Jump to content

Archived

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

brashcandy

From Pawn to Player: Rethinking Sansa XV

Recommended Posts

Christine is supposed to go back to HIM. They always stay at the opera though and roam only through the upper floors, never below the stage because “EVERYTHING THAT IS UNDERGROUND BELONGS TO HIM!” (Chapt. 11, p. 12) One day Christine takes Raoul all the way up to the roof of the opera house. They sit down on the roof under the statue of Apollo holding his lyre to the “crimson sky.” (Chapt. 12, p.1) The sun in setting on a beautiful spring evening. [Here's that sunset imagery between Christine and Raoul again.]

As if all the underground feelings that she also has belongs to him.

When Christine comes to, she sees a white shape standing beside the man's back shape in the darkness. The white shape turns out to be a beautiful white horse named Cesar who had been stolen from the opera's stables earlier that day by a black shadow. Christine recognized Cesar and remembered hearing how he had been stolen by the Opera ghost. She had never believed in the ghost. Now she is beginning to wonder if the voice and the Opera ghost are the same. (Chapt. 12, p.15)

Oh!! I love that the movie took the important meanings of colors!!!

So this book can be exposed in three colors: red-black-white. Red you say that means death, but also the life after the death. I can see also the passion, all the feelings (love, anger, pain). The black is the danger, the unknown, what scares us. And the white the purity, the light but also a kind of death.

I also see significant that the Phantom grasps Christine by the wrist.

ANALYSIS -

It seems that Erik is a vampire a la Bram Stoker's Dracula. A walking corpse and no, he does not sparkle in the sunlight ;-) Anyway, it is interesting that the masterpiece he is working on is called Don Juan Triumphant because Don Juan is a tale about a man who is known as a womanizer or libertine. See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Juan. Does this suggest that once he has successfully seduced a woman he will have fulfilled his mission in life? Or in a less cynical interpretation, is he looking for the love of a good woman and once he has that love he will be fulfilled?

It is a curiosity that Don Juan is always performed at November (it is a tradition, I´m glad that it is still going on from my Granmother times). But also it is important to remark that November is autumn (as when all the Sansa-Sandor interaction happens, but also Sansa-Tyrion). And in addition, at the GOT calender, GRRM asks to be Sansa and Sandor at November at the BBB scene.

About Don Juan by Jose Zorrilla, the girl is named Doña Ines (Lady Agnes). She symbolizes the purity. The Saint is always represented with a lamb at her arms (not only that the name Agnes cames from the latin word of lamb).

Her love "saves" Don Juan from the hell (the darkness).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then, he returns to Christine who is waiting for him. She not only is waiting for him but she moves to him and even leans her head forward a little and lets him kiss her on the forehead! (Id., p.12) He is overcome with emotion by this little act, for even his mother would not let him kiss her nor any other woman. (Id., p.13) He is so overcome with happiness he cries and falls at her feet. He cries and Christine cries too and he feels her tears falling on his forehead, mingling with his tears and flowing on his lips. He rips off his mask so as not to lose any of her tears and she does not run away nor does she die! She remains alive with him, weeping with him. (Id.) Then Christine takes his hand and he says he has become like a poor dog, ready to die for her. (Id., p.14, my emphasis) To show her that he means it he tells her to keep the gold ring he had given her earlier as a wedding present.

It is important how little gestures full of compassion can get inside others.

Anyway as Brash has remarked about the Phantom relationship with his mother is important. That mother that didn´t let her son kiss her just because he is so ugly, it is a really hard thing. Normally if your son/daughter has a physical defect you try to protect and give her/him more love to compensate all the additional suffering that she/he will endure.

It is also important the similarity about Phantom tears and Sandor tears. Sandor tears were touched by Sansa hand (another small compassionate gesture).

About the Look at Me! from the Phantom I see it aslo as a Love Me! as he demands her that, he asks her for her love.

It is another similarity with Sandor.

But I also see the differences between both:

- That Sandor makes Sansa see his scars before they end knowing each other, as a point of begin.

- The Phantom makes Christine see his scars after trying to seduce her, at the process. The look at me is a consequence, not the trigger.

About the musical: I am singing The Point of No Return for two days!!!

I like a lot Ramlin Karimloo. Thanks! I didn´t listen to it before.

Anyway at the movie: Gerard Butler is too handson (he should be wearing that mask and his hair glow!) and it is true is the one with the poorest voice, but acting he also transmit a lot with his performance.

As I said before I like that at the movie, they kepts the colors importance.

Really good job!!!

Now I have to return to read the begin of this thread because all the LF analysis is so good!!

Edit: I had some problem with the Multiquote and I could do it. Sorry to post so many. I edit to add here the musical and movie impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, thanks for explaining Aurelia! :) I guess I personally don't see Sansa ultimately having such a great appreciation for LF's tactics and methods. I agree that right now she's "fascinated" with seeing this other side to the game which she never quite envisioned, but her fundamental values are antithetical to the ones LF espouses, and based on the last chapter of AFFC a line in the sand may have finally been drawn. As for her opinion of Sandor, I do believe she thinks he's intelligent, but more importantly, also honest and trustworthy. Given Sansa's noted aversion to being exploited for her claim and treated as a pawn, I expect Sandor to keep rising in her estimation based on the nature of their interaction. And Sansa has shown herself to be quite capable of resisting attempts by others to shape her into what they desire - the promise she gives to LF about becoming Alayne in her heart is a lie, for example. What I imagine hope is that Sansa will begin to construct a powerful alternative to how the game is played in Westeros, and this will require her to rely on exactly the kinds of people Sandor most resembles.

You're probably right and I defer to you since you surely know Sansa more than me :) I guess it's kind of my wish. I think she has a lot to learn from Littlefinger. I don't want them together, I hope that LF will meet his demise but in the meantime he is the one character I most love to hate. And more than Beauty and the Beast themes I am fascinated by the meeting of in-progress characters like Sansa with true villains (with the particular meaning that this has in ASOIF). I don't expect the villains to change and I don't expect the "ingenue" to become evil but I see those parts as a lesson in the ways of the world. Westeros is not an easy place to live in. Being aware of how the most powerful forces operate or being able to use the same techniques seems like an invaluable asset to acquire. Not to mention, it makes the character more nuanced.

If then Sansa were to be able to combine this lesson with her Stark upbringing and the lessons she received from Cersei, she'd become one of the most badass characters in the ASOIF world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Littlefinger has his own sort of courage, as she learns. It's not the in-your-face kind, but he is very bold and risk-taking, in his own way. This doesn't mean he's heedless of danger, but if you take the meeting with the Lords Declarant as an example, aside from Alayne and Lady Smallwood he probably had the least fighting ability of anyone there, and yet in the end he faced them down like a boss, and won the day. He had help there and it was a controlled environment, but just the same his sheer confidence in his own abilities probably inspires Sansa in some way.

:agree: . Yep, which is extremely important because I don't see her becoming a warrior queen. (One of my dreams is that she and Arya reunite and one takes the game of thrones in the palace and the other the game of thrones in the field. What a team that would be !)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elba- thank you for the wonderful essay. It's been ages since I read/ saw this on Broadway so it was a great refresher.

So, this singular, powerful act of compassion, Beauty allowing the Beast to kiss her is what transforms him, and this transformation is sealed by tears mingling together, falling on his forehead. These tears on the forehead symbolise a baptism and a baptism of course is a ceremony in which you renounce the ways of the devil. Also, we have the manly tears and the reference to him being like a loyal dog to her – need I say more? ;-) Finally, the Beauty and her handsome lover decide to go off in hiding together, to live happily ever after, to the North!

The distant and detached relationship Erik shares with his mother is contrasted with close and caring one between Christine and her father, but both of them clearly have separation issues. Erik is looking for the affection he never received from his mother, whilst Christine is still invested in the remnants of her father's affection through his promise to send her the Angel of Music. The discovery that Erik is the voice and his subsequent unmasking, therefore holds significance for both of them in beginning to exorcise the ghosts of their parents. As a parallel to the Sandor/Sansa relationship, we know that Sansa's influence is instrumental in propelling Sandor from a life of hate for his brother into one where he begins to discern some other purpose (we expect the EB to eventually complete this process); The lack Erik feels from his mother's cold treatment is finally healed when Christine allows him to kiss her, and Sandor is saved by the mother's song, which specifically prays for sons to be safe and protected in war.

I am most intrigued by the aspect of the "reversal of the kiss/ affection" as well. I confess that there is something beautiful in the concept that goodness/ transformation is achieved not when you give someone your love, but when you let them love you. The former implies a self-cenetered imperative while the latter conjures warm feelings of empathy, self-sacrifice, human kindness, etc.

But one thing that raised my hackles a little bit is that this concept can be reduced to the notion that if letting a man love you is what will "save" him, then does this get into the same territory where assertions like "Sansa owes it to Tyrion to sleep with him and to let him in as he just needs someone to be close to/ wants to love and be loved" are made? I suppose both iterations of love-transformation can go this direction, but the notion of its more potentially insidious implications only really occurred to me in looking at it from the "letting someone love you" side, because it promotes a kind of selfless passivity as it occurs in Phantom. I can't make up my mind on how I feel about this at present, because while I love the idea that letting Sandor be gentle/ himself around Sansa makes him "better," I don't know how I'd feel about this if it were extended to other men, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bumps, I think that in Sandor's case, it isn't squicky since Sansa truly does care for him-her consent is what separates SanSan from TyrSan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everyone who commented on my Phantom essay, thanks so much! I was not able to get online yesterday for a long enough time to respond to some of the comments, so I am going to try and get to some of them now before I get started on my Thanksgiving preparations.

Thanks for this Elba! The Phantom, book/musical/movie, never gets old for me! I like your idea of the Beast-figure split into the Phantom and Raoul (who really is piddly in the book). Will you elaborate more on this?

Also, Sandor's way of emerging from the shadows is really very Phantom-like. As I've noted before, I really believe that GRRM woud have seen the musical when it was so big in the latter 80s and developed some ideas from there.

PS, what do you think of the song 'Til I Hear You Sing Once More' from the sequel? It reinforces the idea of the sexual connotation of 'singing' since Christine and the Phantom have slept together before their separation. Makes you wonder if the night of the Blackwater can be equated with the 'Point of No Return' scene in the musical.

Also worthy of note wrt the musical/movie is the emphasis paid to the way that the Phantom has taken over Christine's mind rather than the heart. Is this similar to Sansa's state of mind post-Blackwater?

I'll elaborate more on the idea of the two sides of the Beast being split into two in a minute (and Brash made some good points in her comments which I'll get to) but first, regarding the song Till I hear you sing once more, you know I had not considered the sequel at all.

I think Glenn Slater wrote the lyrics to this, not Charles Hart, but yeah from now on when I hear a reference in a song to singing, or hearing someone sing for them I';; a;ways think, hmm, do they mean singing as in "la la la" or singing as in "nudge nudge, wink wink."

Also, yes, I think the state of mind of both Christine before she sees Erik as a real man and Sansa post Blackwater can be viewed as similar. Sansa is still undergoing the sexual awakening aspect and when she thinks back on the unkiss and dreams of Sandor it is clearly something she is making up in her mind, creating her own fantasy. I think the words to the song the Phantom of the Opera evoke a similar feeling and this is the moment where Christine is also in a dreamlike state and is in the middle of going through her awakening. The verse Christine sings opens with - In sleep he sang to me In dreams he came. So yeah I see a similar state of mind between the two at the moment they are going through their awakening.

In sleep he sang to me in dreams he came That voice which calls to me and speaks my name And do I dream again? For now I find The Phantom of the Opera is there inside my mind

Read more: PHANTOM OF THE OPERA - PHANTOM OF THE OPERA LYRICS

You think Sandor's boring? :huh: Why? Just curious.

Great post Elba! I love Phantom of the Opera. I especially love your comparisons between Sansa/Sandor & Erik/ Christine. I think that in both cases, the "beast" changes because the "beauty" shows them compassion. I also think that it's interesting that Sandor and Erik both had horrible childhoods- Sandor with his brother burning him and Erik with both of his parents treating him badly. Not sure if that's on topic but just thought I'd mentioned it.

I think-I hope- that Sansa and Christine's stories will have a different ending. Christine ends up with the beautiful *cough cough and boring and stupid and....just don't get me started on Raoul* guy. Hopefully Sansa will end up with the less beautiful on the outside guy, although of course Sandor is beautiful and honorable on the inside. :)

LOL. Yes to you and the others who commented on Raoul, I agree. Raoul really comes off as petulant and whiny throughout the books. You know how a lot of people wonder why Sansa did not go with Sandor after the Blackwater, well from the comments I saw on youtube, especially the ones with Gerard Butler from the 2004 movie, there were a lot of comments along the lines of Christine you are a fool to pick Raoul over the Phantom.

And now to elaborate on my comments regarding the split persona, it has a lot to do with the fact that despite how mystical the idea is of a Phantom roaming around the Opera house, the book is very much based on being something that happens in real life. Everything that the Phantom/Erik does that seems like some sort of dark magic can be explained very scientifically and rationally. He is not only a musical genius but a genius in architecture and engineering and he calls himself a "trap door lover". Everything he does has a logical explanation. I think this very much ties into Gaston Leroux's own life experience as a adventure seeking journalist and how he starts off the book with the idea that the Phantom was real. On the other hand in Beauty and the Beast it is grounded squarely in the magical, otherworldly arena. The castle is enchanted, the Beast has a spell cast on him, and a witch is involved. So, while in the fairy tale, the Beast beautiful face and the Beastly appearance are one and then in the end he magically transforms, in "real life" that can't happen. So, I saw it as the two parts of the on e in the fairy tale Beast split into two separate men in the supposedly real life story (though obviously it isn't real, it was specifically presented that way). But really, Raoul's role in the story turns out to be very minimal as it is mostly about Erik and his transformation, as aided by Christine and her own sexual awakening and separation from her childhood ties to her father. Brash's comment here reflects my thought on this very well -

The transformation of these men is therefore from death to life. Erik's transformation sets Raoul free, which goes to the point you were making Elba about how he's Erik's "princely" persona. We see evidence of the true knight in Sandor throughout his interaction with Sansa, and she sets him on the path to his current stay on the Quiet Isle as the gravedigger.
Exactly. Erik himself isn't going to magically become handsome as the symbolic representation of his transformation and rejection of his prior evil ways, so it is represented by him setting free the handsome lover to be with his one true love.

Also, Brash I really liked your comment about how the setting is important to the relationship of these people.

In Part I you spent some discussing the history of the Grand Opera House where most of the action takes place, and it brings to mind the similar bloody history of the Red Keep, where Sansa's own family members were tortured and killed by the Mad King. As an aside, a lot of the significant interaction between Sandor and Sansa takes place in and around her bedroom, and on stairs/high places where she could fall, serving to symbolize not only the intimacy in their relationship, but also his role as her protector. There seems to be a similar connection between the setting and the relationship Christine shares with Erik. He's not just the "ghost" who haunts this space, but he haunts Christine as well.

I am finding in all the books I am looking at that the setting is key to the story. I just started reading The Hunchback of Notre Dame and learned that it's actual title is Notre Dame de Paris, a clear statement that the story is as much about Notre Dame as it is about Quasimodo and Esmerelda. I know that Jane Eyre has an imposing setting as well in Thornfield Hall and I agree that the setting of the red keep and Maegor's Holdfast where most of Sansa's and Sandor's interactions take place really fits with what is happening between them. Sansa definitely is haunted by what has happened to her and her family there just as the Opera where Christine and Erik interact seems to be haunted by a Phantom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked your analysis very much, Elba, thank you for this.

I see this story as a story of moral awakening for the Beast/Erik and of psychological maturation for the Beauty/Christine; and in this regard, it has components of both Cupid and Psyche and the standard Beauty and the Beast. It belongs to the type Transformation in Perception Only–internally, not externally. In this particular story, I see Raoul de Chagny as the “sister” figure, because he’s the one who forces Beauty to face the Beast and then separates the Beauty from her Beast. That he doesn’t do it out of spite, but because Beauty chose him doesn’t invalidate the similitude, because anyone who acts as an interloper is the sister/mother figure, and it has many subversions and inversions in all the B&B variants.

What’s caught my attention is that in so many retellings old and new, singing is an important and recurrent motif. Even in the original Greco-Roman myth, Cupid is a singer and a harpist more skilled than Rhaegar; Laidronette is a poet and a singer as well; Belle loves music and songs, Christine is a singer, and Sansa writes poetry, plays the high harp and the bells and sings. I was thinking about a theory in Psychology which asserts that all of music can be grouped into six types of song depending on the emotions expressed: friendship, joy, comfort, religion, knowledge and love. The presence of these types varies from one retelling to the other, but two are a constant in Cupid and Psyche, Beauty and the Beast, Sandor and Sansa: first, comfort (Cupid sings in his loneliness to console himself, Beauty resorts to songs in her confinement at Beast’s castle, Sansa sings the Mother’s Hymn), followed by love/sex (When Cupid visits Psyche in the night, birds sing outside, a nice metaphor for what’s happening in the chamber, since those birds are his mother’s heralds. There’s The Music of the Night in Phantom of the Opera, and there’s the asking for Florian and Jonquil and the promise of “I will have a song from you” for Sansa). Songs of the comfort type are fundamental to growing up, as they help in the emotional and physical maturation of babies, children and young people; and also singing sooths and comforts in ways that other actions cannot (note that the Mother Hymn had an effect on Sandor that mere words or actions wouldn’t have), because auditory stimulation is radically different from other senses and we react to it even when there is no visual or physical contact. As for the ones in the love category, it’s a curious fact that from a psychological perspective, emotions communicated through singing are perceived as more true and genuine. Vocal music has been linked to sexuality since time immemorial, feminine sexuality to be precise, because instrumental music is unisex, yet singing has always been considered a mainly feminine activity, which is also grounded in biology (women tend to sing more than men, literally and metaphorically). Song as a metaphor for sex is not exclusive to GRRM. The Greeks knew about it, and the Hebrews, too. Just look at this verses from the Song of Songs in the Old Testament where a man is telling his maiden in the midst of amorous play:

Let me hear your voice,

your delicious song.

I love to look at you.

Interesting. I think that your'e right there is definitely an element of the jealous sister personality with Raoul. I didn't notice it while reading the book because for the most part I saw him as wanting to take Christine away from the Phantom, not forcing her to confront him, but in Perros Raoul does just that. By telling Christine that he heard a voice of just some man he really shakes her up, as before that she thought it was truly an angel that only she could hear.

I also wanted to expand a little more on the Raoul/Erik dynamic and Erik's moral awakening as you put it. Both men are extremely jealous of the other and want to keep Christine from the other. In a way you could say it is a battle between the two sides of the Beast for Christine's heart. Again, this is why when Erik has his moral awakening or transition, he then gives Raoul to Christine.

One other thing that is important about Erik is that he wants to be loved for himself. When he let's Christine go after the first time he takes her to his lair, he believes she will return because she has convinced him that she loves him for himself. This is a common thing for some well known "monsters" in literature, most notably Frankenstein's monster whose time with the blind man is so happy for him because the blind man cannot see what he looks like and seems to genuinely like his company. Both Sandor and Tyrion, who does fit the Beast aspect in many ways too (and I think I am going to be focusing a lot more on Tyrion as the Beast in my Hunchback essay as I can already see there is a lot of parallels there) both desire to be loved for themselves. Sandor does not ever say that explicitly but it comes through from his other comments, his rage (which is what Sansa fears most about him) and background history.

Oh Elba that was a really great essay on the Phantom! i thank you for it :D when i was 12 i was a really BIG fan, but yeah, haven't seen the movie in ages. you are making me want to watch it again :)

i liked the start where you gave us a little info about leroux's journlaism activities and well everything really was just very well done!! from the musical research to the bit where you explained how sandor can relate to not only Erik but raoul as well. never really liked raoul either though, and well i can just hope that in the end Sansa and Sandor find joy, whether they are together or not.

Also, there is a version of the phantom with charles dance from 1990 where the main opera the characters are rehearsing for is Faust. i wonder if goethe's story and cyrano de bergerac could also have some similarities to the whole B&B project we have here?

Caro hold on to your thoughts about Cyrano. I'm planning to look at that book as well (hopefully I'll get to it in a reasonable time frame).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say that I loved all the text of Elba about sing...I made a parallelism too..

Sandor pleading to Sansa "

to sing for him, and she, entranced, sings as she sings for no one else. Even the night of her triumph at the Opera, Christine had said to the voice that she sings only for him. The whole thing has a haunted feel to it.

is very passionate.

And I wonder: If in the game of thrones the people/players must have two things: Being smart (has been discussed a lot about it) ... and

be something that NED (who was extremely intelligent and intuitive) refused to be:

Merciless.

I wonder: (As for her intelligence and intuition I have no doubt she's like Ned, but will be able to be like her mother: the unCAT? :devil:)

Sansa would be able to become ruthless?

It would be able to stop being herself?

Even more:

Would it be worthwhile stop being ourselves?

For revenge or power? or for any other reason...

to win a game?

Even if is a GAME of THRONES?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am most intrigued by the aspect of the "reversal of the kiss/ affection" as well. I confess that there is something beautiful in the concept that goodness/ transformation is achieved not when you give someone your love, but when you let them love you. The former implies a self-cenetered imperative while the latter conjures warm feelings of empathy, self-sacrifice, human kindness, etc.

But one thing that raised my hackles a little bit is that this concept can be reduced to the notion that if letting a man love you is what will "save" him, then does this get into the same territory where assertions like "Sansa owes it to Tyrion to sleep with him and to let him in as he just needs someone to be close to/ wants to love and be loved" are made? I suppose both iterations of love-transformation can go this direction, but the notion of its more potentially insidious implications only really occurred to me in looking at it from the "letting someone love you" side, because it promotes a kind of selfless passivity as it occurs in Phantom. I can't make up my mind on how I feel about this at present, because while I love the idea that letting Sandor be gentle/ himself around Sansa makes him "better," I don't know how I'd feel about this if it were extended to other men, for example.

Bumps, I think that in Sandor's case, it isn't squicky since Sansa truly does care for him-her consent is what separates SanSan from TyrSan.

Yeah, I think WK has the right of it. Even though it can seem like selfless passivity in "letting someone love you", there's still an element of reciprocity here, where you have to be open to such a possibility and accepting of that person as well. I think this is why Christine's act has such a profound impact on Erik, because his mother never accepted him for who he was, and could not bring herself to either show him love or let him express it in turn. Consent is still vitally important, and that is what is missing from the Tyrion/Sansa relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree that the consent is the key as it shows her acceptance of him as he truly is. I explained above how there is a tug of war between Erik and Raoul and that Raoul wants to take Christine away as soon as possible. She doesn't want to go until Erik has heard her sing one last time as it would be cruel to Erik. Even though in some ways she finds Erik abhorrent, she is also sympathetic to him and does not want to hurt him purposefully. That sympathy is what leads her to allow Erik to kiss her, and then later she does initiate a kiss with him, but the underlying component is that she feels a sympathetic connection with him in some way. With Sansa and Tyrion, Sansa does recognize that he has been kind to her, but the deeper connection is missing because she so associates him with his Lannister name. Remember, the whole time she is with Tyrion, Sansa is planning an escape, so it is different than with Christine. Christine had the chance to escape from Erik before that last performance but she deliberately chose not to whereas Sansa is deliberately doing the opposite while married to Tyrion, a marriage that was forced on her and turned her into her greatest enemy. Another difference is that while Erik wants Christine to sing for him, Tyrion does not want that from Sansa and in fact thinks songs are the last thing she needs to hear. So, the main point here that I am trying to make as I rush to type this out is that there has to be an underlying acceptance first before the kiss takes place, otherwise it is just forced and serves to hurt the two people in the relationship further rather than help them mature and transform into something better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another difference is that while Erik wants Christine to sing for him, Tyrion does not want that from Sansa and in fact thinks songs are the last thing she needs to hear. So, the main point here that I am trying to make as I rush to type this out is that there has to be an underlying acceptance first before the kiss takes place, otherwise it is just forced and serves to hurt the two people in the relationship further rather than help them mature and transform into something better.

Indeed Sandor is the only one that wants a song from Sansa. No Petyr (how thinks that songs are useful fpr his purposes), neither Tyrion (he thinks that the last thing that Sansa needs is more songs). Even at her marriage with Tyrion or her life at the Eyrie is as if she is missing a song. Birds sing, and she isn´t singing. (Maybe she is begin to sing lies to LF).

And we must keep at mind that the books are called A Song of Ice and Fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, that pretty thing:

Songs in the Old Testament where a man is telling his maiden in the midst of amorous play:

Let me hear your voice,

your delicious song.

I love to look at you.

So, the main point here that I am trying to make as I rush to type this out is that there has to be an underlying acceptance first before the kiss takes place, otherwise it is just forced and serves to hurt the two people in the relationship further rather than help them mature and transform into something better

.. Yep

For example when he play with the song (with consensual acceptance /Forced) :

"And that's more than little birds can do, is not it? I never got my song. "...

..... "Florian and Jonquil? A fool and his cunt. Spare me.
But one day I'll have a song from you
.. "

A Clash of Kings, p. 515, e-book.

He is saying her, in a brutal way - (and yet subtle) which is a song about him and her, about both, of no one else. He says "my song" A Song "from you". The characters in his story-song are : Sandor and Sansa, nobody else. He's talking about an action including intimacy, that is private and unique (which is different anything that has not been done before). A original song (; (and to be it, ironically has to happen first in the Reality , to could emerge later as a song about it).

In other words, Sandor are telling Sansa: I don´t want just a fantasy: I want something real with you. And it "Real" that includes you and me, is better than the best fantasy.

Until there- is Sandor (Protector)

Here begins (they are mixed) The Hound (as Predator):

"..... But one day I'll have a song from you,
Whether you will it or not.
"

I will gladly sing it for you
. "

Sandor Clegane snorted. "
Pretty thing, and such a bad liar.
A dog can smell a lie, you know."

He begin to see rape as a fantasy, fantasizing about rape. This boy play too much for his own good.

And finally, in the night of Blackwater this pattern is repeated

he can not carry out his fantasy because, although it seems that he does not see acceptance , He perceived gesture-the Sansa's hand on his cheek and this is what causing the change, the collapse of The Hound, even a collapse of Sandor
(we infer from his reaction, he abandons her)
.

A total change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah,Raoul is so boring. :lol:

Setting is definitely important in Jane Eyre as well. Is anyone here doing a post on that since I feel like there could be some interesting comparisons there. :)

:agree:

Jane Eyre would be a great comparison, as would Jamaica Inn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the movie also: Jamaican Inn. Directed by Alfred Hichtcock (it is considered one of his worse works). 1939 with Maureen O´Hara (a red hair, strange coming from a Hichtcock movie but so fitting with Sansa).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never seen the film (although I have read they changed it a bit from the book). Would love to see it though. Hitchcock films are great.

Edit: Apparently there is a mini-series version featuring Jane Seymour and Trevor Eve from 1983 that is meant to be closer to the book.

Althoug given the BBC's constant rehashing of the same costume dramas every few years, I'm amazed they haven't done Jamaica Inn yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edit: Apparently there is a mini-series version featuring Jane Seymour and Trevor Eve from 1983 that is meant to be closer to the book

Jane also started in that year a tv adaptation of the Phantom which i didn't like very much, but since i remeber it was shot as if it was happening in the present times rather than the late 19th century, maybe George saw it and took some influences from it as well when he was writting B&B some years later? :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is one of his worse movies, but I like it. I don´t know why. It was this spring when I rewatched for some LJ talk about Daphne du Maurier and it was then when I got that the movie was directed by Hitchcock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×