Let's defend Cersei in this topic

[E-Ro]

ETA: Your avatar, what is it? Looks quite cute.

This post gives me much duress tbh.

Anyway, I understand "cute" is a subjective term, but really? Its a fucking pink ball with no legs and two feet. It doesnt even have fingers or hands for that matter. Its like an amorphous blob of pink. It is gaudy and terrible and insults my sensibilities.

Disgusting.

Oh, and this should be here, if you ever need to defend yourself against butterball assault, just turn em inside out.

[Hajk]

This post gives me much duress tbh.

Anyway, I understand "cute" is a subjective term, but really?

Yes really. Lets debate this in stupendous detail. Hmm...how could I do that...yes, it is cuter than Stannis, On Guard :fencing: :fencing:

Its a fucking pink ball with no legs and two feet. It doesnt even have fingers or hands for that matter. Its like an amorphous blob of pink. It is gaudy and terrible and insults my sensibilities.

Disgusting.

Unflattering descriptions can make many things sound bad. Here is how Debra from Dexter described a human baby:

"A motherfucking rolly-poly, chubby, cheeked, shit machine"

But Yeah. Still cute.

Oh, and this should be here, if you ever need to defend yourself against butterball assault, just turn em inside out.

That is no way to treat a cute thing. I wouldn't do it to babies either (yuck!)

[E-Ro]

Yes really. Lets debate this in stupendous detail. Hmm...how could I do that...yes, it is cuter than Stannis, On Guard :fencing: :fencing:

Wow brah brah, you had to take it there. I am almost hurt by this, but I will let it slide, for now.

Unflattering descriptions can make many things sound bad. Here is how Debra from Dexter described a human baby:

But Yeah. Still cute.

Well, I dont find babies particularly cute either tbh. I mean, sure for like half an hour they are great, any longer then that and the luster wears off. anyway, even babies are better then butterballs, at least babies are human and will grow to be people that can contribute to society, the same cannot be said of butterballs.

That is no way to treat a cute thing. I wouldn't do it to babies either (yuck!)

you will thank me when you inevitably get jumped by one of these evil terrible creatures, one of them(the troll one) even supports the castration of all men.

they are vile evil petty things that lie and spew venom and hate. They spread lies about gorillas at zoos to get everyone all excited, but then it turns out the gorillas don't actually pick flowers for you or get shot out of cannons. they are not to be trusted, and they are ESPECIALLY not to be complimented, it encourages their shenanigans. And that is bad.

Also, and i cant believe i forgot this, but they infiltrate email accounts and sign you up for all these stupid dating sites. so yeah.

[sapphire_lion]

Uhh, Tyrion is an attainted traitor-there's a price on his head because he's believed to have killed the king and his Hand and father. Cersei isn't out killing random dwarves, mercenaries are, to you know, claim a reward?

She should of course, ideally punish those men bringing in random heads, but, as everyone keeps remiding me, that's just how life was back then for the poor and the disabled.

The price Cersei put out is causing men to kill innocent dwarfs. Cersei does not care. Even when she sees that a child has been murdered by decapitation, she has no regret. Her actions and indifference serve to show the reader what a disgusting person Cersei is.

Anyone with a modicum of decency or sense would see the results of having such a price on Tyrion’s head and re-evaluate how the matter is being handled. Cersei has neither so she does nothing and allows genocide to continue.

Robert's whoring comes across far more sympathetically than Cersei's affair. Which, if not for the incest, would be one of those timeless tales of forbidden true love and the like.

IMO, the end of ASOS and all of AFFC dissolved any romantic element that could be applied to Jaime and Cersei’s relationship. She came off as a user, a cheater, and an abuser where Jaime was concerned. It's not the incest that makes Cersei unsympathetic. It's her horrible personality and behavior.

I never judged Cersei for her infidelity towards Robert (I even respected her for it). I never judged her for the incest. But I did judge her for her infidelity towards Jaime. She couldn’t even be decent to the man she claimed to love. She’s as much a cancer to her lover and her children as she is to her enemies. Everything she touches turns to rot. After witnessing her cruelty, hypocrisy, and ineptitude I longer have any respect or sympathy for Cersei.

[Jasta11]

1. But I think one the issues that's overlooked as a sympathetic aspect is how loveless the marriage was. These two people really did not like or connect with each other. Robert found solace elsewhere; Cersei did too. Robert's whoring comes across far more sympathetically than Cersei's affair. Which, if not for the incest, would be one of those timeless tales of forbidden true love and the like.

I don't see infidelity within an arranged, loveless marriage where both partners "cheat" to be a moral issue. That's not really "cheating;" that's an open marriage. The only reason it becomes an issue is because the structure of that society depends on patrilineal succession, which depends on ownership of the female's body by the state (which is why Robert's whoring wouldn't be an issue). And I strongly disagree with that system.

2. Yea, the bolded is largely what I'm saying. But I'd go a bit further and say that her choice to not become bodily property is one of the only areas I think Cersei can be seen sympathetically-- her rejection of being a brood mare, and the fact that she found love even if outside of an arranged, loveless marriage are ironically the 2 things I can actually sympathize with her for, but they're exactly what gets buried at the beginning of the story (and only to the extent that she made the choice-- not including how she then tried to become the patriarchy).

1. A big reason is that Robert's whoring didn't stop him from producing legitimate heir (as far as he knew). Meanwhile, Cercei went out of her way to deny Robert said heirs. Obviously in-universe this is abhorent in more ways than one, but even so Cercei is actively distrupting the political system of Westeros out of spite for one man. We can think whatever we want of the system, and I personally hold feudalism barely above slavery in terms of how barbarous it is, but that doesn't mean it's commendable to cause it to crash down for shit and giggles and cause tens of thousands of deaths. Quite the contrary, in fact.

2. It doesn't resonate with me. I mean, sure, she wanted to get out of the oppressive system and anyone can find this commendable... But at the same time, Cercei herself had absolutely no problem with gloating to Sansa over her marriage to Tyrion, or telling her she would be beaten until she submitted, with absolutely no trace of any remorse. And then she has the immense gall to think back to how generous she was to the poor girl. Yuck.

See, this is my problem with any defense of Cercei that includes ''but the system is bad!''. It is, it's a shitty system. Thing is, Cercei is perfectly OK with it so long as it serves her, and only hates it when it hinders her in any way. Arranged marriage? She was 100% on board if it means she gets to be queen and wield the power that comes with it. Rampant sexism? Bad when it happens to her, but she has no problem insulting other women again and again and putting them in the same situation she herself hates. Bastards shouldn't be legitimate? How dare they make these accusations at Joffrey and me! Now excuse me while I go tell myself that I'm a lioness and how I'm awesome because Tywin is my father and how those stupid commoners are powerless. Oh, the Faith is so cruel to women! It's not like I wanted them to do the exact same thing to a woman I didn't like.

Maybe it's a flaw of mine, but I can't differenciate the ''Cercei is in a bad system'' argument (which, again, is true) from the ''Cercei has no problem with the system so long as it suits her'' fact. If she made some amount of efforts to subvert it, to spare other women the same indignities, to at least recognize how privileged she is and use it for something else than her selfish gain, then I would have much more sympathy for her character. As it is, I feel she deserves none of my sympathy. it'S why I would find the Walk of Shame an utterly abberant atrocity if it happened to, say, Asha or Arya or Brienne or whatever. But since it's Cercei, I don,t give a fig. She could have ended the Walk by being experimented upon by both Qyburn and Ramsay simultaneously and I still wouldn't care. She's so selfish, so delusional, so much of an horrible person that I'm just numb to her situation. Other women have been in far, far worse and they never came even close to her level of villainy. For me, it ceases to be a valid excuse.

EDIT: Also, what sapphire_lion said. As soon as Jaime stops mindlessly dancing to her tune, Cercei herself almost immediately starts hitting him, exactly like Robert did. Their relashionship was consensual, yes, but that doesn't mean it was healthy.

[butterbumps!]

they are vile evil petty things that lie and spew venom and hate. They spread lies about gorillas at zoos to get everyone all excited, but then it turns out the gorillas don't actually pick flowers for you or get shot out of cannons. they are not to be trusted, and they are ESPECIALLY not to be complimented, it encourages their shenanigans. And that is bad.

Also, and i cant believe i forgot this, but they infiltrate email accounts and sign you up for all these stupid dating sites. so yeah.

I like how you're admitting to the world that you

1. believed my account that the gorillas at the zoo are trained to pick flowers and give you bouquets as souvenirs

2. believed I saw a musical gorilla show called "Apes a Poppin," involving a finale where they're shot out of cannons to the "William Tell Overture"

3. got trolled by my "Brony Dating site" scam.

I don't think I'm the party in the wrong, here. I think the real issue here is the fact that you bought this. I mean, gorillas shot out of cannons?

[E-Ro]

I like how you're admitting to the world that you

1. believed my account that the gorillas at the zoo are trained to pick flowers and give you bouquets as souvenirs

2. believed I saw a musical gorilla show called "Apes a Poppin," involving a finale where they're shot out of cannons to the "William Tell Overture"

3. got trolled by my "Brony Dating site" scam.

I don't think I'm the party in the wrong, here. I think the real issue here is the fact that you bought this. I mean, gorillas shot out of cannons?

I made the mistake of trusting you, I was fooled by your av. It wont happen again though.

Im glad you admitted all of this though, it shows that IM the victim here. The victim of butterball cruelty. How like you to blame the victim for falling prey to this.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

I've find the current discussion going on this thread entirely compelling and I'd add my two cents:

What butterbumps! is arguing is actually exactly on point - We tend to side with Ned for Cersei's faults of character, and her son inability to rule. But those are not the reasons Ned stands against her, per se. Ned's only argument is not a morality one - But a merely genetic one. Had Joffrey been born with Black Hair, would he object to his reign of terror? And most importantly, if Cersei was described as Elia Martell is, and had an affair with a Knight described as Arthur Dayne, and had his children, three children completely capable of ruling, would we still support Ned's reason?

[butterbumps!]

IMO, the end of ASOS and all of AFFC dissolved any romantic element that could be applied to Jaime and Cersei’s relationship. She came off as a user, a cheater, and an abuser where Jaime was concerned. It's not the incest that makes Cersei unsympathetic. It's her horrible personality and behavior.

I never judged Cersei for her infidelity towards Robert (I even respected her for it). I never judged her for the incest. But I did judge her for her infidelity towards Jaime. She couldn’t even be decent to the man she claimed to love. She’s as much a cancer to her lover and her children as she is to her enemies. Everything she touches turns to rot. After witnessing her cruelty, hypocrisy, and ineptitude I longer have any respect or sympathy for Cersei.

Well, I think we might be in complete agreement on this. The bolded is honestly the extent of my respect/ admiration on this issue, and where I think the sympathy can be found. I think that the fact that Cersei sought love elsewhere and wanted freedom of her body, and that this is at root of why the "good guys" found her condemnable is what's a bit tragic and overlooked. And even in hindsight (reading aSoS and FFC), we're still given reason to condemn her (and by extension, strengthen our alignment with Ned + co.) when we see the breakdown of this relationship, and how it's largely an expression of narcissism on her part than true love.

1. A big reason is that Robert's whoring didn't stop him from producing legitimate heir (as far as he knew). Meanwhile, Cercei went out of her way to deny Robert said heirs. Obviously in-universe this is abhorent in more ways than one, but even so Cercei is actively distrupting the political system of Westeros out of spite for one man. We can think whatever we want of the system, and I personally hold feudalism barely above slavery in terms of how barbarous it is, but that doesn't mean it's commendable to cause it to crash down for shit and giggles and cause tens of thousands of deaths. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Well, what causes tens of thousands of deaths is when someone decides to challenge her over it. Does the system crash because an illegitimate heir is on the throne, or does it crash because people vest authority in patrilineal succession, and believe they should fight to preserve it?

2. It doesn't resonate with me. I mean, sure, she wanted to get out of the oppressive system and anyone can find this commendable... But at the same time, Cercei herself had absolutely no problem with gloating to Sansa over her marriage to Tyrion, or telling her she would be beaten until she submitted, with absolutely no trace of any remorse. And then she has the immense gall to think back to how generous she was to the poor girl. Yuck.

See, this is my problem with any defense of Cercei that includes ''but the system is bad!''. It is, it's a shitty system. Thing is, Cercei is perfectly OK with it so long as it serves her, and only hates it when it hinders her in any way. Arranged marriage? She was 100% on board if it means she gets to be queen and wield the power that comes with it. Rampant sexism? Bad when it happens to her, but she has no problem insulting other women again and again and putting them in the same situation she herself hates. Bastards shouldn't be legitimate? How dare they make these accusations at Joffrey and me! Now excuse me while I go tell myself that I'm a lioness and how I'm awesome because Tywin is my father and how those stupid commoners are powerless. Oh, the Faith is so cruel to women! It's not like I wanted them to do the exact same thing to a woman I didn't like.

Maybe it's a flaw of mine, but I can't differenciate the ''Cercei is in a bad system'' argument (which, again, is true) from the ''Cercei has no problem with the system so long as it suits her'' fact. If she made some amount of efforts to subvert it, to spare other women the same indignities, to at least recognize how privileged she is and use it for something else than her selfish gain, then I would have much more sympathy for her character. As it is, I feel she deserves none of my sympathy. it'S why I would find the Walk of Shame an utterly abberant atrocity if it happened to, say, Asha or Arya or Brienne or whatever. But since it's Cercei, I don,t give a fig. She could have ended the Walk by being experimented upon by both Qyburn and Ramsay simultaneously and I still wouldn't care. She's so selfish, so delusional, so much of an horrible person that I'm just numb to her situation. Other women have been in far, far worse and they never came even close to her level of villainy. For me, it ceases to be a valid excuse.

EDIT: Also, what sapphire_lion said. As soon as Jaime stops mindlessly dancing to her tune, Cercei herself almost immediately starts hitting him, exactly like Robert did. Their relashionship was consensual, yes, but that doesn't mean it was healthy.

Without a doubt, Cersei only seeks to challenge the system in so far as it personally affects her. I think Jaime's a lot more critical of these oppressive systems than she is-- she does use these same systems to then oppress others.

But I'm trying to disaggregate the pieces. Cersei doesn't get free passes because the system is unjust. I was only commenting on the opening of the series, which stacks the sympathy odds so far against her, that we overlook how her looking for love elsewhere and wanting to exert control over her own body is actually pretty sympathetic, at the very least in an abstract sense. And it's precisely this that compels the good guys to oppose her.

[sifth]

Don't forget that in the books Cersei is the one who killed Robert's bastards, not Joff

she's such a lovely woman, willing to kill babies to protect her son, lol

[Alaynsa Starne]

Yeah she was totes chill with Joff abusing Sansa because it protected him. Turned him into a well-rounded, productive member of society. Westeros is safe and at peace because of Cersei's noble abandonment of parental responsibility.

[sapphire_lion]

That'snot what Bumps is saying though.

Through a narrative slight of hand, Martin effectively has us rooting for war and the deaths of thousands and the destabilisation of seven kingdoms, just to ensure that the guy with the right dna ascends the throne.

Ned isn't concerned with Joff's character or ability to rule,just his parentage and we've been supporting him for it.

I don't agree. You are supposed to see the stupidity of a government ruled by a bloodline (50% Mad Targaryens – The Mad King) and the stupidity of a government ruled by a powerful family with arrogant and inept offspring there to take the torch (The Lannisters – Joffrey/Cersei). Neither is an acceptable option. You are also supposed to see the sheer immorality of the war, and how thousands of people's lives have been destroyed by the games these Kings, and Queens, and noble people play (Brienne's chapters really drive home this message).

Ned isn't concerned about Joff's character. But Ned isn't right about everything (and he isn't supposed to be seen as such). He too served an incompetent King. He participated in a war that tore the realm apart. You see Ned's many mistakes. They led to his own death. The narrative is not pro-progeniture or single-bloodline. If it were, then it wouldn't have included characters such as Ayres and Viserys, They had the right DNA and were as bad as Joff and Cers.

I always felt that the narrative invites you the see the absurdity of the entire situation if you pay close enough attention.

[Hajk]

Don't forget that in the books Cersei is the one who killed Robert's bastards, not Joff

she's such a lovely woman, willing to kill babies to protect her son, lol

While I have argued earlier that this doesn't make her any worse than Tywin, WK made an interesting posting earlier today that opens up another line of defense for Cersei:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/103807-lets-defend-cersei-in-this-topic/?p=5414921

[Jasta11]

But I'm trying to disaggregate the pieces. Cersei doesn't get free passes because the system is unjust. I was only commenting on the opening of the series, which stacks the sympathy odds so far against her, that we overlook how her looking for love elsewhere and wanting to exert control over her own body is actually pretty sympathetic, at the very least in an abstract sense. And it's precisely this that compels the good guys to oppose her.

If you mean solely at the beginning of the series, then yes it's true. Then again, Ned has more than one reason to want Joffrey off the throne. It's more than the fact he doesn't have the right DNA: by passing Jaime's children as Robert's, Cercei is commiting high treason. Furthermore, Ned already knows that Joffrey is a piece of shit and Cercei is a vindicative bitch, thanks to the incident on the Trident. At the time he also has cause to believe they killed Jon Arryn, his mentor and father figure, as well as tried to assassinate his son twice (which is actually true). So I daresay Ned's opposition to the Lannisters is for far more than Joffrey not having the right dad. The unlawfullness of Robert's children gives him legal/moral cause to act on that resentment.

Also let's not forget: this is, likely, the same guy who was willing to lie to everyone, Robert included, to protect Jon, and who trampled over his own honor when his daughters were at stake. If the Lannisters had behaved properly up to that point, I'm not certain Ned would have tried to oust them immediately. For all the talk of how inflexible he is, he's quite capable of being deceitful if he feels it is needed. It's possible that, had he seen Joffrey was a good King in the making, he would have at least hesitated. Perhaps he would have seen Renly's offer as the best compromise. We can't be certain. But I don't think we can see this as ''patriarchy vs free woman'', even with a cursory glance. There were too many factors in this.

[butterbumps!]

If you mean solely at the beginning of the series, then yes it's true. Then again, Ned has more than one reason to want Joffrey off the throne. It's more than the fact he doesn't have the right DNA: by passing Jaime's children as Robert's, Cercei is commiting high treason. Furthermore, Ned already knows that Joffrey is a piece of shit and Cercei is a vindicative bitch, thanks to the incident on the Trident. At the time he also has cause to believe they killed Jon Arryn, his mentor and father figure, as well as tried to assassinate his son twice (which is actually true). So I daresay Ned's opposition to the Lannisters is for far more than Joffrey not having the right dad. The unlawfullness of Robert's children gives him legal/moral cause to act on that resentment.

Also let's not forget: this is, likely, the same guy who was willing to lie to everyone, Robert included, to protect Jon, and who trampled over his own honor when his daughters were at stake. If the Lannisters had behaved properly up to that point, I'm not certain Ned would have tried to oust them immediately. For all the talk of how inflexible he is, he's quite capable of being deceitful if he feels it is needed. It's possible that, had he seen Joffrey was a good King in the making, he would have at least hesitated. Perhaps he would have seen Renly's offer as the best compromise. We can't be certain. But I don't think we can see this as ''patriarchy vs free woman'', even with a cursory glance. There were too many factors in this.

Well, yea, Ned knew Jof was awful by the time of the Trident (and doesn't have any further exposure to Jof afterwards), but that still wasn't enough to even compel him to break off the engagement-- it took Jaime killing his men to speak up about Jof's unsuitability, which was referring to the Trident behavior.

I think it's a safe assumption that Ned's not operating out of suitability principles. We know Jof's a shit, Cersei's dangerous and the like, but these aren't the reasons for his actions.

The way he rejected Renly's offer is what tells us he's not thinking that way at all. Renly wanted Ned to confiscate the kids away from Cersei and continue ruling with them/ training them for rule. Ned said no because he didn't want to scare the children, and afterwards, when LF asked why he rejected Renly's offer and tries to suggest the plan again, Ned refuses to because Stannis is the heir-- he would not stand as LP and allow Jof to grow into the king role, even without Cersei, because Stannis was Robert's true heir.

[sapphire_lion]

0_o the thing with dwarves is genocide??? I didnt know that

Well, it's the killing of a specific group of people (commonly it's because of ethnicity or religion). This time, thanks to Cersei's offer of a lordship for Tyrion's head it led to the routine murder of people with dwarfism.

Of course Cersei didn't give a *beep*.

"I should have your own heads off." But if she did, the next man might hesitate and let the Imp slip the net. She would pile dead dwarfs ten feet high before she let that happen. -AFFC

[sapphire_lion]

While I have argued earlier that this doesn't make her any worse than Tywin, WK made an interesting posting earlier today that opens up another line of defense for Cersei:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/103807-lets-defend-cersei-in-this-topic/?p=5414921

What a brilliant defense! Cersei is only as bad as another horrible person. And morally they are on the same level. The thing Tywin had on Cersei was intelligence and self-control, not morality (although you could argue that he was more loyal to his people than Cers).

Joff was strong according to Cersei...she knew he would be able to protect himself in time without her...

She was't right about that either.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

EVERYTHING cruel Cersei does is to protect her children

Her children or her power? She only wields authority through them. Her children die, her power is gone, so it's in her interest to keep them alive. Not saying she doesn't love them, but "to protect her children" is not nearly as selfless a motive as one might think.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Apple pls. Its clearly her children she cares for the most

Or the power she wields through them.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

In her mind she was right

Sociopaths usually don't think they're doing anything wrong.