Will Sansa slowly turn into Cersei? I think so.

[Chaircat Meow]

Doesn't look like ruthless/cruel failed to me. Until Varys shot Kevan the lannisters were still in control, and were only in such a bad position because of stupidity (on Cersei's part) not the consequences of ruthlessness.

I don't think the author thinks having higher moral standards nets you a fail either though. He likes representing individuals and their decisions interacting with contingency, and believes that this has a very strong influence on success or failure.

[Dicer]

Yeah, I don't see how the declining power of the Lannisters can be laid at Tywin's feet.

The reason why it seems like ruthlessness/cruelty is needed to play the game is because Martin keeps letting the bad guys win. If we look at Cersei/LF and Ned as an example. Ned was the good guy and a single act of kindness on his part led to his family being essentially destroyed. Look at Tywin and Robb. Tywin's backhanded methods ended the war while Robb and Cat die, the Boltons take over and Riverrun is for the Freys. The Red Wedding was a shrewd move no matter how you look at it.

Now a large element of luck plays into all this. If Robert had not run into a boar maybe Cersei/LF's plans would not have worked. Robb does the right thing by executing Karstark, but that gives him more problems. He trusts Theon, but that ends up backfiring. Balon for some reason attacks the North. Robb kept making mistakes (Miscommunication with Edmure, marrying Jeyne) while Tywin made almost none. The Tyrells join the Lannisters. The Lannisters hold onto Sansa while Cat lets Jaime go. Hey, Oberyn may get some justice for Elia...Oh. Maybe Quentyn can get an alliance with Dany? Oh.

Characters like Littlefinger, Jaime, Tywin do despicable things but don't suffer as much as the people they destroy.

On the one hand we have Littlefinger who climbs up the ladder by being ruthless and cruel. And almost all his plans work out and he is still alive and well. On the other we have someone like Jon doing his best to prepare for war against the Others and all that. And what does he get for his troubles? A knife in the back. Because he makes mistakes. Dany wants to end slavery? She ends up with an even worse mess on her hands.

In other words, Martin makes the bad guys ruthless, cruel, lucky, competant and gives them lots of plot armor. He makes the good guys follow honor and duty but they are unlucky, incompetant and mostly end up dead.

So yes, maybe one can win the game by not being cruel or ruthless and by being kind and compassionate and non violent or whatever. But Martin has not given the good guys the chance to succeed so far. The odds are always stacked against them.

I need to see an example of the good guys actually winning something and living for some time (Not for long, I know) to enjoy the victory they earned before I can say that the game can be won without the need for lowering one's moral standards. Maybe that will happen in the next few books, maybe not.

[Blood of the Trout]

Sweetrobin's fate will be pivotal for Sansa's character growth in the next book, but I just don't see how she's going to turn into Cersei 2.0. Sansa is remarkably unlike Cersei in many points, and G.R.R. Martin has deliberately written her that way (see the Blackwater chapter wherein she takes over Cersei's duties as a queen).

[honeyed chicken]

I feel like Sansa will become the next Cersei under Petyr. Supposedly, she has a very controversial chapter in The Winds of Winter. I think she is going to smother Robert Arryn, and blame it on his seizures so Harry the Heir (her betrothed) can become Lord of the Vale. Petyr will then mold her into Cersei 2.0. With all the emotional trauma she's been through, she flips the switch and becomes completely ruthless. When Petyr has nothing left to teach her, she kills him too for betraying Ned. Petyr never sees it coming because he still sees Cat when he looks at her and is blind to the monster he created. It just seems like the natural evolution for her character. She always wanted to be like Cersei, and she will be.

Thoughts?

Congrats Ser John Alexander for such a successful thread at such an early "age" (on the board). Well done!

Wish I had seen this at the start. My reply will get lost in the secondary arguments and discussions that have gotten rolling.

I have been opining for some time that I think Sansa will end up on the IT with LF as her consort. And I do think she will become a more complicated/compromised character as she goes along. I have even wondered if she will ebcomelike Cersei and the answer comes back, "Not as bad as Cersei, but close."

I'm not at the point of seeing her sleep around like Cersei.

And no killings either.

[juanml82]

You do realize that playing with compassion/ morality doesn't mean some kumbaya let's shit rainbows bullshit, right?

Are you making these preposterous strawmen because you can't deny that the ruthless/ cruel approach fails, and this is taking the wind out of your sails?

No one's talking about the power of love conquering anything, nor some remarkably changed social structure. I'm specifically positing that one can play the game while retaining morality. It involves a paradigm shift in terms of the game, i.e. the power struggle, not some fusion of the Pretty Women plotline.

You can't play the game in war time while retaining morality unless your "morality" means innocents can be killed when necesary, because that's what war is about. Alternatively, we can look the other way when we like a character and claim, for instance, that no atrocities happened during Robert's Rebellion or during Robb's campaign in the Westerlands.

The "Game" is about ruling Westeros (hence Game of Thrones). None can rule with just cruelty and the truth is, few do. Littlefinger set up his network of bureaucrats without cruelty. Lothor Brune is loyal to him, and he didn't do it through cruelty. Catelyn and Lysa both trusted him, and he didn't earn that trust through cruelty. Tywin Lannister, accomplished child murderer, didn't apply only cruelty - he also dished rewards for loyal services. And the list goes on and on.

But leading a war without getting hands dirty? Maybe like Zorro: everytime someone uncovered his secret identity, that person happened to die before telling anyone for reasons Zorro had nothing to do with. I don't think GRRM is writing such story. And neither do I think ASOIAF is about morally white protagonists.

[Jarocal]

They will see him having seizures soon enough. Even more, all Lysa's pretenders saw him breastfeeding. It's not that littlefinger can hide who the Lord of the Eyre is.

"Soon enough" is not now. It is in SR's best interest in minimizing exactly how sickly he looks. The breastfeeding thing would be viewed as a quirk of Lysa. That will quickly be relegated to simply a mocking behind his back. The main danger is that the lords of the Vale decide he is too sickly and plot to install Harry the Heir on their own. LF and his bastard daughter would make good scapegoats in an untimely death. LF may not care about SR in the long term but he does need him alive and "healthy" in the near. Sansa also realizes this hence the quoted text of hers in a previous post

Colemon only wanted what was best for his charge, Alayne knew, but what was best for Robert the boy and what was best for Lord Arryn were not always the same

What Sansa/LF are doing is a calculated risk against a very likely outcome that one of the Vale lords would make a power grab. More of a power grab than they are already have plotted to just get rid of LF.

[SeanF]

You do realize that playing with compassion/ morality doesn't mean some kumbaya let's shit rainbows bullshit, right?

Are you making these preposterous strawmen because you can't deny that the ruthless/ cruel approach fails, and this is taking the wind out of your sails?

No one's talking about the power of love conquering anything, nor some remarkably changed social structure. I'm specifically positing that one can play the game while retaining morality. It involves a paradigm shift in terms of the game, i.e. the power struggle, not some fusion of the Pretty Women plotline.

One paradigm shift I could see is if Westeros is completely sickened by the faction-fighting of the nobility and/or the inhabitants are hugely grateful to the person who saves them from the Others (eg Jon Snow, Daenerys) and that person ascends the Iron Throne almost bloodlessly, and modernises the monarchy, by creating a powerful bureaucracy that keeps the nobility on a tight leash , like France under Louis XIV.

[WeirwoodTreeHugger]

Yeah, I don't see how the declining power of the Lannisters can be laid at Tywin's feet.

The reason why it seems like ruthlessness/cruelty is needed to play the game is because Martin keeps letting the bad guys win. If we look at Cersei/LF and Ned as an example. Ned was the good guy and a single act of kindness on his part led to his family being essentially destroyed. Look at Tywin and Robb. Tywin's backhanded methods ended the war while Robb and Cat die, the Boltons take over and Riverrun is for the Freys. The Red Wedding was a shrewd move no matter how you look at it.

Now a large element of luck plays into all this. If Robert had not run into a boar maybe Cersei/LF's plans would not have worked. Robb does the right thing by executing Karstark, but that gives him more problems. He trusts Theon, but that ends up backfiring. Balon for some reason attacks the North. Robb kept making mistakes (Miscommunication with Edmure, marrying Jeyne) while Tywin made almost none. The Tyrells join the Lannisters. The Lannisters hold onto Sansa while Cat lets Jaime go. Hey, Oberyn may get some justice for Elia...Oh. Maybe Quentyn can get an alliance with Dany? Oh.

Characters like Littlefinger, Jaime, Tywin do despicable things but don't suffer as much as the people they destroy.

On the one hand we have Littlefinger who climbs up the ladder by being ruthless and cruel. And almost all his plans work out and he is still alive and well. On the other we have someone like Jon doing his best to prepare for war against the Others and all that. And what does he get for his troubles? A knife in the back. Because he makes mistakes. Dany wants to end slavery? She ends up with an even worse mess on her hands.

In other words, Martin makes the bad guys ruthless, cruel, lucky, competant and gives them lots of plot armor. He makes the good guys follow honor and duty but they are unlucky, incompetant and mostly end up dead.

So yes, maybe one can win the game by not being cruel or ruthless and by being kind and compassionate and non violent or whatever. But Martin has not given the good guys the chance to succeed so far. The odds are always stacked against them.

I need to see an example of the good guys actually winning something and living for some time (Not for long, I know) to enjoy the victory they earned before I can say that the game can be won without the need for lowering one's moral standards. Maybe that will happen in the next few books, maybe not.

I can think of a whole lot of books/movies/TV shows that bring the more protaganistic characters low while letting the more antagonistic characters win in the lead up to the end. If you stopped reading or watching at the Half Blood Prince, things would look bad for Harry Potter. If you skipped the last couple of Buffy episodes, you would think the First would probably succeed in ending the world. Events like the RW or the success of characters like Littlefinger up to this point are not by themselves evidence that no character can be moral and have a decent ending.

I'm not saying everything will be all beautiful and happy and Westeros will become a utopian society, but it's a bit fallacious to argue that the only way to do well is to be cruel just because LF or Roose have done well so far. There is already plenty of blowback from the RW, there are fierce Stark loyalists and LF will have to eventually show his cards, he's mostly done well because people don't see him coming, his Harry the Heir plot will bring him into the open.

[juanml82]

One paradigm shift I could see is if Westeros is completely sickened by the faction-fighting of the nobility and/or the inhabitants are hugely grateful to the person who saves them from the Others (eg Jon Snow, Daenerys) and that person ascends the Iron Throne almost bloodlessly, and modernises the monarchy, by creating a powerful bureaucracy that keeps the nobility on a tight leash , like France under Louis XIV.

Westeros is way too far from a democracy, though. It's not the type of land where the wishes of the small folk would be heard.

Of course, once the Others are seen as the real threat, whoever leads the fight will earn a huge prestige boost and, depending on the military situation, might make a bid for the Iron Throne (if it still exists). As for modernizing the monarchy, apparently Jon Arryn had that chance, and it's likely that was one of the things he was plotting with Hoster, Rickard and the rest. But it means the one in power is accepting to limit himself.

[SeanF]

Westeros is way too far from a democracy, though. It's not the type of land where the wishes of the small folk would be heard.

Of course, once the Others are seen as the real threat, whoever leads the fight will earn a huge prestige boost and, depending on the military situation, might make a bid for the Iron Throne (if it still exists). As for modernizing the monarchy, apparently Jon Arryn had that chance, and it's likely that was one of the things he was plotting with Hoster, Rickard and the rest. But it means the one in power is accepting to limit himself.

Yes, that's true. It's a paradox that to strengthen the monarchy, the monarch has to delegate power to his own civil servants, and be bound by his own laws.

[WeirwoodTreeHugger]

It gets a bit tedious when the same arguments keep getting made, despite there being very little textual support for them:

1. Sansa's character will always be the same as it was in ACOK, so whatever positive traits she shows in ACOK she will continue to demonstrate throughout the remainder of the books (...even though this is not true of any other character, most of whom, even the "good" ones, undergo radical transformations in personality, outlook, and morality.)

.

So people who like Sansa are wrong for pointing out her positive qualities from ACOK? I'll remember that next time the people who don't like Sansa argue that she's amoral, selfish and will come to a bad end because they don't like some of her actions in AGOT.

[The Mother of The Others]

compared to some of the hymns to Our Blessed Lady Wolf in this thread, anyone writing anything even slightly less than effusive about Sansa will sound like they have a hate boner.

This I quoted on account of it being quotable.

That was a fine dismantling of my first post several pages back! Very gratifying. (Where you argued that Sansa can't be the next Cersei without backing it up with Cersei-style cruelty, or else she'd get taken advantage of.) I didn't mean to imply it could all be done cruelty-free, though. That's what the "give people what they deserve" angle was about. The point was that it doesn't have to be a full time Stalin act, it doesn't have to be a vindictive cruelty ala Cersei, where she just kept going with the meanness until it was the only thing holding up her throne in the end, whether people deserved her ire or not. That built up some bad PR which isolated her and then came back to haunt, as we saw. Meanness is part of what sustains a crown, yes, the willingness to be cold when..... a personal Winter comes. But, in the Northern system, did you notice how it wasn't coldness alone that propped up the Starks for so long? There, the people were helping to hold up the throne for Ned, because they were being led properly (better). So not as much of the hard-ass routine was necessary, because most folks had bought in to the system and felt like they had a stake in keeping things running. The crowds around KL haven't been well led or well fed in a while and don't feel like playing ball; they feel like throwing poo at the naked queen as she's paraded by. So there's room for improvement at KL, in other words.

And as for Sansa not having the raw intelligence to be a player like LF--that's why I'd like to see her stick with LF until he works his magic on her behalf and she gets the gist of casting her own political spells. And as for public opinion of the masses being too fickle (which Sansa noticed when everyone loved the undeserving Margaery)----how about this: ...... who freakin better than LF to fool those fools by getting the fickle masses to favor Sansa for some reason he himself has trumped up? The two of them can be like The A-Team, he's the brains (Liam Neison) and she's the Face of the operation (Bradley Cooper). Then, once he gets her in the door with a public relations illusion, she'll take things from there and turn his illusion into a reality---once the small folk hear her and get a chance to meet her, she really will make them love her, Princess Diana style, instead of souring them like Joff and Cersei did. She'll say the right things, and really feel them in her heart----sincerity is the place she can go where LF can't follow. The people might realize she's the kind of person they'd actually want to be led by, which would take care of some of the heavy lifting for her and it'd buy her the benefit of the doubt for a few weeks or months while she tried to use that time to get stuff done. And when, to get stuff done, she has to go cold and be a hard-ass, it might be done in a more measured way that to observers looked a lot more like justice than did Cersei's self-serving intimidation.

[Florina Laufeyson]

This I quoted on account of it being quotable.

That was a fine dismantling of my first post several pages back! Very gratifying. (Where you argued that Sansa can't be the next Cersei without backing it up with Cersei-style cruelty, or else she'd get taken advantage of.) I didn't mean to imply it could all be done cruelty-free, though. That's what the "give people what they deserve" angle was about. The point was that it doesn't have to be a full time Stalin act, it doesn't have to be a vindictive cruelty ala Cersei, where she just kept going with the meanness until it was the only thing holding up her throne in the end, whether people deserved her ire or not. That built up some bad PR which isolated her and then came back to haunt, as we saw. Meanness is part of what sustains a crown, yes, the willingness to be cold when..... a personal Winter comes. But, in the Northern system, did you notice how it wasn't coldness alone that propped up the Starks for so long? There, the people were helping to hold up the throne for Ned, because they were being led properly (better). So not as much of the hard-ass routine was necessary, because most folks had bought in to the system and felt like they had a stake in keeping things running. The crowds around KL haven't been well led or well fed in a while and don't feel like playing ball; they feel like throwing poo at the naked queen as she's paraded by. So there's room for improvement at KL, in other words.

And as for Sansa not having the raw intelligence to be a player like LF--that's why I'd like to see her stick with LF until he works his magic on her behalf and she gets the gist of casting her own political spells. And as for public opinion of the masses being too fickle (which Sansa noticed when everyone loved the undeserving Margaery)----how about this: ...... who freakin better than LF to fool those fools by getting the fickle masses to favor Sansa for some reason he himself has trumped up? The two of them can be like The A-Team, he's the brains (Liam Neison) and she's the Face of the operation (Bradley Cooper). Then, once he gets her in the door with a public relations illusion, she'll take things from there and turn his illusion into a reality---once the small folk hear her and get a chance to meet her, she really will make them love her, Princess Diana style, instead of souring them like Joff and Cersei did. She'll say the right things, and really feel them in her heart----sincerity is the place she can go where LF can't follow. The people might realize she's the kind of person they'd actually want to be led by, which would take care of some of the heavy lifting for her and it'd buy her the benefit of the doubt for a few weeks or months while she tried to use that time to get stuff done. And when, to get stuff done, she has to go cold and be a hard-ass, it might be done in a more measured way that to observers looked a lot more like justice than did Cersei's self-serving intimidation.

:bowdown:

However, i do believe that "cold and hardass" part might include LF ass being on the line.

[Le Cygne]

Similarly, just because we have only seen players "succeeding" through ruthless and cruel gameplay does not mean that these characters are truly successful, nor does it prove an imperative that only ruthlessness and cruelty can succeed. In fact, a close and critical reading of ASOIAF shows us just how futile the current paradigm is. None of the characters who have employed this methodology have had any lasting success or achievements: Tywin is dead, his House in ruins; Cersei's been stripped of the illusion of power she's enjoyed; the Freys are reviled across Westeros, Roose is facing fomenting rebellion, etc etc. Martin is showing us that this approach is not working.

Exactly, you've pointed out the flaw in logic, denying the antecedent.

[para]

Doesn't look like ruthless/cruel failed to me. Until Varys shot Kevan the lannisters were still in control, and were only in such a bad position because of stupidity (on Cersei's part) not the consequences of ruthlessness.

But the fact is that Varys has been quietly supported Aegon while pretending to be controlled by the Lannisters. They are not control. And it's not just Varys, the High Septon, the Tyrells, and LF who pursue their own ends in the Game. More importantly, everyone else plotting against them, too - because they have been cruel and ruthless. The Dornish would be meek as kittens if Elia and her children hadn't been cruelly slaughtered. The North would have bent the knee if they had been defeated in battle instead getting cruelly slaughted at the Red Wedding.

Tywin would be alive if he hadn't master-minded the gang-rape of Tysha. His downfall was his cruelty. It just didn't bite him in the ass in a battle with a political faction but rather in a one-on-one with own son.

The story is not gonna end with a Lannister on the throne. The Lannister brand of cruelty has already failed. And for similar reasons, plenty of other cruel people will fail. Because the way they play the game is just not sustainable.

[Chaircat Meow]

But the fact is that Varys has been quietly supported Aegon while pretending to be controlled by the Lannisters.

And he's doing this because the lannisters were cruel, is he? There is no reason to think Varys would have been any more supportive of a competent compassionate player if he/she got in the way of his Blackfyre restoration plan.

The High Septon and the Tyrells really come out of the woodwork because of Cersei's misrule btw, the lannisters with brains would have avoided the complications that spring from that. So what if LF follows his own agenda, did he put this on hold because he was impressed with Ned's compassion?

I think affc made it tolerably clear that although lannister cruelty has ignited opposition, it needed the complicating factor of Cersei's destruction of the integrity of lannister power to provide a catalyst for effective resistance. Think the lord of Sweetsister's remarks to Davos and Varys's attitude to Kevan.

Also, you admit Tywin's cruelty didn't destroy him in a political sense. He exercised better judgment in the political arena than wrt his family.

[para]

Also, you admit Tywin's cruelty didn't destroy him in a political sense. He exercised better judgment in the political arena than wrt his family.

But his family is his house and his political capital. You can't separate politics and family on that level.

I think affc made it tolerably clear that although lannister cruelty has ignited opposition, it needed the complicating factor of Cersei's destruction of the integrity of lannister power to provide a catalyst for effective resistance.

So Cersei is a bad player after all? So the original argument that Sansa will turn into her because otherwise she has no chance of success is moot?

There is no reason to think Varys would have been any more supportive of a competent compassionate player if he/she got in the way of his Blackfyre restoration plan.

No, but Varys' plan hinged entirely on a war-torn Westeros. Westeros during Robert's reign might have bent the knee to Dany's dragons but Aegon would have been toast.

The question then becomes a question of the chicken and egg - did the Lannisters enabled Varys in the destabilization of the Seven Kingdoms, or did Varys enabled the Lannisters to self-destruct. Either way, it cannot be argued that the Lannisters have ever been fully in control of Varys regardless of their ruthlessness. Or that Varys has ever been fully in control of the Lannisters. They got "lucky" with each other.

And he's doing this because the lannisters were cruel, is he?

Well, if Varys is actually believing the stuff he says to Kevan... that he would actually favor a monarch who is compassionate and knows the smallfolks etc etc. But then if the Lannisters had been compassionate, they wouldn't have sacked King's Landing and there would have been no plan, because Aegon would be officially alive.

[Maxpey]

I apologize if this has been mentioned before, but it seems to me that perhaps analyzing LF's decision to educate Sansa about what it means to be a "player" might be an indication of whether she is capable of becoming one.

One theme that runs through all the character arcs of the Stark children w/POVs is the mentee relationship they have developed with other characters; (1) Arya and Jaqen/the FM; (2) Jon with Maester Aemon and LC Mormont; (3) Bran and Jojen and Bloodraven; and (4) Sansa w/LF.

One common element to each of these relationships is that the mentor saw something in the character of the mentee to warrant a belief that the mentee had the requisite abilities to succeed. Jaqen recognized Arya's talent for killing (for lack of a better term); Maester Aemon and the LC saw Jon's talent for leadership; Jojen and Bloodraven recognized Bran's talents; finally, it appears that LF saw something in Sansa to make him believe that she could be an effective "player." This leads me to believe that LF, at least, recognized that Sansa has the capacity to be ruthless and cruel, if necessary. If he didn't believe she was capable of it, I don't believe he would waste his time educating her.

Now, I understand that simply because LF believes that Sansa is capable of being ruthless and cruel, it does not mean that this will happen. Perhaps Sansa will balk when LF asks her to take that final step to make her transformation to player complete, but I think GRRM wants us to think that all the signs are there.

ETA: I know Jon is not technically a Stark, but he embodies all the traits that make the Stark one of the great families of Westeros. :D

[Jrogo]

I don't think Sansa would become like Cersei. I think Sansa is smarter than her

[juanml82]

Well, if Varys is actually believing the stuff he says to Kevan... that he would actually favor a monarch who is compassionate and knows the smallfolks etc etc. But then if the Lannisters had been compassionate, they wouldn't have sacked King's Landing and there would have been no plan, because Aegon would be officially alive.

And if we look over how many corpses Aegon would have to stand to get the Iron Throne, I'd say his raise to power, and Varys actions, are anything but compassionate.