When Talking About Sansa Supposedly Not Being A Sympatheic Character In AGOT, I Don't Think Antis Really

when talking about sansa supposedly not being a sympatheic character in AGOT, I don't think antis really understand they're not making the point they think are (like those who think sansa is only kind because of courtesy rather than it being like Ned's "lord face" and seperate from her kindness as a person) a sympatheic character isn't necessarily someone who is good or to root for - one example is Tyrion. His backstory makes him a sympatheic but that doesn't make him a hero.

Yes, exactly. Sympathetic isn’t defined by whether or not you are a nice person, but by whether you are attracting the liking of others (in this case: The readers).

Tyrion is a villain, but he is clearly written for people to find him sympathetic in spite of this. My favourite example of is Glokta from Joe Abercrombie’s First Law who is a horrible, horrible person, but readers still sympathise with him because of his backstory, his painful disabilities and his dry sense of humor (... that sounded like a description of Tyrion too, actually).

If Sansa isn’t sympathetic in AGoT, it’s because GRRM didn’t write her to be someone the readers sympathize with - And he did that very deliberately by POV trapping her and pitting her against other characters that he clearly wrote to be immediately liked, and by giving her flaws that people don’t usually associate with fantasy protagonists (or really it’s just one of her flaws; the touch of snobbery).

The thing is, though, that GRRM seems to have taken great pains to write her in a way that doesn’t make most readers immediately fall for her, while at the same time never making her not nice. He didn’t have to use a POV trap in Arya I; he could have just made Sansa behave badly towards her. He could have included Sansa when Arya thinks of Jeyne calling her “horseface”. He didn’t have to make such an effort to show the Arya-Sansa conflict as so clearly rooted in society’s expectations and the teachings of Septa Mordane. He could have written Sansa taking Joffrey’s side at Darry Castle instead of having her pretend she forgot to avoid taking sides. He didn’t have to spend literally all of Sansa’s chapters dropping hint after hint about how nobody ever answers her critical questions, or how Ned’s interactions with Arya was teaching Sansa the lesson that disobedience wasn’t as big an offence as she thought.

He might have overdone it a bit, because even after 3 more books of Sansa clearly being written to be sympathetic, people are still refusing to believe that they were initially fooled, and are looking for signs that she was a horrible person all along, blowing every flaw that she has out of proportion to be right.

But the point is that GRRM might not have tried to write AGoT Sansa as sympathetic, but he never wrote her as not a nice person, or with any irredeemable flaws; clearly intending to develop her further in the following books.

The fact that a lot of us still found her sympathetic in AGoT in spite of this, I suppose says something about how much you related to her, or how much effort was put into analyzing the text and understanding Sansa’s motivations on the first read. I know that a lot more people who initially didn’t care for her found her sympathetic when they went back to read AGoT again, looking at Sansa with different eyes and trying to see past GRRM’s smoke screen.

So, no. They really aren’t making the point they think they are making. I also don’t really know why they are trying to make it in the first place tbh. Their point seems to be the usual stuff; that Sansa isn’t nice, isn’t a main character, is supposed to become a villain. But as I recall that quote, GRRM even goes on to say that Sansa becomes more sympathetic as the story progresses.

So I suppose I don’t really see how the point they are trying to make would get them what they want either.