Danelle Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 First of all, I think the title of the post is compelling to anyone who appreciates the books as a piece of literature; Jamie Lannister is a central character thematically, more so than Ned certainly, or even Jon or Tyrion. His struggle with the Westerosi concept of honour is part of the main theme explored by many characters in the books. I would say this is shown best in the fact that two of the most prominent secondary characters (Sandor Clegane and Brienne of Tarth) can best be understood as literary foils for Jamie. They both show different perspectives on the central theme of the novels; struggling with the concept of 'honour' that is there to prop up a system (feudalism) that is inherently dishonourable. On Sandor's side, he has rejected the idea that knights and vows are honourable at all, though he himself is not that honourable through most of the books. Brienne is a blend of Jamie's early idealism ("I wanted to be Arthur Dayne") and Sansa's naive, fairy-tale belief in the 'true knight.' Other characters that are used to explore the same theme include Barristan Selmy and Jorah Mormont, but practically everyone has a bit to contribute. I agree with the OP substantially. Jamie is essentially a good guy who is struggling with his sense of honour as a knight on one hand and his relationship with his twin on the other, which pushes him in directions that are of course highly dishonourable. You raise very interesting points and I really enjoyed reading your post. I disagree with the OP in regards to Jaime's redemption. Burning the letter doesn't conclude his redemption arc. Also I disagree with any approach in his arc that blames Cersei for everything that Jaime has done. On the other hand, redemption is an issue that figures prominently in Jaime's arc. As GRRM said: One of the things I wanted to explore with Jaime, and with so many of the characters, is the whole issue of redemption. When can we be redeemed? Is redemption even possible? I don't have an answer. But when do we forgive people? You see it all around in our society, in constant debates. Should we forgive Michael Vick? I have friends who are dog-lovers who will never forgive Michael Vick. Michael Vick has served years in prison; he's apologized. Has he apologized sufficiently? Woody Allen: Is Woody Allen someone that we should laud, or someone that we should despise? Or Roman Polanski, Paula Deen. Our society is full of people who have fallen in one way or another, and what do we do with these people? How many good acts make up for a bad act? If you're a Nazi war criminal and then spend the next 40 years doing good deeds and feeding the hungry, does that make up for being a concentration-camp guard? I don't know the answer, but these are questions worth thinking about. I want there to be a possibility of redemption for us, because we all do terrible things. We should be able to be forgiven. Because if there is no possibility of redemption, what's the answer then? Haha, too bad all the magic in the series hasn't given us a talking penis. I have a few questions for some, and I'm not just lookin' at Victarion. :uhoh: Well, that kind of magic exists in the books, sort of. Remember how Varys was castrated and why? "One day at Myr, a certain man came to our folly. After the performance, he made an offer for me that my master found too tempting to refuse. I was in terror. I feared the man meant to use me as I had heard men used small boys, but in truth the only part of me he had need of was my manhood. He gave me a potion that made me powerless to move or speak, yet did nothing to dull my senses. With a long hooked blade, he sliced me root and stem, chanting all the while. I watched him burn my manly parts on a brazier. The flames turned blue, and I heard a voice answer his call, though I did not understand the words they spoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7th-key Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I'm curious, how can you have a modern view to decry blood as a determiner for leadership while also putting forth a view on the Kingsguard? Aren't those a thing of the past? Because there is little illogical or unpractical about the core concept of having an order to protect the ruler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 There is also importance of how a ruler becomes a ruler in the first place. I wouldn't respect the secret service if they protected the loser of a presidential campaign and shunned the true winner from office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7th-key Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 The Kingsguard protects the King from physical harm not from being politically overthrown.I'd say, as long as the ruler isn't an evil crazy tyrant, protecting him from assassins is kind of a good thing: please, remove people from office in a civil manner, thank you! So much for the Kingsguard's order. Now, Jaime, as a person, is guilty of withholding important political information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Fevre Dream Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 You raise very interesting points and I really enjoyed reading your post. I disagree with the OP in regards to Jaime's redemption. Burning the letter doesn't conclude his redemption arc. Also I disagree with any approach in his arc that blames Cersei for everything that Jaime has done. On the other hand, redemption is an issue that figures prominently in Jaime's arc. As GRRM said: Well, that kind of magic exists in the books, sort of. Remember how Varys was castrated and why? Haha and touche. Tis true......that is pretty close to a talking penis. It's definitely using one for communciation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7th-key Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Also I disagree with any approach in his arc that blames Cersei for everything that Jaime has done. That's why I dread the prospect of Jaime as the Valonquar. It would be hypocritical scapegoating, and the fact that the goat is rotten doesn't change that. Killing your ex lover for cheating is not very honorable, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 That's why I dread the prospect of Jaime as the Valonquar. It would be hypocritical scapegoating, and the fact that the goat is rotten doesn't change that. Killing your ex lover for cheating is not very honorable, either. I doubt that will be his motive if he is the valonqar and is the one who kills her, it will likely be to stop her from destroying KL or committing some other large scale atrocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7th-key Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I doubt that will be his motive if he is the valonqar and is the one who kills her, it will likely be to stop her from destroying KL or committing some other large scale atrocity. Probably. I hope he'll be at least a little late, giving Cersei time to roast the High Sparrow. :devil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dofs Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I can and will blame Jaime for what others are doing because he has a bigger hand in it than they do. You can't separate Jaime supporting an unlawful king from him making the unlawful king in the first place. If they Tyrells are doing it knowingly, that's more understandable. Jaime doing it is him scheming to seat his own brood on the throne in another's name while perfectly fine with subjecting others to that rule. Case in point, his actions in the riverlands. He's subjecting them to the rule of the Iron Throne knowing Tommen is not a Baratheon from which his claim comes from. The bolded part is simply not true. Jaime did not scheme anything nor did he have any intention to put his children on the throne. With him subjecting others to the rule of Tommen, he is simply following orders and if I recall, Jon Arryn, Robert Baratheon and Hoster Tully were doing something similar during RR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Was Jaime never taught that sex lead to intercourse? if that's the case, then he's totally innocent of fathering his bastards. He's still guilty of sleeping with the king's wife, treason, but not the kids... Then again, he did call Joffrey "a squirt of seed in Cersei's cunt" so I think he may have somewhat of an idea that sex can lead to babies... Jaime knew full well that the children were his and Robert's. They had no claim to the throne. He knew this and did nothing to stop Cersei from claiming the children as Baratheon's. He also helped Cersei abort what would have been Robert's child. I see no reason to not believe Cersei about this, so that makes Jaime implicit in usurping Stannis and causing the succession crisis. That is completely different to what Jon, Ned, and Robert did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Exactly. It is beyond reason. That was my way of saying he is unredeemable. But no, supporting a king he knows for a fact to be a bastard, and therefore unlawful is not excused or justified because he's in the Kingsguard. If he wanted to support his king he'd be up in the north with Stannis. Instead, he's continuing the lie that Tommen is a Baratheon in name. Even Cersei knows this. I don't expect him to do the right thing since he's already screwed over Westeros, but if he does somehow get Tommen to abdicate, let it be known that Tommen is not lawfully the king, and also keep him safe, he'd be okay in my book. @Lion, since innocents dying are a part of Westeros in regards to Bran only apparently, I don't see it unreasonable that Jaime could just kill Tommen too then. So essentially Jaime can't do be ok since it would be impossible for Tommen to abdicate and be safe. The next guy on the throne, and 100% Stannis, would want Tommen dead to make an example of how usurpers are dealt with. Its not unreasonable, of course, since Jaime is the Kingslayer however I don't think that adding a second kingslaying as well as kinslaying would do much to improve Jaime's chances at redemption. Renly only started to rebel after Robert died and Cersei had taken control of King's Landing, and Robert only died because Cersei killed him to help hide the twincest. The plan to replace Cersei would have hardly started a war, at most Tywin would get pissed but wouldn't have any means to oppose it besides stop lending Robert money. No, his sister did that by killing Robert to hide the twincest. But for Renly and the Tyrells to actually hold the throne, and the Tyrells have been shown to be nothing if not power-grabbers, then Robert's kids will Cersei will have to go - no matter if they are coal or gold - and thus conflict is inevitable since Tywin will not hesitate to raise his banners in support of his grandchildren. Also courtly intrigues in Westeros can be pretty vicious. If Robert has trueborn kids with both the Lannisters and the Tyrells I see it kind of like a Baratheon version of the Blacks and the Greens since both sides would have mothers coming from Houses who wants the big prize for themselves, but this time it will be the Reds and the Greens, fighting for dominance which is likley to explode into civil war due to Robert having some similarities with Viserys. It was a push in the direction of war, yes. You raise very interesting points and I really enjoyed reading your post. I disagree with the OP in regards to Jaime's redemption. Burning the letter doesn't conclude his redemption arc. Also I disagree with any approach in his arc that blames Cersei for everything that Jaime has done. On the other hand, redemption is an issue that figures prominently in Jaime's arc. As GRRM said: Well, that kind of magic exists in the books, sort of. Remember how Varys was castrated and why? Thank you for sharing this with us. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 So essentially Jaime can't do be ok... Exactly. I'm glad you finally understand. :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolves Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Jaime can never be redeemed and I don't care for GRRM's idea of redemption. Although I don't have a clear idea on redemption I always preferred Joss Whedon's take on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 What's Whedon's take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolves Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 What's Whedon's take?Well I'm going by how he wrote Angel and redemption on the show "Angel"But Whedon wrote that redemption wasn't possible but that didn't matter it was fighting the good fight anyway. He wrote that yeah you do terrible things and no you can't be redeemed no matter how much good you do but that never stopped his heroes. His heroes all did horrible things and some were evil and some of them knew they would never find true redemption for their crimes but they still picked up their weapons and went to fight even though they lost people along the way, and they never got paid for their work and even when they were outnumbered they always fought against evil no matter what and they did it because they could not for any reward or redemption but because they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Exactly. I'm glad you finally understand. :cheers: Jaime can never be redeemed and I don't care for GRRM's idea of redemption.Although I don't have a clear idea on redemption I always preferred Joss Whedon's take on it. Good, then we can skip this discussion because its pointless. Thank you for coming out. Although you are of course wrong. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolves Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Although you are of course wrong. :)Wrong in thinking Jaime can't be redeemed? Or wrong in my idea if Whedon's take on redemption? Or is it both? I don't mind discussing it with you, I do value your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Wrong in thinking Jaime can't be redeemed? Or wrong in my idea if Whedon's take on redemption? Or is it both?I don't mind discussing it with you, I do value your opinion. I think that you are wrong in that Jaime can't be redemped, and while Wheadon is entitled to his view, which I can agree with to a degree, I disagree more with him than I agree. And I thank you for your kind words. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.