Gertrude June 23, 2016 Share June 23, 2016 1 hour ago, arjumand said: The difference between your example and what happened to Sansa on the show is telling - it happened to Sansa, not her family. Yes, Ramsey killed her little brother, but, interestingly, she wasn't there when it happened, it was a deliberate choice by the writer of the episode not to put her there. ... Don't equate Sansa with someone whose family members or loved ones have been killed - what Ramsey did, he did to her, and her only. In a way, Sansa right now strikes me as Jon strikes me - Jon died and was brought back, and for a while felt only half alive, being reborn clawing his way out of that pile of bodies. Sansa was destroyed by Ramsey, and revenge in kind was the only thing which she felt would bring her back. Sure, she smiled. I would have. I won't speak for rape victims because I have no experience with that. I did have a family member killed by a drunk driver and if you don't think I wanted to rip that bastard limb from limb and make him suffer before dying horribly, you would be wrong. And as strong as my feelings were on the subject, even I can't imagine how much more my parents felt. It felt pretty personal to me. While I get that they are very different hurts and, like I said, I don't know how a tortured rape victim would actually feel, I don't see them as wildly different. We are all a bit savage when it comes to things like this. I just don't think revenge is ever as satisfying as we think it will be. It's never going to be enough because that thing taken away (a person, innocence, trust) is still gone. We're not going to see eye to eye on this, obviously. 3 Link to comment
Hecate7 June 23, 2016 Share June 23, 2016 3 hours ago, GrailKing said: Well Sandor thought differently then you when he told Arya; he said they would leave her for dead slitting her throat. Good point. The only reason that the attempted rape didn't turn to murder is that they didn't get the chance. Once they were done with her they'd have killed her. 1 Link to comment
Raachel2008 June 23, 2016 Share June 23, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Pogojoco said: It`s where Val would fit in here. I understand that they need to cut characters from the books, but I also think this was a miss on the part of the show. She didn`t need to be exactly what she was in the book (sister in law to Mance, Wildling Princess), but someone to give a little more context to the Free Folk and another face besides Tormund. Someone to tease Jon Snow. I think she`s wry in the book and a bit mysterious (what do you mean you know where to find Tormund?) And completely different from Ygritte, which is nice. One of the best things about Martin`s work in general is the amazing variety of female characters in his work. No two are alike. We got boring Sand Snakes and no Val. Oh Show. With one season left, maaaaaaybe, two, they will never bring Val on board to tell, basically, for the TV viewer, the same story - Jon Snow 'falling' for a wildling. They did that with Ygritte (who got some of Val's traits). I'm not even sure we'll see a love story in the show, to be honest. This is not a show/book with a good record where love is concerned. What did we have on screen? Dany/Drogo (dead), Tyrion/Shae (dead), Ned/Cately (dead,dead), Robb/Talysa (dead, dead), Myrcella/Trystane (dead, dead), Jon/Ygritte (dead) - just listing mutual love, not unrequited love, like Dany/Jorah and Littlefinger/Catelyn, or one sided love, like Tommen/Margaery; or fuck buddies, like Dany/Daario; or too shy/stupid to do anything, like Missandei/Greyworm and Sam/Gilly, or friends who could be more, like Brienne/Jamie, or just trolling the fans though awesome like Tormund/Brienne. I should add Stannis/Melisandre and Ellaria/Oberyn there, but if you think about it, the biggest love story on screen, as sick as it is, it is probably Cersei/Jamie. I would LOVE to see Tyrion getting a happy end with a woman who genuinely likes him, and I think Sansa deserves to find a good noble man who can give her all the love in the world (I think those two deserve true love the most), but I'm not quite sure we'll see this. Love is not really valued in GoT unless it is family love. We'll see. ETA: I'm on team R + L = J, but even if they are cousins, Jon and Sansa were raised as siblings, so, sorry, no. We already have a sick incestuous relationship on the show, we don't need another. Edited June 23, 2016 by Raachel2008 3 Link to comment
Hecate7 June 23, 2016 Share June 23, 2016 21 hours ago, HumblePi said: What a huge portion of viewers wanted to see was fear in Ramsay. We wanted a terrified, agonizing, very lengthy end to Ramsay Bolton's evil life. We did get to see it, but only for a brief moment before his face was chewed off. It was gratifying but if he was tortured a little bit, and pleaded for mercy, we would have felt more satisfaction. WE wanted to see it, and we didn't lose any family members. Sansa rode to meet Littlefinger after Shaggydog's head was hurled at her feet. That gesture told her all she needed to know--Rickon's direwolf had been killed, possibly in front of him. Its head was being thrown around as proof Rickon was a prisoner. There was plenty of grief on her face when she coldly told Ramsey he would die tomorrow, and rode off to meet Littlefinger. I give her a pass for not telling Jon, because for all she knew, Littlefinger would betray her. He still might. But she knew there was no point in waiting around to watch Rickon die. I give her a pass for feeding Ramsey to his hounds, just as Jon Snow did, and as I believe Ned would, too, because I could see how much Shaggy and Rickon's deaths affected her, and because for YEARS audiences have hated Sansa for not hitting or killing anyone. It was time to kill Ramsey, and the best possible way to do it, was the way he killed Walda and the baby, the way he once tried to kill Sansa and probably daily threatened to every time he raped or whipped her. Sansa has every reason--he murdered her brother, he murdered the old woman who tried to help her, and he kept her a prisoner and raped her every single day. Oh, yes, and Myranda tried to intimidate her in the kennel with the dogs that one time, too, so I think it's very apt that Sansa did finally use the dogs as a weapon. Nobody wanted to see Ramsey get a nice clean last meal and death with a broadsword, did we? So why are we trashing Sansa for doing what we'd have cheered Theon or Jon Snow for doing? It was a fitting death for a man who trained his dogs to eat people alive, and who had starved them for seven days in hopes of feeding Jon Snow, Rickon, and Sansa to them. 11 Link to comment
Gertrude June 23, 2016 Share June 23, 2016 (edited) I'm one of the ones arguing that I didn't like the smile at the end - only the smile. Maybe I'm reading more into other's replys because of how I felt about it, but I didn't think people were trashing Sansa for executing Ramsey. In my case I don't mind that it was death by dogs. My only objection was the smile, and only because it proved Ramsey's last words true. I am a part of you. (I think it was a temporary dip to the dark side, but pretty dark none the less).Ramsey would have taken joy from that kind of death, and so did Sansa in that moment. I do NOT think this makes her a bad person, I just think it was not what I would have liked to see from her and it worries me a bit. Of course, kill that bastard and sure, use his dogs. Karma, bitch. I admire her for watching and her final words were strong and I loved them. As for the double standard, I can't see either Jon or Theon smiling after they did that. Theon just doesn't seem to have and hope or joy left in him, not even for Ramsey's death. Jon wasn't gleeful as he hung his assassins. If either of them were put in that situation and did walk away with a smile, I would find it just as troubling. Edited June 23, 2016 by Gertrude 4 Link to comment
screamin June 23, 2016 Share June 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Gertrude said: Actually Ned was deeply disappointed in Robert for that and it caused them to fall out. Jon Arryn tried to mend it, but was unable to. I think it was only mended again after the Pyke Rebellion. Granted, it took a while, but Ned did forgive him...forgave him to the extent of big bro hugs at their reunion in Winterfell, forgave him to the extent of trusting him essentially with his life and his children's life when he left Winterfell (Ned's seat of power) at Robert's petition and went with them to King's Landing (where Robert's power is absolute). Most striking of all, he forgave Robert even though as far as I can recall, Robert never once gave the least indication that he was sorry about what had happened to Elia and her children, or thought there was anything wrong with it. Ned caught a glimpse of gaping sociopathy in Robert's character and...apparently convinced himself it was a momentary slip-up, not a sign of anything seriously wrong with Robert, even though Robert gave him no evidence that he understood what he'd done was wrong. Ned ended up convincing himself so thoroughly that he was shocked when Robert proposed doing exactly the same thing to Dany. Quote I've often wondered if down deep it never really healed? Robert seems to have grown more and more a man of excesses in the years he and Ned were apart. I think partially Ned on a certain level didn't mind not having a lot of contact with his old friend because he knew Robert was always unhappy about Lyanna and I think Ned had a sense of guilt regarding what he knew, and a sense of fear how Robert would react if word ever got out. Ned seemed to be coming to grips with the changes in Robert when he was serving as Hand, yet trying to avoid examining who Robert had become too closely. I agree that Ned seemed to gradually come to a realization of just how sleazy Robert's character was, but IMO, his realization was too little, too late when the clues had been plain for years - plain as the corpses laid out in front of Robert's throne. IMO, the only reason for Ned's long denial was love for Robert, not any real evidence that Robert ever gave that he was really a better person. You see it in the show, but more clearly in the books...I remember there was a scene in the books around the time of the tourney in KL in which Ned is drinking with Robert and basking in the glow of their friendship - and even though Robert has already sided with Cersei and ordered Lady killed and refused to curb spending or basically do ANYTHING to help Ned - Ned is still nostalgically thinking that things are just like old times and maybe he can convince Robert to take his side and make things right after all, when even a blind man can see Robert's hopeless. Which of course says nothing about whether Arya and Sansa are right or wrong in what they've done...just that saying "Ned would totally condemn what Sansa and Arya have done and what they've turned into!" is hardly certain. 1 Link to comment
screamin June 23, 2016 Share June 23, 2016 3 hours ago, arjumand said: I often blame Ned for leaving Winterfell and politicking in King's Landing, but seriously, could he have refused? Robert wasn't one of those kings who took 'no' for an answer. IIRC, Robert threatened to make Tywin Lannister King's Hand if Ned refused (though my memory's not the greatest). It would be a bad thing, but not THAT bad. Seriously, if Ned thought Robert might have him killed if he refused to become King's Hand, he would have been insane to leave his own lands and soldiers to go to KL, where he'd be surrounded and outnumbered by the King's Men with the thankless job of telling the King 'no' on a regular basis (at least, if he's a GOOD King's hand...) 1 Link to comment
Umbelina June 23, 2016 Share June 23, 2016 (edited) I was thinking about it. IF (huge IF) GRRM did briefly outline his plans for the Battle of the Bastards and the possibly unrelated Rickon eventual death, and added that the Vale troops come to the rescue at the last minute? Then this story and Sansa's journey probably makes more sense. Say, for example, Sansa is somehow made aware that the battle for Winterfell is about to happen, and she convinces Littlefinger or Sweet Robin to send the troops to aid Rob? Or even if only Littlefinger knows about the battle and decides to wait until both sides are pretty decimated and then attack with his troops for his own nefarious goals, including Sansa's gratitude for saving both Jon and Winterfell? That would jive with Sansa not giving the information to Jon before the battle. That would also explain the writers deciding to have the mustache twirling villain they've reduced Littlefinger to, give Sansa to Ramsay in the first place. They wanted Sansa in place, not back in the Vale. So they possibly combined a bunch of stories into this one, mostly for cinematic effect. Therefore, Jon couldn't know about the troops, so they did this contrived bullshit with Sansa lying just to keep Sansa on screen, oh and get to have her repeatedly raped and tortured. Edited June 24, 2016 by Umbelina 2 Link to comment
SoWindsor June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 It bugged me that Ramsay comments about not feeding his dogs for 7 dogs AFTER Sansa rode off. Seems like a big continuity error for such a pivotal scene. Why? Link to comment
WearyTraveler June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Hecate7 said: Good point. The only reason that the attempted rape didn't turn to murder is that they didn't get the chance. Once they were done with her they'd have killed her. Maybe not. They raped Lollys "half a hundred times", as Martin is so fond of reminding us every time the character or her circumstances are mentioned, but they didn't kill her. ---------------------------- Regarding Sansa, I usually don't like to comment on the character because she's one of those characters that seem to inspire extreme emotions on the love-hate spectrum, so, anything anyone says is taken way too much to heart by either side and the discussion becomes emotional, instead of rational. But, FWIW, below are my two cents, which I will precede by stating a few clarifying statements first: I'm not a book purist, I understand that TV is a different medium and that sacrifices have to be made in order to accommodate the restrictions and constraints of the venue. I might be disappointed that the writers didn't include a character or story I liked from the books, but I don't begrudge them that. Sometimes, it's necessary. What I definitely don't like and will criticize is when the writers change the essence of a character or story (see Dorne). Then, I'll probably have something to say about it. In the interest of making a full disclosure: I neither hate nor love book Sansa. She's a Stark who has gone through some horrible ordeals (I'm talking book only here) and has learned some things. As a Stark, I'm rooting for her to succeed, eventually. As a victim of Cersei, Joffrey, et.al. I want her to get justice, but to be completely honest her progression in the books frustrates me because she is sooooo sloooooow on the take (more on that later). In the same vein, I neither hate nor love show Sansa. But it seems to me that the writers are not always very successful with this character and that they will, in the interest of plot, make her do things that are out of character with show Sansa's own story so far, and (to me, a bigger crime) that are contrary to what book Sansa would do. Just so they can get "a big moment", "a shocking reveal", "a gut wrenching reaction", "a 'hell, yeah' moment", etc. And when the show does this, it's just impossible to have a good conversation about the character, her motivations and her future. I am a woman over 40 who has worked in the mostly male dominated corporate world in Latin America, the US and Europe. I have even had some projects working with local and national governments where politicking, backstabbing and plotting was the order of the day. I've done all right, some might say I've been successful, but I've never had to use my feminine guiles, or my fists, or behave like a man to do so. I don't consider myself a "girly girl", but I'm not a tomboy either. I hate pink and frilly clothing, my wardrobe is mostly neutral and solid, no patterns, no bold colors (except for a few pieces in red, which I quite like) because I am, above all, practical. Mixing and matching is easier and faster if everything is neutral and I do love the extra time I get to sleep. But I do have quite a lot of make up, and have way more shoes than I need. Growing up, I liked dolls, but I also liked cars and trains, and climbing and riding a bike. I love me some tools, and have actually done a few remodelling projects of my own in my house, but I also give myself a manicure and spend a couple of hours unable to use my hands while the polish dries. Ok, with that laid out clearly, here's my take on Sansa's actions this episode: I don't have a problem with Sansa killing Ramsey, I don't have a problem with Sansa using Ramsey's own dogs to do it, and I don't have a problem with Sansa seeing it happen. I do have a problem with her smirk/half smile after the fact for several reasons. First and foremost, it's against the essence of book Sansa who is shown to be compassionate even to her "enemies" (e.g. helping Lancel during Blackwater). Second, I have a problem with anybody enjoying killing, that's just wrong no matter what the motivation is and, again, it's against what I think is the core of book Sansa; she wants justice, she might even be turning into a person that is capable of dispensing justice, but I don't think book Sansa would enjoy killing. Ned didn't enjoy killing, he taught his children that the man who passes the sentence must carry it out precisely because he didn't consider taking a life, any life, a light thing. It should weight heavily on someone's shoulders to take a life. Jon hasn't enjoyed any of his kills in the books (or the show, for that matter), not even when he killed his worst enemies. Robb executed Karstark and didn't enjoy it for a single second; the way Catelyn describes him during and after the act is anything but happy. They see these killings as a duty, not something to enjoy. Book Arya feels guilty after her kills, when she's getting closer to Riverrun, she even wonders if her mother and Robb would want her back, after what she did. She seems to feel the release of anger and even rage when she kills (by herself or using Jaqen as proxy), but there's no true happiness or smiles about it, and she does reflect on what it means and what she's becoming. That said, book and show Arya are seriously damaged and becoming a bit frightening. I cheer that she's going back home on the show, but I do not think it's healthy that she's becoming such a cold killer. That said, she still doesn't smile or show any sign of happiness after she kills. I think book Arya hasn't smiled since she left KL, and show Arya only just recently smiled for the first time in ages after watching the play. Comparisons of Sansa to her siblings are inevitable because they grew up together, under the same roof, with the same teachers and routines, and with the same parents. The thing that frustrates me about book Sansa, as I mentioned, is how slow she is on catching on. For me, it's actually puzzling that book Sansa grew up in the same house as Jon, Robb, Brandon, Arya and even Rickon. In the books, Arya and Jon take one look at Joffrey and have him pegged down immediately for the little shit that he is. Robb is a brilliant military strategist, even though he's only 15 and has never even squired for someone in a tourney. Bran is an adventurous climber who bravely faces the arduous journey north even though he's a cripple, and Rickon is passionate, stubborn (like Arya) and rebellious. Sansa, just doesn't seem to be cut from the same cloth. I think the thing that I really disliked about her character at the beginning wasn't so much that she wanted the pretty life of the songs, the court, the ladies, the knights, the princesses and princes, but that when faced with evidence of people being untrustworthy and downright evil (Joffrey's behaviour with Arya and Micah, Cersei ordering Lady killed), she was so wrapped up in her fantasy world that she refused to see. I understand her decision to say she "didn't remember" the events of the river because she was betrothed to Joffrey, but her thought process doesn't reflect that, or it mostly doesn't reflect that. She's still thinking that "her prince" will be noble and she makes excuses for him in her head, up to the moment before he orders Ned's execution she keeps doing that. Cersei had her wolf killed, and she still went running to her when she found out Ned was planning to send her away from King's landing. Why? Why would she trust Cersei after what she did? Why would she trust Cersei over her father? Later, she finally opens her eyes, but she's still not suspicious enough. Her father gets murdered in front of her eyes, Joffrey beats her, Cersei imprisons her, Jeyne gets taken away, and she still falls for Olenna's plot to marry her to her grandson. She needs LF to tell her that people want her claim to Winterfell. In the Vale, she can't see how insane her aunt is, even though the evidence is right there in front of her eyes, until Lysa tries to kill her. Later she starts learning from LF and even guesses as to why he makes some of the choices he makes with the Lords of the Vale, but she still trusts him, a man that kissed her while he was married and is plotting and backstabbing people all the time. And she knows he's doing this, he tells her, he instructs her, and she still thinks he would never move against her or deliberately use her to achieve his own aims. Honey, if he's got no morals or qualms about manipulating everyone around him, what makes you think he wouldn't do the same thing to you? I'm rooting for her to wake up completely, I'm rooting for her to smarten up, I'm actually rooting for her to "slay the Titan" who I presume is LF, but I wish she would hurry up and see the world of Westeros for what it is already. Now, on to the Vale army and Sansa's actions this episode. I think it goes against her character not to tell Jon. I think book Sansa, once she realises who LF truly is, would not trust him anymore, just as show Sansa may not trust that he will actually come to their aid in the battle for Winterfell. But I also think book Sansa would not hold that information secret, if it can help get her home back. Neither would show Sansa because all she wants is to have her home back. I can believe that she wasn't sure about Rickon's fate when she was trying to convince Jon to help her, and that she later realised, when Ramsay threw Shaggy Dog's head at them, that Rickon was as good as dead. But I can't buy that she wouldn't tell Jon that there was a possibility of help and that she was going to check it out. It's moot to try to predict the outcome had she done so because she didn't. But I firmly believe that show Sansa, who has suffered so much and hugged Jon with heart and soul at Castle Black, who wants to get her home back, and who hates Ramsey with the force of a thousand suns wouldn't have done everything in her power to give Jon, the guy who was actually going to fight this battle, put his life on the line for her, and attempt to get her the justice she seeks, all the information he could possibly need to make that happen. The simplest explanation is that the writers wanted the surprise save from the Knights of the Vale, and so, they had Sansa acting illogically. There's no need to make excuses for the character or to try to guess her motivations, IMO. She should have told him, according to her character's progression on the show, it would make sense that she would tell him, but we couldn't have that because it would ruin the surprise save (and the gorgeous aerial shot of the Knights of the Vale smashing into Ramsey's forces), so, here we are :-/ Edited June 24, 2016 by WearyTraveler 11 Link to comment
Silje June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 I didn't like the way Sansa had Ramsay killed. I don't know if I can articulate my thoughts and feelings as to exactly why I didn't like it, but I can try. To start off I just want to say that I can understand why people don't have a problem with it and found it cathartic so I'm not really out to change anyone's mind about it. Do I think Sansa is in any way on Ramsay's level morally? No. But having a man tied to a chair and killed by dogs is something Ramsay would do. I do not see that as a badass moment or empowering, I just think it's heartbreaking. They've gone from (book) Sansa trying to remain good and kind during all the abuse she suffered and survived, to having her do such a deliberately cruel thing. Being that numb to (and enjoying) that kind of violence is not something I will applaud in my favorite character when she's one of the good guys. When Sansa had the power to do whatever she wanted to Ramsay I would've liked the show to acknowledge that there is strength in deciding to do better than your abusers. For me it would've been more of an impact if Sansa decided to execute Ramsay the Stark way instead of what we got on the show. Show that while Ramsay hurt her in unimaginable ways he could not change who she was at her core. When it comes to what Ned would think about how Sansa deposed of Ramsay: It wouldn't change how much he loved her but I don't think he would call her a badass or fist pump the air that she "finally" got her first kill. I found someone who is much more articulate than me so I'll quote some excerpts from her post about that last scene. They're in spoilers because there was so much I wanted to quote: Spoiler We all knew Ramsay would die. We all knew that, whenever that happened, Sansa would have to find closure from his death. These were fair enough to assume and expect, and damn easy to predict. We were *always* expecting Sansa to overcome her experience with Ramsay, in some way or another. (...) They had all these options for directions in which to take this story, and this is what they chose. ANOTHER revenge thing. AGAIN. Are there NO other ways to respond to conflict or trauma in D&D’s eyes? Does every matter HAVE to be solved like this? (...) Based solely on entertainment value, they chose the most basic, lazy, predictable outcome imaginable—and I say that because I’ve seen LOTS of people imagine it already! (....) But I don’t see how any reader who actually has a grasp on Sansa’s character couldn’t feel upset about this, or at the very least uncomfortable. This writing decision sits in direct contention to the Sansa Stark of the books. I get that the books and show are different, and going in different places, oh my god please stop reminding me. But I mean…at what point does ‘different’ become 'rewriting’? (....) The way the writers chose to kill Ramsay was appropriate for Ramsay, but it robs Sansa of her unique sense of compassion and mercy. (....) I thought Jon spared Ramsay with the specific intention to let Sansa carry out justice in a way she personally saw fit? Keyword: Personally. What was personal about this? What about this method of execution was custom tailored to Sansa’s characterization, or even her experience with Ramsay? She barely interacted with Ramsay’s dogs. This is something any character could have done to execute Ramsay and it would have made sense; it was not specific to Sansa at all, and it certainly doesn’t align with what her fans might expect of her. Maybe it doesn’t bother you, but doesn’t it all feel kinda cheap? (....) I think Sansa—forgive me, book Sansa—would want revenge, certainly, because she’s human; but ultimately, she would still choose justice. You know, the whole interplay between personal/political that is entirely absent from the TV show now. It has nothing to do with Ramsay, and everything to do with her and who she is, and that would kind of be the point; if she is to be a queen, she has to deliver justice for herself as she would for anyone else, and I think she would understand that. Sansa could have gotten the closure she deserved in a way that would be believable and possibly even inspiring for her character. She could have asserted her unique traits to show the audience the kind of person and leader she is, and could have left the audience with a poignant message about how revenge isn’t always the answer. Sansa could have actually shown the North what kind of leader she would be, in the way she dealt with Ramsay. (....) Personally, I would have liked Sansa to deliver justice to Ramsay publicly, naming his crimes and his victims (....) throwing [his body] into the ground in an unmarked grave, or one marked simply “bastard”. I mean, D&D established that the one thing that truly got to Ramsay was being reminded that he’s a bastard. They showed this weakness to us through Sansa, even. She knows it’s there. Why then, didn’t she exploit that weakness, truly shame him before sending him to the seven hells? (....) Sansa is the kind of person who can find closure without revenge, perhaps one of the only characters in this series who would choose to! Doesn’t that sound like a more interesting thing to explore? Wouldn’t it be nice to have something NOT be focused on getting revenge for a change? Wouldn’t it be refreshing if, in a season where everyone’s killing each other because “revenge!”, we had one person who showed us a different way? A better way? 5 Link to comment
GrailKing June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 2 hours ago, Gertrude said: I'm one of the ones arguing that I didn't like the smile at the end - only the smile. Maybe I'm reading more into other's replys because of how I felt about it, but I didn't think people were trashing Sansa for executing Ramsey. In my case I don't mind that it was death by dogs. My only objection was the smile, and only because it proved Ramsey's last words true. I am a part of you. (I think it was a temporary dip to the dark side, but pretty dark none the less).Ramsey would have taken joy from that kind of death, and so did Sansa in that moment. I do NOT think this makes her a bad person, I just think it was not what I would have liked to see from her and it worries me a bit. Of course, kill that bastard and sure, use his dogs. Karma, bitch. I admire her for watching and her final words were strong and I loved them. As for the double standard, I can't see either Jon or Theon smiling after they did that. Theon just doesn't seem to have and hope or joy left in him, not even for Ramsey's death. Jon wasn't gleeful as he hung his assassins. If either of them were put in that situation and did walk away with a smile, I would find it just as troubling. The smile to me was more her basically laughing at Ramsey's last psych out to her and relief that this cycle is over for her. Of course creepfinger is over her shoulder waiting in the wings. 7 Link to comment
screamin June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 (edited) The thing that differentiates Sansa's smile from Ramsey's enjoyment to me is that unlike Ramsey, Sansa apparently takes no pleasure in the spectacle of pain for its own sake. She arranged for a death for Ramsey, which, while brutal, is comparatively quick (at least compared to flaying and various other typical medieval execution methods, as the person who mentioned drawing and quartering pointed out) but still has an element of poetic justice that would please the surviving victims, the dead victims' families and the vast majority of medieval-like Westerosi. Once arranged and begun, she walked away from it - while it was still happening. She did not want or need to watch and savor every moment of his agony. That did not interest her. She arranged Ramsey's end - and she was DONE with him. All that she went through, that Theon went through, that the poor old woman Ramsey flayed went through - she was putting an end to it, and she was walking away, still alive, and done with him at last, and I can't help but sympathize with her exultation in that moment. Edited June 24, 2016 by screamin 12 Link to comment
Jennifersdc June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 (edited) On June 19, 2016 at 10:13 PM, dizzyd said: If the Vale had shown up at the beginning, they wouldn't be outside the Bolton army and would have been in the same crushed horde as Jon's army, so I thought it was wise to withhold that info. That's exactly what I was thinking. Is TV Sansa the equivalent of General Patton? If planned it was a brilliant military strategy. Except of course sacrificing the entire front lines. Maybe that puts her more in line with Tzarist Russia. I'm not even annoyed anymore her storyline is totally different than in the books so far. On the other hand, I love what they've done with Davos on the show. I assumed he'd pop up again in the books besides going off on the Manderly wild goose chase to Skagos in search of Rickon. Edited June 24, 2016 by Jennifersdc Link to comment
Shanna Marie June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 Sansa's smile was enigmatic enough that it's hard to tell what it was about. It could have been her taking sadistic pleasure at Ramsay's horrible death. Or it could have been her feeling free for the first time since she fell into Ramsay's clutches, realizing that she didn't have to worry about him ever touching her again. There had to have been some kind of relief in knowing that it was over. The smile may have been about her, not about him dying. 10 Link to comment
Jennifersdc June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 On June 19, 2016 at 10:21 PM, AzureOwl said: I kept expecting it to be the Manderlys who rode to the rescue. They kept namedropping them all season but they never showed up. As a many time reader of the books I'd love to see the Manderly's show up on the show, but by this time I doubt it. I was looking for their sigil on either side but didn't catch it. Nice job with Lyanna Mormont though! Link to comment
DigitalCount June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 While I would have preferred Ramsay accidentally falling in the kennel with his dogs, I am at least glad I was right about death by dog food. Also, that banner coming over the Winterfell wall was so perfect. Link to comment
Gertrude June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 2 hours ago, WearyTraveler said: Regarding Sansa, I usually don't like to comment on the character because she's one of those characters that seem to inspire extreme emotions on the love-hate spectrum, so, anything anyone says is taken way too much to heart by either side and the discussion becomes emotional, instead of rational. But, FWIW, below are my two cents, which I will precede by stating a few clarifying statements first A. I love everything about this post. B. Will you be my new best friend? I think we could hang. 2 Link to comment
GrailKing June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Shanna Marie said: Sansa's smile was enigmatic enough that it's hard to tell what it was about. It could have been her taking sadistic pleasure at Ramsay's horrible death. Or it could have been her feeling free for the first time since she fell into Ramsay's clutches, realizing that she didn't have to worry about him ever touching her again. There had to have been some kind of relief in knowing that it was over. The smile may have been about her, not about him dying. Actually reminded me of how she showed her relief by being put aside by Joffery; everyone in KL(including LF ) thought she be disappointed and upset when the opposite is true, the only naivety was thinking she could leave KL, until LF hit her with the truth of her position. 5 Link to comment
Pogojoco June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 The thing I like about the dogs eating Ramsey is the poetry of it. I'll pretend the show dogs are all female dogs like they are in the book. Ramsey abused countless women- he names his dogs after the women. They are a symbol of his abuse of women. He abuses them by not feeding them, they come back and bite him. He abused Sansa and she comes back and bites him. Also, the smile was smug and Ramsey was the most smug dude in Westeros by a wide margin. 10 Link to comment
Hecate7 June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 6 hours ago, Gertrude said: I'm one of the ones arguing that I didn't like the smile at the end - only the smile. Maybe I'm reading more into other's replys because of how I felt about it, but I didn't think people were trashing Sansa for executing Ramsey. In my case I don't mind that it was death by dogs. My only objection was the smile, and only because it proved Ramsey's last words true. I am a part of you. (I think it was a temporary dip to the dark side, but pretty dark none the less).Ramsey would have taken joy from that kind of death, and so did Sansa in that moment. I do NOT think this makes her a bad person, I just think it was not what I would have liked to see from her and it worries me a bit. Of course, kill that bastard and sure, use his dogs. Karma, bitch. I admire her for watching and her final words were strong and I loved them. As for the double standard, I can't see either Jon or Theon smiling after they did that. Theon just doesn't seem to have and hope or joy left in him, not even for Ramsey's death. Jon wasn't gleeful as he hung his assassins. If either of them were put in that situation and did walk away with a smile, I would find it just as troubling. Jon was in agony after hanging Ollie, because he loved and cared about Ollie. He was in pain over all of those lost brothers because they had been his brothers and even Thorne at one time had given him some hope that they could work well together. None of them had tortured him or raped him, so of course he didn't smile. I wouldn't find it troubling if Theon were to smile at Ramsey's death. In fact I'd find it hopeful and reassuring. I think we are meant to find Sansa's smile a little unsettling--is she turning into Cersei? Is Ramsey right? But of course she isn't. She's pleased that for once in her whole life, the bad guy went down. That she took out a person who had tortured her, and the sky didn't fall. (Yet). It would make no sense if she went around glowering like Jon, or staring glassily like Theon. She smiled, I believe, because for just that moment she felt relief, and satisfaction, perhaps even glee, that for once in her life the bad guy bought it. 9 Link to comment
Nanrad June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 10 hours ago, GrailKing said: You may be insulted as hell and I'm sorry for that; but 6 years on the boards have shown Sansa hate is that bad, whether you believe it or not. I've already stated she give up her honor her name everything (life included ) to save her family or home. People here ( well a small few) already have it that not telling Jon, or the Vale coming at the last possible moment was a plan by LF and Sansa, to thin out the heard I already said she (more so) and Jon (less so) probably thought Rickon was already dead in Winterfell, hence the Direwolf head, and shock to see Rickon towed out to the field and it achieved it's goal to draw Jon alone into open battle to die. As much as Sansa could have given more and she said more then a dangerous man; so to Jon as an experience commander could have also asked the right questions to get what he was looking for.The problem there is Sansa may not be able to give him a definitive answer. He's seen people burn by fire, tortured raped etc. but he seemed lost about Ramsey, even with burned bodies on a cross, he tried the typical way to end the battle, which Sansa warned him about. I'm not arguing against whether or not if Sansa gets a lot of hate, I know she does. But, for the past few years, I'm hearing people insist that it's because she a female and feminine rather than the fact that Sansa does a lot of shit that either infuriates, baffles, or a combination of both. The fact that Sansa defenders keep trying to claim that Sansa is disliked purely because she's a girly girl rather than they don't like her for reasons that has nothing to do with that. No other female characters get that sort of defense whenever they are criticized. That is my issue. Sansa is the only one deflected from criticism based off of gender and level femininity. There are always a small group of people who believe out there and inconsistent things. That group is not the majority and most have disregarded (and even disagreed with the idea), so it's not like people are rallying behind the idea. The small group that hates Sansa will see the worst in anything with that she does, but that small groups is combined with anyone who expresses even a negative opinion about Sansa even if they like her. My question is: why is it Jon's responsibility to whittle that information out of her? She came to him, right? She was upset that he didn't ask her opinion, right? Her asked her for a solution and she had nothing. Why does Jon have to whittle down what she may have to say on something she had no answer for? And, as you mentioned, she may not even have an answer. So, again, what was Sansa's point? Why didn't she mention anything in the meeting, especially when she was allowed in the meeting the first place. What Ramsey does isn't just kill or harm, there is a psychological angle to it, which is something he's not used to. I stand by my statement if Ramsey just flat out killed Rickon, Jon wouldn't have reacted the way he did. Hell, he didn't just rape Sansa, as fucked up as that is, he made sure to psychologically fuck her up in other ways. What usually goes on in Westeros vs. what Ramsey does, are two vastly different things. 5 hours ago, Gertrude said: I'm one of the ones arguing that I didn't like the smile at the end - only the smile. Maybe I'm reading more into other's replys because of how I felt about it, but I didn't think people were trashing Sansa for executing Ramsey. In my case I don't mind that it was death by dogs. My only objection was the smile, and only because it proved Ramsey's last words true. I am a part of you. (I think it was a temporary dip to the dark side, but pretty dark none the less).Ramsey would have taken joy from that kind of death, and so did Sansa in that moment. I do NOT think this makes her a bad person, I just think it was not what I would have liked to see from her and it worries me a bit. Of course, kill that bastard and sure, use his dogs. Karma, bitch. I admire her for watching and her final words were strong and I loved them. As for the double standard, I can't see either Jon or Theon smiling after they did that. Theon just doesn't seem to have and hope or joy left in him, not even for Ramsey's death. Jon wasn't gleeful as he hung his assassins. If either of them were put in that situation and did walk away with a smile, I would find it just as troubling. I think that's what really bothers some: her smiling. It's one thing for this act to feel cathartic and another to derive pleasure from it and this even goes for the most heinous crimes commitment against a person. Because, as another person mentioned, many don't get satisfaction from seeing someone who harmed them harmed. 2 Link to comment
Hecate7 June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 2 hours ago, Shanna Marie said: Sansa's smile was enigmatic enough that it's hard to tell what it was about. It could have been her taking sadistic pleasure at Ramsay's horrible death. Or it could have been her feeling free for the first time since she fell into Ramsay's clutches, realizing that she didn't have to worry about him ever touching her again. There had to have been some kind of relief in knowing that it was over. The smile may have been about her, not about him dying. I think if Sansa were really taking sadistic pleasure in Ramsey's death, she'd have stayed to watch while the dogs were still at it. She'd have smiled WHILE he died, the way Ramsey always did. Instead, she looked away at first. She watched with a steely gaze and left once she was sure he was dead. I agree that her smile was enigmatic, but it's more likely the same kind of smile that she had on her face when Joffrey got engaged to Margaery. Simply relief that she's done with that part of her life now. The "no more Ramsey" smile looked quite a bit like the "no more Joffrey" smile. And now, just as then, Littlefinger will be along to wipe that smile off her face, so I don't grudge her that moment. It isn't creepy to me, because I'm sure it is about her, not about Ramsey dying or about any of what he endured. 4 Link to comment
WearyTraveler June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 2 hours ago, Gertrude said: A. I love everything about this post. B. Will you be my new best friend? I think we could hang. LOL! Sure, if you're ever in London, let me know. We can catch a play or have a coffee. Link to comment
aslightjump June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, screamin said: The thing that differentiates Sansa's smile from Ramsey's enjoyment to me is that unlike Ramsey, Sansa apparently takes no pleasure in the spectacle of pain for its own sake. She arranged for a death for Ramsey, which, while brutal, is comparatively quick (at least compared to flaying and various other typical medieval execution methods, as the person who mentioned drawing and quartering pointed out) but still has an element of poetic justice that would please the surviving victims, the dead victims' families and the vast majority of medieval-like Westerosi. Once arranged and begun, she walked away from it - while it was still happening. She did not want or need to watch and savor every moment of his agony. That did not interest her. She arranged Ramsey's end - and she was DONE with him. All that she went through, that Theon went through, that the poor old woman Ramsey flayed went through - she was putting an end to it, and she was walking away, still alive, and done with him at last, and I can't help but sympathize with her exultation in that moment. I like this interpretation a lot because this scene with the smile thrown in was framed similarly to the scene where Joffrey casts off Sansa to marry Margaery and she thinks she's free. The walk away, with the smile, but now its all darker because hey, so is Sansa. And once again Littlefinger is waiting in the wings to just ruined all her happiness. Also, unpopular opinion, I guess, but I don't really give a crap if Sansa 'went down to Ramsay's level' to kill him. His level is what he deserved. I just care that she doesn't stay there. For the record, no I don't think she reduced herself to Ramsay's level because Sansa has yet to torture, rape, and mutilate people for months then flay them alive so. She killed a dude the same way he had killed others. My sister has been hoping Ramsay would die this way since the first episode of the season. Edited June 24, 2016 by aslightjump 10 Link to comment
Oscirus June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 (edited) Quote I think Ned Stark would be totally okay with feeding Ramsay to dogs. He beheaded people for being scared and running, it wasn't like he was some sort of giant powder puff. He had his sons get ready to execute people as soon as they got big enough to effectively behead people. Personally executing transgressors was a badge of honor for the Starks. Could Sansa weild a sword and safely behead the Unsinkable Ramsay Bolton? No. Could she kill him the same way he killed a bunch of people and threatened to do to her and a bunch of other Northern lords? Yes. I think Ned would be totally fine with it in private. I can accept that there is a chance that Ned might do what his did if he was exposed to the things his daughters were exposed to, but there is no way in hell that Ned would be fine with torture. At best, Ned would reluctantly look the other way while they did what they did but I doubt that he'd even do that. Quote The thing that differentiates Sansa's smile from Ramsey's enjoyment to me is that unlike Ramsey, Sansa apparently takes no pleasure in the spectacle of pain for its own sake She actually does. If she just wanted him dead she'd have just let her brother behead him the next day. But no, she put him in that kennel and watched the dogs attack him because she wanted to see him suffer. Possibly to even relive the moment whenever she's feeling down. If she could've thought of anything even more long and drawn out, she probably would've done it. Also in terms of double standards in regards to characters. Who was by far the most hated character suffering from PTSD? Let me just leave this here Edited June 24, 2016 by Oscirus 1 Link to comment
Oscirus June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 I don't know why but I love that Dany refers to Tyrion as lord Tyrion and Tyrion refers to Dany as her majesty. I found it interesting that Missandei wasn't present in the ironborn meeting. Despite barely knowing him, Tyrion has pretty much become her sole advisor. Link to comment
paigow June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Oscirus said: Also in terms of double standards in regards to characters. Who was by far the most hated character suffering from PTSD? Let me just leave this here If there are any Thenn still alive, they would have been happy to carry out the death sentence if those dogs had refused. Link to comment
Gertrude June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 My hatred of Olly was never about Olly himself, it was about the heavy-handedness that the writers were shoving his betrayal down our throats with his scowls and frowns. Plus he's not a character I've invested years of my life into. Olly was a plot point, not someone who is supposed to help carry a show. 2 Link to comment
nksarmi June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 You know what? Sansa could have done a touchdown dance outside of the kennels and I would have been ok with it. Hell, I'm surprised she can let it go so easily. I'd want his bones burned after the dogs gnawed on them if I were her. Seriously, there is no excessive celebration penalty here as far as I'm concerned. She will mourn Rickon, she probably still fears for her life from the Lannisters, and she knows they have a lot of rebuilding to do. And shit - that's without having a true grasp on the fact that the dead are coming. Poor girl needs her victory moment - leave her alone.:) Personally, all I saw in that smile was "I AM Sansa Stark and Winterfell is my home. You don't scare me anymore." But even if it was "Well now when I wake up screaming in the middle of the night, I will think of this," - I'm ok with that too. 14 Link to comment
Macbeth June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 10 hours ago, Nanrad said: INo other female characters get that sort of defense whenever they are criticized. That is my issue. Sansa is the only one deflected from criticism based off of gender and level femininity. I have to respectfully disagree. It was hard watching Sansa continually get victimized day after day year after year. Between her and Shireen - I almost gave up on this show last season. She was trapped going from one bad situation to the next. There was no other character who went through what she went through. I never criticized her because she was a victim, and it was not her fault. Dany was raped, but since the end of S1 she has been acknowledged as a Queen and treated as such by an ever expanding group of people.She's been in control. Arya has always been trying to do things her way - she is just trying to find a way to fit in the world that exists. And I really like Arya, but I have been very worried that she has become a sociopath. Somehow she has managed to step back from that, a little bit. Last week was the first time she took agency and it didn't blow back in her face. She took agency by deciding to go with LF in S4 and then LF gave her to Bolton in S5. By the way - if she really learned her lessons- Little Finger doesn't make it past next week. I think the show would suffer by loosing LF as a character, but it is necessary for Sansa. I have no information on spoilers - this is just my desire. And if LF does survive - I will criticize her. 2 Link to comment
screamin June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Oscirus said: She actuall does. If she just wanted him dead she'd have just let her brother behead him the next day. But no, she putted him in that kennel and watched the dogs attack him because she wanted to see him suffer. Possibly to even relive the moment whenever she's feeling down. If she could've thought of anything even more long and drawn out, she probably would've done it. Starving dogs aren't interested in drawing out the pain and suffering of their meat. One of them would undoubtedly torn out his throat within a minute or two, both because of their usual instinct and to keep him from making the eating more difficult. You know what's a really long and drawn out agonizing death? Flaying. That takes hours. Do you really think that the only reason that Sansa didn't flay Ramsey was because she didn't think of it? Even with the reminder of those flayed men lighting the battlefield and Ramsey's banners and shields everywhere? Or the sweet old lady she saw flayed, all close up and personal? If she'd chosen that punishment for him and avidly watched, it would have been sinking to his level, despite the appropriateness of it. But she chose a brutal but relatively quick method that yet reflected rough justice, not just for her, but for everyone who'd lost someone to Ramsey. Remember, she's the Stark in Winterfell now. It's her obligation as lady of the manor to mete out justice in the name of the people. And medieval justice usually required an element of the punishment fitting the crime (in this case, the dogs Ramsey used to kill others being the actual executioners). IMO, the families of the Ramsey's victims - the flayed people, the girls torn to pieces, and the surviving victims (yes, including Sansa) would see Ramsey receiving exactly the same punishment as that poor deserter who didn't harm anybody as a miscarriage of justice. As for "she putted him in that kennel and watched the dogs attack him because she wanted to see him suffer", watch it again. She didn't stand there and watch the whole spectacle of his suffering. She watched (unsmilingly) long enough to see that it was starting to happen, and then walked away while he was still screaming. If watching him suffer was what she wanted, she'd have stayed and watched till the end. Seeing his dogs attack him did not make her smile, or lure her to stay and watch. She only smiled as she was walking away. She smiled because she had put a fitting end to him and was rejoicing to be done with him. Just IMHO. Quote I can accept that there is a chance that Ned might do what his did if he was exposed to the things his daughters were exposed to, but there is no way in hell that Ned would be fine with torture. At best, Ned would reluctantly look the other way while they did what they did but I doubt that he'd even do that. I'd say we don't have enough information on the matter to say for sure. It would be a peculiarly twenty-first century attitude for a medieval man to take, and Ned is a conformist to tradition, mostly. Flaying is specifically forbidden in the North - not torture in general. And even Ned's kids knew the rumor that Roose continued flaying - which implies that Ned DID look the other way about it. We've never seen Ned administer justice to anyone in his lands except that deserter. Are floggings off his menu? Does every murderer, no matter how aggravated and depraved, get the same humane chop and no more? Remember, Ned thought of Stannis, his chosen candidate for king, as a just, fair man, even though he lopped off Davos' fingertips for smuggling and castrates any rapist in his army as a matter of course. I'd say the statement "Ned would be totally disgusted and rejecting of anyone who tortured!" is as doubtful as the statement "Ned would totally condemn Sansa and Arya for what they've done and become!" is in the light of Ned's continued friendship with Robert. Edited June 24, 2016 by screamin 4 Link to comment
Nanrad June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 43 minutes ago, Macbeth said: I have to respectfully disagree. It was hard watching Sansa continually get victimized day after day year after year. Between her and Shireen - I almost gave up on this show last season. She was trapped going from one bad situation to the next. There was no other character who went through what she went through. I never criticized her because she was a victim, and it was not her fault. Dany was raped, but since the end of S1 she has been acknowledged as a Queen and treated as such by an ever expanding group of people.She's been in control. Arya has always been trying to do things her way - she is just trying to find a way to fit in the world that exists. And I really like Arya, but I have been very worried that she has become a sociopath. Somehow she has managed to step back from that, a little bit. Last week was the first time she took agency and it didn't blow back in her face. She took agency by deciding to go with LF in S4 and then LF gave her to Bolton in S5. By the way - if she really learned her lessons- Little Finger doesn't make it past next week. I think the show would suffer by loosing LF as a character, but it is necessary for Sansa. I have no information on spoilers - this is just my desire. And if LF does survive - I will criticize her. But, my point was: these other female characters are allowed to be criticized without there deflection of sexism/misogyny--that's even with harsh criticism. I understand that Sansa has suffered, but does her amount of suffering excuse her from criticism? I believe the deflection started back in season 2, so this isn't some recent occurrence. 2 Link to comment
Macbeth June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 (edited) In my opinion it did excuse her from criticism. Up until now she had no agency (other than just surviving - which is an amazing feat) and could not create any agency of her own. I don't like blaming the victim. And this was the first episode I really talked about Sansa. Her character has been so painful for me to watch. But at this point I am just spinning my wheels....so I am moving on. I just need to say one more thing - there is clearly a double standard when it comes to Sansa. I don't see other characters having every utterance put under a microscope and dissected.. Paragraphs on how stupid she was on how she addressed Lady Mormont. Disgust when she didn't wail when she saw Rickon's body. She saw Rickon's body and did something proactive. She asked where Ramsay was so that she could finish him off. This is exactly what Arya would do. So it is sexist. My apologies, This is just my opinion. Now I am moving on. Edited June 24, 2016 by Macbeth I couldn't move on 3 Link to comment
GrailKing June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, Nanrad said: I'm not arguing against whether or not if Sansa gets a lot of hate, I know she does. But, for the past few years, I'm hearing people insist that it's because she a female and feminine rather than the fact that Sansa does a lot of shit that either infuriates, baffles, or a combination of both. The fact that Sansa defenders keep trying to claim that Sansa is disliked purely because she's a girly girl rather than they don't like her for reasons that has nothing to do with that. No other female characters get that sort of defense whenever they are criticized. That is my issue. Sansa is the only one deflected from criticism based off of gender and level femininity. There are always a small group of people who believe out there and inconsistent things. That group is not the majority and most have disregarded (and even disagreed with the idea), so it's not like people are rallying behind the idea. The small group that hates Sansa will see the worst in anything with that she does, but that small groups is combined with anyone who expresses even a negative opinion about Sansa even if they like her. My question is: why is it Jon's responsibility to whittle that information out of her? She came to him, right? She was upset that he didn't ask her opinion, right? Her asked her for a solution and she had nothing. Why does Jon have to whittle down what she may have to say on something she had no answer for? And, as you mentioned, she may not even have an answer. So, again, what was Sansa's point? Why didn't she mention anything in the meeting, especially when she was allowed in the meeting the first place. What Ramsey does isn't just kill or harm, there is a psychological angle to it, which is something he's not used to. I stand by my statement if Ramsey just flat out killed Rickon, Jon wouldn't have reacted the way he did. Hell, he didn't just rape Sansa, as fucked up as that is, he made sure to psychologically fuck her up in other ways. What usually goes on in Westeros vs. what Ramsey does, are two vastly different things. I think that's what really bothers some: her smiling. It's one thing for this act to feel cathartic and another to derive pleasure from it and this even goes for the most heinous crimes commitment against a person. Because, as another person mentioned, many don't get satisfaction from seeing someone who harmed them harmed. As far as hate 2 reasons, 1.Yes it's because she's a girly girl, been on boards ~5-6 years and this is valid, 2nd. she's blamed for Ned's death, again by what's in book and how the show portrayed it this isn't true and despite years after and growth people still see GOT Sansa, they disregard her maturity to plea in front of the court and get the Kings Mercy ( which he betrayed her on ). Third she didn't support Arya, also not true. What did she do: both show and book: please,please it's all I wanted, it was Cat who forced Ned to take the Hand's job for house status. Not supporting Arya, in book she absolutely told Ned the night before the King's questioning, that Arya was telling the truth, they eliminated that in the show and went to where she said I don't remember and Lady died, she played the middle and got burned. It's also why in show they had Ned explain to Arya that Sansa has to take his side no matter what, and Arya replied with;" how can you marry her to a guy like that" but the haters are hitting Sansa on lady's death which was the fault of everyone else around her, not Sansa's. Ned's death: Ned went to Cersei in the Godswood days before Sansa sneaked out to say good bye, disobey her father and opened her and Jeyne poole to capture, Ned threatened Cersei with his findings before getting his family out, in the book he just finished talking with Van Poole about getting a boat, and tells us once Poole leaves, that he can't use his family's safety as an excuse any longer in confronting Cersei. Sans's and Jeyne's capture is partially on her because she disobeyed Ned, so now people hate her because she shows no hint of remorse, except she does, and in show they show it when she said I wish we could go back, I tell myself no don't go; I don't know if that will show up in books if she finds out about Jeyne. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I think from his military and LC experience he needs to help her draw out what he needs, but he's not really a bargainer more of a solitary decision maker, he needed to draw what he needs from her, but he doesn't fully understand her internal issues, she has info which could be useful, but her experiences and fears negate her trust and her comfort zone. Not sure on the context of your "she went to Jon" part, It was pure safety and family reasons, well before getting to Castle Black and the letter, after that I think it's Jon keeping her with him as a natural protective thing, that culminated with all the stuff below. Then at Castle Black we all get our emotional hugs and off they go to talk about what happened to them. I guess we all scratch our heads on she's like oh cool Giants,WW, you died but a witch brought you back and straight to where should we go, and then to Winterfell; but Jon is well not where he needs to be yet, and Sansa's all gung ho about home and family. Some time later she goes to Moletown and tells LF to kiss off and sends Brienne and Pod to RR but keeps the LF meeting from Jon, where Brienne calls her on, the look on Sansa's face looked like embarrassment, or shame, I think , it's for the same reason she gave Jon. Rickon is a danger to Ramsey and he's a danger to LF and I think she held this belief right till the end when Ramsey threw down the Wolf's head, at that point; LF is the better of the two evils. Rickon is no longer in LF way or Ramsey ( she left the parley without seeing Rickon was on the field), thinking he may have died in Winterfell now she has to negate LF. For that she'll have no choice but to tell Jon and then will see what we saw in the promo, along with her VO, about what was taken from her. As I said they are both damaged showing it in different ways, they're both scared. Jon's seen and has been dead, Sansa has been beaten, raped, tormented, and mind fucked by a sinister creeper; used by bad people and not so bad people who betrayed her for nothing more then their own gains. So he's afraid to die, and she has bad trust issues, even to family who profess his care to her. I don't think telling him about LF would have saved Rickon, or necessarily save many lives by having the Vale already on the field, Ramsey could hunker down, use his twenty good men etc., doesn't look like the Vale came with any siege weapons, just Cavalry. Wow I didn't mean to make this a book! Now we'll see what Sunday gives us. Edited June 24, 2016 by GrailKing extra stuff. 2 Link to comment
Oscirus June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 Quote Starving dogs aren't interested in drawing out the pain and suffering of their meat. One of them would undoubtedly torn out his throat within a minute or two, both because of their usual instinct and to keep him from making the eating more difficult. Unless you're going to tell me that Sansa's an expert on dogs, there's no way she'd know something like that. Let's be real, Sansa put him in there to suffer there's no other reason for it. Quote You know what's a really long and drawn out agonizing death? Flaying. That takes hours. Do you really think that the only reason that Sansa didn't flay Ramsey was because she didn't think of it? Even with the reminder of those flayed men lighting the battlefield and Ramsey's banners and shields everywhere? Or the sweet old lady she saw flayed, all close up and personal? Nope, once she saw dogs, her mind immediately went that way. Besides, who's going to be doing the flaying? It's not like she knows any professionals, they'd likely screw it up and kill him off quickly. Quote As for "she putted him in that kennel and watched the dogs attack him because she wanted to see him suffer", watch it again. She didn't stand there and watch the whole spectacle of his suffering. She watched (unsmilingly) long enough to see that it was starting to happen, and then walked away while he was still screaming. If watching him suffer was what she wanted, she'd have stayed and watched till the end She saw the fear, saw the initial bite and heard his screams. I'm sure that's more then enough. Hell this way she doesn't even have to deal with looking at the gory aftermath of such a spectacle. Quote I'd say we don't have enough information on the matter to say for sure. It would be a peculiarly twenty-first century attitude for a medieval man to take, and Ned is a conformist to tradition, mostly. I think we have plenty, unless you're saying that Ned's a hypocrite who wouldn't hold his children to the same standard he holds everybody else. Hell, he was ready to behead Jorah for merely enslaving poachers. Roose got away with flaying and everything else he did because he was successful at hiding that stuff from Ned. Ned's never been the sharpest tool in the shed. Link to comment
Gertrude June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 1 hour ago, GrailKing said: As far as hate 2 reasons, 1.Yes it's because she's a girly girl, been on boards ~5-6 years and this is valid, 2nd. she's blamed for Ned's death, again by what's in book and how the show portrayed it this isn't true and despite years after and growth people still see GOT Sansa, they disregard her maturity to plea in front of the court and get the Kings Mercy ( which he betrayed her on ). Third she didn't support Arya, also not true. I don't disagree with any of this. Pretty much when I see people bringing up GoT Sansa's behavior when trying to discuss her entire story, I bang my head against the wall. I think anyone who likes the Sansa character carries this with them and gets defensive on reflex because we see the vitriol poured on her for the wrong reasons (in our view). I don't think that absolves her from all criticism, however. And obviously the show and book versions of her have diverged wildly. I think the main problem is that we are used to seeing inside her head, and the show is doing (I think) a poor job at showing us why she acts as she does. Sure, the show is probably going to try to sell us that she has trust issues and that's why she didn't tell about the Vale forces. I don't find that satisfactory. Her trust issues outweigh the danger and fear of Ramsey? That hug she gave Jon at the Wall looked so unguarded and her demeanor afterwards was very open and relaxed with him. She was smiling and joking. The show hasn't shown us any indication of a trust issue regarding Jon. I'm not saying there's not, or that there shouldn't be after what she's been through, I'm just saying the show hasn't given us clues that this is happening, so the explanation afterwards has to be seen as what it is - a ploy by the writers to make the battle more exciting. I think it's just sloppy writing. So while I may shorthand that to 'Sansa made a stupid decision', what's behind it is 'the writers made a poor decision to have her do that.' 3 Link to comment
GrailKing June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 2 hours ago, Oscirus said: Unless you're going to tell me that Sansa's an expert on dogs, there's no way she'd know something like that. Let's be real, Sansa put him in there to suffer there's no other reason for it. Nope, once she saw dogs, her mind immediately went that way. Besides, who's going to be doing the flaying? It's not like she knows any professionals, they'd likely screw it up and kill him off quickly. She saw the fear, saw the initial bite and heard his screams. I'm sure that's more then enough. Hell this way she doesn't even have to deal with looking at the gory aftermath of such a spectacle. I think we have plenty, unless you're saying that Ned's a hypocrite who wouldn't hold his children to the same standard he holds everybody else. Hell, he was ready to behead Jorah for merely enslaving poachers. Roose got away with flaying and everything else he did because he was successful at hiding that stuff from Ned. Ned's never been the sharpest tool in the shed. Lets be real, how do you know what she's thinking? I think the punishment actually fit his crimes, and was quicker then what he deserved, I also think the reason why she looked back was a curiosity, remembrance on what Myranda said to her about dogs. I think she put him there to get it over with and with out getting her hands dirty ( in book LF tells her keep your hands clean), I think it was emotionless until she turned away and knew it was finally over. Ned might have been upset, but NED'S DEAD, and mostly because of his particular honor ( that isn't as Stark as it is Arynn) Sansa learned over the years that's not helping her. 1 hour ago, Gertrude said: I don't disagree with any of this. Pretty much when I see people bringing up GoT Sansa's behavior when trying to discuss her entire story, I bang my head against the wall. I think anyone who likes the Sansa character carries this with them and gets defensive on reflex because we see the vitriol poured on her for the wrong reasons (in our view). I don't think that absolves her from all criticism, however. And obviously the show and book versions of her have diverged wildly. I think the main problem is that we are used to seeing inside her head, and the show is doing (I think) a poor job at showing us why she acts as she does. Sure, the show is probably going to try to sell us that she has trust issues and that's why she didn't tell about the Vale forces. I don't find that satisfactory. Her trust issues outweigh the danger and fear of Ramsey? That hug she gave Jon at the Wall looked so unguarded and her demeanor afterwards was very open and relaxed with him. She was smiling and joking. The show hasn't shown us any indication of a trust issue regarding Jon. I'm not saying there's not, or that there shouldn't be after what she's been through, I'm just saying the show hasn't given us clues that this is happening, so the explanation afterwards has to be seen as what it is - a ploy by the writers to make the battle more exciting. I think it's just sloppy writing. So while I may shorthand that to 'Sansa made a stupid decision', what's behind it is 'the writers made a poor decision to have her do that.' I agree on your top section, I like Sansa a lot, always did, but I don't absolve her from disobeying her father, it hurt her and Jeyne badly in the books, the show bypassed that, I feel because GRRM did input his own questioning on the hate. Now Sansa's distrust issue: It's not Jon per say but everyone around her and him, and her experiences. I think she sees how cautious he is and wanting to no longer do what in her mind's eye needs to be done, even with his explanation why( killing Olly etc. I think failure on both their part in the tent was the next to final straw and the Direwolf head became the final straw. We don't know how it play out if the Vale was there at the beginning, I'm pretty sure Rickon would have been dead either way. What I / we do know is Jon is ALIVE because she did send the letter and LF responded, slowly maybe but he got there non the less. Now I hope she screws him over, and remove what plans he hoped to have. 2 Link to comment
patchwork June 24, 2016 Share June 24, 2016 (edited) I think Ned would be sad and upset that his girls were in situations where things like this could happen. He's not going to judge them, he'd see it as failure on his part to protect them. If Ned was face to face with the man who raped and hurt his eldest daughter that man would wish for dogs to tear him apart. Edited June 24, 2016 by patchwork 11 Link to comment
ToniG June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Oscirus said: Unless you're going to tell me that Sansa's an expert on dogs, there's no way she'd know something like that. Let's be real, Sansa put him in there to suffer there's no other reason for it. Nope, once she saw dogs, her mind immediately went that way. Besides, who's going to be doing the flaying? It's not like she knows any professionals, they'd likely screw it up and kill him off quickly. Just a correction-Sansa did not put Ramsey in that cell. She asked Jon where he was, and we don't know specifically whether it was Jon or one of his men that put Ramsey there. We also did not see who released the dogs into the cell. She was outside talking to him through the bars, and you see the dogs enter from the rear of the cell. it doesn't take a dog expert to know that animals don't take their time eating their food, and certainly don't do so to make their food suffer. Edited June 25, 2016 by ToniG 7 Link to comment
screamin June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, Oscirus said: Unless you're going to tell me that Sansa's an expert on dogs, there's no way she'd know something like that. Dude, I'm not an expert on dogs, and I knew that, and you took my word for it, because what I wrote was simple common sense. Why do you assume that Sansa is more ignorant on dogs than we modern urbanites are? She grew up in a home where it's a normal thing to hunt (and if you're going to say that a girly-girl like Sansa wouldn't know shit about that, I'll counter with the fact that in England riding to the hunt with the hounds was the occupation of the highest class ladies riding sidesaddle with exquisitely tailored habits). Not to mention she raised and trained her own direwolf puppy to be as well-behaved as a housebroken leash-trained bichon frise. IMO, that requires a certain expertise with canids. 7 hours ago, Oscirus said: Nope, once she saw dogs, her mind immediately went that way. Besides, who's going to be doing the flaying? It's not like she knows any professionals, they'd likely screw it up and kill him off quickly. Ooh, tell me where you downloaded that chilling scene of Sansa spotting the dogs, with the voice-over telling us exactly what she's thinking, after she tried and failed to find someone to flay Ramsey! You must have an HBO source for cut scenes, because - that didn't happen on the show I saw. You assume an ignorance of dogs there's no proof Sansa possesses, as well as the assumption that she couldn't possibly find anyone to flay Ramsey - even though with all the victims Ramsey's claimed over the last year, Sansa could probably stand on her doorstep and find a dozen relatives who would enthusiastically volunteer. You also assume she's such an idiot that she'd think that Ramsey could die faster by flaying him one fingerjoint at a time than by being attacked by dogs - even though you and I are not experts in flaying, and we can see that that's obviously not true. If your argument that Sansa is a Ramsey-like sadist requires you to make stuff up and add a bunch of farfetched assumptions without supporting evidence to back it up, then maybe your argument's not as strong as you think. Quote I think we have plenty, unless you're saying that Ned's a hypocrite who wouldn't hold his children to the same standard he holds everybody else. Hell, he was ready to behead Jorah for merely enslaving poachers. Quoting yet another instance when Ned was ready to kill someone who hadn't killed anybody (the other two are the Night Watch deserter and innocent child Theon) isn't, IMO, the most convincing way to prove that Ned's totally above torture. Look, Ned's a good guy as Westerosi people go, but he's a human being with flaws like others. He unthinkingly upholds traditions - in a land where traditions can be pretty grisly. It's traditional to take a highborn child hostage with the intention to kill him if his parent rebels - so Ned does it. It's traditional to behead deserters from the NW - so Ned does that, even though by his own reckoning the poor man was 'half-mad.' IMO, if traditional law said X crime deserves flogging and Y crime deserves a hand cut off, Ned would conscientiously make sure the law was carried out, not protest its barbarousness. Even Jon Arryn, a man Ned idolized, had Sky Cells and a torturer at the Eyrie...that's traditional too. As I pointed out earlier, Ned was besties with Robert, a man who looked at a murdered baby and toddler on his throne room floor and declared he saw no crime in it at all, before rewarding the murderer of those children...a man who never repented of those actions. Even though Ned disapproved, he remained Robert's friend, and betrothed his daughter to Robert's putative son, who indulged in torture of the innocent butcher's boy. Ned did not break the betrothal after finding out about that taste for torture, or seeing that Cersei then had the butcher's boy trampled to death, and that Robert didn't lift a finger to stop any of it. All Ned thought, uneasily, was "maybe the boy will grow out of it." If after condoning all that by his silence, Ned then decided to point an accusatory finger at Sansa and Arya's actions against actual guilty parties and condemn them mercilessly - IMO, that would be REAL hypocrisy on Ned's part. On the whole, I don't think the actual evidence supports the view of Ned as the 21st Century Anachronistic "Sensitive Guy" you seem to picture him as. Edited June 25, 2016 by screamin ...and another thing... 9 Link to comment
Alayne Stone June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 All I will say about that smile at the end is something I actually read from someone else, which is essentially that Cersei Lannister has officially won in the sense that Sansa has turned into the thing Cersei always said she would. The Sansa of the books did not take any joy in the suffering of even her worst enemies. She might have imagined a painful death for Joffrey at one point but when the actual deed occurred it ended up haunting her after the fact. The Sansa of the books, at least up to this point, has not succumbed to the ills those around her. She has remained a better person for it. That being said, book Sansa and show Sansa are not the same person. I've never felt that so emphatically as I have this season and consequently I have had less and less to say about the show as time has gone on. I don't find the show's version of the characters the least bit compelling. That's just me and I wholly acknowledge that this is one woman's opinion, but there you go. Anyone who has grown bored with the show's ceaseless exploration of the theme of vengeance is going to find this episode to be sadly underwhelming despite some very impressive visuals. But then the show's strong point has always been anything relating to its visual affects. Still, just because something is shinny and pretty doesn't mean there's anything of actual substance underneath. 5 Link to comment
deedee June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 Considering what the remaining Stark children have collectively been through, I give them all a pass for however they react to their enemies. My biggest problem has been continuing to watch a show where they never, ever catch a break. Their suffering has been difficult to watch for me. The show is finally starting to turn things around a little for them (except poor Rickon), I just hope it continues. I want Arya, Jon, Sansa and Bran to get some happiness finally. I have NOT forgiven Ned however for putting his honor over the safety of his children. He should have made sure his daughters were far away before confronting Cersei. Idiot. 5 Link to comment
Advance35 June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 I guess one of the reasons I'm in favor of the turn Sansa has taken is because I feel this is where her character is ultimately going. I think she is going to be an iron fist in a velvet glove. Clearly other people see the character differently and felt she would be going in a different direction (from the one I imagined) as well. I don't think Martin is going to finish the books so I doubt we'll have a chance to compare the characters evolution in both mediums, however, I do think book!Sansa has become a lot less squeamish and is willing to do for herself even at the expense of others. While in the Vale, she knows of frame jobs, murder plots, bribing, even participated in some of them herself. LF tells her one of the Lord's Declarant's own son's is planning his murder and Sansa just shrugs it off as something sordid. She knows Marillion didn't murder Lyssa Arryn but her own safety is something she's willing to buy with his life (as she should). And in the book it's worth noting she hasn't gotten anywhere near her show counterpart in terms of being in a position of advantage in regards to her enemies. If she ever is in a position to give what she's received, I think she'll take it. However with only two books left (though again, I doubt we'll ever see them) I don't think there are going to be as many character beats as people expect, and that goes for all the characters, not just Sansa. 6 Link to comment
GrailKing June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 12 minutes ago, Advance35 said: I guess one of the reasons I'm in favor of the turn Sansa has taken is because I feel this is where her character is ultimately going. I think she is going to be an iron fist in a velvet glove. Clearly other people see the character differently and felt she would be going in a different direction (from the one I imagined) as well. I don't think Martin is going to finish the books so I doubt we'll have a chance to compare the characters evolution in both mediums, however, I do think book!Sansa has become a lot less squeamish and is willing to do for herself even at the expense of others. While in the Vale, she knows of frame jobs, murder plots, bribing, even participated in some of them herself. LF tells her one of the Lord's Declarant's own son's is planning his murder and Sansa just shrugs it off as something sordid. She knows Marillion didn't murder Lyssa Arryn but her own safety is something she's willing to buy with his life (as she should). And in the book it's worth noting she hasn't gotten anywhere near her show counterpart in terms of being in a position of advantage in regards to her enemies. If she ever is in a position to give what she's received, I think she'll take it. However with only two books left (though again, I doubt we'll ever see them) I don't think there are going to be as many character beats as people expect, and that goes for all the characters, not just Sansa. She'll be what Bran has said in book, harsh to the enemy and fair and gracious to the rest like a Stark of old. Queen of Blue Rose Thorns. 4 Link to comment
screamin June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Alayne Stone said: The Sansa of the books did not take any joy in the suffering of even her worst enemies. She might have imagined a painful death for Joffrey at one point but when the actual deed occurred it ended up haunting her after the fact. The Sansa of the books, at least up to this point, has not succumbed to the ills those around her. She has remained a better person for it. That being said, book Sansa and show Sansa are not the same person. I've never felt that so emphatically as I have this season and consequently I have had less and less to say about the show as time has gone on. My memory may fail me, but I'm almost certain that while Book Sansa was shocked and horrified at the actual sight of Joffrey dying, as she ran away to the Godswood to escape, she found herself laughing, in shock, but also in relief that Joffrey was dead; she thought she wanted to dance about it. This is oddly a parallel to Sansa smiling about Ramsey - not while she watched him being attacked, but afterwards, as she was walking away, finally free of him. Book Sansa and Show Sansa aren't so different as they might seem. I myself am perhaps prejudiced not to feel harshly about Sansa. I'm named after two biblical women who sang and danced about the death of their enemies, and are praised as religious heroes. Maybe that's why I don't grudge Sansa her moment of rejoicing...Westeros is comparable in barbarity to biblical times, and if women who rejoiced in the death of their enemies could be heroes in those times, so can Sansa. Edited June 25, 2016 by screamin 8 Link to comment
GrailKing June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 this is getting merged most likely. As far as the cell, maybe Jon or one of his guys opened them my real guest is Ramsey did it, as he said his dogs hadn't eaten in a week as he taunted Jon and crew. On the morning of the battle he was so cock sure he win he probably open them and told the dogs they feast soon. And they did, just not on Jon,Sansa,Lady Mormont, etc. I really think this fits best with Ramsey's profile and history, just ask Myranda. 1 Link to comment
Funzlerks June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 (edited) I feel like this was a pretty triumphant episode for Sansa. She kind of won the Battle of the Bastards. She killed her rapist who killed her brother and took her family's castle. And she gets to smile because she'll never see him again and she gets to stay in her own home safely. Then I read the thread and found out she was like Gregor who kills babies because she executed someone who was about to be executed within hours. And he was, unquestionably, the worst person in Westeros. That is saying a lot. And she exists in the same show as her little sister who trains to be an assassin who receives a name and kills the person just because. And the same show as Sandor, who begged to ax murder prisoners who already had nooses on their neck. The same show as the freaking Lannisters, Greyjoys, Tyrells, and Martells who all would smile while killing enemies. Jaime smirked while pushing a little kid out of a window. Tyrion almost did a jig after killing Tywin. If Emilia Clarke could manage expressions, maybe Danerys would look happy when she starts her chaos. Sansa earned her smile. Edited June 25, 2016 by Funzlerks 10 Link to comment
zulualpha June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 2 hours ago, Alayne Stone said: All I will say about that smile at the end is something I actually read from someone else, which is essentially that Cersei Lannister has officially won in the sense that Sansa has turned into the thing Cersei always said she would. The Sansa of the books did not take any joy in the suffering of even her worst enemies. She might have imagined a painful death for Joffrey at one point but when the actual deed occurred it ended up haunting her after the fact. The Sansa of the books, at least up to this point, has not succumbed to the ills those around her. She has remained a better person for it. That being said, book Sansa and show Sansa are not the same person. I've never felt that so emphatically as I have this season and consequently I have had less and less to say about the show as time has gone on. I don't find the show's version of the characters the least bit compelling. That's just me and I wholly acknowledge that this is one woman's opinion, but there you go. Anyone who has grown bored with the show's ceaseless exploration of the theme of vengeance is going to find this episode to be sadly underwhelming despite some very impressive visuals. But then the show's strong point has always been anything relating to its visual affects. Still, just because something is shinny and pretty doesn't mean there's anything of actual substance underneath. Yeah. Sansa clearly knew what was going to happen to Ramsay and she was happy about it. This is disappointing to me but I'll get over it. I think the show runners had to do something really horrible to Ramsay at Sansa's hands because of all the shit they got for the wedding night scene. I read today that Sen Claire Mckaskill (sp?) tweeted that she stopped watching the show after that scene. The pressure. The show runners decided to sacrifice Sansa's character to get the big kill they wanted. They're a couple of pussies. Nothing ruins a show faster than a head writer that's a pussy and caves to fan reaction as opposed to staying true to the characters. It's too bad because the farther away the writers take the characters from what GRRM created and continues to create the worse the show gets imo, this season being a prime example since it leaps ahead of what the books have had so far. I notice that GRRM isn't writing any of the episodes this season; I think he said he was too busy or something. That sounds like an excuse, I think he's done with the show. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.