Sansa Stark: Martin's "prince of Denmark"

[Mladen]

The thing is, legion of Martin's characters are in for some heavy soul-searching and self-questioning. One of them grieves he didn't die with his foster brother he himself betrayed. The other one is desperately trying to answer to himself: "Was I anything more than just a hand?" And look at Jon in ASOS. When he meets Mance, he pulls from his soul something that is true enough to be convincing: his lasting grudge (some stronger word would fit better here, but I can't think of any at the moment) against the house he grew up in. And at the end of ASOS, when he finds out about the Red Wedding, he asks himself (not directly, of course, but through Stannis' offer): "Is that what I wanted?" And of course his answer isn't: "Yeah, that's what I wanted for those who denied me the place among them". But, surprisingly, the answer isn't this, either: "No, that is something I never want to benefit from in any shape or form". Not until Ghost returns, at least. Or look at Davos, the guy who lost four of his sons in Stannis' campaign, and yet he can't help but continue to play the father figure (on a subconscious level) to Stannis, who, in his turn, never had a proper father figure in his life, but had brothers he either failed (Robert, by not telling him about the twincest) or killed (Renly, though he's possibly unaware of the extent of his personal involvement in Renly's death). If we're to ask Davos: "Did you love your sons?", he'd certainly say: "Of course I did!" But, if we're to offer him: "All your sons are brought back from dead, intact, as if they were never harmed, but on the condition that Stannis takes their place, i.e. Stannis is the one who perishes in wildfire and his cause is lost for good; do you accept this?", I'm not sure what he'd choose in that hypothetical situation.

Sansa is no exception in my book. She has some soul-searching and soul-questioning to do, as well. And I don't think her answers are going to be: "Well, I made a mistake with grave consequences, but I was naive, and a kid, and there's nothing more to be said about it". If she's naive, as in, if naivety is the root cause for her actions in AGOT, than she has nothing to question herself over, at least for now. Which would make her a stand-out among Martin's characters. Maybe my explanation (that she doesn't love her family members that much) isn't the right one, but I'm positive, like 110% positive, that neither her naivety is the explanation. And I'm even more sure Martin doesn't see her naivety as a root cause for her actions. There's more there.

But Sansa has questioned her entire life since her father died. It's not like she hasn't learnt some tough lessons, made some difficult choices, and changed a lot. Sansa had dilemma all the time, but she had to subdue every bit of her rebelousness to survive. She is a child, and soul-searching is a bit different when you're 12. She goes through realization that being Joffrey's wife and mother of his children isn't what she wants, she goes through personnal debate about her life. As a adolescent, she even goes through identity dilemma about them making her Lannister.

If Sansa wasn't naive and stupid, by extension in this situation, what was she? Incredibly smart girl who wanted her father dead? No, thing is, the naivite, mixed with some childish ambition and Ned's reluctance to talk seriously with his daughters, led to all of this. But, her ambition came from false image she had about Joffrey, and at the end that's naivite. No matter how serious this entire situation backfired at her, the root of her actions is very, very simple. You have a girl who misjudged those that would have been her family in future. And nothing GRRM's written about Sansa proves otherwise other than she had wrong idea who Cersei and Joffrey was. And by definition, that's naivite.

And I don't think Sandor loves Sansa for her naivety. He's in love with her, he's not tutoring her. First, if naivety is his turn-on, I'm sure he had a legion of other girls to fall for before he ever met Sansa (this is a speculation, of course, but nevertheless). Second, if she isn't naive any more, as many also claim, what do you think will happen if they ever meet again? Will Sandor be like: "You're not naive any more, and I don't love you any more". I don't think so. Just remember his reaction from the end of ASOS to the news about Sansa: "The little bird shat on Imp's head and flew away." That doesn't strike me as a description of naivety.

As for this, my opinion was always that Sandor loves her because she represents what type of man he could have been, if Gregor hadn't disfigured him. Sandor loves Sansa on a deep leve where he sees she is influencing him. It's not about naivite, it's about her being a little bird, trapped like he was, but beautiful and pure at the same time. He fell in love in what he might be if he had life like she did. Her ideals are somewhat frustrating for him, because he knows better. This is classic Beauty and the beast story, where beauty finds the beast in her, and beast the beauty in him. And that dualism of their nature Sansa/Lady and Sandor/Hound is what draws them to each other.

And no, I'm not blaming Sansa for being a victim. Firstly because, up to that point, she wasn't a victim. She's a victim afterwards, and the agony she goes through in KL after Ned's death is second to none.

Sansa is also victim, once Ned is imprisoned. And she is victim ever since then. We actually see her sufferings due to Ned's death, and that makes her victim too. And her agony, as you said, is truly the biggest of them all. Unlike all of her siblings, she was psychologically tortured by Ned's death. Robb, Bran, Rickon, they all knew their father is dead. Girls saw him dying, but Sansa was the one closer and she was the one that was brought to walls to see his head and the heads of others. Sansa is the victim ever since she walked to Cersei, it's just that she doesn't look at it that way until her father's death.

[Miodrag]

To the OP.

This is an interesting and fresh approach, but I believe it ultimately misses the mark. Sansa has always been detached by dispostion and station. This ultimately keeps people at arms length. Her "courtesy armor" has existed long before she came to King's Landing. Does that mean that she doesn't love her family? In my opinion, no. She clearly has concern and affection for them. It does mean, however, that she doesn't share the reciprocal emotional bond the others have. In fact, the only two people she does have that bond with, the ones that get through her armor and elicit genuine emotional responses form her are Arya and the Hound.

I also don't believe that she was ever particularly obedient or dutiful, but rather that her obedience is circumstancial. That armor hides things. She didn't accept her place in the world because her parents told her to. She did it because she liked it. The one instance her father's command came against with something she was groomed to want and believed she deserved, she went against all social conventions to get it. Underneath that armor she was as headstrong and wilfull as Arya.

Thanks for seeing that as an interesting and fresh approach, because that was my intention in it's root. About love, there's hardly an expert on the matter, and I'm certainly not the one (any of my ex-girlfriends would gladly testify to that). There's a variety of ways we can describe any emotional relationship, with love and hate probably standing at the opposite ends of the specter, but even they're hard to define or recognize on their own. Sansa's emotions for her family members are definitely not a bit simpler than the emotions of other Stark kids toward their parents and their siblings. (Not to mention Jon, who's probably the most complicated one, despite being very vocal in his love for the Starks.) Now that you wrote it, yeah, she definitely 'keeps people at arms length', and, possibly, her family members she deals with the same way.

And you're right about the 'courtesy armor', which I kept forgetting to bring up. In my experience, people that excel in courtesy - males and females both - usually are little detached from others. Not shallow, mind you, for which they're sometimes confused. Just that: somewhat detached.

Once again, I tried to avoid the explicit claim that "Sansa doesn't love her family". If I failed in that, I'm sorry. But, her naivety just doesn't explain her actions in AGOT. There's a certain naivety in there, for sure, but, if trying to imagine her thinking process at the time, I'd say she naively justified her action to herself. Like, it was naive to think that confiding in Cersei would do no harm to anyone. But, the decision to go behind father's back takes something more than naivety.

And, honestly, I was expecting all kinds of 'attacks' from Sansa haters. When reading debates about Sansa, I always agreed much more with her fans than with her haters. And I think my initial post is a reflection of that: I do think Hamlet is one of the biggest and most exceptional fictional creations ever, in the league of Karamazovs and Achilles and Don Quixote and the rest of 'usual suspects'. For placing Sansa in that company, I thought her haters are going to come after me - and in their hands, the daggers. So, seeing how many Sansa fans disagree with me, well, I've probably done something wrong. I just hope it doesn't go beyond semantics.

[Miodrag]

But Sansa has questioned her entire life since her father died. It's not like she hasn't learnt some tough lessons, made some difficult choices, and changed a lot. Sansa had dilemma all the time, but she had to subdue every bit of her rebelousness to survive. She is a child, and soul-searching is a bit different when you're 12. She goes through realization that being Joffrey's wife and mother of his children isn't what she wants, she goes through personnal debate about her life. As a adolescent, she even goes through identity dilemma about them making her Lannister.

The part I bolded can also apply to Arya, right? She's also learning, making difficult choices, changes a lot, faces dilemma all the time, and subdues her rebelliousness in order to survive. But, nobody thinks Arya's naive. And going through personal debate about own life isn't exactly soul-searching. What you described strikes me more like finding a position in life, as in, a position in both material and higher order of things. With her intelligence and humanity, I'm sure Sansa's likely to find a proper position for herself. But, soul-searching is something different in my book. Once more back to Jon as an example: "Do I want to be the Lord of Winterfell?" is debating own life and achievements and a position in the world; "Do I have a problem with benefiting from the horrible fate Robb suffered?" is soul-searching, in my understanding at least; when presented with Stannis' offer, Jon had to deal with both aspects.

If Sansa wasn't naive and stupid, by extension in this situation, what was she? Incredibly smart girl who wanted her father dead? No, thing is, the naivite, mixed with some childish ambition and Ned's reluctance to talk seriously with his daughters, led to all of this. But, her ambition came from false image she had about Joffrey, and at the end that's naivite. No matter how serious this entire situation backfired at her, the root of her actions is very, very simple. You have a girl who misjudged those that would have been her family in future. And nothing GRRM's written about Sansa proves otherwise other than she had wrong idea who Cersei and Joffrey was. And by definition, that's naivite.

One more comparison: was Cat an incredibly smart woman who wanted to put her husband in danger by kidnapping Tyrion? I don't think it's the case at all. Other than Cat being very smart, which is something I agree with, but even very smart people make mistakes, and there's a large scale for those mistakes to be measured against: sometimes they lead to no consequence at all, and sometimes they result with unforeseen tragedies. So, it's not a 'black or white' situation. Cat didn't want any of her loved ones to suffer because of her actions, but, at the same time, she wasn't naive when she kidnapped Tyrion. Same thing with Sansa: she didn't want anyone to suffer, but, at the same time, she wasn't naive to go behind her father's back and to confide in Cersei. Misjudging is not the same as naivety.

As for this, my opinion was always that Sandor loves her because she represents what type of man he could have been, if Gregor hadn't disfigured him. Sandor loves Sansa on a deep leve where he sees she is influencing him. It's not about naivite, it's about her being a little bird, trapped like he was, but beautiful and pure at the same time. He fell in love in what he might be if he had life like she did. Her ideals are somewhat frustrating for him, because he knows better. This is classic Beauty and the beast story, where beauty finds the beast in her, and beast the beauty in him. And that dualism of their nature Sansa/Lady and Sandor/Hound is what draws them to each other.

Interesting thought. I'm not sure I agree with you on Sandor's motivations all the way, but I wouldn't dismiss it immediately. But, let me ask you this: what is 'the beast' Sandor found in Sansa? If you care to answer, it would be much easier to debate/agree with you on the matter.

Sansa is also victim, once Ned is imprisoned. And she is victim ever since then. We actually see her sufferings due to Ned's death, and that makes her victim too. And her agony, as you said, is truly the biggest of them all. Unlike all of her siblings, she was psychologically tortured by Ned's death. Robb, Bran, Rickon, they all knew their father is dead. Girls saw him dying, but Sansa was the one closer and she was the one that was brought to walls to see his head and the heads of others. Sansa is the victim ever since she walked to Cersei, it's just that she doesn't look at it that way until her father's death.

On this we absolutely agree. And, completely of topic for the moment: by your name I'd say you're from the Balkans, right? I'm from Belgrade, Serbia. You close?

[mrunderhill]

If Sansa wasn't naive and stupid, by extension in this situation, what was she? Incredibly smart girl who wanted her father dead? No, thing is, the naivite, mixed with some childish ambition and Ned's reluctance to talk seriously with his daughters, led to all of this. But, her ambition came from false image she had about Joffrey, and at the end that's naivite. No matter how serious this entire situation backfired at her, the root of her actions is very, very simple. You have a girl who misjudged those that would have been her family in future. And nothing GRRM's written about Sansa proves otherwise other than she had wrong idea who Cersei and Joffrey was. And by definition, that's naivite.

I don't think you can defend Sansa for betraying her family, by claiming Ned was not open enough. Ned told her more than enough. Ned told her that three of his men, including ones that were close to the family like Jory had been killed. Ned then told her they were in a dangerous situation and he was sending her away for her own safety. He could not have made matters more clear, but Sansa still betrayed the family.

As for this, my opinion was always that Sandor loves her because she represents what type of man he could have been, if Gregor hadn't disfigured him. Sandor loves Sansa on a deep leve where he sees she is influencing him. It's not about naivite, it's about her being a little bird, trapped like he was, but beautiful and pure at the same time. He fell in love in what he might be if he had life like she did. Her ideals are somewhat frustrating for him, because he knows better. This is classic Beauty and the beast story, where beauty finds the beast in her, and beast the beauty in him. And that dualism of their nature Sansa/Lady and Sandor/Hound is what draws them to each other.

I would say more than the scarring it is Gregor being knighted that broke Sandor's illusions of the world. He can accept that his brother is a monster, because even in the stories, monsters like Gregor exist. However, when the monster is made a knight, it shatters his illusions. I agree with most of the rest. I think for some men Jaime's words ring more true than others. Some men seek "innocence" in a woman.

[Mladen]

One more comparison: was Cat an incredibly smart woman who wanted to put her husband in danger by kidnapping Tyrion? I don't think it's the case at all. Other than Cat being very smart, which is something I agree with, but even very smart people make mistakes, and there's a large scale for those mistakes to be measured against: sometimes they lead to no consequence at all, and sometimes they result with unforeseen tragedies. So, it's not a 'black or white' situation. Cat didn't want any of her loved ones to suffer because of her actions, but, at the same time, she wasn't naive when she kidnapped Tyrion. Same thing with Sansa: she didn't want anyone to suffer, but, at the same time, she wasn't naive to go behind her father's back and to confide in Cersei. Misjudging is not the same as naivety.

But we also can't blame Catelyn for War of 5 Kings. I mean, it's not how it started, it's not why any of the Kings were involved. Simply, Cat started confrontation between Starks and Lannisters, with Tullys in the middle, but Robb's army didn't go south because of Catelyn, it had gone because Ned was imprisoned. And Ned wasn't imprisoned because of what Cat did. I mean, here situation is the same. As much as you can blame Sansa on telling her father's secrets, his death had nothing to do with it.

Interesting thought. I'm not sure I agree with you on Sandor's motivations all the way, but I wouldn't dismiss it immediately. But, let me ask you this: what is 'the beast' Sandor found in Sansa? If you care to answer, it would be much easier to debate/agree with you on the matter.

Not yet. It's more coming, than it's there. I think Sansa found beauty in Sandor, and Sandor is supposed to find beast in Sansa. There is a dual nature about them that emerges from time to time. And I think that Sansa is in perfect place to explore beast in her. For, just like every Stark, she is she-wolf inside.

On this we absolutely agree. And, completely of topic for the moment: by your name I'd say you're from the Balkans, right? I'm from Belgrade, Serbia. You close?

Yes I am from Balkans, I am born in Belgrade, but am currently out of country.

I don't think you can defend Sansa for betraying her family, by claiming Ned was not open enough. Ned told her more than enough. Ned told her that three of his men, including ones that were close to the family like Jory had been killed. Ned then told her they were in a dangerous situation and he was sending her away for her own safety. He could not have made matters more clear, but Sansa still betrayed the family.

True, in that conversation, Ned made a terrible mistake. Knowing how she felt, Ned should have explained Sansa everything. He should have clearly stated to her that she can't trust anyone. He counted on obedience of girl in-love, and he never for a second thought she might have the will of its own. Ned is a great father, but here he did make a mistake in judging his daughters.

[mrunderhill]

True, in that conversation, Ned made a terrible mistake. Knowing how she felt, Ned should have explained Sansa everything. He should have clearly stated to her that she can't trust anyone. He counted on obedience of girl in-love, and he never for a second thought she might have the will of its own. Ned is a great father, but here he did make a mistake in judging his daughters.

To be fair to Ned Sansa had been an obedient good girl until then. However, just look at the reaction of Bran or Robb to what happened. I don't have the books with me currently, but they were ready to go to war. Bran and Robb are furious. As I said I don't have the books so I may be wrong, but I think Ned may even tell her not to trust anyone.

I think Ned's fault as a father is he is too indulgent, but not so much with Sansa. Bran and Arya need to be punished and restricted for their dangerous behaviour, but Ned is too lenient.

[Lord Tyrion's Whore]

I'm a Sansa lover and I have to say this is some seriously silly Sansa stanning. Sansa's not "Hamlet with a period." In fact I find that label kind of offensive. She was a naive child. Part of the appeal of her character is to watch her grow rapidly and under incredibly dangerous circumstances from a naive child to something more.

[Miodrag]

But we also can't blame Catelyn for War of 5 Kings. I mean, it's not how it started, it's not why any of the Kings were involved. Simply, Cat started confrontation between Starks and Lannisters, with Tullys in the middle, but Robb's army didn't go south because of Catelyn, it had gone because Ned was imprisoned. And Ned wasn't imprisoned because of what Cat did. I mean, here situation is the same. As much as you can blame Sansa on telling her father's secrets, his death had nothing to do with it.

Nor do I blame Cat for the war. But, I can't deny her share of the responsibility, just like you don't. Same thing with Sansa: she's responsible for telling her father's secrets, but not for his actual death. (She may feel guilty for both, though, cause she wouldn't know better unless Petyr confesses everything to her, and I can't picture him doing that. We'll see.) In any case, I'm very interested in exploring the cause for her decision to tell her father's secret, and naivety doesn't do it for me.

And, one more thing: you, along with many others, say that she was a girl in-love, presumably with Joff. That's one more thing I can't entirely agree with. When girl's in love, she doesn't dream about other men. And she dreamed about Loras the moment she saw him. Whatever she felt for Joff, I don't think it was love.

[Miodrag]

I'm a Sansa lover and I have to say this is some seriously silly Sansa stanning. Sansa's not "Hamlet with a period." In fact I find that label kind of offensive. She was a naive child. Part of the appeal of her character is to watch her grow rapidly and under incredibly dangerous circumstances from a naive child to something more.

Offensive? I offended you somehow? Anyone else? Have I offended Sansa?