Jump to content

Why does everyone hate the Lannisters?


Recommended Posts

Mladen, was that a response to me? I don't quite understand if so... but I just noticed I forgot to put a "not" in between did and force in the first line...

Wrong person quoted... Sorry for that... I know what you think about this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, the assassination didn't cause the war, but it sparked the violence. I realize something else would have if it didn't, but it was still the spark.

Cat arresting Tyrion is the same. It was the spark, not the cause. The gears of war were already churning, but it can't be denied that once Cat arrested Tyrion, the war started.

Note: I don't blame Cat for causing the war, but she is responsible for the violence actually starting

Spark that had led to what? Did it involve Robb and his army? Nope, Robb summoned the banners when he got the news of Ned's arrest. Did it lead to Ned's arrest and later execution? Nope, Cersei's knowledge of Ned revealing incest and Robert's death led to it. What about Stannis and Renly's involvement? Well, that had nothing with them. All and all, Catelyn may have provoked Tywin, but it certainly didn't cause Wo5K.

As for WWI analogy, the war didn't immediately started after Franz Ferdinand assassination. Austria demanded things that no sovereign nation would accept to. Then they decided to declare a war. But, simply, the comparison is flawed on so many levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't sit around and try to justify their actions as good, but that doesn't mean I hate them. Some wonderful fictional characters are far from good, but they offer up so much in terms of depth and character dynamics that I can't help but enjoy reading about them. For example, Hannibal Lecter is most certainly not a good person, but I don't see people dedicating themselves to pointing out how he's a deplorable individual and thus worthy of our hate as readers/viewers. Why? Because he's a good character, even if he's not a good character.



But I guess this comes down to tastes. Even if in the real world I'd rather not have a conniving, manipulative ally, in the fictional world I find reading about them to be exhilarating. But then again, I always liked Venom more than Spiderman, so maybe the problems with me... :dunno:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

to all the people argueing about who started the war. can I just say that the war was caused by many many different events, who were caused by many different people, so you cannot blame it on 1 person, no matter what they have done or if they're a bad person or not. it simply isn't 1 person's fault.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most people don't 'hate' the Lannisters as a whole, just the three or four memorably unpleasant ones who inflict, shall we say, a lot of damage on Westeros in the course of Asoiaf. .



One of the overwhelmingly great things about ASOIAF is that it goes against the idea of putting characters into 'good', or 'evil' boxes. This affects who we 'love' and 'hate' depending on our judgement. Many of the Lannisters are morally complex in this very GRRM-esque way; Jaime, for example, starts off in GoT as a character a lot of people hate, but over the course of the books, we discover he has a lot more depth. Tyrion, on the other hand, starts off like more of a conventional 'good guy', but even he (no matter what HBO thinks...) is capable of doing some incredibly dark, nasty things.



But the unholy trinity of Cersei, Joffrey and Tywin are responsible for a lot of bad things in Asoiaf, largely due to the amount of political power they wield, which is why, I think, people 'hate' the Lannisters as a family. Cersei, (I know it may be debatable!!!) is the spark that well and truly ignites the war of five kings, with her political maneuverings to secure the lives of her incest born children contributing to the deaths of Ned Stark, Jon Arryn, Robert Baratheon and his bastards etc, thus starting a chain of events that lead to war, and later on governing the country pretty disastrously as Queen Regent. Tywin is also pretty amoral in his attempt to protect his family, obliterating House Raine, perverting the rules of chivalry to crush the Young Wolf, not to mention persecuting Tyrion for his 'deformity'. And as for Joffrey, need I say more?



So yeah, mostly they are 'only cats of a different coat', but there are a lot of hate-worthy Lannisters, depending on where you stand...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaime's a bro. His only significant fault is his love for his bitch sister; if you're willing to overlook it (I am, but I'll understand if you aren't), then every other morally questionable deed he's ever done suddenly becomes rational and blameless. Pushing Bran out a window? What's one kid against the lives of himself, his sister/lover, and their three children? He's mostly selfish, but he balks at egregious evil and pointless suffering; this makes him true-neutral, to use the D&D term.

Tyrion, like his brother, is also true-neutral. Spends most of his time and effort on himself, but he's a far cry from evil. Murdering Shae certainly wasn't ethical, but won't shed a tear for her. Tywin was a son of a bitch; not killing him would be unethical. Learning the truth about Tysha sent him into a spiral of rage, hate for his family, and self-loathing; if that shit had happened to me, I'd be at least as jaded as he is in aDwD.

Cersei is a deadly combination of stupid and evil. The sooner she dies, the better off the world will be.

Tywin was a deadlier combination of brilliant and evil. His death is single best thing to happen since the start of the war.

Kevan's a bro. Yeah, he liked Tywin, but Tywin was good to him, and as his brother he was too close to him to see what he truly was, so I can forgive that. Even Varys, king of the bros, admits that he's a good guy.

As for the less-characterized Lannisters, most of them seem okay. A douchebag here and there, but whatever. I don't count Cersei's bastards as Lannisters; they're Baratheons-of-Kings-Landing, which is its own thing.

So as you can see, I don't especially dislike the Lannisters as a whole. That said, they're the single greatest impediment to peace, and we should all hope that King Stannis puts an end to their tyranny.

Blameless? Big jump from rational to blameless.

Plus he wasn't paternal in the slightest towards his bastards until after he'd went through the trauma of being a prisoner and lost his hand. His paternal feelings - and desire to be a "worthy" knight - manifest after this. So the narrative of him trying to kill Bran to protect his own bastards is somewhat revisionist. He was protecting himself and Cersei.

But that doesn't make him blameless. He's still responsible for his actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was protecting himself and Cersei.

Not sure if what GRRM has said on this before matters here or not, but in case it does...

Interviewer: I don't know if somebody like Jaime or Cersei can be redeemed. Cersei's a great character – she's like Lady Macbeth.

GRRM: Well, redeemed in whose eyes? She'll never be redeemed in the eyes of some. She's a character who's very protective of her children. You can argue, well, does she genuinely love her children, or does she just love them because they're her children? There's certainly a great level of narcissism in Cersei. She has an almost sociopathic view of the world and civilization. At the same time, what Jaime did is interesting. I don't have any kids myself, but I've talked with other people who have. Remember, Jaime isn't just trying to kill Bran because he's an annoying little kid. Bran has seen something that is basically a death sentence for Jaime, for Cersei, and their children – their three actual children. So I've asked people who do have children, "Well, what would you do in Jaime's situation?" They say, "Well, I'm not a bad guy – I wouldn't kill." Are you sure? Never? If Bran tells King Robert he's going to kill you and your sister-lover, and your three children. . . .

Then many of them hesitate. Probably more people than not would say, "Yeah, I would kill someone else's child to save my own child, even if that other child was innocent." These are the difficult decisions people make, and they're worth examining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not like Jaime gave a damn about his children. By his own admission He would much rather have had his hand back than his son alive. Hell, he couldn't care less that Joff died except for the inconvenience it almost caused to his sex life (which he solved by pretty much raping Cersei).


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol getting a bit off topic

A conflict of sorts had formally started when Catelyn took Tyrion. The events leading up to this ultimately can be put down to Littlefinger acting through Lysa Tully. That is to say if Jon Arryn hadn't died Robert wouldn't have had to go to Winterfell and Bran wouldn't have been nearly killed twice over

Robert was in some capacity to mediate and diffuse the situation and he was doing so when he decided to absolve himself from taking responsibility by going hunting. We might have had a situation where once tyrion made it back the conflict could be diffused and Tywin would have made his point that no one messes with Lannisters even if they end up getting a trial under Lings laws etc. he may have had to suffer Gregor Clegane being jailed or warded as hostage for a while so justice is seen to be done but then Clegane would have been released etc

On one level Littlefinger is to blame is to blame for the conflict. This conflict would have been the war for the Imp.

Given Robert was dead however, the wo5k started when Ned lost his head. That was the point where the fledgling conflict mutated into something else, caused by Joffrey

The point remains though, there would have most definitely been some form of conflict when Jon Arryn reported his findings to Robert and Ned, Catelyn etc had never come into contact with anyone. In this case it would have likely been Robert versus Tywin and the Pyke rebellion on a larger scale in that it is everyone versus the Lannisters

Even if the Lannisters got to Robert first as they had been planning, and perhaps even Jon Arryn, Stannis still would have declared Joffrey illegitimate. That would have been more complicated, if Jon Arryn wasn't killed and Robert was he could mobilise far more people than jut Stannis

To get things back on topic, people in book would hate the Lannisters because they are perceptively powerful and flaunt their wealth. We see this all the time, people hate on the pre-eminent powers and this holds through history because the practicalities of exercising hard and soft power are often politically incorrect and the underdog actors often get romanticised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites






First, he didn't have to. He was sending someone whom he believed would do the job even if it isn't spilled out to him. The fact is that he was sending a monster to perform atrocious act. As I said, if I unleash mad dogs on someone, I can't be surprised that someone was bitten.



Second, Tywin is all about PR. Not necessarily good PR, but nonetheless PR that establishes him as rather powerful, intimidating, respectful Highlord. We see it when he puts all the blame of RW on Boltons and Freys. He simply wants to look good. And thus, he isn't type of guy who would go around and say: Yeah, I ordered rape and crushing head of innocent woman.




Oh I agree, I am just saying that he didn't said: Kill Elia. That's all.







I don't remember much about Brandon and Rickard, but I do remember they were f*cked up, for example Brandon raped women. Arya, I love her, but she killed people in cold blood just because they get in the way of her.




*JQC, tries to calm down* When did Brandon raped anyone? Yes he was a womanizer but it was never ever ever mentioned that he raped any woman. Lady Dustin herself said that she wanted him.





and by the best I could get out of you, I think I just meant in regards to my Lady and Queen. I still look back fondly on the last pic exchange we had. :]




Milord :-D


Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not like Jaime gave a damn about his children. By his own admission He would much rather have had his hand back than his son alive. Hell, he couldn't care less that Joff died except for the inconvenience it almost caused to his sex life (which he solved by pretty much raping Cersei).

Keep in mind which child it was, Joffrey, one of the biggest monsters in Westeros.

I think if the kid was Myrcella or Tommen the scene would play out quite differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A conflict of sorts had formally started when Catelyn took Tyrion.

A conflict formally started when Ned was imprisoned and Robb summoned the banners.

Oh I agree, I am just saying that he didn't said: Kill Elia. That's all.

I am not so sure about that... I am convinced that he didn't say "go rape her and smash her head", but I do believe he said "Kill the royal family" I mean, Elia would never have peace if her children are slaughtered in front of her and again we would have the same situation. So, my thoughts on this that yes, we can put blame for Elia and her children on Tywin, we can even put the blame of how they died, for he knew what kind of monsters he is unleashing, even though we can't determine whether he said specifically them how to preform the act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coward is not a catch all word for people you don't like. There are a lot of negative things to say about the Lannister, but there are very few cowards in this family. Joffrey is the only one who comes to mind.

Tywin sending his goons into the Riverlands without raising banners against unarmed civilians, Jaime attacking Ned on the streets of KL with overwhelming force and fleeing to Casterly, because he pushed an 8 year old out a window while screwing his sister behind his king's back.

Sit on the sidelines for the entire rebellion then deceive the losing cause and murder some babies. Kiss the victor's ass then backstab him.

Lancel was a complete coward until Blackwater. But arguably the most courageous Lannister.

Tyrion isn't half bad, either.

Hard time thinking of any bigger cravens in Westeros. Maybe Sam before he slew Puddles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind which child it was, Joffrey, one of the biggest monsters in Westeros.

I think if the kid was Myrcella or Tommen the scene would play out quite differently.

I do not think, that he loved Tommen and Myrcella more. Before he got back to KL he wanted to announce the children's parentage in order to marry Cersei, even though he knew, that it would be dangerous for them to be known as bastards of incest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't hate them per se, but they're not even machiavellian, or amoral, they're actively immoral in what they do. They use dread tactics knowingly and purposefully, they know exactly what Lorch and Mountain That Rides are doing. They support a fake heir and declare the rightful king and his supporters rebels. Their personal involvement is limited, but 1) they do enough anyway, 2) they know, approve of, even implicitly order whatever is being done. Unlike the Starks, who do have savage supporters doing savage things but do not want those evil things to be perpetrated.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see... GRRM actually has described the Starks as heroes and called the Lannisters villains, so I do think it is more of a good/bad story than people are willing to admit. . . .

But that seems to be in the process of becoming less clear as the story goes along.

Clearly the Lannisters are less evil now. Joffrey and Tywin are dead, Jaime is on a redemption arc, and while Cersei has not reformed, she has been largely defanged. Also, she has gone through (and to some extent, is still in) an extremely traumatic process. The way I see it, one more heavy shock to Cersei (e.g., Myrcella dies) and she is a prime candidate for a nervous breakdown, which might lead to insanity but also possibly could lead to a dramatic character change - or to death.

On the other hand, at least some of the Starks are getting worse, and you could make an argument that they all are:

  • Arya is clearly on a dark path;

LSH is pretty damned evil, in my book, and I won't dignify this crackpot theory with its own little black dot but I've long had the feeling that we could see RobbWind again, and it won't necessarily be in a pleasant context;

Rickon is a little beast with a wild wolf on a cannibal island - what to expect from Rickon? "Dark" ain't much of a stretch;

Sansa hasn't done anything wrong, but the "Darth Sansa" persona that the show is going with (a Sophie Turner interview in the news today says that Sansa will "use her sexuality" to manipulate LF this season) is conceivably down a dark path;

Bran has been an All-Around Good Kid - but now he's all mixed up with the COTF, who we must remember are the ancient enemies of Man;

Jon Snow has been a good guy, too, but one of the Jon Snow theories is that he is/will be The Great Other, and the ending of ADWD didn't shut that theory down. Certainly an undead Jon Snow in the future is not a farfetched idea.

So again, maybe it ain't so clear-cut any more. Maybe the Starks and Lannisters will even switch places between being The Good Guys and The Bad Guys by the end of the series. I would love that! (If it's done well.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snippy

War makes monsters of us all.

I agree that the Starks we get at the end will be very, very different, darker, harder to love. But a descent into madness is a story I can follow. They've been ravaged by war and turned into monsters.. and though I might call upon the hounds of hell for this statement, at least they didn't start out as monsters like the Lannisters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...