Why do Lannisters have a reputation as a "villain family"?

[beauty6]

I am reacting to some points in this discussion, lazy copy exact quotes, sorry.

Somebody claims they see no redemption in Jaime. The question is, if your "soul" were inserted into Jaime and you decide to be a good person inside his body and with his background, how would you do it ? Would you order to pull the army away from Riverrun and let Edmure have the castle ? It is theoretically possible, but after doing several crazy things like this, he would be removed from the game. A lot of people hate how stupid Eddard Stark plays out, Jaime would certainly overpass that. I admit, the secret orders to kill Edmure or Jeyne if they try to escape do not seem appealing, but on overall, he is doing quite a decent job I guess. I mean, what action should he realistically take to convince the nay sayers he is redeeming himself ?

[beauty6]

...or other way of asking, if you wrote the fanfiction where Jaime redeems himself more convincingly, what would you put in there ? 

[beauty6]

As for Jaime and Cersei not turning out the same in spite of the same upbringing... Or Joffrey being different if not raised as a spoiled child... I tend to believe more in genes than upbringing, if it is real life. But GRRM, the God of ASOIAF universe apparently believes in nurture. Jaime was raised in part by Arthur Dayne, so had other role-models than Tywin. 

[Clegane'sPup]

Quote

Well, nobody knows what GRRM's ultimate goals are,

I believe this to be true in the sense that Martin is writing a story and he has his characters traveling in a direction that I might be aware of.

My perspective about Jaime is this:

Jaime has a rude awaking when he loses his sword hand. His interactions with Brienne had an effect upon his thinking. His reading of the book also had an effect upon him. He starts to question his outlook.

Jaime tossing Bran from the window by my personal standards is wrong. A crime. He tried to commit murder.  Martin is writing a story about a bunch of characters doing what they do.  By Jaime’s standards he was doing the right thing. If Bran had told what he saw Jaime, Cersei and their children would be at risk.

Where is Martin going to take the Jaime character?

**I had to dig around for it, but I think that Bran knows who the   “golden man appeared in the sky above him and pulled him up. "The things I do for love," he murmured softly as he tossed him out kicking into empty air” is.

Jaime confessed to Cat that he was the one who dropped her son from the window.  Last I read Brienne is supposedly taking Jaime to LSH.

For me the question is, is Martin going to have LSH make Jaime pay for his crime or is Brienne going to save him. If Brienne saves Jaime is Bran going to be the one who makes Jaime pay for his crime or is Bran going to forgive Jaime his trespass?

**A Clash of Kings - Bran IV    The falling, Bran thought, and the golden man, the queen's brother, he scares me too, but mostly the falling. He did not say it, though. How could he? He had not been able to tell Ser Rodrik or Maester Luwin, and he could not tell the Reeds either. If he didn't talk about it, maybe he would forget. He had never wanted to remember. It might not even be a true remembering.

[The Wolves]

41 minutes ago, beauty6 said:

As for Jaime and Cersei not turning out the same in spite of the same upbringing... Or Joffrey being different if not raised as a spoiled child... I tend to believe more in genes than upbringing, if it is real life. But GRRM, the God of ASOIAF universe apparently believes in nurture. Jaime was raised in part by Arthur Dayne, so had other role-models than Tywin. 

Jaime and Cersei are the same, two evil narcissistic monsters who are literally fucking themselves. Also Joffery proves on multiple occasions that he is Jaime Lannister's son. 

Two weak willed, disgusting pieces of shit who created another disgusting piece of shit. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

I doubt that's what he meant, and in any event the question does not make any sense.  I don't know where to begin to answer it.   I never said that the desire for glory was the only thought or emotion Jaime ever had, nor do I think anyone here is denying that he has such thoughts or emotions.

If you are claiming that some private thought of his is indicative of true altruism or charity, rather than some pragmatic consideration towards getting something he wants for Jaime, give me the quote and I'll consider it.  It's possible that in some cases you may have a point.

As best I can recall, Jaime's private thoughts merely illustrate the notion, commented on by GRRM, that real villains don't think of themselves as villains.  However, please note that I have never claimed that Jaime was some sort of monolithic cartoon villain who never had a charitable thought.  I am merely denying that there is any evidence that he has changed for the better.

Bottom line:  He tried to murder an innocent little boy.  And he is still unrepentant. 

He laid out exactly what I meant in a more patient way than I cared to use. 

And yes GRRM has addressed that exact issue:

Remember, Jaime isn't just trying to kill Bran because he's an annoying little kid. Bran has seen something that is basically a death sentence for Jaime, for Cersei, and their children – their three actual children. So I've asked people who do have children, "Well, what would you do in Jaime's situation?" They say, "Well, I'm not a bad guy – I wouldn't kill." Are you sure? Never? If Bran tells King Robert he's going to kill you and your sister-lover, and your three children. . . .

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

I would not hesitate nor would I repent for seeing my family safe.

And that statement is categorically false, which basically means you think he's a cartoon villain. As Stannis would say:

“A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward.”

By isolating and emphasizing one act, regardless of what you think of it, you're completely ignoring literally every thought, action, or feeling that conflicts with your opinion. Congratulations on channeling Cersei. Do you think it's a coincidence that Jaime's arc is turning him better while Cersei and Tyrion trend worse?

You might not think he's ever going to redeem himself from that one act, but that doesn't mean he isn't on a redemption arc or trying to be a better person (the entire point of any redemption arc btw) or helping others.

 

[Clegane'sPup]

6 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Yeah, I remember that part.  It was where LSH offered Brienne the choice between "rope" and "sword".  Either kill yourself with the sword, or take the rope, tie up the kingslayer, and bring him to me.  Brienne chose the rope.

And then Brienne shows up at midnight, suspiciously fondling the hilt of her rope, as she lures Jaime off into the woods alone.

Or am I getting it confused somehow ... ? 

<chuckle> The fondling of the rope doesn't seem quite correct. I'll have to check up on it and get back to you.

 

[the trees have eyes]

15 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

Well, nobody knows what GRRM's ultimate goals are, so I can only assume that on some level he "needs" to write the things that he in fact writes.  But, at least as far as the reader is concerned, Jaime's status as moral pariah was clearly established when he pushed a little boy out of a window, with intent to kill.  After that, if anyone cared what he did to the mad murderous evil king Aerys, it certainly wasn't the reader.

Absolutley Jaime's status as a moral pariah for the reader is established by him throwing Bran out the window.  For Westeros at large his status as a moral pariah and his fundamental identity are inseparable from the act of kingslaying.  Such act of course not being as black as it appears now we know his reasons for acting.  My original point was and remains that I don't think Jaime is leaving KL at risk of destruction by leaving the ticking bomb underneath it out of a mixture of arrogance, laziness and disregard.  He doesn't act on his information for meta story reasons and GRRM already defused the bomb (iirc on that point).

3 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

If you are claiming that some private thought of his is indicative of true altruism or charity, rather than some pragmatic consideration towards getting something he wants for Jaime, give me the quote and I'll consider it.  It's possible that in some cases you may have a point.

As best I can recall, Jaime's private thoughts merely illustrate the notion, commented on by GRRM, that real villains don't think of themselves as villains.  However, please note that I have never claimed that Jaime was some sort of monolithic cartoon villain who never had a charitable thought.  I am merely denying that there is any evidence that he has changed for the better.

Bottom line:  He tried to murder an innocent little boy.  And he is still unrepentant. 

Well let's start with the bearpit.  Jaime's conscious thoughts are to get back to Cersei and be rid of this tiresome Brienne of Tarth but then he has the weirwood dream and forces Steelshanks Walton to take him back to Harrenhall to fetch Brienne.  Why?  What's in it for him to bring her to KL except to attempt to fulfil his vow of exchanging Sansa and Arya for himself and helping her to bring them back to Catelyn?  It looks like he's already trying to work on this even before he jumps in the bearpit to force Walton's men to rescue her.

3 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

His attitude toward Cersei has changed, sure.  But, as I keep pointing out, change does not always mean change for the better.

Jaime has always been a man of action.  Courage is one virtue that he has always definitely had. His saving of Brienne is consistent with his character.

Undoubtedly.  The question is why he would go back to Harrenhall and why he would jump in the pit.  Risking himeself in battle when he was a peerless warrior confident of victory and fighting for his own or his family's interests is one thing, jumping unarmed into a bearpit when he can't fight at all in any case for Brienne - who serves his family's enemies and is his guard - is another thing altogether.  He doesn't need to do any of this and it doesn't serve his interests to do so but he does so anyway.

2 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

Religious?  Perhaps not.  I never said you had to be "religious" per se.  But if nothing binds you, not even some amorphous fuzzy mystical concept like "karma", then the phrases "moral man", "believe in", honesty" "righteousness" "honour" and "redemption" can just mean whatever you want them to mean; and there's really no point in talking about it.

Surely the point is that religion and mystical fuzzy concepts are all part of man's attempt to make rules that society can operate by. Sure, there's a large philosophical element to all this but ultimately the moral code is a set of rules, sometimes observed,often not, that men make to govern what behaviour is acceptable.  Individuals who step beyond that become pariahs - Jaime and Theon, Ramsey and Gregor, Cersei and Tywin.  GRRM's exploration through Jaime and perhaps through Theon is whether once you have stepped beyond the pale, you can ever step back again and what you would have to do for that to happen. 

It's worth noting that redemption and forgiveness are separate things so Jaime / Theon might make some act of noble self-sacrifice that helped save the world (work with me here ) and so they would be redeemed in society's eyes (how not?) but Bran, UnCat or Dany (and many readers) might not find it in themselves to forgive them for their acts.  Both judgments are understandable.

[Dofs]

 

3 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

Religious?  Perhaps not.  I never said you had to be "religious" per se.  But if nothing binds you, not even some amorphous fuzzy mystical concept like "karma", then the phrases "moral man", "believe in", honesty" "righteousness" "honour" and "redemption" can just mean whatever you want them to mean; and there's really no point in talking about it.

You say 'perhaps not' but then continue to flat out say that you must be religious to be moral. That's the conclusion I take from what you write and I fundamentally disagree with it. It's just flat out wrong.

Also, Jaime was not born on an uninhabited island, he was born in Westerosi society, was raised by Westerosi society and hence understands what moral and immoral is just as Westerosi society does. That's what binds Jaime. He doesn't have to believe in some mystical things to know what a "moral man" is, what honesty, righteousness etc are. 

2 hours ago, beauty6 said:

As for Jaime and Cersei not turning out the same in spite of the same upbringing... Or Joffrey being different if not raised as a spoiled child... I tend to believe more in genes than upbringing, if it is real life. But GRRM, the God of ASOIAF universe apparently believes in nurture. Jaime was raised in part by Arthur Dayne, so had other role-models than Tywin. 

Jaime was not raised by Arthur Dayne, he was inseparable from Cersei until 10-11, after which he spent 4 years as a squire to Sumner Crakehall. And we saw Cersei being a psycho while she was still raised together with Jaime. So Jaime and Cersei are so different definitely not because they had different upbringing

1 hour ago, The Wolves said:

Jaime and Cersei are the same, two evil narcissistic monsters who are literally fucking themselves. Also Joffery proves on multiple occasions that he is Jaime Lannister's son. 

Two weak willed, disgusting pieces of shit who created another disgusting piece of shit. 

Ok, you hate Jaime and invent things about him to fuel more of your hatred, but you don't have to post this in every thread where Jaime is mentioned.

1 hour ago, Lew Theobald said:

And, as Cersei points out to Jaime, it is quite uncertain that what Bran saw would necessarily fall down upon their heads.

It was Jaime telling that to Cersei later when she was crying about Bran surviving. Cersei only suggested that they could have frightened Bran into silence but did it only when she found out that Bran survived. Before that she was perfectly fine with Jaime's act.

1 hour ago, Lew Theobald said:

In GRRM's defense, he does not actually endorse this horrible logic.  He merely says that some people would.  Or in other words, lots of people would commit crimes, if given a motive.  But motive is not justification.

Here is another statement by GRRM regarding the subject:

"Obviously a lot of people, when Jaime throws Bran out the window, and we like Bran, we've seen his good points, tend to think that makes Jaime a bad guy. But then you understand, if you understand the situation, if Bran goes back and tells what the saw, and is believed, Jaime will be put to death, his sister will be put to death, and there's an excellent chance that his own children will be put to death.

So I said to my friend, what would you do if some other eight year old kid was in a position to say something and you knew that would mean the death of your own young daughter. And he said, that eight year old kid is dead! And this is what we would consider a moral man.

So how do you make that choice? The abstract of the morality vs. the lives of your own children. I mean, I don't know that I'm a prostelitizer who says this is the answer to that, but I have to question the painful, difficult question, the difficulty of the choice, that's what I think makes powerful fiction."

Martin doesn't endorse but also doesn't judge Jaime for that act. He even presents an example of his friend that he considers a moral man to potentially do the same thing as Jaime did. Hell, he even wrote how "the most moral man in Westeros Ned Stark" thought he might have done the same if he were in Jaime's shoes.

1 hour ago, Lew Theobald said:

If Jaime is not sorry for what he did, then he will presumably commit similar crimes given similar temptations.  He has not changed.  And what's the point of talking about "redemption" if you don't even think that what he did was wrong?

Jaime is sorry for what he did.

[Dofs]

1 hour ago, Lew Theobald said:

Great!  That proves it.  You really don't have to be religious to be moral.   Good thing we have non-religious ethicists like GRRM and his buddy to show us the way.

I am both amused and disappointed.

59 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

The ethics of Westeros are largely those of the Faith of the Seven.

Are the Northerners immoral bastards then? Since they don't follow the Seven, and hence their ethics are not based on that religion?

1 hour ago, Lew Theobald said:

Otherwise, Dwarfs would get thrown into the sea.

Yeah, sure. Like they are in Essos. Oh, wait.

[beauty6]

Regarding Jaime not to be required to stay in the game (again not quoting the person who wrote it in this thread, but is somewhere up here).

Jaime still has two children, they are his responsibility. Their position is not supper safe. Although I admit, it is not his reasoning in his POV for staying in the game. However, if I were him, I would not become some Westerosi equivalent of the monk (like Lancel), while they are alive. Although, maybe there were better ways to care for them? For instance Tywin's suggestion to leave the KG, get married and raise Tommen at Casterly Rock ? But he seems to be suddenly interested in various oaths he took during his life, even if he cheerfully ignored them before. So he is supposed to stay in KG and celibate for life. Within these constraints, he is trying to take care of Tommen, probably more than before. I am trying to say he has two good reasons not to quit the game. The kids are the good reason for me, the oaths are good reason in universe.

[beauty6]

About GRRM defending Jaime and defenestration of Bran: Yes, that attempted murder had some clear purpose. It was wrong, but GRRM had even Ned have a minute of thought if he would do the same or not. What really shocked me was killig Ned's men to "chastice" Ned. I did not see the purpose there, and I actually hated Jaime again after rereading that part. And I say that as Jaime's fan, as you might have noticed from my other posts.

[kissdbyfire]

Just now, Lew Theobald said:

Obviously, the chapter is all about his concern for his image.  And I don't think you disagree with me at all.  I think you you are perfectly well aware what I am referring to. 

This has become an "it's okay when I say it but not when you say it" situation.  

I never offered the chapter as evidence that he was a bad person.  His desire for adoration and approval, like any desire or urge, is morally neutral.  Hence, his shift from desiring Cersei's approval, to desiring the approval of others is also morally neutral.  

Yes, this COULD lead to moral growth.  But by itself it is nothing.

I don't find that obvious at all. In fact, you're wrong because I flat out disagree. I am perfectly aware what you are referring to but that does not mean I see it the same way you do. 

As to the bolded, I have no idea what you're talking about. Mostly because I never said anything even remotely similar to anything you hav said. 

And no, you didn't use that chapter as evidence that he is a bad person, only that he craves adoration or whatever word you used. 

[Sea Dragon]

On August 20, 2017 at 5:15 PM, UFT said:

you can't honestly blame an entire region for the actions of three. the westerlanders are relatively well adjusted and no less noble than in the riverlands or reach eg joanna, kevan, tytos, lancel, most of the rock kings. and the westerlander lords just followed orders (besides gregor who straight up enjoys it). 

contrast with boltons, dothraki and ironborn who seem to be all basically evil assholes with a few exceptions 

I think the Lannister villains are really just Tywin, Cersei and Tyrion. If I remember correctly, I think the author called Tyrion the villain, but I can't be sure. 

Jaime is clearly on a redemption story. The change can't take place overnight, but his eyes have been wakened. 

[WSmith84]

8 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

He laid out exactly what I meant in a more patient way than I cared to use. 

And yes GRRM has addressed that exact issue:

Remember, Jaime isn't just trying to kill Bran because he's an annoying little kid. Bran has seen something that is basically a death sentence for Jaime, for Cersei, and their children – their three actual children. So I've asked people who do have children, "Well, what would you do in Jaime's situation?" They say, "Well, I'm not a bad guy – I wouldn't kill." Are you sure? Never? If Bran tells King Robert he's going to kill you and your sister-lover, and your three children. . . .

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

I would not hesitate nor would I repent for seeing my family safe.

And that statement is categorically false, which basically means you think he's a cartoon villain. As Stannis would say:

“A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward.”

By isolating and emphasizing one act, regardless of what you think of it, you're completely ignoring literally every thought, action, or feeling that conflicts with your opinion. Congratulations on channeling Cersei. Do you think it's a coincidence that Jaime's arc is turning him better while Cersei and Tyrion trend worse?

You might not think he's ever going to redeem himself from that one act, but that doesn't mean he isn't on a redemption arc or trying to be a better person (the entire point of any redemption arc btw) or helping others.

 

I have to agree with the other poster here; this defense is fairly weak. Jaime is well aware that fucking his sister is illegal and will get him, her and his children killed if they are caught and so he will have to silence anyone who catches them. Thus making it automatically immoral to continue doing it. And really, if they wanted to keep doing it that badly they'd grab some gold, flee to Essos and live as husband and wife with they're children; they don't do that because they aren't prepared to sacrifice their own lifestyles to do so. They are, however, prepared to toss little boys out of windows. Even if you want to make the argument that Jaime didn't think about the consequences, he later has sex with Cersei on the way back to King's Landing, so it seems Jaime was perfectly prepared to keep tossing boys out of windows so he could shag his sister.

[The Wolves]

40 minutes ago, Sea Dragon said:

I think the Lannister villains are really just Tywin, Cersei and Tyrion. If I remember correctly, I think the author called Tyrion the villain, but I can't be sure. 

Jaime is clearly on a redemption story. The change can't take place overnight, but his eyes have been wakened. 

GRRM also called Jaime a villain. 

Also not everyone sees Jaime story as a story of redemption. He hasn't shown any real regret for ANYTHING. He's NEVER once looked around at all the devastation, deaths, blood, rapes, families torn apart or any of it and acknowledged his part in it. There is never that real regret for any of the wrongs he committed, never. So yes Jaime is still a villain and to some of us will always be a villain.  

[Lion of the West]

15 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

I am not "pretending" to speak for the reader.  I am 99% sure that what I said applies to 99+% of readers, hence my choice of words.  If you are an exception, feel free to say so.   But you haven't even said so.  You just presumed to scold me.

I would imagine those folks on TEAM JAIME might  be exceptions to normal reader reactions in a variety of ways.  But I can hardly imagine that even they are more bothered by the murder of Aerys than the attempted murder of Bran.

What's with it with the language police on this forum?  You cannot say squat that some person isn't presuming to scold you for it.

Yes you are. You're saying that "the reader" thinks this or that, instead of yourself, when you are clearly pushing your own views without any kind of source that this is a majority view. That you are 99% sure is something which has no bearing on anything. Thus you should not pretend to be the spokesman for some kind of majority when you are in fact only speaking for yourself.

[kissdbyfire]

Just now, Lew Theobald said:

Oh for god's sake!  Language bullies have no interest in discussing ideas, so they pick ONE word you say, and then they go HOG WILD.

I tried to put myself into the perspective of a reader reading the series for the first time.  Which, technically, is no longer me.  Do you have any evidence for your belief that I DO speak ONLY for myself?  I am quite sure that I speak for at least SOME others, who have expressed similar views in the past in a variety of forums, and even in this thread.  What "majority" gave YOU the right to declare that I speak ONLY for myself.

I never presumed to speak for YOU, so YOU have no cause for complaint.  Choose your own words and let me choose mine.   If this means so much to you, go organize a poll.

 

Just now, LionoftheWest said:

I am not "pretending" to speak for the reader.  I am 99% sure that what I said applies to 99+% of readers, hence my choice of words.  If you are an exception, feel free to say so.   But you haven't even said so.  You just presumed to scold me.

There's. no need to get your knickers in a twist. After all, you DID say you are 99% sure that what you said applies to 99+% of readers. 

[kissdbyfire]

Just now, Lew Theobald said:

Only after being scolded for saying something I allegedly did not mean.  I meant it, but I could be wrong, and I have no intention of trying to prove it.  If you insist on arguing about this, I can't stop you.  I'm done.

Nope, I have zero interest in arguing about this or in trying to have an interesting exchange of ideas w/ you... Teaching an alligator to snowboard would be an easier and more pleasurable endeavour. Have fun.  

 

[the trees have eyes]

3 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

The curious thing about the "Jaime saved Brienne" argument, is that Jaime was perfectly willing to leave Brienne to die until he had the wierwood dream.  The logic behind why he changed his mind, after the wierwood dream, is unclear.  His interpretation of the dream may have convinced him that it was in his interest to save Brienne.

His behavior thereafter is a curiously narrow and twisted interpretation of honor and oathkeeping.  Anyone remember this?

EDMURE:  You gave me your word that I would be treated honorably, as befits my rank.

JAIME:  So you shall.  Nobler knights than you have died whimpering in those oubliettes ... Your wife shall have one beside you ...

This, and the earlier threat to send Edmure his infant son with a trebuchet, are not mere words.  He also makes clear his belief that anyone who makes a threat he is not willing to carry out is a fool.

But, apparently, some fans will say that all this was "saving lives".  This is the "more you spend the more you save" theory of bloodshed -- one where any murder you may feel tempted to commit is justified by speculation, that can only be disproven with the aid of a time machine.

 

 

Yes, he was prepared to leave her there but he did go back and jump in a bearpit for her.  GRRM uses dreams as a way of showing what is on a character's mind and it's prefectly natural when you have had a chance to think things through and a good night's rest to wake up with your mind much clearer.  It's always good advice to sleep on it before making a major decision and in Jaime's case it's GRRM's subtle way of clueing us in to the changes that are occurring in Jaime, whether he's particularly aware of them or understands them himslef at first or not.  That's what the dream signifies to me at any rate. Although weirwoods have a particular significance in ASOIAF I don't think we can say any outside force is is manipulating or directing Jaime to do this.

Let's look what he did at Riverrun in a bit more detail.  He freed Edmure from the gallows the Freys had him standing on; relieved Edwyn (iirc) of command; required the Freys to release their hostages to him, presumably to return to the River Lords, to appease them; secured a bloodless surrender and end to what had been a protracted siege.  Is any of this altruistic?  No but it achieved a resolution of a tricky situation with no bloodshed.  Weirdly you then accuse him of applying a "the "more you spend the more you save" theory of bloodshed".  You can't have it both ways here.  There was no fighting. 

I really do wonder if he would have gone full Tywin on Riverrun.  It looks like a very effective threat and of course to be effective it needs to be credible to those he threatens.  Given his reputation and his FORMER self it is credible.  But he seems intent on keeping his oath to Catelyn of not taking up arms against the Starks and Tullys to me.  Riverrun is the first real test of this as it conflicts his duty in bringing an end to any resistance in the Riverlands and pursuing his family interest with upholding his oath.  That he manages both is perhaps slightly unbelievable, GRRM always asking us to question what people would do when faced with a hard choice, but he achieves it nonetheless.  Where Jaime ends up is in the author's mind but he's certainly not the Jaime of AGOT who would have stormed Riverrun, Loras-on-Dragonstone style, without a thought other than glory and smashing anything in his way.