Jaime Lannister and Guest Rights

[The Commentator]

This instance of guest rights breaking often get overlooked.  I am glad somebody brought it up.  Jaime has been crapping on people since he became KG.  Oaths never meant anything to him.  He is one of the villains in the series.  The guy who triggered the war.

[Universal Sword Donor]

On 8/20/2018 at 1:50 AM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Agreed. These threads are getting annoying.

I've seen any number of people defend the red wedding.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

16 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

This instance of guest rights breaking often get overlooked.  I am glad somebody brought it up.  Jaime has been crapping on people since he became KG.  Oaths never meant anything to him.  He is one of the villains in the series.  The guy who triggered the war.

The whole point of Jaime is that he has done terrible things, but struggles with them. He would be, in a normal story, a villain. In this story, the interesting thing about him is that we get to see why he did those terrible things, and while we don’t absolve him of them, we can understand it. We are also witnessing him attempting to redeem himself.

Nuance is useful when reading these books.

[Moiraine Sedai]

Nuance is good.  Double-standards is not.  I take the original poster's side.  Some in the forum give Jaime too much excuse.  He's quite the low down scum in reality.  Frey, on the other hand, has been a law-abiding nobleman for most of his 91 years.  

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

19 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Nuance is good.  Double-standards is not.  I take the original poster's side.  Some in the forum give Jaime too much excuse.  He's quite the low down scum in reality.  Frey, on the other hand, has been a law-abiding nobleman for most of his 91 years.  

It's not double-standards, it's different crimes being judged in different ways. I've seen no-one let Jaime off the hook on this forum or elsewhere, just recognise that he's more complex than we were originally led to believe. That doesn't excuse his actions. There's a difference between understanding and absolution.

[Moiraine Sedai]

2 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

It's not double-standards, it's different crimes being judged in different ways. I've seen no-one let Jaime off the hook on this forum or elsewhere, just recognise that he's more complex than we were originally led to believe. That doesn't excuse his actions. There's a difference between understanding and absolution.

Understanding the reason why he did the things he did (Kill his King, Cuckold Robert, try to kill Bran) is one thing.   Accepting and sympathizing with him is another.  He should be condemned as strongly as any other violator of guest rights.  

[goldenlion]

On 8/17/2018 at 1:10 AM, Makk said:

I don't think anyone is really questioning whether what Jaime did was evil. It undoubtedly was. But if you want a comparison, I think the Red Wedding was much worse. Jaime took action impulsively to protect the life of himself, his lover/sister and his three children.

The Freys plotted out a betrayal for vengeance of besmirched honor.

 

@Makk  I wouldnt say that jaime did it impulsively more that jaime did it under orders from cersei ( and cersei wanted bran to die wanted jaime to push bran  she may try to claim retroactively that she didnt saying she didnt tell him to and while she didnt say the words she sent the message nonverbally and screamed what are you doing when jaime pulled bran up

and jaime himself loathed pushing bran  saying the things I do for love with loathing   I have always been annoyed at the people who say that cersei didnt want bran dead  bringing up her statements to jaime in storm of swords  and not even rereading the the scene where bran was pushed off to notice the things cersei screamed ( and how jaime was described )  

 

 

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/103635-cerseis-lies/

 

Quote

GRRM is a different kind of writer. He wants the readers to solve the puzzles he created. He sometimes uses unreliable narrators. His characters can be ignorant, cheating or lying. GRRM does not explain everything plainly in words. He implies some of them heavily or mildly. So in order to get to the truth, we must be careful. That is far more important when dealing with great conspirators or known liars. We can understand GRRM’s style better with this quote:

 

 

 

Jaime handed him the ring of keys. “I gave you the truth. You owe me the same. Did you do it? Did you kill him?”

 

The question was another knife, twisting in his guts. “Are you sure you want to know?” asked Tyrion. “Joffrey would have been a worse king than Aerys ever was. He stole his father’s dagger and gave it to a footpad to slit the throat of Brandon Stark, did you know that?”

 

“I . . . I thought he might have.”

 

“Well, a son takes after his father. Joff would have killed me as well, once he came into his power. For the crime of being short and ugly, of which I am so conspicuously guilty.”

 

“You have not answered my question.”

 

“You poor stupid blind crippled fool. Must I spell every little thing out for you? Very well. Cersei is a lying whore, she’s been fucking Lancel and Osmund Kettleblack and probably Moon Boy for all I know. And I am the monster they all say I am. Yes, I killed your vile son.”

 

 

 

Tyrion answers Jaime’s question in the end but that is a lie. He wants Jaime to use his head and warns him about Cersei the lying whore. Like Tyrion, GRRM does not spell every little thing out for us. He even gives us many lies as facts, most of them are not as obvious as the one Tyrion said above.

 

 

 

Cersei is a liar. Worse, she lies to herself when the ugly truth is unbearable for her. She whitewashes herself all the time. In her POVs, we don’t see any confession about how she killed Melara but it is heavily implied that she pushed her to the well she died.

 

 

 

In this thread, I want to explore the lies Cersei told to others or herself, which should enable us to understand more about the obvious or canon information related to her.

 

 

 

“He saw us,” the woman said shrilly.

 

“So he did,” the man said.

 

Bran’s fingers started to slip. He grabbed the ledge with his other hand. Fingernails dug into unyielding stone. The man reached down. “Take my hand,” he said. “Before you fall.”

 

Bran seized his arm and held on tight with all his strength. The man yanked him up to the ledge. “What are you doing?” the woman demanded.

 

The man ignored her. He was very strong. He stood Bran up on the sill. “How old are you, boy?”

 

“Seven,” Bran said, shaking with relief. His fingers had dug deep gouges in the man’s forearm. He let go sheepishly.

 

The man looked over at the woman. “The things I do for love,” he said with loathing. He gave Bran a shove.

 

 

 

Before Jaime pushed Bran out of the window, he looked at Cersei. He loathed the act but still pushed Bran out of the window. Cersei is known to make her point without saying the words. There is another example of this.

 

 

 

“Yes,” he [Pycelle] wimpered, “yes, Colemon was purging, so I sent him away. The queen needed Lord Arryn dead, she did not say so, could not, Varys was listening, always listening, but when I looked at her I knew. It was not me who gave him the poison, though, I swear it.”

 

 

 

Now let us see the first time Jaime and Cersei talking about Bran.

 

 

 

“I’m not ashamed of loving you, only of the things I’ve done to hide it. That boy at Winterfell . . .”

 

“Did I tell you to throw him out the window? If you’d gone hunting as I begged you, nothing would have happened. But no, you had to have me, you could not wait until we returned to the city.”

 

 

 

Cersei not only lies, but also puts the blame on Jaime to make him ashamed of himself more. She definitely wanted Bran dead. She definitely said this to Jaime without saying the words. Jaime looked at her and understood it just like Pycelle understood that Jon Arryn must die. And Cersei denies them all.

 

 

 

Cersei admits that she lied to Jaime a thousand times.

 

 

 

“Dwarfs don’t lie, is that what you think?”

 

“Not to me. No more than you would.”

 

“You great golden fool. He’s lied to you a thousand times, and so have I.”

 

 

 

We know that Cersei is a liar and her promises worth shit.

 

 

 

“You talk about Aerys, Grandfather, but you were scared of him.”

 

“Joffrey, apologize to your grandfather,” said Cersei.

 

“Why should I? Everyone knows it’s true. My father won all the battles. He killed Prince Rhaegar and took the crown, while yourfather was hiding under Casterly Rock.” The boy gave his grandfather a defiant look. “A strong king acts boldly, he doesn’t just talk.”

 

“Father, I am sorry,” Cersei said, when the door was shut. “Joff has always been willful, I did warn you . . .”

 

“There is a long league’s worth of difference between willful and stupid. ‘A strong king acts boldly?’ Who told him that?”

 

“Not me, I promise you,” said Cersei. “Most like it was something he heard Robert say . . .”

 

“The part about you hiding under Casterly Rock does sound like Robert.” Tyrion didn’t want Lord Tywin forgetting that bit.

 

“Yes, I recall now,” Cersei said, “Robert often told Joff that a king must be bold.”

 

 

 

She was obviously lying here. She was desperate enough to base her lie on to Tyrion’s trolling attempt.

 

 

I would like to see more of Cersei’s lies like these if you have any.

 

 

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

15 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Understanding the reason why he did the things he did (Kill his King, Cuckold Robert, try to kill Bran) is one thing.   Accepting and sympathizing with him is another.  He should be condemned as strongly as any other violator of guest rights.  

Oh for God sake. I just said understanding and absolution aren't the same thing. You quoted it. No one as far as I can tell let's him off the hook. 

I don't know what "accepting" him means. 

This is a non issue as no-one argues that what Jaime did was right. No one. 

[Three-Fingered Pete]

I agree that understanding and acceptance are two different things. Through Jamie's POV we get the opportunity to be objective about him. Whether we take that opportunity or not is up to us. I tend to give Jaimie a pass on his past misdeeds because he is willing to evolve in a direction I deem positive. It's unfortunate it took the loss of his "identity" in the guise of his hand to do it, but catalysts are what they are. I also feel that Bran, at least at this point in his life, would forgive Jaime (my personal opinion) and, therefore, so do I.

[Son of Man]

21 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

I agree that understanding and acceptance are two different things. Through Jamie's POV we get the opportunity to be objective about him. Whether we take that opportunity or not is up to us. I tend to give Jaimie a pass on his past misdeeds because he is willing to evolve in a direction I deem positive. It's unfortunate it took the loss of his "identity" in the guise of his hand to do it, but catalysts are what they are. I also feel that Bran, at least at this point in his life, would forgive Jaime (my personal opinion) and, therefore, so do I.

If he is really redeemed he would force Cersei and Tommen to abdicate the throne, which is not theirs.  I don't see this guy turning over a new leaf.  

[Three-Fingered Pete]

8 minutes ago, Son of Man said:

If he is really redeemed he would force Cersei and Tommen to abdicate the throne, which is not theirs.  I don't see this guy turning over a new leaf.  

His arc isn't over yet. He is still in the conflicted stage. He also has the political situation to consider. There is plenty of room for a relapse, but like anyone I would expect him to try and salvage as much as he could in the dog eat dog situation they're in. He has no loyalty to Casterly Rock and waning loyalty to the Crown and the entire KL situation. He ran to the Riverlands for time to think and seems to be in store for another pivotal moment in his life. We shall see.

[dmfn]

40 minutes ago, Son of Man said:

If he is really redeemed he would force Cersei and Tommen to abdicate the throne, which is not theirs.  I don't see this guy turning over a new leaf.  

Declaring your treason, implicating your sister, and condemning your son is a hell of a leaf. 

22 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Understanding the reason why he did the things he did (Kill his King, Cuckold Robert, try to kill Bran) is one thing.   Accepting and sympathizing with him is another.  He should be condemned as strongly as any other violator of guest rights.  

Sympathy. Forgiveness. Compassion. These are noble principles that almost every religion agree upon. It would be pretty petty to withhold them from a fictional character. Who wouldn't want forgiveness when they repent? Unless you're perfect.

[hiemal]

I don't think Guest-Right is really a thing in the Westerlands or anywhere outside of the North for that matter. It always puzzled me that Cat placed so much faith in Walder Frey's bread and salt. She'd spent too much time in the North at that point, I guess.

I think that in the rest of the Seven Kingdoms it is the kinslayer who is most accursed? So Jaime loses there, too, but I don't think breaking guest right entered into Jaime's calculations.

[Jeeves]

8 hours ago, hiemal said:

I don't think Guest-Right is really a thing in the Westerlands or anywhere outside of the North for that matter. It always puzzled me that Cat placed so much faith in Walder Frey's bread and salt. She'd spent too much time in the North at that point, I guess.

I think that in the rest of the Seven Kingdoms it is the kinslayer who is most accursed? So Jaime loses there, too, but I don't think breaking guest right entered into Jaime's calculations.

I don't think Jaime really cared about guest rights.  Jaime is not what you would call a moral man.   

[hiemal]

34 minutes ago, The First Bloodrider said:

I don't think Jaime really cared about guest rights.

Exactly. He did know that pushing children out of windows was wrong. He probably also knew that pushing children out of windows while you are a guest in their parents' home is, if not wronger than at least more f**ked up. I don't think the cultural tradition of "guest-right" that holds the safety of guest and host as sacrosanct is the same factor where Jaime was growing up and forming whatever rudimentary moral compass guides him when he isn't following wherever his sister leads as it does in the North.

39 minutes ago, The First Bloodrider said:

  Jaime is not what you would call a moral man.   

I think he is worse than that- he is man who knows morality but chooses to make it subservient to other concerns.

Quote

"So many vows . . . they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other."  ACoK

He understands his sins, I think, and by and large cynically writes them off but I think there is also hope in that understanding for redemption.

[Bernie Mac]

55 minutes ago, The First Bloodrider said:

I don't think Jaime really cared about guest rights.  Jaime is not what you would call a moral man.   

In fairness don't morals go out the window when your family is on the line.  Thankfully neither Ned or Cat are as dimwitted to cuckold the king with their own sibling, but if they had and they were in the same position then that child spying on them is going to die regardless of guest rights.

In general you are right about Jaime, he is not a moral person nor is he particularly religious to care much about guest rights but in this one scenario I imagine most would follow Jaime's lead.

[Van Gogh]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

In fairness don't morals go out the window when your family is on the line.  Thankfully neither Ned or Cat are as dimwitted to cuckold the king with their own sibling, but if they had and they were in the same position then that child spying on them is going to die regardless of guest rights.

In general you are right about Jaime, he is not a moral person nor is he particularly religious to care much about guest rights but in this one scenario I imagine most would follow Jaime's lead.

Jaime put his family on the line.  Morals should never take a back seat to family.  It was Jaime's immorality that created that unfortunate situation.  There is no defense for Jaime in this.  He was as wrong as wrong can be.  You might as well give Ramsay Bolton a chance at redemption because he deserves it as much as Jaime does.

You really think most people would do as Jaime did?  I have more respect for humanity than that.  But if you are right, then humans deserve to perish as a species.  

[Julia H.]

6 hours ago, Helena Kyle said:

Jaime put his family on the line.  Morals should never take a back seat to family.  It was Jaime's immorality that created that unfortunate situation. 

This. 

Of course, it wasn't Jaime alone but Jaime and Cersei together, but we are talking about Jaime now. If we accept that Jaime pushed Bran out of the window because he knew what danger Bran's accidental discovery meant to his whole family, then we also must accept that every time Jaime had sex with Cersei, he knew he was putting his children in mortal danger and that he was doing something for which he might have to kill an innocent person one day. Now he couldn't know it would be a child or that it would be a child of his host. It could have been an unfortunate servant, a woman of any age or social standing, a fellow Kingsguard, it could even have been one of the children he was allegedly "protecting". What would Jaime have done in the latter case - if it had been Joffrey or Myrcella or little Tommen who accidentally saw him with Cersei? Kill one of his own children or risk the lives of all of them? 

This would give pause to most people who care about their loved ones or who are not prepared to kill innocent people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

[Bowen Marsh]

What if the author is setting the humans up to perish?  It's not a blame game but rather just the fault of being human.  Humans are flawed and therefore moving the whole species towards extinction.  

I always had issues with classic Star Trek and its never ending plot line of the glorification of human faults and frailties.  Then having those faults triumph over the logic and reason of Spock.  I don't believe George Martin is Gene Roddenberry.  

[James Fenimore Cooper XXII]

My intentions for starting this topic is to bring to attention the offenses committed by Jaime Lannister and the pass that he gets from many in the fan community.  

5 hours ago, Bowen Marsh said:

What if the author is setting the humans up to perish?  It's not a blame game but rather just the fault of being human.  Humans are flawed and therefore moving the whole species towards extinction.  

I always had issues with classic Star Trek and its never ending plot line of the glorification of human faults and frailties.  Then having those faults triumph over the logic and reason of Spock.  I don't believe George Martin is Gene Roddenberry.  

I have no idea what the author intended with the Jaime character.  Is it the story of someone who has been doing horrible things all of his life and all of sudden finds redemption?  I don't think so.  Jaime's story doesn't read that way to me.