Rereading Tyrion II (AGOT-ACOK)

[Silverin]

Tyrion asks if Bronn would do it "without question," not if he would do it period. We know Ned is in the "never" camp when it comes to killing children. "Without question" implies there are hypothetical answers which would justify it.

One distinction I think this makes is that Bronn is not a Ramsay, a Gregor, or even like those with Stannis who are in it for the violence (like Asha's thoughts on "that guy I can't remember right now" enjoying making people burn.)

What about the clansmen? I think they are very similar to Gregor. It seemed to me they enjoyed violence.

I don't really want to defend the moral distinctions in the baby killer spectrum, but I put it out there for what it might be worth. In Tyrion's favor he seems to want follower's who would actually question the morality of such an order. Admittedly, that admiration is hypothetical until he has a Davos pull an Edric on him. I like Bronn, but he's no Davos.

Later Tyrion will ask this same question of his father regarding Rhaegar's children and we'll get a chance to revisit this moral headache and indigestion Tyrion has now.

Yeah Bronn definietly wouldn't be a Davos.

I disagree that he wants them to question it, I didn'T get any feeling from him about that. But we will see later wether he does.

Rather that, I was thinking when tyrion was asking Bronn this, is that he might will be in a place when he will consider (even if not do) ordering the murder of a child/children, then he will reflect that he knows a man for that job. After all if tyrion wants CR he wil have to deal with his family first.

EDIT: 777th post :cheers:

Is there even a law in Westeros?

Decisions about punishments and court matters seem to rely upon the king or the lord in command in that specific place.

There are some customs and traditions (such as the possibility of trial by battle), and there are some vague mentions of "westerosi laws" (like those that prohibit slavery), but there doesn't seem to be a code with specifics crimes and relative punishments to apply. It all comes down to the sovereign's strictness or common sense.

Remember this when tyrion is the one who is the culprit and the suspect. Irony, tyrion didn't even give half o the "justice" to the people he is dealing with and removes, that he recieves. He after all had a trial, a trial by combat, and an ofter to go to the Wall (Ok we know he sends Janos there. ). Yet he constantly cries about the injustice directed at him.

Reminds me of the time when the heads at the Secret Police in my country after a while were sent to prison/sentenced to die by someone else in the same kind of made up trials, that they served "justice" towards other people. Oh the irony.

The two-facedness of Janus/Janos suggests betrayal too. A good name for the character (unless you are Hungarian, in which case it must seem an odd discussion).

LOL, it is the Hungarian version of the name John.

This is the name of my greatgrandfather, grandfather, father, and brother. Just saying.

[Natalie_S]

While he is, he still keeps Bronn on and still relies on him.He may feel some guilt about it, but that doesn't stop him from going ahead being his own mini-Tywin here. If he was really that put off by it, would he not dismiss Bronn and find someone else?

This is often the case with Tyrion that we see his internal doubts and feelings, but then he goes ahead and does whatever morally grey choice anyway. Is it better because he had doubts? Does it change the essentials of his choice? Change his moral flavour?

It seems to have that effect on the readers at least, that as long as he feels sorry for what he's done, or is about to do, it's more ok than if he just went ahead and did it anyway.

(This is not saying that Tyrion is a baby killer btw. Just that he here agrees to employ people who are. Essentially doing what his father is doing with Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch. A tool for every task - which we will see later with a certain singer.)

:idea:

But Bronn is not a baby killer, so far is just a man that would consider doing the job for the right amount of money.

I think that dismiss Bronn because he said that he would consider the option (and mind you, in a totally hypothetical way) would be a bit excessive, even if we were talking about someone as Ned (who actually resigned only when Robert actively ordered to do it, not when he bragged about wishing to be able to kill baby Targaryens).

As Ragnorak said, he also expected (or would have liked) Bronn to question his hypothetical order, underlining the fact that he doesn't want servants that blindly follow his orders but rather an advisor (or even a friend), unlike Robert who initially said that he wanted advice from Ned, but then proceeded to get mad at him then ignore him most of the times.

The whole point is not how Bronn is similar to Gregor, but the fact that Tyrion never ordered to kill or pillage or rape (he will do the very opposite when he will hire sellswords to protect KL) and never gives him the opportunity to release his inner monster.

I think that this chapter for Tyrion is about administrating justice and somehow losing his innocence about it, because he sees that there are no straightforward decisions and even what appear the be the most just actions are somehow morally grey.

[Ragnorak]

@Silverin

Congrats on your holy trinity of the sacred 7's post.

I think violence is a way of life for the clansmen in a similar way to kidnapping being a way of marriage up North. They argue with swords without any greater moral taboo than others would put on arguing with words. I'm not looking to have them as neighbors, but I think they're different from a Gregor. Amongst themselves I don't think they'd view the violence done to each other as an atrocity like Gregor's acts are widely viewed. Having made that distinction, yes, they absolutely love their violence.

I'm not too sure how Tyrion would react to people questioning the morality of his orders. I suspect asking for an explanation would be fine but insubordination would be ill received. I can't think of any examples one way or the other though. He's relatively understanding of Sandor and the wildfyre after the fact IIRC, but that isn't really a parallel. Just by asking Bronn if he would question the order in this context implies Tyrion believes the order should be questioned. That much is positive. I have no idea how he'd react if this positive inclination were thrown back in his face.

Your Secret Police example is another one that makes it very hard for me to weigh the justice vs injustice aspects in Westeros. Smallfolk don't get trials and nobles do. Depriving smallfolk of trials in Westeros is accurately called "justice." He's stripping Slynt of his lordship but letting his son keep it. The Wall and allowing his family to be nobility seems like a mercy and justice by Westeros standards even if carried out like an act of the Secret Police by our standards. That he considers a whore worthy of justice period seems "enlightened" relative to the rest of KL. Ned seemed the only one who cared that a butcher's boy was killed, the only one who thought Robert should care too. I'm torn here as to where to draw the lines, although that might really be Martin's whole point.

[Lummel]

Silverin - the High Septon's blessing be upon you. May the crone light your way and the smith mend your shoes, may the rest of the seven do what they do too! :)

Ragnorak,

The whore is considered worthy of justice surely because of Tyrion's emotional attachment to Tysha and Shae: "Tyrion had never seen the dead girl's face, but in his mind she was Shae and Tysha both". If Tyrion had known then that Tysha was a crofter's daughter the young woman's death might not have troubled him so much?

For me this re-enforces a notion of westerosi justice as partial and political. Tyrion here is paying a debt having transposed the real girl that The Ned met with the two that he is involved with.

[Lyanna Stark]

As Ragnorak said, he also expected (or would have liked) Bronn to question his hypothetical order, underlining the fact that he doesn't want servants that blindly follow his orders but rather an advisor (or even a friend), unlike Robert who initially said that he wanted advice from Ned, but then proceeded to get mad at him then ignore him most of the times.

He may not like to have servants like that, but he still accepts the ones he have who would kill babies and only ask "how much?" for it. He does have a chance to dismiss Bronn, or appoint someone like Jacelyn Hobbiton-Bywater, but he does not.

Robert I think is an interesting comparison, because Ned often had a blind spot with regards to Robert, but when Robert orders Daenerys and her unborn child's execution, Ned resigns from his position as Hand. Hence he completely rejects the notion of killing children. He does the same with Cersei and her children. Ned's moral stand on this issue is very strong: he refuses to be a part of anything that involves killing children. Tyrion is upset about it, but he still keeps Bronn on.

The whole point is not how Bronn is similar to Gregor, but the fact that Tyrion never ordered to kill or pillage or rape (he will do the very opposite when he will hire sellswords to protect KL) and never gives him the opportunity to release his inner monster.

I don't think Bronn is anything like Ramsay or Gregor, as he does not kill for fun. However he also admitted to not being particularly bothered with killing children, so he's definitely nowhere near the Ned Stark end of things. However I do not think Tyrion would ever want to sanction anything like Tywin did in the Riverlands. On the flipside, we had him think he'd want the Mountain Clans to sack and burn the Vale which is really quite similar to what Tywin did in the Riverlands. Tyrion's thirst for revenge often turns him into mini-Tywin. Unfortunately.

[anonymouseuser]

Perhaps I'm very gullible but... could it be simply because Tyrion likes Bronn, has grown to consider him more or less a friend and therefore prefers to keep him close?

A bit like the clansmen: he could have easily got rid of them sending them to pillage as Tywin suggested, but he preferred to have "his men" close.

I think that, in the end, Tyrion trusts Bronn more than any citizen of KL, a snake pit from his point of view.

He even says that "My most trusted advisors are a eunuch and a sellsword, and my lady's a whore. What does that say of me?”, therefore putting Bronn in the position of "most trusted advisor", which Bywater is not.

Thank you. Of course it's because of his personal relationship with Bronn. As we have seen Tyrion values the personal touch; despite all he has witnessed and been forced to be part of he has a sentimental streak. He likes to think (rightly or wrongly) that he has some kind of connection with the people who surround him. He wants (and needs) to be able to inspire affection and loyalty for his own sake instead of just through fear like his father. This is why I have difficulty seeing him as someone who seeks his father's approval at all costs. He is well aware of the fact that people fear and respect his father, but few love him. Given his history many would say that this is his psyche playing him false; he needs to believe that somewhere there are people who like him for himself. Some would say that this is Tyrion fooling himself again. I say that the fact he wants to fool himself in this fashion is actually a point in his favour. Tywin was not a man who "fooled" himself. He had total certainty of who he was and the fear and subjection he managed to instill in those around him was something he considered an achievement. Despite everything I can't see Tyrion ending up like his father. He has an enormous capacity for love and this. I think, will be his defining characteristic and his saving grace.

[Lummel]

Don't know Lyanna - he's quite judgemental in ADWD toward Daenerys on account of her not having poisoned the wells and not having conducted war with sufficient savagery. How many will die in the battle of the Blackwater...for Tyrion I think these are natural consequences of war, or an acceptable, if unpleasant part of war. Devastating the Vale is an acceptable tactic and appropriate way to repay Lysa Arryn.

He's a chip off the old block. His father's son, when it comes to warfare surely?

[Lyanna Stark]

Don't know Lyanna - he's quite judgemental in ADWD toward Daenerys on account of her not having poisoned the wells and not having conducted war with sufficient savagery. How many will die in the battle of the Blackwater...for Tyrion I think these are natural consequences of war, or an acceptable, if unpleasant part of war. Devastating the Vale is an acceptable tactic and appropriate way to repay Lysa Arryn.

He's a chip off the old block. His father's son, when it comes to warfare surely?

I agree with this. However, Tyrion on a personal level seem to recoil from baby killing, rape and pillaging in a different way than Tyrion Lord of Lannister does, if you get my meaning (I was probably being even more unclear than usual above :o ). Tyrion is fine with getting involved with saving maidens from Joffrey's beatings and getting upset at Cersei ordering prostitutes murdered, but then he is fine with more grand scale destruction like poisoning the wells or sacking and burning the Vale. But he has no personal investment in the Vale or in the Yunkish, I guess.

[anonymouseuser]

I agree with this. However, Tyrion on a personal level seem to recoil from baby killing, rape and pillaging in a different way than Tyrion Lord of Lannister does, if you get my meaning (I was probably being even more unclear than usual above :o ). Tyrion is fine with getting involved with saving maidens from Joffrey's beatings and getting upset at Cersei ordering prostitutes murdered, but then he is fine with more grand scale destruction like poisoning the wells or sacking and burning the Vale. But he has no personal investment in the Vale or in the Yunkish, I guess.

I'm not a stateman, nor will I ever be, I suspect. But if I were called upon to judged the difference between a dictator and a statesman I think it would probably reside in the ability to feel guilty about the necessity of burning Blackwater and the crews (friend and foe) of all the ships on it - Tyrion, and thinking of it as a sustainable loss that will increase your reputation as someone who is not to be trifled with - Tywin.

On the question of the Vale and the Yunkish (if we want to fast forward that far) all I can say is right or wrong the Vale was personal while the Yunkish was just an impersonal, considered judgement given the circumstance and the fact that ASoIaF isn't about angels and demons. Rather it's about doing the best you can with the good sense god (the gods - let's be ecumenical about this) gave you.

[anonymouseuser]

Yeah Bronn definietly wouldn't be a Davos.

I disagree that he wants them to question it, I didn'T get any feeling from him about that. But we will see later wether he does.

You didn't? I seemed to me it was pretty clear he was questioning himself and his morality on the necessity of working with Bronn (who he likes). He's not a happy camper about this but at that time in KL he doesn't have a lot of choice. There really isn't anyone else he can rely on. In fact his comment is ironic IIRC. Something about "Why would I need a Deem when I have some many of my own." Surely we're not supposed to take that as a positive comment?

let's see if this works

Remember this when tyrion is the one who is the culprit and the suspect. Irony, tyrion didn't even give half o the "justice" to the people he is dealing with and removes, that he recieves. He after all had a trial, a trial by combat, and an ofter to go to the Wall (Ok we know he sends Janos there. ). Yet he constantly cries about the injustice directed at him.

This would make more sense if we didn't know that both times Tyrion is accused of murder he's innocent whereas Slynt is guilty. The real point is that Tyrion expresses a desire to do the right thing but is hampered by the realities of the situation he finds himself in. As we have seen with Ned Stark there's very little point in doing the right thing unless you live to tell the tale. Otherwise it's just so much hot air. A Tyrion that managed to conserve his power in KL post Blackwater - something that was never going to happen short of Tywin biting the big one during the battle - might have found himself with more wriggle room to do the right thing.

[anonymouseuser]

You didn't? I seemed to me it was pretty clear he was questioning himself and his morality on the necessity of working with Bronn (who he likes). He's not a happy camper about this but at that time in KL he doesn't have a lot of choice. There really isn't anyone else he can rely on. In fact his comment is ironic IIRC. Something about "Why would I need a Deem when I have some many of my own." Surely we're not supposed to take that as a positive comment?

No - didn't work. Must do better next time!

[Winter's Knight]

I agree with this. However, Tyrion on a personal level seem to recoil from baby killing, rape and pillaging in a different way than Tyrion Lord of Lannister does, if you get my meaning (I was probably being even more unclear than usual above :o ). Tyrion is fine with getting involved with saving maidens from Joffrey's beatings and getting upset at Cersei ordering prostitutes murdered, but then he is fine with more grand scale destruction like poisoning the wells or sacking and burning the Vale. But he has no personal investment in the Vale or in the Yunkish, I guess.

Now this may just be my anti-Tyrion buias-would that we could all be as impartial as Lummel and Natalie_S, enthuisiatic Nedbertians both-but I think Tyrion like keeping his hands clean. The deaths caused by war are more abstract when being thought about, less real-a dead child on the other hand has litle Tommen's face or may very well be a younger TRyrion himself, just as an unnamed whore is "Shae and Tysha both".

[Lyanna Stark]

Now this may just be my anti-Tyrion buias-would that we could all be as impartial as Lummel and Natalie_S, enthuisiatic Nedbertians both-but I think Tyrion like keeping his hands clean. The deaths caused by war are more abstract when being thought about, less real-a dead child on the other hand has litle Tommen's face or may very well be a younger TRyrion himself, just as an unnamed whore is "Shae and Tysha both".

Yes, this was what I was trying to get at, but you said it far better. Tyrion doesn't want to be a killer personally (even if he turns into one). He recoils from murdering babies and mutilating etc.

It's easier to not show compassion for the abstract deaths and the abstract suffering, like for instance Tyrion's wish to rape, pillage and burn the Vale.

I'm not a stateman, nor will I ever be, I suspect. But if I were called upon to judged the difference between a dictator and a statesman I think it would probably reside in the ability to feel guilty about the necessity of burning Blackwater and the crews (friend and foe) of all the ships on it - Tyrion, and thinking of it as a sustainable loss that will increase your reputation as someone who is not to be trifled with - Tywin.

On the question of the Vale and the Yunkish (if we want to fast forward that far) all I can say is right or wrong the Vale was personal while the Yunkish was just an impersonal, considered judgement given the circumstance and the fact that ASoIaF isn't about angels and demons. Rather it's about doing the best you can with the good sense god (the gods - let's be ecumenical about this) gave you.

This isn't about whether ASOIAF is about angels and demons though, this is specifically a discussion about Tyrion. When discussing his morals, it seems clear he makes a difference between the personal level and the abstract, political level. On a personal level, Tyrion recoils from child murdering, but on a macro level, the abstract level, he is ok with great suffering and lots of death to justify his petty revenge.

The Vale people had done nothing to him. His grievance was with Lysa and Cat, yet he meant for them to suffer. That is morally wrong, regardless of how you see it. It's the equivalent of Tywin sending

Gregor and Amory Lorch raping, pillaging and burning the Riverlands. It would be the exact same thing had Tyrion sent the clansmen into the Vale. In that, Tyrion is like Tywin. The Riverlands people had done nothing to Tywin himself, it was just an arbitrary way of punishing Catelyn and Lysa.

[Lykos]

Ooh. there is so much I want to say. I just read 15 pages - the ones I missed from the last thread and this entire thread -, but I already forgot more than half of the posters I wanted to answer too or commend for their excellent finds and insights.

So just a few things before I get things in order and work my way backwards, I really like the find of the Inn "The Broken Anvil" and agree with Blisscraft´s interpretation, but would like to put it a bit broader as the anvil represents the fixed, unmoving part in the process of creation it can be seen as tradition, while the hammer represents change and in order to successfully create the smith needs to apply the force of change in a well dosed blanced way in order not to break the anvil.

I very much like that Ragnorak mentioned Septon Meribald and the Smith, but that would probably take us too far from discussing Tyrion. Here are some posts I made conerning this in the Less examined bits of the AA prophecy -threads one and two.

There is however a more direct meaning to "The Broken Anvil" that the reader can´t know at this point, but Tyrion should know as Singers sing about it in Westeros for decades, as we learn in the "Sworn Sword".

“The hammer and the anvil?” The old man’s mustache gave a twitch. “The singers leave out much and more. Daemon was the Warrior himself that day. No man could stand before him. He broke Lord Arryn’s van to pieces and slew the Knight of Ninestars and Wild Wyl Waynwood before coming up against Ser Gwayne Corbray of the Kingsguard. For near an hour they danced together on their horses, wheeling and circling and slashing as men died all around them. It’s said that whenever Blackfyre and

Lady Forlorn clashed, you could hear the sound for a league around. It was half a song and half a scream, they say. But when at last the Lady faltered, Blackfyre clove through Ser Gwayne’s helm and left him blind and bleeding. Daemon dismounted to see that his fallen foe was not trampled, and commanded Redtusk to carry him back to the maesters in the rear. And there was his mortal error, for the Raven’s Teeth had gained the top of Weeping Ridge, and Bloodraven saw his half brother’s royal standard three hundred yards away, and Daemon and his sons beneath it. He slew Aegon first, the elder of the twins, for he knew that Daemon would never leave the boy whilst warmth lingered in his body,

though white shafts fell like rain. Nor did he, though seven arrows pierced him, driven as much by sorcery as by Bloodraven’s bow. Young Aemon took up Blackfyre when the blade slipped from his dying father’s fingers, so Bloodraven slew him, too, the younger of the twins. Thus perished the black

dragon and his sons.

“There was much and more afterward, I know. I saw a bit of it myself . . . the rebels running, Bittersteel turning the rout and leading his mad charge . . . his battle with Bloodraven, second only to the one Daemon fought with Gwayne Corbray . . . Prince Baelor’s hammerblow against the rebel rear, the Dornishmen all screaming as they filled the air with spears . . . but at the end of the day, it made no matter. The war was done when Daemon died.

“So close a thing . . . if Daemon had ridden over Gwayne Corbray and left him to his fate, he might have broken Maekar’s left before Bloodraven could take the ridge. The day would have belonged to the black dragons then, with the Hand slain and the road to King’s Landing open before them. Daemon might have been sitting on the Iron Throne by the time Prince Baelor could come up with his stormlords and his Dornishmen.

“The singers can go on about their hammer and their anvil, ser, but it was the kinslayer who turned the tide with a white arrow and a black spell.

So Daemon would have broken the anvil, had he not been so chivalrous and every Blackfyre supporter would wish for the broken anvil.

This shows, that whoever named the Inn most likely was a Blackfyre supporter and the innkeeper is one of Tyrion´s prime suspects for informing Varys.

When he said, I was taken by a sudden urge to meet your young lady, what he meant was, You tried to hide her, but I knew where she was, and who she was, and here I am. He wondered who had betrayed him. The innkeeper, that boy in the stable, a guard on the gate . . . or one of his own?

Clash, Tyrion I.

Regarding Varys´riddle about power here is an interesting interview where Martin explains a lot of his thoughts at 32 min.

He also spoke about his fascination with power and with hierarchies that appear stable but are actually anything but. He mentioned reading a history of Jerusalem in which a mad ruler began killing dozens of courtiers and ordering the hands chopped off the women of the court.

"Why doesn't the captain of the guard say to the sergeant, 'This guy is [expletive] nuts?'" Martin said. "'We have swords! Why don't we kill him instead?'"

But loyalties -- clan loyalties, family loyalties, strategic alliances -- are powerful influences in the lives of Martin's characters, and their personal desires and their traditional duties or roles are often in conflict. And those kinds of unresolvable dilemmas are at the heart of what makes his stories resonate with those of us who didn't begin fighting with swords as children.

huffingtonpost

I wondered who this ruler of Jerusalem was, Martin had read about, and think that it was probably one of the later Abbasid Caliphs starting with Al-Mu'tazz in 866, though the first Abbasid Caliph As-Saffah tried to wipe out all the remaining members of the previous dynasty, just as Robert and Tywin did.

Concerned that there would be a return of Umayyad power, as-Saffah invited all of the remaining members of the Umayyad family to a dinner party where he had them clubbed to death before the first course, which was then served to the hosts

wikipedia.

[Lummel]

...Tywin was not a man who "fooled" himself. He had total certainty of who he was and the fear and subjection he managed to instill in those around him was something he considered an achievement. Despite everything I can't see Tyrion ending up like his father. He has an enormous capacity for love and this. I think, will be his defining characteristic and his saving grace.

Don't forget - we don't have Tywin POV. We never experience the world from his perspective. With Tyrion it's the opposite - we only get occasional flashes of how the world views him as a leader. To the disinterested observer would they look that different?

Equally we don't know the in and outs of Tywin's capacity for love. Comments will be made about him and Joanna later which is all we have to go on. Tyrion isn't Septon Meribald himself either. His love is limited and strictly compartmentalised. It's family (not all of them either) and one person outside of family.

... I think Tyrion like keeping his hands clean. The deaths caused by war are more abstract when being thought about, less real-a dead child on the other hand has litle Tommen's face or may very well be a younger TRyrion himself, just as an unnamed whore is "Shae and Tysha both".

Yes that was my impression. This is not about women and children dying this is about somebody he visualises as a woman that he has a relationship with, the child could be his. It's highly personal. Not a matter of right or wrong.

[Lummel]

Good grief Lykos - Broken anvil - Blackfyre link - that's a hell of catch! Welcome back anyway you prodigal poster :cheers:

[Natalie_S]

@ Winter Knight, Lyanna

you seem determined to find some negative element in this episode to establish a Tyrion-Tywin parallel, while this episode is supposed to show exactly the opposite, IMHO.

Here Tyrion shows that he's much closer to Ned than to Tywin when it comes to remove possible claim to the throne.

We've seen that Tywin has ordered the murder of baby Targs while Tyrion is horrified by the very thought. And in this episode we see the reason why they are so different: because Tyrion associates this casualties with Shae and (most importantly) Tysha.

That's how empathy works: you imagine how it would feel if that happened to you or someone close to you.

Westeros doesn't have the notion of justice or equality between classes, so this empathy for Tyrion is a big leap, that hardly anyone else in the series does (not even the Starks: after all they put all the North in a war for a personal reason, the killing of the patriarch of the family).

The fact that he got attached to people that are considered unimportant from everyone else point of view makes the difference between the ruthless dictator that Tywin is and the Odysseus-like statesman that Tyrion is, that tries to administrate justice but without the blind trust in fair play that Ned had.

I also often see that the fact the he expressed the desire to see the Vale burning held against Tyrion: but has he actually ever done anything to accomplish this?

No: he got the clansmen, but instead of giving them arms and sending them to pillage the Riverlands (as Tywin suggested) he preferred to use them as his personal escort and did his best to keep them quiet (they behaved better than the sellsword in fact).

So, is there an actual reason to see this comment as a bloodthirsty ask for an actual revenge or simply as the human exasperate thought of someone that was brutally imprisoned, beaten, kept in a freezing cold cell where he could fall and die from one moment to another for days?

[Lummel]

No the Clansmen were given arms and are at this moment attacking the Vale and causing Lysa problems, no doubt killing women and children too - it's mentioned in a later ACOK chapter (specifically Tyrion IV). Tyrion doesn't have all the clansmen with him - just a representative number, the majority for whom the thousands of sets of arms and armour were required are now gainfully employed burning the Vale.

Tyrion is certainly not aligned in this chapter with The Ned. The Ned insists that the man who passes judgement should carry out the death sentence. Here Tyrion is a Tywin. He works through intermediaries and in a way that leaves his hands clean. Those seas are stormy at this time of year. Such a pity that Deem was swept overboard by a gang of sailors!

[Lyanna Stark]

@ Winter Knight, Lyanna

you seem determined to find some negative element in this episode to establish a Tyrion-Tywin parallel, while this episode is supposed to show exactly the opposite, IMHO.

I can only analyse it as I find it. While I can only try to be unbiased, I have no particular interest in villifying Tyrion, my interest is to find clues about his character that can make it easier to understand. To me there are clear Tywin - Tyrion paralells in these chapters, more so than Tyrion - Ned, although all leaders face a lot of the same problems, so Tyrion and Ned will also have paralells. Tyrion has grown up around Tywin though and whether he wants it or not, he has learnt a lot of lessons from his father. We see Jon Snow employ a similar, albeit more conscious method in that he often tries to emulate the man he thinks of as his father: Ned.

Westeros doesn't have the notion of justice or equality between classes, so this empathy for Tyrion is a big leap, that hardly anyone else in the series does (not even the Starks: after all they put all the North in a war for a personal reason, the killing of the patriarch of the family).

That is simply not true. A lot of characters show empathy in the series. Even the broken down Theon does with Jeyne Poole. Sansa does, and so occasionally does Arya. Cat is horrified when she hears about Gregor's raping and pillaging of the Riverlands (especially the murder of the Darry child), and even after death, she sets up an orphanage. Ned is capable of showing empathy and compassion with Cersei despite them being basically enemies. Dany is often showing empathy with a lot of people, often low born people, former slaves, the sick, etc. Empathy alone does not make Tyrion unique, it makes him human, and believeable as a character.

So, is there an actual reason to see this comment as a bloodthirsty ask for an actual revenge or simply as the human exasperate thought of someone that was brutally imprisoned, beaten, kept in a freezing cold cell where he could fall and die from one moment to another for days?

Do you consider it a natural reaction then, to wish violence, raping and pillaging upon an entire swath of land because of what one-two people did to you? (And the clansmen are causing trouble in the Vale, that's just nto Tyrion thinking that it would be a good idea.) I definitely do not, and the characters I tend to think as the ones taking the moral high ground here (Davos, Sansa, Brienne, Jon Snow, Ned) are very reluctant to issue revenge. Dany is getting a lot of criticism for doing just that.

EDIT: Beaten by Lummel on pointing out the clansmen are in fact causing issues in the Vale already.

[Lummel]

I'll unleash contingency theory here on Twyin.

Contingency theory holds that there is no right way of doing anything. The success of particular approaches will always be contingent on the circumstances.

The Ned has a leadership and authority style that works perfectly well (as far as we can tell) in the North but which doesn't work in Kings Landing where he doesn't have the same networks and where there are vested interests keen to exploit him, undermine him and oppose him.

Tywin, the great sausage maker, by contrast is repeatedly held up as the model of successful governance in Kings Landing. Twenty years of peace. No complaints about debts. He got things done and looked statesman like (I believe the young Stannis mistakes him for the king on a visit to court).

All other hands are shown to be relative failures. They don't last, can't deal with problems, carelessly get their throats slit by Jaime Lannister, run up huge debts to keep King Bob sweet.

Tyrion knows his history. In conversation with Littlefinger in Tyrion I ACOK

"You're a braver man than me, Lannister. You do know the fate of our last two Hands?"

"Two? If you mean to frighten me, why not say four?...Aeerys Targaryen's last Hand was killed during the sack of King's Landing...the one before him was burned to death. And before them came two others who died landless and penniless in exile...I believe my lord father was the last Hand to depart King's Landling with his name, properties, and parts all intact."

and he's thinking on the parallels here in Tyrion II ACOK after Janos and chatting with Varys:

"I served Lord Arryn and Lord Stark as best I could. I was saddened and horrified by their most untimely deaths."

"Think how I feel. I'm like to be next."

"oh, I think not," Varys said...

Well what does Varys mean? Two guesses. Either by act of omission or commission he brought down or allowed to be brought down the previous Hand and has decided to support Tyrion instead and/or he sees some intrinsic quality in Tyrion that means he has what it takes to survive the 'snake pit' of King's Landing.

That virtue, given past history, is more like to be a form of Tywinismus than of Eddardismus.