Redemption

[ArstenWhitebeard]

Sam was not only craven but also chased away from his Lordly roots. IMO it shouldn't be taken as a coincidence that there is a Stark where a man of the Night's Watch deserts, something more like providence.

This is why I would have liked to see Sam kill him. If Sam found out that Dareon was wasting money rather than helping Maester Aemon, He would have gotten angry and perhaps Sam the Slayer would live up to his name.
Either way, this isn't the case and I think it was more than fitting that Arya happened to be there to "take care of business". I understand why she did it, but I was just pointing out that it wasn't absolutely necessary for her to do it. Though don't misunderstand me, I am glad she did.

 

[Fungous]

Question to ponder: Do you all believe that Sansa is in need of redemption? She is in fact, a kinslayer by proxy (albeit unwittingly) who was driven to do things against her father in order to further her own selfish dreams. I personally don't think that her suffering has yet to pay for her crime. Also, her playing the pawn of Littlefinger who is basically a child molester is un-worthy of the Stark name and she still is putting herself before Winterfell and the remnants of her family.

Thoughts?

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

Sansa is just a stupid little girl who knew nothing of the real world and lived only in her fantasies. She still knows too little of the ways of the world and is still as naive as ever but she is trying so hard to become something more. She suffered a lot for the unknowing betrayal of her father and family and I don't think she needs to redeem for the wrong-doings she was not aware of.
I think Sansa stopped being a Stark on the day Lady way killed.
I don't think she is putting herself before the remnants of her family knowingly. For all Sansa knows, Arya, Bran and Rickon are dead and gone. Jon was never very dear to her and he is on the Wall. Winterfell is destroyed and lost to her (as she sees it). But Sansa still cares about her home. She did build Winterfell out of snow which I somehow see as something very meaningful although I still can't pinpoint why. Perhaps it is somewhat of a foreshadowing of her becoming a Stark again. And she is regretting her treatment of Arya and wonders how Jon is. Putting herself first is the only thing she can do right now. She only has herself.

Also, her playing the pawn of Littlefinger who is basically a child molester is un-worthy of the Stark name and she still is putting herself before Winterfell and the remnants of her family.
Thoughts?

As for her playing the pawn of Lord Baelish, I don't think she has much choice there. Littlefinger is too smart for her to see him as he is and she knows nothing of his betrayal of her family. And if you deem being the pawn of Littlefinger unworthy of the Stark name, don't you think that you are also deeming Ned unworthy of Stark name for he too was another Littlefinger's pawn in this Game of Thrones?

 

[The Imp]

Question to ponder: Do you all believe that Sansa is in need of redemption? She is in fact, a kinslayer by proxy (albeit unwittingly) who was driven to do things against her father in order to further her own selfish dreams. I personally don't think that her suffering has yet to pay for her crime. Also, her playing the pawn of Littlefinger who is basically a child molester is un-worthy of the Stark name and she still is putting herself before Winterfell and the remnants of her family.

Thoughts?

In aGoT, Sansa was motivated by immaturity, naivete, lack of political acumen, and the need to try to achieve a fantasy life that was taught to her in part by her family. She was also hampered by her very "black and white" notions of what good and evil was. I blame her for nothing that happened in aGoT. She is not the same 'girl" anymore as aFFFC concludes. She is learning to be a liar and a manipulator, and i think she will surpass Littlefinger and even Cersei in her ability to con, deceive and manipulate. I'll hold her responsible for anything that happens in TWoW, but nothing before.

 

[Needle]

In aGoT, Sansa was motivated by immaturity, naivete, lack of political acumen, and the need to try to achieve a fantasy life that was taught to her in part by her family. She was also hampered by her very "black and white" notions of what good and evil was. I blame her for nothing that happened in aGoT. She is not the same 'girl" anymore as aFFFC concludes. She is learning to be a liar and a manipulator, and i think she will surpass Littlefinger and even Cersei in her ability to con, deceive and manipulate. I'll hold her responsible for anything that happens in TWoW, but nothing before.

I second everything you just said Imp. Even though I'm still a little ed with you!

 

[The Imp]

I second everything you just said Imp. Even though I'm still a little ed with you!

It's a long line

what did I do NOW???

 

[Needle]

I didn't formulate my thoughts regarding Arya very well, and part of what you say is true.

Arya is no longer the innocent child that she was when the series started. She'll never be pure dark/evil unless she kills Sansa or Jon or someone equally unthinkable, and she has killed people who either deserved it or she had no choice about, but IMO, the killing of the NW deserter (Dareon) was cold blooded murder and something she never would have even dreamed of doing when the series began. Part of her progression as a character has been to become a killing machine, but more disturbing, a one girl judge, jury and executioner. Arya values human life almost as little as Ramsay Bolton does, and that disturbs me.

I say this despite Arya being my favorite character BTW

This! But I'm not mad enough to stand in line!

 

[ArstenWhitebeard]

Question to ponder: Do you all believe that Sansa is in need of redemption? She is in fact, a kinslayer by proxy (albeit unwittingly) who was driven to do things against her father in order to further her own selfish dreams. I personally don't think that her suffering has yet to pay for her crime. Also, her playing the pawn of Littlefinger who is basically a child molester is un-worthy of the Stark name and she still is putting herself before Winterfell and the remnants of her family.

Thoughts?

Also, isn't she technically a Lannister now?

I dont think Sansa is in need of redemption, for basically the reasons Imp has stated, though she does need to start taking action and live up to her family legacy IMO. I am already not a huge Sansa supporter, so she really needs to start doing something.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

The marriage was not consummated so I think her wedding doesn't really count meaning it could be easily annulled.

 

[Fungous]

As for her playing the pawn of Lord Baelish, I don't think she has much choice there. Littlefinger is too smart for her to see him as he is and she knows nothing of his betrayal of her family. And if you deem being the pawn of Littlefinger unworthy of the Stark name, don't you think that you are also deeming Ned unworthy of Stark name for he too was another Littlefinger's pawn in this Game of Thrones?

Touché, Ser, Touché. Excellent point. I would however like to point out that good old Ned was not planning on continuing these games with Lord Baelish but was sent into a holding pattern by a certain selfish, conniving little girl. It was honor that drove her father, and his loyalty to Robert, as well as the rightful succession of the Iron Throne. It is tough to hold things against her but, just think of the number of Stark Bannermen that died due to her "naïveté"...

You are totally right that she stopped being a Stark on the day Lady died. I myself am a little torn on her, she was a child and I'm not totally behind her being in need of redemption, I thought this would be a good topic of discussion but, the more I think about the act and it's consequences the more I drift towards thinking that this is something she needs to atone for. She had been warned about Joffrey and Cersei first with Lady, and continued to see a string of cruelty but simply chose to keep her "blinders" on. Yes, she was young, innocent, living the life of fairy tales but how much can that protect you? Arya saw every sign and only reacted when her life became threatened. Sansa doesn't seriously have her life threatened until Joffrey's wedding, which is probably the first time (arguably) that she took the blinders off.

 

[The Imp]

Also, isn't she technically a Lannister now?

I dont think Sansa is in need of redemption, for basically the reasons Imp has stated, though she does need to start taking action and live up to her family legacy IMO. I am already not a huge Sansa supporter, so she really needs to start doing something.

Technically, the marriage to tyrion was never consummated.

 

[Ursa major]

I would however like to point out that good old Ned was not planning on continuing these games with Lord Baelish but was sent into a holding pattern by a certain selfish, conniving little girl. It was honor that drove her father, and his loyalty to Robert, as well as the rightful succession of the Iron Throne.

Ned didn't help himself by warning Cersei, something at least as** stupid as Sansa tipping the Lannisters the wink. That he was, perhaps, blinded by his honour (aka his excuse not to think his actions through) does not absolve him in the way that Sansa's immaturity absolves her.


** - Actually a lot more so, given what had already happened to Bran.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

Touché, Ser, Touché. Excellent point. I would however like to point out that good old Ned was not planning on continuing these games with Lord Baelish but was sent into a holding pattern by a certain selfish, conniving little girl. It was honor that drove her father, and his loyalty to Robert, as well as the rightful succession of the Iron Throne. It is tough to hold things against her but, just think of the number of Stark Bannermen that died due to her "naïveté"...

You are totally right that she stopped being a Stark on the day Lady died. I myself am a little torn on her, she was a child and I'm not totally behind her being in need of redemption, I thought this would be a good topic of discussion but, the more I think about the act and it's consequences the more I drift towards thinking that this is something she needs to atone for. She had been warned about Joffrey and Cersei first with Lady, and continued to see a string of cruelty but simply chose to keep her "blinders" on. Yes, she was young, innocent, living the life of fairy tales but how much can that protect you? Arya saw every sign and only reacted when her life became threatened. Sansa doesn't seriously have her life threatened until Joffrey's wedding, which is probably the first time (arguably) that she took the blinders off.

I, Ser, am not a Ser.

Good old Ned was blinded by honor and Sansa by fantasies. Both were blinded to the real ways of the South, just by different things. Arya was never a princess in want of a prince. Unlike Sansa, she never wanted to go tho the court and see all those flashy ladies and knights. She never dreamed of becoming a queen and was always very close to those that serve. Unlike, Sansa she saw the cruelty in Joffrey in his treatment of butcher's son. She knew Joffrey sent Hound to slaughter the boy. Sansa blamed Arya for the death of Lady for she, blinded as she was, thought that Nymeria and Arya were the ones at fault. She admired Cersei, the beautiful, sympathetic queen she perceived her as and was easily fooled by her. She simply thought that because of Arya's wildness, Cersei though that she and her sister and hence Lady and Nymeria were similar.

Ned choose the become Littlefinger's pawn on the day he started to trust him. True he tried to get out of it when he refused to exploit Joffrey, but in doing that he choose to become a pawn that would start the war. It's similar to what Tyrion said about becoming a slave. You always have a choice.

Yes, many people died, but just like everyone else, Sansa just played a part someone else intended her to play.

I still stand by what I said, to be in need of atonement, you have to be a wrong-doer knowingly.

I agree that this is a very good topic, very challenging to say the least.

P.S. Ursa makes a good point.

 

[The Imp]

I seem to have started a more complicated discussion than what I had envisioned My original thought about redemption was centered around the idea of how GRRM evolves/changes some of his characters so that they are ultimately viewed differently by his readers, obviously in a positive way. I don't think that using this limited sense of redemption needs to have the character atone for their sins, repent or even confess in any way (using the more theological way of viewing redemption).

More specifically, certain religions, Judaism coming to mind immediately, have the idea of atonement built into them, but atonement doesn't necessarily mean someone is redeemed, in fact both Judaism and Catholicism have the idea of ongoing "confession" built into them, and this idea obviously results from the idea of ongoing sin.

Jaime has never repented, yet i think most of us consider him to be redeemed. The same can be said about Theon, although I think the voting would be closer Davos was redeemed as well, but never seemed to repent. What they all have in common is using deeds rather than words to achieve redemption, but I think it's also true that none of them thought about what they were doing in those terms. The only one that has actually "repented" has been Cersei, and that was only because she was forced to.

This leads me to come to the conclusion that the idea of redemption in aSoIaf is an artificial construct that can be used only by the reader and rarely, if ever, by other characters in the story.

 

[Needle]

I seem to have started a more complicated discussion than what I had envisioned My original thought about redemption was centered around the idea of how GRRM evolves/changes some of his characters so that they are ultimately viewed differently by his readers, obviously in a positive way. I don't think that using this limited sense of redemption needs to have the character atone for their sins, repent or even confess in any way (using the more theological way of viewing redemption).

More specifically, certain religions, Judaism coming to mind immediately, have the idea of atonement built into them, but atonement doesn't necessarily mean someone is redeemed, in fact both Judaism and Catholicism have the idea of ongoing "confession" built into them, and this idea obviously results from the idea of ongoing sin.

Jaime has never repented, yet i think most of us consider him to be redeemed. The same can be said about Theon, although I think the voting would be closer Davos was redeemed as well, but never seemed to repent. What they all have in common is using deeds rather than words to achieve redemption, but I think it's also true that none of them thought about what they were doing in those terms. The only one that has actually "repented" has been Cersei, and that was only because she was forced to.

This leads me to come to the conclusion that the idea of redemption in aSoIaf is an artificial construct that can be used only by the reader and rarely, if ever, by other characters in the story.

Why do you always have to make me think so much? Makes my head hurt!

As you said in a previous post (I think it was you) we seem to be speaking of redemption in the eyes of us, the readers. I do believe redemption requires atonement, but I don't really mean it in a religious way. Different religions, of course require different things for forgiveness or redemption, but the two are not the same thing by any means. Forgiveness, as in of sins, does not always require redemption or atonement, these vary widely by religion.

What we all seem to find in common for those we think are redeemable is the ability of the character to:

Admit, at least to themselves, that they have made mistakes, done wrong, however we wish to state it (I'm pretty tired, can't find the right words!)

Make a real attempt at change. Try to do (be) better.

Not repeat past bad acts.

Jaime has begun to do this. Theon too, I think, or at least I think he will.

Ramsey and Cersei, who we are all pretty much in agreement on as not redemable, will never do any of these things. Ramsey because he is Ramsey. With Cersei, even her "good" acts have a motive that benefits her.

 

[The Imp]

Why do you always have to make me think so much? Makes my head hurt!

As you said in a previous post (I think it was you) we seem to be speaking of redemption in the eyes of us, the readers. I do believe redemption requires atonement, but I don't really mean it in a religious way. Different religions, of course require different things for forgiveness or redemption, but the two are not the same thing by any means. Forgiveness, as in of sins, does not always require redemption or atonement, these vary widely by religion.

What we all seem to find in common for those we think are redeemable is the ability of the character to:

Admit, at least to themselves, that they have made mistakes, done wrong, however we wish to state it (I'm pretty tired, can't find the right words!)

Make a real attempt at change. Try to do (be) better.

Not repeat past bad acts.

Jaime has begun to do this. Theon too, I think, or at least I think he will.

Ramsey and Cersei, who we are all pretty much in agreement on as not redemable, will never do any of these things. Ramsey because he is Ramsey. With Cersei, even her "good" acts have a motive that benefits her.

I agree with you mostly, and sorry for making your head hurt.

I'm not 100% sure that Cersei is beyond redemption. I would have thought that Jaime and Theon were, but they seem to be well on the road to it. It would take miraculous writing, but I think that GRRM is capable. I think it's far more likely though that Ser Robert Strong doesn't do as well as Cersei would hope he does in single combat.

Davos is someone whom we haven't spoken of much in the thread, but IMO, he has done all of the things necessary to be redeemed (confession, repentance, atonement, etc) and is the most "redeemed" character in the series.

 

[Needle]

To me anyway, I just don't see Davos as needing redemption. I do not share Stannis's view of the world I guess, thank goodness! So Davos was a smuggler, so what? In a world of war, slavery, and what looks very much like serfdom, not to mention the possibility of some very dark magic being used, I say again, a smuggler so what?

Where I grew up he would compare to a bootlegger. Loved by all except the tax man, and a big to him anyway!

So I can't see him as the most redeemed because he never needed redemption. All the good things he has done to redeem himself in his own (and Stannis's) eyes, and what I hope he is about to do, may put him on the track to sainthood!

 

[The Imp]

To me anyway, I just don't see Davos as needing redemption. I do not share Stannis's view of the world I guess, thank goodness! So Davos was a smuggler, so what? In a world of war, slavery, and what looks very much like serfdom, not to mention the possibility of some very dark magic being used, I say again, a smuggler so what?

Where I grew up he would compare to a bootlegger. Loved by all except the tax man, and a big to him anyway!

So I can't see him as the most redeemed because he never needed redemption. All the good things he has done to redeem himself in his own (and Stannis's) eyes, and what I hope he is about to do, may put him on the track to sainthood!

i don't think you can make the argument that in a world full of horrible people Davos' crimes were less horrible, so he gets a pass. I think he was always basically good, and he did what he had to do to feed his family, but in the eyes of the law, or in this case, his Lord, he could have been put to death, in which case he would have been shorter by a head rather than 4 finger bones. Let's not forget that there are men at The Wall who stole just a wheel of cheese, or a loaf of bread. They too were allowed to "redeem' themselves by taking the black. I'm not supporting this, only commenting on it. GRRM's world is not espcially fair to the "have nots" who inhabit it

 

[ArstenWhitebeard]

To me anyway, I just don't see Davos as needing redemption. I do not share Stannis's view of the world I guess, thank goodness! So Davos was a smuggler, so what? In a world of war, slavery, and what looks very much like serfdom, not to mention the possibility of some very dark magic being used, I say again, a smuggler so what?

Where I grew up he would compare to a bootlegger. Loved by all except the tax man, and a big to him anyway!

So I can't see him as the most redeemed because he never needed redemption. All the good things he has done to redeem himself in his own (and Stannis's) eyes, and what I hope he is about to do, may put him on the track to sainthood!

Very true. In our Eyes, Davos never needed redemption. he is one of the most honourable characters we have seen, and this is in light of his "dishonourable" past, which is exactly what it was, at least in the world of westeros.

This might have a little to do with the fact that we meet davis Post redemption. He might have been a real sonofabitch before he lost his fingertips. probably not since he DID risk his life to save stannis' army, but we simply don't know.

 

[Needle]

Thanks Arstan, that is what I trying to say. In the eyes of the reader, Davos is not in need of redemption. We see him as "good" and sense that he always has been, smuggler or not.