Unsatisfying nature of ASOIAF vengeance

[Fossoway]

Wait you can't justify a crime simply because someone is trying to hide the fact that they are already committing a crime.

There is no justification for Jaime throwing Bran out of the window. Even though he was protecting Cersei and their kids (which he wasn't since he didn't care about their kids at all at the time), that's not an excuse since Cersei and their kids wouldn't have been in danger if he wasn't betraying his king in the first place by sleeping with the queen.

You misunderstood me -- I wasn't justifying or excusing Jaime's actions, I was explaining his point of view/motivations. He did a terrible thing with the goal of protecting himself and Cersei (which, as Cersei points out, he didn't exactly think through too well before he did it). It's how he subjectively justifies his actions, although objectively we condemn those actions.

It's a common theme throughout the books (and in human nature) that we are all the heroes of our own stories - even though we may delude ourselves about how heroic our actions are. From his point of view, he had good reasons for his actions -- whether you or I approve or disapprove is irrelevant.

[SummerKnight]

Good topic.

yes,this is a refreshingly nice thread. I'd like to thank all of you who've expounded on the murky nature of revenge way more eloquently than i ever could.

One note: I wouldnt say jamie has been redeemed. Not yet. Hes on the road to redemption, absolutely, but he does have a lot to atone for.

[nevermore]

The uniquely horrible nature of the injustices that are committed against key protagonists in this series is surely designed, at least in part, to generate a craving on the part of the reader for equally satisfying vengeance. REVENGE is a driving force for many of us reading the books, I would think. It certainly is for me.

However, given this emotional need, does anyone else feel robbed by the indirect way in which some of the key transgressors receive their come uppance?

It is all very dramatic and thematic for Tywin to be killed by his own son (supposedly), and for him to rot prematurely while beig mourned, and for various people from Dorne to the Riverlands to say that he is surely howling in hell now, but it leaves this massive need unfulfilled to have seen a STARK overcome him, and have him dying with the knowledge that he was defeated by kin of the Young Wolf, or by the heir to Winterfell or by the little sister come assassin who penetrated all his defenses and let him KNOW what vengeance was being delivered for prior to his death.

A supporter of the main protagonists (the Starks by virtue of the number of PoV characters from their family) will now be left with the knowledge that Tywin died believing that the Young Wolf had been defeated without any cost to himself.

The same goes for Joffrey, who seems to have been killed by either Littlefinger or Ollena Tyrell, and a whole bunch of people on Arya's list, INCLUDING the guy who threw a 7 year old Bran from a balcony and murdered Harwin and his loyal Stark guardsmen in cold blood (you know who I'm talking about) and who now seems to be the subject of a major redemption theme. I mean, how can you even think of writing someone who throws a child off a balcony to his intended death as some kind of tragic hero? That's 100% sociopathic behavior if I ever saw it, and you don't redeem a personality like that. And yet, that's what Martin appears to be trying to do with the new Lord Commander.

The most satisfying deaths in the series, to me so far, have been the Tickler, or Polliver or whichever of the people on Arya's list she actually killed herself. My problem is that her list is growing shorter by the book, but the Starks have had almost no hand in its shortening. And it futher seems that half the evil bastards who committed the atrocities against them are now suddenly being writen as sympathetic characters, despite chucking children off balconies with a smile.

Will we eventually see some direct vengeance being delivered in a major "Rains of Castemere" type of way, by a reborn House Stark sowing salt on fields once cultivated by House Lannister or Frey, or will the greater importance of the battle against the Others mean that the Starks will be left unavenged for all eternity?

well it's all about whats probable and whats not, the reason i got into this book was because main characters can die, not so believable if a 9 year goes around killing the royal family. You don't get what would be interesting (though you do) you get what you read, George is telling a complex story with no direct sympathy for the characters (2 major houses perspectives we get are nearly demolished, Starks and Lannisters, i doubt he is rooting for Tyrells).

[Kaitscralt]

If you are looking for satisfaction then you are following the wrong author. We're talking about the man who killed Beric Dondarrion off-screen despite him being one of the favorite characters of the series, if not THE favorite character. The cult following fans sure got a big middle finger there.

[Lord Godric]

What did Tommen ever do to you? :0

Typo. Should have read Tywin. Although Tommen will die eventually, and I will only be glad for that because the Lannisters will be close to the end of their claim on the throne.

[Faint]

I suppose I found Tywin's death unsatisfying myself but more so because he didn't get to see his House fall into ruin, not because he wasn't killed by a Stark. If anything, my preference would have been to see Daenerys feed him to one of her dragons but not before she tells him that he's just now going to pay his debts.

[Lord Godric]

His father to refused to recognize him, because Tyrion isn't his son, and Tywin knows it.

A theory I think many fans would label "out there." Not every character has a secret parentage. In fact, if even just TWO of the main characters had fathers who were not the men who claimed to be their fathers, I would say that is one too many (some may say that it is two too many).

[Gurkhal]

I think that the prospect of vengeance are pretty good actually. They arn't as predictable as in many other fantasy works but they surely seems to be a fate working against evil-doers.

Brienne and the Brave Companions are one, as is Tywin's death by the hand of Tyrion (although I almost cried when poor old Tywin had it :( )

[Whitering]

/agreed

Jaime HAS been redeemed...in part.

I am one of those whose hatred of Jaime turned to sympathy and then support. I was as shocked as anyone at that turn, and for that, I can only marvel at the skillful writing by GRRM. In fact, I think GRRM's handling of Jaime has been brilliant. The thing that I most like about many of my favorite characters (Jaime, Sandor) is the opportunity for redemption...

Probably because it's been nearly 15 years since he threw Bran through the window...time heals all wounds.

[Myrish swan]

The uniquely horrible nature of the injustices that are committed against key protagonists in this series is surely designed, at least in part, to generate a craving on the part of the reader for equally satisfying vengeance. REVENGE is a driving force for many of us reading the books, I would think. It certainly is for me.

However, given this emotional need, does anyone else feel robbed by the indirect way in which some of the key transgressors receive their come uppance?

It may just be me, but I think this is intentional. One point that gets illustrated again and again (so many times that I can’t help but assume that it’s a moral) is the futility and ultimate unsatisfactory nature of revenge. Revenge, even when it is justified, will ultimately prove futile and even unjust, and will end up twisting its pursuer into a monster along the way. This is illustrated most cleary with Stoneheart.

If you ask me, the whole "revenge is evil" message that reverberates throughout these books is a pretty good example of the moral double standard that is found throughout. Vengeance is shown to be wrong... for nearly all characters-- except those GRRM relates to and identifies with a great deal. And for the record, these "morally ambiguous characters" (i.e., those who basically get away with everything because they are presented so sympathetically by the author) are always men. (Well, GRRM actually attempts to do this with Dany. But she is such a 1 -dimensional character, and her victims always such silly, cardboard cutout, cartoon villains, that its really an epic failure all around.)

Tyrion, for instance, can murder his father and former lover, in a way that makes people cheer him on. Of course, there are plenty of people who admit that Tyrion's actions in regards to Shae and Tywin (hell, not to mention Tysha) were wrong. But I have yet to hear from someone who hates him for these actions. Amusingly, people often insist that GRRM is portraying Tyrion’s actions as wrong, since poor Tyrion is shown to be so sad and tortured afterwards. Actually, I'd argue that by doing this-- and by focusing always on Tyrion’s reasoning, Tyrion’s pain, and Tyrion’s trauma--GRRM is simply making the imp an even more sympathetic character, and assuring to endear him to the readers despite the monstrousness of his actions.

Now contrast this to, say, how the need for vengeance on the part of Catelyn Tully is handled. Cat is frequently blamed for her “bitchy” “hypocritical” attitude of desiring revenge against Theon and Jaime, two men who have (she believes) either killed or attempted to kill her children. Or, to make the comparison more illustrative, we could take Stoneheart.

Stoneheart is portrayed (by GRRM) as scary, unnatural, inhuman, and basically wrong. People have claimed that she is responsible for the greatest depravities we’ve yet witnessed. Meanwhile, Tyrion does equally vengeful things, and readers don’t blame him, and continue to sympathize with him.

However, if you think about it, both Catelyn Stark and Lady Stoneheart have better reasons for vengeance than Tyrion. Lady Catelyn, as I’ve already mentioned, desires revenge against the men she believes have murdered her children. She is often called out as a hypocrite for enjoying the sight of Theon’s flayed skin, however, would any parent in their right mind really feel any differently? (And it’s also worth noting that while Catelyn wants revenge, she never actually takes it.) Lady Stoneheart kills all of the Freys who were involved with the unjust Red Weddding—she is not killing people at random. Furthermore, she is not even killing Frey’s just because they are Freys—only those she witnessed first hand as taking part in the red wedding. Finally, at the end, she is killing a blameless person, however, even in that case, she has some reason to believe that said conspired with the man who crippled her son, threatened her brother and nephew, and betrayed his promise to her. Basically, Catelyn (in both forms) either desires or actively seeks vengeance against those who’ve hurt her children in notably dishonorable/ unjust ways. (She is not going after some guy who, say, killed Robb in the heat of battle.) In contrast, Tyrion is after personal vengeance and consumed by sexual jealousy. Yet, he always gets more sympathy.

Another funny thing—Beric Dondarrion, who is basically doing the exact same thing as Cat, was portrayed as a flawed, screwed up, but basically honorable knight. In contrast, Cat, who is basically doing the same thing as Beric, is portrayed as a vengeance seeking abomination. And though Beric did give people “trials” before he hanged them, this seemed like little more than an empty formality. As someone mentioned, in the end he always hanged them. Since Cat has an eye witness (herself) it could be argued that she knows for sure (in almost all cases) who is guilty.

So, I guess if you want to get revenge in these books and not be despised for it, it’s good to be a guy.

[Myrish swan]

The same goes for Joffrey, who seems to have been killed by either Littlefinger or Ollena Tyrell, and a whole bunch of people on Arya's list, INCLUDING the guy who threw a 7 year old Bran from a balcony and murdered Harwin and his loyal Stark guardsmen in cold blood (you know who I'm talking about) and who now seems to be the subject of a major redemption theme. I mean, how can you even think of writing someone who throws a child off a balcony to his intended death as some kind of tragic hero? That's 100% sociopathic behavior if I ever saw it, and you don't redeem a personality like that. And yet, that's what Martin appears to be trying to do with the new Lord Commander.

…………………And it futher seems that half the evil bastards who committed the atrocities against them are now suddenly being writen as sympathetic characters, despite chucking children off balconies with a smile.

Regarding Jaime: you mention the “new lord commander” and how many people display fondness for this character. However, I don’t really see this Jaime as “new” or “redeemed” at all. That’s one of the two issues I have with the whole Jaime storyline. First, he has not really changed. Secondly, the only huge change I see in him is that he loathes Cersei now—something that, imo, does not really make him any better, morally speaking, than he was before.

First, regarding the Bran thing. Considering that, and then the things that the newly improved, “redeemed” Jaime does in AFFC, I’d have to claim that GRRM is, morally speaking, following Tyrion’s assertion that “it is not what we do, but why we do it.” In the earlier books, Jaime was doing everything for Cersei. He chucked Bran out of the window for Cersei, fathered Cersei’s bastard’s for Cersei, etc. All of the stuff he did for Cersei was for an evil woman and thus wrong; apparently the path to all evil is between Cersei’s legs.

In contrast, in AFFC, the “good” Jaime, that so many claim to be on a path to redemption and seem to find so sympathetic, is willing to kill a baby and have a 16-year-old girl murdered. And, though I’ve heard people get mad for holding this against Jaime, claiming that everyone is focusing on these little hypotheticals rather than the fact that he peacefully took Riverrun, I think the fact that he threatened to do these things is telling. After all, as Jaime, Tyrion, and other Lanisters note—the Lanister’s simply do not make threats they’re not prepared to carry out. Jaime would have put the baby in the trebuchet; and he did order his man to kill Jeyne Westerling without hesitation if she tried to escape. The fact that he didn’t was due more to luck than morality. When Jaime does something equally wrong in AGoT (throwing Bran), it is portrayed as the disgusting action that it is. But here, when he is threatening to do equally horrible things, Jaime is portrayed as simultaneously conflicted/ sympathetic, or else cool/ badass. There is no focusing on the victim, and thus emphasizing the wrongness of the actions, as there is with Bran. Jaime is portrayed as a good/ sympathetic guy here. It’s as though GRRM is saying that, so long as Jaime’s not still doing things for Cersei, these actions are morally ambiguous rather than truly evil.

So, honestly, the only message I can take away from this is that before Jaime was “evil” because he loved Cersei and was doing everything for her; while now he is “good” because he loathes Cersei and is doing everything for family honor/ self advancement/ duty. Furthermore, I still don’t understand Jaime’s split second 180 of seeing Cersei as the love of his life, to hating Cersei and happily abandoning her to an almost certain death. When you love someone, shouldn’t there be more to that love than sexual jealousy? Furthermore, does Jaime have to loathe Cersei, and want her to die in order to be “redeemed” or “good”? It’s almost as though GRRM hates Cersei so much, he feels that no decent person can feel any way else about her.

In short, I think it’s funny how the “evil” Jaime throws little boys off balconies and sleeps with his sister; the “good” Jaime is willing to have babies and 16 year old girls murdered and hates his sister.

[iamthedave]

Probably because it's been nearly 15 years since he threw Bran through the window...time heals all wounds.

It also helps that many readers are sick to their back teeth of Bran.

Regarding Jaime: you mention the “new lord commander” and how many people display fondness for this character. However, I don’t really see this Jaime as “new” or “redeemed” at all. That’s one of the two issues I have with the whole Jaime storyline. First, he has not really changed. Secondly, the only huge change I see in him is that he loathes Cersei now—something that, imo, does not really make him any better, morally speaking, than he was before.

Part of it is that the 'new' Jaime is just the Jaime we didn't see before because we wasn't a POV character. If he had been a POV character from the beginning, I wonder if he'd ever have been considered a villain. The people who won't forgive him for Bran now never would have, the people who have, would have.

First, regarding the Bran thing. Considering that, and then the things that the newly improved, “redeemed” Jaime does in AFFC, I’d have to claim that GRRM is, morally speaking, following Tyrion’s assertion that “it is not what we do, but why we do it.” In the earlier books, Jaime was doing everything for Cersei. He chucked Bran out of the window for Cersei, fathered Cersei’s bastard’s for Cersei, etc. All of the stuff he did for Cersei was for an evil woman and thus wrong; apparently the path to all evil is between Cersei’s legs.

Makes sense. Look how much trouble her spawn have caused. Not to mention that Robert's dissipation is largely blamed on her, though also emphasizing he was never meant to be a King (too much a warrior).

In contrast, in AFFC, the “good” Jaime, that so many claim to be on a path to redemption and seem to find so sympathetic, is willing to kill a baby and have a 16-year-old girl murdered. And, though I’ve heard people get mad for holding this against Jaime, claiming that everyone is focusing on these little hypotheticals rather than the fact that he peacefully took Riverrun, I think the fact that he threatened to do these things is telling.

He parlayed his horrific reputation into forcing a peaceful surrender, which it's made clear was his intention from the start. Sure he was willing to, but he made the threat so he didn't have to.

That's the difference.

The reason people get mad is the same reason that people have come round to Jaime in the first place: he gets blamed double for everything he does wrong, and gets no credit for everything he does right and for the right reasons.

When Jaime does something equally wrong in AGoT (throwing Bran), it is portrayed as the disgusting action that it is. But here, when he is threatening to do equally horrible things, Jaime is portrayed as simultaneously conflicted/ sympathetic, or else cool/ badass.

There's a universe of difference between doing and saying you'll do, as I'm sure you know. Had it come to the point of launching the baby, do you think Martin would have portrayed it favourably? Of course not. But the whole point is that it won't come to that, so it's portrayed the other way.

I think a better point to make would be the portrayal of the defenders as being stubborn to the point of stupidity, whereas Stannis for example is exalted for his defense of Storm's End where he had to eat rats and executed people who tried to open the gates.

There is no focusing on the victim, and thus emphasizing the wrongness of the actions, as there is with Bran.

There's no victim to focus on, making it rather hard in this instance.

Jaime is portrayed as a good/ sympathetic guy here. It’s as though GRRM is saying that, so long as Jaime’s not still doing things for Cersei, these actions are morally ambiguous rather than truly evil.

Chucking Bran was morally ambiguous too. He didn't do it with a mad cackle while lightning crashed in the background, did he? Jaime did it believing it was the best thing to do in that situation.

Note that Cersei herself thought it was a stupid and unnecessary action. It was Jaime being Jaime: acting without thought. The later version of Jaime, though, actually thinks things through a bit.

Furthermore, I still don’t understand Jaime’s split second 180 of seeing Cersei as the love of his life, to hating Cersei and happily abandoning her to an almost certain death. When you love someone, shouldn’t there be more to that love than sexual jealousy? Furthermore, does Jaime have to loathe Cersei, and want her to die in order to be “redeemed” or “good”? It’s almost as though GRRM hates Cersei so much, he feels that no decent person can feel any way else about her.

I presume you skipped the multiple chapters were Cersei repeatedly mocks him, insults and berates him then?

It's also not made clear whether or not he'll answer her summons. We presume he won't, but all he actually says is to burn the message, but now he's read it, why would he need it?

I don't think Jaime truly hates Cersei, he just feels she's beyond help and that he doesn't want to go down with her. He sees from a mile off that she's self-destructing but she does nothing at all to suggest she'll listen, and then when he gets a chance to leave he takes it, recognizing he can't do a thing in Kings Landing.

In short, I think it’s funny how the “evil” Jaime throws little boys off balconies and sleeps with his sister; the “good” Jaime is willing to have babies and 16 year old girls murdered and hates his sister.

An overly simplistic analysis that ignores multiple levels of character development and the entire relationship with Brienne, which is primarily the reason he has been redeemed.

I think it's obvious that the 'evil' Jaime was viewed externally so we never knew a thing about the man save his actions, and the 'good' Jaime is one viewed internally where we find out his reasons and the various good actions he has performed.

Remember that whole saving Kings Landing from being burnt to a crisp thing?Another big part of why people have come round to Jaime. Arguably he's done the two greatest acts of anyone in the story (saving Kings Landing, and killing Aerys, though the two are largely the same thing).

The real key is Brienne, though. Without her I think he'd still be hated.

[Blue Steel]

Chucking Bran was morally ambiguous too. He didn't do it with a mad cackle while lightning crashed in the background, did he? Jaime did it believing it was the best thing to do in that situation.

If throwing Bran out of a window was morally ambiguous in Jaime's mind, then Jaime is a clear cut sociopath.

Remember that whole saving Kings Landing from being burnt to a crisp thing?Another big part of why people have come round to Jaime. Arguably he's done the two greatest acts of anyone in the story (saving Kings Landing, and killing Aerys, though the two are largely the same thing).

He might have done one of the greatest acts of anyone in the story, but he's also done one of the worst acts, which even trumps saving King's Landing. He's basically the reason the War of the Five Kings even happened since his betrayal of King Robert by having an insestous affair with Cersei not only led guys like Ned and Jon Arryn to die, but led to the entire realm bleeding at the worst possible time since there's an Other's invasion likely coming. How many people have died since the first book began? Almost all of their deaths can be traced back to Jaime and Cersei.

[Jeejee]

Vengeance is shown to be wrong... for nearly all characters-- except those GRRM relates to and identifies with a great deal. And for the record, these "morally ambiguous characters" (i.e., those who basically get away with everything because they are presented so sympathetically by the author) are always men. (Well, GRRM actually attempts to do this with Dany. But she is such a 1 -dimensional character, and her victims always such silly, cardboard cutout, cartoon villains, that its really an epic failure all around.)

I would argue against this just because we see Dany nail up old slaveowners in the plaza, which is horrific and cruel no matter how villaineous the men were. What the hell, Dany.

Tyrion, for instance, can murder his father and former lover, in a way that makes people cheer him on. Of course, there are plenty of people who admit that Tyrion's actions in regards to Shae and Tywin (hell, not to mention Tysha) were wrong. But I have yet to hear from someone who hates him for these actions.

I think there are a fair number of people on this forum who dislike him for this very reason - well, both his self-pitying feelings about women and GRRM's obvious regard for him as a character. (I'm not a fan of Tyrion's, but I don't hate him for these actions: they make him as morally ambiguous as most of the other characters.)

Stoneheart is portrayed (by GRRM) as scary, unnatural, inhuman, and basically wrong. People have claimed that she is responsible for the greatest depravities we’ve yet witnessed.

She's a zombie. That's pretty scary, unnatural, inhuman, etc. Her only motivation is a general sort of revenge. I don't know why anyone would argue that her actions are the worst in the series, though; mostly it seems like she's killing a lot of people who probably deserve to die. Theon's, the Cleganes', or Tywin's actions are worse, for starters.

[iamthedave]

If throwing Bran out of a window was morally ambiguous in Jaime's mind, then Jaime is a clear cut sociopath.

That would be incorrect. A sociopath feels no need to justify their actions. Gregor is probably closer to being sociopathic, as a sociopath also has extreme troubles relating to others. We certainly see no sign of Gregor being personable even to the people he doesn't brutally murder. Everyone's just afraid of him and he's happy to kill who he's told to (or who annoy him).

Some people have forgiven Jaime for this action, so attempting to paint it as x is pointless. It's clearly not clear cut otherwise there would be no divide of judgement on Jaime on the subject, would there?

He might have done one of the greatest acts of anyone in the story, but he's also done one of the worst acts, which even trumps saving King's Landing. He's basically the reason the War of the Five Kings even happened since his betrayal of King Robert by having an insestous affair with Cersei not only led guys like Ned and Jon Arryn to die, but led to the entire realm bleeding at the worst possible time since there's an Other's invasion likely coming. How many people have died since the first book began? Almost all of their deaths can be traced back to Jaime and Cersei.

You mean you can trace them back to Cersei, not Jaime, right?

Show me one example, just ONE, from the text that shows Jaime as being involved in most or even any of the major deaths in the tale. He didn't give a crap about what people thought. He even says at one point he'd have rather killed Robert and rode off into the sunset with Cersei on his horse, or something to that effect. It's CERSEI who does the backstabbing and murdering. Yet again, Jaime takes the blame for something he didn't do. He's many things, but a politician isn't one of them.

The closest I can think of is a vague chat with Roose Bolton which may or may not indicate he had some knowledge of the Red Wedding, but it's vague at best.

The war of the five kings... it's too big a topic to get into. To prevent a civil war of some sort you'd need to remove the following figures from the story: Cersei, Littlefinger, Illyrio, and Varys.

Every single one of those characters was scheming for war one way or another. Maybe we skip the war of the five kings and cut straight to Dany's invasion of Westeros. Is that really going to be peaceful in this scenario where there's been no civil war?

The incest was just one of several factors that caused the whole affair, and it was IRRELEVANT to the death of Jon Arryn. He was murdered by Littlefinger, via Lysa, specifically because he wanted to get the Starks over to Kings Landing and kick up a fuss. So not even the incest had a thing to do with that particular death. Yes Jon knew about Cersei's antics, but that's not why he died.

That actually plays into what Myrish Swan was saying. When Jaime was acting on Cersei's behest (or thought he was in the case of Bran) he can be clearly seen to perform more 'evil' actions if we must use the term. When he's working on his own devices, he does a lot less. He's not difficult to manipulate, but it takes a remarkably jaded reading not to perceive that there's the veneer of a good man inside the kingslayer. One that Brienne of Tarth is starting to bring out.

[El-ahrairah]

It's a common theme throughout the books (and in human nature) that we are all the heroes of our own stories - even though we may delude ourselves about how heroic our actions are. From his point of view, he had good reasons for his actions -- whether you or I approve or disapprove is irrelevant.

The constant talk of how ASOIAF's greatness stems from its (supposedly) unique moral ambiguity drives me quite to tears. Of course everyone does what they think right at the time. That's so obvious as to hardly bear repeating. But if you really think that only the internal minds of the characters matter, then what are you doing reading the books? What you think is irrelevant, so let the saga play out in private, between closed covers. ;)

Some people have forgiven Jaime for this action, so attempting to paint it as x is pointless. It's clearly not clear cut otherwise there would be no divide of judgement on Jaime on the subject, would there?

We may very well "forgive" the Kingslayer, but except he do his own part and repent his evils himself, we oughtn't regard him as anything other than what he is.

[inkasrain]

Hopefully this isn't too far off-topic, by now...

Part of it is that the 'new' Jaime is just the Jaime we didn't see before because we wasn't a POV character. If he had been a POV character from the beginning, I wonder if he'd ever have been considered a villain. The people who won't forgive him for Bran now never would have, the people who have, would have.

As a Jaime fan and occasional defender, I agree with your overall view of Jaime as having been/being on the path toward being redeemed. Still, I have to disagree that Jaime's shoving of Bran was anything but villainesque. It was a coldblooded, if spontaneous and thoughtless, attempt to murder a child. It's understandable that killing Bran would be a possibility in Jaime and Cersei's minds, but it's much too monstrous to attempt without even considering alternative options, as Jaime does not. It's consistent with Jaime's general tendency to hold himself apart from the world, to ignore consequences and consider himself as something better than everyone else--a trait which is, of course, pretty much smashed to pieces by the loss of his hand, at which point I see him as beginning his evolution into a much better person and character.

You are spot-on about the not-tossing of Edmure Jr., though. It was a scare-tactic, and it worked perfectly; Jaime fought that battle with threats instead of deaths, and he (and most people involved, as they got to not die) won.

[georgeforeman]

Agree with Tywin's death. It was awesome/anticlimactic at the same time. Not sure how that works, but it does for me.

This is actually the most realistic aspect of the book to me. People in Westeros don't get what they deserve. Which is pretty much like real life. I expect there will be some truly dissatisfying aspects to the conclusion of the series. Maybe Freys will be lords of the Riverlands or something like that. But that's the way things go some times. Just because people do something you think is evil doesn't mean they will be punished to your liking, and if you're looking for stories where that happens, ASOIAF is not where I'd look.

[Jane Doe]

I don't know what to say -- in the case of the Starks -- but they are dying because they should.

They are the single family in Westeros who are not fit to play the game of thrones. Their sense of justice and integrity doesn't really fare well against any other -- Freys, Lannisters, Boltons and even the Tyrells if it comes to it. And see who's revenging, Arya and UnCat.

[Ahmrogar]

It may just be me, but I think this is intentional. One point that gets illustrated again and again (so many times that I can’t help but assume that it’s a moral) is the futility and ultimate unsatisfactory nature of revenge. Revenge, even when it is justified, will ultimately prove futile and even unjust, and will end up twisting its pursuer into a monster along the way. This is illustrated most cleary with Stoneheart.

If you ask me, the whole "revenge is evil" message that reverberates throughout these books is a pretty good example of the moral double standard that is found throughout. Vengeance is shown to be wrong... for nearly all characters-- except those GRRM relates to and identifies with a great deal. And for the record, these "morally ambiguous characters" (i.e., those who basically get away with everything because they are presented so sympathetically by the author) are always men. (Well, GRRM actually attempts to do this with Dany. But she is such a 1 -dimensional character, and her victims always such silly, cardboard cutout, cartoon villains, that its really an epic failure all around.)

Tyrion, for instance, can murder his father and former lover, in a way that makes people cheer him on. Of course, there are plenty of people who admit that Tyrion's actions in regards to Shae and Tywin (hell, not to mention Tysha) were wrong. But I have yet to hear from someone who hates him for these actions. Amusingly, people often insist that GRRM is portraying Tyrion’s actions as wrong, since poor Tyrion is shown to be so sad and tortured afterwards. Actually, I'd argue that by doing this-- and by focusing always on Tyrion’s reasoning, Tyrion’s pain, and Tyrion’s trauma--GRRM is simply making the imp an even more sympathetic character, and assuring to endear him to the readers despite the monstrousness of his actions.

Now contrast this to, say, how the need for vengeance on the part of Catelyn Tully is handled. Cat is frequently blamed for her “bitchy” “hypocritical” attitude of desiring revenge against Theon and Jaime, two men who have (she believes) either killed or attempted to kill her children. Or, to make the comparison more illustrative, we could take Stoneheart.

Stoneheart is portrayed (by GRRM) as scary, unnatural, inhuman, and basically wrong. People have claimed that she is responsible for the greatest depravities we’ve yet witnessed. Meanwhile, Tyrion does equally vengeful things, and readers don’t blame him, and continue to sympathize with him.

However, if you think about it, both Catelyn Stark and Lady Stoneheart have better reasons for vengeance than Tyrion. Lady Catelyn, as I’ve already mentioned, desires revenge against the men she believes have murdered her children. She is often called out as a hypocrite for enjoying the sight of Theon’s flayed skin, however, would any parent in their right mind really feel any differently? (And it’s also worth noting that while Catelyn wants revenge, she never actually takes it.) Lady Stoneheart kills all of the Freys who were involved with the unjust Red Weddding—she is not killing people at random. Furthermore, she is not even killing Frey’s just because they are Freys—only those she witnessed first hand as taking part in the red wedding. Finally, at the end, she is killing a blameless person, however, even in that case, she has some reason to believe that said conspired with the man who crippled her son, threatened her brother and nephew, and betrayed his promise to her. Basically, Catelyn (in both forms) either desires or actively seeks vengeance against those who’ve hurt her children in notably dishonorable/ unjust ways. (She is not going after some guy who, say, killed Robb in the heat of battle.) In contrast, Tyrion is after personal vengeance and consumed by sexual jealousy. Yet, he always gets more sympathy.

Another funny thing—Beric Dondarrion, who is basically doing the exact same thing as Cat, was portrayed as a flawed, screwed up, but basically honorable knight. In contrast, Cat, who is basically doing the same thing as Beric, is portrayed as a vengeance seeking abomination. And though Beric did give people “trials” before he hanged them, this seemed like little more than an empty formality. As someone mentioned, in the end he always hanged them. Since Cat has an eye witness (herself) it could be argued that she knows for sure (in almost all cases) who is guilty.

So, I guess if you want to get revenge in these books and not be despised for it, it’s good to be a guy.

Beric WAS just a screwed-up and over-honourable knight honouring Robert's command. Stoneheart IS a monster. She is half-rotten and was dead for days and risen again, and moreover the people who follow her admit that with Beric they were just and with Stoneheart they are murderers.

At the very least with Dondarrion we see that the smallfolk are taken care of and fed and the evildoers are punished.

Beric would have, at the least, given Brienne a trial as Stoneheart did not. As we saw with the Hound the trials are no 'empty formality'.

Regarding Jaime: you mention the “new lord commander” and how many people display fondness for this character. However, I don’t really see this Jaime as “new” or “redeemed” at all. That’s one of the two issues I have with the whole Jaime storyline. First, he has not really changed. Secondly, the only huge change I see in him is that he loathes Cersei now—something that, imo, does not really make him any better, morally speaking, than he was before.

First, regarding the Bran thing. Considering that, and then the things that the newly improved, “redeemed” Jaime does in AFFC, I’d have to claim that GRRM is, morally speaking, following Tyrion’s assertion that “it is not what we do, but why we do it.” In the earlier books, Jaime was doing everything for Cersei. He chucked Bran out of the window for Cersei, fathered Cersei’s bastard’s for Cersei, etc. All of the stuff he did for Cersei was for an evil woman and thus wrong; apparently the path to all evil is between Cersei’s legs.

In contrast, in AFFC, the “good” Jaime, that so many claim to be on a path to redemption and seem to find so sympathetic, is willing to kill a baby and have a 16-year-old girl murdered. And, though I’ve heard people get mad for holding this against Jaime, claiming that everyone is focusing on these little hypotheticals rather than the fact that he peacefully took Riverrun, I think the fact that he threatened to do these things is telling. After all, as Jaime, Tyrion, and other Lanisters note—the Lanister’s simply do not make threats they’re not prepared to carry out. Jaime would have put the baby in the trebuchet; and he did order his man to kill Jeyne Westerling without hesitation if she tried to escape. The fact that he didn’t was due more to luck than morality. When Jaime does something equally wrong in AGoT (throwing Bran), it is portrayed as the disgusting action that it is. But here, when he is threatening to do equally horrible things, Jaime is portrayed as simultaneously conflicted/ sympathetic, or else cool/ badass. There is no focusing on the victim, and thus emphasizing the wrongness of the actions, as there is with Bran. Jaime is portrayed as a good/ sympathetic guy here. It’s as though GRRM is saying that, so long as Jaime’s not still doing things for Cersei, these actions are morally ambiguous rather than truly evil.

So, honestly, the only message I can take away from this is that before Jaime was “evil” because he loved Cersei and was doing everything for her; while now he is “good” because he loathes Cersei and is doing everything for family honor/ self advancement/ duty. Furthermore, I still don’t understand Jaime’s split second 180 of seeing Cersei as the love of his life, to hating Cersei and happily abandoning her to an almost certain death. When you love someone, shouldn’t there be more to that love than sexual jealousy? Furthermore, does Jaime have to loathe Cersei, and want her to die in order to be “redeemed” or “good”? It’s almost as though GRRM hates Cersei so much, he feels that no decent person can feel any way else about her.

In short, I think it’s funny how the “evil” Jaime throws little boys off balconies and sleeps with his sister; the “good” Jaime is willing to have babies and 16 year old girls murdered and hates his sister.

Evil exists so that good men can fight it, people define themselves by what they fight against. It's a theme old as time. If Jaime is fighting against 'good' people, he is evil. If he is fighting against 'evil' people he is good. This is over simplistic, but accurate enough to answer.

Cersei has insulted and shamed Jaime several times, and Jaime sees her more and more for the monster she has become.

Lastly, Jaime is getting better and as I see it he uses his reputation as something of a monster to do good, which is good.