GOT: That Sansa scene (spoilers)

[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.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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

That and the fact they arrived at the same exact moment as the (inexplicably) murderous Sand Snakes just made for high comedy. I expected Benny Hill to start blaring.

 

[OhNoYouDidnt]

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.

...Umm, do you realise that you contradicted yourself there? It is a change from the books because they use one of the main characters - one of the Stark survivors, no less - instead of a relatively insignificant side-character. If that isn't a change, I don't know what would be.

And as BloatedGuppy explained far better than I could, there is absolutely ZERO reason for Sansa to be there. None whatsoever. It is a ridiculously contrived change from the source material that does not appear to serve any purpose beyond providing shock value.

You know what makes this particularly awful? Jeyne did show up in the HBO show - there's a screenshot of her in your Wiki link. But they didn't do anything with her. The whole "issue" of having to introduce yet another character could've been solved all the way back in Season One by keeping Jeyne instead of making her a background character during the first few episodes. But I guess that required way too much foresight.

 

[Silvanus]

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.

That's true, but he has a number of other options. Taking out the Boltons (with Clan, Mormont, and Umber help) could realistically earn him pledges from a number of other Northern houses, first of all-- and even potentially some of the Riverlanders later on, if his campaign continued straight down, though I doubt it will.

He may also have a force of Sellswords sailing to support him in the future, as paid for by the Iron Bank.

 

[chikusho]

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?

Don't be silly, my response was rhetorical. Littlefinger has an end goal in mind. Exactly what that is has only been hinted at (the Iron Throne), so whatever actions he takes we have to assume that it's towards achieving that goal. He's taken plenty of risks so far, and secretly giving Sansa to Roose is far less crazy than what has come before.

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.

Stannis is trying to defend the realm against the long night by become the king of Westeros. If there's any character with clear motivations, it's Stannis. What of it?

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.

An ally is better than no ally. If everything goes according to Littlefingers plan, the Lannisters won't hold the throne for much longer, and by that time the severed relationship is meaningless.

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.

Varys isn't in Kings landing anymore. Also, how do you "inherit" a secret network? Only Varys knew the identities of his spies, and his spies are probably still working for him.

Yes, he was seen escorting his niece Aleyne through the Riverlands.

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?

Probably a hell of a lot of benefits, or just enough benefit for it to be worthwhile. There are plenty of resources in the north, and you need the north in order to maintain the seven kingdoms. Him giving Sansa to Roose can grant him control and influence in the area no matter which way the fight with Stannis goes. If Littlefinger wants to be King, he's going to need a warden in the North, and letting Roose work on getting the Northerners to bend the knee is a hell of a lot more convenient than conquering it later on.

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?

The crown is in shambles because they have just gone through two kings, a couple wars and lost the only person who was capable enough to steer the ship. That is, Tywin, who was also responsible for creating and maintaining the alliances after the war of the five kings. Tommen is just a boy controlled by Cersey. Cersei is in power now, and she's using all of her focus on petty vengeance. Also, the crowns main ally is conspiring against them. It doesn't matter how many soldiers they have if they aren't utilized correctly. I think Davos put it best:
https://youtu.be/fJihLGtcHwA?t=298
I mean, if way over in Braavos everyone knows that Tywin is really in charge, it's safe to assume that everyone in Westeros knows it as well.

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 the Tyrells don't care about Sansa.

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?

Roose wants to rule the north. Getting a legitimate claim on the north is a very good political move for him. Northerners don't respect the crown, but they do respect the Stark name. Since he knows that Kings Landing is in shambles, knows that Tyrion has been convicted for the murder, and probably knows that the Lannisters will not be in power much longer, whomever takes control after Cersei will probably want stability in the North when winter comes. And thus they will not go to war over a Stark girl wich the Warden of the North has under control.

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?

Or you make educated guesses based on the information that the show provides you with, which I'm doing right know. Your reaction to Sansa going to Bolton was that it was crazy and shitty writing (which really sounds quite frustrating). My reaction was that it was really clever; another feather in the hat of our devious friend Petyr Baelish.

 

[Frankster]

We should have more GoT topics in this forum, I enjoy reading other people's views even if I don't agree with them (it's what I do with my friends pretty much).

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

*nods vigorously* This is my single biggest gripe with the storylines this season (there's a few but this one takes the cake) and is a big factor as to why I'm not really sympathetic with Samsa this season despite the rape and everything.

She signed up for this. Even if she didn't know how sadistic Ramsay was, she knows what the Boltons did to her family and the sordid history of that house. She knew she was going to marry a Bolton and that would presumably imply laying in bed with him, probably in a not very tender way given the Bolton's rep.

And she went along with it anyway... Because she is Dark Samsa and she will destroy the Boltons from within! >:O
Yeah seriously, fuck the samsa storyline this season.

That and the fact they arrived at the same exact moment as the (inexplicably) murderous Sand Snakes just made for high comedy. I expected Benny Hill to start blaring.

That scene just needed a scooby doo chase montage as the 2 groups run around the watergardens with princess Myrcella in tow. Also that epic fight choreography, there was a few GIFS floating around the internet showing just how horribad it was, of which this is only one I could find on short notice: https://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Sandsnakes+more+like+cringe+snakes_12324b_5550470.gif

 

[Terminal Blue]

Or you make educated guesses based on the information that the show provides you with, which I'm doing right know. Your reaction to Sansa going to Bolton was that it was crazy and shitty writing (which really sounds quite frustrating). My reaction was that it was really clever; another feather in the hat of our devious friend Petyr Baelish.

I agree. I think based on what we've been told in the show there is no reason to suspect its a bad idea at all.

Furthermore, Littlefinger in the series is a much more gothic character. His ambition is much more extreme and obsessive, to the point that there doesn't seem to be an actual endpoint to it.. Series Littlefinger clearly isn't going to be satisfied by having a nice title and spending the rest of his life brofisting his powerful allies and finding money for them when they need it, he seems to be playing a much more dangerous game and one to which there is conceivably no end.

In a way, this is quite clever and well observed and as someone who likes gothic fiction conventions I think it's pretty cool. There is no place for Littlefinger in the social order. Strengthening the Tyrells or the Lannisters isn't actually going to help him. He can only keep winning providing everyone else keeps losing.

 

[chikusho]

Or you make educated guesses based on the information that the show provides you with, which I'm doing right know. Your reaction to Sansa going to Bolton was that it was crazy and shitty writing (which really sounds quite frustrating). My reaction was that it was really clever; another feather in the hat of our devious friend Petyr Baelish.

I agree. I think based on what we've been told in the show there is no reason to suspect its a bad idea at all.

Furthermore, Littlefinger in the series is a much more gothic character. His ambition is much more extreme and obsessive, to the point that there doesn't seem to be an actual endpoint to it.. Series Littlefinger clearly isn't going to be satisfied by having a nice title and spending the rest of his life brofisting his powerful allies and finding money for them when they need it, he seems to be playing a much more dangerous game and one to which there is conceivably no end.

In a way, this is quite clever and well observed and as someone who likes gothic fiction conventions I think it's pretty cool. There is no place for Littlefinger in the social order. Strengthening the Tyrells or the Lannisters isn't actually going to help him, because he can only keep winning providing everyone else keeps losing.

I agree. That makes him all the more intriguing. If he really is gunning for the Iron Throne, what series of events would need to take place for him to actually gain it? Littlefinger has no claim whatsoever, so why would he ever be accepted as a ruler? Like, does he just want to put himself in a position that allows him to rule behind the scenes? Or is he planning to get the kingship by marrying into it? Or, is he planning to change the entire social order and get elected "President of the Seven Kingdoms"? Haha.
I mean, he's basically the reason behind the destabilization of Westeros; the true instigator of the war of the five kings. It's not that he would cause something like that without a clear goal in mind.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

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.

...Umm, do you realise that you contradicted yourself there? It is a change from the books because they use one of the main characters - one of the Stark survivors, no less - instead of a relatively insignificant side-character. If that isn't a change, I don't know what would be.

No, as I said the character from the book was incorporated into show with Sansa's role, thus the storyline is the same.

As an FYI, both the showrunners and GRRM have said many times that the two are different beasts. Game of Thrones has and will continue to deviate frequently from A Song of Ice and Fire. It is an adaptation, not a direct page to screen translation.

And as BloatedGuppy explained far better than I could, there is absolutely ZERO reason for Sansa to be there. None whatsoever. It is a ridiculously contrived change from the source material that does not appear to serve any purpose beyond providing shock value.

In the show, Sansa is there. It really is that simple. Brienne isn't where she is in the books. So too with Bromm. Lady Stoneheart is omitted entirely, Mance Raider is *actually* dead instead of pretend-dead. It is not ridiculously contrived...in the context of the show everything that happened did so more or less believably....except for Cersei who is so stupid it beggars belief that she hasn't had a twist in her fate sooner. But my understanding is that this isn't too different from the books either.

You know what makes this particularly awful? Jeyne did show up in the HBO show - there's a screenshot of her in your Wiki link. But they didn't do anything with her. The whole "issue" of having to introduce yet another character could've been solved all the way back in Season One by keeping Jeyne instead of making her a background character during the first few episodes. But I guess that required way too much foresight.

I can't tell what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that it would've been better if they had introduced Jeyne and had her rape scene with Ramsay instead of with Sansa filling the role? Because that wouldn't make sense...you don't mind that Jeyne is raped but Sansa is crossing the line?

 

[OhNoYouDidnt]

No, as I said the character from the book was incorporated into show with Sansa's role, thus the storyline is the same.

As an FYI, both the showrunners and GRRM have said many times that the two are different beasts. Game of Thrones has and will continue to deviate frequently from A Song of Ice and Fire. It is an adaptation, not a direct page to screen translation.

The storyline became different because they put Sansa Stark, one of the main characters, into a position she shouldn't have been in. Instead of marrying "Arya" (doesn't matter that it's not really Arya), the last surviving Stark child who isn't suspected of some heinous crime, Ramsay ends up marrying the woman who's under suspicion of regicide. Maybe she actually is a regicide in the show, I don't know.

The point is, this completely changes Sansa's storyline, it makes the Boltons look like fools and it has potential repercussions that wouldn't have been there if Ramsay had married Jeyne Poole instead.[footnote] i.e, Cersei finds out and takes Roose's Warden title away.[/footnote]

And I understand that the show is a different beast; that's why I don't watch it any more. The changes and deviations made by the showrunners have consistently been of an appalling quality, and this latest choice involving Sansa just further solidified my belief that they don't know how to properly write for these characters and this world. I'll continue waiting for The Winds of Winter. Hopefully it'll be out before the new decade.

In the show, Sansa is there. It really is that simple. Brienne isn't where she is in the books. So too with Bromm. Lady Stoneheart is omitted entirely, Mance Raider is *actually* dead instead of pretend-dead. It is not ridiculously contrived...in the context of the show everything that happened did so more or less believably....except for Cersei who is so stupid it beggars belief that she hasn't had a twist in her fate sooner. But my understanding is that this isn't too different from the books either.

Right, if you ask me, those are yet more examples of the showrunners' incompetence. Bronn's antics in Dorne in particular stand out as highly questionable creative decisions.

As for Cersei... Well, yes. She thinks she's incredibly smart, smarter than she actually is. You'd expect that there will be consequences for that at some point.

I can't tell what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that it would've been better if they had introduced Jeyne and had her rape scene with Ramsay instead of with Sansa filling the role? Because that wouldn't make sense...you don't mind that Jeyne is raped but Sansa is crossing the line?

My problem with the scene isn't that it involves rape. That's what Ramsay would do, because Ramsay is a monstrous, brutally sadistic man. It'd be ridiculous if they suddenly shied away from his monstrous nature after showing all those gratuitous Theon torture scenes. My problem is that it's Sansa who's the victim. It makes no sense for Sansa to be in this situation. Sansa shouldn't be there. The Boltons shouldn't want to marry off Ramsay to Sansa. Sansa's "I'm going to stop being a victim and I'm actually going to do stuff now" arc is ruined by relegating her to the victim role yet again. What makes me think so? If Sansa's story is going to follow Jeyne's from now on, as you seem to suggest, she's really not going to be doing anything pro-active at all.

If there was a sensible, logical explanation for Sansa to be there, I probably wouldn't have so much issues with this. But as it is, it really comes across to me as though the showrunners want to keep Sansa in the brutalised victim role for no real reason other than to give Sophie Turner more screentime than she normally would've received.

tl;dr: Sansa being raped isn't the problem, the problem is Sansa being there in the first place.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I suppose it is rape per say since Sansa wasn't really consent to it?
I don't really remember it other than Ramsey saying he doesn't want to say it twice thus implying he was somewhat forceful to her (in saying so she could of said no but I suppose at this point she is intimidated by him).

Now I think about it more, yeah it is rape. I mean lets look back to Sansa first "marriage" to Tyrion. Tyrion respected her wish to not go through with it but in saying so Tyrion didn't wanted to marry her in the first place while Ramsey wanted to marry her for the most part.

 

[WhiteNachos]

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.

You're on a forum for video games, most video games derive their entertainment from violence. So trying to act like rape is questionable seems a bit hypocritical.

That aside, I don't see the big deal. We've had schadenfreude in entertainment for eons, violence for centuries and we're worried rape crosses the line? We've already had torture and mutilation (sexual and not) in game of thrones and these people kept watching.

The only difference now that I can see is that

A. It's happening to a woman that's a main character
and
B. The perpetrator is a character no one likes.

I found the scene fairly uncomfortable especially since Sansa is one of my favourite characters

Honest question: why?