Will Sansa slowly turn into Cersei? I think so.

[The Ash Tree]

If she is not supposed to become a player, then what was the point of her five year training at the hands of LF? Again, I don't necessarily think she'll become the most genius player of all time, but she will be a decent one.

[para]

What's a "bittersweet ending?". For example, Dany saving Westeros from the Others, and then persecuting any family associated with the overthrow of her father, would be bittersweet, but certainly not a happy ending.

Strawman. Dany wasn't on the original list. And Dany wouldn't win the Game for her talents as a player but because she got dragons which is the ultimate cheat. So the point that the story is unlikely to end with any of your listed 'ruthless murderer' players ruling the Seven Kingdoms still stands.

[juanml82]

If you personally happen to have pacifistic values or a conscientious objector's moral stance that's fine, but that isn't a theme or value system we see reflected in the text or the thematic evidence in the series. Those types of moral issues are presented in an anything but a "quite simply" fashion. Edmure send troops to defend the smallfolk in the Riverlands from Tywin's raiders which is going to war but hardly a cruel or ruthless choice. The same would be true of Dorne when they were invaded and attacked with dragons. At least in this series the choice to go to war is not portrayed in such black and white terms (almost nothing is black and white) so it does not logically follow that if Sansa were to ever be involved in going to war that such a choice would define her as cruel or ruthless. Doran is a player and a man that has been intent on war for the last 15 years. With him we see the lesson of the Water Gardens and a very serious concern for the fallout to innocents so again the text reflects that the choice of war is not a black or white ruthless and cruel decision. That Doran has not yet chosen war over concerns for the cost does not support the view you set forth because he always intended war:

It takes two to tango, but only one to fight. Edmure doesn't get a choice: The Lannisters are coming for him, whether he likes it or not. Sansa, if she ever gets into a position of power, will have that choice: Does she call the armies of the Vale to fight for what she think it's right, or does she shy away, maybe hides her identity forever and makes sure the Vale remains neutral while she lives?

From a literary standpoint, I'd rather see Sansa leading armies to war. And such a character would never be a Mother Theresa. Quite the opposite, such a character will have the blood of thousands in her hands. Which, again, I'd love to read, but let's not deceive ourselves about the morals of such a character only because we like what we read (about a fictional setting, of course).

Wrt Doran, yes, he plans for war. And time and time again, he puts it back due moral concerns.

But it is not like she would kill a child to survive, and that is where you're aiming. Simply, Sansa, unlike LF doesn't see SR dead any time soon, and difference between her if and his when is big one. Also, Lothor has saved Sansa from Marillion, and he gained his trust, she grew up, and became aware of many things she wouldn't be able to see as nolebirth lady ready to become wife of Crowned Prince. But she has shown significant progress when it comes to socialize with people from "lower class". Entire thing with Dontos and Sandor, her help to Lollys, being even frightened by Pod, all show us Sansa de facto wasn't as elitist as some believe. Should I continue that her best friend was of lower class, that she treated everyone with respect. In Vale, we see natural growth of person who was never elitist in the core, but was always taught there is a difference between classes in Westeros.

All the people you've mentioned are nobles. Granted, in a lower position in the Westerosi social structure than her, which isn't much to say because there are few people of Sansa's social standing in Westeros. But they are not commoner. Not even Mya is fully lowborn, as she's Robert's bastard. Commoners are people like Mycah or her handmaidens.

[Mladen]

All the people you've mentioned are nobles. Granted, in a lower position in the Westerosi social structure than her, which isn't much to say because there are few people of Sansa's social standing in Westeros. But they are not commoner. Not even Mya is fully lowborn, as she's Robert's bastard. Commoners are people like Mycah or her handmaidens.

Well, servant girls in Eyrie are commoners, and it seems to me that she is fine with them. Also there are those hedge knights LF hired, and Sansa joked. As for the people I mentioned, all of them are significantly below Sansa's status, and that didn't prevent her in communicating with them lightly. We have her septa, maester Colemon etc. All of that indicates she is not snobbish little girl people assumed.

[Dicer]

I'd say you answered yourself when you listed the other Stark children. Every one of them is being mentored with someone to learn something so Sansa being with LF means she is being trained to be a player.

Yes, but my point was that five books in they are no longer students. Arya and Bran may still be getting trained but they have already learnt a lot. They are putting their education and training into practice. Arya has already made her first kill. Bran is already starting to see the past and the future and influence affairs with his powers. He can warg with the best of them. Jon is making deals and negotiations and preparing for war. Dany is ruling and leading armies. GRRM has already spend a lot of chapters in previous books making these characters into killers, queens, leaders and greenseers

Where is the equivalent of this for Sansa? We get some chapters where LF explains a few of his plans to her. Are we to expect a player making clever moves in the next book because of that?

Jon's mentoring started in book 1 (Ned, Mormont), Arya's in book 1 (Syrio), Bran's in book 1 (3 eyed crow), Dany's in book 1 (Jorah). They have all been learning and using what they learn for 5 books, culminating in what we saw in book 5. Sansa started at a disadvantage in the first place because she behaved like she did not have brain in AGoT. It's taken her 5 books to catch up to the other young characters. Intellectually in book 5 she is where Arya and Bran were in book 1.

At this point Sansa is still gullible enough to be taken in by LF. She is still scared to talk to the Vale Lords without LF nearby. Her manipulation skills are at best limited to children. She is still a pawn in many ways. If GRRM intends to make her an above average player or even an average player in a believable manner, then he should be prepared to devote a large part of TWoW to Sansa.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

A fox is the trickster associated with guile. Lysa wears a cloak only trimmed in fox fur while Sansa's cloak is entirely fox fur. Her lambswool dress also hints at her being a wolf in sheep's clothing that parallels Jon's sheepskin cloak that made him a wolf in sheep's clothing among the wildlings. This type of symbolism is a constant in Sansa's chapters.

You can read whatever you want into descriptions of her clothing. That's the same trick false prophets and charlatans have used for thousands of years. Take something perfectly ordinary, and figure out some way to make it something it was never intended to be. She has to wear something. But sometimes, a cloak is just a cloak, a gourd is just a gourd, and a shoe is just a shoe.

We're initially led to compare Sansa to Cat and Arya to Ned by their looks and their differing Northern and Southern affinities, but there is an enormous amount of evidence to indicate that is reversed. Arya spends her time in the Riverlands, her wolf is in the Riverlands, she chases cats, even takes the name Cat, and ends up on a path of vengeance very much like Lady Stoneheart. Neither child is exclusively associated with just a single parent, but over the course of a reread the evidence mounts chapter by chapter and Arya is primarily linked to Cat and Sansa to Ned.

Or, they are each just individual kids, like all kids have some characteristics of each of their parents, and each have their own story arcs that don't involve deliberately parallels to either parent. Of course, you can always find such parallels, but there is a difference between things the author deliberately implies, and things readers just infer on their own.

[Newstar]

A singular unanalyzed mention of a parallel to one of Cat's journeys does not make the case to dismiss a series wide theme.

You posited that Sansa following in Ned's footsteps must be an indication that she would be his successor. I indicated another explanation, pointing to the only other character in whose footsteps she has followed, another character deceived by Littlefinger with catastrophic consequences.

You're making the mistake of saying that this parallel MUST be evidence of the outcome you want, when there are other potential symbolic associations that are equally possible with this parallel, and those other symbolic associations point to a much more negative outcome.

We see Cat's ascent and Sansa's descent so they are not exactly parallel.

Not exactly parallel, no, but the parallel need not be exact to be striking.

Lysa wears a cloak only trimmed in fox fur while Sansa's cloak is entirely fox fur.

It could equally mean that Sansa is a Lysa in the making: a woman who will succumb to Littlefinger's deceptions only to pay the ultimate price for it. Of course, that's attributing symbolic significance to random things to see what you want to see, a questionable exercise in of itself. As Theon said of the miller's boys' heads in ACOK, if we told them they were rams, they would have seen horns.

Her lambswool dress also hints at her being a wolf in sheep's clothing that parallels Jon's sheepskin cloak that made him a wolf in sheep's clothing among the wildlings. This type of symbolism is a constant in Sansa's chapters.

Only for people grasping at straws. Lambswool = wolf in sheep's clothing? Really? Stannis and Rhaegar Frey wear lambswool in ADWD, so I guess they're secret Starks.

I love how Sansa's direwolf dying is somehow not strongly indicative of the permanent loss of her Starkness, while Sansa wearing lambswool is apparently the last word on the matter. The power of denial is strong.

Arya is primarily linked to Cat and Sansa to Ned.

That's highly debatable. Even if you're right that Sansa is linked to Ned--a flimsy argument in of itself, since I'd say Jon is the Stark closely linked to Ned, not Sansa, and Arya is the one who insists on Northern justice for Dareon and on passing the sentence herself, like Ned--it's much more likely to be in the sense that she will share Ned's fate. She could be Ned's heir, but not in the positive way you're suggesting (redemption of the North or what have you) but more in the sense that she will die just as Ned did, under similar circumstances.

So indications that Sansa may be in danger from Littlefinger are neither surprising nor in and of themselves evidence pointing to a specific outcome absent supporting context.

I'm not saying that there will be a specific outcome, only that Sansa's last AFFC chapter points to her falling under Littlefinger's influence and taking a careless attitude towards Sweetrobin's health due to same. Now, this could be just for dramatic tension--as you claim (with no evidence other than your own wishful thinking)--or it could be foreshadowing for her taking a more sinister path in TWOW, but we can both agree on that it seems to serve some other function than to point to what a loving, tender, maternal creature Sansa is, which has been suggested several times on this thread.

An overly simplified "followed Cat too, will die too" assertion lacks that context and falls well short of the type of thoughtful analysis and carefully crafted conclusions rooted in the text that have been proffered by those who differ.

What that assertion does is contradict your argument that Sansa must follow in Ned's footsteps in the sense of succeeding Ned because she followed in Ned's footsteps in AGOT, when she follows in Cat's footsteps as well (and both Cat and Ned wind up dead as a result of following Littlefinger), and when Ned following Littlefinger's advice and descending the rock stairs led him to a disastrous end, suggesting a negative not positive linkage between Ned and Sansa in this respect.

If Sansa had followed in Ned or Cat's footsteps with respect to something that had a positive outcome for them, that would be one thing, but we know that Ned trusting Littlefinger and Cat kidnapping Tyrion and going to the Eyrie ended in disaster.

[juanml82]

Yes, but my point was that five books in they are no longer students. Arya and Bran may still be getting trained but they have already learnt a lot. They are putting their education and training into practice. Arya has already made her first kill. Bran is already starting to see the past and the future and influence affairs with his powers. He can warg with the best of them. Jon is making deals and negotiations and preparing for war. Dany is ruling and leading armies. GRRM has already spend a lot of chapters in previous books making these characters into killers, queens, leaders and greenseers

Where is the equivalent of this for Sansa? We get some chapters where LF explains a few of his plans to her. Are we to expect a player making clever moves in the next book because of that?

Jon's mentoring started in book 1 (Ned, Mormont), Arya's in book 1 (Syrio), Bran's in book 1 (3 eyed crow), Dany's in book 1 (Jorah). They have all been learning and using what they learn for 5 books, culminating in what we saw in book 5. Sansa started at a disadvantage in the first place because she behaved like she did not have brain in AGoT. It's taken her 5 books to catch up to the other young characters. Intellectually in book 5 she is where Arya and Bran were in book 1.

At this point Sansa is still gullible enough to be taken in by LF. She is still scared to talk to the Vale Lords without LF nearby. Her manipulation skills are at best limited to children. She is still a pawn in many ways. If GRRM intends to make her an above average player or even an average player in a believable manner, then he should be prepared to devote a large part of TWoW to Sansa.

AGoT Sansa had no brain, it's very slowly growing through the series. I think her learning curve started well before the Eyre, though, through Sandor Clegane, Cersei and Joffrey.

There is also to consider the Sansa chapter which was supposed to be in ADWD but was later moved to TWOW. As of the end of AFFC, Sansa is left in a cliffhanger in which her arc can go in plenty of different directions. I think that chapter already threw her in one of those directions, and might have involved some moral event horizon - hence the reason it was pushed into TWOW. IMO Sansa will have to make hard moral choices early on TWOW.

With some luck, the Sansa Fan Club won't like them :D

Well, servant girls in Eyrie are commoners, and it seems to me that she is fine with them. Also there are those hedge knights LF hired, and Sansa joked. As for the people I mentioned, all of them are significantly below Sansa's status, and that didn't prevent her in communicating with them lightly. We have her septa, maester Colemon etc. All of that indicates she is not snobbish little girl people assumed.

Well, her septa is her teacher, so she's indicated to respect her. I was thinking about the hedge knights, but I'm not sure exactly where they fit in the social ladder. It takes coin to be a knight but, then again, hedge knights are at the bottom ladder of knights.

Of course, her character has been changing and the Alayne persona is allowing her to see things from a different perspective than before. Even more, it allows her to act different, since society doesn't expect nearly the same from Lord Baelish bastard than from the Heir to the North. However if you want to look for a Stark who's friendly to lowborns, that's Arya. Sansa starts the series calling Jon her 'Half Brother' and progresses from there.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

Actually if you haven't heard GRRM's often-quoted promise of a "bittersweet" ending, well... welcome to the board. But even if you believe GRRM to be a liar who lies and we are looking at a bitter-bitter ending, narratively it is more likely that the White Walkers run over Westeros (the "rocks fall, everyone dies" ending) than LF or Cersei winning the Game.

Those ruthless killer-players are all set up for a deep fall. Cersei is already half there, Oleanna's ambitions are tied to the Lannisters' fortunes, Varys is putting a lot of effort in Aegon (while the other Targ pretender has dragons and he has no control over Aegon, actually) and LF is telling Sansa how he is first gonna murder her cousin and then marry her to a douchebag. Tyrion's a kinslayer.

No doubt, we are looking at ruthless killers. But we are not looking at a bunch of likely winners.

Of course, the Game can be only won if at the right moment you are cold and calculating. ASOIAF is not gonna be a re-write of Gandhi's biography after all. But to hold up the people who are currently playing the Game in Westeros as successful is rubbish. It is speculative, especially in the light of them gambling on things that we know have little chance of ultimate success.

So to argue that Sansa can only be successful she is like a bunch of people who are unlikely to be successful in the end.... that makes no sense.

:agree:This post was sort-of overlooked and I just wanted to highlight it, because it makes great and good sense.

[Mladen]

With some luck, the Sansa Fan Club won't like them :D

Guys, come on... Condescendingly attacking someone because they have different favorite character is not cool...

Well, her septa is her teacher, so she's indicated to respect her. I was thinking about the hedge knights, but I'm not sure exactly where they fit in the social ladder. It takes coin to be a knight but, then again, hedge knights are at the bottom ladder of knights.

Of course, her character has been changing and the Alayne persona is allowing her to see things from a different perspective than before. Even more, it allows her to act different, since society doesn't expect nearly the same from Lord Baelish bastard than from the Heir to the North. However if you want to look for a Stark who's friendly to lowborns, that's Arya. Sansa starts the series calling Jon her 'Half Brother' and progresses from there.

Sansa is also friendly to lowborns, only in her own way. While Arya pretend to be one of them, Sansa, just like lowborns, is aware that there is line between nobility and lowborns. Arya recieves wake up call when she realizes that her friends holds her as hostage because of who she is. Sansa, OTOH shows, by persuading to Joffrey to show mercy to woman with dead baby, how she also can be kind to lowborns. As for Jon, they are all aware of Jon's status. Bran understands that Jon isn't like the rest of them, Robb calls him Snow, and even during one game, once told him he'll never be Lord of Winterfell. Sansa loves Jon as much as the rest of her siblings, she is merely expressing the obvious. And btw, did she call him in his face half brother, that we know of? The only instance Sansa called him half brother is with Arya. Also, half brother term is heavily used in Bran's first POV. he never says it, but many lines has :half brother", and we know all about POVs. So, Sansa isn't the only one who looked at Jon as half brother.

[Ragnorak]

<snip>

What that assertion does is contradict your argument that Sansa must follow in Ned's footsteps in the sense of succeeding Ned because she followed in Ned's footsteps in AGOT, when she follows in Cat's footsteps as well (and both Cat and Ned wind up dead as a result of following Littlefinger), and when Ned following Littlefinger's advice and descending the rock stairs led him to a disastrous end, suggesting a negative not positive linkage between Ned and Sansa in this respect.

If Sansa had followed in Ned or Cat's footsteps with respect to something that had a positive outcome for them, that would be one thing, but we know that Ned trusting Littlefinger and Cat kidnapping Tyrion and going to the Eyrie ended in disaster.

It does nothing of the sort and it does nothing to address even a fraction of the context of the case I merely summarized. There are over 8000 posts in the Pawn to Player threads alone that have examined the text very carefully as well as themes, symbolism, mythological references, parallels between and among other characters, parallels to other pieces of literature that Martin has claimed to have read or found inspirational and nothing you posit addresses any of that with a better or more compelling interpretation. The essence of your claims is to dismiss another crafted theory with a hypothetical alternative and a minimal textual reference.

It is easy to throw take a single isolated example like the cloak and be dismissive of it. Does Martin have a pattern of using cloaks as symbols? How about animals? Hmmm... Do you really think the cloak means Sansa is going to be Lysa? If so make the case. If not make the case for what it means or the case for cloaks being meaningless. Create something to contribute instead of dismissing the efforts someone else has made. Try making your case and use evidence to support it --evidence that begins to approach that put forth by the alternative-- and then an interesting discussion might occur. "I think the cloak means X because of Y which is also supported in A, B, and C." Wow, that's an interesting take, what about these other two items that are similar?-- See discussion!

It is pathetically easy to take one or two pieces of information and cling to them like a pit bull and be dismissive of another theory. Sansa is going to die at Littlefinger's hands-- insert 8,000+ well supported posts to back it up-- The prophesy says Sansa kills the giant not the other way around. See?

I could go around the forums and use the copy and paste feature like this:

The prophesy says Sansa kills the giant not the other way around.

The prophesy says Sansa kills the giant not the other way around.

The prophesy says Sansa kills the giant not the other way around.

to rain on a theory I don't like, or I could gather textual references and other supporting data to proffer an alternative that I'm willing to have subjected to the same scrutiny I put theories I disagree with through.

When you have an alternative you'd like to put forth I'm willing to read it and even discuss it. Until then I won't even bother with control-C and control-V.

[Dicer]

And btw, did she call him in his face half brother, that we know of?

He missed his true brothers: little Rickon, bright eyes shining as he begged for a sweet; Robb, his rival and best friend and constant companion; Bran, stubborn and curious, always wanting to follow and join in whatever Jon and Robb were doing. He missed the girls too, even Sansa, who never called him anything but "my half brother" since she was old enough to understand what bastard meant. And Arya . . . he missed her even more than Robb, skinny little thing that she was, all scraped knees and tangled hair and torn clothes, so fierce and willful.

[Mladen]

even Sansa, who never called him anything but "my half brother" since she was old enough to understand what bastard meant.

I was talking during conversation... Certainly Sansa wasn't talkig to Jon. for example: "My half brother, could you catch me the ball". She certainly reffered to him as half brother, no doubt of that, but somehow I don't believe she talked to him "my half brother", since in her POVs, he is always Jon.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

There are over 8000 posts in the Pawn to Player threads alone that have examined the text very carefully as well as themes, symbolism, mythological references, parallels between and among other characters, parallels to other pieces of literature that Martin has claimed to have read or found inspirational and nothing you posit addresses any of that with a better or more compelling interpretation. The essence of your claims is to dismiss another crafted theory with a hypothetical alternative and a minimal textual reference.

This is the exact same argument that can be advanced in support of any conspiracy theory, because those who buy into the theory invariably discuss it far more than don't. But quantity of evidence does not equal quality.

It is easy to throw take a single isolated example like the cloak and be dismissive of it.

Again, this is no different from the standard response of 9/11 Truthers or any other conspiracy theorists. But presumably, people who choose to toss out "isolated examples" of evidence in support of their theory would choose the best examples. Right? And If the best such an example can be dismissed, then what does that say for the quality of the rest of the evidence in support of the theory?

If not make the case for what it means or the case for cloaks being meaningless. Create something to contribute instead of dismissing the efforts someone else has made. Try making your case and use evidence to support it....

How do you provide evidence that cloaks are meaningless? That's demanding proof of a negative. And demanding proof on an "alternative theory" where there may be no hidden meaning at all is equally impossible.

[Dicer]

I was talking during conversation... Certainly Sansa wasn't talkig to Jon. for example: "My half brother, could you catch me the ball". She certainly reffered to him as half brother, no doubt of that, but somehow I don't believe she talked to him "my half brother", since in her POVs, he is always Jon.

I doubt Sansa played ball with Jon or had many conversations with him.

She does not have to use it in conversation with him to say it to his face. Simply say it when he is nearby or where he can hear it. Or refer to him as such when they are interacting with mutual friends. I am not sure how much Jon and Sansa interacted in the first place.

It's clear they were not as close as Jon was to his other siblings, if the thing that stands out to him the most about her is Sansa referring to him as half brother.

Rickon: bright eyes shining as he begged for a sweet

Robb: rival and best friend and constant companion

Bran: stubborn and curious, always wanting to follow and join in

Arya: skinny little thing that she was, all scraped knees and tangled hair, so fierce and willful.

Sansa: never called him anything but half brother

From his POV she's the only sibling who stresses on the distinction.

[Newstar]

There are over 8000 posts in the Pawn to Player threads alone

And there are millions of posts from 9/11 Truthers on the Internet, I have no doubt. (From my glimpses at that thread, I also imagine at least 50% of those posts are from the same dozen or so posters. Unless those posters are all GRRM, I'm not terribly inclined to place any weight on the volume of material that they've produced, any more than I'm inclined to place weight on the mere volume of books, documentaries, rants, diagrams, lists, charts, diatribes and screeds produced by 9/11 Truthers expounding on their theories to explain why they are right and everyone else is wrong and providing meticulously-analyzed 9/11 footage, documents, reports, media coverage, etc. etc. to support those theories.)

If the sheer volumes of text and analysis were of themselves indicative of truth, then I'd be convinced that Elvis is still alive, reptilians are walking among us, Prince George is the Antichrist, and that the Moon landing was faked.

...Going back a few years, I'm sure you could find a similar number of posts, analysis, theories, etc. etc. explaining why Harry and Hermione would 100.0% for sure absolutely wind up together at the end of the Harry Potter books, and, well, we all know how that turned out. (Ditto for Jacob/Bella shippers leading up to the release of Breaking Dawn, poor souls.)

If not make the case for what it means or the case for cloaks being meaningless.

How do you provide evidence that cloaks are meaningless? That's demanding proof of a negative. And demanding proof on an "alternative theory" where there may be no hidden meaning at all is equally impossible.

What FLoW said.

It is pathetically easy to take one or two pieces of information and cling to them like a pit bull and be dismissive of another theory.

If only you could take your own advice. I can see why some cling so tenaciously to the idea that Sansa is an amazing player in training and won't die an ignominious death without achieving any level of greatness. Because if she isn't an amazing player in training, and if her fate is to die before achieving any kind of greatness, then it would make a mockery of those 8,000 posts, wouldn't it?

Sansa is going to die at Littlefinger's hands-- insert 8,000+ well supported posts to back it up-- The prophesy says Sansa kills the giant not the other way around. See?

You're assuming that Littlefinger = giant. There are other, equally plausible theories. However, Littlefinger could very well kill Sansa; we don't know (and neither do you, unless you're GRRM). Even if he doesn't, and even if Sansa does kill Littlefinger, Littlefinger need not kill Sansa for her to die because of him. Lady didn't kill Nymeria to die because of her, after all.

[Mladen]

I doubt Sansa played ball with Jon or had many conversations with him.

She does not have to use it in conversation with him to say it to his face. Simply say it when he is nearby or where he can hear it. Or refer to him as such when they are interacting with mutual friends. I am not sure how much Jon and Sansa interacted in the first place. It's clear they were not as close as Jon was to his other siblings, if the thing that stands out to him the most about her is Sansa referring to him as half brother. From his POV she's the only sibling who stresses on the distinction.

Not true... He remembers how Robb stressed that distinction in his face. Also, we know that Sansa and Jon played like the rest of the kids, and that she counseled him about the girls. I wouldn't say that Jon and Sansa weren't close, I believe Arya/Jon relationship is the closest. Everyone else are the same in Jon's eyes, as Jon is the same in Sansa's. In their POVs, we see how much they care about each other. There is of course, a certain distance in their relationship, but I am not certain whether it is intentional, or not. And since I believe that GRRM doesn't do anything without some purpose, I would bet that even that relationship, or lack of it has its meaning and purpose.

[juanml82]

Guys, come on... Condescendingly attacking someone because they have different favorite character is not cool...

I've never meant it as a an attack - I just hope wherever Sansa's arc is heading, is in the different direction than, well, can I call it 'The PtP crowd'?

[Dicer]

Not true... He remembers how Robb stressed that distinction in his face. Also, we know that Sansa and Jon played like the rest of the kids, and that she counseled him about the girls. I wouldn't say that Jon and Sansa weren't close, I believe Arya/Jon relationship is the closest. Everyone else are the same in Jon's eyes, as Jon is the same in Sansa's. In their POVs, we see how much they care about each other. There is of course, a certain distance in their relationship, but I am not certain whether it is intentional, or not. And since I believe that GRRM doesn't do anything without some purpose, I would bet that even that relationship, or lack of it has its meaning and purpose.

Jon says in his own POV "even Sansa, who never called him anything but "my half brother" since she was old enough to understand what bastard meant."

Which means that Sansa ALWAYS brought up the fact that he was a bastard and ALWAYS made the distinction in referring to him as her half brother.

Robb tells him that a bastard cannot inherit that one time when they are playing. But he does not, like Sansa, do it all the time. He does not define Jon by his bastardy unlike Sansa. That's what the difference is to Jon. In the above quote, he is able to remember something positive about all his siblings. For Sansa, it's a negative memory.

The rest of his siblings knew he was the bastard and half brother and referred to him that way in their thoughts. But they did not remind him of that fact all the time unlike Sansa.

Again, even Sansa, who NEVER called him anything but "my half brother" since she was old enough to understand what bastard meant.

As for them being close or playing together, I don't think so. I am sure he cared for her because she was his sister and she probably cared about him too, but they seemed to be the most distant of all the siblings. Sansa thinks of playing with Arya and Bran and throwing snowballs around and often thinks of Robb and the snowflakes in his hair. But not of Jon.

In AFfC she ponders on her choices and Jon never crosses her mind, unlike Arya who tried her best to get to the wall.

Littlefinger and Lord Petyr looked so very much alike. She would have fled them both, perhaps, but there was nowhere for her to go. Winterfell was burned and desolate, Bran and Rickon dead and cold. Robb had been betrayed and murdered at the Twins, along with their lady mother. Tyrion had been put to death for killing Joffrey, and if she ever returned to King's Landing the queen would have her head as well. The aunt she'd hoped would keep her safe had tried to murder her instead. Her uncle Edmure was a captive of the Freys, while her great-uncle the Blackfish was under siege at Riverrun.

In her last chapter of AFfC she has this to say when she hears of Jon being LC

She had not thought of Jon in ages. He was only her half brother, but still . . . with Robb and Bran and Rickon dead, Jon Snow was the only brother that remained to her.

Her only family left and yet she had not thought of him in ages. And she still has to stress to herself how he was only her half brother.

Jon often thinks of Robb, Arya and Bran but it's hard to find the rare references to Sansa:

He remembered the day he had left Winterfell, all the bittersweet farewells; Bran lying broken, Robb with snow in his hair, Arya raining kisses on him after he’d given her Needle.

Even the thought made him feel foolish; he was a man grown now, a black brother of the Night’s Watch, not the boy who’d once sat at Old Nan’s feet with Bran and Robb and Arya.

That might mean Lord Eddard would return to Winterfell, and his sisters as well. He might even be allowed to visit them, with Lord Mormont’s permission. It would be good to see Arya’s grin again and to talk with his father.

Jon Snow straightened himself and took a long deep breath. Forgive me, Father. Robb, Arya, Bran . . . forgive me, I cannot help you. He has the truth of it. This is my place.

Playing, Jon thought in astonishment, grown men playing like children, throwing snowballs the way Bran and Arya once did, and Robb and me before them.

Jon even interacts with Rickon in AGoT. Little Rickon stops to talk to him when the royal party are being seated at the feast in Winterfell and he has to make him move on. He talks about Rickon with Tyrion

“Rickon will ask when I’m coming home. Try to explain where I’ve gone, if you can. Tell him he can have all my things while I’m away, he’ll like that.”

Jon's thoughts about Sansa is mostly about her singing or brushing Lady's hair as opposed to interactions between them. Oh and that one time she told him how to talk to a girl. Knowing the Sansa we saw in AGoT, she was probably being condescending and teaching her half brother some proper manners.

Look, Sansa was a stuck up, uppity little Stark until she lost her family and realized the value of what she lost. I am not sure why you are denying that. Her experiences made her change for the better. If she were to meet Jon now, she would not treat him the same way. She says that it would be sweet to meet him again after she hears about him being LC. She starts to relate to bastards and gets an idea of how it must have been for Jon back when they were kids. But that does not negate how she felt about him when they were kids growing up together.

[Petyr Patter]

Some disparate thoughts I tried to make into a coherent single post, but ran out of time. Enjoy.

My general reading of Sansa is, even under Littlefinger's "tutelage," she still isn't smart enough nor ruthless enough to play the game like he does. However, the way he plays the game is destructive and short sighted. It diminished the prize the longer its played, and keeps on creating lists of people who want him dead and not enough people who want him alive. He sort of got into the game having nothing and no one, and still acts like he has nothing to lose. Other "players" like Tywin, the Tyrells, and even Varys are playing for people or ideas that they care about. Littlefinger plays some for his own advancement, but mostly seems to be in it for the thrill of the game for its own sake. This is not a good thing.

What Sansa is really learning, and what she can use to great effect, is marketing and sales. Oh, and selective lying. Neither cruelty, ruthlessness, nor even great intelligence is necessary for any of these things. I've known some incredible "account managers" who were of average intelligence at best. They just have some sort of magical empathy bond with people that makes the act of buying industrial lubricants a pleasant experience. Plus, a few "truth enhancements" that never hurt anyone.

So, Sansa will have some skills, but what she really needs is some sort of goal actually worth having. Get away from Littlefinger is a nice start. What she really needs is FAMILY. Right now, she doesn't have family, not really. She has little Robert, and sickening Chinatown complex of a step father. She will never be leader of the Vale. Even if she marries Harold or Robert, she would merely be the actual leaders wife. That doesn't mean she can't sell the likes of Yohn Royce to rally his armies to go fight the enemies of House Stark. Or guilt trip them for scheming like Robert Arryn's death is inevitable.