Television Vs. Book: Why'd They Make [Spoiler] Such A [Spoiler]?

[SeanC]

10 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

Even though the show explained Sansa's marriage as automatically voided by non-consummation to facilitate the Ramsay marriage, TV Sansa's marital status remains sufficiently murky--there is dialogue in 6x07 about Lyanna Mormont having heard "conflicting reports" about whether Sansa was a Bolton or a Lannister, and Sophie Turner when asked about whether Sansa is still married to Tyrion in a recent interview pretty much said "LOL who even knows"--suggests to me that the same will happen in the show.

I got pretty much the opposite vibe about all that -- everything about how the Tyrion marriage has been referred to suggest the writers regard it as a discarded plot element they wanted to get out of the way.  The marriages were raised to give Lyanna a line to use against Sansa, and then glided over.

[Eyes High]

8 minutes ago, SeanC said:

I got pretty much the opposite vibe about all that -- everything about how the Tyrion marriage has been referred to suggest the writers regard it as a discarded plot element they wanted to get out of the way.  The marriages were raised to give Lyanna a line to use against Sansa, and then glided over.

I disagree completely, but I suppose we'll see. It wouldn't be the first time the TV writers appeared to write something out and then doubled back later to use it when necessary.

Regardless of Sansa's marital status, I'm not seeing anything in Season 6 to change my mind that Sansa is ultimately doomed. D&D may have even found out about her fate earlier than the spring 2013 infodump, given the decision to scrap her Vale arc in favour of Book Jeyne's arc so early on.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Eyes High

[nksarmi]

17 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

I disagree. The two biggest changes in Season 5, Jaime in Dorne and Sansa in Book Jeyne's place, were explained by D&D as having been decided upon for different reasons. Jaime in Dorne, and the Dorne storyline making it to the show in general (outside of Oberyn and Ellaria in Season 4), was Bryan Cogman's idea. D&D had wanted to scrap it and Cogman convinced them to keep it in (presumably in 2014 when they were plotting Season 5). Similarly, D&D decided to put Sansa in Book Jeyne's place back around Season 2 (written 2011, aired 2012). In light of the big GRRM endgame infodump occurring in the spring of 2013, i.e. when Season 4 was being written, this leads to some interesting inferences:

1. Dorne: D&D were planning on scrapping Dorne in 2014, i.e. after the spring 2013 infodump, until Cogman persuaded them otherwise. Whatever GRRM told them about future plot points, they were still going to go ahead and scrap Dorne until Cogman changed their minds.

2. Sansa: D&D were planning on putting Sansa in Book Jeyne's place--and by extension scrapping Sansa's Vale arc--as early as Season 2. This was when the only information they had about the endgame was the endgame ruler. That means that as early as Season 2 D&D were planning on dispensing with Sansa's big AFFC/ADWD character arc, before they even knew how important it would be or where it might lead (since GRRM hadn't yet given them that information). This would seem to rule Sansa out as endgame queen (either queen consort or queen regnant), since D&D have known the endgame occupant(s) of the Iron Throne from very early on, and I doubt D&D would have been so cavalier about switching out a major arc of an endgame monarch--without even knowing its significance or importance in the grand scheme of things--if Sansa were that person. Like a lot of instances where the show "spoils" the books (Hound living, Jon being resurrected, etc.), this isn't a big surprise, but it is noteworthy, especially with the Jon/Sansa king/queen scenarios flying fast and furious as Season 6 is airing.

I think the fact that she's still married to Tyrion in the books is not good. An annulment would be fine, but I have a strong suspicion that the only way out of that marriage in the books is if one of them dies, and if one of them must die, I have no doubt it will be Sansa and not Tyrion who goes.

Even though the show explained Sansa's marriage as automatically voided by non-consummation to facilitate the Ramsay marriage, TV Sansa's marital status remains sufficiently murky--there is dialogue in 6x07 about Lyanna Mormont having heard "conflicting reports" about whether Sansa was a Bolton or a Lannister, and Sophie Turner when asked about whether Sansa is still married to Tyrion in a recent interview pretty much said "LOL who even knows"--suggests to me that the same will happen in the show. If it's murky, the only way to clear things up (once Ramsay dies) is for Tyrion to predecease Sansa for good and all, and I believe there is virtually no chance that that will happen. If one of them dies, it will be Sansa, not Tyrion.

Well to be honest, I don't think D&D putting Sansa in Jeyne Poole's role says anything about her end game except that the most important part of her story probably happens in the North. It is still very possible in the books that Sansa's story leads exactly where it is now - at Jon's side in the North. If D&D knew that's where she was headed - they could easily decide to exercise the Vale story from that arc. 

Given the fact that the only ones who would enforce a Sansa/Tyrion marriage would mark Tyrion for death for killing Tywin. I think Sansa is safe from not having to deal with the results of that marriage.

[Eyes High]

14 minutes ago, nksarmi said:

Given the fact that the only ones who would enforce a Sansa/Tyrion marriage would mark Tyrion for death for killing Tywin. I think Sansa is safe from not having to deal with the results of that marriage.

I doubt that the marriage will be "enforced" in any sense, only that if an annulment is not possible for whatever reason, Book Sansa's only way out of being legally married to Book Tyrion is if Book Tyrion predeceases her, which I believe is extremely unlikely. Book Sansa predeceasing Book Tyrion, on the other hand, strikes me as highly likely and the likely course of events.

Quote

Well to be honest, I don't think D&D putting Sansa in Jeyne Poole's role says anything about her end game except that the most important part of her story probably happens in the North.

It's enough to write her off as endgame queen, in my mind. I don't believe they ever would have put Sansa in Jeyne Poole's place if all the information they had was that book readers would have had in 2011 plus the endgame ruler(s), unless Sansa is not the endgame ruler (or one of them). No way.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Eyes High

[jjjmoss]

And...what if they do just stay married?

[nksarmi]

2 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

I doubt that the marriage will be "enforced" in any sense, only that if an annulment is not possible for whatever reason, Book Sansa's only way out of being legally married to Book Tyrion is if Book Tyrion predeceases her, which I believe is extremely unlikely. Book Sansa predeceasing Book Tyrion, on the other hand, strikes me as highly likely and the likely course of events.

I just kind of meant that unless Sansa and Tyrion actually meet up again in the books and decide to BE married for whatever reason - I think either of them could easily marry someone else without anyone batting an eye at it. In my head, they are free from each other in both book and show.

[Winnief]

Quote

But more than that - I think Jamie IS the one that will kill Cersei (fantastic arguements for it being Tommen aside) and because the show runners know that is coming - they are keeping them tight to heighten the shock of it all. That's why the second half of the prophesy hasn't even made it into the show yet. This way, Jamie ultimately killing Cersei won't be able her cheating on him or him switching loyalty - but it will about whatever happens in that moment to drive Jamie to that choice.

ITA that they saved the 2nd half of the prophecy to heighten the shock there, and yeah I think it is coloring the way ShowJamie's portrayed.  Though I DO believe they're building to something with Brienne-they just won't have Jaime 'abandoning' Cersei for Brienne the way he has in the books.

 

In all likelihood Cersei is or will at least *try* to burn KL and that triggers her murder.  The question of the YMBQ is still ambivalent; it's gonna be Sansa or Dany and my money's on the former simply because there's infinitely more personal drama-I mean the irony alone would be so unspeakably delicious.  But you can't count out the Dragon Queen.

 

All that conflict in the writers room about whether to keep or scrap Dorne might help explain why that storyline was such a mess. 

 

One reason Olenna's heading back to HG, is to be a part of the upcoming storyline in the Reach when the IB invade. 

 

Personally, I always thought the Sansa/Tyrion marriage took place in the books mostly as a plot device to keep Sansa from being married off to someone else too quickly.  I'd be awfully surprised if there's going to be any long term future there-apart from Sansa no doubt putting in a good word to Jon about Tyrion for when they inevitably meet again.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Winnief

[Eyes High]

Quote

ITA that they saved the 2nd half of the prophecy to heighten the shock there, and yeah I think it is coloring the way ShowJamie's portrayed.  Though I DO believe they're building to something with Brienne-they just won't have Jaime 'abandoning' Cersei for Brienne the way he has in the books.

I think that D&D's knowledge of TV Jaime's endgame could be colouring how they write him. I imagine it's the same thing that happened with TV Stannis.

With some of the character changes in the adaptation (for characters who are still alive in the books), I think once we see the endgame for the character in the show, we'll look back and go "Ohhhhh, that's where they were going." Maybe I'm being too generous where the writers are concerned, though. They changed Catelyn's character for reasons that had nothing to do with the character's endgame as far as I can tell. The same could be true for TV Jaime.

Quote

In all likelihood Cersei is or will at least *try* to burn KL and that triggers her murder.

I noticed Olenna asking Cersei in 6x07 how she proposed to deal with the thousands of commoners who hated her. "You're going to kill them all by yourself?" Now, how would Cersei do that?

Quote

The question of the YMBQ is still ambivalent; it's gonna be Sansa

As tempting as the idea of a Sansa vs. Cersei rematch is, I doubt it will happen. The Lannisters are in Sansa's rearview mirror, whereas Cersei has a lot of unfinished Lannister business with both Tyrion and Jaime.

Quote

All that conflict in the writers room about whether to keep or scrap Dorne might help explain why that storyline was such a mess.

The whole thing seemed pretty half-assed. It might explain why Doran, Myrcella and Trystane were so thinly sketched: D&D never cared about them except as set dressing for Jaime's storyline.

Quote

Personally, I always thought the Sansa/Tyrion marriage took place in the books mostly as a plot device to keep Sansa from being married off to someone else too quickly.

That was my sense as well.

Quote

I'd be awfully surprised if there's going to be any long term future there-apart from Sansa no doubt putting in a good word to Jon about Tyrion for when they inevitably meet again

I don't think Sansa's going to live long enough for that. I don't think Tyrion will ever see Sansa again. She'll outlive Littlefinger, I'm sure, but once he goes, I expect it won't be very long before she does as well.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Eyes High

[Oscirus]

1. I don't think Tyrion needs Sansa to put in a good word for him at all. His actions speak loud enough.

2. If one thinks Sansa is the YMBQ then she has to remain married to Tyrion since being lady of the Rock is something else that Cersei would hold dear ( not arguing whether or not those two are endgame since I argued it enough. Just making an observation).

3. I don't think Sansa's going to die because I don't really see her being in a position to be in danger of being killed.

[Chris24601]

1 hour ago, Eyes High said:

2. Sansa: D&D were planning on putting Sansa in Book Jeyne's place--and by extension scrapping Sansa's Vale arc--as early as Season 2. This was when the only information they had about the endgame was the endgame ruler. That means that as early as Season 2 D&D were planning on dispensing with Sansa's big AFFC/ADWD character arc, before they even knew how important it would be or where it might lead (since GRRM hadn't yet given them that information). This would seem to rule Sansa out as endgame queen (either queen consort or queen regnant), since D&D have known the endgame occupant(s) of the Iron Throne from very early on, and I doubt D&D would have been so cavalier about switching out a major arc of an endgame monarch--without even knowing its significance or importance in the grand scheme of things--if Sansa were that person. Like a lot of instances where the show "spoils" the books (Hound living, Jon being resurrected, etc.), this isn't a big surprise, but it is noteworthy, especially with the Jon/Sansa king/queen scenarios flying fast and furious as Season 6 is airing.

Depends on who they were told the endgame rulers would be. For example... "The endgame rulers are Jon and Sansa ruling from Winterfell."

Regardless of whatever the Vale arc might do for her in the books, they'd know from the above that Sansa will end up in the North at some point and end up with Jon and that together they would rule from Winterfell. Putting her into the Jeyne Poole arc gets her up to the North and restores her connection to Winterfell a lot faster than she would get there if she stayed in the Vale and they wanted to give them as much time to interact as possible to sell the relationship to the audience and that would be deemed more important than what would be a rather boring storyline on screen.

There really is nothing on the show to suggest Arya is going to have any sort of romantic relationship of any kind with anyone (and getting stabbed in the lower guts like that could certain cause permanent damage to the reproductive organs), much less her cousin Jon.

This episode also cleared up quite well that what Sansa didn't trust was Littlefinger and her motive for lying to Jon about it was because she wanted to retake the North without the strings that would inevitably come with relying on Littlefinger for help. But she now sees that they aren't going to have the men they need (based on the numbers they gave, they're outnumbered 2-to-1) and so she's turning to Littlefinger for help... not because she's seeking power or betray Jon, but to try and save Jon and those loyal to him.

My hunch is that she'll play the game by offering Littlefinger what he wants... her hand in marriage after Ramsey is dead, but then turn around and support Jon as King in the North after they win, making her hand in marriage worthless to Littlefinger in gaining control of the North as he'd planned.

[Oscirus]

4 minutes ago, Chris24601 said:

My hunch is that she'll play the game by offering Littlefinger what he wants... her hand in marriage after Ramsey is dead, but then turn around and support Jon as King in the North after they win, making her hand in marriage worthless to Littlefinger in gaining control of the North as he'd planned.

I think that Sansa would play on his guilt for what happened to her and LF would at least appear to accept since that would serve his agenda of getting him into her good graces so that he can eventually work on driving a wedge between her and Jon.  Trying to make a marriage deal would only push her closer to jon and lf has to know this.

[SeanC]

6 hours ago, Eyes High said:

I don't think Sansa's going to live long enough for that. I don't think Tyrion will ever see Sansa again. She'll outlive Littlefinger, I'm sure, but once he goes, I expect it won't be very long before she does as well.

Sansa's story, whatever its ending, will undoubtedly carry her northward, which is the same direction Tyrion is, one imagines, ultimately headed.  It's basically assured we'll see Sansa meet Arya again.  I don't see that her meeting Tyrion is so unlikely.

[Maximum Taco]

9 hours ago, Oscirus said:

I don't think Sansa's going to die because I don't really see her being in a position to be in danger of being killed.

I also think we're past the point of major sympathetic character deaths. We have very little time left and anyone still living feels like they have a part to play in the story's endgame. We might lose antagonists, and "grey" characters but our obvious major sympathetic characters (Tyrion, Dany, Jon, Arya, Sansa, Bran) are likely safe, at least until the ending where anyone can die again.

Maybe George has one more surprise death for us but I don't think so. So far the only major sympathetic characters to die are Ned and Cat, and they had to die to kick start or keep the story moving. For anyone mentioning Robb, I like Robb, but he was never a major character, he didn't have a POV.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Maximum Taco

[Eyes High]

1 hour ago, Maximum Taco said:

I also think we're past the point of major sympathetic character deaths. We have very little time left and anyone still living feels like they have a part to play in the story's endgame. We might lose antagonists, and "grey" characters but our obvious major sympathetic characters (Tyrion, Dany, Jon, Arya, Sansa, Bran) are likely safe, at least until the ending where anyone can die again.

I disagree. If anything, I expect the character deaths to accelerate once the WW invasion really gets going, and I think Sansa is marked for death in a way that Tyrion and the other leads are not for reasons I've previously mentioned. This season with its many character deaths had the feeling of "clearing the decks" for the real action, and I expect that to continue in Season 7 and beyond. Sansa is also expendable in a way that the other leads aren't.

Quote

Sansa's story, whatever its ending, will undoubtedly carry her northward, which is the same direction Tyrion is, one imagines, ultimately headed.  It's basically assured we'll see Sansa meet Arya again.  I don't see that her meeting Tyrion is so unlikely.

Tyrion might be "ultimately headed" north at the end of the books, but he's not going to be in the vicinity for a long time--especially with Cersei and Casterly Rock in his sights, and Tyrion not supposedly meeting Dany except "in a way" according to GRRM in TWOW (so Tyrion might be in Essos for God knows how long)--which gives Sansa plenty of time to get killed off as I expect she will. There is absolutely nothing in the books or the show to support Tyrion and Sansa seeing each other again before one of them dies ("one of them" being Sansa).

Edited June 6, 2016 by Eyes High

[nksarmi]

Even before I knew about the original outline - I would have put Sansa as one of the survivors of the series. There was a brief time when I thought losing Lady was ominous for her, but now I don't think so. Sansa has been through so much in both the book and show - she is one of the people whose entire way of viewing the world has shifted. Forget learning how to play the game. She is one of the people in the series that might truly care about who she governs if she is a ruler of some kind at the end of it all.

I know Martin is supposedly all about being non-cliche, but come on - you don't put a character on the kind of journey Sansa is on just to kill them off. Sansa was exactly what a lady was supposed to be and she wanted only what a lady of her stature should want - to marry a dashing prince, give him sons, and live happily ever after. She has had all of her illusions striped from her and has sacrificed her pride on the alter of survival in both book and show. In the books, she is learning what it means to be a high born bastard. On the show, she has learned what it means to be someone's pawn and how dangerous marriage to the wrong man can be.

By the way - it is not lost on me that Sansa is essentially walking in Jon's shoes in the Vale in the books - which could make her more sympathetic t Jon or Tyrion (all dwarfs are bastards in their father's eyes). On the show, she has learned the value of a good man as opposed to a dashing prince - which again, could make her more sympathetic to Jon or Tyrion.

If we judge a book character's path by the show's version, than I think we have to believe that whatever Tyrion is going through in the books, he will come out of it on the side of the angles. Thus, I see no issue with Tyrion and Sansa ending up together at the end of the series. Of course, I could also see Sansa with Jon. But no, I don't see her dying. I think she is exactly the kind of character who survives and becomes loved and adored by the "masses" because she truly cares about them.

Edited June 6, 2016 by nksarmi

[nksarmi]

In regards to Ayra, I think if she lives it will not be as anything that resembles her original outline. I cannot believe the Faceless Men stuff was part of Martin's original plan and I personally won't be able to reconcile her story to what the outline first described. I honestly believe most of Ayra's story has been shifted onto Sansa. While it's nice for her to reclaim Needle and hopefully make it home - she feels so far disconnected from the bigger story that I just have no idea what role she could possibly play in it all. I wouldn't be surprised if she died and in fact, the only way I could see Sansa dying would be to somehow save Ayra.

But....

Spoiler

There is the problem of Rickon's death. With Jon being a bastard Snow/Targ, Bran possibly being unable to have kids, and Rickon probably dying - that leaves only Sansa or Ayra to carry on the Stark line. It seems like the only way the Starks continue is through a marriage of Sansa or Ayra and I just can't picture Ayra marrying some lord and having children - not even Jon to be honest. I suppose other Great Houses are going to be wiped out in this story (Barrathans and Arryns both seem like they are in real trouble) but it's hard to imagine Martin would wipe out the Starks. If that's the case, I really think Sansa needs to survive.

[SeanC]

14 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

I disagree. If anything, I expect the character deaths to accelerate once the WW invasion really gets going, and I think Sansa is marked for death in a way that Tyrion and the other leads are not for reasons I've previously mentioned. This season with its many character deaths had the feeling of "clearing the decks" for the real action, and I expect that to continue in Season 7 and beyond. Sansa is also expendable in a way that the other leads aren't.

How do you expect Sansa to die, exactly?

I really cannot see how her being killed by the White Walkers would function as anything like an appropriate ending to her story.  She's not a combatant; in any such scenario, she'd just be fodder, which is a terrible way to treat a character who has one of the highest chapter counts in the whole series.  And more specifically, her story is all about traditionally feminine forms of power.

[Eyes High]

16 minutes ago, SeanC said:

How do you expect Sansa to die, exactly?

I really cannot see how her being killed by the White Walkers would function as anything like an appropriate ending to her story.  She's not a combatant; in any such scenario, she'd just be fodder, which is a terrible way to treat a character who has one of the highest chapter counts in the whole series.  And more specifically, her story is all about traditionally feminine forms of power.

I think the series has with many characters pointed out the limitations of "traditionally feminine forms of power." Even assuming you're correct about what Sansa's story is "all about," which is questionable, I expect Sansa will go the way of the other characters who have wielded that "traditionally feminine form of power," i.e. nowhere good. Even wily Olenna and Margaery, who did everything "right" within a feminine power framework (game face on at all times, no brute use of power, subtle moves only, etc.), look poised to lose everything and to be crushed under the heel of this or that Targaryen, assuming Cersei doesn't get to them first. I expect as with the other characters, Book Sansa will get a rude awakening as to the limitations of that approach, and it will quite likely be fatal for her. As the TV show inelegantly put it, power is power.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Eyes High

[SeanC]

1 minute ago, Eyes High said:

I think the series has with many characters pointed out the limitations of "traditionally feminine forms of power." Even assuming you're correct about what Sansa's story is "all about," which is questionable, I expect Sansa will go the way of the other characters who have wielded that "traditionally feminine form of power," i.e. nowhere good. Even wily Olenna and Margaery, who did everything "right," look poised to lose everything and to be crushed under the heel of this or that Targaryen, assuming Cersei doesn't get to them first.

Of course there are limitations, just as there are limitations to traditionally masculine forms of power.  But women can wield real influence, as Sansa has repeatedly seen, and made progressively greater attempts to exercise.  Obviously it's no guarantee of success, but Sansa is a main character; Olenna and Margaery are supporting characters, who to a great extent existed to serve as models in Sansa's story.

If GRRM really is writing a story about how female power is useless and you have to have a sword or a magic wolf to be worth a damn, well, that's deeply problematic, and contrary to many of the things he and the show's creators have said in the past.

It would be like if Sam's story ends with him getting devoured by wights, meaning all the stuff about being a "knight of the mind" was a false trail and the poor fatty really should have learned to pick up that sword and fight like a man if he wanted to matter at all.

[Eyes High]

19 minutes ago, SeanC said:

Of course there are limitations, just as there are limitations to traditionally masculine forms of power.  But women can wield real influence, as Sansa has repeatedly seen, and made progressively greater attempts to exercise.  Obviously it's no guarantee of success, but Sansa is a main character; Olenna and Margaery are supporting characters, who to a great extent existed to serve as models in Sansa's story.

If GRRM really is writing a story about how female power is useless and you have to have a sword or a magic wolf to be worth a damn, well, that's deeply problematic, and contrary to many of the things he and the show's creators have said in the past.

It would be like if Sam's story ends with him getting devoured by wights, meaning all the stuff about being a "knight of the mind" was a false trail and the poor fatty really should have learned to pick up that sword and fight like a man if he wanted to matter at all.

Often there's a big difference between what GRRM says he's writing and what he actually writes, and what he actually writes is often "deeply problematic":

GRRM: I won't have my POVs get raped

ASOIAF: Dany is raped graphically multiple times in her POV

GRRM also had the bright idea to make the most evil, the most incompetent, and the most insane living monarch in the books a woman who actually wants power. It's also no coincidence that it's the uberfemme, boy-crazy girly girl who turns her back on her family (more dramatically in the outline), while the spunky tomboy remains ever-loyal. It's Susan and Lucy all over again.

Basically, GRRM talks a lot of shit, and D&D are no better, since they talk all about female empowerment and girl power while writing "deeply problematic" shit that's completely at odds with that message. I would pay a little less attention to what GRRM and D&D say about the stories, since they would have everyone believe they're telling the most feminist tales ever, and instead look at what the stories actually are. Saying "GRRM would never write X because it would be problematic" is a flawed argument, since it completely ignores the reality of the books. They're inherently "deeply problematic."

Edited June 6, 2016 by Eyes High

[Chris24601]

4 hours ago, nksarmi said:

In regards to Ayra, I think if she lives it will not be as anything that resembles her original outline. I cannot believe the Faceless Men stuff was part of Martin's original plan and I personally won't be able to reconcile her story to what the outline first described. I honestly believe most of Ayra's story has been shifted onto Sansa. While it's nice for her to reclaim Needle and hopefully make it home - she feels so far disconnected from the bigger story that I just have no idea what role she could possibly play in it all. I wouldn't be surprised if she died and in fact, the only way I could see Sansa dying would be to somehow save Ayra.

I agree with you whole-heartedly. I DO think GRRM started the series with the idea of Jon/Arya as the endgame, but when he realized the five-year jump wasn't going to work for the story he shifted Arya into the Faceless Man plot and shifted Sansa into the romantic plot with Jon. That's why there are some hints in the first book that can point to Jon/Arya, but only really in the first book (something that became quite obvious when I noted that every single piece of evidence I'd ever seen presented by a Jon/Arya shipper came from the first book).

I actually see foreshadowing for Arya's death in the first book... Jon's line that she would be sewing (euphemism for killing) all through the Winter and her family would not find her body until Spring with a needle (or "Needle") clutched in her frozen fingers. I think this was originally just meant to be a harmless joke from Jon, but it also wouldn't be the first time that GRRM has retroactively made a throwaway line important... take Jon's execution of Janos Slynt not by hanging (which is actually traditional for traitors who aren't royalty... as a subject king I guess Ned qualifies) but by cutting of his head; turning him into Sansa's only hero by doing what she believed only a non-existent hero could... throw down Lord Slynt as he'd done to her father and cut off his head.

So instead of going North to Jon and being tortured by their mutual love (as in the outline) she's diverted off to learn how to kill people more efficiently and her storyline becomes one of solitary revenge that will probably end, tragically, with her death in the process of crossing off the last name on her list... never having reunited with her family (her only comfort coming from her final target being someone who would have otherwise killed her family if she hadn't stopped them) and her family not even learning of her fate until well after the actual danger has passed (adding yet another dose of bitter to the 'sweet' that is their surviving the final conflict).

I HOPE this isn't the case, but I could certainly see it playing out that way.

5 hours ago, nksarmi said:

But....

  Hide contents

There is the problem of Rickon's death. With Jon being a bastard Snow/Targ, Bran possibly being unable to have kids, and Rickon probably dying - that leaves only Sansa or Ayra to carry on the Stark line. It seems like the only way the Starks continue is through a marriage of Sansa or Ayra and I just can't picture Ayra marrying some lord and having children - not even Jon to be honest. I suppose other Great Houses are going to be wiped out in this story (Barrathans and Arryns both seem like they are in real trouble) but it's hard to imagine Martin would wipe out the Starks. If that's the case, I really think Sansa needs to survive.

Let's add to that that the show just had Arya suffer grievous deep stab wounds right where her reproductive organs are. Since the narrative won't let her die or be physically crippled to the point of not being able to fight just yet, I think realistically the loss of her ability to become a mother will be the price she pays for survival.

She may not have wanted to marry some lord and have children... but there's a difference between not wanting to and not being ABLE to. All that's left to her then is her vengeance... and not coincidentally her old traveling companion has shown up again and is also taking up the path of vengeance again.

But the other part of that is that when you add it to Rickon's almost certain death (the Blackfish foreshadowed it last night... they'll kill Edmure/Rickon no matter what they do) the narrative, particularly on the show, is going out of its way to basically ensure that Sansa is the ONLY member of Ned's line left who can still bear children (Jon is a Stark, but not of Ned's line).

Now the books might be different in that Arya never suffers such injuries, but the books also have the time and luxury of showing the thousand and one other reasons why Arya isn't suited to be anyone's wife or mother. The show often feels the need to be as subtle as a ton of bricks and Arya's injuries feel like a case of "No Babies For You" to shut down any potential thoughts of Jon/Arya as some sort of endgame.

Because if Jon is to be a king and wishes to have stability in his realm after his death, then he needs to have heirs. As of now, of the three most likely candidates for queen there's only ONE who can still give him those children.

Something often overlooked in all the talk of Queens is that their most important role is that of MOTHER to the future king. Mothers are the primary instructors of their children. Cersei and Joffrey are the perfect example of what happens when that job is done badly. Perhaps Sansa isn't meant to be some great player of politics (she just needs to not be hopelessly naive). Perhaps her role is to be the mother to future generations teaching them to rule wisely and well.

I'm reminded of something that GRRM once said about one of his problems with Tolkien's work was that in the end the King marries someone who is little more than a blank slate who had only a few lines in the entire series (sorta like the prince in Disney's Snow White) and that if he were to tell the tale he'd have provided much more background to the King's future bride.

Sansa is a viewpoint character for a reason, but she lacks any sort of magical power or fighting skill that would aid in the final battle. The only other role that fits her path is that of the future bride of the True King... a very important role to the endgame despite not being actively involved in the War to Come and a role that GRRM himself said would be worth following in any story he wrote.

[SeanC]

2 hours ago, Chris24601 said:

I DO think GRRM started the series with the idea of Jon/Arya as the endgame, but when he realized the five-year jump wasn't going to work for the story he shifted Arya into the Faceless Man plot and shifted Sansa into the romantic plot with Jon.

Arya was going to Braavos at the end of ASOS.  That's why she uses the coin Jaqen gave her.  And "Mercy" was originally the first chapter of Arya's storyline after the five-year-gap.

[MadMouse]

I can't remember the exact line but it's when Robb is discussing his will and legitimizing Jon. Cat in so many words says she doesn't fear Jon doing anything to hurt his half siblings but it's his children's children that worry her. If Jon and Sansa happens that makes those same children she feared her own descendants and that seems like a very Martin thing to do. 

If things had turned out differently during the Rebellion and Jon is a Targ, Sansa and  Dany would be the likely candidates for him to marry. That's why I'm a firm believer in the Jon with Dany and Sansa marriage being the end game.  A version of Aegon and his sister wives, starting a new dynasty.

[Eyes High]

3 hours ago, Chris24601 said:

I actually see foreshadowing for Arya's death in the first book... Jon's line that she would be sewing (euphemism for killing) all through the Winter and her family would not find her body until Spring with a needle (or "Needle") clutched in her frozen fingers. I think this was originally just meant to be a harmless joke from Jon, but it also wouldn't be the first time that GRRM has retroactively made a throwaway line important... take Jon's execution of Janos Slynt not by hanging (which is actually traditional for traitors who aren't royalty... as a subject king I guess Ned qualifies) but by cutting of his head; turning him into Sansa's only hero by doing what she believed only a non-existent hero could... throw down Lord Slynt as he'd done to her father and cut off his head.

Let's add to that that the show just had Arya suffer grievous deep stab wounds right where her reproductive organs are.

She was stabbed at the level of the navel (pic). That's not where the reproductive organs are, unless Arya has some very unusual anatomy.

GRRM never intended to have Jon cut off Janos Slynt's head. He originally had it in a sample chapter as Jon hanging Janos Slynt and changed it in response to fans complaining that Jon would cut off his head as Ned would have. I wouldn't read anything into it, much less anything foreshadowing Jon/Sansa.

As for Arya's death foreshadowing in AGOT, there's plenty of death foreshadowing to go around in AGOT, and Sansa's is just as bad as or worse than Arya's. "It was as if she had become a ghost, dead before her time" was from AGOT, as was Sansa's nightmare of Ser Ilyn coming for her to take her head.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Eyes High

[AshleyN]

The fact that the show's verdict on the Red Wedding seems to come down to "eh, nbd, dumbass Robb had it coming anyway" makes me so sad.

[benteen]

Then you had D&D pretty much defending Tywin's actions after the character was killed off a season later.

[AshleyN]

I was going to post this in the episode thread, but as it went along, it turned into something more appropriate for this one, so here's some word vomit for you:

I'd be less bothered by seeing Northerners bitter about how Robb's mistakes got their men killed if it wasn't for the fact that everyone, both in-universe and out, is conveniently ingoring the fact that the Boltons were the ones who DID THE ACTUAL KILLING*. I mean, how was this not the response to the Glover dude:

Spoiler

http://imgur.com/a/qvajN

*And in response to the question above about if the other houses know: if they don't, they're fucking stupid. The majority of the Northern army, and the Northerners present at the actual wedding are slaughtered, but Roose Bolton not only emerges with his forces intact, but the Lannisters have even named him the new Warden of the North. It shouldn't take Einstein to put two and two together there and figure out that they were involved.

You know, after the "Hold the Door" episode there was talk about why we should root for the Starks when all they do is screw up. I felt then, and feel even more strongly now, that the Starks don't really screw up more than other characters, it's just that their mistakes tend to be punished a thousand times more severely than anyone else's. Ned made a strategic error (that was motivated by trying to avoid innocent children getting killed) and it gets his head chopped off, throws his family in disarray, and the whole realm into war. Sansa is a little girl who trusts the wrong people and spends five years being tortured for it. Bran acts like any lonely kid who's discovering he has cool new powers would, and it gets his mentor, his pet, and perhaps the last living members of an ancient race killed, while getting his companion not only killed, but retroactively ruining his entire fucking life. Robb breaks his marriage agreement, and it not only gets himself, his pregnant wife, his mother, and almost his entire army slaughtered, but apparently has erased thousands of years worth of Northern loyalty to his family.

Meanwhile, we've been told repeatedly that Ramsay's sadism would have an effect and that "acting like a mad dog" would turn people against him. Except, it turns out that...nobody cares. They're perfectly content with Good Lord Ramsay, and don't even bear his house any bad will for the murder of their own men at the Red Wedding. In fact, it's looking increasingly likely that his downfall will ultimately be brought about by fucking Littlefinger of all people, one of the few people in the story who can give him a run for his money in terms of awfulness, swooping in to save the day.

This is something that's present, to an extent, in the books, but the Northern storyline in ADWD serves in large part to explore how there are in fact benefits to the Ned Stark style of rule (while the Southern plot simultaneously explores the flaws in the Tywin Lannister style ie. fear alone is not a strong foundation upon which to build an empire). "The North Remembers" isn't just a feelgood storyline about a Stark comeback, it's hugely important thematically in regard to Martin's ideas on different styles of leadership and how there are pros and cons to each. That's been thrown out the door in favour of stacking the deck against Team Stark in order to up the "suspense" of Snowbowl. They don't seem to realise that this, in addition to the fact that they've completely ignored any kind of fallout from the Red Wedding have increasingly moved the story in the direction of "Actions have consequences...if you're a Stark. If not...well, maybe, eventually, when the plot requires it." Meanwhile, Ned Stark's honor and justice are as useless as his detractors claim, and the Tywin Lannister method is apparently the only way to govern in this world. I've generally defended the show against book purists, but it's pretty clear at this point that D&D's interpretation of the story is far more cynical than mine.

I dunno, maybe I'm being too pessimistic, maybe we will get some kind of Manderly moment* before all is said and done

Spoiler

(I try to avoid spoilers as much as possible, but I am aware of whoever this "Fletcher" person is supposed to be)

but given the choices that have been made so far, I'm not holding out much hope.

*Although "Ned's little girl", which was even more powerful IMO seems to have gone by the wayside completely.

Edited June 9, 2016 by AshleyN

[SeanC]

28 minutes ago, AshleyN said:

*Although "Ned's little girl", which was even more powerful IMO seems to have gone by the wayside completely.

Ironically, the show did have a "Ned's girl" moment, but it seems that only the Valemen care about Ned's girl.

[benteen]

Quote

Meanwhile, we've been told repeatedly that Ramsay's sadism would have an effect and that "acting like a mad dog" would turn people against him. Except, it turns out that...nobody cares. They're perfectly content with Good Lord Ramsay, and don't even bear his house any bad will for the murder of their own men at the Red Wedding. In fact, it's looking increasingly likely that his downfall will ultimately be brought about by fucking Littlefinger of all people, one of the few people in the story who can give him a run for his money in terms of awfulness, swooping in to save the day.

D&D love the Lannisters  and they seem to have included Ramsay in that love.  They defended Tywin's decision at the Red Wedding, using Tywin's argument that one killing a few people at a wedding saved thousands of lives when you know Tywin Lannister didn't give a fuck about the lives that were saved.  Tywin's scorched earth policy (rape and ravage your way through your enemy's homeland) and rule through fear wasn't a good one in the long run (it created a lot of resentment to say the least) and his own shitty parenting helped lead the Realm into the mess it's in today.  But with the showrunners, there's a clear admiration for the way that Tywin did business.

Having the North rally to Jon and Sansa after the Battle of Winterfell (I assume they're going to win) is going to mean a lot less more because we know when them needed them the most, their bannermen weren't interested in overthrowing Ramsay.  If Ramsay had held their family members hostage, I could have understood this.  It's truly amazing just how badly D&D have managed to destroy the whole The North Remembers storyline.

Edited June 9, 2016 by benteen

[Eyes High]

The show is in many respects an AU version of the books. (What if Tyrion was not a terrible person? What if Brienne was 10 years older?) The Northerners being conditionally loyal, "what have you done for me lately" types seems to be another iteration of that.

I guess you could fanwank it that the TV Northerners are much more exercised about TV Robb because he broke his promise with the Freys not to avoid dishonouring Jeyne but in the pursuit of a hot chick. So in this alternate universe where Robb fucked over the North to chase a pretty girl--and a pretty, foreign girl to boot--it seems more likely that the goodwill would be squandered. Now, of course, the whole point of unconditional loyalty is that it shouldn't matter what Robb did, a Stark is a Stark, but I can see why the writers would believe that there would be repercussions. Also, plotwise, the Northerners needed to put up some kind of resistance to put Sansa in the position of begging LF for help.

What is puzzling, I agree, is the Northerners not being overly concerned with the Boltons' role in the RW. They almost seem willing to blame Robb for causing the RW rather than the Boltons for helping. It reminds of the dothraki being chill with Dany murdering the khals: if they were weak enough for Dany to murder them, they had it coming. Are the Northerners really such tough-minded opportunists that their goodwill is so easily earned and squandered?

On the other hand, we've seen a pretty small sample of Northerners: Karstark and Umber (opportunistic assholes), Mormont (busts Sansa and Jon's balls but supports them), and Glover (clearly suffering from PTSD and grieving his family). We also know that the Hornwoods and the Mazins offered support and the Manderlys and the Cerwyns were never approached. So maybe it's a bit early to write them all off.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Eyes High

[SeanC]

19 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

On the other hand, we've seen a pretty small sample of Northerners: Karstark and Umber (opportunistic assholes), Mormont (busts Sansa and Jon's balls but supports them), and Glover (clearly suffering from PTSD and grieving his family). We also know that the Hornwoods and the Mazins offered support and the Manderlys and the Cerwyns were never approached.

The Manderlys and Cerwyns were sent letters, as were all the other Northern houses, from what we're told.  <500 men showed up, whereas Ramsay has at least 5000 of his own, before counting the Umbers and the Karstarks.  The numbers tell the tale there.

Barring some big surprise, this whole plot has been turned upside down to put Littlefinger in it, basically (and Sansa, but from all indications this plotline isn't about serving her; indeed, she's been revealed to be a complete failure as a player whose only value is that Littlefinger wants to put her at the center of his plans).  The North can't be loyal, or else the Valemen's inevitable surprise rescue wouldn't be needed.  So the writers threw out everything they talked about in prior seasons (Ramsay's concern about the North rallying to the Starks in 402 is hilarious in retrospect, as it turns out nobody gives a crap), and even in this season (contrary to what Roose warns, being a "mad dog" doesn't hurt Ramsay at all).

[Hecate7]

4 hours ago, SeanC said:

The Manderlys and Cerwyns were sent letters, as were all the other Northern houses, from what we're told.  <500 men showed up, whereas Ramsay has at least 5000 of his own, before counting the Umbers and the Karstarks.  The numbers tell the tale there.

Barring some big surprise, this whole plot has been turned upside down to put Littlefinger in it, basically (and Sansa, but from all indications this plotline isn't about serving her; indeed, she's been revealed to be a complete failure as a player whose only value is that Littlefinger wants to put her at the center of his plans).  The North can't be loyal, or else the Valemen's inevitable surprise rescue wouldn't be needed.  So the writers threw out everything they talked about in prior seasons (Ramsay's concern about the North rallying to the Starks in 402 is hilarious in retrospect, as it turns out nobody gives a crap), and even in this season (contrary to what Roose warns, being a "mad dog" doesn't hurt Ramsay at all).

Apart from Umbers, Karstarks, and Glover, the Northmen haven't been disloyal at all. They've been unimpressed, but they sent all the men they could. The real story behind these numbers is that everyone's tapped out and decimated from fighting the Lannisters and Freys in Robb's service. The Northmen and wildlings will loyally march to their complete and utter routing by Ramsey, and THEN Baelish will come in and "rescue" the few survivors.

[SeanC]

1 hour ago, Hecate7 said:

Apart from Umbers, Karstarks, and Glover, the Northmen haven't been disloyal at all.

Er, yeah, they have.  There are at least "two dozen more" houses apart from the Boltons, Karstarks, Umbers and Manderlys, according to Jon in 605.  All of three of them signed up.  Which means the tally stands at:

Team Ramsay

1. House Bolton (5000)
2. House Karstark (?)
3. House Umber (?)

Team Jon + Sansa

1. House Mormont (62)
2. House Hornwood (200)
3. House Mazin (143)

Team "Whatever, Ramsay's Fine"

1. House Manderly
2. House Cerwyn
3. House Glover
4. 19+ other houses.

So when push comes to shove, most of the North either actively desires to be ruled by Ramsay or doesn't care enough to do anything about it.

Edited June 9, 2016 by SeanC

[Hecate7]

46 minutes ago, SeanC said:

Er, yeah, they have.  There are at least "two dozen more" houses apart from the Boltons, Karstarks, Umbers and Manderlys, according to Jon in 605.  All of three of them signed up.  Which means the tally stands at:

Team Ramsay

1. House Bolton (5000)
2. House Karstark (?)
3. House Umber (?)

Team Jon + Sansa

1. House Mormont (62)
2. House Hornwood (200)
3. House Mazin (143)

Team "Whatever, Ramsay's Fine"

1. House Manderly
2. House Cerwyn
3. House Glover
4. 19+ other houses.

So when push comes to shove, most of the North either actively desires to be ruled by Ramsay or doesn't care enough to do anything about it.

I thought Manderly and Cerwyn sent what little troops they had left between them. The remaining houses, I don't know, but maybe they don't even know Jon and Sansa are out there yet, or maybe they don't have any troops left. And Jon said he didn't want to bother visiting the others, which is suicidal. I get that time is at a premium with Rickon's life on the line, but surely he knows there's nothing to be gained from storming Winterfell outnumbered 3 to one. Maybe he realizes that if the Mormonts only have 62, the 19+ other houses probably have 20-50 each. Best case scenario, if they each have around 50, then he could get another 950 men from a goodwill tour, and then only be outnumbered two to one, but he'd need an army of Bronns and Briennes for that to do him any good at all.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Hecate7

[SeanC]

2 minutes ago, Hecate7 said:

I thought Manderly and Cerwyn sent what little troops they had left between them. The remaining houses, I don't know, but maybe they don't even know Jon and Sansa are out there yet, or maybe they don't have any troops left.

No, all the houses (Manderly and Cerwyn) had messages sent to them, and none of them did anything.

[Hecate7]

1 minute ago, SeanC said:

No, all the houses (Manderly and Cerwyn) had messages sent to them, and none of them did anything.

It is also very possible their castles are standing empty or only have women and children minding them. House Mormont only has a little girl in charge.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Hecate7

[SeanC]

Just now, Hecate7 said:

It is also very possible their castles are standing empty or only have women and children minding them. 

There is no indication of that.  Sansa specifically says they should go meet with Lord Cerwyn to try to sway him, but Jon says that since nobody has responded, they aren't going to come.  If the show wanted us to think there was a communications error, there'd be some sign of it.

7 minutes ago, Hecate7 said:

Maybe he realizes that if the Mormonts only have 62, the 19+ other houses probably have 20-50 each.

According to both Jon and Ramsay separately, the minor houses combined have as many men as the big houses.

[Hecate7]

26 minutes ago, SeanC said:

There is no indication of that.  Sansa specifically says they should go meet with Lord Cerwyn to try to sway him, but Jon says that since nobody has responded, they aren't going to come.  If the show wanted us to think there was a communications error, there'd be some sign of it.

Sansa seems to assume that the new Lord Cerwyn will want revenge. After all, Ramsey flayed the old Lord Cerwyn. She's probably right, too. I doubt, however, that Cerwyn's men just sat by and let him be taken, and so it's unlikely that the young Cerwyn has many fighting men left. It does look as if nobody is responding because either a) House Mormont is an example of what is left of them, and they've got little kids or ancient people or ladies ruling tiny armies that barely keep the castle itself garrisoned, because there is EVERY indication that all the loyal Stark bannermen perished at or on the way to the Red Wedding, or b) they are too terrified of Ramsey to move a muscle, or c) both. It's silly to say "there's no indication of that." That's precisely what the whole episode was about! Theon took Winterfell easily because there was no one to oppose him--everyone was fighting alongside Robb except the Karstarks and the Boltons, who were busy betraying him. There is no indication that any of those men ever came home, and so the North is in the hands of those few who lived through the Red Wedding. I had been annoyed at Jon for not listening to Sansa, but now I come to think of it, he's got a better sense of what those unreturned ravens mean, than she does.

Sansa is ascribing the lack of response to disloyalty, but Jon Snow knows firsthand what it's like not to have enough men to keep the castle guarded, let alone send troops. She thinks if they simply visit, she can talk them into sending troops, but on the show there's no reason to think that any of these families still have any.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Hecate7

[SeanC]

1 hour ago, Hecate7 said:

She thinks if they simply visit, she can talk them into sending troops, but on the show there's no reason to think that any of these families still have any.

There is, because Glover has men, he just refuses to send them.  And if the other houses had no soldiers, they could say that.  The message of this episode is that the Stark name is mud now and most of the North doesn't want to fight for them.

[nksarmi]

I really don't get the sense that it's all Northmen are "yea Team Ramsey." They have their reasons and some of their reasons make sense.

Kastark flat out said when Robb Stark murdered my father he lost my loyalty. I mean that's a big deal in the books and the show. At the time, I accepted it, but more and more I question the decision to execute Kastark while showing Caitlyn mercy. I know Cat is his mom, but if you aren't going to punish her for letting Jamie go - then you sure as hell shouldn't bat an eye at Kastark and his quest for revenge. And losing the loyalty of one of your major houses isn't worth a) two valuable hostages or b) proving to your subordinates that only your mother can betray and disobey you and live.

Umber said his House was the farthest North and he would bow or vow any loyalty to Ramsey, but he wanted Ramsey to help protect his lands from the Wildlings. Jon marched 2,000+ Wildlings into Umber's back yard and didn't explain why or make him any promise that there would be no conflict. I can't imagine why Umber threw in with the Boltons when he feels Winter coming and has 2,000 people who may now raid his lands and stockpiles. There is no such thing as unconditional loyalty. People will act in their own self-interest and Umber doesn't trust the bastard who did this. For goodness sake, on the show, the Night's Watch killed Jon for letting the Wildlings in and they KNOW the dead are coming. What are the poor Northern Lords suppose to think?

Glover gave a good enough reason for me. He won't side with Team Jon/Sansa because he needs to protect his own from a castle that he just got back from the Ironborn (who Robb basically empowered via Theon) and he had the Boltons help to get that castle back. He won't side with them in battle, but he showed some degree of loyalty by not taking them prisoner and telling Ramsey to come get them.

Jon and Sansa aren't exactly knocking it out of the ballpark with their sales pitch and I wonder how well Jon will do with that in the books to be honest. "Unite behind me - no I'm not a deserter, I died - and yes, they killed me, what you think following a man whose own men mutinied against him is ill advised? But the dead are walking and the Night's King is coming! Wait? You think I'm crazy? Why?" might not be the best sell ever.

[Hecate7]

7 hours ago, SeanC said:

There is, because Glover has men, he just refuses to send them.  And if the other houses had no soldiers, they could say that.  The message of this episode is that the Stark name is mud now and most of the North doesn't want to fight for them.

From the show's Wiki: "However, Robett dismisses them when his loyalty to the Starks is questioned - justifying it by reminding them that Galbart had sworn for Robb when he was lord and Robb led all his men to their deaths.[3]" That suggests to me that there aren't a lot of men. How many men did Glover actually say he had? I don't recall there being any dialogue specifying numbers, but it seems very unlikely that he has many.

It's also true that the North is sick of the Starks and doesn't trust Jon or Sansa, but their heavy losses have something to do with that, so both issues have to be considered together. It's not just one or the other.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Hecate7

[WearyTraveler]

The North is HUGE.  Stannis says he will not accept a deal with Robb where the North is independent because he will "lose half my kingdom", implying that The North is almost as big as the South.

Even though it is less densely populated, one can assume there are thousands and thousands of people up there. And that their armies can be as big as the South's or close enough.  Now, the Freys + the Boltons do not have the same numbers as all the other Northern houses plus the riverlords that accompanied Robb to the Red Wedding.

I got the sense that their victory there came mainly as a result of cunning and the element of surprise.  Catelyn mentions several times how much booze there is at the wedding.  The traitors got everyone well and drunk, separated the armies, enclosed the army celebrating outside with wagons so they couldn't escape, and then attacked.  Many of these people didn't even have their weapons with them (Catelyn notices the sword belts hanging from pegs in the main room).

Not all of Robb's men were at the wedding, some people escaped (Arya and the Hound found a wounded soldier who escaped), all the castles in the North were left with small forces to defend them, and there were some who were too young to fight for Robb when he called his banners, but are now old enough to fight.

I don't think the Northern houses are so decimated that they can't spare a few men. In the books, Manderly has enough forces, and so do other Northern houses.  The show hasn't contradicted this notion.

In my opinion, the message the show is sending is that the Northern Lords do not want to support Jon because they think Robb screwed them and/or Jon let loose a menace to their lands, not because they don't have enough men to do so.

[SeanC]

2 hours ago, Hecate7 said:

From the show's Wiki: "However, Robett dismisses them when his loyalty to the Starks is questioned - justifying it by reminding them that Galbart had sworn for Robb when he was lord and Robb led all his men to their deaths.[3]" That suggests to me that there aren't a lot of men.

The wiki is fan-edited.  Glover's point in that scene is that the Starks have lost his respect, not that he lacks men.

[GrailKing]

5 hours ago, Hecate7 said:

From the show's Wiki: "However, Robett dismisses them when his loyalty to the Starks is questioned - justifying it by reminding them that Galbart had sworn for Robb when he was lord and Robb led all his men to their deaths.[3]" That suggests to me that there aren't a lot of men. How many men did Glover actually say he had? I don't recall there being any dialogue specifying numbers, but it seems very unlikely that he has many.

It's also true that the North is sick of the Starks and doesn't trust Jon or Sansa, but their heavy losses have something to do with that, so both issues have to be considered together. It's not just one or the other.

He's telling Jon, he doesn't trust him because of his choice to use Wildlings, and he's telling Sansa, because of the way Robb's decision got their (North)men killed; i.e. breaking his oath to marry the Frey girl that the Stark name isn't trusted or respected now.

It may have to do with numbers, but that didn't stop Lady Mormont, she verbally slapped Jon and Sansa with the reason, why put more Bear Islanders in harms way, it wasn't until Davos spoke up that she (maybe from some knowledge from her dead Uncle) that she agreed.

Glover gave me the impression that he would have begrudgingly joined if their argument was stronger.

To get him or others they will have to earn the respect and keep it.

 

Ninja by Sean :>)

Edited June 10, 2016 by GrailKing

[AshleyN]

18 hours ago, Hecate7 said:

Apart from Umbers, Karstarks, and Glover, the Northmen haven't been disloyal at all. They've been unimpressed, but they sent all the men they could. The real story behind these numbers is that everyone's tapped out and decimated from fighting the Lannisters and Freys in Robb's service. The Northmen and wildlings will loyally march to their complete and utter routing by Ramsey, and THEN Baelish will come in and "rescue" the few survivors.

And from being butchered by the Boltons while they were unarmed at a wedding. Not that anyone seems to care about that.

 

8 hours ago, nksarmi said:

Kastark flat out said when Robb Stark murdered my father he lost my loyalty. I mean that's a big deal in the books and the show. At the time, I accepted it, but more and more I question the decision to execute Kastark while showing Caitlyn mercy. I know Cat is his mom, but if you aren't going to punish her for letting Jamie go - then you sure as hell shouldn't bat an eye at Kastark and his quest for revenge. And losing the loyalty of one of your major houses isn't worth a) two valuable hostages or b) proving to your subordinates that only your mother can betray and disobey you and live.

Jon and Sansa aren't exactly knocking it out of the ballpark with their sales pitch and I wonder how well Jon will do with that in the books to be honest. "Unite behind me - no I'm not a deserter, I died - and yes, they killed me, what you think following a man whose own men mutinied against him is ill advised? But the dead are walking and the Night's King is coming! Wait? You think I'm crazy? Why?" might not be the best sell ever.

No, Robb executed Karstark because he murdered two children that Robb was responsible for, and in the process not only completely flouted Robb's authority, but endangered the lives of every Northerner that had been captured by the Lannisters (including Sansa). Robb had some pretty bad fuckups during his brief reign, but in this case Karstark had ensured he was fucked regardless of what he did, and he chose the best of the bad options he was left with.

And since Tywin is the leader that Robb tends to be unfavourably compared to, let's take a moment to imagine how he would have reacted to one of his bannermen ignoring his orders and endangering Lannisters for the sake of personal revenge? Granted, he would have had much less of an issue with the "cold-blooded murder of children" aspect of things, but I don't really consider that a point in his favour.

We've already seen how much more savvy book Jon is when it comes to Northern politics when he's gives Stannis (excellent) advice on which houses to approach and how to do it. He's been dumbed down considerably on the show* for the sake of the plot. Well, and also because we wouldn't want to ruin the image of Ned as the honorable fool who was hopeless at politics and ruined everything, rather than the man who ruled the North extremely well for years and knew the region like the back of his hand** before being taken out of his element and dumped into the snakepit of King's Landing.

*Case in point: it's Davos who has to bring up the threat of the Walkers to Lyanna Mormont, and it doesn't get mentioned at all when talking to Glover, even after the subject of the Wildlings is brought up. Now I'm sure that there have been ravens sent on that matter, but it makes no sense that (when every other argument had failed) he wouldn't take advantage of a face to face audience to press his case, even if it didn't work in the end.

**since that's the only place Jon could have learned all of this from.

And again, the problem isn't so much that people are bitter about Robb's mistakes. It's the fact that they're simultaneously ignoring the far worse crimes committed by the Boltons, father and son alike. Like I said, the message isn't so much that "actions have consequences", it's "actions only have consequences if you're a Stark."

Edited June 10, 2016 by AshleyN

[Chris24601]

51 minutes ago, AshleyN said:

And again, the problem isn't so much that people are bitter about Robb's mistakes. It's the fact that they're simultaneously ignoring the far worse crimes committed by the Boltons, father and son alike. Like I said, the message isn't so much that "actions have consequences", it's "actions only have consequences if you're a Stark."

Its something of an odd-ball observation, but if this was actually a provable observation in universe it would actually make the Stark's the absolute BEST rulers for any kingdom. Seriously, who would you rather have as your ruler; someone who knows they'll get away with anything they feel like doing or someone who knows they and their family will undoubtedly face severe consequences for whatever wrong they do?

Also, are we sure that Brienne isn't some sort of secret Stark based on this observation?

[nksarmi]

1 hour ago, AshleyN said:

And from being butchered by the Boltons while they were unarmed at a wedding. Not that anyone seems to care about that.

 

No, Robb executed Karstark because he murdered two children that Robb was responsible for, and in the process not only completely flouted Robb's authority, but endangered the lives of every Northerner that had been captured by the Lannisters (including Sansa). Robb had some pretty bad fuckups during his brief reign, but in this case Karstark had ensured he was fucked regardless of what he did, and he chose the best of the bad options he was left with.

And since Tywin is the leader that Robb tends to be unfavourably compared to, let's take a moment to imagine how he would have reacted to one of his bannermen ignoring his orders and endangering Lannisters for the sake of personal revenge? Granted, he would have had much less of an issue with the "cold-blooded murder of children" aspect of things, but I don't really consider that a point in his favour.

We've already seen how much more savvy book Jon is when it comes to Northern politics when he's gives Stannis (excellent) advice on which houses to approach and how to do it. He's been dumbed down considerably on the show* for the sake of the plot. Well, and also because we wouldn't want to ruin the image of Ned as the honorable fool who was hopeless at politics and ruined everything, rather than the man who ruled the North extremely well for years and knew the region like the back of his hand** before being taken out of his element and dumped into the snakepit of King's Landing.

*Case in point: it's Davos who has to bring up the threat of the Walkers to Lyanna Mormont, and it doesn't get mentioned at all when talking to Glover, even after the subject of the Wildlings is brought up. Now I'm sure that there have been ravens sent on that matter, but it makes no sense that (when every other argument had failed) he wouldn't take advantage of a face to face audience to press his case, even if it didn't work in the end.

**since that's the only place Jon could have learned all of this from.

And again, the problem isn't so much that people are bitter about Robb's mistakes. It's the fact that they're simultaneously ignoring the far worse crimes committed by the Boltons, father and son alike. Like I said, the message isn't so much that "actions have consequences", it's "actions only have consequences if you're a Stark."

And what did Robb do to Caitlyn when she let Jamie Lannister - their most valuable hostage - go? You can see why the Kastarks might call it murder. Though in the show, I do think he said kill. Robb f-ed up big time with the Kastarks. The disproportionate way he handled his mother and his bannermen for essentially the same crime* would be obvious to anyone. Oh yea and he was an oath breaker himself at that point. Surely, you can see why people might see a choice between the Boltons and Jon SNOW who let in the Wildlings to not be quite the no-brainer we think it is given that we know what's coming on the other side of the Wall.

 

*I say what Caitlyn and Kastark did are essentially the same. I want to explain that better. Yes, Caitlyn let someone go to be exchanged for her daughters (let's ignore the very idea that even if Brie and Jamie made it to KL, she was relying on his word of honor to return Sansa to her and she had no idea if he even had the power to make that happen) whereas the Kastarks murdered two hostages. So, there is the difference of life and death and in theory, Caitlyn's crime could be repaired if Jamie could be recaptured. But they also could always get more hostages and only a fool would think those Lannister boys meant anything to Tywin. Only Jamie mattered to him and then, probably not enough to lose a war. He'd take revenge for Jamie's death, but I don't think he would have given an inch to save his life. Given the way Tywin viewed the world, he probably believed the only person he could have traded for Jamie was lost when Joffrey took Ned's head.

Now some of these are things we knew that Robb didn't. But at the core of the matter Caitlyn and Kastark both took away a valuable captive (though Caitlyn much more so) and disobeyed Robb's order. Their crimes are essentially equal. And since Caitlyn committed her crime before Kastark committed his, why would he believe his crime would be punishable by death when she was just put in a cell? Robb screwed up here. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it and you can damn well bet if his broken marriage contract didn't cost him the war - his uneven treatment of Caitlyn vs Kastark did. He should have imprisoned Kastark rather than take his head.

Edited June 10, 2016 by nksarmi

[AshleyN]

1 hour ago, nksarmi said:

*I say what Caitlyn and Kastark did are essentially the same. I want to explain that better. Yes, Caitlyn let someone go to be exchanged for her daughters (let's ignore the very idea that even if Brie and Jamie made it to KL, she was relying on his word of honor to return Sansa to her and she had no idea if he even had the power to make that happen) whereas the Kastarks murdered two hostages. So, there is the difference of life and death and in theory, Caitlyn's crime could be repaired if Jamie could be recaptured. But they also could always get more hostages and only a fool would think those Lannister boys meant anything to Tywin. Only Jamie mattered to him and then, probably not enough to lose a war. He'd take revenge for Jamie's death, but I don't think he would have given an inch to save his life. Given the way Tywin viewed the world, he probably believed the only person he could have traded for Jamie was lost when Joffrey took Ned's head.

Now some of these are things we knew that Robb didn't. But at the core of the matter Caitlyn and Kastark both took away a valuable captive (though Caitlyn much more so) and disobeyed Robb's order. Their crimes are essentially equal. And since Caitlyn committed her crime before Kastark committed his, why would he believe his crime would be punishable by death when she was just put in a cell? Robb screwed up here. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it and you can damn well bet if his broken marriage contract didn't cost him the war - his uneven treatment of Caitlyn vs Kastark did. He should have imprisoned Kastark rather than take his head.

Tywin started a war with the Riverlands over the capture of Tyrion, whom he openly hated. It's not about whether they meant anything to him personally, it's about how Tywin responds to slights against his family.

And Karstark didn't just take away a valuable hostage, he murdered two POWs in cold blood. Robb letting him slide would have established a precedent that that was fair game. That's something that can escalate really easily, especially when the enemy is lead by a man who's famous for his his tendency to respond to any kind of challenge by going straight for the nuclear option.

What Catelyn did was bad, no doubt, and perhaps Robb should have punished her more for it. But Karstark's crime was far worse, and Robb really didn't have much of a choice in his response.

Edited June 10, 2016 by AshleyN

[Hecate7]

4 hours ago, AshleyN said:

And from being butchered by the Boltons while they were unarmed at a wedding. Not that anyone seems to care about that.

 

People are terrified of the Boltons. The Boltons, Umbers, Karstarks, and Manderlys have the biggest armies and are the most formidable houses. If the Northern lords thought they could beat the Boltons they'd have tried immediately. It's not that they like the Boltons, it's that nobody ever had the manpower to go up against the Boltons AND the Karstarks together. And the Umbers apparently owed more allegiance to the Karstarks than to the Starks, so it's not only the Boltons you'd have to beat. That nobody since Lord Cerwyn has defied the Boltons I think should speak for itself--it's better to be loved than feared, but only if they don't fear someone else a whole lot more than they do you. Otherwise you're Lord Cerwyn.

Quote

No, Robb executed Karstark because he murdered two children that Robb was responsible for, and in the process not only completely flouted Robb's authority, but endangered the lives of every Northerner that had been captured by the Lannisters (including Sansa). Robb had some pretty bad fuckups during his brief reign, but in this case Karstark had ensured he was fucked regardless of what he did, and he chose the best of the bad options he was left with.

And Joffrey executed Ned Stark for treason, of which Ned in fact was technically guilty on several counts. The legality of it makes absolutely no difference in the minds of the families, because just as Joffrey had a choice, people see Robb as having had a choice and making the choice that justifies their taking revenge. It's very hard in a revenge/honor society, when someone has already overthrown the king once, because the law is interpreted and enforced differently depending on who's in charge. People are disgusted with the Starks. They were not in King's Landing and don't know what Ned did or didn't do--they tried to be blindly loyal and rebel when he was executed for treason, but the story that's out there is that he was an idiot and a traitor who got what he deserved. They followed Robb but he got everybody killed. The North is a huge place, but it's a lot like Alaska or Russia--lots of land mass, impossible to invade or conquer successfully, but people are spread quite far apart and it's hard to get food to everyone, it's hard to communicate, and people are very difficult to unite and rally in a cause.

Glover didn't say he had lots of men, and I didn't get the impression he did have a large army. Certainly compared to the Boltons, nobody's got much, because all the sellswords and mercenaries are working for the Boltons now--that's the safe choice and the money choice. Ramsey has 6,000 men. Do we know if that includes the Umbers and Karstarks? I hope so! If Lord Royce decides to help the Blackfish, there might not be Vale troops left over to send to Winterfell--Jaime's got 8,000 with him.

I remember Robb despairing Season Three, saying, "I've won every battle, but I'm losing this war." Didn't that mean that the casualties were massive?

Edited June 10, 2016 by Hecate7

[SeanC]

6 minutes ago, Hecate7 said:

They followed Robb but he got everybody killed. 

By the Boltons.