Jaime is Destined to be Horribly Disfigured.

[chrisdaw]

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

Yes.  And even if he does not do it, the threat is meant to be believed.  Which effects his "honor", at the very least.

Yeah and he would do it. He slit the throat of the king he was sworn to protect then hunted the pyromancers like dogs, threw a child to his death and likely would have killed Arya had he caught her. Point being Jaime doesn't work in half measures. He'd carry out his threat for the greater good, because if he doesn't every threat he ever makes afterwards is meaningless, the crown, the KG, become known as being weak willed and having no teeth. His ability to end the next rebellion, to restore the king's peace in future, becomes extremely damaged. He would be Tytos, when his arc is Tywin.

That's what Hos the hostage is about. Eventually the Riverlands and Jaime will end up on the wrong side of each other again. And Jaime will bear arms against them. And Hos will, if Jaime has his way, lose his head.

Only Jaime may not have the final say in things. 

[Apoplexy]

12 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

And I disagree, Riverrun was guarded by a few hundreads was not a existencial threat. The castle was already under siege by the Freys and Daven Lannister. Cersei offered Jaime the position of Hand, he would have a lot of power to act and his closiness with Cersei would allow him to stop her worst's impulses. 

It may not have been an existential threat for the Lannisters, but the Riverlands were torn apart by war. This was documented in Brienne's journey through the riverlands. Breaking the siege was crucial to restore some semblance of order in the Riverlands.

PLus, Jaime did not want to be hand. Forcing himself to take up a job that he didn't care for wouldve done no good. And again, cersei does what she wants. Kevan tried to reign her in, didn't work out.

12 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Jaime is not on a redemption arc, Lancel was and Jaime mocked him for it.

The mockery was just Jaime 's personal disdain for Lancel.

12 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Jaime broke the oath to Catelyn the moment he took charge of leading the siege. He used a hostage as a threat to push her family out of Riverrun, this is taking arms against the Tullys, he can't go around oaths trying to find legal breachs to make his case, his mental gynastics to justify himself are laughable at best and tragical at worst, or do you think Catelyn would see his actions as honorable ? 

His oath was to not take up arms against the Tullys, which he fulfilled.

Whether Catelyn would consider his actions honorable is a whole different discussion and besides the point.

12 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

And in the end even this was breaked as he send his men to kill  or capture the Blackfish

He did not send men to kill the Blackfish. Taking someone captive is not the same as killing them. Or taking up arms against them.

[Apoplexy]

11 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Yes.  And even if he does not do it, the threat is meant to be believed.  Which effects his "honor", at the very least.

As I've said, I'm not saying the act was necessarily honorable, it certainly wasn't dishonorable. 

[Apoplexy]

9 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

Yeah and he would do it. He slit the throat of the king he was sworn to protect then hunted the pyromancers like dogs, threw a child to his death and likely would have killed Arya had he caught her. Point being Jaime doesn't work in half measures. He'd carry out his threat for the greater good, because if he doesn't every threat he ever makes afterwards is meaningless, the crown, the KG, become known as being weak willed and having no teeth. His ability to end the next rebellion, to restore the king's peace in future, becomes extremely damaged. He would be Tytos, when his arc is Tywin.

That's what Hos the hostage is about. Eventually the Riverlands and Jaime will end up on the wrong side of each other again. And Jaime will bear arms against them. And Hos will, if Jaime has his way, lose his head.

Only Jaime may not have the final say in things. 

I realize this wasn't a reply to anything I had said, so I'll just reply to one point. Feel free to ignore me.

I personally don't think he woulve killed arya.

[Arthur Peres]

3 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

PLus, Jaime did not want to be hand. Forcing himself to take up a job that he didn't care for wouldve done no good. And again, cersei does what she wants. Kevan tried to reign her in, didn't work out.

This is my point. 

Jaime is not doing anything for the good of the people, he is doing what he wants, when he rejects to be the hand he knows that he is puting the wheels on Cersei's hands and that this would only lead to problem, but he still does it and let she take Tommen and send him away.

3 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

The mockery was just Jaime 's personal disdain for Lancel.

And for the redemption in itself. Lancel is cleary a changed man, that just like Jaime, used by Cersei, throw into battle and then discarded and let to die when he was wounded, he is not public know to be a kingslayer but he also is one, but unlike Jaime he does regreat his acts and tries to correct his path.

Jaime was looking himself on the mirror and choosing to remain on the same path while Lancel changed.

3 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

His oath was to not take up arms against the Tullys, which he fulfilled.

 Whether Catelyn would consider his actions honorable is a whole different discussion and besides the point.

The moment he became the leader of the siege he took arms against them Everything else is just mental gynastic to justify his crimes. Edmure with his son under sword point was forced to give his castle.

If someone used a son or daughter as hostage to sleep with someone against their will would still be sex without consent and therefore rape, even if physical violence was not needed.

[Platypus Rex]

7 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

As I've said, I'm not saying the act was necessarily honorable, it certainly wasn't dishonorable. 

It all depends on what sort of behavior you think people will "honor" you for.   But most folks dislike child-murderers.  And the danger of threatening to murder children, is that folks might believe you would actually do that.

I'm recalling the story of this old English king, I forget his name, who had taken a noble's young son as one of his hostages.  When the noble rebelled, the king brought the boy in front of the castle, put a noose around his neck, and threatened to hang him if the castle did not surrender.  The noble laughed and told the king he still had the hammer and anvil with which to make more sons.  The king was furious, but could not bring himself to kill the boy.

I like this story, because I like the fact that this king had some moral scruples.  But it still seems to me that it would have been better not to threaten to murder the child at all.  Threatening to do evil is equivalent to advocating evil.  It may not be as bad as the actual act, but it is still bad.  There is a danger that others will follow your example.

[Castellan]

On 11/30/2019 at 4:13 AM, Moiraine Sedai said:

Jaime has a hard future to predict.  Some will say he is on a redemptive journey.  I am not so sure.  Losing a hand is in its own a disfigurement.  He lost the ability to do what he does best. 

When I first started reading I though that Jaime would at some stage burst into action and finally use his sword skills in a heroic fashion (as in an Achilles-like figure) but when he lost his hand that seemed scotched. Also the general doom laden nature of the novels got through to me. I tend to infer from them that people don't change, that every character's fate is sealed. jaime is changing but too little too late - eg in his military skills. At Riverrun he demonstrates that he had learned to use scouts and guards properly unlike his first disastrous episode there but then he accidentally on purpose manages to let Brynden escape. I believe it was because he was ashamed to face him so preferred not to think about making sure of his capture.

Brynden is likely to be at the BSW cave (an obvious place for him to go to) and play a role in Jaime's death - but I think Jaime will also be resurrected like Beric and UnCat. If any great sword fight takes place as part of the fight with the Others, I think its more likely to be Brienne taking part.

 

 

 

[Apoplexy]

4 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

This is my point. 

Jaime is not doing anything for the good of the people, he is doing what he wants, when he rejects to be the hand he knows that he is puting the wheels on Cersei's hands and that this would only lead to problem, but he still does it and let she take Tommen and send him away.

He did murder a king to save a city full of half a  million people..

Again, Cersei isn't incharge of anything. 

4 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

And for the redemption in itself. Lancel is cleary a changed man, that just like Jaime, used by Cersei, throw into battle and then discarded and let to die when he was wounded, he is not public know to be a kingslayer but he also is one, but unlike Jaime he does regreat his acts and tries to correct his path.

Jaime was looking himself on the mirror and choosing to remain on the same path while Lancel changed.

Regardless of whether Lancel has changed or not, Jaime doesn't like him, for personal reasons. The only thing Jaime feels when he looks at Lancel is disdain.

I'm not sure what Lancel has to do with Jaime's redemption.

4 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

The moment he became the leader of the siege he took arms against them Everything else is just mental gynastic to justify his crimes. Edmure with his son under sword point was forced to give his castle.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Taking up arms literally means physically fighting against someone.

4 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

If someone used a son or daughter as hostage to sleep with someone against their will would still be sex without consent and therefore rape, even if physical violence was not needed.

I really do not know how this example relates to the siege at Riverrun. Please explain.

 

[Apoplexy]

43 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

It all depends on what sort of behavior you think people will "honor" you for.   But most folks dislike child-murderers.  And the danger of threatening to murder children, is that folks might believe you would actually do that.

I'm not arguing murdering a child is honorable. But pushing a child out of a window to save your own children makes the matter not white or black. Again, not honorable, just not cruel for the sake of cruelty.

And threatening to murder a child isn't the same as doing it. In fact, Jaime was relying on his reputation for Edmure to believe him. Otherwise the threat would have been pointless.

47 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

I'm recalling the story of this old English king, I forget his name, who had taken a noble's young son as one of his hostages.  When the noble rebelled, the king brought the boy in front of the castle, put a noose around his neck, and threatened to hang him if the castle did not surrender.  The noble laughed and told the king he still had the hammer and anvil with which to make more sons.  The king was furious, but could not bring himself to kill the boy.

This is exactly what would have happened had Edmure not believed Jaime. This was what the freys were doing with Edmure himself. Which is why it was key that Edmure believe Jaime.

50 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

I like this story, because I like the fact that this king had some moral scruples.  But it still seems to me that it would have been better not to threaten to murder the child at all.  Threatening to do evil is equivalent to advocating evil.  It may not be as bad as the actual act, but it is still bad.  There is a danger that others will follow your example

I personally don't think threatening to murder a child is honorable. However, it wasn't dishonorable in this case. I would argue that it was more honorable to threaten to murder a child than to let hundreds of men die to break the siege. Life is rarely black or white.

[Castellan]

4 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

And for the redemption in itself. Lancel is cleary a changed man, that just like Jaime, used by Cersei, throw into battle and then discarded and let to die when he was wounded, he is not public know to be a kingslayer but he also is one, but unlike Jaime he does regreat his acts and tries to correct his path.

 

Really? I think Lancel has just entered a new phase of being an immature and obsessive pain in the arse. He has a more trivial version of Jaime's character. I find it a bit disturbing that anyone would think someone who ends up as one of the knights marching his naked ex lover through the streets as punishment is 'redeemed'. He goes from one obsession (Cersei) to another (religion) and gains no insight along the way. 

[Apoplexy]

44 minutes ago, Castellan said:

When I first started reading I though that Jaime would at some stage burst into action and finally use his sword skills in a heroic fashion (as in an Achilles-like figure) but when he lost his hand that seemed scotched. Also the general doom laden nature of the novels got through to me. I tend to infer from them that people don't change, that every character's fate is sealed. jaime is changing but too little too late - eg in his military skills. 

I agree with this. I don't know if you watch the show, but my one word summation of the show was 'fatalistic'. It got me really upset. I am hoping against hope that the books don't any more nihilistic than they seem currently. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part.

[Castellan]

25 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

I agree with this. I don't know if you watch the show, but my one word summation of the show was 'fatalistic'. It got me really upset. I am hoping against hope that the books don't any more nihilistic than they seem currently. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part.

When I first read the books the way people inhabited old fantastic buildings that no-one really knew the origins of and that hinted of previous generations with more skills or magical powers really irritated me. I suppose its the opposite of a progressive western viewpoint. Same with the stories of generation upon generation of crazy Targs. And GRRM seems to have woven in references to most fantasy fiction and mythology before him. Story upon story and all that. And built in so many clues and hints and foreshadowing and also calculated how to make the readers not pick them up! It has affected my world view I think. Most human activity seems absolutely futile!

 

 

[Platypus Rex]

22 hours ago, Castellan said:

Really? I think Lancel has just entered a new phase of being an immature and obsessive pain in the arse.

I think the correct answer to your question would be "Yes, really!"  Your negative opinion of Lancel, and your emotive language, does not actually contradict what @Arthur Peres said.  Lancel really is a changed man, even if you think he has changed for the worse.  And he really is repentant, even if, like Jaime, you think he is a damned fool.

22 hours ago, Castellan said:

I find it a bit disturbing that anyone would think someone who ends up as one of the knights marching his naked ex lover through the streets as punishment is 'redeemed'.

Lancel is not marching anyone anywhere.  

In theory, Cersei is marching herself through the streets, as a form of sincere and voluntary penance.  In fact, Cersei is only feigning penitence, and is no doubt plotting horrible revenge on those who made her do this.

Is there some justice to Cersei's idea that she is being forced to do this?  No doubt.  But Lancel is not the one making her do this.

Lancel has one job and one job only, and that is to protect her from harm during her march.

[Apoplexy]

22 hours ago, Castellan said:

When I first read the books the way people inhabited old fantastic buildings that no-one really knew the origins of and that hinted of previous generations with more skills or magical powers really irritated me. I suppose its the opposite of a progressive western viewpoint. Same with the stories of generation upon generation of crazy Targs. And GRRM seems to have woven in references to most fantasy fiction and mythology before him. Story upon story and all that. And built in so many clues and hints and foreshadowing and also calculated how to make the readers not pick them up! It has affected my world view I think. Most human activity seems absolutely futile!

 

 

See, when I first read the books, I assumed the whole mystery element of the universe would be explained at some point. It would start as regular fantasy series with all the supposed 'wise elders' and folklore guiding people's decisions, but then the characters would start thinking and reasoning for themselves. That was reinforced by Ned Stark 's death and Bran going beyond the wall to make the mystery elements less mysterious. 

But unfortunately the books haven't yet become any less depressing. I hope that changes towards the end. If not, I'm going to be extremely disappointed.

[Apoplexy]

52 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

I think the correct answer to your question would be "Yes, really!"  Your negative opinion of Lancel, and your emotive language, does not actually contradict what @Arthur Peres said.  Lancel really is a changed man, even if you think he has changed for the worse.  And he really is repentant, even if, like Jaime, you think he is a damned fool.

I would say he is about the same person. He was always a fool, that hasn't changed. He used to be manipulated by Cersei, now he is manipulated by the Faith. 

57 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Lancel is not marching anyone anywhere.  

In theory, Cersei is marching herself through the streets, as a form of sincere and voluntary penance.  In fact, Cersei is only feigning penitence, and is no doubt plotting horrible revenge on those who made her do this.

No, the walk of atonement is meant to be forced. Why would someone voluntarily humiliate and demean herself so? 

Also, I wouldn't blame Cersei for plotting revenge against the people who made her do it. They deserve it.

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

Is there some justice to Cersei's idea that she is being forced to do this?  No doubt.  But Lancel is not the one making her do this.

There is absolutely no justice in parading women naked on the streets. Even someone as contemptible as Cersei. The whole thing is about humiliation and putting women 'in their place'. Justice has nothing to do with it.

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

Lancel has one job and one job only, and that is to protect her from harm during her march.

One of the charges against Cersei was sleeping with Lancel! Why was he 'protecting' her and not being paraded naked alongside her?

[Platypus Rex]

1 hour ago, Apoplexy said:

I would say he is about the same person. He was always a fool, that hasn't changed. He used to be manipulated by Cersei, now he is manipulated by the Faith. 

He has not actually done anything wrong, at least not yet.  Kevan and Jaime feel frustrated because THEY can no longer manipulate him. So does not this basically boil down to "I hate him because I hate religious people"??  Why don't you wait until the High Sparrow makes him do something he should not do?  Then you can blame him for his bad acts, and for letting himself be manipulated.

1 hour ago, Apoplexy said:

No, the walk of atonement is meant to be forced.

I'm not defending the walk of shame.  It is stupid and inappropriate, either as punishment or penance, for the exact same reason the Westerosi bedding ceremony is stupid and inappropriate, and for the exact same reason that Catelyn's naked dance in front of Maester Luwyn is stupid and inappropriate.  And the person to blame is obviously GRRM.  If you want to blame the High Sparrow too, I'm also fine with that.  But you're trying to blame Lancel, and that's just dumb.

1 hour ago, Apoplexy said:

Why would someone voluntarily humiliate and demean herself so? 

I dunny, but that's what Lancel did.  He voluntarily humiliated and demeaned himself.  He even began hanging out with filthy common folk and calling them "friends", much to the disgust of Jaime.

1 hour ago, Apoplexy said:

Also, I wouldn't blame Cersei for plotting revenge against the people who made her do it. They deserve it.

Maybe.  But that has nothing to do with Lancel.  He is merely there to protect her from harm.

And as far as Lancel knows, Cercei has voluntarily agreed to accept this penance, as a sincere show of penitence.  

1 hour ago, Apoplexy said:

One of the charges against Cersei was sleeping with Lancel! Why was he 'protecting' her and not being paraded naked alongside her?

So that's your beef with Lancel?  That you wanted to see him naked TOO??  Take it up with the GRRM or with the High Sparrow.  Lancel has not done anything wrong.  What he did was protect Cersei from harm.

I don't know how Lancel feels about public nudity, but some would feel that an hour of public nudity was a rather light and easy penance, compared to the penance that Lancel actually DID undertake. 

[Makk]

3 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

I think the correct answer to your question would be "Yes, really!"  Your negative opinion of Lancel, and your emotive language, does not actually contradict what @Arthur Peres said.  Lancel really is a changed man, even if you think he has changed for the worse.  And he really is repentant, even if, like Jaime, you think he is a damned fool.

Lancel is not marching anyone anywhere.  

In theory, Cersei is marching herself through the streets, as a form of sincere and voluntary penance.  In fact, Cersei is only feigning penitence, and is no doubt plotting horrible revenge on those who made her do this.

Is there some justice to Cersei's idea that she is being forced to do this?  No doubt.  But Lancel is not the one making her do this.

Lancel has one job and one job only, and that is to protect her from harm during her march.

Arthur Peres was arguing that Lancel is on a redemption arc, and merely being a changed person does not make that true. The only evidence to suggest that he is, is that he has a guilty conscious. Merely joining the faith doesn't atone for anything imo, spiritual redemption is meaningless. We don't know what he is really thinking but lets see how he affects the lives of other people, so far he has not helped anyone and still seems to care more about himself (his soul) than anyone else.

[Arthur Peres]

7 hours ago, Makk said:

Arthur Peres was arguing that Lancel is on a redemption arc, and merely being a changed person does not make that true. The only evidence to suggest that he is, is that he has a guilty conscious. Merely joining the faith doesn't atone for anything imo, spiritual redemption is meaningless. We don't know what he is really thinking but lets see how he affects the lives of other people, so far he has not helped anyone and still seems to care more about himself (his soul) than anyone else.

And I will keep arguing it.

Lancel at the start of the series was a Jaime wanna, as Tyrion put it

"Look at him. Not quite so tall, his features not so fine, and his hair is sand instead of spun gold, yet still … even a poor copy of Jaime is sweeter than an empty bed, I suppose"

The way he behave after being knighted was arrogant, just like Jaime he behaved like we was above everyone else as we see with Sansa and Tyrion, but he was always a lesser version of his cousin. After almost dying in Blackwater is clear that Lancel dramaticly changed, he is hanging around with peasants and actually cares and grive for them.

A Frey girl, and not of my choosing. She is not even maiden. A widow, of Darry blood. My father says that will help me with the peasants, but the peasants are all dead.

[Arthur Peres]

10 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

No, the walk of atonement is meant to be forced. Why would someone voluntarily humiliate and demean herself so? 

 

Henry II, by his own free will made a walk of atonement (not naked though) barefoot in the dirty to show his regreat for the murder of Thomas Becket. In the word os Asoiaf we have Balor the blessed doing something similar.

Penance is a core part of the catholic faith, and if the seven are inspired by them, should be no surprise that some values such this were kept.

[frenin]

When people start excusing Jaime's behaviour with loopholes you know that the man is gone.

 

On 12/4/2019 at 1:52 AM, Apoplexy said:

He did murder a king to save a city full of half a  million people..

He clearly didn't, what he did do was enter  in the KG specifically to keep banging Cersei. 

And he only stops banging her because Tyrion's words  gave him pause. He can't stand the fact that he might be cheated.

 

On 12/3/2019 at 5:46 PM, Apoplexy said:

His oath was to not take up arms against the Tullys, which he fulfilled.

Whether Catelyn would consider his actions honorable is a whole different discussion and besides the point.

He didn't, this part is really ludicrous, Jaime took an army to Riverrun to get the Tullys out of there, he threatened them all and  challenged the Black Fish to a duel, Jaime did broke all his oaths, his oaths was to not take up arms  against them, which he did, not to not harm them with arms, which is the new meaning people are giving it around here and  which he was ready to do anyways.

 

On 12/3/2019 at 5:46 PM, Apoplexy said:

He did not send men to kill the Blackfish. Taking someone captive is not the same as killing them. Or taking up arms against them.

What is taking  up arms against someone to you?? Only draw a sword and  attack someone?? Take up arms  against someone has very clear meanings besides the literal one, using mental gymnastics don't change that fact. 

What if the Blackfish put up a fight what are those men going to do?? Turn around and  leave him be because they can't take up arms  against them??

 

 

On 12/4/2019 at 2:02 AM, Apoplexy said:

This is exactly what would have happened had Edmure not believed Jaime. This was what the freys were doing with Edmure himself. Which is why it was key that Edmure believe Jaime.

Did Jaime at any point gave any sign of being bluffing?? Because the first thing Jaime says is if you make a threat carry it on, only a fool makes threats he can't oblige and  so on, Jaime was not bluffing at any moment.