Disliking Tyrion Lannister

[Ser Petyr Parker]

I think Tyrion's fantasies of raping his sister are, in his mind, a kind of poetic justice and based on a lot of resentment of Cersei's use of her good looks. He sees her as a relatively worthless person who is only able to get anywhere because she uses her looks and sexuality to manipulate people. By comparison, he sees himself as a useful person who is overlooked because he is ugly. In fact, perhaps apart from himself, Cersei is probably the most disgusted by looks. He wants to use Cersei's strongest weapon against her and throw her disgust for him in her face.

This sounds pretty horrifying to us, but we live in a different world. Tyrion lives in a world where even the most honourable people will cut your head off for getting scared out of your wits and running away from a duty most consider a fool's errand. What kind of other revenge fantasies are on offer in this series? What about hanging? Burning? Flaying? Is even a straightforward beheading better? Jaime murders Ned's men in revenge for a lot less. Daenerys burns Mirri Maz Duur alive and crucifies 163 people, both for revenge. What kind of revenge might a character wish for that we would consider moral? Exile? Anything less than death would be so dangerous as to be foolish. Tyrion's revenge fantasies might make us pretty uncomfortable, but I don't know how we could expect less.

[Lady bonehead]

We are absolutely set up at the beginning of the story to like Tyrion.  He has a disability, he's smart and funny, he likes to read (just like us!), he's a "bad" Lannister but he sympathizes with the "good" Starks, and gosh darn it nobody appreciates him! But gradually we come to realize the extent that he is motivated by resentment and jealousy. In some sense he is worse than Tywin, who never loses sight of the ultimate goal of securing the stability of the realm. My breaking point was the Symon Silver Tongue incident, which was so gratuitous I didn't believe it at first. Another point about the Tysha incident is the fact that Tyrion tells this story (more than once I think). Who tells a story like that, even in a bowdlerized version?

[Springwatch]

Just been reading Storm of Swords. This has got to be Tyrion's lowest point:

Quote

ASOS - Tyrion I

[Bronn] "They tied her to a post in the yard and scourged her, then shoved her out the gate naked and bloody."

...

[Tyrion] "I promised my sister I would treat Tommen as she treated Alayaya," he remembered out loud. He felt as though he might retch. "How can I scourge an eight-year-old boy?" But if I don't, Cersei wins.

"You don't have Tommen," Bronn said bluntly. "Once she learned that Ironhand was dead, the queen sent the Kettleblacks after him, and no one at Rosby had the balls to say them nay."

Another blow; yet a relief as well, he must admit it. He was fond of Tommen.

 

[Lady Winter Rose]

I also dislike Tyrion. All the reasons have been already been stated.

[Lord Freypie]

About his rape fantasies about Cersei it's also the result of a bit of jealousy toward Jaime, and anger to see people refuse to see him as able to take his place / consider as an insult any proposal where Tyrion replaces Jaime.

The theme of people refusing to give to Tyrion what they'd give to Jaime is a constant in his arc (and something people like to use to harm him).  You have the Oberyn story showing the Martells feeling insulted when he is proposed instead of Jaime to marry Elia, Tywin telling him that Holster Tully reacted the same when he was proposed to marry Lysa, Tywin refusing to consider him the heir of Castral Rock in the place of Jaime. Cersei, who never consider him as a potential sex partner while she had no problem sleeping with his brother (or a cousin in his absence) is one more of these "you'll never be Jaime and it's even insulting to consider you can take his place" humiliations.

Far before they become complete enemies he regularily jokes/trolls her about that in their ACOK dialogs, and often has thoughts about her attractiveness (even if obsessed by Shae at the time, he never fails to make positive remarks about his sister looks or parts of her anatomy). Tyrion always dreamed to be like Jaime / be recognized able to take Jaime's place, and the idea of having sex with their sister is part of it. Then when he enters complete hate mode for her (in the middle of a hate for women in general, and hate for Jaime too after Tysha story reveal) it logically turns into rape fantasies. While a low point, it's a rather earned one, compared to his attitude to women in general including innocent slaves in Adwd.

--

For Symon Silver Tongue, i don't get people taking that as a terrible crime. He orders the elimination a blackmailer threatening the safety of the girl he loves, and suggesting him to get another singer harmed/killed to take his place. It's self defence + poetic justice in my mind. Bowl of Bronn is just some Bronn idea to get rid of the corpse, he had no reason to refuse, not being supersticious.

Imo he did far worse with the crimes he tolerated before (like not punishing Shagga for killing a simple cheater, or all the things he didn't even try to prevent from Joffrey or Cersei when he was controlling most of the forces in KL), and worse than this worse in GoT when he armed the Mountain Clans (his supposed revenge against Lysa consisting in fact in helping savage pillagers and rapists to harass innocent Vale lowborns and travellers).

That he thinks about Symon, somehow feeling guilty, months after is rather a positive point but make people overstimate this incident where he just had very limited choice (what other option to be sure to silence a blackmailer ? getting his tongue cut, + hands if he could write ? would have been even crueler)..

--

In the 3 on this page, I'd say the real lowest point is him considering to live up to his threat with Tommen, just "not to lose" against Cersei. It's not like torturing Tommen would change anything for Alalaya or himself at this point (only getting her killed as reprisals probably). It's purely harming an innocent relative, not even really for revenge (could have done a lot other things to harm his sister) but not to lose face. And I fear if he hadn't been "lucky", with Tommen no longer being in his hands, he may have forced himself to do it (if then would have felt guilty and lamented for dozens of chapters about how he was "forced" to do this). Somehow Tommen being freed saved the whole Tyrion arc.

[Lady bonehead]

 Considering all the horrendous crimes committed in the series, I'm not going to blame anyone for making sexist comments or having rape fantasies. Even sex with a reluctant prostitute is just an extension of what Tyrion's been doing for years, he knows women are repulsed by him but he still has needs so he is used to ignoring the woman's feelings. Honestly, Tywin could have tried a bit harder to find him a wife, if I was the homely daughter of some impoverished knight for example I would cheerfully put up with Tyrion in exchange for a life of luxury! Anyway, I think Penny gets seriously inside Tyrion's head because she seems to be genuinely attracted to him.

This is all getting away from the theme of Tyrion-hating however. Honestly the problem isn't Tyrion himself, who is a fascinating and complex character, but all the fans who are so attached to him that they think everything he does is justifiable. 

[Lord Lannister]

I would point out that applying modern day morality to a medieval setting is an exercise in futility. Cultural morality, along with every other facet of culture, is something that evolves over time as a society progresses. You're going to find something to hate about every character in the book just about. But if that's how you derive your enjoyment from the story, then have fun with it.

To Tyrion, yes he's one of my favorite characters. Is he morally gray? Definitely. I would definitely term him something for of an anti-hero. He's not pure as fallen snow as the show makes him out to be, but he's not the main villain of the series as others want to make him out to be. He spends the first three novels of the series, on the side of the primary antagonists in the series, thrown into a corrupt political system where viciousness is required to avoid ending up like Ned Stark. He's usually never actively cruel unless his perceived survival is at stake or he's being deliberately slighted. That marks the difference between him and someone like Joffrey or Cersei to me.

I didn't much enjoy him in Dance as I did the first three novels(though I didn't enjoy Feast or Dance as much as I enjoyed the first three novels either). I see where Martin's going with this, him having lost everything literally and the bubble that partially shielded him from a world that was already very cruel to him was brutally burst. He's left with literally nothing and trying to figure out what truly matters to him now that the rest is gone. He could end up becoming a true hateful villain from this, or end up gravitating towards the better things in life. It's what makes him a compelling character that he manages to touch upon both ends of the emotional spectrum so vividly.

[Regular John Umber]

14 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

I would point out that applying modern day morality to a medieval setting is an exercise in futility. Cultural morality, along with every other facet of culture, is something that evolves over time as a society progresses.

 

 Is this actually true? I'm genuinely asking. Or do we simply assume that medieval people were all asshole psychopaths and that it's "just the way it was" is an effective excuse? Morality wasn't invented in the 20th century. Most religious texts - the basis of many people's morality - are thousands of years old.

 

 Someone smarter than me should probably answer this question.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

2 hours ago, Regular John Umber said:

... Most religious texts - the basis of many people's morality - are thousands of years old. ...

If you actually read those texts you'll be shocked at what they suggest as the morally right thing. For examble, the Bible allows for marital rape. There are many more issues if you care to research.

 

I don't claim to be smarter than anyone :-)

[ShadowCat Rivers]

7 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

No it doesn't.  But that's neither here nor there.  If you believe marital rape is wrong, you can apply that ethic at any time or place.  On the other hand, if you believe that morality depends on time, place and circumstance, then no rape is wrong provided you think you can escape punishment.

Yes it does, though here is not the place to discuss it. The point is that, were I born in the time it was written, I would likely believe it A-OK too, because that would be the prevalent set of ideas I'd have been raised with. Nothing exists in vaccum.

[Lord Freypie]

Personnally it's more the idea of hating a litterary character because of moral reasons, modern or not, I find strange.

For an Asoiaf Pov my criteria would be more "do I enjoy rereading his chapters", "does he tell interesting things about the world", "do I understand him", "...find his personnality rich and interesting" "...identify and tend to root for him when opposed to other characters", etc... Actions as bad they may be are unimportant, as long they look coherent with an interesting psychology, or I can identify enough to excuse them.

Actually the PoV I like the less didn't do any thing really wrong at this point, it's Bran because (until the very last) I find his chapters rather boring to re-read with all the long wolf dreams, the travelogue to the north with very few encounters, his limited interest and understanding of politics, childish thoughts in early books, etc...  Out of 2 or 3 stories he is told (Old Nan tales and Harrenhal tourney) I tend to skip him on a reread.

I love rereading all the Lannisters on the other hand, and enjoy a lot some other grey to dark characters like Arianne, Theon and Victarion.

 

 

[Lady bonehead]

The characters in the story judge themselves and each other according to moral standards that we recognize, otherwise it wouldn't really work (would you really want tonread a story about a bumch of Dothraki?). Rape is illegal in Westeros and can be harshly punished. Yeah, nobles can get away with raping peasant girls, but (news flash) rich guys nowadays get away with things that poor guys get long prison sentences for. Marital rape is legal (as in most societies), but violates the rules of courtly love which hold that noblewomen should be respected.  Robert assaults Cersei when he is drunk but then apologizes afterwards, meaning he has some awareness of having done something wrong.

I guess the annoying thing about Tyrion is that he is a rich kid who portrays himself as a victim.

[Samsaptakas]

I'm not going to hate a fictional character for thinking perverse thoughts, considering that said character had committed actual crimes.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

2 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

Cruelty and compassion are not unique, modern, or difficult concepts.

And, as always, the catch is where the line is drawn in regards to when, and how much, cruelty is accepted by a society as "justified" and when, and how much, compassion is perhaps deemed harmful to the "greater good" of the society. That's still here and relevant, what really changes is the boundary. From my part, I sure prefer to live in my contemporary world's ethical norm instead, say, 100 years ago or in some particular countries even in these times- not too long ago nor too far away, really. You see, I am a woman.

[Alaynsa Starne]

The myth about Tyrion being less misogynistic than the rest of Westeros needs to die. He's "nice" to some whores because it feeds his ego to be "nice" to people who are beneath him on the social ladder. He treats Shae horribly, he resents Sansa because he expects her to behave like a loving wife (when she's 12 and he forced her to marry him), he fantasizes about raping his sister, and he actually does rape a slave. His attitudes aren't all that progressive even for Westeros, especially when you compare him to the way characters like Jon or Quentyn or Ned think about women. And that's fine, because this is fiction and these characters are imperfect. There's nothing wrong with liking characters with major flaws. But stop forwarding a false narrative about what the character is like just because you don't want to recognize the things that are wrong with him. 

[Lord Freypie]

Don't know about this myth (ie anyone who said that, imo he's around the average westerosi on the topic) but your arguments aren't really convincing.

Examples like Quentyn and Jon, and Ned (a virgin, a quasi virgin with only a reciprocal love story in his history and M.honorable in a loving marriage) are certainly not representative of "the rest of Westeros". It's a bit like taking examples like Theon, Robert, Ramsay and Gregor to demonstrate Tyrion is correctness with women incarnate.

I also don't see any comparable situation in those characters arcs to be sure what they'd have done given say a 12 year old forced wife and their fathers asking them to consumate the wedding (imo dutiful Quentyn at least would certainly have done his best to obey Doran / his family interest even if hating it, as it is all he is about). Sansa was lucky pleasing his father wasn't Tyrion priority, but imo the average noble would just have obeyed with more or less disgust (not to say Tyrion's reasons to disobey were noble, he was mostly having unrealistic dreams about the possibility of an happy marriage in the end and following what he considered the best strategy to attain this goal).

 

 

 

 

[ShadowCat Rivers]

20 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

But works of fiction, including those set in pre-modern times, need not be driven primarily by such things.  Rather, they may be driven by the choices made by individuals - especially the main characters of the story.  Morality, and the actions of protagonists in works of fiction, are BOTH primarily concerned with the choices made on an individual level.  The political structure of the society in which the individual makes his or her moral choices, merely provides a setting.

And what would inform the morals -and the decisions driven by them or in breaking with them- of those characters, if not the context that the story has them operate in? In order to be credible in the minimum, that is. In the sense of being realistic both in the wider context (society, politics etc) as well as their own microcosm.

Tyrion would be the worst character ever if he was portrayed to be the poster boy of the good dwarf - the sort of disabled person who only cares for others and takes insults with a genuine smile coming straight from his good, and not bitter at all, heart. You know, how the priviledged people want the unprivilledged to be like. Of course, Tyrion is not Penny; there are areas in which he *is* privilledged and he acts accordingly. And that's realistic and what makes him a great character.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

12 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

Tyrion knows perfectly well that his actions are wicked.  He chooses to do them anyway.  He is well aware of the moral standards he is willfully violating.  But he has motives:  hate, greed, jealousy, envy ... so he does them anyway.

...

But there's no need to confuse "great character" with "good person".  Tyrion may be the former, but he is definitely not the latter.

I hope you're not suggesting that it is unrealistic for characters to be more virtuous than Tyrion?

For some actions he indeed is, for some others he's just acting within his context. Which is not nice, but that's where those characters exist.

Tyrion is not a saint, as some like to see him, but neither is he the evil that the recent trend wants him to be read as. Tyrion, in the chapters between his trial and his time in the Rhoyne, is in a very dark place and I don't mind at all people pointing this out. What I absolutely disagree with though, is retroactively painting all that he ever did in a bad light. All people (the vast magority, anyway) are capable for both good and bad (“There is a savage beast in every man...” is one of the best quotes in this series). What we have in his story is the descend of a person who starts his path having good intentions and great talents but also great weaknesses and illusions, and likely in the future we will have his resurgence: not perhaps into being "a good person" but into being "his own person". The view that 'bad people were always bad and always will be bad' is IMO nonsensical wrt real people but in any case, it does not make a good ground for a story I'd care to read.

Also, I hope you're not suggesting that "good persons" don't experience feelings such as hate, greed, jealousy, envy. How they choose to act on those is what separates 'good' from 'bad'. And, what restraints a person (from within) from crossing the line (which, we need to keep in mind, is moving depending on context) when acting on such motives can be lost or found along the path. The 'Tyrion who still had hope' was different from the 'Tyrion who has lost it all', for examble. Characters can evolve in both good or bad ways.

Of course it is realistic to have more virtuous characters in the setting. But there are well founded reasons why Jon Snow, eg, came up a more virtuous character. Having a character with Tyrion's backstory and trajectory and expecting that person to be vanilla, that would be unrealistic.

[Sigella]

On 2017-07-24 at 3:40 PM, ShadowCat Rivers said:

Yes it does, though here is not the place to discuss it. The point is that, were I born in the time it was written, I would likely believe it A-OK too, because that would be the prevalent set of ideas I'd have been raised with. Nothing exists in vaccum.

No. There is philosophical example called "Jojo" which I'd like to refer to here:

Premise: Jojo is a son of an african dictator. His father loves torturing and killing people and he has brought Jojo along to watch this ever since Jojo was born. Nobody has ever told Jojo that torture and killing is wrong. When his father dies Jojo continues to torture and kill.

Your stance makes it ok for Jojo, he doesn't have any responsibility for what he does.

Problem with that is: if Jojo has no responsibility, nobody has any responsibility ever. It turns people into predestined machines or animals AND to believe this to be true you have to put all "free will"  to the side because if everyone is predestined to to the things we do, we have no free will.

[Lord Freypie]

16 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

This is about the grand scheme of things: politics; policy; legal norms; the actions of "Society".  Individual moral agents typically have no control over such things. 

But works of fiction, including those set in pre-modern times, need not be driven primarily by such things.  Rather, they may be driven by the choices made by individuals - especially the main characters of the story.  Morality, and the actions of protagonists in works of fiction, are BOTH primarily concerned with the choices made on an individual level.  The political structure of the society in which the individual makes his or her moral choices, merely provides a setting.

Tyrion is a man.  He is a rich man.  He is a powerful man.   He chooses to treat those people around him horribly.  He could have made different choices, even in a medieval society.

I think considering the structure of the society as just "a setting" where characters would be free to make choices is ignoring that most characters choice are just showing the effects of this setting, their education and upbringing, out of the completely exceptionnal moment where a hero basing his choice on a more universal morality takes some revolutionnary decision (and even, for the instances we see, like Jon and Daenerys ending thousands years old traditions, those choices are mostly the result of their personnal experiences allowing them to escape the common world view).

Like Martin likes to say to differenciate himself from second rank fantasy writers, his medieval society has teeth, The social rules are not something his characters good or bad can forget, it's the forge that molded them. And showing the kind of behaviors and worldviews an extremely classist, patriarchal and autoritarian society produce, even for characters having some good tendancies is a big part of his character building and looks like one of the main Martin goal. As a reminder Asoiaf opens not only with Ned Stark executing a deserter without hesitation, not really listening to his defense, but him beheading him in front of his seven year old child to toughen him up. Which doesn't prevent him, after five books and the introduction of dozens of other competitors for the good guy slot, to remain one of the most regularily used examples of a moral/good character.

And even bigger than general social norm how their parental upbringing affect characters is a big theme of the serie. Like it's noted several times in the serie, noble childs are just continuing stories started by their fathers and grandfathers before, and we rarely get to see "good" characters coming from "bad" parents/families or vice versa (if good and bad can apply in any form).  Even more than being the product of having grown as a rich and powerful noble son, Tyrion is the product of how Tywin raised him, and his complex relation to a father who was both the source of all this richness and power, an example for him, a source of regular humiliations and his/the girl he loved abuser in his most horrible personnal experience. Perhaps even more than any other character in the serie there's no possible understanding of Tyrion out of thin air (not going back to the way his father is celebrated as a "one in a millenium" ruler, to him being his father humiliation, the monstruous son regularily reminded he "killed his mother at birth", to Tysha story, even further to Tywin's personnal history explaining the way he was teached to see women in general and whores in particular, etc...).

Not to say Tyrion education was entirely bad and corrupted a character who would have naturally good out of that. I'd say the good side is as much the result of his education as the bad.

Unlike, say, the Greyjoys coming from a more barbaric tradition, Lannisters (especially the two male PoVs, Cersei upbringing being more probably based on "learn embroidery and other women skills, be charming, and prepare yourself for marriage") seem to have recieved good moral values from their maesters, septons and other mentors. Both Jaime and Tyrion have ideals of justice and honor, have some concern for their subordinates, or even the small folk in general well being, reprove cruelty, gratuitous rapes and war crimes in their thoughts, are horrified seeing/learning about some, reprove Joffrey and Cersei actions, etc.  But all that doesn't prevent both of them to become criminals when they judge they have a good enough reason for (or to tolerate the crimes in the interest of their family most of the time). The main difference in the case of Tyrion, is after suffering soul destroying humiliation after humiliation he more and more considers he's in right to take revenge against the whole world or indulges himself in cruelty, even if perfectly conscious it's not just and hating himself for what he does. While Jaime is still in the previous mode "let's be honorable and good .... except if political necessity decides otherwise, in which case let's follow Tywin's example".

After having been only rebellious against his father or some social norms in early books, in ADWD Tyrion is at a rebellious against the gods/world stage, world is cruel, gods if they exist only play games to torture us, things have no meaning, so I can do whatever please me in the moment like frightening or raping sex slaves, I certainly desserve to be cruel too after all I suffered, etc...  But even while in this mood, Tyrion is far from finding solace in this behavior, as shown in the sunset girl scene, he can't refrain to have some considerations for his victims and hates himself for the bad things he does (even going back to older and more justified crimes in his late chapters thoughts - Symon Silvertongue etc- to torture himself more).

Imo, it's more probably a paradoxal step to a good evolution than a sign of a definitive bad one. Tyrion's quest is finding solace, succeeding to end an intimate suffering and self loathing at least as old as the Tysha story, which only became worse and worse, and made him despise the unjust world he lives in in general.  After (barely trying being too busy with urgencies and) failing to right some wrongs as a Lannister politician (like he naively dreamed when he became hand and believed he could bring "justice" to KL) the first time he had some power and ending corrupted by the game of thrones more than he changed anything positively, he's trying something else in ADWD, becoming a complete cynical indulging in his worse tendancies, and he is failing again to find solace in that, rather the contrary, while getting some personnal experience in the meantime of even more revolting aspects of the world like slavery (and of seing the world through the eyes of completely powerless people, something he had never experienced being born a Lannister).

Imo the powerless revolt irrigating his thoughts may be a preparation for Tyrion to become a true revolutionnary, the champion of the cripples, bastards, lowborns, whores and broken things he always dreamed or pretended to be, to find that solace can only be found in fighting for a cause higher than himself, what supporting Daenerys the breaker of chains (or later taking his place alongside Jon and her in the big struggle for the survival of humanity) will offer him.

Of course things are never that simple with Martin, the conflicting desire of revenge against some individuals like Cersei, or of power for power (I just want my birthright, na), are likely to be at least as important than the one to bring some social justice when Tyrion will be back to some power. But I think he has not been bring through experiences like slavery (and on the two sides of it) for nothing, Out of achieving a return to power it will certainly take him some more traumatic experiences (like causing the death of Penny or discovering what Tysha and her daughter have become) before he'll take a good turn again, but I think the roots are there for him having a positive role in the end.