Game of Thrones post: have you noticed Roose Bolton's banner? Also Arya and Sansa

[alexandral]

Roose Bolton was there, with the rest of Robb's men! And so was his flayed man banner, which looked like an upside-down stick man :



Arya and Sansa. This is something I have noticed in some of Game of Thrones reviews, something I have been guilty of myself, namely forever comparing Arya and Sansa. But really, this is like comparing apples and oranges: they are so different, but equally interesting characters, I love them both and always will. The only tiny problem I have is something that I have also seen mentioned: the show seems to look somewhat more favourably on Arya and give us more of her point of view. I might be wrong to think so, but it just seems so to me. I give you just a couple of examples:

1. I have seen Sansa being blamed for the incident with Micah. But for me, Arya is probably the one to blame (or her parents that didn't teach her the ways of the world) . Creating a big rucus with injuring a prince and destroying his property? How do you think this would have flew even in the "democratic" country as the UK where you not really allowed to touch royals, even in our day and age? What did Arya think was going to happen to Micah after he , without any intent on his part, participated in this?

2. Arya's first kill: this is one of the big changes from book to the show: in the book, she killed the boy "in cold blood" where in the show it was accidental.

Comments

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

Hm, I kinda missed Maege Mormont, the Bannerwoman from Bear island, was she anywhere?

I think Sansa is harder to get into, because so much of the book plays in her dreamworld of noble knights.

On the Micah incident...naja...as far as I know at least one of the british princes was in the military, I can hardly believe no one ever touched him there. Sure Arya is a hothead, but Joff could have killed her friend (and by proxy did later), what could she have done but interfered? She just hit him with a stick, which Robert would have totally done away as childs play. He tried to kill her and Nymeria bit him.
Can not see how it was Sansa's fault either though. The blame is Joffrey's alone I think. Sansa gets her hands dirty when she lies to protect him.

2. On the first kill: I don't think it is much different. It was not accidental. He didn't fall on needle, she ran him through. Sure she did in panic, because he was threatening to give her to the Lannisters but that's exactly the same as in the books. You only see it from the outside without knowing what is going on in Arya's head.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

Well, I do not know how about the navy, but here , for example, is a joking giude on how to behave near royals. I have heard about no-no to touching before:

http://socyberty.com/society/how-to-behave-when-youre-in-the-presence-of-royalty/

In GoT universe, for Arya to beat up Joffrey up was not a cleverest thing to do. the way I saw it in both the book and the show : Micah was about to get away with a facial scar if Arya just calmed down. But when Joffrey was beaten up in the front of Micah - Micah was as good as dead. The real victim was Lady, actually, she was no-where close.

On the fisrt kill, I also disagree. it looked totally accidental.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

Arya is nobility herself though. Joff is the crownprince but he nontheless fought with her brothers in the yard. In the books Bran remembers how he beat Tommen. I really don't think any non touching rules make sense in that context.

Sure it wasn't the cleverest idea, but Joff hurting Micah was completely unfair. Arya is like Ned in that sense, she does not sit and watch her friend get hurt, even if that might have been wiser long term. + with Joffrey she could not have known if he'd not randomly decide to kill Micah.

And I think she knew that much, that Micah as commoner could do nothing against the prince, while she as a noble has a certain protection herself.

Arya's brothers and her father do not have such fragile egos as Joff does. Non of them would ever get the idea to murder someone because they saw them lose a fight (even to a girl). She grew up around a different sort of men. I don't think, she's can be expected to know or care about such sensibilities.

I just rewatched the first kill scene. He grabs her, she turns around, says "stay away" and runs him through. She seems surprised at him actually going down and dying, but that's exactly the way it's in the book. Why do you think it's accidental?

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I was just trying to bring the current UK etiquette as an example of how "crazy" (in my view) some of the royalty etiquette is. I wanted to illustrate how mad the royaty-related etiquette must have been in the olden days.

Arya was a nobility but Micah wasn't This is how it all started: Joffrey got angry that Micah was "hitting" Arya. And whilst she was protected, anything she did or was about to do was going to immediately become the "fault" of Micah. Because in Joffrey's view the butcher boy started it. because in that day and age the common people were just pawns for the royalty. Arya did not understand any of this (and really, parents should have explained it! otherwise it is just like going outside without knowing the rules of traffic and being run over by a car!).

And yes, Arya is very much like Ned in this sense, you can understand why she is doing what she is doing (I agree with all that you are saying), but in the situation she was in - it cost Micah his life. I would think that he would have preferred to have a scar than being throttled over by a horse, to death.

What I do object , though, is the fact that everyone is saying "Ned is stupid", but no-one seems to think Arya did anything even remotely stupid. Everyone is saying "Arya is the only clever Stark". I do beg to differ.

It just looked completely accidental to me., I will re-watch.

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

What I do object , though, is the fact that everyone is saying "Ned is stupid", but no-one seems to think Arya did anything even remotely stupid. Everyone is saying "Arya is the only clever Stark". I do beg to differ.

Arya is a little girl, though so I think her impulsiveness and lack of forethought are a little easier to understand than Ned's complete inability to alter his plans when faced with reality. However, I actually think that although ned understands Arya very well, Sansa is the child more like him, with her belief in the world is as it SHOULD be not as it is!

And Sansa is also clever, IMO. Given the situation in which she's placed, if Arya were in her situation she would die quickly because she wouldn't be able to keep her darned mouth shut, just as Sansa would never be able to fend for herself in King's Landing.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

yes, this is why I give he a slack. Still, "The only clever Stark" is in my opinion a totally wrong assessment.

BTW, I think it sort of happened that it seems as if Ned "likes Arya more than Sansa", I don't think this is what was intended. I think what intended was: He feels guilty for Lady's death, and he and Sansa have a difficult period at that time.

yes, I think both girls are very strong.

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't think Arya has proven to be all that clever, frankly. It's Bran who's the clever one (and much like Tyrion, part of that is because the only tools he has to survive in this harsh world are his wits.)

I think it sort of happened that it seems as if Ned "likes Arya more than Sansa", I don't think this is what was intended. I think what intended was: He feels guilty for Lady's death, and he and Sansa have a difficult period at that time.

I agree this is definitely true from the books. But it seems that show Ned spends much less time with Sansa than with Arya, and even when the three of them have a scene together, it's like Ned + Arya versus Sansa, which I feel is unfair to poor Sansa. But I think this is another way in which I just like the book's Ned more than the show's Ned.

I think we, as readers, are conditioned to love Arya even by the author (as someone said above) because she fits this tomboy trope. And I do really love her, don't get me wrong, but I feel more protective of Sansa, because I am much more like Sansa than I am like Arya. And although Arya has the more spectacularly horrible things happen to her, Sansa's imprisonment in King's Landing and her powerlessness are truly things that make me feel terrible for her.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

because in that day and age the common people were just pawns for the royalty.

That's not how Ned rules the north, though. And it's exactly that kind of ruling he and Robert rebelled against. I don't think he'd take it as a given that nobility can blame everything on commoners, he wouldn't allow it for his children, so why would he teach them that?

I really think Joffrey is the only person to blame in this.

What I do object , though, is the fact that everyone is saying "Ned is stupid", but no-one seems to think Arya did anything even remotely stupid. Everyone is saying "Arya is the only clever Stark". I do beg to differ.


I don't go with those statements. Ned is only stupid in a very narrow sense. He has no gift for intrigue whatsoever, otherwise (say as a strategist or a ruler) he's not stupid at all.

Arya is a hothead. She often acts first and thinks later. It's the same when she lets the faceless guy kill some nonames instead of Joff and Cersei. But Arya is also a child and just like Ned she has areas where she is incredibly smart.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

As queenofthorns mentioned below, "It's not like the North is some free-for-all democracy and the stableboys eat and sleep alongside the Starks - it's not! Bran and Arya have both shown that they're well aware of their status despite their youth." Remember, even Jon was not allowed to take a part in the banquet? Or when Arya was demanding to get access to her father? Or how she told to the boy she killed that "she is the lord's daughter"?

Parents need to teach them the way things work in the world, so that they can survive / be successful. Especially in the world where a King can just burn one of his lords (which wasn't even the real reason for the uprising, Rhaegar and Lyanna's affair was the real reason).


On a side note, the fact that Arya is older in the show (almost a teen instead of 8) makes her actions even more reckless.

But Arya is also a child and just like Ned she has areas where she is incredibly smart.

yes, I agree with this.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

The north is not a "free for all democracy", no. But there is are differences in absolute ruling systems too. Monarchy does not automatically equal tyranny. The Starks are aware of their status, yes. But it does not mean the same thing it means to Joffrey.

The Stark children know, that they do have money and manpower behind their actions. But they also know these things come not for free (something Joff doesn't get). Robb is aware that he must find a way to gain the respect of the bannermen if he wants them to follow him into war.
Not only that, the money comes from the smallfolk and the job of the nobles is to protect the smallfolk in return. For Arya, this means Joff is attacking not only one of her friends, Micah is one of her subjects, who can't defend himself because of class differences.

It's her job to take up fight for him, precisely because she is a noble. Arya is not Sansa, pleading prettily is not her strong suit. So she does what Robb, Jon or Bran would have done and jumps into the melee, where she has a chance to beat Joff and does.

Joff and Arya have been taught very different things about "the way things work" for nobles. Joff has learned to be a bully. Arya has learned that if you boss people around it's your responsibility to defend them when they get into trouble because of it.

To me the problem lies definitely with Joff and his upbringing, not with Arya.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I was just trying to say that they were not completely unaware of the status system

And no, as much as I like Arya - she attacked Micah in a total heat of the moment, without thinking at all what this would mean for Micah. This is my main point , you see, that she did not think of consequences for Micah.

And yes, the problem lies with joff, but Arya did not think of Micah here.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

She did not think of the long term consequences for Micah, Yes. Too much heat of the moment.

But in that heat of the moment she was defending her friend from a bully he couldn't take on himself. I don't think that counts as not thinking of him.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

Yes, it counts of course that she was defending Micah. Only sometimes defending does not work when we do it without thinking, it can make things worse (as it did).This is exactly what Ned was doing too, trying to protect Cersei's children. And the result was not at all positive.

there is a proverb that "road to hell is paved with good intentions", I think very applicable.

Hee! and I only started from trying to prove that the situation with Micah was not sansa's fault. and in fact, there was nothing Sansa could have done to save the boy.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

I never heard the argument that it was Sansa's fault. I don't think it is, no more than it is Arya's. Sure Sansa could have tried to talk him down, or even shamed him into keeping quiet about the whole affair (if she was that cunning and not in love).

But she didn't think of it. And it's Joff, who is the aggressor, Sansa does nothing to make him think she wants this.

Her lying to defend him later is another thing. Because I think if she had contested the story were Micah and Arya had beaten Joff with sticks, they would have had no reason to kill Lady and though the hound would have probably killed Micah all the same (because he "ran") Ned might have not swallowed the murder so easily.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

Her lying to defend him later is another thing. Because I think if she had contested the story were Micah and Arya had beaten Joff with sticks, they would have had no reason to kill Lady and though the hound would have probably killed Micah all the same (because he "ran") Ned might have not swallowed the murder so easily.

You see, here we differ. Micah was as good as dead because he saw Joffrey humiliated (remember a conversation Joffrey had with Cersei), but Ldy was really optional - she died because Sansa dared not to suppoer Joffrey's story 100% , and instead said that she didn't see anything.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

I agree that Lady died because Sansa said, she doesn't remember but she could have chosen both sides to prevent Lady's death.

Had she told the truth, Lady would not have needed to die because Arya and by extension Nymeria would have acted in self defence. But Joff of course would have hated her forever. Might very well have been that Ned would have sent them both back to Winterfell.

The other option she had was supporting Joff all the way, then Cersei probably would not have asked for Lady's death (hard to tell though).

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

** sigh ** we have to agree to disagree on this.

Sadly, Nothing would have changed for Micah if Sansa supported Arya's story. Cersei would have still supported Joffrey who had the injuries. Sadly, this is how the world works.

But yes, both girls might have been sent back to Winterfell in this case.

We have to agree to diagree, I just see this situation differently.

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

And it's exactly that kind of ruling he and Robert rebelled against.

No, that's not why they rebelled. They rebelled because the King's son abducted a noblewoman and then the noblewoman's brother and father were killed by the King because he protested and then another great nobleman raised his flags in rebellion to protect two more noblemen's sons. The commoners had absolutely nothing to do with it, and I'll wager if you asked any of the commonfolk of the South (not who were ruled by the Starks, but the ones whose lands were where the wars took place) if they cared whether Aerys killed some uppity Northern lords who had nothing to do with them, they would absolutely not care. And neither would the Martells or Tyrells who stayed loyal to Aerys. The Lamb Men, likewise, don't care about Dany's claim to the throne being justified, because it just doesn't concern them at all.

Honestly the person who cared the most for the commoners during Robert's rebellion is arguably Jaime Lannister, who broke his vows to save the commonfolk (and nobles) of King's Landing from being blown up.

he wouldn't allow it for his children, so why would he teach them that?

He has certainly taught them their high status - Arya tells the soldiers guarding the Red Keep that she's Lord Stark's daughter and that he'll put their heads on spikes if they don't obey her and Bran tries to use his status to intimidate the Wildlings too. They are well aware that they're not commoners, and while there may be a certain amount of fraternization between Arya and the stablehands etc., it's not like she's supposed to invite them to dinner. So Arya is certainly aware of protocol and of her own status - it's not a huge leap to think she might be aware that the Crown Prince doesn't get smacked around by ANYONE (except Uncle Tyrion, but she didn't witness that).

He has no gift for intrigue whatsoever, otherwise (say as a strategist or a ruler) he's not stupid at all.

I'm not sure how he is as a ruler. He was apparently a fine military commander, but as Renly asks Ned, don't we know that being a good soldier doesn't automatically translate into being a good ruler? And we never saw him do much ruling as Hand - he was just shocked/appalled at the national debt, and then spent his time investigating Jon Arryn's death.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

The commoners had absolutely nothing to do with it

But tyranny has. Aerys extended his privilege far beyond it's limits. The deal in a monarchy, especially in a monarchy with a strong aristocracy is that the ruler does not overly abuse his subjects. That they keep to some rules despite their privilege.

Like that a king can probably get every highborn girl as a bride for their son, but if the prince is already married and goes off to just take whoever he pleases and the king afterwards burn the father and brother of the girl just because they had the gall to complain, it switches into tyranny.

The Starks might not be democrats, but their sense of monarchy does not favour tyranny. Can you see Eddard teaching his children that being Lord of the North just means you can have everything you want and if you want to randomly burn people (or maybe just beat them up), that would be fine?

So Arya is certainly aware of protocol and of her own status

Please also see my post to Alexandral above for this. Yes, Arya is aware of her status. But status does not mean the same thing for her and for Joffrey. Arya has been taught a form of ruling where responsibility is part of the deal. Joff being the prince to her does not mean it's ok for him to be a bully. On the other hand Micah being a commoner and not being able to defend himself means she as his noble has to defend him. The part of treaty Joff never learns.

I'm not sure how he is as a ruler. He was apparently a fine military commander, but as Renly asks Ned, don't we know that being a good soldier doesn't automatically translate into being a good ruler?

The north is financially stable, all Ned's bannermen are very loyal to him (something Stannis, who is referenced by Renly here, can't say). He has a reputation for being just to his folks and there are no revolts in his part of the kingdom. It seems to me he's doing a fine job as a ruler.

What he does in King's Landing is another matter. He never really gets to rule there. He tries a bit to get the financials in order but Robert and Cersei love to spend and Littlefinger loves to provide them with more depts. Ned has no real power, he would have to play for power first and that's where he fails.

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

if the prince is already married and goes off to just take whoever he pleases and the king afterwards burn the father and brother of the girl just because they had the gall to complain, it switches into tyranny.

You originally suggested that Ned, Jon and Robert rebelled against Aerys for the sake of the common people, and I'm saying that the common people were doing just fine, even if Aerys decided to burn some uppity Northern lords for calling for his son's blood. Yes, Aerys was insane and Rhaegar promised Jaime that he would call for a council to essentially consider replacing him after the Battle of the Trident, but he didn't get a chance to do that because Robert killed him there. If the northern lords were actually interested solely in replacing a mad king with a not-so-mad king, then Robert didn't have to take the throne - they could have had Viserys installed as King with some very strong checks on the part of his regents, no? I think they had each had a much more self-interested motive than this idea that they altruistically were trying to overthrow a tyranny - Robert wanted to avenge Lyanna, Ned wanted to avenge his brother and father, and Jon Arryn wanted to make sure the two boys he'd fostered weren't killed. If Aerys had burned a Lannister lord, do you think Jon Arryn or Ned or Robert would have decided that the guy was too big a tyrant to stay on the throne? Probably not.

all Ned's bannermen are very loyal to him

Except for the ones who turn on his son, of course, like the Karstarks and the Boltons.

I have to say that I actually really do like Book!Ned a lot, and I see his story as a tragedy but I utterly dislike TV!Ned, even though I know I'm supposed to see him as the only good man in a sea of bad ones. For some reason, he rubs me the wrong way every time he's on the screen (perhaps it's his perpetual sneer at everything and everyone he sees in King's Landing, perhaps it's his inexplicable friendship with that selfish pig Robert). Maybe I have to go back and read the book again so I can recapture my feelings of sympathy and liking for Ned, because the TV version just makes me want to shake him.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

You originally suggested that Ned, Jon and Robert rebelled against Aerys for the sake of the common people

No. I said, it's "that (Joff's) kind of ruling" they went up against. By which I meant arbitrary cruelty and the believe that king (or prince) needs to heed no rules at all.

If Aerys had burned a Lannister lord, do you think Jon Arryn or Ned or Robert would have decided that the guy was too big a tyrant to stay on the throne? Probably not.

No, but the Lannisters would have. And the Starks and Baratheons would have probably joined them at some point. It would have just been the other way round. A monarch with a strong aristocracy (meaning not all the firepower is in his hand) can only rule by them agreeing to it. They have many reasons to do so, but if the king starts randomly abducting nobles and killing people he has to be put down. A king in such a system gets power in exchange for stability, if he instead produces chaos he's toast.

Except for the ones who turn on his son, of course, like the Karstarks and the Boltons.

Who Ned apparently had in hand during past military conflicts. We're talking about his fitness as a ruler, that does not automatically translate to Rob.

I have to say, I don't really make a difference between book Ned and show Ned (I might have imagined him a bit more bookkeeperish, with more affection for combs though). I liked him both ways and in both ways he made me go "OH MY GOD; HOW BLIND CAN YOU BE!" And I don't see him as a good man in a sea of bad ones (and I don't think we're supposed to think that either),almost everyone in KL (with maybe the exception of LF and Joff) has their good and bad sides.

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

No, but the Lannisters would have. And the Starks and Baratheons would have probably joined them at some point.

Very doubtful! Jon Arryn raises the banners because he won't give up Ned or Robert to Aerys's vengeance. But plenty of other great houses including the Tyrells and Martells fought FOR Aerys, against their fellow nobles, despite knowing that Aerys was a crazy dude. (The Martells had Rhaegar's wife as a "hostage" in King's Landing, but the Tyrells, who HATE the Martells, stayed loyal to Aerys.) I don't think Jon Arryn would have lifted a finger for the Lannisters if his own children/wards hadn't been threatened.

There's something about Sean Bean's performance as Ned that's just making me irritated with the character. In the book, I'm irritated by some of Ned's choices because I love him and I don't want him to die. In the tv series, I'm just irritated, and I honestly think I'm going to be less sad about what happens to Ned than I am about the Septa and Syrio and Jory Cassel. He's the only character that I liked/loved in the books whom I don't like on the show, which is a pity because he's carrying the first season of the show, really. In the case of Jon and Dany, for example, where I am more indifferent to them in the books, I love them on the show, and with the other characters I already loved such as Tyrion, Jaime, Catelyn, Arya, Sansa, Cersei, etc., I love them even more.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's doubtful, because Aerys was pissing off people left and right. He was pissing of the righteous people by breaking customs (like letting Rhaegar run of with a nobles daughter without prior marriage) and the pragmatics by being random and impossible to calculate. And then there are people who simply see benefits from a new ruler, because they have no power with the old one.

Like I said. Aerys brought to much chaos and instability. Had they made it to Rhaegar's rule before reaching the breaking point things might have been different, but they didn't. Who it hit didn't matter that much, because all the nobles that where not directly gaining power knew, it could have been them.

About book/show characters. Mostly I think they are pretty much the same with a few exceptions. I really imagined Jon differently and I'm not too happy with the show version, but not so I'd say I don't like him any more.
And I really prefer show Cersei. She seems to run a bit deeper than book Cersei and is smarter too. Though I think I only started to think of Cersei as stupid with book 4, where she loses all her credit as a game player.

I'm not sure about Sansa yet. It's hard to tell, but I expect we'll see what Sophie Turner can do in the execution scene and then later in the gruesome scene on the castle wall. How she brings that "Or maybe my brother will bring me your head" line will probably define things for me.

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

Aerys was pissing off people left and right. He was pissing of the righteous people by breaking customs (like letting Rhaegar run of with a nobles daughter without prior marriage) and the pragmatics by being random and impossible to calculate.

He wasn't pissing off people right and left, though, that's just my point. The Martells and Tyrells fought for Aerys till the very end and the Greyjoys and Lannisters stayed out of the whole thing until the very end (Tywin Lannister was pissed off about Jaime joining the Kingsguard and Aerys not accepting Cersei as a bride for Rhaegar, but not pissed off enough to go to war against his liege). It was the Northern lords who were out to avenge an insult to one of their own, and the lords of the riverlands because Catelyn's fiance Brandon was murdered. But it wasn't that every great house in Westeros rose up in righteous indignation. Of course we won't ever know, but I really don't think Jon Arryn would raise his banners in rebellion for anyone but Robert and Ned, so if it had been, say, Jaime Lannister whom Aerys decided to kill for whatever reason, I think the northern lords would have stayed out of it. I just don't see them as dedicated to the abolition of tyranny so much as dedicated to a) saving Ned's and Robert's lives; b) avenging the Starks and the other northern lords Aerys killed; c) avenging Lyanna Stark. They are no more or less self-serving than anyone else in the realm.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

Uhm, yeah, I'll sign that. But the problem is you didn't need to be righteous to see Aerys as a problem.
Being pragmatic was enough.

The Martell's just married a daughter to Rhagar, of course they wont oppose the line they just joined and I'm sure the Tyrell's had similar reasons.

All the others though he had pissed in one way or another and then he threatened the to extinct a house (the Starks), so the rebellion was started by those that had nothing to lose, but it was joined by all the folks who had something to gain. And an able ruler would have never let those become so many.

Had they just let the rebellion pass, they would have been left with the question "am I next". Sure a Tywin Lannister would not join a rebellion out of righteousness (he'd laugh at the thought) but he could win something and he knew Aerys was a danger to him too.

The situation would have been the same no matter who it hit. Aerys was too random for anyone to feel save with him as a king, except those with real close ties.

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

The situation would have been the same no matter who it hit. Aerys was too random for anyone to feel save with him as a king, except those with real close ties.


Right, but say that instead of raising his banners, Jon Arryn sends his foster sons into exile across the Narrow Sea and Prince Rhaegar gets to do what he promised Jaime he would - hold a meeting of the Council and depose Aerys because he's a nutter. It's not as if Aerys was habitually burning anyone alive; this is a wholly new thing after Rhaegar and Lyanna run off together (or Rhaegar kidnaps Lyanna, depending on which side of the story you believe.)

All I'm saying is that I think you're attributing an altruism to the northern lords that I don't see at all. I don't think they were deposing Aerys for the sake fo the realm, because the realm would have been better off with Prince Rhaegar as King (everyone except Robert seems to think he was a pretty decent guy and even Ned, who you'd think would hate Rhaegar, only ever thinks that he wasn't one for visiting brothels, so I'm guessing Robert's view is totally prejudiced.)

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

Sure, that first scenario could have played out too, but it never came to that. There is of course a spin of the moment factor.

All I'm saying is that I think you're attributing an altruism to the northern lords that I don't see at all.

What I'm attributing to them is not altruism. It's self preservation, in this case named traditions or values if you want.

A king who randomly starts abducting people and killing others must be removed. He's too much of a wild card. Incidentally acts like that are not commonly associated with a functioning monarchy but with a tyranny. He's breaking the unwritten treaty. They give him power, he gives them stability. Such a system bears a few hick ups, but not the notion that the king can at any moment decide to kill one of the aristocrats (it's what breaks the back of Joff's reign too).

Sure they could have waited for Raeghar to succeed but Raeghar (though not mad) had already violated the code all on his own + if you fight the king, you might as well take his place. You don't usurp halfway.

[nutmeg3.livejournal.com]

Ooooh, I missed the creepy flayed man. Thank you. And I was going to say what flake_sake did: that I think Arya's first kill was pretty much in line with the book. She was scared and stuck him with the pointy end to keep from being found out, but it was still very instantaneous rather than thought out.

And it's interesting. Without going back to compare and contrast, I think the book was weighted more toward Arya's pov than Sansa's, too. Though perhaps that's just because Arya's more in line with 20th/21st Century attitudes than Sansa is, so my brain enlarged her importance.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I just re-read the book and it came across to me as if there was a conscious decision on Arya's part to kill the boy: "Everything Syrio Forel had ever taught her vanished in a heartbeat. In that instant of sudden terror, the only lesson Arya could remember was the one Jon Snow had given her, the very first. She stuck him with the pointy end, driving the blade upward with a wild, hysterical strength."

And it's interesting. Without going back to compare and contrast, I think the book was weighted more toward Arya's pov than Sansa's, too. Though perhaps that's just because Arya's more in line with 20th/21st Century attitudes than Sansa is, so my brain enlarged her importance.

I think you are right. You see, for me, someone who never was or even wanted to be a tomboy, this is like a signal to me personally: tomboys rule. But why?

[dekyria.livejournal.com]

I don't think I'm comparing Arya and Sansa.. They are both just so different.

I agree with your second point, that was one little thing I was dissapointed in last episode.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean you! :D It actually started from some review I read, for someone I don't know. But I definitely did such comparing myself. :D

I have seen some other lj users mentioning the Arya's "first kill". Actually, I didn't mind it at all myself, but this was one of the points where I could see the difference.

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

Yes I think the show REALLY privileges Arya over Sansa (and Ned does too, which is one of the reasons why I'm so annoyed with show's Ned! Obviously he realizes exactly what Arya needs, hires the dancing master for her, etc., but for Sansa he brings a DOLL?)

As for not knowing about hitting the prince, we've seen at least 2-3 times in King's Landing that Arya knows very well that she's the daughter of a great lord and she uses her status to get what she wants and threatens people with her father's wrath (remember when she told the guards at the Red Keep that her father would put their heads on spikes if they didn't let her in?) Given this, I am really hard pressed that she didn't understand that she shouldn't hit the Crown Prince. It's not like the North is some free-for-all democracy and the stableboys eat and sleep alongside the Starks - it's not! Bran and Arya have both shown that they're well aware of their status despite their youth. So how could she not understand what she was doing? UGH!

(I think I also get a little bit defensive of "underdog" characters, and Sansa seems like the underdog in fandom compared to Arya, whom we are "supposed" to love. I really like the actress and I do like the character, but I like Sansa just as much!)

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I think the show's creators just take the good opportunity with Maisie Williams (who is admittedly awesome).

As you, I think Sansa is underdog and this is why I fwant to "protect" her. But more, I object to comaparing those two all the time. Because these are two different character, but not as in "opposed to each other". In fact, someone can be a tomboy AND love books about knights.

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

Oh, Maisie's great and she's a recognizable kind of trope now for TV fans (the kickass little girl, etc., etc.) But I think Sansa is more of an achievement for a male writer - she really is just a perfectly written teenaged girl. (And the show did soften some of Sansa's actions too, so we don't get that she went to Cersei to tell about them leaving for Winterfell - even though having reread, that is not actually the turning point for Cersei's attack on Ned.)

I agree that the comparisons are invariably going to turn to saying that one is better than the other - I like to look at all the female characters because there are so many and they're so unique and well-drawn. *gasp* ALMOST LIKE MALE CHARACTERS! :P Hee! If you look at the universe of female characters in these works, I love that we have people as diverse as Catelyn, Brienne, Arya, Sansa, etc.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

And the show did soften some of Sansa's actions too, so we don't get that she went to Cersei to tell about them leaving for Winterfell - even though having reread, that is not actually the turning point for Cersei's attack on Ned.

I did think so as well. But then I think - after Robert's death there is really no point for cersei to let ned ro run around 9per chance, he can write to Stannis or something, he almost did). She was bound to act swiftly.


This is exactly what I mean too. You are full of awesome :D

[lydzi.livejournal.com]

Roose Bolton was there, with the rest of Robb's men! And so was his flayed man banner, which looked like an upside-down stick man

*starts hyperventilating* Oh God Oh God. Not him. I will have such a hard time watching him... well doing anything. That man is nightmare personnified for me. I re-read the Harrenhal chapters not long ago and the mere memory of it makes me shudder.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I know! He is one of my most hated characters too. I wish to know now which of the men was him.

[roboticduck.livejournal.com]

Aww, I totally miss stuff like Roose Bolton! I love the attention to detail the show brings for those who look for it :)

I love the Stark girls! It has been said before, but GRRM takes characters you feel one way about and then a book later you are looking at them in a different light. Arya in a way is portrayed pretty simply: tomboy in a patriarchal society (someone commented above on how we are viewing this through our modern lense, therefore this makes her badass, which it totally does), but then leaves us to kinda scoff at Sansa at first. But I loved that, because what GRRM later puts her through and seeing her transformation, it's that much more satisfying. Who doesn't want to know what kind of woman Sansa matures into?!

2. It's kinda crazy to think an even younger gal in the books does it so deliberately, and then the show's Arya having a look of surprise-- which I think works, because practice sword fighting is one thing and actually drawing blood quite another. The show also just kinda leaves the stableboy bleeding, so it isn't even that certain the jab was fatal? I need to rewatch, it was pretty quick. I'm also thinking they did it to show her in a more favorable light, because she's supposed to be one of the "good guys" ?

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I only found it because someone else was trying to find out if he was there.

I like both Arya and Sansa, I think i more identify with Sansa (never being a tomboy even though otherwise always was has been a geeky type) , and I find Sansa to be something of a undredog (which I also like more than everyone;s favourites).

I think she was pretty scared and her move was pretty justified, but she did mean to stab the boy (in the book).

I'm also thinking they did it to show her in a more favorable light, because she's supposed to be one of the "good guys" ?

yes, may be this is true. I think my main problems with Arya rise much later. I know her character had to go through a lot, but the direction she is going in - I don't particular like it.

[stoopid-silly.livejournal.com]

Yeah it's kind of sad that Arya and Sansa are always pitted against each other. But I think that was something in the books too, and I really hope it comes full circle and they learn to appreciate each other. I want a Arya-Sansa reunion so bad. But yeah, especially in the beginning, Arya is definitely the favored one. I really wish her first kill had been more purposeful too. It was kind of weak and dissapointing.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

Arya and Sansa meeting again is one of my favourite scenarious. but what if one of them dies?

And yes, I think my feelings about Arya's and Sansa's character are coloured with what theyare going to become. I don't particular like the direction Arya is going in the later books (she used to be my sole favourite at first).

[stoopid-silly.livejournal.com]

i'm so scared Arya might die D: BUT THEY HAVE TO MEET UGH

And yeah Sansa has become one of my very favorites even if she started off a little annoying at first, and poor baby Arya is just FUCKED UP now.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I figured it out: in ASOIF universe the charcters either die or get maimed (and it always some cosmic backpay). Arya is not going to die, methinks.

All that stuff that happened to Arya in "Feast" is somewhat OTT, I had few moments of "Oh no! I do not want to read about THIS", similar to what I had in "Fevre dream".