S06.E09: Battle Of The Bastards

[deedee]

I can't believe you referenced Pet Sematary- I was wondering the exact same thing! That book scared the hell out of me. Glad Jon came back unchanged although that might have been interesting.

[paigow]

On 21/06/2016 at 11:59 PM, sashabear21 said:

Make room at that table for another chair! I'm not sure how it happened either...

Gladys Knight & The Pips called,,,They got y'all tickets for the Midnight Train to Incest

[AliShibaz]

I just realized that killing off Ramsay was just too good for him and not good enough for us. Wouldn't it have been so much better if he would have found himself in some kind of involuntary indentured relationship with someone who would torture and traumatize him on a regular basis? By the way, when I use the word "torture", I don't necessarily mean the same kind of physical torture that he would inflict on someone. I mean something like a nagging mother in law. Over time, that kind of torture can drive most any man insane and it sure would have been a lot more entertaining for the audience instead of just having him die and never seen again.

I sure do wish he wouldn't have died but somehow found himself in that kind of situation. I'm sorry that I don't know exactly who would inflict that kind of torture upon Ramsay or how it would happen. But I sure would love to see a few minutes of Ramsay in every single upcoming episode - down on his knees - begging for forgiveness and reliving all his past misdeeds. I want to hear him talk about how he now realizes that he was so wrong to harm Theon & Sansa and beg, beg, beg - all to no avail.

That would just be so much more satisfying for me than giving him a quick death.

What a waste of a superbly talented actor. I bet he could have acted his ass off begging for forgiveness and crying and weeping and wailing over all his bad karma.

I must consider Ramsay's death to have been a most grievous error on the part of the show runners. But, you know what? I am just as much to blame for this because I never spoke up and made this point before he died. I truly regret that. I would love to see that actor stay in the show. I bet he could work miracles as the humiliated and defeated creep that he was.

As a matter of fact, given this is a fantasy entertainment series, surely they could devote a few minutes in all upcoming episodes to show us Joffrey and Ramsay and other villians in the author's idea of the after life. They could be humiliated and tortured and forced to come to terms with all their misdeeds. I would love to hear them cry and admit they did terrible things that were wrong and beg for forgiveness and .... (oh well, you know the rest).

Edited June 26, 2016 by AliShibaz

[Mabinogia]

I, on the other hand, am perfectly happy with a swift end to Ramsey. I hated having to watch him "break" Theon and I really, really didn't need to see more of that, even if he was the one being broken. It would just have been replacing Ramsey with some other evil, over the top asshole I would cringe watching. I am hoping for much better roles for the actor who really is amazing. When I hate someone I don't need to see them punished, I just want them gone. Ramsey is gone, full stop, no hope of him escaping and going on a murderous rampage, he has been ended and I want to dance in the streets about it.

That said, I do get people's frustration that he "got off easy" though your last moment being the realization that your beloved, obedient "pets" that you assumed would never, ever betray you were about to feast on you while the "weak" victim wife you thought would never stand up to you walked away and let them is all the payback I needed.

[RCharter]

1 hour ago, AliShibaz said:

I just realized that killing off Ramsay was just too good for him and not good enough for us. Wouldn't it have been so much better if he would have found himself in some kind of involuntary indentured relationship with someone who would torture and traumatize him on a regular basis? By the way, when I use the word "torture", I don't necessarily mean the same kind of physical torture that he would inflict on someone. I mean something like a nagging mother in law. Over time, that kind of torture can drive most any man insane and it sure would have been a lot more entertaining for the audience instead of just having him die and never seen again.

 

You're much nicer than me...I wanted him flayed and his pee pee cut off and fed to the dogs.

But thats just me....I don't hold many grudges....but when I do...oh boy.

[AliShibaz]

10 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I, on the other hand, am perfectly happy with a swift end to Ramsey. I hated having to watch him "break" Theon and I really, really didn't need to see more of that, even if he was the one being broken. It would just have been replacing Ramsey with some other evil, over the top asshole I would cringe watching. I am hoping for much better roles for the actor who really is amazing. When I hate someone I don't need to see them punished, I just want them gone. Ramsey is gone, full stop, no hope of him escaping and going on a murderous rampage, he has been ended and I want to dance in the streets about it.

That said, I do get people's frustration that he "got off easy" though your last moment being the realization that your beloved, obedient "pets" that you assumed would never, ever betray you were about to feast on you while the "weak" victim wife you thought would never stand up to you walked away and let them is all the payback I needed.

I just want to tell you that I certainly appreciate your feelings and your opinion and I will feel the same way about anyone else who chooses to express that same opinion. It is eminently understandable why people would object to seeing that kind of human misery over and over again. I suppose that I am a kind of sadist insofar as people getting what they deserve. I sure don't want to see anyone get treated the way that Ramsay treated Theon. But I'm happy to make an exception for people who have treated others in that way. I enjoy seeing them get what they deserve.

The problem with our current justice system is that it is so extremely rare to find someone who clearly treated someone else the way Ramsay treated Theon. It's very similar to the problem of capital punishment. What do you need to be certain that you are punishing someone who is truly guilty? Who really did the deed? Even if they confess to it, there are some people who falsely confess to committing murders because, in the parlance of the street, they have a screw loose. Can you imagine executing a confessed criminal only to find out they intentionally confessed but never really did commit the crime? Pretty terrible. But it happens quite often - at least before most nations banned capital punishment.

Oh dear, it felt good to be able to stand up on my soapbox once again. I had promised myself a very long time ago that I would not do that again. But when it comes to Ramsay, so many promises fall by the wayside. I hope you understand.

[Mabinogia]

25 minutes ago, AliShibaz said:

I suppose that I am a kind of sadist insofar as people getting what they deserve. I sure don't want to see anyone get treated the way that Ramsay treated Theon. But I'm happy to make an exception for people who have treated others in that way. I enjoy seeing them get what they deserve.

Oh, I would happily see Ramsey peeled like a grape, hung by his nads and set afire. The thing is, I don't want anyone else to have to do that to him. I feel like that kind of vengeance threatens to make the avenger just as bad as the abuser. Hell, look at home many people are up in arms about Sansa simply letting the dogs eat him alive. Imagine if she'd gone full out and given him what he truly deserved. She would be crucified as the new Ramsey. It's not that I don't want him to have gotten that, it's more that I would hate to have to see a character I like inflict that kind of torture, for their own sake. They would likely either be tormented by nightmares about it for the rest of their lives or realized they like that kind of vengeance and become the new Ramsey, and the one thing this show does not need is a new Ramsey.

For me the satisfaction was in watching one of his victims get their revenge and the two victims we are most connected to are Sansa and Theon. I can't see either of them inflicting that level or pain and torture and not coming out of it worst than anything they could do to Ramsey.

It really is a thought provoking storyline because I don't really think anyone can say what we would really do to him, and I most sincerely hope that none of us, and no one ever, has to find out. Ramsey was truly a monster. I think he was far worse than pretty much all the sick bastards on this show. Mainly because he inflicted pain and suffering and humiliation simple for fun. Imagine how much he would get off on having turned either Sansa or Theon into a monster like him? It would be his greatest legacy.

[AliShibaz]

19 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

<snip>

Hell, look at home many people are up in arms about Sansa simply letting the dogs eat him alive. Imagine if she'd gone full out and given him what he truly deserved.

<snip>

 

Alternatively, just imagine what would happen if Ramsay had eaten the dogs. It is too horrible to imagine. The uproar over that would exceed most any other horrible event in this world.

I'm just wasting time waiting for the finale to begin. I was going to finish the above paragraph by wandering down a path in Fantasyland and talk about how so many people seem to react more strongly to pet animals being intentionally harmed over other events that cause people to be harmed. It's a age-old issue that never seems to get resolved in any kind of meaningful way.

Why am I being so silly? Well, there are ten minutes left to go before the finale beings and as I look out of my window, I see a bus stop across the street and I just can't believe that bunches of people are clumped together waiting for a bus. What is wrong with those people? Don't they know the GoT Finale begins in ten minutes? Surely, they can't intend to miss that episode. Can they? Silly, silly, foolish people. Shame on them! Mercy on me!

Edited June 27, 2016 by AliShibaz

[TaurusRose]

13 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

It really is a thought provoking storyline because I don't really think anyone can say what we would really do to him, and I most sincerely hope that none of us, and no one ever, has to find out. Ramsey was truly a monster. I think he was far worse than pretty much all the sick bastards on this show. Mainly because he inflicted pain and suffering and humiliation simple for fun. Imagine how much he would get off on having turned either Sansa or Theon into a monster like him? It would be his greatest legacy.

This is true.  I have empathy for Sansa and the abuse she suffered at Ramsay's hands, but Theon?  Not so much.  I cannot forgive him for his betrayal of the entire Stark family.  He may be pathetic and a shell of himself now, but I believe in Karma--that the Universe rights all wrongs given enough time. Theon got payback in spades.

[Nanrad]

On June 19, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Timetoread said:

He most certainly was dismissing the little woman and patting her on her head to leave the battle stuff to the menfolk.  Her "constant argument" was dead on and if the Vale had not come they would have all died. Jon reminded me tonight of why I used to call Rob, Jon and Cat Dumb, Dumber and Dumberer respectively. Sansa's real "argument" was that it would not be enough to just show up for battle with 1/3 the quantity and hope to make Ramsey mad. Ramsey was a true sociopath and not a slave to emotions he didn't have. He needed to be outthought.  His own father didn't realize this until it was too late.  Wives are usually the best people for that job.

Yeah, that's not how Jon was treating her. Jon's treatment of her had nothing to do with sexism, but resignation and a bleak outlook. Sansa sat in the meeting for the battle strategy. He didn't ask her for her input because he has no experience with psychological abuse/torture, so he assumed Sansa had nothing to add tactically. BUT, when she did call him out, he asked for her input and she had nothing to give him. He wasn't ignoring her or patting her on the head, he flat out asked and was genuine, but she basically said, "I don't know, but he's dangerous." What does that do for Jon? He's encountered A LOT of dangerous people. Even then, Sansa telling him that they needed more men was a "no shit, sherlock" moment. She and Jon already travelled to several houses and were turned down. They didn't have the time to travel to more houses because winter is coming and is quite brutal in the North--kinda like attack Russia in the winter, dumb as hell. Jon knew that his chances of winning were slim, which is why he spoke to Melisandre about not brining him back and the other conversations they had--Jon knew that what Sansa was saying was true, BUT if they didn't act at the moment, whatever advantage they had would be lost since winter would be working against them. Ramsey wouldn't even need to do anything in that case and they would've beaten themselves at that moment. 

Hell, Sansa saying, "Jon, he plays on your emotions" is far more descriptive than "he's dangerous."

On June 20, 2016 at 10:49 AM, RCharter said:

Yeah, but Jon is prideful and stubborn and honorable.  

That sort of guy may refuse an offer of help from Littlefinger out of pride and honor.  Even if he knows he needs it, he would figure its better to go down without the help of LF because he hates him so much and because he clearly had a part in hurting Sansa.

And, if thats the case, Sansa is really not getting enough credit.  Because she was likely right, Jon may have turned away LF's offer of help, but by the time he got there, Jon was in no position to turn them away.

If this is the case, it wouldn't have hurt Sansa to tell him, have him say no, and then act against his orders. Either way, he would have known and put his pride first rather than doing the smart thing and accepting more men. There is seriously no logical reason for Sansa to not tell Jon other than she is severely emotionally compromised and fan service. 

[RCharter]

31 minutes ago, Nanrad said:

If this is the case, it wouldn't have hurt Sansa to tell him, have him say no, and then act against his orders. Either way, he would have known and put his pride first rather than doing the smart thing and accepting more men. There is seriously no logical reason for Sansa to not tell Jon other than she is severely emotionally compromised and fan service. 

So Jon refuses and then what, she lets Ramsay win?  Or does she go against Jon and use LF anyways?  Either way, she loses -- either she directly disobeys Jon and he is mad at her for it.  Or she loses.  Or is it even worse and Jon tries to negotiate terms with LF, that fails (due to Jon's pride) and they end up fighting without KofV.  And they lose.

This way she has some plausible deniability.  And the element of surprise.  And she doesn't have to have two parties "negotiating" with LF, when its easier to have one.  Especially if Jon were to insist on negotiating the terms himself.

[Nanrad]

@RCharter Neaux. 

When it comes to war, you have to trust those you are fighting with, at least, on a basic level. We cannot judge Jon about a decision that was taken out of his hands because he wasn't given a choice in the first place. Even if she believed he was going to say no, she should have told him. If he wanted to negotiate terms. Either let him have that OR explain that they don't have time for it, and then let him turn her down. Either way, he KNOWS. We cannot say that Jon disregarded her input when she gave a vague warning about Ramsey and completely omitted her involvement with LF.

If Jon turned her down, she could've still gone with LF anyways and, if Jon bitched about her doing that, which would be fucking foolish, remind him that not only is she the reason why they won, but she is also the reason why he is alive. Furthermore, if he had listened to her plan to begin with or was less prideful, they wouldn't have gotten into the situation that they did. All Jon can really say to that is, 'But, still..." He has NO counterpoint or room to say anything to her for that matter IF she had brought him an option that provided more men, especially when they were short on that.

From what I know, the element of surprise is only supposed to be for your enemies NOT your allies. Again, her decision NOT to tell him is illogical.

[RCharter]

51 minutes ago, Nanrad said:

@RCharter Neaux. 

When it comes to war, you have to trust those you are fighting with, at least, on a basic level. We cannot judge Jon about a decision that was taken out of his hands because he wasn't given a choice in the first place. Even if she believed he was going to say no, she should have told him. If he wanted to negotiate terms. Either let him have that OR explain that they don't have time for it, and then let him turn her down. Either way, he KNOWS. We cannot say that Jon disregarded her input when she gave a vague warning about Ramsey and completely omitted her involvement with LF.

If Jon turned her down, she could've still gone with LF anyways and, if Jon bitched about her doing that, which would be fucking foolish, remind him that not only is she the reason why they won, but she is also the reason why he is alive. Furthermore, if he had listened to her plan to begin with or was less prideful, they wouldn't have gotten into the situation that they did. All Jon can really say to that is, 'But, still..." He has NO counterpoint or room to say anything to her for that matter IF she had brought him an option that provided more men, especially when they were short on that.

From what I know, the element of surprise is only supposed to be for your enemies NOT your allies. Again, her decision NOT to tell him is illogical.

I think that given Jon's past its fair to infer what his response would be.  So, she was going to put a decision in his hands, in order to show him trust and respect, and then take the decision out of his hands when he doesn't move fast enough?  That sounds like an even worse recipe for distrust.  As they say better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.  And by giving him the information she would be putting the decision in his hands....and then....taking it out of his hands....or totally disregarding his decision either way.  I don't see how he trusts her any more after that.

If Jon tells her no, and then she uses LF anyways (and I think its fair to infer that given Jon's past behavior he would turn down LF flat) than they have the same level of distrust.  

Jon had the same level of trust with Sansa during the actual battle that he ever had.  Pride and logic don't often mix, and Jon has a lot of pride.  Will trust have to be rebuilt after the battle?  Yes, but it is the same trust that would have had to have been rebuilt if Sansa had simply disregarded Jon's decision to NOT use LF out of pride.  

The element of surprise WAS for her enemies...and logically if Jon had simply run into battle with KoV and the wildlings there wouldn't have been an element of surprise because everyone would have been on the field at once.  And Ramsay could have planned for that.  This way Ramsay was totally caught off guard.

So yeah, Sansa's decision made perfect sense.

[Nanrad]

42 minutes ago, RCharter said:

I think that given Jon's past its fair to infer what his response would be.  So, she was going to put a decision in his hands, in order to show him trust and respect, and then take the decision out of his hands when he doesn't move fast enough?  That sounds like an even worse recipe for distrust.  As they say better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.  And by giving him the information she would be putting the decision in his hands....and then....taking it out of his hands....or totally disregarding his decision either way.  I don't see how he trusts her any more after that.

If Jon tells her no, and then she uses LF anyways (and I think its fair to infer that given Jon's past behavior he would turn down LF flat) than they have the same level of distrust.  

Jon had the same level of trust with Sansa during the actual battle that he ever had.  Pride and logic don't often mix, and Jon has a lot of pride.  Will trust have to be rebuilt after the battle?  Yes, but it is the same trust that would have had to have been rebuilt if Sansa had simply disregarded Jon's decision to NOT use LF out of pride.  

The element of surprise WAS for her enemies...and logically if Jon had simply run into battle with KoV and the wildlings there wouldn't have been an element of surprise because everyone would have been on the field at once.  And Ramsay could have planned for that.  This way Ramsay was totally caught off guard.

So yeah, Sansa's decision made perfect sense.

Given the fact that Sansa hasn't seen in God knows how long, was it fair? 

Regardless of if Sansa told Jon or not, time was of the essence, was it not? My whole point was that she could've humored him if he wanted to negotiate with LF, BUT if there was not time, she could've flat out said the and forced him to make a decision at that point. Either way, she trusted him enough to tell him and it's a sign of respect despite her reserves. But, Jon would've shown a lack of trust in her and disrespect to his men by turning down her offer. Basically, Sansa has covered her ass on both ends: either Jon takes her up on her offer and they have the men OR he doesn't, but she can still come through with the men and Jon couldn't say shit to her because he was in the wrong to deny her. By not telling Jon at all, she's in the wrong because she didn't tell the commanding office a potential advantage for them, which is something you don't do in war/on the baffle field. You need to trust the people who are on your side and you can't trust them if they are keeping secrets even if those secrets pay off. That's not how trust works. 

In this case, it'd been better to ask for forgiveness after asking for permission because Jon and the rest of the men would've been dead if she hadn't gone rogue after he said no. Even if he distrusted, he would've eventually seen the folly of his ways. But, Sansa not telling him at all, that harder for Jon to rectify because she didn't trust him at all, where as in my situation, she initially did trust him, but he rejected her offer. Her defying him was for the greater good, where as her not telling him was because....

It's not the same level. You're more likely to trust someone who was initially honest, and then lied than someone who deliberated omitted valuable information. 

My point was: the element of surprise works ONLY for the enemies NOT on your army when it comes to the enemies. Her plan worked, but if Jon had been anyone else, he would've been rightfully pissed at her. Would they had been less surprised if Jon's crew knew? No, because they would've had known about the Vale. Who was going to tell them? So, how did Sansa's plan make perfect sense, especially when she criticized Jon for not even asking for her input? lol. Was that for show?

[RCharter]

13 hours ago, Nanrad said:

Given the fact that Sansa hasn't seen in God knows how long, was it fair? 

Regardless of if Sansa told Jon or not, time was of the essence, was it not? My whole point was that she could've humored him if he wanted to negotiate with LF, BUT if there was not time, she could've flat out said the and forced him to make a decision at that point. Either way, she trusted him enough to tell him and it's a sign of respect despite her reserves. But, Jon would've shown a lack of trust in her and disrespect to his men by turning down her offer. Basically, Sansa has covered her ass on both ends: either Jon takes her up on her offer and they have the men OR he doesn't, but she can still come through with the men and Jon couldn't say shit to her because he was in the wrong to deny her. By not telling Jon at all, she's in the wrong because she didn't tell the commanding office a potential advantage for them, which is something you don't do in war/on the baffle field. You need to trust the people who are on your side and you can't trust them if they are keeping secrets even if those secrets pay off. That's not how trust works. 

In this case, it'd been better to ask for forgiveness after asking for permission because Jon and the rest of the men would've been dead if she hadn't gone rogue after he said no. Even if he distrusted, he would've eventually seen the folly of his ways. But, Sansa not telling him at all, that harder for Jon to rectify because she didn't trust him at all, where as in my situation, she initially did trust him, but he rejected her offer. Her defying him was for the greater good, where as her not telling him was because....

It's not the same level. You're more likely to trust someone who was initially honest, and then lied than someone who deliberated omitted valuable information. 

My point was: the element of surprise works ONLY for the enemies NOT on your army when it comes to the enemies. Her plan worked, but if Jon had been anyone else, he would've been rightfully pissed at her. Would they had been less surprised if Jon's crew knew? No, because they would've had known about the Vale. Who was going to tell them? So, how did Sansa's plan make perfect sense, especially when she criticized Jon for not even asking for her input? lol. Was that for show?

Yes, of course its fair, she has grown up with Jon, why would you assume that she doesn't know him or how he would react.  Whatever his personality, it was likely formed very young.  

So, now she would force Jon to make a decision and she would completely disrespect that decision, and that was going to build...trust?  Jon wouldn't have shown a lack of trust in her by turning down the men, he would have shown the same characteristic pride for LF's treatment of Sansa and treatment of his family.  By telling Jon and then using the men in spite of him saying no, she shows him the same lack of trust that she showed him by never telling him in the first place.

Not to mention that she can later say that she didn't tell him simply because she wasn't sure, or she can make up some other excuse to explain herself

But telling him and then disregarding him is a direct violation of trust, with no plausible excuse.  So that simply breeds the same distrust.  And that isn't remedied just because she turns out to be right, a violation of trust happens as soon as your trust is violated and the result is distrust -- whether or not the person ended up being right.

Here is how trust works -- you have to trust the people you go into battle with.  Jon trusted Sansa when he went into battle with her.  So she had that trust.  She only maybe didn't have his trust AFTER the battle.  And there is plenty of time to remedy that.

Not to mention that the element of surprise on Ramsay may have been a vital part of Sansa's plan.....Sansa may  have seen the wildlings and the Mormont men as a necessary sacrifice to maintain the element of surprise.  Do you think Jon Snow would have been into that?  If so, we have different views on him, because I don't ever think he would have gone for that.  That sacrificing a relative few might be the key to winning the battle is not something I think Jon would have ever gone for.  But having freshly rested, trained soldiers surprising and enemy that has been fighting all day and thinks they have won is effective, even if its somewhat distasteful.

Since there would be distrust established either way, Sansa would be better to ask forgiveness than ask for permission.

I'm not sure where you get that you'll have more trust in someone after they straight up lied to you, rather than learning to trust someone that was simply too scared to give you information or someone that can come up with another excuse for not telling you.  That doesn't make much sense to me and I don't think its a universal truth.

Edited June 27, 2016 by RCharter

[Nanrad]

7 minutes ago, RCharter said:

Yes, of course its fair, she has grown up with Jon, why would you assume that she doesn't know him or how he would react.  Whatever his personality, it was likely formed very young.  

So, now she would force Jon to make a decision and she would completely disrespect that decision, and that was going to build...trust?  Jon wouldn't have shown a lack of trust in her by turning down the men, he would have shown the same characteristic pride for LF's treatment of Sansa and treatment of his family.  By telling Jon and then using the men in spite of him saying no, she shows him the same lack of trust that she showed him by never telling him in the first place.

Not to mention that she can later say that she didn't tell him simply because she wasn't sure, or she can make up some other excuse to explain herself

But telling him and then disregarding him is a direct violation of trust, with no plausible excuse.  So that simply breeds the same distrust.  And that isn't remedied just because she turns out to be right, a violation of trust happens as soon as your trust is violated and the result is distrust -- whether or not the person ended up being right.

Here is how trust works -- you have to trust the people you go into battle with.  Jon trusted Sansa when he went into battle with her.  So she had that trust.  She only maybe didn't have his trust AFTER the battle.  And there is plenty of time to remedy that.

Not to mention that the element of surprise on Ramsay may have been a vital part of Sansa's plan.....Sansa may  have seen the wildlings and the Mormont men as a necessary sacrifice to maintain the element of surprise.  Do you think Jon Snow would have been into that?  If so, we have different views on him, because I don't ever think he would have gone for that.  That sacrificing a relative few might be the key to winning the battle is not something I think Jon would have ever gone for.  But having freshly rested, trained soldiers surprising and enemy that has been fighting all day and thinks they have won is effective, even if its somewhat distasteful.

Since there would be distrust established either way, Sansa would be better to ask forgiveness than ask for permission.

I'm not sure where you get that you'll have more trust in someone after they straight up lied to you, rather than learning to trust someone that was simply too scared to give you information or someone that can come up with another excuse for not telling you.  That doesn't make much sense to me and I don't think its a universal truth.

I would assume that she wouldn't know how he'd react because he has gone through a lot of shit, just like she has, so he could have changed in ways that she wouldn't be aware of. I mean, wouldn't you argue that if Jon were to approach Sansa like he knew her before they left Winterfell, he'd be dead wrong because she isn't the person she used to be. Jon hasn't completely changed, but fans have noticed that Jon has changed in others ways. 

No, she's not forcing his hand. She presented an option that he denied and he FORCED her hand by not agreeing. If they need more men and he refuses to take the men she was offering, which they would/would've lose/lost without, then he can't really blame her for acting against his answer. Would this result in some trust issues? Yes. But, I'd argue that it'd result in LESS trust issues than not telling him all. Because Jon could get over his error in judgment if Sansa was honest, but he forced his hand by saying no. It's harder getting over nothing being said to you at all. 

I'd argue that even if she wasn't sure, as the commander officer, Jon deserved the right to know, especially because he was prepared to die on the field. Especially because it is his job to know every possibility even if it is an uncertainty. Sansa's undercuts Jon's authority as a commander by not offering that information. The only thing she could honestly say is, "I made a mistake." 

It doesn't breed the same distrust if her act of defiance not only won the war, it SAVED his life and the life of his men. This wasn't some small tactical thing that had negative consequences if she chose wrong, it was a pivotal maneuver that resulted in a decisive victory. The only reason Jon would still be mad was if he was being prideful.

Actually, that's not how trust works. You trust someone to be honest with you and she was not, so even though she had his trust, she simultaneously breeched it by not trusting him. They don't have plenty of time because there is another war coming that is far worse than any of the other wars they've encountered. People are far more understanding of people who breech trust and are backed into a corner, this violating said trust, rather than those who act breech trust by omitting important info. These are not the same breeches of trust because 1. you volunteered info 2. you deliberated hid info.

This further proves how Sansa breeched his trust far worse by NOT telling him. She is making tactical battle moves without telling the commanding officer. Besides knowing they need to win and need more men, she has NO fighting experience whatsoever. It's not her decision to make. Jon was crucified for trying to save his brother, but Sansa is excused for not telling him because Jon wouldn't want to sacrifice his men. I'm not understanding this position other than defend Sansa at all costs. Going into battle means that some or even many men are going to die. As mentioned, Jon was prepared to die on the field. He may have not liked her plan, but she still should've told him. What if Jon hadn't reacted to Ramsey's game with Rickon, what then? Her "plan" depended on Jon making dumb decisions and Davos making decisions based off of Jon's decisions. A surprise attack should only be for the opponent and that surprise attack hurt the men who were fighting for her in a way that could've been mitigated if she'd shared her plans with Jon. 

I'm sorry, but despite that saying being catchy to say, it has more likely led to the end of many friendships/relationship or, at least, irreparable damage than someone being honest. It's not a universal truth to be honest first, BUT more times than not, being honest first and going against a reply second is more likely to have an easier path to forgiveness than straight up lying. People are more likely to forgive someone who disobeyed them if they felt the person had no choice than they are with someone who wasn't honest in the first place. The former shows that the person tried to put trust and faith into them and the latter shows that the person didn't trust them at all. In either case, if whatever they did went wrong, both have disastrous impacts on their established trust, but guess who has a harder time coming back from that? The person who flat out lied. 

And you also said it: Jon feels responsible for those men and if Sansa's plan hinged on sacrificing them WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE, that is a further breech of trust. 

[RCharter]

Just now, Nanrad said:

I would assume that she wouldn't know how he'd react because he has gone through a lot of shit, just like she has, so he could have changed in ways that she wouldn't be aware of. I mean, wouldn't you argue that if Jon were to approach Sansa like he knew her before they left Winterfell, he'd be dead wrong because she isn't the person she used to be. Jon hasn't completely changed, but fans have noticed that Jon has changed in others ways. 

No, she's not forcing his hand. She presented an option that he denied and he FORCED her hand by not agreeing. If they need more men and he refuses to take the men she was offering, which they would/would've lose/lost without, then he can't really blame her for acting against his answer. Would this result in some trust issues? Yes. But, I'd argue that it'd result in LESS trust issues than not telling him all. Because Jon could get over his error in judgment if Sansa was honest, but he forced his hand by saying no. It's harder getting over nothing being said to you at all. 

I'd argue that even if she wasn't sure, as the commander officer, Jon deserved the right to know, especially because he was prepared to die on the field. Especially because it is his job to know every possibility even if it is an uncertainty. Sansa's undercuts Jon's authority as a commander by not offering that information. The only thing she could honestly say is, "I made a mistake." 

It doesn't breed the same distrust if her act of defiance not only won the war, it SAVED his life and the life of his men. This wasn't some small tactical thing that had negative consequences if she chose wrong, it was a pivotal maneuver that resulted in a decisive victory. The only reason Jon would still be mad was if he was being prideful.

Actually, that's not how trust works. You trust someone to be honest with you and she was not, so even though she had his trust, she simultaneously breeched it by not trusting him. They don't have plenty of time because there is another war coming that is far worse than any of the other wars they've encountered. People are far more understanding of people who breech trust and are backed into a corner, this violating said trust, rather than those who act breech trust by omitting important info. These are not the same breeches of trust because 1. you volunteered info 2. you deliberated hid info.

This further proves how Sansa breeched his trust far worse by NOT telling him. She is making tactical battle moves without telling the commanding officer. Besides knowing they need to win and need more men, she has NO fighting experience whatsoever. It's not her decision to make. Jon was crucified for trying to save his brother, but Sansa is excused for not telling him because Jon wouldn't want to sacrifice his men. I'm not understanding this position other than defend Sansa at all costs. Going into battle means that some or even many men are going to die. As mentioned, Jon was prepared to die on the field. He may have not liked her plan, but she still should've told him. What if Jon hadn't reacted to Ramsey's game with Rickon, what then? Her "plan" depended on Jon making dumb decisions and Davos making decisions based off of Jon's decisions. A surprise attack should only be for the opponent and that surprise attack hurt the men who were fighting for her in a way that could've been mitigated if she'd shared her plans with Jon. 

I'm sorry, but despite that saying being catchy to say, it has more likely led to the end of many friendships/relationship or, at least, irreparable damage than someone being honest. It's not a universal truth to be honest first, BUT more times than not, being honest first and going against a reply second is more likely to have an easier path to forgiveness than straight up lying. People are more likely to forgive someone who disobeyed them if they felt the person had no choice than they are with someone who wasn't honest in the first place. The former shows that the person tried to put trust and faith into them and the latter shows that the person didn't trust them at all. In either case, if whatever they did went wrong, both have disastrous impacts on their established trust, but guess who has a harder time coming back from that? The person who flat out lied. 

And you also said it: Jon feels responsible for those men and if Sansa's plan hinged on sacrificing them WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE, that is a further breech of trust. 

"going through shit" happens to a lot of people, your personality, which is generally formed pretty early on, often dictates how you deal with that shit, and any other shit that is going to roll down the hill at you.  So yeah, Sansa had a pretty good insight into his personality, which was confirmed by her discussions with him before the battle.  

But she does force his hand by telling him about LF and then pressuring him to make a decision about whether or not to use LF's troops.  

As for blaming him for going against his clear decision, yes, he can blame her for that.  He is even allowed to feel more than one emotion....he can be happy they won....and still distrust her.  These things are not mutually exclusive as far as I know.

 I still don't understand where someone not telling you something is somehow worse than them straight up lying to your face.  And again....its not a universal truth, the way you seem to think it is.  

If I asked my brother if I could borrow his car to go to the store -- and he said absolutely not,  I think he would be mad, and distrustful. if I did it anyways  However, if I just took the keys -- yeah, it would be bad, but I could come up with a million reasons why I didn't ask ahead of time, or why I thought he would be okay with it, so I didn't ask.  Violation of a direct order seems much worse.

You may feel that Jon had the right to know, but that doesn't mean that Sansa's plan is illogical because you feel like Jon had some right to information.  That just means you think that Jon had the right to know.  What is right, and what is logical are not always the same thing.

So, according to you, she would have breached his trust by not telling him.  But she would have also breached his trust by violating his direct order not to use LF's troops.  Either way....she breaches his trust.  Same result

And that trust was not breached until after the battle.  So as far as Jon is concerned, he went into battle with someone who had his total trust.  And will likely have his total trust again, in time.  And under either breach of trust, the result is the same -- a breach of trust.  And I would say the omission of information is arguably not the worse of the two.  Because you may have a million reasons for not telling someone something.  But if Sansa told Jon about LF's army and then violated that order than there is really no reason for it, other than she doesn't trust Jon.  Because whatever other reasons she may have had, she could have brought up to Jon when she mentioned LF's army was available.  But she didn't.  But when you omit information, or deliberately hide it, you can say that you were scared, that you weren't certain....whatever else.  But you can't do that when you tell someone, give them a decision, and then violate their clear wishes.

So now, its not her decision to make even though it saved all their asses?  If she had any thought that she was going to face that sort of reasoning, it makes more sense for her to simply not give Jon any of the information.  Because Jon's strategy....with all his training....was wrong.  So yeah, if you're looking to win a battle to get back your home and to keep from being handed over to a maniac -- you're going to look to get the job done.  Whatever it takes.  And not sit around thinking "well, this isn't really my decision to make, so I should just chill here....see what happens....and whatevs"  In fact, I think that might have been what old Sansa would have done.  Just sat around and waited for some male protector to make decisions for her and accept the consequences of their shitty decisions.

I'm not sure what is so confounding about the idea.  Jon was passionate enough about saving one person even though it would fuck up his battle plans.  So, it stands to reason that Jon would also not be down for a plan that sacrifices plenty of his men, but wins them the battle.  How is that confusing?  To me, it makes sense.  Jon is not a person that will "spare a few to save the many."  He will try to save everyone.  He tried to save Rickon, even though that was a lost cause and it hurt his battle plan by forcing him to engage Ramsay's army earlier than he would have liked.  By the same token, he wouldn't allow many of his wildling men to die to preserve the advantage of having the surprise of LF's army swooping in on them.

Yes, it is hard to forgive someone straight up lying to you.  Which would have been exactly what happened if Sansa had given Jon the option and then violated his direct order.  THAT would have been the sort of straight up lying that would have been much harder to forgive.  I don't know who all these "people" are that will forgive you straight up lying to their face, but won't forgive you for an explainable omission, but I think that may not necessarily reflect the views of most people.  I think it does reflect YOUR point of view.  But, to me, at worst, the result of both is the same....distrust.  However, I think its easier to explain an omission than it is to explain why you directly violated an order.  Which is where I believe "better to ask forgiveness than permission" came from.  Because if you just do something -- you can come up with a million reasons why you didn't ask.  Whereas if you ask permission and you're told no, you either need to abide by that order, or you have to directly lie and violate an order....which, IMO, is a greater violation of trust.

[Nanrad]

1 hour ago, RCharter said:

"going through shit" happens to a lot of people, your personality, which is generally formed pretty early on, often dictates how you deal with that shit, and any other shit that is going to roll down the hill at you.  So yeah, Sansa had a pretty good insight into his personality, which was confirmed by her discussions with him before the battle.  

But she does force his hand by telling him about LF and then pressuring him to make a decision about whether or not to use LF's troops.  

As for blaming him for going against his clear decision, yes, he can blame her for that.  He is even allowed to feel more than one emotion....he can be happy they won....and still distrust her.  These things are not mutually exclusive as far as I know.

 I still don't understand where someone not telling you something is somehow worse than them straight up lying to your face.  And again....its not a universal truth, the way you seem to think it is.  

If I asked my brother if I could borrow his car to go to the store -- and he said absolutely not,  I think he would be mad, and distrustful. if I did it anyways  However, if I just took the keys -- yeah, it would be bad, but I could come up with a million reasons why I didn't ask ahead of time, or why I thought he would be okay with it, so I didn't ask.  Violation of a direct order seems much worse.

You may feel that Jon had the right to know, but that doesn't mean that Sansa's plan is illogical because you feel like Jon had some right to information.  That just means you think that Jon had the right to know.  What is right, and what is logical are not always the same thing.

So, according to you, she would have breached his trust by not telling him.  But she would have also breached his trust by violating his direct order not to use LF's troops.  Either way....she breaches his trust.  Same result

And that trust was not breached until after the battle.  So as far as Jon is concerned, he went into battle with someone who had his total trust.  And will likely have his total trust again, in time.  And under either breach of trust, the result is the same -- a breach of trust.  And I would say the omission of information is arguably not the worse of the two.  Because you may have a million reasons for not telling someone something.  But if Sansa told Jon about LF's army and then violated that order than there is really no reason for it, other than she doesn't trust Jon.  Because whatever other reasons she may have had, she could have brought up to Jon when she mentioned LF's army was available.  But she didn't.  But when you omit information, or deliberately hide it, you can say that you were scared, that you weren't certain....whatever else.  But you can't do that when you tell someone, give them a decision, and then violate their clear wishes.

So now, its not her decision to make even though it saved all their asses?  If she had any thought that she was going to face that sort of reasoning, it makes more sense for her to simply not give Jon any of the information.  Because Jon's strategy....with all his training....was wrong.  So yeah, if you're looking to win a battle to get back your home and to keep from being handed over to a maniac -- you're going to look to get the job done.  Whatever it takes.  And not sit around thinking "well, this isn't really my decision to make, so I should just chill here....see what happens....and whatevs"  In fact, I think that might have been what old Sansa would have done.  Just sat around and waited for some male protector to make decisions for her and accept the consequences of their shitty decisions.

I'm not sure what is so confounding about the idea.  Jon was passionate enough about saving one person even though it would fuck up his battle plans.  So, it stands to reason that Jon would also not be down for a plan that sacrifices plenty of his men, but wins them the battle.  How is that confusing?  To me, it makes sense.  Jon is not a person that will "spare a few to save the many."  He will try to save everyone.  He tried to save Rickon, even though that was a lost cause and it hurt his battle plan by forcing him to engage Ramsay's army earlier than he would have liked.  By the same token, he wouldn't allow many of his wildling men to die to preserve the advantage of having the surprise of LF's army swooping in on them.

Yes, it is hard to forgive someone straight up lying to you.  Which would have been exactly what happened if Sansa had given Jon the option and then violated his direct order.  THAT would have been the sort of straight up lying that would have been much harder to forgive.  I don't know who all these "people" are that will forgive you straight up lying to their face, but won't forgive you for an explainable omission, but I think that may not necessarily reflect the views of most people.  I think it does reflect YOUR point of view.  But, to me, at worst, the result of both is the same....distrust.  However, I think its easier to explain an omission than it is to explain why you directly violated an order.  Which is where I believe "better to ask forgiveness than permission" came from.  Because if you just do something -- you can come up with a million reasons why you didn't ask.  Whereas if you ask permission and you're told no, you either need to abide by that order, or you have to directly lie and violate an order....which, IMO, is a greater violation of trust.

In what way was this confirmed??? Jon forming an opinion on Ramsey based on a battle POV??? Nothing was confirmed. lol. Because she omitted providing him an important piece of info. Furthermore, depending on the circumstance, if it is traumatic enough, it CAN change fundamental parts of you. There are many occasions where people who, despite being relatively the same, make different decisions based off of experiences they've gone through. Even if an experience doesn't drastically change a person, it can change decisions/perceptions of a situation. Again, would you argue that Sansa hasn't drastically changed and is fundamentally the same? We both know the answer to that question.

Not really. Time is pressuring him and Sansa is reminding him of that reality.

Who said he couldn't feel more than one emotion? I said the only reason he'd still be mad at her was if he was being prideful aka if she told him rather than acting on her own. Again, STILL, not saying he can't feel any other emotion other than anger, but that it wouldn't linger.

I've already denied that I don't believe it's a universal truth, like flat out, did you blatantly overlook that? Not only that, if someone took my car WITHOUT even saying shit to me, I'd be furious with them. I'd be furious if they did it and I said no. But, there's a lot wrong with doing something and not telling them that you're going to. There is almost no one that I know who'd be MORE upset that you asked first and took it anyway than you took it and never asked. Maybe I need to know more people like you.

Let's put this in another context, anyone leading the army has the RIGHT to know what tactics someone working with them has in mind. Is that better? How is that illogical, but Sansa not telling a commanding officer than she had the men he needed, which she's been complaining about needing more men and acting on her own not? You and I have very different definitions of logical.

Tre trust was breached before/during battle, DESPITE Jon not knowing. Just because Jon was under the illusion that he could trust her, after the battle, he found out that she breached his trust. That makes him question if she'd pull shit like that again. If she had told him first, he'd better under WHY she breeched his trust unlike her not saying jack shit. Trust may come in time, but realistically speaking, it''s harder and longer if you omit info. IMO, her reasons for keeping vital info to herself wasn't a good reason, which you clearly disagree with.

It's NOT her decision to undercut the chain of command and put others lives at risk by NOT telling the commanding officer that she has the extra men he needs. It's not her decision to make battle plans. Sansa is NOT trained on the field and her having the men he needed and coming in to save the day is NOT a sign of her having a strategic mind, but rather, having a men of already battle trained men who've been battle tested. Jon's training was not wrong, Jon reacted how MOST people would. You think Ned, Jaime, Robb, or anyone else would've watched that shit happen and thought, "Nah, I'll stay right here." It's not up to her to make a unilateral decision that effects a lot of people WITHOUT telling key people commanding the fight. Her position would've been understanding IF she had actually let it play through by telling Jon. First, her reason for no telling him was because she had trust issues and now it's because she just knew how he was going to react and wanted to bypass that? Something tells me this reasoning will keep changing as long as it proves that Sansa was right to put the others in further danger.

Now, I was referring to the criticism he receives for his actions, especially when used to prop up Sansa's stupid decision. Just because a decision paid off doesn't make it any stupid. If Ned's plan had worked, it would've still be stupid. 

If someone asks your permission, you say no, and they do it anyway, that's not lying, that's disobeying a direct order. If someone can understand the million reasons why you didn't tell them, they can forgive when you disobeyed them especially if the entire army would've been slaughtered. BUT, they're more likely to forgive because the original decision backed the person into a corner UNLIKE the person who didn't trust them enough to tell them in the first place. Sansa doesn't even have (recent) examples to prove why she felt he'd say no.

[revbfc]

I rewatched Hardhome and needed to make another Wun Wun observation in regards to BoB.  Wun Wun has been known to wield a giant log to sweep away his enemies in great numbers.  I know the producers wanted the battle to seem lost until the Vale showed up, but Wun Wun running into battle without uprooting a tree seemed uncharacteristic.

[Superpole2000]

Both battles were excellent, but one major thing irritated me: The bravery and invincibility of Jon Snow was so incredibly over the top that it removed any suspense for me. Jon Snow really is the most Mary Sue of all Mary Sue characters I've seen on TV. And Ramsey was the most cartoon villainish of all cartoon villains. No subtlety in those characterizations at all.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Superpole2000

[One Tough Cookie]

Quote

 

Sansa's smirk leaving Ramsey to be Alpo was perfect.  Not too broad, just enough.

[fraore1]

My husband and I are going on a Game of Thrones Croatia tour, where we will see all the filming locations. We read about that tour in Fortune and fell in love it it. Did any of you went on something similar?

[Hecate7]

On 6/27/2016 at 4:20 PM, Nanrad said:

I would assume that she wouldn't know how he'd react because he has gone through a lot of shit, just like she has, so he could have changed in ways that she wouldn't be aware of. I mean, wouldn't you argue that if Jon were to approach Sansa like he knew her before they left Winterfell, he'd be dead wrong because she isn't the person she used to be. Jon hasn't completely changed, but fans have noticed that Jon has changed in others ways. 

No, she's not forcing his hand. She presented an option that he denied and he FORCED her hand by not agreeing. If they need more men and he refuses to take the men she was offering, which they would/would've lose/lost without, then he can't really blame her for acting against his answer. Would this result in some trust issues? Yes. But, I'd argue that it'd result in LESS trust issues than not telling him all. Because Jon could get over his error in judgment if Sansa was honest, but he forced his hand by saying no. It's harder getting over nothing being said to you at all. 

I'd argue that even if she wasn't sure, as the commander officer, Jon deserved the right to know, especially because he was prepared to die on the field. Especially because it is his job to know every possibility even if it is an uncertainty. Sansa's undercuts Jon's authority as a commander by not offering that information. The only thing she could honestly say is, "I made a mistake." 

It doesn't breed the same distrust if her act of defiance not only won the war, it SAVED his life and the life of his men. This wasn't some small tactical thing that had negative consequences if she chose wrong, it was a pivotal maneuver that resulted in a decisive victory. The only reason Jon would still be mad was if he was being prideful.

Actually, that's not how trust works. You trust someone to be honest with you and she was not, so even though she had his trust, she simultaneously breeched it by not trusting him. They don't have plenty of time because there is another war coming that is far worse than any of the other wars they've encountered. People are far more understanding of people who breech trust and are backed into a corner, this violating said trust, rather than those who act breech trust by omitting important info. These are not the same breeches of trust because 1. you volunteered info 2. you deliberated hid info.

This further proves how Sansa breeched his trust far worse by NOT telling him. She is making tactical battle moves without telling the commanding officer. Besides knowing they need to win and need more men, she has NO fighting experience whatsoever. It's not her decision to make. Jon was crucified for trying to save his brother, but Sansa is excused for not telling him because Jon wouldn't want to sacrifice his men. I'm not understanding this position other than defend Sansa at all costs. Going into battle means that some or even many men are going to die. As mentioned, Jon was prepared to die on the field. He may have not liked her plan, but she still should've told him. What if Jon hadn't reacted to Ramsey's game with Rickon, what then? Her "plan" depended on Jon making dumb decisions and Davos making decisions based off of Jon's decisions. A surprise attack should only be for the opponent and that surprise attack hurt the men who were fighting for her in a way that could've been mitigated if she'd shared her plans with Jon. 

I'm sorry, but despite that saying being catchy to say, it has more likely led to the end of many friendships/relationship or, at least, irreparable damage than someone being honest. It's not a universal truth to be honest first, BUT more times than not, being honest first and going against a reply second is more likely to have an easier path to forgiveness than straight up lying. People are more likely to forgive someone who disobeyed them if they felt the person had no choice than they are with someone who wasn't honest in the first place. The former shows that the person tried to put trust and faith into them and the latter shows that the person didn't trust them at all. In either case, if whatever they did went wrong, both have disastrous impacts on their established trust, but guess who has a harder time coming back from that? The person who flat out lied. 

And you also said it: Jon feels responsible for those men and if Sansa's plan hinged on sacrificing them WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE, that is a further breech of trust. 

Why are we expecting a maiden completely unversed and untrained in war to know how war works? Her entire combat experience to date has consisted of praying with the women in a room, being told by Cersei that women are raped in war, and looking at scars. That's it.

And why are we expecting a girl who went from finding out she couldn't trust Joffrey or her own feelings, to finding out she couldn't trust her aunt not to throw her out a window or trust Littlefinger not to sell her into marriage to Ramsey, or trust her groom not to torture and rape her, to be some kind of expert on trust and good feelings just because she sort of knew Jon growing up and we, the audience, like him?

[Nanrad]

On 4/2/2017 at 7:32 PM, Hecate7 said:

Why are we expecting a maiden completely unversed and untrained in war to know how war works? Her entire combat experience to date has consisted of praying with the women in a room, being told by Cersei that women are raped in war, and looking at scars. That's it.

And why are we expecting a girl who went from finding out she couldn't trust Joffrey or her own feelings, to finding out she couldn't trust her aunt not to throw her out a window or trust Littlefinger not to sell her into marriage to Ramsey, or trust her groom not to torture and rape her, to be some kind of expert on trust and good feelings just because she sort of knew Jon growing up and we, the audience, like him?

TBH, if someone is mostly ignorant about war, doesn't that further show that you should give important info to a person who is the commander of an army. Her being a maiden is not an excuse. One minute it's badass Sansa and the next we need to excuse her because of her position in life. Sansa doesn't have to know much about war to know that this is a significant battle that there were fears of losing due to having very little men to know, "Hmm...LF potentially offering men is something Jon should know."

This is not about whether or not we like him, but rather, their relationship (no matter how minor it was/is) and what they were trying to accomplish. I'm trying to understand if people ever find Sansa at fault for anything because there are a lot of excuses as to why she shouldn't be held accountable for x, y, z.

[Hecate7]

On 4/3/2017 at 10:09 PM, Nanrad said:

TBH, if someone is mostly ignorant about war, doesn't that further show that you should give important info to a person who is the commander of an army. Her being a maiden is not an excuse. One minute it's badass Sansa and the next we need to excuse her because of her position in life. Sansa doesn't have to know much about war to know that this is a significant battle that there were fears of losing due to having very little men to know, "Hmm...LF potentially offering men is something Jon should know."

This is not about whether or not we like him, but rather, their relationship (no matter how minor it was/is) and what they were trying to accomplish. I'm trying to understand if people ever find Sansa at fault for anything because there are a lot of excuses as to why she shouldn't be held accountable for x, y, z.

I just think it's ludicrous to expect her to trust anyone or to make good, smart choices based on healthy trust, because in her life trust has always been a stupid move, whether on her part or on someone else's. So no. I'm not gonna fault her for the surprise attack which was hers to make, and Jon's to be thankful for.

I find her at fault for very little, because she's had very little power. This is the first REAL power she's had, and I don't blame her for exercising it independently of Jon, particularly considering what happened afterwards.

[Nanrad]

On 5/25/2017 at 8:52 PM, Hecate7 said:

I just think it's ludicrous to expect her to trust anyone or to make good, smart choices based on healthy trust, because in her life trust has always been a stupid move, whether on her part or on someone else's. So no. I'm not gonna fault her for the surprise attack which was hers to make, and Jon's to be thankful for.

I find her at fault for very little, because she's had very little power. This is the first REAL power she's had, and I don't blame her for exercising it independently of Jon, particularly considering what happened afterwards.

But, she trusted LF in that instance, right?

If you don't expect her to make good, smart choices why do you adamantly defend this choice of hers? Because you are admitting that she is capable of making bad choices due to her past experiences, yet, somehow, it's wrong of us criticize how she went about the situation? Although Jon is thankful for the surprise attack, it doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to be upset with her or the way she went about it either. Regardless of it being her choice to make, it was a not smart decision to withhold information from the commander who was going into battle expecting to die because he didn't have enough men to fight his opponent. Just because she has had very little power doesn't mean she can't still be at fault and even though it's her power to exercise it doesn't mean she yielded the power correctly. You can understand why she did what she did and still think she could have made better decisions. 

[Hecate7]

I think I missed the part where Jon expressed any thankfulness whatsoever for the surprise attack. Or I've somehow forgotten it--it's been awhile. Perhaps she could have gone about it better but given her experiences there's no way she would have, I don't think. Trusting LF to show up with an army is different from trusting him to be a good ally afterwards, which I don't believe she does.

[Constantinople]

On 5/27/2017 at 0:48 PM, Nanrad said:

But, she trusted LF in that instance, right?

What does Sansa have to lose by "trusting" Littlefinger this time?

If she asks and the Knights of the Vale show-up, she wins the battle.

If she asks and the Knights of the Vale don't show she's no worse off than if she hadn't asked.

[Generation Y]

On 7/3/2016 at 9:40 AM, Superpole2000 said:

Both battles were excellent, but one major thing irritated me: The bravery and invincibility of Jon Snow was so incredibly over the top that it removed any suspense for me. Jon Snow really is the most Mary Sue of all Mary Sue characters I've seen on TV. And Ramsey was the most cartoon villainish of all cartoon villains. No subtlety in those characterizations at all.

Agreed. I recently rewatched S6 again. Ramsay character was extremely over the top. The actor did nothing for me. I have to reiterate what another poster said about the Bolton's.

They only exist because of the Starks. The element of surprise and mystery wasn't there for me. The character Ramsay was very predictable in terms of his next move. Roose was interesting as well. It sucks he died prematurely. I would have preferred a faceoff with a Stark rather than Ramsay finishing him off. 

The scene with Jon Snow standing in the middle of the battlefield unharmed was Braveheartish. GoT should be well executed next season with more character development (primarily the Starks). 

[The Companion]

On 6/19/2016 at 10:00 PM, dramachick said:

Shout out to Lyanna Mormount, who was staring fierce daggers at Ramsey before battle!

I loved her glare. She is fierce. I know that she was probably a throwaway character meant to show us how hard Jon and Sansa had to work for very little, and perhaps to give us another view of the younger generation being forced into leadership now that the older generation has been largely wiped out by war, but I found her to be delightful and I really hope we get to see her again. I would love to know more about her warrior mother as well. 

On 6/19/2016 at 10:05 PM, AuntieMame said:

I felt blood thirsty and heart poundy too Islandgal140. I just wish Ramsay could have suffered more. But at a certain point eye for an eye justice becomes impossible. Too bad we don't have a sadist with a heart of gold on staff who could have broken the Bolton Bastard over months. He was right though. Ramsay lives on in the suffering and trauma of those he hurt. I'm usually not a vengeance girl, and I know Ramsay was Ott but he just did so much evil.

Getting set for the endgame. So nice things are moving.

Looks like our sadist with the heart of gold may have joined the Brotherhood without Banners. 

On 6/19/2016 at 10:44 PM, paigow said:

Dany: [to Theon] What's wrong with you?

I was waiting for him to show her.....and then Tyrion to drop the hostility

I totally thought it was going that direction as well. It was probably a better scene to have him support his sister than to explain why he was unfit.

On 6/19/2016 at 10:58 PM, SimoneS said:

I get that there is this sudden love for Theon, but he was damn lucky that Tyrion did not advise Daenerys to execute him on the spot. Tyrion was mocking Theon deservedly and he believed that Theon murdered the two younger Stark boys including Bran who Tyrion knew and tried to help by bringing the design for the saddle. 

I have been fairly vocal about my dislike for Theon. He betrayed those who loved and supported him and murdered innocent boys. I will say that I have softened a bit on him because he seems to have true remorse for his actions (not something we see from a lot of characters on this show). Initially, he seemed to think he got some sort of moral high ground because the boys he killed weren't Starks, but we have seen him start to really take a hard look at his actions and he has expressed regret particularly for killing those boys a couple of times. His assertion that justice would have his burnt body over Winterfell, for example. I think I have also given him a little more support because I like his sister so much. I am never gonna be team Theon, but I do think that the regret he expressed did more to salvage his character than any of his other actions (including saving Sansa). 

On 6/20/2016 at 0:14 AM, AlliMo said:

Tyrion did the best he could with what he was given, all things considered. Dany has big ideas, but she needs a voice of reason like him and she clearly knows it. Tyrion's been in the game his whole life, and he knows better than anyone that brute force isn't enough to stay on top. I'm fully on board with Dany conquering Westeros. She and Tyrion are the few characters in the series who have consistently tried to do what's best for everyone, not just their own pride or self interest.

I think one of the issues for Tyrion is that he has been in the game his whole life, but the game has changed because the players are different. It seems to me that there was a real difference in the way the masters handled things, and the way he was used to opponents reacting. The big families tend to make alliances even if they don't like each other because they know they are stronger if they work together. The Masters are used to having it all and were unwilling to accept anything less. He should have considered that. That being said, I like Tyrion. I like his attempts to find non-murderous ways to handle problems (Tywin notwithstanding). I like the way he tried to really dig in and understand what was happening. I like that he approaches Dany as an advisor rather than telling her what to do. 

On 6/20/2016 at 2:09 AM, ulkis said:

Writers and actors, especially actors who play good guys, usually love it when their characters go "dark" and usually like to interpret an action as some secret bit of darkness in the character's soul blah blah. So I get it from that perspective. But I agree with you. Ramsey was a monster, and Jon letting loose on him after the monster just killed his brother and a bunch of other men he knew isn't really a sign of Jon slipping into darkness or what have you.

I agree. I think it was more a loss of control than a deep secret darkness. 

On 6/20/2016 at 4:21 AM, arjumand said:

The bold is the only thing I disagreed with - not the Sansa part, the Jon part.

IMO, Jon is exactly in the wrong frame of mind not to be affected by Ramsey's mind games - he's suffering a massive case of PTSD resulting from 1. Hardhome (which I know is a year ago for us, but was like yesterday for Jon) and 2. His complete and utter betrayal by his brothers of the Night's Watch.

And even then, the attacks were pretty straightforward. With Ramsey, he was playing directly on Jon's need for family and need to belong. Because Ramsey was Jon, growing up as a bastard - not having any emotions himself, he knows how people with emotions will react, and which buttons to push.

Now Sansa, her only fault in this episode, IMO, was that she wasn't explicit and detailed enough about what Ramsey does. Jon is a very straightforward kind of guy - you need to give him more than vague "I know him" utterances. I appreciate that she tried, but she wasn't explicit enough. Like at the end of their conversation, when she said she was never going back to Ramsey, and he said he'd protect her. That's two people speaking at cross-purposes here.

What she means is: "I need someone to kill me before Ramsey gets his hands on me again." So when your brother (hem hem) clearly doesn't understand what you mean is not the time to flounce off with a dramatic "No-one can protect me". Though Jon was the wrong person to ask, if he couldn't even imagine that Rickon was doomed. Which is why I'm kinda pissed that Brienne wasn't there, though I know it made no sense (unless she borrowed LF's jetpack) - she'd be the one to ask.

This episode was nerve-wracking. I can't watch it in real-time, being in the wrong timezone, so I freely admit I skipped to the end at one point (when it looked like Jon was going to be crushed under the weight of the dead), because I couldn't take the tension.

I know it was likely just because they wanted dramatic tension, but I also think there are some layers to her reaction here. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but she doesn't seem to want to talk about what happened to her. She didn't talk about the things ladies wouldn't discuss with Littlefinger. She is doubtlessly still severely traumatized, and even the audience doesn't know the full extent of what she endured. I suspect she hoped that her brother would take her at her word, but she couldn't bear to really lay it all out. Then again, that might have been cross purposes anyway. Jon might have been so emotionally charged had he gotten details, that he was unable to think clearly (though his brother's death certainly accomplished the same thing).

I agree that this episode was nerve-wracking. I was a little ill waiting for the battle to start and anticipating Rickon's fate. Even during the fight, there were times when I thought Ramsay might win, and it was really tough to take.

On 6/20/2016 at 5:55 AM, SimoneS said:

I cannot believe that I missed Lyanna Mormont giving Ramsey the stink eye. I love her. I am sure that she was kept safe by her advisors, but I hope some of her men survived the battle.

Wouldn't it be amazing if all 62 of her men (or something close to that) survived and her parting shot was to tell them that she told them her men were tough? I have to think she was kept safe because I can't believe they would introduce her and then give her an off screen death. 

On 6/20/2016 at 11:06 AM, MsChipper said:

This made me laugh out loud.

Poor guy, but I know what you mean.

Here's hoping he'll get some nice guy roles moving forward....

He is probably turning down any role that doesn't have him cast as a preschool teacher or angel. 

On 6/20/2016 at 11:09 AM, RedHawk said:

Edited to add: Sansa had already accepted that her little brother Rickon would die. She didn't care a whit that many, many soldiers would die in the initial battle. Her best hope was that Ramsay would also expend many of his forces and the Vale army would arrive in time to finish them off. She is cold and calculating, as she's learned she must be.

I wonder if part of that wasn't her trying to harden her heart because she had no hope. I think she has become more cold and calculating over the years,  but I don't think she has become so hardened that she just didn't care. What surprised me was that Jon seemed to accept Rickon's death after the fact. He was raised from the dead just a few episodes ago. Shouldn't he let Melissandre give the boy a haircut, just to see what happens (before Davos presumably gets his hands on her). I mean, sure, the Lord of Light probably hasn't chosen him, but what is the harm in trying? Jon just told them to bury him next to their father and let it be. It seemed a bit strange to me. Oh well, more nuts for the surviving Starks, I guess. RIP Rickon. We barely knew you. No, seriously. 

On 6/20/2016 at 2:05 PM, annsterg said:

I want Arya to kill all the Freys...or at least Walder. Bonus if she tells him who she is before delivering the coup de grace. Double bonus if she gets to kill some of his family in front of him first.

Not for nothing because it couldn't happen to a worse person, but GOT sure does make us all bloodthirsty, doesn't it?

On 6/20/2016 at 3:17 PM, Tyro49 said:

Is Sansa still technically married to Tyrion?

I hope she remembers to have the dogs fed regularly (and gets a good dog whisperer for them).

As noted above, there seems to be a requirement of consummation for a marriage to be valid (making the marriage void rather than voidable if consummation doesn't occur). The closest analogue I can think of is common law marriage. Some states that permit common law marriage to arise require consummation (https://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/domesticRelations/Marriage/CommonLawMarriage.asp). Unlike statutory marriages, which can be anulled if no consummation occurs, the common law marriage in those states does not occur without consummation. This seems to be the driving factor for the rather gross bedding ceremony we have seen referenced. Can it be validated if they were to consummate the marriage now? Perhaps and they would certainly make a power couple, but I suspect there is a timing element or that the second, valid marriage would disrupt the ability to validate the first marriage now. 

On 6/21/2016 at 2:01 PM, annsterg said:

Pretty sure Sansa cannot inherit Bolton assets, because even though she was married to a Bolton, she herself is not a Bolton and she did not produce a Bolton heir (please let enough time have passed that Sansa cannot be pregnant with that demon spawn). The next male blood Bolton -- if there were one -- would inherit...that is, if this were a "normal" progression, which it is not. So I think that the Starks will TAKE the Bolton lands because of their treachery and wipe that house off the face of Westeros. Too bad for any Bolton loyalists...wonder how many are manning the Dreadfort?

I don't think the Freys have been Bolton allies since Roose decided to break with the Lannisters by marrying Sansa to Ramsay...and certainly not since Ramsay killed Fat Walda.

There is a Tulley with ties to the Starks who suddenly finds himself without a home and with an army. I mean, his wife is a Frey so that would make family dinners a bit awkward, but we are running out of nobility in Westeros. I wonder how she would feel about Arya stabbing her father. 

 

We stayed up late last night to watch this episode and I am glad we did. Two battles for the price of one, and largely a mark in the win column for the goodish guys. I don't really have much to add to 11 pages of comments, but I will say that seeing the wolf banner go back up on Winterfell was a huge relief. We have been on such a long journey to get to this point, and it was very satisfying the way it played out (for the most part). 

[sharon jones]

There are many great episodes in Game Of Thrones, But this Episode "Battle Of The Bastards"  was so awesome that I can't forget even a single bit of this episode