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)

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)

Rape scene

First, call it a rape. I don't even need to explain why, I hope. Yes, it should be noted, as it is, that in-universe it wouldn't be legally considered so. So what? "Violently consummates their marriage" is still euphemistic, but 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)