Jump to content

Disliking Tyrion Lannister


Sigella

Recommended Posts

Not that far back corporal punishment for children was an acceptable, even recommended discipline. In lots of places, it probably still is. And it doesn't mean the parents were abusive. It was not meant to cause injury, nor was it meant as license for the parents to take out their frustration on their children. It is of course part of a mindset that justifies violence and violates the dignity of the individual.

People are taught right and wrong by their parents and peers and they emulate them, both when they adhere to those ethics and when they violate them. The vast majority of individuals never deviate from those boundaries and those who do are judged and shunned. Which is why the majority never does. Judging an individual ignoring the environment that informs it and within which it has to live, is unlikely to produce anything meaningful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sigella said:

No. There is philosophical example called "Jojo" which I'd like to refer to here:

Premise: Jojo is a son of an african dictator. His father loves torturing and killing people and he has brought Jojo along to watch this ever since Jojo was born. Nobody has ever told Jojo that torture and killing is wrong. When his father dies Jojo continues to torture and kill.

Your stance makes it ok for Jojo, he doesn't have any responsibility for what he does.

Problem with that is: if Jojo has no responsibility, nobody has any responsibility ever. It turns people into predestined machines or animals AND to believe this to be true you have to put all "free will"  to the side because if everyone is predestined to to the things we do, we have no free will.

This examble seems to be coming from a philosophical school I totally disagree with - monistic idealism. The very core of the examble requires existence in vacuum.

8 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Seems to me he is guilty of the crimes most people here accuse him of.  That makes him 100% as evil as people say.  No more.  No less.

If you could find an example of him being accused by readers of something he did not do, you might have a point that I might agree with. 

I am sorry, but having been here for some years now means that, inevitably, I've had this debate about Tyrion's actions, all of them and each one individually, for more than a couple of rounds. So, it's not very exciting for me anymore. You will excuse me for not wishing to engage in the heart of the discussion - I just meant to give my two cents in the side-discussion about the importance of context.

For what is worth, this post below expresses nicely, more or less, my overall view on Tyrion's character:

1 hour ago, Lord Freypie said:

I think considering the structure of the society as just "a setting" where characters would be free to make choices is ignoring that most characters choice are just showing the effects of this setting, their education and upbringing, out of the completely exceptionnal moment where a hero basing his choice on a more universal morality takes some revolutionnary decision (and even, for the instances we see, like Jon and Daenerys ending thousands years old traditions, those choices are mostly the result of their personnal experiences allowing them to escape the common world view).

Like Martin likes to say to differenciate himself from second rank fantasy writers, his medieval society has teeth, The social rules are not something his characters good or bad can forget, it's the forge that molded them. And showing the kind of behaviors and worldviews an extremely classist, patriarchal and autoritarian society produce, even for characters having some good tendancies is a big part of his character building and looks like one of the main Martin goal. As a reminder Asoiaf opens not only with Ned Stark executing a deserter without hesitation, not really listening to his defense, but him beheading him in front of his seven year old child to toughen him up. Which doesn't prevent him, after five books and the introduction of dozens of other competitors for the good guy slot, to remain one of the most regularily used examples of a moral/good character.

And even bigger than general social norm how their parental upbringing affect characters is a big theme of the serie. Like it's noted several times in the serie, noble childs are just continuing stories started by their fathers and grandfathers before, and we rarely get to see "good" characters coming from "bad" parents/families or vice versa (if good and bad can apply in any form).  Even more than being the product of having grown as a rich and powerful noble son, Tyrion is the product of how Tywin raised him, and his complex relation to a father who was both the source of all this richness and power, an example for him, a source of regular humiliations and his/the girl he loved abuser in his most horrible personnal experience. Perhaps even more than any other character in the serie there's no possible understanding of Tyrion out of thin air (not going back to the way his father is celebrated as a "one in a millenium" ruler, to him being his father humiliation, the monstruous son regularily reminded he "killed his mother at birth", to Tysha story, even further to Tywin's personnal history explaining the way he was teached to see women in general and whores in particular, etc...).

Not to say Tyrion education was entirely bad and corrupted a character who would have naturally good out of that. I'd say the good side is as much the result of his education as the bad.

Unlike, say, the Greyjoys coming from a more barbaric tradition, Lannisters (especially the two male PoVs, Cersei upbringing being more probably based on "learn embroidery and other women skills, be charming, and prepare yourself for marriage") seem to have recieved good moral values from their maesters, septons and other mentors. Both Jaime and Tyrion have ideals of justice and honor, have some concern for their subordinates, or even the small folk in general well being, reprove cruelty, gratuitous rapes and war crimes in their thoughts, are horrified seeing/learning about some, reprove Joffrey and Cersei actions, etc.  But all that doesn't prevent both of them to become criminals when they judge they have a good enough reason for (or to tolerate the crimes in the interest of their family most of the time). The main difference in the case of Tyrion, is after suffering soul destroying humiliation after humiliation he more and more considers he's in right to take revenge against the whole world or indulges himself in cruelty, even if perfectly conscious it's not just and hating himself for what he does. While Jaime is still in the previous mode "let's be honorable and good .... except if political necessity decides otherwise, in which case let's follow Tywin's example".

After having been only rebellious against his father or some social norms in early books, in ADWD Tyrion is at a rebellious against the gods/world stage, world is cruel, gods if they exist only play games to torture us, things have no meaning, so I can do whatever please me in the moment like frightening or raping sex slaves, I certainly desserve to be cruel too after all I suffered, etc...  But even while in this mood, Tyrion is far from finding solace in this behavior, as shown in the sunset girl scene, he can't refrain to have some considerations for his victims and hates himself for the bad things he does (even going back to older and more justified crimes in his late chapters thoughts - Symon Silvertongue etc- to torture himself more).

Imo, it's more probably a paradoxal step to a good evolution than a sign of a definitive bad one. Tyrion's quest is finding solace, succeeding to end an intimate suffering and self loathing at least as old as the Tysha story, which only became worse and worse, and made him despise the unjust world he lives in in general.  After (barely trying being too busy with urgencies and) failing to right some wrongs as a Lannister politician (like he naively dreamed when he became hand and believed he could bring "justice" to KL) the first time he had some power and ending corrupted by the game of thrones more than he changed anything positively, he's trying something else in ADWD, becoming a complete cynical indulging in his worse tendancies, and he is failing again to find solace in that, rather the contrary, while getting some personnal experience in the meantime of even more revolting aspects of the world like slavery (and of seing the world through the eyes of completely powerless people, something he had never experienced being born a Lannister).

Imo the powerless revolt irrigating his thoughts may be a preparation for Tyrion to become a true revolutionnary, the champion of the cripples, bastards, lowborns, whores and broken things he always dreamed or pretended to be, to find that solace can only be found in fighting for a cause higher than himself, what supporting Daenerys the breaker of chains (or later taking his place alongside Jon and her in the big struggle for the survival of humanity) will offer him.

Of course things are never that simple with Martin, the conflicting desire of revenge against some individuals like Cersei, or of power for power (I just want my birthright, na), are likely to be at least as important than the one to bring some social justice when Tyrion will be back to some power. But I think he has not been bring through experiences like slavery (and on the two sides of it) for nothing, Out of achieving a return to power it will certainly take him some more traumatic experiences (like causing the death of Penny or discovering what Tysha and her daughter have become) before he'll take a good turn again, but I think the roots are there for him having a positive role in the end.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

This examble seems to be coming from a philosophical school I totally disagree with - monistic idealism. The very core of the examble requires existence in vacuum.

No, its a false vacuum. He will still hear screams of pain and listen to people pleading with him not to hurt them, which should be sufficient to understand that he is hurting them even if he is brought up to think its ok.

You can't disagree with logic dude :D You can't say there is moral if there is no free will.

edit: morality requires a choice and without free will there are no choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2017 at 5:06 AM, Regular John Umber said:

 

 Is this actually true? I'm genuinely asking. Or do we simply assume that medieval people were all asshole psychopaths and that it's "just the way it was" is an effective excuse? Morality wasn't invented in the 20th century. Most religious texts - the basis of many people's morality - are thousands of years old.

 

 Someone smarter than me should probably answer this question.

No it wasn't invented in the 20th century. It was entirely possible to be a moral person in antiquity, but societal perceptions of what is and isn't moral were very different then. For example, citing your thought of religious text, the Bible gives you instructions on how to treat your slaves. That was one of the South's biggest arguments for advocating it during the antebellum period. Education was less advanced in those times, so people were raised with the notion that things we would find objectionable today were perfectly acceptable. Coming up with the original notion that maybe this perfectly acceptable thing isn't, applying it to your life, and getting the rest of society to go along with it is a difficult and often time consuming endeavor. Often taking entire generations, if not more and resulting in violent upheaval when it begins effecting livelihoods and power bases. So when Ned Stark expects Catelyn to be completely obedient to him, it doesn't make him an evil person, it means Westerosi society still has a long way to go. There's a huge difference between how Ned treated his wife and how Ramsay Bolton treats his wife even if both sets of behavior stem from the same societal expectation that the ladies of the realm serve the men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I still have no idea who you are disagreeing with.  I only see you objecting when people like me call him a villain, even though the word clearly fits.  And that word, as applied to Tyrion, even comes straight from the author's own mouth.

"Context" is fine.  GRRM has obviously tried to create a character we can identify with and understand. But why is it not sufficient merely to say he is a "realistic" and "sympathetic" villain --like a villain in a Shakespearean tragedy-- and not a cartoon villain --like Ramsay Bolton or Euron Greyjoy?  You want say he is not THAT evil?  Okay fine, if that's what you mean.  He is not as evil as Euron Greyjoy.  I'm not sure anyone ever said he was.

 

 

Hum, because at this stage him ending more of a villain or a hero, or none of the two, is largely undecided ?

How the history will define Tyrion won't be based on what he did to some particular slave girl (or singer, or Sansa, or even the whole Vale population by arming the mountain clans, his biggest crime to date for me), no more than I think Daenerys epitaph will be "she ordered the torture of the innocent daughters of a wineseller while her dragon burned a little girl" ; I don't even think Jon's westerosi wikipedia note will be "he breached his NW vows gettting involved in the affairs of the realm and sending a northern noble to the ice cells" or Bran will be reminded as "the warg who abused his power possessing a simple minded he created" or " 'a servant of the Great Other' according to a reliable source from Ashai".

Those four (and perhaps some others) have some big role to play in the future wars (and the form of the peace after),  something to do at the scale of humanity making each and every of their past actions completely negligible, and I'd say at this point the chance for Tyrion's big role to be heroic rather than villainous is at least 50/50 (or even 80/20 taking in consideration the show which was not supposed to turn villains into heroes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I still have no idea who you are disagreeing with.  I only see you objecting when people like me call him a villain, even though the word clearly fits.  And that word, as applied to Tyrion, even comes straight from the author's own mouth.

"Context" is fine.  GRRM has obviously tried to create a character we can identify with and understand. But why is it not sufficient merely to say he is a "realistic" and "sympathetic" villain --like a villain in a Shakespearean tragedy-- and not a cartoon villain --like Ramsay Bolton or Euron Greyjoy?  You want say he is not THAT evil?  Okay fine, if that's what you mean.  He is not as evil as Euron Greyjoy.  I'm not sure anyone ever said he was.

Label him as you like. I have no problem with that.

I disagree, as I said, with retroactively reviewing his actions and painting them in a bad light, as well as examining them through a lense that does not correspond to the context of the story. No, I am not going to giving you exambles, you have to respect that I am not getting into the main issue.

2 minutes ago, Sigella said:

No, its a false vacuum. He will still hear screams of pain and listen to people pleading with him not to hurt them, which should be sufficient to understand that he is hurting them even if he is brought up to think its ok.

You can't disagree with logic dude :D You can't say there is moral if there is no free will.

No, it is not sufficient. It is sufficient only for one to know that they are hurting others, it is not sufficient for us to judge them. "It's OK" is never enough of a reasoning people are given to justify cruelty. Are they told that this cruelty is necessary for some 'greater good'? Do they genuinely believe that? What sort of interaction do they have with the rest of their world, and does this interaction informs them that they should, perhaps, reexamine their beliefs? We could go on for long with such questions that constitute, guess what, context. In their ansence, I am perfectly entitled to speak of (true) vacuum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

Label him as you like. I have no problem with that.

I disagree, as I said, with retroactively reviewing his actions and painting them in a bad light, as well as examining them through a lense that does not correspond to the context of the story. No, I am not going to giving you exambles, you have to respect that I am not getting into the main issue.

No, it is not sufficient. It is sufficient only for one to know that they are hurting others, it is not sufficient for us to judge them. "It's OK" is never enough of a reasoning people are given to justify cruelty. Are they told that this cruelty is necessary for some 'greater good'? Do they genuinely believe that? What sort of interaction do they have with the rest of their world, and does this interaction informs them that they should, perhaps, reexamine their beliefs? We could go on for long with such questions that constitute, guess what, context. In their ansence, I am perfectly entitled to speak of (true) vacuum.

No we don't need to talk a single word of context, because context cannot matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My goal was not to point at bad things other characters do, but at the importance of scale, speaking about a "big three" or "big four" character (something I hardly imagine Tyrion not to be, considering his number of chapters, all the prophecies, his links with every part of the story, etc...), in a story where things like massive wars, the survival of thousand years old traditions or social systems as bad as slavery, or even the survival of humanity itself will be decided by their actions.

By the way I don't believe we will see Vador-like "redemption" in asoiaf (aka "bad" characters suddenly remembering they were "good" and saving the day while sacrificying themselves because they still were too bad to survive), nor super-vilains turning into heroes like in some comics (aka "I learned that with power came responsabilities I will now be 100% perfect") it would be poor storytelling and message for a book serie.

Imo Martin message if someone like Tyrion ends playing a big positive role  (is one of 3 or 4 main saviors of humanity ?) would be more in the line "humanity won't be saved by perfect heroes exemplary in everything they did but by humans, some of them having big flaws, commited crimes, etc". I think the Nightswatch is a good foreshadowing of the kind of final heroes we may expect in this serie, clearly not a bunch of saints, but people devolving themselves to a goal high enough for their past crimes to be negligible (and deciding to ignore each other past and other sources of divergences so they can work together).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

Then I don't see why you started this discussion with me. It is evedent that our philosopical views are fundamentally different.

Me neither :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Should Tyrion succeed in strangling Sansa like he strangled Shae?  Or should Sansa kick the little bastard out the moon door?

Kick the little bastard out of the moon door. ;)

I find the context of times and setting a rather odd argument in favor of Tyrion. We have his internal thoughts and feelings. There is nothing different with his morall compass than ours: 

  • he's not into child brides
  • Joffrey's a monster
  • he considers rape wrong... heck it makes him puke
  • he wants to help the common people
  • he's aghast at the RW
  • offended by people killing babies
  • he's actually initially aghast at the usurping of WF through marriage
  • etc

He KNOWS and feels right from wrong, almost as it happens or is suggested. It's his first response to situations. But then equally he forgets about all of that the moment he's treated unfairly or thinks he's treated unfairly. Then he has this vengeful side that enjoys seeing everybody even remotely connected to it damaged and hurt and destroyed. And finally, though he know and feels what's wrong, he silences it all in favor of his society's context: family first. He uses the context to defend his choices to go against what he feels and knows to be wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Currently, it is possible to root for everyone.  We can ignore it when Tyrion murders random people, because they are not people we know or care about.  But what will we do when the characters start trying to murder each other?  Then we'll have to pick a side.  That will be interesting, yes?  What if the "Giant of a Lannister" and Sansa Stark do battle to the death in a castle made of snow?  What would you rather see?  Should Tyrion succeed in strangling Sansa like he strangled Shae?  Or should Sansa kick the little bastard out the moon door?

At this point, Sansa is LF puppet and accomplice, so I'd have no big problem with anyone strangling her (out of the waste of space all her arc would be if she's to end like that).

But I'm sure you imagine Sansa will end better than that, aren't you counting your chickens before they hatch ? ;)

More seriously you are right, it will be very interesting if/when the story reach such point, especially if Martin manage to stil have readers rooting for the two sides.

Many have already thought about how Daenerys will end an antagonist to many characters we may love, and how her usual behavior will appear far more monstruous once her victims are not essossis nobody care about, but it's true for several of the main characters. Even Jon's strict rule in the interest of humanity, may end being seen differently if, say, he has to behead some popular northern lords or a vengeful sister or two for refusing to obey when he'll ask for a big coalition of all humans against the real threat.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as I dislike Tyrion - I don't think he'll ever betray Dany. Lots of the things he crave (recognition, mental affection, power) are things she'll provide (he'll be Hand for real, she will speak him gently and he will advise a monarch who listens). Beyond that, her people love her and some of that love might rub off on him and I imagine that feeling might just be like hard drugs to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

They haven't even met yet.  If they ever do, he'll betray her the instant Tysha shows up.  Unless he betrays her for gold.

It goes whatever way GRRM writes it but until then a girl can dream whatever she wants :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't dislike him. His chapters are always interesting, which is appreciated. Reading Sansa and Daenerys chapters makes me sad and depressed, in comparison to this. Though now I'm reading A Clash of Kings, so I speak only of what I've read so far. 

But in order to criticize him, there are a few things.

His bitterness and hatred for everything around him are disappointing me though. I mean how pathetic does one can get? Openly asking Cercei for her pussy, wtf is that seriously? 

No one makes him look bad but himself, which makes him delusional about others mocking him of being a dwarf. He makes an excuse of this every time he is put to a test, inflicting guilt and pity in others and of course his own self-pity.

In fact he uses all of his resources to get what he wants when it suits him, and then he's a proud Lannister. He is threatening to kill/throw in the sea every random person he meets, because he just assumes they want to betray/cheat/kill him, since him being very important and all that. He must protect himself, the great man. 

He falls in love with a whore. Now how many ways can that kind of a relation end?

Well that should do it.

He has a lot of qualities though, can be compassionate, is helpful and respectful to certain people, and makes an effort to be accepted by his family.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like Tyrion as a character, but I think his biggest flaw is his stupidity.

Yes, you read that right.

Tyrion may be clever, and have good strategic insight, but his behavior is utterly stupid.

We, as readers, are inclined to think he's a genius, because Tyrion himself thinks so, but few of his actions are in his own best interest. 

 

When Tyrion is sent to KL to serve as hand, he instantly pits himself against Cersei. To what end? What good would it do him? Tywin wasn't gonna thank him for it. Tywin makes it very clear that the strength of the family is his main motivation.

Yes, Tyrion's ploy with LF, Varys and Pycelle was clever, but he could have known that he couldn't trust any of them, and ALL of them would report to Cersei if it suited their purposes. 

What he should have done, was propose the Dorne alliance to Cersei directly (possibly lying that Tywin ordered it, to give his proposal some more weight). Cersei was still relatively reasonable at this point, and she would likely have accepted it, if brought to her from the perspective of Myrcella's safety, and lack thereof in KL.

He then could've tested LF, Pycelle, and Varys over a longer period of time, with smaller matters. 

Everything that goes awry for Tyrion is the direct result of his own actions against Cersei. He had her son kidnapped for Christ's sake and threatened to have him raped, how could she NOT think he was capable of harming her children? The one occasion he has to bond with her, he uses to poison her.

 

He should have made himself useful to Cersei. He should have complimented her cleverness, handed her ideas she could claim as her own, the way Taena does with Cersei, and Varys with Tyrion himself. If he would've shown himself to Cersei as a good accomplice, she would probably have told Tywin a more positive account after the Battle of the Blackwater. And she likely wouldn't have tried to have him killed (or was that Joffrey?) 

Instead Tyrion does all in his power to work against Cersei, allowing himself to be used by LF and Varys in the process. Even without Cersei's account on how things went down, Tywin could see what a mess both of them made of their rule.

I think Tywin's intention was to wed Cersei off again, assume regency, and make Tyrion hand, that is if Tyrion had worked for/with his family! Instead he poison's his sister, and kidnaps his nephew, threatening to have him raped because of a whore. No wonder Tywin was pissed off. Tyrion did EVERYTHING Tywin despises! And on top of that he plays the victim, begging for rewards...

Why was LF rewarded with Harrenhal? Because he, at least gave the impression to work with and for the Lannisters. LF made himself useful,without posing as a threat. Tyrion is unreliable and threatening, to his own family, in all ways possible. 

 

On top of that Tyrion is easily triggered. In AGOT he goes around telling Jon and Bran that they have to accept what they are, so it can't be used against them. But his own biggest problem is that he hasn't accepted his dwarfism, and let's it be used against him. LF has figured out precisely how. Tyrion looks down on Cersei for being stupid when she's angry as supposed to composed and cunning, but he has the exact same problem, albeit a more witty version of it. No less stupid though. 

 

Long story short: Tyrion has a keen strategic insight, and has what he himself calls 'Cersei's low cunning', but he lacks the capacity to see the bigger picture, and calculate in long(er) term consequences. Which is worsened by his own opinion of himself of being smarter than he actually is, and allowing himself to be led -almost exclusively- by his emotions. He's not half as smart as Varys or LF, at least he doesn't use his intelligence half as intelligently as they do. 

And I haven't even mentioned how stupid it was to bring Shae to court... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The goal of Tyrion in ACOK wasn't to please Tywin but to bring "justice" to KL (ok a delusion about what he could do that was a bit stupid in the first place), or to achieve his own revenge (what characters tend to call justice), and Cersei was clearly the first suspect for the murder of Jon Arryn and attempt on Bran that got him jailed. Add to that the first thing he has to deal with is the murder of bastards, making him realise "justice" was beyond his power. His hostility to Cersei was rather logical if he could perhaps have hidden it better (and avoided the Tommen kidnapping, which looked rather useless considering he knew where the child would go, and just changed his guards).

It's more how he failed to deal with the other main suspect (he could only see as at least an accomplice of Cersei), Baelish, who clearly had made a false testimony against him in Bran case that is hard to understand or not to see as a sign of stupidity (if we don't consider it was mostly one of LF's incredible plot armor). Littlefinger should have been a head on a pike from day one, Tyrion being aware for the dagger story and having his father agreement to get rid of council members if needed. If needed he could probably even find an agreement with his sister to blame Baelish for some of the bad decisions (like influencing Joffrey for Eddard execution or removing Barristan), telling her his father wanted to see someone punished for these errors. 

Out of that I agree on the impulsivity. Clearly Tyrion is failing a lot of times to see long term and resist his impulses, or seems to have a strange confidence in his capacity to avoid consequences most of the time (especially with Joffrey). Before the purple wedding Tyrion already looked condemned as sooner or later the boy king would have had his head. Tyrion behaved like if a ) Tywin was eternal, b ) he could trust his father to protect him and Joffrey to obey.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad someone mentioned Tyrion's sending Myrcella to Dorne, because we are made to feel at the time (especially in the show version) that this is a clever move, but really it's not. Tyrion is mainly motivated by spite against Cersei, who has every right to be consulted about the marriage of her only daughter, and doesn't really consider the long-term consequences. After all the Dornish are not that important militarily, and it's well known that they hate the Lannisters, which means that they are likely to believe the incest story even if they don't act on it. Which means that instead of making a useful alliance, he's just provided his enemies with anuseful hostage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

IIRC it's Tyrion's very next chapter after he boasts that he will do justice.  Timmet, one of Tyrion's mountain men, murders a wineseller's son.  Tyrion decides that since the son really did cheat at tiles, Timmet should be thanked rather than punished.

Tyrion had nothing to do with it, he didn't order Timmet to do it. 

Afterwards, he thought he had more important work than punishing Timmet over some cheater on gambling. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...