Jaime and Aerys

[Mad Monkey]

You may need to reread AGOT again. Ned, Robert´s closest friend and advisor, has absolutely no doubt in his mind that Robert would have all 3 of the children killed no matter what.

In that book, Eddard doesn't seem to understand Robert or anyone else very well. How can he be sure that Robert would kill all 3 kids? The last time he had to murder small children he had Tywin to do the dirty work.

[Alexia]

In that book, Eddard doesn't seem to understand Robert or anyone else very well. How can he be sure that Robert would kill all 3 kids? The last time he had to murder small children he had Tywin to do the dirty work.

Catelyn, who is slightly more politically acute than Ned, also thought that Robert would have killed the children. I actually agree - not that it excuses Jaime. Also, Robert despises Joffrey - I think he'd be happy for the excuse.

Tywin took the initiative and acted without orders, to Robert's delight. I would expect that Robert probably would have had Aegon and Rhaenys killed too if he had taken KL first.

[Datepalm]

Catelyn, who is slightly more politically acute than Ned, also thought that Robert would have killed the children. I actually agree - not that it excuses Jaime. Also, Robert despises Joffrey - I think he'd be happy for the excuse.

Tywin took the initiative and acted without orders, to Robert's delight. I would expect that Robert probably would have had Aegon and Rhaenys killed too if he had taken KL first.

Hes willing to order the assasination of a pregnant Dany 15 years later. :dunno: Honestly, I could never get what people see in Robert. I always thought we were meant to read him as an incompetent, rash, callous, immoral, not overly bright former hunk. He was a good fighter, but i'm not sure we ever even see him as a particularly good leader (no evidence one way or another, I don't think.) and his great love for Lyanna has the feel of nothing more than saccharine self centered possesiveness then and nostalgia now.

Mattaryes - Tossing a child off a building, even to save the life of a loved one, is not an ok thing to do. This is not how morality works. And I often rather like Jaime.

[Daemrion]

Please reread my post. I did not compare Beth and Bran - I compared Beth and Edmure's baby.

But Jaime doesn't go through with the threat. Isn't that the essential difference? You are only assuming that Jaime will go through with it, without sufficient basis of proof.

It's a threat. Nothing more. If I remember correctly, Theon went through with his. Jaime did not.

Moreover, if Cersei and Jaime had not decided to have sex in Winterfell instead of waiting there would have been no perceived need to murder a 7 year old. Jaime never shows so much as a shard of conscience about the whole thing.

Yes. Jaime doesn't show a shard of conscience about throwing Bran out the window. No one's ever claimed otherwise.

Both are also stupid. Tywin critizised Amory for brutal means of dispatching Rhaenyra. Gregor is not as stupid as Hodor... but nevertheless stupid.

Tywin remarks that by herself Elia was nothing. She didn't need to die. He clearly states that he didn't know what a monster Gregor was then.

Have I mentioned yet (not sure if I did) the fact that he completely broke his oath to Catelyn by swearing not to bear arms against Stark or Tully and then not only rode up at the head of an enemy army but has the temerity to think he kept his oath?

Yes, and by not riding up at the head of that enemy army he would have broken his oath to the Crown (acting through Cersei - who was legitimately Regent and gave legitimate orders to him that he should lead the attack notwithstanding that other oath he made to Catelyn). She orders him to do so, even though Jaime told her about the oath he made to Catelyn.

Yes, it is arguable he broke his oath to Catelyn, but even if he did, it was legally justified breakage (that he should not be judged for) because of the overriding other oath he made to the Crown. Unless you can argue that his personal oath somehow trumps the Crown oath.

[Alexia]

But Jaime doesn't go through with the threat. Isn't that the essential difference? You are only assuming that Jaime will go through with it, without sufficient basis of proof.

It's a threat. Nothing more. If I remember correctly, Theon went through with his. Jaime did not.

Theon did not go through with his threat, although I think he would have too. Ramsey Bolton showed up at Winterfell's gates before anything could happen. I believe Beth Cassel is currently alive and ensconced in the Dreadfort.

[Mad Monkey]

He clearly states that he didn't know what a monster Gregor was then.

I don't buy that. Gregor set his 6-year old brother on fire. He's also suspected of having murdered not only two of his wives but his sister and his father. Kinslaying is even worse than Kingslaying. How could Tywin not suspect that Gregor was a monster? Even if he didn't believe all the stories about it for some reason, he could have sent literally anyone else to kill baby Aegon. It's not like you need some advanced ninja skills to take out an infant. Even Darkstar probably could have handled it better.

Catelyn, who is slightly more politically acute than Ned, also thought that Robert would have killed the children. I actually agree - not that it excuses Jaime. Also, Robert despises Joffrey - I think he'd be happy for the excuse.

Sure. But he's also have to kill Tommen and Myrcella too. Tommen is seven. A holy number!

Tywin took the initiative and acted without orders, to Robert's delight. I would expect that Robert probably would have had Aegon and Rhaenys killed too if he had taken KL first.

I bet someone would have done it for him, to keep his hands clean. I don't see Robert as the kind of person who can face up to what he's done; it's sort of like what Cersei was talking about in A Feast for Crows. Robert would come into their room at night to beat and rape his wife. In the morning he'd pretend like the wounds he got were from some kind of melee (really? a tournament at night while you were asleep?) and that he didn't do anything at all.

If he can't even own up to that, something that isn't even really stigmatized in society, how could he handle being personally responsible for killing "his" own children? Murdering children is monstrous but it takes a certain kind of (I hate to say) courage to openly do something like that. I don't think Robert had the courage to do it; he would have needed a Tywin or a Gregor to do it "without his knowledge".

[Lord Mord]

RE: Tossing Bran out the window. It may not be okay, but I really don't see the point in harping on it. It's a thing that a person did, it's not great, so what?

[Alexia]

I don't buy that. Gregor set his 6-year old brother on fire. He's also suspected of having murdered not only two of his wives but his sister and his father. Kinslaying is even worse than Kingslaying. How could Tywin not suspect that Gregor was a monster? Even if he didn't believe all the stories about it for some reason, he could have sent literally anyone else to kill baby Aegon. It's not like you need some advanced ninja skills to take out an infant. Even Darkstar probably could have handled it better.

I think that the wives, father and sister came after the Sack of Kings Landing, no? I had the sense Sandor would have been in his late teens when it happened since he was a 12 year old squire during that battle and the book said that he immediately left home after his father died to take up service as a hired sword.

No argument on setting his 6 year old brother on fire though but I did have the sense that was kept somewhat quiet and the circumstances weren't well known.

[Mad Monkey]

I think that the wives, father and sister came after the Sack of Kings Landing, no? I had the sense Sandor would have been in his late teens when it happened since he was a 12 year old squire during that battle and the book said that he immediately left home after his father died to take up service as a hired sword.

Maybe you're right. The timeline can be hard to keep straight sometimes. I could have sworn I read that the day Gregor inherited his lands from his mysteriously-dead Daddy Clegane was the day he left to become a sworn sword to Tywin Lannister's family. That sounds like it would have happened before Tywin sent him to kill the Prince (King?) of the Seven Kingdoms but maybe not.

No argument on setting his 6 year old brother on fire though but I did have the sense that was kept somewhat quiet and the circumstances weren't well known.

Tywin might have heard about it though. Clegane was his bannerman and I never got the impression that he was a relaxed and uninvolved liege lord. Plus -- he set a little kid on fire. Me, that's the kind of thing I would look into. But that's just me and my modern sensibilities...

RE: Tossing Bran out the window. It may not be okay, but I really don't see the point in harping on it. It's a thing that a person did, it's not great, so what?

Hey, that's a pretty big moment for both characters. Plus -- he threw a little kid out of a window. That's not like leaving the milk out on the counter!

[Lord Mord]

Mad Monkey,

Hey, that's a pretty big moment for both characters. Plus -- he threw a little kid out of a window. That's not like leaving the milk out on the counter!

I beg your pardon, but nothing I said contradicts any of this. I still say, "So what?"

[Matarreyes]

Honestly, I could never get what people see in Robert. I always thought we were meant to read him as an incompetent, rash, callous, immoral, not overly bright former hunk. He was a good fighter, but i'm not sure we ever even see him as a particularly good leader (no evidence one way or another, I don't think.) and his great love for Lyanna has the feel of nothing more than saccharine self centered possesiveness then and nostalgia now.

Amen, brother!

Tossing a child off a building, even to save the life of a loved one, is not an ok thing to do. This is not how morality works. And I often rather like Jaime.

This is a problem with many people nowadays. They see someone saying something positive / neutral about Jaime, and interpret / magically convert those statements into an essay about the saintity of the character. IT IS NOT! So please relax, folks. Nobody ever said it was an OK thingk to do. Nobody condones the act (yay! Kid throwing! can I try it too?). No.

All the majority of Jaime defenders try to get across your mind is that they (and me, and many many others) CAN UNDERSTAND why he acted like he did. People do not need to be innocent, or even moral, or good, for their actions to be understood by other people. Just as they don´t need to be innocent to be eventually forgiven. See the diference?

[Mad Monkey]

Mad Monkey,

I beg your pardon, but nothing I said contradicts any of this. I still say, "So what?"

Well, the reason why we're still talking about is because it's a big moment for both characters. You can't tell me that Bran's story was unchanged because of that event, or that reader's perception on Jaime isn't at least partially based on what happened in that tower. It's hard to have a thread on Jaime in general without at least mentioning that; it'd be like trying to avoid mentioning the Kingslaying.

[Dreadwolf]

This is a problem with many people nowadays. They see someone saying something positive / neutral about Jaime, and interpret / magically convert those statements into an essay about the saintity of the character. IT IS NOT! So please relax, folks. Nobody ever said it was an OK thingk to do. Nobody condones the act (yay! Kid throwing! can I try it too?). No.

All the majority of Jaime defenders try to get across your mind is that they (and me, and many many others) CAN UNDERSTAND why he acted like he did. People do not need to be innocent, or even moral, or good, for their actions to be understood by other people. Just as they don´t need to be innocent to be eventually forgiven. See the diference?

That is well said.

We can reach a little beyond that especially if one idealisically believes in the ultimate and abstract justice (that Destiny soon or late administers and distributes without prejudice and (com)passion) and considering that for some fun I would prefer to connect the imaginary supreme judge with the human form of king Stannis for his declared believes namely:

- no good act can off-setts a wrongdoing...

We can then accept that the Kidslayer, have already paid his toll as soon as the hand that had committed the crime was lopped off.

Now I wait for some retribution in reward for Jaime's good deeds. (One of them being saving the Kingslanding from the mad king Aerys. Please note that he has been paying for years (with huge interests) for his breaking the vows to protect his King).

[Rockroi]

Pretty solid posts all around on this thread, but I really have enjoyed reading MountainThatRides, even if I disagree just a little.

Jaime Lannister is not incapable. In fact, most of his actions are fairly despicable... That doesn't change anything. Did he kill Aerys to save King's Landing? Out of duty to his father and House? To curry favor with the rebel lords? As vengeance for all the horrible things Aerys had done? Or did he do it because Aerys disgusted him, and was weak of mind and body, abhorrent to Jaime and deserving of execution?

I say it matters not at all.

Jaime killed Aerys because Aerys needed killing. Aerys could not be allowed to live at KL with his Kingdom in complete collapse, mere moments away from his own inevitable destruction. Jaime made a calculated decision to save the city and himself from Aerys. It seems almost completely plausible that each and every state described was in Jaime's mind to some degree.

Why parse through that menagerie?

All the evidence we do have suggests the following: Jaime Lannister had been disgusted with the Mad King, his cruelty and his wanton desire for destruction, for some time. The raping of his own wife, the murder of Brandon and Lord Stark; the desire to immolate a whole city. The war. Please bear in mind the following: all of Jaime's claims have been proven true. We KNOW that KL was inundated with Wildfyre; that's how the alchemists were able to produce so much for Tyrion prior to the Battle at Blackwater Rush. We know that Aerys took his wife prior to the sack (Dany), though we are not 100% familiar with how violent it was. We know that Brandon and Lord Stark were killed in KL (and we know that even Ned Stark has the facts a bit backwards). We also know that Aerys had Gerold Hightower with him when he flambeed Lord Stark... and we never see Hightower again until ... the ToJ... in other words maybe it wasn't just "duty" that kep Hightower in the South, but a revulsion of what he was being forced to protect (I firmly believe that Hightower, Dayne and Whent stayed in the South to stay away from Aerys who they all despised by that point).

If this was all true, than its not beyond the pale to assume most of the rest is true: Jaime had no idea what state Aerys' power was in. It was perfectly possible he could have drudged up more willing servant to immolate the city, barricade his doors, scurry the King off, or find a way to keep the killing going on for days longer. Killing Aerys effectively moots all that.

And Aerys had to die. And Somebody had to kill him.

Nobody ever said 9throwing Bran from the window) was an OK thing to do.

The reason we like Jaime is NOT because he is cool or catchy or cunning or devious or sharp, intelligent, a killer, etc.

No. We like Jaime because he is honest. He is honest with us as readers who are allowed to peer into his deepest thoughts (by contrast, we never got too far with Eddard Stark, a universally loved character). And Jaime is honest with himself (unlike Cersei, the most reviled character in the books). Jaime KNOWS who he is. Thus, when you combine honesty and self-awareness you have the capacity for change and growth, regardless of age. We read that Jaime changes because Jaime Lannister is so believable as a person that we buy that he can change.

Therefore, when the poster stated that nobody thinks throwing a boy from a window is a good thing, I agree.

But that does not change the fact that when I was done reading SoS my thought was "If I were Jaime, I'd have tossed that boy to."

Now - lets tie the two together. Honest Jaime and the Kingslayer.

Jaime has said many things about Aerys and why he killed him. And never once has he said that he regrets killing Aerys. And why? Because Jaime knows that every feeling he had for killing Aerys was Justified, was correct, and crystallized why killing Aerys was the right thing to do. The vows are a nice way to absolve oneself from culpability (I could not stop the killing of innocents, Your Honor, I had an oath to protect the King!). Jaime knew what had to be done that day and his actions were almost assuredly a combination of best intentions and arrogant pride. I will take that any day of the week over silent disapproval and some yahoo who follows his duty without thought.

[Antonius Pius]

Maybe you're right. The timeline can be hard to keep straight sometimes. I could have sworn I read that the day Gregor inherited his lands from his mysteriously-dead Daddy Clegane was the day he left to become a sworn sword to Tywin Lannister's family. That sounds like it would have happened before Tywin sent him to kill the Prince (King?) of the Seven Kingdoms but maybe not.

I believe Sandor said something like "My father told all and sundry that my bedding had caught fire". So the real background to Sandor's burning may be unknown. Sandor himself keeps the secret too, and he did indeed leave the familiy lands when Gregor murdered their father.

None of which convinces me that Tywin didn't know what Gregor would do. IMO, Tywin wanted Gregor to murder and/or rape Elia, for the crime of "stealing" Rhaegar away from the Lannisters. Oberyn later tells Tyrion that Tywin apparently thought he had been duped by Lady Martell, and Tywin doesn't forgive any slights.

Jaime killed Aerys because Aerys needed killing. Aerys could not be allowed to live at KL with his Kingdom in complete collapse, mere moments away from his own inevitable destruction. Jaime made a calculated decision to save the city and himself from Aerys. It seems almost completely plausible that each and every state described was in Jaime's mind to some degree.

With the kingdom dead, the former king is nothing but an empty figurehead. By killing Rossart Jaime pre-empted the burning of the city. He himself apparently feels the same way, otherwise he would have told someone about the wildfire and the pyromancers. That he took three days to take them all out himself, says something about his penchant for getting revenge. IMO, that's the real reason he murdered Aerys.

He also specifically denied giving a fig about Lord Stark burning alive and Brandon being strangled. He is irked that Gerold Hightower is seen as the pinnacle of chivalry, while at the same time chastising Jaime for possibly judging the king.

All the evidence we do have suggests the following: Jaime Lannister had been disgusted with the Mad King ... [snip] ... and we never see Hightower again until ... the ToJ... in other words maybe it wasn't just "duty" that kept Hightower in the South, but a revulsion of what he was being forced to protect (I firmly believe that Hightower, Dayne and Whent stayed in the South to stay away from Aerys who they all despised by that point).

Good point, about the other KG too. I think you're largely correct.

If this was all true, than its not beyond the pale to assume most of the rest is true: Jaime had no idea what state Aerys' power was in. It was perfectly possible he could have drudged up more willing servant to immolate the city, barricade his doors, scurry the King off, or find a way to keep the killing going on for days longer. Killing Aerys effectively moots all that.

Jaime himself realises that everything is lost. That's why he asks Aerys to be allowed to ask for terms. The other candidates for setting the city on fire I doubt. Rossart was disguised, him, Belisarius and Garigus (sp?) did everything themselves, in the utmost secrecy. It's highly unlikely, IMO, that another footpad could be sent. He wouldn't even know where to go.

And Jaime is honest with himself (unlike Cersei, the most reviled character in the books). Jaime KNOWS who he is.

Yes and no. He was pouty that he never got praise for killing Aerys, his self-professed "finest deed". He does not want to understand the onus on him. His shit for honour, manifest in his pov, galls him. Yet he doesn't want to own up to it. He can care less about all the evil he ever did, and he shudders (ex post mutilatio) to think what he would have done to Mycah had he found him before the Hound did.

He no longer knows who he is. We love him, or at least I do, for seeing him struggle to find his new way, away from the black deeds in his past.

Therefore, when the poster stated that nobody thinks throwing a boy from a window is a good thing, I agree.

[Mad Monkey]

Yes and no. He was pouty that he never got praise for killing Aerys, his self-professed "finest deed".

To be fair, it pretty much was his finest deed up until A Storm of Swords. Aerys desperately needed Hell. The fact that he was ever allowed to run an organization larger and more powerful than a Dairy Queen franchise is monstrous.

[Daemrion]

To be fair, it pretty much was his finest deed up until A Storm of Swords. Aerys desperately needed Hell. The fact that he was ever allowed to run an organization larger and more powerful than a Dairy Queen franchise is monstrous.

The fact that he wasn't locked up in a sanitarium is monstrous :

By killing Rossart Jaime pre-empted the burning of the city. He himself apparently feels the same way, otherwise he would have told someone about the wildfire and the pyromancers. That he took three days to take them all out himself, says something about his penchant for getting revenge. IMO, that's the real reason he murdered Aerys.

I'm sure revenge is a motivating factor, but why did he feel the need to revenge himself on Garigus and Belis? Why kill Rossart if not to stop the plot?

I've always thought that the more people looking for the pyromancers the bigger chance that they discover that people were looking for them and blowing Kings Landing up. The wildfire plot would probably have started with a big bang to ensure maximum carnage.

We can reach a little beyond that especially if one idealisically believes in the ultimate and abstract justice (that Destiny soon or late administers and distributes without prejudice and (com)passion)...[snip]

We can then accept that the Kidslayer, have already paid his toll as soon as the hand that had committed the crime was lopped off.

Now I wait for some retribution in reward for Jaime's good deeds. (One of them being saving the Kingslanding from the mad king Aerys. Please note that he has been paying for years (with huge interests) for his breaking the vows to protect his King).

I agree. Symbolically, losing his right hand is supposed to represent to the readers that Jaime has changed or at least is on the journey to change. Losing his sword hand meant he lost the hand that flung Bran, killed Aerys, and pleasured Cersei. It's a symbolic cutting off of what represented evil in him, starting him on a new journey. It's almost like playing with a new blank slate.

And that's what makes him the most interesting character IMHO.

As for the second point about reward for Jaime. I have a sneaking suspicion that he would actually end up Lord of Casterly Rock (despite that being something that he doesn't want now), it's sort of poetic, in a way.

[Antonius Pius]

To be fair, it pretty much was his finest deed up until A Storm of Swords. Aerys desperately needed Hell. The fact that he was ever allowed to run an organization larger and more powerful than a Dairy Queen franchise is monstrous.

Aerys definitely needed killing, I'm not arguing that. Jaime was in a tight spot, no doubt, but there's no upside to killing Aerys himself, except gratification. Letting Tywin or Ned do it would have been much better.

The fact that he wasn't locked up in a sanitarium is monstrous

No argument there.

I'm sure revenge is a motivating factor, but why did he feel the need to revenge himself on Garigus and Belis? Why kill Rossart if not to stop the plot?

He killed Rossart because a) he knew what he was doing, and b ) he despised him. Here was this little pyromancer arsehole pratting about as Hand of the King with his only virtue being able to burn people alive and take a looong time doing it. Jaime detests everything about that kind of man, and those abilities. He measures the world by the sword. He's not interested in any other qualification. That's why Rossart deserved death, and why Jaime was eager to dish it out.

That's where huntig down Belis and Garigus comes in too. He WANTS to kill them. It's not enough that they're dead, he wants to kill them personally. Otherwise, why not send as many men as possible after them? I'm sure Ned would want a few pyromancers to give justice too...

I've always thought that the more people looking for the pyromancers the bigger chance that they discover that people were looking for them and blowing Kings Landing up. The wildfire plot would probably have started with a big bang to ensure maximum carnage.

IIRC, you're basing this on the conviction that the pyromancers were fire-crazy and also wanted to die in flames. I disagree. I think they were down in a hole, hoping and waiting for everything to blow over. Unfortunately, the text doesn't really specify which scenario is the more likely.

I agree. Symbolically, losing his right hand is supposed to represent to the readers that Jaime has changed or at least is on the journey to change. Losing his sword hand meant he lost the hand that flung Bran, killed Aerys, and pleasured Cersei. It's a symbolic cutting off of what represented evil in him, starting him on a new journey. It's almost like playing with a new blank slate.

And that's what makes him the most interesting character IMHO.

I disagree that the hand is the evil part about Jaime. Jaime himself is clearly at blame himself. But he does have to re-evaluate himself because he can't simply do in any situation what he would have done before. That's when he starts to reflect on all the things he did with that hand (killing Bran, pleasuring Cersei, killing Aerys). I find those situations where he is honestly reflecting, and realises to himself that he has no idea what to do next brilliant. That's why I love his povs.

As for the second point about reward for Jaime. I have a sneaking suspicion that he would actually end up Lord of Casterly Rock (despite that being something that he doesn't want now), it's sort of poetic, in a way.

I would be much surprised. To be honest, I've never even thought about that... With GRRM though, it can still happen. :stunned:

Edited: fucking smileys

[Matarreyes]

The reason we like Jaime is NOT because he is cool or catchy or cunning or devious or sharp, intelligent, a killer, etc.

No. We like Jaime because he is honest. He is honest with us as readers who are allowed to peer into his deepest thoughts (by contrast, we never got too far with Eddard Stark, a universally loved character). And Jaime is honest with himself (unlike Cersei, the most reviled character in the books). Jaime KNOWS who he is. Thus, when you combine honesty and self-awareness you have the capacity for change and growth, regardless of age.

This? This is awesome! You managed to perfectly summarise a point I had trouble even defining in my head, and I thank you for it. Retrospectively, it is pretty obvious, isn´t it. The Jaime/Catelyn conversation is, universally, one of the Big Moments of the books, and it is the very definition of honesty. "How did my Bran come to fall?" "I threw him out of the window".

[Dreadwolf]

...I disagree that the hand is the evil part about Jaime.

I trully believe that no one seriously thinks that a hand (or a Sword) can be evil per se. These are only instruments and it is known.

A similar 'high wisdom' can be find even in the most hatred by some readers Tairy Goodkind SoT series (although the magic sword affects his wielder it is still the human's mind who is to be blamed for the evil deeds or praised for the goodies)

One of the major differences however in the author's approaches when they interpret the very same old idea about that is the subtle way of using symbolism.

In ASOIAF it (IMO) has been done quite unostentatious but rather effective.

In particular case with Jaime (as you have pointed out as well) we have also the exalting effect of that - his right hand was (more or less) not only his essential and main instrument but also the well deserved ground for his pride. It is always a dramatic (and potentially redemptory stimulating) moment when such a huge loss incidently occured.

That is a good strat for re-evaluation of which importance you have also mentioned in the same post

But he does have to re-evaluate himself because he can't simply do in any situation what he would have done before. That's when he starts to reflect on all the things he did with that hand (killing Bran, pleasuring Cersei, killing Aerys). I find those situations where he is honestly reflecting, and realises to himself that he has no idea what to do next brilliant. That's why I love his povs.

with only a small and unsubstantial remark that in the case with Bran we have not killing but an attemt on the kid's life.