Sansa Stark

[Kittykatknits]

Sorry but that's just bullshit.

By that token, everyone in the books except Sansa is "playing the game of thrones".

No, but everyone is the hero in their own individual story line.

And lucky, lucky me. I drop in for a visit and see another thread trashing Sansa full of shallow readings, strawmans, and everything.

[butterbumps!]

A player is someone who demonstrates a consistent pattern of manipulating other pieces...ie, people...to achieve his or her own ends, generally as part of a larger scale design.

I think this is what he meant, but reduced it more simply. It means, at it's basic roots, being able to influence others consistently. I would also add that it means you, yourself, take measures to avoid being manipulated by others simultaneously. (which is to say I agree with the way you worded it).

She's already shown herself capable of such manipulations to varying degrees-- I think we agree on this. She increasingly persuades and influences people, while also becoming increasing aware of the ramifications of letting herself be manipulated by others.

I think she lacks the consistency you mention, which is, I agree, critical to being labeled "a player."

I'm less concerned with categorizing her as "a player," and more interested in the fact that she's "playing" increasingly better and with more subtlety. Someone can make a great play without being some kind of "master player;" that is to say, I don't think she needs the "player" label necessarily.

[Winter's Knight]

No, but everyone is the hero in their own individual story line.

And lucky, lucky me. I drop in for a visit and see another thread trashing Sansa full of shallow readings, strawmans, and everything.

It wasn't meant to trash Sansa. :(

I am so glad to see you again!

[ugashep]

In addition to what a few others have said above I think players as opposed to pawns are also able to look at situations more analytically rather than emotionally, and they recognize that every situation isn't all or none, some compromise. People who are ruled by their emotions are more predictable and hence easier manipulated.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

When did Theon die?

He's considered as such after his last chapter in ACOK. More like "disappeared."

[ARYa_Nym]

It is implied that Asha is going to use Theon to try and get another kingsmoot.

That's not what a player is.

A player doesn't just influence events for some end. Even pawns do that. Pawns can take out other pieces.

A player is someone who demonstrates a consistent pattern of manipulating other pieces...ie, people...to achieve his or her own ends, generally as part of a larger scale design.

And then there's the whole issue of scale. Sansa's not even really at the table yet.

Do you remember Chett?

Was he player? Of any note?

I have a similar belief that a shrewd player of the game makes his or her own plots and it has political influence.

[Facebookless Man]

No, it isn't bullshit. In fact, if you really wanna see some bullshit, just go back and read your last post in this thread.

didnt remember i'd posted before lol

just saw the reactions to that, par for the course but still well worth my 5 minutes

[Kittykatknits]

It wasn't meant to trash Sansa. :(

I am so glad to see you again!

:) I know you weren't meaning to trash Sansa. It was a great OP.

Dropping in for a look-see.

He's considered as such after his last chapter in ACOK. More like "disappeared."

By us or the characters in the story? In the books, it's made pretty clear he is a prisoner at the dreadfort, "a piece of prince".

[butterbumps!]

In addition to what a few others have said above I think players as opposed to pawns are also able to look at situations more analytically rather than emotionally, and they recognize that every situation isn't all or none, some compromise. People who are ruled by their emotions are more predictable and hence easier manipulated.

Well, before I assume anything about whether you are relating this to Sansa, are you speaking to the issue of being a player/ playing in general terms, or do you believe that Sansa's emotions in particular are a hindrance?

If it's about playing in general, I agree, and it's adjacent to LF's explanation: knowing what your opponents want means you know how to move them.

If you're speaking about Sansa more specifically, I'd say that this is actually something she'd started realizing just after Ned's beheading, and has increasingly hidden her emotion and desire from others, as well as repressing them in order to keep rational about things (one quick example is the way she overcame fear/ a flood of emotion during the escape to be able to think clearly).

From your other posts, though, I think you might be underselling Sansa's transformations across her arc; she has been using forms of gameplay to survive, protect herself, calm others, etc.

[ugashep]

Well, before I assume anything about whether you are relating this to Sansa, are you speaking to the issue of being a player/ playing in general terms, or do you believe that Sansa's emotions in particular are a hindrance?

If it's about playing in general,...

From your other posts, though,...

In the post you quote BB, I was just talking about what differentiates a pawn from a player generally. As to Sansa, as I said above, she deserves some credit just for being alive and putting one foot in front of the other day in and day out considering what has happened to her. I don't think Sansa is stupid she has been smart enough to cover up and to be docile when defiance meant death but to the extent anyone sees her as a budding player who will yield real power like Tywin Lannister or even a clandestine manipulator like Littlefinger I don't see that, I see her as someone who is still being used as a pawn in LF's machinations and despite being used has developed a degree of affection for de facto captor, "Petyr".

[butterbumps!]

In the post you quote BB, I was just talking about what differentiates a pawn from a player generally. As to Sansa, as I said above, she deserves some credit just for being alive and putting one foot in front of the other day in and day out considering what has happened to her. I don't think Sansa is stupid she has been smart enough to cover up and to be docile when defiance meant death but to the extent anyone sees her as a budding player of Tywin Lannister type proportions I don't see that, I see her as someone who is still being used as a pawn in LF's machinations and despite being used has developed a degree of affection for de facto captor, "Petyr".

Thanks for the clarification.

I absolutely agree that she is not like Tywin nor going to be like Tywin. That's a very different style of gameplay. I think, however, she's got many aspects in common with the players like LF, Varys, QoT, Marg, even Doran to the extent that he, unlike Tywin, is about letting others under-estimate him and think he's weak. Each has their own style of gameplay, but all capitalize on cultivating a public perception that they are weak, feeble and even "effeminate" in order to be subversive.

I put together a survey of various "tools" Sansa has used across the series in a post here. It's a long read admittedly, but I put this together to explain how many of her attributes are actually valuable skills in the game when honed with that intention-- that many of the other players use some of these same skills in their manipulations, and that she seems to be on the verge of coming into her own style of gameplay once she becomes dedicated to wielding them toward a more developed endgoal.

[Mad Monkey]

Those are good comparisons.

I always thought that Sansa might end up like Davos Seaworth. Davos is actually a fairly cunning guy -- most of his great victories involve quite a bit of skulduggery -- sneaking food to Storm's End under Mace Tyrell's nose, smuggling Edric Storm to safety, etc. But no one can compare him to Littlefinger or Tywin either. Sansa could fit into that mold quite neatly; she will do the right thing and the compassionate thing, but she won't let an arbitrary sense of fair play dictate how things like that should be done. Kind of like how she saves Ser Dontos -- it was manipulative and dishonest, but it was the right thing to do.

[ugashep]

Thanks for the clarification.

I absolutely agree that she is not like Tywin nor going to be like Tywin. That's a very different style of gameplay. I think, however, she's got many aspects in common with the players like LF, Varys, QoT, Marg, even Doran to the extent that he, unlike Tywin, is about letting others under-estimate him and think he's weak. Each has their own style of gameplay, but all capitalize on cultivating a public perception that they are weak, feeble and even "effeminate" in order to be subversive.

I put together a survey of various "tools" Sansa has used across the series in a post here. It's a long read admittedly, but I put this together to explain how many of her attributes are actually valuable skills in the game when honed with that intention-- that many of the other players use some of these same skills in their manipulations, and that she seems to be on the verge of coming into her own style of gameplay once she becomes dedicated to wielding them toward a more developed endgoal.

Thanks for the link, I will definitely look at the tools when I have more time, these books and characters are certainly open to many different interpretations which is what makes them fun to read and talk about with other people.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

By us or the characters in the story? In the books, it's made pretty clear he is a prisoner at the dreadfort, "a piece of prince".

Oh, Thanks about that! I had considered they excluded Theon on the grounds that he was considered "as good as dead", and thus, making Asha the only heir of Balon.

Even then, I do think that her situation is a very special situation in Westeros, considering the nature of the Kingsmoot, by 'Electing someone', Elective Monarchy, which is not something Sansa could hardly expect to achieve in Winterfell.

[ARYa_Nym]

I think it's worse. If they can just elect someone no one is going to care that Balon wanted her to be his heir. Sure she had some supporters but many can just ignore and go to her uncles which they did.

The North is much more stable. Sansa would have WF if not for the crown being against her and her brother (s) being ahead of her. No one would say we need an election to dispute that.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

I think it's worse. If they can just elect someone no one is going to care that Balon wanted her to be his heir. Sure she had some supporters but many can just ignore and go to her uncles which they did.

The North is much more stable. Sansa would have WF if not for the crown being against her and her brother (s) being ahead of her. No one would say we need an election to dispute that.

But your original argument was that she didn't had at the beginning the ambition to be a Ruler in her own right, which In my opinion didn't made much sense considering that at that time she had three brothers ahead of her at succession. Asha could get elected. Sansa, to be heir, had to expect the unlikely (But possible, and what happened) in the books which was the death of Robb and Bran and Rickon. After that, she does show some signs of ambition.

[juanml82]

I am not convinced that GRRM's story will ultimately follow a classic literary story arc. I am not an English major, but GRRM's story to me speaks to me about a lot of things that are true in life, i.e. the good guys don't always win, those who are often perceived to be heroes are actually villains and vice versa. Sadly many people do go through life, get socked in the mouth by an unfortunate set of circumstances and never really recover totally, I see that happening with Sansa, and I don't think GRRM would be afraid to show that aspect of reality through her character. Again, I don't hate Sansa at all, I see her as a tragic figure, but in the World of Ice and Fire I don't get the sense that everyone who falls must be redeemed.

It's true that GRRM wants to go for things that are true in life, but I don't think he does it in a way to forgo storytelling. He plays with people's expectations and traditional stereotypes, but he doesn't ignore them fully. He doesn't disappoint, he shocks.

While Ned's death is a shock, it serves a purpose, as he has to leave the story for his children to shine. And GRRM is aiming at shock value: Ned's arc in King's Landing was done.

Robb is kind of the Rohirrim charging towards the Fields of Pelennor. And he looses, but he also has an arc.

Jon' stabbing is the climax (or so it seems so far) of his long standing arc about leadership.

The Mereenese Knot is also GRRM going for truth in life, but there is a progression there.

If Sansa remains a bystander, forever manipulated by other people and never being able to execute actions to achieve her own goals, her story will be truth in life, but it will also forfeit any sort of arc or progression. And there is progression there, at least in her personal quest to grow a brain.

No, it isn't bullshit. In fact, if you really wanna see some bullshit, just go back and read your last post in this thread. "Playing" is about influencing people and events to an end you desire. For example, Sansa calming Joff before the riot, sensing the danger and trying to defuse it. Sansa coming up with a lie to save Dontos life is another example. Sansa warning Marg not to marry Joff because Sansa realizes that with Loras around and Joff's abusiveness that Loras will end up killing Joff and starting a Tyrell-Lannister war is another. Sansa lying to LF about how much she is buying his ploy is yet another example. people sometimes influence events unintentionally, but that does not make them a player. when you influence things to specific ends, then this is where playing comes in

That's a drop of water in the ocean. It's called the Game of Thrones for a reason. Sansa only acted independently, on her own agenda and to affect Westeros history during AGOT. Her character might - and I think should - play a key part in the upcoming books, but between ACOK and AFFC, she's just a scared little girl trying to avoid getting hit or, after the PW, killed.

If she manipulates LF, HtH, SR, Bronze Yohn or someone else in the upcoming books in order to make the knights of the Vale do her personal, and not LF's, bidding, then we can talk about a player. So far she's just a piece.

[ARYa_Nym]

But your original argument was that she didn't had at the beginning the ambition to be a Ruler in her own right, which In my opinion didn't made much sense considering that at that time she had three brothers ahead of her at succession. Asha could get elected. Sansa, to be heir, had to expect the unlikely (But possible, and what happened) in the books which was the death of Robb and Bran and Rickon. After that, she does show some signs of ambition.

My argument was that her ambition was to be a queen's consort so it's actually not true that the other characters wanted or were willing to take (in Brienne's case) a position where they would have less power as was being said earlier in the thread.

She did have ambition. The highest she could hope for was queen consort. The highest Asha could was to be queen regnant. The latter wields more power.

ETA: To add I think Brienne could have potentially have more power as heir of Tarth because Sansa wanted to be a consort to a king who was unstable. Queens of theirs aren't powerful like the ones of the stable kings in this series. She couldn't have known that but it's not unusual for consorts to not know what kind of king they are getting/how he will treat them.

[Le Cygne]

If neon was a thing in Westeros, Littlefinger would be wearing a huge, blinking neon sign that says "I don't give a fuck about Sansa Stark's welfare or as a person since she's just a pawn in my game of power and chaos and also she reminds me of the love of my life, who by the way is a figment of my imagination since I never gave a fuck about her as a person either".

Sadly, however, Littlefinger would have to grow a lot taller to be able to wear such a sign.

Yes! "How little is it?" :rofl:

No, but everyone is the hero in their own individual story line.

Kittykatknits for the win! :)

[Alayne's Shadow.]

My argument was that her ambition was to be a queen's consort so it's actually not true that the other characters wanted or were willing to take (in Brienne's case) a position where they would have less power as was being said earlier in the thread.

She did have was queen consort. The highest Asha could was to be queen regnant. The latter wields more power.

ETA: To add I think Brienne could have potentially have more power as heir of Tarth because Sansa wanted to be a consort to a king who was unstable. Queens of theirs aren'trful like the ones of the stable kings in this series. She couldn'l for consorts to not know what kind of king they are getting/how he will treat them.

But in her position, that was the highest position she could achieve. I agree, Asha would have more power than her, but It's not the same position. They are different societies and families. Whilst Asha's allowed her to have a claim, in Sansa's the best she could do was be a Queen Consort. Brienne is the same, as she's the only heiress. For Sansa, in her position and in her place, the highest honor could be achieved by marrying the King. In truth, no wife can know what type of husband expects them in ASOIAF. But the title in itself is the highest a Lady in Sansa's situation can achieve. So I agree that while Asha's situation wields her more power, the ambition to achieve the highest place in their possible situations is the same.