Why Do You Hate Jamie?

[Kalbear]

The point is that it's easy to wave your hand and say the most moral course was not to be caught in the situation in the first place- this is also a cop out, frankly. Given that they were caught as they were, answer the question: What were the options?

Not throw a child out a window.

It's even an easy choice, since doing it required an action and not doing it required nothing.

Yes, he was in a treasonous situation. Yes, if he was caught he would die, and his sister would die. It's even possible that his kids might die, though it's kinda hard to believe that; I think they would have been allowed to live in exile. Doesn't matter though; the reason you don't do things like fuck the king's wife and your sister is because of situations that would cause you to do even worse things. That he did an even worse thing just shows how horrible he truly was. But ultimately it doesn't matter. He was doing a bad job protecting his children as it was; he was actively putting them in danger every time he fucked Cersei.

The only choice that is not monstrous is to save Bran. Anything else makes him a child murderer. He had the choice to not attempt to kill Bran. He chose quite deliberately otherwise, and glossing over that detail is quite honestly insane.

[A wilding]

The point is that it's easy to wave your hand and say the most moral course was not to be caught in the situation in the first place

The moral course was not to commit treason in the first place.

Being caught was morally neutral.

[BrainFireBob]

Not throw a child out a window.

It's even an easy choice, since doing it required an action and not doing it required nothing.

Yes, he was in a treasonous situation. Yes, if he was caught he would die, and his sister would die. It's even possible that his kids might die, though it's kinda hard to believe that; I think they would have been allowed to live in exile. Doesn't matter though; the reason you don't do things like fuck the king's wife and your sister is because of situations that would cause you to do even worse things. That he did an even worse thing just shows how horrible he truly was. But ultimately it doesn't matter. He was doing a bad job protecting his children as it was; he was actively putting them in danger every time he fucked Cersei.

The only choice that is not monstrous is to save Bran. Anything else makes him a child murderer. He had the choice to not attempt to kill Bran. He chose quite deliberately otherwise, and glossing over that detail is quite honestly insane.

See, this is a good response.

The issue- to my mind- with much of this debate is that there are people who say "he tossed Bran from the window, he's a villain, full stop."

Doesn't mean he can't also be a hero later, or an even darker villain, or even give his life to charity- the acts are independent, and it's ignorant and inane to say one completely obliterates the rest, or make the accusation that those who are acknowledging his efforts to change are saying that he then didn't throw Bran from the window.

It's also important to think seriously about the situation. Jaime did not wakeup and say "Y'know, I've never thrown a child from a window before, where's the nearest child?"- which is how some seem to be treating it. He made a distasteful decision he himself also considered pragmatic. He didn't like it, but felt it was necessary based on his views of the costs of not doing so. That's a statement about what he thinks is important and how much. It's not that he's just a villain, period. Even villains can be kind to their mothers, say. It makes him a criminal. There's a difference.

I guess I'm grappling toward expressing that redeeming him for Bran isn't relevent, his character isn't about Bran, nor is that the be-all and end-all for him existing.

[A wilding]

It's not that he's just a villain, period. Even villains can be kind to their mothers, say. It makes him a criminal. There's a difference.

Now that is a key distinction.

Whether someone is a "criminal" is a question we can attempt to have an objective discussion about; and is related to morality, which can also be considered objective (at least until out and out moral relativists start appearing in a thread).

Whether someone is a "villain" is ultimately a question for every individual to decide for themselves, according to whether they personally find the character sympathetic or not - and it appears that for many people, a sufficiently cool character is automatically sympathetic. Reasons are then merely retrospective justifications of that gut reaction. (Assuming, that is, that we are dealing with fiction that has realistic characters with consequent depth and ambiguity, rather than the sort that just beats the reader over the head about how eeevvviiilll the bad guys are)

[Guest Other-in-law]

A better choice would have been to gather Cersei and the children and what loyal retainers they had (Sandor) and flee...to the Rock, overseas, anywhere out of Robert's reach. Not better in terms of his and Cersei's personal comfort, of course, which is why they wouldn't do it, but better morally. Even killing Robert would have been better than pushing Bran.

On the other hand, any of those other options would have lead to war (just as the one he chose did). Lord Tywin would not take kindly to seeing his children executed or even exiled, and Robert would not take kindly to him sheltering traitors. And Stannis and Renly would not take kindly to their brother's open murder. War was probably inevitable.

[Dickums]

It's also important to think seriously about the situation. Jaime did not wakeup and say "Y'know, I've never thrown a child from a window before, where's the nearest child?"- which is how some seem to be treating it. He made a distasteful decision he himself also considered pragmatic. He didn't like it, but felt it was necessary based on his views of the costs of not doing so. That's a statement about what he thinks is important and how much. It's not that he's just a villain, period. Even villains can be kind to their mothers, say. It makes him a criminal. There's a difference.

I don't really know if Jaime like throwin Bran out of the window, but I also don't think felt bad about it. He was just like "Oh well, some kid's dead now. No skin off my back." He has never felt any remorse for this deed, which is most definitely the worst deed we've seen Jaime do, at least morally. Oh, and just because you get caught doing something bad that doesn't make it right to kill off all those who caught you so that no one can say that you did the bad thing.

[BrainFireBob]

Except he's said he regretted it, he just hasn't agonized over it. More than once.

Which would be bad writing, because his character isn't one to repent actions taken or obsess over them, but to rather make sure he doesn't repeat a mistake.

[Antonius Pius]

Except he's said he regretted it, he just hasn't agonized over it. More than once.

Where has he said he regretted it? I hardly recall that.

So in general, from your previous posts, you take up something of a Stannis vc Davos-like position: "he's done some bad and he's done some good"? I haven't yet found the good in Jaime, I must say. Then again, I don't buy that he killed Aerys to prevent the burning of KL. Which (preventing the bbq), I might add, would be accompanied with a certain amount of self-interest.

rather make sure he doesn't repeat a mistake.

Umm, he's been f*cking Cersie for more than fifteen years, from before she was married to _the king_ and during the entire marriage to said king.

And I would argue with your position that he learned from his mistakes... He hasn't really changed all that much, he's just sour that he doesn't get the acknowledgement he feels he deserves.

[Errant Bard]

he's just sour that he doesn't get the acknowledgement he feels he deserves.

And he would deserve it, had he chosen to speak the truth. He's not bitter over that, in my opinion, he's bitter about idealistic people who don't see their own flaws judging him. I like him for this, he's one of the few realists in the serie, at the same level as Sandor Clegane. He consciously knows that any choice will always be bad for someone.

Funny to see that the reactions on the board mirror that: when when asked what options he had during the Bran incident, the answer is that he should not have been here at all... That's the ideal, but in reality what should have been is totally irrelevant, and often impossible. He did what was logical.

[snake]

He should have tried intimidating Bran not throwing him out the window. What he did was rash and he did so without thinking. That's what he always does. Everyone who knows the Kingslayer well knows that he never thinks just acts on impulse and usually makes the wrong decisions.

As for the Hound. Well, he's a murderer of men, women and children. A bitter, alcoholic who hates the world and everyone in it.

I agree both sometimes realize that their choices will be bad for someone but that someone is usually not them. At least idealistic people have their hearts in the right place. They try to do the right thing and make the right choices, even if it means they will suffer for it. That's not something you can say about the Kingslayer or the Hound.

[Guest Other-in-law]

At least idealistic people have their hearts in the right place. They try to do the right thing and make the right choices, even if it means they will suffer for it. That's not something you can say about the Kingslayer or the Hound.

Yelling "SAPPHIRES!" was a good deed that earned him nothing but a kick in the stump. Saved Brienne from being raped and caused him to faint from pain.

[snake]

Yelling "SAPPHIRES!" was a good deed that earned him nothing but a kick in the stump. Saved Brienne from being raped and caused him to faint from pain.

Yes it was a good deed. I'll not deny that. But that does not change what he has done and who he is. One or two good deeds does not make the man a good person or even likable. He's still the Kingslayer at heart and has not really changed a bit.

[Dickums]

Except he's said he regretted it, he just hasn't agonized over it. More than once.

Which would be bad writing, because his character isn't one to repent actions taken or obsess over them, but to rather make sure he doesn't repeat a mistake.

Ummm, yes Jaime obsesses over the actions he's taken. As I recall from his POV's about half the time was spent bitching about his whole kingslaying episode. If I'm not mistaken that's obsessing over it.

[A wilding]

Which is rather the point. He obsesses about killing Aerys, not because it is his worst deed - clearly it isn't - but because it is the one that destroyed his reputation.

[true wolf]

He should have tried intimidating Bran not throwing him out the window. What he did was rash and he did so without thinking. That's what he always does. Everyone who knows the Kingslayer well knows that he never thinks just acts on impulse and usually makes the wrong decisions.

I realy think that all they had to do was talk to Bran. They would have quickly found out that the kid had no idea what they were doing. He thought they were wrestling. They could have confused him even more and sent him on his way. That his thoughts went directly to pushing him out the window is telling about him. I don't think they would even have had to threaten him. Like Sansa says love is a surer way to winning than fear. That is something that neither Lannister ever learned. Although after reading all of the KL POV's I think that spending any amount of time there would skew anyones ideas and morals. That place forces people to be on the defensive permanently, 24-7. They had no understanding of the simpleness, and out of touchness of Winterfell.

Do we realy think Bran would have climbed down and ran to his father and told him what he had seen? I don't. I think he would have climbed down and gone back to packing for his trip south. Within a few hours he would have forgotten the whole thing. They could have kept an eye on him in KL easy enough.

[BrainFireBob]

I realy think that all they had to do was talk to Bran. They would have quickly found out that the kid had no idea what they were doing. He thought they were wrestling. They could have confused him even more and sent him on his way. That his thoughts went directly to pushing him out the window is telling about him. I don't think they would even have had to threaten him. Like Sansa says love is a surer way to winning than fear. That is something that neither Lannister ever learned. Although after reading all of the KL POV's I think that spending any amount of time there would skew anyones ideas and morals. That place forces people to be on the defensive permanently, 24-7. They had no understanding of the simpleness, and out of touchness of Winterfell.

Do we realy think Bran would have climbed down and ran to his father and told him what he had seen? I don't. I think he would have climbed down and gone back to packing for his trip south. Within a few hours he would have forgotten the whole thing. They could have kept an eye on him in KL easy enough.

Ned Stark's son. Ned Stark, who dislikes the Lannisters, is famously honest and honorable, and whom Robert would believe.

No, intimidation was not a viable option- if Bran said anything, Ned would likely make it an issue just to distance the Lannisters from Robert, and from there it's a short step to discovery, even if Bran himsef was too unclear to make it completely accurate.

Besides, Bran was 8. That's second to third grade. That's MORE than old enough to not just accept "Okay Dokey that's what it was" and not mention it at all. He'd question.

Not to argue for what Jaime did, but there's no reason to say they could intimidate an eight year old. Very chancy, very dependent on the specific eight year old, and then a constant threat because he's old enough to remember and perhaps say something later. That's an axe over their heads, always waiting to fall, perhaps without warning.

The one who claimed they could intimidate Bran into silence is Cersei, who may not act as precipitously as Jaime, but has absolutely zero grasp of other people non-relative to herself. He hardly thinks, she doesn't think at all.

Jaime has said, as I recall, that "I regret the whelp" and thought very similarly about it- actually, memory suggests "I regret the whelp, but he was hardly innocent- he was spying on us."

Then there's the whole saying with loathing "The things I do for love" before he does it- he doesn't like it, he's not indifferent to doing it, he just feels it's far more necessary than disgusting.

[snake]

The Queen is a very powerful figure. She could have threatened to harm Bran or better yet, threatened to harm Ned or one of his sisters. Much like the Hound threatened Sansa and she kept quite, even though she is Ned Starks daughter. Bran was a little child and I think he would have kept silent. Theon was able to use a threat of violence to make Bran do as he wanted and the Queen or the Kingslayer are much more intimidating than Theon Turncloak.

It is often remarked that the Kingslayer never takes the time to think. The Imp thinks it, Cersei talks of it, Ser Kevan says as much and so does Lady Genna. He is rash, impulsive with a quick temper and little judgment.

[BrainFireBob]

I disagree.

Largely, because I say again: Bran was a child, but NOT, most emphatically so, NOT a little child.

What works on little children does not commute to eight year olds.

It worked on Sansa, but that's because Sansa's a child it would work on at 11. That's not at all the same as saying Bran was a child susceptible to that kind of intimidation and also capable of hiding the fact he was intimidated by something- or that he would remain silent when older.

[snake]

Once Robert was dead then it would have made no difference. Much like Stannis Bran's telling anyone later would have meant nothing. the Lannisters would have denied it and Bran would have been seen as making excuses for his brothers rebellion.

And Bran being eight means he was a little child and could have been intimidated. Every child we see in the books is easily persuaded to do something whether by force or by guile. Edric Storm, Robert Arryn, Bran, Arya, Sansa, Myrcella and Tommen. Would Bran really have been able to stand up to the Queen and the Kingslayer? Would he have been able to say the right things to save his skin yet later give away their secret? Would he even have been able to understand what was happening or going on if they had taken the time to give him a made up story? I think he was young and impressionable enough to be"convinced" to stay silent.

[Dickums]

Jaime has said, as I recall, that "I regret the whelp" and thought very similarly about it- actually, memory suggests "I regret the whelp, but he was hardly innocent- he was spying on us."

Then there's the whole saying with loathing "The things I do for love" before he does it- he doesn't like it, he's not indifferent to doing it, he just feels it's far more necessary than disgusting.

I don't know, but him saying "I regret the whelp" doesn't really put me in the mind of he actually regrets it, but rather he's just saying it because he knows he should regret it. The whole adding in the whelp part makes me think that Jaime's not too sincere about his regret. Then there's the "but he was hardly innocent- he was spying on us" part. Straight up Jaime right there. Make any excuse to make his actions seem more respectable however weak they may be. And this excuse is weak since it is Bran's castle and he has the right to climb wherever he wants there.

Anyone else get the impression that when Jaime says "The things I do for love" he's not really saying it because he feels bad about what he's about to do, but more because he just wants to make a quick witty remark before he tosses Bran from the ledge. You know, one of those classic one liner witty remarks that Jaime makes all the time. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I read this line.