Let's defend Cersei in this topic

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

And I'm saying there are no evil kids. There are confused, unraised, manipulated, stupid children, but I don't believe they can be evil the way an adult can be. They are kids and it's impossible to label them as bad and evil.

What about Michael Myers from "Halloween"? Has been a murderous monster since the age of six into adulthood. (Yes, "Halloween" is fiction. So's the "Song".)

[The Killer Snark]

The majority of eight year olds do not throw other children down wells. Sociopathy is actually to a large extent pathological, even though it doesn't follow that it automatically betrays itself when the affected are kids. Tyrion had a worse upbringing under Tywin than Cersei, and the reason he turned out differently isn't just because he's smart.

[lulu_pix]

The majority of eight year olds do not throw other children down wells. Sociopathy is actually to a large extent pathological, even though it doesn't follow that it automatically betrays itself when the affected are kids. Tyrion had a worse upbringing under Tywin than Cersei, and the reason he turned out differently isn't just because he's smart.

You can argue that the abscence of a older female role (her mother) in her life was more crucial to cersei than it was to Tyrion bieng a young dauhgter with out a mother and all.

[The Killer Snark]

You can disagree, but in my opinion she'd have turned out more or less the same. She can't stand other female company, and would probably have just found her mother weak-willed, for putting up with the tyrannical Tywin all those years.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Cersei is easily the most tragic villain in the series. She wasn't a evil girl growing up. She may have been cold and prideful, but that can be blamed entirely on her father. It wasn't until her marriage to Robert where he raped her constantly that she became evil.

I am sorry mate but she killed Mellara when she was 10, abused baby Tyrion. She was evil from the beginning. There are more tragic characters in the series who had not killed or ordered the murder of innocent children.

[Asshai]

I think that Cersei was messed up from childhood. She shoved a childhood friend down a well, and decided to pick on her baby brother. She was cruel and vindictive. As to what's behind that, I imagine that Tywin wasn't exactly a great dad, and the death of her mother probably affected her. Without a positive female role-model, she seems to have tried to base herself on her father, famous for his ruthlessness. This seems to have been something she tried to emulate. Couple it were her ambitious nature and high expectations, and you've got a recipe for trouble. I still feel a measure of pity for Cersei, if only because she's such a complete failure.

[Jasta11]

Sigh. Some of us are drawn to the idea of crafting lengthy posts that attempt to find the nuances of Cersei's role in the story - we just hate typing on a smartphone with two bandaid-ed fingers. We are even less interested in doing so to advance a more thematic framework for Cersei...knowing full well how much plot-level push back that guarantees. It's enough of a trial as it is hold such (shockingly rare) positions about Cersei. To attempt a conversation based in "understanding/exploring" her purpose - in both her representations and actions - is a struggle. Often it just becomes 20 pages of justifying the validity of this kind of examination at all.

Seeking to analyse the thematic relevance of Cersei Lannister (especially inasmuch as it overlaps with common feminist literary and media discourse) is not the same as seeking to "excuse" the kinds of actions taken within the plot of the story. I do not defend the ordering of torture. I do not defend physical aggression perpetuated against infants. I do not defend coldblooded acts of murder committed by anyone anywhere ever.

I will defend the importance of her POV. I will defend my own emotional and intellectual connection to it. I will defend anyone who claims Cersei as a favorite character on any of these grounds. (Which is what most Cersei "defenders" actually are trying to do. They're not defending torture ffs.)

I'm a God Damn Cerseistan and don't give a fuck if someone misunderstands what that actually means. I do.

(After many months of careful, measured replies here and there, this is my First Confrontational Post. I feel like I've finally arrived. I'm one of you guys now...and there's no place like home.)

Seems like I'll have to use Comic Sans next time. This was a jest.

As for what you said, OK, but that's not what I saw in the thread at all. Most posts were actually defending her actions and blaming her being a shitty human being on others, which me and others have called out as BS.

By all means, analyse what Cercei means from a feminist perspective. I'm personally not interested but if you wanna create a thread about it, knock yourself out. But this present thread was never created with that goal and has little to do with any sort of feminist analysis, so I'm not sure why you went on a rant at all. I don't think anyone here said people who like/defend/ect. condone torture, or that anyone said Martin should have axed her PoV (certainly not me, she was one of the precious few entertaining things in Feast).

[sapphire_lion]

Without a positive female role-model, she seems to have tried to base herself on her father, famous for his ruthlessness.

People say Cersei didn't have a positive female role model but she had aunt Genna. Aunt Genna gave her god advice and tried to give her self-confidence. That didn't turn out so well. From Genna conversation with Jaime it seems that she knows Cersei pretty well and that she has a low opinion of the person Cersei has become.

ETA: Cersei doesn't have it in her to listen to good counsel. I don't believe she ever has. She was very much like Joffrey as a child. I can't think of anything that would have helped her.

[Hajk]

You can disagree, but in my opinion she'd have turned out more or less the same. She can't stand other female company, and would probably have just found her mother weak-willed, for putting up with the tyrannical Tywin all those years.

Sentiments like this make me fear that we will eventually become a Gattaca or Minority Report like society.

I am sorry mate but she killed Mellara when she was 10, abused baby Tyrion. She was evil from the beginning. There are more tragic characters in the series who had not killed or ordered the murder of innocent children.

Assuming that this is true, would you look forward to the day when this was scientifically detectable and support a program of Eugenics on that basis?

The majority of eight year olds do not throw other children down wells. Sociopathy is actually to a large extent pathological, even though it doesn't follow that it automatically betrays itself when the affected are kids. Tyrion had a worse upbringing under Tywin than Cersei, and the reason he turned out differently isn't just because he's smart.

Since those who believe that she did throw Melara down are apparently convinced that repeating it again and again makes it more convincing one will simply have to agree to disagree here. The evidence is insufficient to condemn her of this. Note that condemning her for this would require not only that they show that she did this, but that it was intentional and premeditated, not accidental.

What about Michael Myers from "Halloween"? Has been a murderous monster since the age of six into adulthood. (Yes, "Halloween" is fiction. So's the "Song".)

How many murders has Cersei committed since the so-called murder of Melara and the GOT? She is not a habitual serial killer, and not portrayed as one. She has certainly not murdered Tyrion although many opportunities must have presented themselves in her childhood when she believed he would destroy her.

She has two siblings, and while they are both selfish and arrogant, they didn't kill anyone when they were preteens, they both exhibit a range of normal emotions including empathy. Cersei shows none of this. Her upbringing is an excuse. Despite her massive privilege, she has always been a resentful, unhappy person, always wanting whatever it was that she did not have. That isn't a function of upbringing but of personality.

So the ultra rich can not be bad parents?

Her upbringing is an excuse, but one that works. That someone else may have survived the upbringing better does nothing to excuse it. All through history there have been children who went through horrible upbringings. Some turned into monsters and others didn't. That doesn't absolve upbringing. It would only absolve it if the effects of upbringing were deterministic rather than probabilistic. But that is not the case. A bad upbringing does not determine with certainty that a child will be messed up but it certainly makes it probable. All three are messed up, just to different degrees.

[Knight Of Winter]

How many murders has Cersei committed since the so-called murder of Melara and the GOT? She is not a habitual serial killer, and not portrayed as one. She has certainly not murdered Tyrion although many opportunities must have presented themselves in her childhood when she believed he would destroy her.

So the ultra rich can not be bad parents?

Her upbringing is an excuse, but one that works. That someone else may have survived the upbringing better does nothing to excuse it. All through history there have been children who went through horrible upbringings. Some turned into monsters and others didn't. That doesn't absolve upbringing. It would only absolve it if the effects of upbringing were deterministic rather than probabilistic. But that is not the case. A bad upbringing does not determine with certainty that a child will be messed up but it certainly makes it probable. All three are messed up, just to different degrees.

She is certainly a mass murderer, just without guts to do the deeds herself. She kills some of completely innocent Robert's bastard kids. She routinely gives people to Qyburn. She kills her loyal subject Falyse without a shred of remorse. She sanctions mass-dwarf-murder. She sends Golden Cloaks to hunt Gendry and others. She kills Lady purely out of spite. She plans to murder Jon Snow and doesn't care if Osney dies on process. In general, she tends to lean towards extremely violent solutions to her problems, a trait she shares with her father.

Also note how several other characters went to same or worse upbringing, yet they didn't turn out as homicidal psychopaths. Dany was running, hiding and being mistreated for all her life, yet tends to be much more noble and compassionate person than Cersei. Catelyn also lost her mother in childbirth, but still grows into ethical women. Jaime was raised by same parents, yet (unlike Cersei) shows sign of repenting and is generally improving himself.

And while it's true that other more popular characters (e.g. Tyrion) share some of her vices, unlike her they also have "good", "redeeming" or "moral". They're complex grey instead of Cersei's black. I'll ask you (and other Cersei defenders) to name one moral, selfless or altruistic action she did during the course of the series, barring her (however twisted) love of her children.

ETA: given past confusions (such as posts #134 or #165), I'll ask you to please specify in your reply whether you're serious/not serious/tongue in cheek/trolling.

[Winter's Knight]

You guys want to see a really determined defense of Cersei? How about the fact that we have almost zero evidencde that she had any of Robert's children killed, apart from an insinuation from Varys?

• Janos Slynt refuses to name Cersei to Tyrion when asked who gave him the order. But the soldiers chasing Gendry freely demand him in the name of the Queen. So the order was so secret that Tyrion did not hear of it at all but the common men-at-arms chasing Gendry know.
  
• Cersei doesn't like killing children-she freaks out when Jaime pushes Bran and does not attempt to silence him later.
  
• Venturing into murky territory here. Varys suspected that Gendry would be at risk but not Barra-why? If Cersei wanted the children dead in order to prevent others from concluding as Ned did, she'd want them all dead-high born or low, no matter how young and Varys would surely know that. He is supposed to be an expert player and all.
  
• Now, look at how the death of Barra and her mother are meant to appeal specifically to Tyrion-it's not just the child but the mother as well. The mother is a young whore and Tyrion's reaction is interesting: Tyrion had never seen the dead girl’s face, but in his mind she was Shae and Tysha both.
  
• Varys has a vested interest in keeping Cersei and Tyrion separated -doesn't trust him and has already warned Tyrion against him. Tywin had specifically instructed Tyrion to prune the Council.
  
• No effort is made by Cersei to locate the other fourteen-and remember, she knows that there are sixteen in total, thanks to Maggi the contrived plot point Frog.
  
• She doesn't mention ordering the killings in her PoVs.
  

• 
  

[Jasta11]

Assuming that this is true, would you look forward to the day when this was scientifically detectable and support a program of Eugenics on that basis?

You do realize this is the kind of ad hominem that makes anyone with a brain unable to take you seriously, right? I'm not going to read your posts anymore.

@ Winter's Knight: That's interesting, but it has holes. Mainly, if (as I assume) the theory is that Varys ordered the killings and blamed it on Cercei in order to drive a wedge between her and Tyrion, why do it in such a contrived way? It seems there are many other methods the Spider could have used to a more guaranteed effect. I doubt he has a complete psych profile of Tyrion and thus knows that it will push nearly all his buttons.

Plus, we know Slynt is Littlefinger's creature. I doubt one even as slimy as him would be enough of a double agent to work for both Varys and Baelish part-time. Wayyy much of a risk for both of them.

And finally, Cercei is not averse to killing children according to Jaime himself. She wanted Arya dead, or so he thinks, and I don't think there is any higher authority on her character. As for her not thinking about it, if I recall correctly she doesn't think back about Robert's ''accident'' either, yet we still know she was involved in it. It's not like Tyrion who always, always thinks back to these sort of things; Cercei is deluded enough, and lacks empathy so much, that I'm not overly surprised she doesn't think about such things. And, I got the impression she didn't want Bran dead because it would be too hard to hide it, not because she didn't want a child killed., albeit that may be me.

I mean, someone ordered those killings. I don't buy the Varys connection fully, Littlefinger doesn't seem to have a motive, and the third suspect is Cercei herself who actually has authority over Slynt. The show made it so Joffrey did it, but in the books he doesn't seem to overly care about the accusations of him being a bastardso I don't think he's a suspect.

[Knight Of Winter]

You guys want to see a really determined defense of Cersei? How about the fact that we have almost zero evidencde that she had any of Robert's children killed, apart from an insinuation from Varys?

In addition to what Jasta11 said - even if Cersei was truly innocent of hurting Bob's bastards (which I don't think is the case), she's still responsible for countless other deaths through the series.

[Kurogane]

You guys want to see a really determined defense of Cersei? How about the fact that we have almost zero evidencde that she had any of Robert's children killed, apart from an insinuation from Varys?

We know Cersei threatened to have Mya Stone killed, there was also the lovely bit about eating Robert's heirs... I think it's reasonable to assume that Cersei was behind it.

[Mrs.Grumpy]

She murdered Melara, ordered the death of Robert's bastards, gave women to Qyburn, killed the High Septon, plot to kill Jon Snow and Trystane Martell for no reason, framed Margaery and her cousins which may end their lives, tortured the Blue Bard and he went mad, cheated on Jaime, abused Tommen etc.

Yet people tries to defend her. Sorry, but there's no excuse that she's a sociopath. She's funny, you may enjoy her twisted chapters, but please, just don't defend her. It's useless and pathetic.

"But she didn't do that, it was blah blah" "It makes her less super evil!!"

[Arrax]

I mean, someone ordered those killings. I don't buy the Varys connection fully, Littlefinger doesn't seem to have a motive, and the third suspect is Cercei herself who actually has authority over Slynt. The show made it so Joffrey did it, but in the books he doesn't seem to overly care about the accusations of him being a bastardso I don't think he's a suspect.

Littlefinger doesn't need a motive.

"Why should I wish him dead?" Littlefinger shrugged. "I had no motive. Besides, I am a thousand leagues away in the Vale. Always keep your foes confused. If they are never certain who you are or what you want, they cannot know what you are like to do next. Sometimes the best way to baffle them is to make moves that have no purpose, or even seem to work against you. Remember that, Sansa, when you come to play the game."

[Hajk]

She is certainly a mass murderer, just without guts to do the deeds herself. She kills some of completely innocent Robert's bastard kids. She routinely gives people to Qyburn. She kills her loyal subject Falyse without a shred of remorse. She sanctions mass-dwarf-murder. She sends Golden Cloaks to hunt Gendry and others. She kills Lady purely out of spite. She plans to murder Jon Snow and doesn't care if Osney dies on process. In general, she tends to lean towards extremely violent solutions to her problems, a trait she shares with her father.

I think the last bolded line there is crucial. She gets more crap for her actions than Tywin who is the consummate Westerosi politician according to many. She certainly thinks so herself and has learn't most of what she has learnt by noticing his workings (Castamere, having Gregor and Amory kill the Targaryen babies etc., all without a shred of remorse). But the question was how much murder has she committed between Melara (which remains unproven) and GOT (all your examples are from after the start of GOT)? It was because I think Cersei primarily uses murder as a political tool. She is not some serial killer Ramsay type. But using murder as a political tool is done by many (most conspicuously her own role model father). Killing Lady is not a murder by the way. Not by the standards of even our world and certainly not by the standards of theirs. She orders the murder of Robert's bastards to cover up evidence of incest, again something that is similar to Tywin murdering the Targaryen babies to please Robert (except Tywin was not in danger from the existence of the babies, Cersei was threatened with the loss of power and danger to her children etc.). The murder of dwarfs is also primarily objective focused rather than evil for the sake of it. Cersei has effectively been taught that human life can not be allowed to stand in the way of success, and that those who would allow it to (e.g. Eddard) will not fare well, while those who don't win. If one is to blame people for the murders they have ordered then would we blame other lords who order wars knowing full well that much carnage would follow for the carnage? If not, why not? And if so, then will Cersei really look that bad anymore?

Also note how several other characters went to same or worse upbringing, yet they didn't turn out as homicidal psychopaths. Dany was running, hiding and being mistreated for all her life, yet tends to be much more noble and compassionate person than Cersei. Catelyn also lost her mother in childbirth, but still grows into ethical women. Jaime was raised by same parents, yet (unlike Cersei) shows sign of repenting and is generally improving himself.

I think I already answered this above in the posting you responded to. I have reiterated above why a category like homicidal psychopath does not fit here. That difference should be recognized here; and if it is not then it should be discarded even in the case of many more beloved characters.

As for upbringing, as I mentioned above I see this argument working only if someone were to concede that the causality associated with upbringing is deterministic (i.e. you will be certainly be evil if brought up like this) rather than probabilistic (you will probably be evil if brought up like this). If it is the first then the upbringing can not be to blame if others survived it better. But if it is the second then the fact the others came out better does not absolve the upbringing.

And while it's true that other more popular characters (e.g. Tyrion) share some of her vices, unlike her they also have "good", "redeeming" or "moral". They're complex grey instead of Cersei's black. I'll ask you (and other Cersei defenders) to name one moral, selfless or altruistic action she did during the course of the series, barring her (however twisted) love of her children.

This looks like a very black and white test on the face of it. The problem is that it is difficult to provide this because for any action provided alternative explanation in terms of some vice exist. There is a catalog of vices and if I present something as a virtue, it can immediately be reinterpreted as due to some vice instead.

However, there was a discussion a page or two ago about a germ of morality that still appears to be within her heart, which makes it difficult for her to look at some of the excesses that she may have ordered, that forces her to come up with rationalizations for why she finds certain actions necessary etc.

ETA: given past confusions (such as posts #134 or #165), I'll ask you to please specify in your reply whether you're serious/not serious/tongue in cheek/trolling.

Its normally fairly obvious (like I might agree that she is supporting medical science by supporting Qyburn, or that she is the main reason Stannis has any claim to the Iron Throne, or that she is the fulfillment of a prophecy, or that she is an awesome hottie so she is justified, or stuff in that vein; alternatively it may be when I say something tongue in cheek and someone responds to it as if I was being serious, and then I defend it as if it really was serious etc.)

If you want the serious argument, it is this: Cersei is no saint, no paragon of virtue, no Davos Seaworth. However, she is often presented as the very epitome of evil, and numerous excuses that are frequently provided to explain away the excesses of more beloved characters (e.g. Dany, by some including myself, Stannis by others, and so on) can also be used to excuse some of her behavior as well. Similarly excuses based on young age, bad circumstance, terrible parenting, abusive husband, bad fathering, etc. should also be available to her as well. Just like every accused deserves a vigorous defence in a court of law so does she. So if something excuses a more beloved character it also excuses her. If something can be done by a less hated character (e.g. Tyrion, Tywin, etc.) without making them the epitome of evil then it can also be done by her without making her the same. In addition attacks along lines of incompetence and immorality are not the same thing. She can be guilty of one and not the other. That, in summary has been the serious side of the argument.

[Asha Greyjoy:Feminist Icon]

Seems like I'll have to use Comic Sans next time. This was a jest.

As for what you said, OK, but that's not what I saw in the thread at all. Most posts were actually defending her actions and blaming her being a shitty human being on others, which me and others have called out as BS.

By all means, analyse what Cercei means from a feminist perspective. I'm personally not interested but if you wanna create a thread about it, knock yourself out. But this present thread was never created with that goal and has little to do with any sort of feminist analysis, so I'm not sure why you went on a rant at all. I don't think anyone here said people who like/defend/ect. condone torture, or that anyone said Martin should have axed her PoV (certainly not me, she was one of the precious few entertaining things in Feast).

I wasn't replying to you necessarily, just using the (obvs) rhetorical question of your post as a springboard. I also hereby second your inadvertent nomination of Comic Sans as the official "sarcasm font" of online discourse. (God knows I have a hard time taking that font seriously.)

I also don't know that the OP wanted to focus on moral defenses of her blatantly immoral actions. Most of the posts I've seen from SerBarristantheOld tend to argue mitigating and/or extenuating circumstances (how she is raised/taught/conditioned) or evidentiary gaps (Melara). No one is championing the virtue of babycide*.

So the only way to "defend" Cersei is through those mitigations and through the lens of thematic relevance. Writing her whole character off as "evil from the very beginning cause MELARA" is not constructive and suggests that Cersei's purpose in the narrative is simply to be a one-dimensional villain. Martin isn't in the habit of giving the other villains in this category a POV...there's a reason Cersei has one and Ramsay does not.

I could actually construct some plot based defenses of some of her actions, though mostly those that take place up to AFFC. There are maybe some after - but nothing to do with Qyburn is in anyway defensible morally. There's a small argument that Qyburn is using Cersei's "gifts" as a way to advance the knowledge of human biology. I don't know that I'd make that argument...but it's still possible to do so.

Also, thanks for giving me the official Rant Seal. I am weirdly pleased to hear it. (No really. B))

*Let the record show: I endorse WK's take on the babycide information. The matter isn't settled because the text isn't at all clear that she definitely did this. I've noticed that until Sansa's last chapter in ASOS, readers assumed it was FACT that "The Lannisters" (read: Cersei) killed Jon Arryn. They were proven wrong. Don't assume, people.

ETA:

snippage!

Hajk is making most of the in-universe arguments I'd also make. Much of this is indeed based on the modus operandi of dynastic control and isn't so easily handwaved as a character simply being eeeeeeeeviiiiilllll. (Of course, the bulk of this occurs in books prior to the reveal of the fucking Frogecy. Coincidence? Ugh.)

[Hajk]

You do realize this is the kind of ad hominem that makes anyone with a brain unable to take you seriously, right? I'm not going to read your posts anymore.

It's an ad hominem if I attack you. I am pointing out some of the frightening conclusions that can follow from an extension of a form of thinking that seems to push evil so far back into childhood and makes it inevitable. You don't want to read it, fair enough. But that is my response.

[Jiriki]

She has two siblings, and while they are both selfish and arrogant, they didn't kill anyone when they were preteens, they both exhibit a range of normal emotions including empathy. Cersei shows none of this. Her upbringing is an excuse. Despite her massive privilege, she has always been a resentful, unhappy person, always wanting whatever it was that she did not have. That isn't a function of upbringing but of personality.

Yep. People bring up the fact that she had a terrible father. But Jaime and Tyrion had the same father, and didn't go around killing people when they were young children. And plenty of women were "sold like brood mares" without resorting to becoming a serial killer (which is what Cercei is, since she has killed multiple people on the flimsiest of "justifications").

Back to OP: defending Cercei? Let's think of some nice things. Hmmm... She's got great hair, and (judging from the TV show) excellent taste in women's clothes. And, in her own way, she love(s/d) her children, even though her love destroys them. I really can't think of much else. Everything else semi-admirable (like the aforementioned building of ships) is tactical rather than true generosity.

I enjoy reading of her slow descent into CrayCrayLand. Couldn't happen to a more awful person.