it, here’s Cersei and Tyroin specifying it was, in fact, her fault:

"Littlefinger made the arrangements. We needed Slynts 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 tell me all of her father's plans...

Tyrion was surprised. "Truly? His own daughter?" Sansa had always seemed such a sweet child, tender and courteous.

"The girl was wet with love. She would have done anything for Joffrey, until he cut her father's head off and called it mercy.”

Note: as has been noted the timeline here doesn’t make much sense, and yet, it seems that the reader is supposed to accept this as basically true—that Sansa’s betrayal had some sort of damning effect even though, technically, it didn’t.

And to top it all off, GRRM (who has noted that he knows well that Sansa and Cat are amongst the most widely hated characters in the fandom, so clearly is aware of the inordinate blame people place on Sansa’s shoulders for going to Cersei) has specifically insisted in interviews that Sansa “should not be absolved of culpability, noting a number of things that her “betrayal” supposedly led to.

All in all, it seems as though Sansa is disliked in AGOT because she is portrayed in a way that (really, quite unfairly) encourages such a reaction. Furthermore, her feminist struggle to claim her own destiny is something that is portrayed as inexcusably wicked, and is arguably something she spends the next several books being punished for.




The books by in large deal with the "mans world", and create a natural disposition against feminine traits and passions, and the characters which act and respond to these problems with feminine traits tend to screw things up,

You are indeed correct in that “characters who act and respond to these problems with feminine traits tend to screw things up.” However, personally I can’t see this as having to do with the fact that Westeros is (as you dub it) “a man’s world.” Westeros is indeed a masculine warrior culture, and yet the character who is the one GRRM clearly relates to and sympathizes with most is a dwarf who is considered physically inferior by his society; he is no more able to operate “in a man’s world” than the conventionally feminine females. The reason why conventionally female women tend to screw things up is simple—because GRRM intentionally made it that way.

Yes, tomboys who fight like men but demand no traditionally male privileges to go along with their troubles (equal access to power, property, and other traditionally male rights**) are incredibly favored by GRRM over conventionally feminine women. Yes, the conventionally feminine women he does portray positively also pose no threat to the patriarchy, and are portrayed as smart enough to know that the best way to do well in a patriarchy is to work within it, without threatening the male right to property, power, dominance in marriage, or greater sexual freedom than females (Olenna, Margary.) Yes, nearly every single woman who wields real power seems to magically lose 60+ IQ points, and does a lousy job.

Girls like Sansa are satirized and criticized by having small flaws that go utterly unremarked upon in male characters; and demonized for bravely going after their own destiny as children, since doing so flouts their patriarch, putting feminine desire over righteous male rule. The sexual manipulations of women like Cersei and Arrianne are dwelt upon at weird, inordinate length and shown as inevitably resulting in epic destruction; being portrayed as either the stupid actions of a foolish but remorseful woman, or the stupid and evil actions of a depraved, wicked woman. While meanwhile LF’s using sex to attain his own ends passes by without any commentary or moral commendation whatsoever, results in wild success, and ends in him murdering a despised character in an act readers are encouraged to cheer for.

So, yes, your question has merit. “…the characters which act and respond to these problems with feminine traits tend to screw things up.” As a 21rst century feminist, I find this facet of GRRM’s writing to be somewhat troubling, especially after studying it in some detail. Whatever the case, I think some would agree with me that this issue (and others related to the way that GRRM choses to portray women, an issue which is intimately connected to reader reaction towards said women) deserves further examination and discussion.

[Eira Seren]

. . . I think what people fail to understand about Sansa's character is that she is the most realistic portrayal of a middle-ages era royal lady. She is young, manipulated by people around her, naive, has very little to no agency, basically all the people around her want her to sit pretty and shut up. None of the other female characters really fit this archtype, but it is what royal life is like for most women, even today. Even though Sansa may sometimes be frustrating to read because she comes across as so helpless, she is really the most believable female character in the whole book.

I have a feeling that many women who defend Dany and Cersei (who are strong characters--Cersei, for being locked into a role similar to Sansa's, is unrealistically strong) give Sansa a lot of flak for being a pushover. (but i have no data to back this up, so sorry, wymyn.) But in real middle ages life, you could never have the kind of power that Dany, Brienne, Cersei or even Lady Olenna do. I don't think I understood Sansa so well as when I read a history book called Sex With the Queen and the author detailed why royal women have affairs--they are literally trapped in the political roles given to them. They have no choice in their husband, often married to disgusting or much older men, must go to a new place or land where they have no friends, family, and all their servants are all potentially spies. So many of them had affairs because it was the only way out for them; romance was a kind of escape. It really parallels Sansa's time at King's Landing very well.

It is frustrating to remember that there was a time when women had such little power, and Sansa throws that in our faces. There really was a time when even the world's most powerful women had almost no agency. Imagine not being able to say or do anything and no one to help you. That's not an exageration, and Sansa is not a masochistic fantasy. She is an example of the reality of a royal woman's life.

maybe our lack of interest in characters, which causes us to dismiss them initially (or even outright), is not merely caused by boredom or dislike, but sometimes by our own frustration with their position. We are aware of it on some level, and we ourselves either cannot relate or do not want to or even know how to deal with it. Like the character, as a reader we are also frustrated by the situation. then, when asked about the character, it manifests in a variety of ways: boredom, hatered, don't see the point, etc. this could be especially true when we are asked to read a character who none of us would really want to be; we wouldn't want to be in their shoes, and don't want to imagine it.

hence, at times, a real lack of empathy (because to have empathy, you have to be willing to put yourself in another position and imagine what it is like to be there). i would not like to be in Sansa's position. I would much rather be Bran. I might not have my legs, but I have an awesome Direwolf. Even though Bran wishes that greenseeing could heal him and it can't, I'd still rather be in his position. But Sansa's position is so uncomfortable, maybe dealing with the frustrations is highly unenjoyable for me as a reader. Right now, I don't really enjoy reading Reek's passages, either.

[Gar Weg Wun Sygerrik]

As for the sloppy kisses I'm amused that they've even been brought up. Dontos was not a threat to Sansa like LF or Tyrion and Natalie's claim that Sansa would have lost her maidenhood in Dontos's company is just another one in a long line of absurd points she's made in her endless attempt to whitewash Tyrion.

Dontos more or less sold Sansa to Littlefinger. No one in Kings Landing really trusts Littlefinger which would indicate that Dontos probably does not either. So what are his motivations? By delivering her into the hands of someone untrustworthy he proves that he is a pile of shit. Dontos forces himself on her trying to get kisses. Tyrion at least recognizes her reluctance and respects it enough to stop. I'm not sure how you can call an unknown quantity like Dontos 'not a threat'. Tyrion is married to her and supported by his family, and can basically do to Sansa whatever he wants and get away with it in the short term. Dontos on the other hand has no such protection, so we really don't know what he would do to her if he did, or if the protection that her name or status was stripped away i.e she leaves kings landing and no one knows who she is.

[lilenadheas]

<snip>

:agree:

I have come to love reading your posts almost as much as ASOIAF. Brava!

[Gar Weg Wun Sygerrik]

:bang:

[total1402]

snip

Yeah, I'd probably say you have a point there with regard to the different portrayel. I don't think the likes of Daenerys are neccesarily stupid, I have zero idea how I would resolve that situation in Mereen so I can't exactly criticise her for it. Put if you compare how she has clearly came across to many people as stupid compared to Jon Snow at the same age despite neither having any training whatsoever. Snow still comes across as more competent, collected and in control of the situation. Indeed his assasination seemed totally random aside from Mels warnings and the author is silent in judgement.

But I think the likes of Cersei is more about him satirising a particular kind of fantasy archtype. However because its not just Cersei and seems quite common to all the feminine characters it deos come across as quite unappealing.

[Kittykatknits]

<lots of amazing points that I completely agree with>

:agree: This was a great post and one that I truly enjoyed reading. You always bring in some great perspective. Thank you.

[Natalie_S]

<snip>

So, yes, your question has merit. “…the characters which act and respond to these problems with feminine traits tend to screw things up.” As a 21rst century feminist, I find this facet of GRRM’s writing to be somewhat troubling, especially after studying it in some detail. Whatever the case, I think some would agree with me that this issue (and others related to the way that GRRM choses to portray women, an issue which is intimately connected to reader reaction towards said women) deserves further examination and discussion.

I don't agree with many of your statements, but I definitely agree with this.

The readers' response is closely linked to the way that GRRM decided to portray the characters.

If they think that, say, Catelyn or Dany screwed up big time in their decision is not because they are mysoginist and male chauvinists, but because, in the text, they DO screw up!

Analyzing why the author decided to portray them that way is surely very interesting, but it's completely detached, IMHO, from trying to defend the actions of a beloved character.

[Gar Weg Wun Sygerrik]

Later, Sansa decides to go against her fathers (unexplained) demands to leave kings landing, and secure a happy future for herself.

When she does so, she is portrayed as thoughtlessly, selfishly betraying her family for “a dreamy prince.” The feminism and courage that this act took is disguised; it is portrayed as pure betrayal, and amped up for maximum reader outrage. (“I don’t care what happens to Sansa from here on out. I don’t care if she gets stalked by LF or anyone else. Since she lied about her direwolf and betrayed her father, she is dead to me,” said one blog.)

All in all, it seems as though Sansa is disliked in AGOT because she is portrayed in a way that (really, quite unfairly) encourages such a reaction. Furthermore, her feminist struggle to claim her own destiny is something that is portrayed as inexcusably wicked, and is arguably something she spends the next several books being punished for.

It seems as if you're comfortable claiming that any selfish act of a female character no matter how ill equiped(11 years old) they are to make this decision is feminist and courageous.

[Kittyhat]

Interesting analysis as far as it goes, Cersei I, though honestly I feel the reality of the situation is far simpler. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we don't need a detailed, in-depth analysis to spare feelings and determine how, perhaps, it may not be a duck but merely something made to lure people into ducklike behavior.

It's plainly obvious why the lion's share of hatred is directed at women on these forums ... and worse, I might add, some of the worst enablers here are women themselves. We're simply not allowed to say what the cause of all this hatred is because that would be "confrontational." The mods frown on speaking the truth in this matter.

But can we stop pretending we don't know the why involved?

[Castel]

It seems as if you're comfortable claiming that any selfish act of a female character no matter how ill equiped(11 years old) they are to make this decision is feminist and courageous.

Well, no one said being empowered meant that you were good. There's a huge dissonance how different people use the word "feminist" .

[Eira Seren]

I don't agree with many of your statements, but I definitely agree with this.

The readers' response is closely linked to the way that GRRM decided to portray the characters.

If they think that, say, Catelyn or Dany screwed up big time in their decision is not because they are mysoginist and male chauvinists, but because, in the text, they DO screw up!

Analyzing why the author decided to portray them that way is surely very interesting, but it's completely detached, IMHO, from trying to defend the actions of a beloved character.

well, not necessarily. i think Queen Cersei and i are starting to think along the same lines in our last posts.

Going back to the idea of empathy and the ability or willingness to imagine yourself in a position different (and perhaps undesireable) than your own, and its effect on us as readers

and

taking that together with Queen Cersei's analysis of how a character is portrayed by the author

we can also ask: are we, as readers, being skillfully manipulated into reacting in certain predictable ways to certain characters? to what purpose and to what end? and what does it reveal, not merely about the characters or the author, but us, as the reader?

i think this is a reasonable analysis, especially since each of us read the books as different kinds of readers, with a variety of experiences and reading tools.

ETA:

Well, no one said being empowered meant that you were good. There's a huge dissonance how different people use the word "feminist" .

and that probably accounts in part for the variety of kinds of readers and experiences and approaches to reading that goes on here. i would guess that i am not the same kind of feminist as all the rest any more than Queen Cersei is. that would be like saying every republican or democrat is like all the rest. last i looked, there were at least four different approaches (or camps). but it might explain why we all seem to show significant interest in these characters, if in varied ways. and why it can be maddening to be all lumped together and neatly classified and written off as attackers. . .

[Garlan Marius]

:shocked:

Might want to rephrase.

The meaning is fairly clear. Nonfeminists are more common than feminists, despite level of oppression. Sansa is a tropic nonfeminist taken to the extreme.

Fantasy does not need this level of super-realism. It needs strong characters who fight against wrongs, not weak ones that accept them. Sansa as a character falls flat, but as a device calls attention to patriarchy.

[Gar Weg Wun Sygerrik]

Well, no one said being empowered meant that you were good. There's a huge dissonance how different people use the word "feminist" .

Apparently in this thread that could include refusing to eat your vegetables as long as there is a patriarch and a girl involved.

/sarcasm off

[total1402]

well, not necessarily. i think Queen Cersei and i are starting to think along the same lines in our last posts.

Going back to the idea of empathy and the ability or willingness to imagine yourself in a position different (and perhaps undesireable) than your own, and its effect on us as readers

and

taking that together with Queen Cersei's analysis of how a character is portrayed by the author

we can also ask: are we, as readers, being skillfully manipulated into reacting in certain predictable ways to certain characters? to what purpose and to what end? and what does it reveal, not merely about the characters or the author, but us, as the reader?

i think this is a reasonable analysis, especially since each of us read the books as different kinds of readers, with a variety of experiences and reading tools.

I don't really mind Cersei for the most part. I mean, she might just be one of those characters where you don't want to get inside their head because you're not going to like what you find there. But as of AFFC it becomes so difficult to justify that the character is simply grey or just an underwhelming beautiful woman trying to keep power and her kids alive. Plus, normally when we get a POV or flawed narrator we'd expect a more postive view of that person (its an argument I've heard a lot about Dany). But I actually think that with Cersei she comes across as being FAR FAR more competent, intelligent and as a, well, sane character than when shes a POV. When we get inside her head we realise how flawed she is. To an extent, I kind of wonder what people would think if they got inside my head and whether anyone would think you were a nutter with that kind of awareness. Really, the Cersei others see in ACOK is the worst they ever see.

On Dany. Whilst we haven't another POV character judge her. Presumably, shes had a very profound effect upon Jorah and Barristan n co. So maybe the image we see is far more underwhelming/human than the ones the characters respond to and are aware of?

[Garlan Marius]

Apparently in this thread that could include refusing to eat your vegetables as long as there is a patriarch and a girl involved.

Defying authority isn't in and of itself feminist. If Robb were the one who went against his father's wishes to talk to Cersei, it would be seen for what it is; a child not listening to his or her parent.

[brashcandy]

Dontos more or less sold Sansa to Littlefinger. No one in Kings Landing really trusts Littlefinger which would indicate that Dontos probably does not either.

Why would it indicate that? And plenty people in KL trust LF: see Cersei, Tywin, Jaime and Ned. The only people who suspect LF are those with plots of their own, and who know what it means to be underestimated, namely Varys and Tyrion. There's absolutely no reason to believe that Dontos wasn't just as fooled by LF promises to do right by Sansa. LF "buys" people, but we have evidence in the text that Dontos' desire to help Sansa was genuine. She saves his life and he expresses regret over shunning her when she came to court the day to plead for Ned's life.

So what are his motivations? By delivering her into the hands of someone untrustworthy he proves that he is a pile of shit.

As noted, Dontos has no reason to assume that LF is untrustworthy and he knows the danger Sansa is in the longer she remains in KL. He accepts LF's money but why not? No one is claiming he's a moral paragon, but likening him to a pile of shit isn't fair. Money might have been an incentive, but he does care about Sansa. We see this when she's beaten in court and he tried to intercede to help her.

Dontos forces himself on her trying to get kisses. Tyrion at least recognizes her reluctance and respects it enough to stop.

Oh good grief. Dontos is a harmless drunk. It's not right that he tried to get Sansa to kiss him, but he has no power over her like Tyrion does to exploit her for her claim to Winterfell and endanger her life.

I'm not sure how you can call an unknown quantity like Dontos 'not a threat'. Tyrion is married to her and supported by his family, and can basically do to Sansa whatever he wants and get away with it in the short term. Dontos on the other hand has no such protection, so we really don't know what he would do to her if he did, or if the protection that her name or status was stripped away i.e she leaves kings landing and no one knows who she is.

Dontos was never going to attempt to take Sansa out of KL. He wants to help her get home and that's it. He's not suicidal or heroic enough to attempt such an act on his own, so Sansa is never in danger from him. Tyrion is nice to Sansa on a person to person basis, but look at what he really does in an objective manner. He goes along with his father's plan in order to secure Winterfell and takes advantage of Sansa's captivity. By doing so he's ensuring further Lannister exploitation of the Starks and contributing to Sansa's degradation. Then he expects her to love and care for him? This is madness, but clearly readers don't view it that way.

[lilenadheas]

The meaning is fairly clear. Nonfeminists are more common than feminists, despite level of oppression. Sansa is a tropic nonfeminist taken to the extreme.

Fantasy does not need this level of super-realism. It needs strong characters who fight against wrongs, not weak ones that accept them. Sansa as a character falls flat, but as a device calls attention to patriarchy.

I had a wall-of-text reply, but I'm going to stop engaging in this conversation. it's not worth it.

And actually, you said "typical woman", not non feminist. I think that says it all.

[The Sleeper]

<snip>

So, if I understand correctly, Sansa is simultaneously critisized by the text for adhering to the role that the patriarchy has laid for her and for subverting it?

[Garlan Marius]

And actually, you said "typical woman", not non feminist. I think that says it all.

The word "typical" means "most common," which I elucidated. Thanks for the ad hominem implication, though. I love being unjustly called a misogynist.