Jump to content

Archived

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

brashcandy

From Pawn to Player: Rethinking Sansa XVI

Recommended Posts

AGOT - The goal was to introduce Sansa. Unfortunately we don't get her viewpoint first, we get her through Arya, who has a small bias due to sibling clashing. Sansa is set up to be the fair maiden archetype, the golden girl, apple of her mother's eye, consummate lady, etc.

This is a quote from Instruction for Chinese Women and Girls by Lady Tsao"

"Father and mother-in-law are your husband's family. When you arrive at their threshold you become a new woman;" and "When a girl leaves her father's house, her husband thereafter is her nearest relative. In her former state, before she was born, her relations in the present world were fixed." etc.

Sansa is born when she leaves 'her father's house', "I thought my song was beginning that day" really illustrates that. This was a kind of a rite of passage for her into life (with tournaments, courly curtesies, music etc.).

I think there are good reasons to place her first POV on King's road. :)

Yeah I wonder about that too... We know Sansa was introduced as a kind of conflict creator, to give a more "realistic" feel to the Stark family dynamics, but I feel as though Martin went overboard in his attempt to make her unsympathetic within this structure, leading to the discrepancy in portrayals when she's on her own and interacting with others like Sandor. So, it's not hard to fathom that he might not have as good a handle on her as some of the other characters.

I think it's only in AGOT and that she becomes more likeable later. Maybe he became a better writer in the meantime? Learned how to write her...

I've read through Sansa's chapters before, trying to forget what else is happening in the story. For the most part, she's in an information vacuum the entire time she's in KL.

She is always in information vacuum! Her siblings observe Joffrey's behavior and tell her nothing of it. And Eddard explains things to Arya but not to Sansa!

There is the quote from AGOT Catelyn (II, I think?) where Eddard says how Sansa must wed Joffrey and give Lannisters no reason to doubt Stark devotion. That is after Lysa's message arrives.

It's like she is already written off or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*frantically pushes the "like" button*

Kittykatknits, thank you for posting the interviews with GRRM. I believe that part of the root of dislike for Catelyn and Sansa can be traced back to the fact that the writer finds them more difficult than Arya, Tyrion and Jon (who are also fan favorites). And I think that's human nature, when a writer is working with a vast catalog of characters as GRRM is, to like some better than others.

Also I seem to recall that the series started out intended as a trilogy and then the story expanded (and it's very possible that it will end with more than seven books!). It could be that some of the story arcs were intended to be different or at least shorter.

However, when a writer releases a book into the wild, he or she gives up control of how the readers will interpret the character. And if there is any discrepancy between what a writer says in an interview (for instance, Sansa "sharing responsibility" for Ned's death) and what is shown in the books (honorable, naive Ned doomed himself) then it's hard to backpedal and say "The story says X, but I say Y" because the story takes priority. And writers have to deal with messages that aren't intended, and pesky readers who interpret characters in their own fashion. :)

So whatever Sansa was intended as in the beginning, she's a complex, fascinating, multi-layered character now (as are Dany, Arya, Jaime, Davos, to name four).

Was Sansa written off by her family? I don't think so. When Ned was saying that Sansa must wed Joffrey, he didn't know just how awful Joffrey (and his mother) were. I don't think it is any evidence that Ned doesn't care about Sansa. For all we know, he didn't quite believe Lysa when she accused the Lannisters of poisoning Jon Arryn. Maybe he thought that Lysa was unstable and paranoid (and she was) and saw conspiracies in every corner.

I do think that Sansa was the show-piece of the family and may have been intended for Joffrey from the get-go because of her beauty and charm. If not Joffrey, then someone like Willas Tyrell - certainly another great lord. Sansa was groomed for a great alliance from the first - no lesser bannermen for her. I'm still puzzled about Ned intending Arya for a southern marriage; he might have figured that she would do fine in Dorne. :) I really have to head over to the Arya re-read.

More later - lots of posts to comment on and so little time. Yay for likes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things I wanna comment on:

1. There is NO WAY anyone can try to compare Sansa to a modern day "popular", leader-of-the-clique type girl. If she were in middle school, she would be eaten up and spitted out. And then trampled on for good measure. She started out with no political savvy! That's why she screwed up so badly in KL. She's not mean and mostly doesn't look down on those around her. Can you imagine Sansa ruining some poor girl's life because she has freckles or something?? That's just not who she is. I actually think she would suffer a lot if she lived in a modern society and had to go to school. Her prettiness would be held against her. As would the fact that she strives so hard to please the authority figures in her life. Popular girls are not popular because they're nice and pretty. They're popular because they're mean, and because they want to be popular. Cercei is a good example: she steps on people around her to climb high. She's ambitious and she uses her beauty to her advantage. Marg is another good example. The only reason why Sansa was the "alpha female" in WF is because se is the eldest female Stark and her mom approved of her. That's it.

2. In philology, the standard methodologies for interpreting (ancient) texts are basically:

a. The interpreter tries to get to whaterver meaning the author originally intended (i.e. the author's opinion counts the most)

b. The interpreter tries to interpret the text in the way the intended audience would've interpreted it (the biases, judgments etc. of the intended audience counts the most)

c. The interpreter doesn't care about the author/intended audience and interprets it in whatever way s/he wants (the current reader's reflexions, judgments etc. counts the most)

And more recently:

d. The interpreter tries to get a middle ground between the author's original intention, the intended audience and however they would have responded, and him/herself. The interpreter also tries to understand what the various interpretation tell us about society. According to philosophical hermeneutics, a text functions in a hermeneutic circle: it both responds to the socio-historical setting within it was created, and helps to shape society at the same time. Similary, whoever interprets the text is both changed by the the text, and "changes" the text in the sense that s/he may find a meaning that the author/previous audience did not discover.

Now let's take this to dear ol' Sansa:

a. If Martin hates Sansa, should we even bother with her?

b. If most of the fanbase hates Sansa, should we even bother with her?

c. Sansa rocks for me... so whatever

Or

d. Martin and the fanbase hate Sansa but I love her so what does that mean?

Just got me wondering. Especially with this app coming out. The app paints her as this weak, passive, silly, treacherous girl. Are we reading too much into the text? Are we searching too hard for something that exists only in our minds? We get all this great stuff from the books but how much did Martin actually put in there? And the greater question: Does it really matter if Martin didn't intend for all this great stuff to come out but we got it anyway?

For example: there's this story about a famous poet. After publishing his latest work, he was asked what deeper meaning was. His reply: "I'm still waiting for the critics to tell me what the deeper meaning is".

So... what does our interpretation of Sansa say about Martin (who obviously intended her to be different than how we interpret her), what does it say about our society if most of the intended audience hate her; and what does it say about us that we spend so much time analysing her and finding all this cool stuff about her?

Hope this makes sense :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things I wanna comment on:

1. There is NO WAY anyone can try to compare Sansa to a modern day "popular", leader-of-the-clique type girl.

They certainly can. It just isn't supported by the text. :D

I never said clique leader btw. I said shallow, stupid, but pretty and getting all the boys. This image you have of a mean girl, and I have of shallow but pretty one are both culturally constructed. But since we come from different places the stereotypes are different.

We were teenagers and geeks and massively despised girls who were just about makeup and clothes. We were soo much deeper than that. /sarcasm A lot of labeling happened instead of analysis.

I wonder what it was like for those who read AGOT as adults? As a teenager I tried to read myself into Sansa (like I did with Arya) and just couldn't. She was such an airhead in the beginning, I never hated her but I wanted to bang my head against the wall and I often shouted "Wake up!" at her chapters. She gained my respect in ACOK.

I am explaining my reaction at 15 because we are analyzing why she is so hated. Feel free not to defend her to 25yo me. :)

2. In philology, the standard methodologies for interpreting (ancient) texts are basically:

a. The interpreter tries to get to whaterver meaning the author originally intended (i.e. the author's opinion counts the most)

b. The interpreter tries to interpret the text in the way the intended audience would've interpreted it (the biases, judgments etc. of the intended audience counts the most)

c. The interpreter doesn't care about the author/intended audience and interprets it in whatever way s/he wants (the current reader's reflexions, judgments etc. counts the most)

And more recently:

d. The interpreter tries to get a middle ground between the author's original intention, the intended audience and however they would have responded, and him/herself. The interpreter also tries to understand what the various interpretation tell us about society. According to philosophical hermeneutics, a text functions in a hermeneutic circle: it both responds to the socio-historical setting within it was created, and helps to shape society at the same time. Similary, whoever interprets the text is both changed by the the text, and "changes" the text in the sense that s/he may find a meaning that the author/previous audience did not discover.

Now let's take this to dear ol' Sansa:

a. If Martin hates Sansa, should we even bother with her?

b. If most of the fanbase hates Sansa, should we even bother with her?

c. Sansa rocks for me... so whatever

Or

d. Martin and the fanbase hate Sansa but I love her so what does that mean?

This is not an ancient text. There, it is important to figure out what the author wanted to say because it is 'for science!' and there it isn't so important to judge the artistic values of the text. There is no way that we, modern people, can judge whether ancient Latin poetry has merit, for example. But we can translate as accurately as possible.

Furthermore, philological analysis is trying to tell us things about the author and culture of the time and place something was written. So, no reading into the text of meanings not intended! Bad scientist!

Here, we ARE the culture and it is perfectly valid to observe our own reactions to the work and characters because they, too, tell us about our culture.

Martin hating a character [he doesn't btw] is an important info on our culture. Furthermore, we also are fanbase. There is no need to marginalize ourselves.

Martin and the fanbase hate Sansa [he doesn't; misunderstand, project upon and strongly dislike are perhaps better words than hate?] but I love her so what does that mean?

There is a saying: If a man thinks something and you disagree, it could be any of you that is right. IF you think something, and two people disagree, you are probably wrong. But if you think something, and everybody else disagrees, you are most certainly right, for there are not so many smart people on the planet. :D

The reasons Sansa is hated are many and layered. Certainly I am interested in the reasons so many have a negative reaction to a character that is feminine, young, and acts like a girl of her time and place is supposed to act to the best of her abilities. The rules she obeys are stupid and wrong but she is eleven and to blame her is to blame the victim (except when she blabs to Cersei, but again Sansa was left out of the loop, she only knew she is being sent away).

The question is whether we should look into them now, or continue with literary analysis of other works to better illuminate her character and come back to this later.

It's not like we won't be here this time next year waiting for WoW... :bawl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not an ancient text. There, it is important to figure out what the author wanted to say because it is 'for science!' and there it isn't so important to judge the artistic values of the text. There is no way that we, modern people, can judge whether ancient Latin poetry has merit, for example. But we can translate as accurately as possible.

Furthermore, philological analysis is trying to tell us things about the author and culture of the time and place something was written. So, no reading into the text of meanings not intended! Bad scientist!

Here, we ARE the culture and it is perfectly valid to observe our own reactions to the work and characters because they, too, tell us about our culture.

Martin hating a character [he doesn't btw] is an important info on our culture. Furthermore, we also are fanbase. There is no need to marginalize ourselves.

Martin and the fanbase hate Sansa [he doesn't; misunderstand, project upon and strongly dislike are perhaps better words than hate?] but I love her so what does that mean?

There is a saying: If a man thinks something and you disagree, it could be any of you that is right. IF you think something, and two people disagree, you are probably wrong. But if you think something, and everybody else disagrees, you are most certainly right, for there are not so many smart people on the planet. :D

The reasons Sansa is hated are many and layered. Certainly I am interested in the reasons so many have a negative reaction to a character that is feminine, young, and acts like a girl of her time and place is supposed to act to the best of her abilities. The rules she obeys are stupid and wrong but she is eleven and to blame her is to blame the victim (except when she blabs to Cersei, but again Sansa was left out of the loop, she only knew she is being sent away).

The question is whether we should look into them now, or continue with literary analysis of other works to better illuminate her character and come back to this later.

It's not like we won't be here this time next year waiting for WoW... :bawl:

There's no reason why modern texts should be treated differently than ancient texts. In fact, most people doing philosophical hermeneutics don't bother much with ancient texts. And most texts that are considered "ancient" were written BC. So there's not much of scientific analysis going on. Philologers read ancient texts to figure out how the ancients lived, what they thought, what they believed, how much we differ from them, how much we don't differ from them etc. The purpose is usually to tie it into modern society at some point. For example, what is the meaning behind how female goddesses were depicted? Are these goddesses reliable depictions for how women were treated and if so why (and if not why)? How do we respond to these depictions? What does that say about our society? Have we changed our view on the role/value of women? And of course we can gauge how important ancient texts were! It's not like you read the text in a vacuum!! You read everything about the text you can find, you read different versions, you look at depictions etc. Very few stories etc. Exist in only one copy with absolutely no external reference whatsoever. Similarly, philosphers active in the field of hermeneutics and the philosophy of language ask these types of questions because they wan't to know about modern society and knowledge formation. The stuff we write and read says a lot about our world.

Please don't comment on something if you know nothing about it. That's just bad... posting. At least wikipedia it before you dis it.

If we don't ask these questions then what exactly is the point of analysing her at all? We don't necessarily need a definitive answer. The point is just to think some and look a little deeper.

Oh and I do differentiate between those members of the fanbase that despise female characters because they are sexually active, pretty, think for themselves, are Sansa, or whatever other misogynistic crap they can think of; and those members who don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittykatknits, thank you for posting the interviews with GRRM. I believe that part of the root of dislike for Catelyn and Sansa can be traced back to the fact that the writer finds them more difficult than Arya, Tyrion and Jon (who are also fan favorites).

Has GRRM said that he finds Sansa and Cat most difficult to write? I thought that was Bran. I think I'd lean towards the argument that the discrepancies in the characterisation of Sansa are due to her, like Cat, being a strong character who gets away from him at times; which doesn't suggest that she's a weak character or one that he dislikes, quite the opposite. Personally, I think it's quite evident in the Bran chapters that GRRM finds them hard to write and does not enjoy them as much (and I've never found Bran captivating, either)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, when a writer releases a book into the wild, he or she gives up control of how the readers will interpret the character. And if there is any discrepancy between what a writer says in an interview (for instance, Sansa "sharing responsibility" for Ned's death) and what is shown in the books (honorable, naive Ned doomed himself) then it's hard to backpedal and say "The story says X, but I say Y" because the story takes priority. And writers have to deal with messages that aren't intended, and pesky readers who interpret characters in their own fashion. :)

I agree with this completely.

This is on the SSM page:

"I would have no problem with you collecting my "words" (by which I assume you mean interviews, public comments, letters, etc, rather than fiction), provided that I could ask you to pull down anything I decided I did not want up there -- misquotes, outdated info, slips of the tongue, etc."

That's the problem with external evidence, it changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kitty thanks for posting these, and like you I'm disappointed. I think it's been pretty well established that based on
what Martin wrote
, Sansa did not have a hand in her father's death; unless we're going to suddenly forget Ned's own revelations to Cersei, LF's betrayal, and the fact that Sansa was not privy to the sensitive information which ultimately doomed him. So there's a disconnect between what Martin wrote and what Martin seemingly wanted to communicate. He was obviously successful in the latter nevertheless, since readers overwhelmingly believe that Sansa either directly caused or contributed to her father's death. I am also puzzled by his statement that Sansa has become more sympathetic since she came to accept responsibility for this. I have seen Sansa expressing regret for trusting the Lannisters, but again, based on the text, going to Cersei at the most prevented Sansa and Arya from escaping the city. Ned's death was what finally opened Sansa's eyes to Joffrey's true nature, and in the disillusionment that follows she realises how wrong she was to ever trust him (and Cersei), but she never believes that her actions were a part of the reason her father was killed. The text explicitly states that Ned was supposed to be sent to the Wall with Yoren, and the prevailing theory is that LF was the one who counselled Joff not to spare his life. So yeah, something's not adding up.

I am glad you brought this up Brash because I was very confused by the quote that somehow Sansa is more sympathetic because she has come to accept responsibility for her father's death. I thought "Am I missing something" because I don't see that Sansa realized anything about her role in Ned's downfall or that she's accepted responsibility for it. Sure she has come to realize how much her home and family means to her and longs to go back home, which she wanted to get away from in the beginning, but that is not the same thing as accepting responsibility for her role in Ned's death. So, I have to wonder what Martin is really thinking about when writing Sansa because there seems to be a huge disconnect between his quoted statement and what is written in the books. Does he intend that in the future Sansa will come to this realization and feel sorry about going against Ned but got confused that that's not written in the books so far? Does he really believe he has written Sansa's story to be consistent with this? Or am I as a Sansa fan just willing to excuse her behavior in that instance because I don't feel she had enough knowledge about the situation she walked into and was also just a child? I know Martin's writing of Sansa has been extremely subtle but we have done a thorough examination in this thread and I just don't understand what he was getting at with this quote. Is it even really relevant now as that quote seems to be from a few years ago, perhaps before the 5 year gap was scratched and the story had to be taking in a different direction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the novels, the comments that Sansa has come to accept blame of her father's death is wrong, since it's not mentioned. It's a factual error.

The same goes for that it was Sansa who doomed her father. Cersei tells Tyrion this in a Tyrion chapter, but she is lying, since she omits that Ned came to her and confessed he knew about the incest. Hence the "fact" that Sansa is behind Ned's death is actually people taking Cersei's lie to Tyrion at face value, instead of the lie that it is. Of course Cersei would not confess to the incest to Tyrion. It's only later that Tyrion tells Cersei he knows that she has been shagging Jaime.

Obviously, it can be taken as a given that Sansa recognises that the Lannisters played her false, and she mentions as much, but to make the leap from that to that Sansa has "accepted the blame" is factually incorrect, both in that it's not her fault, and that she hasn't accepted that "blame" either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

Excuse me, what is your background? I do not mean to pry or anything but...

I am a historian and we have learned at college that philological analysis concerns itself with restoring the meaning ancient texts had and translation. Historical analysis analyses the way of life and culture. They are different and concern themselves with different aspects of texts. Philology is not history.

Maybe where you come from it is taught differently, but I am not wrong, either.

Philologers read ancient texts to figure out how the ancients lived, what they thought, what they believed, how much we differ from them, how much we don't differ from them etc.

The way I was taught, philologists do only the first part - restoring the text and translating the meanings. The rest is done by other scientists: historians, anthropologists, philosophers...

The purpose is usually to tie it into modern society at some point.

Yeees, but no. That point is very far away from what most of us do. In fact, it is very risky to do if you are a historian, it is too easy to go into bad science. If a historian has specialized in ancient history, then s/he does not have enough knowledge about the present to be able to write on it. If they do, they apologize in advance and say that what they are writing is all just their personal opinion.

For example, what is the meaning behind how female goddesses were depicted?

We have no idea and never will! Unless we find some very self-aware tracts written by artists and priest that depiction is all we have. Gestures change meaning, clothes change meaning over time, our ideas of our bodies change over time... too many things we cannot decode.

If you are a philosopher, than we are at odds because our disciplines are using different methods; and maybe we are using same word 'philology' to denote different things. I am going to have to think about this further.

Similarly, philosphers active in the field of hermeneutics and the philosophy of language ask these types of questions because they wan't to know about modern society and knowledge formation. The stuff we write and read says a lot about our world.

I admit I don't know anything about hermeneutics and philosophy of language except at the extreme layman's level. So, you will have to clarify what you think analyzing ASOIAF in that manner would entail, because I can't even guess, my guesses would all be wrong.

As a historian I have a different job than a philosopher. I do not concern myself with tying into the present, but with reconstructing what was going on then. I think this is the crux of our misunderstanding? I am not saying that we can't analyze ASOIAF, but that we can't do this to ancient texts in exactly the same way we would to ASOIAF.

And most texts that are considered "ancient" were written BC. So there's not much of scientific analysis going on.

Let me tell you, ancient texts are NOTHING if not analyzed to death. :D

There's no reason why modern texts should be treated differently than ancient texts.

Modern texts can be read directly and ancient cannot because we do not belong to their culture. We lack context. I have written earlier that I have trouble with reading GRRM because my cultural background is not the same as his. With non-modern texts that difference is even greater.

Furthermore we have only the remains of the remains of ancient texts so what we do have does exist in vacuum and not within its own genre:

Would GRRM's work look and be read differently in year 3500, where nothing but his novel has survived from literature of XX/XXI century? I think it would!

If you think about what we have, and then on what must have existed... the sheer volume of what is lost is mind boggling.

Of all the literature in Semitic languages in Levant from beginning of Iron age to Roman conquest what do we have? Bible, Josip Flavius, some inscriptions, some ostraca... Too little!

Of all the histories of Romans written before second half 1 century B.C. all we have left are compilations and quotations!

Of Hellenistic tragedies and comedies all we have left are papyri found in trash heaps in Egypt and Roman dramas of the same period!

etc.

:crying:

I can say for some modern novel that it is badly written and I have a right to my own opinion. I cannot say that medieval hagiography is badly written because I know shitall about what was considered good writing back then. That was my point.

There is a difference between what we do with ancient texts and what we are at liberty to do with modern texts. With modern texts we can do more.

If I were to accuse Tacitus of misogyny everybody would jump at me because that would be reading him wrong. I have to take into account his education, his culture, his surroundings and see where he comes from. If I were to say that Elegies of Propertius are badly written because we expect so much more of poets now that would be bad reading.

I don't have to give same benefit of doubt to modern authors. If they are racist, they are racist! If they can't write female characters, that is something I can condemn them for!

And if I am to analyze why Sansa is so reviled in the fandom, then I have to take the entire fandom into account, and not just those who like Sansa.

I do think we should be asking these question, I was just thinking that we need not do it now. There are as far as I have seen, 3 different threads going on here: conversation about the app, literary parallels in poetry, and this conversation.

I don't think there is any need to do it all at once, it's not like we will be going anywhere until after the last book is published, read, all the other books reread, and then everything analyzed again and again...

We could theoretically postpone this discussion with no consequences.

Sorry for the Wall of Text and for going off topic. I am new to forums, are this kinds of posts wellcome in the theads or are they to be handled via PM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad you brought this up Brash because I was very confused by the quote that somehow Sansa is more sympathetic because she has come to accept responsibility for her father's death. I thought "Am I missing something" because I don't see that Sansa realized anything about her role in Ned's downfall or that she's accepted responsibility for it. Sure she has come to realize how much her home and family means to her and longs to go back home, which she wanted to get away from in the beginning, but that is not the same thing as accepting responsibility for her role in Ned's death. So, I have to wonder what Martin is really thinking about when writing Sansa because there seems to be a huge disconnect between his quoted statement and what is written in the books. Does he intend that in the future Sansa will come to this realization and feel sorry about going against Ned but got confused that that's not written in the books so far? Does he really believe he has written Sansa's story to be consistent with this? Or am I as a Sansa fan just willing to excuse her behavior in that instance because I don't feel she had enough knowledge about the situation she walked into and was also just a child? I know Martin's writing of Sansa has been extremely subtle but we have done a thorough examination in this thread and I just don't understand what he was getting at with this quote. Is it even really relevant now as that quote seems to be from a few years ago, perhaps before the 5 year gap was scratched and the story had to be taking in a different direction?

Based on the novels, the comments that Sansa has come to accept blame of her father's death is wrong, since it's not mentioned. It's a factual error.

The same goes for that it was Sansa who doomed her father. Cersei tells Tyrion this in a Tyrion chapter, but she is lying, since she omits that Ned came to her and confessed he knew about the incest. Hence the "fact" that Sansa is behind Ned's death is actually people taking Cersei's lie to Tyrion at face value, instead of the lie that it is. Of course Cersei would not confess to the incest to Tyrion. It's only later that Tyrion tells Cersei he knows that she has been shagging Jaime.

Obviously, it can be taken as a given that Sansa recognises that the Lannisters played her false, and she mentions as much, but to make the leap from that to that Sansa has "accepted the blame" is factually incorrect, both in that it's not her fault, and that she hasn't accepted that "blame" either.

Like Elba, I'm wondering if the statement that Sansa is accepting partial culpability for Ned's death was originally part of the five-year gap, or some other direction that the books ultimately did not take? Because it is not in the books - yet, at any rate. Is this something she will do in a later book?

And in any case it is not true, because Ned was the one who doomed himself. As soon as he went to Cersei with the knowledge that her children were incest bastards, he was dead man walking; and LF also had a hand in it as well. The "evidence" that Sansa had any responsibility for the Ned disaster was based on something that Cersei said to Tyrion, and Cersei is not a reliable source and has her own reasons for wanting to blame and shame Sansa further. Even if Sansa had kept her lip zipped something bad still would have happened to Ned.

What Sansa has been shown to do is to regret trusting the Lannisters. She trusted people who were her enemies which is hardly indicative of a character flaw, especially since Sansa, from her POV, didn't see what Ned, Catelyn and Arya knew about the Lannisters (nor did Ned or Catelyn tell her). So she thought her fiance and future mother-in-law were her friends. That's an assumption that most people would make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As soon as he went to Cersei with the knowledge that her children were incest bastards, he was dead man walking...

That's it, right there. Also we could argue that it was his error in judgement that doomed his daughters to their current predicaments.

What Sansa has been shown to do is to regret trusting the Lannisters.

And those are her words, "Lannister lies".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given LF's comment about "not wanting more blood on your hands" I wonder if this is from a Sansa chapter from the WOW. Could a future chapter have LF convincing Sansa that if it wasn't for her then her father would still be alive.

I am curious as to what will happen in the Vale and the fallout of Robb's Will, especially if LF has convinced her that everything was her fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given LF's comment about "not wanting more blood on your hands" I wonder if this is from a Sansa chapter from the WOW. Could a future chapter have LF convincing Sansa that if it wasn't for her then her father would still be alive.

I am curious as to what will happen in the Vale and the fallout of Robb's Will, especially if LF has convinced her that everything was her fault.

This could very well be - perhaps GRRM inadvertently let fly a spoiler. And it would be a very Littlefingerish thing to do - to convince Sansa that she was responsible for her father's death - on top of being wanted for regicide. Ouch. It will be interesting to see the fallout from that, if this is what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things I wanna comment on:

1. There is NO WAY anyone can try to compare Sansa to a modern day "popular", leader-of-the-clique type girl. If she were in middle school, she would be eaten up and spitted out. And then trampled on for good measure. She started out with no political savvy! That's why she screwed up so badly in KL. She's not mean and mostly doesn't look down on those around her. Can you imagine Sansa ruining some poor girl's life because she has freckles or something?? That's just not who she is. I actually think she would suffer a lot if she lived in a modern society and had to go to school. Her prettiness would be held against her. As would the fact that she strives so hard to please the authority figures in her life. Popular girls are not popular because they're nice and pretty. They're popular because they're mean, and because they want to be popular. Cercei is a good example: she steps on people around her to climb high. She's ambitious and she uses her beauty to her advantage. Marg is another good example. The only reason why Sansa was the "alpha female" in WF is because se is the eldest female Stark and her mom approved of her. That's it.

Now that I fully love and appreciate Sansa's character, I would agree with this. Sansa is a good person who wouldn't become a popular mean girl. However, my initial impression of her was that she was a popular mean girl. She was popular in WF and to me seemed a bit snobby.

Given LF's comment about "not wanting more blood on your hands" I wonder if this is from a Sansa chapter from the WOW. Could a future chapter have LF convincing Sansa that if it wasn't for her then her father would still be alive.

I am curious as to what will happen in the Vale and the fallout of Robb's Will, especially if LF has convinced her that everything was her fault.

That definitely seems like something LF would do. I wonder if he actually would convince her that she was responsible for Ned's death. If he does, poor Sansa. If not, then I wonder if him saying that could play a role in her deciding to bring about his downfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given LF's comment about "not wanting more blood on your hands" I wonder if this is from a Sansa chapter from the WOW. Could a future chapter have LF convincing Sansa that if it wasn't for her then her father would still be alive.

I am curious as to what will happen in the Vale and the fallout of Robb's Will, especially if LF has convinced her that everything was her fault.

If he is trying to make her believe it was her fault, it will be great to read when Sansa learns who was the one to really betray Ned in the throne room!

Oh and i haven't been able to post much lately, only read what's going on, but I wanted to say that Le Cygne, I back you up %100 (as well as the others) about wishing the App could describe Sansa in a better way! i won't download the App, but i would if it had your much more accurate description of Sansa :)

Share this post


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

×