You Could Rattle The Stars

Do you like Lindsay Ellis? Even though her points on Sansa and Dany were completely off? She basically bashed Sansa and defended Dany treating her like an actual hero. That’s just wrong.

I haven’t heard of her until her name started to pop up on my dash because of her “hot takes”, especially on Sansa. So, to give you a proper answer, I went and watched her video. And, oh boy...

 You may take this as a counter-argument to hers. I’ll take her approach; first I’ll speak about power citing Important People™, and then I’ll head straight to the rebuttals. (You may skip the philosophy lecture if you want. I’ll actually use it to justify my answers, so, it’s up to you. In case you don’t want to read the whole thing - which is totally understandable and, you know what, even recommend - I’ve put the key points at the end of first part of this meta.)

 She starts the video talking about the nature of power, quoting the writer Robert A. Caro:

 “We’re taught Lord Acton’s axiom: all power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely [...]. I believed that when I started these books (about Lyndon B. Johnson), but I don’t believe it’s always true anymore. [...] What I believe is always true about power is that power reveals. When you have enough power to do what you always wanted to do, then you get to see what the guy always wanted to do”.

Let’s take a second to analyze this. First off, it starts with a quote that GRRM likes to go back to a lot. After all, ASOIAF is a work of (fantasy) fiction that analyzes the nature of power and its dynamics and just how much it can corrupt a person, even those with good intentions. That’s the core of GRRM’s work, the nature of power and what it can do to a person.

I agree with Caro when he says that power reveals, but power does not only reveals what a person wants to do, but how that person does that. The how is just as important as the what, especially when we’re talking about political figures (fictional or not).

(I talked about Daenerys and what is it that she does with her power in a couple of metas - some are mine, the others are from awesome people in which case I’m just putting my two cents on the matter - : X, X, X, X, X)

There’s a very interesting conversation between Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, called “Intellectuals and power”. Here are some excerpts that I believe are important when talking about the nature of power:

M. Foucault: [while talking about the prison system and can power be found its raw form in prisons] What is fascinating about prisons is that, for once, power doesn’t hide or mask itself; it reveals itself as tyranny pursued into the tiniest details; it is cynical and at the same time pure and entirely “justified”, because its practice can be totally formulated within the framework of morality. Its brutal tyranny consequently appears as the serene domination of Good over Evil, of order versus disorder.

What Foucault is that we can find power (in this particular case, in prisons) that is tyrannical but, at the same time, manages to justify its ruthlessness, all because it was built in a framework that enables it to do so. So, we can see people punishing other people, sometimes in the most brutal of ways, all in the name of morality: because Evil must be punished by Good, as to set an example that Good will always dominate over Evil.

M. Foucault: [about the nature of power] (Power) is at once visible and invisible, present and hidden, unbiquitous. [...] The question of power remains a total enigma. Who exercises power? [...] We now know with reasonable certainty who exploits others, who recieves the profits, which people are involved [...] But as for power... We know that it is not in the hands of those who govern. [...] Everywhere that power exists, it is being exercised. No one, strictly speaking, has an official right to power; and yet it is always exerted in a particular direction, with some people on one side and some on the other. It is often difficult to say who holds power in a precise sense, but it is easy to see who lacks power”.

In this excerpt, in which Foucault disscuses the nature of power and how it works, I’d like to highlight two sentences; the first one being “Everywhere that power exists, it is being exercised” and the second being “ [...] It is easy to see who lacks power”.

Regarding the first sentence, it shows power as something that is always active; there’s always someone with power, using that power. There is a person/group regarded as the powerful. But given the dual nature of power (visible/invisible,present/hidden), if there’s the powerful, then there’s also the powerless. And that’s where the struggle appears. Because power is a force with no master, yet it seems someone/some specific group has it. So, there’s always a struggle to obtain power.

Regarding the second sentence, Foucault distinguishes that the most recognizable characteristic about power are the powerless. When you have something that can hide and disguise itself, which is the case with power, then it’s clear that it’s easier to spot those who lack that something. That’s why when trying to understand power dynamics, we always talk about things like “true power”, “the person behind the curtain/calling the shots”, etc., but we don’t have phrases like that regarding those who lack power. The powerless are just that: people who lack power. Powerlessness doesn’t hide to the eye, it’s always present in its true form, unlike power itself.

G. Deleuze: [...] How is it that people whose interests are not being served can strictly support the existing power structure by demanding a piece of the action? Perhaps, this is because in terms of investments, [...] there are investments of desire that function in a more profound way and diffuse manner than our interests dictate. But of course, we never desire against our interests, because interest always follows and finds itself where desire has placed it.

Here, Deleuze presents an intriguing thought. How is it that people that have no power support a system that won’t change their situation (in relation with power) and still be active in said system? Deleuze argues that desire weights more than interests when it comes to the powerless; so, when driven by desire, people act according to them. But there is something that’s worth keeping in mind: whether be powerless or powerful, people never desire against their interests, because desire can act as a tool to protect those interests.

TL;DR:

Power can be tyrannical while disguising itself as being moral, all because it exists in a framework that allows it to do so. With this kind of power, ruthlessness is justified as Good dominating Evil.

Where there’s power, there’s always a person/group exercising said power, even though power belongs to no one. So, with the exercise of power, comes the making of two distinct groups: the powerful and the powerless; both groups then struggle to control that power: the powerless fight to gain power, the powerful fight to keep their power.

Powerlessness doesn’t disguise itself. It’s easy to recognize. So, the powerless appear just as they are, they have no reason (or means) to disguise their true nature.

Sometimes desire can weight more than interests, but people never desire against their own interests.

So that’s that on (some of) the philosophy of power. Now, let’s get into the what you asked, nonny.

I’ll start with the things that I agree with.

Problems with characterization

I think we can all agree on one single fact: D&D (and the entirety of the writer’s room) downplayed the characters’ defining traits in order for them to fit within the plot/drive the narrative forward. This is something that started around S5, when D&D ran out of books to adapt. So, the problem D&D were presented with at that time is that they knew the endgame to all the core characters, but had no step-by-step guide to help them reach said endgame.

Flash-forward to S8, and we’re in the middle of a whole mess. We get to certain plot-points, but we reach those by the way of the narrative explaining us how the characters or the story gets there, instead of the characters reaching those plot-points organically. The characters’ endgame is treated more as a destination (somewhere we must reach) and less as something that would wrap up the characters’ arcs in an organic* way.

* By organic, I mean that we (the audience) see the characters make certain choices (or not), say things (or not) that will eventually lead them to their endgame. A story like Thrones is character-driven, it always was. It was the decisions these characters made that had a ripple effect on the storyline, either personal or political (or both). By season 7, and more explicitly in season 8, the storyline was driven by plot-points, so it was not the characters influencing the story, but the story influencing the characters acted

So, what we end up with is various examples of “tell, don’t show”, which really is a sin in storytelling, especially in a visual medium. That’s why a lot of people weren’t sold by Jonerice, because it was so easy to spot the “lie”.

 Now, time for the counter-arguments! (I’ll focus on some of the “arguments” she makes that stood up for me).

 “Sansa has no pathos”

Well, that’s actually true. First, let’s start with some definitions of pathos:

 Pathos is a quality of an experience in life, or a work of art, that stirs up emotions of pity, sympathy, and sorrow. Pathos can be expressed through words, pictures, or even with gestures of the body.

Pathos is an important tool of persuasion in arguments. Pathos is a method of convincing people with an argument drawn out through an emotional response.

Emotional appeal can be accomplished in many ways, such as the following:

 -by a metaphor or storytelling, commonly known as a hook;

-by passion in the delivery of the speech or writing, as determined by the audience; and

-by personal anecdote.

One of the characters in GOT/ASOIAF that appeals to the emotion of others (uses pathos in their rethoric) is Daenerys. I’ve written a little thing about it here

Sansa, instead, uses ethos in her arguments. That’s how she appeals to people. But, what is ethos?

Ethos represents credibility, or an ethical appeal, which involves persuasion by the character involved. [...]  The credibility of a speaker or a writer relies on his or her authority on the subject matter, as well as on how much he or she is liked and deemed worthy of respect.

Ethos forms the root of ethikos (ἠθικός), meaning "moral, showing moral character"

Speakers must establish ethos from the start. This can involve "moral competence" only; Aristotle, however, broadens the concept to include expertise and knowledge. Ethos is limited, in his view, by what the speaker says. Others, however, contend that a speaker's ethos extends to and is shaped by the overall moral character and history of the speaker—that is, what people think of his or her character before the speech has even begun.

For Aristotle, a speaker's ethos was a rhetorical strategy employed by an orator whose purpose was to "inspire trust in his audience" (Rhetorica 1380). Ethos was therefore achieved through the orator's "good sense, good moral character, and goodwill", and central to Aristotelian virtue ethics was the notion that this "good moral character" was increased in virtuous degree by habit (Rhetorica 1380).

Lindsay Ellis refers to pathos (or the lack-of) in Sansa’s arc meaning that she’s never shown to emotionally process what she’s been through. But if we were to properly use the word pathos, Sansa never appeals to us, the audience, in an emotional way. That’s her criticism. And it’s fine, but there’s something she’s missing while making this criticism: all of Sansa’s storylines were based around other characters, oftentimes male characters. Sansa has never been at the center of her own narrative, unlike Daenerys.

 “New Empowerment Sansa spends the whole battle trash-talking Daenerys, who, unlike Sansa, is out there risking her life”

(I’ll do this one in parts because there’s a lot to unpack here)

First of all, it’s not trash-talking if it’s true. As I pointed out before with the conversation between Foucault and Deleuze, there are two things to keep in mind regarding the Sansa-Daenerys clash in S8:

 “Everywhere that power exists, it is being exercised”; and

“We never desire against our interests, because interest always follows and finds itself where desire has placed it.”

The struggle between Sansa and Daenerys is political, they both seek to have power over a specific territory (the North). That’s their interest and their desire. It’s Sansa’s desire to keep Northern Independence and it’s in her best interests (and those of her people). Sansa’s desire and interests clashes with Daenerys’, since having the largest region of the Seven Kingdoms to remain independence goes against her interests (and desires) as a Conqueror.

Secondly, the living only had a fighting chance because of all the efforts made by the northerners and the KOTV, all under Sansa’s leadership as Lady of Winterfell. In S7, most of the northern lords were ready to jump out of the USS Jon Snow, but it’s because of Sansa’s leadership skills that the North remained a united front. The people fighting outside Winterfell were vital in the Battle of WF, but so were the efforts of the people tasked with assembling the barracks with dragonglass, the people putting leather on the armours, the men forging dragonglass weapons, the people tasked with feeding the soldiers and the refugees from all parts of the North. All of that was possible because of Sansa.

 “New Empowerment Sansa won’t shut the fuck up about how much she doesn’t like Daenerys”

Seeing Sansa express her discontent with Daenerys is actually good, especially when you remember that she has been surrounded by enemies basically by the entire run of the show. That means she always had to keep her true feelings to herself, relying on very few people (trust issues are a big thing in Sansa’s overall arc). Sansa voicing her opinions shows us, the audience, she’s finally at a place in the story in which she finally feels safe to do so.

 “Sansa’s evolution mirrors the Starks as a whole. The compassion and nobility that defined the Starks is one of their biggest assets, but in the end, they’re no better than the fucking Lannisters”

Ok, here’s the thing. Time and time again, we had different characters tell us, the audience, that northerners are loyal to their own, that they’re distrustful of outsiders (there’s a reason why “The North remembers” is basically their cathphrase). We’ve seen it with Robb, Cat, Sansa and Jon.

If one had to single out a theme for S8 (something weird to do, since D&D don’t believe in themes, but themes are present in every single story, whether you believe in them or not), the theme could very well be survival. At this point, everyone’s looking after their own. All those that made it this far had been through so damn much, have seen so damn much, that what they all want is to survive.

People have this misconception about the Starks: they’re this very good, very noble group of people. That’s true; if you talk about how the Starks are with the people they love and trust. And we’ve seen that trust issues are a big thing for the remaining Starklings. Ever since the start of the show, all of the Starks were separated: you had Ned with Sansa and Arya in the South; Cat with Robb, Bran and Rickon in WF; and Jon at the Wall. As the story moves forward, the Starkling find themselves alone; it’s all so they can learn to fend for themselves and once they reunite, act like a Pack of Wolves, each with a particular skill. From the beginning, the Starks were the one family that was beaten time and time again, only to get up and get beat one more time. People talk about the Starks acting like the Lannisters in S8 because we, as an audience, never had the chance to watch them act as a unit. And is it really so surprising to watch a family taking care of each other  when every single person in the show is doing the exact same thing?

The Starks, for the first time since reuniting, are acting like a Pack. Like Old Papa Stark used to say: the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives. The Starklings are after survival, just like everyone else. The difference with, let’s say, northman #3 is that the Starks are aware of the political struggle in the near future with Daenerys and what that political struggle means fro everybody. Take S8E4 as an example. Tension is growing between the Starks and Daenerys. We, the audience, know that. Northman #3 doesn’t.

Going back to the subject of power, it’s really noteworthy how the powerful players use their power regarding others:    

We see Sansa put the food issue on the table

(an issue no one seems to worry about or even remember, not even the writers).

She insists for the gates to remain open until the last northerner arrives for shelter. She is constantly fighting for the freedom of her people

(the northerners chose Robb as KITN, then chose Jon).

She also uses her power as Lady of Winterfell to protect her family

.

She tells Tyrion about RLJ not because she wants to cause trouble, but because she knows if the truth gets out, Daenerys won’t be able to hurt Jon

while they’re in the South.Since it’s difficult to make a clear reading of Jon’s arc in S8 (

since D&D butchered his character

), this will be more of an assumption. What

I

get from Jon in S8 is

Sacrificial!Jon

.

He does whatever he has to do to secure the alliance with Daenerys and to protect his family

. Ride a dragon? He’ll do it. Try to ease her temper regarding his family, namely Sansa? He’ll try his damnest. Tell her she’s his queen and that he loves her? A thousand times. Ride South to help her get the Iron Throne? Well... that didn’t go as he has hoped. What I’m trying to say is that

Jon tried to manage the situation at hand with the little power he had

(and he had

very little

power).

What we see is Jon trying and failing, and ultimately, he has this huge dilemma presented in front of him

: kill Daenerys and save the Starks; or let Daenerys roam free, knowing she will most likely burn Sansa (and all of those she feels like it) for treason? But the answer to this dilemma has been there since the beginning.

Jon Snow fights for the North. All his life, he wanted to be a Stark

. We know what happened next.

Ned says something that captures the essence of the Starks:

Ned: (to Arya) You’re a Stark of Winterfell, you know our words. (Winter Is Coming) You were born in the Long Summer, you’ve never known anything else but now Winter is truly coming, and in the winter we must protect ourselves, look after one another. 

“So Sansa is a northern separatist now for some fucking reason even though now is not the time”

Sansa has been “a northern separatist” since this moment:

She’s been a central part of the Northern Independence plot. In case some of you don’t remember, Joffrey used to command his Kingsguards to beat her every time Robb won a battle (which was pretty much all the time). 

The Red Wedding only intensifies her desire to go home and rebuild it (RE: Northern Independence). S5 happens (let’s leave it at that). In S6, we see Sansa reclaim her identity as a Stark, leading her House alongside Jon and fight for the North, for her people. In S7, we see her in a place of power, we see her leading her people. And in S8, we see her fight for Northern Independence, just like her brother before her. The only difference between her and Robb is that she doesn’t use a sword, she uses words and politics. 

Northern Independence is a key plot-point all throughout the story. It’s what drives the political side of the story forward. It’s when the North declares itself independent from the Iron Throne that shit gets real for Joffrey and Cersei (and the rest of the Lannisters). From there, we have the War of the Five Kings, which ends with all five kings dead. We have a fractured Westeros, divided by war and power and sides. You can’t talk about Thrones without talking about the Northern Independence plot.

About the timing. If one argues that Sansa’s timing is off, then one could also say the exact same thing about Daenerys in S7. By S7E7, she has already seen the Night King and his army, she has seen what they can do. But still, she insists on a truce. Even as of S8E2, she doesn’t see the Battle of Winterfell as her duty as Protector of the Realm (since she calls herself Queen of the Seven Kingdoms, PoR is one of her many, many titles) but sees it as “Jon’s war”. Sansa, representing the North, has to give away their independence (and yes, I say Sansa and not Jon because the true political power of the North is Sansa, not Jon Snow) to a foreign Conqueror. And even then, after having to give away their hard-earned independence, their new Queen still don’t see defending them from a life-threatening situation as her duty but as something her boyfriend has to deal with and she’s so cool by helping him. 

Also, seeing that the supernatural threat was dealt with by episode 3, we had 3 90+ minutes episodes to deal with the political side of the story. And what has been an integral part of that side of the plot? The North.

Lindsay Ellis mentions Torrhen Stark in her video, as someone Sansa should’ve taken as an example when dealing with Daenerys. But I disagree with this thought.

Torrhen and Sansa are supposed to mirror each other. Not parallel, not follow, not imitate. Why? Because they achieved the same goal when in the (basically) same situation, only by doing the opposite of what the other did. 

Torrhen Stark, “the King who knelt”, bent the knee to Aegon, a Targaryen Conqueror, so his people would be safe. Sansa Stark, “the Queen who never knelt”, who pushed for Northern Independence did the same by not kneeling to Daenerys (a Targaryen Conqueror), because she knew she would’ve been the same (or worse, if we’re actually being honest with ourselves) as any other Southern ruler.

Also, the last King in the North was Robb Stark. 

“What do dragons eat anyway? You know what, Sansa? It doesn’t matter. Don’t worry your empowered little head about it. Enjoy those dragons and supplies from other regions now that it’s fucking winter and you all have a common enemy”

RE: the food. Daenerys burned all the food from the Reach (y’know, the harvest that was meant to be stored for the longest winter to date) in S7E4. Maybe people forgot about the first war crime Dany committed in Westeros?

But I already talked about the food issue. If you want to read more about it, here you go.

The line “what do dragons eat anyway?” is a subtle way to do two things at the same time: Daenerys threatens Sansa (basically saying anything that I might set my eyes upon will be mine, because you cannot overpower me and you can’t do nothing about unless you want become my enemy) and it showcases just how different Sansa and Dany are when it comes to “everyday ruling”. It’s been established back in Meereen that these “trivial” things bore Daenerys to death, but what she failed to comprehend back then and fails to comprehend again once she’s in Westeros is the fact that those “trivial” things are what solidifies her rule. How she rules and what she does has a direct impact on her people, noble and smallfolk alike. That’s why she failed in Meereen: she failed to meet the best interests of both the smallfolk and the nobles. In Westeros, she faced resistance in the nobles. After the Battle of Winterfell, sure, she won some nobles over. The smallfolk felt indebted to her. But her role in the Battle of Winterfell doesn’t erase her previous actions: it doesn’t erase her treatment of the meereenese, it doesn’t erase her burning the Tarlys (father and son, just like her father did to the Starks), it doesn’t erase her willingness to burn a city to the ground (and a million innocent people with it) just to win the war, and it most definitely doesn’t erase her promise of “liberating” the world, from Winterfell to Dorne, from Lannisport from Qarth, from the Summer Isles to the Jade Sea.

I already mentioned the Night King and his army, but what the hell, I’ll do it again. They do have a common enemy in the Night King. But that enemy is half of the story. That’s the Ice of the famous Song for the Prince that was Promised. The other half is Fire. And that Fire is Daenerys. The NK and Daenerys are the ultimate Big Baddies the heroes (the Starks) have to face off.

“Sansa’s only purpose this season is to have an unfounded suspicion of Daenerys, which only proves to be founded when Daenerys does something nonsensical”

Sansa’s role in S8 was to further the Northern Independence plot, as well as to be a resisting force in Daenerys’ quest for absolute power in Westeros. Like I mentioned before, Sansa’s desires and interests clash against Daenerys’ own, so there ought to be a power struggle. 

Sansa’s suspicions are founded. Let’s me rephrase this. Any type of suspicion Sansa might have of someone that doesn’t come from the North are founded in her own mind, and that’s what matters. Because it’s the character driving the story forward using previous stages of the character’s arc as justification. Sansa has been held prisoner since S1; she was at the mercy of the Lannisters, the Tyrells (yes, I include the Tyrells because incriminating Sansa was a very important part in Olenna’s plans for the Purple Wedding), her aunt Lysa, Littlefinger and the Boltons. She was used for her claim, she bled and was tortured for the North, every time Robb “I’ve won every battle but I’m losing this war” Stark would win, Joffrey would order one of his Kingsguard to beat her for it. It makes sense for her to be distrustful, especially of someone who came to claim something that wasn’t hers. Now, we can go on a merry-go round about whether Daenerys deserved this treatment or not, but facts are facts: it made sense for Sansa as a character to act that way, even if the execution (RE: the writing) was a bit off.

And Dany’s actions in S8E5 weren’t nonsensical. I’ll just leave these pictures:

And how can we forget her infamous speech to the Dothraki in S6?

So, if anyone says that Dany’s actions were nonsensical or out of nowhere, that’s because they weren’t paying attention. I mean, getting what’s “yours” with Fire and Blood? I don’t know what people expected... Rainbows and sunshine and a happy song? The Targaryens are villain-coded for a reason.

“Otherwise, Daenerys has essentially given all of her resources to defend Winterfell based on the promise of the guy in charge and Sansa is still like “Hmmm... I don’t know. I don’t like the cut to her jib”.

I’ll try to keep it short because this is getting repetitive:

Sansa had reasons not to trust Daenerys

Jon Snow might had the title, but Sansa was the true political power of the North

Daenerys did take her armies and dragons North, but that was her duty as Protector of the Realm, since she’s claiming to be the rightful Queen of the Seven Kingdoms

I’ll expand a bit on this part, though: “otherwise, Daenerys has essentially given all of her resources to defend Winterfell based on the promise of the guy in charge”

Since the northern lords elected Jon Snow as King in the North, the true (raw) power lies with the lords. To quote Michel Foucault from the excerpt I transcribed at the beginning of this meta : “But as for power... We know that it is not in the hands of those who govern.” Power is an ever-changing force. It’s always in flux. Political power might be one one side, then on the other (just as it was with the Boltons/Lannisters, then with the Starks), but the true, raw power lies with the people and their desire. The people choose who they want to rule them. As of S7, they wanted Sansa to rule them, but she declines their very kind and subtle offer at treason siding with and supporting Jon. That is until Daenerys arrives and she’s able to form an opinion of her. As of S8E1, she doesn’t trust Daenerys, doesn’t believe her to be their Queen, and even questions Jon’s reasons for bending the knee (something she, and the lords didn’t approve of). Her purpose in the story, since S6, is to play an explicit role in Northern Independence, to finish what Robb started. Daenerys is to Sansa what Tywin and Joffrey were to Robb.

“By the end of the stupid, dumb Battle of Winterfell, Daenerys has proved herself worthy of being a Queen about as well as one can expect in this universe. She’s forging alliances, doing battle, keeping her promises to her followers and to her allies. So Sansa’s stink-eye over Daenerys makes no sense”

As to Daenerys being worthy of being Queen of the 7K, I’ll say it one more time: she did her duty. As claimant of the titles Queen of the Andals, the Rhoynar and the First Men, Queen of the Seven Kingdoms, she’s also claiming the title of Protector of the Realm.  The title of Protector is a military one, basically it gives her command of the armies of Westeros. So, it’s part of the job to defend the Realm from any and every threat: that includes ice zombies and the dead, making her war, too, not just “Jon’s war”.

Also, she did what Stannis Baratheon did in S5. Did he do the right thing by aiding the Night’s Watch? Yeah. Was he fitted to be King? Well, he burned his only daughter alive so he could win a fight, so I’d double check that one. It all boils down to the same fact that I’ve been talking about time and time again: doing the right thing for the right reasons. Stannis didn’t do the right thing for the right reasons. And he didn’t make a good king. Sure, he was far better than all the other options available, but he still wasn’t good. Same thing with Daenerys. She did a lot of good things, but all for selfish reasons. Was she a better option from all the others she was fighting against? Yeah, maybe. But she didn’t put any effort in doing right by those people, by doing something that benefitted them and only them. So, was she fitted to be Queen? The answer is no.

Daenerys forged alliances when it benefitted her (she made a deal with the Greyjoys – which included independence btw, since a lot of you seemed to have forgotten – because she needed ships to get to Westeros; Varys forged alliances in her name with Olenna Tyrell and Ellaria Sand – she needed Westerosi allies, otherwise it would’ve been too simple for Cersei to win the war – bringing two powerful regions into her command). But, once Yara and Ellaria were captured, she didn’t even lift a finger to rescue them. It was a great opportunity to show the rest of the nobility that she wouldn’t forsake her allies, that she wouldn’t leave them at the mercy of her enemies. Alas, she did leave them to the mercy of Cersei and Euron. And her reaction to the Lannister forces taking Highgarden? Burn all the food, in a spectacularly stupid way of saying “if I can’t have it, then no one can”.

And since we’re in the subject of allies; ­Olenna actually sided with Daenerys not because she believed her to be the rightful heir to the throne or because she thought Dany would be a good Queen. Olenna wanted some plain old and simple revenge. She wanted to watch Cersei and everything she worked (and bled and disgraced) for to burn, just like Cersei did with House Tyrell. And what better way to do achieve your revenge plans than with a Targaryen with three weapons of mass destruction? Same goes for Ellaria and the Sand Snakes, they just wanted revenge for what the Lannisters did to Oberyn and Elia Martell (oh, the irony of making the people that want to avenge Elia Martell side with a woman that belongs to the family that was just as responsible for what happened to her and her children as the Lannisters. THE IRONY, I TELL YOU). 

So... that’s all I can think of.

I’m sure you expected something shorter, nonny, but when it comes to defending Sansa Stark, I gotta do it properly.

So, I apologize. I know this got out of hand. But the thing is, when it comes to Sansa (and people treating her as an Evil Bitch That Needs To Calm Down™, while claiming D is someone who Did Nothing Wrong™):

Thanks for the ask! 

whats your type?

Fictional men written by women.