Jump to content
chrisdaw

Jaime is Destined to be Horribly Disfigured.

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, frenin said:

Ofc Jaime doesn¡t, which is even most glaring when fans do??

I just said I'm not justifying all his decisions.

6 hours ago, frenin said:

He didn't,  Jaime was done with Aerys and that's why he killed him, he was enjoying the moment, not doing because any type of altruism.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Jaime doesn't know what he wants. And he has no noble motives. He is motivated by petty jealousy and wounded pride (his issues with Cersei have nothing to do with her personality but Tyrion's claim she is fucking other men) and the desire to reinvent himself as a different man, to get rid of the Kingslayer moniker.

Isn't wanting to save people from burning at least one single noble motive?

Also, if cersei's cheating is a deal breaker for jaime, why is that wrong?

6 hours ago, frenin said:

Jaime would've kept banging Cersei  even when he still wanted to be a better person, keep to his vows, even when his KG vows are  against that, the only reason he ends that was the cheating.

Again, why is cheating being a deal breaker wrong? 

6 hours ago, frenin said:

When it suits him, depends on how he wakes up tho.

Ah, and goldehand, or another Tywin, it really depends of the day, don't kill kids right??

He does struggle with his oaths. It's not a whim.

6 hours ago, frenin said:

Nah, he was hiding behind those oaths.

why would he need to hide behind his oaths? He had an army that could break the siege.

6 hours ago, frenin said:

It's reasonable to kill a baby to get the same thing right?? Riverrun would have not fallen from starvation, Brynden had made sure of that.

I suppose because of his oath, but as i said, it comes and goes.

Again,threatening is not the same as killing.

ALSo, selmy was far from perfect, but he wasn't shitty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

You have yet to name ONE stupid thing Lancel has done for the High Sparrow.

In my opinion, zealotry of any type is stupid. Plus, I could add being part of cersei's walk of atonement was stupid. 

5 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Sure.  But you have yet to identify one post-repentance action that was wrong.  Sound to me like you are trying to apply some tribalistic group-think smear logic, wherein Lancel is somehow responsible for OTHER people's actions

No he is responsible for his own, e.g. participating in the walk of atonement.

5 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Since Lancel is in no way to blame for the Walk of Shame, absolutely.  It does not matter at all

He participated. Hence it matters.

5 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Well, he's not.  Name one thing Lancel did that qualifies as "slut shaming"?  He's there for one reason and for one reason alone … to guard and protect her from the mob.

Lancel no doubt considers Cersei a sinner, like himself.  But there is no indication he considers her a worse sinner than himself.  He tells your buddy Jaime that he USED to be angry at Cersei, but that now he forgives her.

But your buddy Jaime is not so forgiving.   He's still going with his "... and Moonboy for all I know ..." mantra.  He's the one who still has an issue with her sluttery

That's why Lancel is stupid, he doesn't see the irony in cersei being paraded naked and him being her protector for the same crime. At least Jaime acknowledges his mistakes.

Also, why is it wrong for cheating to be a deal breaker?

5 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

so what?  How does that give you anything on Lancel?  If you think he should have paraded naked against his will, why don't you go parade naked against your will and set a good example for him? 

Why are you blaming people for things entirely beyond their control?

My point is no one should be humilated that way. I was pointing out the inequities of punishment between men and women for the same crime.

5 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

It's also not the same thing Theon went through.   Sorry that the universe is so unfair.  Maybe Lancel should make amends by cutting off his own cock. 

I have no idea how this is relevant, but I honestly wouldn't care what lancel does.

5 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Why is it wrong?  Because you want her to be gang raped?

Again I am pointing out here that for the same crime, Cersei is paraded naked, lancel is entrusted with conducting the walk of atonement. Women being humiliated, men not. Unequal punishment for the same crime.

5 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

What?  Is Lancel responsible for that too? 

Lancel is too stupid to be responsible for anything. The point I was making is that my critique isn't of one single character, but of the system that allows such disparate treatment of men and women. A system that exists even today.

5 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Maybe you should take that up with those passing the sentence.

Oh the people who pass the judgement, aka high sparrow are definitely wrong . But people like lancel who benefit from the sentence and do not see the irony there, also bear responsibility for upholding the unequal system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaime is for sure a very interesting character in the books.

But he is not sort of doomed by fate like Macbeth; his life is not confronted with decisions he cannot avoid and which are fair and foul at the same time. Jaime likes to believe this, telling himself he was torn between conflicting oaths he had taken.

His "redemption arc" after his return to KL still is not honourable. It is driven by seeing his sister turning away from him.

Already attacking Brienne during their way from Riverrun to KL (wich drew the attention of the Brave Companions to them and resulted in the loss of his hand) was a clear break of his oath never to take up Sword against Stark or Tully again, as Brienne was in the service of Catelyn Stark.

Etc., etc: delegating the search for Sansa to Brienne, taking up service in the KG, leading the mission to push Riverrun to surrender: All this is against the oath he swore to Catelyn.

Little Things like donning the Valyrian Sword to Brienne and informing her about fArya being Jeyne Poole doesn't change the fundamentals:

Jaime is an oathbreaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Greywater-Watch said:

But he is not sort of doomed by fate like Macbeth; his life is not confronted with decisions he cannot avoid and which are fair and foul at the same time. Jaime likes to believe this, telling himself he was torn between conflicting oaths he had taken.

So Jaime has never legitimately been torn between two vows? It is just all in his head?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Greywater-Watch said:

Exactly. Tell me one example where he was in a situation with conflicting vows, that he could not have resolved in an honourable way.

All of them almost. You're basically wilfully denying the design intent of the character. No less absurd than claiming threatening to load a baby into a catapult isn't dishonourable.

Edited by chrisdaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, chrisdaw said:

All of them almost. You're basically wilfully denying the design intent of the character. No less absurd than claiming threatening to load a baby into a catapult isn't dishonourable.

Still waiting for your example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

I think that this is not possible, Aegon will never be able to trust Jaime and if the Kingslayer showed up on his camp it would only hurt his efforts to promote himself as a good and capable leader while being surounded by scum. Aegon will pose as savior after the Usurper and his offspring drived the realm into shambless, not to mention that his main ally will be Doran, the man that has all the reasons to hate the Lannisters.

If Jaime helps him destroy Tommen and Myrcella - which he would by revealing their true parentage - he certainly could use him. Keep in mind that Aerys II was merely Aegon's grandfather, not his father. He is under no real obligation to avenge him, even more so since Aerys II actually passed over Aegon in the line of succession in favor of Viserys III. Not to mention that Aerys II also used Elia and her children as hostages rather than treat them like family.

7 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

I would also not be surprised if Jaime started the sequence of events that leads to Tommen and Myrcella's death, but I expect Cersei to be the one doing it. 

Cersei is not going to reveal their true parentage to the world. We can be pretty sure that Jaime is going to do that if he gets the chance since he already made it clear he intended to do that. And if that happens it is going to get them killed. Cersei might also do things that might help her children to get killed, but she will also try to protect them.

7 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

, I really don't like this idea, of Jaime surviving his meeting with LHS with some deal or rationalization, the last thing Catelyn heard before Robb being killed was "Jaime Lannister sends his regards"... sparing him seems really off no matter what he offers her, and in the end his words has no weight anyway. 

Sure, but if there is no deal of sorts Jaime is just dead. And if George wanted to kill him he should and would have done so in ADwD. All he would have needed to wrap up his story would have been another Jaime or Brienne chapter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

Isn't wanting to save people from burning at least one single noble motive?

Did he want to save innocent people or merely his dad and Westermen friends who were butchering innocent Kingslanders by the hundreds and thousands in the streets of the city?

Stopping the wildfire plan was certainly no bad thing - but murdering people to do it was. He didn't need to murder Rossart and, especially, Aerys II to do it. He could have knocked both of them out or arrested them.

5 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

Also, if cersei's cheating is a deal breaker for jaime, why is that wrong?

Because it is just a self-serving ugly motive. He never asks Cersei about what she actually did, nor does he ask himself why she may have taken other lovers after he had effectively abandoned her to Ned and Robert and Robert's brothers, etc. Cersei and their children were in constant danger of discovery - in no small part because Jaime had to pump his semen into Cersei's womb - and yet Jaime had to prioritize Tyrion instead of what really should have mattered to both of them.

Not to mention that Cersei had every right to assume Jaime was dead. If he had fallen into her hands, if she, Cersei, had been Catelyn or Robb Jaime would have died.

Cersei certainly may have had sex with Lancel and Osmund and Osney, but she never loved either of them. She only ever loved Jaime, that is as clear as snow. Just because Jaime can afford to fuck only Cersei (because he clearly has a rather low sex drive and was never in any position to have to use his looks and body to secure the loyalty of other men) doesn't mean Cersei is obligated to mimic him in this regard. They are, in the end, not a married couple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

I just said I'm not justifying all his decisions.

12 hours ago, frenin said:

Which would've be more believable if your actions follow up...

 

5 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

Isn't wanting to save people from burning at least one single noble motive?

Also, if cersei's cheating is a deal breaker for jaime, why is that wrong?

 

6 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

Again, why is cheating being a deal breaker wrong? 

12 hours ago, frenin said:

Since he didn't kill Aerys to save anyone, i really don't understand why you keep  putting Aerys and saving a million people lives...

Shouldn't be his vows what prevented Jaime from banging Cersei and not his wounded pride?? I've answered this enough times and you keep dodging the question, especially if you want to sell the "Jaime is struggling with his oaths" narration and not the today in Jaime's self scourging we have...

 

6 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

He does struggle with his oaths. It's not a whim.

12 hours ago, frenin said:

Like the KG ones,  when it suits him and especially the self pitying Jaime used the oaths as an easy escape goat for everything, until the oaths don't matter that much...

 

 

6 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

why would he need to hide behind his oaths? He had an army that could break the siege.

12 hours ago, frenin said:

Could they?? Wouldn't come with a great cost for them?? Anyway, he was hiding behind his oaths with Blackfsh.

 

 

6 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

Again,threatening is not the same as killing.

ALSo, selmy was far from perfect, but he wasn't shitty.

When there is intention, yes, you can draw a pretty clear conclussion.

Every KG who served under Aerys, bar ironically Jaime, are shitty to the one, the "I was following orders" prototype with the lowest moral cowards of them all, at least Gregor seems to have a mental problem, what was Barri B excuse?? Honor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Did he want to save innocent people or merely his dad and Westermen friends who were butchering innocent Kingslanders by the hundreds and thousands in the streets of the city?

Stopping the wildfire plan was certainly no bad thing - but murdering people to do it was. He didn't need to murder Rossart and, especially, Aerys II to do it. He could have knocked both of them out or arrested them.

Nothing wrong with wanting to save your dad and westermen along with other people.

Rossart and aerys wouldve died regardless. The lannisters didn't spare Ella and her children, those two wouldn't have been spared.

29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Because it is just a self-serving ugly motive. He never asks Cersei about what she actually did, nor does he ask himself why she may have taken other lovers after he had effectively abandoned her to Ned and Robert and Robert's brothers, etc. Cersei and their children were in constant danger of discovery - in no small part because Jaime had to pump his semen into Cersei's womb - and yet Jaime had to prioritize Tyrion instead of what really should have mattered to both of them.

Even if it's self serving, it's a valid reason. If Jaime was so bad for Cersei, she should be glad he left her.

31 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Cersei certainly may have had sex with Lancel and Osmund and Osney, but she never loved either of them. She only ever loved Jaime, that is as clear as snow. Just because Jaime can afford to fuck only Cersei (because he clearly has a rather low sex drive and was never in any position to have to use his looks and body to secure the loyalty of other men) doesn't mean Cersei is obligated to mimic him in this regard. They are, in the end, not a married couple.

I would argue if she ever really loved Jaime, but then that would depend on how one defines love, which is subjective. But I can safely say he felt more strongly for her than she did for him.

And exactly, Cersei doesn't need to be like Jaime. But then Jaime is free to leave her if she doesnt. Doesn't matter why Jaime didn't sleep with other people, he didn't and he expected the same from his partner. Marriage has nothing to with it. The situation was untenable, so he left. 

Again, if he was so bad towards cersei, and he thinks Cersei betrayed him, they are exactly where they should be, separated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Nothing wrong with wanting to save your dad and westermen along with other people.

Well, it is a difference whether you want to save innocent bystanders or just your own people. The former is a truly noble deed ... the latter not so much.

3 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Rossart and aerys wouldve died regardless. The lannisters didn't spare Ella and her children, those two wouldn't have been spared.

A Kingsguard killing both the king and the Hand is a heinous crime. I'm not saying they should have lived, just that Jaime shouldn't have killed them. And he wouldn't have if he had been a better man.

3 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Even if it's self serving, it's a valid reason. If Jaime was so bad for Cersei, she should be glad he left her.

Cersei loved Jaime despite his many flaws. I merely explained why she took on other lovers after he left. This was not a betrayal. If there was a betrayal then Jaime abandoned Cersei and their children.

3 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

I would argue if she ever really loved Jaime, but then that would depend on how one defines love, which is subjective. But I can safely say he felt more strongly for her than she did for him.

That is not a matter of interpretation. We know from Cersei herself that she very much loves Jaime. Even George himself has confirmed that this is the case (although this was not necessary). There is no way to decide who felt 'more strongly' about the other, but it is quite clear that Jaime never sacrificed anything for Cersei. It wasn't hard for him to not have sex with other women. He just never had the desire to do so.

3 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

And exactly, Cersei doesn't need to be like Jaime. But then Jaime is free to leave her if she doesnt. Doesn't matter why Jaime didn't sleep with other people, he didn't and he expected the same from his partner. Marriage has nothing to with it. The situation was untenable, so he left. 

There is no indication that they ever had an agreement where Cersei was not allowed to have sex with other men. Cersei did sleep with Robert, after all. And, no, Jaime doesn't properly end their relationship. He sulks and is obsessed about Tyrion's little poisoned remark, he never actually asks his sister what she actually did and develops some kind of a wrong picture of her as if she had personally wronged him or something. That kind of thing gets evident during his conversation with Lancel. It goes back to both Cersei's remark that both she and Tyrion lied often to Jaime and to Tyrion's remark about Cersei.

But if there is something clear in Cersei's paranoid mind then that she very much loves Jaime. That's never in doubt. She never truly betrayed him. Their tragedy is that they never actually talked about that. And they might never get the opportunity to do so now.

In fact, if Jaime is the one who is going to kill Cersei in the end he might only then understand that she had never betrayed him back then - if he kills her he will likely do that because of the unspeakable things she might be doing or be involved in the future - which she will only be able to do because Jaime turned his back on her when she needed him the most (when the Faith imprisoned her).

3 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Again, if he was so bad towards cersei, and he thinks Cersei betrayed him, they are exactly where they should be, separated.

But they both still love each other. They act like morons who quarrel over a trivial issue - and since they won't talk it out it is only going to get worse and worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, frenin said:

Which would've be more believable if your actions follow up...

What actions? I've mentioned how I'm not offering justification, just context. If you don't find it credible/believable, that's fine too.

30 minutes ago, frenin said:

Since he didn't kill Aerys to save anyone, i really don't understand why you keep  putting Aerys and saving a million people lives...

Because he did exactly that. He says so to brienne.

31 minutes ago, frenin said:

Shouldn't be his vows what prevented Jaime from banging Cersei and not his wounded pride?? I've answered this enough times and you keep dodging the question, especially if you want to sell the "Jaime is struggling with his oaths" narration and not the today in Jaime's self scourging we have...

The whole of Jaime's arc is about his struggle with his oaths, which is why I keep bringing it up. He upheld some, he broke others. And he did love and care for Cersei, which is why he broke his KG. Unfortunately that relationship had gone really bad towards the end. People do unreasonable things for love. It DOESN'T JUSTIFY breaking his oath, but makes it less egregious.

36 minutes ago, frenin said:

Like the KG ones,  when it suits him and especially the self pitying Jaime used the oaths as an easy escape goat for everything, until the oaths don't matter that much...

I would say love is a pretty strong motive to break an oath. Its not flippant.

37 minutes ago, frenin said:

Could they?? Wouldn't come with a great cost for them?? Anyway, he was hiding behind his oaths with Blackfsh.

I'm not what you mean here. Please elaborate.

38 minutes ago, frenin said:

When there is intention, yes, you can draw a pretty clear conclussion.

I would argue his intention was never to kill the baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it is a difference whether you want to save innocent bystanders or just your own people. The former is a truly noble deed ... the latter not so much.

I disagree. Having more than one motive doesn't make it less noble. Most actions have more than one motive.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

A Kingsguard killing both the king and the Hand is a heinous crime. I'm not saying they should have lived, just that Jaime shouldn't have killed them. And he wouldn't have if he had been a better man.

Jaime was reviled for it. I'm this case, I personally think it wouldn't matter did the deed. And wartime decisions are often rash.

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Cersei loved Jaime despite his many flaws. I merely explained why she took on other lovers after he left. This was not a betrayal. If there was a betrayal then Jaime abandoned Cersei and their children.

I think it was a betrayal, but that's subjective, as everyone has different expectations from relationships. And Jaime only left cersei. He is thinking about telling his children about their heritage. He is conflicted about it for obvious reasons.

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not a matter of interpretation. We know from Cersei herself that she very much loves Jaime. Even George himself has confirmed that this is the case (although this was not necessary). There is no way to decide who felt 'more strongly' about the other, but it is quite clear that Jaime never sacrificed anything for Cersei. It wasn't hard for him to not have sex with other women. He just never had the desire to do so.

Again, this is subjective, so there is a lot of room for disagreement. And it is possible to disagree with an author about their characterization of a character. 

IMo, Jaime gave up a domestic life for cersei. For me, that's a big sacrifice.

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no indication that they ever had an agreement where Cersei was not allowed to have sex with other men. Cersei did sleep with Robert, after all. And, no, Jaime doesn't properly end their relationship. He sulks and is obsessed about Tyrion's little poisoned remark, he never actually asks his sister what she actually did and develops some kind of a wrong picture of her as if she had personally wronged him or something. That kind of thing gets evident during his conversation with Lancel. It goes back to both Cersei's remark that both she and Tyrion lied often to Jaime and to Tyrion's remark about Cersei.

Relationships don't work on fixed agreements. That's the thing about human nature, you don't know how you feel about something till it happens. So even if one does have a fixed agreement, how one feels towards it can change.

And I agree, Jaime did nt properly end their relationship, which he should have.

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But they both still love each other. They act like morons who quarrel over a trivial issue - and since they won't talk it out it is only going to get worse and worse.

Imo, love isn't enough by itself. If a love is bringing so much toxicity, sometimes it's not worth it. This is true of non romantic relationship s as well. 

Jaime and Cersei were terrible for each other and only brought out the worst in one another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

I disagree. Having more than one motive doesn't make it less noble. Most actions have more than one motive.

It is certainly less noble than it would have been if he had just wanted to save innocent bystanders.

25 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Jaime was reviled for it. I'm this case, I personally think it wouldn't matter did the deed. And wartime decisions are often rash.

You actually seem to have the moral conscience of Jaime. Good luck with that ;-).

Jaime killed Aerys II because he wanted to murder the man. And he also wanted to see him scared. That's why he told him what he had done before he came to kill him. That's the modus operandi of a murderer, and cowardly at that. He basically waited for a moment of chaos where he thought he could get away with the whole thing.

25 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

I think it was a betrayal, but that's subjective, as everyone has different expectations from relationships. And Jaime only left cersei. He is thinking about telling his children about their heritage. He is conflicted about it for obvious reasons.

His priority in that conflict is himself. And he has already made up his mind. He will tell the truth now, for some strange reason.

25 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Again, this is subjective, so there is a lot of room for disagreement. And it is possible to disagree with an author about their characterization of a character.

Sure, but it makes no sense to interpret an obvious romance and love as there not being love. You leave the sphere of rational discussion if you do that.

25 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

IMo, Jaime gave up a domestic life for cersei. For me, that's a big sacrifice.

You mean joining the KG is a sacrifice? He did that to be with Cersei, not to give up anything.

25 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

And I agree, Jaime did nt properly end their relationship, which he should have.

We don't even know whether he wants to end their relationship. It is not unlikely that he just wants to punish Cersei.

25 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Jaime and Cersei were terrible for each other and only brought out the worst in one another.

Actually, it is the fact that they cannot be openly together which caused all their trouble. Had they married each other they could have been as happy as Jaehaerys and Alysanne. Robert and Aerys II brought out the worst in Jaime and Cersei, not their relationship as such. And the tyrannical regimen of their father, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

What actions? I've mentioned how I'm not offering justification, just context. If you don't find it credible/believable, that's fine too.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

I would not insist in this, but no, you're  excusing him at every turn while at the same time claiming to be in the middle and kinda unbiased  but this is irrelevant.

 

32 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Because he did exactly that. He says so to brienne.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

What he says it happened and what it truly happened are two very  different things,  the idea that he killed Aerys to save KL falls apart the moment you give it two thoughts but even then, Jaime himself tells us that's bs,


He killed Aerys because he wanted to do it and he thought he could get away with murder, hell he even had changed his armor and all for the deed.

 

34 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

The whole of Jaime's arc is about his struggle with his oaths, which is why I keep bringing it up. He upheld some, he broke others. And he did love and care for Cersei, which is why he broke his KG. Unfortunately that relationship had gone really bad towards the end. People do unreasonable things for love. It DOESN'T JUSTIFY breaking his oath, but makes it less egregious.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Except that that is just false, he has zero regards or doubts about specifically that, he fucks Cersei because he feels like it, he stops fucking her because he feels like it, the oaths have absoluterly to do with that,  just as they had nothing to do with Jaime refusing his father offer to leave the KG, just as they are the self  pitying  tub in which Jaime likes to drownin his journeyto the Riverlands, but make no mistake at the end if the day, his oaths don't and never will restrain him for getting whatever he wants.

 

 

1 hour ago, Apoplexy said:

I would say love is a pretty strong motive to break an oath. Its not flippant.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

I would say that taking an oath you have no intention to oblige to begin with and then act like you're always put between the wall and the sword is very flippant.

 

 

1 hour ago, Apoplexy said:

I'm not what you mean here. Please elaborate.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

The Blackfish makes very clear what it would cost to Jaime abreaking the siege and the Jaime knwe perrfectly that the Blackfidh would cut him yo pieces, hence the hiding behind the oath.

 

 

1 hour ago, Apoplexy said:

I would argue his intention was never to kill the baby.

And i would argue that you put your faith in someone who was not, st any turn,  bluffing and had shown previous willingness to kill children.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is certainly less noble than it would have been if he had just wanted to save innocent bystanders

I don't like to be noble action police. Plus, I'm not arguing that Jaime is the most noble character in the books.

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You actually seem to have the moral conscience of Jaime. Good luck with that ;-).

Thank you for your well wishes. I take what I get. 

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Jaime killed Aerys II because he wanted to murder the man. And he also wanted to see him scared. That's why he told him what he had done before he came to kill him. That's the modus operandi of a murderer, and cowardly at that. He basically waited for a moment of chaos where he thought he could get away with the whole thing.

I don't blame Jaime for wanting to scare and intimidate aerys. He was horrible and deserved it.

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

His priority in that conflict is himself. And he has already made up his mind. He will tell the truth now, for some strange reason.

No, he specifically thinks about whether it would be better for myrcella to have a father or the crown.

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but it makes no sense to interpret an obvious romance and love as there not being love. You leave the sphere of rational discussion if you do that.

While the relationship may have started out as love (which I would argue against), there was almost only bitterness left there towards the end. Again, love is extremely subjective and not alwAys rational for most humans.

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You mean joining the KG is a sacrifice? He did that to be with Cersei, not to give up anything.

No, I mean giving up on a having a wife/domestic partner. Jaime seems to favor monogamy, so for him, imo, giving that up was harder than avoiding sleeping with other people. And he gave it up for cersei.

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't even know whether he wants to end their relationship. It is not unlikely that he just wants to punish Cersei.

You're right, we don't know. I hope he wants to end things. Just punishing her is destructive and does no good for anyone. They would both be better off away from each other.

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, it is the fact that they cannot be openly together which caused all their trouble. Had they married each other they could have been as happy as Jaehaerys and Alysanne. Robert and Aerys II brought out the worst in Jaime and Cersei, not their relationship as such. And the tyrannical regimen of their father, of course.

Maybe. But cersei wanted to be queen more than be with Jaime openly. I don't judge her for that, but it's safe to say she had other priorities. Jaime was never in too of that list for her. Cersei however was on top of Jaime's list of priorities.

Edited by Apoplexy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, frenin said:

I would not insist in this, but no, you're  excusing him at every turn while at the same time claiming to be in the middle and kinda unbiased  but this is irrelevant.

I disagree, but I cannot convince you otherwise. 

27 minutes ago, frenin said:

What he says it happened and what it truly happened are two very  different things,  the idea that he killed Aerys to save KL falls apart the moment you give it two thoughts but even then, Jaime himself tells us that's bs,


He killed Aerys because he wanted to do it and he thought he could get away with murder, hell he even had changed his armor and all for the deed.

Why would he lie to brienne at harrenhal? he hadn't talked about it to anyone before. What would he gain?

ALso, it wasn't a given that he would get away. BArristan selmy wanted him sent to the wall for it.

27 minutes ago, frenin said:

Except that that is just false, he has zero regards or doubts about specifically that, he fucks Cersei because he feels like it, he stops fucking her because he feels like it, the oaths have absoluterly to do with that,  just as they had nothing to do with Jaime refusing his father offer to leave the KG, just as they are the self  pitying  tub in which Jaime likes to drownin his journeyto the Riverlands, but make no mistake at the end if the day, his oaths don't and never will restrain him for getting whatever he wants.

He did love Cersei. It wasn't a whim or just something he felt like doing.

27 minutes ago, frenin said:

I would say that taking an oath you have no intention to oblige to begin with and then act like you're always put between the wall and the sword is very flippant.

I disagree. He meant to stay with cersei. But the situation became untenable. Their relationship turned really bad.

27 minutes ago, frenin said:

The Blackfish makes very clear what it would cost to Jaime abreaking the siege and the Jaime knwe perrfectly that the Blackfidh would cut him yo pieces, hence the hiding behind the oath.

If you read that chapter again, Jaime specifically asks the Blackfish to release him from his oath. If he wins, he gets riverrun, if the blackfish kills him, the siege is lifted. It is the blackfish who doesn't agree to this.

This was extremely stupid on Jaime's part, but not cowardly.

27 minutes ago, frenin said:

And i would argue that you put your faith in someone who was not, st any turn,  bluffing and had shown previous willingness to kill children.

Then you and I have very different readings of Jaime's character. I don't believe he wouldve done it.

Edited by Apoplexy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

I disagree. He meant to stay with cersei. But the situation became untenable. Their relationship turned really bad.

I agree.  I also don't see why Jaime, who we learn has always been faithful to Cersei, would not be affected by learning of her casual infidelities (Lancel as a Jaime substitute, Kettleblack because she found him useful).  Jaime, in contrast, turned away Pretty Pia when she was sent to him as a bed warmer.  This isn't about vows, it's about trust and Cersei has eroded Jaime's trust in her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×