Nanrad June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 10 hours ago, GrailKing said: As far as hate 2 reasons, 1.Yes it's because she's a girly girl, been on boards ~5-6 years and this is valid, 2nd. she's blamed for Ned's death, again by what's in book and how the show portrayed it this isn't true and despite years after and growth people still see GOT Sansa, they disregard her maturity to plea in front of the court and get the Kings Mercy ( which he betrayed her on ). Third she didn't support Arya, also not true. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I think from his military and LC experience he needs to help her draw out what he needs, but he's not really a bargainer more of a solitary decision maker, he needed to draw what he needs from her, but he doesn't fully understand her internal issues, she has info which could be useful, but her experiences and fears negate her trust and her comfort zone. [...] 1. I don't think the criticism about why she is hated on is invalid, I think it's overused and, at times, her fans get so defensive of her that they resort to sexism/misogyny claims rather than discriminating in their accusations. Sansa has been criticized for years, but very shortly after her criticism began, the claims of misogyny and sexism also arose as well. Quite simply, I don't think the issue for many is her being a girly girl, it's that we don't understand the complexities of her motivations and her thought processes mostly in the show, but in the books as well for some. OR we disagree with them. Despite Dany taking on the conquering role, I see her as very feminine--her clothes, behavior, etc--is all feminine, IMO. Margaery blatantly uses her sexuality for gain and is super feminine. Neither have the same backlash as Sansa and that's because we have a better handle of both characters and their behavior is pretty consistent. Sansa is put in many situations where her agency was robbed, but again, other women have also been in this same position in GOT. Sansa's issue for the longest: waiting for others to save her. Whether this opinion is supported or fallacious isn't the point--that's just the perception. When you have women like Cersei, Margaery and her grandmother scheming, watching Sansa wait or be slow to catch on is very underwhelming and frustrating. We can blame Ned for not preparing her, but sooner or later, we can't put that on him. The issue with Sansa is that these male writers don't know how to write this type of female character (on average, men struggle to write women far more than women struggle to write men). Sansa is going to take that brunt of that because she's the vessel of these ideas and actions. But, for me, and I honestly don't think for many others, it's not about femininity, but how she navigates Westeros even while in such a delicate position that has resulted in a mass amount of dislike. Cersei is super feminine, where is the sexism and misogyny critique for people who love to hate her? That hate her due to her actions and people criticize Cersei for not being the player she believes she is NOT because she's a woman and I believe that goes for Sansa as well. Again, some hate her for the reasons you've stated, but I think it's overused and overstated that it's because of sexism/misogyny. Someone else mentioned that Bran received a lot of hate for the T3R getting killed as well as Hodor. But, if Sansa was put in his place, people would claim it was sexism and misogyny and they'd be trying to excuse the huge fuck up that led to those deaths. That's why many of these sexism/misogyny claims fall apart: there are many instances where others can or have been put in her place and are either equality criticized, if not more, and no one uses the same defense that Sansa frequently gets. 2. There are people who dislike Sansa based off of the book, some who dislike her based off of the show, and some who feel the same about her from both mediums--I'm not sure if GOT influenced how someone feels about the book, especially when we are able to understand her thoughts and actions better. Their dislike also comes from other things as well. 3. Sansa hate due to Lady/Micah/Ned situation is a bit more complex, which the show was too nuanced with. My original dislike came from her behavior AFTER the "trial" and how she was all like "my sweet prince" and meant it and not because she did what she had to do. ========= Someone can correct me on this, but although there are complexities when it comes to strategy in war, they have a very narrow way of thinking. For Jon, Sansa's advice and fear is abstract if she cannot verbalize and be specific about Ramsey's threat. He cannot work out what he's never encountered and, since Sansa was the one who accused him of not asking for her input, it is her job to be specific. You've basically just said that Jon doesn't fully understand her internal issues and neither does Sansa. How is it Jon's fault for not understanding how to whittle information for someone who has trust issues and doesn't necessarily understand themselves? I don't think Rickon would've been saved if Sansa told Jon that LF might be a resource, I think that Jon and Daavos would've planned accordingly for extra men and made different decisions. Such as, Daavos not sending the first set of men, and then the rest when Jon left. Even if we want to say that Sansa made the right decision, her trust issues puts others at risk. When you at war, you're fucked if you can't trust the people around you and they don't trust you. 3 Link to comment
Nanrad June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Funzlerks said: I feel like this was a pretty triumphant episode for Sansa. She kind of won the Battle of the Bastards. She killed her rapist who killed her brother and took her family's castle. And she gets to smile because she'll never see him again and she gets to stay in her own home safely. Then I read the thread and found out she was like Gregor who kills babies because she executed someone who was about to be executed within hours. And he was, unquestionably, the worst person in Westeros. That is saying a lot. And she exists in the same show as her little sister who trains to be an assassin who receives a name and kills the person just because. And the same show as Sandor, who begged to ax murder prisoners who already had nooses on their neck. The same show as the freaking Lannisters, Greyjoys, Tyrells, and Martells who all would smile while killing enemies. Jaime smirked while pushing a little kid out of a window. Tyrion almost did a jig after killing Tywin. If Emilia Clarke could manage expressions, maybe Danerys would look happy when she starts her chaos. Sansa earned her smile. The bolded statement is the stuff I'm talking about, some of Sansa's defenders consistently put down Arya to upraise Sansa. It's baffling. People who criticize Sansa are criticized for not understanding the intricacies of Sansa's character all while grossly simplifying Arya's motivations and behavior to prove how unfair we're being towards Sansa. Arya is younger than Sansa, maybe not by a lot, but most people would argue that older children are generally more mature than younger ones even if they are older by a year. Sansa understands Westeros practices far better than Arya and adheres to them more. Sansa lost her dog, well, Arya lost her friend and may be felt (a little) responsible for him being killed even though it wasn't her fault. Sansa witnessed Ned's head getting chopped off, Arya was blocked from it, but still had a first row seat. Sansa lost her mother and brother, Arya just arrived just as her mother and brother was killed--if she'd been a little earlier she would've been killed herself. She had to pretend to be a boy in order to avoid being raped or caught, and then returned to KL and a lot of other shit. Both have been through traumatic shit that changes a person. Arya has also had to kill to stay alive, but she's also has done it out of vengeance. Her path to becoming an assassin who receives and kills just because wasn't done for pleasure and just because. Arya is emotionally traumatized as well and doesn't know how to cope, especially since all she feels is anger. In her mind, becoming no one was better than being some orphan who lost all of her family. Arya doesn't take pleasure from killing, I believe. So, going to the complaint: can Sansa feel happy about her rapist being dead and getting her home back? Yes. But, editing and placement is everything. Do you think people would still feel the same way about Sansa smiling if she'd been alone or another place apart from Ramsey? I don't. I don't think there is any way anyone could argue she took pleasure from killing Ramsey the way she did. And there is a difference between being happy he is dead and taking pleasure from killing. Regardless of his killing being justified, it is still dark to take pleasure FROM it. And smiling as she looked at him being torn apart??? That's dark as fuck and, for some people, that level of violence REGARDLESS of who it is, does pull them down to the level of people who find enjoyment in other's suffering justified or not. Does it make her the same as Gregor? No. But, now she has something in common with him. Hell, there are others way to convey her happiness about her rapist being dead other than her smiling as he got rip to shreds. And it does prove Ramsey's point, despite her killing him is justified. There is no way that a person who doesn't have a touch of darkness to them reacts like Sansa did. And I do believe that Arya has darkness in her as well for very obvious reasons. 3 Link to comment
Gertrude June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 3 hours ago, Funzlerks said: Then I read the thread and found out she was like Gregor who kills babies because she executed someone who was about to be executed within hours. So what I learned from this post is that I shouldn't try to explain the nuances of my opinions because few people actually read them. It's much easier to over-simplify and use hyperbole to make it sound ridiculous in order to tear it down. Thank you, actually. I am done with this subject. 5 Link to comment
Oscirus June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 (edited) Quote Lets be real, how do you know what she's thinking? I could ask you the same question. Or is it only the pro sansa torture crowd that can make suggestions as to what she was thinking. Quote Dude, I'm not an expert on dogs, and I knew that, and you took my word for it, because what I wrote was simple common sense. Why do you assume that Sansa is more ignorant on dogs than we modern urbanites are? She grew up in a home where it's a normal thing to hunt (and if you're going to say that a girly-girl like Sansa wouldn't know shit about that, I'll counter with the fact that in England riding to the hunt with the hounds was the occupation of the highest class ladies riding sidesaddle with exquisitely tailored habits). Not to mention she raised and trained her own direwolf puppy to be as well-behaved as a housebroken leash-trained bichon frise. IMO, that requires a certain expertise with canids. You knew because you just watched it happen to Ramsay on tv, Sunday. Same reason why I took your word for it. Knowing what happens if you surround yourself with starved dogs is not common sense and I seriously doubt that either Ned or Catelyn would have bothered to teach any of their kids that. And yes I'm making a dreaded assumption but I'm pretty sure that learning about starving dogs is not needed in order to train wolves. Quote Ooh, tell me where you downloaded that chilling scene of Sansa spotting the dogs, with the voice-over telling us exactly what she's thinking, after she tried and failed to find someone to flay Ramsey! Yep it's that easy to find a skilled flayer. Quote You assume an ignorance of dogs there's no proof Sansa possesses, as well as the assumption that she couldn't possibly find anyone to flay Ramsey - even though with all the victims Ramsey's claimed over the last year, Sansa could probably stand on her doorstep and find a dozen relatives who would enthusiastically volunteer. You also assume she's such an idiot that she'd think that Ramsey could die faster by flaying him one fingerjoint at a time than by being attacked by dogs - even though you and I are not experts in flaying, and we can see that that's obviously not true. You assume a knowledge of dogs that there's no proof that Sansa possesses as well as the fact that there are people in Winterfell that have the skill, heart and sadistic streak necessary to flay somebody alive. You also apparently assume that keeping somebody alive while flaying them apparently comes down to picking the correct body parts to flay and if one doesn't know how to flay correctly they're an idiot. If Quote your argument that Sansa is a Ramsey-like sadist requires you to make stuff up and add a bunch of farfetched assumptions without supporting evidence to back it up, then maybe your argument's not as strong as you think. OMG are we playing the misstate/exaggerate the opposing side's point to make their argument look ridiculous? ooh let me try. If your argument that Sansa is a ptsd suffering angel who was only trying to give Ramsay the death he deserved requires you to make stuff up and add a bunch of farfetched assumptions without supporting evidence to back it up, then maybe your argument's not as strong as you think. Quote Quoting yet another instance when Ned was ready to kill someone who hadn't killed anybody (the other two are the Night Watch deserter and innocent child Theon) isn't, IMO, the most convincing way to prove that Ned's totally above torture. Because Ned following the letter of the law is now apparently torture. Quote Ned then decided to point an accusatory finger at Sansa and Arya's actions against actual guilty parties and condemn them mercilessly - IMO, that would be REAL hypocrisy on Ned's part. On the whole, I don't think the actual evidence supports the view of Ned as the 21st Century Anachronistic "Sensitive Guy" you seem to picture him as. Because disagreeing with somebody's actions means condemning them mercilessly? Ned being anti-torture apparently makes him a 21st Century Anachronistic "Sensitive Guy. Anymore wild exaggerations of the things I say? But I'm apparently just being misogynistic. I'm sure next Sunday that Sansa will be fitted for her halo and wings. Edited June 25, 2016 by Oscirus Link to comment
Hecate7 June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 (edited) Quote Sansa lost her dog, well, Arya lost her friend and may be felt (a little) responsible for him being killed even though it wasn't her fault It's not her fault that Joffrey was a jerk who ordered the Hound to run Mycah down and kill him. But it WAS her fault that Mycah found himself in a position to offend Joffrey in the first place. She knew perfectly well that Mycah shouldn't be sparring with a Lady, and that if the wrong people saw, there could be bad consequences. She should have ordered Mycah home as soon as Joffrey and Sansa hove into view. She couldn't have known what a bully Joffrey was, or how cruel, but she did know that what she was doing was improper, and that although she herself would not be punished, Mycah probably would. She can't have known anyone would punish him with death, but she should have known there might be a sharp switching, minimum, in Mycah's future.She also didn't know what Sansa has at long last figured out: that nobody can protect anybody. As for the implication that Arya losing Mycah was worse than Sansa losing her dog, Lady was Sansa's constant companion she'd raised from a pup and trained to be as docile as a lap dog. They slept together, walked together, and moved almost as one. Lady loved Sansa unconditionally, and is probably the only being who ever did. By contrast, Mycah was a random kid Arya found to play with, who couldn't refuse her like her brothers could, because he had to say yes to whatever a Stark kid ordered him to do. He may not even have liked her. Arya doesn't seem to have known anything about him except that his father was their butcher. There's no reason to think they were all that close, really. Arya feels personally responsible for his death and that guilt forms the main basis of their "friendship." Edited June 25, 2016 by Hecate7 2 Link to comment
Hecate7 June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 49 minutes ago, Gertrude said: So what I learned from this post is that I shouldn't try to explain the nuances of my opinions because few people actually read them. It's much easier to over-simplify and use hyperbole to make it sound ridiculous in order to tear it down. Thank you, actually. I am done with this subject. Quote And smiling as she looked at him being torn apart??? She didn't do that. She smiled afterwards. Speaking of nuances, it may not seem like a large distinction, but it really is. Smiling WHILE watching would suggest enjoyment of the spectacle. She was steely-eyed and cold during that sequence. It was only afterwards, as she walked away, that the smile appeared. It was not his suffering or his screams, or the sight of him being torn apart, that motivated the smile. It was the closure. 10 Link to comment
ElizaD June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 5 hours ago, deedee said: I have NOT forgiven Ned however for putting his honor over the safety of his children. He should have made sure his daughters were far away before confronting Cersei. Idiot. Compassion, not honor. The honorable thing would have been to inform the king of the treason and not instruct the traitor to escape justice. There's no sign that Ned was motivated by his own personal honor either, attempting to risk everything so he could boast about having the moral high ground over his enemies. It was his compassionate, unselfish desire to save the lives of innocent children from the fate of Rhaegar's children, even though their parents had crippled his own little boy to hide their crime, that doomed him. Judge him for underestimating Cersei's ability to strike back and not taking care to set up a situation where he could confront her with the choice of either being led to exile with her children right now or being taken to Robert in chains, or for being too blind to his outnumbered situation in KL to see that he should arrange both Cersei's exile and the departure of Sansa/Arya before making a move. But how can people say Ned put his honor over the safety of his children? He lied and spat on his own honor when he was later given the choice between lying (and letting traitors get away with regicide) and his children. Telling Cersei to escape (however badly he handled the situation when he failed to account for Littlefinger's treachery and the degree of Lannister control of KL) was not driven by honor but by his compassion and his conscience, which would not let him be indifferent to the possibility of Robert treating Cersei's children like Rhaegar's. To Ned, honor came after the safety of children, whether his own, Rhaegar's or Cersei's. If he's going to be blamed, blame him for the mistakes and choices he actually made instead of using "honor" as an accusation that has little to do with either the concept of honor in his society or Ned's own motivations. In a medieval-ish society, compassion and honor can be very different things. That was the point of Jaime's story when he murdered the Mad King he'd sworn to protect to keep him from burning King's Landing: he showed compassion but abandoned honor. Same for Ned when he told Cersei he knew about her children: he would have been honorable (which people accuse him of) if he had gone to Robert at once, but not very compassionate if he had taken the Tywin path and accepted that Robert might kill Joffrey/Myrcella/Tommen simply for having been born and threatening the stability of the king's reign. Sansa was not compassionate to Ramsay, but though the method of execution was unconventional, it's not impossible to argue that she was being honorable by judging a criminal and carrying out his sentence of death for treason against his rightful lord. "Medieval realism" shouldn't only be brought up as an excuse to show marital rape: when medieval people committed crimes, they paid for them with their lives and the suffering or mutilation of their bodies. 8 Link to comment
WearyTraveler June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 So, to lighten up the mood in here, guess what? I went to see Kit Harington in Dr. Faustus at the Duke of York Theatre. I saw Jon Snow's ass and you didn't! :-P 16 Link to comment
paigow June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, WearyTraveler said: So, to lighten up the mood in here, guess what? I went to see Kit Harington in Dr. Faustus at the Duke of York Theatre. I saw Jon Snow's ass and you didn't! :-P Was it gratuitous or vital to plot development? Is there an equal amount of stage time female nudity? Edited June 25, 2016 by paigow 1 Link to comment
WearyTraveler June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, paigow said: Was it gratuitous or vital to plot development? It was vital to plot development, but had it been gratuitous, I wouldn't have complained! I think we should petition D&D to make battles more realistic and have all that armor fall to pieces during the fights ;). The Battle of the Bastards would have been greatly improved, I'm thinking! I have video evidence of my presence there, BTW! Edited June 25, 2016 by WearyTraveler Link to comment
paigow June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 http://www.mynewplaidpants.com/2016/04/kit-harington-would-like.html What kind of music was playing? A fanfare? Sombre violin? Link to comment
WearyTraveler June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 17 minutes ago, paigow said: Is there an equal amount of stage time female nudity? There was a full frontal male (not Kit) and a full frontal female. Most actors spent the entire time on stage in their underwear. Kit, most of the second act, at the end of which we got to see his partial behind, so, I'd say it was about equal. Link to comment
WearyTraveler June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, paigow said: http://www.mynewplaidpants.com/2016/04/kit-harington-would-like.html What kind of music was playing? A fanfare? Sombre violin? The music was actually quite good, a mix of pop, classical and rock. At the beginning of the second act, the actress playing Mephistopeles did a short cover of Meatloaf's Bat out of Hell, and she was excellent. Link to comment
paigow June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 Most of the show photos look like the setting is some kind of asylum / hospital...is this Dr. Mopey? Link to comment
WearyTraveler June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 15 minutes ago, paigow said: Most of the show photos look like the setting is some kind of asylum / hospital...is this Dr. Mopey? LOL! No, it's a modern take on Faustus. It had jokes, a dance number, magic tricks, and Kit even smiled a few times! There is some symbolism and metaphors I'm sure we are meant to grasp as an audience from the choices in costume and set. It was entertaining and Kit was very good in the role, and very gracious with fans afterward, which must not be very easy as this was his second performance of the day and the material and stage direction is intense. I imagine he must have been bone tired by the time he finally came out of the theatre. 1 Link to comment
GrailKing June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 7 hours ago, Nanrad said: 1. I don't think the criticism about why she is hated on is invalid, I think it's overused and, at times, her fans get so defensive of her that they resort to sexism/misogyny claims rather than discriminating in their accusations. Sansa has been criticized for years, but very shortly after her criticism began, the claims of misogyny and sexism also arose as well. Quite simply, I don't think the issue for many is her being a girly girl, it's that we don't understand the complexities of her motivations and her thought processes mostly in the show, but in the books as well for some. OR we disagree with them. Despite Dany taking on the conquering role, I see her as very feminine--her clothes, behavior, etc--is all feminine, IMO. Margaery blatantly uses her sexuality for gain and is super feminine. Neither have the same backlash as Sansa and that's because we have a better handle of both characters and their behavior is pretty consistent. Sansa is put in many situations where her agency was robbed, but again, other women have also been in this same position in GOT. Sansa's issue for the longest: waiting for others to save her. Whether this opinion is supported or fallacious isn't the point--that's just the perception. When you have women like Cersei, Margaery and her grandmother scheming, watching Sansa wait or be slow to catch on is very underwhelming and frustrating. We can blame Ned for not preparing her, but sooner or later, we can't put that on him. The issue with Sansa is that these male writers don't know how to write this type of female character (on average, men struggle to write women far more than women struggle to write men). Sansa is going to take that brunt of that because she's the vessel of these ideas and actions. But, for me, and I honestly don't think for many others, it's not about femininity, but how she navigates Westeros even while in such a delicate position that has resulted in a mass amount of dislike. Cersei is super feminine, where is the sexism and misogyny critique for people who love to hate her? That hate her due to her actions and people criticize Cersei for not being the player she believes she is NOT because she's a woman and I believe that goes for Sansa as well. Again, some hate her for the reasons you've stated, but I think it's overused and overstated that it's because of sexism/misogyny. Someone else mentioned that Bran received a lot of hate for the T3R getting killed as well as Hodor. But, if Sansa was put in his place, people would claim it was sexism and misogyny and they'd be trying to excuse the huge fuck up that led to those deaths. That's why many of these sexism/misogyny claims fall apart: there are many instances where others can or have been put in her place and are either equality criticized, if not more, and no one uses the same defense that Sansa frequently gets. 2. There are people who dislike Sansa based off of the book, some who dislike her based off of the show, and some who feel the same about her from both mediums--I'm not sure if GOT influenced how someone feels about the book, especially when we are able to understand her thoughts and actions better. Their dislike also comes from other things as well. 3. Sansa hate due to Lady/Micah/Ned situation is a bit more complex, which the show was too nuanced with. My original dislike came from her behavior AFTER the "trial" and how she was all like "my sweet prince" and meant it and not because she did what she had to do. ========= Someone can correct me on this, but although there are complexities when it comes to strategy in war, they have a very narrow way of thinking. For Jon, Sansa's advice and fear is abstract if she cannot verbalize and be specific about Ramsey's threat. He cannot work out what he's never encountered and, since Sansa was the one who accused him of not asking for her input, it is her job to be specific. You've basically just said that Jon doesn't fully understand her internal issues and neither does Sansa. How is it Jon's fault for not understanding how to whittle information for someone who has trust issues and doesn't necessarily understand themselves? I don't think Rickon would've been saved if Sansa told Jon that LF might be a resource, I think that Jon and Daavos would've planned accordingly for extra men and made different decisions. Such as, Daavos not sending the first set of men, and then the rest when Jon left. Even if we want to say that Sansa made the right decision, her trust issues puts others at risk. When you at war, you're fucked if you can't trust the people around you and they don't trust you. 1. Sansa in book is 5-30 years younger then the rest of the woman, with Danni and Marg 15-16, Cersei in her 30's, Asha? and SS? Look at their mentors: Sansa; Mom,Dad,Septa Mordaine and Maester Lewin etc. all upstanding and loving. Danni- her brother Vaceris, angry, self centered and entitled, Khal Drogo- by her standards is barbaric and Jorah Mormont who came to love her but is secretly employed by Vary's Danni is at least entitled at the beginning and to this date. Khal Drogo, she still meekly went with the marriage, but she also learned to ask for help from her maids, and had Jorah for an advisor, she didn't grow until she got pregnant and her husband died. Marge- We have no real background on her growing up, but it seems like Sansa's in a loving way by all we read and see both girls are the same fundamentally Marge's advantage is growing in the south where there is backstabbing and political gaming Marge has the QOT. Sansa has no such advantage up north, once Cat pushed the Hand and marriage agenda both the Stark girls should have been put on a crash course of Westrosi political science and in this case Arya should had been delt with a bit more firmly( she's not in Kansas any more). Cersei- From the beginning, she's Tywin and somebody else she projects her hate on a deformed helpless baby that she learned from a absentee dad, while there no indication Tywin like to torture people or enemies, can't say the same for Cersie and this is well before her loveless marriage to Robert B. She pushes a friend down a well, she tortures little Tyrion, she's self centered ,entitled, elitist, manipulative and general a bad person. Cersei does love her kids, but the one child who she basically fawned over became a horrendous person some could be put on Robert, but Cersei was his main influence, Robert put some checks on him ( for killing cats and at the ford) but Cersei let him do what he wanted, no boundaries. The two children she had less interactions with turned out well ( sure book Tommen is going to be close to show version). Book Sansa hasn't gotten to these points yet; we know she's learned, she's alive, she's improved her manipulating skills and lying skills, we know she's reading people better etc. but she is still isolated so she can't act on them yet hopefully next book. The show people really did a poor job on Sansa, and it's hard for Sophie to play a naive 11 year old ( she was fine at 13 and first season ) when the young girl sprouted to a beautiful young woman yet the writers kept 11 y.o words for her to say in show, then totally move her to a situation that should not had happened but did ( I made my peace with it ) and they prop up Tyrion to saintly status where I have a harder time with to be honest. As far as bold, Sansa understands her feelings her problems (maybe not how to fix it ), she doesn't understand Jon's and for that matter Jon doesn't understand Jon, he's still PTSD on it. Sansa may be PTSD but she's forward enough to see the future picture, Jon had to be convinced and even still at the battle he was more or less going through the motion. Lack of trust,communication and awareness of the other's internal problems are the wedge LF will exploit if they can't get together. Both kids want the same thing their past history is in the way, hopefully Sunday will give answers. Rickon was dead either way, but Davos holding the men back, well that would only work if Jon just lets Rickon die and that wasn't going to happen. 1 Link to comment
GrailKing June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, Hecate7 said: It's not her fault that Joffrey was a jerk who ordered the Hound to run Mycah down and kill him. But it WAS her fault that Mycah found himself in a position to offend Joffrey in the first place. She knew perfectly well that Mycah shouldn't be sparring with a Lady, and that if the wrong people saw, there could be bad consequences. She should have ordered Mycah home as soon as Joffrey and Sansa hove into view. She couldn't have known what a bully Joffrey was, or how cruel, but she did know that what she was doing was improper, and that although she herself would not be punished, Mycah probably would. She can't have known anyone would punish him with death, but she should have known there might be a sharp switching, minimum, in Mycah's future.She also didn't know what Sansa has at long last figured out: that nobody can protect anybody. As for the implication that Arya losing Mycah was worse than Sansa losing her dog, Lady was Sansa's constant companion she'd raised from a pup and trained to be as docile as a lap dog. They slept together, walked together, and moved almost as one. Lady loved Sansa unconditionally, and is probably the only being who ever did. By contrast, Mycah was a random kid Arya found to play with, who couldn't refuse her like her brothers could, because he had to say yes to whatever a Stark kid ordered him to do. He may not even have liked her. Arya doesn't seem to have known anything about him except that his father was their butcher. There's no reason to think they were all that close, really. Arya feels personally responsible for his death and that guilt forms the main basis of their "friendship." I'm not going to blame Arya for being a kid and playing having fun; it was the fault in the genes of the Starks of honor that got Mycah in the position of getting killed.Mycah's death is on Cersei and Joffery, and I know Sandor was doing his job, but he could have let the kid go and tell Cersei he couldn't find him. Now if Arya listened to Sansa to stay out of it and didn't hit the prince? Edited June 25, 2016 by GrailKing 3 Link to comment
screamin June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Oscirus said: You knew because you just watched it happen to Ramsay on tv, Sunday. Same reason why I took your word for it. Dude, you must have a really good source for HBO cut scenes, because I certainly didn't watch the dog quickly tear and eat Ramsey. What we saw on the show was a dog licking Ramsey's face, then getting in closer - then cut to Sansa walking away with voiceover shrieks. I got the knowledge that a starving dog would tear up its prey quickly and not be interested in prolonging its suffering from the expertise of having watched a hungry dog bolt down its food in chunks. You accepted that as fact because it made sense, not because you saw it happen (you didn't). Sansa, having raised a direwolf cub, would have the same expertise in watching a hungry dog eat, and is perfectly capable of drawing the obvious conclusion from that that we are. Quote Yep it's that easy to find a skilled flayer...You assume ... the fact that there are people in Winterfell that have the skill, heart and sadistic streak necessary to flay somebody alive. You also apparently assume that keeping somebody alive while flaying them apparently comes down to picking the correct body parts to flay and if one doesn't know how to flay correctly they're an idiot. An enthusiastic amateur would do just fine. All Sansa would have to do is have a soldier or a servant inquire in Winterfell who had loved ones who'd been flayed by Ramsey...there'd be likely to be dozens, and at least one or two would probably be happy to give it a try. I gladly admit I'm not an expert flayer, but if you are, then maybe you can explain to me how a person can die more quickly from having one finger at a time attacked by a bereaved relative with a sharp potato peeler than by being eaten by dogs. Because to me, it's just obvious common sense that a person having one finger peeled at a time WILL last a lot longer in pain than being torn by hungry dogs. Sansa, being a person of normal intelligence, can easily conclude the same. If Sansa chose not to have Ramsey flayed, IMO it was because she didn't want to do it that way, not because she couldn't have it done that way. Quote Ned being anti-torture apparently makes him a 21st Century Anachronistic "Sensitive Guy. Anymore wild exaggerations of the things I say? But I'm apparently just being misogynistic. I'm sure next Sunday that Sansa will be fitted for her halo and wings. I just pointed out that you have no proof of Ned being "anti-torture." You said that he would hold his daughters to the same high standards he held everyone, but I pointed out King Robert, his friend, had condoned the murder of children and rewarded the murderer. I also pointed out that Jon Arryn, the man who raised Ned (who thought of him as a second father), had Sky Cells and a torturer at the Eyrie where Ned happily grew up. (Also, Manderly, Ned's faithful bannerman, had his own torture chamber). I pointed out that the boy Ned betrothed Sansa to had revealed that he himself had a taste for torture of the innocent, but even though Cersei had the tortured innocent trampled and the King absolutely refused to do anything about it - certainly not go against his wife to try to curb his son's taste for torturing the innocent - Ned continued Sansa's betrothal to the young torturer. These are all facts. Given his acquiescence to having a young torturer of the innocent married to his daughter, I'd say Ned didn't hold a hugely high anti-torture standard. Given those antecedents, if Ned had said anything to Arya and Sansa against their less-than-humane executions of actual guilty people except "S'alright honey, you were upset. Just don't do it again," (as I mentioned earlier), then I think he would be a hypocrite. And I stand by that. Also, I never called you a misogynist. In future I think you would make more convincing arguments if you stuck with facts you can actually point to and things people actually said. Edited June 25, 2016 by screamin 3 Link to comment
GrailKing June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 6 hours ago, ElizaD said: Compassion, not honor. The honorable thing would have been to inform the king of the treason and not instruct the traitor to escape justice. There's no sign that Ned was motivated by his own personal honor either, attempting to risk everything so he could boast about having the moral high ground over his enemies. It was his compassionate, unselfish desire to save the lives of innocent children from the fate of Rhaegar's children, even though their parents had crippled his own little boy to hide their crime, that doomed him. Judge him for underestimating Cersei's ability to strike back and not taking care to set up a situation where he could confront her with the choice of either being led to exile with her children right now or being taken to Robert in chains, or for being too blind to his outnumbered situation in KL to see that he should arrange both Cersei's exile and the departure of Sansa/Arya before making a move. But how can people say Ned put his honor over the safety of his children? He lied and spat on his own honor when he was later given the choice between lying (and letting traitors get away with regicide) and his children. Telling Cersei to escape (however badly he handled the situation when he failed to account for Littlefinger's treachery and the degree of Lannister control of KL) was not driven by honor but by his compassion and his conscience, which would not let him be indifferent to the possibility of Robert treating Cersei's children like Rhaegar's. To Ned, honor came after the safety of children, whether his own, Rhaegar's or Cersei's. If he's going to be blamed, blame him for the mistakes and choices he actually made instead of using "honor" as an accusation that has little to do with either the concept of honor in his society or Ned's own motivations. In a medieval-ish society, compassion and honor can be very different things. That was the point of Jaime's story when he murdered the Mad King he'd sworn to protect to keep him from burning King's Landing: he showed compassion but abandoned honor. Same for Ned when he told Cersei he knew about her children: he would have been honorable (which people accuse him of) if he had gone to Robert at once, but not very compassionate if he had taken the Tywin path and accepted that Robert might kill Joffrey/Myrcella/Tommen simply for having been born and threatening the stability of the king's reign. Sansa was not compassionate to Ramsay, but though the method of execution was unconventional, it's not impossible to argue that she was being honorable by judging a criminal and carrying out his sentence of death for treason against his rightful lord. "Medieval realism" shouldn't only be brought up as an excuse to show marital rape: when medieval people committed crimes, they paid for them with their lives and the suffering or mutilation of their bodies. The main thing besides telling the King, Ned you need to put Compassion for your kids first, Cersei's later. Either way Ned failed. 1 Link to comment
Oscirus June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 (edited) Quote Dude, you must have a really good source for HBO cut scenes, because I certainly didn't watch the dog quickly tear and eat Ramsey. What we saw on the show was a dog licking Ramsey's face, then getting in closer - then cut to Sansa walking away with voiceover shrieks. I saw the dog lick Ramsay's face and then saw it go for Ramsay's throat but his face got in the way and then it cut away after that first bite because that's what was shown. I could post the youtube if you like since HBO appears to be censoring your GOT. Quote Sansa, having raised a direwolf cub, would have the same expertise in watching a hungry dog eat, and is perfectly capable of drawing the obvious conclusion from that that we are. Unless Sansa's a bad wolf owner why would she know how a hungry dog eats? And even if she was a bad owner why would she know how dogs eat people? I'd say it's a safe assumption that Ned or Cat didn't allow the feeding of live people to Direwolves. Quote An enthusiastic amateur would do just fine. All Sansa would have to do is have a soldier or a servant inquire in Winterfell who had loved ones who'd been flayed by Ramsey...there'd be likely to be dozens, and at least one or two would probably be happy to give it a try. I gladly admit I'm not an expert flayer, but if you are, then maybe you can explain to me how a person can die more quickly from having one finger at a time attacked by a bereaved relative with a sharp potato peeler than by being eaten by dogs. Because to me, it's just obvious common sense that a person having one finger peeled at a time WILL last a lot longer in pain than being torn by hungry dogs. Sansa, being a person of normal intelligence, can easily conclude the same. If Sansa chose not to have Ramsey flayed, IMO it was because she didn't want to do it that way, not because she couldn't have it done that way. You're making the same assumptions just like I am about her ability to find a willing flayer and whether or not flaying even occurred to her. That point should probably be dropped since nothing can be proved about that angle one way or the other. Quote I just pointed out that you have no proof of Ned being "anti-torture. So you're saying that Ned was against killing kids, rape, slavery but for torture because he had friends who did it? As for Joffrey, this is going off the tv stuff and not the book since Sansa's yet to torture anybody in those, but how was he going to get his daughter away by the time he found out? His daughter didn't want to leave. Maybe he'd escape King's Landing and maybe not but let's not act like he could walk out the front door at that point. Edited June 25, 2016 by Oscirus 1 Link to comment
RedheadZombie June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 I'm re-watching Battle of the Bastards, and the scene in which Sansa sees Shaggy Dog's head makes me think of the absence of Ghost. I realize he would have only been killed during the battle, but Sansa lost Lady way back in season one, and I'm sure she would be very drawn to Ghost. Why must they rob me of these interactions? During one of the war councils we could have seen Ghost laying with his head in her lap, or something. I know it would mean so much to Sansa because it's a reminder of when they were all happy. And the glimpses of happiness are so few. 2 Link to comment
deedee June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 Quote 6 hours ago, GrailKing said: The main thing besides telling the King, Ned you need to put Compassion for your kids first, Cersei's later. Either way Ned failed. I agree totally. Refresh my memory, but was there any reason Ned had to tip his hand to Cersei before he got his girls out of KL? Link to comment
nksarmi June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, deedee said: Plot demanded he be stupid and put the girls' lives in danger? 2 Link to comment
WearyTraveler June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 I believe they thought Robert could come back from his hunt any minute now Link to comment
lmsweb June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, deedee said: I agree totally. Refresh my memory, but was there any reason Ned had to tip his hand to Cersei before he got his girls out of KL? He gave her the chance to get herself and the three incest-kidlets out of KL. Mr. Honourable. To expand on that - he told her that Robert would kill her when he found out, or something to that effect. Edited June 25, 2016 by lmsweb 2 Link to comment
lmsweb June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 This is the scene. It is also where the quote "when you play the game of thrones, you win or die" came from.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6MZvK02vX0 Link to comment
Oscirus June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 If the Tyrion kidnapping wasn't going on at the same time do y'all think he would've had a chance to take his daughters? Link to comment
deedee June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 To be honest Ned had absolutely no proof that the kids weren't Robert's. They all have blond hair-so what? Cersei has blond hair! I never understood why Cersei didn't just laugh in Ned's face. Bran didn't remember what he saw and we have to suppose Robert had some affection for his children. Enough anyway that he would not easily want to believe they weren't his. Also there was no rush for Ned to do anything. Send his kids home, wait till Robert goes hunting again, and then tell Cersei to leave. 1 Link to comment
AshleyN June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, RedheadZombie said: I'm re-watching Battle of the Bastards, and the scene in which Sansa sees Shaggy Dog's head makes me think of the absence of Ghost. I realize he would have only been killed during the battle, but Sansa lost Lady way back in season one, and I'm sure she would be very drawn to Ghost. Why must they rob me of these interactions? During one of the war councils we could have seen Ghost laying with his head in her lap, or something. I know it would mean so much to Sansa because it's a reminder of when they were all happy. And the glimpses of happiness are so few. Apparently Sapochnik said that they only had the CGI budget for a direwolf or a giant in the battle, but not both, so they went with the giant. It would have been nice if they could have had Jon leave him with Sansa and given us a shot of that though. I don't think we've seen him at all since Jon's resurrection have we? I know it costs money, but it still bugs me how little importance the show puts on the direwolves, especially in comparison to the inevitable dragon porn we get every season. 12 hours ago, GrailKing said: The main thing besides telling the King, Ned you need to put Compassion for your kids first, Cersei's later. Either way Ned failed. So just to make sure I'm clear on this: Jon is an idiot because he put the life of one of his family members first, while Ned is an idiot because he didn't put the lives of his family members first*? I get that people expect more of our designated "good guys", but I swear the Starks are held to an impossible standard sometimes. Every character on this show makes mistakes, but it seems like whenever a Stark screws up they're immediately deemed stupid and useless and unfit for leadership. *Never mind the fact that the last two acts of his life were to protect his children, or that he decided to throw his vaunted honour out the window the moment Sansa was threatened. Edited June 26, 2016 by AshleyN 13 Link to comment
deedee June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 It is perfectly understandable in my opinion that Jon would ride forward to try and save Rickon. I would not expect him to just stand there with what-fingers crossed? Not in Jon's character at all. The smart thing to do after Rickon was dead was to ride back to his men and stick to the plan. Also not in Jon's character, and also understandable that he was overcome with grief and anger. On the other hand, Ned could have waited to confront Cersei and tell Robert his suspicions until his daughters were safely away. That was foolishness in my opinion. He underestimated Cersei badly. That doesn't negate that afterward Ned did EVERYTHING he could to save Sansa and Arya. 4 Link to comment
deedee June 25, 2016 Share June 25, 2016 (edited) Double post Edited June 25, 2016 by deedee Double post Link to comment
Gertrude June 26, 2016 Share June 26, 2016 (edited) Yeah, Jon was acting as I would expect a son of Lyanna Stark to :p. She had the wolf blood same as Brandon, and we saw how hot headed Brandon was, even after having quite a bit of time to think it over on his ride to King's Landing. To the question a few posts above this, I don't think Tyrion being kidnapped effected Ned's situation with Cersei in King's Landing. They were already at odds because of it. Sansa was the one who gave Cersei the heads up that Ned was making plans to leave, but it was Ned's confrontation with Cersei that triggered his downfall. I can't think of a reason Tyrion being arrested or not would make any difference to that series of events. Edited June 26, 2016 by Gertrude Link to comment
Nanrad June 26, 2016 Share June 26, 2016 22 hours ago, Hecate7 said: It's not her fault that Joffrey was a jerk who ordered the Hound to run Mycah down and kill him. But it WAS her fault that Mycah found himself in a position to offend Joffrey in the first place. She knew perfectly well that Mycah shouldn't be sparring with a Lady, and that if the wrong people saw, there could be bad consequences. She should have ordered Mycah home as soon as Joffrey and Sansa hove into view. She couldn't have known what a bully Joffrey was, or how cruel, but she did know that what she was doing was improper, and that although she herself would not be punished, Mycah probably would. She can't have known anyone would punish him with death, but she should have known there might be a sharp switching, minimum, in Mycah's future.She also didn't know what Sansa has at long last figured out: that nobody can protect anybody. As for the implication that Arya losing Mycah was worse than Sansa losing her dog, Lady was Sansa's constant companion she'd raised from a pup and trained to be as docile as a lap dog. They slept together, walked together, and moved almost as one. Lady loved Sansa unconditionally, and is probably the only being who ever did. By contrast, Mycah was a random kid Arya found to play with, who couldn't refuse her like her brothers could, because he had to say yes to whatever a Stark kid ordered him to do. He may not even have liked her. Arya doesn't seem to have known anything about him except that his father was their butcher. There's no reason to think they were all that close, really. Arya feels personally responsible for his death and that guilt forms the main basis of their "friendship." Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the books, isn't Arya known for talking and playing with the help? This is something that Ned ( and maybe, reluctantly, Catelyn) allowed. The only reason it was an issue was because it was Joffrey and the Baratheons and not because her parents forbade her to play with the help. Did Arya get Mycah in that situation due to class? Yes. Is it her fault that Joffrey was a bully and twisted the facts because he was embarrassed? No. Just like it's irrational to blame Sansa for Ned's death, it's irrational to blame Arya for Mycah's death. Are the two 100% comparable? No. But, my point is: despite whatever involvement either two had, it's not either one of their fault that the other was killed, especially when it was only an issue because Joffrey was a jerkass and Cersei was an enabler. Robert didn't give two shits until Cersei kept pressuring him. And there was no implication that Arya losing Mycah was worse than Sansa losing Lady, that's what you got wrong. And this line of logic that is trying to discredit the impact of Mycah's death on Arya to prop up Sansa's feelings is troubling to me. Whether or not Mycah was a random kid, she was outraged that a commoner lost his life just to spare the upperclass and she felt it was unfair. So much so, that she added Sandor to her kill list due to the very fact that he killed Mycah. This is not about how close they were, but that someone died and Arya wanting to play is what led to his death. Anyone with a heart would be emotionally fucked up by that, especially because it was a senseless death. What's makes your argument even more troubling is the lengths you go to try to paint his death as insignificant on Arya because they may have not been close and he may have been forced to play with Arya. From my understanding, the Starks were well loved and I doubt that Ned and Cat would've forced Mycah to play with Arya or punished him for not OR that Arya would lie about Mycah because he wouldn't play with her. Arya has a strong sense of fairness from what I know, so...this just doesn't compute. Furthermore, another thing you can correct me on, Arya got along pretty well with the help and commoners--she just didn't get along well with the upper class people. IMO, there wasn't any hand twisting to get him to play with her. It's tragic that Sansa lost her dog, but Arya was also emotionally traumatized by the situation as well. The pro sansa crowd focuses so much on Sansa losing Lady, they fail to realize that Arya was emotionally scarred by the situation too. I don't care to argue about who was hurt worse, but based on Arya's actions, his death stuck with her from that moment forward and she never let it go. 15 hours ago, GrailKing said: As far as bold, Sansa understands her feelings her problems (maybe not how to fix it ), she doesn't understand Jon's and for that matter Jon doesn't understand Jon, he's still PTSD on it. Sansa may be PTSD but she's forward enough to see the future picture, Jon had to be convinced and even still at the battle he was more or less going through the motion. Lack of trust,communication and awareness of the other's internal problems are the wedge LF will exploit if they can't get together. Both kids want the same thing their past history is in the way, hopefully Sunday will give answers. Rickon was dead either way, but Davos holding the men back, well that would only work if Jon just lets Rickon die and that wasn't going to happen. I don't think Sansa understanding her problems/feelings, but I agree that she also doesn't understand Jon's. I don't think that she understands her own issues because her actions causes further issues if they don't pay off. Sansa is not someone to be trusted at war if they are on your side. They don't trust you, they consult with shady characters, and then come with the last minute help after criticizing you for you not involving them and then not offer solutions when questioned. That's someone you keep an eye on and hand at arms length because they are unpredictable. IF we gave Sansa's logic to Jon, that means he had every reason not to listen to her, right? But, we want him to listen to her, we just don't want her to be open and honest with Jon in times of war. Jon has PTSD, but I believe he's the one who has a better understanding of himself and the situation than Sansa did and does. Sansa sees the future picture because that's all she has going for herself. Jon needed to be convinced because he forsook his name and claims. If he hadn't been killed/betrayed, would he had left??? In the battle, Jon wasn't going through the motion, he put it all on the field and whatever happened, happened. But, he was willing to do that for Sansa and his family while being open and considering all options EXPLICITLY stated to him. He had to act at that moment because Winter is Coming and they don't have much time to keep going from door to door and hoping the Stark name meant something. And I insist that that can only be exploited due to Sansa and not Jon. What is her keeping from her? Or preventing her from having access to? She's been keeping LF a secret since they reunited that even Brienne looked at her side eyed. Jon has been pretty much honest minus the death thing. Did they want the same thing? I know Rickon was dead either way, that's not my point, my point is: even though Ramsey would've disrupted the plans because Jon would've tried to save his brother, Davos may have not sent out the first set of men or waited longer to send of the second. Davos sent out the second because he believed that that was all they had and that he needed to send out the rest as support. He may have held his ground longer and made some sacrifices to the men on the field to keep tactical footing by waiting for the rest if he believe they MAY be on their way. This would've forced Ramsey to wait longer because his plan depended on all of the men being in the field and then overwhelmed. 3 Link to comment
Hecate7 June 26, 2016 Share June 26, 2016 Quote Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the books, isn't Arya known for talking and playing with the help? It's been many years since I read the books, so I really couldn't tell you for sure. It sounds familiar, but I'm not really discussing the books here. I was responding to someone who glibly compared Mycah's and Lady's deaths, basically saying, "so what if Sansa lost Lady, Arya lost a friend." Quote And there was no implication that Arya losing Mycah was worse than Sansa losing Lady, that's what you got wrong. Actually, there was, and that is all I was responding to. If the original poster hadn't compared the two deaths with the implication that Lady's was less significant, I wouldn't have responded at all. Lady may have been "only a dog," but I think that's a deplorable attitude and shows no understanding of the actual relationships involved here. Quote This is not about how close they were, but that someone died and Arya wanting to play is what led to his death. I agree that she would have carried a heavy load of undeserved guilt. I don't think the loss and grief she felt were anywhere near what she felt over Nymeria, or Ned, but she certainly felt a great deal. I also agree about the class issues involved. What I don't agree with, and what I was mainly responding to, was the idea that the loss of Lady, an intimate and constant companion, was trivial compared to the loss of Mycah, a kid Arya played with and may or may not have been all that close to. (Not, actually, from the sound of it). Both girls were in a position to feel very guilty about something--Sansa over Ned, Arya over Mycah. Both lost their wolves--Sansa accidentally, Arya deliberately out of the intelligent desire to protect her. And whether the Starks would have punished Mycah for refusing to play with a girl is immaterial--he knew his place and it was to obey Arya or whichever Lord or Lady addressed him. Even if Arya WERE known for playing with the help, it's more of a sign that her siblings weren't playing with her, than a sign that she's particularly nice to the commoners. She was nicer to them than Sansa was, but that's really not saying much. Arya's idea of playing was to imitate her brothers sparring, so the servants may not have been as excited about it as she thought they were. They didn't need fighter practice and stood to get into exactly the type of trouble Mycah found himself in. Ned woudln't have done what Joffrey did, but you'll notice he didn't object to what happened. Arya is often completely unaware of the impact her class has on her relationships with people--she doesn't know what it means that she's a Lady. At the time she was far too young to understand the difference between a servant's obedience and his friendship, but she understands responsibility, which is one of her more likable qualities. Quote It's tragic that Sansa lost her dog, but Arya was also emotionally traumatized by the situation as well. The pro sansa crowd focuses so much on Sansa losing Lady, they fail to realize that Arya was emotionally scarred by the situation too. I don't care to argue about who was hurt worse, but based on Arya's actions, his death stuck with her from that moment forward and she never let it go. Nobody fails to realize that Arya was scarred by Mycah's death. I just couldn't let the minimizing of Lady's death go, nor the assumption that only Arya felt the loss of their father when in fact it was Sansa who had to look at his severed head, twice. Neither girl's suffering is more or less than the other. It is as equal as it's possible to be. Sansa is only comfortable in a courtly setting, whereas Arya is only comfortable virtually anyplace other than court, so their circumstances set those traumas differently, but when you examine them closely, they are the SAME traumas. 2 Link to comment
GrailKing June 26, 2016 Share June 26, 2016 @Nanrad It's tragic that Sansa lost her dog, but Arya was also emotionally traumatized by the situation as well. The pro sansa crowd focuses so much on Sansa losing Lady, they fail to realize that Arya was emotionally scarred by the situation too. I don't care to argue about who was hurt worse, but based on Arya's actions, his death stuck with her from that moment forward and she never let it go. ================================================== Being a dog lover, I have never put any animal over a person. Arya lost Mycah and is hurt, she saw the result of Robb's desecration and death's but for the most part she had protectors except in the kitchens of Harrenhal, later the hound. Sansa saw her father beheaded up close and personal, saw the heads up close and personal had many beatings, the Hound stopped her from pushing Joffery, but he didn't stop the beatings, that didn't end until Tyrion arrived, and then Sandor became more protective, saved her from rape offered her to take her out of KL, she escapes KL only to be almost pushed out the Moon Door;by family no less!. To say who's more traumatized doesn't work, they are both traumatized,the abuse is also near the same; hard to say one ranks higher then the other. If we add the show portions to what's in the books we get a wee bit of change to the scale: Ramsey for Sansa (I might give the edge here just because we know what Jeyne Poole went through) except for escaping there is no help provided she has to fix herself if she can ( edge again to Sansa) I then have to add Arya's attempted murder by the waif and luckily Arrya got Lady Crane's help, avenged her death and got faceless Jesus approval and left. Of the two Sansa is still showing affects if show stuff is added. Both are traumatized, both been beaten but I give a slight edge, maybe more to Sansa, especially if we add LF to the mix and Cersei wanting her head. 2 Link to comment
Knuckles June 26, 2016 Share June 26, 2016 Just because it's Sunday and I am waiting for the finale...if anyone missed this, it is too funny...Leslie Jones from SNL and Seth Meyers watching highlights from Battle of the Bastards, not to be missed. http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2016/06/24/game-of-thrones-leslie-jones-seth-meyers/86329026/ 1 Link to comment
Lemuria June 26, 2016 Share June 26, 2016 (edited) A quick question: Does it appear to you that no one, other than those who were there, knows about Jon's resurrection? Certainly, Ramsey didn't, or he wouldn't have offered to forgive Jon for allegedly violating his oath. If there had been any talk in the North about Jon, I can't believe it would not have spread to Ramsey through one source or another. I know I'm late to the Sansa Secret debate. I was going to enter the fray earlier but the interview with the actress took me aback. In the interests of full disclosure, I'm someone who had thought that Sansa becoming a stronger and more mature person, which I liked, but at the same time, I thought she was wrong not to reveal her communication with the Vale to Jon. When we have to twist ourselves into pretzels to defend/excuse an action on the part of a character, including arguing that she's now a military genius, it might be time to step back and take a second look and acknowledge that either the writing sucked so badly that there's no way to know why she did it, or her action was supposed to be seen as being wrong and it resulted in deaths that might not have otherwise occurred. And to me, this is supported by what the interview gave us. Maybe both Sophie Turner, and the director and/or producers (if they agree with what she said) think that her reason was just peachy-keen but I thought it was terrible. She kept the info from Jon out of some sort of pique that they weren't--what? Kowtowwing? Begging for her insight?--when she could have spoken at any time (nobody was either being asked for their input or stopped from speaking up)? And when she complained to Jon and he apologized and asked for what she thought they should do, she blows him off and says that she doesn't know about this sort of thing. Huh? To me, this is totally inconsistent. We, and Sansa, knew that Jon Snow was both aware and concerned about the difference in the size of the forces. Sansa kept saying they didn't have enough troops, with which Jon concurred, without providing him with a reason why waiting would change that. Even more, the actress said that Sansa had "made a plan" for which there should be "thanks." Writing a desperate letter to the Vale and getting no response, as some here have argued, is not "making a plan." A plea, yes. A plan, no. If she actually made a plan, as Ms. Tucker indicates, then Sansa heard back from LF and arrangements were made, which is why Sansa knew to go and meet him. For me, that interview made Sansa's actions worse, as I think it was very destructive of the character as this has her totally aware that another army is coming and will be there asap but keeping this information from the people who will actually command and fight the battle. Was it ego, that is, did she want to be the savior of Winterfell? Was she willing to sacrifice lives unnecessarily for this? Are we supposed to see this as a hint that Sansa is getting darker? Maybe tonight will clear this up for me but having had experience with seeing other showrunners on other shows approve--in the sense of, they didn't see anything wrong with what was done, as opposed to acknowledging it was wrong but holding that it was necessary--of characters doing things that I find morally shaky at best and reprehensible at worst, I'm not holding my breath. Edited June 26, 2016 by Lemuria 2 Link to comment
screamin June 26, 2016 Share June 26, 2016 (edited) On 6/25/2016 at 1:47 PM, Oscirus said: So you're saying that Ned was against killing kids, rape, slavery but for torture because he had friends who did it? Not factual. Ned was NOT theoretically against killing innocent kids - he took on Theon as ward and hostage with the understanding that he would kill an innocent child if that child's father rebelled - as part of his duty. Ned even ended up keeping his position as Hand of the King after trying to resign in protest after Robert decided to have Dany assassinated - yes, he didn't like it one bit, but he kept being Hand of the King who'd ordered it, as long as he wasn't arranging the killing himself. It was only when Ned was actually faced with the reality of getting innocent children killed himself as part of his duty to the king (Tommen, Myrcella, even Joffrey) that he realized he couldn't stomach it. He was taken by surprise by that, AND by the fact that Robert was willing to arrange the killing of a child just to keep himself safe from the possibility of danger from that child - even though he saw Robert condone the exact same thing with Elia's murdered children. Honestly, I think Ned's biggest sin was his profound lack of imagination. The words of Hades in his ears at his last judgement regarding ALL his mistakes would probably be, "Well, what did you THINK would happen, doofus?!" As for Ned being "for torture because he had friends who did it?" Jon Arryn was not just a friend - he was Ned's mentor and substitute father, and Ned uncritically respected and adored him. If Ned had a serious moral objection to torture, wouldn't we have heard something about how Ned was disappointed and disgusted because Arryn kept his own torturer in the house Ned grew up in? But Ned never says one word against Arryn. Manderly was not just a friend - he was Ned's faithful bannerman, bound to obey him and willing always to do so, so if Ned had been truly "against" torture, he would have forbidden it among his bannermen - so why does Manderly have a well known torture chamber? Most important of all, Joffrey was DEFINITELY no friend of Ned's. But he found out Joffrey had a taste for torture of the innocent. And he didn't break Joffrey's betrothal with Sansa. If Ned really had a profound ethical objection to ANY torture, wouldn't he want to keep his own innocent daughter from marrying the boy who likes to torture innocents? Thing is, when you say Ned is "anti-torture", you're saying that he has a very UNUSUAL attitude in medieval times. IMO, you have no proof that Ned had any such attitude, and there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that he didn't. In medieval times torture was commonplace, both as a punishment for crimes and an accepted means of getting info. Both 'good guys' and 'bad guys' did it to some extent. Saying "Torture is wrong in all circumstances" is more commonly a 21st century attitude than a medieval one - and hell, even in our 21st century you'll find plenty of people saying torture is allowable in some circumstances. So saying "Ned is anti-torture" is pretty much like saying "Ned is a 21st Century Sensitive Guy." I meant to be exact when I used that phrase, not gratuitously insulting. Sorry. Edited June 26, 2016 by screamin 4 Link to comment
Eyes High June 26, 2016 Share June 26, 2016 On 2016-06-25 at 2:56 PM, RedheadZombie said: I'm re-watching Battle of the Bastards, and the scene in which Sansa sees Shaggy Dog's head makes me think of the absence of Ghost. I realize he would have only been killed during the battle, but Sansa lost Lady way back in season one, and I'm sure she would be very drawn to Ghost. Why must they rob me of these interactions? During one of the war councils we could have seen Ghost laying with his head in her lap, or something. I know it would mean so much to Sansa because it's a reminder of when they were all happy. And the glimpses of happiness are so few. According to Miguel Sapochnik, Ghost was supposed to be in the battle as originally planned, but it came down to a budget decision where either Wun Wun or Ghost had to go, and they chose Ghost. 3 Link to comment
WearyTraveler June 26, 2016 Share June 26, 2016 Tough call. Many have said hat Ghost would have died in the battle, but I'm not so sure. After all, Grey Wind fought alongside Robb in several battles and he was fine. That said, the way D&D seem to hate the direwolves, I'm kind of happy Ghost wasn't there. Now, every time I see him on the show I'll be wondering if he's going to bite it next :-S 2 Link to comment
benteen June 26, 2016 Share June 26, 2016 Quote A quick question: Does it appear to you that no one, other than those who were there, knows about Jon's resurrection? Certainly, Ramsey didn't, or he wouldn't have offered to forgive Jon for allegedly violating his oath. If there had been any talk in the North about Jon, I can't believe it would not have spread to Ramsey through one source or another. Agreed. I take it no one knew except those at Castle Black and people who learned later like Sansa and Brienne. It makes sense Brienne would believe it because she's knows what kind of magic Melisandre can perform. Jon's death and the Wildlings taking over took maybe and Thorne was more concerned with forcing Davos and Jon's friends to surrender so he likely didn't send out any ravens announcing Jon's death and/or proclaiming himself the new Lord Commander. I always said Jon would realistically have a tough time proving he wasn't an oathbreaker who abandoned the Watch. Link to comment
Macbeth June 26, 2016 Share June 26, 2016 The North would have no way of knowing Jon was resurrected - come to think of it. Thorne wouldn't have had time nor the impulse to spread the news that Jon was killed or how. Edd is waiting for Jon to return and take back the command. I don't think that is realistic but I do believe that is what he is hoping - he is not sending ravens. Granted the Wildings would be talking about it to the new recruits (once they had stopped fighting each other) - but how many would believe them? Another controversial topic I am weighing into - I never had a problem that the North Remembers storyline wasn't picked up by the show. It was a plot problem GRRM hadn't thought through. The Wildings had been the enemies of the North for centuries. Even though they knew the dead were rising - they were not jumping at the chance for the sanctuary Jon offered until the dead showed up. . Members of the Night's Watch, who knew the dead are rising, assassinated Jon for letting the Wildings through. Of course the Northern families, who have been raided by the Wildings for years, are pissed with Jon. I am glad people have fond thoughts for that storyline. I wish I had - it would have made the last 2 books less of a slog - but there I am. 2 Link to comment
Gertrude June 26, 2016 Share June 26, 2016 I didn't interpret the Watch betraying Jon because he let the wildlings through. Of course they didn't like it and it causes a lot of tension, but the straw that broke the camel's back was Jon deciding to march on Winterfell and getting involved with matters of the Kingdom, which they were supposed to be above. Jon didn't make one or even two or three unpopular decisions - he made a whole lot of them. He didn't explain his decisions and expected his men to be fine with what he was doing. The North Remembers and Jon's storyline in the books are only tenuously linked by Stannis and Jon. Jon advises Stannis to talk with men who might still have reason to be loyal. Those Northern men are doing it for Ned's girl because they have fond memories of Ned, nothing at all to do with Jon. Manderly allies with Davos only because he can help him find a reason to rally the North for the Starks (Rickon). I'm not sure what the Northerners being upset with Jon for letting the wildlings through has anything to do with the North Remembers storyline, because the North remembers The Ned and really remembers what the Boltons/Freys did to the Northern families. Link to comment
Nanrad June 27, 2016 Share June 27, 2016 @GrailKing Well, my point isn't arguing about who was hurt more, they both have endured emotionally fucked up situations, but rather, Arya has endured pain too. People spend so much time focusing on that Sansa has suffered great injustices that they don't ignore that others INCLUDING Arya have been hurt too. Maybe not more, but does that make her pain less important, less significant. This is not about if losing Mycah is equal Sansa losing Lady, but rather, Arya was still emotionally traumatized by this. She may have not see Ned executed and have had protectors, but she's still emotionally scarred. Some of us have lost parents here, including myself, and that pain is forever fresh for those many. Arya didn't have to literally SEE Ned's beheading to be emotionally traumatized by the fact that he was put on trial and then beheaded. It's irrelevant to focus on who suffered more, it's about the fact that one group of people ignores the fact that Arya suffered too all to admonish others for supposedly not being sympathetic enough to Sansa. 2 Link to comment
GrailKing June 27, 2016 Share June 27, 2016 3 hours ago, Nanrad said: @GrailKing Well, my point isn't arguing about who was hurt more, they both have endured emotionally fucked up situations, but rather, Arya has endured pain too. People spend so much time focusing on that Sansa has suffered great injustices that they don't ignore that others INCLUDING Arya have been hurt too. Maybe not more, but does that make her pain less important, less significant. This is not about if losing Mycah is equal Sansa losing Lady, but rather, Arya was still emotionally traumatized by this. She may have not see Ned executed and have had protectors, but she's still emotionally scarred. Some of us have lost parents here, including myself, and that pain is forever fresh for those many. Arya didn't have to literally SEE Ned's beheading to be emotionally traumatized by the fact that he was put on trial and then beheaded. It's irrelevant to focus on who suffered more, it's about the fact that one group of people ignores the fact that Arya suffered too all to admonish others for supposedly not being sympathetic enough to Sansa. I don't ignore that fact, they both are traumatized, I just give Sansa a few points for the extra abuse. After tonight's episode we can see mentally Sansa may deal with it better ( got her closure or half of it ) but Araya was getting gratification from that kill and pie serving; beat Sansa's smirk after Ramsey by miles. 1 Link to comment
Nanrad June 27, 2016 Share June 27, 2016 1 minute ago, GrailKing said: I don't ignore that fact, they both are traumatized, I just give Sansa a few points for the extra abuse. After tonight's episode we can see mentally Sansa may deal with it better ( got her closure or half of it ) but Araya was getting gratification from that kill and pie serving; beat Sansa's smirk after Ramsey by miles. I'm not saying you ignore Arya's trauma because I've flat out seen you defend her, but there have been people who pretend as if Sansa is the only one to suffer in this series. She's not. My reply is basically a spoiler, so your initial response references the other episode. Spoiler Also, despite Arya's gratification, her expression was largely blank. Even then, I take no issue with either lady taking pleasure with someone who has harmed them or their family, but I DO find it dark. Even then, Arya is WAY darker or, at least, has darker moments than Sansa. Furthermore, you're falling into that trap of trying to undercut Arya to uplift Sansa. Arya has been called a psycho, cold killer, heartless, etc as long as the claims of misogyny and sexism about Sansa has been around. My point being: Arya has been seen as a dark character for 4-5 seasons now, so her killing old dude the way she did and the Frey pie ISN'T going to get the same reaction as what Sansa did. Arya's actions are worse, but that's expected of her. She's killed many people already and her mind has been dark and corrupted for a while. Sansa has never killed anyone, therefore, her reaction to the torture and eventual death of Ramsey will left a few eyebrows. 1 Link to comment
GrailKing June 27, 2016 Share June 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, Nanrad said: I'm not saying you ignore Arya's trauma because I've flat out seen you defend her, but there have been people who pretend as if Sansa is the only one to suffer in this series. She's not. My reply is basically a spoiler, so your initial response references the other episode. Hide contents Also, despite Arya's gratification, her expression was largely blank. Even then, I take no issue with either lady taking pleasure with someone who has harmed them or their family, but I DO find it dark. Even then, Arya is WAY darker or, at least, has darker moments than Sansa. Furthermore, you're falling into that trap of trying to undercut Arya to uplift Sansa. Arya has been called a psycho, cold killer, heartless, etc as long as the claims of misogyny and sexism about Sansa has been around. My point being: Arya has been seen as a dark character for 4-5 seasons now, so her killing old dude the way she did and the Frey pie ISN'T going to get the same reaction as what Sansa did. Arya's actions are worse, but that's expected of her. She's killed many people already and her mind has been dark and corrupted for a while. Sansa has never killed anyone, therefore, her reaction to the torture and eventual death of Ramsey will left a few eyebrows. Where the hell you getting that damn idea from, your projecting, I don't think you could find anywhere that I've said those things about Arya. Link to comment
Nanrad June 27, 2016 Share June 27, 2016 1 hour ago, GrailKing said: I don't ignore that fact, they both are traumatized, I just give Sansa a few points for the extra abuse. After tonight's episode we can see mentally Sansa may deal with it better ( got her closure or half of it ) but Araya was getting gratification from that kill and pie serving; beat Sansa's smirk after Ramsey by miles. What's the point in the comparison, especially when there's been a heated debate about Sansa smiling about Ramsey's death? Naturally, when you bring this up and put it against what happened with Arya, a person will reach certain conclusions. 1 Link to comment
GrailKing June 27, 2016 Share June 27, 2016 1 minute ago, Nanrad said: What's the point in the comparison, especially when there's been a heated debate about Sansa smiling about Ramsey's death? Naturally, when you bring this up and put it against what happened with Arya, a person will reach certain conclusions. I never said Sansa smiled about Ramsey death, I said her little smile was her laughing about him trying to put a mind fuck in her and was acknowledging it's over he can't her hurt anymore. For her that part of her life is or will become a faded memory eventually. I'm now on this last episode thread. Link to comment
Nanrad June 27, 2016 Share June 27, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, GrailKing said: I never said Sansa smiled about Ramsey death, I said her little smile was her laughing about him trying to put a mind fuck in her and was acknowledging it's over he can't her hurt anymore. For her that part of her life is or will become a faded memory eventually. I'm now on this last episode thread. That wasn't my point: you said that I was projecting in one of my responses, so I quoted you and explained why I made that conclusion. Even if that hadn't been your intent, your response fit into the dialogue that was being had about Sansa smiling. It then turned into how Arya could do certain things and not be called dark. So, when you mentioned the part that I bolded and then compared her to Arya, it seemed as if you were falling into the trap I mentioned. Edited June 27, 2016 by Nanrad needed the D for the past tense Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.