Talk:Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

Make or break episode of Season 5

I have a strong feeling that this will be the make or break episode of Season 5.

That is, the potential of another disaster such as omitting all reference to Tysha as the real reason that Tyrion kills Tywin (you cut out OTHER things to make time for that reveal!)

I am comforted that at least the screenplay is by Cogman, though he has to do what Benioff and Weiss broadly outline.

So far, there haven't been any major changes in Season 5 that I felt were outright bad...though there is fear that some of these subplots might not be handled well in the future.

Specifically three things are teetering on edge:

• 1 - Condensing Sansa's Vale storyline with the Bolton/Jeyne Poole storyline by having Sansa simply married off to Ramsay.
• 2 - ...how they're handling Loras's condensed storyline.
• 3 - How they're handling the Martells.

As I have said before and at greater length, condensing Sansa and the Bolton storyline together was not in and of itself a bad idea, and they *have* been planning it since the early writing stages of Season 2 (before Ramsay was even cast).

The biggest obstacle is that in the books, Ramsay's torment of Jeyne Poole (Fake Arya) once she's forced to marry him is horrific even by Ramsay's standards. He rapes her repeatedly, he makes Theon perform oral sex on her to "warm her up" (Reek dares not resist because he knows Ramsay will horrifically torture both of them even more if he doesn't), and it is heavily implied he made Jeyne have sex with one of his hunting dogs for his own amusement (threatening to cut off her feet one at a time if she didn't). In contrast...Sansa is at the point now in the novels at the Vale where she is no longer a victim, but a manipulator of court politics, she's strong and hardened. And she's hardened enough to bide her time and do nothing even as she knows Littlefinger is killing off honorable lords who oppose him.

Now, the way they CAN reconcile this is to have Ramsay not torture Sansa (i.e. just have Roose directly warn him not to leave so much as a scratch on her), so Ramsay uses servants as whipping boys, psychologically trying to torment Sansa - but she coldly does not intervene, biding her time much as she did not intervene in the novels when Littlefinger had men killed.

Now, all three actors (Ramsay, Reek, Sansa) have said that a truly "horrific" scene is coming in "mid-Season 5" which they felt was one of the most difficult to watch the show has ever had, and even Rheon (Ramsay) had great difficulty acting through it. I think that means whatever shit Ramsay is going to do on the wedding night (again, this is when he starts torturing Jeyne in the novels - because they really only meet at the wedding).

Now, SO FAR, in episode 5 I thought the TV series did it the right way: Ramsay is trying to psychologically screw with Sansa at dinner and intimidate her by showing how much he tortured Theon, but ultimately, Sansa gets through the whole thing still very confident and self-assured -- particularly because Roose is there, is annoyed at Ramsay's petty antics, then shuts him down by saying his new wife is pregnant so he has a backup heir instead of Ramsay....at which point Sansa outright suppresses a grin at Ramsay's discomfort.

Basically how they handled it in episode 5, that's the right way to do this. Can't have Ramsay actually lay a hand on Sansa in anger.

Either they have Ramsay basically rape a Winterfell worker and make Sansa watch (I think the "Winterfell worker" will in fact be revealed to be "Jeyne Poole"), or have him rape Reek in front of her, something like that. Not actually physically harming Sansa, that would be incongruent with her character arc. She can't be terrorized the way book-Jeyne was.

.......Second, many are none too happy with how Loras has drifted into the background. At most they've been defining him by his sexuality; barely appearing for a minute or two as the "gay guy", not connected to larger Tyrell stuff. Like, the scene he had in the Season 5 premiere was fine - yes he's in bed with a man, but also when Margaery comes in he points out rational political points ("didn't we want Cersei to marry me, so I can bring her back to Highgarden instead of leaving her in King's Landing to undermine Margaery's new status as queen at every turn?") And I don't blame them for that up to this point: Loras just isn't in the third novel that much, which was used as the basis for Seasons 3 and 4....THEN he comes back into a great deal of prominence in the fourth novel, corresponding to Season 5.

So this is the point when they should be giving Loras more to do.

In the novels, Loras is made a Kingsguard, and leads the major campaign against Stannis's remaining small garrison at Dragonstone (a skeleton defense force, but it's one of the strongest castles in all of Westeros, built with lost Valyrian stonemasonry skills). It's this big dramatic moment for him when he volunteers to lead the dangerous mission: Stannis is gone but losing his home castle will be seen as a blow, and more importantly, the ongoing siege is tying up the Iron Throne's fleets in the east, but the ironborn have started attacking the Reach in the west, so he volunteers to defend his home, even when Margaery pleads with him not to, because they need to force a quick end to the siege to free up their fleets to go west to defend the Reach.

All of this is great stuff. Will he do it in the TV series? Dunno.

I'm fearful of the preview scenes showing a mock trial of Loras for his homosexuality - it's not that the Faith Militant wouldn't do this, they're fanatics. The main "Faith of the Seven" considers homosexuality a minor sin, like adultery or just a single man having sex with a prostitute. It isn't that grave of a thing to them, it wasn't in the real Middle Ages.

In short, I'm worried that the entire Dragonstone subplot with Loras will be omitted, and simply turned into briefly saying that he was imprisoned by the Faith Militant for his homosexuality.....which really robs Loras of this really kick-ass fight scene and selfless act he performs. We don't even see the assault on Dragonstone in the novels - everyone that was there just reports in awe that Loras was this shining example of knighthood, personally taking out dozens of attackers and shrugging off arrows that hit him.

The problem is that the TV series - while never outright stating it - strongly implied that Margaery and Loras have no siblings back in Season 3's "The Climb", that making Loras a Kingsguard would be a punishment, not an honor (as a third son with little chance of inheritance, book-Loras takes it as an honor, and more practically, it means he can now serve as basically a personal bodyguard to Margaery at all times, now that she's the Queen, keep the Lannisters from messing with her.

But really....why would the Tyrells treat this as "losing their only heir", when they could just name a first cousin as heir? (The Tyrells have many cousins in the novels). Why not just say that Willas and Garlan, their older brothers, were "always there" just in the background, much as Shireen was in Season 2?

Moreover, didn't the writers contemplate the repercussions at all in Season 3 of what making Loras an only son would result in for his character?

So I'm worried that they feel so beholden to that "he's the only Tyrell heir" line they implied (but did NOT state) that they won't make him a Kingsguard in the TV show.

Also they don't show him mourning Renly enough. Cogman said he's having sex with whores just to "drown his sorrows" but that scenes he wrote pointing this out got cut for time. In the books, Loras is warned that joining the Kingsguard means he swears never to love again, but his response (the most famous Loras quote) is that "once the sun of one's life has gone out, no candle can replace it" - i.e. he knows that after Renly he'll never love again. Why leave this out?

Third and finally, we really have only barely seen the Martells this season, though it was mostly due to simply logistics of how much time we can spend in each location, the narrative hadn't really gotten there yet, I understand that. We had a brief 2 minute scene with Doran in episode 2, then....the Sand Snakes introduction in episode 4 was both kind of short and very clunky. We didn't really get a feel for any of them as characters. On top of this the direction of the scene in which Obara explains the story of when Oberyn had her choose the spear was odd - why is she strolling around not even facing the others? The actor is great and the lines are from the novels - I don't necessarily blame the writers, though, maybe that was just poor camerawork.

But really, we've only seen teases of the Martells so far this season, under 5 minutes. Judging from the fact that the NAME of episode 6 is their House motto, I think the real "introduction" of their TV versions will only truly occur in this episode.

So to recapitulate:

1 - Ramsay's wedding night scene with Sansa is said to be very disturbing even by the show's standards; will they remain true to Sansa's character and not have Ramsay physically abuse her as he did Jeyne Poole?

2 - I don't blame them for delaying stuff with Loras because he was in a lull in the books corresponding to seasons 3 and 4....but at this point they need to get on track with his substantial book storyline from the fourth novel, AND they can't just define him by giving him the occasional, and not consciously very well thought out, throw-away joke reference to the fact that he is gay. These didn't build up to any coherent arcs in the past two seasons. All of this is solved if they actually move forward with him in the assault on Dragonstone arc from the fourth novel.

3 - We haven't seen more than a brief tease of the new Martell characters so far this season; all of the hype about "we finally see Dorne and the Martells in Season 5" has yet to be paid off - and this is not a problem, other things were in motion in prior episodes - but now in episode 6 we're going to hopefully get the heavy focus on them which will determine what exactly the TV show did with the Martells. Sand Snakes were in episode 4 so briefly that we couldn't get a feel for them, need that in this episode.

So far, there's nothing I would complain about in Season 5's first five episodes.

But much hinges on what we're going to see in episode six.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:44, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Separate note, vaguely related to Loras regarding the ironborn:

The Greyjoys as a political faction, the Iron Islands (not including Reek) have not appeared in the entire first half of the season.

Yes they barely appeared in the third novel, but then they rocket to importance in the fourth novel. Asha/Yara Greyjoy becomes a POV narrator.

So I didn't really expect the ironborn to be in Seasons 3 and 4 that much....but that crap we saw in episode 6 of last season was pathetic. THREE MINUTES of footage? After a bizarre...bizarre over-hype at the end of Season 3 (ALSO their only scene in Season 3 at all!) that Yara is going to sail to the Dreadfort to "rescue" Theon? The Dreadfort is on the opposite side of Westeros! It would take a full year to get there from Pyke! (okay, maybe they crossed at Moat Cailin, and time moves more slowly in the TV series, but still, come on). And yes I understand that, on paper, she only had a small attack force and was hoping for the element of surprise, it failed, and that adding hunting dogs to the mix would probably tip things to the Bolton side more....but as it was filmed, how...how many comical gifs were pointing out, "ack, the dogs, Run Away!". The way it was framed was just bad. Cogman did what he could with the outlined orders he got, but still.

So, Season 5, we've reached the point where they really cannot keep ignoring the ironborn anymore.

Gemma Whelan's casting agency said that Yara Greyjoy does in fact appear at some point in Season 5.

So that's something. But will it be anything substantive? Or will it be another placeholder like the assault on the Dreadfort? Which, I think, was purely thrown in to keep the actress on-contract by giving her a mandatory single appearance in a single TV season.

Because in three minutes they could have easily done something more substantive: after Tywin mentions to Oberyn "we're still dealing with a Greyjoy rebellion in the west, wildlings to the north, and Targaryens to the east"...have Yara sail to King's Landing as a representative of Balon, and --- similar to a scene from the books in which they just get a letter from Balon Greyjoy, have Tywin upbraid and humiliate Yara to her face and point out that the Greyjoys are fools and should have listened to Theon of all people. Betraying the Starks was madness, and crowning himself?!

Okay, the Greyjoys had two options: stay loyal to the Lannisters/Iron Throne and turn on the Starks, or, ally with the Starks to restart their own independence movement.

Balon stupidly chose a third option: get offended at the concept of needing "help" from Robb Stark, betray the Starks....and also declare independence from the Iron Throne, angering the Lannisters in the long run! This was ZERO long-term planning. No thought as to what would happen once either the civil war on the mainland eventually ends.

So just a blunt 3 minute scene of Yara Greyjoy as an ambassador to the Small Council, and have Tywin mock her to her face with the simple facts: why would the Lannisters reward the Greyjoys with independence...for doing what they should have done anyway - attack the Starks - had they remained loyal to the Iron Throne? Moreover, why would they continue to have delusions that the Lannisters would let them be independent, now that Robb Stark is dead and defeated, Stannis's army is smashed, and by the time of the Purple Wedding, the Lannisters pretty much control all of the mainland again? The time to demand recognition of their independence was before Robb died, before!

But no, let's throw in a random action scene?!

Still, Yara will appear at some point...--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:58, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

You really need a blog :D

Agreed on most things. Well, a note on Loras: yes, Dragonstone has been cut. Of course. Because, though it was a brave moment for Loras, it was mostly off-screen, and what was actually happening in the story and the plot, what was happening from Cersei's POV, was that she was sending Loras to hopefully die at Dragonstone (and he apparently almost does.) Throwing him to the Faith Militant has the same effect —getting rid of Loras. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 09:23, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Post-Viewing

1 - The Loras stuff wasn't too bad. I wish they'd include the Dragonstone subplot, but at least the rhetoric against him was straightforward instead of a lot of pontificating about "evil church hates homosexuals". Even had Olenna point out how absurd the Sparrows are being by "normal" Westeros standards by having a trial for such a thing. More annoyed we don't Loras material in general, but not offensive.

2 - Dorne and the Sand Snakes: I wasn't outright offended...because they really have barely done much of anything. The Sand Snakes' personalities which the actresses thought out are great - but we barely see them in the show (albeit these characters are going to be in next season as well). Ellaria characterization was simplistic though I understand their structural reasons --- overall they could have worked the plot mechanics of this a bit better, but it's not terrible.

....my real complaint is that it's simply too short. A lot of this view going around now; it's hard to hate the Dorne stuff given that it has barely appeared so far. For all of their "we're finally going to Dorne, it's a country of pleasure-seekers!" rhetoric in the videos (Benioff and Weiss)...we haven't really seen them dwelling on Dornish culture that much. Did they even mention that women inherit equally in Dorne? They have in the animated featurettes.

So nothing specifically offensive contradicting the books happened in those respects but....a complaint about Season 5 as a whole, also including the Faith Militant, is that it's all very rushed. We knew that was going to be a problem going in.

It's...it's like Cliff's Notes summaries of larger subplots. And at times, these are very accurate summaries - I actually think the Faith Militant has been handled as best as possible in the past six episodes but...it's only six episodes (five if you count that Kill the Boy didn't even go to King's Landing). They needed more time to develop all of this.

Probably due to the crunch caused by actor contracts; they thought there might be only 7 seasons, went into "panic mode" this season, but then were told "hey, why not 10 seasons?" (more like 8 realistically)...so what is Season 6 going to do, slow down, back up, and cover cut storylines?

So that's a general complaint: Season 5 was heavily condensed, though condensed as best as possible in many points, it would have been better to give all of this more time.

But we now move on to the real meat of the issue...Sansa's scene....

Sansa/Ramsay sex scene

Frankly, I was relieved at first: I dreaded that the TV show would have Ramsay horrifically abuse Sansa as he did Jeyne Poole in the novels (like, making her have sex with his dog).

Ultimately, I think this is more or less what we were expecting when we heard of this condensation: Sansa is going to actually marry Ramsay, and is going to have sex with him on their wedding night, but she's not going to enjoy it at all and be inwardly suffering.

I think the camera direction and set direction went as tastefully as possible - leaving the action off-camera (some say this was giving her agency to Theon/Reek -- I think it was tastefully leaving the gratuitous stuff off-camera by only showing a reaction shot by someone).

They don't portray it as a kicking and screaming rape situation, and yes Westeros doesn't have a concept of marital rape - even marital coerced sex, really, but even so we the audience DO have such conceptions, and they really should be more careful about what they show the audience.

Much more specifically....how does this in any way serve Sansa's character arc?

Now episode 5 is kind of what I hoped for: Ramsay tries to psychologically but not physically bully Sansa, but she stoically suffers through it to bide her time.

...er...let me make this clear: even if they showed Sansa in a woman-on-top sex position and grinding her hips into Ramsay as they had sex, fake-moaning to thrill him....but then the camera zooms in on her eyes and she's crying (it's just an act to please Ramsay and lull him into false security)....EVEN IF they had framed it that way, I still think that this really wasn't a good choice.

I mean, this isn't like Margaery offering to have sex with Joffrey to manipulate him -- she doesn't like Joffrey but she is clearly the one with "agency".

Instead, they're needlessly showing Sansa in a position of emotional suffering again.

So while this was filmed arguably as best as possible (well, best would be Sansa in an active woman-on-top position or something)....this still really wasn't a great idea.

I wouldn't really call it "rape" by their standards and how either of them conceptualizes it....though we the audience, particularly casual viewers, WOULD think of it that way, like with Cersei/Robert, and they should have been more sensitive about that.

These are writers who don't think we'll remember Tysha across two seasons, yet who expect casual viewers to make the logical jump that Ramsay's sexual advances aren't that unusual in his social context? (well, humiliating her by having Theon watch is, I mean physically).

Overall, even IF they handled this condensation as deftly as possible (and in all fairness, it was about 90% as best as theoretically possible)....it still wasn't a great decision. Why not just give Sansa a year off, as Bran had a year off?

By the same logic, why not have someone else like the actual Arya marry Ramsay? It would make about as much sense given their character arcs.

It works within the internal plot logic of why actions are taken within the narrative...but it doesn't really do service to Sansa's storyarc.

It could have been a lot worse, I mean a LOT worse: I've been dreading Jeyne Poole levels of horror.

Still, I guess we'll see how they play it out in the next four episodes.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:52, May 19, 2015 (UTC)

My guess about why they didn't show Sansa/Jenye forced to have sex with the dog is this: That the "Game-Of-Thrones-Viewer-Morality-Scale" is basically:

1) Loads of violence, heads cut off by the bucket-ful, chests ripped open by angry spiders - No problem.

2) Girl barely out of puberty burned at the stake for some two-bit God, *another* girl barely out of puberty paraded naked though the streets - Give me a bit of Eye Bleach.

3) Third girl who is barely out of puberty raped on her "wedding" night - Probably make some people angry, though perhaps they weren't expected a Congresswoman to speak out and others to call for a boycott. But,

4) Beastiality? NOOOO!!!!! We couldn't *possibly* do THAT!"

Plus the fact that would that actually break laws? I read that they "aged up" basically all the female characters because otherwise it would run afoul (pun un-intended) of child porn laws. Are there such laws regarding beastiality?

I should note that I haven't watched the show or read the books. Someday I might, after coating my stomach with Valyrian Steel. Jimw338 (talk) 06:03, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

No. Even the books didn't actually "show" Ramsay doing this, Jeyne just implied that he did. I never thought the TV series would "show" it either, but was worried about implications.

In retrospect, I'm very annoyed about the Ramsay/Sansa condensation -- what they don't seem to understand is that it does not matter how well the scene was filmed (and it was filmed well and tastefully) -- even if she was just a prisoner of the Boltons for a whole season, without actually having sex with Ramsay, this was still a ridiculous idea which damaged Sansa's character arc.

Faced with a choice between condensing with the Boltons or giving Sansa a year off like Bran....they should have given her a year off (or greatly reduced) like Bran. OR, they should have worked Jeyne Poole more prominently into later seasons.

But it's that washing themselves of responsibility to say "well, we HAD to do it, there were no other options" -- the other options were give Sansa a year off. And if you wanted to show how crazy Ramsay was independently of that, introduce Jeyne Poole in prior seasons.

Condensing Sansa with Ramsay at this point made as much sense as condensing Arya with Ramsay. The only argument in favor of Sansa being condensed with the Boltons is a knee-jerk sour grapes attitude of people who just accept it because it already happened on the TV show - had ANY word come out in prior seasons that they were planning to do this they would have been shouted down.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:31, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

The Sand Snakes

For all the buildup to their badassery the kidnapping attempt was so disappointing. Doran is a smart man, after Ellaria's threats how come he doesn't have his guards arrest the Sand Snakes and Ellaria the second they arrive to the Water Garders or at least forces an "escort" on them?--Gonzalo84 (talk) 18:16, May 19, 2015 (UTC)

What buildup? They appeared once before their little skirmish with Jaime and Bronn, and were mentioned only briefly in passing before that. They appeared in a few posters, and book fans talked them up a bit (which I find funny cause in the books they're also there for the equivalent of 2 episodes before getting arrested and don't do anything noteworthy), they really weren't all that hyped. They were just filler in the books so far, and the show seems to be staying faithful in that respect :P DRAEVAN13 13:18, May 22, 2015 (UTC)

Rape scene

First, let's settle on calling it a rape. I don't even need to explain why, I hope. Yes, it should be noted, as it is now, that in-universe it wouldn't be legally considered rape. So what? Anyway, though "violently consummates their marriage" is still technically euphemistic, it's much better than what was there before ("roughly"? Come on.)

Also, that whole section is incredibly biased. Why quote only those professional critics who found the scene to be wrongly conceived? (Well, because The Dragon Demands, who wrote this section, agrees only with them, I'd think.) Such as The Mary Sue, and their absurd claim that they will not promote the show from now on; they're supposed to be journalists and critics, not HBO's promotional team. That's just morally bankrupt. Finding something irksome or even irreversably offensive is no reason to not criticize it anymore. Sean T. Collins said it best:

"In a geek-culture landscape wholly dominated by corporate celebrations of heroic violence, we anathematize the show that depicts its horror. The equation of criticism with promotion is equally revealing and only marginally less grim." [he then links to the The Mary Sue editorial].

Julia Gfrörer herself (who by the way Bryan Cogman follows on Twitter) had something interesting to say on the issue of the reaction by supposedly professional critics to the scene through Twitter:

"Writers aren't supposed to "like" their characters to the extent that they adjust the story in order to shield them from harm. The contention that a fictional character was raped because the writers "hate" her seems to fundamentally miss the point of fiction. It's staggering that anybody could have followed GoT to this point and somehow missed the message: marriage in this patriarchy includes rape. Teenagers are routinely married to powerful adult men for the purpose of producing heirs, with no opportunity to meaningfully consent. What we would consider rape is ineitable for most of the woman in GoT. It's to the show's credit that they don't gloss over this. God knows every other feudalism-set fantasy would prefer that you forget it."

Anyway. How about adding the following equally professional and well-thought out perspectives on the issue, if we are REALLY going there (just as the Jaime-Cersei issue, I believe there's no need for the wiki to have such an elongated text on the subject that nobody asked for, but if The Dragon Demands insists on it, I'd rather it'd be done well.) So, here we go:

Sean T. Collins at Rolling Stone:

"Few of these developments hold a candle to the episode’s most upsetting and controversial development: the wedding night of Sansa and Ramsay. In the books, Lady Stark’s place in this storyline is held instead by a childhood friend, groomed to impersonate Arya and dupe the Northern lords into believing House Bolton has wed itself into Winterfell’s ancient line. What befalls her is no less awful than what happens to Sansa, but because she’s a comparatively minor player in the saga rather than one of its most prominent and beloved figures, the events hit even harder here. The groom’s sadistic grin, the bride’s look of resigned and mounting agony (so reminiscent of Daenerys on her first night with Khal Drogo all those full moons ago), the tears of Theon Greyjoy as he’s forced to watch — these faces will be hard to forget.

So yes, Sansa’s rape by Ramsay is of the show’s own devising, and it feels every bit the violation it is. But by involving a multidimensional main character instead of one introduced primarily to suffer, the series has a chance to grant this story the gravity and seriousness it deserves. The novels present this material through Theon’s eyes, relegating Bolton’s bride to a supporting role in a man’s story. Sansa has a story of her own, of which this is now an admittedly excruciating chapter — but she, not Theon, is the real victim here, and it remains her story nonetheless. The next chapters will be hers alone to write."

Sarah Hughes at The Guardian:

"The harrowing final scene was a major deviation from the books and will undoubtedly upset many readers but I wish solely to discuss whether it worked in terms of the story being told on television – and I would argue that, while horrific and hard to watch, it did. I have repeatedly made clear that I’m not a fan of rape as a plot device – but the story of Ramsay and Sansa’s wedding was more than that.

From the moment she agreed to Littlefinger’s plan, this evening was coming, as it came to many young women throughout history married off against their will for dynastic power. Indeed it’s arguable that, terrible as it might seem, Sansa has been surprisingly lucky so far – she avoided marriage to Joffrey and in Tyrion, had a man more sensitive than his sharp-tongued exterior might suggest. The Boltons are cold, hard, vicious men and Ramsay was never going to be the type to agree to a paper marriage: from the moment Sansa agreed to the wedding her fate was sealed – the interest will come in what happens next. It’s one thing to show the bitter, brutal reality of dynastic marriage but I, for one, would find it hard to stomach scenes of Ramsay’s torturing and breaking Sansa in the way he has previous sexual partners, and, of course, Theon. The writers are walking a very fine line here. They handled it well tonight, telling a gothic tale of innocence sacrificed, which at times recalled Angela Carter and Neil Jordan’s dark and haunting The Company of Wolves, and hinted perfectly at horrors to come, but they must be careful not to tip from there to gratuitous violence for its own sake."

Alyssa Rosenberg at The Washington Post:

"All through Sansa Stark’s (Sophie Turner) wedding to Ramsay Snow (Iwan Rheon), I prayed that she — and we — might be spared. In the novels, Ramsay is marrying a girl who’s presented to him as Arya Stark (Maisie Williams). And though she’s a far more minor character in George R. R. Martin’s books, the smaller empathy we feel for her does nothing to lesson the horrors of her marriage bed, where Ramsay uses Theon Greyjoy (Alfie Allen) as a kind of sexual surrogate before raping his new wife himself.

When it became clear that “Game of Thrones” was going to marry the real Sansa to Ramsay, I wrote that I wasn’t sure I could bear to watch this scene play out with a character we’d come to know so well; the heightened emotional pain might have simply been too much. As I watched tonight, I hoped Stannis Baratheon (Stephen Dillane) would arrive first and launch his attack on Winterfell. Maybe we’d be spared the sight of a young woman’s suffering by the sight of grown men turning each other into meat. This is the terrible calculation that “Game of Thrones” has trained us to make. And, as has been the case so many other times, the math turned out against my small and flickering hopes.

But if this scene had to exist, the show’s version of it, written by Bryan Cogman, and shot sensitively and with intelligence by Jeremy Podeswa, managed to maintain a fine balance, employing a dignity and care for the experiences of victims that “Game of Thrones” has not always demonstrated. Sansa is raped on her wedding night, but “Game of Thrones” spares her the experience of being forced to have sexual contact with two men, instead of one. Other than a shot of Ramsay ripping Sansa’s dress open, we don’t see her body during the rape: just her face, and then Theon’s contracting in agony and fear and horrible sympathy. What Ramsay is doing to Sansa doesn’t matter in the slightest. What she and Theon–and yes, there are two victims, though of very different crimes, in this scene–feel about what’s happening is what’s important. The camera refuses to join in her victimization, forcing us to focus instead on the impact of Ramsay’s latest despicable predations.""

Alyssa Rosenberg at The Washington Post, on a dedicated article about the issue:

"Plenty of viewers have declared themselves done with “Game of Thrones” after the May 17 episode in which Sansa Stark (Sophie Turner) was raped on her wedding night by her new husband, Ramsay Bolton (Iwan Rheon). They join the ranks of defectors who quit the show in seasons past even as new audiences rose up to take their places, and this time, they are joined by prominent dissenters. The science fiction and fantasy site the Mary Sue declared “We Will No Longer Be Promoting HBO’s ‘Game of Thrones’ ” in a piece that seemed to fatally misunderstand the difference between doing journalism about and criticism of a show and acting as a publicity subcontractor for HBO. And finally, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) took advantage of what appeared to be a cresting of sentiment to declare that she was finished, too, because “Gratuitous rape scene disgusting and unacceptable.”

As a critic, I have to watch a lot of things that I don’t particularly like. I don’t begrudge anyone who watches movies and television or who reads for pleasure the decision to stop when something’s not fun anymore. But as a critic, I think it’s important to preserve the distinction between saying that something simply isn’t for me and drawing a more definitive conclusion that something is a poor artistic choice. You can assert the former, but you have to argue the latter, using the text and the language of the artistic form at hand.

For me, the scene of Sansa’s rape was tremendously unpleasant, but the care taken in the staging, acting and shooting of the scene made it impossible for me to regard it as lazy or slapdash. And I didn’t find it gratuitous in the way I might have felt if I saw “Game of Thrones” as simply a sprawling, quasi-medieval adventure or an ensemble Golden Age drama, sort of a mash-up of anti-heroes culled from “The Sopranos” and awesome women inspired by “Mad Men,” with dragons for an extra fiery kick. Instead, this scene felt of a piece with the way I’ve always understood “Game of Thrones” and George R.R. Martin’s “Song of Ice and Fire”: as a story about the consequences of rape and denial of sexual autonomy.

[…]

There’s no requirement that anyone like any of these storylines or that anyone who feels exhausted from spending his or her days in a world marked by sexual violence retreat to a worse one for pleasure. But that’s not the same thing as proof that “Game of Thrones” is generally careless in its depiction of sexual assault or that rape doesn’t serve a purpose on the show. Sansa Stark isn’t ruined, as a character or as a person, because she was raped. She lives, and her story continues, even if you’re not tuning in to watch it."

So... how about, if we make a sub-section about this issue, we actually show what many critics thought about it, instead of making it a one-side issue? Also, tone down the subjective language, TDD, as always: terms like "frustratingly vague" should NEVER have a place on an encyclopedia. Again, it reads like a freaking opinion piece veiled (very thinly veiled, I should say) in quotes by professional critics (though, again, only those who agree with the writer of this piece.) —ArticXiongmao (talk) 12:30, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

I disagree about calling it rape as such.

These are great articles; I didn't have time to read through all of the professional ones yet.

This needs revision.

Unfortunately I'm running out the door now to catch a plane to Europe and won't be back on the wiki for 10 days.

...revise it as you see fit in the meantime - I can't reasonably ask to put it on hold for 10 days.

....Please keep that last point in by Slate.com. I increasingly suspect that this was a gratuitous, tasteless fake-out by Benioff and Weiss; that Sansa was just pretending be to frightened and crying and it was all just an act to trick Ramsay into thinking he shouldn't suspect her.

Dear god, what kind of maniacs would fake-out the audience like that?

Still, that's our best case scenario; hope that they didn't actually derail Sansa as a character by saying she was really being manipulate the whole time.

In which case, if they later reveal she was intentionally trying to let Ramsay THINK he was - in as many words - "raping" her, yeah in that case I'd support describing it as "rape" in this recap -- the point being that this is what she lets Ramsay think happened.

....Overall I caution a "wait and see" attitude until the next four episodes reveal what the hell the writers are doing.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 12:56, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

If "wait and see" should be our approach, that sub-section should probably be relegated to a Work in Progress in this Talk page until the season is over. Meanwhile, I'll do some editions to the text, toning down the subjective language and adding these other perspectives. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 13:12, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you on all points - revert it back to before I made a subsection about it if you think that is appropriate. Unfortunately I'm not physically in a position to give this the time it deserves.

...do you think Slate.com is correct? It is our only hope that they haven't totally derailed Sansa as a character.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 13:44, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: I dashed off that subsection last night on a whim because I have a few hours before I have to leave for my plane flight. Now I realize it needs much refinement.

Also it was idiotic of me to say "Game of Thrones Wiki won't call it rape because they wouldn't in-universe" entirely on my own initiative. What do Gonzalo84 and QueenBuffy think?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 13:56, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

The sub-section is fine by me, as long as it doesn't spin-off into another long article of its own like Jaime/Cersei's scene. As for Slate's opinion, yeah, I really don't see how you can interpret the scene in any other way. Obviously Sansa is still going along with Littlefinger's plan; as you yourself pointed out very nicely in this sub-section, she knew she would have to go along with something like this (though, of course, she couldn've have planned on Ramsay's cruelty, and neither did Littlefinger.) So she was playing the role Ramsay wanted. That doesn't mean the experience didn't physically and psychically scar her, though. But, ALSO, that fact doesn't automatically derail her character or destroy her in any way. To suggest so is kind of offensive to rape survivors.

I added the quotes I suggested and consolidated the quotes into three sections (critics against it, critics for it, and cast and crew.) I didn't delete any of your quotes, including the one from Slate you suggested (which I didn't even move; it's exactly where it was.) Aside from toning down the subjective language and taking out some extreneous passages, I left the piece intact; I just added to it.—ArticXiongmao (talk) 14:21, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

Your work on this has been excellent, I commend you.

...oh...yes, sorry, I insisted on finishing the Jaime/Cersei article sooner (and yelled too much) because I knew by mid-season I'd be too busy to work on it. So I ended up putting that on hold; sorry, entirely my fault. As soon as I get back from Europe the school semester is over so I'll have more time than in *months* for wiki stuff, so I will get back to drastically cutting down on that thing (you were right, no one will read a 20 page single spaced Microsoft Word document - and by this point fansite folks such as Axey on WatchersOnTheWall saw the full long version and liked it - I have to reduce it to a page or two at most.

Oh, I don't think Slate meant simply "we choose to interpret that Sansa is acting", but that maybe next episode, as we saw in the trailer, Sansa is going to be weeping in front of Ramsay....and then as soon as he leaves, she's going to turn it off like a lightswitch. Reek will be confused, and Sansa will outright explain "I was acting. He expected me to be frightened and crying so I just played the part. I don't think he's used to being tricked."--The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:03, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it will be that black and white, that obvious, but I do think that we may see murderous glances from Sansa when Ramsay is not looking, yet she will act all pacified when he is. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 17:16, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

"When you were whole, it would have been a good fight"

Is it a reference to the scene in book 4 chap. 38, when someone challenges Jaime mockingly (knowing well Jaime has no chance without his right hand), and Jaime thinks "That would have been a sweet fight once"? If it is, could someone add it to the episode page since it cannot be edited? 46.116.160.8 16:02, May 22, 2015 (UTC)

Wedding Attendees

Correct me if I'm wrong as I haven't read the books but have seen bits and pieces of information, but aren't there various other lords at the wedding of Ramsey.  So can anyone tell if there are any lords present at the wedding in the show?  here's a link to that seen. I swear I see Galbart Glover (2:15 left of the screen visible behind Theon). TheUnknown285 (talk) 14:20, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

It certainly seems to be the same actor. And they all look like Northern lords. You're right! I added that Northern lords are in attendance. Now, if someone could confirm who some of these characters and actors are, that would be swell. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 15:04, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

I tried to see if I could see any sigils but couldn't make out any, certainly not with my screen resolution.  TheUnknown285 (talk) 13:23, May 27, 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if the fat, blond one maybe Wyman Manderly TheUnknown285 (talk) 03:07, June 7, 2015 (UTC)

(linked video is dead)

...unless the actor's appearance has changed a bit in four years, no, that isn't Galbart Glover.

I went back through the scene, no sigils are visible.

Guys...men with bears and similar hair color tend to look kind of similar.

Post screenshots here for side by side comparison.

They SHOULD have had other Northern lords there but I doubt it.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 03:32, June 7, 2015 (UTC)

Complaining

Is it really necessary to have all those feminist whining complaining interviews in the notes about Ramsay Sansa rape scene? --Gladiatus (talk) 17:53, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

I mean it's ok to have some of those, but I think the most bizarre and whiny ones are unnecessary. --Gladiatus (talk) 17:55, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

...specifically which ones or which statements do you take issue with? --The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:48, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with your sentiment, Gladiatus, except you literally phrased it as "feminist whining." Okay bye, good luck in the 19th century —ArticXiongmao (talk) 22:08, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

ArticXiongmao, some of those reviews are just angry feminists feeling that they should complain about the rape scene because feminism.

The two following are unnecessary in my opinion:

• Vulture's Nina Shen Rastogi said: "To show Sansa being raped as the kicker to an episode — and then to cut to Theon, as if it’s his view, his reaction, his internalizing of the moment that matters — just felt like more of the same old same old we’ve been getting since Ros died, since Tansy was hunted, since Cersei was raped."
• Vanity Fair's Joanna Hudson said: "Was it really important to make that scene about Theon's pain? If Game of Thrones was going to go there, shouldn't they at least have had the courage to keep the camera on Turner's face? But the last thing we needed was to have a powerful young woman brought low in order for a male character to find redemption. No thank you

--Gladiatus (talk) 09:35, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

Well, while I disagree with those criticisms - other critics point out that to focus on Sansa's face might have been too disturbing, and overall it was better to focus on someone's reaction instead of showing it -- while I disagree with them, we addressed that by also listing critical responses that thought the scene was handled well.

This really shook up the fandom and it would have been disingenuous to say nothing about it, so we tried to show each evenly.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:51, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Actually I was wondering why we had so many links to interviews that are against the scene and so little of those that are "praising" (not that way) it. --Gladiatus (talk) 16:37, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

It was as many unique voices as we could find.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:11, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it shook up the fandom, more, it garnered a small outcry from reactionary media outlets. Meryn Trant's actions leading to and including the last episode were WAY worse and COMPLETELY unnecessary but no one said a thing about that because it didn't really happen to a major character... - Son Of Fire (talk) 20:33, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even annoyed at the scene itself, personally, but how overall it really truncated Sansa's character arc.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:42, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

You're bang on there, that's for sure. - Son Of Fire (talk) 23:07, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

Where is the kingsguard?

Neither Arys Oakheart nor anyone else from the kingsguard is near Myrcelle for her protection. Does it make sense? I am not talking about the comparison to the book. 46.116.50.114 14:10, March 12, 2016 (UTC)

Check out episode page for "Sons of the Harpy (episode)" -- apparently Arys just went back to King's Landing after delivering Myrcella. Which isn't implausible. Seven other Kingsguard are seen on-screen in "Sons of the Harpy", none of them in Dorne.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 04:18, March 26, 2016 (UTC)