The Latest News
Connect with Us

Notable Releases
From the Store
Battles of Westeros: Brotherhood Without Banners
Battles of Westeros: Brotherhood Without Banners
Amazon.com
Featured Sites
License Holders

Jump to content


Photo

The kinslayer is accursed in the eyes of gods and men. (Book spoilers)


  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#21 reiver

reiver

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 371 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:05 AM

Jaime's redemption worked, for me, because even though his actions were immoral and against what the code of the era said he should do, they were consistent and relatively justifiable but never wanton or cruel. This seems a step into a different kind of evil. With the pre-killing bonding the whole thing felt very cheap and manipulative and i don't see how this character can fit into a the redemption arc. There's nothing to be misunderstood here.

The other thing i'm less keen on is that now Rickard's demands for jaime's head are justified. Before there was the whole unreasonable nature of the demand for something done during battle, now it looks like they're going to skip the need for Robb to make a difficult decision.

Edited by reiver, 15 May 2012 - 09:06 AM.


#22 ThePrinceOfSunspear

ThePrinceOfSunspear

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:11 AM

The show singlehandedly destroyed Jaime Lannister as a character.

#23 Brienne the Beauty

Brienne the Beauty

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,180 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:20 AM

Killing a distant relative can't be kinslaying, since all the nobles are interrelated, but this does not seem to put them off warring against each other.

I thought this change was brilliant. In the books, Cersei was a bit too unsympathetic, and Jaime too sympathetic. The show is playing up Cersei's good side and Jaime's bad side, which is much more interesting and ambiguous.

#24 SerMixalot

SerMixalot

    Ironically Wearing Sweat Pants

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,620 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:22 AM

There is definitely a distinct difference between attempting to kill bran and killing cleo (sic).

Killing bran was to protect the one thing he cares about, cersei. Bran could have destroyed everything.

He killed cleo (sic) to escape from prison. I just dont buy the motivation considering the bloody cold heartedness of it.

#25 David Selig

David Selig

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,841 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:31 AM

I don't think a distant cousin counts as kin when it comes to the kinslaying taboo.

I don't think killing a distant relative to escape is out of character for Jaime from the books at all, he's a ruthless and callous man.

He killed cleo (sic) to escape from prison. I just dont buy the motivation considering the bloody cold heartedness of it.

Why not? Remember how Jamie killed Jory and the other two Stark men just to send a message to Ned? He is ruthless and killing is no big deal for him at all. He was also out searching for Arya at the Trident with the intent to kill or maim her.

Edited by David Selig, 15 May 2012 - 11:48 AM.


#26 Ser Elfor the Landstander

Ser Elfor the Landstander

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:42 AM

I think a lot of people confuse Jaime before losing his sword hand with goldenhand Jaime.

Goldenhand is a great character who grew a lot during his ASOS and AFFC arc, especially in his dealings with Brienne. Their interaction made him a better person, for all intents and purposes.

But it was losing his hand that really changed him. Without his natural talent for sword fighting, Jaime lost his identity - the one defining characteristic that made him objectively "better" than anyone else. He became more humble, and started to view things in a different way.

Jaime before losing his hand was a douchebag. He worried a little about his family (loved Cersei and Tyrion), but he only cared about himself. Shoving Bran out the window was a pretty horrible thing. People may rationalize it, using his "the things I do for love" quote as a sign he did it for Cersei, but we don't really know what he was thinking at the time.
In the end, it doesn't matter. That Jaime would do anything for his (or his family's) safety, ignoring everyone in the way. At that moment, the person in the way was Bran. In the show, it was Alton Lannister.

So I had no problem with this scene. It was amazing, and it doesn't destroy Jaime's character for the future.

#27 The Monkey

The Monkey

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,431 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:58 AM

Maybe it doesn't matter much, but I assumed that Alton wasn't Jaime first cousin, but maybe second or third. He didn't know who Alton's mother was, and I would have thought he would have kept track of his own aunts. But if she was Tywin's cousin or second cousin, that would be another matter. Plus, I don't think Alton would separate that much between his family and THE Lannister family if their parents were siblings.

It's still kinslaying, but perhaps a "milder" form than most people assume.

EDIT:
Also, people overlook a fact that was revealed in AFFC.

When Nymeria had mauled Joffrey and Arya had run away, Cersei wanted Jaime to find her and kill her, and Jaime stated that he would've done so without a second thought, if only he had found her first. Killing Arya would have served no purpose whatsoever, as neither Jaime or his family was in jeopardy if she survived. So tell me how killing Arya is in-character for two-handed Jaime, but killing Alton isn't.

Edited by The Monkey, 15 May 2012 - 10:08 AM.


#28 HouseLark

HouseLark

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 302 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 10:09 AM

I'm unconvinced about the "distant relative" argument. Kin are kin, no matter what. The two share a name and allegiance which marks them as something more than bannermen. We should also remember that the scene has the impact that it has had precisely because Jaime and Alton were known to be relatives. If Alton was just another captive soldier then the audience would have shrugged with indifference at Jaime stoving his head in. So in one breath do we acknowledge that the scene was forceful for that reason but then in the next deny that it's genuine kinslaying? If it isn't a kinslaying then the scene is almost meaningless, it's a throwaway; if it is a kinslaying then Jaime has committed one of the most grievous acts in the world of Westeros. Where do we go with that?

I'm minded to think that Jaime is a kinslayer and this will feed into his character development, it will be another act that he cannot forget along with his kingslaying. It may be another of those things that he broods upon when he returns to the King's Guard.

#29 kevinbgwrites

kevinbgwrites

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 90 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 10:11 AM

I didn't care that he killed him- However the scene was a bit weird(not the dialogue, that was fine).
A. He didn't need to kill him, could have acted.
B. It seemed like he had no chance of escape, and thus the killing was pointless.
C. The guard charging in was stupid and suicidal.
All in all not bad, but a different jaime and a weird scene.

#30 Lord of Cheese

Lord of Cheese

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 10:31 AM

In the books, when Cleos get killed, Jamie only wanted to loot his clothes. He also loathed him all along their treck. And Cleos was son Tywins sister. So pretty close. Jamie was a real nasty piece of work before losing his hand, like mentioned above.

But in TV its Alton, who is probably a bit more removed than Cleos. I cant recall what Alton said about his lineage. Its possible that book Jamie would have killed him for his own gain (before losing hand).

Really not sure how close one has to be to count for kinslaying. It cant be too broad across the family tree.

Im more concerned how they are going to get Jamie and Brienne off to KL... i thought they were going to get Alton to be a Cleos. I wonder how many more changes they are going to pull in TV... Not sure if it will work if its just Brienne and Jamie on their treck.

Edited by Lord of Cheese, 15 May 2012 - 10:36 AM.


#31 Jayaris

Jayaris

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 10:34 AM

I didn't care that he killed him- However the scene was a bit weird(not the dialogue, that was fine).
A. He didn't need to kill him, could have acted.
B. It seemed like he had no chance of escape, and thus the killing was pointless.
C. The guard charging in was stupid and suicidal.
All in all not bad, but a different jaime and a weird scene.


If he acted then what does he do with him? If he lets him escape he is slowing him down if accompanying and risk informing of the escape sooner if he is alone and gets captured.

If he leaves him alive but unconscious he wakes up in the morning and is killed to sate Karstarks need for vengeance, this relieves tension in the camp. Making the outcome (in terms of him living or dying) the same and changing what they wanted to happen in the plot (about to be a riot).

I get that people think it's out of character, but killimg him is his best shot at escaping and he wants to escape.

#32 Prince Alexander

Prince Alexander

    Neanderthal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 10:40 AM

Silly scene. I can't imagine book Jaime doing anything like this.

-He tried to kill Bran to save his own children
Aerys and Jory can be justified as well.

Killing a cousin for a stupid/pointless attempt to escape? No way man.

#33 Winterfell is Burning

Winterfell is Burning

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,846 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 10:50 AM

Silly scene. I can't imagine book Jaime doing anything like this.

-He tried to kill Bran to save his own children
Aerys and Jory can be justified as well.

Killing a cousin for a stupid/pointless attempt to escape? No way man.


A very distant relation. And as was pointed out, he was willing to kill Arya just because Cersei asked, or at least seriously considering it. It's 100% in character.

#34 Mulled Wino

Mulled Wino

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,350 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 11:52 AM

the notion of this act being something too reprehensible for even Jamie Lannister amuses me to no end.

#35 Mulled Wino

Mulled Wino

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,350 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 11:56 AM

Silly scene. I can't imagine book Jaime doing anything like this.

-He tried to kill Bran to save his own children
Aerys and Jory can be justified as well.

Killing a cousin for a stupid/pointless attempt to escape? No way man.


really? to escape sitting in your own flith and likely death or torture? jamie hardly knows this kid.

and lets not act like jamie cares so deeply for his freakin kids...he killed bran to protect his SISTER. have you read the books?

how is slaughtering stark's men justifiable and this isn't? hilarious

#36 David Selig

David Selig

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,841 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 11:59 AM

the notion of this act being something too reprehensible for even Jamie Lannister amuses me to no end.

Me too. We are talking about a guy who's completely fine with killing children and never for a second felt guilty for the major part he played in starting a massive war, even after his "redemption". Yet killing a distant cousin he barely knows is supposed to be "too much".

#37 Mulled Wino

Mulled Wino

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,350 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 12:03 PM

Me too. We are talking about a guy who's completely fine with killing children and never for a second felt guilty for the major part he played in starting a massive war, even after his "redemption". Yet killing a distant cousin he barely knows is supposed to be "too much".


If anything, killing another prisoner to get out of prison should be argued as less morally bankrupt than pushing a child out of a window to coverup incest with your sister

#38 SerMixalot

SerMixalot

    Ironically Wearing Sweat Pants

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,620 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 12:07 PM

The difference is that killing Bran was to protect Cersei, to kill Cleo he was just trying to escape captivity, captivity which he believed would eventually end

#39 Ser Giant

Ser Giant

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 12:08 PM

I think most are stupified by the sheer amount of times he smashed the kid's face, 2 or 3 would have been sufficient for a fighter of the kin/kingslayer's supposed fighting skills.

He hit him like 10-11 times or some crazy, psychotic shit like that.

#40 Mulled Wino

Mulled Wino

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,350 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 12:12 PM

Jaime's redemption worked, for me, because even though his actions were immoral and against what the code of the era said he should do, they were consistent and relatively justifiable but never wanton or cruel. This seems a step into a different kind of evil. With the pre-killing bonding the whole thing felt very cheap and manipulative and i don't see how this character can fit into a the redemption arc. There's nothing to be misunderstood here.

The other thing i'm less keen on is that now Rickard's demands for jaime's head are justified. Before there was the whole unreasonable nature of the demand for something done during battle, now it looks like they're going to skip the need for Robb to make a difficult decision.


wow......................................................................