Bronn/Shae double standard v. 2

[dark sister]

Scylla said:

Dark sister.

So you don't think there is anything abusive, selfish or arrogant about cold bloodedly murdering someone to protect your own little secret of getting your end away with your favourite whore?

Because I sure do.

As for Shae... so what... she made the best out of what she had even if that meant smiling and moaning in a sexy way when an ugly dwarf crawled into bed with her or trying to negotiate something out of her interrogation. What else is she going to do? How is she going to survive? And as I said above the killing has got nothing to do with Shae and whether or not she deserves it.. it has everything to do with developing Tyrion's character.

And given that GRRM is clearly walking a very fine line with Tyrion, because we do all love him, to turn him into a monster we still love then how can he possibly make Shae too likeable as a character?

(end quote)

How is it "arrogant" for him to kill her? Yes, he basically murdered an innocent bystander because grrm wanted to develop his character into a darker person, but IIRC, he murdered her because

a.) he was already in a rage b/c of what Jaime told him, but more importantly,

b.) she called him "giant of Lannister" AGAIN. Why do you think she did that? (I'm honestly asking, and I mean, IIRC, why do you think she chose those words.)

Why do you keep mentioning the fact that he's an ugly dwarf, btw?

What else could she do...well, she could survive just as easily without trying to manipulate her way into getting jewels and property. If she wanted to continue being a high-paid whore, she could work at Chataya's -- Tyrion even considers one time that she could go there if she wanted, easily.

I don't think that she deserved to be murdered, either. I'm not sure where you got that impression.

[Woman of War]

There was a debate alike under the thread "what is evil"

I, for my part stated that killing Shae was murder without a doubt and not morally justified by whatever, even if Shae behaved unnecessarily vile and ugly towards Tyrion while giving testimony. Being a not so nice person in no way deserved her a death penalty!

by Scylla:

And given that GRRM is clearly walking a very fine line with Tyrion, because we do all love him, to turn him into a monster we still love then how can he possibly make Shae too likeable as a character?

I think this is an important point you are making. Martin makes constant "wakup calls" to his readers in his story. As soon as we get too comfortable with a character, like with the "brave young dragon lady" or with that "nice, witty dwarf", entertaining and clever, behaving just like a proper dwarf should, like all the "normal" people want their born entertainers, he gives us a shocking alarm clock story twist.

GRRM tells us that with Tyrion we have a character that is to be taken absolutely dead seriously. Yes, Martin plays with the Reader's expectations, he consciously makes Tyrion do evil deeds to let him fall from reader's grace.

Either he wishes to build him up as the great evil antagonist in the storyline or he wants to make his comeback role as whatever kind of plot deciding hero more impressive.

What do we like a fictional character for? For being perceived as nice, i. e. acting according to our personal ethical values, pursuing the goals we see as rightful, behaving in a way we find socially acceptable?

Or do we love him for his insight he offers us into the given fictional world, for being plot-deciding material, for the very creative invention of this fictional person. For the many facets in good or bad that lift a character far above so many fantasy protagonists.

Many people choose to pile up a lot of hatred on that specific character Tyrion with arguments that certainly are justified, but I constantly wonder why it is exactly this character that invites so much dispropotionate hatred, given the fact that there are many far more despiceable persons in the books.

Is it disappointed love, the feeling of refusal by a character readers took out to like only to be brutally disappointed by this character's development? Tyrion lovers that turn into the worst Tyrion bashers like reformed smokers who get spitful at every little smoke cloud by now ( don't bash me, I never smoked)

Of course a POV character invites more negative feedback because we can read his thoughts. We cannot read the thoughts of many more gruesome villains and we do not know if the "nicer" characters don't have the most disgusting nightly fantasies about rape and murder.

I guess I would prefer the Tyrion of AGOT at my dinner table compared to the bitter, spiteful and depressed alcoholic of ADWD. But his character development is fascinating to read as it is: painful often, I was cringing, feeling disgust, wanting to scream "no, don't" at him - and loved to read every one of his chapters. They are necessary for the the story, each of them.

So why do posters here feel the need either to excuse or belittle his more ugly traits and actions or to become hateful towards Tyrion, both in such a very disproportionate manner? Many of Tyrion's actions and words can be interpreted two ways, so many posters choose to take pains to find the negative one in a way that is not done with any other character.

Tyrion is a fictional character that has, like all the other book protagonists, a task in the storyline. Why can' t people try to evaluate a character's development without digging for farfetched arguments while there is enough material given by GRRM to have a reasonable debate about this fascinating potential villain or hero character and his sometimes shocking development?

by Dark Sister to another poster:

Why do you keep mentioning the fact that he's an ugly dwarf, btw?

I have no tendency to be overly politically correct, because claiming political correctness can be an argument killer if you have run out of reasoning.

But I can't help getting the impression that some posters subconsciously take over the equation of inside and outside twisted. For discussing a book it is important to be constantly aware of the influence of our own projections on the evaluation of fictional characters.

Apart from that: Why should Shae hate Tyrion more in her bed than other ugly johns? She must have had all kinds of not so attractive clients. As a professional she could certainly not afford the luxury of only accepting physical beauty. And I believe that Tyrion, being an upperclass kid, is someone who bathes regularly and has clean underwear and DOES NOT STINK which in my opinion makes him a far less disgusting john than the guys Shae may have had as camp follower. Apparently Shae valued cleanliness and the fact that Tyrion had no other prostitutes while he was with her reduced the possibility of STDs.

[David Selig]

Many people choose to pile up a lot of hatred on that specific character Tyrion with arguments that certainly are justified, but I constantly wonder why it is exactly this character that invites so much dispropotionate hatred, given the fact that there are many far more despiceable persons in the books.

There's not much to debate about the likes of Ramsay and Vargo - they are complete monsters. And they don't have defenders who keep coming up with really biased stuff like "Tyrion is one of the most moral persons in the series" , "That bitch Shae totally deserved slow painful death for humiliating him publicly" or "So what if he ordered the singer turned into stew? Cannibalism is amusing". I don't hate Tyrion, but I can't help but respond to such claims and point out his flaws.

[voodooqueen126]

There's not much to debate about the likes of Ramsay and Vargo - they are complete monsters. And they don't have defenders who keep coming up with really biased stuff like "Tyrion is one of the most moral persons in the series" , "That bitch Shae totally deserved slow painful death for humiliating him publicly" or "So what if he ordered the singer turned into stew? Cannibalism is amusing". I don't hate Tyrion, but I can't help but respond to such claims and point out his flaws.

Or because Tyrion is witty and intelligent and we feel sorry for his suffering (in childhood and in love) he gains the love of many fans, particularly fans who can identify with Tyrion on some level.

Yet despite this tremendous wit and intelligence, he does increasingly ghastly things, which one notices the more one rereads the series, for instance I used to love Tyrion, my flatmate and nephew reading the series for the first time love Tyrion. However having reread the series a few times (and participated on boards with people who have read the series a lot times) since jokes are only funny the first few times around, they cease to mask Tyrion's frequently wicked behaviour, which the reader (especially, I think female readers) begin to notice.

Like Tyrion's comment to Cersei was hilarious, but I probably would slap someone who said that to me, muchless if a person threatened to rape my 8 year old child.

and so on...

However many people, for whatever reason, continue on enjoying Tyrion's character, they are often male but not always, these people defend Tyrion to the hilt, which gets on the nerves of the Tyrion detractors, so that they end up hating Tyrion more than they hate purely evil characters like Gregor or Ramsay.

[Ladywhiskers]

There's not much to debate about the likes of Ramsay and Vargo - they are complete monsters. And they don't have defenders who keep coming up with really biased stuff like "Tyrion is one of the most moral persons in the series" , "That bitch Shae totally deserved slow painful death for humiliating him publicly" or "So what if he ordered the singer turned into stew? Cannibalism is amusing". I don't hate Tyrion, but I can't help but respond to such claims and point out his flaws.

Good points. But he didn't just murder an innocent bystander, when he had the singer killed. He was killing a blackmailer. The singer was not just threatening him with a sexual scandal--I don't think he'd have given a crap about that. But Shae's life was at stake, and the singer kept rubbing it in that he could sing the song anywhere at any time. Tywin had promised to hang the next whore he found in Tyrion's bed.

So, after inspiring Tyrion to murder, and then literally getting him condemned to death with her testimony, (and no doubt being stunned to see him alive and out of prison,) Shae had earned her death. Nicer people than Tyrion would have wanted to kill her, at that point. But on top of that, he found her in his father's bed, wearing his father's chain.

And then she had to call him her "Giant of Lannister," which I think was meant to make him either slap her or roar in anger, or perhaps throw a drink, all of which would have made noise and summoned Tywin from the privy.

Bronn "betrayed" Tyrion, but he was up front about it. He gave Tyrion a chance to make a counter-offer. And he never testified against Tyrion. He didn't fight to free him, but he also didn't deliberately try to get him killed, unlike Shae. Tyrion hired Bronn, but he didn't claim to love him, nor did Bronn claim to love Tyrion. Not so Shae. Shae actually pretended to love him.

I strongly suspect that Shae was in bed with Tywin from the very beginning, spying on him and reporting to Tywin, all along. I don't think she was ever actually Tyrion's. And that makes me wonder about Tysha as well. Jaime knows that he didn't hire her. But he doesn't know that Tywin didn't, and neither does Tyrion. It would not surprise me one bit to discover that Tywin knew things about Tysha that neither Tyrion nor Jaime could have guessed. At present her story serves as an illustration of the hideous indifference of the upper classes to the suffering and humanity of the lower ones, as well as their inhumanity to one another. But if and when Tyrion finds her, her story could have another whole layer to it.

Tyrion at present is as gray as I can stand him to be. If he goes even one shade darker, it's over for me, and that may mean the books are over, too. I loved the character because of his weakness for "cripples, bastards, and broken things," a weakness I share. I understand that he has lost his mind for the time being. The Lannister siblings each have lost their most valued qualities--Cersei her beauty, Jaime his sword hand, and Tyrion his mind. But Tyrion must regain his mind and his compassionate nature. Martin did too good a job of making people fall in love with that character. If I wanted to read about an evil dwarf out to kill everybody, I'd read Rumpelstiltskin. There are already too many monsters in the story. There has to be someone we can actually root for.

[Woman of War]

Sorry double post

[Woman of War]

However many people, for whatever reason, continue on enjoying Tyrion's character, they are often male but not always, these people defend Tyrion to the hilt, which gets on the nerves of the Tyrion detractors, so that they end up hating Tyrion more than they hate purely evil characters like Gregor or Ramsay.

Of course there are some defenders against all reason, but so many?

Yes sometimes each of us is unnecessarily bold and deliberately overlooks details in order to make an argument more poignant, especially if we have a feeling that there is not only a disagreement in opinion but an antagonistic worldview incorporated in it.

Ahem, I am a woman. I do not think that in general forumites totally prefer characters of their own gender (sex??, what is appropriate?) to root for. But then it might be that I tend less to "identify" so very intensely.

i guess we all should be far more disciplined and remember what we are doing here: assessing book characters who have a function in a great fiction story and a story arc to be brought together with the other characters at the end of the books.

And I think it is reasonable to wait with a final, very determined, evaluation of every character until all the books are written. This should not prevent us from discussing happily. But we should keep in mind that we are arguing under uncertainty.

Tyrion at present is as gray as I can stand him to be. If he goes even one shade darker, it's over for me, and that may mean the books are over, too. I loved the character because of his weakness for "cripples, bastards, and broken things," a weakness I share. I understand that he has lost his mind for the time being. The Lannister siblings each have lost their most valued qualities--Cersei her beauty, Jaime his sword hand, and Tyrion his mind. But Tyrion must regain his mind and his compassionate nature. Martin did too good a job of making people fall in love with that character. If I wanted to read about an evil dwarf out to kill everybody, I'd read Rumpelstiltskin. There are already too many monsters in the story. There has to be someone we can actually root for.

You are expressing all my hopes! And i freely admit that the Tyrion character is one of the main reasons I love the books so much. Although I may have become an addict ( obviously, because only someone out of her mind could post here so much) I might stop enjoying the books if Tyrion totally went down the drain or died too early whereas several other beloved characters do not affect me as much.

[Arland]

Whats interests me is why people think that Bronn had it much easier to avoid condemning testimony against Tyrion. He had no noble origins and no powerful relatives. He is basically a nobody. . Nobody cared for him. His profession as sellsword is considered to be loathsome, not much different from being a prostitute. His martial skills are irrelevant, when talking about fighting with numerous guardsmen. If Cercei wanted she could have arrested, tortured and killed him, and nobody would have made a sound.

[FanTasy]

i guess we all should be far more disciplined and remember what we are doing here: assessing book characters who have a function in a great fiction story and a story arc to be brought together with the other characters at the end of the books.

And I think it is reasonable to wait with a final, very determined, evaluation of every character until all the books are written. This should not prevent us from discussing happily. But we should keep in mind that we are arguing under uncertainty.

:agree: , you are very right. There is nothing wrong in defending one's opinion if founded in the text or in a theory based on reasoning. Of course an opinion can be just that: an opinion, which others don't have to share.

What I like about the threads on this forum is, to paraphrase the book, that it is for the brain what a whetstone is for a sword.

Not every boarder has to be convinced that an opinion equals truth, even if this well may be truth.

Sadly 'overconvincing' can lead to people avoiding some threads, :frown5:

[Arland]

I join Alexia in laughing at the notion that "classical patriarchal chauvenism" would fail to blame a prostitute for humiliating a man, or would sympathize with a prostitute whose life was in danger.

Well feminism isn't instinctive support of any women, just for them being such and chauvinism is not automatic placement of blame on women. Chauvinism is a set of beliefs which consider men to be by nature superior to women in all kind of areas: like ability to be responsible for you actions, to be reasonable, to be brave, to be moral and cet.

In classic chauvinistic society (I am talking ancient societies of "fertile crescent" for example) women were considered to lack judgment. They were considered something like an animal at worst, a child at best. You don't blame an animal or a child for doing anything. You can only blame animal owner or a parent.

You can also easily sympathize with an animal or a child, who did something bad, since the situation always would be "too big for them". You don't punish animal or a child with full severity. After all "boys will be boys", "women will be women", "whores will be whores"...

Classic chauvinist wont blame Shae. He would say "It is not her fault. Women just cannot resist when they are promised shiny things , they will do anything for it ... it is in their nature! They are soo easily frightened... you cannot expect a women overcome her fear. And specially a whore. What you expect from a whore? To be a decent human being? Women are not human beings, that why we - men, must be in charge.

So having pity for someone in a shitty situation is chauvinism now? (and that is the way it's spelled, by the way) Good to know.

Yes. I would call applying lower moral standard to a person just because she is a women or a prostitute, a chauvinism.

I would say that nearly every character in ASOIAF is in shitty situation, including the all beloved Freys. How many people blame BWB for hanging Freys, claiming that Freys had no choice, but to go with the RW, out of fear of Tywin?

[oba]

Whats interests me is why people think that Bronn had it much easier to avoid condemning testimony against Tyrion. He had no noble origins and no powerful relatives. He is basically a nobody. . Nobody cared for him. His profession as sellsword is considered to be loathsome, not much different from being a prostitute. His martial skills are irrelevant, when talking about fighting with numerous guardsmen. If Cercei wanted she could have arrested, tortured and killed him, and nobody would have made a sound.

I think the major difference is simply that Bronn was offered a different set of options. We'll likely never know how Bronn would have responded if Cersei had approached him differently.

[Faceless Cat]

Personally I don't have to find a characters actions moral irl in order to enjoy them in a book. Of course having been insulted, no matter how hurtful the comment, doesn't excuse murder irl. However, I suspect it's a pretty common fantasy to want to strangle somebody who poked fun at us, who dug a verbal dagger into our most vulnerable spot and twisted it. We don't actually *do* it, but we might think about how satisfying it would feel. Whichever POV I'm currently reading, I at least to some extent empathize with that person (Such is the sign of a good writer) and I feel some of what they feel.

Intellectually, no I don't approve of Tyrion strangling Shae, but as I read it I could feel that sense of dark satisfaction mixed with desperation he was feeling and I thought the scene was a very powerful one.

Short version: Murder is wrong, but fictional murder can be very satisfying!

[headtrip_honey]

Yes. I would call applying lower moral standard to a person just because she is a women or a prostitute, a chauvinism.

I would say that nearly every character in ASOIAF is in shitty situation, including the all beloved Freys. How many people blame BWB for hanging Freys, claiming that Freys had no choice, but to go with the RW, out of fear of Tywin?

Lower moral standards? Who's applying lower moral standards? I've never said that I condoned what Shae did. She lied. It was wrong. But I understand why she did. What I do have for her is PITY.

You assume that I have pity "just" because she's a woman. No. I have pity because she is a disadvantaged person in a classist society.

I would have the same pity if it were Satin we were talking about.

Her status as a prostitute *is* relevant to my pity, and not biased, because prostitutes were seen as inferior. A lower class who had fewer options in society. Therefore, pity.

And I do blame the BWB for hanging Freys without discretion. It's shitty. I have pity for the Freys who had no choice but to go along with the RW. Not all Freys are bad.

ETA: Also, chauvinism, while a part of the discussion, is not mainly what is being discussed here. That would be misogyny. Two different, yet related things. Look them up.

[David Selig]

Many of Tyrion's actions and words can be interpreted two ways, so many posters choose to take pains to find the negative one in a way that is not done with any other character.

That's not really correct IMO. There are an awful lot of threads in which many posters do their utmost best to present almost every action of Catelyn, Sansa and Dany in the worst possible light. Tyrion is hardly uniqie in this respect.

[Woman of War]

I am certainly not donating the trophy going to the most misunderstood character. You may be right, I do not follow debates about Sansa or Catelyn so much although Catelyn is actually quite interesting, but it is as well Cersei that comes to my mind who is often discussed in an unfair manner. But I still believe it is Dany and Tyrion where the most subconscious issues come into play in the debate and where I have read really ugly insults between posters. So more fairness for all of them - and your fellow poster - please!

By FanTasy:

Sadly 'overconvincing' can lead to people avoiding some threads

[Arland]

But I understand why she did

If you assume that she had no other option, according to the "Cercei would have killed her unless Shae would have said exactly the words she said, including the "giant of Lannister" thing, Cersei even didn't know about" theory, perhaps. I personally find this theory to be farfetched but this was already discussed here to death. It is my personal feeling that this theory was created in hindsight to justify initial lax judgment of Shae behavior based on "her being a whore, and what can you expect of whore?".. But I can be wrong.

No. I have pity because she is a disadvantaged person in a classist society.

You still apply lower standards of morality to a group of people, this time based on their class/occupation. But since in men dominated society, women are always the lower class, what is the difference between this and chauvinism ? In my opinion all the patronizing forgiving attitude to disadvantaged people, comes from the same feeling of superiority, that harbors chauvinism.

I would stress that I don't claim that everyone who supports Shae in this matter is a chauvinist, even though I did see enough "she is a whore? What you expect from a whore" arguments in support of Shae. I also don't claim that you cannot interpret the text to make Shae actions understandable.May be you can. My main point was that "the misogynist (if you insist)/ chauvinist" card can be played in both ways in this discussion.

[Arland]

oba

I think the major difference is simply that Bronn was offered a different set of options. We'll likely never know how Bronn would have responded if Cersei had approached him differently.

Well, we don't really know if Bronn and Shae were offered different set of options, People assume that Shae was threatened into testifying, only based on her low status and Cercei reputation. Why people assume Bronn was treated differently?

And the other way around - if we assume that Bronn was not threatened but only offered a positive insentive by Cercei, why we assume she acted differently with regard to Shae - both Shae and Bronn were in her power,

[headtrip_honey]

You still apply lower standards of morality to a group of people, this time based on their class/occupation. But since in men dominated society, women are always the lower class, what is the difference between this and chauvinism ? In my opinion all the patronizing forgiving attitude to disadvantaged people, comes from the same feeling of superiority, that harbors chauvinism.

I would stress that I don't claim that everyone who supports Shae in this matter is a chauvinist, even though I did see enough "she is a whore? What you expect from a whore" arguments in support of Shae. I also don't claim that you cannot interpret the text to make Shae actions understandable.May be you can. My main point was that "the misogynist (if you insist)/ chauvinist" card can be played in both ways in this discussion.

Stop saying I'm applying lower standards of morality. I'm not. I'm pitying someone in a disadvantaged situation.

Way to ignore the rest of what I said and continue spouting illogical arguments that have little to do with the reality of the discussion.

[mediocre cheese]

I would stress that I don't claim that everyone who supports Shae in this matter is a chauvinist, even though I did see enough "she is a whore? What you expect from a whore" arguments in support of Shae I also don't claim that with creative enough approach to text you can't make Shae a saint. My main point was that "the misogynist (if you insist)/ chauvinist" card can be played in both ways in this discussion.

I've yet to see anyone make that claim. No one has said "what do you expect from whores" as in whores = natural perjurers. Perjury is wrong and shae was wrong to do. But so was everyone else at the trial (and tyrion didn't spare them a second thought, he even said he was varys's creature later, despite varys all but convicting him). What I have said is that prostitutes = employees. The same is true for locksmiths. If a locksmith perjures against someone it is wrong, but it is no more wrong if that person used to be their client.

shae was well within her rights to ditch tyrion and sleep with his dad. That's her job. Its no different than if tyrion's locksmith, gardener, cook, ect. ditch him and start working for tywin. No one is claiming that as a prostitute shae is somehow absolved from the rules and morals of society. What I have claimed (and others as well) is that as a prostitute she can't be expected to have any interest in tyrion whatsoever, and she owes him nothing beyond what she owes every person. It was wrong of her to perjure herself, but it was much more wrong of tyrion to strangle her out of sexual jealousy.

b.) she called him "giant of Lannister" AGAIN. Why do you think she did that? (I'm honestly asking, and I mean, IIRC, why do you think she chose those words.)

Because he enjoyed being called that, and she isn't that smart? Its a direct response to a previous question, he asked, which is "did you ever enjoy my touch?"

[Arland]

headtrip_honey

There is no need to be so negative.

I think I can see you point: You want to say that Shae' disadvantaged status as a prostitute made her more vulnerable to Cersei's threats? I can agree to that, though I am not sure that in such case there should be any big difference between prostitute and chamber maid. Or a sellsword for that matter.

Any one without having powerful enough family to protect him/her from Cersei' wrath.

I loath an argument (which wasn't raised by you, by the way) that Shae status as a prostitute made it somehow more acceptable for her to testy in order to better her financial condition.

mediocre cheese

Perjury is wrong and shae was wrong to do. But so was everyone else at the trial

Well, Shae did it with exceptional flare, though. And she was amongs very few people who outright lied in their testimony. Of course if it was done at sword point, and all the "giant of Lannister" thing is not indicative of her "going beyond the line of duty" that is another thing entirely.

I would not agree with you on something thou. Prostitute or a locksmith, being a personal servant to somebody for considerable amount of time implies some degree of loyalty.

My job is the closest one to being a prostitute - I am a lawyer. I must pretend that I support my client claim. I would considered it to be wrong to use knowledge gained in a work with a client, against him latter, even if it is not something falling under lawyer client privilege, but lets say something personal. I would also consider it wrong for example, "to jump wagon" and go represent other side after long a emotional divorce trial.