Sophie Turner Discusses A Tense Sibling Relationship; “Dragonstone” Is a Huge Success in Another Area!

Sansa Stark Dragonstone

Today’s the big day in San Diego as the cast of Game of Thrones have arrived for the panel in Hall H, starting soon (4:30PM ET, 1:30PM PT). Entertainment Weekly already has a new interview out with one cast member, Sophie Turner, discussing the tense relationship between Sansa and Jon, seen in last Sunday’s season premiere “Dragonstone.”

“I think the sibling rivalry stems from childhood,” Turner tells EW. “The reality is Jon is the military man, and the sexism exists where he believes that [a man should be in charge]. And in reality, Sansa is a really wonderful politician, and he doesn’t recognize it enough to appreciate it. It’s difficult because military-wise, she doesn’t know anything. And she’s kind of butting in on that respect. And he, on the other end, is trying to be more of a politician, and he doesn’t know as much as she does. If they could just learn to collaborate.”

Read the rest of the article at EW– we can expect they’ll be liveblogging the panel as well! After the panel, we’re sure to see a lot more interviews as the cast usually sits down with a variety of outlets to discuss the new season.


Euron approves!

Euron approves!

Speaking of “Dragonstone,” the well-received season premiere was a ratings blockbuster, and was apparently a smash in another numbers area- pirating! Once again, Game of Thrones was a hit with fans downloading the new episode via less-than-legal means, with TorrentFreak reporting that “Dragonstone” has been pirated “more than 90 million times in only three days.”

The number is not an exact one, as counting illegal downloads is not a precise science. The data was gathered by MUSO, who only counted some kinds of download traffic and not others, such as Usenet. TorrentFreak notes that the information “doesn’t appear to cover all countries.” So that 90 million total looks to be a low estimate.

Nicely done, pirates! Euron approves.

104 responses

Jump to (and Always Support) the Bottom

    1. I don’t know what’s going on!?!?!? First I thought Sophie was very good in the premiere and now she’s been saying things over the last week that actually make sense!! Bizarro World!!

        Quote  Reply

    2. Okay, can someone give me some evidence of Sansa being a brilliant politician? Like, actual hard evidence. She may understand some things about certain houses down South, but she doesn’t inspire anyone to follow her. She was unable to rally any houses to fight alongside them in the BotB. So, if you can help me out and let me know why she’s so suddenly this mastermind politician?

        Quote  Reply

    3. Patiently awaiting all of the comments that are going to tear apart Sophie’s statements as usual lmao.

      Poor woman. I do see what she’s saying though even if it’s worded a bit odd.

        Quote  Reply

    4. Sansa is not a good politician. She managed to stay alive in King’s Landing, but was a total pawn for Littlefinger and Oleanna.

      The only reason she didn’t give birth to a Lannister is because of the fundamental decency of Tyrion. She wasn’t smart enough to leave with the Hound or when her father told her to.

      And the idea that Littlefinger helped at the Battle of the Bastards just an apology is laughable. OF COURSE Littlefinger would love to have the biggest army in the North, which is what he has now. She’s just lucky Jon survived, or else Littlefinger would be in a much better position.

      I’ll wait and see what she does when Jon’s away and how she manages to keep Littlefinger at bay. Her trump card is, “You know, Petyr… I’m remembering how Aunt Lysa died. Maybe I should share that with the Vale Lords… Now, go give Hodors body the Lord’s kiss. The Vale Knights report to me now. ”

        Quote  Reply

    5. Edward: Patiently awaiting all of the comments that are going to tear apart Sophie’s statements as usual lmao.

      😀 😀 Yes, the comments here have become quite predictable!

      I hope more GoT stuff comes out of ComicCon! I am keeping an eye out for quite a few other shows/movies as well! One of these days, I’ve gotta attend one.

        Quote  Reply

    6. Kim,

      ‘Cause she had this one scene in June 2014 where she lied to three Vale lords. And last year she asked LF for help at the last minute.

      Those are the main accomplishments of hers politically.

      But you’re entirely correct, she has not been shown doing anything smart politically, and she completely misread the political situation last year. Nobody wanted to follow her, she was entirely wrong about the Northern houses’ loyalty (despite condescendingly lecturing Davos about it), she made fun of Davos for “winning 62 men from a ten year old”, despite the fact that she herself couldn’t even do that much, and she foolishly rejected LF’s initial offer instead of accepting it, making him think he was back in her good graces, and then using his “love” for her against him.

        Quote  Reply

    7. Edward,

      I think that’s the dynamic they’d like to set up. I think they’d like to re-create Ned/Catelyn or if they aren’t romantic, Robb/Catelyn.

      The problem is, they just aren’t following through story wise. Sansa’s actions just aren’t living up to the billing. Maybe Sophie Turner thinks they are, or she is using knowledge of future episodes, but it’s just not there.

      I mean, it should be there. Sansa should be able to unite the Riverlands — Jon can’t because Catelyn hated him. She should be able to work with Tyrion and will hopefully keep Jon from killing Theon.

      It’s just not there yet.

        Quote  Reply

    8. I always enjoy watching the video of this panel. I only wish they did it earlier in the day as it’s near the end of my work day where I am. Hopefully this year there’s a good quality video of it…

        Quote  Reply

    9. I’m actually going to break the wheel [pattern] here and speak to the piracy. Hilariously enough, I have it on good authority that a lot of the extras in Dubrovnik (and there are hundreds) pirate GoT. I took a GoT walking tour while I was there and my guide has been an extra since Season 2. Because of the lack of access of HBO in other countries, a lot of the extras rely on pirating GoT. Which is totally understandable since a lot of the extras in Dubrovnik watch the show religiously to catch glimpses of themselves and others. Not sure of the other locations but I think HBO is beginning to expand GoT access due to the show being one of the most pirated.

        Quote  Reply

    10. Edward,
      Ha ! As certain as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west 😉

      WorfWWorfington: She’s just lucky Jon survived, or else Littlefinger would be in a much better position.

      Jon is equally lucky the Vale intervened when it did instead of 10 minutes later otherwise he would be dead. And then Littlefinger would have become Warden of the North, with King Tommen’s blessing (via royal decree) and without any opposition from the Northern lords whose loyalty to the Starks was, at the time, non-existent.

      So why did the Knights of the Vale (ie Littlefinger) not wait for the entire Stark army, Jon included, to be decimated ? It would have made their job even easier and, considering most of the troops were Wildlings, Lord Royce would probably not have opposed the massacre. An extra 10 minutes was all Littlefinger needed to be in the ultimate best position, with not only the biggest army in the North but also the rulership of the North in his backpocket…

        Quote  Reply

    11. I wish she would stop throwing around the word sexist… Jon isn’t a sexist – he isn’t questioning or doubting her simply because she is a girl – it is obviously more about personality, experience, and knowledge base – plus their past relationship.

      I mean he is off to beg help from the dragon queen, does anyone think he is going to go into that meeting thinking she is just a girl and she should listen to him and let him take over now… gawd, I hope not…

      Euron dismissing Yara just because she is a girl was sexist, Tywin relegating Cersei to marriage-alliance value only was sexist. Jon is not, he maybe bias, especially when the girl is paragon of all feminine virtues, and a bit protective, but not sexist.

        Quote  Reply

    12. Kim,

      I need some help with that one, too.

      1) She told LF off then had to go crawling back to him for help.
      2) She failed to recognize that her uncle wasn’t about to abandon a castle he’d just retaken.
      3) She pretended not to know it was insubordinate to challenge Jon in the middle of a meeting, forcing him to put her in her place publicly.
      4) She roughed up that Northern lord during the “tour” showing she had no concept of the price the North had paid for Robb’s mistakes.
      5) She made a faux pas with Lyanna when she referred to her mother’s beauty instead of her fighting prowess.

      I’ve figured it out: As politicians go, Sansa is the Donald Trump of the North.

        Quote  Reply

    13. This season is very much about Dany and Jon. Sometimes I wonder if Sofie is trying to Steal Emilia and Kit’s thunder by putting these absurdities out there so folks will talk about her instead of Dany and Jon.

        Quote  Reply

    14. ACME,

      My take is that Littlefinger meant to wait that long and didn’t expect Jon to come out of that mass of bodies. And I think he didn’t realize the Northern lords would throw their weight so firmly behind a bastard and not Sansa.

      Littlefinger is actually kind of trapped.
      1) Can’t leave, because that severs any and all chances with Sansa. And if she ratted him out, he’s on the run. Even if she didn’t, he’d be relegated to life in the Vale, except it’s easy to impregnate that bitch when you have a dragon.

      2) Can’t try to take over Winterfell because the Northern Lords wouldn’t follow him, not to mention the wildings would kill him. Even if he survived, he couldn’t hold it.

      3) Can’t go back to King’s Landing, because Cersei would have him killed and take over the Vale. She’d marry some surviving Frey chick off to Robin Arryn and the Vale would be hers.

        Quote  Reply

    15. Anon,

      Honest to God, if they had let Sansa keep talking, the Northern lords would have hung Jon as a Night’s Watch deserter, killed or exiled Davos and returned Sansa to Ramsay.

        Quote  Reply

    16. viki,

      Yes, I was very bothered by this too! Especially after watching him this past episode declaring women would train to fight the WW. Sophie keeps saying that Jon is sexist over and over again and that’s why he won’t listen to her. The fact is, he has asked her several times for her opinions but each time, she can’t come up with actual solutions. I really don’t get why she insists on the Jon is sexist narrative.

        Quote  Reply

    17. ACME,

      Erp, no.

      Jon would have been dead, and Sansa et al would have been stuck, in winter, outside Winterfell in the ‘seige’ from hell.

      Where would she go to then? Back to Castle Black? To her dead uncle in the Riverlands? Oh yeah, right back to Littlefinger at the Vale.

        Quote  Reply

    18. Nothing against Sophie, but I haven’t seen anything to make me think that Sansa is a politician, if they want the fans to feel that way then they gotta show it, because I never felt that way,actually I feel like after a while she’s just finding her voice again, and that’s not really politics! Book Sansa is better in manipulation than show Sansa.

        Quote  Reply

    19. “…..and the sexism exists where he believes that [a man should be in charge].”

      Actually, I think her statement is more nuanced than that. It is a patriarchal society, that truth manifests itself in different degrees.

        Quote  Reply

    20. This has to be said. Can we PLEASE stop ragging on Sophie Turner? A brilliant actress and funny/goofy/beautiful human being. She is explaining her character and the plot lines this season as she understands them and how they’ve been explained to her by the showrunners. If you have a problem with her character, please do not take it out on her personally.

      I don’t think she means to say that Sansa is some brilliant politician and an expert like LF or Varys but between her & Jon she is more politically savvy and he is more military savvy. They both have their strengths and their weaknesses. She has not carried out genius political maneuvers but due to her time with Cersei & LF she understands certain things better than Jon like the fact that LF, for now, is an annoying but necessary ally. Eventually they will get rid of him but for now they need him. She also understands that loyalty must be rewarded because she saw how badly Robb messed up when he beheaded the head of a family that had always been loyal to him. Her suggestions might not always be perfect, but it it important that someone play devil’s advocate to Jon’s decisions. Jon has the tendency to go the ‘honorable’ route like his father Ned but that does not always have a good payoff. Ned and Jon both died due to their naive honorable ways. She is only trying to make sure that Jon does not join them to the grave.

      The sexist comment was a bit off. I don’t think she means to say that Jon is some sort of misogynist or believed that women were only good for breeding and furthering the family legacy as per Tywin. I think she means that Jon still looks at her as a little girl, his little sister that he needs to protect. His intentions are good and innocent but he doesn’t realize that she’s no longer that naive, spoiled little girl she was. Life dealt her some pretty hard blows and she has had to grow up a result of that. She also tried to warn him about Cersei because she knows how crazy and unpredictable she can be. A Southern army might not march North but what’s to stop her from sending an assassin to sneak into Winterfell & murder a Stark or bury caches of wildfire? She’s only trying to look out for her and her family. They both have valid points. But the over-arching issue here is that both don’t fully appreciate each other YET. They need to learn how to work together and face their enemies as one or die separately.

        Quote  Reply

    21. ramses,

      I would say the various skills can be broadly characterized as belonging to two categories:

      1. The power of persuasion, in the form of diplomacy, coalition-building, public speaking, etc. Basically, the ability to convince other people to do what you want them to do. Particularly in the context of the show, this is often talked about as “manipulation”, with the overtones of skullduggery (that being a favourite subject for drama), but most of the time there’s nothing terribly untoward involved.

      2. Planning and strategic acumen, which would include planning on how to do things in the first category, but would also involve being able to read and anticipate the actions of rivals so that they can be countered.

      Kim,

      Because the writers think they’re writing her as a good politician, basically.

      Euron Greyjoy And His Two Good Hands:
      I don’t think she means to say that Sansa is some brilliant politician and an expert like LF or Varys but between her & Jon she is more politically savvy and he is more military savvy.

      That’s probably what the writers intend, but it’s not borne out in what they actually write. Jon is a more accomplished politician than Sansa in the show, because he has actually demonstrated, though not without flaws, the ability to get people to follow him and do what he wants them to do. That’s what politics is about. Sansa hasn’t convinced even one person to follow her, and has been incredibly ineffective at argument and strategy.

        Quote  Reply

    22. Maybe Sophie Turner knows things about Sansa’s future that the audience doesn’t, but from what I’ve read in the books and from what I’ve seen in the shows – Sansa Stark is not a brilliant politician. She is neither brilliant nor a politician – in the books she says her mother told her that a woman’s charm is her armor (don’t quote me) and Tyrion admired her charm as well. However – she has always appeared as a damsel in distress. How many opportunities did she have to leave King’s Landing? It wasn’t any political brilliance that got her out of captivity (lest we forget the Hound and LF both attempted to take her away, and she refused). And while I agree she has been brutalized – it wasn’t her political brilliance that saved her. The Hound saved her from being raped; Tyrion saved her from being beaten by Sir Meryn whatshisname; LF saved her from being charged (rightfully so lol) with Joffrey’s murder; Theon saved her from Mirinda’s bow & arrow; Brienne saved her from Bolton’s solider (lest we forget she refused her help too!). And then yes, technically she gets credit for recruiting the Vale to help win the BoftheB for Winterfell, but had she not refused LF’s help in the first place (I get it – she was angry and her pride wouldn’t allow her to accept help from a traitor), so many lives could’ve been saved. I’m sure a lot of these points have been made so I apologize for the redundancy but the idea of Sansa being a brilliant politician was too much to swallow! #teamJon #teamArya #teamBran #teamStarkunlessitsSansa

        Quote  Reply

    23. Euron Greyjoy And His Two Good Hands,

      You had me until the Robb comparison. As some of us pointed out after the episode, Robb’s mistake was being TOO rough. If he’d have found a way to let the Karstarks off the hook somehow, he might have been in a better spot.

      Sansa didn’t behave politically with the surviving Umbers and the Karstarks. She was behaving emotionally. I do agree Jon could have exacted a bit more of a price from those Houses, but Sansa was advocating too severe a punishment and I don’t believe she was coming at it from a political point of view.

      I think she was saying, “These guys sided with Ramsay. We must punish them” because of Ramsay. Not allowing that these were kids. Not allowing that the Karstarks and Umbers had somewhat legit beefs.

      And she was undermining Jon (in front of not just Littlefinger, but the Vale lords) which is a really dangerous thing to do.

      As for Sophie, I’ve got no beef with her, except she is wayyyyy overrated as an actress. But she can’t help that.

        Quote  Reply

    24. @Queen of the North
      “Maybe Sophie Turner knows things about Sansa’s future that the audience doesn’t, but from what I’ve read in the books and from what I’ve seen in the shows – Sansa Stark is not a brilliant politician.She is neither brilliant nor a politician – in the books she says her mother told her that a woman’s charm is her armor (don’t quote me) and Tyrion admired her charm as well.However – she has always appeared as a damsel in distress.How many opportunities did she have to leave King’s Landing?It wasn’t any political brilliance that got her out of captivity (lest we forget the Hound and LF both attempted to take her away, and she refused).And while I agree she has been brutalized – it wasn’t her political brilliance that saved her.The Hound saved her from being raped; Tyrion saved her from being beaten by Sir Meryn whatshisname;LF saved her from being charged (rightfully so lol) with Joffrey’s murder; Theon saved her from Mirinda’s bow & arrow; Brienne saved her from Bolton’s solider (lest we forget she refused her help too!).And then yes, technically she gets credit for recruiting the Vale to help win the BoftheB for Winterfell, but had she not refused LF’s help in the first place (I get it – she was angry and her pride wouldn’t allow her to accept help from a traitor), so many lives could’ve been saved.I’m sure a lot of these points have been made so I apologize for the redundancy but the idea of Sansa being a brilliant politician was too much to swallow!”

      Εxactly! These are the facts!

        Quote  Reply

    25. zod,

      It’s not his pride she needs, it’s his army lol LF will keep crawling back to her anyway, esp after she brushes him off, just like her mother. Cat did the same thing to him and he was still infatuated with her. He has a dysfunctional relationship with love.

        Quote  Reply

    26. Queen of the North: How many opportunities did she have to leave King’s Landing? It wasn’t any political brilliance that got her out of captivity (lest we forget the Hound and LF both attempted to take her away, and she refused).

      She rejected the chance to escape with a bloodstained, alcohol-soaked Lannister henchman who’d taken an unsettling interest in her, in favour of staying, expecting Stannis to capture the city, end the war and repay her father’s loyalty by returning her home.

      That was not an unreasonable decision.

      She rejected the chance to sneak out of the city with an uber-creep who had also taken an unsettling interest in her, and whom she’d been specifically warned (by Shae) wanted only one thing from her, in favour of staying in King’s Landing with her new friend Queen Margaery looking out for her, in order to marry the heir to The Reach and eventually escape to Highgarden.

      Again, not an unreasonable decision.

      In hindsight those decisions were mistakes. But on their merits they were both perfectly reasonable.

        Quote  Reply

    27. Kim,

      I know right? I thought I was the only one who didnt get the “Sansa is a genius manipulator” hype, the only thing that she has done in that sense was when she lied in the Vale about Littlefinger and Lysa.

        Quote  Reply

    28. Queen of the North:
      How many opportunities did she have to leave King’s Landing?

      Er, not many. And leaving KL is a lot more than somebody offering to take you away. There are other considerations, such as the trustworthiness of the person offering.

      zod: So I guess that’s why she makes sure to wound LF’s pride every chance she gets?

      That’s another thing, actually: D&D view snark as the ultimate manifestation of player ability, even though in most cases it’s actually the opposite of what a talented politician would do.

        Quote  Reply

    29. Jon is anything but a sexist…

      tbh I don’t hate Sansa or the actress but this is getting off hand?

      Every week I hear about how Jon is a sexist and in the books and show I just see one of the most progressive characters whom even in such bigoted or closed/minded setting is able to work with women without belittling them…

      For real. Jon knows first hand what women are capable of when given the means to fight back, Jon loved a wildling woman who was more than able to fight on her own and never once took her as lesser because of her sex. Jon was pretty much the only one who took Arya seriously in the early books and gave her Needle, because he believed in her potential for much more than knitting…

      Its a quasi medieval setting and sexism permeates everything as gender roles are almost like set in stone, like it was in our own world, but its really unfair to accuse Jon of being sexist when he’s more than willing to forget whats between a character’s legs when it comes to surviving and fighting the WW.

        Quote  Reply

    30. I honestly believe Sophie Turner’s acting is far superior to the inconsistent and head scratching writing they’ve given her character for the last season and a half.
      I don’t understand her mindset, her motivations, nothing.
      Shes a different character in every scene.

      Its sad, because Sansa is a character with so much potential, and could’ve had a truly amazing arc.

        Quote  Reply

    31. ramses,

      Is there any evidence in the show that Jon himself believes a man should be in charge? I can’t claim to have seen it, anymore than I can pretend that the scene where Jon explicitly gives Sansa credit for winning the BotB doesn’t exist. Sophie can repeatedly state that 2+2=5, and I know that many will immediately nod in agreement, but I can’t ignore what I see onscreen.

        Quote  Reply

    32. WorfWWorfington:
      Euron Greyjoy And His Two Good Hands,

      You had me until the Robb comparison. As some of us pointed out after the episode, Robb’s mistake was being TOO rough. If he’d have found a way to let the Karstarks off the hook somehow, he might have been in a better spot.

      Sansa didn’t behave politically with the surviving Umbers and the Karstarks. She was behaving emotionally. I do agree Jon could have exacted a bit more of a price from those Houses, but Sansa was advocating too severe a punishment and I don’t believe she was coming at it from a political point of view.

      I think she was saying, “These guys sided with Ramsay. We must punish them” because of Ramsay. Not allowing that these were kids. Not allowing that the Karstarks and Umbers had somewhat legit beefs.

      And she was undermining Jon (in front of not just Littlefinger, but the Vale lords) which is a really dangerous thing to do.

      As for Sophie, I’ve got no beef with her, except she is wayyyyy overrated as an actress. But she can’t help that.

      I see what your saying but Sansa didn’t want to physically hurt or behead the kids. They still could have lived great lives, just elesewhere. The only thing they would have lost would have been their political power.

      I agree though that she shouldn’t have disagreed with Jon in front of everyone. That does undermine his power. I think that was a mistake on the writers’ part. They just wanted to drive home the point that there would be some tension there this season. It’s good for Jon to have someone to disagree with him and offer an alternative view but these discussions should be done in private.

      Either way, I don’t see them going to war with each other. This is just to confuse us and make us think that Sansa will turn on Jon. By the end of the season they will team up to kill LF.

        Quote  Reply

    33. Pigeon,

      One person’s reptile is another person’s Jorah 🙂

      I’d definitely find a space in my garden for him (I might actually do that now). Too many reference layers to pass up.

        Quote  Reply

    34. Euron Greyjoy And His Two Good Hands: They still could have lived great lives, just elesewhere. The only thing they would have lost would have been their political power.

      No they wouldn’t have lived great lives. If you take away their home they have nowhere to go. And with no home in winter, it’s the same as sentencing someone to death.

      Look at the ‘great’ life Viserys and Dany had once they were kicked out of Dragonstone. Theon was taken away from his home too and even though the Starks were nice to him, he still harbored bitterness over his situation as a hostage.

      It’s not a coincidence that in the same episode where two innocent children are allowed to keep their ancestral homes, you have Dany returning to her ancestral home.

      And in a show where “political power” is important, don’t expect someone to be happy to lose that safety net. Jon needs power to rally people to fight the WW and cement his authority in the North, Cersei needs power to keep her throne, Dany has been gaining power to try and take the throne, Yara and Theon joined Dany because they lost their power to Euron, and so on. If you don’t have power (as the leader of a house) you die.

      The children were also labeled as traitors. The punishment for treason, we learn on the show, is death. Even after Jon says that, Sansa still wants them punished.

        Quote  Reply

    35. WorfWWorfington,
      I hear you but if he meant to wait, why didn’t he ?
      He is not an impulsive person, as his resume demonstrates, and an extra 10 minutes is all it would have taken to make absolutely sure the Starks were wiped out. Why intervene when there were still some them standing ? Why even take the chance ?

      I would argue Littlefinger did not mean to wait. I think he gave up on the idea to use his royal decree and become Warden of the North the moment he met with Sansa at Molestown and realised he would have to prove himself after the Ramsay debacle. So he unleashed the Knights of the Vale as early as possible, not to conquer the North but to save what was left of the Stark army, Jon included. As a token of his good will and “loyalty” (using the word in conjonction with Baelish feels odd ^^).

      Did he then expect Sansa would be proclaimed ruler of the North and was suprised when Lyanna chose Jon ? That is entirely possible. Plausible even. But it is a later development.

        Quote  Reply

    36. ramses:
      Pigeon,

      One person’s reptile is another person’s Jorah 🙂

      I’d definitely find a space in my garden for him (I might actually do that now). Too many reference layers to pass up.

      If he could still recite poetry and dispense advice in that voice of his, I may just become a gardener after all! 😂 But I suspect at that point he’d be relegated to … stony silence. *ba dum tissss*

        Quote  Reply

    37. Euron Greyjoy And His Two Good Hands,

      Sansa didn’t want to physically hurt or behead the kids. They still could have lived great lives, just elesewhere. The only thing they would have lost would have been their political power.

      I doubt that’s the case. They would be forever labelled as the children of traitors, part of attainted houses. Jon made the right decision. I believe even Sansa saw that in the end.

      I don’t hate Sansa, though I intensely disliked her behaviour from 6.04 onwards. To be honest, though, her blind fans insisting that she is the rightful ruler of the north, and elevating her beyond her demonstrated abilities have made me resent her even more. Strange how that happens. And unfortunately, Sophie is a chief offender in this regard. I wonder if she’s on tumblr, haha? But I get it. Her character has been maligned for years, and she is passionate in her defence. She loves Sansa, and is relishing the new power the character wields. I try to remember that when her comments make me grind my teeth Stannis style.

      The sexist comment was so off base. Jon is a protofeminist if anything. However, I do agree that he could and should follow some of Sansa’s (albeit frustratingly vague) advice. Not because she’s a good politician – I agree that thus far that hasn’t been shown to be the case at all, although perhaps it will be later in the season. But she has an understandably jaded view of the world and is suspicious of people’s motives. Jon’s good heart leads him to want to believe the best in people. He’s the definition of a beautiful cinnamon roll, too good for that world. She’s worried it could get him killed a second time. That’s a reasonable fear.

        Quote  Reply

    38. Flayed Potatoes:
      The children were also labeled as traitors. The punishment for treason, we learn on the show, is death. Even after Jon says that, Sansa still wants them punished.

      Because nobody was suggesting the children be executed. The treason was done by their parents; Sansa believed that as a consequence of that they should lose their lands too.

        Quote  Reply

    39. ACME,

      Littlefinger never intended to use the royal decree. That whole song and dance was solely about fooling Cersei into ignoring his invasion of the North until it was over.

        Quote  Reply

    40. Pigeon,

      *random guest*: what’s that weird rock with a face on it?

      *me(100% mournful)*:….oh that?…That’s greyscale Jorah……..he died trying to find a way back to his Khaleesi……

      STARES

      *random guest*: where’s my coat?

        Quote  Reply

    41. Flayed Potatoes: No they wouldn’t have lived great lives. If you take away their home they have nowhere to go. And with no home in winter, it’s the same as sentencing someone to death.

      Look at the ‘great’ life Viserys and Dany had once they were kicked out of Dragonstone. Theon was taken away from his home too and even though the Starks were nice to him, he still harbored bitterness over his situation as a hostage.

      It’s not a coincidence that in the same episode where two innocent children are allowed to keep their ancestral homes, you have Dany returning to her ancestral home.

      And in a show where “political power” is important, don’t expect someone to be happy to lose that safety net. Jon needs power to rally people to fight the WW and cement his authority in the North, Cersei needs power to keep her throne, Dany has been gaining power to try and take the throne, Yara and Theon joined Dany because they lost their power to Euron, and so on. If you don’t have power (as the leader of a house) you die.

      The children were also labeled as traitors. The punishment for treason, we learn on the show, is death. Even after Jon says that, Sansa still wants them punished.

      Lets agree to disagree. Sansa isn’t heartless. She would’ve made sure that they had a home so they wouldn’t starve or die come winter. A home is a home, it does not necessarily have to be a castle. Again, Sansa did not want them to die, just stripped of their castles. Their relatives that rebelled against the Starks already paid the price for treason. Honestly, I think they both made valid points. Jon did not want to punish them for their relatives mistakes but at the same time it sends the wrong message to the other houses that were loyal. They both have a point. Mercy can be a good thing but sometimes it’s a sign of weakness. The Starks of the past showed mercy to the Boltons by not taking them out all together and the payoff in the long-term was that they stabbed them in the back first chance they got. Sansa’s point was a compromise, don’t kill them but punish them in another way.

        Quote  Reply

    42. What Sophie describes would’ve been such a terrific character arc, if D&D had actually achieved it.

      But they didn’t

      I actually like what is on screen for Sansa somewhat, but its not what they think it is.
      Shes clearly stronger, and finding her voice, but has been through no experiences that would lead me to believe shes a brilliant politician.
      Shes jaded and understands the minds of devious people. That much I give them.

      Sophie saves the character on screen. (… and destroys the character off screen lol)

      Euron Greyjoy And His Two Good Hands,

      How can you clearly attest to her motivations when the character seems to change each scene. I stopped having a grasp on the character after 6×05

      Maybe I’m just frustrated, because I am a big Sansa fan, and I think they’ve failed to take her where they think they have.
      But I still find her interesting to watch.

        Quote  Reply

    43. Suggesting Jon is a sexist once again, as usual, doesn’t match what is presented on screen. Her interviews are the single most confusing aspect of this show for me. They lead to me being confused over the character of Sansa. Am I supposed to be seeing the things she says? Because I don’t know if I perceive things different than what it is written or if she projects in interviews what she wants to see written, but it just rarely ever matches up to what I thought I was seeing onscreen.

        Quote  Reply

    44. ramses:
      Question to those asking for evidence….What, to you, makes someone a brilliant politician?

      And who qualifies as a brilliant politician on the show as well?

        Quote  Reply

    45. Euron Greyjoy And His Two Good Hands,

      Where is the evidence that she would have made sure they had a home? That’s just speculation. There is no indication of that on screen. All we see is that she wants them punished and their castles and lands taken away. Like a previous user said, her motivations change every episode.

      And Jon made clear that he’s punished people who committed treason or disobeyed him, so I don’t think there’s much to worry about on that front. It implies that if anyone tries to screw him over, they will be punished. No weakness there. It’s clear cut. Those who are innocent will not be punished.

      There is also a difference between house and home. It’s not about what castle is the best. It’s about home (where you belong to and where your family has belonged to for generations). It’s a recurring theme in the entire show. You can’t just uproot someone and expect they’ll be happy.

      Daenerys lived in many ‘houses’ but they were never her home, just as Sansa lived in houses (castles) but they weren’t Winterfell (home).

      Simple yes or no question: Do you believe the Stark children had great lives after they left home (Winterfell) and lived in other houses/places?

        Quote  Reply

    46. I love D&D and the show, and it may seem like I’m shitting on them, which I sorta am, but I still think the show is insanely amazing..

      Just a disclaimer lol

      Its not just Sansa. Their writing for Tyrion in season 6 was lacking in terms of being a politician, He was mostly a walking punch line, and really really stupid with how he handled Meereen.

        Quote  Reply

    47. I’m picturing action-oriented torrenters getting all het up (to use an archaic term known only these days to crossword puzzle obsessives like meself, which is probably a good thing) about this episode and growing quickly bored after the Frey massacre. “What the hell? Intrigue?? Plot??? Character development???? I was expecting sword play and dragon fire, dammit!!!”

        Quote  Reply

    48. viki,

      Yeah, this is what grates me about Sophie’s interviews. She simplifies things into soundbites and this makes them wildly off base. Jon’s interactions with the Wildlings show that he isn’t the sexist Sophie is always claiming.

        Quote  Reply

    49. ramses,
      I am not asking for evidence myself but I am going to venture a guess and say : style.

      To pick two female examples, Lady Olenna and Margaery are considered by many viwers as brilliant politicians. However, on the show (in the books, Olenna has slightly more agency), both have only done what other people told them to.
      Margaery has only ever followed her father and her gran’s instructions. The only time she had to come up with a strategy of her own was when she was held hostage by the Faith and then, she did was Sansa did in seasons 2 and 3 : pretend to agree with her captors and publicly repudiate her family.
      As for Olenna, her three accomplishments so far have been to prevent Sansa from escaping King’s Landing with Littlefinger (she did what Varys told her to), kill Joffrey (she did what Baelish told her to) and join Daenerys (she did what Varys told her to, again).

      But both look cunning… They arch their eyebrows, narrow their eyes and purse their lips. And Olenna quips sarcastically. They look like they know more than they let on. They do not but they sure look like it. ^^

      To a broad extent, the rule applies to pretty much all of the show’s allegedly great politicians. More often than not, their reputation is the prism through which we see their actions but, once that lense of greatness is removed, their actual deeds are less impressive.

      Furthermore, all these alledgedly great rulers have so far been people in position of power already. They did not have to rely on their wits or charms alone for they had either a huge fortune or a large army (or dragons !) to back them up. As Davos (and Jaime) said : people will follow whoever looks like the winning side.
      It is much harder, borderline impossible, to operate politically when deprived of any such structural advantage, as proven by both Sansa and Jon during their Northern tour; since they had nothing to offer anyone, neither of them managed to rally any support and they ultimately had to rely on Davos’s persuasion (to get the Mormonts) and Tormund’s advocacy (to get the Free Folk).

        Quote  Reply

    50. Euron Greyjoy And His Two Good Hands,

      In such dire times with the WW advancing, Sansa might as well chop their heads off as she kicks them out of their homes. It’s not just the two kids. It’s their entire households. She should know and understand first hand exactly how it feels to be punished for the crimes of their father(s) and brother(s). She feels zero empathy in that regard.

        Quote  Reply

    51. Euron Greyjoy And His Two Good Hands: I see what your saying but Sansa didn’t want to physically hurt or behead the kids. They still could have lived great lives, just elesewhere. The only thing they would have lost would have been their political power.

      I do agree with that.

      I guess Sansa did not intend for these poor kids to be released into the wild to fend for themselves. Assuming these children have mothers, they could have been sent to live with their maternal families, among relatives who would not have abused or mistreated them. A much different and more enviable fate than Daenerys and Viserys’, who had to live in exile, or even Theon’s who was a glorified hostage.

      Your comparison with Robb is actually an interesting one. The KitN 1.0 argued with Karstark over the fairness of punishing the Lannister boys for crimes their relatives had committed and declared it wrong to do so. Yet, he was fine with keeping them hostage which was, in and of itself, a form of punishment.

      So Robb’s own logic was that it is acceptable to penalise people for their House’s deeds as long as the penalty is not tit-for-tat or overly severe (he probably should have remembered the virtue of moderation when dealing with Karstark later on…)
      Had Sansa advocated for the Umbers/Karstarks to be treated like the former treated Rickon (or like they would have treated the Starks, had they won), then I would have had a huge problem with her position. As is, she merely argued for the termination of their inherited political clout.

      The idea that children can, to an extent, suffer the consequences of their relatives’ deeds also happens to be Jon’s position in the books since he holds the children of some Free Folk leaders hostages to keep their people in check. A form of punishment I, for one, find infinitely more unforgiving than losing one’s house.

      It is almost ironic that Sansa’s position is both much milder than Book!Jon and more severe than Show!Jon. It is a Jon ethical sandwich ! 😛

        Quote  Reply

    52. HelloThere:
      What Sophie describes would’ve been such a terrific character arc, if D&D had actually achieved it.

      But they didn’t

      I actually like what is on screen for Sansa somewhat, but its not what they think it is.
      Shes clearly stronger, and finding her voice, but has been through no experiences that would lead me to believe shes a brilliant politician.
      Shes jaded and understands the minds of devious people. That much I give them.

      Sophie saves the character on screen.(… and destroys the character off screen lol)

      Euron Greyjoy And His Two Good Hands,

      How can you clearly attest to her motivations when the character seems to change each scene.I stopped having a grasp on the character after 6×05

      Maybe I’m just frustrated, because I am a big Sansa fan, and I think they’ve failed to take her where they think they have.
      But I still find her interesting to watch.

      I agree that show Sansa is problematic. Just because I’m standing up for her doesn’t mean I think she’s perfect in any way, shape or form. Not to sound like a book elitist, but I think her character arc in the books will be much better. At least I hope so. Season 5 Sansa confused me. D & D really set her back with the whole Ramsay situation.

        Quote  Reply

    53. ACME,

      “Furthermore, all these alledgedly great rulers have so far been people in position of power already. They did not have to rely on their wits or charms alone for they had either a huge fortune or a large army (or dragons !) to back them up. As Davos (and Jaime) said : people will follow whoever looks like the winning side.
      It is much harder, borderline impossible, to operate politically when deprived of any such structural advantage, as proven by both Sansa and Jon during their Northern tour;”

      I wish you sat next to me in all of my pol-sci courses.

        Quote  Reply

    54. Flayed Potatoes:
      Euron Greyjoy And His Two Good Hands,

      Where is the evidence that she would have made sure they had a home? That’s just speculation. There is no indication of that on screen. All we see is that she wants them punished and their castles and lands taken away. Like a previous user said, her motivations change every episode.

      And Jon made clear that he’s punished people who committed treason or disobeyed him, so I don’t think there’s much to worry about on that front. It implies that if anyone tries to screw him over, they will be punished. No weakness there. It’s clear cut. Those who are innocent will not be punished.

      There is also a difference between house and home. It’s not about what castle is the best. It’s about home (where you belong to and where your family has belonged to for generations). It’s a recurring theme in the entire show. You can’t just uproot someone and expect they’ll be happy.

      Daenerys lived in many ‘houses’ but they were never her home, just as Sansa lived in houses (castles) but they weren’t Winterfell (home).

      Simple yes or no question: Do you believe the Stark children had great lives after they left home (Winterfell) and lived in other houses/places?

      I see what you’re saying. To be fair, there is also no evidence that she would have physically hurt them either. The only evidence we have is the understanding that D&D want show Sansa to be more politically savvy, a bit cynical, but not a complete heartless monster like Cersei.

      You make a valid point about the house vs. home. I agree that a house is not necessarily a home. The punishment wouldn’t have been an ideal situation, no political decision is ever perfect, but it was one course of action.

      As for Jon, I want to make it clear that I love him and he’s one of my favorite characters. I don’t think people view him as weak, he def inspires loyalty like Ned but he does have the tendency to be overly trusting. Its what got him killed the first time around. Sansa is just trying to look out for him. The only way to keep him safe is to make sure he was loyal people/families around him.

        Quote  Reply

    55. Euron Greyjoy And His Two Good Hands,

      Yeah I don’t think what D&D have in mind is coming across on screen, but that’s just me. I get Sansa’s fear and I think he understands Cersei is to be feared based on what she has told him. They have different priorities though and imo you can’t exactly fight Cersei if the WW kill you first. Though Jon doesn’t seem interested in fighting her, but we’ll see. For all we know Cersei might be cray cray enough to invade during winter lmao.

        Quote  Reply

    56. ACME: I do agree with that.

      I guess Sansa did not intend for these poor kids to be released into the wild to fend for themselves. Assuming these children have mothers, they could have been sent to live with their maternal families, among relatives who would not have abused or mistreated them. A much different and more enviable fate than Daenerys and Viserys’, who had to live in exile, or even Theon’s who was a glorified hostage.

      Your comparison with Robb is actually an interesting one. The KitN 1.0 argued with Karstark over the fairness of punishing the Lannister boys for crimes their relatives had committed and declared it wrong to do so. Yet, he was fine with keeping them hostage which was, in and of itself, a form of punishment.

      So Robb’s own logic was that it is acceptable to penalise people for their House’s deeds as long as the penalty is not tit-for-tat or overly severe (he probably should have remembered the virtue of moderation when dealing with Karstark later on…)
      Had Sansa advocated for the Umbers/Karstarks to be treated like the former treated Rickon (or like they would have treated the Starks, had they won), then I would have had a huge problem with her position. As is, she merely argued for the termination of their inherited political clout.

      The idea that children can, to an extent, suffer the consequences of their relatives’ deeds also happens to be Jon’s position in the books since he holds the children of some Free Folk leaders hostages to keep their people in check. A form of punishment I, for one, find infinitely more unforgiving than losing one’s house.

      It is almost ironic that Sansa’s position is both much milder than Book!Jon and more severe than Show!Jon. It is a Jon ethical sandwich !

      Excellent points! All of them. In war, no decision is ever easy. A good ruler knows when to be merciful, when to be stern and when to find a compromise. The only problem I have with the show is that they make everything so black and white. No shades of grey. Jon is good for showing mercy, Sansa is bad for suggesting a compromise. Book Jon understands a little better that in war, some hard decisions have to be made. You can’t always be the honorable hero. At least House Stark tries to be somewhat merciful even when it comes time to hand out punishments.

        Quote  Reply

    57. Flayed Potatoes:
      Euron Greyjoy And His Two Good Hands,

      Yeah I don’t think what D&D have in mind is coming across on screen, but that’s just me. I get Sansa’s fear and I think he understands Cersei is to be feared based on what she has told him. They have different priorities though and imo you can’t exactly fight Cersei if the WW kill you first. Though Jon doesn’t seem interested in fighting her, but we’ll see. For all we know Cersei might be cray cray enough to invade during winter lmao.

      you can’t exactly fight Cersei if the WW kill you first.

      Exactly! The WW & the NK is obviously a bigger threat but you can’t face them if you let your guard down and let somebody like Cersei kill you before you have a chance to defeat them. Sansa is just trying to drive home this point. Sansa knows Cersei, maybe even better than Jamie does, so she understands how her mind works. She is crazy enough and desperate enough to do anything to get her way. Jon doesn’t know this, through no fault of his own, because he never really spent much time with her.

      I think like Ramsay, it is important to do away with Cersei before facing the real enemy to the North. While she is not the Big Bad per say she is certainly someone who can mess up their plans if they are not careful. It would be a mistake to underestimate her.

        Quote  Reply

    58. Sean C.: That’s another thing, actually: D&D view snark as the ultimate manifestation of player ability, even though in most cases it’s actually the opposite of what a talented politician would do.

      This is so true.

      Smiling at your enemy and fooling them that you are not a threat > Making a witty remark to their face about how much you don’t trust them.

        Quote  Reply

    59. Sean C.,
      I am not certain I understand that logic. Why would he invade the North against the Crown when he could take it with the Crown’s blessing ?

      Immediately after he got the royal decree, Littlefinger giftwrapped Cersei’s head and offered it to Lady Olenna. So I would guess he fully intended to use said decree and claim the North in all legality but he first tried to ensure he would not have to give the Lioness what he promised her (Sansa’s head on a spike) by handing her to people who had every intention to execute her.
      When the Battle of the Bastards occurred, Cersei was in as weak a position as she had ever been, on the very verge of being tried and killed. So Baelish had every reason not to fear a Lioness comeback and could have claimed the North for himself without any problem. Yet, he did not…

      In re. the snark and political acumen. I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say that sarcasm is not necesssarily an effective tool to get the overall population’s sympathy or approval. However, I would not put the blame on the show’s writers. George RR Martin does that a lot : he invented Lady Olenna and Tyrion whose most important contribution to the political discourse is usually a series of quips and aphorisms as if they had graduated from the Oscar Wilde School of Political Science.
      Furthermore, since virtually all the main characters are aristocrats (ie. entitled and privileged individuals) talking to one another, in a closed circuit, the snark is probably part and parcel of their means of communication.

      ramses,
      Ha ha ! With pleasure (I must still have my textbooks somewhere) 😉

      More seriously, structural advantage is an often forgotten aspect of power. For some reason, politics is viewed as a game of chess when it is probably much closer to a game of poker. In chess, both players start on equal footing, with the exact same pieces whose properties are all permanently fixed; in poker, there is no such equality since each player is dealt a different hand and has to make do with whatever s/he is given.

      When measuring Tywin’s successes as a politician, we should probably factor in the fact that he was dealt a royal flush : male, famous last name, Warden of the West, immense fortune, huge army. And the same question can be asked of every other character : given the cards they were dealt, how do they fare ?
      Of course, we also have to take into account the constant reshuffling and redealing of the cards ^^

        Quote  Reply

    60. Euron Greyjoy And His Two Good Hands: The only problem I have with the show is that they make everything so black and white. No shades of grey. Jon is good for showing mercy, Sansa is bad for suggesting a compromise.

      That is a very good point but I do wonder : does the show do that or do we, the viewers and fans ?

      I do not think the show portrayed Sansa’s proposition as reprehensible or inhumane. It was in no way, shape or form similar to the way in which the Lannisters abused and victimised her when she was the traitor’s daughter/sister. No mention of keeping the children hostages, no reference to forcibly marrying one (or both) of them to Stark loyalists, etc.
      The writers even gave the proposition a meritocratic flavour by having Sansa offer to give the Umber and Karstark Houses’ titles and lands to people who had, against all odds, fought for Jon.

      We may disagree with D&D’s interpretations and adaptation choices but they have read the books. They know what the characters do in them. Therefore, they know that Book!Jon takes children as bargaining chips (I cannot help but wonder how people who think Sansa is being cruel to the Umber/Karstark kids view Book!Jon…)
      Their decision to have Sansa propose a much milder form of punishment may not be that innocent. Perhaps the greyness is there but, we, the viewers, might not always see it that way, depending on our sensibilities and pre-established opinions of this or that character.

        Quote  Reply

    61. ACME,

      Totally agree with your points. Jon and Sansa are just trying to learn from their father’s mistakes. They loved Ned but realized the hard way that his ways weren’t always the best method to play the game of thrones.

        Quote  Reply

    62. Sansa has the benefit of experience seeing other people around her playing the game. She knows just trying to do the right thing will get you killed. This is very valuable knowledge for children of Ned Stark. Unfortunately, every other living Stark child already knows this first hand, better than she does. Come back and lecture Jon about it after you’ve been murdered for doing just that and come back to life. So while in her mind she has a lot to offer, in reality she is nearly useless except as LF’s weakness.

        Quote  Reply

    63. ACME:
      I am not certain I understand that logic. Why would he invade the North against the Crown when he could take it with the Crown’s blessing ?

      Immediately after he got the royal decree, Littlefinger giftwrapped Cersei’s head and offered it to Lady Olenna. So I would guess he fully intended to use said decree and claim the North in all legality but he first tried to ensure he would not have to give the Lioness what he promised her (Sansa’s head on a spike) by handing her to people who had every intention to execute her.
      When the Battle of the Bastards occurred, Cersei was in as weak a position as she had ever been, on the very verge of being tried and killed. So Baelish had every reason not to fear a Lioness comeback and could have claimed the North for himself without any problem. Yet, he did not…

      Because he can’t keep Sansa and be on good terms with the Crown. It’s irreconcilable.

      Cersei is not the only person is government who cares about Sansa. Everyone in the Lannister/Tyrell regime either believes Sansa is a regicide or pretends to think as much. Whether or not Littlefinger thinks Cersei is out of the game at that point, Kevan Lannister would not be expected to be any more amenable. Not to mention, they’d know he was lying to them at that point.

      In re. the snark and political acumen. I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say that sarcasm is not necesssarily an effective tool to get the overall population’s sympathy or approval. However, I would not put the blame on the show’s writers. George RR Martin does that a lot : he invented Lady Olenna and Tyrion whose most important contribution to the political discourse is usually a series of quips and aphorisms as if they had graduated from the Oscar Wilde School of Political Science.

      Tyrion’s quips in the books are, often as not, purely in his internal monologue. The rest of the time he’s largely snarking with subordinates or people who are hostile to him. When he’s actually acting in a formal/diplomatic capacity, e.g. with Oberyn or when he sits the Hand’s chair, he’s more properly restrained. But yeah, he can have a sarcasm problem at times.

      Compare the book’s version of Margaery with the show’s version. In the books she has an immaculate public image as the idealized courtly lady, and what she’s really thinking is so inscrutable that not even Tyrion can get a bead on her. She doesn’t constantly make verbal jabs at Cersei, instead maintaining a decorous facade, of the sort that would make her appear above reproach and stands in contrast to Cersei’s frequently undignified spectacle.

        Quote  Reply

    64. Euron Greyjoy And His Two Good Hands,

      The problem is the war is coming and it serves House Stark, the North, and Westeros to have two houses come back into the fold, to heal from THeir uncle and King RObbs’s situation.

      Sansa didn’t make any suggestions or statements about the welfare of the kids. We don’t know what she would have wanted. All we do know is that she in short, suggested he was being weak.

      Jon then turns to his people and expounds on the executions he has carried out in the name of treason. And certainly after charging on Ramsay, the Lords and Lady did not need to be reminding he is strong and he is lethal, when needed. But in the face of danger, far greater than what Sansa understands, mercy and grace, goes further than stripping children of their ancestral homes.

      Sansa was given a place to eat, sleep, fine clothes to wear, she was betrothed to a prince. Then married to a high Lord. But her home was stripped from her, in the name of treason. And given to the Boltons, for being loyal.

      In the eyes of Kingslanding, Ned was a traitor. In the eyes of King Stark, the Umbers and Karstarks are traitors. Sansa lost her home, because of her father’s sins. Jon refused to have that done to children, as it was done to Sansa.

      Sophie really just needs to stop doing interviews, but her and kit enjoy getting at each other, it’s been a fun bit for them of late. Kit finally stepping up. But Sophie’s are pot-stirrers. It changes how you view character. I just am going ot stop reading them.

        Quote  Reply

    65. How is Sansa a “wonderful politician”?!?!? She has never made any moves other than having a powerful creepy old man want her and therefore help her because she looks like her mom!!!! [head explodes]

        Quote  Reply

    66. I love how Sophie proclaims Jon as sexist immediately after he progressively incorporated female warriors into his military force. And I love even more how she says, “where he believes that [a man should be in charge].” How dare he think a king should be in charge, right? That nerve!

      Seriously though, I can laugh because I do believe that Sophie is saying all of this bull from a place of true naivete. She is young and oblivious and completely in her own little world, her own alternative universe where Jon is a sexist.

        Quote  Reply

    67. ramses:
      Question to those asking for evidence….What, to you, makes someone a brilliant politician?

      When we have someone’s rationale explained, as we often did and still do for Tyrion, and when that rationale incorporates considerations for several different contingencies and makes brilliant, logical sense, then we see evidence for a brilliant politician. When that happens, I realize that these decisions have been thoroughly and logically analyzed with masterful precision. We get that a great deal with Tyrion, although he has had a failure or two as well, specifically with underestimating the lack of logic from the masters.

      I’ve seen a lot of subterfuge from LF, and he’s quite good at it, but I’m not certain that would make him a master politician. I also don’t see Cersei as a politician to be emulated, although she’s certainly used subterfuge to her advantage, as well. And so I would agree that Sansa might be coming into her own with regards to deception and manipulation (which puts all those compliments she was throwing Jon in a new light), but I wouldn’t say that deception and manipulation make for a good politician – quite the opposite, rather! I would say that deception and manipulation could very well make one more likely to win the game, at least temporarily.

        Quote  Reply

    68. iridium:
      Jon’s good heart leads him to want to believe the best in people. He’s the definition of a beautiful cinnamon roll, too good for that world.

      The cinnamon roll man-bun?

        Quote  Reply

    69. Ginevra:
      And I love even more how she says, “where he believes that [a man should be in charge].”How dare he think a king should be in charge, right?That nerve!

      You couldn’t have put it better!

      I will be so glad if and when this ridiculous sibling rivalry PR dies down, probably the one thing I am looking forward to more than anything else lol.

        Quote  Reply

    70. ACME: So why did the Knights of the Vale (ie Littlefinger) not wait for the entire Stark army, Jon included, to be decimated ?

      I do not think that word means what you think it means.

        Quote  Reply

    71. Sean C.: Because he can’t keep Sansa and be on good terms with the Crown.It’s irreconcilable.
      Cersei is not the only person is government who cares about Sansa.Everyone in the Lannister/Tyrell regime either believes Sansa is a regicide or pretends to think as much.

      Oh, I am certain they believe it but do they care ?

      Tyrion is the one who was formally accused and found guilty of Joffrey’s murder and I cannot recall Sansa being mentioned during the trial at all (but she might have been). Tommen never demonstrated any real interest in figuring out what had happened to his brother, whom he admittedly feared, and he had more important and immediate concerns relating to the Faith, his wife and his wife’s brother. The same logic appears to apply to Kevan and Pycelle who seemed thoroughly uninterested in dealing with this matter at all.
      Has anyone, aside from Cersei (and possibly Tyrion), ever mentioned searching for Sansa at all or done anything to find her ?

      Littlefinger could probably have taken over the North and kept Sansa “prisoner”, I doubt the Crown would have made a fuss. With the High Sparrow in charge, I suspect no one at the Red Keep would have batted an eyelash…

      Compare the book’s version of Margaery with the show’s version.In the books she has an immaculate public image as the idealized courtly lady (…) she doesn’t constantly make verbal jabs at Cersei, instead maintaining a decorous facade,

      Book!Margaery’s public image is indeed immaculate but so is her show counterpart’s, I would argue. Margaery’s interactions with Cersei may be a touch snarkier on the show than on the page but Book!Margaery has the Olenna streak too, as Sansa notices. Some of her lines to Cersei are obviously dripping with false kindness and sarcasm : “I know what a burden you bear. You should let me share the load. There must be some things I could do to help you. It would put to rest all this talk that you and I are rivals for the king.”
      Natalie Dormer just emphasises her character’s blatant insincerity with smirks and arched eyebrows.

      Aside from that, Show!Margaery is fairly identical to Book!Margaery, I believe, in that she does every single thing her grandmother and father tell her to do, carried in great part by her House’s clout and money : smile, say very little, pretend to care, tiny jab at Cersei, rinse, repeat…

        Quote  Reply

    72. AE:
      Sansa was given a place to eat, sleep, fine clothes to wear, she was betrothed to a prince. Then married to a high Lord. But her home was stripped from her, in the name of treason. And given to the Boltons, for being loyal.

      In the eyes of Kingslanding, Ned was a traitor. In the eyes of King Stark, the Umbers and Karstarks are traitors. Sansa lost her home, because of her father’s sins. Jon refused to have that done to children, as it was done to Sansa.

      By that logic, Sansa saw her father executed for treason, therefore Jon should not execute people for committing treason. But he said that the punishment for treason is death.

      Ned was unjustly accused of treason. It was, in fact, Cersei and the Lannister faction who were committing treason. Whereas the Karstarks and the Umbers were guilty of treason. That’s the difference, as far as the Starks are concerned. Nobody was suggesting that the kid should be beaten and humiliated on a daily basis in court, which is what happened to Sansa.

      ACME: Oh, I am certain they believe it but do they care ?

      Yes, absolutely they care. The regime could never allow a known regicide to escape the law, otherwise it would undermine the King’s Justice.

      ACME:
      Really ? Does it not mean destroyed in great numbers, annihilated ?

      Classically, decimation was a Roman practice of executing one man of every ten (hence, “deci”).

      However, it has long since become a generalized way of referring to killing large numbers of people. Language belongs to the users, as my old linguistics professor put it.

        Quote  Reply

    73. Euron Greyjoy And His Two Good Hands,

      The attacks on Sophie will stop when she either stops saying silly s**t. Or WotW doesn’t post articles about it.

      Otherwise we’re all going to keep chatting about it. I’m sure a millionaire famous actress will survive what we Westerosi nerds think and dissect to the 1000th degree. 🙂

        Quote  Reply

    74. Sansa is about as brilliant of a politician as Trump. She let Littlefinger trick her into marrying a sadistic monster who tortured her during the whole time of their marriage. She betrayed Jon by not letting him know that she had the Vale fighting forces. She could not manipulate Ramsey Bolton in anyway. Theon Greyjoy had to help her escape. She talks Jon into fighting for Rickon but then later abandons Rickon. She would betray her family for Littlefinger. I want her and Littlefinger to drown in the weirwood pool at Winterfell. I am sick of her….sick sick sick

        Quote  Reply

    75. RML: Sansa is about as brilliant of a politician as Trump.

      So, despite expectations, she’s going to end up the most powerful person in Westeros anyway, causing people who dislike her to lose their minds and throw epic tantrums about it?

        Quote  Reply

    76. Ramsay’s 20th Good Man: So, despite expectations, she’s going to end up the most powerful person in Westeros anyway, causing people who dislike her to lose their minds and throw epic tantrums about it?

      That…..is pretty much exactly how it would play out. LOL. *applauds*

        Quote  Reply

    77. Ramsay’s 20th Good Man: So, despite expectations, she’s going to end up the most powerful person in Westeros anyway, causing people who dislike her to lose their minds and throw epic tantrums about it?

      Now, that is uniquely hilarious ! Masterfully done, Ramsay’s 20th Good Man ^^
      (But I am left wondering who the Anthony Scaramucci of Westeros may be…)

      Sean C.: Yes, absolutely they care.The regime could never allow a known regicide to escape the law, otherwise it would undermine the King’s Justice.

      Alleged regicide, as a lawyer would say ^^

      Classically, decimation was a Roman practice of executing one man of every ten (hence, “deci”).

      The French word has the exact same etymology and ancient signification but I was genuinely puzzled for, in French, that use of the word has virtually disappeared (except in historical documents) and been entirely replaced by the modern meaning of massacre / annihilation. I though for a second that perhaps, in English, you had maintained the original use of the word without ever broadening it.
      Good to know it is not the case !

        Quote  Reply

    78. All I am going to say is please let this be the season in which Sansa meets her maker, I really don’t like the character and every interview Sophie does leads to high levels of bickering amongst the fandom.

        Quote  Reply

    Jump to the Top

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *