S06.E09: Battle Of The Bastards

[Constantinople]

3 hours ago, Advance35 said:

For all the vitriol she receives I do think Sansa has emerged as one of the show's most popular characters.  She's certainly the Stark I see discussed most on forums and in news stories.

Of course Sansa's popular.

The show started with 9 living Starks (Ned, Cat, Benjen, Robb, Jon, Sansa, Arya, Bran & Rickon) and 3 dead ones (Rickard, Brandon & Lyanna)

Of those 9, Sansa is

• 1 of 4.5 Starks who are still alive, if you count Benjen SlightlyChillyHands as a half.
• 1 of 3 Starks who hasn't been brutally kiled and
• Off those 3, she's the only one who hasn't been the victim of an attempted murder

By Starkian standards, Sansa is wildly successful.

[benteen]

I'll admit, both Arya and Sansa have killed people who wrong them in savage ways.  Trant killed Arya's teacher while Ramsay (a murderer himself) raped and abused Sansa.  Both Arya and Sansa enjoyed their respective kills.  I can't say I blame Sansa at all for enjoying in Ramsay's well-earned brutal death.  It was justified.  Arya reveled and actively participated in Trant's death, which was disturbing although I have no sympathy for Trant.  Both Arya and Sansa are in a bad mental state though I still think Sansa can prevent herself from going down Arya's dark path.  Though to Arya's credit, she did avoid going down the path or randomly murdering people by leaving the Faceless Men.

[screamin]

Oscirus: Do you think Arya brought herself down to the level of a child rapist like Trant because she killed him horribly? If not, you are holding Sansa to a higher standard than Arya, imo.

[jjjmoss]

Margaery uses her femininity to great advantage. But it helps that her initial actions in the books weren't as an 11 year old like Sansa, and that her role model was Olenna who understands how to mask a great scheming mind under a genteel veneer. 

[stillshimpy]

If her detractors are holding her to a different standard then so are her supporters.

That's demonstrably not true.  Many of the people standing up for Sansa are the same people who defended Bran and Arya, I know because I've been among them all along as has the person I had a long conversation with about this, paramitch and then also Mya Stone (who routinely end up caught in the Storm of Words that is my thought process).  

That list doesn't begin end with any of us, it's just the names I can easily recall, but we were far from alone. 

[stillshimpy]

10 points for whoever finishes this movie quote.... btw these are Whose Line Is It Anyway points

Female Fan: How do you write women so well?

Famous Author: I start with a man ....

 

And then pretend that misogyny is funny. 

Edited June 22, 2016 by stillshimpy

[Tikichick]

1 minute ago, screamin said:

Oscirus: Do you think Arya brought herself down to the level of a child rapist like Trant because she killed him horribly? If not, you are holding Sansa to a higher standard than Arya, imo.

I don't have a problem with Arya or Sansa being coldly bloodthirsty at time.  Both have been through horrors.  Arya saw a wolf and her friend Micah brutally killed for nothing.  Then she saw her father executed and came upon the aftermath of her brother Robb's execution in an incredibly brutal way.  Those are only some of the extreme "highlights".  I'm sure that's had an affect on "a girl".  Sansa's suffered her own horrors, and was possibly a bit more unprepared for them considering her temperament at the start of the story.

[AshleyN]

2 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

 

Arya trained as an assassin, killed Meryn Trant is a gorefest that was beyond unpleasant to watch and isn't held to that same rigid definition of goodness, morality or worth.

There are plenty of fans who have been calling Arya a psycho for years though. The whole thrust of her storyline through the first five books, and first five seasons of the show, has been how all the trauma she`s experienced has been slowly turning her into a vicious and remorseless killer. Her inability to follow through on killing Lady Crane is the first time in ages that there`s been a sign of hope that her humanity might eventually win out over her thirst for violence.

I actually think that Sansa`s actions with Ramsay are kind of eerily reminiscent of Arya`s killing of The Tickler (Polliver in the show IIRC). A villain getting their comeuppance in a way that initially feels cathartic, but upon reflection also serves as a disturbing, and tragic, reminder of how irrevocably damaged both these girls have been by their respective traumas.

44 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

In this episode when she gets angry that Jon didn't ask her for input ... well, she was right there the whole time and in the days/weeks/months leading up to this point. Maybe a strong woman would speak up?

My biggest problem with the "no one bothered to ask for my input" scene was that we've already seen a war council scene this season in which Sansa had no problem speaking her mind. So why was she suddenly huddling in the corner afraid to open her mouth now? Also, after she confronted him Jon was willing to listen to her, and specifically asked her if she had any other ideas, and she offered him nothing other than a vague warning about Ramsay liking to play games. Which is true enough, but not particularly useful the way that say, information about a whole other army potentially being in play would have been.

47 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

If her detractors are holding her to a different standard then so are her supporters.

And this is why Sansa, like Stannis and Catelyn, is a character I'm generally hesitant to get into debates about. In all three cases, both their lovers and haters are so firmly dug into their trenches that it's almost impossible to have a nuanced discussion about their actions. In Sansa's case, almost every debate eventually comes down to "Sansa betrays her family!" vs. "People just don't like girly girls!"

Edited June 22, 2016 by AshleyN

[Gertrude]

@ screamin

I also think Sansa was brought to Ramsey's level, so I will answer this too. Arya wasn't brought down to that level - she's been on a steady path that way for a long time. It's been a part of her for so long that my hope for her is that she can eventually find a sort of peace in life. I don't expect that she will be able to reintegrate into her old life at all. She will have to forge her own path and I hope that she can find her family to help her do so.

Sansa has not had this same path. This was her first kill. As much as it was deserved, it's always disturbing to take a life, and more so to enjoy it. I can see this giving Sansa some sense of closure and can see her moving on from this. Not putting it entirely behind her, but she didn't break and has a better chance of regaining her old life and find happiness eventually. I think Arya is pretty fundamentally broken.

I remember seeing a comment about Jon sinking to Ramsey's level as well. Jon smashing Ramsey's face was about the most normal thing in the world. He knows what Sansa says of him, he had just witnessed this man kill his little brother in a cruel game, and he is actively trying to kill him. In the heat of the battle/moment this is a response that any person might have. Yeah, it was brutal and hard to watch. Not anymore brutal that the battle he just fought.

[VCRTracking]

This is why I hope Arya is reunited with them because they've all become hardened but in different ways.

[Gertrude]

I just had a thought. When Rickon was brought in, Jon said to have him buried in the crypt. I assume that next episode we will see the resolution of the Tower of Joy. In the books, Jon has dreams of the crypts at Winterfell and there is much fan speculation about what is really down there. Is this a set up to get Jon down in the crypts and we might get an actual reveal about ... something?

[Oscirus]

55 minutes ago, screamin said:

Oscirus: Do you think Arya brought herself down to the level of a child rapist like Trant because she killed him horribly? If not, you are holding Sansa to a higher standard than Arya, imo.

Trant got off on torture as well, so yea it did.
 

Quote

That's demonstrably not true.  

Well, the same can be said for her detractors in terms of their motives for questioning Sansa's actions. This is why one shouldn't paint anybody's motives for liking or disliking a character with such a broad brush.

 

As for the quote I believe it's from "As Good as it Gets," and I think the end is "I remove all intelligence."

Edited June 22, 2016 by Oscirus

[GrailKing]

13 hours ago, jjjmoss said:

Hmm, Book Sansa is my favorite book character and Show Sansa is my favorite show character. 

Interesting to see those who like one but not the other.

Yeah, I like both versions of Sansa.

13 hours ago, FemmyV said:

I have no problem with Ramsey's death onscreen, and no problem with Sansa ordering it. But if they were going to go the CGI route, I'd rather they'd have spent the money showing us what Nymeria's up to.

Well let's wait and see . :>)

[Umbelina]

When I first read the books, many things were infuriating and shocking.  That first book was good.  I was probably most angry at Sansa and at Jamie, although I remember quite disliking Catelyn as well.  Ned quickly revealed himself to be a complete idiot, and given how many lives depended on him, not just his family, but so many lives because he had subjects, I waffled between hating his guts and complete disbelief that such a complex story was dependent on "the hero" caring more about his personal honor than his duty.  Honestly, I found his actions completely unbelievable and the writing seriously sloppy. 

As the story progressed both Sansa and Jamie were redeemed for me, Ned and Catelyn never were, and I completely detested the Lady Stoneheart bullshit and was thrilled when the show eliminated that character.  When Robb became an even bigger idiot, and ignored his duty much like daddy?  I honestly wondered why so many were raving about these books, when so much that happens depends on selfish, stupid, and incompetent "leaders."  It's not that I don't believe leaders are often incompetent, I do, we see it every day.  It's more that all of the subsequent action DEPENDS on idiocy.  It's why I like Littlefinger really, at least he is an intelligent character with goals and an agenda that makes sense to me.  If anything, I root for "smart."

What bothers me about Sansa not telling Jon has nothing to do with disliking the character, she was long ago more than redeemed for me, and that's without the whole show-only "marriage" to Ramsay.  She'd been through enough without that addition, and she was trying, as a very young girl, to endure, to survive, to learn, all of which I applauded.  My problem is the writing, and being force fed Sansa as savior.  Nothing the show has given explains why she would repeatedly lie to Jon, who, after all, was in command of many men, all of whom were depending on him.  WHY would Sansa hold those lives so cheaply?  WHY wouldn't she give all of them, not just Jon, the best chance of survival by at the very least giving them as much information as possible? 

We've seen a lot of interesting fan-wanking in the last 13 pages, and maybe some of it is true, and MAYBE the writers will give us a satisfactory explanation next week.  Many of you are more hopeful about that than I am.  The simplest explanation is often correct though.  They wanted that last minute rescue, it's their thing, it makes for a good episode.  Screw the character.

Anyway, as of now, Sansa has moved so far beyond the books, and honestly I doubt she was ever given to Ramsay in the first place, let alone that she makes a battlefield appearance to save Jon, so it's kind of a dual WTF for me.  Now, does the character evolve into the same person, albeit in a completely different way in the books?  Probably!  So I'm OK with that part, and I do understand that the Vale story is much less TV-action oriented than having her raped and tortured by Ramsay and then riding into battle to save the suddenly idiotic Jon.

I think my main problem with the characterization of many is that, with this writing, some must be made stupid to prop up others.  It's Sansa's turn to be propped up.  Apparently the writers can only accomplish this by subverting others, in this case, Jon.  Much like Jamie suffers so Cersei can have scenes to play.  It's cheap, and it's not nuanced. 

As far as Sansa taking revenge?  To me, that made complete sense, and certainly didn't lower her to Ramsay's level.  She killed, in a very karmic way, ONE evil degenerate who routinely tortured and killed many others the same way.  That's retribution, and if anyone deserved to pronounce that sentence?  It was Sansa.  I did love that Jon gave her that.

[Shanna Marie]

3 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

That our world always sends the message to women that we should question our own worth:  Looks, weight, age, how you look in a swimsuit.  Forget that a the vast, vast majority of that is down to something over which we have zero control: our genes.  We tend to measure the worth of a woman first by how she looks and there's the unspoken agreement that even women who have to know they are stop-traffic-beautiful must never admit to it in word or deed.

It's that old Mean Girls thing (painfully true to life) in which a girl can't even just accept a compliment on her looks without disagreeing and pointing out her flaws without being labeled "conceited," which is the most heinous thing a girl can be. Sansa mostly seems to serve as the model of "other girls" so that Arya can be "not like other girls." Then when she does something that "other girls" wouldn't do, she also gets criticized.

I figure that Ramsay is to blame for his own death. All Sansa did was send his dogs in to him. If he hadn't mistreated his dogs by starving them, he'd have been okay. Even if he'd trained them to be vicious to others, if he'd treated them well and fed them, they'd have been loyal to him. But he didn't treat them well, and that was what put him in danger. It wasn't just Sansa getting payback. The dogs were getting their just desserts, as well.

[GrailKing]

9 hours ago, Oscirus said:

Whether Ramsey deserved it or not, it's still torture.

If she was that worried about Ramsey and his elusiveness, she would've told Jon to kill him while he was beating the shit out of Ramsay.

Torture is what Ramsey did to Theon, to Sansa, and the old woman who Sansa first met at Winterfell long drawn out punishments.His death was quick and painful, he didn't deserve a quick death but she gave him one; he didn't deserve the sword or noose.

Beating one to death isn't torture?

Edited June 22, 2016 by GrailKing
Added the old women as Screamin reminded us.

[GrailKing]

7 hours ago, MarySNJ said:

This is where I am too. I love Sansa and understand that PTSD can cause people to behave in ways that may not always be most logical. I'm not mad at her and I don't know what D and D have in mind for her.  

It sounds like Sophie Turner's take on it is that she kept the secret about the Vale army just because Jon wouldn't listen to her.  I hope that's not all it is, because Jon did give her opportunities to express her opinion and offer suggestions. When they got shut down by the Glovers she could have mentioned it, even if she wasn't sure they'd come. When she reiterated that they needed more men and he asked what she would recommend on the eve of battle, she demurred claiming not to understand battle tactics but again, but she didn't mention the Vale army. There were at least three opportunities in the show for Sansa to tell Jon that she had written to Baelish and requested the Vale forces. She didn't. So, either she wasn't sure about whether she could trust Jon, or she knew Baelish's help is a double-edged sword or both.

Not so much about Jon, but his plan and his ability not to be suckered by Ramsey along with what's said about LF.

She took the path she felt or hopes  would save them, and I think she might not care what people think of her as long as Jon and a majority of the faction survived.

We already know in Bravos what she's thought of, no where accurate but victors tell the history, and the Starks aren't victors yet, they won a battle not a war.

[nachomama]

Like most battle scenes I can never tell whose side anyone is on, I could only tell when Jon stabbed dudes with helmets, (kinda like cop shows when the stars go in hunting for a perp without headgear but all the swat guys are suited up proper) which then pissed me off because they knew they were going into a battle greatly outnumbered, why in the very least did they not have shields? For that all they need was wood. I know they are a ragtag band and not enough time to prepare but hell I woulda cobbled something together the night before, even if I just shoved tree bark under my shirt.

[vibeology]

43 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

I just had a thought. When Rickon was brought in, Jon said to have him buried in the crypt. I assume that next episode we will see the resolution of the Tower of Joy. In the books, Jon has dreams of the crypts at Winterfell and there is much fan speculation about what is really down there. Is this a set up to get Jon down in the crypts and we might get an actual reveal about ... something?

I love this idea so much! I think that's the perfect way to get that info to Jon. I'm going to be a little sad if it doesn't go this way.

I was so caught up in the battle, Lyanna Mormont's epic look of disdain and the flirting between Yara/Dany that I forgot to mention one other thing I adored this episode; I loved seeing Melisandre totally broken still, even after what she accomplished. You'd think bringing someone back from the dead would restore your faith in your god, but instead she's still totally lost and completely unsure of herself. I really love that because I find her such a messed up and interesting character. Whatever happens next week between her and Davos I do hope it's more than her just getting executed. I don't think you can come back from burning a child alive, but I'd really love for whatever the personal consequences are for her to be more than a swift death. I want to see her work and do good and figure out where she's gone wrong (being so blindly devoted to her faith that she got too used to burning people alive to the point where she wasn't even bothered by Shireen's screams) and deal with consequences for that. Use up her lifeforce to help the cause or die to save someone else or something big. Not go out a hero, but go out as someone who understands that they have fucked up and must atone for their horrible choices.

[Hecate7]

1 hour ago, Constantinople said:

Of course Sansa's popular.

The show started with 9 living Starks (Ned, Cat, Benjen, Robb, Jon, Sansa, Arya, Bran & Rickon) and 3 dead ones (Rickard, Brandon & Lyanna)

Of those 9, Sansa is

• 1 of 4.5 Starks who are still alive, if you count Benjen SlightlyChillyHands as a half.
• 1 of 3 Starks who hasn't been brutally kiled and
• Off those 3, she's the only one who hasn't been the victim of an attempted murder

By Starkian standards, Sansa is wildly successful.

Lyssa Arryn attempted to murder her, so that can be scratched off the list. The other two still apply.

[Silje]

I started watching Game of Thrones after the first season was done but I had seen so much hatred against the character Sansa that I went in with an open mind that she couldn't be that bad. And she wasn't. I really liked her and couldn't believe that people still hated her after her scene in the last episode of season 1. After that, I read her chapters in the books and loved her. When the writing were iffy in the earlier seasons I shrugged it off because Sophie Turner was great. Sophie Turner is still great but I can't shrug off how they've written Sansa and her storyline since season 5.

This is from Sophie's interview (it's been posted before in this thread):

Quote

Sansa also turned around the battle’s outcome by reaching out to Littlefinger, who arrives just in time to rescue Jon and the remaining wildlings with the knights of the Vale.

“Jon doesn’t listen to her,” Turner notes. “She can actually formulate a plan behind his back and they need it. So she does save the day. But she doesn’t really gets her thanks. Her reward is killing Ramsay.”

So according to Sophie there was a plan in place. What the plan was we don't know. Did the Vale army get there as fast as possible or did they hold out as long as they could? This article is very black and white in that either Sansa planned to come late to the battle or didn't know if Littlefinger would come but there is some gems in there:

Quote

Sansa's behavior leading up to this episode is incredibly damaging and oddly unexplained. Why keep Jon in the dark? Is this advancing her arc, or is it, like Arya's, contorting a character to suit the battle's needs? (Everyone loves a last-minute cavalry charge, after all.)

The show's opacity on this point muddies its stakes. We don't understand what Sansa knows and what she doesn't, which makes it hard to understand how responsible Sansa was for the horrific carnage and the eventual victory. Is she the architect of her revenge (and Jon's near-death) or a lucky beneficiary of Littlefinger's good timing? These are crucial questions, and the answers matter because one of these possibilities makes her the villain. It's as if we've been saddled with Schrodinger's Sansa: she's either Dim and Virtuous or Evil and Cunning. Right now — to everyone's confusion — she's both.

The case for Dim Sansa

The Dim Sansa case is simple: Sansa writes to Littlefinger but doesn't tell Jon Snow. Why? Maybe she didn't hear back. Maybe she's not sure he'll turn up. Maybe she just likes knowing she has a secret.

(...)

The case for Cunning Sansa

This one's more fun. Let's say Sansa knew Littlefinger was coming and planned his arrival without telling Jon. Cunning Sansa has her reasons: If the Vale army showed up in advance, Ramsey would likely retreat to Winterfell, where he couldn't be defeated. He had to be goaded out into a war he thought was winnable; he had to be baited with the promise of a slaughter. This would make Sansa a brilliant and Machiavellian military strategist. It would also make Jon the bait.

Evidence in favor: She arrives riding next to Littlefinger, implying significant coordination between them.

The writers were so focused on having a last-minute save that their writing opens up quite reasonable arguments that Sansa was willing to sacrifice her brothers to win back Winterfell. I've seen the same argument in this thread that Sansa didn't tell Jon because if Ramsay had an inkling that Jon had more men he would have stayed in Winterfell. But to quote @benteen, "I can't be mad with her because I literally have no idea what the writers are trying to do with her character".

This is the side I'm on when it comes to Sansa feeding Ramsay to the hounds: I don't see it as empowering or something to ray-ray over, just very sad. These quotes from this post summarize it for me:

Quote

I don’t have a problem with Sansa wanting Ramsay dead. I don’t have a problem with her watching him die, I don’t have a problem with him dying on her say-so, I don’t have a problem with her being happy at his death (I mean, aside from lack of nuance compared to the book version of this character, but that is a different sort of problem entirely). If this scene happens to be validating and helpful to anyone as a revenge fantasy I’m not going to say it shouldn’t be. My problems are in the way the show presented the method by which show!Sansa murdered Ramsay and the way the show presents vengeance killing in general.

(...)

Sure, they can show death-by-starving-dogs on TV, but if it involves actively arranging someone’s death by starving dogs, it’s behaviour I expect from the villains, maybe an extreme anti-hero. I do not expect to have it presented to us as a good and proper thing to do to someone else. Anyone else.

[Umbelina]

Thank you!

That article is great, and explains how I feel about both Sansa and Arya, and the show. 

While I want resolution to this tale, because I doubt GRRM ever will finish, I'd really like it to be somewhat believable or at the very least, understandable. 

Quote

Her arrival on the battlefield is not, in the Cunning Sansa timeline, a Proud Feminist moment. It indicates, rather, that Sansa is willing to sacrifice most of an army and both her surviving brothers in order to achieve her aims. Jon could have died 100 times before Littlefinger arrived, and Sansa would have been crazy to expect any other outcome. No, if this was a plan, then for Sansa, the death of two of her brothers was the price she was willing to pay. If this is what's happening, then this isn't even the beginning of Sansa's descent into villainy; she's been headed this way for some time and we missed it.

Quote

Here's the thing: These are not compatible scenarios. Either Sansa planned Littlefinger's late arrival — in which case she's responsible for the carnage and for recovering Winterfell, or she didn't and gets no credit for the victory. She just got lucky. I worry — I really do — that Game of Thrones, by eliding the horrific compromises she'd have had to make offscreen to make this work, is awkwardly trying to make her virtuous and a great planner, a feminist powerhouse who might still be a force for good. The Battle of the Bastards made that structurally impossible. I hope they see that. I hope they don't try to make her both.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Umbelina

[GrailKing]

2 hours ago, Oscirus said:

I'm not holding Sansa to my standards, I'm holding her to the standards set by her father.  What do you think Ned's reaction would be to her doing something like that? As for why I don't hold Jon to the same standards, I repeatedly have. I've said  that leaving Ramsay for Sansa as a gift is not something that he would do.

 

Arya's murder was played as tragic and horrifying while Sansa's was played as empowering. Sansa's Ramsay execution served no other purpose in the narrative other then to  make sure that the audience sees Sansa give Ramsay what he deserved.

Sansa knowing that she's beautiful is not the problem, Sansa being a woman is not the problem, the writers bending over backwards  to conform their story to give her bad ass moments is.

She withholds information from the one person in the world that is the most concerned about her welfare and we're not supposed to question that?

She gets off on torturing someone to death  and we're supposed to hand wave it away  because the person in question  deserved it?

Look at Bran and look how much hate he got for his mistake and he didn't get anywhere near the defense that she does.

If her detractors are holding her to a different standard then so are her supporters.

Honestly where did that get the Starks?

In book and show Ned loved his kids, but when push came to shove, he wanted to save other kids before his own, you get your own out first THEN meet the Queen Bitch and threaten her, NOT BEFORE.

And she was concerned about his and we're not to question that?

Again the writers gave the Starks a no win scenario for the next instalment where LF will be Sansa's battle, not Jon's.

They will be fighting on two different fronts.

[GrailKing]

Speaking of the battle scene, totally agree on any issue with Wun Wun, hell with his hight I would had strapped a skinny guy on him to do surveying.The dude can't speak a whole lot in the common tongue they may of had better warning with someone with Wun Wun.

[GrailKing]

2 hours ago, Constantinople said:

Of course Sansa's popular.

The show started with 9 living Starks (Ned, Cat, Benjen, Robb, Jon, Sansa, Arya, Bran & Rickon) and 3 dead ones (Rickard, Brandon & Lyanna)

Of those 9, Sansa is

• 1 of 4.5 Starks who are still alive, if you count Benjen SlightlyChillyHands as a half.
• 1 of 3 Starks who hasn't been brutally kiled and
• Off those 3, she's the only one who hasn't been the victim of an attempted murder

By Starkian standards, Sansa is wildly successful.

Only if you discount the attempted raping in KL, or the constant hits to her stomach or her Aunt Lysa and the moon door .

Edited June 22, 2016 by GrailKing

[GrailKing]

If the Vale was late, it's because that's how LF planned it, he did exactly what he told Cersei he do, wait till the very end, maybe use some delay tactics, Sansa would want him there in all haste.

[Umbelina]

Just now, GrailKing said:

If the Vale was late, it's because that's how LF planned it, he did exactly what he told Cersei he do, wait till the very end, maybe use some delay tactics, Sansa would want him there in all haste.

We have no idea what Sansa wanted.

[GrailKing]

1 minute ago, Umbelina said:

We have no idea what Sansa wanted.

Do you seriously think she want Jon dead?

[Umbelina]

20 minutes ago, GrailKing said:

Do you seriously think she want Jon dead?

The show gave us nothing, I think that article above these latest posts explains it quite well.  Is Sansa now ruthless?  Maybe.  Is Sansa simply stupid?  Maybe.  Is Sansa completely full of herself and didn't bother to tell Jon what she had up her sleeve?  I hope not, but anything is possible. 

ETA

Given that battle?  Jon should be dead, it's only sheer luck that he isn't.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Umbelina

[WebosFritos]

Sansa told Jon the night before the battle that she would rather die than go back to Ramsay. She didn't have high hopes about their victory so, at that point, I really don't think she knew whether the Vale army would show up the next day. That's what the writing seems to suggest to me.

[Umbelina]

Yet, she apparently knew RIGHT where they were, road straight to Littlefinger.

I think it's just horrible writing, plot over character, but still, any motivation is possible at this point.  There is only one thing I feel certain of with Sansa.  She wanted Ramsay dead. 

Edited June 22, 2016 by Umbelina

[Skeeter22]

If Sansa wanted Jon to die, why did she keep begging him to delay attacking Winterfell? Why did she warn him that Rickon was doomed and Ramsay would lay a trap? She seemed very sincere when she told Jon she would kill herself if he lost the battle. I don't think she had some grand plan to let Jon die. 

[Constantinople]

2 hours ago, Oscirus said:

I'm not holding Sansa to my standards, I'm holding her to the standards set by her father.  What do you think Ned's reaction would be to her doing something like that?

If Ned could return from the grave and discover what his honor cost his family, he might not be so judgmental.

Also, when Rhaeger allegedly did to Lyanna what Ramsay actually did to Sansa, that sparked a war that undoubtedly led to the deaths of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of innocent people.  Ned fought in that war.  So if Ned was critical of how Sansa treated Ramsay, it might seem a bit hypocritical.

[paigow]

15 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

If Ned could return from the grave and discover what his honor cost his family, he might not be so judgmental.

Also, when Rhaeger allegedly did to Lyanna what Ramsay actually did to Sansa, that sparked a war that undoubtedly led to the deaths of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of innocent people.  Ned fought in that war.  So if Ned was critical of how Sansa treated Ramsay, it might seem a bit hypocritical.

Agreed. Ned was a killer. If the circumstances were "fair" he could rationalize it. Until Jamie's idiot henchman interfered, neither Ned or Jamie thought twice about killing each other. If the "correct" punishment for a crime was death, git er done! Hopefully Ghost!Ned would allow Sansa some latitude on the method. 

Edited June 22, 2016 by paigow

[domina89]

Great article.  Thanks for sharing @Silje.  I, too, am kind of in the 'Dark Sansa' camp.  Not especially because I want to be, but her actions toward Jon make me very nervous as to her intentions.  I'm not convinced she wants him dead, but I do think she has been manipulating him and will continue to manipulate him to get the outcome she wants- just as she has been taught.  Maybe she will play both Jon and LF in order to secure the best possible position for herself.  I hope next week proves me wrong.  My greatest fear is that she teams up with LF to double cross Jon, which would be foolish - he and Brienne are the only two people she can truly count on at this point who want to keep her safe.  It is getting late for these games when the white walkers will soon be breathing down all their necks...

[Hana Chan]

The writing, as good as it was at some points, was a bit all over the place. And Sansa's motivations seemed to suffer the most as a result. Sansa's sense of grievance that she wasn't being included in the war council and that Jon, Davos and the other leaders weren't looking specifically for her input came across as rather silly and self-indulgent. This is not a women that has had any kind of training in combat or military tactics. She has never lifted a sword or has any idea of what kind of training these warriors have endured. She was your typical highborn women, who's education focused on being able to run a household, being a good wife and raising children. Sure, she had a really brutal education about the real world and how it treats those who can't protect themselves, but that's a far cry from having the kind of practical knowledge that would make her imput into planning battle tactics worthwhile. She's not Yara or Dany or Arya, who have learned the ways of fighting or commanded men in battle. 

Contrasting that with Jon, who despite being a bastard was given the same training that Robb was in swordplay and combat and that training continued on while he was at the Wall. He's learned to make decisions that can cost men their lives and has a real grasp of what his mistakes could result in (even if he made a tremendous mistake in this battle, which I will get to). He's not perfect, but he's good enough that he's got men willing to follow him and put their lives on the line. It was more than understandable to me why he wasn't looking to her for advice on planning the battle when he actually had experienced warriors to call upon.

Sansa's input in the end wasn't anything that Jon wasn't already aware of. He might not have experience Ramsey's particular brand of crazy, but he's seen Craster and other lunatics and been on the wrong end of them. When he expressed his awareness that they didn't have enough men but lacked the wherewithal to win more allies to their side. That was the instant that Sansa should have mentioned her communication with Littlefinger and that aid might be coming. A rider on a fast horse could have found out relatively quickly that reinforcements were on the march (and was the usual way of communication when an army was out in the field). That she didn't, even if she couldn't be sure that Littlefinger was going to help and if he'd get there in time, still makes absolutely no sense. Not when her sole argument against taking on Ramsey at that instant was the lack of manpower on their side. 

And I'm going to agree with others who stated that there was no way that Jon could just let Rickon die without even trying to save him. Besides being tactically important (the last known Stark male heir and a perfect figure to rally the north around), he was Jon's (presumed) half-brother. If there was a chance to save him, knowing Jon as well as we do I don't see how we could expect him to at least not try. Yes, Jon was manipulated and it cost his forces their defensive position because there was no way that the Wildlings or Davos would leave Jon to face an army alone, but it wasn't as if he just threw their plans away for no reason. Family is extremely important to Jon and the idea of watching his youngest brother die and not even try to help... I just don't think that's a reasonable expectation for this character. It might have been foolish on his part, but it rang true to me.

[Umbelina]

It's really a choice between several Sansa motivations, none of the choices are really "good."

Stupid, cunning, selfish, ruthless, naive, petulant, untrusting, brilliant, or pick a description really.  The writers basically gave us nothing, and going off of Sansa's interview is pretty frustrating, since obviously they were listening to what little she mumbled. 

[paigow]

3 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

It's really a choice between several Sansa motivations, none of the choices are really "good."

Stupid, cunning, selfish, ruthless, naive, petulant, untrusting, brilliant, or pick a description really.  The writers basically gave us nothing, and going off of Sansa's interview is pretty frustrating, since obviously they were listening to what little she mumbled. 

When someone who knows nothing calls you Captain Obvious, it is likely true.

[screamin]

4 hours ago, Oscirus said:

I'm not holding Sansa to my standards, I'm holding her to the standards set by her father.  What do you think Ned's reaction would be to her doing something like that?

Sorry I didn't take this in earlier. But before we engage with the question of Ned, I'd just like to bring up that Ned agreed to hold an innocent child (Theon) hostage with the understanding that he would put him to death if his father rebelled. So Ned's ideas of honor don't match up precisely with today's Geneva conventions. Keeping that in mind...

- I fully acknowledge that neither Arya nor Sansa's behavior in the dispensation of justice measure up to the high standards Ned set at the beginning of the series when he mercifully executed the deserter from the Night's Watch.

...That is, when the Lord of Winterfell, who had held unquestioned authority in his land for fifteen years of peace and prosperous family life, carried out his duty to execute a criminal who had done him no personal harm, in a humane fashion.

BUT I think that comparing THAT standard of behavior to this pair of traumatized teenagers and solemnly scolding that they don't measure up to it is like comparing apples and orangutans.

A more pertinent question might be: If Ned's father had been killed before his eyes when he was fourteen, and then within a year he had been sold to the man who was responsible for the death of his father and brother, then raped by that man's son, who also showed him an old woman he'd peeled like a grape for the crime of trying to help Ned - do you think THAT Ned would uphold the humane tradition of execution of beginning-of-the-series Ned when Ramsey fell into his hands, or judge it badly when someone else executed him less humanely? I think there is much room for doubt.

Edited June 22, 2016 by screamin

[Raachel2008]

Quote

 

Sansa also turned around the battle’s outcome by reaching out to Littlefinger, who arrives just in time to rescue Jon and the remaining wildlings with the knights of the Vale.

“Jon doesn’t listen to her,” Turner notes. “She can actually formulate a plan behind his back and they need it. So she does save the day. But she doesn’t really gets her thanks. Her reward is killing Ramsay.”

 

Oh, for fuck's sake, Jon doesn't listen to her? Please. Sansa calls Jon on making plans with Davos and Tormund without asking for her input, he apologizes and asks for her input, she says they need a larger army, he replies they don't have a larger army., then asks what she suggests and she says the does not understand about war strategy. People (Sophie herself) can argue that Sansa had reasons to not tell Jon about the Vale, but he did listen to her. Ugh.

Sansa feeding Ramsay to the dogs, RE: Why are people so upset about that? From a narrative point of view it was either that or Ramsay losing his head/being hanged. I have zero problems with Ramsay becoming Cane Corsos' food. Was it horrible? Yes, it was. Was it satisfying? Yes, it was, for me. Do I think it makes me a horrible person? No. Do I think it makes Sansa a horrible person? No. Does it lower Sansa to Ramsay's level? No, unless she starts raping, torturing, feeding people to Ghost or any wolf around. Since this is not going to happen, I'm more than fine with that. Sansa was raped and mentally tortured. She got her justice. End of the story.

Fans hate female characters, RE: amazing how this argument always come back when criticism is directed towards one's favorite {{{rolleyes}}}. I don't give a fuck if Sansa is a cute girl, or a tomboy like Aria, or a soldier like Brienne, or a horrible person like Cersei, or awesome like Olenna Martel, or even super girl like Dany. The stereotypes don't define the characters, but their actions. 

Edited June 23, 2016 by Raachel2008
I can't spell.

[nksarmi]

38 minutes ago, domina89 said:

Great article.  Thanks for sharing @Silje.  I, too, am kind of in the 'Dark Sansa' camp.  Not especially because I want to be, but her actions toward Jon make me very nervous as to her intentions.  I'm not convinced she wants him dead, but I do think she has been manipulating him and will continue to manipulate him to get the outcome she wants- just as she has been taught.  Maybe she will play both Jon and LF in order to secure the best possible position for herself.  I hope next week proves me wrong.  My greatest fear is that she teams up with LF to double cross Jon, which would be foolish - he and Brienne are the only two people she can truly count on at this point who want to keep her safe.  It is getting late for these games when the white walkers will soon be breathing down all their necks...

I don't now, nor have I ever believed that Sansa is some kind of player. She isn't in the game. She is just trying to survive the madness of the damn, freaking game. This is true in both the book and the show, but since the show's story is ahead of the book - let's just go with that. Last season, she wasn't the powerful she-wolf I wanted her to become. She was just Ramsey's victim who escaped the madness by sheer luck to be honest. Then as she travels from WF to the Wall, she decides "there is no where in the world where I actually feel safe, but I am Sansa Stark and I want my home back." So she asks Jon to help her get it. None of that is manipulation - she even says she will do it without him if she must. She isn't playing the game here - she's just trying to find some small place in that crazy mixed up world where she can feel safe again.

Jon doesn't even want to do that. I believe he would have gone with her and sailed for the summer isles if that letter hadn't come. He went to war to save Rickon to a degree but also to ensure Ramsey didn't try to ride North and slaughter the wildlings he saved. So Sansa didn't need to manipulate him anymore - they were on the same page at that point.

Sansa didn't manipulate him in regards to the battle either. She called for the Blackfish but he couldn't help. She could tell he numbers weren't adding up in their favor - hell, so could Davos. So she called to LF for help because she could - she probably didn't know if he would come or if he would come fast enough, but it's what she could do. She knew they needed to win for her - not for some stupid Game of Thrones, but for her very survival.

Does anyone believe that Sansa really seeks power at this point? Does anyone claim that winning Winterfell was about anything other than trying to take back some piece of her sanity? Sansa isn't playing a game or trying to position herself to rule. She's just trying to find a place where she doesn't have to fear Lannisters or Boltons or anyone else who would do her harm.

So is that what she was manipulating Jon and/or LF to do? Help her survive? If so, well damn good for her.

Edited June 22, 2016 by nksarmi

[stillshimpy]

Quote

As for the quote I believe it's from "As Good as it Gets," and I think the end is "I remove all intelligence."

That's an odd way to remember that line.  The line is "and then I take away reason and accountability" and it's the line that is pretending misogyny is funny.  

Edited June 22, 2016 by stillshimpy

[Silje]

I don't think Sansa wanted Jon to die but Turner confirms that Sansa had a plan with Littlefinger and didn't tell Jon about it because Jon wouldn't listen to her, which as people here has pointed out just isn't true. If she had told Jon about the Vale army when she sent the letter to Littlefinger they could've tried to delay things a few days to see if they had the support of the Vale or not and still have everything play out like it did in this episode because Ramsay said 'show up tomorrow morning and fight me or I'll kill Rickon'.        

Do I think that the writers and director intended to make it seem like Sansa deliberately used Jon and his army as bait as outlined in the article I posted? No, but when she came riding in with Littlefinger she didn't look concerned that they were late to me. I saw some quilt in her expression at first and then she smirks when she sees that 'her' army is winning the battle. When what you get in the show gives a pretty good case that Sansa were okay with sacrificing her brother when she in reality isn't, then there's a problem with the writing, direction and plotting.  

[Gertrude]

Agreed. In the show you could make the case. While the evidence isn't solid, neither is the evidence for the rebuttal. Do I actually think she is manipulating anyone and treading a dark path? Of course not. But that's just my opinion, I'd be hard pressed to defend it.

[WearyTraveler]

I think the whole problem with TV Sansa is that the writers often want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Umbelina]

It's more that they will sacrifice characters for "boffo!" moments.  If they gave as much thought to the characters on screen as they did to the "big moments!" I'd be happier with the show.

Either way, once again, one character is left with anybody's guess as to motivation and another is made to look like a naive fool.  Did that have to happen for the "surprise!" save?  No.  It really didn't.  Great battle though, for those who care about that stuff the most.

[MissLucas]

With regards to Sansa not being exactly honorable when dispatching of Ramsay - were there similar debates when Lady Brienne killed the rapist soldiers and made sure they'd die slowly?

And Sansa did provide more advice than just telling Jon that he did not have enough men. She warned him about Ramsay and that he would try to manipulate Jon and setting him a trap. She did not have the specifics but it's telling that her most dire warning came directly after the discussion about Rickon's fate. Sansa may not have any military training yet at that moment she handed out Sun Tzu's most basic lesson: Know your enemy and know yourself.

[Umbelina]

5 minutes ago, MissLucas said:

With regards to Sansa not being exactly honorable when dispatching of Ramsay - were there similar debates when Lady Brienne killed the rapist soldiers and made sure they'd die slowly?

And Sansa did provide more advice than just telling Jon that he did not have enough men. She warned him about Ramsay and that he would try to manipulate Jon and setting him a trap. She did not have the specifics but it's telling that her most dire warning came directly after the discussion about Rickon's fate. Sansa may not have any military training yet at that moment she handed out Sun Tzu's most basic lesson: Know your enemy and know yourself.

I have zero problem with the way Sansa killed Ramsay, and frankly, I'd have no problem with it today either.  Why?  Because we KNOW for sure what he did to her and others, something we rarely have in modern trials. 

As far as her "advice?"  I mean seriously, some vague warning that Ramsay is a big meanie and tricky was hardly valuable information as he entered battle.  However, "I probably have an entire army to fight for you if you want them.  It would come with issues, and I'll spell them out for you, and they might not come at all, but they are probably already here since I rode straight to them and brought them in to save the day, but oh well, I don't think I'll tell you after all!" was certainly not helpful at all to all of the men who died, and to Jon, who barely escaped death.

[GrailKing]

3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

The show gave us nothing, I think that article above these latest posts explains it quite well.  Is Sansa now ruthless?  Maybe.  Is Sansa simply stupid?  Maybe.  Is Sansa completely full of herself and didn't bother to tell Jon what she had up her sleeve?  I hope not, but anything is possible. 

ETA

Given that battle?  Jon should be dead, it's only sheer luck that he isn't.

In the into the episode, I think it was Benioff who said not only did they want to explore the terror of that battle, but also the role that luck plays into it also.

[GrailKing]

3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Yet, she apparently knew RIGHT where they were, road straight to Littlefinger.

I think it's just horrible writing, plot over character, but still, any motivation is possible at this point.  There is only one thing I feel certain of with Sansa.  She wanted Ramsay dead. 

Or the Army actually ran into her, it's easier finding Winterfell, then some random field between Moat Calin and Winterfell looking for an army.