S06.E09: Battle Of The Bastards

[GrailKing]

17 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

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.

That warning was hardly vague, she had emotion in that freaking warning, she had fear, she had worried look, yeah if she could think of a scenario of maybe he will kill Rickon in front of us to draw you out; but neither thought that would happen.And if she did say it and it happened, what's to stop people here or in story claiming she planned that?

[paigow]

29 minutes ago, GrailKing said:

That warning was hardly vague, she had emotion in that freaking warning, she had fear, she had worried look...

To quote Brian Cox in Bourne 2 " You call that definitive?" Agreed she is sincere and trying to help, but still fails to provide actionable intel.  Even something broad like "he gives hope, then takes it away" would have been more helpful.

[Umbelina]

I'm not even really criticizing Sansa here, I'm criticizing the writers.  I don't believe Sansa would have given a complete ineffectual warning and lied to him for days about reinforcements.  None of this will probably even happen in the books anyway, so it's such a screwy argument.  Let's just say it all happens just this way in the books for argument's sake.  I'm certain that if Sansa does lie her ass off to Jon, and get many hundreds of men killed by withholding that information?  I may have issues with GRRM but I do know he'd give us her reasons for doing that, the problem here is, I can't think of any reasons that absolve her.  At all.  The show may or many not provide them, but this was for plot and boffo, at the expense of two characters.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Umbelina

[lmsweb]

All these people talking about how Sansa and Arya have been "brought down to that level", how it's wrong to show them as having enjoyed watching or meting out some form of justice with their own hand - I'm wondering how many of you would be saying the same if it was Theon who stood there and smiled as Ramsay got eaten by his dogs. Or if it was Jon who stabbity-stabbed Meryn Trant to death. Did anyone say anything about Tyrion being "brought down" to some level when he killed Tywin, or Shae? Anybody say boo when Jaquen killed the people Arya named to him? No, everyone was too busy bitching about how Arya carelessly wasted her three names.

It's not even so much that it's different standards for Sansa. Or Arya. I see a whole lot of people holding the women to standards that they don't apply to the men in this show. That's actually kind of sad.

[OhOkayWhat]

Sansa thinks she needs Jon:

A) Believing they need more troops.

B) Believing there will be one or more mind tricks that will get all of them (Vale cavalry included) killed.

A or B alone is not enough. And she is afraid Jon does not believe B, and maybe A too. And that fear is the cause of her mistake.

Jon believes:

A) He must protect his family. That includes Sansa and Rickon.

B) Sansa wants to help and he wants to listen, but he thinks also: "she has not battlefield experience!".

A and B makes him to have his doubts about Sansa worries and to trust his own ideas and battle plans. And that is his mistake.

Both are trapped in their fears, doubts and certainties (or what they think is true, even if they are wrong) And both scenes (the parley with Ramsay and the night conversation before the battle) are our reference to understand all those problems inside them, all those words that they do not say. All those issues (and more) are the cause of the miscommunication and the miscommunication is the cause of big part of their mistakes that night. Those scenes show us that.

Those scenes show us the human nature, the core of their drama.

Sometimes people mix the characters mistakes with mistakes within the writing. And I think this time is not the case.

Edited June 23, 2016 by OhOkayWhat

[nksarmi]

Holy crap. You know I didn't once think Sansa wasn't "concerned" with that shot of her and LF watching the battle. I knew LF and the Vale was coming - the show telegraphed that. I think Sophie did an outstanding job showing of showing so much from Sansa and I really don't think I'm reading things into her performance that weren't there.

This episode did not happen in a bottle. We've seen Sansa all season. This what I saw....

1. Sansa is f-ing pissed at what LF talked her into and she does NOT trust him.

2. Sansa believed that North would rally behind them and she could count on the Tullys to help. She was disappointed and disillusioned yet again. Her faith in people keeps taking hit after hit. She knows she can believe in a few people - Brie and Jon for example. But she doesn't trust them to protect her - she just knows they would die trying.

3. She knows Ramsey is going to use Rickon and maybe other innocents against Jon, but she doesn't know how. And she can see it's going to work because Jon isn't cold-hearted enough for it not to work.

4. Sansa doesn't trust LF so she didn't know if he would come. She doesn't tell Jon because if LF doesn't come or worse, he betrays her and sides with the Boltons, it could mean she ruined everything.

5. Sansa was prepared to kill herself rather than return to Ramsey. I believed her 100% in that moment. Those are not the words of a woman who knows help is coming.

6. The battlefield was not lined up by the camp. LF probably found her camp and then she rode in with him. The Vale troops were riding at full charge by the time they reached the battle. I don't think even LF was holding back and Sansa sure as hell wouldn't have wanted that.

7. Sansa's expression looking down on the battle was at first concerned and then satisfied when she realized the tide was turning and the Bolton men were going to be crushed.

I say again, I love, love, love Sansa's story this season. She has suffered so much and she has been risen as one hell of a she-wolf. I don't think Sansa is a player but I do think she could be one awesome ruler if she can survive all that is still to come. I can't wait to see what comes next for her.

[Constantinople]

7 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.

 

5 hours ago, Hecate7 said:

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

 

5 hours ago, GrailKing said:

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

Mea culpa as to Lyssa & the moon door (but the attempted rape during the KL riot hadn't proceeded to attempted murder yet).

Still, of the 3 never brutally killed Starks, Sansa is

• 1 of 2 to appear in every season and of those 2
• 1 o 1 never to abandon, even temporarily, the idea of being a Stark to be "no one".

[HumblePi]

On 6/21/2016 at 8:18 PM, Tikichick said:

I think a huge portion of the viewers needed the catharsis of that death on screen.  I think Ramsay himself would have approved, so much so that no doubt he would have thought to get Theon hooked up with HBO to make sure he tuned in.

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.

[Macbeth]

      A lot of people here came to defend Sansa and I approve.  I could never do it as eloquently as many have.  It was never  a controversy to me that Sansa didn't tell Jon that the Vale army may show up.  If the only thing standing in your way of certain death is Little Finger - you are 99.999% screwed.  That's all.  It's like saying Santa is going to show up and solve all your problems.  If LF hasn't betrayed someone by noon on any given day - he needs to go to bed and load up on Vitamin C because he is sick. 

    Now the plot hole for me is the movement of the Vale army and nobody noticing.  The Vale army which hasn't taken part in any of  the battles is now on the move?  This should be the talk of the entire 7 Kingdoms.  Cat doesn't feel safe enough to travel to Ned without a disguise, yet an entire fresh army  marches through the kingdom and no ravens are sent.  Sure why not.                  

And I am very glad Sansa got some relief with Ramsey's death and I certainly didn't mind that she tortured him.  The world depicted has shown week after week that you can't stand by and hope that honor will prevail or someone will protect you.  Look what happened to McShane's character when the villagers tried to build a church -  everyone, but the Hound, got slaughtered.          

Tyrion had the best analysis of Sansa.  When Pod asked him if he thought Sansa killed Joffrey - Tyrion responded that Sansa was not a killer..."yet."  Unfortunately you need to be one in order to survive that world.

I do want to commend the show.  That battle, no matter what the writing issues were, was a work of art. Completely brilliant.

[Pogojoco]

I think Ramsey was pretty scared when he realized the Vale cavalry was breaking up his pincer wall. Maybe not terrified, but he was definitely forced to eat some sh*t and maybe thought he had overplayed his hand or wasn't going to get his own way.

I actually think my favourite bit was when Ramsey rides back to Winterfell and says, "Their army is smashed" and random Bolton soldier says "So is ours!"

[lmsweb]

I forgot to add this to my earlier post -
The Hound, in his great comeback, killed 6 men in one episode. Six. Without batting an eye. I daresay he even enjoyed it. I went back and read some of the posts about it, here are some random ones:

The Hound saved the episode.  I really enjoyed his RAMMMMPAAAGE! And his newfound friendship with the Brotherhood.  Then again I feel like the only one who is ok with them not including Stoneheart.

The Hound was in rare form and the only humor in this episode. Everything he did or said pleased me, especially not missing an opportunity to snag himself a pair of boots

Finally: Hound = Boss.

I liked the Hound's storyline, including his interaction with the Brotherhood without Banners, even if Martin's anti violence message from the books was basically negated in this episode. The Hound is such a fantastic character and I'm glad it looks like he'll be part of the fight in the North against the White Walkers.

I don't remember seeing many negative posts about the Hound, if any, in that thread, or about how he's a horrible person for avenging Septon McShane and the small folk or wanting to kill the last 2 in a bloody way instead of the more "civilized" hanging.

It's baffling to me. Dany has been called batshit crazy because she killed all the khals who threatened to rape her and then let their horses rape her. Sansa and to a lesser degree Arya are being dragged through the mud because they've figured out that they're going to have to be responsible for saving their own asses. Yara got flack for acting like a man and wanting a little T and A before heading back out to sea in the last episode.

I sometimes feel like these women character are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Arya slips up, becomes a young girl again for 10 minutes as she daydreams about going home FINALLY, almost gets stabbity-stabbed to death over it, and she's castigated for being an idiot for the slip up. Then she's castigated for enjoying killing Meryn Trant and Polliver. Sansa is castigated for most of the series for being an empty headed, silly, girl - yet the second she takes ownership of her own life and safety and yes, fucking revenge - she's suddenly horrible for it. The only woman I have seen here given a break on this is Brienne (see: when she gutted the rapist where they found the girls hanging when she was with Captive Jaime). She got revenge, it was bloody, and she enjoyed it. But YAY BRIENNE! You go girl! Is it because she's seen as the antithesis of femininity?

I sort of feel like I am watching a Sociology 101 class on these forums.

Edit: Changed Asha to Yara. I keep calling her Asha even though she's never been called that on the show. Ugh.

 

Edited June 23, 2016 by lmsweb

[lawless]

Quote

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.

To this, I just wanted to add that Ramsey sent those same dogs after Sansa and Theon when they escaped in the hopes that those dogs would tear her and Theon apart, and Theon mentioned having seen what they could do, and that drowning in an ice cold stream was "better."  Myranda also gloatingly told Sansa about the way that Ramsey had treated various other young women, including one of his lovers whom he made pregnant (very boring, she said) - I don't remember if she specifically mentioned the dogs, but the message was clear.  So Sansa's actions weren't just about vengeance for herself, in all fairness, but avenged the torture and murder of countless other girls and women who Ramsey killed for his amusement.  All things considered, Ramsey's death was "poetic justice," and this story is called A Song of Ice and Fire -- I'd feel a bit cheated if Ramsey just got a nice, quiet, Ned-like execution. 

Would this be a morally neutral thing to do in real life?  No, I agree that it was morally a bad thing to do.  But there are degrees of bad, as Lady Olenna pondered when talking to Cersei, and this was not even close to as bad as the things Ramsey did to people -- which he did to women and children largely because he took sexual pleasure in the torture and suffering of the weak and (usually I think) innocent.  Sansa subjecting such a depraved monster to the same fate to which he consigned so many innocents wasn't a great thing to do, I'll concede that, but it wasn't anywhere near the level of monstronsity of Ramsey's behavior.  I wouldn't do it, and would discourage it, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it, and I have no sense that Sansa's now looking for her next execution-by-ravenous-dog opportunity.  This seems like a one-off.  I'm ok with it, and I think Ned would be too.

Edited June 23, 2016 by lawless

[Gertrude]

2 hours ago, lmsweb said:

All these people talking about how Sansa and Arya have been "brought down to that level", how it's wrong to show them as having enjoyed watching or meting out some form of justice with their own hand - I'm wondering how many of you would be saying the same if it was Theon who stood there and smiled as Ramsay got eaten by his dogs. Or if it was Jon who stabbity-stabbed Meryn Trant to death. Did anyone say anything about Tyrion being "brought down" to some level when he killed Tywin, or Shae? Anybody say boo when Jaquen killed the people Arya named to him? No, everyone was too busy bitching about how Arya carelessly wasted her three names.

It's not even so much that it's different standards for Sansa. Or Arya. I see a whole lot of people holding the women to standards that they don't apply to the men in this show. That's actually kind of sad.

 

27 minutes ago, lmsweb said:

I don't remember seeing many negative posts about the Hound, if any, in that thread, or about how he's a horrible person for avenging Septon McShane and the small folk or wanting to kill the last 2 in a bloody way instead of the more "civilized" hanging.

 

I think anyone that enjoys killing another person is broken in some way. Sometimes it's just a little bit and it's a temporary thing, sometimes it's more profound and systematic. As viewers or readers, we can indulge in this side of ourselves, but in the real world, it's messed up. You can be happy that justice or revenge is served, but the actual killing part is something different. You do it because you are threatened or for justice or because you snapped or for many reasons which could be seen as extenuating, but because you enjoy it is a sign something's not right.

Tyrion killing Shae and Tywin was not a triumphant moment, it's extremely tragic. He broke and went to a very dark place. Brienne killing the rapers was a shock to me and I wrote her off as a different character than in the books. This Brienne is a more hardened warrior who doesn't have the innocence and naivete I was expecting from her, and I consider it a loss for her character. Jaquen is an assassin - he's already lost and extremely dark. Or you could see him as a religious zealot and this is his life's work and it is good work. Like Mel - she does what seems evil to us, but she is a true believer and in her eyes it's right. Personally, I see that kind of devotion (hers and Jaquen's) as a different kind of broken. The Hound is also a character that is completely dark and scary. Is he supposed to be anything else? I didn't like seeing it because I had wanted him to find peace on the Quiet Isle and I was never a fan of Clegane Bowl.

Don't paint everyone who criticizes Sansa or Arya with the same brush. I don't take joy in any of the gratuitous violence cloaked as revenge, from male or female characters. OK, I did take joy in Joff's death and the suffering of Cersei, but I didn't cheer Olena or LF for that move. It didn't make them good people, by any stretch of the imagination.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Gertrude

[Gertrude]

On 6/16/2016 at 9:06 AM, Gertrude said:

I liked the Hound scenes. As much as I am not a fan of vengeful Hound and am scratching my head at the BwB heading North, the dialogue was good and felt natural. It had actual humor that felt in character for all. This scene did make me smile. Compare that to the Meereen scenes, which I thought fit the in universe story better, but fell flat when they actually opened their mouths.

Perhaps I could have been more forceful, but look, a negative post about the Hound's killing spree.

[Hecate7]

11 hours ago, Tikichick said:

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.

Sansa watched her father's head chopped off. Arya was actually shielded from that--Yoren made sure she did not see it. Sansa is the one who saw her father's head roll off, and also later saw both it and her Septa's on a pike. Arya saw Lommy Greenhands stabbed. Sansa nearly watched Ser Dontos drowned in wine but intervened to save him. Sansa also watched Joffrey choke to death. She endured daily rape threats from Joffrey, and being beaten in the stomach by Ser Meryn Trant in punishment for Robb's rebellion. She saw Dontos shot with an arrow right after he saved her. Lyssa Arryn tried to fling Sansa through the Moon Door, and would have succeeded were it not for Littlefinger. Sansa dangled from the Moon Door, knowing certain death awaited her below, for what must have felt like an eternity to her. I'm sure that had an effect on Sansa, too. Sansa and Arya are pretty equal in terms of both suffering and horrors endured. They are also pretty much equal in how they have handled their experiences. Each has strengths and weaknesses the other lacks, but they are sisters, after all.

All this hand-wringing over Brienne enjoying killing, or Sansa and Arya relishing their revenges, bewilders me. Brienne is a fighter. Isn't she supposed to be good at killing? In this world it isn't whether or not you kill, but how, who, and why you kill, that determines your goodness or lack thereof.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Hecate7
spelling error.

[HumblePi]

"Battle of the Bastards" has just broken the IMDB record set by Breaking Bad's "Ozymandias" (in less than 3 days versus 1011 days)!

Edited June 23, 2016 by HumblePi

[benteen]

Also, Sansa knew that Littlefinger had the Vale troops stationed at Moat Cailin.  I would think this is a really important piece of information for Jon to know if he's successful at Winterfell.  "Foreign" army has taken a foothold in your territory.  Kind of an important thing to know.

[Gertrude]

Yeah, I saw that. It just convinces me that I am not the target audience for this show.

[zulualpha]

4 hours ago, lmsweb said:

All these people talking about how Sansa and Arya have been "brought down to that level", how it's wrong to show them as having enjoyed watching or meting out some form of justice with their own hand - I'm wondering how many of you would be saying the same if it was Theon who stood there and smiled as Ramsay got eaten by his dogs. Or if it was Jon who stabbity-stabbed Meryn Trant to death. Did anyone say anything about Tyrion being "brought down" to some level when he killed Tywin, or Shae? Anybody say boo when Jaquen killed the people Arya named to him? No, everyone was too busy bitching about how Arya carelessly wasted her three names.

It's not even so much that it's different standards for Sansa. Or Arya. I see a whole lot of people holding the women to standards that they don't apply to the men in this show. That's actually kind of sad.

I'll leave Arya out of it because I don't have negative feelings for the killings she's done.  

Sansa set dogs on a man that was beaten and bound and smirked about it.  A very Ramsay like smirk imo.  She did lower herself to his level and I blame the writers for taking the opportunity of Ramsay's well deserved death to serve up the cheap thrills.  I think someone upstream mentioned the writers taking heat for the depiction of Sansa's brutal wedding night and this was their idea for "redeeming" themselves - by letting Sansa get "justice".  Well it wasn't justice, it was cheap theatrics at the expense of a Stark and I really really hated it.  Compare how Jon Snow handled his unfortunate experience.  He was ambushed and stabbed to death.  Killed!  Did he go off the deep end and bind up his betrayers and slice them with swords?  Throw them to the wights?  No, they were rounded up and hanged in front of everyone, the traditional form of justice for that crime.  No smirking involved in fact Jon was torn up about hanging a kid.   I think it was sexist for the writers to have Sansa demand a torture killing inflicted on an already beaten and bound Ramsay because what was done to her was "so much worse" than what was done to Jon.  No it wasn't, Jon was killed!

[Ambrosefolly]

Quote

Theon killed two children as props and I've never seen him put on the same level as Ramsay for it because he's been so hideously punished for it.  Sansa has been punished beyond the telling of it for her own misdeeds but she can't put a foot right.  

One thing, during the first few seasons after what he did to those boys, not to mention how he betrayed the Stark children, and I hate doing this, not a whole lot of the audience was sympathetic to Theon being tortured and thought he deserved a lot of his punishment. If Theon isn't held to the same as Ramsay is because he showed genuine remorse for all of it and eventually broke through Ramsay brainwashing in order to help Sansa. Even in the throne room with Dany, he said that his actions were even bad or worse, even if he didn't kill Rickon and Bran, though he arguably did lead to Rickon's death which is going to be an interesting mind fuck when he finds out about it.

In regards to Sansa becoming Ramsay, unless she starts hunting innocent women and torturing people for her own amusement, I think she won't every go to his level. While I didn't enjoy the smile after she feed him to the hounds, he did deserved it and worse and keep in mind, she hasn't been able to dish out some much needed revenge to everyone else that fucked her over, this has been building for a while. I hope word gets about she did to Ramsay so other houses won't fuck with the Starks like the Umbers did. At this point she is more endanger of becoming a female version of Littlefinger, which can be as equally dangerous but necessary to keep Winterfell and protect her remaining family from Littlefinger.

I disagree with the assessment of there being some patriarchal oppression keeping Sansa from talking. It wasn't like Jon was asking anyone's opinion about to do, they were freely expressing themselves. I didn't have much of a problem with Sansa keeping quiet about the possibility of the Vale showing up. She didn't want to use it because of Littlefinger and she couldn't be sure he would show up and in the end, it did save the remaining Northern army, whether she told Jon or not.  I had more of problem with Sansa not telling her knowledge about how sub humanly evil and intelligent Ramsay was and Rickon would die no matter what they do was when Tormund and Davos were there . Neither of them would demise a her opinion and might have physically prevented Jon from charging towards Ramsay's army.

I like Sansa because I think she is the most "real" character. I never held it against her that she was so heavily (no pun intended) snowed by the Lannisters, the she unwittingly betrayed her family because there was no real malice behind her actions. Joffrey did a pretty decent job of keeping his crazy and stupid in check until he didn't need to anymore. The moment that mask dropped, she was willing to push Joffrey to his death when she saw Ned's head on a spike and he threaten to do the same to Robb. It is normal for teenagers to not appreciate their parents until something happens. 

[jeansheridan]

I can't find the post but thanks for explaining Jon's armor.  We also noticed the helmets seemed more Spanish styled.  And that the Freys have the dumpiest armor.  The Freys always look damp.  

[ElizaD]

36 minutes ago, zulualpha said:

Compare how Jon Snow handled his unfortunate experience.  He was ambushed and stabbed to death.  Killed!  Did he go off the deep end and bind up his betrayers and slice them with swords?  Throw them to the wights?  No, they were rounded up and hanged in front of everyone, the traditional form of justice for that crime.  No smirking involved in fact Jon was torn up about hanging a kid.   I think it was sexist for the writers to have Sansa demand a torture killing inflicted on an already beaten and bound Ramsay because what was done to her was "so much worse" than what was done to Jon.  No it wasn't, Jon was killed!

The Night's Watch killed Jon because they believed he had betrayed them and death is the established penalty for treason; Ramsay tortured Sansa, night after night, because he enjoyed making her live in pain and fear. A clean death versus weeks or months of rape and torture by a serial killer who took pleasure in breaking people as brutally as possible? Yes, I think that what was done to Sansa (and Theon) was worse than Jon's illegal execution-style killing by people who felt that his political decisions were a violation of his oath. Weeks of what Ramsay surely made the most brutal rapes possible and intended to continue for the rest of her life, in addition to hunting other women for rape and murder, yet it's sexism when the writers give Sansa karmic justice? And she couldn't even have done it if Jon hadn't snapped out of his rage-filled beating of Ramsay and decided that Sansa had the right to kill him, which means that we'll never see him express disapproval over the method Sansa chose and which he must have known about! Ramsay fed his mother-in-law and newborn baby brother to the hounds, which established a parallel: this is as close to "a traditional form of justice" as you can get for the deeds of a creative psychopath! Execution for oathbreaking in a morally complex situation, death by hounds for an indefensible delight in torture - and if Ramsay hadn't trained those hounds to kill, it wouldn't have been an option.

Seriously. Six years of contempt for the Starks' honor and compassion, cries that they need to be tougher and crueler to win respect and stay alive in this world, but Sansa can't win even when she kills Ramsay in the exact same manner he killed Walda as well as countless other women who first had to endure the terror of being hunted. Endless mockery of Stark honor, yet now that Sansa is in a position to personally arrange the death of the man who raped her countless times, oops, I guess she should start being honorable again even though viewers keep on saying that the Starks should be despised for their stupidity in being law-abiding and compassionate!

Have the people judging Sansa heard about how traitors to the crown used to be executed? Anne Boleyn was lucky to get the quick chop, which was by no means the only legal option. Ramsay's death is closer to being hanged, drawn and quartered - extremely slow and painful, something that matches the enormity of the crime. The hounds were likely faster and more merciful than this realistic medieval form of execution.

[jeansheridan]

On 6/20/2016 at 1:50 PM, lmsweb said:

I don't think it was a budget or CGI issue. I think the show realized there is no conceivable way they could explain Ghost living through that battle except by keeping him out of it. Between the arrows, charging horses, etc - he would have been killed right off the bat. I fanwanked it in my own head that Jon knew Ghost would sacrifice himself for Jon and didn't want him to do that, so he left him behind with instructions to free him if Jon should die. 

That's the story I'm sticking to in my head, at any rate :)

I am fine with Ghost left out.  I need one direwolf.  Maybe he is looking for Nymeria.

[jeansheridan]

On 6/20/2016 at 5:13 PM, BooBear said:

I am not sure what is going on with Jon but he does seem different. Can't tell if it is bad writing or Sansa or coming back from the dead or the fact he doesn't have Samwell Tarley or his friends on the Knight's Watch around.  I do remember the show runners saying that Jon's discovery that there was nothing after death informs his attitude this year.  I hope he gets back to more of a fully rounded leader rather than a mope who likes to tell Sansa they are going with the army they have.

I like Jon this season.  Dying should change a man.  They kept saying in the making of that Jon pulling himself up from under the bodies was a rebirth.  So maybe we will see a livelier Jon.  

I am not big on romance on this show, but Jon may need something like that to ease the grimness.  Alas the women are few in the North.  Or maybe he just needs his little sister Arya.

[Nanrad]

15 hours ago, paramitch said:

Game, set, match: Thank you. Your argument was far more complex than Martin's. 

This:

Beautifully put. Sansa is a VICTIM. Not a villain. She deserves nothing but sympathy  as far as the "game" the other characters are playing. She has lost everything: her father, mother, siblings, friends, pets, family, kingdom, body, and mind.

What more do people want from her? She's irrevocably damaged and still (heroically) fighting for the right side.

Want an accurate read on Sansa's state of mind? Check back with her in a decade. Maybe. Kind of. If she's still alive.

8 hours ago, Umbelina said:

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.

Quote 1: Sansa IS a victim, but her being a victim doesn't make her exempt from criticism or exonerates her bad decision making. That shouldn't way to hand wave her actions, especially if it has a huge negative impact on others. We cannot criticize Jon for NOT listening to Sansa when he flat out asked her what her plans were, and then have her answer, "I don't know." Then in the same breath, excuse her for not revealing she'd been speaking with LF because "she has trust issues." Because one negates the other, so which is it?

Sansa can be BOTH a victim and make bad decisions. Her being a victim doesn't mean that she can't and won't make bad decisions. I can sympathize with Sansa and, in the same breath, point out that she made a bad decision. Then, there are times she makes good decisions, but we'll never get anywhere if Sansa is seen as faultless because a lot of fucked up shit has happened to her. In GOT, the level of fuckedness is relative at a certain point for most. 

Honestly, I don't want anything from Sansa because my reading of that situation is far different than Sansa's defenders. But, I would like for her to not to be treated like some blameless person because of her trauma. Eventually, being a victim doesn't cut it when your bad decisions effect other people. 

Quote 2: Right, I have zero issue with how Ramsey was killed either.

Regardless of how heartfelt it was, it's still a vague warning. There is no way for Jon to plan for it and, now that I think about it, it's baffling that Jon gets flack for reacting to such a thing when he's never encountered it before. 

8 hours ago, GrailKing said:

That warning was hardly vague, she had emotion in that freaking warning, she had fear, she had worried look, yeah if she could think of a scenario of maybe he will kill Rickon in front of us to draw you out; but neither thought that would happen.And if she did say it and it happened, what's to stop people here or in story claiming she planned that?

How would she had planned that??? There is literally no reason people would believe that Sansa teamed up with Ramsey to have her little brother killed and I'm insulted that you believe that Sansa hate is that real that her detractors would even go there. Saying, "He's a dangerous man." Is vague as fuck even if there were tears streaming down a person's face along with the choked sobs to top it off. HOW is that person dangerous? How is Jon supposed to plan for Ramsey based off of her threat? If you've never been tormented and a sadistic person killed someone you loved on front of you, how would YOU react? Hell, even the Frey's were just going to straight up kill Edmure. Jon didn't react until Ramsey turned into a game. Sansa gave him jack shit to work on, so no, she gave no helpful INPUT on STRATEGY. It's like telling someone the best way to win is to win. Really, thanks for that. Instead Sansa said, "He's a creative opponent, so win." Gosh, that's really helpful. 

I truly don't mean to be snarky with you, it's honestly Sansa's input, but realistically speaking, she didn't help Jon at all despite complaining about him overlooking her input. She told him to forget about Rickon when she could've said instead, "I don't what know he's going to do, Jon, but he's cruel and he enjoys hurting others...I know he's not going to let Rickon survive. May--maybe he'll try to use other brother against you to get to you somehow. I'm not sure. But, no matter what he does, don't react, Jon, don't react." Boom. Clues Jon in all while offer some input that isn't vague as hell.

==========

My other issue: Not every criticism or dislike regarding female characters is hatred of women or the feminine. I notice that Sansa is the most to receive this type of defense. This is not to say comments about her are never of the misogynistic brand, but I hardly ever hear this about Dany, Cersei, Arya, Asha/Yara, Margarey, and so forth. I suppose since Sansa is featured more (I think), it's different. But, no matter how scathing remarks were or have been about Arya when calling her a psycho or ruthless killer, not many people were talking about how she lost her family, was alone, saw them killed, etc minus her defenders. But, where was the "she's only get this treatment because she's a female?" Margery uses her feminine wiles all of the time and she's received very little criticism and is a fan favorite. Dany is said to be going insane and all sorts of other shit. Cerise is very much loathed. Whenever those other female characters receive dislike, it isn't summed up to hating female characters who express (stereotypical) femininity.

I've made my peace with Sansa, but YES, I did dislike her in the beginning. I perhaps could've gotten over that she lied about why happened with Arya's friend if, afterwards, she hadn't been all like "my sweet prince" and she wasn't doing that shit to stay in character. No, she was still gaga over Joffrey's psychotic ass UNTIL he started harming her. There was some other shit too, but her reaction to Joffrey's flat out lying, and then an innocent person being killed doesn't get deep thought--yep, I'm going to dislike that person. 

Catelyn is a feminine character, but I disliked her SOELY based off of how she treated Jon. I came to love her character, but I still LOATHE how she treated Jon. There seems to be more projection about why people dislike a female character than actually trying to understand the why.

And some may believe that Sansa was brought down to Ramsey's level due to the level of violence she participated in. Not because she is female, but rather, that type of violence disturbs them. At the same time, if you've defended Sansa's actions regarding extreme violence and the people calling her moral character into question, but have called Arya a psycho/sociopath, YOU have double standards. Their stories aren't exactly the same, and I'm not calling out anyone in particular, BUT I've heard Sansa defenders criticize Arya for many things that they now defend Sansa against. They've also made her out to be some heartless killer as well. Or try to cut down Arya to prop up Sansa, "Yeah, people like the tomboys who harm and kill, but don't care for the feminine, characters like Sansa who adhere to custom." 

Edited June 23, 2016 by Nanrad
added a word for clarification

[Oscirus]

Quote

 

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?

 

Again, nobody's arguing that Ramsay didn't deserve it. Listing all of his crimes doesn't change the fact that by killing Ramsey in the manner that she did to get pleasure she went down to his level.  This is not a political thing, it's a character thing.

Are you referring to when Jon stopped himself from doing it despite the fact that he was in the heat of the moment? 

Quote

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.

It took a lot for Ned to go to war. His sister got "kidnapped," his father and brother were killed and he still didn't go to war until the king tried to attack him.

 

Quote

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

Yea I got the movie right that should merit some points.

 

Quote

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 admit that was fully fucked up. He all but screwed Theon of what was rightfully his. But that's another conversation.

 

Quote

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.

Ned maintained respect for the dude responsible for the destruction of his family. He showed respect for the people who tried to kill him in order to stop him from seeing his sister. Yea, I'm pretty sure that Ned would've been humane. Honor was pretty much in his DNA.

 

Quote

It's not even so much that it's different standards for Sansa. Or Arya. I see a whole lot of people holding the women to standards that they don't apply to the men in this show. That's actually kind of sad.

That goes both ways. The only difference is that when it's a woman or her actions that people dislike it's apparently misogyny, when it's a male character then it's any other number of reasons that don't include misandry. Funny how double standards works.

[stagmania]

Watching the arguments about what Sansa knew and why she kept it a secret go 'round and 'round in circles, with no one ever gaining the upper ground because there is no textual evidence to support any theory above another, pretty much says it all re: the quality of the writing around this plot. Viewers are left to interpret it based on how they feel about Sansa and what they want to believe about her motivations, and the vastly different conclusions that can be drawn are in total opposition to each other, as ably demonstrated by the article @Silje posted. It leaves us with no foothold to understand who we're supposed to think Sansa is at this stage in the story, in what was clearly meant to be a defining moment for her character arc. That's just some textbook bad writing right there. It's possible they can salvage it next week, but every time I've expected them to follow up and clarify a puzzling character moment in the past, I've been let down.

[screamin]

3 hours ago, Oscirus said:

Ned maintained respect for the dude responsible for the destruction of his family. He showed respect for the people who tried to kill him in order to stop him from seeing his sister. Yea, I'm pretty sure that Ned would've been humane. Honor was pretty much in his DNA.

 

Well, except for that time he survived the duel with Arthur Dayne by watching his friend stab him in the back, then letting everyone think for 15 years that he'd bested the Best Knight Ever.

It's worth noting that Ned never actually confronted either dude responsible for the destruction of his family. More to my point, he did not actually helplessly witness Aerys having his father and brother being burned to death, nor did he subsequently get beaten and raped by Rhaegar and then see Rhaegar give him the charred corpse of Ned's servant who tried to help Ned and Rhaegar burned alive in punishment; nor did Rhaegar fall into his hands after he murdered Lyanna.

IMO, if all these things had happened to Ned in quick succession and then Rhaegar fell into his hands soon after (instead of Ned having fifteen years to recover from trauma like Original Ned had), well - you MAY think that Ned would've STILL had the Christlike restraint to then give Rhaegar the kindly painless death he gave the NW deserter. I think there's abundant room for doubt. Ned was far from perfect, and all the suffering he went through in his life was a walk in the park compared to what his children have gone through. If he had gone through that same suffering, he would have been a different person (and maybe then he wouldn't have let his sense of humaneness toward Cersei and her children overwhelm the care he should've taken of his own first).

Edited June 23, 2016 by screamin

[Constantinople]

19 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?

 

15 hours 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.

 

3 hours ago, Oscirus said:

It took a lot for Ned to go to war. His sister got "kidnapped," his father and brother were killed and he still didn't go to war until the king tried to attack him.

It took a lot for Sansa to feed Ramsay to his dogs.

Why is that unacceptable when it's acceptable for (tens of) thousands of innocents to die for Ned to avenge Lyanna, Rickard & Brandon?

Ned can't, in my opinion, claim self defense.  Aerys had no dragons and Ned was safe in the Vale, and would have been safe in the North.  Moreover, Ramsay didn't just try to attack Sansa, he did attack her, over and over and over, in the most brutal way possible.  It was also made quite clear to Sansa that she'd be converted into dog shit once she dropped the proverbial heir and the spare.

[Hana Chan]

Just saying that I have absolutely zero percent outrage over Sansa getting revenge on Ramsey or using his dogs to get it. After what she'd been through, she more than deserved to get his blood on her hands and using his own tools to do it was poetic justice.

Still have major issues with her not telling Jon about Littlefinger possibly providing aid or totally writing off Rickon when she used Rickon's safety as a reason for Jon to take on Ramsey. Her motivation and actions were just all over the place and made for poor characterization on her part.

[domina89]

15 hours ago, nksarmi said:

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.

If Sansa is indeed just trying to be safe, then you have to acknowledge that she may be capable of doing whatever it takes to make that happen.  We have seen numerous examples of other characters who have killed and worse in order to make themselves safe or their children safe.  Sansa would not be an exception to this, especially since she is so damaged at this point.  I think the way she chose to kill Ramsay is a metaphor, in a way, of herself.  Those dogs used to be sweet puppies until they were cruelly treated and abused to the point that they became vicious killers.  I can't help but see a parallel there to Sansa.  I just think it is ingenuous, especially with this series, to reason that Sansa would not be capable of joining up with Littlefinger and turning on Jon or turning on both of them in order to keep herself safe (if that's her motivation).

As others have said, it could be bad writing or it might be something more- until we see more, any of us could be correct as to who she is now or what she may become in the future.

 

6 hours ago, jeansheridan said:

I am fine with Ghost left out.  I need one direwolf.  Maybe he is looking for Nymeria.

Me too.  I'm still hoping somehow, in some way, Ghost and Nymeria survive this.

[Advance35]

Quote

If Sansa is indeed just trying to be safe, then you have to acknowledge that she may be capable of doing whatever it takes to make that happen.  We have seen numerous examples of other characters who have killed and worse in order to make themselves safe or their children safe.  Sansa would not be an exception to this, especially since she is so damaged at this point.  I think the way she chose to kill Ramsay is a metaphor, in a way, of herself.  Those dogs used to be sweet puppies until they were cruelly treated and abused to the point that they became vicious killers.  I can't help but see a parallel there to Sansa.  I just think it is ingenuous, especially with this series, to reason that Sansa would not be capable of joining up with Littlefinger and turning on Jon or turning on both of them in order to keep herself safe (if that's her motivation).

This is the aspect of the character that interest me the most at the moment.  I think Sansa is in a place where she wants to be safe and avoid abuse no matter the cost.   I don't think Sansa ever turned on Jon and I don't think she would.............but I think her outlook on Rickon this episode shows that Sansa can recognize a lost cause and treat it as such.   Jon was not inclined to battle for Winterfell, it was something Sansa had to work at with him, when Ramsay boasted about having Rickon in the letter, it made a good rallying point.   It motivated Jon.  But she wanted to brace him for reality as the time for the actual battle came near.  So she gave him the sad truth.   Rickon was dead, he just may not have fallen down yet.   I think Sansa loves her family BUT I think this episode displayed a pragmatic outlook that she would apply to any of them.  If she thought there was something she could do to help or to save them she would, even if she didn't want to (hence getting re-entangled with Littlefinger) but if she knew they were a dead man (or woman in Arya's case) walking, I think she has it in her to face that fact and act and make decisions to suit herself.

I think she's heading towards being coldly pragmatic and maybe opportunistic but I don't think that makes her a villain.  She's developed a coldness to face a cold world.

[screamin]

Another thing that occurred to me regarding what Ned might have thought about Sansa and Arya's recent actions:

I actually think Ned would overlook Sansa's and Arya's behavior in the matter of dispensing justice. Proof? Look at Ned and King Bob. King Robert condoned the murder of blameless Elia and her innocent children, promoted and rewarded the man who'd ordered it, applauded the murders as no crime at all, and didn't lift a finger to punish the man who'd carried out the murders and the rape of Elia that he'd apparently done purely on his own initiative.

IMO, this is a far worse crime than any either Sansa or Arya have committed. Yet Ned, despite having SEEN with his own eyes that Robert was capable of it, forgave him for it and persisted to the end in thinking that Robert was a fundamentally good man despite it, because he loved Robert.

IMO, given that nothing that either Arya or Sansa did was as heinous (they punished only the guilty, after all), and that Ned loved them, I'd guess that if Ned saw what Arya or Sansa had been the victim of and what they had done in response, he would pat them on the head and say, "There now, it's all right, you were just upset. Don't do it again, that's all."

[BooBear]

11 hours ago, jeansheridan said:

I am not big on romance on this show, but Jon may need something like that to ease the grimness.  Alas the women are few in the North.  Or maybe he just needs his little sister Arya.

Now that he is freed from the nights watch I feel sort of the same way. But I worry they are eyeing Sana for the part and imho that would be a disaster.

[Oscirus]

The Ned arguments comes down to guess work. Since he was never in such a situation, who knows how he would've reacted. Different people react in different ways. Yada, yada, yada.

I don't necessarily see it as bad to go down to a bad guy's level as long as the writing justifies it.

I have no problem with Arya's Trant justice it made sense for the character to do it. In Sansa's case, it just felt like fan service complete with a speech at the end that's totally contradicted by her actions.

[GrailKing]

10 hours ago, Nanrad said:

  18 HOURS AGO, GRAILKING SAID:

That warning was hardly vague, she had emotion in that freaking warning, she had fear, she had worried look, yeah if she could think of a scenario of maybe he will kill Rickon in front of us to draw you out; but neither thought that would happen.And if she did say it and it happened, what's to stop people here or in story claiming she planned that?

How would she had planned that??? There is literally no reason people would believe that Sansa teamed up with Ramsey to have her little brother killed and I'm insulted that you believe that Sansa hate is that real that her detractors would even go there. Saying, "He's a dangerous man." Is vague as fuck even if there were tears streaming down a person's face along with the choked sobs to top it off. HOW is that person dangerous? How is Jon supposed to plan for Ramsey based off of her threat? If you've never been tormented and a sadistic person killed someone you loved on front of you, how would YOU react? Hell, even the Frey's were just going to straight up kill Edmure. Jon didn't react until Ramsey turned into a game. Sansa gave him jack shit to work on, so no, she gave no helpful INPUT on STRATEGY. It's like telling someone the best way to win is to win. Really, thanks for that. Instead Sansa said, "He's a creative opponent, so win." Gosh, that's really helpful. 

I truly don't mean to be snarky with you, it's honestly Sansa's input, but realistically speaking, she didn't help Jon at all despite complaining about him overlooking her input. She told him to forget about Rickon when she could've said instead, "I don't what know he's going to do, Jon, but he's cruel and he enjoys hurting others...I know he's not going to let Rickon survive. May--maybe he'll try to use other brother against you to get to you somehow. I'm not sure. But, no matter what he does, don't react, Jon, don't react." Boom. Clues Jon in all while offer some input that isn't vague as hell.

==========

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.

[GrailKing]

Anyone wonder why Melisandre hasn't talked to Sansa?, outside of the castle black scene where she was silent  there seems no interaction with Sansa, not even a bad vibe.

[GrailKing]

17 hours ago, nksarmi said:

Holy crap. You know I didn't once think Sansa wasn't "concerned" with that shot of her and LF watching the battle. I knew LF and the Vale was coming - the show telegraphed that. I think Sophie did an outstanding job showing of showing so much from Sansa and I really don't think I'm reading things into her performance that weren't there.

This episode did not happen in a bottle. We've seen Sansa all season. This what I saw....

1. Sansa is f-ing pissed at what LF talked her into and she does NOT trust him.

2. Sansa believed that North would rally behind them and she could count on the Tullys to help. She was disappointed and disillusioned yet again. Her faith in people keeps taking hit after hit. She knows she can believe in a few people - Brie and Jon for example. But she doesn't trust them to protect her - she just knows they would die trying.

3. She knows Ramsey is going to use Rickon and maybe other innocents against Jon, but she doesn't know how. And she can see it's going to work because Jon isn't cold-hearted enough for it not to work.

4. Sansa doesn't trust LF so she didn't know if he would come. She doesn't tell Jon because if LF doesn't come or worse, he betrays her and sides with the Boltons, it could mean she ruined everything.

5. Sansa was prepared to kill herself rather than return to Ramsey. I believed her 100% in that moment. Those are not the words of a woman who knows help is coming.

6. The battlefield was not lined up by the camp. LF probably found her camp and then she rode in with him. The Vale troops were riding at full charge by the time they reached the battle. I don't think even LF was holding back and Sansa sure as hell wouldn't have wanted that.

7. Sansa's expression looking down on the battle was at first concerned and then satisfied when she realized the tide was turning and the Bolton men were going to be crushed.

I say again, I love, love, love Sansa's story this season. She has suffered so much and she has been risen as one hell of a she-wolf. I don't think Sansa is a player but I do think she could be one awesome ruler if she can survive all that is still to come. I can't wait to see what comes next for her.

Well she may not be a player of LF caliber, but QOT version is a possibility.

Either way she be better then Ned,Cat,Robb and Jon.

[GrailKing]

17 hours ago, Constantinople said:

 

 

Mea culpa as to Lyssa & the moon door (but the attempted rape during the KL riot hadn't proceeded to attempted murder yet).

Still, of the 3 never brutally killed Starks, Sansa is

• 1 of 2 to appear in every season and of those 2
• 1 o 1 never to abandon, even temporarily, the idea of being a Stark to be "no one".

Well Sandor thought differently then you when he told Arya; he said they would leave her for dead slitting her throat.

[GrailKing]

5 hours ago, Hana Chan said:

Just saying that I have absolutely zero percent outrage over Sansa getting revenge on Ramsey or using his dogs to get it. After what she'd been through, she more than deserved to get his blood on her hands and using his own tools to do it was poetic justice.

Still have major issues with her not telling Jon about Littlefinger possibly providing aid or totally writing off Rickon when she used Rickon's safety as a reason for Jon to take on Ramsey. Her motivation and actions were just all over the place and made for poor characterization on her part.

She didn't totally write Rickon off, she knew the man, but to her it was proven true when Ramsey threw down the wolf head.

Nobody thought he bring him to the battle, and Sansa wasn't yet at the battle when it started.

Any guesses who Sansa says the lines of what was taken... to?

I'm thinking Jon.

[Gertrude]

5 hours ago, Hana Chan said:

Just saying that I have absolutely zero percent outrage over Sansa getting revenge on Ramsey or using his dogs to get it. After what she'd been through, she more than deserved to get his blood on her hands and using his own tools to do it was poetic justice.

The wording of this post made me step back a bit. To clarify, I am not outraged or calling Sansa's smirk bad writing. I am very disappointed they chose to let her smile about it. I get that she wants and deserves revenge. I'm just thinking about how often you hear about people who've lost loved ones and chose to watch the killer executed. What they say more often than not is that it didn't make them feel good, but that it was over and done and something they felt they had to do. That's pretty much all I am saying. The smile goes beyond that and I don't think it's a permanent fixture of her character, but for that small moment, it was disturbing to me. On the internet we often get caught up in defending our view and we end up building up walls that can't be breached, when often, we have much more nuanced opinions or don't feel them with the force we are arguing them.

[Gertrude]

3 hours ago, screamin said:

I actually think Ned would overlook Sansa's and Arya's behavior in the matter of dispensing justice. Proof? Look at Ned and King Bob. King Robert condoned the murder of blameless Elia and her innocent children, promoted and rewarded the man who'd ordered it, applauded the murders as no crime at all, and didn't lift a finger to punish the man who'd carried out the murders and the rape of Elia that he'd apparently done purely on his own initiative.

IMO, this is a far worse crime than any either Sansa or Arya have committed. Yet Ned, despite having SEEN with his own eyes that Robert was capable of it, forgave him for it and persisted to the end in thinking that Robert was a fundamentally good man despite it, because he loved Robert.

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.

[Tikichick]

3 minutes 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.

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. 

Ned challenging Robert sending assassins after Dany to the point they nearly fell out permanently was very telling. 

[benteen]

It was Lyanna's death that brought Ned and Robert back together.  Though how two men so completely different became such good friends is always something to wonder about.

[Tikichick]

1 minute ago, benteen said:

It was Lyanna's death that brought Ned and Robert back together.  Though how two men so completely different became such good friends is always something to wonder about.

I thought it was their shared childhood being fostered by Jon Arryn?  I think Robert changed tremendously as the years went on, Ned not so much.

[Pogojoco]

13 hours ago, jeansheridan said:

I like Jon this season.  Dying should change a man.  They kept saying in the making of that Jon pulling himself up from under the bodies was a rebirth.  So maybe we will see a livelier Jon.  

I am not big on romance on this show, but Jon may need something like that to ease the grimness.  Alas the women are few in the North.  Or maybe he just needs his little sister Arya.

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.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Pogojoco

[arjumand]

1 hour ago, Gertrude said:

The wording of this post made me step back a bit. To clarify, I am not outraged or calling Sansa's smirk bad writing. I am very disappointed they chose to let her smile about it. I get that she wants and deserves revenge. I'm just thinking about how often you hear about people who've lost loved ones and chose to watch the killer executed. What they say more often than not is that it didn't make them feel good, but that it was over and done and something they felt they had to do. That's pretty much all I am saying. The smile goes beyond that and I don't think it's a permanent fixture of her character, but for that small moment, it was disturbing to me. On the internet we often get caught up in defending our view and we end up building up walls that can't be breached, when often, we have much more nuanced opinions or don't feel them with the force we are arguing them.

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.

Her revenge was solely over what happened to her, personally, because rape is both personal and deliberate. Ramsey chose to violate her when he could have won her over and made her his willing slave: like most sociopaths, he could act very charming when he wanted, and he even had a mistress, Myranda, who wasn't the type to put up with his bullshit. So he must have had some game.

Instead he chose to violate her in front of an unwilling audience, in ways that were both painful and humiliating, and he kept doing it, over and over, until she had to get away from him or die in the attempt.

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.

 

1 hour ago, Tikichick said:

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. 

Ned challenging Robert sending assassins after Dany to the point they nearly fell out permanently was very telling. 

It's interesting that the show chose to include the scene in the crypt at Winterfell, where Robert complains that Lyanna is buried in such a gloomy place. Ned is quite sharp with Robert there: "She was my sister." It just goes to show how essentially stupid and oblivious Robert was, that he didn't hear it. Also, the assassins after Dany fight was really Ned having had enough - in the books, Dany is even younger than on the show, and you get the impression that Ned has had enough of his 'great friend' Robert murdering children. Which is why he makes the biggest mistake of his life and warns Cersei that he's on to her.

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.

Edited June 23, 2016 by arjumand

[Funzlerks]

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.  And symbolicly meaningful executions were a thing in the Middle Ages.

[ElizaD]

7 minutes ago, Funzlerks said:

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.  And symbolicly meaningful executions were a thing in the Middle Ages.

The talk about Sansa turning away a little but then watching after all seems to have focused on how it's a sign that she's tough/cruel now, yet it's actually a neat echo of Ned's lesson when Bran was taken to watch the execution of the NW deserter. Sansa arranges Ramsay's karmically appropriate execution and decides that yes, she can look at him and be the Stark who wields the sword (by unleashing the hounds) because he deserves to die for his crimes.

[Love]

1 hour ago, Pogojoco said:

I am not big on romance on this show, but Jon may need something like that to ease the grimness.  Alas the women are few in the North.

There's always Mel.  She was ready, willing and able once.....

1 hour ago, Pogojoco said: