GOT: That Sansa scene (spoilers)

[Erttheking]

Snip

I find it less edgy because it's rape and more that it's pointless rape. That's what makes it edgy for me, because it was put in not to make a point or be part of character development, but to just be edgy. I'm not upset because of the content. I'm annoyed because the scene felt like it was screaming "LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME!"

If it makes it fair Ramsey's flaying drove into edgy territory a long time ago. I see that woman flayed and I'm not horrified. I'm thinking "Ok we fucking get it, Ramsey likes flaying people. I kind of got it the last twelve times it Can something plot related happen now?"

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

I find it less edgy because it's rape and more that it's pointless rape. That's what makes it edgy for me, because it was put in not to make a point or be part of character development, but to just be edgy. I'm not upset because of the content. I'm annoyed because the scene felt like it was screaming "LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME!"

If it makes it fair Ramsey's flaying drove into edgy territory a long time ago. I see that woman flayed and I'm not horrified. I'm thinking "Ok we fucking get it, Ramsey likes flaying people. I kind of got it the last twelve times it Can something plot related happen now?"

So you skipped reading my third paragraph entirely then?

No, I just don't personally agree with that assessment.

 

[rcs619]

I was kinda hoping someone else would open this can of worms but anyway here goes.

I briefly glanced at a click bait article about how game of thrones played off the rape scene just for the lolz and what scum bags the producers were for having a rape scene "lightly" added for pure entertainment value which raised a few questions.

For starters was it rape? And I instantly feel like shit for asking that question because I think we all know she wasn't exactly thrilled with the circumstances but when you start talking about these kinds of royal arranged marriages based on convenience there starts to be a kinda grey area between rape and just having a disgusting forced husband that you reluctantly sleep with because it's your duty.

The next question is about rape as entertainment. I found the scene fairly uncomfortable especially since Sansa is one of my favourite characters and I wanted something better for her but life's not fair, people are scum and the game of thrones world is brutal so I don't think the producers should shy away from the topic especially if it leads to good character development and gives us another villain to hate like joffrey.

EDIT: really sorry about the spoilers guys.

Nope, it was definitely, indisputably rape. Forced sex backed up by the implied threats of torture and violence if you don't comply is like, the textbook definition of rape. It was also completely in-character for Ramsay, since he is an unabashed sociopath.

As for how it was handled, I think the show did it as best as they could. The actual act itself was not shown and there was nothing titillating or enticing about it, and the forced focus on Theon's face the whole time really was effective at seeing the tiny, broken pieces of who he once was starting to slip through. That being said, it *was* super, super uncomfortable, and rape is such a primal, sensitive, knee-jerk issue that I can totally understand why some people are upset. But, it fits with the character, it fits with the plot, and it was handled in a fairly responsible way.

Whether or not this plotline (and the added abuse) was a good idea for Sansa remains an interesting and valid discussion to be had, however. It really depends on the payoff. They seem to be beginning Theon's rehabilitation as a character, and if the overall payoff at the end is good, then yes, this plotline was worth it. It's certainly way more interesting than anything Sansa did in the books. Book-Sansa was a vapid, bubble-headed girl who is still hundreds of miles from any event of note in the books. Dragging her into the middle of a major plot-line, and having her endure some Stark-grade human suffering adds to her character, especially if she gets a good, badass payoff at the end of the storyline too. In the book, Sansa had the easiest time by faaaaaar. She was treated more like valuable treasure, shuffled around here and there by whoever she most benefitted, while the other Starks actually did interesting things.

 

[TwistednMean]

Come again, what makes Sansa so special?

Most of the Stark family was slaughtered and maimed in terrible ways, most of Bolton junior's victims would gladly exchange whatever he had in store for them for a rape session or two or two dozen. Sansa's situation is the most privileged (no pun intended) by far.

You say GoT displays sex and violence simply because it sells well? That's news! Because they never displayed sex and violence to tgis end before Snasa rape scene, right? And certainly there has been no piece of entertainment in human history which used it before. Oh, wait, both this restatements are utterly false!

P.S. As a hindthought to a potential argument against my first point, if you, oh distinguished reader, happen to be one of them people who think rape is worse than flaying or beheading, let me stop you right there and swiftly walk away.

 

[Frankster]

Ah yes, there was such a brouhaha for a scene that lasted literally seconds and focuses on Theon's face so you don't even see what is happening (though I've read that this is bad too since it focuses on Theon's face or "man pain" according to some publications thus making it about him, so they should have kept focus on Samsa's face instead? you just can't win no matter what really).

The weird thing is my (female) GoT obsessed friends says the part that bothered samsa wasn't even the bedding (she knew what was going to happen the moment she signed up for marriage out of her own will) but that Reek/Theon was watching. This an interpretation that no one else seems to see though so guess they are wrong.

I do agree with my friends on one thing though.. People expected too much of Samsa. Ooooh she wears black and stuff, she is Dark Samsa, watch out, we got a new hyper manipulator in town! Watch her undermine the Boltons and run rings around them! Watch her get revenge for the starks! Watch her become Peter Baelish v2.0!

Yeah....No. Samsa is still the same as ever, the only time she could have been "independent" was when she could have ratted out Baelish except as always, she didn't and ended up as someone else's tool yet again.

They say Ramsay's rape scene is gratuitous and serves no purpose but those people saying it just wanted to see Samsa pull a batman and were disappointed it didn't happen. From where I stand the rape served one big purpose all right: show that for whatever progress Samsa made, she is still the same old Samsa and ultimately at the mercy of sadistic monsters yet again, and whatever pretence of power she thought she had was brutally taken from Ramsay (this is also how I interpreted the scene on the following episode and Samsa's failed candle plot... That for both Theon and Samsa, Ramsay is the one who still dominates and controls their lives.)

Still at least Samsa has levelled up her perception stat, she managed to acquire a random item during her walk with Ramsay which I'm sure will play a role next episode.

 

[Frankster]

As for the scene itself? Meh. The show has properly gone down the shitter at this point. I was distracted by the fact that it made no fucking sense for the Boltons to be marrying Sansa. Y'know, what with her be suspected of regicide and all.

Eh...To be fair the Lannister's didn't even know Samsa was in winterfell until Baelish ratted her out.

But even then, between the fact that the Royals are having problems of their own and lost Tywin who was the real power behind the throne and that winter is coming combined with the historical precedence that no royal or Lannister army has ever marched so far up north... Of all the problems the Boltons have, pissing off the Royals is the least of their worries, sealing their legitimacy as rulers is far more important then pleasing the royals in the south who are incapable of doing anything to them at the moment.

What's Cersei or King Tommen going to do even if they really wanted the Boltons bought to heel?

..Send Peter Baelish and the knights of vale to conquer them. Ok to be fair though, there is no way Roose Bolton could have seen that coming, especially as he just went into an agreement with Baelish.

 

[Passive Aggression]

The scene had to happen, unless people were expecting a short 5-second sequence in which Sansa and Ramsey kiss and say "That was great, thanks love", there's really only one way to show what happens in that scene. I mean, people in this thread are complaining about how "Unnecessary" it is before we've even had episodes showing the consequences of it.

What if Sansa gets pregnant with Ramsey's child? Would the scene still have been unneeded?

The fact of the matter is, the show has shown much worse scenes, the eternally offended brigade are just getting their collective panties in a bunch about something utterly daft yet again, I mean, the reviews for the episode are all bawling about the short minute or so at the end, whilst completely ignoring the consistent barrage of death and mutilation that's been in the show thus far.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Was it rape in legal sense, in the spirit of the setting? Eh, probably not, but it doesn't really matter since young Bolton, being Joffrey 2.0, made this experience as awful as possible for Sansa(and Reek of course) for purpose. Well, maybe it could be more horrific if he'd decide to fuck her on a corpse of recently flailed peasant, but... And Sansa's been telling Reek he keeps "hurting her" every night, so i think it's fair to threat it as a rape.

Was it that shocking? Not from my perspective: The show has already established that Sansa was an abuse magnet, Ramsay is a sick fuck and Reek is his helpless toy. So i'm not surprised with people finding this scene close to pointless. Maybe being victimized by the same person will cause a new bond to form between Sansa and Theon in the future, although, judging from how Reek has ratted her out in the next ep, chances for that are pretty bleak. We'll see...

 

[ERaptor]

It's an unnecessary change, and I really ahve no idea why anyone thought Ramsay needed more "Btw, I'm an asshole"-screentime. I was allready tired of him during that whole Theon thing. It was almost comical after a while.

"And now back to the "Fu*k Theon" show! Our Host, Ramsay Snow!"
"I'm still a huge prick btw. Don't you agree Theon?"
"AHHHHHH"

And making him Rape Sansa is probably the most obvious "WE WANT TO BE EDGY"-ploy I have seen until now, at least for GoT. There is absolutely NO reason to change this from the books. None. No characters develop in anyway, it doesnt add anything to the story except cheap shock. Sansa was _this_ close to be an interesting character, after I despised pretty much every scene with her from previous seasons. And now that we were this close to get some actual interesting stuff out of here, "Nope, Victim time baby!".

Seriously, the show doesnt shock me anymore. I still like watching it, because I like quite af ew characters and some of the Plots are interesting. But the shock value was drained long ago. THat's the thing about shock, once you do it in every Episode, it stops being exciting.

 

[Silence]

Literally the only way to have Sansa not raped in the context of the story was her not getting married (or running of and lol dying at the wedding).

It was inevitable.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

There is absolutely NO reason to change this from the books.

It isn't a change from the books. In the books, it's the character of Jeyne Poole [http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Jeyne_Poole] (masquerading as Arya Stark) that is wed to Ramsay.

Jeyne is forced to marry Ramsay and pleads with Theon Greyjoy several times before the wedding for him to help her and take her away. When stripped by Theon for the bedding, numerous scars cover Jeyne's back, suggesting she had been whipped. When Ramsay asks her if she knows how to please a man, she replies fearfully that she has had training.

Jeyne spends all her time confined to a tower and is deeply traumatized by the things Ramsay does to her. The maids who bath [sic] her notice the bruises on her body and the girl's sobbing is known throughout Winterfell.

Obviously the change is that the showrunners combined Jeyne Poole's character with Sansa on the show, rather than introduce a new character. That isn't the first time either; Gendry in the show filled the role of all of Robert Baratheon's bastards in the books. Ros was all the prostitutes (until her demise), etc.

Ramsay in the books does marry a Stark (a fake one) who he beats and rapes. So there's no change from the books except the obvious one of merging the characters to avoid too many new ones fighting for screen time (and to give Sophie Turner something to do).

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Took a while for this to make it here.

I wanna discuss a few of the more common talking points...

BAD THINGS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME IN GAME OF THRONES, WHAT MADE THIS WORSE?

A question made even more pointed by the fact Jeyne Poole actually suffered far worse at the hands of Ramsay, who has been slightly toned down in his TV characterization (more clown than monster half the time). This is a show where babies are ripped from their mother's arms, Dads are beheaded, and Theon gets his penis flayed. Why is Sansa's rape at the hands of Ramsay so particularly galling in light of this?

Bad writing is a primary culprit. Sansa shouldn't even be there. The justifications for her being there are paper thin and make absolutely no sense. This kind of sloppy, shitty writing typifies the show's deviations from canon. And the last thing you want to be engaging in when exploring controversial subjects such as rape is sloppy, shitty writing. Shows have touched on the subject before. The Sopranos had an extremely upsetting rape episode that was more acclaimed than controversial, because it was a well written show and the subject was addressed with sophistication and nuance. These are two words that should never be associated with GoT's fan fiction. Exhibit A, the absolutely ludicrous and unintentionally comical visit to Dorne by Jaime and Bronn. This is the show the showrunners are crafting for you. It's one small step above the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers.

So why is Sansa being there such shitty writing?

1. It makes no sense for Littlefinger to leave her there.
2. It makes no sense for the Boltons to basically openly rebel against the crown. Yes, Tywin is dead. The Lannister/Tyrell agreement is still in effect, and the northern armies are still devastated. Roose openly states he has a smaller army than STANNIS at this point (which isn't true, but whatever). Why does he do this?
3. It makes no sense for Sansa to agree to it. What does she hope to accomplish?
4. It stalls/regresses Sansa's arc...she'd been slowly coming out of victimhood and gets popped back in, even more violently. Just because the story is an exercise in trope subversion doesn't mean you can start throwing arcs out the window.

It reads/watches as an utterly contrived situation meant for shock/emotional impact. And when you use rape as tool for shock/emotional manipulation...in a situation where it makes no narrative sense...you are going to come under fire. They actually have a pretty storied history with this too.

1. Jaime and Cersei. Deviated from the books to make a consensual scene look non-consensual. Why? For what narrative purpose?
2. Meera's near-molestation North of the Wall. Never happened in the books. Why? For what purpose?
3. The entire character of Ros and her sexualized murder by Joffrey. Never happened/existed in the books. Why? What purpose?
4. Gilly's near rape in the most recent episode. Never happened in the books. Why? What purpose?
5. If we can deviate slightly from rape and just keep on "violence against women", the clown show that was "Talissa" culminated in a pregnant woman getting stabbed repeatedly in her womb. Why? What purpose?

The books themselves are thick with rape and violence...the show has actually dialed down the latter and significantly boosted the former. Benioff and Weiss see fit to ram a bunch of characters into rapey situations that never existed in the books. The only part where one could make an argument in favor of it was Dany/Drogo in season one, because with all due respect to Mr. Martin her enjoying that was patently ludicrous.

TLDR, discussing or showing rape is not intrinsically bad, but if the way you portray it feels cheap, or exploitative, or poorly thought out and written, it's going to come under serious fire.

WAS THIS EVEN RAPE? THEY'RE MARRIED!

Legally? In Westeros? No. Morally? Most certainly. The show went to great lengths to make it seem as non-consensual as possible. It's a faintly ridiculous defense/debate, frankly.

SANSA *HAS* TO BE RAPED IN ORDER TO AVOID RUINING RAMSAY AND THEON, TOO

That one is my contribution. Putting Sansa in that situation, as absolutely fucking ridiculous as it is, and NOT having Ramsay horribly victimize her would be a violation of Ramsay's character. Of course he would victimize her. He's Ramsay. Ramsay "I name my dogs after the women I hunt, kill and flay" Snow. There are major outcomes in the books that require a certain sequence of events to occur at Winterfell. You start fucking around in order to give Sansa a girl power moment, and suddenly your entire extended plot starts coming down like a house of cards.

Which is why it was absolute madness to even have her there in the first place, and why D&D and the writers for GoT deserve every ounce of shit they've been taking over this, and then some. If you think this season has been bad, you just wait until these idiots are out in the wilderness on their own with only a rough plot outline to draw on. GoT is in the midst of one of the most startlingly rapid quality declines of any show in the modern era, and it's only getting started.

 

[chikusho]

snip

I disagree. It can make plenty of sense if you take off the "But in the books!!!" goggles.

1. It makes no sense for Littlefinger to leave her there.

It made plenty of sense to me. He's hedging his bets, so that whatever happens he always comes out on top.

2. It makes no sense for the Boltons to basically openly rebel against the crown. Yes, Tywin is dead. The Lannister/Tyrell agreement is still in effect, and the northern armies are still devastated. Roose openly states he has a smaller army than STANNIS at this point (which isn't true, but whatever). Why does he do this?

It does make sense, if you consider the fact that Tywin was the person who held the agreement together. Cersei is basically preoccuppied with exacting vengeance on personal targets and seems to have very little interest in anything else. Tommen is still just a boy who has no idea what it means to be king.

And, Roose may very well have a smaller army than Stannis considering that most of the houses in the north aren't accepting rulership from anyone who's not a Stark. Marrying his son to the actual heir of Winterfell makes a lot of sense, since that might gain him the army he needs to fight stannis. Considering what's going on in Kings Landing he can't exactly expect any help from there.

3. It makes no sense for Sansa to agree to it. What does she hope to accomplish?

Maybe she bought in to Littlefingers bullshit, maybe she saw it as a way to get back home, maybe she thought it would be a way for her to gain power, or maybe she just had no idea what to do and simply went for it for lack of a better alternative. Like, as a way to guarantee she was not killed by the Boltons.

4. It stalls/regresses Sansa's arc...she'd been slowly coming out of victimhood and gets popped back in, even more violently. Just because the story is an exercise in trope subversion doesn't mean you can start throwing arcs out the window.

This I agree with. I was kind of disappointed of the turn of events for this reason.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It made plenty of sense to me. He's hedging his bets, so that whatever happens he always comes out on top.

How is he "hedging his bets"? What does he gain?

He's already risked antagonizing the crown once, when he took Sansa away in secret. Why does he risk it again, this time quite publicly, to gain the support of a single northern house, one that Roose openly states is less powerful/established than a deposed pretender to the throne reliant almost entirely on sellswords? Remember that aside from the Boltons/Karstarks the ENTIRE Northern Army was decimated at the Twins during the Red Wedding. The Tyrells alone field an army of over 50,000. What bets are he hedging? Further, what power does he have to ensure he receives loyalty from Roose in any form? Roose already betrayed his liege lord.

It does make sense, if you consider the fact that Tywin was the person who held the agreement together. Cersei is basically preoccuppied with exacting vengeance on personal targets and seems to have very little interest in anything else. Tommen is still just a boy who has no idea what it means to be king.

No, it doesn't. All of Roose's authority in the north stems from the crown. Marrying Sansa to his legitimized bastard doesn't give him an army. Whose support would he gain? The populace around Winterfell, who get to look at her tottering about bruised and traumatized every day, and who are probably quite acclimatized to Ramsay's proclivities at this point? This will protect them against the crown how? How does Roose know what Cersei is or is not "preoccupied" with from his seat in Winterfell? How preoccupied do you think she might become if she knew the woman suspected of orchestrating the murder of her firstborn is sitting in a lightly defended castle in the north?

And, Roose may very well have a smaller army than Stannis considering that most of the houses in the north aren't accepting rulership from anyone who's not a Stark. Marrying his son to the actual heir of Winterfell makes a lot of sense, since that might gain him the army he needs to fight stannis. Considering what's going on in Kings Landing he can't exactly expect any help from there.

The issue here isn't Roose's available strength, he has very little. The North was decimated by war, and what little is left needs to prepare for the coming winter. The issue is Stannis, who lost almost the entirety of his army during the Battle of the Blackwater.

Maybe she bought in to Littlefingers bullshit, maybe she saw it as a way to get back home, maybe she thought it would be a way for her to gain power, or maybe she just had no idea what to do and simply went for it for lack of a better alternative. Like, as a way to guarantee she was not killed by the Boltons.

When you need to start speculating to fill in character motivations, it means the showrunners are not doing their jobs.

 

[Silvanus]

And, Roose may very well have a smaller army than Stannis considering that most of the houses in the north aren't accepting rulership from anyone who's not a Stark.

Well, yes and no. The willingness of the Northern houses to fight for House Bolton is very hard to gauge; almost all are pledging nominal support in order to protect themselves, and their personal loyalty differs wildly from house to house (Manderly we know wants to undermine them; Dustin seems to be perhaps the most genuinely loyal to Bolton). There's also a sizeable Frey contingent. All in all, Bolton will be able to field several thousand, perhaps as many as 5.

Stannis' strength is usually calculated at around 5 thousand during the Battle of the Wall: add to this House Mormont, the Mountain clans, and possibly Mors Umber; minus significant deaths to the cold.

 

[chikusho]

It made plenty of sense to me. He's hedging his bets, so that whatever happens he always comes out on top.

How is he "hedging his bets"? What does he gain?

He's already risked antagonizing the crown once, when he took Sansa away in secret. Why does he risk it again, this time quite publicly, to gain the support of a single northern house, one that Roose openly states is less powerful/established than a deposed pretender to the throne reliant almost entirely on sellswords? Remember that aside from the Boltons/Karstarks the ENTIRE Northern Army was decimated at the Twins during the Red Wedding. The Tyrells alone field an army of over 50,000. What bets are he hedging? Further, what power does he have to ensure he receives loyalty from Roose in any form? Roose already betrayed his liege lord.

He takes risks to reap rewards, I guess? He acts with a goal in mind, and for him to be able to achieve that goal risks are necessary.

He knows Stannis is coming to take the north and then King's landing. By giving Sansa to Roose he gains an ally in Roose, and if Stannis wins that fight he will still have an ally in Sansa who holds power in the north by her name.

Yes, a huge part of the army that Robb gathered were killed. But all the houses in the north didn't send all of their people. It's an explicitly stated fact that Roose has trouble holding the north, and Sansa is a way to get a tighter grip on it.

Also, there's nothing public about Littlefinger handing her over to Roose. Rembember, she isn't Sansa, she's Alayne, his niece, until handed over to Roose. There's noone to say how she got there.

Finally, it's better to maybe have a friend in the Boltons than not.

It does make sense, if you consider the fact that Tywin was the person who held the agreement together. Cersei is basically preoccuppied with exacting vengeance on personal targets and seems to have very little interest in anything else. Tommen is still just a boy who has no idea what it means to be king.

No, it doesn't. All of Roose's authority in the north stems from the crown. Marrying Sansa to his legitimized bastard doesn't give him an army. Whose support would he gain? The populace around Winterfell, who get to look at her tottering about bruised and traumatized every day, and who are probably quite acclimatized to Ramsay's proclivities at this point? This will protect them against the crown how? How does Roose know what Cersei is or is not "preoccupied" with from his seat in Winterfell? How preoccupied do you think she might become if she knew the woman suspected of orchestrating the murder of her firstborn is sitting in a lightly defended castle in the north?

His authority in the north stems from the crown, and the crown is in shambles. He knows this because he struck the original deal with Tywin, and he knows that Tywin was the only lannister who commanded respect. So to put it short, his authority is dwindling. Especially if he's privy to the fact that the Tyrells are also working against the crown, even though that's not explicitly stated.

And, Roose may very well have a smaller army than Stannis considering that most of the houses in the north aren't accepting rulership from anyone who's not a Stark. Marrying his son to the actual heir of Winterfell makes a lot of sense, since that might gain him the army he needs to fight stannis. Considering what's going on in Kings Landing he can't exactly expect any help from there.

The issue here isn't Roose's available strength, he has very little. The North was decimated by war, and what little is left needs to prepare for the coming winter. The issue is Stannis, who lost almost the entirety of his army during the Battle of the Blackwater.

And even if he doesn't gain an army, he needs proper authority and respect to not face resistance from the north in those preparations. Hell, possibly even more so. It's a lot easier to gather supplies and prepare for winter when people are working for you rather than when you have to force them to do so by the tip of a sword. With a Stark commanding them, he will probably face less resistance.

Maybe she bought in to Littlefingers bullshit, maybe she saw it as a way to get back home, maybe she thought it would be a way for her to gain power, or maybe she just had no idea what to do and simply went for it for lack of a better alternative. Like, as a way to guarantee she was not killed by the Boltons.

When you need to start speculating to fill in character motivations, it means the showrunners are not doing their jobs.

Quite the contrary. When every act, statement and motivation is explicitly spelled out, the show quickly becomes a bore.

 

[Terminal Blue]

And I instantly feel like shit for asking that question because I think we all know she wasn't exactly thrilled with the circumstances but when you start talking about these kinds of royal arranged marriages based on convenience there starts to be a kinda grey area between rape and just having a disgusting forced husband that you reluctantly sleep with because it's your duty.

..except that characters within the setting do distinguish between "normal" spousal relations within arranged marriages and "abusive" spousal relations in which there is violence, deliberate humiliation or sadism. It may not be exactly historical in that sense, but then I think history went out of the window around the time dragons were flying around. In this case, it's very obvious that both partners fully understand what is going on and that this is something outside of the norm.

The next question is about rape as entertainment. I found the scene fairly uncomfortable especially since Sansa is one of my favourite characters and I wanted something better for her but life's not fair, people are scum and the game of thrones world is brutal so I don't think the producers should shy away from the topic especially if it leads to good character development and gives us another villain to hate like joffrey.

I'm in two minds myself.

On one hand, yes. One of the "themes" of Game of Thrones is that noone "wins". Sansa was starting to look quite a lot like a protagonist, thus it only makes sense that the plot punish her for that because the audience needs to be told (once again) that reality does not pull punches for our heroes. The scene itself was also rather well done, I thought, and Alfie Allen turned in a really strong performance.

The problem is that fiction has a long history of "punishing" women by having them be sexually assaulted, and a long history of using sexual assault as a catch-all motivator for driving the "development" of female character or, even worse, of male "protectors". Frankly, we had enough rape-revenge movies in the 1970s, I would have thought we'd be over that in 2015.

Bear in mind that personally I actually enjoy Ramsey being on screen, he's always delightfully slimy, and one of the few characters who actually seems to be having fun amidst all the stoic staring into the middle distance everyone else seems to be doing. He's also had a few very strong character development scenes already which actually start to unravel the puzzle of why Ramsey is who he is, but we already know who he is. We know he's a sadist. I'm not sure after a season of gratuitous Theon torture we need another big "shocker" scene to illustrate the point.

So yeah.. I can see what they were going for and applaud them for trying, but I also think it was kind of unecessary and had some really unfortunate implications which probably should have been considered.

Seriously though, if I wanted something to gender-rage about it would be this weird Dorne subplot.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

He takes risks to reap rewards, I guess? He acts with a goal in mind, and for him to be able to achieve that goal risks are necessary.

Well, yes. As long as we're guessing, I imagine he could be doing just about anything. Maybe he's a secret Targaryen, or The Night's King! Based on what you've seen actually take place, what are his motives? What does he stand to gain?

He knows Stannis is coming to take the north and then King's landing.

Stannis has <5000 men. Stannis is trying to defend the realm against the long night. He's not going to "take King's Landing" with a force less than fraction of the size of the one he already failed to take it with.

By giving Sansa to Roose he gains an ally in Roose

An ally that the show establishes has no army to speak of and no power outside of that granted them by the Throne, with which the Sansa deal severs their relationship.

But all the houses in the north didn't send all of their people. It's an explicitly stated fact that Roose has trouble holding the north, and Sansa is a way to get a tighter grip on it.

They left enough behind to till the fields and protect the homesteads. There isn't much left in the way of power in the North.

Also, there's nothing public about Littlefinger handing her over to Roose. Rembember, she isn't Sansa, she's Alayne, his niece, until handed over to Roose. There's noone to say how she got there.

He was walking around openly. Varys employed spies in every court in the Seven Kingdoms, that Qyburn would've inherited upon becoming spymaster. Even if there wasn't someone there in a professional capacity, the smallfolk talk. He was seen escorting her through the Riverlands as well.

Finally, it's better to maybe have a friend in the Boltons than not.

Why is that better? What is the benefit of having a politically toxic friend with depleted/non-existant military strength? Particularly when you're trading the preeminent power in the realm for it?

His authority in the north stems from the crown, and the crown is in shambles.

How is the crown in shambles? At the end of the war the Lannisters still have some 20-30K fighting men available, the Tyrells over 50K. Which is to say nothing of the Riverlands and Stormlands, all of which are under the control of Kings Landing. So the Crown is "in shambles", and somehow Roose Bolton makes an appealing alternative? How?

So to put it short, his authority is dwindling. Especially if he's privy to the fact that the Tyrells are also working against the crown, even though that's not explicitly stated.

The Tyrells ARE the crown.

And even if he doesn't gain an army, he needs proper authority and respect to not face resistance from the north in those preparations. Hell, possibly even more so. It's a lot easier to gather supplies and prepare for winter when people are working for you rather than when you have to force them to do so by the tip of a sword. With a Stark commanding them, he will probably face less resistance.

So he gets proper authority and respect from the smallfolk (something he has never failed to accomplish on his own) and in turn becomes a rebel faction in open defiance of the governing body of the Seven Kingdoms. And this is a good political move for him?

Quite the contrary. When every act, statement and motivation is explicitly spelled out, the show quickly becomes a bore.

Sorry, are those the two choices? Either everything is explicitly spelled out and detailed, or you have to make wild guesses about why anything is happening?

 

[freaper]

Sure it was rape, but I didn't feel it was played off like a minor thing. We all knew how much of a scumbag Ramsey is, rape is NBD for him at that point, and Sansa was just finding out how much of a miserable shit her husband really is (as shown in episode 07).

 

[Fappy]

Took a while for this to make it here.

I wanna discuss a few of the more common talking points...

BAD THINGS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME IN GAME OF THRONES, WHAT MADE THIS WORSE?

A question made even more pointed by the fact Jeyne Poole actually suffered far worse at the hands of Ramsay, who has been slightly toned down in his TV characterization (more clown than monster half the time). This is a show where babies are ripped from their mother's arms, Dads are beheaded, and Theon gets his penis flayed. Why is Sansa's rape at the hands of Ramsay so particularly galling in light of this?

Bad writing is a primary culprit. Sansa shouldn't even be there. The justifications for her being there are paper thin and make absolutely no sense. This kind of sloppy, shitty writing typifies the show's deviations from canon. And the last thing you want to be engaging in when exploring controversial subjects such as rape is sloppy, shitty writing. Shows have touched on the subject before. The Sopranos had an extremely upsetting rape episode that was more acclaimed than controversial, because it was a well written show and the subject was addressed with sophistication and nuance. These are two words that should never be associated with GoT's fan fiction. Exhibit A, the absolutely ludicrous and unintentionally comical visit to Dorne by Jaime and Bronn. This is the show the showrunners are crafting for you. It's one small step above the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers.

So why is Sansa being there such shitty writing?

1. It makes no sense for Littlefinger to leave her there.
2. It makes no sense for the Boltons to basically openly rebel against the crown. Yes, Tywin is dead. The Lannister/Tyrell agreement is still in effect, and the northern armies are still devastated. Roose openly states he has a smaller army than STANNIS at this point (which isn't true, but whatever). Why does he do this?
3. It makes no sense for Sansa to agree to it. What does she hope to accomplish?
4. It stalls/regresses Sansa's arc...she'd been slowly coming out of victimhood and gets popped back in, even more violently. Just because the story is an exercise in trope subversion doesn't mean you can start throwing arcs out the window.

It reads/watches as an utterly contrived situation meant for shock/emotional impact. And when you use rape as tool for shock/emotional manipulation...in a situation where it makes no narrative sense...you are going to come under fire. They actually have a pretty storied history with this too.

1. Jaime and Cersei. Deviated from the books to make a consensual scene look non-consensual. Why? For what narrative purpose?
2. Meera's near-molestation North of the Wall. Never happened in the books. Why? For what purpose?
3. The entire character of Ros and her sexualized murder by Joffrey. Never happened/existed in the books. Why? What purpose?
4. Gilly's near rape in the most recent episode. Never happened in the books. Why? What purpose?
5. If we can deviate slightly from rape and just keep on "violence against women", the clown show that was "Talissa" culminated in a pregnant woman getting stabbed repeatedly in her womb. Why? What purpose?

The books themselves are thick with rape and violence...the show has actually dialed down the latter and significantly boosted the former. Benioff and Weiss see fit to ram a bunch of characters into rapey situations that never existed in the books. The only part where one could make an argument in favor of it was Dany/Drogo in season one, because with all due respect to Mr. Martin her enjoying that was patently ludicrous.

TLDR, discussing or showing rape is not intrinsically bad, but if the way you portray it feels cheap, or exploitative, or poorly thought out and written, it's going to come under serious fire.

WAS THIS EVEN RAPE? THEY'RE MARRIED!

Legally? In Westeros? No. Morally? Most certainly. The show went to great lengths to make it seem as non-consensual as possible. It's a faintly ridiculous defense/debate, frankly.

SANSA *HAS* TO BE RAPED IN ORDER TO AVOID RUINING RAMSAY AND THEON, TOO

That one is my contribution. Putting Sansa in that situation, as absolutely fucking ridiculous as it is, and NOT having Ramsay horribly victimize her would be a violation of Ramsay's character. Of course he would victimize her. He's Ramsay. Ramsay "I name my dogs after the women I hunt, kill and flay" Snow. There are major outcomes in the books that require a certain sequence of events to occur at Winterfell. You start fucking around in order to give Sansa a girl power moment, and suddenly your entire extended plot starts coming down like a house of cards.

Which is why it was absolute madness to even have her there in the first place, and why D&D and the writers for GoT deserve every ounce of shit they've been taking over this, and then some. If you think this season has been bad, you just wait until these idiots are out in the wilderness on their own with only a rough plot outline to draw on. GoT is in the midst of one of the most startlingly rapid quality declines of any show in the modern era, and it's only getting started.

You said everything I have been thinking way better than I ever could.

Have a gold star kiddo, you've earned it!

EDIT: In the scene where Jaime and Brann walk into the garden unopposed I had a total Plinket moment.