Why does everyone hate the Lannisters?

[Wmarshal]

BB, peace is important, but all butchers must pay their due. LS is hunting men who actually aided in RW and Lannister men, you know, those that raped a lot, for as much as people say the BWB don't kill Northmen, do we have evidence? Only once running around are broken men, likely to join them.

[The Wolves]

If he didn't give a shit about ending the conflict in the Riverlands then why is he going from castle to castle getting the rebels to surrender? Just for shits and giggles?Also note he isn't storming them immediately, he is actually trying to resolve it peacefully.

If that monster would give up her Lannister/Frey hunt the Riverlands could be pacified.

Every house in the Riverlands has had men slaughtered by the Lannisters and the RW. With the Lannisters ruling and Freys getting rewarded from the RW than the Riverlands will never be pacified.

[Wmarshal]

Jaime has sins, what he does not wash them away, him, his brother, and Cersei have done nothing but ruin things for the West. Tywin is dead and gone, his children can no longer hide in his shadow.

[Boarsbane]

Because he wants his family to be victorious, obviously.

Jaime isn't hunting the Lannisters and Freys? However, if he and the rest of his family admitted their crimes and accepted punishment for their actions by handing over the throne then yeah peace could be achieved.

side note: A Lannister defender calling anyone a monster besides the Lannister's own allies is pretty amusing.

Because he has shown how much he cares about his families legacy. If it was just him wanting the Lannisters to win then why does he try doing it peacefully? Storming the castles would be costly, but given your low opinion of Jaime I doubt you think he cares too much about the high mortality rate storming would rack up.

No the abomination known as Lady Stoneheart is what I was referring to. They don't have to turn themselves over, that is idiotic and would just create more chaos and destruction.

Lady Stoneheart is a monster, the most disgusting abomination we have ever seen, motivated by nothing but lust for revenge.

[Boarsbane]

BB, peace is important, but all butchers must pay their due. LS is hunting men who actually aided in RW and Lannister men, you know, those that raped a lot, for as much as people say the BWB don't kill Northmen, do we have evidence? Only once running around are broken men, likely to join them.

No, it just creates an endless cycle of death. Some Lannister men probably raped, and some probably didn't, but I can guarantee not a single Lannister soldier had any part in the RW. The Lannisters won, that monster will never defeat them but she will also never give up her quest for revenge, until someone kills her, again.

[Minsc]

Because he has shown how much he cares about his families legacy. If it was just him wanting the Lannisters to win then why does he try doing it peacefully? Storming the castles would be costly, but given your low opinion of Jaime I doubt you think he cares too much about the high mortality rate storming would rack up.

Because storming the castles would cost him and his family a ton, and then he cannot self-delude himself anymore about how he is fulfilling his oaths.

They don't have to turn themselves over, that is idiotic and would just create more chaos and destruction.

Seeing how they cause the most destruction and chaos I don't see how keeping them in power ensures less.

Lady Stoneheart is a monster, the most disgusting abomination we have ever seen, motivated by nothing but lust for revenge.

And yet Tywin, Jaime, and Cersei have all individually performed worse actions then she has ever done. Thus, they are all worse and more disgusting abominations. Additionally, that is false seeing how she still protects the Smallfolk and is looking for her children.

[Boarsbane]

Because storming the castles would cost him and his family a ton, and then he cannot self-delude himself anymore about how he is fulfilling his oaths.

Seeing how they cause the most destruction and chaos I don't see how keeping them in power ensures less.

And yet Tywin, Jaime, and Cersei have all individually performed worse actions then she has ever done. Thus, they are all worse and more disgusting abominations. Additionally, that is false seeing how she still protects the Smallfolk and is looking for her children.

What would it cost him? A few Frey and Lannister soldiers would die but what are they to him?

They aren't even in power anymore. Cersei has been removed of almost all influence, Jaime is the Riverlands, Kevan and Tywin are dead and Tommen is more or less a Tyrell puppet. The Lannister hold over the throne is practically gone by now.

It doesn't matter which is more disgusting, an abomination is an abomination. Last I checked Jaime, Cersei, and Tywin aren't zombies so not quite as revolting as Cat's current state. She doesn't give two shits about the smallfolk, never did even in life.

[Minsc]

It doesn't matter which is more disgusting, an abomination is an abomination. Last I checked Jaime, Cersei, and Tywin aren't zombies so not quite as revolting as Cat's current state. She doesn't give two shits about the smallfolk, never did even in life.

The fact that they aren't "zombies" makes them even more revolting. False, we see Catelyn repeatedly show concern of the small folk while alive and the BWB under her are still serving them.

They aren't even in power anymore. Cersei has been removed of almost all influence, Jaime is the Riverlands, Kevan and Tywin are dead and Tommen is more or less a Tyrell puppet. The Lannister hold over the throne is practically gone by now.

Then it shouldn't be no problem for Jaime to depose Tommen.

[Boarsbane]

The fact that they aren't "zombies" makes them even more revolting. False, we see Catelyn repeatedly show concern of the small folk while alive and the BWB under her are still serving them.

Then it shouldn't be no problem for Jaime to depose Tommen.

No it doesn't, a pale, bloated, rotting corpse walking around croaking is disgusting, nuff said. She is just as disgusting inside. Didn't a bunch of the BWB desert after she took over, wonder why...

Uh it kind of would be, why would the Tyrells let him try to get rid of their puppet? And more importantly why would he sentence his sweet, innocent son to death for his and Cersei's crimes?

[Minsc]

No it doesn't, a pale, bloated, rotting corpse walking around croaking is disgusting, nuff said. She is just as disgusting inside. Didn't a bunch of the BWB desert after she took over, wonder why...

Tywin, Cersei, and Jaime's personality is even more disgusting.

And more importantly why would he sentence his sweet, innocent son to death for his and Cersei's crimes?

And why should LS allow her and her son's murders be rewarded with her family's home?

[Fat Mac]

And Jaime does not have a redemption arc.

What is he doing to be redeemed?

-Is he sneering at the evil Freys and than turning around and rewarding their taboo mass murder by giving them Riverrun.

-Is he searching for Sansa while he gives no fucks that her inheritance is being wrongly stolen by her family's murderers but he'll keep her tucked away while others live off what's rightfully hers and the Starks.

-Is he also sneering and dismissing Cersei because of all those awful crimes that she committed the ones where he was mostly complicit in and with the word "go" and a quickie from Cersei he would have murdered Robert the King.

Honestly WTF is Jaime doing that anybody can say he is redeemed?

Old Jaime wouldn't have stopped Brienne from being raped, jump in a bear pit with one hand and no weapon to save her, burn Cersei's letter, give two shits about finding Sansa or actually care about anything but Cersei.

Very few people would say he's redeemed, but very few can deny that he's trying to change.

[BitsOfBrains]

If he didn't give a shit about ending the conflict in the Riverlands then why is he going from castle to castle getting the rebels to surrender? Just for shits and giggles?Also note he isn't storming them immediately, he is actually trying to resolve it peacefully.

If that monster would give up her Lannister/Frey hunt the Riverlands could be pacified.

Pretty sure Jamie was commanded to subdue the Riverlands by the Queen Regent so he has no option.

And an occupied region being temporarily "pacified" is much different than bringing an end to a conflict. Current example in occupied Palestine.

As to the Jamie "redemption arc" I don't really buy it and I have feeling its another writing cliche GRRM is going to turn on its ear.

Pretty much what I see from Jamies "redemption arc" is him realizing he can no longer do/say whatever he wants because he can't just kill everyone all the time.

I mean really his "redemption ride" through the Riverlands has consisted of him patting himself on the back for hanging a guy even though he was a broken man from a Lanister host, threatening to kill a new born infant, giving River Run to a Frey, rewarding the Brackins for being traitors, and other BARELY neutral acts.

I am thinking as soon as he pulls a Qhorin Halfhand he will go right back to being a complete Dbag and I think it will be excellent writing.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Old Jaime wouldn't have stopped Brienne from being raped, jump in a bear pit with one hand and no weapon to save her, burn Cersei's letter, give two shits about finding Sansa or actually care about anything but Cersei.

Very few people would say he's redeemed, but very few can deny that he's trying to change.

That's a pretty good list, but Jaime's good deeds isn't the main reason I think the author wants us to believe Jaime is on a redemption arc, nor is it even the fact that we spend a lot of time in Jaime's thoughts and know that he thinks more and more about honor.

The main reason is that Martin intentionally set Jaime up in the worst possible light early in the book, when readers were forming their impressions of him. He did that a couple of ways.

First, I believe that the conversation that ends with "The things I do for love" is the very first conversation we see him in (and if not the very first, definitely the first meaningful one). Jaime's done a lot of pretty nasty things, but nothing else has the visceral impact of throwing a child out a high window. (Especially when you throw in that nice little twist "to protect his incest.") When a character does his worst act of the million-page series in his first conversation, that's the author trying to make us jump to the worst possible conclusion about him.

Second, the first mention of him is in the Daenerys chapter where she talks about Viserys telling the story of the Kingslayer opening her father's throat with a golden sword, but the first time we hear the Kingslayer story is from guess who's POV. That's right, good ole Ned Stark, not exactly the most sympathetic witness, and Ned didn't mince words, saying to Robert that Jaime broke his oath and killed the King. End of story. Only much later, in book 3, do we get the full story, that it was actually a fine thing he did, broken oath or not. This discovery has a strong tendency to elevate the reader's view of Jaime - even though it's not actually an improvement he's making now, it's just us learning about a good thing he did long ago.

I think the placement of those events makes it crystal clear Martin wanted us to start out hating Jaime and gradually segue into finding him more sympathetic. That's a strong sign that Martin is intending a "narrative arc," in which the central character in a story* learns from the experiences he undergoes in the story to change and become a different, hopefully better person. The narrative arc where a character does something bad early in the story (or before the story starts) and fights to regain his honor is often called a "redemption arc," and that's pretty clearly what's going on with Jaime.

Don't be surprised if he gets a Redemption Quest later on.

*Jaime isn't the central character in ASOIAF, but there is a "Jaime story" in the series and of course he is the central character in that.

[David Selig]

I think the placement of those events makes it crystal clear Martin wanted us to start out hating Jaime and gradually segue into finding him more sympathetic. That's a strong sign that Martin is intending a "narrative arc," in which the central character in a story* learns from the experiences he undergoes in the story to change and become a different, hopefully better person.

Except that Jaime hasn't learned anything and is still a major dumbass and a scumbag.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Lady Stoneheart is a monster, the most disgusting abomination we have ever seen, motivated by nothing but lust for revenge.

Not FrankenGregor?

Except that Jaime hasn't learned anything and is still a major dumbass and a scumbag.

I'm curious, do you think that's how his arc is meant to be read or do you think GRRM just failed to effectively show a change in the character?

[LordStoneheart]

I was going to step in and defend the honor of my Lady but then we'd have five more pages of ruthless logic.

I would just like to point out that my Lady is not reigniting anything; she's continuing the way in her homelands. Her quest for revenge against the Freys is her right. There is no proof that she is mindless; there's proof of the opposite if one decides to take a comprehensive look at the text instead of face value one. She is giving fairer trials than Thoros and Beric, the biggest jokes in the name of "justice" the Riverlands have seen. And though she is beautiful to me, others disagree. But what fault of that is hers? She did not chose to be killed or thrown in the river and she did not choose to have a second life. That was the golden boy Beric's doing.

And Jaime taking over castles in the name of the false king he fathered while patting himself on the back about how great he is now is hardly redemption. It's delusion.

[Aemond's Eye]

Well, if we're talking about Jaime's redemption, he's chosen to continue to keep up the lie that his bastards are the true heirs to the Baratheon dynasty. There are very real logistical problems with revealing the truth. I mean, he'd likely need to snatch Tommen - and the kittens - in the middle of the night and flee to the free cities, and then declare that Tommen is his bastard son.What then? How does he support them? How does he protect Tommen from anyone that might want to kill them, or keep him safe for those in Westeros that may try to kidnap Tommen? In an ideal world Jaime could declare that Robert's trueborn children are actually his bastards, sent them back to The Rock, and Jaime takes the black. But it's not an ideal world - for a start, the Tyrells have thrown their lot in with the Lannisters, and they aren't like to want to allow that.

But on the flip side, his daughter has been disfigured and possibly traumatised, and ultimately that was a result of a plot to crown her as Queen - under the pretext of her being Robert's daughter. She'd never have been in that situation if Jaime had confessed the truth after Robert's death.

I don't think there's any easy decision there for Jaime. But at the same time, I do find it odd that some people genuinely think he's blameless or in the right or the most honorable character left in the books. The fact he had a treasonous and incestuous affair with his Queen and stood back and watched as those children were passed off as the heirs to the Baratheon royal dynasty? There's no argument for any of that being honorable. And as some of his current redemption arc included trying to uphold the King's Peace - the King being one of his said illegitimate children - and includes him thinking that he wants to be a 'better' knight of the Kingsguard, the issue of his affair (no pun intended) can't really be totally ignored.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

As I wrote above, why do most people hate the Lannisters? I find them incredibly interesting. Such complex characters. It seems to me that a lot of book readers think 'Lannister' = Cersei or Joffery, forgetting about:

...

First of all, wellcome!

To answer your question, I think we should take into account that "Lannister" may refer to two meanings:

a.) The set, or a subset, of individuals who belong in the extended Lannister family

b.) The political entity named "House Lannister"

It seems to me that you take the first meaning, sum up what you see as the good and the bad qualities of each individual, make the subtraction and there's the result... I have to say that this "methodology" is flawed, IMO. If we examine the individuals, it doesn't make sense to group them together; Tommen doesn't make Joffrey any less of a monster, just as Joffrey doesn't make Tommen any less of an adorable kid.

However, by the second interpretation of "Lannisters" ie the political entity, it's only normal that the head of House Lannister is the one who colors the views of both readers and in-story characters. These views are subject to change "historically", meaning that "Lannisters" under Tytos had very different connotations than "Lannisters" under Tywin. In the political sense, "Lannister" indeed equals Tywin when he is in charge, "Lannister" = Cersei when she is in charge etc. Also, in the political sense, one does not have to wonder why "Lannisters" are hated.

The two meanings of Lannister are intertwined between them as each has an impact on the other. We witness throughout the series what does it mean for each character to be a member of the Lannister family, how it shapes them and, in many ways, defines them (and vice versa). For our Lannister POVs, being a Lannister had an almost crushing impact that explains a lot of aspects of their personalities, but does not absolve them of their individual responsibility.

I believe that this conflict, collective (as in family) vs personal responsibility, is one of the themes of ASOIAF. We need to keep in mind that "family" is not exactly what we have in mind as the nuclear family of our experience. It includes aspects of what we understand as "nation" - that's the best analogy I can come up with. The characters in-series are conditioned to stay loyal to their family no matter what, even if this conflicts with their personal sense of honor, morality etc, much like so many modern-day people are conditioned to stay loyal to our countries no matter what... But can this be an excuse for doing/cooperating in monstrous acts? For examble:

“Let them,” Lord Tywin said. “Unleash Ser Gregor and send him before us with his reavers. Send forth Vargo Hoat and his freeriders as well, and Ser Amory Lorch. Each is to have three hundred horse. Tell them I want to see the riverlands afire from the Gods Eye to the Red Fork.”

“They will burn, my lord,” Ser Kevan said, rising. “I shall give the commands.” He bowed and made for the door.

What's the responsibility of the (relatively) decent Kevan in this? Is "following orders" a good enough excuse? Personally, I think not. And it goes both ways, really; if a Lannister, such as Keven in this examble, values his "duty" to his family more than what is the right thing, then he certainly places "Lannister" before "Kevan" and consequently he deserves to be hated as "Lannister" instead of being viewed individually as "Kevan".

[BastardlyRock]

snip

Very well put :bowdown:

[LordStoneheart]

ShadowCat, great post. I am operating under option b; It just so happens that I dislike most of option a also. :D