Sansa Stark, Victimization and Sexual Violence in Game of Thrones (Part II)

Note: This is a multi-part revision of a previous essay of the same title. Each part is linked below
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V

Trigger Warning: This contains frequent discussion of sexual assault, particularly rape

          Critics have claimed that the rape of Sansa Stark was a gratuitous example of sexual violence. Certainly I found the scene to be discomforting and disgusting without feeling that it was gratuitous.  Outrage is an appropriate emotional reaction to the sexual assault of Sansa.  No person deserves such violation. But gratuitous means unwarranted, and I think people are using this to simply express their discomfort or disgust.  The former is an emotional assertion while the latter is an intellectual criticism.  A criticism that I believe is itself gratuitous in nature. It is undeniable that Game of Thrones has often made the patriarchal sexual violence of the books more simplistic and sensational.  But to the credit of HBO, the rape of Sansa was in fact significantly less horrific than the parallel scene adapted from the books.  In the books, it is instead Sansa’s friend Jeyne Poole who is raped by Ramsay Bolton, who believes her to be Sansa’s sister Arya.  Horrifically, Theon is not merely forced to watch the rape but is made to participate in it: he is threatened by Ramsay with the removal of his fingers if he does not perform cunnilingus on Jeyne so that she is wet by the time that Ramsay undresses.           

What is strange is that independently the books or show are praised for defying the genre conventions of fantasy, yet the show is criticized when it defies the books, even if such defiance is consistent with the appraised subversions of traditional fantasy. When Martin writes a noble character as being tortured, executed or raped it is (more often) praised as a grimly realistic subversion of the typical heroic romanticism of the fantasy genre.  But when the show does the same to a character who does not suffer the same fate in the books, it is criticized for exercising gratuitous violence.  Martin’s series is engrossing and disturbing because of the way in which it defies our moral certainty in the narrative and if the television adaptation is to possess the same appeal it must be allowed to deviate at times from the source material of the books. Otherwise anyone familiar with the particulars of the books will remain unsurprised by the events that transpire in the television show.

If one is willing to grant that the books are entitled to torture our most beloved characters against our tired expectations of heroic fantasy, one has to grant to same license to the show in equal measure.  I despised having Sansa dehumanized by yet another sadistic man but I accepted it with the same resignation as I did the death of Ned Stark or Oberyn Martell.  Despite the horror of each of their deaths, their deaths remained consistent with the logic of the violent world they inhabit.  The rape of Sansa is no different in it's conforming to the logic of the world and the tone and theme of the story.  The fact that it deviates from the books is inconsequential and it is inconsistent to insist that only the books are permitted to make us despair in such genre-defiant fashion.  A, if not the, central theme of each series is the cruel subversion of heroic fantasy and the way in which such fantasy reinforces and justifies very real cruelties such as war, torture and rape.  One must come to accept that the show is just as justified as exploring and exposing this relationship as the book is, even when it extends beyond what the books consider.            

In most traditional fantasy stories it is easy for the audience to identify and identify with the hero of the narrative and therefore remain confident that by virtue of such attachment they will be immune from defeat or destruction. Since it is their story and they are our hero, we assume that however perilous their journey, they will prevail.  Yet the multiple perspectives of Game of Thrones and their conflicting moral imperatives makes it nearly impossible for the audience to identify definite heroes who are ensured to survive the entire story. If anything, one can only be sure that they will not survive it, at least regarding those apparent heroes that conform to the traditional moral ideals of honor, courage and duty of their feudal and patriarchal society. The moral complexity and contradictions of the narrative also make it difficult for the audience to identify with the supposed heroes since they contain as much vice as they do virtue.             

Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice and Fire are deconstructions of the traditional fantasy narrative and criticisms of the patriarchal feudal society that such fantasies romanticize.  It would be dishonest to attempt to depict such misogyny while in denial that rape is a fundamental part of that system.  Such insincerity is exactly the sort of romanticism which each series confronts in its respective media. Sexual violence is represented in the fictional world as much as it is present in our world, precisely because the former was produced to dramatize the reality implicit in the fantasy genre. Artistic representation is not (merely) an appeal to one’s intellectual comprehension of phenomenon. It is also an emotional stimulation and ethical reflection.  We need not witness an incidence of rape to comprehend that it is morally abominable.  But its depiction may arouse our emotions to reflect on the way in which misogyny is ignored and romanticized in both our entertainment fantasies and our political and economic realities.